Cllr Harry Phibbs writes
The local Labour Party blog HFConwatch urged local residents to "come and object" at last night's Cabinet Meeting. None did so. Not even any of the 15 Labour councillors who are paid a total of £164,310 in allowances each year at the expense of the Council Taxpayer. Opposition leader Cllr Cowan paid £26,814. Absent. Deputy leader Cllr Cartwright paid £15,123? Absent. Cllr Aherne, Labour Group Chief Whip, paid £15,123? Absent. The other Labour councillors Brown, Campbell, Chumnery, Coleman, Harcourt, Homan, Jones, Murphy, Needham, Powell, Umeh, Vaughan? Each of them paid £8,940 a year of your money. No show.
Of course the opposition aren't expected to run anything. But their job is to hold the administration to account. To provide some rigour in the decision making process by challenging what is proposed. To offer serious, constructive alternatives. But instead of making the effort to be a credible opposition they don't turn up - even when they themselves have called a protest.
Nor did there seem to be evidence of much thought having gone into the objections they would have raised had they turned up. They oppose the disposal of the empty Edith Summerskill House on the Clem Attlee Estate and claim it would mean a loss of affordable housing. Yet the decision approved was: "That 100% of the capital receipt ( after the deduction of appropriate costs) is used for future affordable housing and regeneration purposes."
The alternative apparently backed by Labour (although since they don't turn up w can't know for sure) would be to retain the building and refurbish it under the Decent Homes programme.
As the report said of the building:
The estimated cost of the decent homes works is £6m equivalent to £88,235 per dwelling. This high cost is due to major structural deficiencies and dampness identified by specialist investigations. The floor slab of each floor extends beyond the internal AAC block work within the flats, with “no evidence of any joint detail and as such the floor slab connection could be considered a “cold bridge” connection directly to the external wall”. There is excessive dampness and moisture within the flats resulting from design issues and water ingress through the balcony detail, a lack of insulation, condensation and a lack of ventilation. This compares to an average cost of decent homes works for a tower block of between £12,000 and £ 40,000 per dwelling. The costs to leaseholders are estimated to be between £ 87,000 and £96,000. There is no identified budget in the capital programme to undertake these works.
Given those costings to have gone ahead with refurbishment would not have been value for money. It would have been bonkers. What would Labour have done for leaseholders who didn't happen to have a spare £96,000? Pursued them in the courts? Forced them to lose their homes? Driven them to bankruptcy?
Labour also objected to the ending of the Lifestyle Plus Card to provide discounts for leisure centres for students and those on benefits. But the card costs £20.50 and the number of users had been sharply declining. The new card, provided by GLL and Virgin, will cost £3. Going for a swim each time will cost 90p more but the cost of the card is reduced by £17.50 so it is expected that more people will take part.
Perhaps Labour decided to chicken out of debating these issues because their case is so weak?
Comments