via Instagram
Upton downs
8 Jun
That the leaders of Newham council are arrogant, duplicitous and contemptuous of residents will not come as news to most people. But it is rare that their cynical manipulation of the public for their own ends is quite so fully documented as it is in the case of the Upton Centre.
The centre was closed in December 2014
…after specialist engineers advised that the boilers were no longer compliant and the heating system could not be used. Following the closure, a review of the building has been carried out by independent surveyors and engineers who have established that a significant amount of work would be needed to bring the centre back in to use in the short term, including an overhaul of the heating system as well as a complete rewiring of the electrical system.
Works which would extend the life of the centre by 12 to 24 months are estimated to cost £750,000. Refurbishment to the whole building, which would make it accessible and fit for community use for an additional 15 to 20 years would be in the region of £3.5million.
In April 2015 the council started a “consultation” on the future of the centre. This was clearly rigged to deliver the answer Sir Robin and his chums want to hear – that the centre should be closed and the site handed over for redevelopment.
Perhaps a predictable piece of opportunism in response to an unexpected event? Not at all. A report has emerged that shows this to have been planned down to the finest detail.
That report was written in September 2013 by Graeme Betts, then Newham’s Executive Director for Strategic Commissioning and Community, for a meeting of the now defunct Operational Executive. Mike Law has tried unsuccessfully to extract details of this secretive committee via Freedom of Information requests. According to the replies he got, it is not in the public interest to reveal what was discussed and, in any case, the meetings were not minuted and no record of attendance was ever kept.
The aim of Mr Betts’ report was
…to update Members on progress and timescales for the possible closure of the Upton Centre and to secure possession of the One Love centre in the context of a wider development proposal for the site.
As previously reported there are three issues officers are progressing:
- The possible closure of Upton Centre as the level of investment required to maintain a safe and reliable service is unaffordable;
- Securing vacant possession of the whole site to allow for a future development;
- Regularising occupation of One Love to ensure it does not affect future development options for the Council.
Having considered the options officers are proposing the following recommendations, subject to Member agreement:
- If there is unscheduled breakdown of boiler or plant the Upton will be closed whilst officers seek to necessary resources to carry out repair
- the nursery, within the Upton centre would be provided with temporary heating and access to the site to ensure they can continue to deliver services
- officers seek to secure 2 year “lease” with 2 year development break clause to ensure vacant possession of the site is obtained
- officers to continue to work on development options with members prior to a wider consultation on the options with the wider community
With a plan in place to close the centre, the council could then move onto to what it wanted to do with the site. Mr Betts sets out “an initial exploration of the redevelopment option”:
The assumptions as to the potential mix of uses on the redeveloped site are:
- 44 private residential units (10 x 1 bed flats, 12 x 2 bed flats, 8 x 3 bed flats, 6 x 2 bed houses, 8 x 3 bed houses)
- 0 affordable housing units (0%)
- 300 sqm NIA nursery
- 512 sqm NIA community centre
The report evaluates three options for how this might be achieved, the last of which is the council doing the work itself via its ‘private rental vehicle’, now known as Red Doors Ventures. This was judged to be riskier, but offered the council the best return and greater control in delivering the project quickly.
All that remained then was to convince the public that this was all in their best interests. The section of the report dealing with ‘Communications Considerations’ is worth quoting at length:
…there needs to be clear and simple messaging around how and why decisions have been made about the centre and future steps. The closure of any community facility is always sensitive and its users and the wider community need to feel they have been kept informed and been part of the process. A key lesson learned from the decision to develop Atherton was the need to have coherent messages to develop the wider community understanding of the council’s vision and also to ensure the council could demonstrate openness in its decision making.
Once future plans for the Upton Centre are determined, all communications would include reference to the development options and, if appropriate, residents and users invited to input into these options.
If a decision is made to close the facility due to unscheduled maintenance, communications would focus on the following messages:
- Financial state of local government finance means Newham has to make tough decisions
- No final decisions about the site have been made and Newham will consult with residents as options are developed
- The condition of the building is in a significant state of disrepair
- There are a range of other facilities that people can access
Unless critical to the timeline for the future of the site, it would be unwise to begin proactive communications regarding the closure of the centre until the future of the site as a whole has been determined. This would avoid creating any unnecessary concern for users. However reactive messages would need to be prepared should the information become public.
The cynicism is breathtaking – don’t tell residents anything until future plans for the site are determined; then tell them no final decisions have been taken. The consultation process is a fig-leaf to persuade residents that they have been kept informed and part of the process.
In the end the boilers at the Upton Centre declined to play their part and failed to ‘unexpectedly’ break down. So the council got in some ‘specialist consultants’ to tell them they were no longer safe or compliant, necessitating the shut down of the heating system and the closure of the centre. That this happened in the middle of winter is no coincidence.
When the outcome of the consultation is published there will be no surprises. The recommendation will be for the Upton Centre to be torn down and replaced with housing for private rent at full market rates. There will be no social housing on the site. And precious little for the local community.
Better late than never
5 JunSix months after I submitted it, my FOI request on the East Ham Town Hall fiasco has finally been answered.
Here’s what they had to say, with my original questions and some additional commentary:
1. [Could you please tell me] Why item 11, East Ham Town Hall Campus Update, for the cabinet meeting held on 17th July 2014 was withdrawn?
Response – The report to Cabinet was withdrawn in July 2014 to allow for all required information to be obtained and collated.
Comment: This response suggests the problems were known about – if not yet quantified – at least as early as July 2014, but the September cabinet meeting was the first time elected members were told. Does this square with the mayor’s repeated assertion that action was taken as soon as the problems came to light?
2. Is there a steering committee for the East Ham Town Hall Campus (EHTHC) redevelopment project, as there is for the re-build of the Atherton Centre in Forest Gate?
Response – An East Ham Campus Programme Board was established in November 2014 and they convene on a monthly basis. Prior to this Board being established it was simply called a programme board.
Comment: The only difference appears to be the capitalisation in the name. When was the (lower case) programme board established?
3. If so, please provide a list of all current and past members of the EHTHC steering committee, the organisations they represent and the dates of their membership. Where members are council officers, please state the department or directorate for which they work.
Response – All members of the Programme Board are LBN officers. The Chief Executive chairs the meeting and representatives from the following services are members of the Board:
- Kim Bromley-Derry – Chief Executive
- James Thomas – Director of Commissioning (Children’s Services)
- Siobhan Fry – Principal Lawyer
- Paul Durrant – Senior Business Partner Strategic Commissioning and Community
- Deborah Hindson – One source MD
- Mark Butler – Director of Asset Management Services
- Gary Bird – Interim Head of Communications
Comment: That’s the current membership; who was on the original board? In evidence to Overview and Scrutiny (OSC) Kim Bromley-Derry insisted no membership list was kept. This answer is consistent with that, but I remain sceptical.
4. Please provide a list of dates of meetings of the steering committee, along with copies of agendas and minutes.
Response – Please find attached the following:
- 12th November 2014: Agenda states 10th November but held on 12th
- 25th November 2014
- 1st December 2014
- 12th January 2015
- 9th February 2015: No agenda was despatched for this meeting
- 16th March 2015
Please note that the name of a junior officer has been redacted.
Comment: Again, these are meetings of the new (upper case) Programme Board. Kim Bromley-Derry said at OSC no minutes were kept of the old board. But reports submitted to it were used to compile the report Cabinet received at their September meeting, so there was some documentation. Perhaps OSC should ask to see it.
5. What project management framework does Newham work within? (e.g. PRINCE2, PMBOK, etc.)
Response – Newham Council has recently developed a new Project management methodology called MAPP (Managing and Achieving Programmes and Projects) which is embedded in an automated ICT solution called Verto. This work has evolved into the implementation of a corporate PMO. MAPP methodology and Verto system are mandatory to use in every new project at Newham.
Comment: The clear implication here is that Newham had NO project management framework in place until now. This is truly shocking.
6. Please provide a copy of the project charter and the project initiation document (or their equivalents in the project management framework you use) for the EHTHC redevelopment project
Response – As this project was initiated before the introduction of MAPP, these documents are not available.
Comment: To someone who has worked in public sector project management this is simply unbelievable.
7. Which mayoral advisor’s portfolio currently includes oversight of the EHTHC project?
Response – As this project crosses over a number of portfolios, Sir Robin Wales and Councillor Lester Hudson have oversight.
8. Which mayoral advisor’s portfolio included oversight of the EHTHC project prior to the election in May 2014?
Response – Councillor Conor McAuley.
Comment: This will be news to Cllr McAuley. He gave evidence to OSC in March that his involvement was limited to shepherding the initial phase through the planning process. After that responsibility passed to Lester Hudson and Andrew Baikie.
9. Which of the council’s scrutiny committees has oversight of major building and redevelopment projects such the EHTHC and Atherton Centre?
Response – This is dependant on the nature of the scrutiny being undertaken but it is likely that Building Projects would come under Regeneration Scrutiny Commission. However, the work plans of all Scrutiny Commissions are approved by the Chair of Overview and Scrutiny who can determine which commission is most appropriate including Overview and Scrutiny Commission.
Comment: We know that OSC itself has taken an interest in East Ham Town Hall, but only after the problems were publicly revealed. They have yet to publish their report, so we will have to wait and see what that has to say.
The invisible woman
15 MayAlthough some pitifully inadequate details of what the mayor’s chums are meant to be doing for their ‘special responsibility allowances’ have now been published, there is one group of advisors whose role remains a complete mystery: the lead community councillors.
There are nine of them:
- Beckton – Cllr Ayesha Chowdhury (Beckton)
- Custom House & Canning Town – Cllr Idris Ibrahim (Green St West)
- East Ham – Cllr Lakmini Shah (East Ham South)
- Forest Gate – Cllr Rohima Rahman (Green St East)
- Green Street – Cllr Hanif Abdulmuhit (Green St West)
- Manor Park – Cllr Salim Patel (Manor Park)
- Plaistow – Cllr Forhad Hussain (Plaistow North)*
- Royal Docks – Cllr Patrick Murphy (Royal Docks)
- Stratford & West Ham – Cllr Mas Patel (Forest Gate South)
Each one pulls in an extra £6,679 a year. According to the published pay scale that means they are meant to spend a full day a week on their community leading duties.
As Sir Robin endlessly reminds us, Newham is facing the most savage cuts in funding of any council in the country, while at the same time having to cope with expanding demand for services. How can he justify handing out such large sums for vague, undefined, and apparently unaccountable responsibilities?
Forest Gate residents will be especially bemused. Despite having six councillors of our own, the lead councillor represents a ward in Green Street – where she also lives. What advice or insight could she possibly offer the mayor – who lives locally himself and has done for 20 years?
I’d recognise any of the Forest Gate councillors if I saw them in the street (or the Forest Tavern or CoffeE7, or at the station). In fact, I regularly do. But Cllr Rahman could punch me in the face and I’d have no idea who she was.
That may also be true of some of her colleagues. According to council records, In the 2014/15 municipal year, she turned up to just three of the eight meetings of the Health and Social Care scrutiny commission she sits on and not a single cabinet meeting. She attended four full meetings of council, although the minutes do not record her uttering a single word.
* Cllr Hussain also has two other mayoral appointments: Cabinet Member for Commercial Opportunities and Deputy Cabinet Lead for Building Communities. He therefore gets an allowance of £33,395 for working 5 days a week.
Coincidence or magic?
13 May
There have been two significant set backs for Councillor Ahmed Noor this week as he fights for his political career after Newham council served him with an enforcement notice for using 238 Romford Road as an HMO (‘house in multiple occupation’) and not commercial offices.
On Monday night an outraged Labour group suspended him, pending an investigation into his conduct. That will be carried out by the chief executive, who will present a formal report to the mayor.
And yesterday Private Eye led their Rotten Boroughs page with the Romford Road enforcement notice story. A number of his fellow landlord councillors also got a name check. None of them will thank him for that.
I understand that Noor’s defence is that he let the building out to another company and they are the ones responsible; he didn’t know what was going on.
If that doesn’t work he can try another excuse: the council is wrong and the property is being used as offices.
In a happy coincidence of timing, on May 5th – just a week after the enforcement notice was served – a company called Gas Tech Heating & Plumbing Ltd tweeted that 238 Romford Road was its new head office. It also posted the news on its Facebook page.
You can see from the photo above that their signage now covers all of the windows – even those on the upper floor with curtains drawn.
According to the Companies House website Gas Tech is a “Non-trading company”. No doubt this will change when the company files its next return, due in August.
Out of curiosity, I went round to take a look at the property yesterday evening after work. There were two men sat in a Gas Tech van on the forecourt. They got very agitated about my being there. I was told that this was private property and that I should leave immediately. After I mentioned the Private Eye story and outlined its contents they claimed to know nothing about any of that. I was told, at great length and at considerable volume, that I should find something better to do with my time and that I was only doing this because I’m bored; I need to re-establish a relationship with my creator.
While this was going on three other people walked up – unchallenged – to let themselves into the building through the locked steel grill and front door beyond. None were dressed in overalls, nor were they carrying plumbing tools.
Less is Noor
11 MayGiven his recent legal problems you’d expect Councillor Noor might worry about not having time for constituency casework.
But it turns out this won’t be a problem for him: he barely does any.
According to an FOI response released in March, the council’s casework tracking system records him as having been assigned just one case in the four months between September and December 2014.
His fellow Plaistow South councillors have been shouldering the whole burden of citizen concerns. Aleen Alarice had seven cases, while Neil Wilson took care of 24.
Ah well, you might ask, Ahmed Noor is a new councillor, so perhaps it’s all being given to more experienced colleagues while he finds his feet?
Nope. Our two freshman councillors in Forest Gate North give the lie to that theory. Rachel Tripp was assigned 36 cases over the same period and Seyi Akiwowo 30 cases. Even Beckton’s Tonii Wilson, elected at a by-election in mid-September, picked up 14 cases.
In the year since his election Cllr Noor has collected more than £10,000 in allowances. Besides being a total embarrassment to the Labour party, what he he done to earn it?
Election results – 2015
8 MayEast Ham
| Candidate | Party | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stephen Creswell Timms | Labour | 40563 | 78% |
| Samir Jassal | Conservative | 6311 | 12% |
| Daniel Charles Oxley | UKIP | 2622 | 5% |
| Tamsin Julia Mucha Omond | Green | 1299 | 2% |
| David Thorpe | Liberal Democrat | 856 | 2% |
| Mohammed Farid Aslam | Communities United | 409 | 1% |
| Lois Austin | TUSC | 230 | 0% |
West Ham
| Candidate | Party | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lyn Carol Brown | Labour | 36132 | 68% |
| Festus Akinbusoye | Conservative | 8146 | 15% |
| Jamie Ross McKenzie | UKIP | 3950 | 7% |
| Rachel Anne Collinson | Green | 2651 | 5% |
| Paul Reynolds | Liberal Democrat | 1430 | 3% |
| Andy Uzoka | Christian Peoples All. | 369 | 1% |
| Cydatty Bogie | Communities United | 115 | 0% |
Stratford & New Town – council by-election
| Candidate | Party | Votes | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Charlene McLean | Labour | 4607 | 57% |
| Matthew Gass | Conservative | 1778 | 22% |
| Isabelle Clare Anderson | Green | 1170 | 14% |
| Jamie Ross McKenzie | UKIP | 403 | 5% |
| Joe Mettle | Christian Peoples All. | 99 | 1% |
| Bob Severn | TUSC | 70 | 1% |
There’s really not a lot to say about any of this. The results were a forgone conclusion even before the candidates were formally announced, though Stephen Timms’ 78% share of the vote is certainly eye-catching. I doubt there’s another MP in the country with as much as that.
Charlene McLean was easily returned to the council, with what is now the highest personal vote of any member. Something she might mention to Sir Robin when she sees him at Labour group on Monday!
In West Ham Festus Akinbusoye, the Tory candidate, put up a decent show in what he knew was an unwinnable seat. I don’t share his politics, but I can’t help but wish him luck for the future. The Conservatives made a lot of fuss about the number of new BAME candidates they had selected, while neglecting to mention that they were all in hopeless seats. If there’s any justice central office will give him a crack at something better next time. Samir Jassal’s ‘Vote for Firstname Lastname’ blunder on his leaflets – which went viral and even appeared on Have I Got News for You – is unlikely to be looked on so kindly.
The Greens can be proud of their achievements too. A saved deposit in West Ham (by 12 votes – who says every vote doesn’t count?) and over 1,100 votes – a 14% share – in the Stratford by-election. Starting from a zero base in the ward that is impressive.
There was some concern on Twitter this morning about UKIP coming third in both seats. Yes, they did. But it is a very, very distant third. The hard right continues – thankfully – to struggle in Newham.
Finally, as I predicted, the Liberal Democrats lost their deposits in both seats. Their failure to even put up a candidate for the council by-election shows they no longer have any real presence in Newham. Is that the sound of the world’s smallest violin I hear?
forestgatedotnet 