Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

Before formally starting the business of the meeting, the Mayor invited Gerald Rose, Orthodox Jewish Representative and Vice Chair of the Greenwich Faith and Community Forum to the Chamber to speak about this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day on the 80^th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.  Afterwards he invited the Leader of the Council and the Leader of the Opposition to light a candle of remembrance.  Council held a Minute’s silence in remembrance.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Peter Baker, Leo Fletcher, Christine St Matthew-Daniel, Jackie Smith, Dave Sullivan and Ivis Williams.

Apologies for leaving early were received from Councillors Nas Asghar, Ann-Marie Cousins, Lauren Dingsdale, Averil Lekau and Miranda Williams.

Members are requested to confirm as an accurate record the Minutes of the meeting held on 4 December 2024.

No motion or discussion may take place upon the Minutes except as to their accuracy, and any question on this point will be determined by a majority of the Members of the body attending who were present when the matter in question was decided. Once confirmed, with or without amendment, the person presiding will sign the Minutes

Resolved –

That the Minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 4 December 2024 be agreed and signed as a true and accurate record.

The Mayor announced he had led the Royal Greenwich entry at the London New Year’s Day Parade and was pleased to advise that the Royal Greenwich entry came third in the London Borough Competition and won £5000 towards the Mayor’s Charity Appeal.  He thanked Shri Gurung who had co-ordinated Greenwich’s entry. 

The Mayor welcomed Councillor Jahida Spencer to the Chamber for her first Full Council meeting since her election in December.

The Mayor congratulated the Director of Children’s Services, Florence Kroll, who had been awarded the CBE in the New Years Honours List for her services to education.  He also congratulated Councillor Dr Dominic Mbang who had been made a Chief to represent the Kusasi Kingdom from Northern Ghana in the UK and Ireland.

The Mayor noted the death of Ursula Bowyer, President and one of the founders of the Greenwich Society who had been an active campaigner to secure the UNESCO Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site listing and the establishment of the University in the ORNC. 

Council paused for a minute’s silence in remembrance of Kelyan Bokassa and Deajaun Campbell who had both been killed in recent months in the borough as a result of knife crime.

Members to declare any personal and financial interests in items on the agenda. Attention is drawn to the Council’s Constitution; the Council’s Code of Conduct and associated advice.

The Mayor reminded Members that they should declare a Financial interest for Item 13, if they or their partner, owned second homes in the Borough.  Any Members that this applied to would need to leave the Chamber when this item was considered. 

In respect of Item 14, Councillors van den Broek, Hyland, Littlewod and Mbang declared an interest.

In respect of Item 17 Councillor Gardner declared an interest as he owned a property adjacent to one of the sites to be discussed.

Resolved –

That the list of Councillors’ memberships as Council appointed representatives on outside bodies, joint committees and school governing bodies is noted.

That Councillors van den Broek, Hyland, Littlewod and Mbang declarations in respect of Item 13 be noted and Councillor Gardner’s declaration in respect of Item 17 be noted.

No requests to exceed the 5 minute rule had been received.

Presentation to the Council of petitions for consideration

The following petitions were presented at the meeting: 

The Mayor noted that there were no public deputations.   

Up to half an hour will be allowed for questions by Members of the Public.

Questions will be taken in the order notices are received by the Chief Executive.  Each question to have no more than one part.  No member of the public shall ask more than 2 questions at a meeting.

The Mayor stated that Council had received 39 written questions from members of the public.  The questions and replies, together with the supplementary questions made during the meeting, are attached as Appendix A to the minutes.

a.      To receive written responses to questions submitted by Members in line with procedure Rule A1.38.

b.      Up to 10 minutes will be allowed for Members’ oral questions in line with procedure Rule A1.43.

The Mayor stated that 44 written questions had been received from Members of the Council.  The questions and replies, together with the supplementary questions made during the meeting, are attached as Appendix B to the minutes. 

Under procedures for oral questions, the Mayor invited questions to Members of the Cabinet for response.

Councillor van den Broek asked the Leader for clarification regarding the reversal of the plan to close Maryon Wilson Animal Park.  Councillor Anthony Okereke, Leader of the Council said that he and Councillor Bauer had met with residents and campaigners and he was happy to confirm that they would look again at this, and the proposed closure was off the table.  However this meant a budget gap for the Council that would need to be filled and they would work with officers to try to fill that.  It highlighted the difficult decisions they needed to make but he was proud they were able to respond to residents.

Councillor Pat Greenwell asked the Cabinet Member for Housing, Management, Neighbourhoods and Homelessness whether it was correct that council home residents and leaseholders needed to obtain permission from the Council in order to install CCTV and door bell cameras.  If so, what was the reason for this, particularly for leaseholders.  In the absence of the Cabinet Member, who had temporarily left the Chamber, the Leader of the Council said he would forward a written response to Councillor Greenwell and the wider chamber.

Councillor Matt Hartley, Leader of the Opposition, asked the Cabinet Member for Equality, Culture and Communities if there was any further information regarding the detail of the future of the Adventure Play and Play Centre Service, which had been included in the budget plans.  There was a lot of concern from residents about what this would mean for local parks and centres.  In response Councillor Anthony Okereke, Leader of the Council said that he understood the concern.  This was more of a transformational project which understood the role adventure playgrounds had in communities.  The initial plan was to look at each individual one and look at the long term future of the playgrounds.

Councillor Charlie Davis asked the Cabinet Member for Housing Management, Neighbourhoods and Homelessness with regard to a report by the Housing Ombudsman into Hyde, why the Council had not engaged with Hyde regarding their failings with repairs services and customer service to ensure they were addressing those concerns cited by the report.  Councillor Pat Slattery replied that the Director of Housing held regular meetings with all registered providers, some of which she also attended.  She would check as to what specific engagement had been had on this issue, but the Council did regularly engage with Hyde.

Each political party may select an item of business, from the list of items on the agenda, for early debate. 

No requests for matters to be taken early had been received. 

That Councillor Sandra Bauer has been appointed by the Leader of the Council to become the Cabinet Member for Equality, Culture & Communities be noted.

Noted that the vacancy occurred after Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins departure from the Cabinet effective 21 November 2024.

Councillor Anthony Okereke, Leader of the Council formally welcomed Councillor Sandra Bauer to the role of Cabinet Member for Equality, Culture and Communities.

Councillor Matt Hartley, Leader of the Opposition, also welcomed Councillor Bauer to the role in what had been a busy first week in the job.

Resolved –

That Councillor Sandra Bauer has been appointed by the Leader of the Council to become the Cabinet Member for Equality, Culture & Communities be noted.  

Noted that the vacancy occurred after Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins departure from the Cabinet effective 21 November 2024.

That proposals in the report relate to the Local Council Tax Support (LCTS) scheme for working age claimants and that pensioner households claiming LCTS are unaffected and continue to be able to receive up to 100% support, subject to eligibility, be noted.

That in setting the budget for 2024/25, savings amounting to approximately 10% of the councils overall net budget were agreed and that within this sum was £1.1m relating to potential changes to LCTS, subject to consultation and agreement, effective from 2025/26 onwards, be noted.

Noted that:

Øthe direct cost of support to pensioner and working age households is £26.2m of foregone council tax to the council and GLA, of which £13.3m is working age support attributable to the council

ØLCTS in Greenwich is within the top quarter of ratios between “working age support to council tax income” in London

Øaround half of London’s councils have recently consulted on changes to their working age schemes, also to take effect from 2025/26

Agreed that, following many years of structural under funding and in order for the scheme for working age claimants to remain affordable, the maximum level of support for working age claimants of LCTS changes from 100% to 80%, so that all households make a minimum contribution of 20% towards the total council tax bill (before support)

Agreed to increase the earnings taper for working age residents from 15% to 25%.

Agreed to increase the non-dependant deduction charge from £5 to £10 per week

Agreed to also remove the exemption for non-dependants who are in receipt of passported benefits and / or not in work.

Agreed to abolish the second adult rebate for working age claimants

Agreed to allow the use of DWP notifications of a claim for Universal Credit as a claim for Local Council Tax Support.

Agreed to create a Greenwich Supports Discretionary Council Tax Hardship Fund to assist Council Tax payers whom are experiencing financial hardship caused by the 2025/26 scheme changes, combined with cost-of-living pressures, low-incomes and low financial resilience.

Delegated to the Cabinet member for Inclusive Economy, Business, Skills and Greenwich Supports to agree details of the Hardship Fund and its implementation.

Councillor Anthony Okereke, Leader of the Council formally moved the report, which set out the Local Council Tax Support Scheme for 2025-26.  The decision required was to move from 100% Council Tax Support Base to 80%, in addition to the other recommendations as outlined in Section 1.4 to 1.11 in the report.  This might result in residents having to contribute more to their council tax bill and this was why they were bringing forward a new Greenwich Supports Council Tax Hardship Fund for those who might struggle initially.  Residents would continue to be supported using the GLLaB service to help people into better paid, living wage jobs which would enable them to manage their finances better and meet their household bills.  He thanked residents who took the time to engage with the consultation process.

Councillor Matt Hartley, Leader of the Opposition, proposed an amendment as published.  He said that the Opposition had repeatedly argued for the introduction of a 100% scheme which finally was introduced in 2020 and took 15,000 of the lowest income households out of council tax altogether.  It ended the situation where bailiffs were instructed against a group of the Council’s own residents who had already been identified as vulnerable and could not pay.  The 100% scheme reaped dividends when COVID struck when the government mandated such a scheme be introduced nationally, Greenwich had already done so.  This would take it back, and even lower than before to 80% and would drag 12,300 people on the lowest income into council tax for the first time in five years and this would increase poverty.  Their amendment would only change one thing in the report and that was to retain the maximum support level of 100%.  They were in agreement with the other recommendations.  Their alternative option would still raise £1.1m of savings which was the same level of savings that were budgeted for 12 months ago in the Medium Term Financial Strategy. 

The amendment was seconded by Councillor Charlie Davis.

Councillor Okereke did not accept the amendment.

Councillor Majid Rahman spoke against the amendment and said that the Council had to be prudent and had to ask those to contribute more where they could and to support those who couldn’t.

Councillor Anthony Okereke, Leader of the Council said that if the Opposition’s amendment was agreed it would leave a £2.8m budget gap which would legally need to be filled by 11 March.  £2.8m equated to the entire Children with Disabilities budget, the entire residential street cleansing function and the whole housing benefit function.  This was the reality of years of financial cuts to budgets, which meant the Council had to make tough decisions.  A £2.8m gap would mean even more cuts to frontline services which they were working hard to protect.  The Council were stepping up to create a hardship fund to support the most vulnerable residents and work would continue to help residents into better jobs paying a living wage.  Other councils were also planning similar cuts  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

Agreed a council tax base for the whole authority area for 2025/26 of 91,088.88 in accordance with the Local Authorities (Calculation of Tax Base) (England) Regulations 2012.

Agreed an additional council tax base for the Gloucester Circus Garden Square area of the authority for 2025/26 of 100.16.

Agreed a continuance in 2025/26 of a council tax premium of 100% in respect of long-term empty dwellings for dwellings empty for between 1 and 5 years.

Agreed a continuance in 2025/26 of a council tax premium of 200% in respect of long-term empty dwellings, for dwellings empty between 5 and 10 years.

Agreed a continuance in 2025/26 of a council tax premium of 300% in respect of long-term empty dwellings, for dwellings empty longer than 10 years.

Agreed a continuance in 2025/26 of the council tax discount of 0% on Class C & D dwellings (empty homes).

Agreed a continuance in 2025/26 of the council tax discount of 100% in respect of Royal Borough of Greenwich resident care leavers, aged under 25.

Agreed a continuance in 2025/26 of a council tax discount of 100% in respect of Royal Borough of Greenwich foster carers & shared lives households in the borough.

Agreed the reduction in the time before charging a Council Tax Premium to long-term empty homes (dwellings which have been unoccupied and substantially unfurnished), from 2 years to 12 months.

Noted that the council tax base relevant to the Southern Region of the Environment Agency for flood defence levy apportionment purposes in 2025/26 is 9,218.50

Noted that the council tax base relevant to the Thames Region of the Environment Agency for flood defence levy apportionment purposes in 2025/26 is 81,870.38

Noted the agreement at Council on 31^st January 2024 of a 100% council tax premium on Class A & Class B dwellings second homes in the borough, which will take effect from 1 April 2025.

Noted that proposed changes to the Local Council Tax Support Scheme, considered by Cabinet on 29 January 2025 for recommendation to Council, are included in the tax base calculations.

In line with their declarations Councillors Jo van den Broek, Denise Hyland, Sam Littlewood and Dominic Mbang left the Chamber for the duration of this item. 

Councillor Anthony Okereke, Leader of the Council moved the report.  He said the recommendations would see the Council respond to the increase in the additional properties built in the borough and would increase the Council Tax Base as well as the Council tax premiums that would be placed on empty homes in order to tackle the housing crisis in the borough.

Councillor Matt Hartley, Leader of the Opposition, said that the Opposition’s technical amendment was withdrawn due to their previous amendment not being carried.  They would be voting for the recommendations given it was a technical report.

In line with legal requirement for the Council to conduct a recorded vote on this item and any amendment the Chief Executive called on each Member to cast their vote on the main report:

In favour Councillors Majella Anning, Joshua Ayodele, Sandra Bauer, Linda Bird, Clare Burke-McDonald, Issy Cooke, Charlie Davis, Cathy Dowse, John Fahy, David Gardner, Pat Greenwell, Rowshan Hannan, Matt Hartley, Elizabeth Ige, Adel Khaireh, Mariam Lolavar, Christine May, Odette McGahey, Matthew Morrow, Anthony Okereke, ‘Lade Hephzibah Olugbemi, Simon Peirce, Majid Rahman, Jit Ranabhat, Maisie Richards Cottell, Lakshan Saldin, Denise Scott McDonald, Pat Slattery, Aidan Smith, Jahida Spencer, Rachel Taggart-Ryan, Roger Tester, Nick Williams and Raja Zeeshan

No Members voted against or abstained.

Resolved Unanimously –

Agreed a council tax base for the whole authority area for 2025/26 of 91,088.88 in accordance with the Local Authorities (Calculation of Tax Base) (England) Regulations 2012.

Agreed an additional council tax base for the Gloucester Circus Garden Square area of the authority for 2025/26 of 100.16.

Agreed a continuance in 2025/26 of a council tax premium of 100% in respect of long-term empty dwellings for dwellings empty for between 1 and 5 years.

Agreed a continuance in 2025/26 of a council tax premium of 200% in respect of long-term empty dwellings, for dwellings empty between 5 and 10 years.

Agreed a continuance in 2025/26 of a council tax premium of 300% in respect of long-term empty dwellings, for dwellings empty longer than 10 years.

Agreed a continuance in 2025/26 of the council tax discount of 0% on Class C & D dwellings (empty homes).

Agreed a continuance in 2025/26 of the council tax discount of 100% in respect of Royal Borough of Greenwich resident care leavers, aged under 25.

Agreed a continuance in 2025/26 of a council tax discount of 100% in respect of Royal Borough of Greenwich foster carers & shared lives households in the borough.

Agreed the reduction in the time before charging a Council Tax Premium to long-term empty homes (dwellings which have been unoccupied and substantially unfurnished), from 2 years to 12 months.

Noted that the council tax base relevant to the Southern Region of the Environment Agency for flood defence levy apportionment purposes in 2025/26 is 9,218.50

Noted that the council tax base relevant to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

Noted the decisions taken under urgency procedures at Section 4 of the report.

The Mayor introduced the report which was for noting only.

Resolved:-

Noted the decisions taken under urgency procedures at Section 4 of the report.

Item deferred

Item deferred

Background:This year, we have passed the seventh anniversary of the fire in Grenfell Tower, which burned for more than 60 hours taking 72 lives. The Grenfell fire exposed a crisis of fire safety in high-rise building across our country, with a considerable number of buildings in the Royal Borough of Greenwich being found to have various levels of breaches of building regulations and the use of dangerous materials.

We believe that it is imperative that the developers and owners of all buildings over 18m in need of fire remediation work must be able to proceed with the removal of unsafe material as quickly as possible, and leaseholders should be protected from the costs of this work being passed on through fees and charges.

However, the response to this crisis from the previous Government was woefully slow, piecemeal, and created competing and contradictory safety standards for remediation work that has left residents burdened with high insurance premiums and mortgage difficulties.

Motion: This Council notes with deep concern the following:

1.    Disparity in safety ratings between developers and insurers

Flammable material on homes poses a risk and while we cannot eliminate all fire risks, it is about managing them. The disparity arises from insurance companies and developers having varying priorities and perspectives.

In the wake of the Grenfell fire, insurance companies have added the heightened risk of whole block fires in many over 18m buildings. In many cases the risk is too high for single insurers are not able to cover on its own. So, leaseholders have left unable to get cover or brokers have turned to sourcing cover from multiple firms. The latter meaning thatseveral insurers are involved in covering one building, creating a ‘layered’ effect and driving up the cost. 

Developers often rely on building regulations and standards that they meet during construction, which may vary depending on the specific interpretation of safety requirements. These ratings can sometimes be less stringent than the criteria used by insurers, who often apply more rigorous standards based on their risk models and the potential liability they face in the event of a claim.

·        Developers are focused on the present safety and adherence to construction standards, while insurers look at potential risks and historical data to predict future incidents.

·        Developers aim to ensure the building is safe from the start, adhering to codes and best practices. Insurers, however, evaluate the likelihood of future incidents and how well risks are managed.

·        Developer ratings are often based on current and immediate safety measures, whereas insurer ratings consider long-term risks and past performance.

·        Insurers are focused on the EWS1 certification process, which is a set way for a building owner to confirm for insurers that an external wall system on residential buildings has been assessed for safety by a suitable expert, in line with government guidance. It is however not a legal requirement to remediate to A1 standard with requirements for fire safety being B1, and this disparity creates confusion and frustration for leaseholders and  ...  view the full decision text for item 16.

Given the elapse of three and a half hours, Members voted to extend the meeting by 30 minutes and to take item 16 next in recognition of the numbers of residents in attendance.

Councillor Majella Anning declared that she lived in building that which was undergoing remediation, so would not vote.

Councillor Lade Olugbemi moved the motion and spoke to it as published saying that since the Grenfell Tower fire nearly 8 years ago, where 72 people lost their lives, many people in the borough remained living in buildings which had been found to be in breach of various building regulations and with unsafe materials.  Developers and Builders of buildings in need of remediation should be able to proceed with the removal of unsafe materials and leaseholders should not be liable for the cost of this through fees and charges.  The discrepancies between the assessment of risk from an insurance perspective and a buildings perspective had left leaseholders in the difficult position of living in buildings which they could not obtain insurance for.

The Motion was seconded by Councillor Rachel Taggart-Ryan.  She spoke about the new government’s prioritisation of this issue through regulation and investment in remediation work.  It was important that the financial burden of this work should not fall on leaseholders who had no say in the materials used in the construction of their buildings.  Alongside the motion in her capacity as relevant Cabinet Member, Councillor Taggart-Ryan had written to Alex Norris MP, Building Safety Minister, urging him to increase resources and implement clear timelines for the Building Safety Regulator, and to back a risk -pooled reinsurance scheme to help ensure quicker and more substantial reductions in the costs paid by leaseholders.

Councillor David Gardner spoke in support of the motion as many buildings in his ward were affected by cladding issues which left leaseholders in a difficult position when it came to trying to sell.

Councillor Matt Hartley, Leader of the Opposition, stood to move an amendment.  He further wished to amend the published amendment to remove the bullet point which read (This Council) “ welcomes the decision by the London Fire Brigade to issue an enforcement notice in relation to fire safety issues at Royal Artillery Quay” as there was some expressed doubt over this, as whilst this had been communicated to the Chair of the Royal Artillery Quay Residents Association, Council officers had been unable to obtain confirmation of this from the Fire Brigade.  As there was some doubt over this point Councillor Hartley said he was happy to remove it from his amendment.

Councillor Hartley, moved the amendment and spoke to it as published with the additional amendment.  Whilst he was happy to broadly support the wording of Motion, he felt it could go further and focus on what the Council could do to influence the local issue in the ward, rather than a more generalised call on the government to do more.  It was acknowledged that that there were many other housing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

Item deferred

Item deferred