Andrew Wood

This maybe coming to the UK as well, see recent tribunal decisions to reduce rent & landlord tax increases today This could help kill off new build to rent and co-living schemes in London, it might be too risky to build if you cannot control rent levels

Greenwich foot tunnel is also in really bad condition Lifts not working Clogged with hire bikes at both ends Yet most users are from the Council @TowerHamletsNow that has earn't hundreds of millions in S106, NHB and CIL meant to be spent on infrastructure like this but won't

The article by @myldn below is providing misleading information because @TowerHamletsNow provided them with a misleading press release The @ELAdvertiser also ran a misleading story eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/n… They are both based on this press release from the Council written 22nd October towerhamlets.gov.uk/News_eve… BUT that does not match the contents of the Cabinet report on the 21st October democracy.towerhamlets.gov.u… If you listen to the Cabinet meeting (more on this later) you can see why the Council press team might have been misled as the politicians were so self congratulatory The Council news article implies a decision to acquire i.e. purchase four buildings on the Isle of Dogs for temporary accommodation. MyLondon wrote it as London council buys 4 Canary Wharf offices to turn them into 180 flats for homeless people This is misleading as in actuallity as per the Cabinet report: - Its a 10 year lease deal with the building owner able to exit the lease after 5 years - Its not the final Cabinet decision - Cabinet agreement was only to start work and "come back for approval once risks and negotiations are concluded." i.e. no agreement has been made to actually lease the buildings yet just to start work To quote the Cabinet report The proposed 10-year lease term is considered the best offer available to the Council and although the scheme would cost more than the current TA costs, in considering the report, the Council realises the anticipated operational and social benefits arising from the scheme. The Council is being offered a ten-year lease by Thames Quay Properties II Limited. The lease includes a landlord-only break option exercisable on a rolling basis from year five onwards on not less than twelve months’ written notice and contains an upward-only rent review at year five. 8.4 The lease will be contracted out of the security of tenure provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. As a consequence, the Council will have no statutory right to renew the lease at the expiry of the contractual term and vacant possession may be required at the end of the lease period. Delegate authority to the Corporate Director of Housing & Regeneration, in consultation with the Mayor, to conclude preliminary negotiations, obtain an independent rental valuation, agree the final lease terms, and take all necessary steps to complete the transaction and to come back for approval once risks and negotiations are concluded. I submitted a complaint to the Council and emailed the two reporters so that they are aware My complaint said Misleading information provided on news article Tower Hamlets to secure 180 new family homes for temporary accommodatio Complaint details Your news article implies a decision to acquire i.e. purchase four buildings on the Isle of Dogs for temporary accommodation This is misleading as in actuallity as per the Cabinet report - Its a 10 year lease deal with the building owner able to exit the lease after 5 years - Its not the final Cabinet decision - Cabinet agreement was only to start work and "come back for approval once risks and negotiations are concluded." i.e. no agreement has been made to actually lease the buildings Evidence is below News article posted on Thursday 22nd October 2026 says this Tower Hamlets to secure 180 new family homes for temporary accommodation Tower Hamlets Council is set to increase its supply of local temporary accommodation by acquiring four office buildings in Marsh Wall, Canary Wharf, to convert into family homes. Cabinet approved the proposal to acquire buildings at 191, 193, 195 and 197 Marsh Wall on Wednesday 21 October, with the intention of converting the units into temporary accommodation for local families. Plans would deliver approximately 180 homes, including 167 two-bedroom and 13 three-bedroom homes. Link here towerhamlets.gov.uk/News_eve… The Cabinet report says this The Council is seeking Individual Mayoral Decision approval to proceed with the acquisition to enter into lease for four commercial office buildings located at 191, 193, 195 and 197 Marsh Wall, Thames Quay, Docklands. Delegate authority to the Corporate Director of Housing & Regeneration, in consultation with the Mayor, to conclude preliminary negotiations, obtain an independent rental valuation, agree the final lease terms, and take all necessary steps to complete the transaction and to come back for approval once risks and negotiations are concluded. The proposed 10-year lease term is considered the best offer available to the Council and although the scheme would cost more than the current TA costs, in considering the report, the Council realises the anticipated operational and social benefits arising from the scheme. The Council is being offered a ten-year lease by Thames Quay Properties II Limited. The lease includes a landlord-only break option exercisable on a *See appendix 1 for further break down of income rolling basis from year five onwards on not less than twelve months' written notice and contains an upward-only rent review at year five. Link democracy.towerhamlets.gov.u… Action requested Revise the news article and issue in public a retraction with an equal weight given to the original announcement Contact external news outlets that used this information so that they can consider amendments like MyLondon mylondon.news/news/east-lond…

'The Council cannot fix what it does not first acknowledge' Tower Hamlets Leisure centre inhousing failures, legionella, asbestos & union disputes In May 2024 Mayor Lutfur Rahman decided to bring leisure services in house i.e. the Council would directly manage it rather then have it run by Greenwich Leisure Limited GLL, a charity. GLL used to pay the Council money, and if you read the report a reminder the leisure buildings have always been owned by the Council. In January 2026 Councilors got a positive report on progress despite numerous problems reported with the leisure centres and disputes with the union But next week they will get a more honest update written by a new Council officer (the officers who wrote the earlier report are still employed) making clearer that the problems were more extensive then reported in January and that issues remain unfixed. But the list below is just a litany of failures and suggest endemic management problems. Will post separately about Tiller democracy.towerhamlets.gov.u… Below is a copy and paste of the key sections York Hall will be closed from July this year to January next year because of legionella bacteria. There is no complete record of the pipework, and some pipes cannot be traced. Separately, an independent review is being commissioned into defects in the sauna and steam rooms following the 2025 refurbishment. It will set out the remedial works needed and whether the spa can reopen in January. This issue is not connected to the legionella or asbestos works. As at Quarter 2, the Leisure Service is forecasting a £3.9m overspend in 2026/27. This is principally driven by an estimated £2.5m shortfall in income against budget and £1.4m of estimated staffing related pressures associated with vacancy factors, pay harmonisation and insourcing support requirements. Staff contracts - it has taken more then two years to issue staff with Council contracts Pay accuracy - staff have been incorrectly paid because they were still using Excel to track time worked. Pay errors led to grievances, grievances to strained relations, and vacancies to overstretched staff. Employee relations. Unite has raised a collective dispute and holds a live mandate for industrial action Culture and leadership. Practice varies between centres and there is not yet a single team culture. Some staff were promoted into management roles without adequate training or induction. Staffing levels. Vacancies and reliance on agency staff are stretching teams Health and safety. Independent audits have identified weaknesses in health and safety management that are not confined to one site. Budget. The current service budget does not reflect the true cost of running the service Systems, data and contracts. The service lacks reliable data on usage and customer demographics to support planning This report gives the Committee an honest baseline. It differs in tone from the update given in January 2026 and does so deliberately. The Council cannot fix what it does not first acknowledge, and the Mayor's ambitions for leisure – more provision, better access, and a service that costs residents less – depend on getting the basics right first. For over 20 years the Council’s leisure service was operated by the contractor GLL. It was brought in house so that the Council has direct control over an offer that matters to residents' health, and the chance to reach groups that commercial provision has historically underserved. The service is, however, not yet stable. A fresh assessment carried out since August 2026 has found that several foundations of a well-run service were not put in place when the service transferred from GLL in May 2024. Staff contracts, accurate pay, health and safety management, the service budget, business systems, supply contracts and communication with customers all need to be put right. These issues are affecting staff, have led to a collective dispute with UNITE the union, and are limiting the service's ability to improve the offer for residents. The closure of York Hall Leisure Centre and Spa since 15 July 2026 brings these issues into sharp focus. Legionella was found in the building's water system. This of itself is not necessarily unusual but, because of the age and complexity of the pipework, putting it right has proved harder than first expected. The centre is now expected to reopen in January 2027, with an estimated income loss of around £924,000. The closure has also shown that the service needs to communicate with residents and customers more clearly and consistently, this will be critical in re-building customer confidence and income levels that have declined since closure.

He is absolutely correct - the UK is this weird mixture of a place with amazing inbuilt strengths and an unwillingness to deploy them effectively

There are people in Britain who support the Iranian regime as it massacres large numbers of its citizens both on the streets and now in prisons Silence from the people who claim to be against other states killing people

Do you use the D7 bus? TfL want to remove it as part of a reduction in bus services to the Isle of Dogs and Blackwall - D6, 277, 135, SL4 bus routes will also change If you don't want to lose bus services then each and every one of you MUST respond to the consultation (don't complain later) For what is meant to be the most important growth area in London this is another example of 'government' reducing services Respond online here haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/isle-… If you prefer, you can also let us have your comments by: Email: [email protected] Telephone: 020 3054 6037 to leave your name and contact number and we will call you back. Please quote 'Isle of Dogs bus restructure' when leaving your message In writing to: FREEPOST TFL HAVE YOUR SAY (no postage stamp required) Only the D3 and D8 won't change, every other local bus route will change in some way. The only positive change is that Wood Wharf gets a bus the SL4 but I am not sure that is the most useful bus route for Wood Wharf residents. It will mean a 1/3 reduction in bus services in some places as except for some more weekend early morning buses (not clear which routes) there will be no increase in frequency to compensate. TfL say the impact will be From the Westferry Road – Passengers would not have a direct bus to the Preston’s Road and Poplar areas. However, same stop interchange would be available on Manchester Road from route 277 to D6 or same stop interchange in Canary Wharf from route 135 / 277 to D8 From Spindrift Avenue – There would be no direct links to the Commercial Road corridor and City that route 135 provided. Passengers can walk to Westferry Road or East Ferry Road for route 135 or catch route 277 and change onto route 135 from the same stop. However, the 277 will now provide a direct bus to Hackney Asda – D6 passengers would experience longer journey times as buses would divert via Manchester Road From Limeharbour and Marsh Wall – Passengers wanting route D6 would need to walk to Asda or Manchester Road to catch it. Route D8 could be a suitable alternative for some passengers From East Ferry Road – Route 135 would provide new, direct connections to the Commercial Road and the City while route D6 would provide connections to Manchester Road and Poplar From Manchester Road – The change to the 135 would mean there would no longer be a direct bus to the Commercial Road and the City. Passengers would need to walk to Asda or take route 277 and change. However, the D6 would mean new connections beyond Poplar. From Preston’s Road – There would be fewer buses per hour to Poplar and the D6 will take a longer routeing to Asda. As already noted, there would not be a direct bus to Westferry Road and Limeharbour. However for some there would be quicker connections to Canary Wharf Wood Wharf – Access to and from Wood Wharf would now be possible using the SL4

Sharmeena Begum arrested in Syria Sharmeena Begum was the first of four school girls who left what was then called Bethnal Green Academy in Tower Hamlets to join ISIS in Syria in 2014 Her three school friends followed a few months later in 2015 Amira Abase, Shamima Begum, and Kadiza Sultana Amira Abase and Kadiza Sultana are believed dead, Shamima Begum is still in Syria (she became famous after a British journalist found her in Syria) and now the 4th one Sharmeena Begum has been found after she exhanged messages with a terrorist in Germany who killed one woman and injured 29 in an Islamist attack on the Berlin Pride parade bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy9w… Her capture means all four of the Bethnal Green Academy schoolgirls who joined Isis are now accounted for After the four went another 30 local school girls had their passports confiscated to stop them from travelling as well But Tower Hamlets Council never did any serious analysis into what happened and did no child safety reviews despite the two dead girls (Brighton Council did under similar circumstances) Her arrest might be an opportunity to ask them again to do it, how and why did 4 school girls in TH join a death cult in Syria? Her father is still in TH and did not know what happened to her dailymail.com/news/article-1…

There is zero comment in Tower Hamlets about Bangladeshi government relationship with Russia and that Bangladesh continue to buy Russian military equipment despite the awful things Russia did in Syria (many locals are also not interested in Ukraine nor Africa locally)

- Multiple sudden leadership departures - 5 different people as the top finance person in 1 1/2 years - Eleven significant weaknesses in our Value for Money risks - Reserves declining Problems at Tower Hamlets Council continue EY, the Councils own auditors released there latest audit findings on the Councils ability to deliver its value for money duties, its here democracy.towerhamlets.gov.u… - Ten significant weaknesses continue from last year - One new significant weakness added this year - One area no significant weakness found - One area still being considered - Reserves are dropping - see 1st pic - more later One of the key problems is the recent turnover in the most senior leaders The previous Monitoring officer (chief legal officer) Shupriya Iqbal seems to have gone or stepped down in role as a long serving Council officer Mark Norman suddenly re-appeared as the monitoring officer. As regards the Corporate Director of Resources and Deputy CEO Richard Ennis, who only joined in March, he left in August, in June it was planned he stay until December Its why they needed that odd daytime Friday Council meeting to aprove these two sudden changes His replacement is another temp Tina Stankley but she will be replaced by Ian Williams as a permanent officer. That will make 5 Corporate Directors of Resources since last April - lets hope Ian stays Julie Lorraine July 2023 to early 2025 - her departure remains mysterious Abdulrazak Kassim - stepped up to cover the role between Julie and Richard but I think he is also leaving (tbc) as they are interviewing new candidates for his role next Thursday The EY report says In our 2024/25 Auditor's Annual Report, issued on 10 December 2025, we reported ten significant weaknesses which included four statutory recommendations. Given the timing of that report, its findings informed our 2025/26 Value for Money risk assessment. The Audit Planning Report, presented to the Audit Committee on 23 July 2026, identified eleven risks of significant weakness, including a new risk relating to financial sustainability. Our work to date has identified actions being taken by the Council to address the weaknesses and recommendations previously reported, indicating a positive direction of travel. However, the majority of these actions were not implemented sufficiently early, or embedded for long enough, during 2025/26 to provide sufficient evidence that the underlying arrangements were operating effectively for a sufficient proportion of the year under review. Consequently, with the exception of arrangements relating to the Annual Governance Statement, our findings remain substantially unchanged from those reported in 2024/25.

Did the Whitechapel Town Hall cost £130 to £150 million and did it save us £16 miillion a year? Official answer - the Council don't know yet. Mayor Lutfur Rahman since 2022 has claimed that the new Town Hall in Whitechapel saves us £16 million a year compared to the leased old Town Hall in E14 I don't think this is correct, I used to be on the scrutiny committee meant to oversee the project and this was always a weak area in the analysis, but it was suggested it would save circa £5m a year (see article below), which I had doubts about then Given that it has been a few years since we occupied it I assumed the Council would know the true running cost and the final cost of the project, which I think closer to £150 million when you add up all of the costs Not yet, is the answer to my FOI below The Town Hall project has not yet reached full financial closure due to outstanding contractual matters What those contractual matters are we don't know, nor how serious. PS Lutfur Rahman bought the building but it was contracted and built by John Biggs so any responsibility for this is split The Council also won't tell us the interest rate they are using when they borrow internally s106 and CIL money meant to be spent on other things so we don't know the cost of the borrowing versus the old buildings leased cost The empty 6th floor is now to be rented out to the London Air Ambulance charity. lgcplus.com/idea-exchange/to… FOI: 67852249 Town Hall £16m saving? The Mayor said in a Council meeting and the claim is also repeated in Aspire election literature that "New Town Hall opened in Whitechapel - . Saving £16m each year." i.e. that the move from Mulberry Place saved £16m per year It has been many years since this analysis was done and I don't remember it being anywhere close to £16m a year and I had my doubts then it was an apples to apples comparison once you factored in extra maintenance costs, interest costs (unless your not applying interest on internal borrowing?) and I suspect that it was not rented out as much as was claimed i.e. for events and to other occupants What was the final calculation of the savings per year of moving from Mulberry Place to Whitechapel and can I have a breakdown of that calculation This should therefore also include the final full costs of the new Whitechapel Town Hall including moving the CCTV room, furniture, the original acquisition costs, internal staff and the improved public area between the town hall and the hospital Reponse: The Council does not hold a completed post-project financial review or any verified “final calculation” of actual annual savings since occupation of the new Town Hall. A reconciliation of all costs (including financing, income projections, and lifecycle maintenance) against the business case assumptions has not been produced as a single recorded document as The Town Hall project has not yet reached full financial closure due to outstanding contractual matters. Final account settlement and retention release are still pending; therefore, a definitive outturn position is not available The CCTV Control Room relocation was not included within the Town Hall project budget. This was delivered under a separate capital project and budget allocation.