Happy New Year to everyone. May it bring harmony, peace and joyous ringing of bells throughout the borough!
I wrote on December 11 that Cllr Shahed Ali, Lutfur Rahman’s cabinet member for street cleaning and waste management (I always think of Tony Soprano when I hear that term), had been arrested for alleged vote fraud in Tower Hamlets.
The Met Police had arrested him at his home address early in the morning and told him he was being investigated for “multiple voting”. He was released on bail until a date this month.
Scotland Yard has now confirmed that Shahed will face no further action. They have investigated the complaints and his explanations and Shahed has no more questions to answer.
As for what actually happened, that remains a mystery: it’s not clear whether the police are continuing their investigations.
It’s a fact that Shahed was registered at two separate addresses; it’s also a fact that two votes registered to him were used.
But remember, he is completely innocent.
He is now able to get on with his job in a cabinet whose members are beginning to complain among themselves about being toothless puppets for Lutfur’s executive office.
And I understand that it’s not just Lutfur’s cabinet members who are wondering what their jobs are (note that although they complain, they’re still happy to pocket their £12k a year extra ‘special responsibility allowances’). His backbench ‘Tower Hamlets First’ councillors, who include the likes of Abjol Miah, are also grumbling.
During Lutfur’s last administration, he did not hold a single group meeting with his team of councillors. This was all explained away by arguing they weren’t really a group, but merely a collection of like-minded independents.
However, since May they’ve been an official group (thus collecting the public money that flies their way). Yet, I’m told, despite promises by Lutfur to hold them, there still hasn’t been any group meetings.
Perhaps Lutfur has been too busy. Or perhaps he simply doesn’t rate many of his councillors that much. Either way, they’re not the actions of a mayor who’s trying to address doubts about governance.
His next big meeting is cabinet on Wednesday evening when one of the major issues up for ‘discussion’ is a new 16-year waste management contract, which is currently run by Veolia.
A public tender will soon go out for a 16-year deal worth £26million a year in total, i.e. £416million over the life of the deal.
On Wednesday, Lutfur’s cabinet will have to agree the principles of what to ask for in the tender. It seems that officers are recommending any new contractor “provides their own depot” for the dust-bin lorries. You can view the cabinet paper here.
Currently, the lorries operate from a council owned depot in the borough, but the town hall is proposing to withdraw any publicly owned property for that use because it’s all being earmarked for housing development.
The likely consequence of this that any new contractor will have to drive trucks in every day from outside the borough. So if they drive in from Rainham, for example, where there are large depots, they are sure to get caught up in the horrendous westbound morning traffic on the A13.
And that of course will mean delays, missed collections and higher costs.
Surely there’s a brownfield site that can be laid aside instead of reserving it for what would amount to 20 or so ‘affordable’ 2-bed flats.
The question is: should housing considerations trump all others?
Which brings me to a press release issued by Tory Canary Wharf councillor Andrew Wood over the Christmas period.
It concerns the site of the old City Pride pub on the corner of Marsh Wall and Westferry Road in Canary Wharf. In 2008, it became one of the most expensive pubs in the world when it was valued at £32million.
It was demolished a few years ago and in October 2013, developers secured planning consent for a 75-storey skyscraper. It would be the UK’s second tallest residential building and house 984 luxury apartments.
For they will all be luxury flats. The council seems prepared to accept that it just won’t do to have any affordable housing there; instead, they want the developer to build flats for the cleaners and other unworthy plebs well away from their building.
Not only that, the council says this skyscraper is so important (it will earn the borough up to £10million in s106 planning gain payments) that any existing resident in that area who complains about loss of light can simply forget it.
From the council’s cabinet papers, the developers have complained that a number of pesky neighbours have threatened an injunction against their project on the grounds that it would affect their lawful “right to light”.
Under the law, only a local authority can over-ride someone’s human right to light.
So the council has stepped in to help. It is proposing to acquire the property rights from the developer, then over-ride residents’ right to light, and then transfer the property rights back to the developer.
It seems pretty cynical, to say the least.
We’ll find out on Wednesday whether Lutfur thinks this is worthy use of these powers.
Here’s Cllr Wood’s press release:
Mayor Lutfur Rahman to acquire the property rights to the 2nd tallest residential building in the UK in order to circumvent resident’s legal rights (as well as giving two fingers to Eric Pickles).
Tower Hamlets Council has announced its intention (see attached PDF) to acquire the land at City Pride and Island Point on the Isle of Dogs, London E14. City Pride if built would be the second tallest residential building in the UK at 233 meters high, 984 apartments and 75 storeys.
The Council would then apply its powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to break neighbouring residents right to light. Under English Law properties older than 20 years own the right to light and if a neighbouring building overshadows residents living spaces they can either negotiate a settlement or they can block that development. Only the Council can legally break that right to light but only if it owns the property. This was first introduced to allow Councils to develop public infrastructure and was then used in the City of London i.e. the ‘walkie talkie’ to allow major office development to progress. Industry professionals have expressed surprise that a Council would do it to allow a purely residential development and they are not aware that such a power has been used elsewhere in a residential as opposed to business area. The Council would do this in return for £9.5m of s106 cash contributions and the delivery of 187 social housing units off-site at Island Point.
Tower Hamlets Council claim that the social, environmental and economic benefits of allowing City Pride to be built outweigh the disruption caused to local residents. This is despite Tower Hamlets Council employing an external consultant, LUC, who recently recommended that any development whose density exceeds 3,000 habitable rooms per hectare not be allowed, City Pride would be 5,803 rooms per hectare making it the densest developments in the country. The London Plan recommends a limit of 1,100 rooms per hectare.
Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government recently appointed two external Commissioners who will be responsible for approving any property disposals made by the Council. They are however not responsible for approving property acquisitions and as the deal is likely to be a back to back deal they will be faced with a fait accompli, the Council has already agreed a decision leaving them with no choice but to acquiesce as it is not in the Councils interests to retain ownership of the land. There is no evidence that they have been consulted on this issue yet.
In addition from Monday 5th January 2015 Tower Hamlets Council is supposed to be consulting residents of the area on the South Quay Masterplan, a development plan intended to guide future development of the area which includes the City Pride site (an area which will include 7 of the 12 tallest residential buildings in the UK and an increase in population from 2,932 people to 22,964 on one road). However rather than waiting to consult residents on whether City Pride delivers public benefits it has short circuited the process by announcing a decision in advance of that consultation starting. This is why Commissioners were appointed to try and improve transparency.
The Mayor, Lutfur Rahman will formally announce the decision in Cabinet on Wednesday 7th January 2015.
The Wharf newspaper reported this story here.
Trial by Jeory 
Looks to me like the City Pride thing has all the makings of a possible Judicial Review if this proposal gets passed i.e. it’s a deliberate attempt to flout a law which is designed to protect the interests of residents.
The thing about the City of London is there are very few residents and what might be OK there is very unlikely to find similar support in the courts in relation to other locations. Especially when the national newspapers get hold of the notion that this is about building flats for the bankers with the mega bonuses! They do love a story about bankers riding roughshod over the ordinary man in the street.
There again the Council is now in the control of the Commissioners when it comes to any disposals of property.
One wonders whether the officers and the Mayor factored that particular aspect into the equation when they came up with this proposal
Ted – How about asking the Commissioners for a quote e.g. “Have you read this report and what do you think of this proposal?”
There will be a judicial review if this gets passed.
The main reason is that this sets a terrible precedent for the rest of Tower Hamlets. If this happens other developers will expect the Council to do the same for them and the right to light protection will be lost to residents.
Contrary to what the THC report says the developer was not really interested in negotiating with residents because they know it will be cheaper to get the Council to do it for them.
Thanks for confirmation of that Andrew
Setting a precedent with this case makes this an issue which affects every single one of us.
Any Council that thinks that making waste management a low priority is a good idea has obviously not been looking at one of the main reasons why residents complain to the Council.
Creating an even worse waste management service is like giving votes to the the political parties not in power – who will doubtless make a huge big deal out of it.
The thing about always having a Council owned depot is that it increases the Council’s clout when it comes to managing a contract.
If you need to terminate a contract due to poor performance (and Veolia performance has been very variable over the years) you better be sure there is an alternative in the marketplace which can also deliver a waste management service without having a depot in the borough.
Or didn’t they think of that? (I’ve not read the papers – but it strikes me as the typical sort of consideration which the current Council would forget to think about).
That new building on the City Pride site,would it be Saudi ownership by any chance? If so would the East London Mosque be putting pressure on Lutfer ?
Sent from Samsung Mobile on O2
The developer is Chalegrove Property Ltd, a UK registered company. One of the directors is a Saudi citizen.
The parent company of Chalegrove is Lexador Ltd, which is registered in Jersey which means we are unable to see who is truly behind the developer.
However, what is probable is that a significant proportion of the apartments they’ll market on the City Pride site will be sold overseas.
It’ll be interesting to see if ‘Red Rahman’ comments on this aspect on Wednesday.
I suspect they’ll flog the dump and build a mosque!
Hooray.
Well well, quelle surprise who would believe such things could happen in East London Bravo to the Tory Councillor for bringing this to our attention
Long time residents of the borough will be familiar with these sort of antics. They were an everyday occurrence under the London Docklands Development Corporation which ironically enough was installed by the same Tory party which now shows such indignation at this behavior. I suspect that today’s Tories are very keen to be seen as representing the views of the newer more affluent residents of the Isle of Dogs and to garner their votes. They looked the other way when locals less affluent made the same complaints about the LDDC twenty years ago.
Remember the LDDC, The Conservative government of the day handed over control of vast areas of docklands to a planning committee made up of businessmen who considered planning applications in secret, worked from unpublished planning reports, prepared by an officer corp that were placed beyond the remit of any investigative regulatory body like the Local Government Ombudsman. Section 106 planning gain was not a factor and was never a requirement of any planning consent for many a year, nor was affordable housing.
Move on a few years and look at the Labour party’s record. A few years ago a planning application was submitted for 16 moorings adjacent to Hermitage Memorial Park here in Wapping a lucrative proposition for any developer, similar moorings up river were selling for around 250k each at the time. No affordable housing requirement needed..
Planners recommendation! 22 moorings be granted consent the planning application only sought 16.Section 106 planning gain? The Local school were to be allowed to access at certain times the small Meeting Hall which was built on the quay. Result lucrative bonanza for developers, locals get the occasional use of a garden shed.
Looking for something current? Try the expansion of City Airport proceeding to grow like Topsy in Newham. despite thousands of objections from locals. Result a financial killing for developers and Airlines, locals get a some low paid jobs and LOTS and LOTS of noise.
So it doesn’t really matter who is in power planners usually ensure local people get stuffed. East London deserves a better deal.
Frank, the LDDC did at least deliver infrastructure to the area i.e. DLR, Limehouse Link Tunnel, Excel Centre, City Airport and lots of small industrial units to replace some of the jobs lost when the docks closed. They also delivered Canary Wharf which love it or loath it has delivered hugely in terms of Londons development. Tower Hamlets Council by comparison has failed to deliver anything comparable and we are now suffering as a result. The reasons for Ted Johns to declare UDI are still a factor today.
Contrary to what you might expect the most affluent polling district in my ward had the lowest turnout in the May 2014 election (20%) so I suspect I was elected by a much broader range of people then you might think.
Andrew,The London Docklands Development Corporation was no template for inner city regeneration, it was born out the Thatcherite trickle down economic policies of the day that are now so derided.
The development of docklands had more similarity with the way they carry on in Moscow and Beijing in elbowing the locals aside when the Olympics are on the way, than in a mature western democracy. As for any infrastructure achievements made by the LDDC, well Mussolini made the trains run on time. It could all have been done so much better.
City Airport was built to function as a tiny regional airport. We have Newham Council to thank, if that’s the word, for Its development to the size it is today
I wonder how your present day constituents would feel if they were disenfranchised in the manner that east enders were under the LDDC.
Prior to advent of the corporation Tower Hamlets suffered from high unemployment and bad housing, the LDDC changed nothing in that respect.
Frank, actually current day residents of the Isle of Dogs feel equally dis-enfranchised under the current system where public consultation by the Council is a tick boxing exercise. One person who was here when the LDDC ran things has told me that they did a better job on consultation then the current Council. Also the Council has rarely stuck to what it has consulted on for example the Millennium Quarter Masterplan involved extensive consultation in the year 2000 but was defunct by 2004. I forgot to mention that the Docklands Sailing Centre was another LDDC public asset.
It is the main reason why we have launched a Neighbourhood Planning Forum for the Isle of Dogs to restore some measure of control to residents.
Municipal title laundering is nothing new. I can remember the 1970s when every council was supposed to have a land acquisition and sale plan.
It seems that they are looking for more powers too:
http://www.wharf.co.uk/2015/01/east-london-boroughs-explore-d.html
That’s interesting as Robin Wales has said he would never work with Rahman.
Maybe he knows something Rahman doesn’t? 😉
It’s just dawned on me what that might be.
This could be the Pickles Final Solution to “The Problem of Tower Hamlets”.
One way of getting rid of a Mayor who causes all sorts of problems – in a borough where the alternative options are also very questionable (Has the Tower Hamlets Labour Party got itself out of special measures yet?) is to eliminate the borough itself.
Conceive for a moment a large East London Super Borough – run by Sir Robin Wales – the man who gets things done and promotes community cohesion and who won’t stand for communities who refuse to learn the language and integrate.
Now that could be very interesting………
Andrew When the corporation departed they conducted a satisfaction survey on their activities. They even consulted me, I asked the guy interviewing me what the response had been, new arrivals approved he said no surprise there, locals however recorded 89% disapproval.
Planners in general are never too pleased to hear disapproval of something they and their masters wish to approve. The difference is LBTH planning committee sits in public, its members are accountable to the electorate and the officers are accountable for any maladministration.
I find it rather sad that you should wish to support something that was such a profoundly undemocratic institution
Frank, you are right I am supporting something that is profoundly wrong and I have had been here I might have objected as well. But I suspect that if you ask residents today on the Isle of Dogs their opinion of the planning process that 89% disapproval might be a good number.
You are right that Strategic Development sits in public (but then does not like listening to them), its members are accountable to the public (who represent other wards) and officers are accountable (to the Mayor) but the result is that 9 of the twelve tallest residential buildings in the UK are planned within three hundred meters of South Quay DLR station with 32,774 new properties planned on the Isle of Dogs and Blackwall and Thames Water are warning that the sewers will suffer from ‘more frequent and severe back surging’ and that two separate reports warn that the Isle of Dogs might run out of fresh drinking water in the summer.
So our current accountable is failing because the administration in charge of the Council are utterly focused on delivering social housing to the exclusion of all other factors thereby repeating the mistakes planners made in the 60’s when they built the towers in the sky.
Andrew. At present if a planning application is refused, the applicant can appeal to a planning inspector or in the case of significant applications the government minister can call the application in and order a public inquiry.
If an application is approved the minister can still call it in but if he doesn’t that’s the end of it. The government needs to look at providing the opportunity for those objecting to take the matter to a planning inspector.
Widespread public disapproval of a planning application is a planning issue that any committee must consider when coming to their decision. A change in the law to allow an appeal by objectors would stop a lot of cosy deals.
However as soon as anything comes up that will delay a planning application all the business lobbyist’s go in to attack mode. A Conservative government would be unlikely to ignore such pleadings.
The LBTH Planning Committee sits in public – however
It very often ignores the responses via public consultation with those who don’t seem to count in this borough (ie all the ones the Mayor doesn’t have chummy chats with from time to time)
Relationships between the Mayor, planners and developers have been altogether too cosy at times – but nobody ever investigated where the stink was coming from – until just recently.
Such is democracy. I think I prefer the LDDC version.
Lutfur Rahman announced today that he has approved the decision to acquire the City Pride and Island Gardens sites in order to break the right to light. Two Cabinet members objected including Cllr Shahed Ali but it was clear that social housing needs outstrips all other considerations including sustainable development.
No mention was made on whether the Commissioners had been consulted or not but we think civil servants from DCLG were in attendance and left as soon as the decision was announced.
I will exploring the option of launching a judicial review but the Council were very careful in how they made the announcement in the expectation of a legal action (which the developer would pay for)
I’m sorry, but why must housing always take priority? People need to stop being rewarded for pumping out babies like smarties. If you can’t afford more than 2 children, don’t have them!
I’d love a townhouse with a huge garden and some little dogs scampering around, but can’t afford it. I don’t move in and expect the state to pick up the tab.
We really need to stop this practise of building huge houses for those who procreate in an unsustainable fashion. If you were overcrowded with 3 children, don’t have 6. If you do, then it’s up to you to foot the bill for housing, education abd healthcare. Don’t go whining to food banks pleading poverty with your begging bowl out.
It’s rare I agree with Chinese policies, but their limit on children when resources aren’t available should be adopted in his borough, before we further bankrupt the state!
No doubt I’ll get a load of abuse about this from a load of suedo socialists, but I don’t care. I’m sick of picking up the tab, people need to be responsible and stop being so foolish. the state needs to grow sone balls too (and I don’t mean that twat Ed)!
How does Shahid Ali have the cheek to claim £12000 in allowances for turning Tower Hamlets into a s**thole.Despite the spin the streets have got dirtier and dirtier on his watch.Never before Rahman was elected did we have this level of graffiti,dumped rubbish etc.What on earth does the thirty plus “street line ” team do all day at the town hall?Just more waste of council tax.Streets and roads around Redchurch St etc are lucky to see a sweeper every three weeks.Yet streets at the far end of Brick Lane some days have two sweepers every day.Surely just a coincidence the Mayor lives here! It is obvious Veolia will get the contract again despite their incompetence.Much of the mess around the borough is from the street markets.The traders here just dump their rubbish without any regard for the area or peoples safety, yet we the council tax payer heavily subsidizes the pittance they pay for their pitch fees.Surely these traders and shops in the market should pay a levy towards the street cleaning.i know many people who have contacted Ali regarding the state of the borough, but have not even had the courtesy of a reply.Happy to claim allowances for doing sweet fa.
My experience with Cllr Shahed Ali was positive. Reported fly tipping on 13th December by email. By Monday 15th all rubbish had been removed.
Reporting it via Fix My Street https://www.fixmystreet.com gets it moved faster!
Seriously – you can see how much Fix My Street is used by local residents to report flytipping and other problems observed in streets in Tower Hamlets on https://www.fixmystreet.com/around?pc=tower+hamlets
You don’t have to identify yourself so there’s no come back for reporting.
Plus the fact it’s reported ONLINE and consequently VERY PUBLIC means the Council does seem to give some sort of priority to getting flytipping and waste problems sorted out so they can say it’s been fixed.
I think I’m right in saying that the Veolia contract has clauses built in re penalties for too many reports of waste problems which are not dealt with quickly enough.
Maybe that’s something you could check out Ted – and see if the new proposed contract is any different.