Minutes:
Question from Councillor Agrawal
“Could the Executive Member for Resources give the Assembly an update on the progress made by the Tenancy Audit Team since February?”
Response from Councillor Bramley
“The Tenancy Audit Team currently consists of two full time posts, dealing with reactive cases based upon referrals from estate officers and from the public via the Tenancy Audit fraud hotline, and two staff from the London Borough of Lewisham, who work for LBBD two days each week on pro-active tenancy visits based on information about areas and types of property most likely to be subject to illegal letting.
To date, 201 reactive cases have been referred to the Tenancy Audit Team, and 83 have been completed, four have been referred to Legal, and 114 cases are still under investigation.
Out of the 83 completed cases 30 properties have been recovered, mainly following illegal sub-letting, five fraudulent housing applications have been prevented, one was referred to Council Tax for recovery of overpayment, no further action was necessary in 47 cases.
Pro-active visits to 137 properties has resulted in 102 cases were no action was required, and 35 cases where further investigation was necessary. Of these, thirty are still under investigation, 2 properties have been recovered, and no further action was needed for the other three properties.
It is proposed to increase the capacity of the team through the creation of additional substantive posts. With greater capacity, and support from the Anti-Fraud and Internal Audit Teams, proactive reviews of the systems of applications, maintenance of the waiting list and lettings processes are planned, directed on intelligence gathered from the Tenancy Audit Team’s work to date, to prevent illegal tenancies occurring in the first place.”
Question from Councillor Rustem
“On May 5th 2006, in response to a comment that was made by Labour MP Margaret Hodge who said that “8 out of 10 voters in her constituency were contemplating voting for the BNP”, Councillor Rush responded to this estimation by her Labour MP by saying, ”I will now be asking ruling party members whether we should be looking at some form of disciplinary action against Mrs Hodge. We cannot have our local MP stepping out of line. The MP is there to represent us and a lot of people are very unhappy at what she has said”. So with these thoughts of hers in mind, will she be approaching the ruling Labour party members to institute some form of “disciplinary action” for Councillor Liam Smith for his comments that were directed at Councillor Neil Connelly’s mother which, according to witnesses contained an expletive and a derogatory and homophobic remark about her being a lesbian?”
Response from Councillor Mrs Rush
“No”
Question from Councillor Barnbrook
“It has been brought to my attention that a butcher is being prosecuted by Barking and Dagenham Council, which says he must soundproof his shop in Longbridge Road, Barking.
I understand the Council have received complaints from tenants living in flats upstairs about the noise of early morning chopping.
Whilst understanding the distress and discomfort this may cause local tenants, I feel that we should be promoting and supporting local businesses especially as this is one of the last remaining traditional butcher’s shops in the area. Since the Council owns the freehold, I feel it should pay for the soundproofing work and should stop wasting taxpayers’ money in a costly court case.”
Response from Councillor Fairbrass
“As the matter is currently before the courts it is not possible to comment in detail about this case as this may prejudice the outcome
Enforcement officers of the Council are fully aware of the need to be sensitive to both those who complain about nuisance and those alleged to cause it, and this applies whether one or both are businesses or residents. Their work is often a matter of balancing various priorities whilst upholding the law of the land.
We are aware of the importance of promoting business in the Borough and currently work with Barking and Dagenham Enterprise and other bodies in helping new and existing businesses to make the Borough a first choice for businesses. This is reflected in the consistently high scores that are achieved for business satisfaction with our regulatory services. Formal action is never taken lightly but only following appropriate investigation and where possible having given advice and support in preventing the nuisance.
The person involved in this particular case has used the local and national media to his best advantage. As in many cases the reporting does not reflect the full circumstances. In particular it has focussed on only one of a number of options that have been presented as means of preventing the problem and the advice and support that has been offered and subsequently rejected.”
Question from Councillor Bailey
“Barking Rugby Club is set to receive a gift of £250,000 of taxpayers money from this Labour controlled Council. A quarter of a million pounds. The gift is supposed to be for flood lighting and a stand. As far as I understand this is the biggest gift made by this council to a sporting body in the history of the council. It totally dwarfs the grant made to Dagenham and Redbridge Football Club made sometime ago and with many conditions to ensure the council receives value for money.
This grant as I understand was pushed through by the Chief Executive under 'Urgent Action' one would suspect after pressure by the Labour Group. A rarely used way of doing council business and one that does not ensure that there is full consultation and oversight. The grant to Barking Rugby Club was not was not properly examined or debated at the Executive nor did it at any stage come before the Assembly. The first time it was really acknowledged that this grant had been made was when it was discussed at a Scrutiny Management Board meeting. Then some members of the board were shocked and outraged by this proposal and others were left speechless. The Council employees brought before the board to explain this gift were then either silent, sought to pass the buck, or with their answers confuse or camouflage the situation.
When Labour have closed old peoples homes in the borough this project looks like a despicable waste of taxpayers money. When plans to develop the Barking Rugby club facilities were proposed sometime ago using the clubs own money they were rejected by the council due to local residents concerns. Those concerns have now been swept aside somehow like the situation has changed which is has not. Nor has any plan of supposed improvements come before the development control board for scrutiny nor do I think they will because Labour will not let them.
Now to me this project looks rather rushed and non transparent. To the taxpayer it may look decidingly worse. We are elected representatives and the taxpayer trusts us to manage their taxes on their behalf in a manner that is both prudent and transparent. I therefore respectfully request the majority group to explain its connection with Barking Rugby club. Why Barking Rugby Club is so deserving of such a large gift and other clubs such as Dagenham Rugby Club and Barking Football Club are not. Why the gift was pushed through under 'Urgent Action'. Also, why has the club which has already received considerable amounts of money above and beyond which it was supposed to have received at this moment in time not started any substantial work yet which it has received money for. Lastly I would like to ask does Labour think Barking Rugby club is more deserving than pensioners groups of this Borough.”
Response from Councillor Fairbrass
“I am pleased to be able to respond to Councillor Bailey’s question so that the good work being undertaken by the Club and the support being given by LBBD can be recognised.
The Club has embarked on a community programme to increase participation and this summer held a camp attended by 243 young people as well as providing coaching to 9 schools in the Borough delivering 18 lessons per week. The Club also support Robert Clack School through provision of one full time and one part time coach. The Club also has 336 youth players. In addition the club will be organising school tournaments to be held on the 14th Nov and 12th Feb.
As Councillor Bailey indicates in his question the process by which the Club received the funding was thoroughly reviewed by a recent Scrutiny Management Board, which Councillor Bailey attended and presumably raised his concerns. He had plenty of time, it was a long meeting and it concluded that in respect of the grant to the BRUFC no action was required. His comments about officers that also attended that meeting are totally without foundation and he should apologise to them.
The Club in receiving the support from London Borough of Barking and Dagenham have confirmed their ongoing commitment to development of rugby coaching to the community throughout the Borough. In addition, the development of the Jason Leonard Academy for Youth Rugby is giving young people from this Borough the opportunity to develop into better quality players and perhaps emulate Jason one day as an international player.
The grant that the Council has given to the Club now provides much needed additional facilities, particularly for young players both boys and girls. As for your remark that the club has not started any substantial work I invite you to drive past the club this evening and view the new floodlights. Your claim that the improvements did not go through the proper planning route is false. The application went through the normal process of planning which includes consultation with neighbours. One person responded, they had no objection to the application and considered the development to be beneficial to the area. You are member of the Development Control Board.
No objection was made by any member of the BNP at the relevant meeting of the Development Control Board.
Question from Councillor Jarvis
“I have been approached by a number of business owners about the current parking restrictions and traffic problems on the Heathway and at Dagenham East Beadles Parade and its affect on business. I take note of what has been done so far in regard to the Heathway and future development. However, the sad fact is that people are not using the Heathway and the shops at Dagenham East as they were once used and consequently this is having an impact on long established businesses there. The current parking facilities both at the Heathway and Dagenham East are very restrictive. There is not enough parking space and the costs of parking are becoming such that shopping away from these centres is becoming more viable. Those who want to do a quick shop or just have a hair cut now have to pay parking costs which sometime ago didn’t exist. Then we have the problem of sometimes over zealous traffic officers. Now I am not knocking traffic officers they do a very hard and difficult job but they could perhaps show more leniency. That said this should not detract from the problem of parking. This Labour controlled council wants to cram as many people into an area as possible but there is no thought given over to providing things like parking. If we are to help and ensure that businesses flourish on the Heathway and at Dagenham East we have to listen and help the shop keepers. I am therefore asking can we not loosen up parking restrictions further to allow people to shop on the Heathway and at Dagenham East and can we not provide free parking for the 1st hour in local carparks and those planned for in the future.”
Response from Councillor Fairbrass
“Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) such as those at the Heathway and Dagenham East are usually introduced at the request of local residents who find they cannot park within their area because of competition for available spaces from commuters and shoppers.
In designating CPZs every effort is made to accommodate the needs of businesses. The restrictions on hours and the charges for car parking are designed to make some allowance for shopping and other visitors to an area, but not so liberal as to undermine the very purpose of the CPZ which is to improve parking provision for local residents. I would remind the Councillor that parking bays have been provided in redesign of the Heathway shopping area. Shopping has increased since Tesco’s opened and I have no doubt that trade will increase further with the construction of new housing and the One Stop Shop and library at the Church Elm.
It is always open for a CPZ to be ‘fine tuned’ in terms of hours of restriction and charges levied for parking.”
Question from Councillor Knight
“According to information compiled from doctors Barking and Dagenham is an obesity hotspot. One in four adults has a serious weight problem. It would seem that whatever surveys anybody does in regard to health this borough is shown up as problematic or lacking. After all these years of labour governance labour is again shown up for not caring or neglecting people’s health. Its governance has been literally being life shortening for many people in this borough. Labour has cut back on health services done away with or tried to do away with local hospitals, shipped in cut price foreign doctors and nurses which foreign countries can ill afford to lose and generally seem to be running the NHS into the ground so it can be outsourced and privatised. They have created a two tier health service literally one for the rich and one for the poor. They talk alot about health improvements but the reality is very different like most things with labour. Now we are confronted because of labour with an obesity problem and its health related issues. Free swimming lessons should have been introduced years ago but they are only introducing them now. School playing fields have been bulldozed for housing developments. Boxing clubs have been rubbished by our council leader as ‘a sport for thugs’. Then hey presto we are too fat. I would like to ask the Labour group if they think they can do more? I also would like to ask is it not time to help the struggling boxing clubs in this borough as well as financing Gym equipment for local youth groups.”
Response from Councillor Fairbrass
“The Borough has an established Child and Adolescent Obesity Task Force which has been recently recognised as a model of good practice by DCLG in a recent publication on the Local Area Agreement.
The Borough has a list of ten sports which are priority areas for investment and development for young people and this includes Swimming, Football, Rugby and a range of other key areas for development. This is in recognition that there is not a ‘one sport for all’ solution and that although there is investment in all ten sports not every sport needs, or will receive, equal investment at the same time.
There is additional investment from a range of sources in other sports such as rugby, football through a range of partnerships with clubs such as the Daggers, BRUFC, West Ham United and our local schools. The Building Schools for the Future programme also has a substantial programme of investment developing our local schools into community hubs where physical activity and sport are part of the fabric of our communities. The borough has also spent millions of pounds in providing vastly improved sports facilities at all our secondary schools which includes new sport halls and all weather sport pitches. For those whose interest is in the physical arts we have also invested in dance studios as you can see in this years Molten Festival.
We are also investing with our partners in non-sporting physical activity with initiatives such as street dance for young people and the Walk in the Park programme. It is not true to say that the Government has cut back on our local health services we have an significantly increased budget for our PCT and two more new health centres are about to be opened, in addition to those opened during the past 4 years. The other sports being given priority are gymnastics, basketball, netball, cricket, dance, tennis and table tennis. Nothing involving potential injury to the head.”