Agenda item

Croydon Question Time

The Mayor explained that Croydon Question Time would be taken in two parts.

The first part was public questions to the Leader and Cabinet, which was followed by questions from Members to the Leader and Cabinet. Wherever possible, the Cabinet Member provided an answer during the meeting, but if a question required detail that the Cabinet Member did not have with them then a written response would be published on the Council website within the following three weeks.

Public Questions

There were 30 minutes allocated to public questions, firstly from those who were in attendance and had emailed in their questions in advance.

The first question was from Mark Samuel.

“Will the leader please confirm the time and date when The Queen’s Gardens will be permanently reopened to the public?”

In her response, the Leader, Councillor Hamida Ali stated that she expected The Queen’s Gardens to reopen in February 2022 upon completion of the final block. There were some ongoing issues with the Planning Department regarding the potential for providing a café and stepped access to the north west corner of the site but it is not expected that those issues would delay the reopening to the public.  In addition Councillor Ali stated that she would send further details direct to Mr Samuel.

In his supplementary question, Mr Samuelasked whether the Leader had any plans for the Borough to celebrate the Platinum Jubilee of Her Majesty The Queen in 2022.

In her reply, Councillor Ali stated that she attended the tree planting event mentioned by the Mayor earlier and that she had had a conversation with the Deputy Lieutenant, Colonel Ray Wilkinson regarding other opportunities for the community to come together in June 2022.

The next question was from Collette Luke.

“Would the Council be prepared to provide free transport for schools, elderly residents and disabled groups to access Waddon Pool safely?”  

In his response, the Cabinet Member for Culture & Regeneration, Councillor Lewisstated he had visited year 6 at St Aidan’s School are they were clearly passionate about their swimming lessons and the curriculum more generally. He went on to confirm that the Council was reviewing the responses to the consultation on mitigation following the closure of Purley Pool. Although it would not be possible to offer free transport, the Council did have some transport provision which could be hired outside of SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disability) drop off and pick up times and would be happy to have that discussion with the school to facilitate transport from the school to Waddon Leisure Centre.

Councillor Lewis continued by reassuring the Council that the students need for a pool in the Purley area was echoed in the revised Local Plan paper that would be discussed later in the meeting stated that any future development of the site should include a new community leisure facility with a swimming pool.

In her supplementary question Mrs Luke asked who should be contacted to book the transport.

In his response, Councillor Lewisstated that officers would be in touch with Mrs Luke to discuss the provision of transport and thanked the students for their work especially regarding the phasing of the traffic lights in Purley Way.

The next question was from Sonia Marinello.

“How do you measure success or failure if you have not set out some measurable objectives?”

In her response, the Leader stated that she believed that Councillor Muhammad Ali had been clear in his explanation earlier in response to the local petition the reasons behind the change from a temporary to an experimental scheme. This would give the chance carry out the monitoring, including obtaining the views of the residents in those neighbourhoods.

In her supplementary question, Miss Marinello asked with ANPR fines being set in the budget in March of this year and having no way of knowing in advance what the fines would be, were services being gambled on potential fines and was it truly about the environment.

In her response, the Leader confirmed that during the budget setting process it was necessary to make a number of assumptions. Such as the level of demand on services and inflation and this was just another example. As Councillor Muhammad Ali stated earlier the council takes its responsibilities around the climate emergency seriously and has worked with residents, including the Citizens Assembly on what actions needed to be taken. The aim of the Croydon Healthy Neighbourhoods had always been to improve the air quality locally and to make it safer to walk and cycle.

The next question was from Adele Benson.

“How long do you think is acceptable for a council tenant to wait for a leak to be repaired inside or outside their property?”

In her response, the Cabinet Member for Homes, Councillor Hay-Justicestated that the response times depend on the severity of the leak but for urgent leaks it should be within 24 hours, with work to repair being carried out within 15 days.

In her supplementary question, Ms Benson asked what would the Cabinet Member do to help those families who have had issues with damp for over six months and who have been fobbed off by the council.

In reply, Councillor Hay-Justice stated that she was not happy to hear this and agreed that it was not acceptable. However, she continued by acknowledging that there was a capacity issue within the repairs team, partly as a result of staff sickness due to Covid, which had led to longer response times but that she had put pressure on the team to carry out repairs at pace.

The next question was from Lynne Leathem.

“What do your residents need to do so that you actually hear them, why is it that your councillors are ignoring their residents- local councillors won’t listen to us, respond to us and represent us?”

In her response, the Leader stated that there are a number of examples where residents had been listened to such as the library consultation where all libraries have been kept open and the consultation on children’s centres where particular issues had been highlighted by users of the Purley Oaks facility. However, the Leader did acknowledge that there were major issues around funding for local government and that hard decisions on which services should receive that funding needed to be made. It was down to all councillors to balance the competing issues when making those difficult decisions to ensure that residents are not promised services that cannot be delivered which this Administration had done.

In her supplementary question Ms Leathem asked how many children would die as a result of this poorly implemented fiscal scheme.

In replying, the Leader reiterated what she and Councillor Muhammad Ali had stated earlier that the reason for moving from temporary to experimental had been to allow for data to be collected and analysed, to check whether the scheme was doing what it had been designed to do. The ultimate aim was to improve air quality for all Croydon communities and these experimental schemes allow analysis of the data to see if they were genuinely working.

The next question was from Donald Ekekhomen.

“When will all the communal doors in Croydon stock be fixed? Many of the doors in blocks in Waddon are broken and pose a security risk to residents.”

In her response, Councillor Hay-Justice statedthat tenant safety was of great importance to her and to the ward councillors who had alerted her of this issue. As a result of this issue being brought to her attention, Councillor Hay-Justice confirmed that she had asked officers to carry out an investigation so that all the issues with doors were known about and that a plan of repair would be provided to her and that she was happy to share that with Mr Ekekhomen and the ward councillors so that residents were kept informed.

In his supplementary question Mr Ekekhomen asked how the Council was different to rogue landlords if it cannot provide security for these residents many of whom are frail and elderly.

In replying Councillor Hay-Justice hoped that the Council was not considered as a rogue landlord due to the fact that the front door was not working but acknowledged that it was not a good situation for tenants to be faced with. In the past these blocks had had wardens who would have picked up these issues and also made residents feel safer by patrolling the area but these were removed by the previous Administration.

The next question was from Kostandinos Dexiades.

“On 20 September I asked you a question and you stated that as it was a long question, that you were going to write to me. It is now December and you haven’t answered my question. When are you going to email me back?”

In his response, theCabinet Member for Resources & Financial Governance, Councillor Young stated that he had sent a reply several weeks ago which he had believed had gone through but realised today that it had not gone through. He apologised for that and confirmed that a reply had now been sent.

In his supplementary question Mr Dexiades asked again whether the response had been sent as it was now three months since he had asked his question.

In his reply, Councillor Young confirmed again that he had seen a draft response several weeks ago and that he thought that it had been sent. I had been assured that the response had now been sent.

The Mayor confirmed that a number of written questions from people who were unable to attend had been received and a written response to these will be published on the Council website within the next three weeks. 

Leader and Cabinet Member Questions

With the end of time allocated to questions from members of the public in attendance the Mayor moved on to public questions to the Leader and Cabinet Members.

Questions to the Leader

The Leader confirmed that she had no announcements to add to her announcements earlier.

Councillor Perry in his question stated that at a recent GPAC (General Purposes & Audit Committee) meeting the Council had received a draft version of another possible Report in the Public Interest coming from the Grant Thornton review of the Fairfield Halls refurbishment and asked whether the Leader had seen it.

In her response, the Leaderreminded Members that the Council had referred this matter to Grant Thornton due to concerns in the previous governance arrangements and the arrangements between the Council and Brick by Brick to undertake the refurbishment. The auditor had conducted a value for money report and at the present time we are awaiting the conclusion of that work.

In his supplementary question, Councillor Perry stated that the Leader was a member of the Cabinet at the time the work was undertaken and shouldn’t she and her colleagues who were in the Cabinet at the time be resigning immediately.

In her response, the Leaderstated that the council raising its own concerns demonstrated determination the address historic issues around governance and put the council on a more secure foundation, both financially and around governance.

Councillor Henson, in her questionstated that with the introduction of the Omicron variant of Covid and all the tragic consequences that are already being seen, could the Leader reflect on what the effect of the new restrictions would have on Croydon.

In her response, the Leader agreed that the Omicron variant was already having an impact and was a real concern for the community. The Leader reminded Members of the importance of what everyone could do to keep each other safe and abiding by the new guidance that had just come out. The Leader continued by emphasising the importance of getting vaccinated including boosters and for people to follow the guidance around testing and self-isolation.

The Leader continued by stating that the further restrictions would have an effect on Croydon’s businesses but as stated earlier she was working with officers  on how to best use Additional Restrictions Grant to support businesses.

Councillor Bains, in his question stated that he was constantly being asked by the public about the disciplinary action on those involved in the actions that led to the bankruptcy. He asked the Leader to let us know when will the public see a full and frank account of which councillors, past and present, and which staff members, past and present, did what and when to cause the bankruptcy.

In her response, the Leader stated thatthe Appointments Committee had commissioned an Investigation and Disciplinary Committee to launch an investigation into members of staff who were at the time suspended. That investigation was still live and underway and she offered to supply Councillor Bains with a written update.

The Leader continued by reminding Councillor Bains that two members of the Council had resigned over the events of last year.

In his supplementary question, Councillor Bains confirmed that he would like a copy of the interim report.

At this point, the Interim Monitoring Officer, John Jones interceded to state that as this was an active investigation it would not be possible to supply this information until the investigation was complete. However, he was sure that the Leader would supply what information she could.

Councillor Ben-Hassel, in her question stated that Norbury was well connected to the Afghan community and that one of the hotels housing Afghan refugees was in her ward. She had been contacted by the Croydon Afghan Women’s Association raising concerns regarding family members with statuses that were still in limbo or who were still at risk stuck in Afghanistan. Would the Leader advice on what support we are able to give as a local authority to the Afghan refugee community in Croydon.

In her response, the Leader stated that there were a number of hotels within Croydon that were being used to house Afghan asylum seekers whilst their applications were being processed and that it was a challenge for the council to fully support these people as no additional Government funding had been made available.  The council had also taken on the duty of supporting the unaccompanied children within that group.

The Leader continued by stating that officers had raised concerns regarding the living conditions of some of these refugees and she shared these concerns. She continued by thanking the voluntary sector who had been working to provide additional support and stressed that it was a national duty to provide support, which should be spread more widely across the country.

Councillor Hopley, in her question asked that as there were still budgetary pressures around adult social care and health and a great reliance placed on health partners to take up some of this, what contractual arrangements had been signed to give assurance that there would not be an overspend and departmental budgets would not spiral out of control.

In her response, the Leader stated that the NHS was not picking up costs that the council had incurred. The Leader continued by referring Councillor Hopley to the monthly Cabinet reports and to the figures for period 7 which showed that the council was on track to deliver within budget.

Pool 1

With the end of the time allocated for questions to the Leader, the Mayor moved to questions to the Cabinet Members in the first pool. Councillor King and Councillor Young were invited to make their announcements.

Councillor King,Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Croydon Renewal, informed members that the Council was still waiting for the announcement from Government on the local government spending settlement.

In his question, Councillor Jason Cummings stated that next years’ budget was currently £13 million short of being balanced even with another £25 million of borrowing and contained within that was £12 million which had been marked down as coming from local health. How much of that some had been agreed by them.

In his response. Councillor King confirmed that the council was in constructive discussions with the local NHS which had been ongoing for some time and that the council was keen to see a more realistic cost sharing with the NHS for the discharge of high needs patients from hospital. In addition, the council was seeking to obtain some of this revenue via NHS funds which were delivered sub locally and at regional level and these budgets are not confirmed until February 2022 and therefore cannot finalise a budget for next year until those budgets are confirmed.

In his supplementary question, Councillor Cummings asked whether it was fair that council mismanagement of finances was going to take money away from the NHS.

In reply, Councillor King stated that it was perfectly reasonable for the council to seek fair allocations of costs  and that hoped that he would be supported by councillors to seek any funding that the council was entitled to from a variety of sources. He continued by saying that the conversations with the NHS had been amicable and constructive.

In her question, Councillor Ben-Hassel, asked about what were the key assumptions that under pin the budget and the Medium Term Financial Strategy that was presented to Cabinet on 6 December 2021.

In his response. Councillor King confirmed that there were a number of assumptions detailed within the report that had been discussed at that meeting, including the 1.99% rise in Council Tax together with the additional 1% allowed through the Adult Social Care Levy. An additional assumption included related to the New Homes Bonus which it was hoped the Government would be continuing.

In concluding Councillor King, reminded members that the capitalisation had not yet been confirmed by Government and that this funding could be withdrawn if the Government did not think that the tough financial decisions were being taken.

In her supplementary question, Councillor Ben-Hassel asked what were the key risks associated with this budget.

In reply, Councillor King stated that there were risks associated with the pandemic such as an increase in demand for services and the wider impact on the economy and how that would affect the council and the services that are provided. In continuing Councillor King reiterated his previous answer that the NHS budget would not be known until February 2022.

In concluding, Councillor King stated that there were 41 members who had been determined to make the decisions necessary to balance the budget but that as the Opposition had voted against every savings proposal there would be a real risk that the Opposition would not do what was necessary.

In his question, Councillor Jason Cummings, stated that the Non-Statutory Review which took place recently, reported back that the Croydon Park Hotel was being sold for a price significantly below what was paid for it. Additionally it reported that for the two years it was sitting empty, it cost £1 million a year to maintain and asked Councillor King whether these two statements were correct.

In his response. Councillor King stated then when this issue had been discussed by Cabinet he did not take part due to a perceived conflict of interest and deferred the response to Councillor Callton Young.

In response, Cabinet Member for Resources & Financial Governance, Councillor Young referred members to the Cabinet report as Part A and Part B gave set out the details.

In his supplementary question, Councillor Cummings asked whether the Labour Administration should not have bought that hotel.

In his response, Councillor King states that with hindsight no one would buy anything that would subsequently be sold for less than was paid for it. He regretted that the council did not receive the sum that it paid for it but that with the reasons highlighted in that paper there was a case for its disposal that the Assurance and Improvement Panel recognised.

In her question, Councillor Jewitt asked what members needed to do to get the Government to treat the citizens of Croydon with the same respect as those of Kensington and Chelsea, for example, when allocating the borough’s settlement. The latest wave of Covid was being dealt with but with no additional funding. What did the Deputy Leader consider to be the likely impact for the current year and for the budget in 2022/23 in terms of costs and deliverability of the savings?

In his response, Councillor King stated that Councillor Jewitt was quite right to point out that the council was not fairly funded as were a number of other outer London boroughs. There were a number of inner London challenges that were not being addressed as a result of this underfunding. Kensington and Chelsea received £400 per resident compared to Croydon’s £220 but the Government needed to honour its pledge for fair funding that reflected the needs and challenges for Croydon.

Councillor King continued by stating that the Covid pandemic presented a huge public health challenge but also budgetary risks as there could be increased demand for services and also present a threat to capacity as an organisation. At the start of the pandemic local government had been told to spend whatever was necessary to protect communities and councils would be properly reimbursed. However, Croydon experienced a £43 million shortfall in funding from Government so in the future spending in this area would be much more cautious.

In her supplementary question, Councillor Jewitt asked whether the Deputy Leader shared her concerns that Pharmacy was accepting so many booster bookings, for example, 30 for each 5 minute slot that residents had to queue in the street for up to two hours. Did he agree that the Government needed to do more to sort out this situation?

In his response, Councillor King agreed as he had seen the long queues for himself and that he would bring it to the attention of the Director of Public Health. He also agreed that it was important that as many people as possible take up the offer of a booster vaccine and that people needed to be able to do so in a safe way.

In her question, Councillor Hopley stated that the Cabinet meeting on 6 December had approved a reduction in employee contributions to the pension fund, which had gone against the advice of the fund actuary and asked whether the Cabinet Member had been aware of this.

In his response, Councillor Young stated that he had made it clear that the recommendations in report were the views of the actuary and he had asked the actuary to come back with a fuller response.

In her supplementary question, Councillor Hopley stated that the actuary had be explicate in their recommendation that the reduction should only go ahead if the property transfer also went ahead.  She continued by stating that she found it concerning that the paper went ahead in spite of the concerns that had been raised and that people’s pensions needed to be protected not put at risk by not listening to the actuary’s advice.

In his response, Councillor Young stated that Councillor Hopely was scaremongering.

A point of order was then made by Councillor Hopley which the Interim Monitoring Officer confirmed was not accepted.

Councillor Young continued by saying that the council staff needed to be reassured that the risks were not as Councillor Hopley described them. The offer on the table had come from the Pension Committee and came with the advice of the actuary and what the Cabinet did was to invite the actuary to confirm the recommendation. He continued by accepting that there was an issue regarding the deferment of the properties that will have to be addressed at a different time, but confirmed that at the current time there was no risk.

In his question, Councillor Fraser, asked whether the Cabinet Member considered that the council should give due regard to the tax practices of the firms it contracts with, so that as a public body it did not engage with those firms that practice tax avoidance and thus weaken the public purse.

In his response, Councillor Young welcomed the question which supported the Labour and Co-operative values which believed that all businesses should pay their taxes. This was imperative of Government to fund public services. He continued by stating that this practice had cost Croydon residents and services £96 million per year since 2010. Croydon Council should not enter into contracts with any company known to be engaged in tax evasion and the council was under a legal duty not to do so under the Public Contract Regulations 2015. However, there was no scope for councils to take similar action against companies believed to be practicing tax avoidance as it was legal although morally questionable and was a matter for HMRC (HM Revenue & Customs).

In his supplementary question, Councillor Fraser asked where did the council have scope to ask for fair tax statements which some retailers have already done along with ethical businesses and some other councils. Could this be something that the Cabinet Member would look at for the future as to how the issue could be resolved?

In his response, Councillor Young stated that if that course of action was to be taken, he would want to ensure that the statements were enforceable and had to mean something. However, he continued by stating that this would have to wait until the council had the capacity to take on new ideas.

Pool 2

With the end of time allocated to questions to the Cabinet Members in the first pool, the Mayor signalled he was moving on to questions to Cabinet Members in the second pool. Councillor Campbell, Councillor Lewis and Councillor Flemming were invited to make their announcements.

Cabinet Member for Families, Health & Social Care Councillor Campbell announced that social services workers within adult social care had received two awards and one recommendation from the Teacher Partnership Board. Firstly Natasha won on outstanding contributor and support to equality and diversity. Natasha was also runner-up for Social Worker of the Year. SecondlyLambert won Team Leader of the Year for her work on the Integrated Care Networks Plus in Thornton Heath. Congratulations and well done to both.

The Cabinet Member for Culture & Regeneration, Councillor Lewis informed Members that the Planning Advisory Service had been asked to come in and review performance and resourcing in the Development Management Planning Team and looked forward to receiving their constructive challenge on areas where improvements could be made.

The Cabinet Member for Children, Young People & Learning, Councillor Flemming informed Members of the recent publication of the results of the SEND (Special Educational Needs & Disability) inspection which was carried out jointly by OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills) and the Care Quality Commission. She encouraged all Members to have a look at the report as there were some encouraging highlights within the report and sets out how the service can improve.

In her question, Councillor Hale stated that a judicial review had recently found again the Council’s Planning Department with respect to a Sanderstead Ward application and asked how many other planning cases had been put on notice for or were currently subject to legal action.

,

In his response, Councillor Lewis stated that the council took this matter very seriously and endeavours to work within the regulations and where that had not happened to take action to rectify those cases.

In her supplementary question, Councillor Halestated residents had raised legitimate concerns that were ignored which had now been shown to be valid. The planners had been told about these issues but the residents have now been left with the consequences. She asked the Cabinet Member whether he cared about residents and what he was going to do to put right this situation.

In his reply, Councillor Lewisstated that he believed it was very important for residents’ voices to be heard as part of the planning process however the Government does not allow that to happen often enough. He paid tribute to Councillor Clark and Councillor Ben-Hassel who had worked very hard over the last year on the Planning Committee to ensure that residents’ views were heard and aired. The community development legislation being brought forward by the Government will remove any ability for residents to comment on proposals.

In her question, Councillor Jewitt asked what were the current issues around the discharge of vulnerable adults from hospital and what would the council doing to help address these problems.

In her response, Councillor Campbell stated that the current issues related to the new variant of Covid which was also leading to staff sickness and was in addition to the usual winter pressures. In response there was a drive to expand the booster programme, as mentioned earlier, and vaccine centres had increased staff numbers in order to achieve this. In addition the council had a winter plan in place and will be working as a multi-disciplinary team with colleagues from health and the CCG (Clinical Commissioning Group) to ensure efficient discharge from hospital. In addition, the council will also be working closely with care homes and carers and where there are gaps will seek to take action with the multi-disciplinary team to minimise risk.

In his question, Councillor Bains stated that the Labour administration was proposing to build thousands of new homes but the Planning Department was in disarray and a Judicial Review had been made against it. He asked how could the public take this administration seriously when they want to do this high amount of building and intensification when they had a department that already cannot enforce on illegal buildings that already exist.

In his response, Councillor Lewis explained that the aim of the Local Plan was to rise to the challenges that had been set. There was a housing crisis, not just in Croydon but across London and across the country.  The Local Plan will help to meet that challenge in a sustainable way that would also address the climate emergency and that the Administration felt that it was important to take local action to address a global problem. There would be an opportunity to vote on the Local Plan Review later in the meeting which he would be commending to Members as it will help to address these really important challenges and would do so in a sustainable and manageable way.

In his supplementary question, Councillor Bains stated that members of the public had expressed deep concern about the uncontrolled, cheap and unenforced development and asked the Cabinet Member to give an example of when he had changed his policy after having heard what the public had said.

In his reply, Councillor Lewis stated that Councillor Bains’ comments sounded like he was referring to permitted development where Government had said that it was OK for property developments to come in and wreck high streets which in Croydon had led to shoddy conversions and poor quality accommodation. The Local Plan was trying to sustainably grow the town to provide accommodation for young people and families. The Government is defending speculative property developers who want to come in and wreck the town.

In his question, Councillor Bonello asked that following the death of Jermaine Stills,what steps were being taken to enhance preventative services for young people in Croydon.

In her response, Councillor Flemming offered her condolences to the family again and continued by outlining the services that were provided including the Complex Adolescence Panel which works alongside children who are on the edge of care but are not in the children’s social care system.

Councillor Flemming continued by stating that the council worked in partnership with the Police and Youth Offending Service to provide wrap around support and reminded Members that although youth services were not statutory the administration had chosen to invest £6.5 million, alongside its partners, including in the Legacy Youth Zone. The causes of knife crime needed to be tackled including the ingrained poverty in the borough

In his supplementary question, Councillor Bonello asked whether a decade of austerity had had an impact of the capacity of the council to deliver preventative services for children and young people.

In her reply Councillor Flemming stated that budgets had been cut nationally by 76% and in Croydon two thirds of the budget was spent on protecting the most vulnerable.  She continuing by returning to her earlier point regarding the ingrained poverty and used the example from “Guiding Hands” to illustrate the problems caused during the school holidays in particular. Local authorities needed to be properly funded or this situation will not change.

.

In her question, Councillor Gatland stated that there had been some disappointing concerns highlighted within the SEND inspection report particularly around  Educational Healthcare Plans and the lack of information parents received around Personal Care Budgets and how to apply for them and asked when would that change.

In her response, Councillor Flemming thanked Councillor Gatland for the support she had given to the children and young people over the years and agreed that more needed to be done to make parents and carers aware of the Educational Healthcare Plans and Personal Care Budgets. She had heard first-hand the frustration that parents had felt. As a result. One of the actions being taken included additional staff training to allow staff to give far more support to parents and carers through the application process.

In her supplementary question, Councillor Gatland stated that millions of pounds had been taken out of the contract and asked when would that transformation, spoken about earlier, take place.

In her reply, Councillor Flemming stated that she would not comment on the statement regarding taking funding out of the contract having inherited a service where money had been stripped out. However the care package review work had already begun. She continued by stating that children and young people in the borough will always be at the forefront of any decisions that are made and that they will be in the best interests of the child or young person.

In concluding, Councillor Flemming stated that the transformation process was a continuing one which had already begun.

Pool 3

With the end of time allocated to questions to the Cabinet Members in the second pool, the Mayor signalled he was moving on to questions to Cabinet Members in the third pool. Councillor Hay-Justice, Councillor Shahul-Hameed and Councillor Muhammad Ali were invited to make their announcements.

The Cabinet Member for Homes, Councillor Hay-Justice announced that she had been to visit a Mrs Smith who was 109 years old and had been a tenant of Croydon Council for 50 years and who was one of the oldest residents in the borough. She was pleased to say that Mrs Smith was in great spirits and good health and Mrs Smith stated that she never been happier.

Councillor Hay-Justice continued by wishing Mrs Smith on behalf of the council best wishes for her future years.

The Cabinet Member for Communities, Safety & Business Recovery, Councillor Shahul-Hameed gave an update on the extra business support available due to the new Covid variant and the additional restrictions as a result. This was targeted support to those sectors such retail, hospitality and leisure where the pre-Christmas period was particularly important and the Cabinet Member was working with stakeholder organisations to identify those businesses.

The Cabinet Member for Sustainable Croydon, Councillor Muhammad Ali stated that COP26 came to a close last month with a somewhat disappointing end with more to be done nationally and locally. However, he announced that Croydon was stepping up and taking action and that last month its first community reuse shop was opened at Fishers Farm Household Waste and Recycling Centre. He continued by encouraging residents to bring items to be reused and to check out items for sale.

Secondly, Councillor Muhammad Ali stated that Croydon Council was making the switch to greener travel easier and last month enabled to installation of 60 new electric vehicle charging points in the borough with 20 more expected by February 2022 and the council was on target to install more than 400 by the end of this term. In addition, the council was on target to plant more than 3500 trees, also by the end of this term to help improve air quality.