Cllr
Gledhill states that “the housing department is responsible for a number of
area based facilities – including 14 play parks, 50 hectares of green space,13
hectares of footpaths, a further 30 hectares of hard surfaces and over 2,000
trees. It also provides 4 million kilowatt hours of electricity for heating and
lighting in our communal areas, helping to keep 3,000 of our tenants safe in
their blocks.”
Let’s
look closely at this statement and how it fails to justify some of the new
‘service charges’.
In the
leaflet, Council tax bill 2017/18 –
services, which is downloadable from the Thurrock Council website (https://www.thurrock.gov.uk/paying-your-council-tax/your-council-tax-bill-explained), it is clear that
the Tory-led council’s much lauded but very much unsuccessful “Clean it, Cut it, Fill it” initiative is
funded by Council Tax. This initiative
includes making “our borough is cleaner, looks tidier, and safe to ride or
drive around”. It is clearly stated
that, as part of this initiative, the council has “cut more grass” which means
that grass-cutting is included within the Council Tax payments made by all
residents of Thurrock. This means that
the “50 hectares of green space” mentioned in Cllr Gledhill’s defence of the
service charge is already on shaky ground as grass-cutting is part of the grounds
maintenance charge which is just one of the new charges being added to council
residents’ rent bills.
The
same leaflet also states that Thurrock Council will put “£1.3million into play
equipment for our parks over the next three years” which means that play areas
are also covered by Council Tax payments.
This takes care of the “14 play parks” that Cllr Gledhill mentions in
his defence of the service charges.
In the
leaflet, Council tax bill 2017/18 –
funding, which is downloadable from the Thurrock Council website (https://www.thurrock.gov.uk/paying-your-council-tax/your-council-tax-bill-explained), the following item
is included in the Capital Grants section: “Highways and environment”. The Thurrock Council website includes the
following items under the Environment and Safety section – “Roads and
pavements” and “Parks and countryside”.
Under the “Parks and countryside” section is a section called “Trees” (https://www.thurrock.gov.uk/tree-maintenance/tree-maintenance) which states that
the council “prune and maintain council-owned trees” and that “we are
responsible for trees growing in” “parks and open spaces” and “amenity greens”,
all of which are another blow to the defence of the grounds maintenance charge. This takes care of the “over 2,000 trees”
Cllr Gledhill mentions.
The
“Highways and Environment” section of the Thurrock Council website also
includes a section called “Play sites” (https://www.thurrock.gov.uk/play-sites/playgrounds) which states that “Thurrock
has over 70 playgrounds that are free for all to use”. This means that, despite the location of the
playground, any child can use it so it would be discriminatory to charge
council residents for an amenity that is not only already paid for within the
Council Tax charge but is open to anyone.
Under
the “Roads and pavements” section of the Thurrock Council website is a
sub-section called “Pavement maintenance” (https://www.thurrock.gov.uk/pavement-maintenance/pavements) which states that
the council is “responsible for maintenance of the highway, including pavements
and footpaths”. This means that the “13
hectares of footpaths” and “a further 30 hectares of hard surfaces” are covered
by the Council Tax that every resident of Thurrock already pays so to add an
additional charge for this service is discriminatory to those residents
affected.
So far
I have proved that not only are the services that Thurrock Council are
proposing to charge council tenants for are already covered by Council Tax
payments but that the “14 play parks, 50 hectares of green space, 13 hectares
of footpaths, a further 30 hectares of hard surfaces and over 2,000 trees” are
not the responsibility of the Housing Department but are under the departments
that cover environment and safety issues.
Cllr
Gledhill states that Thurrock Council “provides 4 million kilowatt hours of
electricity for heating and lighting in our communal areas, helping to keep
3,000 of our tenants safe in their blocks”.
This is not strictly true as some high-rise blocks don’t have communal
heating. Regardless of the heating
issue, communal lighting is a safety issue which brings it under the purview of
public health (“Public health is about helping people to stay healthy, and
protecting them from threats to their health.” - https://www.gov.uk/government/topics/public-health) as lighting in
communal areas prevents accidents that can cause bodily injury and prevent
mental health issues, that are covered by Public Health, involving paranoia and
Nyctophobia (fear of darkness). Communal
lighting can also cut down on the incidents of crime within multi-storey
buildings which is listed under the “Environment and Safety” section of the
Thurrock Council website as “Community safety and crime” bringing it under the
same departments responsible for environment and safety issues. All the issues I have raised under communal
lighting apply to anyone who lives in or visits the buildings in which the
communal lighting is installed therefore it would be discriminatory to charge
residents in those buildings for something that benefits non-residents as well.
It
could also be argued that lighting in communal areas of buildings are on a par
with street lighting as communal areas can be used by the public and are not
strictly part of a resident’s accommodation.
Cllr
Gledhill mentioned lift maintenance in very vague terms and not as part of his
full defence of the additional ‘service charges’ but I will counter the
argument that a charge should be added for it anyway. To place a charge on lift maintenance is
discriminatory towards the elderly residents of high-rise blocks who have lived
in those buildings for years, families with young children in pushchairs and
disabled people who need a lift for access to their home. A great many residents who live in high-rise
blocks would rather live in a house but were given no option when they were
offered a council property and, as such, a lift is a necessity for access to
their home for themselves, their visitors and the emergency services such as
paramedics and ambulance crews. Given
that lifts cannot be used in the event of a fire, charging residents in
high-rise buildings for a service that only allows access to their homes under
some circumstances but cannot be used to save them from being burnt to a cinder
during a fire is a little unfair. The
maintenance of such a ‘service’ should be covered by the departments that cover
environment and safety issues and public health which are paid for by Council
Tax payments.
Cllr
Gledhill does not mention in his defence of the new ‘service charges’ the issue
of door
entry systems but this is because he would find it difficult to justify
charging for it. Door entry systems are
part of a security system that is supposed to be for the community safety of
residents in those buildings; this means that the installation and maintenance
of such systems comes under the purview of the departments that cover
environment and safety issues which are paid for out of Council Tax payments.
However,
even if you disagree with that argument, there is the argument that the
‘secure’ door entry systems are nothing of the sort as people can walk in off
the street behind a genuine resident who doesn’t have the legal power to
prevent people from doing so. It also
doesn’t stop criminals who live in those buildings from letting in their
criminal friends to conduct drug deals for instance. There are also a number of residents who will
open the door for anyone who buzzes their flat and asks to be let in,
regardless of whether they know them or not.
Cllr
Gledhill is trying to make the stealth rent increase as merely charging for
‘services’ but, as has been shown, some of the ‘services’ are already covered
by Council Tax payments and some are discriminatory in their application. However, Cllr Gledhill has already blown his
own lie out of the water with the following sentence - “all of these charges
can be included as part of the rent for Housing Benefit purposes”. If this is the case then what is really
happening is really just an increase in rent.
This is
simply Cllr Gledhill’s administration’s way of getting around the 1% decrease
in council rents, imposed upon them by their own Parliamentary Party in
Westminster, so they can increase council rents like they wanted to from the
moment the Tories took control of Thurrock Council.
