The Motion, as printed in the agenda, was proposed by Councillor Aker and seconded by Councillor Smith. The Motion read as follows:

“The Council calls on the Cabinet to initiate a local referendum for the residents of Greenwood House, Butler House and Davall House in Grays, to ask whether they accept demolition of the three blocks and the Council's proposals so far to re-house the residents. The Council calls for this referendum to be held before further consultation is carried out.”

Councillor Aker introduced the motion and in doing so reported that residents of the three blocks affected had attended surgeries to ask questions regarding the proposals. He expressed concerns that those who wanted to leave were being offered a reported sum of £4,000 and would be placed on a higher priority band of the Council’s Housing Waiting List, thereby disadvantaging other residents in need of Council housing. He further felt that residents should be given an opportunity to have their views heard and to be able to petition the Council in order to trigger a local referendum.

Councillor S. Little observed that she had worked alongside a previous Councillor on similar proposals in the past where extensive consultations had been undertaken, during which concerns had been highlighted regarding where the residents would be housed, how long the process would take, and the loss of Council properties. She reported that there were similar high rise blocks in Grays and Chadwell-St-Mary but also recognised that if the Council was committed to the regeneration of Grays a brave decision would need to be taken. She further explained that she felt a strong business plan needed to be developed so that a clear decision could be made, and that she did not think the considerable cost of a referendum would help the Council deliver the strong vision.

Councillor Worrall explained that Thurrock had a long and proud history of consulting with residents and did not think that a referendum would be beneficial in this case. She reported that a referendum would cost the Council a considerable sum of money and would not be able to deliver what the residents wanted, as a referendum by its virtue implied that whatever vote won would prevail. She explained that if a vote was won to demolish the blocks this may not be possible to deliver as the proposals had not yet been developed enough at this stage to identify all possible outcomes.

Councillor Worrall further reported that if the motion was agreed and a referendum undertaken, this would require the Council to cease all consultation and stop talking with local residents, and that this would an undesirable outcome for all concerned. As a result she felt the motion was ill thought through and poorly timed, following a substantial consultation period with local residents that included:

·         In October 2014 the first residents meeting of the steering group had been held, which had met each month since in order to communicate and consult on the proposals.

·         That in September 2014 a consultation was held and 377 responses received.

·         In March-June 2015 a further second consultation was undertaken to which 202 responses were received.

·         Two meetings had been held in June and July 2015, which had been attended by over 100 leaseholders and tenants.

·         That a cross-party Housing Regeneration Development Board had been established, the first meeting of which was expected to take place the following week in order to discuss the future of the six high rise tower blocks in Grays, not just the three mentioned in the motion.

·         That a third of the residents of the blocks referenced in the motion were taking actions to leave.

·         That numerous reports had been referred to Cabinet for Members consideration, in order to reach the best decision.

Councillor Kerin thanked Councillor Aker for this motion, but added that he could not support the motion as he felt that it was a blunt instrument that was not an appropriate means of engagement with residents which would prevent any consultation from taking place.

Councillor Halden felt that the Council Consultation process was not fit for purpose, especially on planning matters, and observed that the consultation responses received had been poor. He felt that a referendum was a good opportunity for local residents to have their say.

Councillor Hebb advised Members of the definition of a referendum and felt that there was more work to do before a referendum could be held. He added that he was nervous of setting groups, parties and residents against each other and explained that a referendum inferred that a decision would be made on the outcome, which would not be the case in this instance.  He further reported that spending money from the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) on a referendum with no legal standing would set a dangerous precedent, but was sympathetic to the residents’ concerns.

Councillor Coxshall observed that a 3.5% response rate to the public consultation was poor and felt that a referendum on such issues, and similarly the Frost Estate, was beneficial.

Councillor J. Kent explained that the consultation process was much more than simply an online or paper form, and that people had been knocking on the doors of each flat to engage with residents. He added that although he did not support the motion he welcomed the tone of the content as residents of the blocks affected had been part of this ward for over 20 years, and that many he now considered to be his friends.

Councillor J. Kent advised Members why the proposals were being developed and reported that residents from the blocks attended his surgeries each month to highlight their concerns and their desire to be housed elsewhere – as many residents felt that they were ‘stuck’ in the high rise. Whilst recognising that there were many residents who wanted to move out of the high rise flats, he acknowledged that there were also long-term residents who wanted to stay – for whom the flats suited their needs by being nearby to family members for help and support. He felt that the matter needed to handled sensitively and with patience, not by using a blunt referendum, and observed that although there were two opposing sides – those who wanted to move and those who wanted to stay – there appeared to be no acrimony between the two groups and was concerned that a referendum would divide the residents.

Councillor J. Kent further reported that two workshops for residents and leaseholders were planned for August in an attempt to further develop proposals and explained that if all residents could not be satisfied moving forward then the Council would have failed in its efforts.

Councillor Speight observed that democracy did not start and stop at the ballot box and felt the consultations were essential in order to engage with residents and allow their views to be heard. He reported that community consensus had not been reached through the Frost Estate referendum, and that a referendum was not an appropriate mechanism to fix all solutions.

Councillor Cherry observed that there were residents of other high rise tower blocks in Chadwell-St-Mary and Tilbury who would have also preferred to have been rehoused, and was concerned that other blocks required more repair and maintenance than those suggested for demolition, which were of a good standard.

Councillor Maney recognised that there was a significant difference between a referendum and a consultation and explained that the issue was too important to allow only the residents who currently lived in the flats to determine its future, as if the decision was taken to demolish the blocks that would affect all those on the Council Housing Waiting List and residents for years to come.

Councillor Aker felt that the consultations undertaken so far had not given residents any clearer answers on the proposals and observed that the purpose of his motion was to make the decision making process and proposals clearer.

Upon being put to the vote, 12 Members voted in favour of the Motion, 29 Members voted against and 2 abstained, whereupon the Mayor declared the motion to be lost.