This meeting of the full council saw the appointment of Councillor Majid Rahman as the new Cabinet Member for Planning, Estate Renewal and Development, replacing Councillor Aidan Smith who has left the council to take up a new role elsewhere. The council also voted to approve the adoption of a new Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charging schedule and to allow for the appointment of political assistants for both the Labour and Conservative groups.

Appointment of Cabinet Member for Planning, Estate Renewal and Development

Councillor Anthony Okereke, the Leader of the Council, paid tribute to Councillor Smith for his work as Cabinet Member for Regeneration, highlighting his dedication to delivering the Greenwich Builds programme, the council's 10-year regeneration plan, the Local Plan, and his ambition to tackle the housing crisis.

Councillor Matt Hartley, the Leader of the Opposition, also thanked Councillor Smith for his work as Cabinet Member, highlighting his focus on the CIL review. He commented that with the approval of the CIL review and the increased CIL income it is expected to bring, Councillor Smith can rightly be proud of the actions he took as the cabinet member with the Director of DRES as well .

Community Infrastructure Levy – Adoption

The Council voted to adopt a new CIL charging schedule, which will capture more forms of development than the previous schedule. The new schedule also increases rates for residential developments, which are expected to raise an extra £5 million in funding for infrastructure over the next five years. The independent examiner appointed to examine the new charging schedule agreed that the new rates were appropriate.

Councillor Hartley, on behalf of the Conservative group, said that he was satisfied with the independent examiner's conclusion that the new schedule struck a balance between maximising revenue from developers and attracting investment in the borough. He said that the Conservative group would be voting to adopt the new charging schedule.

Appointment of Political Assistants

The Council also voted to approve a proposal to allow for the appointment of political assistants for both the Labour and Conservative groups.

Councillor Okereke explained that the proposal had come about following an external peer review conducted by the Local Government Association (LGA), which had recommended that the Council should urgently address its working arrangements and systems to improve decision-making and maximise the effectiveness of joint working between elected members and officers. Councillor Okereke also referred to the 2022/23 Annual Audit Letter, in which the auditors Grant Thornton expressed concern that the leadership culture and the level of bureaucracy may become a barrier to the fast pace of change that is required to resolve the council's financial challenges. He said that the decision to appoint political assistants was central to upholding good governance and delivering on the administration’s ambitions for residents.

Councillor Hartley spoke against the proposal, arguing that the £83,000 cost of the scheme was unjustified at a time when the Council was having to make significant savings. He also argued that the proposal was politically inept and that Councillor Okereke's claims that it had come about as a result of the LGA peer review were a falsehood , pointing to a document from May 2022 in which Councillor Okereke had committed to recruit a political assistant. He said that the Conservative group had proposed an amendment to defer the decision until the Council had identified compensatory savings but that the amendment had been rejected. He argued that the proposed job description made it clear that all of the tasks a political assistant would be expected to undertake could be performed by one of Councillor Okereke's 50 Labour colleagues.

Councillor Denise Hyland, Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources and Social Value, said that the Council would try and make the appointment of political assistants cost-neutral.

Councillor Nick Williams said that he would be voting in favour of the proposal and challenged Councillor Hartley to explain whether he was accusing the LGA peer review team of colluding with Councillor Okereke to justify his long-held plan.

Councillor Mariam Lolavar spoke in favour of the proposals, saying that she rejected the opposition’s attempt to frame the proposal as an investment that would take money away from residents.

Councillor Adel Khaireh said that he had always supported the principle of political assistants and said that the current regulations governing their appointment stemmed from the 1989 Local Government Act, which was passed under Margaret Thatcher.

Councillor Majid Rahman said that winning his seat in East Greenwich in 2022 had highlighted to him how important it was to be able to break down political messaging for residents. He said that he and his colleagues had a lot of work to do for residents and that a political assistant would be able to ensure that Labour councillors were able to understand the political landscape in Greenwich and that residents received the same message from all Labour councillors.

Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins said that she believed the opposition’s vehement opposition to the proposal stemmed from a fear that a political assistant would allow the Labour group to be more effective. She also pointed out that paragraph 1.3 of the report stated that it was up to each group to decide whether or not they wanted to appoint a political assistant.

Councillor Sarah Merrill said that she did not believe there was a contradiction between supporting the proposal and the Labour group’s stated aim of winning seats currently held by the Conservative group.

Councillor Daniel Thorpe said that he had always been in favour of political assistants and highlighted the fact that other councils, including councils run by the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, also employed them.

Councillor Okereke responded to Councillor Hartley's comments, saying that he found them disappointing . He denied Councillor Hartley's accusation that he had made a false statement in saying that the appointment of political assistants had been recommended in the LGA peer review, saying that he had never said that the decision had been made because of Liz Truss's actions as Prime Minister. He said that Councillor Hartley should be cautious in making accusations in the council chamber. He concluded by reiterating his commitment to making Greenwich a reforming council, highlighting the work the council had done on delivering wellbeing hubs for schoolchildren, securing an outstanding Ofsted rating for children’s services, developing a new housing agenda, creating a green investment scheme, creating a sustainable transport fund, and delivering a balanced budget.