The questions which have been received from members of the public for this Council meeting are set out in the attached report.  A maximum period of 20 minutes is allocated to this agenda item.

 

The following questions and in each case (except where indicated) a supplementary question were put and were responded to by the relevant Executive Members.

 

 

6.1      Question from Ms Julia Dockerill  

 

What progress has been made by the Mayor and his Executive with respect to the application made by the Turk's Head charity to have Wapping Green formally designated as a protected, official 'village green' under the Commons Act of 2006?

 

Response by Councillor Rania Khan, Cabinet Member for Culture

 

Thank you Ms. Dockerill for your question, we have received your application and this is being reviewed across several service areas.

 

Summary of Supplementary Question from Ms Dockerill

 

The application was made a year ago. Why has it taken so long?

 

Summary of Councillor Rania Khan’s response to the Supplementary Question

 

The application is being reviewed.

 

 

6.2       Question from Mr Matthew Smith

 

Will the Mayor inform residents as to the progress of his proposals for the Community Infrastructure Levy?

 

Response by Councillor Rabina Khan, Cabinet Member for Housing

 

Thank you for your question Mr Smith.

 

The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was introduced by the government in 2010. It allows councils to raise funds by levying charges on new developments.

 

The Council is already collecting the Mayor of London’s CIL for Crossrail.

 

The Revised Draft Charging Schedule was approved at Cabinet on 9 October 2013; our most recent consultation closed on 2 December and we anticipate full implementation in summer/autumn this year.

 

Summary of Supplementary Question from Mr Matthew Smith

 

The process has taken a long time.  Are there any lessons to be learnt about working more co-operatively with the Mayor of London and the GLA to ensure the CIL gets implemented properly?

 

Summary of Councillor Rabina Khan’s response to the Supplementary Question

 

Agreeing a CIL is a complicated process. The Mayor of London is making the process more difficult by trying to collect further contributions to support Crossrail which then reduces funding for the local area. If you are concerned about this I would ask you to speak to the Mayor of London.

 

 

6.3       Question from Mrs S Morrison

 

What is the Mayor doing to honour the legacy of Nelson Mandela?

 

Response by Councillor Ohid Ahmed, Deputy Mayor

 

Thank you for your question Mrs Morrison.

 

First of all, let me say that we are all deeply saddened by the death of this great man.

 

Nelson Mandela’s life is important not just because he ended apartheid, but because he gave inspiration to millions fighting injustice, inequality and racism across the world.

 

And let’s not pretend that the fight for racial equality is over.  Even here in modern Britain, prejudice against Black and Minority Ethnic Communities remains.

 

There is a motion on tonight’s agenda that lays out what we want to do, including naming a building in the new Blackwall Reach development after Mr Mandela.

 

Summary of Supplementary Question from Mrs S Morrison

 

Can you please ensure that his legacy is commemorated as part of Black History month?

 

Summary of Councillor Ohid Ahmed’s response to the Supplementary Question

 

Yes, we will look to do that.

 

Procedural Motion

 

At this point Councillor Ohid Ahmed moved and Councillor Alibor Choudhury seconded a procedural motion “that under Procedure Rule 14.1.3 the order of business be varied to debate Motion 12.11 (“Motion on Nelson Mandela”) as the next item of business.

 

The procedural motion was put to the vote and was agreed. The Council therefore proceeded to debate Motion 12.11 (see minute 12 below).

 

 

6.4       Question from Mr Shah Ahmed

 

What is the Mayor doing about behaviour in Full Council meetings?

 

Response by Councillor Ohid Ahmed, Deputy Mayor

 

Thank you for your question Mr Ahmed.

 

This meeting is run by the Chair who is a member of the majority Labour Group.  It is their job to regulate councillors’ behaviour.

 

Summary of Supplementary Question from Mr Shah Ahmed

 

What comment do you have on the appalling targeting of perfectly legitimate volunteers that I saw at the last Council meeting?

 

Summary of Councillor Ohid Ahmed’s response to the Supplementary Question

 

I was shocked by the behaviour. On the one hand people are encouraged to get involved in local democracy but then this happens when they do.

 

 

6.5       Question from Ms Nasmin Sultana

 

Can The Mayor tell me why Poplar Business Park went to appeal and was granted planning consent and what losses the council incurred?

 

[Note: A similar question was also received from Mr Shahin Uddin.  Ms Sultana’s question is listed above as it was received first.  Mr Uddin will receive a written response to his question after the meeting.] 

 

Response by Councillor Rabina Khan, Cabinet Member for Housing

 

Thank you Ms. Sultana for your question.  I’m afraid I will have to ask my colleagues on the other benches to explain why they felt they knew better than our experienced planning officers and why, despite knowing that in this national political climate the Government is consistently ruling in favour of developers, they chose to make this decision.

 

Development plans for Poplar Business Park were submitted to the Strategic Development Committee in March 2012 with officers recommending it be approved.  The opposition refused, on the basis that the percentage of affordable housing was at 25% well below our policy levels.

 

At the April committee developers increased the level of affordable housing to 28%; however the Committee still refused permission.  The developers decided to appeal the application by means of a Public Inquiry in July 2012.

 

The appeal was called in by the Secretary of State and in September 2013 he issued his decision to uphold the appeal.  More importantly the Secretary of State gave planning permission, with only 20% affordable housing.

 

The irresponsibility of the planning committee led to a loss of 16 affordable rented units.  Moreover the appeal cost us almost £100,000 to defend this decision.

 

I’m sure you will be glad to know that despite the, at best naive and irresponsible and at worst politically malevolent, behaviour – the Mayor is still on target to deliver 4,000 homes over his term.

 

Summary of Supplementary Question from Ms Nasmin Sultana

 

This has happened at the same time as we are being asked to make service cuts. Why are they doing this?

 

Summary of Councillor Rabina Khan’s response to the Supplementary Question

 

I suggest you put that question to the GLA Member, he may be able to help.

 

 

6.8       Question from Kois Miah

 

Is the Lead Member aware of the campaign against the organisation “Student Rights” and will he join us in condemning their divisive rhetoric and tactics?

 

Response by Councillor Oliur Rahman, Cabinet Member for Children’s Services

 

Thank you for your question Mr Miah.  This organisation has been condemned by the National Union of Students, among others, for conducting anti-Muslim witch-hunts.

 

It is backed by some very unsavoury Neo-cons and seems hell-bent on attacking the freedom of Muslim students.

 

Summary of Supplementary Question by Kois Miah

 

The local MP Jim Fitzpatrick is on the board, do you call on him to resign?

 

Summary of Councillor Oliur Rahman’s response to the Supplementary Question

 

I am not aware of who is on the board but if Mr Fitzpatrick is then I would call on him to consider his position.

 

 

6.9       Question from Mr Azmal Hussain

 

Restaurants in Brick Lane have been trading for the last 50 years, we run an honest and transparent business, Our customers are sensible and polite customers, they do not and have not in the past created any anti-social behaviour in the area. Recently the bars, clubs, pubs and off licenses have given rise to anti-social behaviour, street urination in the area. Then why have the restaurants been included in the Saturation policy, when we were not consulted fully in the saturation policy consultation, and feel again the Bangladeshi restaurants have been targeted?

 

Response by Councillor Ohid Ahmed, Deputy Mayor

 

Thank you Mr Hussain for your question.  The objective of the cumulative impact policy is to manage anti-social behaviour in the area and to take this into account when issuing licences. This policy was formulated to reduce anti-social behaviour, not to target restaurants.

 

There was an extensive consultation for over 3 months from the 21st December 2012 to 22nd March 2013 on the saturation policy. A public meeting was also held in Toynbee Hall.

 

All Bangladeshi restaurants that hold a license were written to individually and informed about the consultation.  Bangladeshi restaurant owners attended public meetings and did object to the policy.  The local community other licence holders and residents forums also attended the consultation meetings.

 

The consultation resulted in 81.4% of responses in favour of the introduction of the cumulative impact policy and specifically 69.9% of responses considered that all on-licenced premises (restaurants etc.) should be included in the saturation policy.

 

Since implementation of the policy no one has lost their licence and there has not been any complaint about the policy.  We invite and welcome any comments if anyone would like to raise any issues about the policy.

 

Summary of Supplementary Question from Mr Azmal Hussain

 

Can the saturation policy be suspended until we can have a consultation and the chance to apply for adequate planning permissions?

 

Summary of Councillor Ohid Ahmed’s response to the Supplementary Question

 

I am happy to meet with you to discuss the issues you have raised.

 

 

Question 6.6 was not put at the meeting as the questioner was not present.  The Service Head, Democratic Services indicated that a written response would be provided.  [Note: the written response is included in Appendix A to these minutes.]

 

Question 6.7 was withdrawn.