Minutes:
GQ1 from Councillor Quadri:
“How many £millions for infrastructure works and other developments have been brought into Barking and Dagenham in the last six months?”
Response from Councillor Geddes, Cabinet Member for Regeneration:
“I cannot give an exact figure, but:
Barking Station revamp - £5m
London Overground extension £190m – presuming
we get this extension
EIB on new affordable housing £89m – there is scope for
£150m
Plus facility for another £61m
Schools funding at Barking Riverside £30m
Stage 2 road at Barking Riverside £10m
London East - Marstons Pub - Restaurant
under construction
London East - SOG acquisition c£5m
London East - junction works
Dagenham Dock - Stolthaven expansion under construction
Dagenham Dock - Chinnook Waste to Energy Plant under construction c£100m
Dagenham Dock –Thames Gateway Park expansion
Dagenham Dock - Provision of Ocado Distribution centre
South Dagenham west - Orion Park Kuehne and Nagel new logistics premises – plus £500,000 S106
Marks Gate Phase2 housing- £3m
Lymington Fields Phase 1B and 2 c£30m
Magistrates’ Court residential conversion and expansion c£3.5m
Additional TfL funding for public realm works
We are talking about a total in excess of £500m.
This will help next year and for some time to come. Clearly, what we are doing is working extremely hard to ensure that jobs created go to local people.
GQ2 from Councillor Channer:
“Can Councillor Rodwell, Leader of the Council and portfolio holder for Communities, explain what response there had been to this year’s White Ribbon Campaign, and why is this so important for Barking and Dagenham?”
Response from Councillor Rodwell, Leader of the Council:
“It has been a hair-raising experience!
By far the best result so far is Billy Bragg’s pledge post - 37,952 likes and more importantly 13,240 shares – a fantastic response.
I am really proud of all the officers involved. We are taking the White Ribbon Campaign very seriously. We are the first Council to have a women’s empowerment campaign.”
9.30 pm
In order to conclude the business of the meeting the Assembly agreed in accordance with the Council Constitution, Article 1, paragraph 5.3 to extend the meeting to 10 pm.
GQ3 from Councillor Ahammad:
“I am delighted to be informed about, and welcome, the innovative approach of the European Investment Bank in Barking and Dagenham. However, I should like to know :
· the total amount that Barking and Dagenham Council will be receiving.
· Is this a loan or a grant?
· Is there any agreement to paying the amount back and, if so, then more details, please?
· How this investment benefit our residents and will it benefit residents in Longbridge ward, the ward that I represent?”
Response from Councillor Twomey, Cabinet Member for Finance:
“Thank you for the question Councillor Ahammad.
The European Investment Bank (EIB) is very flexible in terms of drawing down and paying off loans. An initial loan of £89m has been agreed, which will be repaid over 30 years, though there is scope to make early repayment if the opportunity arises. Following further discussions with EIB, there is potential to borrow up to £150m towards the development of green energy and further regeneration in the borough
The investment on the Gascoigne Estate will impact on the whole borough. The properties will be of mixed tenure, making the Gascoigne a good place to live. It will help our young people who we want to remain in this borough.
The wider implications are that this investment will impact on the whole of the borough.”
GQ 4 from Councillor Jones:
“Can the Cabinet Member for Finance please give an update on the Council’s position on paying staff the increased £9.15 living wage? Does the Cabinet Member agree that the increase should not be paid for by the 2.2% pay increase but instead should be implemented ASAP with the 2.2% increase paid as well on top of this? We have continually supported both our staff and the living wage and so I take it the Cabinet Member would agree the staff would look unfavourably if he were to use their hard earned pay award in order to continue a commitment made under the last administration?”
Response from Councillor Twomey, Cabinet Member for Finance:
“Thank you Councillor Jones for highlighting that, after a delay, the need to pay our hard working staff a fair living wage is now more widely accepted.
In terms of the question, of course we would like to do exactly what Councillor Jones suggests. The issue is one of balance in the exceptionally challenging financial times all Councils find themselves operating in. Accordingly we have to balance our commitment to pay people fairly for the excellent work they do for the Council against the need to protect jobs and services to residents. I believe that our staff understand this tension as we have been very open about the challenge of saving over £50m from our budget in addition to the £93m that has already been taken. There is also the issue of pay differentials that we need to consider, ensuring that there is sufficient difference between the pay rates of staff on the lower scales and their supervisors. The implications of the increase in the London Living Wage need to be worked through.
We are a Council that wants to pay its staff fairly but we are also a Council that wants to protect as many jobs as possible and therefore it does not make sense to rush such a decision.”
GQ 5 from Councillor L Waker:
“Could the Cabinet Member for Finance please explain why the additional appointments of a political assistant, scrutiny officer and leader’s and members’ service manager are all being appointed at the top end of each pay scale? Could he also clarify why it is felt there needs to be more political assistance at a time in which we are asking all other departments to make cutbacks on their support?”
Response from Councillor Twomey, Cabinet Member for Finance:
“Thanks for your question. The short answer is no, we have not agreed to pay at the top end of the scale. They have been shown at the top end of the scale for budget purposes, to show the full budget cost of each appointment.
In 2012 we were described as “…an authority with a reputation for leading the way in shaping local policy…”
We needed political assistance then and we need it now to continue raising the profile of the borough, supporting significant change in the Council and to establish the Council’s profile on the London agenda.”
GQ 6 from Councillor Gill:
“Can the Cabinet Member for Finance please explain why the new £13m Barking Leisure Centre was not opened as scheduled in September 2014 and the reasons for the delay? What is the new projected timeframe for the completion of this project and will the Council enforce financial penalties against the build contractors?”
Response from Councillor Twomey, Cabinet Member for Finance:
“Thanks for this question; I am glad it has been raised. I too have raised issues on slippage in terms of what we do.
The original programme was amended due to extensive archaeological investigations undertaken by the Museum of London. This resulted in a revised contractual date of 28 November 2014 completion; a 61 week period.
On top of that the contractors, Wilmott Dixon Construction (WDC), are reporting a 9 week delay to the contract completion date (28th November 2014); the new completion date being 30 January 2015.
They have good reasons for this delay - build being slower than programmed for, the construction in relation to the ground works, the external walls, installation of the main pool tank and construction of the circular staircase. This has had a detrimental effect on other elements of the build such as the installation of the steel works and installation of the roof covering. Officers have had extensive discussions with WDC, including their Managing Director, in an attempt to mitigate these delays. As a result of this, the amount of labour has doubled on site and the contractor is working weekends up until Christmas and is looking at working over Christmas as well.
Within the contract we can claim damages from the contractor for the loss of revenue for the delay in completion of these works. The contract allows the Council to claim up to the value of £41,855.00 per week, providing a potential of £376,695.00 of damages, if the full 9 weeks’ delay is claimed. This cost will need to be fully evidenced prior to being able to be claimed through the contract and obviously this cost is being disputed by the contractor. We will update Members as and when that happens.
We are arranging other meetings with WDC to ensure a smooth transition between handover and opening.”
GQ7 from Councillor Bartlett:
“The Interim Housing Director recently wrote to staff advising them that he is implementing a new structure that will consist of four Director posts (one Corporate and three Divisional) and that he has consulted staff about these proposals.
This would mean that we will have increased from one and a half Directors to four Directors in four years, and in terms of a permanent establishment from, one and half to four Directors in just six months, with no Member agreement.
Does the Cabinet Member for Housing agree that it would be better if JNC grade increases were not allowed without the specific agreement of this Assembly?”
Response from Councillor Ashraf, Cabinet Member for Housing:
“Thanks for your question.
Since I have been appointed as Cabinet Member for Housing, I have asked for some changes, such as bringing Capital Delivery into Housing.
The Housing service previously comprised one Corporate Director and two Divisional Directors. There has been no increase in the number of Corporate Directors. There is now just one additional Divisional Director in the structure. This post will lead on managing and delivering the Council’s £100 million housing capital programme and on leading the transformation of the repairs and maintenance service.
The top level Chief Officer structure of the new Housing Directorate was approved by the JNC Salaries and Conditions Panel in September 2014, being a Panel established under the Assembly in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.”
GQ8 from Councillor Bartlett:
“Does the Cabinet Member for Health agree that NHS PFI contracts have not provided value for money & have resulted in reduced spending on local health services with the enhanced pressure of closure of A&E units?”
Response from Councillor Worby, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health:
“I could just say yes.
I think we know here in Barking and Dagenham with the changes to BHRUT what a disaster the PFI is. I well remember Councillor Smith when he was Leader saying that he had concerns.
These challenges facing us are on our local agenda. I, along with Councillor Keller the Chair of the Health and Adult Services Select Committee, are watching this situation very closely.
Our local hospital has not get anywhere near the national target. It has failed every week at Queens.
It is not clear what the government is going to do.”
GQ9 from Councillor Mullane:
“Can the Cabinet Member for Finance please explain what actions are being taken to tackle the causes of the projected gross overspend of over £5m in the Children's Services Department, as highlighted in recent Cabinet meetings?”
Response from Councillor Twomey, Cabinet Member for Finance:
“Thank you for the question Councillor Mullane. It is slightly reassuring that we are looking at this historically.
The recent Cabinet budget monitoring report, as have those earlier in the year, includes a significant pressure in the Children’s Services budget for the current financial year. The same report also includes a specific appendix which focuses solely on the financial position in Children’s Services, the causes of the pressures, actual actions taken, plus potential actions identified and that the large demographic pressures and new Council responsibilities for Children’s Services have been recognised in the Council’s medium term financial strategy.
There is far more detail in that appendix than I can go into tonight and I would recommend that all Members take the time to read it and the last Budget Monitoring report that went to Cabinet.”
GQ10 from Councillor Reason:
“Could the Cabinet Member for Housing please provide an update on Althorne Way and whether or not the original proposals for the site are still being delivered on time or if a new plan is being drawn up for the site?”
Response from Councillor Geddes, Cabinet Member for Regeneration:
“Thank you Councillor Reason. I am answering this question rather than the Cabinet Member for Housing, as it relates to the regeneration portfolio.
The masterplan for Becontree Heath went through Cabinet in October 2013.
I understand you have been trying to get information about the project for some time.
The decanting has gone as expected. Demolition is scheduled to start in March 2015. I would like that brought forward. I am not sure of a specific timetable; it has been a project that I thought would last longer and I am quite pleased we have got as far as we have done.
I would be happy to meet with Councillor Reason and her colleagues either side of Christmas to discuss this further.”
GQ11 from Councillor Young:
“Can the Cabinet Member for Housing please advise Members if any of the EIB borrowing will be used to invest in other major housing projects in the borough or will all EIB loan money be concentrated on the Gascoigne regeneration project?”
Response from Councillor Geddes, Cabinet Member for Regeneration:
“A substantial amount will go to Abbey Road.
We need to spend £89m in the next three years and have the potential to borrow up to £150m from the European Investment Bank towards further regeneration and the development of green energy in the borough.
I am happy to meet with Councillor Young to discuss any ideas he might have.”
GQ12 from Councillor Young:
“Could the Cabinet Member for Finance please explain why the Council now requires a full time Chief Executive when the national agenda is about shared appointments and especially during a time of increased budgetary constraints?”
Response from Councillor Twomey, Cabinet Member for Finance:
“Thank you for your question. I am not sure it is national policy – it is Eric Pickles’ policy.
I have noticed very recently that the report by Lord Adonis into the leading Tory tri-borough – Hammersmith & Fulham, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and Westminster City Council – says it is not the way forward to have a shared model. Lord Adonis said that each borough should have its own sovereignty to maintain its decision making process. The Tories will try to push this shared model forward, but it is not for us.
A full time appointment is now needed.”
GQ13 from Councillor L Waker:
“Does the Cabinet Member for Housing agree that the delays in building Phase 1 of the Leys site are both unacceptable and unnecessary and also that an independent soil contamination test after demolition should have been undertaken rather than allowing the builder that stands to gain from any work undertaken, to do this. This and other problems have resulted in delays which have led to even more costs following a Travellers occupation and the costly delays appear to be continuing.”
Reply from Councillor Ashraf, Cabinet Member for Housing:
“Thank you for your question.
The delays are disappointing. In 2011, along with Goresbrook Village and the much larger Gascoigne Estate, it was agreed to take a Development Partner Panel approach to these three estates. In the summer of 2012 this changed and it was agreed to allocate £12.6 m from the Housing Capital Programme to complete this project. In 2013 even the lowest tender exceeded the approved budget and other options were requested by Members.
In early 2014 it was agreed to bridge the budget gap by selling 19 of the properties to be built. Subsequently asbestos was discovered and we are now viewing the level of contamination to see how best to proceed.
I am hoping to meet with ward members and other colleagues early in the New Year to see how we can accelerate progress.
These delays are regrettable.”