The Cabinet of Tower Hamlets Council met on Tuesday 4 April 2017 to discuss a range of important issues, including the council's new housing delivery model, the annual local account of adult social care, and updates on town centre strategies. Key decisions were made regarding the adoption of the local account and the approval of the strategic plan and delivery plan.

Housing Delivery Model and Scrutiny

A significant portion of the meeting focused on the council's new housing delivery model, which involves the creation of two companies and the transfer of substantial grant funding. Councillor John Pierce expressed disappointment with the level of scrutiny applied to this model, arguing that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (ONS) should have been involved earlier in the policy formation process. He highlighted concerns about transparency and accountability, drawing parallels with contentious decisions in other boroughs. The council's approach was contrasted with arrangements in Haringey, with assurances that the council's company would be entirely owned by the council and a community benefit society, and that it would be as transparent as legally possible. The council stated that the housing company and delivery vehicles were referenced in the Affordability Commission findings in May 2016 and in the housing strategy consultation over the summer of 2016, before going to full council in December 2016. It was agreed that key documents related to the housing company and community benefit society would be made available for scrutiny.

Local Account of Adult Social Care

The Cabinet reviewed and approved the annual local account of adult social care. Councillor Amy Whitelock Gibbs, presenting the report, highlighted that it details the services provided for elderly, disabled, and frail residents, outlines spending, and compares service quality with other boroughs. The report, developed in partnership with local people and supported by Health Watch Tower Hamlets, indicated high and increasing satisfaction levels with adult social care, with 64% of people reporting being extremely or very satisfied. The council also highlighted its continued high investment in prevention services, such as Linkage Plus, spending approximately £14 per head compared to the London average of £5. Key challenges identified include maintaining quality with a reduced budget, high need due to poverty and low life expectancy, and an aging population. The recommendation to approve and adopt the local account and endorse its communications plan was agreed. A minor issue regarding an incorrect version of the foreword being presented was noted, with assurances that the correct version would be published.

Public Health GP-Enhanced Services

The Cabinet discussed and approved the continuation of public health GP-enhanced services. Councillor Amy Whitelock Gibbs explained that these services, funded through public health budgets, cover substance misuse, sexual health, stop smoking, and NHS health checks. These are crucial given the high levels of need in these areas within the borough. The proposal to award a direct three-year contract to the GP Care Group from April 2017 was recommended and approved, as competitive procurement is not feasible due to the reliance on GPs' patient lists.

Strategic Plan and Delivery Plan

The Cabinet reviewed and approved the Year 2 Strategic Plan and Delivery Plan. Councillor Asma Begum commended the report, noting its citizen-focused approach with good use of statistics and infographics. She acknowledged that targets had been tweaked to reflect new structures and that conversations had taken place offline to ensure alignment with cabinet members' areas of responsibility. The report was also scrutinised at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Town Centre Strategies

An update on town centre strategies was presented, outlining the council's approach to managing and improving town centres between 2017 and 2022. The strategy, informed by various council teams and local stakeholders, sits alongside other key documents like the local plan and retail capacity study. Councillor John Pierce raised a question about the exclusion of Redchurch Street and Lower Bethnal Green from the Brick Lane town centre strategy, given its recent transformation and inward investment. Fiona Crehan explained that the area would be included as part of the Brick Lane Regeneration Program. Councillor Sirajul Islam inquired about linking markets with town centres to create visitor routes, which was confirmed as part of ongoing work. Councillor Peter Golds commented on the historical lack of designated town centres in Tower Hamlets and drew comparisons with the success of Westfield Stratford City, urging a focus on creating vibrant district centres. He also raised concerns about the prevalence of fast food shops and fixed-odd betting terminals. The report noted the challenges of managing areas like Chapman Street and the need to balance policy with the natural evolution of retail areas. The Cabinet agreed with the recommendations in the report.

Infrastructure Delivery Framework: CIL Collection, Allocation, and Expenditure

The Cabinet received and noted the Infrastructure Delivery Framework report on Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) collection, allocation, and expenditure. Councillor Rachel Blake highlighted the transparency of the report, which details Section 106 and CIL payments. Councillor Andrew Wood raised concerns about the amount of unallocated funds and suggested renegotiating older Section 106 agreements with developers to repurpose funds. Matthew Pullen, Head of Infrastructure Delivery, clarified that the £82 million figure represents funds in various states of development and allocation, not simply sitting in a bank account. He explained that large projects, such as secondary schools, require accumulated funds before they can commence. The complexities of health infrastructure planning with the NHS and GPs were also discussed. The Cabinet agreed with the recommendations and noted Councillor Wood's comments.

Corporate Directors' Decisions

The Cabinet noted two decisions made by corporate directors, which exceeded delegated amounts and therefore required reporting. Councillor David Edgar confirmed that these decisions did not raise any particularly sensitive matters. The recommendations were agreed.