Banner
any day today rss X

News and Comment March 2022

Index: 2018201920202021202220232024

14 March - Full Council budget meeting. (Round 1, the Amendment)

Five Councillors were missing from this meeting, Louie French being occupied these days in Westminster and not drawing his allowance but three other Tories and the Independent for Thamesmead East absented themselves too.

Leader O'NeillThe Leader opened proceedings with a reminder “that the last two years have not been easy and she was not sure that the reserves would be sufficient to cover the financial impact of the pandemic”. (In the event, thanks to the cuts, it was.)

She said that the Government’s Fair Funding Review was delayed and with it the hope for a fairer distribution of grant settlement. “Next year Bexley will receive £40 million whereas neighbours Greenwich will receive £110 and Southwark will get £152 million. That £70 million difference (with Greenwich) would equate to a near 70% reduction in Bexley’s Council Tax bills.”

The Mayor’s increase of 8·8% to his Council Tax precept and the announcement of an intention to extend the Ultra Low Emission Zone to Bexley was given the criticism it deserves.

“Housing services are being transformed and moving those in temporary accommodation to housing associations is good for them and taxpayers. We continue to invest in the services that matter to our residents”

Cabinet Member David Leaf said the budget “would make Bexley even better with more than £400 million of additional investment”. He said that the 2·99% Council Tax increase will mean a lower rate in real terms than in 2006. (This is true!)

“Members opposite have spent the last 16 years talking down our borough, praying for failure, opposing investment and showing nothing but contempt for sound financial management. Bexley residents have trusted us since May 2006 and I am confident will do so again in two months with more Conservative Members.”

Stefano Borella (Labour, Slade Green) put forward an Amendment which was unfortunately not made available to webcast viewers. It was about housing and School Crossing Patrols. He wanted BexleyCo to provide up to 50% affordable housing and using Redrow’s Howbury Section 106 money (£2·93 million total, £1 million from Howbury) which has been unused for the past eight years to be spent on the Sidcup Library site. “That was ֧pretty disgraceful”.

The Labour Leader referred to “Tory leaflets claiming to take school safety seriously while planning to abandon School crossing Patrols. Scandalous.”

Councillor Francis (Labour, Belvedere) added that the road safety team has been reduced despite the Cabinet Member’s written reply to Councillor Hinkley stating that Bexley has not cut the road safety team, “the staff merely left to take other jobs”. The Road Safety Sub-Group will contradict the Cabinet Member when it reports next week and the Chairman confirms that all Council funding has been withdrawn. The remaining Lollypop staff remain under threat of redundancy.”

The Leader made it clear that she did not want to consider any part of the amendment and Cabinet Member Munur said that Labour’s attitude was “scary, absolutely irresponsible and quite, quite disgusting. Theirs is a knee-jerk reaction.”

Cabinet Member Craske said that the Amendment represented “sheer hypocrisy”. Labour, he said, is on the record opposing affordable housing for the whole of the past three years and had failed to mention that it is Sadiq Khan who has stopped paying for School Crossing Patrols.

Cabinet Member Leaf continued in similar vein and said that Council housing is not the answer. In Greenwich there are 1,000 Council households with arrears of over £2,000 each and that is not something that Bexley wants to see. “Labour are reckless and their Amendment has the stench of hypocrisy. The Redrow S106 money would not exist if Labour had their way, they opposed the Redrow sale.”

“Labour wants to use funds they have objected to receiving to give to a company they would not have set up to pay for homes on a site they rejected for housing.”

Councillor Richard Diment (Conservative, Sidcup) said that “Social Housing may seem to be appealing but the reality is that the concept is neither financially viable nor realistic in the current culture. Labour’s was a last minute Amendment to a budget that has been worked on for months and Greenwich (20,000 Council houses) has 31% of its tenants in rent arrears and following Court action at risk of eviction”.

The Tories unanimously voted against, in Labour’s words, “dealing with the Tory housing crisis and protecting children going to school”.

The Labour Group subsequently sent out a Press Release explaining their position.

 

Return to the top of this page
Bonkers is a cookie free zone. Not a single one