Community news
LONDON BANGLA = Friday 17 January 2014
No White-wash over Whitechapel! The Borough of Tower Hamlets has seen more redevelopment than most – probably all – London Boroughs over the last 30 years. However, most of this has been in the south of the Borough, along the river and in the former docks, or around the Borough’s north-west frontier (the “City fringe”). The Isle of Dogs is probably the best example of what can go wrong when development is taken away from local democratic control and left to the anarchy of market forces. John Biggs may remember the efforts the then Labour Councillor Martin Young made to organise people on the Isle of Dogs to express their views on redevelopment: the organising was successful and resulted in a lot of views, but the Council ignored them all and the Labour Group pursued a greater vision of building on the Isle of Dogs to the point where it looked likely to sink or cut loose and drift across the river to Greenwich. We digress. Cllr Rabina Khan, Cabinet Member for Housing, put it well when she spoke at the Tenants’ Federation meeting in December. She pointed out that individual developers are very keen to come to Tower Hamlets. The key for the Council, she said, was how to negotiate hard with the developers to maximise benefits for local people; how to monitor the development to ensure no slippage in the benefits; and how to involve local people themselves in the planning and give them a permanent voice and stake in the development. It would seem, then, that if Whitechapel had been left alone, it would have been developed on the “anarchy of market forces” principle. It is an area where different landowners hold sway: Transport for London; the Royal London Hospital; the Post Office; and the Council being the major public ones – alongside private landowners like Sainsbury’s and other small ones. By working on a masterplan for the area, bringing all the landowners together to work out a mutually beneficial approach, the Mayor has at least provided a framework in which residents can be involved. It is not perfect. There has been an initial consultation on the Masterplan, and some changes have immediately resulted. The test will be to see how residents continue to be involved as the Masterplan unfolds, and how the structure can help deal with issues such as keeping (residential) rents affordable, despite the added amenity of redevelopment. As usual, Labour cannot work constructively on the Whitechapel project. It has issued a press release claiming that the Mayor’s strategy is wrong (yawn). It alleges that the Masterplan risks developing the area to the point where small traders are forced out in favour of large chain stores. Whenever he has spoken about the Masterplan, Mayor Rahman has made it clear that the point of using the masterplan as a strategy is to stop ad hoc
developments (which are more likely to force local traders out) and to have a coherent strategy for the area in which local traders can be protected. It specifically alleges that Mayor Rahman did little to consider how the scheme would affect small traders. This is clearly ridiculous: Mayor Rahman has given the public plenty of evidence that he can bore for Britain on the topic of the centrality of local traders to the redevelopment – by going on and on about it every time he’s spoken on the Masterplan. Isn’t Labour listening? Although new Labour Group Leader Cllr Sirajul Islam has often said that he wants to end the worst excesses of schoolboy politics in the Council Chamber, he hasn’t brought his new attitude to press releases. He claims that Mayor Rahman has left local traders feeling let down. On the contrary, Cllr Islam: only by bringing TfL into a masterplanning structure, so they have to work with the Council, can anyone put pressure on them to keep market traders’ rents affordable. Not having a Masterplan would allow them to sell land off or develop it themselves with no guarantees for traders. John Biggs’s patronising comments about the Mayor not understanding that his actions have consequences are dealt with above. Biggs goes on to lecture Mayor Rahman further, telling him that development cannot be done by “trampling over the small local traders to contribute so much”. What point is Biggs trying to make? Does he really think that Mayor Rahman wants to trample over the traders? What advantage to him in this could there be? The allegation is entirely implausible. Finally, Biggs claims that he has stepped in to secure a promise from TfL that they will not let chain stores take over Whitechapel (The Whitechapel Chain Store Massacre - at a cinema near you… ?). However, some Whitechapel residents might quite fancy a few chain stores so they could go shopping nearby without having to go to Stratford or Up West for their shopping. The last Council leader who used to bang on about how much we needed the big chain stores here in Tower Hamlets was actually Michael Keith, who firmly believed that a controlled influx of chain stores would be welcomed by residents. Putting that aside, local residents and traders alike need to be protected by planning laws and by a decent masterplanning strategy in which they can continue to participate. It is unlikely that a promise made by a Tory-controlled authority to a Labour Member of that Authority who hopes he’s working out his notice will be a reliable substitute. Mayor Rahman pointed out in his press release that: “Small traders and the market are central to the Whitechapel Vision and
31
An illustration from the Whitechapel Masterplan. Look at the retail outlets under the white canvas gazebos: do they look like market stalls or chain stores to you? we’ve consulted them throughout this process. We will keep fighting to ensure that their views are heard and that the East End tradition that is Whitechapel Market continues to thrive in the 21st Century.” It seems that Labour is too busy with its wishful thinking to listen. Cllr Anwar Khan recently alleged that John Biggs only wanted tame Bangladeshi Councillors in his Group, rather than ones who think for themselves - an allegation which John Biggs has strenuously denied. Biggs had expected to be chosen as Labour’s candidate for Mayor. Furious at being overlooked by local party members, he was the first person to question whether the ballot was sound - at the start of at process which led to Labour’s remote national leaders vetoing local members’ choice. If Biggs is going to be taken seriously in the coming elections, he is going to have to win the trust of voters of Bangladeshi origin as well as of white voters. To win this trust, he will have to start by trusting the Mayor, recognising his achievement and not rubbishing him. Questioning how the Mayor could possibly have won the original selection and then addressing the Mayor as if he was a naughty todder demean all Bangladeshis, not just Lutfur Rahman.
Cllr “Big Al” Choudhury: residents’ champion Residents were queuing up to congratulate Cllr Alibor Choudhury last week for standing up for the rights of tenants and leaseholders to get a good caretaking service from Tower Hamlets Homes. The Chair of Tower Hamlets Homes, Mr Barry Simons, has resigned, and his resignation letter has recently been put in the public domain. It is not clear who leaked the letter – which presumably was held only by Mr Simons and Tower Hamlets Homes. In his letter, Mr Simons makes it clear that his resignation does not arise out of any disagreement with Mayor Lutfur Rahman. “I believed you were an exceptional man, doing a good job for the people of Tower Hamlets. Nothing has changed my mind,” writes Mr Simons – high praise indeed for Mayor Rahman. Mr Simons goes on to say that he was insisting that a report go before the Board which recommended increasing caretakers workload while at the same time cutting 15 caretaking posts: a process which would result in a saving of £300,000 to be passed on to leaseholders by means of a reduction in their service charge. Those caretakers who remained would be expected to John Biggs: no one’s going to take on all the existing work stop discussion of job losses plus additional work, including on his watch.
at weekends. There was a suggestion that they could do less work on some blocks which were easy to clean: but it is not clear how many blocks this would be – or what would happen if the blocks went downhill again once caretakers reduced the frequency of working there. How would caretakers manage to do the extra work, with a smaller team? Or was Tower Hamlets Homes proposing, in traditional East End manner, that they put a broom up their arses and sweep up as they walked around? Of course residents would like to save money; but it is hard to find a resident who wants to save money while the estate turns into a tip. It seems that Cllr Choudhury did not want to see Tower Hamlets Homes estates turn into a tip either. He refused to give the stupid report the dignity of getting as far as being tabled at the Board. When the Chair insisted that Board members did want to spend time talking about delivering a better service by throwing staff out of their jobs, Cllr Choudhury walked out, leaving the Board inquorate and unable to have that discussion. It is this action which is so admirable. Time and again, residents have been caught up in giant red tapes of a procedure, with documents bouncing endlessly round committees. Cllr Choudhury took simple, clear and effective action: and the residents’ response has to be “Good for you!” A package of service improvement proposals is being put to residents in consultation meetings, and is receiving a very rough ride. The last thing residents will want to see is these proposals going to the Tower Hamlets Homes Board meeting in February: if necessary, Cllr Choudhury will have to walk out again. If Mr
Simons thinks that a better service can be achieved by throwing people out of their posts, he has at least put that theory into practice by resigning from the Board himself. lOn the other hand, Labour has had a giant hissy fit about Cllr Choudhury’s actions. Cllr Abdal Ullah is their housing spokesperson now. He has criticised Cllr Choudhury for bullying Mr Cllr Choudhury: Simons: honestly, when did standing up for residents. you last hear someone say “I’m going to bully you – by walking away in the opposite direction.” Cllr Ullah then says that Mayor Rahman and his councillors have ignored the issue of high leaseholder charges for years. Cllr Ullah’s own party has had reps on the working party which has been looking at those service charges for years. Cllr Ullah had better stop being so uncharitable and get his house in order. Inevitably, John Biggs has also weighed in. He has pledged that this “abuse of power” would never happen in any administration he was in charge of. If John Biggs wants to sit around talking about improving services by cutting jobs, he will get little support from residents!