The witching hour – 7.30pm – is nearly upon us. FYI: Labour Councillor David Edgar was first to arrive in the Council Chamber – significantly before any other councillor. There was time to wonder whether everyone else had had a better offer before others started to arrive. The press table is bursting at the seams: there’s two reporters here tonight (clearly we must be expecting a riot or something – there’s only been one for a couple of meetings now).
The agenda looks thin: let’s see what’s in it. Remarkably little, in terms of Council business, it seems. There’s petitions and questions from the public and questions from councillors. There’s a pay policy to be adopted and a calendar of meetings to agree: that’s not much. We should be home before it’s dark… unless there’s something lively in the petitions. There’s a fair sprinkling of people in the public gallery: something must have attracted them here.
We begin with the minutes, the minutes of various scheduled and budget meetings. They’ve gone through without question – that’s not usual.
The first petition is from Shamsul Rahman, about East End Homes. You can read about their issue in the featured story on our website: here – http://eastlondonnews.co.uk/residents-protest-at-east-end-homes-redevelopment-plans/ and here – http://eastlondonnews.co.uk/residents-are-doing-it-for-themselves/
The speaker, on behalf of the residents, is doing a very good job, speaking very clearly about the issues. It would be worth looking this up on the Council’s website, where there is a film of proceedings. Unfortunately, his four requests are not all realisable. In particular, the fourth demand is for the Council to consider taking the Holland estate back into Council ownership if landlord East End Homes (EEH) doesn’t shape up. The Council has no power to do that.
Cllr Shahed Ali is the first to ask a question. He asked if the residents knew that EEH was doing a feasibility study. One of the residents explained that there had been confusion, during which EEH had taken certain comments from some residents as being in favour of demolition. When residents realised what was happening, they had a proper vote against demolition – but EEH is still quoting the original confusion.
Labour leader Cllr Rachael Saunders is next: she speaks so fast, it is impossible to follow what she is saying. The only thing that is clear is that she thanked residents for meeting her and Rushnara Ali, Labour candidate in the General Election, the previous evening.
One of the Conservative councillors has asked if the estate is “prime real estate”: the residents say yes, it probably is – there is a great deal of development in the area. They value the community on the estate more highly than the land value.
Deputy Mayor Cllr Oliur Rahman is next: he grew up near the estate and has friends living there. He says that EEH is behaving disgracefully. He points out that the Estate Management Board has voted against demolition and asks how EEH has responded. He points out that the ward councillors have been involved with the campaign. The residents reply that EEH has taken no notice, but has cancelled meetings in a way which appears unhelpful.
Cllr Rachel Blake is now speaking. She thanked the residents for coming to the Council and she wants to know when EEH first spoke to residents. The reply is that last March, some residents had a leaflet through the door.
Cllr Rabina Khan is now speaking. She thanked the residents for coming to see her some weeks ago. She refers to the Transfer Agreement, which appeared to rule out demolition, and also refers to public money having gone to EEH to refurbish (not demolish). She says the Mayor is in full support of the residents. She refers to the demolition notice: she believes that it shows that the landlord went behind residents’ backs with their plans. She also referred to the minutes of the Board: she believes that EEH is acting suspiciously and she and the Mayor will meet with residents again. She has now asked the Council to take an emergency motion: let’s see if Labour permits this (they usually block motions from Tower Hamlets First Councillors).
Cllr Khan is now reading the emergency motion, which is to be moved by Cllr Gulam Robbani. The Speaker has asked councillors if they will take the motion: THF councillors and the Tories have put their hands up in favour straight away; Cllr Saunders then put her hand up, which was followed by the other Labour councillors putting their hands up.
Officials are saying that Cllr Khan moved the motion, and Cllr Robbani seconded it.
Cllr Rachel Saunders is now moving an amendment: the biggest bit of it refers to “Rushanara Ali MP”, and other councillors are pointing out to her that Ms Ali is not an MP at the moment as there is a General Election on. It really is impossible to hear what Cllr Saunders has actually said.
A Tory councillor has not pointed out, on the microphone, that Ms Ali is a candidate, not an MP. Cllr Saunders agreed to delete “MP” from her amendment. In which case, though – why mention the support of Ms Ali? This has to be a party political amendment (not that we can hear it).
Cllr Oliur Rahman is now speaking: he is not backing the amendment, which he sees as just an election campaign stunt. Several Councillors are now speaking at once: in particular Cllr Shiria Khatun.
Cllr Shahed Ali is now speaking: he is pointing out that Stock Transfer was bound to lead to disasters such as this (and that Labour drove Stock Transfer through). He is citing resident dissatisfaction on other EEH estates, particularly with redevelopments which have added little, if anything, to the stock of social housing in the borough. He is concerned at what residents are paying out in order to keep EEH in business, and also that EEH managers are over-riding the actions of the Board members. Unfortunately, Cllr Ali appears to be confusing two kinds of Board members: those on the Estate Management Board and those on the overall EEH Board.
Cllr Peter Golds is next to speak. He points out that the Holland is a well built and well designed pre-war LCC estate, full of family housing – and it is desecration to demolish estates like this for speculation or to erect modern monstrosities. He believes the estate should be listed. He is making a comparison with One Housing Group properties on the Isle of Dogs, particularly the Kingsbridge estate – where, again the landlord seems to be discussing its intents with everyone but the residents.
Cllr Rachel Blake is back: she supports Cllr Saunders’s amendment and believes the last speaker is absurd, as the Tory Party has recently announced it wants Councils and Housing Associations to sell off homes.
The Speaker is now moving to a vote on the amendment: 19 are for (all Labour) and the Tories and THF are against.
Cllr Robbani is now speaking. He will concentrate on the residents: he also grew up in the area and he and his fellow ward councillor have been to all the relative meetings and support the residents. He has clarified that there are two boards: he is on the main board, and he has raised residents’ concerns there. He has spoken at length to EEH officers: in particular, he was today trying to persuade EEH to meet residents, but they were very unwilling.
Another THF councillor, whom we cannot identify from the press table, is now speaking: urging for Ms Ali’s name to be taken out of the motion, so that it can concentrate on the residents.
Cllr David Edgar is speaking: this is unusual. He wishes Councillors would agree to mention the support Ms Ali gave when she was an MP; and he also believes that the support of Mayor Rahman will be important in persuading EEH to change their minds.
Cllr Ohid Ahmed is now giving a general speech in favour of the residents. He also wants to see social landlords who develop estates having much more than 25% of social housing properties in what they are building. It isn’t quite as simple as that, but it’s a good political point to make (which no other political party present has made).
Cllr Abjol Miah is now speaking: the only male THF councillor not in a suit! He is reminding the council that he campaigned against stock transfer and believes vested interests misled residents to vote in favour of transfer. He believes the fruits of those earlier decisions are now becoming apparent. He urges all councillors not to play political football with the residents and their concerns. He believes we need to be tougher with social landlords – but let’s keep the motion party-neutral.
Cllr Rabina Khan is now replying to the debate. She has called for, and received, a round of applause for the petitioners. She says that in the past she has been criticised social landlords in the borough: but now others have come round to this point of view. She called for all parties to campaign for legislation to make social landords more accountable.
The Labour amendment has been defeated by THF and the Tories. All parties have voted for the susbstantive resolution. Now we are back to petitions: this will be reported on in Part 2.