Havering Council Meeting, 23rd July 2025 (Part Two)

This Council commits to taking back control of development in Havering, through the creation and implementation of Neighbourhood Plans and Social Value shopping lists within the next six months, putting residents and local communities at the heart of planning. Motions.pdf

David Tayor (1hour)¹ embraces Havering’s prejudices. Flats are alien in Havering, blots on the landscape. Preventing the building of them is politically a ‘Good Thing’. His cunning plan is pressure groups, or Neighbourhood Plans. Only Keith Darvill (1:06) said social housing is desirable even though this implies flats (see Addendum). Keith didn’t mention high density flats as a solution for homelessness. Graham Williamson (1:11) speaking for HRA, said he was helpless…as usual. Jane Keane (1:17) worried about ‘taking back control’ but didn’t say why. Jason Frost (1:19) favoured councillors as ‘influencers’. Chris Wilkins (1:21) was unintelligible.

The homeless are collateral damage to Havering’s negativity. Graham Williamson remarked on the harm development meant for residents. Residents are voters in this context. Havering has a problem, the hidden homeless,² many of whom are ‘sofa-surfing’. And then there are adults stranded in the family home at 30 years old. There are many such men and women in Havering. Havering’s housing policies serve only homeowners or, in the case of 16 councillors, owners of buy-to-let houses.³

Havering is heartless for any but the wealthy.⁴

Addendum: Housing density

The most densely populated square kilometre in the country, for example, is London’s neighbourhood of Maida Vale, which hosts around 20,000 people. In contrast, some urban areas in Europe exceed 50,0000 people, peaking at 53,000 in Barcelona. And if we take the number of people living in apartments as an indicator of housing density, this accounts for almost half (48%) of Europe’s population, compared with just 17% in the UK. This suggests that there may be the potential to increase the density of our residential developments, which would enable more homes to be built without expanding the development footprint. Source: Should we increase housing density? | CBRE UK (my emphasis. This would protect the Green Belt)

Best Cynicism: Damian White ~ absent yet again

Notes

1 Annotator Player All timings related to this webcast There was 18% (10/55) absenteeism at this meeting, which is utterly disgraceful.

2 “Hidden” homelessness in the UK: evidence review – Office for National Statistics

3 This debate reflects the councillors that Havering has See Havering’s Councillors: The Democratic Deficit in Action – Politics in Havering

4 JSNA Demography Chapter 2023 v0.3A.pdf p54 HRA opposed housing selling for million plus. See New Homes for Sale | Kings Green, Upminster Development See also The sale of ‘Hall Lane Pitch and Putt’: Conservative Revenge? – Politics in Havering

Havering Council Meeting, 23rd July 2025 (Part One)

Councillors quiz cabinet members at Question Time (QT)¹. Environmental questions dominated, with 8 out of 15. Two critical issues weren’t asked: (1) Green Belt development, and (2) Air pollution.² There was however, a motion about the Launders Lane disaster.³

QT is critical and only 35 minutes were used of the 45 available. This suggests that the 15 questions limit should be scrapped. QT should end when the 45 minutes are complete. This would bring it into line with Parliament’s PMQ.⁴

Discussion

Barry Mugglestone’s interesting style buries questions in a blizzard of legislation references. For supplementary questions he says either councillors or members of the public haven’t kept him informed, so it’s their fault there’s a problem. David Taylor’s question about tree feathering narrowing the pavement outside Mawney school (Q10, 43minutes) was a classic example. He said he’d prioritise this in 2026. Result!

Philip Ruck (31) asked about cabinet members avoiding scrutiny committees. Ray Morgon conceded the point and, in effect, said they’d been ordered to attend. Based on answers by Chris Wilkins (35 and 45), Graham Williamson (53) and Natasha Summers (26) attendance might not mean enlightenment.

Finally, Viddy Persaud (39) raised the important question of the premature collection of Council Tax. Ray Morgon conceded this administrative error, apologised and moved on. It is impossible to avoid the thought that some people might have been thrust into a temporary overdraft. This is costly. Viddy didn’t pursue that point.

Best Question: Philip Ruck

Notes

1 Council Questions 23 July 2025.pdf All times come from this webcast Annotator Player

2 Gallows Corner is shut and perfect for a *Before-After* analysis.

3 Motion C proposed a debate about this issue. Motions.pdf Surprisingly it didn’t demand the reinstatement of the Statutory Nuisance Notice.

4 The weekly Prime Ministers Questions

Havering’s Overview and Scrutiny Board, 3rd July 2025

Introduction

Item 6, concerned sick leave, agency staff and its financial implications.¹ Sick leave levels, “[Have] fallen further to 9.9 days at 30th April 2025.” Appendix 2says this amounts to 20,807 days per year. National statistics say, “There was also a fall in days lost per worker, to 4.4 in 2024…”² Havering’s council is 125% above the national average at a cost of £2m p.a.

Stress, depression and mental health costs the council £610K and Muscular-skeletal costs £506K, both annually.³ These are the two biggest categories.

Councillors are a poor example for staff.⁴ In the six months to 5^th July 2025, 55 councillors were scheduled to attend a total of 460 meetings. They attended 386 – a 16% absentee rate.

The council is rotting from the head down.⁵

Discussion

There were important contributions from David Taylor (1:55).⁶ He said that agency staff were healthier. At (2: 04) he said ‘Millennials’ were very sickly. His best point was (2:19) when he posited causes of muscular-skeletal sick leave (£506K). He suggested one cause might be ‘Working from home’ with poor working conditions. Jane Keane pondered ‘tolerated’ sick leave as a reason for sick leave. She then discussed domestic abuse and sick leave. Other contributions were made by Matt Stanton, Dilip Patel and Martin Goode.

Officers made few substantive replies to councillors with too many ‘getting back’ with emails later.

Conclusion

The committee is a joke. There was 41% councillor absenteeism at this meeting. This ruins institutional memory. The contribution of Phillippa Crowder (2:29) demonstrated the power of that memory. It also destroys any development of forensic debating skills. Scrutiny should be uncompromising but this committee is cosy and nice.

Innovative strategies for bringing Havering’s statistics in line with national levels don’t exist.⁷ Questions about dismissals for poor staff attendance weren’t asked. Likewise, challenging failed strategies was obviously infra dig.

Councillors are complicit in accepting Havering’s sick leave culture.

Notes

1 HR 1 – Report.pdf

2 HR 2 – Appendix 1 and 2 OS Report – Data Dashboard.pdf See also Sickness absence in the UK labour market – Office for National Statistics Havering is trying to achieve 8 days of sick leave, which is, apparently a stretch target.

3 loc.cit Appendix 2b

4 Havering Councillors’ Attendance: 1st August 2023 – 24th January 2024 – Politics in Havering

5 Absentees: cllrs Ruck (he was present via Zoom which counts as an absence), Garrard, Godwin, Vincent and Anderson: 5 out of 12 (41%)

6 Annotator Player Timings refer to this webcast

7 Worse than that: the target set is 8 days sick leave, 3.6 days above the national level.

A tale of two boroughs: Havering and Westminster’s Council Tax

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Animal Farm by George Orwell (1945)

Council tax was created by a panics-stricken Conservative government after the Poll Tax riots. Eight bands were created and were meant to be reviewed every five years. George Osborne’s fiscal extremism was the coup de grace for local finance.It destroyed any sense of reality for councillors who have resorted to borrowing to pay current expenditure. The local authority credit cardhas, as it were, been maxed out. Osborne and expanding duties made bankruptcy inevitable with a mountain of debt for future generations. But, as Orwell would have said: not all councils are equal.

The 2025-6 council tax for Westminster is astonishing. Band ‘D’ is the mid-point in the council tax system and they have set the charge at £1,019. 17 miles to the east, and on a different fiscal planet, Havering’s band ‘D’ charge is £2,313.55. This is above band ‘H’ in Westminster.¹

As might be expected, Westminster house prices are very high.² The first house available on Rightmove costs £2.6m. (The second house listed is £80m.) Being immensely rich means Westminster has many more band ‘H’ houses than Havering.³ Many more is a galactic under-statement. Romford constituency has 40 band ‘H’ houses, Hornchurch and Upminster has 320 and Westminster……..15,530!

Obviously their revenue base is huge. Westminster’s band ‘H’ council tax is £2,038. For Havering it is £4,627, which is too low.⁴

Havering has been wrecked by (a) national politicians and their cowardice, (b) Conservative extremism, (c) ever expanding duties for adult services and homelessness and (d) local delusions.

Notes

1 Westminster council tax bands & costs 2025/26

2 Properties For Sale in Westminster | Rightmove

3 d:\Users\Chris\Downloads\CTSOP2_1_adhoc_2015_2024 (1).zip 4 Council Tax bands and bills | London Borough of Havering

4 Council Tax bands and bills | London Borough of Havering

Havering’s Council Tax 2025-6

Havering Council is bankrupt. The usual explanation is the cost of Adult Services and Homelessness. That’s glib. Council Tax was introduced in 1991 by a panic-stricken Conservative government reeling from the Poll Tax riots. They planned valuation reviews every five years, after which council tax would be recalibrated reflecting property price inflation. No reviews have taken place. Areas with massive property price inflation, like Havering, haven’t had council tax adjustments.

Havering’s Council Tax 2025

In 1991 a £320,000+ band ‘H’ house¹ in Havering had a council tax of £1070. This equates to 0.33% of its minimum value.

In 2025 a band ‘H’ property is worth about £2m.³ Council tax for band ‘H’ is £4,627, which is 0.23%. This doesn’t look much but it is a 30% difference.

Council tax has significantly reduced for band ‘H’’ property owners since 1991.

Inflation since 1991

Band ‘H’ houses were valued at £320,000+ in 1991. Using standard inflation, that increased to £733,720 in 2025.⁴ House price inflation is a multiple of standard inflation. A 1991 £320,000+ house is now £2,157,601,⁵ an inflation rate of 574%.

Council Tax is a failure

Political cowardice by governments has bankrupted Havering.⁶ Council tax is a failed mechanism for funding council services.⁷ Continuing to use 1991 valuations is ludicrous.

Correcting 34 years of inertia will take political courage………I’m not holding my breath.

Notes

1 Council Tax bands and bills | London Borough of Havering

2 Properties For Sale in Emerson Park | Rightmove

4 Inflation calculator | Bank of England

5 House price index | Nationwide

6 Havering Council Tax: Is It Too Low? – Politics in Havering This was written in 2020 but the analysis is still valid though the examples are historic.

7 George Osborne’s Age of Austerity programme, 2010-16, put the knife to the throat of Havering’s finances and matters more than sub-optimal increases in council tax.

Havering Council Meeting, 26th March 2025 (part two)

“This Council recognising the importance of volunteers in supporting local people and organisations calls on the Administration to evaluate its arrangements and policies supporting the Havering Volunteer Centre…” Havering Volunteer Centre¹

The principal purpose of council meetings is debating motions. The council allocates 75 minutes for debate. Any councillor can contribute.

The opportunity to hold the Administration to account escaped the cold dead hands of opposition councillors at this meeting.

One Motion Only

Allocated Time ~ 75 minutes: Time used in debate ~ 26 minutes

Jane Keane (1 hour 10)² began the debate with a thorough analysis of the role of volunteers. She highlighted the necessity of the Havering Volunteer Centre. This is a council owned property and rent could triple to £36,000 p.a. Jane emphasised the Centre’s location on Romford high street. The building is shared with three other volunteer groups.

David Taylor (1:15) discussed the added value of the voluntary sector, which is calculated at £20bn nationally. Viddy Persaud (1:18) said the Havering sector is valued at £1.2m. The human importance was movingly spoken of by Tim Ryan (1:28). Tim described the support his family received for his very ill father. Joshua Chapman (1:19) spoke of “social infrastructure” and its incalculable value.

Matt Stanton (1:26) named names. He described the work of one volunteer. By drilling down into specifics he made the debate concrete just like Tim.

Gillian Ford (1:20) discussed the alternative accommodation which had been offered but had been deemed unsuitable by the Volunteer Centre. Keith Prince (1:24) paraphrased Oscar Wilde³ by saying the Administration knew the cost of everything but the value of nothing.

Ray Morgon (1:31) supported the motion. Unfortunately, he also employed the term ‘reckless’ three times, alongside “have to evaluate”, “funding streams” and “fear-mongering”. Presumably this means ‘hard choices’ will be made.

Council Meeting

Allocated Time ~ Two hours 45 minutes: Time Used ~ One hour 36 minutes

Addendum: Questions and Debate Topics

As councillors are struggling to find questions and debate topics perhaps they should ask their constituents?

Notes

1 Motions.pdf

2 Annotator Player All times relate to the webcast

3 Oscar Wilde: ‘What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.’ — The Socratic Method

Havering Council Meeting, 26th March 2025 (part one)

Question Time¹

Question time (QT) is a regulated activity. A maximum of 15 questions to be answered in 45 minutes. Any question can be asked of any cabinet member and councillors are permitted a supplementary question. Supplementary questions are difficult for cabinet members because they are unprotected by officers.

QT is perfect for scrutiny. Unfortunately, it relies on councillors doing their homework before the meeting. Even worse, it relies on councillors asking questions.

The Conservatives asked five questions. Four were posed by David Taylor. None were asked by *superstar* Keith Prince or the Conservative Leader Michael White. This contrasted with five questions posed by Labour. Four Labour councillors asked questions. East Havering RAs have three members and they asked two questions. Cranham RAs didn’t ask a question.²

There were supposed to be 55 councillors at this meeting.³ Seven asked questions but King Lethargy triumphed. 48 councillors didn’t ask a question. The allocated 15 questions weren’t utilised and the cabinet jog-trotted through their answers.

QT is pitiful.⁴ Councillors are semi-professional and don’t understand their role in the council chamber. There aren’t any *new* members now. They’ve all been in office for three years. Havering’s councillors are semi-detached.

15 questions allocated ~ 13 questions asked.

45 minutes allocated ~ 33 minutes used.

Addendum: Former Councillor John Mylod

John Mylod died recently and, as usual, councillors offered eulogies. Also, as usual, they spoke at length. The eulogies lasted 18 minutes.⁵ They were in the comfort zone of heart-warming remarks about a former councillor. Meanwhile 33 minutes was spent discussing the performance of the council, which is in crisis.

Notes

1 Council Questions 26 March 2025.pdf

2 They only have two members and I don’t know if they are entitled to ask questions.

3 Six offered apologies but I didn’t see Damian White so it may be that there were 7 absences. 12.7%.

4 Annotator Player From 36 minutes onwards

5 Annotator Player From 10 minutes onwards

Havering’s Council Tax Meeting, 26th February 2025 (part one)

Background

Havering is bankrupt. A legal ‘budget’ was set by borrowing a maximum of £88m from the government. The interest will, catastrophically, be added to the debt.

Principal Speeches

Chris Wilkins (Cabinet Member, Finance)

Chris’s (12 minutes)¹ new tactic is a seminar presentation. There were constant references to slides (invisible to users of the webcast). It reeked of officer speak.

He spent 13 minutes whining. His attack on the Conservatives was ineffective.²Chris failed to convince on the expensive urgency of the ‘food waste project’. He’s going to lobby the government for more grant finance. Good luck with that!

John Tyler (Cranham RAs)

John was a revelation (26). He offered a critique of choices and said government loans will cost £5m in interest. His propositions were adding seven posts to increase efficiency, pausing the Harold Wood library closure and a reduction in carparking fees. His one saving proposition was not borrowing a £1m and saving £50k interest.

Dilip Patel (Conservative)

His speech (34) provoked a stand-off between the Mayor and the Conservatives. They displayed posters which the Mayor didn’t like. It’s procedurally OK but the Mayor demanded they be removed and the Tories backed down. (If they’d been serious they’d have challenged the chair and had a ding-dong.)

Dilip’s amendments were more police, more CCTV and keep open Harold Wood library. This all paid for by not having the food waste scheme. Good knockabout stuff.

(The Mayor explained what a ‘point of order’ is to Barry Mugglestone.)

Keith Darvill (Labour)

Keith made a very good speech (46). He said the budget is ‘fiction’. And he’s right. Havering’s bankruptcy means government loans balance the books. The debt could reach £200m in 2026-7 with only statutory services provided. He hoped the Fair Funding propositions would rescue Havering but increased defence spending make that unlikely. Next years’ interest charge will be about £10m.

Martin Goode (East Havering RAs)

Martin returned (58) to his normal themes of budgets that over promise and under-achieve. Importantly he highlighted the costs of closing libraries. These costs reduce savings. He thought that Harold Wood’s closure should be paused. A good solid speech. He should provide evidence about under-achievement of savings. Martin relies on assertion, which creates a credibility gap.

Best Speech: John Tyler

Note

1 Annotator Player All times relate to this webcast

Havering’s Cabinet, 22nd January 2025

The Conservatives have their third leader since 2022. Michael White is a veteran from when the electorate elected Conservatives.

Barry Mugglestone (one minute)¹ introduced the borough’s ‘Food Disposal’ policy.² He had a blizzard of statistics and costings, which were meant to ‘shock and awe’. David Taylor (4minutes) had prepared searching questions. He relished asking them and created a classy debate.

Food Disposal is government policy and Havering is new to it. David wondered if officers had done comparative research to avoid reinventing the wheel. The answer: not much.

Havering’s two year contract for non-obligatory caddy bin liners is £1million. Havering is bankrupt. Barry (9 minutes) wanted to withdraw his proposal but was ignored. Gillian Ford (17 minutes) said bin liners should be provided and stopped later on. Good luck with that!

Natasha Summers (48 minutes) wants to reduce homelessness costs.³ The policy will save £1.8m over ten years. Meanwhile bin liners will cost £1m over two years. Converting a Basildon office building will provide 34 units. Havering residents will be shipped out to Basildon for their housing needs.

Michael White (50 minutes) showed political Leadership. He pursued the implications of the policy for residents and Basildon. He said homeless people are shuffled around and Havering was a victim of inner-London disposal policies. The savings are negligible and it is papering over the cracks.

These discussions implied cabinet members don’t critique their papers. They should be more than spokespersons for officers.

Notes

1 Annotator Player All timings refer to this webcast

1 5.0 amended Cabinet – Food Waste 22.01.2025 1.pdf

3 8.0 Cabinet Paper – Office to residential conversion to accommodate homeless families at Eastgate Ho.pdf

Havering’s Council Meeting, 20th November 2024 (part two)

Militant trade unionists in the 1970s dragged meetings out to exasperate ‘ordinary’ members who left long before the end of meetings. Extremist motions were then agreed ‘democratically’. Keith Prince has watched the videos with enthusiasm.

Motion B (see addendum one) implies huge expenditure and Havering is bankrupt. Keith Darvill (2:07)¹ said ‘every park is different’, with the main difference being some parks can’t be economically fenced and gated. He cited Upminster Park. Barry Mugglestone (2:04) missed the point at length. The proposer Tim Ryan (2:00) was sincerely misguided. And that was the debate.

Enter Comrade Keith Prince (2:00) and (2:17).

Keith likes procedural points. His speciality is nit-picking. Unlike militant trade unionists, he can’t add two hours to a meeting. Whatever extremist motions he’d dreamt up – the Peoples’ Republic of Romford? – were unheard. Keith was posturing against the clock and a legal officer enjoying the limelight.

Keith had support from Michael White (2:20). Michael mocked the fact that the HRA demanded that their amendment be presented to council. HRA don’t realise THEY ARE the Administration and they don’t need motions presented – to themselves. The HRA motion was piffle.

Jane Keane (2:14) was outraged that the motion to discuss the safety of women was binned (see addendum two). Soothing words were spoken but there was a nasty taste in the mouth.

Best Moment: Dilip Patel’s (15) anecdote about former councillor Pam Craig

Addendum One: Conservative Motion B

Chamber recognises Havering has reached unacceptable levels of antisocial behaviour in our parks. Council calls on the Administration to produce a detailed plan to reduce levels of antisocial behaviour and to resume the overnight locking of parks, and to present this proposal at the meeting of Council.²

Addendum Two: Labour Motion C

This Council condemns violence against women and children and recognises the particular challenges of finding emergency refuge accommodation for mothers with boys over the age of 12 years old. This Council calls upon the Administration to work with refuge organisations to find solutions to the lack of available refuge places.²

Notes

1 Annotator Player All times refer to this webcast

2 Motions (Public Pack)SUPPLEMENTARY AGENDA Agenda Supplement for Council, 20/11/2024 19:30