Agenda item

Question a) from Councillor Poyser to Councillor Ward, Executive Member for Housing and Development:

 

Could I congratulate the council on its swift action acting as honest broker in making available the empty Mount Carmel school to the nearby Whitehall Park Free School while the building work continues on the former Ashmount School site. As Councillor Ward is aware, there is now also the building of much-needed social housing taking place on that site.  Would it be possible to give local residents, the parents of children at the school and the Islington people on our housing waiting list, some idea as to when the building on the site might be completed?

 

Reply:

 

We are told by the EFA that construction of the new school building is due to be completed on 10 February 2017. Provided that the February 2017 deadline is met the school should occupy the building from 20 February 2017, with the decant from Mount Carmel school taking place during the February half term break. The housing scheme which is being delivered by ISHA will be complete by July 2018.  46 new homes are being delivered. 24 homes will be for social rent and 11 would be shared ownership. The overall affordable housing offer therefore is 35 homes or 76% overall.

 

Supplementary question:

 

There is a lot of concern about this in our ward. Residents have contacted me to say that their properties are being damaged by the vibrations from the works, parents want the school to be built as quickly as possible, and we are all well aware of the need for social housing in our borough. Many great socialists have lived in Islington, even this year we unveiled a plaque for George Orwell. I wanted to know if you had any advice from the great socialists who have lived in Islington.

 

Reply:

 

In ‘The Road to Wigan Pier’ George Orwell wrote about the poverty in this country and one of the consequences of that book was the eventual creation of the welfare state by Attlee’s Government in 1945 and a mass housebuilding programme. I am proud that this borough continues to build social housing for its residents.

 

Question B) from Councillor Jeapes to Councillor Watts, Leader of the Council:

 

The Social Mobility Commission has just produced a report that highlights low-income and middle-income families are being held back by deep social mobility problems in Britain. This problem is starkly evident in Canonbury ward, where council housing is situated cheek-by-jowl alongside million pound houses, which residents on the estates will never be able to afford.

 

The report describes the polarisation of the labour market where, “there are too few progression opportunities for workers, especially women, in the bottom half of the labour market”, and that, “job growth in the British economy has shifted more towards low-skilled jobs compared with other European countries”. The report goes on to say, “Professional employment is growing but the potential it contains for a social mobility dividend is hindered by talent being recruited from too narrow a social pool”. So what hope is there for the poor, working class residents of Islington?

 

The report is an indictment in the failure of Conservative Government policies to help the poor. Could Cllr Watts give us reassurance that the council is taking appropriate steps to improve social mobility in Islington?

 

Reply:

 

You are absolutely right to ask about social mobility; the inequalities in income in Islington are very stark. We introduced the Fairness Commission because of the inequalities in our borough and because people’s chances in life are too often determined by the income they were born into, and not because of their talents or hard work.

 

We are the 24^th most deprived borough in the country with the 5^th highest level of child poverty, but we are also the 5^th highest on the government’s social mobility league table. The chances of working class people getting into university is higher in Islington than almost anywhere else; that is not because of any individual policy, but it because we have made a commitment across this borough to make a difference for working people.

 

We invest heavily in early years and parenting support. We have high quality state nurseries that ordinary people can afford to go to. But the government is cutting the money we will have for those fantastic affordable nurseries. We provide free school meals for all children in the borough because we think that children shouldn’t have their learning interrupted because they are hungry. Islington has made huge improvements to its schools and is now in the top 6 places in the country for GCSE results achieved by children on free school meals. That makes a massive difference to people’s ability to go onto university or get a high-quality apprenticeship. At the same time, central government is taking money away from places like Islington and sending it to leafy counties where next to no one lives in poverty. The government thinks the best way to improve social mobility is to bring back grammar schools; which have on average 2.5% of their pupils on free school meals. This will be a disaster for social mobility, a disaster for education standards, and we will fight the reintroduction of grammar schools.

 

The government cut the education maintenance allowance which helped disadvantaged pupils to attend college; we brought it back as the Islington Bursary. The government is cutting apprenticeships while we are bringing them back, and most of all they are forcing us to sell genuinely affordable housing, reducing the amount of housing for disadvantaged people. Our approach could not be more different; we must fight the government’s policies to improve social mobility in Islington.

 

Supplementary question:

 

The government’s Social Mobility Commission recommends that the government work with local councils to introduce new high quality jobs and opportunities. Do you think we can trust this government to help working people?

 

Reply:

 

No.

 

Question C) from Councillor Turan to Councillor Ward, Executive Member for Housing and Development:

 

Housing is a hugely important issue for residents in my ward and I have received a great deal of correspondence from local people about how the Tenant Tax would have caused real problems. I was delighted to hear that, after significant campaigning by this council and others, the government will be dropping its planned unfair Tenant Tax, which would have affected people already struggling to make ends meet. There are many other parts of the Housing and Planning Act which will be damaging for Islington. Please can you tell me what the council will do to challenge the remaining parts of the government’s legislation?

 

Reply:

 

The Tenant Tax would have penalised many of our tenants just for being in work. In campaigning against the Tax we worked with local residents and others across London to make representations to Gavin Barwell MP, Minister of State for Housing and Planning. We are still campaigning as the fight is not over. The end of lifetime tenancies and the sale of our council housing stock has the potential to turn the lives of ordinary people upside down. We will continue to work with our residents and other local authorities across London, and we will continue to gather case studies from ordinary Islington residents of how this Act will affect their everyday lives. The lesson from the Tenant Tax victory is that when we organise we can win.   

 

Question D) to Councillor Heather to Councillor Ward, Executive Member for Housing and Development:

 

Given that the former HMP Holloway site in Islington is public land, and that in the borough we have a severe shortage of council and social housing available at genuinely affordable rents, what can Islington Council do to ensure that this land is used for the benefit of the local community and is developed in partnership with the local community?

 

Reply:

 

Unfortunately we don’t own the Holloway Prison site, but as you know we do have very robust local planning policies. We recently had a very successful meeting at Windsor Street Community Centre which was attended by Jeremy Corbyn MP, Mayor Kat Fletcher and others and the consensus was that we need social housing on the Holloway Prison site. The council is developing a supplementary planning document and that will go out for consultation early next year. I would encourage all residents to respond to the consultation and have their say on the future of this site.

 

Supplementary question:

 

I welcome your answer. This is more positive than the situation at the Mount Pleasant site, where a golden opportunity to provide genuinely affordable social housing was lost due to a decision by the former Mayor of London. Do you think there will be a change in tact by the current Mayor of London, to allow genuinely affordable social housing to be provided on that site?

 

Reply:

 

Thank you. I am pleased to say that the situation has entirely changed under the new Mayor of London. Previously developers who simply did not want to provide social housing would call things in to the Mayor. The tables have turned; we now have a friend at City Hall. The Mayor supports our aims and supports social housing.

 

Question E) from Councillor Andrews to Councillor Comer-Schwartz, Executive Member for Community Development:

 

Why has the council taken the unprecedented decision to overturn the Licencing Sub- Committee decision to revoke the Fabric licence and has failed to: a) consult local people who live in the area; and b) have shown no confidence in its Licensing Sub-Committee, when the regulations state when the Police bring a Review on Crime and Disorder grounds and the conditions have been breached then the Sub-Committee should revoke the licence?

 

Reply:

 

Thank you for your question. Hopefully your question was largely answered by my earlier response to a member of the public. I know this is an extremely important issue to you as a local councillor. I want to make it clear again that the decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee was not overturned. I know how hard the decision was for the members of the Sub-Committee, and I completely condemn the threats that some councillors received following that decision. Fabric had a legal right to appeal the decision, which they did, and a series of without prejudice meetings were held between the council and Fabric, and the council and the Police. 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.

 

I have every confidence in the council’s Licensing Committee and the members who serve on it. Not every case is as high-profile as Fabric, but the Committee and its members treat all cases equally, giving them the same level of consideration. Thanks to the Sub-Committee’s work, and the work of our Licensing and Legal Teams, we have been able to secure a safer and more responsible club in our borough.

 

Supplementary question:

 

Thank you for your reply. What I find incredible about this situation is not the decision that was taken, but that we seem to not have listened to the concerns of local people in this instance. I am concerned that we have now put the council on a slippery slope, where we will be challenged on every decision we make to revoke a licence. Now that we have reinstated a licence which the Sub-Committee had revoked, what is to stop others seeking the same outcome? 

 

Reply:

 

The licensing process is quasi-judicial. Anyone can apply for a licence, and if the conditions on that licence are breached then that licence can be reviewed. Equally, if a revocation happens, then the licence holder has the right of appeal. Yes, this situation could happen again, but I’m not in a position to condemn the licensing and legal processes.

 

Question F) from Councillor Russell to Councillor Webbe, Executive Member for Environment and Transport:

 

Are you confident that Islington residents who use bikes for their job rather than a car have access to adequate on street cycle parking to enable them to carry out their work?

 

Reply:

 

Thank you for your question. In Islington we are committed to supporting cycling, and that means removing the barriers that prevent people from cycling. It is absolutely right that we help the people who live, work or visit Islington to cycle or walk, or use other means of travel other than driving to this borough. Therefore it is important that we provide the cycle storage that enables people to use bicycles; that’s why we have around 2,000 cycle stands in this borough and why we are exploring other means of cycle storage. Seeing as it’s Christmas, why don’t we say that anybody who wants cycle storage in this borough in order to do their work, if cycle parking does not already exist, just tell us, and we will try to supply it.

 

Question G) from Councillor Russell to Councillor Ward, Executive Member for Housing and Development:

 

Are you confident that block charges for housing repairs are being allocated fairly?

 

Reply:

 

Yes. Each repair has a unique reference number which is allocated to each estate, block or property. This enables the council to identify exactly where and how much money has been spent and ensures that leaseholders are accurately re-charged their contribution in accordance with their respective lease. The same system is applied when carrying out capital works. That said, I am very concerned by the issue that was raised by the local resident earlier on, and I am very happy to work with you and the resident to try and resolve that as soon as possible. 

 

Supplementary question:

 

Will you work with me to make sure that residents do not have to undergo forensic detective work to uncover instances of erroneous charges? If a resident living in a block identifies that an incorrect charge has been made, it should not only be the complaint who is refunded, but everyone living in that block too.

 

Reply:

 

Yes.