The questions which have been received from members of the public are set out in agenda item 6 attached.  There is a maximum time limit of 30 minutes for this agenda item. 

6.1             Question from Mr. Terry McGrenera to the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Joshua Peck re: the complaints system

 

6.2             Question from Mr. Graham Collins to the Lead Member Housing and Development, Councillor Marc Francis re: Rosefield Gardens and Kemps Drive

 

6.3             Question from Ms. Francesca Preece to the Lead Member for Children, Schools and Families, Councillor Abdul Asad re: youth services in Bow West

 

6.4             Question from Mrs. Hazjera Khatun to the Lead Member for Housing and Development, Councillor Marc Francis re: overcrowding/housing waiting list.

 

6.5             Question from Ms. Joanna Buckman to the Lead Member for Housing and Development, Councillor Marc Francis re: Spitalfields surgery

 

6.6             Question from Sally Hone to the Lead Member for Housing and Development, Councillor Marc Francis re: conditions on planning applications

 

6.7             Question from Mr. Adrian Lockwood to the Lead Member for Housing and Development, Councillor Marc Frances re: car free zone area at Green Dragons Yard

 

The above questions and oral supplementary questions where put, were responded to by the relevant Lead Members.  In relation to question 6.4, the question was not put at the meeting in the form submitted.  The member of the public in attendance, who was not the original questioner, posed a different question, notice of which had not been given and this was therefore ruled out of order.  The Lead Member nevertheless responded to the general issues raised.  

 

(Action by: John S. Williams, Service Head, Democratic Services)

 

6.1             Question from Mr. Terry McGrenera to the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Joshua Peck

 

“Is the complaints procedure itself a cause for complaint?”

 

Response by the Lead Member, Councillor Joshua Peck

No.  The Council operates a procedure that has been accredited to International Standard, Complaints Management System ISO 10002:2004.  It is also accredited with the Customer Service Excellence award. 

Internal motoring of complaint volumes, response times and escalation rates; identifying learning opportunities & best practice, directorate reviews and service specific reviews all contribute to the Council's complaints monitoring and service improvement initiatives.

I also report regularly to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on this matter.  

Summary of supplementary question from Mr. McGrenera:

 

I made a complaint about an officer and it was referred to that officer to investigate.  What is the point of the complaints system?

 

Summary of Lead Member’s reply: 

 

That sounds unlikely but if you provide the details I will look into the matter.  The complaints procedure has three stages and if, having gone through each stage you are still then dissatisfied, you can complain externally to the Local Government Ombudsman. 

 

 

6.2             Question from Mr. Craig Aston (represented by Mr. Graham Collins) to the Lead Member for Housing and Development, Councillor Marc Francis

 

“Can the Lead Member inform me when security doors will be fitted on the entrances to 2 – 40 Rosefield Gardens and 1 – 31 Kemps Drive and when urgent decoration will be carried out on the ceilings in the public corridors of these blocks?”

 

Response by the Lead Member, Councillor Marc Francis

 

The £7.5 million Estate Improvement Programme agreed by Cabinet in 2008 has been put to very good use over the past two years. Around 200 of the dirtiest council blocks have been deep cleaned and repainted.  This good work has been carried out in our remaining council estates spread fairly across the Borough and this includes the Bazley Estate and the St Matthias Estate on East India Dock Road.

 

However, I have personally noted the failing paint coating to the ceiling areas in Rosefield Gardens during my two recent inspections of the Birchfield Estate and Tower Hamlets Homes noted these for inclusion in a future external decoration programme once a budget for the programme has been identified and confirmed.

 

I have been advised by the Repairs Manager that the water logged roof of the store shed area has been dealt with and since been cleared. 

 

With regard to the residents request for a security door on the block which leads to Thornfield House, we have a large existing committed programme of security door systems to be progressed in the capital programme and, subject to the agreement of residents themselves, we will seek to include this block for possible inclusion into the programme when the next future opportunity arises.  In the mean time I have asked the major works door entry engineer to visit the block and provide a feasibility report on whether such a security door can be fitted.

 

I am sorry I cannot give a more definitive answer now on the timing of potential works, but I can assure Mr Collins that the Birchfield Estate has a very strong champion in my colleague, Cllr Lutfa Begum, and I know she will make sure Tower Hamlets Homes keep the estate at the forefront of their mind.

 

Summary of supplementary question from Mr. Collins: 

 

The residents will probably be glad to hear that they are on a ‘to do’ list but are those residents going to be on the same list as residents of Elfield House who are still waiting for their work to be done?

 

Summary of Lead Member’s response: 

 

The Council has invested £7M in the estate improvement programme.  I can assure you that this work will be done.    The Housing Minister, John Healey, has given the Council a commitment for funding to enable it to continue investing in our borough’s homes.

 

           

Change to order of business

 

At this point, Councillor Marc Francis MOVED and Councillor Abdal Ullah SECONDED – “That under Rule 14.1.3 the order of business be changed to allow motion 11.12 to be considered as the next item of busienss.”

 

On being put to the vote, the procedural motion was agreed.

 

 

 

11.12    Motion proposed by Councillor David Snowdon regarding Rosefield Gardens

 

Councillor David Snowdon MOVED and Councillor Tim Archer SECONDED the motion as printed in the agenda.

 

Councillor Marc Francis MOVED, and Councillor Lutfa Begum SECONDED an amendment to the motion to delete the text after “This Council notes that” and replace with:-

 

• “This Labour-controlled Council  has invested over £7 million in the Estate Improvement Programme of deep cleaning, repainting and environmental works across the council’s estates in the past two years;

 

• This programme has benefited around 200 blocks, including those on the St. Matthias Estate, Will Crooks Estate, Bazely Estate and at least one block in Rosefield Gardents, but that several other blocks on the Birchfield Estate have paint peeling from the walls and ceilings of communal parts;

 

• That the original list of those blocks on the Birchfield Estate drawn up by Tower Hamlets Homes, included 1-31 Kemps Drive, 2-40 Rosefield Gardens, 42 -70 Rosefield Gardens and 1 – 13 Gorsefield  House;

 

• Residents have reported problems of anti-social behaviour, especially in the warmer months, caused by youngsters hanging round the stairs of their blocks;

 

• The Housing Investment Programme is fully committed for 2010/11, but that the installation of a new Door Entry System in the nearby 1-13 Gorsefield House is provisionally scheduled to take place in 2013/14;

 

• This Council has secured £770,000 from the Homes and Communities Agency to masterplan the regeneration of the Birchfield Estate, and that consultation with residents on those plans will begin in April.

 

This Council resolves to:

 

• Require Tower Hamlets Homes to explain why it did not yet commence the Block  Improvement Programme work on the remaining agreed blocks on the Birchfield Estate;

 

• Require the Council, in partnership with THH, to take the necessary steps to ensure that the promise to deep clean the stairwells and repaint the walls/ceilings of these blocks at the earliest opportunity;

 

• Ask THH to begin consultation with residents of 1 – 31 Kemps Drive and 2 – 40 Rosefield Gardens on the installation of a new Door Entry System and to provisionally factor this work into the Housing Investment Programme, subject to the agreement of those residents;

 

• Support residents during the masterplan consultation process on the regeneration of the Birchfield Estate.“

 

After debate, the amendment was put to the vote and was agreed. 

 

The substantive motion as amended was then put to the vote and was agreed.  Accordingly it was

 

RESOLVED

 

This Council notes that:

 

• This Labour-controlled Council  has invested over £7 million in the Estate Improvement Programme of deep cleaning, repainting and environmental works across the council’s estates in the past two years;

 

• This programme has benefited around 200 blocks, including those on the St. Matthias Estate, Will Crooks Estate, Bazely Estate and at least one block in Rosefield Gardents, but that several other blocks on the Birchfield Estate have paint peeling from the walls and ceilings of communal parts;

 

• That the original list of those blocks on the Birchfield Estate drawn up by Tower Hamlets Homes, included 1-31 Kemps Drive, 2-40 Rosefield Gardens, 42 -70 Rosefield Gardens and 1 – 13 Gorsefield  House;

 

• Residents have reported problems of anti-social behaviour, especially in the warmer months, caused by youngsters hanging round the stairs of their blocks;

 

• The Housing Investment Programme is fully committed for 2010/11, but that the installation of a new Door Entry System in the nearby 1-13 Gorsefield House is provisionally scheduled to take place in 2013/14;

 

• This Council has secured £770,000 from the Homes and Communities Agency to masterplan the regeneration of the Birchfield Estate, and that consultation with residents on those plans will begin in April.

 

This Council resolves to:

 

• Require Tower Hamlets Homes to explain why it did not yet commence the Block  Improvement Programme work on the remaining agreed blocks on the Birchfield Estate;

 

• Require the Council, in partnership with THH, to take the necessary steps to ensure that the promise to deep clean the stairwells and repaint the walls/ceilings of these blocks at the earliest opportunity;

 

• Ask THH to begin consultation with residents of 1 – 31 Kemps Drive and 2 – 40 Rosefield Gardens on the installation of a new Door Entry System and to provisionally factor this work into the Housing Investment Programme, subject to the agreement of those residents;

 

• Support residents during the masterplan consultation process on the regeneration of the Birchfield Estate.

 

 

6.3             Question from Ms. Francesca Preece to the Lead Member for Children, Schools and Families, Councillor Abdul Asad

 

“What has the Lead Member or Ward Councillors done to provide youth services in Bow West and what is being done given the recent incident in Parnell Road when a youth was murdered?   There is a lack of youth provision in Bow West and as a result youths have no activities to engage with and often resort to hanging out on the streets.    We have also not seen any Youth Worker.”

 

            Response by the Lead Member, Councillor Abdul Asad

 

The youth service is organised on a LAP basis, and there is a hub for young people within each LAP, not each ward. The hub for Lap 5 is the Parnell Road youth club (East Side) which is open:

 

·           Monday - Thursday 6.15pm – 9.30 (Minimum 3 staff)

·           Friday 9.00pm – 11.00pm  (Minimum 3 staff)

·           Saturday 3.00pm – 5.00pm (Minimum 3 staff)

 

In addition to the hub, there is centre-based provision at:

 

·              Victoria Baptist Church   Friday 6.15pm – 9.00pm (2 staff)

·              Caxton Hall   Monday, Wednesday and Friday 8.00-11.00 (2 staff)

·              Bow Boys School Tues. 2.00 – 4.30pm Weds 12.30pm – 4.15pm (2 staff)

 

As well as centre based work, there is detached youth work in the area, in which the youth workers meet and work with young people on the streets.

 

·              Response work: Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday 6.15pm – 9.00pm  (2 staff)

·              Detached work: Monday (5.00-8.00), Tuesday (5.30pm – 8.30pm) (3 staff)

·              Docklands Outreach: Monday, Tuesday 6.00-0.00 (2 staff)

 

There is a total of 22 staff available for 19 sessional activities on a weekly basis.

 

During the emergency the Youth and Connexions Services, Rapid Response Team (RRT) situated in the area, carrying out detached youth work to assist in engaging young people from and sign posting groups/individuals to current provision. There was an increased presence of detached workers in line with the needs and ensuring effective partnership was in place to deal with the emergency. There were frequent, regular meetings with the police, the RSL, and the schools, to bring calm to the community and reduce the anxiety. Partners worked closely to try to prevent any further escalation and sharing factual information.

 

The police and the youth service, working together, have brought young people and adults together in a mediation programme, identifying key individuals from both groups.

 

If there are additional anxieties, we are very happy to set up a meeting to discuss the situation with residents.

 

Summary of supplementary question from Ms Preece: 

 

In reference to Caxton Hall, why was it that Councillor Joshua Peck tried to stop its funding?

 

Summary of Lead Members’ reply: 

 

In terms of Caxton Hall, as I have already said there are sessions held on a Monday, Wednesday and Friday from 8pm – 11pm with two staff and this remains so.  If you have concerns then I can arrange for you to meet with the officials and myself to speak about this.

 

 

6.4             Question from Mrs. Hazjera Khatun to the Lead Member for Housing and Development, Councillor Marc Francis

 

“I am resident of Brodick House, Bow, E3 and I currently live in a 2 bedroom property which houses 7 people. I have been on the waiting list for 7 years. I visited Cllr Marc Francis at his surgery and was informed that he was unable to assist me.  Can you tell me what is going to be done to assist families like myself with the overcrowding issue and not being able to get off of the waiting list?”

 

[Note from Clerk:  This question was not put at the meeting in the above form.   The member of the public in attendance (Ms. Fatima Begum), who was not the original questioner, posed a different question, notice of which had not been given and this was therefore ruled out of order.  The Lead Member nevertheless responded to the general issues raised as follows.]

 

 

 

Response by the Lead Member, Councillor Marc Francis

 

It is not true to say that I have told any resident in the situation described that I “was unable to assist” them.  It is not the role of councillors to decide which applicant from the Housing Waiting List is successful.  Our role is to make sure more homes are built and that there is a fair way of allocating them to those on the Waiting List.  A councillor can ensure that a resident’s application has the priority it deserves and provide feedback to help inform their bidding strategy in future, and I and my fellow ward councillors have done this on numerous occasions over the past four years and raised many Members’ Enquiries on residents’ behalf.

 

I can assure you that Labour councillors are doing everything possible to increase the supply of social housing in the Borough.  We have helped deliver around 1,000 new affordable homes in each of the past three years.  That is more than any other London Council, and far more than any Conservative council has achieved.

 

This year, we are on track to deliver even more, including around 500 social rented homes with three or more bedrooms.  But we realise this is not enough, and so we are also investing £20 million buying back former council homes sold under the Right to Buy so they can be re-let to an overcrowded family.

 

We have Cash Incentive Schemes, Private Sector Rent Deposit Schemes, knock throughs and incentives to under-occupiers.  But perhaps most importantly, we are making fundamental changes to the Choice Based Lettings Policy.  These changes both give increased priority to those families living in overcrowded conditions and also place much greater emphasis on the length of time applicants have been on the waiting list. 

 

I hope this addresses your concerns and I can assure both you and councillors in this Chamber that I will continue to do whatever I can to help you in future.

 

Summary of supplementary question from Ms. Begum:

 

Is it acceptable for six people to live in a two bedroom flat and remain on the waiting list for twenty years?

 

Summary of Lead Member’s response: 

 

As I have said, this Labour Council is doing everything in our power to address precisely the issue you have raised, by increasing the supply of affordable housing, reforming our Choice Based Lettings scheme and the other initiatives I have outlined.  We are committed to continuing this work. 

 

6.5             Question from Ms. Joanna Buckman to the Lead Member for Housing and Development, Councillor Marc Francis

 

“Spitalfields surgery is leased by the practice from One Housing. There has been a problem with the sewage drainage since this was built and the sewage is now seeping into the basement  and up the walls and the smell and odour is affecting the whole of the downstairs consulting rooms which nurses have to work in.  Four of these rooms have been shut. One Housing has been informed several times and they have inspected but nothing has been done.  The problem has now been there for the last 3 weeks and poses a health risk to both patients and staff and as a result staff have been off sick and unable to provide services.  One Housing has a history of not responding to maintenance work in this public service premise and we would ask the Lead Member and Ward Councillors to take this issue up on behalf of 13,000 patients and the 50 staff.  If this continues, we may be forced to close the surgery down.   Will you support us?” 

 

Response by the Lead Member, Councillor Marc Francis

 

The Council have contacted One Housing Group (OHG) in relation to this outstanding repair.   One Housing Group’s commercial property department who are responsible for this unit say they have not been previously contacted about this defect and obviously I cannot know whether that is the case or not.

 

But either way, One Housing Group assure me that they have issued a repair request and that this defect should be resolved in the next couple of weeks.  If it is not, I would ask Ms Buckman to contact me again directly rather than wait for another Full Council meeting.  I would add that Councillor Anwara Ali should be dealing with this issue.

 

Summary of supplementary question from Ms. Buckman: 

 

Regardless of who should be doing this, I would like to know how long it will take?

 

Summary of Lead Member’s response: 

 

As I have said, One Housing Group have stated two weeks.

 

 

6.6             Question from Sally Hone to the Lead Member for Housing and Development, Councillor Marc Francis

 

“Are all planning application cases based on a 'priority' basis, as this is the information that we have frequently been told? However, the conditions following our full planning permission has exceeded the councils' practice of discharge by over three months (28 days from receipt of a validated condition).  At what stage does this delay come into consideration to promote our case as a priority?”

 

Response by the Lead Member, Councillor Marc Francis

 

Planning applications have to be determined in accordance with government guidance and planning legislation.  That requires applications to be decided within 8 weeks for most applications, 13 weeks for major applications, 16 weeks for applications that require environmental impact assessments or within a time period stipulated in planning performance agreement agreed by an applicant and the Council.  Cases are prioritised to meet these deadlines.

 

Ms Hone’s particular application, to agree a ‘car-free’ agreement, has been delayed because of the very peculiar and unique land ownership issues raised by her Belmont Wharf application and the fact that she has no legal interest in the land where she proposes to moor her 4 boats.  Nevertheless, Officers are looking to find a solution and officers of the Council’s legal, parking and planning teams are endeavouring to find a solution to this awkward car parking problem, rather than refusing her application.

 

However, finding a legally robust solution to the unique set of circumstances this case raises is taking some time, but is understandable given that Members of the Development Committee insisted that such a condition be imposed, to address the concerns of local residents that this development may cause unacceptable parking pressure if a ‘car-free’ agreement was not agreed.

 

Summary of supplementary question: 

 

We had five conditions given on 6^th October 2009 and it has now been five months.  The car free zone condition was put in on 12^th November 2009.  When can they be discharged?

 

Summary of Lead Member’s reply:  

 

As I have said, this is a complex case as the Council cannot make a legal agreement with itself.  Other options are being explored as an alternative to simply refusing the application.

 

 

6.7             Question from Mr. Adrian Lockwood to the Lead Member for Housing and Development, Councillor Marc Francis

 

“When myself and others became tenants and home owners of Green Dragon Yard, E1 there was no mention or record from our landlord or Tower Hamlets Council that it would become a car free zone area.  The Council has been issuing residents’ permits for over eight years.  Residents need their vehicles for many reasons including employment and I am asking the Lead Member when this decision was made and when will it be overturned to allow us to park in our resident area?”

 

Response of the Lead Member, Councillor Marc Francis

 

I have said a lot already about the principles that underlie this Council’s Car Free Zones and so I will not repeat that.  Clearly, the residents of Green Dragon Yard feel that they, like those of 1-38 Horseferry Road, were lured into bidding for these flats without being told that they were subject to a Car Free Zone agreement.  Green Dragon Yard was agreed as a car free scheme on 9 August 1999.

 

Again, I must say that, it is first and foremost the responsibility of the owner and landlord of a flat to inform prospective tenants and leaseholders.  However, many of the tenants within Green Dragon Yard bid for that property through the Homeseekers section in East End Life and the shared owners may have been referred on to that scheme by the Council’s Lettings Service.

 

Unfortunately, given that this is a new situation which has only just come to my attention officers are still running round trying to find the relevant information.

 

However, as with 1-38 Horseferry Road, I can assure Mr Lockwood that, should our enquiries find the council to have been at fault in the way it advertised these tenancies, we will invite One Housing Group to submit an application to vary the Section 106 agreement to remove the Car Free Zone agreement.

 

I will leave it at that for now, but try to ensure that we reach a definitive position on this development in the next months or so.

 

Summary of supplementary question: 

 

Can you assure me that the investigation  will be as thorough as that being carried out for Swaton Road?

 

Summary of Lead Member’s reply: 

 

Yes, I can give you that assurance.  In fact the Leader of the Council will also be breathing down my neck to ensure that this is the case.