Agenda item

a)    Public Questions (30 minutes)

To receive questions from the public gallery and questions submitted by residents in advance of the meeting.

 

b)    Leader and Cabinet Member Questions (105 minutes)

To receive questions from Councillors.

Madam Mayor introduced public questions; priority was given to those who had submitted questions in advance or on the night and were in attendance. Those who had submitted questions in writing who were not able to attend the meeting were to be provided with a written response within three weeks of the meeting. Those responses were also to be published on the Council’s website. 

 

Question: Croydon resident, Loraine Gomes asked why the extent of the asbestos in Fairfield Halls had not been detected previously.

 

In response, Councillor Butler, Cabinet Member for Homes & Gateway Services highlighted that the full extent of the asbestos could only be known after intrusive works had taken place and that the costs of rectification were to be fully funded from the returns from the surrounding development. The Cabinet Member also noted that the costs of removing and disposing of the asbestos were actually £4m and not the £11m that had been reported.

 

In her supplementary question, Ms Gomes asked why residents had been misinformed about the costs of the asbestos and queried if it was correct for the Council to continue to sign-off the costs of the development. In response, Councillor Butler stressed that the Council was not paying for the redevelopment. Rather that this was being paid for by Brick by Brick, with the profit from the development being used to carry out £41m of works. Councillor Butler noted that the borough deserved a first class entertainment venue and that this was being delivered without residents paying.

 

Question: Croydon resident, Donna Luetchford shared her experience of recycling in the borough. With no recycling facilities provided to her flat, she had received a Fixed Penalty Notice for leaving recycling next to full bins at a recycling centre where the bins were not being emptied regularly. Ms Luetchford asked how often bins should be emptied at recycling centres and if it was appropriate that she be fined when she was doing her best to recycle responsibly.  

 

In response, Councillor Collins, Cabinet Member for Clean, Green Croydon, reported that he had taken a personal interest in this case, that recycling centres should be regularly cleared but problems had been experienced over the Christmas period. As a result it had been decided to rescind the Fixed Penalty Notice on this occasion although it was noted that most fines issued in similar cases are for residents inappropriately taking household and bulky waste to recycling centres. It was noted that all recycling centres feature clear signage detailing the alternatives for collection of those items. The Cabinet Member acknowledged the difficulties in recycling for those residents in flats and noted that he was exploring potential options to address that issue. 

 

In her supplementary question, Ms Luetchford highlighted difficulties being experienced with general waste collections that are made on different days to those advertised.  In response, Councillor Collins noted that he was aware of this issue and had personally visited to make sure Veolia was doing its job. It was acknowledged that there had been lots of issues over the Christmas period for which penalties would be imposed with improvement to the service having been noted since.

 

Question: Croydon resident, Mr B Mickelburgh asked about the signage for the Surrey Street pedestrian area following a tribunal judgement. Specifically, it was asked if, as a result of the judgement, the signage could be regarded as inaccurate resulting in Parking Charge Notices being suspended.

 

In response, Councillor King, Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport & Regeneration (job share) reported that enforcement had not been suspended and that this was judged to be compliant. This was supported by the overwhelming number of decisions taken by the tribunal with only seven relating to the issue of signage. The Cabinet Member reported that this would continue to be kept under review and alternative options considered.

 

In his supplementary question, Mr Mickleburgh noted that more than 19,000 Parking Charge Notices had been issued in 2018 and that this high number demonstrated that there was an issue. In response, Councillor King stressed that the parking adjudicator service was external and independent and in the vast majority of cases hadn’t found an issue with the Council’s signage in this location. It was also highlighted that the service was moving to the use of Automated Number Plate Recognition in this area.

 

Question: Croydon resident, Nicola Glover asked if it is appropriate that Brick by Brick was selling off purpose-built fully accessible properties (such as those on the Tollers Lane Estate) when these were in such high demand. Councillor Butler thanked Ms Glover for her question and promised to provide her with a detailed written response following the Council meeting.

 

Question: Croydon resident, Anne Potton asked why the elected Councillors who are Members of the Planning Committee take no notice of resident objections when considering planning applications.

 

In response, Councillor Scott, Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport & Regeneration (job share) detailed the basis for the decisions made by the Planning Committee; it followed Government policy as set out in the National Policy Planning Framework. This was the Government’s own policy which had recently been reviewed by the Secretary of State for Housing and Local Government with support from Chris Philp, the Member of Parliament for Croydon South. It was stressed that the National Policy Planning Framework placed a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The Cabinet Member went on to highlight the need for housing in the borough; there were 900 children in temporary accommodation with a further 48,000 homes needed in the borough in the next 20 years. Those homes needed to be a mix of family and smaller homes. This was the reason why the Council supported development. The Councillors on the Planning Committee represented the Council and were there to consider planning applications against national, London and local planning policy.

 

In her supplementary question Ms Potten noted the development numerous flats at the expense of ‘ordinary’ houses. She asked why the Committee did not regard objections to flats when these were made in such high numbers. In response, Councillor Scott stressed that flats provided homes for families, couples, individuals and those with disabilities and that these were all good quality homes. It was noted that the Committee did listen to objections but did not agree with them. Often these objections were centred on parking but these were countered by parking surveys. The Cabinet Member reported that there was a misunderstanding about the nature of the consultation; this was not a referendum but an opportunity to raise questions and make comments. There was no planning system based on a local vote or referendum. The lack of housing was stressed with Councillor Scott emphasising that the Council was protecting family homes by enforcing the requirement for residences with 130 square meters. It was noted that every family home that had been redeveloped had to be replaced by at least one family home.

 

Questions to the Leader

 

The Leader had no announcements.

 

Madam Mayor invited questions to the Leader.

 

Councillor Tim Pollard asked if the Leader considered regressive taxes a bad thing. The Leader responded that there was a need for fairness in taxation locally and nationally.

 

In his supplementary question Councillor Pollard asked why the Administration was introducing an emission based parking policy when older people were more likely to have the most polluting cars.

 

In response, the Leader said it was an assumption that older people had the most polluting vehicles. He went on to describe how he had attended the most harrowing meetings with directors of the Croydon University Hospital that had looked at how hundreds of younger and older people were being affected by air pollution. Breathing problems linked to air pollution could cause up to 200 people in the borough to lose their lives. This was described as an air quality emergency with the potential to cause greater loss to life than cigarettes and tobacco.

 

Councillor Mann asked what support would be provided for the continued success of the Upper Norwood library. In response, the Leader described his pride in the success of the library and noted this was less about funding and more about partnerships. Upper Norwood library was described as a shining beacon of what a twenty first century library could be. The Leader reiterated that the library would continue to have his full support. It was noted that the library service had been brought back in-house after being outsourced by the Conservative administration. The Leader encouraged all to make a visit to the library.

 

In his supplementary question, Councillor Mann asked how the Upper Norwood Library would benefit from local devolution. The Leader highlighted that the wider piece on devolution was being led by Councillor Hamida Ali, the Cabinet Member for Safer Croydon and Communities. The Leader confirmed he would be happy to meet with local Councillors and the local community to discuss the library further.

 

Councillor O’Connell asked the Leader to clarify his role in the progression of the Westfield development. In response, the Leader informed the Council that he had met the new Chief Executive of the development company before Christmas with further correspondence exchanged since. It was stressed that the current uncertainty around Brexit had necessitated a pause on the development given that it had resulted in damage to business confidence. However, the developers were still clear that Croydon was one of its key sites in London with the scheme receiving the support of the Mayor of London.

 

Councillor O’Connell used his supplementary question to ask the Leader to request that London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, convene a meeting with all involved parties in order to progress the scheme.  The Leader confirmed that he would be willing to do this but noted that a meeting was already planned with the Chief Executive of the development company to which the Mayor of London could be invited to attend.

 

Councillor Patsy Cummings asked the Leader what was being done to stop islamophobia in Croydon. In response, the Leader noted that the Council stood in solidarity with the borough’s mosques and that close liaison was taking place with the police. It was also noted that work was happening on a London-wide declaration on islamophobia. It was intended to consult with the Muslim community in order to make this bespoke to Croydon and most relevant.

 

Madam Mayor invited Councillors Lewis, Flemming and Avis to make their announcements.

 

Councillor Lewis, Cabinet Member Culture, Leisure and Sport informed Members that the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport had visited the Brit School to announce a successful youth performance partnership resulting in £1 million of funding over three years to develop theatre performance by young people. Prince Edward had visited Fairfield Halls to meet with all the partners involved in the development. The Cabinet Member announced that the book fund for libraries would be increasing by 10% which had been made possible by bringing the libraries service back in-house.

 

Councillor Alisa Flemming, the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Learning informed Members that the Council had won a Local Government Chronical Chose Your Future award. This campaign had been based on giving a stronger voice to young people. The Cabinet Member also shared that the Young Mayor and Deputy Mayor had lead a competition to design their badges. Ofsted had completed its fifth monitoring visit since the last Council meeting with the progress letter published on 14 March 2019. This had acknowledged improvement in services and an increased rigour and pace had been observed. However, it was noted that there was no place for complacency.

 

Councillor Avis, the Cabinet Member for Families, Health and Social Care, informed the Council of a further Local Government Chronical award win, this time for the One Croydon Alliance. The Cabinet Member took the opportunity to thank officers and partners for their work on this initiative.

 

Councillor Hopley asked why the Heatherway centre had been closed and why vulnerable adults were being threatened with eviction. In response, Councillor Avis explained that the Heatherway centre had been developed for respite care but was not fit for purpose. The previous Conservative Administration had promised that it would be refurbished but this had never happened with the funding dissolving through austerity. The aim was now to provide a respite offer fit for the twenty first century.

 

In her supplementary question, Councillor Hopley asked when this respite offer was going to be provided given that there were adults who need access to this facility. In her response the Cabinet Member emphasised that due to the need for confidentiality relating to the details of an individual, she was limited in the comments she could make in public, and that the refurbishment would happen as soon as feasible.

 

Councillor Ben-Hassel asked about the development of a library hub. In response, Councillor Lewis stated he was proud that the library service had been brought back in-house and that the development plans for the service were ambitious.

 

In her supplementary question, Councillor Ben-Hassel noted that residents were excited about improvements to Norbury library. In his response, Councillor Lewis noted the campaigning work of Councillor Mansell. He explained that capital investment would be used to enhance the library and turn unused space over for community use. This would be undertaken through the autumn with plans to open in the New Year with the new community space to be named after Councillor Mansell.

 

Councillor Streeter asked if it was acceptable that elderly and vulnerable residents eat their meals off metal trays. In her response, Councillor Avis highlighted that the service was being reviewed with the aim of bringing it back in-house and that a fall in standards had occurred as a result of outsourcing that had happened under the previous administration.

 

In his supplementary question, Councillor Streeter asked what was specifically being done to rectify the issue.  Councillor Avis described how the Director was in communication with residents and improvements were in-hand. Bringing adult care services back in-house was currently being discussed and this would allow for refurbishment to take place and for state of the art facilities to be developed.

 

Councillor Canning asked for details on the achievements of the Health and Wellbeing Board.

 

Councillor Avis complimented the Health and Wellbeing Board on its excellent work and asked Councillor Woodley, the Chair of the Board, to comment further.

 

Councillor Woodley reminded the Members of Council how the Board’s annual report had been presented to its previous meeting. Since this time, the health and wellbeing strategy had been published. This had been developed in partnership and was supported by all members of the Board. The new strategy was the means of delivering the health and care transformation plan underpinned by the One Croydon Alliance. This would provide fully integrated health and social care for the whole of Croydon. Key priorities in the strategy were air quality and mental health.  Councillor Woodley encouraged Members to read the new strategy.

 

In his supplementary question, Councillor Canning noted the degree to which the Health and Wellbeing Board was focused on outcomes and achievements. Councillor Avis expressed her agreement.

 

Councillor Gatland expressed her congratulations for all those acknowledged by the Chose Your Future award. The Councillor suggested that there had been a difference between the Cabinet Member’s summary of Ofsted’s official response and the actual response received following its monitoring visit. In response Councillor Flemming stated that her summary had taken wording directly from Ofsted’s official letter. The Cabinet Member offered to stand and read out Ofsted’s letter in full. It was noted that Ofsted had been right to suggest the need to increase the pace of change and that this had started to happen. It was noted that Ofsted’s next monitoring visit was expected around 10/11 July 2019 with the invitation extended to the Councillor to join in the process.

 

Councillor Gatland took the opportunity of her supplementary question to welcome the progress noted by Ofsted but also to highlight that it was the job of the Opposition to provide challenge on behalf of young people. It was noted that there remained a high social worker vacancy rate and it was asked what was being done to address this. In her response, Councillor Flemming acknowledged Ofsted’s recognition of strong strategic leadership along with the work of front line staff.

 

Madam Mayor invited Councillors Butler, Hamida Ali and Shahul-Hameed to make their announcements.

 

Councillor Butler took the opportunity of her announcements to address the issue raised earlier during public questions about the sale by Brick by Brick of adapted homes. The Cabinet Member highlighted that these were required for sale as well as in the social sector and that ultimately Brick by Brick would be delivering homes for rent in the social sector as well as for sale in the private sector. Councillor Butler also congratulated all those involved in the borough sleepout that raised £55K for homeless services.

 

Councillor Hamida Ali took the opportunity to promote the forthcoming Kick It Out event on 25 May 2019 which would take place at Crystal Palace Football Club. The football tournament between young people and the police would provide a new approach to tackling knife crime. The community was congratulated for providing this event.

 

Councillor Shahul-Hameed, Cabinet Member for Economy and Jobs, informed Members that the Deputy London Mayor had visited the Centre for Innovation. The Council had signed-up to the good employer charter which was based on actions such as provision of the London Living Wage.

 

Councillor Streeter asked if emission based parking charges posed a risk to business. In her response, Councillor Shahul-Hameed explained how emission based parking charges were to be piloted following a visit to Croydon University Hospital that had highlighted the impact of poor air quality on health outcomes.

 

In his supplementary question, Councillor Streeter asked about the risk to businesses in town centres that could be caused by emission based parking charges and the competition with those businesses that didn’t have this additional burden. In her response, Councillor Shahul-Hameed described how she was working in partnership with local businesses having contacted close to 5,000 Croydon businesses in the last year.

 

Councillor Fitzpatrick asked for clarification on the costs to the Council of repurchasing former Council homes. In her response, Councillor Butler clarified that in addition to building and leasing additional properties, the Council had been buying back former Council homes that had been subject to Right to Buy. In total, 75 properties had been purchased at a cost of £23m. Whilst is was difficult to compare, a home that had been sold under Right to Buy at a discounted rate in 2012 at around £147k had cost the Council around £235K to repurchase. Properties that had been sold at around £122.5K in 2013 cost £330K.

 

In his supplementary question, Councillor Fitzpatrick noted that the Council had spent around £10m repurchasing what had been sold for £2.5m, that public money was being expended on buying back that which the Council had previously owned as a result of Conservative Party policy. In her response, Councillor Butler, agreed and noted that these homes were initially built with public subsidy and build for a purpose to meet social need. They had then been sold at a huge public subsidy with significant restrictions being placed on Right to Buy receipts when the public assumed Councils would have 100% use of the money raised. However, the truth was that the Government took its share of those receipts and placed conditions on the use of the rest. Added to which, the Council lost the land on which those homes had been built. The Cabinet Member called for the suspension of Right to Buy.

 

Councillor Hale asked why no new Council homes had been built during the last five years. In response Councillor Butler noted that it was timely to ask this question directly following that from Councillor Fitzpatrick as it depended what was meant by the term Council homes as it appeared the Councillor’s interest was only focused on Right to Buy. However, the Cabinet Member stressed that a Council home could be defined by being built and managed by the Council as well as being affordable to those living on benefits and could take someone immediately off the Council waiting list. The only thing that did not apply to these properties was Right to Buy. 

 

In her supplementary question, Councillor Hale asked when the Council was going to start listening to residents and use the £61m of funding from the Conservative Government to start providing new Council homes. In her response, Councillor Butler noted the Councillor’s continued support for Right to Buy and therefore the destruction of Council homes, along with the previous Administration’s repeated failure to invest in social housing.

 

Councillor Muhammad Ali expressed his concern about the safety of all places of worship in Croydon and asked for reassurance regarding safety measures. In response, Councillor Hamida Ali noted that whilst tensions were being monitored there had been no immediate issues reported. The police had instituted a London wide policy of highly visible patrols which were being supported by neighbourhood safety officers. In addition, the Council’s CCTV team was monitoring where camera were in place. Events were being held to show solidarity. It was also noted that the Safer Croydon Board had signed up to the hate crime pledge. Concern was expressed about far right extremism with a reported 36% increase in cases in hate crime that were motivated by far right activists and accounting for half of cases reported to Channel (the Government’s anti-terrorism strategy).

 

Councillor Neal asked for clarification regarding whether a home costing £350K could be described as affordable. In her response, Councillor Butler stressed that Croydon needed affordable homes for all and not just those on the Council waiting list or in Temporary Accommodation. That included the sons and daughters of residents, and older residents who wanted to downsize. There were housing needs across the borough and what was not affordable to some was to others. Whilst many couldn’t purchase, the Council was encouraging social landlords to let at affordable rents.

 

In his supplementary question, Councillor Neal asked for clarification on the Council’s subsidies to Brick by Brick which had been delayed in bringing affordable properties forward. In her response, Councillor Butler stressed that the withdrawal of the grant to Councils for social housing meant it was the job of the Council to raise funds to deliver homes. Brick by Brick had been set up to deliver profits to be used to deliver affordable homes with any surplus coming back to the Council to improve services in the face of a 70% reduction in the grant from Central Government. As a result, the first homes coming to market were expensive but were being snapped up with more social housing homes coming forward in the new future.

 

Councillor Audsley asked for clarity on the effect of austerity on community safety officer numbers. In her response Councillor Hamida Ali confirmed following a decade of austerity, every community safety team was now down to around one officer.

 

Madam Mayor invited Councillors Collins, Scott and Hall to make their announcements.

 

Councillor Collins had no announcements.

 

Councillor Scott informed the Council that brown field sites adjacent to East Croydon station had been purchased to incorporate into office and residential development. Also, that a planning application was anticipated for the Stewards Plastics site to provide light industrial accommodation.

 

Councillor Hall, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources informed Members that the in-year collocation rate for Council Tax last year had been 97.25% which had been a 0.17% increase on the previous year and a record high. The rate of collections for business rates last year was 99.25% which was significantly above target. This was a 0.1% increase on the previous year and again, a record high.

 

Councillor Hoar asked if the new emission based parking policy was penalising those the Council sought to help and if there was a need to make this fairer. In his response, Councillor King stated that whilst there was evidence that air quality was improving, pollution was still shortening lives and harming children meaning there was a need for urgent and strong action as articulated by Michael Gove, the Environment Secretary. The Cabinet Member stressed that this did not need to be about binary politics and that car drivers were also grandparents who were worried about air quality and its effect on their grandchildren. Those were the residents who took part in the consultation this year with 75% of respondents calling for action to improve air quality.

 

In his supplementary question, Councillor Hoar asked if the policy was actually aimed at raising revenue. In his response, Councillor King highlighted that the emission based parking policy would result in a 1% increase in overall parking income. Further that most car owners in the borough would be subject to a £24 increase in parking charges which he considered worth paying to address the public health crisis.

 

Councillor Clark asked for clarity on the Secretary of State’s decision to overturn the planning decision for the Purley Baptist Church.  Councillor Scott responded that this brown field site had sat empty following the application of the Purley Baptist Church to develop a landmark building. This had been encouraged by the previous Conservative Administration. This was an excellent scheme that looked to provide 220 homes. The initial planning permission granted by the Council had been overturned by the Secretary of State which the Council had challenged through a judicial review resulting in the Secretary of State overturning his previous decision.