13.1    Former Crown Estate tenants [MOTION NOT DEBATED}

[Note: The Council agreed a procedural motion at the start of the meeting to allow Urgent Motion 13.1 as set out below to be heard. However, the meeting did not, in the event, have time to consider the motion.]

Proposed by Cllr Joshua Peck

Seconded by Cllr Carlo Gibbs

This Council notes:

• the motion it passed on 24 March 2010, opposing the proposed sale by the Crown Estate of its social housing in Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Camden and Westminster, unless it could guarantee that the new owner would safeguard tenants’ rights, including security of tenure and rent levels, and ongoing provision of affordable and key-worker housing at existing levels
• the successful campaign by those Crown Estate tenants, supported by MPs and councillors of all three mainstream parties, that forced the Crown Estate to sell the properties to Peabody and not a private landlord
• the statement by the Chief Executive of Peabody at the time the sale was agreed that he was ‘absolutely committed to keeping these homes affordable and available to the key workers who are so crucial to London’s economy and quality of life’.

This Council further notes that:

• Peabody classified the ex-Crown Estate tenants as intermediate tenants, not social tenants 
• rents for ex-Crown Estate tenants have been increased by Peabody by 9% in both 2011/12 and 2012/13 and by 7% in both 2013/14 and 2014/15 – a total increase of 36% on 2010 rent levels in just four years
• these tenants are either key workers or pensioners, who have received public sector pay rises of just 4% over the same period, or state pension increases of just 15.8%
• many tenants are facing hardship as a result of these rent increases, with some even having to consider leaving their homes 
• Peabody has defended these increases as ‘in accordance with Peabody policy’ and claimed, wrongly, that residents’ groups agreed them.

This Council believes:

• Annual rent rises of 7-9% are unacceptable, and do not meet the Chief Executive’s stated aim of keeping these homes affordable and available for key workers.

This Council resolves:

• To censure Peabody for these unacceptable rent rises
• To refer the matter to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and to ask it to invite the Chief Executive of Peabody to appear in front of the Committee to account publicly for this policy.

13.2    Judicial Review into Mayoral attendance at O&S [MOTION NOT DEBATED]

[Note: A procedural motion was proposed to allow Motion 13.2 to be tabled as an urgent motion. However, Council did not agree the procedural motion.]

Proposed by Cllr David Snowdon

Seconded by Cllr Emma Jones

This council notes

• That section 9FA(8)(a) of the Local Government Act 2000 provides than an O&S committee may require members of the executive to attend before it to answer questions
• That subsection 9 provides that it is a duty of any member of the executive to comply with such a requirement (including the executive Mayor)

• The Mayor’s failure to do so over the course of this municipal year, despite numerous requests from O&S
• That section 9FA(8)(a) of the Local Government Act 2000 is enforceable by judicial review

This council resolves to instruct the Monitoring Officer to prepare a report outlining the council’s options with regards to potential launch of a judicial review to instruct the mayor to fulfill his obligations and attend O&S.