Agenda item
TO RECEIVE WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
(Maximum of 30 minutes allowed)
The questions which have been received are set out in agenda item 6.
Decision:
6.1 Question from Mr. Terry McGrenera to the Lead Member for Cleaner, Safer, Greener, Councillor Abdal Ullah, re: how many fixed penalty notices have the Environmental Services department issued over the past two years?
The above question was put by Mr McGrenera and responded to by Councillor Ullah.
(Action by: John Williams, Service Head, Democratic Services)
6.2 Question from Ms. Joanna Kaschke re: Improvements to Council housing blocks and leaseholder charges.
Ms Kaschke was unable to attend the meeting and would therefore receive a written answer to her question.
(Action by: John Williams, Service Head, Democratic Services)
6.3 Question from Mr. Alan Tucker to the Lead Member for Housing and Development, Councillor Marc Francis, re: the former Safeway site in Roman Road.
The above question and an oral supplementary question were put by Mr Tucker and responded to by Councillor Francis.
(Action by: John Williams, Service Head, Democratic Services)
Minutes:
Three questions were submitted by members of the public for response by members of the Cabinet as listed in agenda item 6. The questions, together in each case with the response of the relevant Lead Member and a summary of any supplementary question and response, are set out below.
6.1 Question from Mr. Terry McGrenera to the Lead Member for Cleaner, Safer, Greener, Councillor Abdal Ullah:
How many fixed penalty notices have the Environmental Services department issued over the past two years?
Response of the Lead Member:
There were 2114fixed penalty notices issued by the Environmental Services department over the past two years.
No supplementary question was asked within the two minute time limit available.
6.2 Question from Ms. Johanna Kaschke to the Lead Member for Housing and Development, Councillor Marc Francis:
I would like to know whether it would influence the authority in considering improvements to council blocks if a lot of “poor” leaseholders are unable to pay towards those improvements and whether the council would be likely not to carry out the improvements if this is the case. I call them poor leaseholders because some could just about afford to purchase a cut price home and now have no money to pay towards block/estate improvements and they would not always want to sell their homes. Would the council want to keep leaseholders happy by carrying out fewer improvements to the blocks?
Ms Kaschke was unable to attend the meeting and would therefore receive a written answer to her question.
6.3 Question from Mr. Alan Tucker to the Lead Member for Housing &
Development, Councillor Marc Francis:
The consultation on the development of the Safeway
site in Roman Road has raised an unprecedented level of objections
to the plans. The building proposed dwarfs the surrounding
properties. The density of the build is nearly twice that set
out in planning guidelines. The Overview and Scrutiny Committee
voiced concerns about this build from the outset and asked that the
terms of the lease should have appropriate controls.
At the Cabinet meeting in January assurances were given that the
concerns raised would be addressed in planning. Cabinet was also told that the developer was weeks
away from completing negotiations with a major food retailer to
provide the supermarket that is badly needed to stop the decline of
the area.
Has any retailer actually signed a contract with the developers to
provide a substantial sized supermarket and if so what size is
it?
Response of the Lead Member:
The Council’s previous Cabinet resolved to grant a development lease for the Safeways site last December. This decision was reaffirmed by that Cabinet despite the representations made by myself and my Overview & Scrutiny Committee colleagues in January.
This lease makes provision for a food retail supermarket in any development.
A planning application was submitted by the developers in December. However, Mr Tucker will know that as a result of the petition of 2,000 residents that I supported, and subsequent discussions between myself and the developer's architect, a revised planning application has now been submitted.
The residential buildings proposed for the south of the site in this application are basically one floor lower than in the original application.
This application is now under active consideration by planning officers. The consultation on it resulted in several hundred objections, which will be taken account of in the course of officers' deliberations.
It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the application itself as this is a matter for the Strategic Development Committee. However, I can report that the Board of Tesco's has decided to occupy a 25,000 sq ft supermarket in the development, subject to planning permission being granted.
Summary of supplementary question from Mr Tucker:
Will the Council take into account the 3000 objections, mostly about the proposed building on the car park?
Summary of Lead Member’s response:
I cannot comment on the Planning Application itself as that is a matter for the Strategic Development Committee.
I can assure Mr Tucker and other residents in Bow, that all Councillors on this side of the Chamber are acutely conscious of both the desperate need for a supermarket on Roman Road and the concerns of local residents about the proposed redevelopment.
I can also assure him that when this application comes before it, the Strategic Development Committee will take all the relevant material considerations into account before making its decision.
At this point (9.25pm), the meeting adjourned to allow Members to observe prayers.
The meeting resumed at 9.45pm and Mr. Williams announced that the revised projected end time for the meeting would be 10.50pm.
Supporting documents: