Agenda item

(a) Allocation of social housing

Moved by Councillor Robert Bailey and seconded by Councillor Barnbrook:

“I move that Ken Livingstone's proposal to take complete charge over the allocation of social housing, built for key workers and low income earners, and allocate it as he sees fit, disregarding local housing waiting lists and local people would be a disaster for this borough.  Not only would this policy lead to further break ups in families and increased strains on community relations and cohesion but it would ultimately mean the council has less power in the allocation of housing.  At a time of increasing centralisation of powers by Livingstone at the expense of local councils the time is now to say no to his dictatorial tendencies and dictates.  I hope this council will agree in passing this motion against this proposal and I urge this council to fight tooth and nail against any other interventions by Livingstone to take control over how council and social housing is allocated in this borough.”

Councillor Bailey said his reasons for proposing the motion had been prompted by an article in the Evening Standard.

During the debate that followed Councillor Liam Smith, Portfolio Holder for Housing, said that the Evening Standard is no friend of Ken Livingstone, who did not say that he would take complete control over the allocation of social housing.  To clarify the situation Councillor Smith said that Ken Livingstone had initially asked for up to 25% of the allocation rights but, after representations from Barking and Dagenham and other Labour London Boroughs, he has reduced it to 5%.

Councillor Buckley queried why give anything at all, to which Councillor Smith responded that it is a very complicated and difficult situation but that if nothing was agreed the Government may allow the Mayor of London, whoever that may be, to take over.  At a recent meeting Councillor Smith had been lobbying for loft conversations and extensions in the borough and he said that if the council has to negotiate and compromise with Ken Livingstone to get money for these that must not be ruled out.  He asked Members not to vote for the motion because it is not correct.  Councillor Smith said the Council must get the best deal for its tenants and he asked for Members’ consent to negotiate with Ken Livingstone to do this.

Councillor Fairbrass reiterated that the Evening Standard is not correct and suggested that people should look at the relevant website.

In his final remarks, Councillor Bailey said that Ken Livingstone is a fascist and that he will get elected and then steamroller over all London Councils.

Following the debate the motion was voted on and rejected by a majority.

(b) London Riverside/tidal surges

Moved by Councillor Richard Barnbrook and seconded by Councillor Bailey:

“In the wake of the recent 'near miss' tidal surge along the East Anglian coast, this Council resolves to reject and resist in its present form the proposed London Riverside section of the Thames Gateway Development. The land should instead be used for a mixture of a high-tech light industrial park, nature reserve, recreation facilities and an experimental flood-proof and car-free design 'Mini-Venice' built to accommodate local families and linked to Barking by ULTRA monorail link and London by the DLR.”

Councillor Barnbrook outlined his reasons for proposing this motion, which included issues relating to the difficulties that could be experienced in obtaining insurance and the priority for more employment rather than housing to be brought into the borough as the birth rate was slowing down.

Councillor Kallar, Portfolio Holder for Regeneration, responded to Councillor Barnbrook’s comments by saying that Barking Riverside has already been granted planning permission for 10,800 new homes.  These new homes will provide a mixture of different styles of well designed, high quality accommodation for families, couples and for single people.  This development will be a high quality, sustainable housing and mix use scheme.  It will provide much needed housing, jobs, transport services and health, leisure and community facilities for thousands of people, including those currently living in the borough.  It will open up wider access to the River Thames to the people of Barking and Dagenham and provide an amenity that up until now, many local people were unable to enjoy or were even aware of.

In determining this planning application, the Council had full regard to the potential flood risk issues affecting the area.  The land upon which the London Riverside development will take place has been raised by between 7.5 metres and 11 metres above high tide, mainly using the spoil from the Channel Tunnel construction process.  By raising the land so significantly, the development of Barking Riverside will face very little risk of being flooded.  Even in the unlikely event of a flood occurring within the development, the landscape has been designed to accommodate the excess water through a series of small lakes and water features.  The Environment Agency and other key agencies in the development field have endorsed this approach and have supported the planned development. 

Developing in areas identified through the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment as having a potential flood risk is not in itself inappropriate provided that the necessary mitigating measures are in place.  In Holland for example, vast areas of housing and employment land have been built on which are at far greater risk of potential flooding than Barking Riverside without any adverse impacts.  The design and particular location of development has resulted in many high quality desirable developments being built in the flood plain.  The Council is also currently working with the Environment Agency to develop broader policy guidance for developers on how to develop sites within areas of potential flood risk.  This guidance is expected to be held up by the Environment Agency and other key partners as an exemplar of good planning practice for other council’s to consider.

Councillor Fairbrass referred to a BNP Mayoral campaign leaflet which stated that the BNP has already secured 5,000 new homes for Barking and Dagenham.  He asked where they were planned for and mentioned that Councillor Barnbrook had voted against any housing development at Barking Reach. 

Councillor Rustem responded that there had been reference to the 5,000 new homes at a Housing Futures meeting he had attended earlier in the year.  He then flagged up a response from the Labour party to a leaflet mentioning flood plains, saying that they would not build on flood plains, and asked why then were buildings now being built there.

Councillor P Waker, supported by others, queried the logic in saying that it was not right to build houses on the land but that it was okay to build factories and other facilities.

Councillor Liam Smith again referred to the 5,000 new homes mentioned in the BNP leaflet and asked where these new homes were going to be built. Councillor Rustem again referred him to the Housing Futures meeting.  Councillor Smith then asked if Councillor Rustem was referring to the 5,000 homes that the Council is building and Councillor Rustem said that was correct.

In conclusion Councillor Barnbrook referred to a recent meeting with English Partnerships where he said they had not been able to guarantee that the defences would be sufficient to prevent flooding problems.

Following the debate the motion was voted on and rejected by a majority.