East London Councillors Continue to Cost More

Newham Council has this week published the cost of local Labour councillors, the third year such figures that have been published since the last elections in 2006.

East Ham Conservatives have analysed these figures to produce some 3-year totals which provide shocking reading for such a deprived borough.

I have quoted the text below from Neil Pearce, who ran the very close campaign in the Royal Docks by-election in March.

It seems that Tower Hamlets and Newham Councils have many things in common - geography, deprivation, failures, Labour-controlled councils, and an amazing ability to help themselves to taxpayers money!

"This week the London Borough of Newham released its third annual bill for councillors since the Mayor Sir Robin Wales and 60 councillors were elected in May 2006 and having read the details I am writing to inform you of my complete disgust at what is happening in the Town Hall. Newham is a poor borough. It has swathes of child poverty, in numerous parts it is composed of sink estates and riddled with crime and the average salary is £25,000, so what an insult it is to find out that since the last election we have paid Sir Robin Wales and his councillors £3.7 million in allowances, expenses and perks. By the time they seek re-election next May this figure will be £4.9 million of our Council Tax. I am sorry to say that as people in Newham are crushed by bills and face losing their homes and jobs in the shake-out of the recession, these costs are immoral.

Here are the facts:

• Last year the Town Hall put up Council Tax by 3.2% whilst the councillor allowance bill represented 1.8% of that increase
• Sir Robin Wales has pocketed £228,234 since 2006
• His Deputy Mayor Cllr Christine Bowden has accrued £154,215 and even claimed £123 for food and travel last year
• Four of the Mayor’s councillors have been paid over £100,000 each
• 81% (45 of 56) of Labour councillors have been paid extra money on top of their basic £10,627 allowance
• Councillors in Beckton and East Ham Central have cost more than a quarter of a million with staggering bills of £296,010 and £268,524 – larger than what even Sir Robin Wales has been paid
• Royal Docks councillors cost us £178,00011
• Labour councillors are being paid £89,621 extra to advise the Mayor on getting council staff to organise fun days"

Christchurch Summer Fete

This Sunday, 12th July will see the annual summer fete at Christchurch on Manchester Road, Isle of Dogs (near Island Gardens DLR). The event runs from 2pm until 5pm and all are welcome.

Among the many attractions, we will be there selling our home-grown organic tomato plants, to help the fund-raising on the day.

Hope to see you on Sunday!

Fight the Flights on Newham Failures

In the interests of full information, I have copied the text below from a leaflet prepared by the Fight The Flights campaign group (local residents campaigning against the expansion of London City Airport).

"Newham Council failed to contact and notify residents and previous attendees on this planning meeting.

Newham Council failed to disclose that they are shareholders in AIG, previous owners of London City Airport.

Newham Council failed to disclose that they are shareholders in General Electric 50% owners of London City Airport.

Newham Council failed to disclose that they are shareholders in Credit Suisse the other 50% owners of London City Airport.

Newham Council failed to disclose that the Chairman of Newham Homes is Richard Gooding - Chief Executive of London City Airport. Many properties around the airport are managed and run by Newham Homes giving the Chief Executive of London City Airport access to sensitive information.

Newham Council failed to address flights exceeding 69db. At 69db the airport is required by law to buy the properties. How can they buy council properties around the airport? Especially as Richard Gooding Chief Executive of London City Airport would be requesting to buy properties from Richard Gooding Chair of Newham Homes. A massive conflict of interest.

Newham Council failed to disclose – under the Freedom of Information Act – how many of the properties consulted on airport expansion are run by Newham Homes and that Richard Gooding of London City Airport may have had undue pressure on.

Newham Council failed to disclose that Richard Gooding Chief Executive of London City Airport was on the board on Newham Primary Care Trust giving him access to sensitive health information like asthma readings around London City Airport.

Newham Council failed to disclose that Richard Gooding Chief Executive of London City Airport had an unfair advantage over other businesses and residents by having access to Newham Homes and Newham Primary Care Trust. (Richard Gooding remained on Newham Primary Care Trust during planning and consultation but quickly left just before the actual formal meeting in October)

Newham Council failed to protect tenants. Residents living in Newham Homes are exposed to toxic air levels around the airport. If they complain about noise or air pollution in their home their complaints are overseen by the airports Chief Executive in his role as Chair of Newham Homes.

Newham Council failed to give accurate information on the consultation process and has ignored many Freedom of Information requests into the consultation and in doing so breaking the law.

Newham Council failed to receive or substantiate jobs data. At the last expansion, London City Airport promised jobs would go from 1100 to 4000 .In fact they created in the region of 500.Most of these in security and policing which the taxpayer pays for.

Newham Council failed to get London City Airport to comply with local employment targets as set out in the Section 106.

Newham Council failed to reveal that many jobs from the likes of Cityjet are actually counted in Dublin, are registered in Ireland and employees are paid in Euros. This is not job creation for Newham.

Newham Council failed to address that most companies involved with London City Airport , such as land freeholders Civil Aviation Properties Limited are all based in tax free offshore havens like Jersey and contribute little of nothing to Newham or the UK tax system as a whole.

Newham Council failed to get a proper layout and report into the Public Safety Zone (Crash Zone).This will expand putting hundreds of people and homes at risk and halting development.

Newham Council failed to do anything or recognise that Connaught Bridge is in a Public Safety Zone (Crash Zone)

Newham Council failed to get London City Airport to stay within the Section 106 agreement.

Newham Council failed to recoup any of the £5.2 million pounds ANNUALLY that the airport gets in policing and security.

Newham Council failed to do anything about Councillor Alec Kellaway who holds in excess of £25,000 worth of shares in WPP, owners of PR Company Hill & Knowlton and who was hired by London City Airport to push through expansion. Cllr Kellaway made private submissions to the council in support of expansion.

Newham Council failed to address illegal flights outside operating hours.

Newham Council failed to get the airport to take noise readings and admits that it has not been done consistently for over 8 years.

Newham Council failed to properly consult many boroughs surrounding and affected by the airport.

Newham Council failed to give accurate and thorough information to surrounding boroughs when asking them for their views on expansion.

Newham Council failed to consult all residents who are actually within London City Airport noise contours.

Newham Council failed to consult directly with residents of Greenwich and were forced to do so.

Newham Council failed to consult with the Civil Aviation who is responsible for aviation.

Newham Council failed to recognise that air quality surrounding the airport is already 50% above acceptable EU levels.

Newham Council failed to recognise that noise levels are already in breach of World Health Organisation guidelines.

Newham Council failed to put in place a proper system of complaints so residents can complain.

Newham Council failed to monitor London City Airport flights allowing a thousands additional flights outside of planning regulations.

Newham Council failed to declare they had spent £100 MILLION on offices – Building 1000 - over looking London City Airport runway. The building lay empty for many years failing to attract other interested parties and failing to regenerate the area as claimed.

Newham Council failed to do any noise readings for Building 1000 before or after the purchase. Why spend over £100 Million on a building overlooking London City Airports runway and not take noise readings?

Newham Council failed to do any air quality readings for Building 1000 before or after the purchase putting its entire staff at risk and leaving themselves open to class lawsuits from sick staff.

Newham Council failed to recognise that Building 1000 will actually be in a crash zone.

Newham Council failed to recognise the devastating effects of toxic gases on the community. A Labour Royal Docks Councillor died of a sever asthma attack earlier in the year highlighting the severity of lung and breathing problems.

Newham Council failed to address its representative on the London City Airport Consultative Committee, Alec Kellaway, for distributing false, misleading and disingenuous information in the local Royal Docks election.

Newham Council failed to recognise that the type of aircraft used is different from a decade ago when residents were offered cheap and poorly installed double glazing. Many Residents were made sign away any rights to reclaim and as the double glazing has worn down over time and the jets got bigger and nosier , residents have become environmental prisoners in their own homes.

Newham Council failed do anything about “fuel burn” and plane thrusters being used. That choking, eye watering smell around the area is a combination of chemicals that cause everything from asthma to miscarriage.

Newham Council failed to recognise the need for a Public Inquiry even though its newly elected Labour Councillor Steve Brayshaw called for one and questioned the airport remit.

Newham Council failed in its duty of care to residents and to recognise the population density surrounding London City Airport.

Newham Council failed to recognise the Human Rights of the people surrounding London City Airport and their right to peacefully enjoy their property .The expansion would unfairly interfere with such right contrary to Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human rights...."

Local Residents Just Plane Ignored!

On Wednesday, Newham Council voted to allow the long discussed increase in flights at London City Airport. This essentially means a variation in the maximum number of flights each year from 73,000 to 120,000. The extract from the planning report below provides more analysis of what this change means on a daily basis, with the original wording in brackets.

Aside from the planning arguments for and against the expansion, I have a very serious concern again! Tower Hamlets Council has once again failed on every level to consult with local residents of this borough who will be directly and materially impacted by this planning consent.

Yes, the London Borough of Tower Hamlets was consulted by the London Borough of Newham. they replied to say that were some comments, but no objections from Tower Hamlets. Had they bothered to ask the residents, they would have received a very different picture. Many residents in the east of the borough live very close to the airport and in the direct flight path of the aircraft - they have very strong views about this. The answer will no doubt come back to me that an advert was placed in East End Life - but as I repeatedly say this is not good enough!

There is also a London City Airport Consultative Committee, and Tower Hamlets Council appoints one representative to that committee - Cllr Ann Jackson (Bow Labour). Since her appointment she has attended just 3 of the 6 meetings that have been held and hasn't attended since October 2008. I'd be very interested to know how she has represented the views of local people at this committee.

"1) The number of (air transport) aircraft movements at the Airport shall not exceed:
(a) (50) 100 per day on Saturdays and (100) 200 per day on Sundays but not exceeding (140) 280 on any consecutive Saturday and Sunday
(b) (360) 592 per day on weekdays except 1 January, Good Friday, Easter Monday, the May Day holiday, the late May bank holiday, the late August bank holiday, 25 December and 26 December
(c) (80) 132 on 1 January
(d) (100) 164 on Good Friday
(e) (120) 198 on Easter Monday
(f) (150) 248 on the May Day Holiday
(g) (140) 230 on the late May Bank Holiday
(h) (140) 230 on the late August Bank Holiday
(i) (60) 100 on 26 December
(j) (73,000) 120,000 per calendar year."

Planning Meeting Change Insults Residents

With the change in the municipal year this year, we have seen another change to the planning (Development) committee at Tower Hamlets. The start time of the meetings has moved from 7.30pm to 6.30pm - I hear a lot about this from the wife (Cllr Shirley Houghton) who now has even less time to get from work to the meeting.

Such was the level of publicity for this change, that residents turned up for the last meeting at the usual time, to find out it had finished. Even one Labour councillor arrived as the meeting was finishing and could be heard to say "nobody told me"!

Planning meetings in Tower Hamlets are always contentious, so the council should make more efforts (not less) to give residents the opportunity to be involved. That is why, the Conservatives have always stated our belief that key planning decisions should be taken closer to the affected areas and at the best possible times for people to attend.

So, this decision would seem on the face of it to be just a cynical attempt to exclude more members of the public from the planning process. Of course, it is quite possible also just down to a Labour Chair who simply wants to finish early - why waste time considering planning issues, when you could be at home watching television?!

Whatever the reason, this change in start time should be reversed - if this council has any respect for the people it represents.

Cameron Speaks at Canary Wharf

Conservative Leader David Cameron delivered a key speech at Canary Wharf at lunchtime. The event, organised by think tank Reform, provided an opportunity for Cameron to set out his views on the future of quangos, which he described as replacing democratic accountability with bureaucracy.

Referring to the current status of quangos, the Shadow Cabinet calculations showed that there are currently 790 quangos around the country which last year accounted for £34billion of public expenditure. On some other calculations (such as those of the Taxpayers Alliance) these figures rise to over 1,100 quangos spending £64billion last year. The trend is also disturbing, with a 12% increase in quango expenditure last year, at such a dire time for public finances.

The approach to solving this was described by Cameron as not drawing up a list and scrapping a set number of organisations, but by applying a principled approach to the reasons behind those quangos. He has therefore laid out three justifications for why such organisations are better to continue and operate without political interference:
1. Where there is a need for technical expertise free from politics, in areas such as energy, utilities and the current system for setting interest rates.
2. Where it is important to remove political favouritism in the allocation of funding, in areas such as science, the arts and research.
3. Where the transparency of the facts needs to be seen over the political spin that can be used if there is direct ministerial control.

By applying these tests, there will be some quangos left in operation under a Conservative government, but they in turn should expet to meet some more expectations including living within their financial limitations, reducing their spend on individual communications and strategy departments, and meeting the belief that no head of a quango should be any more visible (nor paid any more) than a senior civil servant.

Refusing to be drawn into any specific cost savings on the reduction in the number of quangos, David Cameron said that the Shadow Cabinet will be reviewing every individual case from now until the General Election, and beyond.

Aside from any cost and efficiency savings, such a review is long overdue as it seeks to restore our democratic deficit - by putting elected politicians in charge of more decisions, we can have more visible links between elections and decisions - meaning there is more point to voting, and more opportunity to make change where it is needed.

Council Scoffs at ASB

Last week I wrote about the results of the DCLG Place survey, in which the fear of anti-social behaviour in Tower Hamlets was the second highest level of any council in the country.

This week, we have had two distinct response to this topic.

On the one hand, we have the Tower Hamlets Council approach, as reported in The Docklands newspaper, where the council "scoffed at the accuracy of the results" adding that 75% of the people wo received the survey did not respond. On this basis, the council are assuming that non-participation equals contentment - perhaps some of those people are too scared to reply!

Meanwhile in Harrogate, Louise Casey addressed a session on crime at the Local Government Association conference. She is the Director General of the Neighbourhood Crime and Justice Group at the Home Office and has held numerous roles including the head of the anti-social behaviour unit, where she was appointed by Tony Blair. Her background is often described as one of Labour-Party-Civil Service but she is a straight-talking hard-hitting champion of the people who have to live with crime and ASB.

On Wednesday, she had a clear message to the hundreds of councillors in the room - that they often get it wrong. The council approach to the fear of ASB is to conclude that the residents have the wrong perception and need to be educated to understand there is no need to be afraid. Councillors, she said, need to give people more respect and understand that the fear of ASB is usually based on direct experience of incidents and intimidation - as she summarised, if there is a fear, then ir is usually the case that there is actually an anti-social behaviour problem causing it.

Perhaps anyone reading this in the town hall (and I know you do!) can consider these two different viewpoints and consider the words of the "expert" appointed by the Labour government - then spend more time tackling the problems rather than denying them!

Cameron Calls for More Council Transparency

Speaking at the Local Government Association conference yesterday, Conservative Leader David Cameron promised a "lot more power" for local councils along with the scrapping of countless targets, plans and strategies. The focus is that councils should be free to get on with the job.

On the issue of greater transparency Cameron said:

I really do believe that transparency is one of the absolute keys to delivering this.The expenses saga has been incredibly painful in Westminster – for all parties. But it has taught us some important lessons. I think that the most simple lesson – and the most important one - is this. Once you make information public, in real time, about expenses, MPs both change their behaviour – and claim less.

We need to learn this lesson all the way through the public sector, including in local government. Publishing information about spending, including down to items of just £25,000 as we propose to do nationally, will be painful. Locally I would like us to go further. Windsor and Maidenhead have published every item of spending of £500 or more on line. This will lead to lots of tough questions.

It will give information to oppositions, not just administrations.

But it is right.

I understand if you’re not initially as enthusiastic about this as I am. But think what it’s going to do for the reputation of politics. It’s frustrating when people assume you spend half your budgets on pet schemes and half of the rest on waste – this is your chance to shake of those suspicions. And transparency is going to be a great tool in the work of getting more for less.

It’s working that way in London today. Since Boris Johnson insisted on a £1000 threshold for transparency on spending, the GLA has saved over £100million. Imagine what might happen in your council. Because as well as the financial discipline imposed by all those armchair auditors, you’d have local suppliers looking online and seeing if they can offer you a better deal.

And the best thing about transparency is that it doesn’t need massive outlay of costs. I believe we’re just beginning to tap the potential of the post-bureaucratic age. Along with you I want to bring in a new era of Google government. This ambition is why I’ve said local authorities will need to publish more information on the pay, perks and pensions of those who work in the town hall. It’s why we’ll require all police forces to publish crime maps online, so that people can hold them to account at regular beat meetings.

In the post-bureaucratic age we can get citizens involved in the whole debate about what is spent, excite our politics and improve our administration. We must do it.


The whole issue of the post-bureaucratic age was covered at the Conservative Home Conference on Tuesday and it is a theme that offers great hope to the internet age and the prospect of putting the people back in charge of the government once again.

Hard Pressed Councillors Shorten Meetings

After my previous posting about the amounts of special responsibility allowances paid in Tower Hamlets, those committee chairs have obviously worked out that they were being underpaid.


The meeting of the Audit Committee (and the accompanying 250-page report) on Monday night was rushed through in less than half an hour with little opportunity for debate. My colleague Cllr David Snowdon was left frustrated by the Labour urgency to concluded discussions so they could rush off to another meeting - you can read the full story in The Wharf newspaper this week.

This does mean that my earlier figures are incorrect. I had made the forecast based on the 2008-2009 committee times that Cllr Fazlul Haque (Chair of the Audit Committee) would be earning £24.87 per minute chairing the committee.


The same meeting last year took up a whole 66 minutes, but this year it was reduced by more than half. So, it seems our local Labour councillors have taken the criticism to heart and realised they could actually make a bit more money!

Perhaps the Audit Committee could review Special Responsibility Allowances...if they have the time!

Chief Executive Moves On

After all that has been written and speculated on about the departure of the Chief Executive of Tower Hamlets Council, the council has today issued a press release confirming this.

I have pasted the full text of the press release below, and I will add no further comment!

CHIEF EXECUTIVE MOVES ON

Tower Hamlets Council has announced that Martin Smith, its chief executive since 2007, is moving on from his post with the Council.

Mr Smith said, “Tower Hamlets is an incredible place - the most vibrant, diverse and exciting part of London, and I have spent seven equally incredible and rewarding years working for the Council. It has been a great privilege to have been Chief Executive.

The Council is fortunate to have the very best staff in the whole of local government – passionate about the borough and committed to delivering excellent public services. That’s why we have been consistently judged to be a high performing organisation and why we have such an unrivalled track record of improvement. It’s been a real privilege to work with so many talented and principled people.

Tower Hamlets is also fortunate in having many Councillors who work tirelessly and selflessly for the whole borough. I have enjoyed working with successive Leaders of the Council and members from across the political spectrum to develop, scrutinise and challenge policy and performance.

When I joined Tower Hamlets in 2002 I told the interview panel that my motivation was to make a difference to the lives of residents. I hope I have been able to do that. I am particularly proud to leave the council with every service judged by the Audit Commission to be ‘performing strongly’ or ‘performing well’, with our partnership working described as exceptional, with staff morale at an all time high, and with the Council’s finances in a strong position.

I wish the Council and staff continued success in the future.”

Leader of the Council, Councillor Lutfur Rahman, said “Martin Smith has worked with great dedication, commitment and integrity during his time at Tower Hamlets. He has championed the Council’s core values of achieving results, valuing diversity, engaging with others, and learning effectively in all he has done.

The communities of Tower Hamlets and future direction of the organisation now require a fresh approach to deliver the Council's priorities around Housing, Education, Tackling Worklessness and Creating a Safe and Cleaner borough for everyone. We have therefore agreed that now would be an appropriate time for him to move on. I wish him well for the future.”

Get Involved at a Council Meeting

The full meetings of Tower Hamlets Council are invariably entertaining - if you enjoy the pantomimes that is! The next meeting takes place on Wednesday 15th July at 7.30pm and if you haven't been to one yet, why not pop along and see exactly how your money gets spent.

To help keep interest in such meetings high, the Labour Council have helpfully refused to hold more meetings, so there are just 6 opportunities each year to see the full 51 councillors in action in one room!

The added bonus of a full council meeting is that not only can the public watch, but they can also get involved by presenting petitions or asking questions.

For this meeting, public opportunities have to be submitted by Thursday 9th July, and they include:

1. Presenting a petition to the council about a local issue, with 5 minutes to address the full council.
2. Asking a question to a member of the Labour Cabinet, followed by a "surprise" supplementary question.
3. Presenting a deputation on behalf of local residents with 5 minutes to address the full council.

This is a great opportunity to bring serious loical issues to the attention of the council chamber, and one that is frequently under-utilised.

If you would like to submit something for the council meeting, please contact John Williams at the council (JohnS.Williams@towerhamlets.gov.uk) or send me an email if you need any further advice.

Robin Hood Gardens - Should They Stay or Should They Go?

More publicity in Building Design this week about the campaign to save Robin Hood Gardens from the bulldozers.

I have to say from my experience that most residents are only too keen to see the back of the buildings and see them replaced with some more modern housing. To date, I have only been contacted by one resident who is in favour of refurbishing rather than demolishing the buildings.

As my sample is not scientific, I would welcome any more comments or views from local residents on this.

I also think it is important to focus on the buildings themselves in this debate, and the impact that the quality of those buildings has on the lives of the residents who have to live there. There are many other topics for future discussion around the local infrastructure, future development density, tenure mix etc, but for the moment it would be good to hear more local views on the future of the buildings.