Council, Thursday, 21 July 2016
Report of the Council
Thursday, 21st July, 2016 (7.15 p.m. - 11.20 p.m.)
Present: The Worshipful the Mayor, G. Bhamra, Z. Hussain (Deputy Mayor), Councillors Mohammad Ahmed, Mushtaq Ahmed, J. Athwal, S. Bain, S. Bellwood, I. Bond, D. Bromiley, P. Canal, M. Chaudhary, A. Choudhury, K. Chowdhury, H. Cleaver, R. Cole, H. Coomb, C. Cronin, C. Cummins, G. Deakins, L. Duddridge, Mrs M. Dunn, R. Emmett, K. Flint, J. Haran, R. Hatfull, N. Hayes, J. Hehir, J. Howard, Mrs L. Huggett, F. Hussain, M. Javed, T. Jeyaranjan, B. Jones, A. Kissin, B. Lambert, B. Littlewood, T. McLaren, P. Merry, B. Nijjar, Mrs S. Nolan, E. Norman, Mrs K. Packer, A. Parkash, K. Prince, K. Rai, T. Rashid, Mrs J. Ryan, A. Sachs, M. Santos, D. Sharma, T. Sharpe, M. Stark, W. Streeting, R. Turbefield, A. Weinberg, B. White and N. Zammett
Public: 80+
Officers: Chief Executive, Corporate Director of Children & Young People, Corporate Director of Health & Social Care Integration, Corporate Director of Place, Corporate Director of Resources, Head of Corporate & Property Legal Services and Joint Head of Constitutional Services.
Prayers were said by Dr. Mohammed Fahim.
1. Standing Order 68: Electronic Media (COU/01/210716)
All present were reminded that in accordance with the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 that the public and press were permitted to report on the meeting using electronic media tools. However, oral commentary would not be permitted in the room during proceedings. All present were also advised that the meeting was being audio recorded and the recording would be available to download on Redbridge i.
2. Apologies for Absence (COU/02/210716)
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Shakil Ahmed, Best, Fairley- Churchill, Kaur-Thiara, O’Shea and Singh Bola. Apologies for lateness were also received from Councillors Cleaver, Cole, Hayes and McLaren.
3. To Approve the Minutes of the Meeting of Annual Council Held on 12th May 2016 and Council on 19th May 2016 (COU/03/210716)
Resolved: That the Minutes of the meeting of Annual Council held on 12th May 2016 and the Council meeting held on 19th May 2016 be approved for signing when in the official Minute Book.
4. Declarations of Interest (COU/04/210716)
All Members and Officers in attendance were reminded of the requirement to consider whether they had an interest in any matter on the agenda that needed to be disclosed and, if so, to declare the interest when Council reached that item on the agenda. Council, Thursday, 21 July 2016
Minute's Silence
Members stood for a minute in silent tribute for the victims of the recent terror attack in Nice, France.
5. Correspondence (COU/05/210716)
There was no correspondence.
Change in Order of Business
Resolved: That, pursuant to Standing Order 22, the Order of Business be changed so that agenda item 11 – (Urgent Statement) could be taken before agenda item 7 – (Questions from Members of the Public).
6. To Receive the Mayor's Announcements (COU/06/210716)
Vote of Thanks
The Mayor announced that this would be the last Council meeting attended by Alan Paterson (Mayor’s Chauffeur), Pat Reynolds (Corporate Director of Children and Young People) and John Powell (Corporate Director of Health and Social Care Integration). We wished to record our thanks to all three officers for their excellent service to the Borough over many years and we wished them a happy retirement.
Mayor’s Appeal Event
The Mayor advised that a visit to the site of the Battle of The Somme, as part of the Centenary commemorations, was being arranged for 22nd October 2016.
11. To Hear an Urgent Statement by the Leader of the Council in Accordance with Standing Order 18 - Hate Crime and Xenophobia (COU/11/210716)
Council noted the statement from the Leader of the Council, Councillor Athwal, against hate crime and xenophobia, and the responses from Councillor Canal, on behalf of the Conservative Group and Councillor Bond on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Group, pursuant to Standing Order 18.
Suspension of Standing Order
Resolved: That, in accordance with Standing Order 26.1, Standing Order 17.1 be suspended to allow a period of one hour for public questions.
7. To Hear Questions from Members of the Public and Replies Thereto, in Accordance with Standing Order 17. (COU/07/210716)
(i) Mr. Walker asked the Mayor, Councillor Bhamra, as prior notice of his question had allowed the Mayor to consult with party leaders, was there support in this Chamber to enhance our local democracy by extending the right of the public to question elected representatives by: 1) removing current restrictions to allow every Councillor to be questioned, Council, Thursday, 21 July 2016
2) allowing one of the four Redbridge MPs to be questioned in this chamber once a month?
The Mayor replied taking each part of the question in turn. Regarding the first part of the question, Redbridge residents, tax payers, rates payers and elected members could put questions to Councillors with special responsibilities, such as Chairs of Service Committees, Cabinet Members and the Leader. To allow questions to be put to all other Councillors was both unnecessary and inappropriate as such questions were unlikely to be in respect of their Council functions. He would, therefore, not be seeking support for this from full Council. As far as the second part of Mr. Walker’s question was concerned, MPs were elected to serve their constituents in accordance with the Parliamentary practices and the Council had no formal functions in such matters and could not dictate where MPs met with their constituents.
By way of a supplementary question, Mr. Walker asked, as prior notice of this question gave party leaders time to contact the Mayor, do any of the party leaders agree that questioning of Councillors would be enhanced, (enhancing this democracy was the subject of the first question), by the Council publishing on its website each month the GPs in our Borough alongside the population of the Borough?
The Mayor advised Mr. Walker that his supplementary question did not comply with Standing Order 17.13 as it was not relevant to the original question.
(ii) Mr. Madhani asked the Leader of the Council, Councillor Athwal, in light of the Council’s stated aim to promote diversity and community cohesion, did the Leader of the Council not recognise the need to retain assets such as Sir James Hawkey Hall, that provide a valuable facility to the residents of the Borough?
Councillor Athwal replied by referring to a petition of 1926 signatures which was presented to this Council on 17th March this year and to the response given at the last meeting on 19th May. Councillor Athwal assured those present that the Council would certainly always consult with the residents on relevant issues. As regards the Sir James Hawkey Hall, there were currently no plans for redevelopment but once a proposal was formed then, certainly, local residents would be consulted. Councillor Athwal stated that the Council would face difficult decisions like this. If it was not socially and economically viable, a proposal would not be taken forward, but equally the Council could not live in the past. Members had to accept financial responsibility for this Borough and needed to consider the social responsibility with residents. The Council would consult with Mr. Madhani and others on any future proposals. A report would be taken through the Council’s decision making process in due course and all Councillors would be able to express their views at that time, as would Mr. Madhani.
By way of a supplementary question, Mr. Madhani asked, as the Woodford Pantomime had seen, in recent years, an increase in attendance from audiences that covered a wide-cross section of the Redbridge community, including disabled people and people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, whether the Leader of the Council would undertake to fully review the existing benefits that Sir James Hawkey Hall provided to the community? Council, Thursday, 21 July 2016
Councillor Athwal replied that what needed preserving was that culture, i.e. the pantomime, which will then suit the residents of this Borough. This would certainly come out when any plans were drafted up. There would be a full study and an equalities assessment, and there would be, going into the future, awareness of the needs of the neighbourhood. When this happened, Councillor Athwal would give that undertaking that all the issues were looked into.
(iii) Mr. Page asked the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Property & Planning, Councillor Coomb, in respect of the draft Borough Plan and in regard to Policy LP3, will the Cabinet Member increase the amount of affordable housing target to 45%, instead of 30% (in line with GLA policies) and amend the draft Plan to at least 500 affordable homes per annum, instead of the woefully inadequate 336 as it stands, given that the Council, and most Councillors should know this, has no less than 214 brownfield sites which without touching the green belt could deliver at least 12,000 new homes?
Councillor Coomb replied that the London Plan 2015 sought to ensure an average of at least 17,000 more affordable homes per year are built in London. This was a London-wide target which all Boroughs will contribute towards achieving. The London Plan did not set individual affordable housing targets for Boroughs, rather it stated that, “Boroughs should set an overall target in LDFs (Local Development Frameworks) for the amount of affordable housing provision needed over the plan period in their areas.” As stated in London Plan policy 3.11 C (f), when setting affordable housing targets, Boroughs should consider a range of factors including, the viability of future development, taking into account future resources as far as possible. In addition to this, paragraph 174 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 also stated that, in relation to Local Plans, the cumulative impact of policies should not put implementation of the plan at serious risk, so in order to address this, the Council had undertaken a Local Plan Viability Assessment and Community Infrastructure Levy Review in 2016 to inform the level of affordable housing which would be generally viable and deliverable in the Borough. This assessment found that, in most cases, housing schemes across the Borough could accommodate a level of affordable housing of between 20% to 40%. In order to address the acute level of housing need in the Borough, whilst also seeking to ensure that housing development remained viable, the Council proposed to adopt a Borough-wide affordable housing target of 30% in Policy LP3 and it should be noted, however, that the proposed target was a minimum target and that the Council was committed to maximising the level of affordable housing on all sites in the Borough.
By way of a supplementary question, Mr. Page asked, given that the Council had all these brownfield sites, the public wanted to know on a regular basis, and perhaps the planning inspector, how the Council were going to chase up developments of those sites rather than they becoming a brownfield site mountain as in the old days of the EU when we had butter mountains?
Councillor Coomb replied that she attended Duty to Cooperate meetings with other London Boroughs, and Boroughs which were outside the London area. She found that every Borough had the same problem with finding sites for houses and so sometimes, it was not possible for other Boroughs to accommodate the needs that we might have. As had already been said, we did have many brownfield sites, but were they all built on and delivered, they would still not deliver the number of Council, Thursday, 21 July 2016
homes needed. Regarding the final point about appointing officers to chase these things up, in the Local Plan was a whole section about the implementation and the monitoring of the Local Plan which would also include delivery.
(iv) Mr. Ghoshal asked the Cabinet Member for Civic Pride, Councillor Hatfull, as his organisation ‘The Bengali Cultural Association’ was registered with the Charity Commission and had about 250 family members, the Hawkey Hall was the only venue of this size in the area and was perfectly suited to his events so did the Council think that as there was no other facility large enough available that this justified keeping the venue for organisations like his?
Councillor Hatfull replied that, whilst understanding the concerns raised, he would like to reiterate that officers were only just looking at this; work had just commenced and no decisions had been made. He did recognise that organisations like the questioner’s required large venues that could host significant numbers and the Council would always endeavour to ensure there were facilities available within the Borough for these events. But, at the moment, there were no set development plans for Hawkey Hall and, if anything came out about a different use of the site, the Council would be the first to consult with everyone, including the questioner’s organisation, and if the proposals were not good, then they would not go through.
By way of a supplementary question, Mr. Ghoshal asked, did the Council agree that when a venue like the Hawkey Hall was able to provide facilities for large scale events that no other venue nearby could accommodate that this was a resource that the Council had a duty to provide, especially when there was the demand in this part of the Borough from organisations like his and private hire requests for religious celebrations and functions like weddings? The Hawkey Hall clearly had a customer base that reflected the diversity of demand in the Borough and did the Council recognise that the Hawkey Hall was a valuable resource to these people and could be used far more for these sorts of events by other organisations in the Borough?
Councillor Hatfull replied that he fully understood that residents appreciated Hawkey Hall and its capacity as a large venue. However, it was getting tired and it needed a lot of work. There were issues: hirers could not rent a small meeting room without renting the hall because of toilet use. Just because a building was there once did not mean it should stay in aspic. It was very early days and officers had only just started looking at the site. The Council might do nothing with it or come up with proposals that had different uses, but whatever was proposed, the Council would go out to the public and were fully aware of the need for large venues for community events in Redbridge across all our community.
(v) Miss Sydney Hildreth asked as the Government has promised that the beautiful green field of Oakfield would be protected as Green Belt and King George VI, the Queen’s father, made a law that it should only be used for sporting purposes, and as her parents had brought her up not to break promises, as an honest man and respected Leader of the Council, was the Leader just going to break that promise?
Councillor Coomb was asked to reply. In thanking Miss Hildreth for her question, Councillor Coomb advised that, while the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework set out the planning policy framework for protecting Council, Thursday, 21 July 2016
Green Belt, it did not actually mention the Green Belt sites by name. So it did allow for the Green Belt to be altered and reviewed at a time like this when the Council was making its Local Plan. The Council undertook a Green Belt Review, and had people to look at it especially for them, and it assessed all the green belt parcels of land in the Borough. That review decided that actually some of the parcels, like Oakfield, did not actually meet the purposes of Green Belt any more.
The Council had carried out an extensive search of all the brownfield land, i.e. land that has been previously developed on, to see if there was enough land available to meet the Borough’s huge housing need and this indicated that there was not enough available land in the Borough to meet this housing need, so it was very important that the Council had enough land available in order to build new homes and schools. The Council had considered all of the evidence, national planning policy and the London Plan and it considered that the most appropriate approach was to release such parcels of land from the green belt for other uses, such as for new homes and houses. As the planning use of Oakfields was yet to be determined, it would be too early for the Council, as the landowner, to make any decisions about potential future uses for Oakfield and what the relevance of any restrictive covenants might be in relation to any such potential future uses.
By way of a supplementary question, Miss Hildreth asked whether as adults are responsible and accountable for their decisions and actions, and selling Oakfields will make a lot of money, was the Cabinet Member saying that money was more important than keeping a promise?
Councillor Coomb replied that it was right that, as adults, we were accountable for our decisions. Councillor Coomb said that she supported the inclusion of this site in the Local Plan because the site could be used to provide the kind of homes that all of us would like to live in. It could provide space for a school but could also have open space for people to play in and walk dogs. There could be some community infrastructure on the site, i.e. the things that people needed to use in their everyday lives. It was correct to say that, if it were sold, it would raise a lot of money which was important given that Redbridge has to reduce the money it spends by some £60million over the next few years, but that was not the main consideration.
(vi) Miss Honey Dow asked, that in 2012 a study was carried out by officers who found that that the accident rate for Fencepiece Road was much higher than the Redbridge average; just recently a young boy was hit by a bus right in front of her friend Sydney’s house; more houses would increase the number of cars and also the number of accidents. Her niece had really bad asthma and more cars would increase pollution and make her worse. Why did the Leader of the Council want them to grow up on dangerous, polluted roads that could hurt them and make them sick?’’
Councillor Howard was asked to reply. In thanking Miss Dow for her question, Councillor Howard was very disturbed to hear of the nasty accident in Fencepiece Road. He advised that, every year, Council officers studied the accident record for the Borough to see where problems were occurring and they came up with proposals to try and reduce accidents. The study referred to was part of this process and it was indeed highlighted that Fencepiece Road was a problem area and, as a result, the Council had introduced a number of measures to fix this. Council, Thursday, 21 July 2016
These included the upgrading of an existing pedestrian island, signs, cycle lane markings, flashing amber lights, new carriageway markings and double yellow lines at junctions. Also introduced was a new mini-roundabout at the bottom of Tomswood Hill. Councillor Howard went on to say that he did not want anyone to grow up in this Borough near a polluted road, and this was a problem on Fencepiece Road, along the A12 and in the west of the Borough and in Ilford. That was why the Council was working with its partners, such as the Mayor of London, to reduce pollution and to encourage walking and cycling and the use of buses and tubes.
By way of a supplementary question, Miss Dow asked that Wanstead Rugby Club had been saved and it would now always be a green field. Why would the Council not do the same for Oakfield?
Councillor Howard replied that this was outside his Portfolio so he was not really sure of all the details but the status of land occupied by the Wanstead Rugby Club was connected with the Centenary Fields scheme whilst the decision around Oakfield was separate to that process and that was why the Council was looking at it as part of a range of options to develop housing and to build stable community stepping forwards.
(vii)Mr. Jeffries asked the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Property & Planning, Councillor Coomb, given that the Local Development Plan proposed building development on the green belt – specifically in Billet Road, King George and Goodmayes Hospitals, Fords Sports Ground and Oakfield Playing Fields – will the Cabinet Member please confirm that – after taking into account the weight of public opinion against such intrusion into the green belt – including that of the Aldborough Hatch Defence Association which Mr. Jeffries represented – this will no longer be the policy of the ruling administration and that the green belt of Redbridge will be sacrosanct - in the words of the newly-elected Labour Mayor of London, as reported in the Ilford Recorder?
Councillor Coomb replied that the green belt parcels that Mr. Jeffries mentioned in his question had been assessed in the Council’s Green Belt Review 2016. The Review concluded that the green belt parcels did not meet the five purposes of Green Belt as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. The Council was therefore proposing to release these sites from the Green Belt for alternative uses to address the Borough’s challenging housing and infrastructure requirements. Sites that the Green Belt Review assessed as continuing to meet the purposes of Green Belt would continue to be protected, as set out in policy LP34 of the Local Plan. The Pre-Submission Local Plan responded to the key planning challenges facing the Borough. It considered the responses to previous consultations and incorporated those findings from the evidence base. When weighing up all the key challenges and issues, the Council considered that, on balance, the release of these parcels of the Borough’s existing Green Belt, which did not meet the purposes of Green Belt as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, was the most sustainable development strategy to address the Borough’s challenging housing and infrastructure needs.
By way of a supplementary question, Mr. Jeffries asked, had the Cabinet Member noted that the newly elected Labour Member Mayor of London had stated publically that the London Plan included a presumption against the Council, Thursday, 21 July 2016
development on the green belt and that there were sufficient brownfield sites in London for all the housing needs over the next decade and that they should all be developed irrespective of whether or not they were in Redbridge before any green belt was desecrated?
Councillor Coomb replied that our Local Plan would be judged against the current London Plan. It will go in front of the Mayor for London, the Mayor will make comments on this Plan and then we would go from there.
(viii) Ms. Hodge asked the Cabinet Member for Civic Pride, Councillor Hatfull, supporting the arts and creative arts was a core priority for our London Mayor Sadiq Khan. This was clearly set out in his manifesto – he pledged that this was a defining theme for his administration, right up there with housing, the environment and security. He further stated that protecting our cultural infrastructure was critical to life in London. This included community arts centres and venues and working with all London Boroughs to promote and protect those threatened by new developments. Was retaining the Hawkey Hall as the only large cultural venue of its size in Redbridge now a priority for this Council?
Councillor Hatfull replied that he fully supported the London Mayor in his manifesto commitment in relation to arts and culture. Being very keen on arts and culture himself, Councillor Hatfull thought that, as a Borough, the Council needed to do as much as possible to promote itself. With the population and the number of houses ever increasing in London, the current infrastructure needed to keep pace. He felt that it was incumbent not just on local authorities, but on a whole range of groups, voluntary private and cultural institutions, to ensure opportunities existed for the whole community. He supported Mayor Sadiq Khan’s initiative to create a London Borough of Culture and Redbridge would definitely be expressing an interest and putting in a very detailed bid to be the London Borough of Culture when the scheme was announced. The Council’s Leisure & Cultural Strategy recognised the strengths of arts and culture in Redbridge delivered through libraries, parks and specific venues like the Drama Centre, Kenneth More Theatre, Town Hall, Hawkey Hall, public outdoor spaces, Ken Aston Square and the recent Street Festival in Ilford Town Centre. The diversity of Redbridge’s population created a strong identity and heritage which was being embraced as regeneration opened opportunities to develop and improve the Borough and the leisure and culture offered within our current financial constraints. As previously stated, the Council was looking at the Hawkey Hall site and, if anything happened there, the Council would consult, but it was important to promote community arts culture throughout Redbridge right across the Borough wherever possible.
By way of a supplementary question, Ms. Hodge stated that communities without culture and arts were much poorer places no doubt. Ms. Hodge stated that Sadiq Khan believed that, just as we had a strategic plan for London’s transport and housing infrastructure, that we also needed a cultural infrastructure and community plan. Did the Council have such a plan or intend to develop such a plan in light of this clear direction?
Councillor Hatfull replied that, as a Borough, we were very committed to arts and culture. It was one of his priorities to improve the arts and culture offered in the Borough and the Council would be submitting an expression of interest to be the ‘London Borough of Arts and Culture’ as soon as the scheme was announced. Council, Thursday, 21 July 2016
There was potentially a million pounds on offer for the Borough that was successful and this Council would be really pushing to make sure that its expression of interest was taken seriously.
(ix) Mr. Scott asked the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Property & Planning, Councillor Coomb, could the Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration explain why the Oakfield site had to be included in the Local Plan 2015 to 2030, when many local residents opposed the idea to begin with?
Councillor Coomb replied that, in 2014, the Council published the Preferred Options Report Extension which included a range of alternative development options to accommodate the Borough’s growth. This consultation stage was responded to by over 2,000 local residents, businesses and stakeholders outlining their views on all the proposed alternative options. National Planning Policy required that the Local Plan should be based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics of the Borough. Assessments and strategies for housing, employment and other uses must be integrated and take full account of relevant market and economic signals, so the Pre-Submission Local Plan responded to the key planning challenges facing the Borough. The Council considered that the release of certain parcels of the Borough’s existing Green Belt which no longer met the criteria for green belt land, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, would be the most sustainable development strategy to address the Borough’s challenging housing and infrastructure needs.
By way of a supplementary question, Mr. Scott asked, as there had been a lot of feedback through the local media and here tonight against the Plan to include the Oakfield site and this more or less outweighed what had been a consultation of the Local Plan, as seen from people here tonight and also from the many letters in the Ilford Recorder and the large petitions that there had been lately, this argument that the people were using for Oakfield not to be included ought to be considered as well?
Councillor Coomb replied that the Council had considered it but, on balance, it was felt that the land was needed to deliver the housing targets that the Council had over the next 15 years, and that by using that piece of land, should it be so designated, the Council would be able to deliver some homes and infrastructure that was vitally necessary.
(x) Mr. Segal asked the Leader of the Council, Councillor Athwal, would the Labour Councillors vote on Oakfield Playing Fields later this evening be a free vote or a party whipped vote?
Councillor Athwal replied that in the Labour Group here in Redbridge, there was open, honest and frank discussion. He did ask Members which way they were going to vote and it would be seen tonight how Members vote on both sides. When Members do make important decisions, there was collective responsibility. If people had particular issues which they wished to raise with the Group, they could do so. Councillor Athwal felt that this would be proved later on when the voting took place.
By way of a supplementary question, Mr. Segal asked, whilst being appalled by Council, Thursday, 21 July 2016
the plans to build houses on Oakfield, he did not believe that the Council would get away with its plans and the ex-Deputy Leader of Redbridge Council and the current MP for Ilford North, Wes Streeting, had been brilliant in his support for Oakfield and was thanked for his support. Would the Leader now please publically tell his fellow Councillors that they were free to vote to exclude Oakfield from the Local Plan in order that we could keep the very best playing fields in our Borough?
Councillor Athwal replied that, whilst acknowledging that Councillor Wes Streeting was brilliant, in terms of decision-making, decisions were made based upon why the electorate put the Administration in charge - to take difficult decisions. They might not be popular decisions, but he reiterated that he had spoken to every single Member of his Group about this Local Plan and the result would be revealed later. He did not feel that he should publically say anything at this point. Every Member of his Group had told him their opinion and the outcome would be known when this matter was voted on later this evening.
(xi) Mr. Herga asked the Cabinet Member for Environment & Sustainability, Councillor Howard, could Redbridge Council please explain why it thought it was acceptable to increase the monthly payments at the car park at Charteris Road Car Park and therefore discriminate against hard working residents and commuters of Woodford and South Woodford?
Councillor Howard replied that “discriminate” seemed a strong word to use in this context. He pointed out that the new car park charges applied in Charteris Road Car Park, which were less than 20%, were part of a raft of changes to all Borough car parks. In arriving at the new charges, the Council was aiming, where possible, to achieve 85% occupancy in its car parks and this allowed for the Council to more or less guarantee available parking spaces at any time of the day. Records showed that this car park still remained competitive with the Station Car Park when paying for monthly season tickets and it was worth noting that the car park was not designated as a priority car park for commuters. In fact, they could use the station car park just next door. The Council needed to be able to provide adequate parking facilities for those that wished to visit local amenities as well as those who used the station.
By way of a supplementary question, Mr. Herga asked, would the Councillor please assuage residents’ concerns by saying that there were no plans to sell the car park and also will he commit to looking at reducing the fares to their original fee in order to help mitigate these concerns of the residents?
Councillor Howard replied that, as far as he was aware, there were no plans to do so at this particular time, although he could not promise about the future. Nor could he promise to reduce the fees. This was about fairness across the entire Borough and the Council was trying to achieve an 85% occupancy rate across the entire Borough. This affected other places and areas with stations. Councillor Howard completely understood residents’ concerns and annoyance but, in the grand context of savings that this Council had been asked to make, he did not think it was an unfair suggestion to raise car parking charges slightly.
(xii)Mr. Postings asked the Leader of the Council, Councillor Athwal, those who cherish Oakfield were heartened by Councillor Wes Streeting's pledge that he 'will not toe a party line on the issue'; could he urge the Council's Leader to accept that Council, Thursday, 21 July 2016
among members of the ruling Labour group there would be others who knew deep down in their hearts and minds that the destruction of Oakfield would amount to a crime against the community and that supporters of the Save Oakfield Society urge them to summon up the guts to vote down this heinous proposal?
Councillor Athwal replied that he had spoken at great lengths with Councillor Streeting and with every Member of the Labour Group on this matter. Councillor Athwal felt that it took guts to make the right decision for the entire Borough and that was basically what Councillors will do. Every Member had been asked what their feeling was, what they wanted to do, and they would doubtless vote accordingly.
By way of a supplementary question, Mr. Postings asked what is the worst thing that could happen to anyone brave enough to vote “no”? Whatever was snatched away in reprisal, the Leader couldn’t take away pride at having done the right thing.
Councillor Athwal replied that he absolutely agreed and that if you did the right thing, you could take pride in what you had done.
(xiii) Ms. Lodge asked the Cabinet Member for Children & Young People, Councillor Norman, in the Council meeting of Tuesday 5th July, Cllr Athwal confirmed that the saving for removing home pick up and drop off transport for Special Educational Needs students who attended Little Heath would be £70,000. However, it was not confirmed in what capacity the saving was being made. Please could Council confirm the context in which this saving would be made - was this £70,000 per year, per term, per week, per day?”
Councillor Norman replied that, firstly, she wished to re-state that the Council was not removing the pick-up and drop-off transport for SEND students who attended Little Heath. The savings target was calculated on a per annum basis and the £70k related to the estimated proportion of the SEND Transport savings that could be saved by using pick-up points. Any savings arising from changes to travel assistance arrangements following the Council’s full review of SEND transport, would be outlined in the consultation in the Autumn. This review would consider all forms of travel assistance for young people and children with SEND at all settings, schools and colleges, and was not focussed solely on Little Heath School. Options for change, and any related potential savings, would have an annual timeframe.
By way of a supplementary question, Ms. Lodge asked, referring to one letter dated 19th July, it explicitly stated that involvement in the pilot scheme was voluntary, yet another letter implied that there would be no discretion applied and that all children of Little Heath School would be involved. Did Councillor Elaine Norman consider this to be an appropriate transparent way to introduce such a scheme, especially when the Council was fully aware of its legal obligations towards children with disabilities and their parents/carers?
Councillor Norman replied that she was reading from the letter that had been quoted and which stated in its most important paragraph that Redbridge has secured the services of traffic commissioners to review Special Educational Needs and Disability transport arrangements and, as part of this review, an optional pilot Council, Thursday, 21 July 2016
project was exploring the travel assistance to support greater independence for some young people with SEND through the use of additional group travel training and pick-up points. Involvement in the pilot project was entirely voluntary. Assessment of need, identifying those children and young people who might benefit from pick-up points and identifying those who would continue to require door-to-door transport formed part of that project. As well as undertaking review of travel assistance, the Council was undertaking a full consultation on Redbridge’s SEND travel assistance policy and arrangements for the Autumn term of 2016. The consultation would be available publically on Redbridge i from September and would close in December 2016.
Suspension of Standing Order
Resolved: That, in accordance with Standing Order 26.1, Standing Order 17.1 be suspended to allow all of the remaining public questioners in attendance to ask their questions.
(xiv) Mr. Naicker asked the Cabinet Member for Children & Young People, Councillor Norman, during the meeting on 5th July, Councillor Norman stated that she would be contacting and talking to the children of Little Heath School to assess who were capable or able to take part in a ‘pilot scheme’ (proposed changes to the provision of transport to those children with special educational needs). To his knowledge, no parent has been contacted by either Redbridge or herself for information regarding this. Could she now categorically confirm that the scheme was no longer going ahead?
Councillor Norman replied by referring to her previous answer when she stated what her proposal was, and what the consultation arrangements would be between October and December 2016. She reiterated that this proposed pilot did not relate solely to Little Heath School. She also stated that it would look at young people across the same community who might be capable of undertaking independent travel training and she had also stated publicly, and would do so again, that any child who needed door-to-door transport would continue to receive that. She was happy to state it again tonight in front of the Chamber that children who required door-to-door transport would still receive it.
By way of a supplementary question, Mr. Naicker asked that, with the prepared statement and Elaine Norman stating that those who needed the support would receive it, whether that was actually part of her legal obligations under this plan and also, Councillor Norman had stated in front of the entire Council that the scheme was voluntary, what were the Council’s proposals if everyone decided not to volunteer?
Councillor Norman replied that there was absolutely no compulsion on any parent to volunteer for this pilot and, as already stated, this could apply to all SEND children from all education provision in Redbridge, not just Little Heath. Any parent who wished to volunteer for a pilot scheme that would run from October to December could do so and no one would be compelled to do so.
(xv)Mr. Litkin asked the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Property & Planning, Councillor Coomb, the Plan as presented today referred to studies having already Council, Thursday, 21 July 2016
been carried out to assess the suitability of the replacement sites for the Oakfield clubs. Could the officers assure him that these studies were carried out by independent professional organisations with a brief to report freely and openly and to fully consult and consider the views of the Oakfield members and wider community, and that their conclusions were to be placed into the public domain?
Councillor Coomb replied that as part of the Local Plan process, independent planning consultancy, Cundall, had undertaken an Alternative Playing Pitches Sites Assessment this year.
The purpose of the report was to identify potential feasible alternative sites for the reprovision of sports pitches/facilities at Oakfield and Ford Sports Ground to address paragraph 74 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The study found that Hainault Recreation Ground and Forest Road were potential feasible and suitable locations for the reprovision of pitches and facilities at Oakfield, and that Seven Kings Park and Goodmayes Park Extension were potential feasible and suitable locations for the reprovision of pitches and facilities at the Ford Sports Ground.
Whilst the Alternative Playing Pitches Sites Assessment had identified these sites as having significant potential, the Council would still consider other appropriate alternative locations for the reprovision of existing pitches and individual clubs.
Members of existing clubs were not consulted as part of this assessment. However, in line with the recommendations of the Alternative Playing Pitches Sites Assessment, the Council would work in partnership with existing clubs, actively engaging and consulting them in the process of formally identifying alternative sites and in drawing up detailed feasibility proposals for the reprovision of existing individual sports clubs. This would be an ongoing process. In addition, the Council would also seek to involve other key stakeholders, such as relevant national sporting governing bodies and Sport England.
Councillor Coomb wished to point out that the Council was committed to ensuring that, in accordance with paragraph 74 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy LP35, the appropriate level and quality of reprovision was achieved at potential alternative sites.
By way of a supplementary question, Mr. Litkin asked what kind of a feasibility study was carried out because he just could not see how the playing fields that were there could be replaced (the PPS says that they could not be replaced)? He considered that there was nothing that could come up to the quality of those playing fields, so was this sale of the land merely for the case of earning easy money when the Council was down on the coffers?
Councillor Coomb replied that Cundell were a very respectable and professional operation and she was sure that the study was done to the best of standards.
(xvi) Mr. Kazmi asked the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Property & Planning, Councillor Coomb, where was the Council’s housing delivery data, published in the annual monitoring reports, showing the units completed, sourced from (e.g. council tax department, building control department or another data source)? Council, Thursday, 21 July 2016
Councillor Coomb replied that the Council produced an Authority Monitoring Report annually which formed part of the Local Plan. The purpose of the report was to provide information on delivery of housing units including affordable housing; provide information on key trends in the borough; identify the effects of planning policies on social, environmental and economic outputs; help determine how well the Council was meeting its objectives, targets and programmes; and inform and guide future plans and policies.
The latest authority monitoring report covered 1st April 2013 to 31st March 2014. The housing delivery data was set out in Section 3.7 of the report, and new residential completions for the monitoring period 13/14 were recorded in Appendix C. The next monitoring report for 1st April 2014 to 31st March 2015 would be produced in December this year.
By way of a supplementary question, Mr. Kazmi asked, what was the process and method used to gather this information and where was it sourced from?
Councillor Coomb replied that the sources of information for the monitoring report vary in accordance with the policy and/or monitoring indicator.
Much of the information on the performance of planning policies, including housing numbers, was largely based on information taken from the London Development Database which recorded planning permissions in Redbridge as part of the process of monitoring the Borough’s housing completions. These were tracked through to implementation, allowing the Council to produce data on completions and the development pipeline in addition to levels of approvals.
Data on planning permissions was collected and entered on to the LDD throughout the year, and thus, reporting normally was not possible before March of the following year to the reporting year, given the time needed to complete data and track the progress of planning permissions.
Other information required to report on the progress of planning policies was sourced from various Council departments, such as Corporate Policy, Building Control, Council Tax and also the Department for Communities and Local Government, Office for National Statistics and other relevant organisations.
(xvii) Mr. Babra asked the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Property & Planning, Councillor Coomb, in the period 2007/8-2015/16 how many new addresses had been incorporated into the Council’s land and property gazetteer?
Councillor Coomb replied that 9,406 addresses were added to the LLPG from 2007/08 to 2015/16.
By way of a supplementary question, Mr. Babra asked how a full list could be obtained in an electronic spreadsheet with the following headers: eastern, northern, full address, BLUP classification, creation date, state date and state type?
Councillor Coomb replied that she would have to get back on this and send a reply. She did not have this information at her finger tips but would make sure that this was forwarded on. Council, Thursday, 21 July 2016
(xviii) Mr. Qureishi asked the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Property & Planning, Councillor Coomb, why was it that fundamental planning considerations were being ignored, in direct contradiction with the Draft Local Plan’s guidance on achieving quality design, particularly in relation to tall buildings?
Councillor Coomb replied that the existing adopted planning policy framework for the Borough broadly consisted of the Mayor’s London Plan from 2015, the Redbridge Core Strategy from 2008 and Redbridge Borough Wide Primary Policies 2008. All development proposals were determined against existing positive adopted planning policies in relation to high quality design and tall buildings, and each case was treated on its merits. This would continue to be the case until the Local Plan was formally adopted.
The draft Redbridge Local Plan responded to the key challenges facing the Borough, such as population growth, high housing need, and set out an ambitious plan for the future development of the Borough. The policies and proposals contained within the draft Local Plan built on the existing adopted planning policy framework which already set a clear policy direction for achieving quality design in relation to tall buildings.
By way of a supplementary question, Mr. Qureishi asked why was it stated in the Plan that ‘tall buildings improve the built environment within the centre, the most notable example being Pioneer Point’, when this building was universally disliked by the vast majority of residents for its imposing nature and ill-effects on the local environment?
Councillor Coomb replied that the draft Local Plan recognised that tall buildings could bring forward major development that progress the drive for growth and investment and improve the built environment of key centres such as Ilford. Good design was subjective, and what constituted good design would vary from one person to another. The supporting text of policy LP27 Tall Buildings made it explicitly clear that tall buildings should improve rather than cause harm in the local context, that they should be developed in appropriate locations (such as Ilford town centre), and considered sensitively, taking into account the local context and character. In addition, LP27 required planning applications for tall buildings to contain an urban design analysis that demonstrates a design strategy in line with the criteria set out in LP26 Promoting High Quality Design.
(xix) Mrs. King asked the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Property & Planning, Councillor Coomb, as an estimate, how many of the units proposed in the draft Redbridge Local Plan would be flats of up to 2-bedrooms and how many would be houses of 3 bedrooms plus?”
Councillor Coomb replied that it was not possible to provide an exact estimate of how many homes in the Borough would be built as 2 bed flats or 3 bed houses over the Plan period.
However, policy LP5 – Dwelling Mix did seek to directly address this issue and increase the number of ‘family sized’ homes built in the Borough. Table 4 (on page 46 of the Local Plan) set out the Council’s preferred housing mix. This policy would Council, Thursday, 21 July 2016
be applied to all housing developments that came forward in the Borough. The Council would seek 50% of market, 50% of social rented/affordable rented and 40% intermediate units to be provided as 3 bed units or more.
The Council did not currently have a policy like this in the adopted Core Strategy from 2008. This was new. Policy LP5 of the emerging Redbridge Local Plan would seek to ensure that the Council could provide a range of units sizes that were needed in the Borough, particularly more ‘family sized’ housing.
By way of a supplementary question, Mrs. King asked where would they be located? - statistics to be broken down by Redbridge political areas or wards?
Councillor Coomb replied that she could not state where the size of units would be located. However, as set out in the previous answer, LP5 – Dwelling Mix would be applied Borough-wide to all housing planning applications which came forward in the Borough to increase the level of ‘family sized’ homes in all locations of the Borough.
(xx)Ms. Sharma asked the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Property & Planning, Councillor Coomb, what were the locations of the Council-owned sites in Ilford Town Centre that the Council was considering using for market-rate private housing development?”
Councillor Coomb replied that the Council’s Housing Zone bid submitted in July 2014 set out a number of opportunity sites in the Ilford Town Centre area, including the following Council-owned sites: Ley Street car park; Lynton House; Town Hall; Chapel Road car park; 22-32 Clements Road; 17-23 Clements Road; Town Hall car park; rear of Redbridge Library; and Kenneth More Theatre. No decisions had yet been made about whether all of these sites would be developed, and if so, what form of housing would be placed on them.
By way of a supplementary question, Ms. Sharma asked why was the Council considering using Council-owned land to fund market rate private housing rather than for desperately needed social housing?
Councillor Coomb replied that it was too early for decisions on individual sites to be made. However, as part of creating a sustainable community, the Council would consider all tenures as part of any future development.
(xxi) Mr. Fabian asked the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Property & Planning, Councillor Coomb, what were the likely market rate rents for 1 and 2 bedroom new build flats in Ilford that were proposed in the Plan?
Councillor Coomb replied that the Local Plan did not provide market rents in Ilford for 1 and 2 bedroom new build flats. Market rents would depend on the timing of scheme proposals and would be based on the market valuation of flats on completion.
By way of a supplementary question, Mr. Fabian asked as ‘affordable’ rent was defined in the Plan as 80% of market rate, in Ilford South which had wards categorized as being in the 20% most deprived in the country, who would be able Council, Thursday, 21 July 2016
to afford the ‘affordable rents’?
Councillor Coomb replied that an Affordable Rent was defined in the National Planning Policy Guidance as a rent of no more than 80% of market rent. Housing providers set Affordable Rents up to 80% of market rent or at the Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rate, whichever was the lowest. Affordable rents set at 80% of market rent would exceed the LHA rate. However, the Council had set lower percentages for Affordable Rents within its own stock and for grant-funded housing associations homes provided in the Borough of 60% for 1 bed properties and 65% for 2 bed properties.
Where new development attracted GLA funding, the GLA set a condition that new properties were let at Affordable Rents to create financial capacity in the sector to maximise the delivery of affordable housing at a time when the availability of public subsidy was limited.
Households working 16 hours or more were exempt from the Benefit cap of £23,000 and would receive sufficient benefit to cover their housing costs. The Council was working in partnership with the DWP to support people into employment; for example, Work Redbridge delivered outreach support to residents in the Loxford Ward, to ensure those residents living in the Borough’s most deprived wards had access to employment support.
(xxii) Mrs. Channer asked the Cabinet Member for Environment & Sustainability, Councillor Howard, what were the current pollution levels of NO2 for Ilford High Road, which was deemed in 2013 to be the second most polluted street in the whole of London; Chapel Road and Cranbrook Road, which were also found to have high levels of pollutants?
Councillor Howard replied that the Council did not currently have any air quality monitoring stations in Ilford High Road, Chapel Road or Cranbrook Road, so was unable to provide precise figures for NO2or any other pollutants in these roads. However, modelled air quality data, based on traffic flow, for the pedestrianised area of High Road, Ilford was below the EU annual limit value for NO2 which was 40 micrograms per cubic metre. There was an exceedance of 76 micrograms per cubic metre for NO2 on the centre of the traffic island of Cranbrook Road and High Road. However, this was not representative of typical exposure by members of the public to NO2 because residents did not live in close proximity to the traffic island and the NO2 concentration decreased as one moved further away from the traffic emission source.
Councillor Howard stressed that the Council took issues of air quality seriously. It had led a number of recent initiatives and had planned more. Previous work included greening and education projects at schools in the Ilford area. The Council also worked closely with the Mayor’s Office and just on Tuesday, in fact, the Mayor of London gave this Council an award for £1m as part of the Mayor’s Low Emission Neighbourhood Fund which involved construction and greening of the Ilford Garden Junction under the A406 at Ilford Hill which saw green and planting and trees in the pocket garden in that area. The Council had also been awarded £102,000 for a schools air quality and travel planning project.
By way of a supplementary question, Mrs. Channer asked how realistic was the Council, Thursday, 21 July 2016
Council’s forecast that the vast majority of the occupants of the town centre housing units would not possess cars and, therefore, not contribute to increasing pollution levels?
Councillor Howard replied that the draft Redbridge Local Plan in policy LP22 – Sustainable Transport, set out proposals to reduce pollution and improve air quality by delivering a more sustainable and efficient transport network in the Borough, which reduced car dependency and encouraged more sustainable forms of transport such as walking and cycling.
Further to this, in accordance with policy LP23 – Cycle and Car Parking, in areas highly accessible by public transport, such as Ilford, the Council would seek ‘low parking development’. LP23 also sought 20% of all parking spaces provided in new development to be accessible to charging points for electric and hybrid cars. The Council would also provide cycle parking in all new development. The Council’s approach to parking was in conformity with the London Plan 2015.
Lastly, the introduction of Crossrail in 2019 would further improve accessibility in the Borough, particularly in Ilford, and this would encourage residents to use public transport rather than the private car.
(xxiii) Miss Bass asked the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Property & Planning, Councillor Coomb, the population of Redbridge was growing; there were more and more youngsters and more schools were planned and yet the Council was planning to reduce the total amount of sports fields and make it less accessible if it closed Oakfield and Ford’s sports grounds. Was she not concerned about our children’s future health?
Councillor Coomb replied that obviously she was concerned about the health of the children, which was why the Council was striving in this Local Plan to build and develop good housing stock. As part of the evidence base to support the Local Plan, the Council had commissioned an Alternative Playing Pitch Site Assessment to establish if existing sports fields could be replaced with equivalent or better provision in the locality, in accordance with national planning policy. This work had identified scope for replacement of Oakfield pitches at underutilised sites at Forest Road Recreation Ground and Hainault Recreation Ground, and replacement of Ford Sports Ground pitches at underutilised sites at Seven Kings Park and Goodmayes Park Extension.
Councillor Coomb went on to state that policy in the Local Plan made clear that existing pitches and facilities needed re-providing before any redevelopment of these areas. In addition, existing pitches at Oakfield and the Ford Sports Ground were predominantly for private use by members and clubs. Any redevelopment of these sites would seek to provide new publically accessible open space for informal use.
The health and wellbeing of Redbridge residents was important to the Council. This was reflected by the inclusion of Policy LP18 on health and wellbeing in the Local Plan, and text at paragraph 3.29 which recognised that an integrated approach to this wide-ranging issue was needed.
By way of a supplementary question, Miss Bass asked, sports provision in Council, Thursday, 21 July 2016
Redbridge was poor; residents in Redbridge were not satisfied with local sports provision; in 2013/14, 57% were very/fairly satisfied; in 2014/15, this had declined to 53%; Redbridge adults sports participation was declining down from 40.6% in 2012/13 to 32% in 2014/15; club membership at Redbridge was 16.7% lower than the London average of 22.9%; move Oakfield and it would be even lower; surely there was a need to protect and retain good facilities to improve the health and wellbeing of residents? For the sake of the money the Council thinks it will get from the sale of Oakfield, was the Council not sacrificing our children’s future health and wellbeing?
Councillor Coomb replied that any sports provision would be re-provided at the same or better quality. And so those possibilities would still exist for those children and Councillor Coomb commented that, from July 25th, the first day of the school holidays, they would also be able to swim in Loxford pool.
(xxiv) Mr. Moth asked the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Property & Planning, Councillor Coomb, with regard to the Barkingside Growth area, would the Cabinet Member explain the difference of 309 between the figures shown in the Housing Delivery Table 3 (on page 38 of the Plan) and the supporting tables on Pages 156/157 taking into account that sites 126/127 were not located within this Growth Area?
Councillor Coomb replied that the Local Development Framework Panel asked officers to review the list of opportunity sites in Appendix 1 to clarify which sites were located in each of the Investment and Growth Areas, and those which were outside of these areas. This clarification exercise revealed that some of the opportunity sites were incorrectly listed under the Investment and Growth Areas and therefore needed to be moved to the rest of the Borough. Table 3 (on page 38) was not updated to reflect this exercise. However, it was important to note that there had been no increase in the overall housing numbers across the Borough. The number of individual sites and their indicative capacity had not changed. It was the distribution of these sites that had changed as a result of the clarification exercise. Councillor Coomb also emphasised that the Investment and Growth Areas were conceptual areas to illustrate the overarching strategic approach to development and were not intended to be prescriptive with definitive boundaries.
Councillor Coomb confirmed that Sites 126 and 127 in Appendix 1 would be removed from the Barkingside Investment and Growth Area, and Table 3 would be amended to ensure the correct housing figure for Barkingside (1,086) was included. Officers would ensure these changes were made during the consultation period.
By way of a supplementary question, Mr. Moth asked, had you checked any of the other growth areas to see that similar mistakes were not being made?
Councillor Coomb replied that she could assure the questioner that these figures would be checked very carefully.
Adjournment
At 9.15 p.m., the Mayor adjourned the meeting for 10 minutes. Council, Thursday, 21 July 2016
8. To receive petitions, which will stand referred to the appropriate Chief Officer in accordance with Standing Order 19. (COU/08/210716)
None.
9. Deputations relating to the Local Development Plan: (i) Oakfield Playing Fields and (ii) Ilford South (COU/09/210716)
The Mayor advised that two requests for deputations on the Local Plan had been received (one on Oakfield and the other on the effects on Ilford South) and asked that debate from Members on the issues raised in the deputations be reserved until Council considered the officer report, which was the next item of business on the Council agenda.
(i) The first deputation related to opposition to the proposals for Oakfield Playing Fields.
The deputation was from Howard Berlin, George Nolan, Max Shepherd, Rakesh Ravel, Joshua Feldman, Symran Varnes, and Matthew Holland.
Council noted representations made by Mr. Berlin, as spokesperson for the deputation, questions put by Members to the deputation and responses received.
Resolved: That Council thank the deputation for their contribution.
(Councillor Mrs. Ryan wished to record her concern that Ward Members had not been given time to ask questions of this deputation)
(ii) The second deputation related to the effect of the proposals on Ilford South.
The deputation was from Ms. Sharma, Mrs. King, and Mr. Babra.
Council noted representations made by Ms. Sharma, as spokesperson for the deputation, questions put by Members to the deputation and responses received.
Resolved: That Council thank the deputation for their contribution.
10. To Receive and Consider the Following Reports from Officers. (COU/10/210716)
10a Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030: Pre-Submission Draft (COU/10a/210716)
The report sought approval to the ‘Redbridge Local Plan 2015 – 2030: Pre-Submission Draft’ for publication (under Regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012) and submission (under Regulation 22) to the Secretary of State (SoS) for examination.
Copies of the Local Plan had been circulated separately with the agenda and had been made available on Redbridge i. Council, Thursday, 21 July 2016
An amendment was moved by Councillor Canal and seconded by Councillor Mrs. Dunn to delete the existing recommendations and replace with:
“That Council:-
2.1 Agrees to delete Oakfield, Forest Road, Barkingside, (Site No 135) from the development opportunity sites in Appendix 1 of the local plan
2.2 Agrees to increase the number of housing units at Development Opportunity Site 46 (King George/Goodmayes) Site 66 (Ford Sports Ground/ Seven Kings Park) and Site 99 (Open Land at Billet Road) to achieve the required housing target
2.3 Agrees to approve the now revised ‘Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030: Pre- Submission Draft’ (current draft circulated separately with this agenda for publication) (Regulation 19 consultation) for a statutory period and submission to the Secretary of State (SoS) for Examination in Public; and
2.4 Delegate authority to the Corporate Director of Place, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Property and Planning, to approve appropriate changes to the Submission version of the Local Plan and undertake any further consultation required, in the run up to and during the public examination process into the document, in response to representations received, requests from the Planning Inspector and any emerging evidence, guidance or legal advice.”
Following debate, the amendment was put to the vote and the result was as follows:-
FOR (22): Councillors D. Bromiley, P. Canal, M. Chaudhary, R. Cole, C. Cronin, C. Cummins, Mrs. M. Dunn, J. Haran, N. Hayes, Mrs L. Huggett, A. Kissin, B. Lambert, T. McLaren, Mrs S. Nolan, Mrs K. Packer, K. Prince, Mrs J. Ryan, T. Sharpe, M. Stark, W. Streeting, R. Turbefield and A. Weinberg
AGAINST (34): Councillors Mohammad Ahmed, Mushtaq Ahmed, J. Athwal, S. Bain, S. Bellwood, I. Bond, H. Cleaver, A. Choudhury, K. Chowdhury, H. Coomb, G. Deakins, L. Duddridge, R. Emmett, K. Flint, R. Hatfull, J. Hehir, J. Howard, F. Hussain, Z. Hussain, M. Javed, T. Jeyaranjan, B. Jones, B. Littlewood, P. Merry, B. Nijjar, E. Norman, A. Parkash, K. Rai, T. Rashid, A. Sachs, M. Santos, D. Sharma, B. White and N. Zammett
ABSTAIN (1): Councillor Bhamra (Mayor)
The amendment was declared not carried.
A second amendment was moved by Councillor Hayes and seconded by Councillor McLaren to amend existing recommendation 2.1 by adding the words in bold below:
Approve the “Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030: Pre-Submission Draft” circulated separately with this agenda for publication (Regulation 19 Consultation) for a statutory period and submission to the Secretary of State (SoS) for Examination in Public, subject to the amendment set out in recommendation 2.3 below and to add an additional recommendation (2.3) as follows:
“2.3 Agrees to delete existing LP27 on page 101/102 of the Redbridge Local Plan Council, Thursday, 21 July 2016 and replace it with a new LP27 as outlined below:
As part of a strategy to adopt a plan-led approach towards overall growth in the borough, planning applications for the development of Tall and Large Buildings will be supported in the following Tall Building Zones, as identified on the Local Plan Policies Map:
1 Ilford Metropolitan Centre in Investment Area One 2 East Ilford, Seven Kings District Centre, and Goodmayes District Centre in Investment Area Two 3 Gants Hill District Centre in Investment Area Three Outside of these areas planning applications for tall and large buildings will only be considered on sites in Investment and Growth Areas and in centres that (in both cases) (i) have good public transport (ii) where the character of the surrounding area would not be harmed or adversely affected by the scale, mass or height of the building, (iii) where the proposal relates well to the urban layout, streets, open spaces and public realm of the surrounding area; and (iv) The proposal makes a significant contribution to local regeneration All tall and large buildings in all parts of the borough will be assessed against the design criteria set out in LP26, and should: (a) integrate well with the site and surroundings, in terms of how buildings fit in with the street, and how they affect the skyline; (b) relate well to the architectural and historic context of the surrounding area of the building, and not impact adversely on heritage assets; (c) not impact adversely on the views having regard to the natural topography of the area; (d) not impact adversely on other buildings, public spaces and open spaces by reason of overshadowing; (e) contribute to improving way-finding, pedestrian permeability and improved access for the public; (f) incorporate the highest standards of architecture and materials, including sustainable design and construction practices; and (g) incorporate an appropriate public realm setting and ground floor active uses. Tall and large buildings will also be assessed against other relevant policies within the Local Plan in relation to mixed use development, amenity space, built conservation and sustainability.
Planning applications for the development of Tall Buildings will be required to contain an urban design analysis that demonstrates a design strategy for the building that meets criteria in LP26, and the criteria set out in this policy.
Implementation
1. The Council will update the Urban Design Framework (2004) in the light of changes in national, regional and local policy and to take account of the Redbridge Urban Council, Thursday, 21 July 2016
Characterisation Study (2014). 2. The Council will promote good design and ‘front-loading’ by encouraging: Use of its pre-application service Developer-led public engagement ahead of application submission, and Design review of appropriate major schemes. The Council will develop master plans for major opportunity sites within the Investment Areas. 3. Incorporate up to date guidance on Tall Buildings in the Ilford Framework for Growth SPD.”
Following debate, the amendment was put to the vote and the result was as follows:-
FOR (25): Councillors D. Bromiley, I. Bond, P. Canal, M. Chaudhary, H. Cleaver, R. Cole, C. Cronin, C. Cummins, G. Deakins, L. Duddridge, Mrs. M. Dunn, J. Haran, N. Hayes, Mrs L. Huggett, A. Kissin, B. Lambert, T. McLaren, Mrs S. Nolan, Mrs K. Packer, K. Prince, Mrs J. Ryan, T. Sharpe, M. Stark, R. Turbefield and A. Weinberg
AGAINST (31): Councillors Mohammad Ahmed, Mushtaq Ahmed, J. Athwal, S. Bain, S. Bellwood, A. Choudhury, K. Chowdhury, H. Coomb, R. Emmett, K. Flint, R. Hatfull, J. Hehir, J. Howard, F. Hussain, Z. Hussain, M. Javed, T. Jeyaranjan, B. Jones, B. Littlewood, P. Merry, B. Nijjar, E. Norman, A. Parkash, K. Rai, T. Rashid, A. Sachs, M. Santos, D. Sharma, W. Streeting, B. White and N. Zammett
ABSTAIN (1): Councillor Bhamra (Mayor)
The amendment was declared not carried.
The recommendations in the report were put to the vote and the result was as follows:-
FOR (32): Councillors Mohammad Ahmed, Mushtaq Ahmed, J. Athwal, S. Bain, S. Bellwood, A. Choudhury, K. Chowdhury, H. Coomb, L. Duddridge, R. Emmett, K. Flint, R. Hatfull, N. Hayes, J. Hehir, J. Howard, F. Hussain, Z. Hussain, M. Javed, T. Jeyaranjan, B. Jones, B. Littlewood, P. Merry, B. Nijjar, E. Norman, A. Parkash, K. Rai, T. Rashid, A. Sachs, M. Santos, D. Sharma, B. White and N. Zammett
AGAINST (21): Councillors D. Bromiley, P. Canal, M. Chaudhary, R. Cole, C. Cronin, C. Cummins, Mrs. M. Dunn, J. Haran, Mrs L. Huggett, A. Kissin, B. Lambert, T. McLaren, Mrs S. Nolan, Mrs K. Packer, K. Prince, Mrs J. Ryan, T. Sharpe, M. Stark, W. Streeting, R. Turbefield and A. Weinberg
ABSTAIN (4): Councillor Bhamra (Mayor), I. Bond, H. Cleaver and G. Deakins
Resolved: That Council (i) approve the ‘Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030: Pre- Submission Draft’ circulated separately with this agenda for publication (Regulation 19 consultation) for a statutory period and submission to the Secretary of State (SoS) for Examination in Public; and
(ii) delegate authority to the Corporate Director of Place, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Property and Planning, to approve appropriate Council, Thursday, 21 July 2016
changes to the Submission version of the Local Plan and undertake any further consultation required, in the run up to and during the public examination process into the document, in response to representations received, requests from the Planning Inspector and any emerging evidence, guidance or legal advice.
10b Scrutiny Annual Report (COU/10b/210716)
As requested by Overview Committee on 22nd June 2016, Council considered the Scrutiny Annual Report for 2015/16, which outlined scrutiny activity undertaken in the previous municipal year.
Resolved: That Council notes the Scrutiny Annual Report 2015/16 as set out in Appendix 1 to the report.
10c Corporate Strategy 2014 -18 - Two Years on (COU/10c/210716)
Council received a report on a review of the Council’s Corporate Strategy, which had been reported to Cabinet for endorsement prior to our consideration.
The previous version of the Strategy was presented to Council in November 2014 and had been reviewed to take into consideration changes in the strategic direction of the Council, budgetary impacts which had influenced service priorities, and to demonstrate achievements over the past two years.
The reviewed Corporate Strategy continued to provide the long term vision contained in the Council’s corporate priorities and identified key actions designed to deliver these priorities over the next two years and beyond.
Resolved: That Council agrees the draft Corporate Strategy 2016 Two Year Review document appended to the report.
10d Interim Arrangements for the Designation of the Council's Monitoring Officer (COU/10d/210716)
Members were reminded that every local authority had a duty under s.5(1)(a) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to designate one of their officers as Monitoring Officer and this post was currently designated in Article 11.2 of the Constitution as the Council’s most senior lawyer, i.e. the Borough Solicitor and Secretary (BSS) until 31st July 2016, and the Head of Legal and Constitutional Services (HLCS) from 1st August 2016.
Noting that the appointment of the first substantive HLCS, was unlikely to be completed by 1st August 2016, Council was asked to endorse the designation of the person who filled the HLCS post on an interim basis as the Council’s Monitoring Officer (applying the proviso in Article 11 to the Constitution) until the first substantive, employed HLCS, commenced their duties.
Resolved: That the Interim Head of Legal and Constitutional Services, Terry Osborne, be designated as the Council’s Monitoring Officer for the period from 1st August 2016 until the commencement in post of the first substantive Head of Legal and Constitutional Services. Council, Thursday, 21 July 2016
10e Alterations to Terms of Reference of Service Committees (COU/10e/210716)
Council was asked to agree changes to the terms of reference of two of the Council’s Service Committees arising from changes to the titles and remits of Cabinet Portfolios.
Resolved: That the terms of reference of two Service Committees be amended to reflect their Portfolio responsibilities as follows:
Strategy & Resources Service Committee
Leader Portfolio Finance & Support Services Portfolio Employment, Skills & Fairness Portfolio
Neighbourhoods Service Committee
Environment and Sustainability Portfolio Regeneration, Property & Planning Portfolio Housing Portfolio
12. To Hear Questions from Members and Replies Thereto, in Accordance with Standing Order 17 (COU/12/210716)
Question from Councillor Jones to the Cabinet Member for Children & Young People, Councillor Norman, could the Cabinet Member inform Councillors about the successful Foster Care Fortnight that was held in May, how the Council was supporting and encouraging foster carers and dispel some of the myths of foster caring?
Councillor Norman replied that the Council fully supported Fostering Fortnight. The specific activity the Council had undertaken included a variety of social messaging designed to highlight the positive benefits fostering could bring to both the foster carers and the young people. Specifically, this included a sustained media campaign in the local newspaper and news items communicated via social media.
By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Jones asked what were the longer term plans to increase the number of foster carers in Redbridge?
Councillor Norman replied that the Council was in the process of launching a new fostering campaign using the expertise of the Communications and Media Team. The idea was to develop a substantive campaign that differentiated Redbridge from other neighbouring boroughs. Running parallel to the advertising was the regular monthly information sessions that were held and we have found that an effective strategy in dispelling myths was direct communication with existing foster carers. This was done via the information sessions and foster carers marketing the service themselves through their networks. Additional work was being done with the Redbridge foster carers around linking training, bonuses and developing a tiered approach for foster carers which should reflect their take up of training and fostering competencies. In addition, a recent event for Redbridge residents interested in fostering was hosted by Citizens Redbridge and the Salvation Army to which children and families attended. There was a lot of interest and the details of fifteen prospective foster carers were taken and were being followed up. Council, Thursday, 21 July 2016
By way of a secondary supplementary question, Councillor Cole asked, could the Cabinet Member guarantee, or say, do care reviews take place when placements fail, as the evidence he had at the moment was that they did not?
Councillor Norman replied that she could confirm that they did. There was a process of disruption meetings when foster care placements fail and that was undertaken with the foster carers and child social worker and the supervising social worker and all those involved with the child.
Written responses
In view of the late hour, Council agreed that the remaining fourteen questions from Members would receive a written response. (Copies of the responses are attached at Appendix A to these Minutes).
13. To Consider any Matters that have been Requisitioned by Members under Standing Order 54.3 (b) (COU/13/210716)
None.
14. Business Motion: Xenophobia, Anti-Semitism and Hate Crimes (COU/14/210716)
In accordance with Standing Order 21.7, the Motion was treated as abandoned as the mover, Councillor Emma Best, was absent.
15. Any Urgent Business (COU/15/210716)
There was none.
Mayor Appendix A
Unanswered Council Questions
(i) Question from Councillor Nijjar to the Cabinet Member for Civic Pride, Councillor Hatfull
“Can the Cabinet Member explain some of the ways that Councillors and Members of the Public can report instances of fly-tipping and other enforcement issues?”
Answer from Cabinet Member
“Civic Pride and tackling fly tipping and dumped rubbish is a major priority of this Labour administration. We are determined to get fly tipping off the streets and to catch and prosecute those who dump in our borough, until residents get the message that – Redbridge is not a place to dump your rubbish.
Our Enforcement Officers thoroughly investigate all instances of fly tipping to identify and prosecute those responsible. Redbridge Enforcement Officers are out on the streets waiting to pounce on fly tippers, and we have a range of tools such as Mobile CCTV to discourage fly tipping.
Over the last 3 months we have had a large number of successful prosecutions in Court and these will continue until the problem is eradicated.
Where residents have spotted a fly tipper or have evidence that someone might be fly tipping in Redbridge they should contact our Enforcement Team by ringing 0208 478 4679 or emailing [email protected]. These contact details should also be used for a wider range of enforcement issues including reporting untidy front gardens.
Instances of fly tipping can be reported to the Council via the Redbridge i website, phone or email and the fly-tip can then be investigated and quickly removed.”
(ii) Question from Councillor K. Chowdhury to the Cabinet Member for Housing, Councillor F. Hussain
“Can the Cabinet Member inform Councillors what the Council is doing to improve the standards in private rented accommodation in Redbridge? In particular, with Houses in Multiple Occupation?’’
Answer from Cabinet Member
“The current enforcement service investigates approximately 1,000 complaints related to standards of private sector homes.
Licensing of rented properties has been shown to improve conditions in privately rented properties.
Page 1 The service is also proactively looking for unlicensed properties under the mandatory scheme to bring them into compliance. These properties are often in the worst conditions and are the most complained about from neighbours and tenants.
Cabinet is currently considering up to 29 conditions that Mandatory HMOs (three storeys and five separate households) must achieve before they are issued with a five year license. This will help improve the general standard of these premises.
The service is due to implement an Additional Licensing Scheme later this year. This will see all HMOs in the borough requiring a licence.
Cabinet are also being asked to consider a Selective Licensing scheme in 60% part of the Borough. If agreed, a significant proportion of privately rented properties will need to be licensed.”
(iii) Question from Councillor Sachs to the Cabinet Member for Health and Social Care, Councillor Santos
“With the rise of skin cancer in the United Kingdom, can the Cabinet Member for Health outline some of the ways we can prevent skin cancers this summer?”
Answer from Cabinet Member
“Over exposure to Ultra Violet (UV) light is the main cause of skin cancer. This can come from exposure to the sun, or use of sunbeds.
Some people have a higher risk of developing skin cancer – including those with Fair skin, Lots of moles or freckles Red or fair hair Had skin cancer before A family history of skin cancer
There are also several factors that affect your risk from sun exposure How much time you spend outdoors Your use of sun beds (artificial UV radiation) Your natural skin colour
General advice on the prevention of skin cancers is available through NHS Direct. The key prevention messages this summer are;
Avoid exposure to direct sunlight between 11-3pm Cover up if out and about during this time- wearing a top, hat, and sunglasses Regular use of sunscreen - with an adequate sun protection factor (SPF) and good UVA protection Avoid using sunbeds – they are not a safe alternative to natural sunlight Babies and young children should be kept out of direct sunlight as they have thinner, more delicate skin than adults. So their risk of getting sunburnt is much higher
Page 2 We will be promoting the national “Sun Smart Campaign” in Redbridge, and give advice to residents on how to stay safe in the sun.
We will promote the campaign via our Facebook and Twitter accounts.
And we will be distributing resources from Cancer UK through libraries, schools, children’s centres, GP surgeries, pharmacies and community groups.”
(iv) Question from Councillor Mrs. Nolan to the Cabinet Member for Health and Social Care, Councillor Santos
“Has Redbridge done any assessment yet on the Intermediate Care Service since the 48 beds at Wanstead, Heronwood and Galleon Wards closed?”
Answer from Cabinet Member
“The Council effectively have this matter under constant review. You may remember from your time as Cabinet Member that for the last 9 years the Corporate Director for Health and Social Care Integration has chaired a weekly meeting every Thursday morning with colleagues from Adult Social Care and the NHS. This meeting reviews by name every case where there is a potential delayed discharge. It has included Heronwood and Galleon and now the new intermediate care service.
I am delighted to report that during both the transitional phase and new services there have been no significant issues to address or no concerns in relation to capacity.
Further, the Health Scrutiny Committee has been keeping this matter under review. I understand that it has received reports from NELFT at one of its most recent meetings.”
(v) Question from Councillor Mrs. Ryan to the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Property and Planning, Councillor Coomb
“What were the CIL proposals for the area of Hainault station and what was the CIL amount for the Kelvin Hughes site and, what has happened to it? When will ward councillors be provided with that information please?”
Answer from Cabinet Member
‘The following suggestions were received for Hainault Ward or around Hainault station during the public Local CIL receipts consultation process undertaken in 2015:
Footpath (Next to John Bramston School) Park/Playground activities/equipment for small children at Elmbridge Road Facelift to New North Road around Hainault Station
All ward Councillors were subsequently consulted on the suggestions received during the public Local CIL receipts consultation process in 11 December 2015. All suggestions considered to be a priority by Ward Councillors and any views expressed were taken into consideration during the review and allocation process.
Page 3 Cabinet agreed in November 2014 that receipts from “smaller developments” (less than 10 dwellings or under 250sqm of non-residential floor space” would be determined under delegated authority by the Chief Planning Officer, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning , based on the outcomes of aforementioned consultation with the ward Councillors.
Decisions for the allocation of “smaller developments” local CIL funds were made under the delegated authority of the former Chief Planning and Regeneration Officer in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning, Councillor Coomb, on 16 March 2016.
The amount of money that was received in respect of the development Former Kelvin Hughes site (planning application 3444/13) was £68,088.65. The scale of the development was such that it is considered a “larger development”.
Cabinet agreed in November 2014 that the approach for allocating “larger development” local fund CIL (money received from developments consisting of 10 or more dwellings or over 250sqm of non-residential floorspace) would be decided by Cabinet on a North, South and West regional basis.
The Cabinet agreed that views previously expressed by ward Councillors would be summarised in an annual report to Cabinet along with the outcomes of the public consultation process to seek Member’s agreement to “larger development” local CIL receipt allocations.
Cabinet also agreed that any Local CIL receipts that were not fully allocated would be carried forward to the following year’s consultation and allocation process. No CIL local receipts were specifically put towards the creation or the improvement (facelift) of paths or footpaths, unless the work was included as part of the wider schemes/proposed work agreed at Christchurch Green or Onslow Gardens playgrounds.
No CIL receipts were collected within the Hainault ward from FY 2015/2016. The amount of £196 was brought forward from FY 2014/2015 receipts.”
(vi) Question from Councillor Deakins to the Cabinet Member for Housing, Councillor F. Hussain
“How many new Council homes have been built in the last two years, excluding those such as the ones at Manford Way which were already being progressed in May 2014?”
Answer from Cabinet Member
“The Manford Way schemes delivered 16 new homes in the Borough in 2015. There were no other new Council Homes completed between June 2014 and June 2016.
A purchase and repair programme completed in March 2015 which delivered 8 additional affordable homes for rent to homeless families.”
Page 4 (vii) Question from Councillor Best to the Cabinet Member for Employment, Skills & Fairness, Councillor Littlewood
‘’Can the Cabinet Member for Employment, Skills and Fairness advise whether he considers that the recommendations on page 29 of the Fairness Commission report are contravened by the proposal to scrap door-to-door transport for special needs children at Little Heath?”
Answer from Cabinet Member
“Proposal CHS 303 was passed at Budget Council in 2016, proposing alternative delivery models for SEN transport. The proposal relating to Little Heath School does not contravene the Fairness Commission recommendations on page 29 of the report.
There are no proposals to scrap door to door transport for Little Heath children. The Fairness Committee recommendation is about reducing social isolation and supporting independent living- in this context supporting young people to travel as independently as possible, in line with government guidance. We are offering young people and their families the OPTION to be part of a project which will explore travel assistance, including the use of muster points in the Autumn term 2016. The project has been described as a pilot because it will inform the development of a new policy.
There will be full consultation on the SEND transport arrangements involving young people and their families in the whole borough and the outcomes will be considered in co-developing the new policy.
In future, a range of travel arrangements may be available, including door-door transport, muster points and independent travel training.
The new policy will be considered by the Service Committee and Cabinet in early 2017, for full implementation from April.”
(viii) Question from Councillor Cleaver to the Cabinet Member for Environment & Sustainability, Councillor Howard
“Could the Cabinet Member please set out the Council's policy with regard to determining the charges to be made for parking in Council surface car parks in 2016/2017?”
Answer from Cabinet Member
“The Parking Strategy agreed by Cabinet outlined what we planned for Council car parks over the next 5 years and this included a review of charges in all car parks across the Borough and making sure car parks make enough income to be cost effective. Car park charges have been comprehensively reviewed to take into account inflation/income usage and each studied together with its usage and income and the prices have been structured to promote use or availability depending on the current usage. The strategy is to achieve 85% occupancy to maximise use but still offer some availability
Page 5 Short term parking has seen the biggest increase (20%) but these charges (1 hour and 2 hour bands) have not been increased since 2012. This increase reflects that and is also reasonably competitive when compared with other neighbouring Boroughs, e.g. Waltham Forest charge between & 80p-£1, Newham up to £2 for the first hour and Barking ranges between 50p-£1.60.
We get a number of enquiries about introducing the first 30mins free arrangements in off street car parks. Short term parking is encouraged on-street where there are generally less parking spaces and this provides more regular availability for those that just want to pop into nearby shops. The majority of car parks are intended for medium term parking and have the space to accommodate this. They are not always close enough to shops and businesses for motorists to make use of this facility and return to their vehicle before the ‘free’ session expires.”
(ix) Question from Councillor Deakins to the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Property and Planning, Councillor Coomb
“Will you enumerate the organisations and activities which benefit from EU funding in Redbridge, and comment on the impact of the possible loss of such funding?”
Answer from Cabinet Member
“Unfortunately the Council does not have a list of organisations within the borough who receive such funding. I am not currently aware of any direct EU funded organisations or projects in the borough.
However, London Councils (of which we are members) sets aside £1M of the overall London Councils grant pot to bring in an additional £1M funding which is available from the European Social Fund programme (ESF) through its co-financing initiative to help residents improve their lives by learning new skills and finding better jobs.
The 2014-2020 programme is being procured across 4 separate sub-regions in London. Redbridge is part of the North/North East London ESF sub-region, along with 9 other boroughs.
There are 30 programmes within the North/North East London ESF sub-region for which funding has been allocated and the Council is involved (as a partner) in bids to fund projects in relation to two of these programmes:
Troubled Families with Shaw Trust as lead provider; and Older People (50+) employment project with Maximus as lead provider.
We will not know the results of these 2 bids until September 2016.
The Council has also agreed to be a sub-contractor for the Provision of Services; Skills Funding Agency ESF 16-18 Targeted NEET (Not in Education, Employment or Training) North/North East London – Bounce Back 2016/2018 programme.
It is likely that some organisations within Redbridge will participate in the delivery of other ESF funded projects which are yet to be allocated, such as:
Page 6 Supporting refugees into work; Supporting economically inactive BAME women into work; Supporting people with common mental health problems into work; and Other vocational areas.
The North/North East London ESF sub-region are also partners in some college led bids on:
in-work support (led by Newham College); training in the health and social care sector (led by Barking and Dagenham college); and Modern skills for Construction (also led by Barking and Dagenham college).
As far as the Council is aware, Brexit is not yet having an impact on the UK and London’s opportunity to bid for and participate in this programme.
The ESF Managing Authority has advised that as things stand there is no immediate change to much of what they are doing in implementing the ESF programme, however, Central Government is currently considering what impact the referendum result has on the level and timing of forward financial commitment.
Further information will be provided by Central Government as and when they are able.”
(x) Question from Councillor Best to the Cabinet Member for Civic Pride, Councillor Hatfull
“Will the Cabinet Member advise further on future plans for both the Hawkey Hall and Woodford Green library sites and commit to ensuring a working group with suitable local membership is set up to help determine the direction of any changes?”
Answer from Cabinet Member
“As you are aware, there was a petition of 1926 signatures that was presented to Council on the 17th of March 2016 and debated in line with the Council Policy. A response was presented to Council on the 19th of May and the officer’s comments in that report are still valid.
Work is only just commencing to look at all future options relating to the Woodford Green Library and Sir James Hawkey Hall site in line with the Council budget options for 2018/19. No decisions have yet to be made in relation to services provided by either building, and I have seen no proposals for the sites.
Professional property experts have started work on a wide range of feasibility options and once the options are developed consultation will take place with members and residents in the usual way.
Page 7 I am always happy to meet local residents and ward councillors to listen to their concerns, and fully recognise the need for local community facilities in Woodford Green.”
(xi) Question from Councillor Deakins to the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Property and Planning, Councillor Coomb
“Will the Cabinet Member publish a list of all the projects that were selected for CIL funding this year, and will she ensure that all those who suggested projects, including Members, are informed of the outcome of the exercise?”
Answer from Cabinet Member
“A list of all the projects selected for CIL funding will be reported to the Neighbourhoods Service Committee.
A new CIL/S106 Officer joined the Council in July this year. Prior to reporting to Neighbourhoods Service Committee, the CIL Officer will contact all those who suggested projects for CIL funding to discuss their proposed projects, to request further information if necessary, and to explain the process and next steps in more detail.”
(xii) Question from Councillor Mrs Ryan to the Cabinet Member for Civic Pride, Councillor Hatfull
“Has the Playing Pitch Strategy been signed off and agreed by Sport England and the Governing Bodies of Sport? If so, exactly when were these signed and agreed?”
Answer from Cabinet Member
“I am happy to confirm that the Planning Manager for Sport England confirmed the final changes to the strategy and signed off the draft. Each National Governing Body had individual and group seminars to confirm the sections relating to each of their represented sports. The final National Governing Body to sign off was the Football Association on the 9th of March 2016.
It has been accepted that there has been some confusion regarding the draft that was initially presented to the Service Committee, which prompted an enquiry from Sport England relating to missing text. This missing text was included in the final draft of the document and the changes verified and accepted by Sport England on 15th June 2016. This oversight was noted and agreed in the Service Committee meeting and subsequently changed in the published documents.”
(xiii) Question from Councillor Mrs Ryan to the Cabinet Member for Civic Pride, Councillor Hatfull
“Has the Director actually signed off the PPS and exactly when did he agree to adopt it and what date did Sport England and the Governing Bodies agree the Strategy?”
Page 8 Answer from Cabinet Member
“Yes. The Corporate Director for Health and Social Care Integration signed off the Playing Pitch Strategy.
As stated above, each National Governing Body has signed off the strategy, with the last governing body to sign off being the Football Association on the 9th March 2016. It has been accepted that there has been some confusion regarding the draft that was initially presented to the Service Committee, which prompted an enquiry from Sport England relating to missing text. This missing text was included in the final draft of the document and the changes verified and accepted by Sport England on 15th June 2016.”
(xiv) Question from Councillor Mrs Ryan to the Cabinet Member for Civic Pride, Councillor Hatfull
“As the Playing Pitch Strategy is a document that has been of significant interest to many members of the public and is of extreme importance to the Local Development Plan, does the Leader really feel that transparency has been shown by the Administration as the PPS is to be/has been agreed by consultation with the Director and Cabinet Member?”
Answer from Cabinet Member
“The Council followed the Sport England Guidance on the delivery of a playing pitch strategy. This has been endorsed by Sport England and the National Governing Bodies. The Council followed the appropriate governance process with the report going to the Health, Social Care and Civic Pride Service Committee and then Cabinet.
The Council can only follow the guidance from Sport England. The Planning Manager for Sport England and the National Governing Bodies were all part of the Steering Group. As part of producing the strategy, the consultation process allowed sports clubs and representatives from every site or club that had public access to their pitches including schools, the City of London, and privately run sports clubs to contribute to providing data and share their individual concerns regarding their sport.
The adopted document clearly includes this input and provides an action plan to provide guidance and direction of each sport based on their responses and those from the national governing bodies too. This was endorsed by Sport England and the National Governing Bodies as one of the most thorough processes undertaken in identifying pitches and usages.
Since the Playing Pitch Strategy has been adopted, officers are already in discussion with Development Managers for future development and investment in facilities within Redbridge which is incredibly positive.
I am happy that the process has been fully correct and transparent.“
Page 9