The questions which have been received from Councillors to be put at this Council meeting are set out in the attached report.  A maximum period of 30 minutes is allocated to this agenda item.

 

 

The following questions and in each case supplementary questions were put (except where indicated) and were responded to by the Mayor or relevant

Executive Member-

 

9.1 Question from Councillor Val Whitehead:

 

Can the cabinet member please update the council on what further steps will be taken to improve services and support for our children who are looked after, following the latest Ofsted monitoring visit?

 

Response of Councillor Danny Hassell, Cabinet Member for Children, Schools and Young People:

 

As you might be aware, the latest monitoring visit from Ofsted took place in August and on this occasion, the Inspectors were looking at the way we meet our obligations as corporate parents to our looked after children.  This was an area that was found to require improvement at the main Ofsted inspection last year. However since further inspection, we uncovered additional issues, which needed to be resolved. Ofsted had reported that there had been an improvement in key areas since the inspection last year, but there are still areas of weaknesses. The assessment by the Inspectors reflected our own self assessment of this area of work and where our focus needs to be going forward. Such that Ofsted noted that senior leaders agreed with Ofsted Inspectors findings.  They are determined to accelerate the pace of change and are taking appropriate action.  There were a number of areas that received positive praise and commentary and these related to the fact that our decisions about taking children into care are underpinned by effective and assessable legal advice. They said that as a result of our work around the sufficiency strategy, we are increasing the range of placements for our looked after children. 

 

Supplementary question from Councillor Whitehead:

 

Can you outline some of the specific areas for improvement that were identified and are there plans in place to address these?

 

Councillor Hassell’s response to the supplementary question:

 

We have identified issues with assessments, in particularly health assessments and we are working with our partners in health to identify the causes of the delays for initial health assessments. The services are working to improve and streamline processes for permanency planning. There is now a process for improved scrutiny and oversight of decisions and more systematic planning. We know that the assessments need to be updated and we have a plan in place to make sure that is being delivered. I have made it clear to Officers that we will be monitoring this closely. Myself, the Mayor and the Cabinet remain committed to ensuring that the improvements we have seen elsewhere in our children’s social care are delivered in this area and we will be making sure that the pace of change is accelerated. We are very confident we can ensure that is delivered. That is why we have been ambitious for our young people and we have asked Ofsted that when they come back for our inspection in November, they look again at this area of work to make sure this has been progressed.    

 

9.2 Question from Councillor Peter Golds:

 

In 2016 the Mayor of London pledged to plant 2,000,000 trees across the Capital during his period of office. Will the Mayor inform the council as to how many of the 42 trees pledged to be planted each and every day in Tower Hamlets have actually been planted, or as in the case of the Isle of Dogs have been planted and then left to wither and die?

 

Response of Councillor David Edgar, Cabinet Member for Environment:

 

As you know the pledges made by the Mayor of London covers the whole of London and therefore the number of trees that might be planted in any particular borough won’t be the same. That said we have made progress over recent years.

 

In 2016/17, the Mayor of London’s pledge was supported by a programme, which we applied to, working with the Friends of Victoria Park. We received £5,000 and planted 25 trees in the park. More recently, the Mayor of London announced the Greener City Fund including a significant amount of money in August 2017. We have made applications to that fund.

 

In addition to the work that is being done by the Mayor of London, we locally have made a commitment to increase the number of trees in the Borough by 2,000. We have planted a larger number of trees in the last five years.  For example, in the last year we have planted over 108 trees. You mentioned in your question the point about making sure that the trees we plant thrive and I am happy to follow up that point.

 

Supplementary question from Councillor Golds:

 

In the summer, there were trees planted in the East Ferry Road area and it ended up with local residents coming out and bringing water on a daily basis to try and plant the trees and getting quite concerned when one of the trees died.  The other issue is about the so called pledge of 2,000,000 trees and the calculation of 42 trees was based on that.  The Council does get an enormous amount of Community Infrastructure Levy and s106 money. Can we see a some of this money being put into trees. After all, this is one of the key measures to help us with global warming and cleaning up the environment.

 

Councillor Edgar’s response to the supplementary question:

 

As I have said, the Mayor of Tower Hamlets manifesto did make a commitment to increase the number of trees in the Borough and we are working on plans in the budget process this year to deliver this. How exactly that was going to be funded will be one of things that will come out of that process.  I think that it is clearly important if we plant trees that they thrive and we take good care of them. Only last Saturday morning as I was walking down Burdett Road, a member of the public came up to me and asked me about these trees - the two trees that I had tweeted about that had died.  So that I think it is an issue we need to pay attention to and we will do.

 

9.3 Question from Councillor Muhammad HM Harun:

 

Langdon Park has two pedestrian pathways starting from the Station. The pathway ending at Chadbourn Street has inadequate lighting. Many residents, particularly women, have raised the lack of lighting with me and an ME response I received highlighted that lighting would be difficult to install given the difficult budget circumstances. Would the Mayor be willing to look at this particular situation to see what can be done?

 

Response of Councillor Asma Begum, Deputy Mayor and Cabinet Member for Community Safety and Equalities:

 

In view of the inconsistency in the public lighting provision around Langdon Park DLR, I have asked officers to look into this again following your question. They will consider the possibility of improving the lighting so residents feel safer. While council budgets are under pressure officers will look into identifying a suitable funding provision to undertake these works.

 

Thank you again for raising this and officers will update you shortly.

 

(No supplementary question was asked).

 

9.4 Question from Councillor Andrew Wood

 

Will the Mayor explain as to why is the Council so poor at communication?

 

Response of Mayor John Biggs:

 

We are lot more active as a Council than the previous administration.  We no longer have a weekly newspaper and we are using a range of channels to communicate with members of the public across the borough. We won’t always get everything right. We have restructured our communications team. The latest residents survey said that the number of people feeling informed by the Council has gone up from 68% to 73%, which I think is above the London average. I can read you a range of other information as well.

 

But to focus on your question, I would say two things. Firstly, in the budget this year, the Conservative Group proposed reducing the Coms budget. Coms is not just about spin doctors peddling lies or whatever you like to say in your newsletters, because we don’t do that. It is also about communicating with the public about things that are important. On the Novichok issue, we did not communicate the pictures as the Police communicated with us very sensitively about what they want us to say and to not say. This was an exercise carried out by the security services and they already had a lot of surveillance information.  It would be revealed by them and managed by them. We played our full part which involved some communications, but not on that particular point.   

 

Supplementary question from Councillor Wood:

 

Everyone else was showing the pictures except us, which I did find odd in retrospect.

 

Mayor Biggs’s response to supplementary question:

 

Given that the people in question were by then about 4000 miles away, it is unlikely that the pictures would have really elicited many more observations.

 

9.5 Question from Councillor Eve McQuillan:

 

Can the Mayor confirm that action has been taken to fix the CCTV on the Bancroft estate, given residents’ concerns about crime in the area?

 

Response of Councillor Sirajul Islam, Statutory Deputy Mayor and Cabinet Member for Housing:

 

I’m glad to report that following a site visit on the 2nd of August, the CCTV cameras on the Bancroft Estate have been fixed and are now operational. 

 

Officers have also made sure that the Tenant Management Organisation have been made aware of the repairs. I would like to thank Cllr McQuillan for her work on this.

 

Supplementary question from Councillor McQuillan:

 

Can I ask if the area can benefit from the design out crime programme?

 

Councillor Islam’s response to the supplementary question:

 

Yes it can. We are exploring areas that will most benefit. The Bancroft Estate  area will benefit from the design out crime officer and so will other areas of the Borough. Once the plans have been finalised, the information will be shared. In the meantime, the Council will continue to work hard with the Bancroft Estate TMO to make sure the community who live their are safe.

 

9.6 Question from Councillor Kevin Brady:

 

Given the potentially devastating financial implications for local businesses if the Network Rail sale of railway arches goes ahead, what has the council done to stand up for business tenants that use the arches, and to challenge Network Rail’s rent increases?

 

 

 

Response of Councillor Motin Uz – Zaman, Cabinet Member for Work and Economic Growth:

 

The Mayor and myself visited some of the arches in Bancroft Road and met some of the people that have been in business for generations. It is totally unacceptable the actions of Network Rail, the way they have increased their rents, over 300% and that was just to increase the value of their assets to sell it off. The Mayor and myself has also written to the Secretary of State for Transport and the Chief Executive of Network Rail. The Mayor has also written to the Evening Standard to raise the issues of backing the Guardian of the Arches campaign to go against the sale.  We have also got a response back from Network Rail to say that they will adhere to the continuity of the lease. But we are concerned as that was mainly for profit.

 

Supplementary question from Councillor Brady:

 

I really welcome what yourself and the Mayor have done on this matter, engaged with the residents particularly in areas like my ward who have a lot of these businesses.

 

What work is being done to engage with the new owners on maintaining rent levels and to even try to decrease rent levels for some of the business owners?

 

Councillor Motin Uz – Zaman’s response to the supplementary question:

 

The buyer has been confirmed and its Telereal Trillium and Blackstone Property Partners. They have committed to working with the existing tenants to ensure that good landlord practices are adhered to. They will look at getting people to sign tenants charters and also ensuring that they have an engagement team to work with the tenants. I am also working with Officers to look at, subject to funding being available, getting some of the arches valued independently, to use as a negotiation point to ensure that the rent levels that the arches have to pay are reasonable.

 

9.7 Question from Councillor Sabina Akhtar:

 

Could the Lead Member please report on the progress of the Local Plan Examination in Public?

 

Response of Councillor Rachel Blake, Deputy Mayor and Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Air Quality:

 

The following issues have been discussed: The structure and soundness of the plan, air quality, viability, housing and housing needs, economy and economic growth, tall buildings and design, retail markets and community facilitates. The following policies have been particularly explored around: developer contributions and infrastructure. Our evidence base has clearly demonstrated that the plan is viable.

 

 

Supplementary question from Councillor Akhtar:

 

What are the remaining items for examination?

 

Councillor Blake’s response to the supplementary question:

 

The next steps for the examination in public is to explore some our site allocations in detail. It will be really important that our new policies on tall buildings, establishing five tall building zones, our affordable housing policy that sets a target of 50%, and a 35% minimum are embedded in our policies, to make sure that our site allocations can realise their homes, and places and jobs that we so desperately need in Tower Hamlets. So far the Local Plan Examination in Public has been positive. Its really important that we keep up the great work that Officers have been doing to make sure we get this plan through.

 

9.8 Question from Councillor Puru Miah

 

Can the lead member please give me an update with regards to Council plans to introduce loading bays in the south east side, outside Ghandi Oriental Foodstore, in Mile End Ward.

 

Response of Councillor David Edgar, Cabinet Member for Environment:

 

This issue arises from a planning permission that was granted for a new development on Thomas Road. It is one that involved a loading bay outside a new development to give access to a ground floor commercial development. The proposal that is being consulted on will involve the loss of six parking pays, to make provision for the loading bay to make sure that emergency vehicles can still access the route. I have held two meetings with residents effected by this, and responded to the 21 emails that I have received about this. At the second meeting, Councillors Sirajul Islam, Puru Miah and Sabina Akhtar were there to discuss this in detail. Since the consultation has finished, Council Officers have visited the site with the developer and with highways offices to look at whether alternatives can be proposed that will have less of an impact on parking. I look forward to the proposals they come back with and I will be sharing this with the ward Councillors and the residents who are understandable concerned about the impact.  

 

Supplementary question from Councillor Miah:

 

Does my colleague agree with me that residential parking bays are a public amenity and they should not be given up to benefit what is in this case, a property speculator that made over £40 million by selling their car park?

 

Councillor Edgar’s response to the supplementary question:

 

Public parking bays are clearly an important matter. The number of residents who have been in touch with me about this certainly make that clear, that people are very interested to maintain the bays and are concerned about the level of overcrowding and problems with parking in that area. The loading bay that is proposed here is attached to a development that has gone through a proper planning process. It involves, I think, the provision of cash and carry or some large supermarket which I know in the past was well used by people locally and from further afield so there  is some balancing to be done. I am very clear about the concerns local residents have about this. I am extremely keen that officers, are able to find if at all possible, a solution that meets the needs of residents and that emergency vehicles can provide the sorts of services that we want them to do as easy as they can.

 

9.9 Question from Councillor Bex White

 

Could the Cabinet Member report on the successful bids for the Mayor’s Air Quality Fund?

 

Response of Councillor Rachel Blake, Deputy Mayor and Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Air Quality:

 

The first round of the application process for the Mayor’s Air Quality fund opened 1 June 2018 and closed on 31 July 2018.  A number of applications were received and Officers were reviewing the applications.  So far, the campaign has put in place a range of measures including education programmes with schools and measures to enable air quality monitoring.

 

Supplementary question from Councillor White:

 

Can the lead Member inform the Council of any plans for World Car Free Day, that is coming up this Saturday. I know that many cities across the world and some other London Boroughs are taking part.  Are we planning on doing anything in Tower Hamlets?

 

Councillor Blake’s response to the supplementary question:

 

We have not fully announced the plans but hope to announce some of the plans tomorrow. Since we now have anti idling powers, we will certainly be doing some anti- idling actions across the Borough. We plan some road closures around some of our most congested areas and hopefully around schools. We really want to increase the number of schools that are able to take up options for school streets, but it’s a real watch this space situation.

 

9.10 Question from Councillor Marc Francis:

 

Will the Lead Member for Environmental Services clarify how many disabled people had their Personalised Disabled Parking Bay removed under the revised eligibility criteria introduced by the former Mayor and Lead Member in 2014, and how many of those residents have had their bay reinstated since those criteria were set aside in early 2018?

 

 

Response of Councillor David Edgar, Cabinet Member for Environment:

 

The Council clearly has to take it’s responsibilities in respect of personal information seriously. It would have to do that in any event, particularly after the changes in the data protection act. The Council has a retention policy of two years in respect of this type of personal data and if it had that data, then by now, that data would have been deleted and it would not have been possible to answer the question about the impact of changes in policy. I  understand that one of the changes that did take place as a result of temporary policy introduced in January 2018, was an introduction of a different way of dealing with permit renewals, so that they are treated as automatic, unless there is a substantial change in a persons situation. For the longer term it might be key that we did work out a way we can track the aggregate impact of policy changes without the underlying personal details, so I think it is important we look at ways of doing this for the longer term.

 

Supplementary question from Councillor Francis:

 

In my experience, I have had a several constituents that were adversely effected by the introduction of this policy under the former Mayor as part of his programme to deliver an extra 1000 residents parking places. Nobody ever came to this Council Chamber, the Cabinet or anywhere else to say that this was going to be partly at the expense of disabled residents having their personalised bay taken away.

 

In response to Members enquiries that I have raised, and I have passed the most recent one on to Councillor Edgar, I was told that the former parking development manager held all of the applications for people who applied to renew their bays. Almost all of those bays were refused on the basis of the significantly increased threshold to be able to qualify for a bay -  33 out of the 36 points instead of 24 out of the 36 points that you need for a blue badge. This is an entirely arbitrary figure plucked out of the air, seemly by officers and the lead member at the time. Now it seems that the parking development officer shredded all of the applications that people put in, that all of the emails were deleted and the project initiation document that allegedly introduced this change of police has also gone missing. Will the Lead Member investigate all of those things?

 

Questions 9.11 - 9.15 was not put due to lack of time. A Written response would be provided to the question. (Note the written responses are included in Appendix A to these minutes)