Agenda item

Question a) from Ernestas Jegorovas to Councillor Caluori, Executive Member for Children, Young People and Families:

 

With NUT and ATL predicting Government cuts of 10 per cent to schools in Islington over the next four years. How does the council plan to help schools balance their books so that the damaging impact of the cuts on student progress is minimised?

 

Reply:

 

This is something we are hugely worried about and have been talking about with our schools. We don’t yet know the changes to the national formula, but we will be campaigning against this with other boroughs through London Councils. We are not alone in being worried about the impact that the proposed funding formula will have, which is set to redistribute money away from poorer inner-London areas to the shires. It is true that schools in London have achieved high levels of attainment and progress in very challenging circumstances because of the additional investment they have had; but instead of taking that money away and reallocating it elsewhere, for the amount of money used by the Government to fund the free schools and academies programme, they could lift the rest of the country up to the level we are at, which demonstrates the priorities that the Government has for education.

 

Locally, we will be working with our Schools Forum, which is comprised of governors, teachers, and local authority representatives, to discuss how we are going to deal with the implications of the school funding formula. It is important to consider that it is not only the amount of money which is reducing, but it is also the amount we can centrally retain for the collective activities that we do as a borough. The ability of local authorities and local authority schools to collectively decide what is important to invest in will be eroded by changes to the schools grant regulations.

 

Supplementary question:

 

Can the council make a commitment to reporting on school efficiencies in terms of how much energy is used by schools and their work in reducing their carbon footprint? Reducing schools’ spend on energy would help to save jobs.

 

Reply:

 

I’m happy to do that. Perhaps this could be discussed in more detail at a future meeting of the Children’s Services Scrutiny Committee.

 

Question B) Jane Taylor to Councillor Comer-Schwartz, Executive Member for Community Development:

 

Why has the council agreed to allow Fabric to keep its licence, subject to conditions, overturning its own licensing committee decision to revoke the licence and ignoring 200 pages of evidence recording five years of breaches of licence conditions, police warnings, licence reviews, resident complaints and the deaths of 6 young people?

 

Reply:

 

Thank you for your question. The council did not overturn the decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee. I want to thank the Sub-Committee members for their diligence in making their decision. The Sub-Committee reviewed Fabric’s licence following the tragic deaths of two young people earlier this year, and the deaths of four other people since 2011. The Sub-Committee concluded that revocation of the licence was both appropriate and proportionate in light of the circumstances.

 

Fabric then exercised its legal right to appeal and a series of 'without prejudice' meetings were held.  As a result of those meetings, Fabric offered many new additional conditions to be added to its licence, all of which are designed to ensure a zero tolerance approach to drug possession, consumption and sale within the club. Fabric has also developed a new and detailed ISO accredited Operations Manual setting out how compliance with the conditions is to be achieved. A key part of the process was Fabric’s acceptance that there had been failures in its operation and a recognition that the Sub-Committee was within its rights to revoke its licence.

 

Given the commitment that its directors and management have shown by their development of the Operations Manual, acceptance of new conditions and changes to its management structure and accountability, the council was satisfied that the statutory licensing objectives may be met and the premises licence reinstated.

 

A statement setting out the measures to be implemented was agreed by the council and Fabric and the court accepted this. However, I recognise that this decision will not be popular with everyone, and want to reassure residents that there will be enhanced monitoring carried out by the Police and the council at Fabric. Fabric will also be subject to an external audit of compliance against procedures. We hope that these additional measures will make the club a safer place and a better venue within the community.

 

Supplementary question:

 

Fabric has been found in breach of its licensing conditions several times in recent years. What would the council’s response be at the next criminal, antisocial or public safety incident?

 

Reply:

 

It is difficult to predict the future, however the licensing review procedures would be followed and any review would be considered with reference to its own circumstances and the available evidence. 

 

Question C) BenaliHamdache to Councillor Caluori, Executive Member for Children, Young People and Families:

 

What percentages of schools in our borough taught a class on Firework safety for KS1, KS2 & KS3 this academic year?

 

BenaliHamdache was not present at the meeting and it was advised that the Executive Member would respond in writing.

 

Question D) question from a member of the public to Councillor Hull, Executive Member for Finance, Performance and Community Safety.

 

Does the Council understand how strongly local residents and shopkeepers feel about the possibility of another Sainsbury’s store on Blackstock Road, when we already have a Sainsbury’s Local 300 metres away on the same road, and a new store will reduce the diversity of our local area.

 

Reply:

 

Yes, we do understand how you feel. I’ve had residents raise this in my surgery. There was a lengthy discussion on this at the recent Highbury West Ward Partnership meeting. I’ve also spoken to my local shopkeeper about this. Please rest assured that your local ward councillors are well aware of the strength of feeling on this matter. It’s important to state that the planning process is quasi-judicial and although ward councillors may raise objections due process must be followed when making the decision.

 

Question E) Gill Weston to Councillor Diarmaid Ward, Executive Member for Housing and Development:

 

The Kingwood Trust is the leading housing association for adults with learning disabilities and autism in the UK.  It has developed guidelines for the design and building of residences for people with learning disabilities and autism have been adopted by several councils in England, as well as the whole of Wales and Canada.  These guidelines make it clear that such residences should be single-storey, and certainly no more than two-storeys.  Will the Councillors explain why they are not following these guidelines at Windsor Street, and what evidence it has that its proposed three-storey building will be safe, suitable and fit for purpose for adults with learning disabilities?

 

Reply:

 

Thank you for your question. As you will know I am acutely aware of the situation at Windsor Street and have visited the gardens that will be affected by the proposed building. I’ve had many queries of this kind and as you know we’ve had previous correspondence on this matter. I am not aware of the specific guidelines you reference, however will provide you with a written answer after the meeting.

 

Question F) question from a member of the public to Councillor Hull, Executive Member for Finance, Performance and Community Safety.

 

I represent a family-run business that has been operating on Blackstock Road for 35 years. The site of the Sainsbury’s application is 100 yards from my store. Why is this application being considered again when the previous application was refused by the Planning Committee eight months ago? The minutes of the Committee meeting indicate the strong local opposition to the application at that time.

 

Reply:

 

It is being considered again as anyone is able to submit a planning application and we are duty-bound to consider those. It is a procedural matter and the council must give it due consideration, however as previously mentioned your local representatives are aware of the strong local feeling on this matter.

 

Question G) question from Lawrence Stubbs to Councillor Ward, Executive Member for Housing and Development:

 

I am resident of the Highbury Quadrant Estate and officer of the TRA. With regard to leaseholder service charges, our committee is very worried about incorrect block charges, including charges for works which did not take place. We are concerned about inaccuracies and inconsistencies in invoices, for example a charge for lift maintenance in a block without a lift. An equally concerning example is a resident who queried a series of visits which did not take place and received a refund in mid-October of this year, however nobody else in the block did. Is this satisfactory, professional or fair?

 

Reply:

 

Thank you for your question. From what you have said I am very concerned about that situation. For day to day repairs and capital works we use unique reference numbers which relate to every estate, block and property. This allows us to track how much money should be charged to leaseholders. I would be happy to look into the particular circumstances you mentioned.

 

Question H) from Keira Murphy to Councillor Webbe, Executive Member for Environment and Transport:

 

I am a healthcare professional living and working in Islington and regularly need to visit children in their homes. I am a cyclist but there is often no cycle parking available. Please can we have widespread dedicated bicycle parking on Islington Council housing estates?

 

Reply:

 

Thank you for your question. Islington Council fully supports cycling which is why we have dedicated resources to providing cycle parking. We already have in the region of 2,000 cycle parking facilities on our streets. On our estates we are investing in bespoke, enclosed, safe cycle parking facilities. We are also piloting different types of bike storage, such as bike hangars, which are in operation and I understand are doing well. If you feel that there is insufficient cycle parking in a certain area, you only have to ask and we will look to provide it.

 

Question I) from James Courage to Councillor Ward, Executive Member for Housing and Development:

 

In November 2015, former Islington Councillor James Murray promised a public pre-planning consultation meeting on the Windsor Street scheme.  The meeting was to take the format of a drop-in session for all local residents in the St Peter's Ward including residents on the Gough, Turnbull and Popham estates. Over a year after this promise was made, the meeting still hasn't been set up.  When will it be convened?

 

Reply:

 

I am well aware of the situation at Windsor Street. We had a meeting of residents in the Town Hall and I have spoken to many residents about the scheme. I am not aware of the particular meeting you are referring to but if you do wish to have a further conversation about the Windsor Street situation I am very happy to arrange that.

 

Question J) from Rosie Phipps to Councillor Hull, Executive Member for Finance, Performance and Community Safety:

 

My question relates to the Sainsbury’s planning application. I would like to know, as a small business owner located 200 metres from the proposed site, why we have not been consulted about the application.

 

Reply:

 

I am not aware of exactly where the consultation has or hasn’t reached, but I am aware that the consultation is ongoing and would encourage anyone who has strong views about this to make representations. As I have discussed with local residents, I would not worry about what is or is not a valid planning objection, but would encourage you to submit all of the reasons why you think the proposal is a bad idea and would leave this to the planning officers to consider.

 

Question K) from a member of the public to Councillor Ward, Executive Member for Housing and Development:

 

I speak on behalf of residents of the Ringcross Estate and my question relates to Ringcross Community Centre, which was transferred to Hyde Housing Association from the council in 2005. We are extremely concerned with Hyde’s plan to relinquish their obligations as a social landlord, as they have said they can no longer subsidise the centre. At the time of the transfer agreement Hyde made assurances that it would manage the centre together with the local residents. We have raised our concerns with Hyde but they have been reluctant to engage with us in an open dialogue. What actions will the council take to ensure that Hyde keep their part of the transfer agreement; by keeping the centre open, and managing the centre together with the local community?

 

Reply:

 

Thank you very much for your question. I am absolutely livid with Hyde’s behaviour over this. I take great issue with their choice of the word “subsidised”. A social landlord does not subsidise local community facilities, a social landlord provides local community facilities. That’s why I spent yesterday evening at the Ringcross Community Centre speaking to users of the centre and getting them to fill out surveys as part of the consultation so Hyde knows the strength of local feeling about this. I also take great exception to Hyde’s figures. They are telling us it costs over £100,000 a year to run the centre, I simply don’t accept that. We are happy to work with Hyde to try and resolve this and to keep the centre open. That’s why myself and Councillor Comer-Schwartz as Executive Member for Community Development will be meeting with Hyde on Monday morning and we will keep all of the residents informed of the result.

 

Question L) from Ian Fearnley to Councillor Ward, Executive Member for Housing and Development:

 

Islington's planners advised housing and adult social services that the proposed design for the building on Windsor Street would not be permissible for use for general rent or as family housing because the apartments would not have dual-aspects and would have insufficient "amenity/defensible space".  If the building is not deemed suitable for the general population what makes the council believe that it will be suitable as a long-term home for 14 adults with learning disabilities, does the council not care about their basic needs too and also their additional sensory and spatial needs?

 

Reply:

 

The council of course cares about the needs of all residents and this is why the council is building housing; providing social housing and supported housing is at the top of our agenda. In terms of Windsor Street, I have been directly involved in this process, I have met with residents, I have visited residents’ gardens, and we are in the process of working with residents to create verified views of the buildings. Once we have those verified views we will see if we can progress to a planning application and all of these things can be addressed as part of the planning process.

 

Question M) from Zina Sullivan to Councillor Hull, Executive Member for Finance, Performance and Community Safety:

 

Regarding the proposed Sainsbury’s development on Blackstock Road, Councillor Hull has said that he appreciates there is already a Sainsbury’s store in the local area. I would like to clarify if he understands that if this application is granted there would be five Sainsbury’s stores in the local area. This is a monopoly. Whose side are you on? 

 

Reply:

 

You ask whose side am I on, and the answer is yours. I’m not on the Planning Committee, but your local councillors understand the strength of feeling of local residents.

 

Question N) from a member of the public to Councillor Webbe, Executive Member for Environment and Transport:

 

When will you share with us the results of the cycle hangar trial?

 

Reply:

 

Thank you for your question. This council is committed to enabling residents to cycle and to store their bikes safely; that’s why we launched the cycle hangar pilot. I think the pilot has been successful and that’s why before the pilot has even ended I have made clear that I want us to pursue as much external funding as possible so that we can secure the necessary resources to provide safe and secure bike storage wherever residents want them to be. I also want to make sure that the council provides different types of cycle storage, so that that storage is available in a manner that fits the places where people want them to be.