Agenda item

Question a) from Greg Foxsmith to Councillor Hull, Executive Member for Finance, Performance and Community Safety:

 

An astonishing 1,021 bicycles were reported stolen between 1/11/14 and 31/10/15.  Of these, a mere 36 were recovered and returned to owner, a derisory figure so low that it has only one advantage - it cannot get any worse. What are the figures for reported bicycle theft and recovery in the following year, and notwithstanding the inevitable improvement, do you consider that to be satisfactory?

 

As Greg Foxsmith was not present at the meeting, the following written response was subsequently provided:

 

Official bike theft figures for Islington (MPS publication) are 1,133 (FY 2014/15), 1,038 (FY 2015/16) and 988 (FY 2016/17) with 46 bikes being recovered in this last FY. Bike theft levels in Islington have been steadily reducing for the last six years when there were 1,607 in their peak (FY 2010/11), largely due to two factors – better security and a switch in offending type.

 

The council takes cycle security seriously and introduced two secure bike hangars into the borough last year, as a trial. These hangars provided safe storage for those who cannot store cycles within their dwelling and provides better security.

Following this successful trial, Islington has begun a roll out of bike hangars across the borough, based on known demand. Consultation for the installation of 18 new hangars will begin shortly and the council welcomes further requests. We also installed over 160 on-street Sheffield stands across the borough to provide short term cycle parking.

 

Many more cycles than is quoted above are recovered by the police each year but it has not been possible to reunite them with the victim as they can’t be identified.  To support the efforts of ourselves and the police, we urge people to note the frame number, use security marking and leave their bike secure.

 

 

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

 

What risk assessment has been done about the influx of cases from West London to Highbury Corner Youth Court following the closure of Hammersmith Court?

 

Reply:

 

Thank you for your question. The background to this is the government have closed nearly a fifth of all courts in the country, including ten courts across London. This impacts on people’s access to justice, increases the time you have to travel to courts, and puts increased pressure on the workload of courts. The Lord Chancellor decided to close Camberwell Green and Hammersmith Magistrates’ Courts and transfer the youth court work from Hammersmith to Highbury Corner.

 

We don’t know whether the Ministry of Justice carried out a full risk assessment on the impact of those closures, or how the decision was reached. However, our Youth Offending Service has carried out its own risk assessment due to the fact that the West London Court day takes place on a Monday, the day before Islington’s own court day.

 

Although we don’t have particular issues between gangs in Islington and gangs in West London, young people are very mobile and we need to make sure that the young people accessing the court are safe. We have been liaising more than ever with the police services and court security to make sure that they have a handle on what’s going on that day, and to make sure that the entrances and exits are safe. We have also been liaising with the Tri-Borough Youth Offending Team to request that they give us some additional resource when any West London cases are carried over into Islington’s designated day on a Tuesday.

 

Supplementary Question:

 

A recent report to the Council’s Policy and Performance Scrutiny Committee identified that there are six gangs in Islington and there have been nine stabbings in the Highbury area over the last year. What steps are being taken to make sure that there will be not be any gang-related issues involving the court? 

 

Reply:

 

As you can imagine, there are already very tight security arrangements around youth court appearances which are related to gang activity. The issue is, has this risk increased by the transfer of the youth court from Hammersmith to Highbury? From the evidence we have, we have no reason to believe that there are particular issues between gang members from West London and gang members from Islington, but we have to remain vigilant. That’s why we have had talks with the Tri-Borough in West London, so that we have the additional resource to manage these risks if needed. However, the generic risks associated with youth crime and running a youth court will be managed as tightly as they have ever been.

 

 

Question c) from John Barber to Councillor Burgess, Executive Member for Health and Social Care:

 

Why did the Council bury on page 133 of the Budget Proposal approved at the last full council meeting, GLL’s proposal for the trampoline park that will take over half the Sobell Centre sports hall without giving any details of size, timing or funding and why was this major proposal not brought to the attention of councillors?

 

Reply:

 

Thank you for your question. It’s clear from the fact that this was such a lengthy document that anything within it was not hidden, but that nothing would stand out particularly, so there is nothing sinister about this proposal being half way through it.

Because of the continuing swingeing reductions in the funding provided by the Government to local authorities, we have made no secret as a council that we need to make further significant budget savings over the next three years. The completed trampoline project will generate additional income for the council and help the council to meet its savings target while delivering an innovative project that will significantly increase usage and physical activity, improving health and wellbeing among some key target groups. As part of its consideration of the budget report, the Council also approved the 2017/18 capital programme which includes financial provision for the project, in the form of a loan.

 

The decision on whether to approve GLL’s request to undertake the trampoline project is a matter delegated to officers in the council’s Environment and Regeneration Department. As the Executive Member responsible for Sport and Leisure, I was kept fully informed by those officers of the details of the project and, also briefed the Leader and other members of the Executive, and also other councillors.

 

Supplementary Question:

 

Our clear legal advice is that the council should have undertaken a formal consultation prior to this trampoline park being given the go ahead. But aside from the legal obligations, why did the council and GLL simply not deem it necessary to consult the hundreds of loyal users of the Sobell on these massive changes, particularly because GLL and the council representatives present made explicit promises to do so at the Customer Representative meeting beforehand?

 

Response:

 

Thank you. The council is not under a statutory duty to consult on the project. The Sobell is not in breach of any statutory duty. With regard to the user group meetings, I do not believe there is anything in those minutes which says that there was going to be a formal consultation, but there has certainly been considerable consultation since then with users of the Sobell, and I know that you are foremost amongst those and you have asked many questions which we have done our best to answer.

 

 

Question d) from Benali Hamdache to Councillor Watts, Leader of the Council:

 

In October 2015 this council passed a motion calling for a revised implementation to the Prevent Strategy. In the motion the council called for a community led, constructive and sensitive approach to tackling extremism in our borough. What progress has been made on these goals?

 

Reply:

 

Thank you. Since that motion passed we have agreed a position statement which is on the council’s website. This reiterates that we will meet our legal duties under the Prevent programme, including our duty to support the police in identifying terror suspects, however, we agreed that the way in which we would implement Prevent would be evidence-based, proportionate, and risk-based. We recognise that we also have obligations under the Equalities Act which must be weighed against our obligations under the Prevent programme, to enable us to make sensible judgements on each case.

 

There are a number of things which would be very helpful to the council in implementing the Prevent programme in a proportionate, risk-based and evidence-based way. The biggest of these would be the government sharing information where there may be genuine issues of concern. Receiving evidence-based information from the government on such matters has proved more challenging than one would assume. The result of this is that local councils struggle to support the implementation of Prevent in any sensible way, and the risk is that whole communities end up being stigmatised, which is something we have been very careful to guard against in Islington. This is counter-productive as people end up being excluded from society and being pushed towards the hate-mongers. Executive members of the Council will know that we have met with officers to ensure that the implementation of the Prevent strategy guards against that.

 

I also note the comments of organisations such as the Association of Chief Police Officers, who say that the Prevent programme as it stands is now not fit for purpose. I also note that the Mayor of Greater Manchester is carrying out a review of Prevent, and I want to assure you and the members of the Council that we will be following that review very carefully and where it comes up with interesting recommendations we will look to adopt those here.

 

Supplementary question:

 

In the application of Prevent specific communities are often singled out, but following the heinous attack at Finsbury Park, how is Islington Council planning to tackle the rise of right-wing extremism, and how can the Prevent duty make sure that all types of extremism are actively prevented?

 

Reply:

 

Thank you for your question, you raise an absolutely fair point. While we have had appalling attacks by people who claim that they are motivated by a perverse form of Islamism, we have also had terrorist attacks by the far-right, the murders of Makram Ali and of Jo Cox were both politically motivated. It strikes me that the Prevent duty needs to pay far more regard to the risk of far-right terrorism and extremism, particularly given the rise in far-right extremism in this country over the past few years. We saw a demonstration by the hate-spouting EDL descend into a drunken mob over the weekend.

 

I think we need to be clear that the Prevent duty should counter extremism of all forms, including the hateful propaganda of the far-right, and we should also be looking at some of the sources of that hateful propaganda. I was pleased to take the opportunity the day after the terrorist attack to address a prime-time audience across the United States on CNN to attack President Trump for the islamophobic way he has conducted his presidency. This was the only part of that day which gave me any sense of satisfaction.  

 

Question e) from James Woolfenden to Councillor Ward, Executive Member for Housing and Development:

 

In relation to the proposed Windsor Street development, will the Council please provide drawings and sections to clearly show what is proposed regarding the various structures indicated directly behind and abutting the rear wall of three Packington Street properties with short gardens so that we can consider and comment before any application is made?

 

This information has been requested since the consultation period started two years ago. It relates to refuse storage, cycle storage and what appears to be a concrete pergola all directly abutting the rear garden walls of the homes and which are only 7.2 metres from our kitchen window. 

 

As James Woolfenden was not present at the meeting, the following written response was subsequently provided:

 

The Council is currently completing the final design of the scheme. The drawings will be made available together with all the associated planning documents once the application has been submitted.  However, the verified views will be provided to residents prior to the planning submission. This is not expected to be before 17th  July.

 

To address the issues raised specifically regarding the refuse storage, cycle storage and pergola and their respective locations the architect has provided the following statement:

 

1. The bin stores form part of the single storey element of proposals, and back onto an existing single storey car garage forming the rear boundary of number 8 Packington Street. The garage structure is approximately 3 metres wide and sits at the end of the garden between the rear of number 8 Packington Street and our proposal. The proposed bin store is accommodated within the building envelope and enclosed all sides with doors onto the road for collection. It has been kept to a minimal size with no more than 2 euro bins.

 

2. The cycle store is located behind the lift and stair core at the eastern end of proposals, and forms the corner of our boundary to Turnbull House, and the boundary wall of gardens at number 15 & 16 on Packington Street. The provision of cycles in this location is a recent design change due to the revised nature of the accommodation - previously the cycles were located adjacent to the bins. The roof level will rise above the existing boundary wall to Packington Street gardens by approximately 500mm for a distance of 4 metres and then falls behind the single storey brick building in the Garden of number 16. Packington Street.

 

3. The pergola structure in the rear courtyard of proposals will be of timber construction. Vertical elements sit within a low level planter / retaining structure, and away from the boundary wall to gardens on Packington Street. The pergola structure has been provided to allow planting to grow over and enhance privacy to residents living on Packington Street.

 

Question f) from Brenda Woolfenden to Councillor Ward, Executive Member for Housing and Development:

 

Can the Council confirm/guarantee that any proposed development on the Windsor street site car park will be exclusively for residents with a learning disability?

 

Reply:

 

Thank you for your question. I can guarantee that the development at the Windsor Street car park site will be for the exclusive use of residents with varying levels of need, but all of whom have a learning disability. The building has been designed with the input of service users, their carers and the commissioners of learning disabilities service specifically for this purpose.

 

Supplementary Question:

 

Are you assured of the suitability of the site for the different categories of individuals that will be housed there?

 

Reply:

 

I am very confident that the site will be suitable. The site will be subject to a planning application in due course.

 

 

Question g) from Barry Hill to Councillor Burgess, Executive Member for Health and Social Care:

 

As one of the group representing all customers and residents when Sobell Sports Centre was threatened with demolition in 2009-2010 and successfully ensuring this architecturally unique facility was saved together  with its diverse offer of top class community sports development opportunities for the local community, why has GLL/Better been allowed forego its promises, made at Islington Customer Representative Committee Meetings in 2016, to consult fully with the Islington public and Sobell customers before taking any decision to implement a project involving a major part-change of use of the centre to a recreational theme park?

 

Reply:

 

Thank you for your question. As one of the Sobell User representatives on GLL’s Customer Representative Committee, you will be aware that GLL kept meetings of that committee fully appraised of the development of the Sobell trampoline park project during 2016/17.

 

GLL was aware that certain activities at the Sobell Centre would need to be relocated if the project was approved by the council. For this reason, when GLL presented its business case for the project to the council it also submitted a detailed displacement strategy. As a condition of giving its approval to the implementation of the project, the council required GLL to consult with those user groups affected regarding alternative locations for their activities before the works commenced. Such consultation took place during March and April 2017 and most user groups affected have now agreed alternative nearby locations for their activities.

 

The formal minutes of the Customer Representative Committee do not record any promise on the part of GLL to undertake a full public consultation, there is no statutory duty to consult and the benefits of the trampoline park far outweigh the impact of the displacement programme as most current users will be able to continue to play their sport.

 

Supplementary Question:

 

In the past seven days, the petition against the trampoline park has attracted more than 600 signatures from customers and residents across a wide range of sporting activities. What detailed market research and current evidence of need within Islington was provided by GLL Better to the Council’s Executive before the project was approved?

 

Reply:

 

Thank you for your question. There was a detailed business plan submitted to council officers before the project was approved. Trampoline parks have been extremely popular in other parts of the country, this will be the only trampoline park within inner London, we have no reason to believe that it will be anything other than extremely popular, and we have had a lot of very positive comments from young people who are very excited that this project is coming to the Sobell.  I see no reason why it should not be as popular in inner London as it is in other parts of the country.

 

 

Question h) from Gill Weston to Councillor Burgess, Executive Member for Health and Social Care:

 

In December 2016 the NHS published guidelines for homes for people with learning disabilities - "Building the right home".  These guidelines specify that no more than six people with learning disabilities should live on one site.  Will the council confirm that they will adhere to these guidelines in all building projects intended for people with learning disabilities, and that they will be followed in their project at Windsor Street?

 

Reply:

 

This document, Building the Right Home, is part of the supporting documentation to assist the national Transforming Care programme. This programme aims to rehouse 2,500 people with learning disabilities and/or autism who currently live in mental health hospitals.  It was set up following the Winterbourne View scandal.

 

You will be pleased to hear that the Windsor Street development is not part of the Transforming Care programme, so the guidance is not directly applicable.  It is not prescriptive in any case, but even if the Windsor Street development was specifically aimed at rehousing people from long term institutions, it would be compliant with it.

 

The guidance says new campus sites should not be built; a campus is a large institution, not a small housing scheme like Windsor Street. It says that housing with occupancy of six or more can become institutionalised: we are of course aware of this risk, and are managing it successfully in our in-house units and at Leigh Road, which is a similar building. It also says commissioners should ensure the support service enables tenants to have control over where they live and who provides the support; we have a strong and improving track record of personalised support in our units.

 

Indeed, the council’s Corporate Director of Housing and Adult Social Services was closely involved in writing Building the Right Home last December and was invited to blog about it for the NHS, so for us not to comply with its recommendations would not reflect well on us. But fortunately it does not apply to this project; Windsor Street is an example of the excellent work we are doing for people with learning disabilities and/or autism that attracts so much national attention and I can assure you again that we are fully compliant with any guidance.

 

Supplementary:

 

Thank you Councillor. I have confirmation from the NHS that these guidelines are applicable to Windsor Street, not just the Transforming Care programme. Specifically, they say that it relates to all people with a learning disability and/or autism with challenging behaviour. Some people may currently be in-patients, others will be in the community but at risk of admission. Are you going to reject these NHS guidelines and not safeguard these vulnerable people? When are you going to provide them with sufficient outdoor space, a building that blends in with the community, somewhere with a flexible future use where they can feel happy and safe in their homes and which meets their needs, away from busy and noisy roads and bright lights, with good standards of daylight and where they will not be constantly overlooked? All of these things are in the guidelines, which as I say, the NHS have confirmed does apply to Windsor Street.

 

Reply:

 

Thank you. Perhaps you would be kind enough to send us that information from the NHS as that is certainly not our understanding. As I say, our Corporate Director helped to write the document, so I am very surprised to hear that the NHS has a different view.

 

With regard to whether or not the Windsor Street development will be suitable for people with learning disabilities and other care needs, I very strongly refute the suggestion that it will not be. People with learning disabilities have families in Islington. Their families love their children, brothers or sisters the same as any other person. I think we have a duty to house these people in Islington. Clearly, we do not have lots of spaces away from roads and with beautiful views, but I would suggest that such places in the past have not guaranteed a good standard of accommodation. After all, Winterbourne View would meet the criteria that you have listed, but that was certainly not a good environment for vulnerable people. We will continue to do all that we can for our residents in Islington who happen to have learning disabilities.

 

Question i) from Chris Conroy to Councillor Webbe, Executive Member for Environment and Transport:

 

Are the council aware that there are several funders available (e.g, the Communities Asset Fund, The Football Foundation, London Marathon Charitable Trust) who would be willing to fund the vast majority of redevelopment of the pitch at Barnard Park in its current size, therefore saving lots of money for Islington tax payers, and creating revenue generating opportunities for the Borough?

 

Reply:

 

Thank you for your question. Our starting point for the redevelopment of Barnard Park was not funding; it was about recognising the diversity of the community, it was about families, it was about those who live alone, it was about young people and children, it was about older people, it was about those with different abilities, from the sensory impaired to those with mobility difficulties and hearing loss, it was about those who need formal sport and those who need informal sport, it was about those on low income, and those who supported and those who didn’t support.

 

It wasn’t a decision which was arrived at easily. The process took many years and started long before my time in this role. It is easy to jump on the bandwagon of those who oppose, but the council had to listen to all sides of the argument and come to a view. It is not funding that drove this decision, that would be unfair. No aspect of the redevelopment will be funded from taxpayers’ money, in fact every aspect of it will be funded by Section 106 monies. As for the issue of generating income, the potential hire of the grass area and the hire of the pitch, these ideas will be subject to further consultation and there will always be time and opportunity for anybody to engage. 

 

Supplementary question:

 

In light of the objections made to the Department for Communities and Local Government from Sport England, the Football Association, and other organisations, will the council commit to holding a meeting to review an alternative plan for the redevelopment of the sports pitch at Barnard Park?

 

Reply:

 

My understanding is that the process has happened. We had a Planning Sub-Committee meeting which came to a decision. The Committee had before it all of the objections received, including those of Sport England, and others. It also had before it representations from those who supported the redevelopment. The Planning Sub-Committee came to a decision, and now that decision is being reviewed by the Department for Communities and Local Government, as all decisions of this nature are. A decision will be made, and we have no intention of interfering in that process.

 

 

Question j) from Jack Scrafton to Councillor Webbe, Executive Member for Environment and Transport:

 

The council’s plans to reduce the size of the sports pitch at Barnard Park by 70% will mean that there will be nowhere we can practice on Thursday night after school and on Sunday morning.  Can the councillors tell us where we (and our 100 friends) will be able to practice?

 

Reply:

 

Jack, I want to thank you for your question, and for standing up for what you believe in, it’s really important.  You have heard from my fellow councillor, Councillor Caluori, that we absolutely and fundamentally support activities for children and young people, and that’s why this redevelopment of Barnard Park will not exclude children and young people in any way. In fact, the facilities will be enhanced to include children and young people, to include you and your friends. The park’s not going to get smaller, it’s just going to get safer and better and greater, it’s a real opportunity because the seven-a-side pitch will provide football for boys and girls, for young and old, and will be in a space which will accommodate all. For those friends, families, and volunteers that give up their time to work with you, please be assured that these activities will continue.

 

Supplementary Question:

 

When did you last play football?

 

Reply:

 

I haven’t played football for a long time. You know the game better than me, your friends know the game better than me, but I absolutely value football as our national sport. We are not taking away football, and I would encourage you and all of your friends to keep engaged in sport. Thank you.

 

 

As the 30 minutes allocated for questions from members of the public had elapsed, the Mayor advised that the remaining questions submitted in advance of the meeting would be responded to in writing. The following responses were issued subsequent to the meeting.

 

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

 

On the 7th June 2016 in a meeting between the council and some residents from Packington Street, the council promised to publish the financial viability report for the Windsor Street development.  Now, over a year later, this promise has not been fulfilled. Why has the report not been made available as promised, and when will it be published?

 

Reply:

 

The scheme, now in its final design stage, has undergone a number of changes since the last viability report was produced in September 2015.  The existing viability report is therefore no longer relevant as it is not reflective of the design or costs incurred on the project since that time. Now that design is being finalised we will begin the process of conducting a further financial viability to reflect these changes. We anticipate this process will be completed during the summer.

 

 

Question l) from David Scrafton to Councillor Webbe, Executive Member for Environment and Transport: 

 

In relation to the Barnard Park plans, are the council aware that the SaveOurSportsPitch group at Change.org have already amassed over 650 objections to their plan, a number that is more than 3 times as large as the number of people who ever supported their plans in the consultation?

 

Reply:

 

·         We are aware of the petition and appreciate the large number of people who have an interest in the future of Barnard Park.

·         The Council’s final consultation on the proposed design and both of the planning applications did have a greater number of submissions in support of the scheme than against. Nearly 80% of the responses we received when consulting on the most recent proposals supported the scheme –those in support were people from a wide range of backgrounds, from different social class and including residents on our Council estates

·         The decision in relation to Barnard Park sought to recognise the diversity of the community creating a space for families, young people and children, the under 5s as well as older people, those on low incomes and those without gardens and space to play and be active, engaging both boys and girls as well as those with differing abilities from the sensory impaired to those with mobility difficulties and hearing loss.

·         The Council’s decision was about taking a scarce resource and striking a balance in terms of design based on those who play sports and those who use the park for other activities.

·         So, the decision had to be reached following extensive local community consultation and embraced those who supported the scheme as well as those who opposed. The Council had to listen to all sides and come to a view. It was not a decision that was arrived at without due and proper consideration of all sides of the argument.

·         We understand the needs and desires of everyone cannot be accommodated in this small space, but we believe this design meets a broad range of needs of the different groups of users within the community from formal and informal sport to formal and informal recreation and events.

·         A petition is an important indicator of an opinion but it is never the sole determining factor when making a decision. A petition in support of the scheme might produce a similar number of signatories. As the Executive Member for Environment and Transport, I am happy to continue the conversation and meet with a delegation of the petitioners.

 

 

Question m) from Stephen Griffith to Councillor Ward, Executive Member for Housing and Development:

 

Why were the layman councillors at the 9th May planning for Barnard Park asked to weigh up, one the one hand, an absolute requirement to retain sports pitches with, on the other, environmental considerations when there was no question under the Borough’s own Development Plan rules that retention of the Sports Pitch at Barnard Park was not something to be compromised?

 

Reply:

 

The correct process for determining planning applications is set out within s38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Section 38 of the Act refers to the ‘Development Plan’. The Development Plan for Islington includes the London Plan (2016) Spatial Strategy and also the suite of development plan documents adopted by Islington taken as a whole. Section 6 states that ‘‘the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.’

 

In this regard, the recommendation that was presented to the 9th May 2017 Planning Committee (and the 18 July 2016 Committee previous to that) considered the proposal against the adherence to the Development Plan policies but also gave weight to  material considerations which included environmental considerations but also, the fact that Islington has some of the lowest amount of greenspace per person within London and the need to maximise the flexible functionality of its green spaces for the benefit of diverse population needs and demands, particularly in light of the significant number of residents who have very limited or no access to private open spaces themselves.

 

It should be noted that policy DM6.4 ‘Sport and Recreation’ part C does specifically (by footnote) protect against the loss of public sport and recreation facilities stating that developments that would result in their loss will be refused planning permission unless:

 

    (i)        The same type(s) of facility are reprovided;

   (ii)        New facilities meet identified need;

  (iii)        Replacement facilities are appropriately and accessibly located;

  (iv)        The quality of provision is enhanced; and

   (v)        The quantity of provision is maintained, with local population increase provided for.

 

A footnote to the above policy states “Public sport and recreation facilities, such as leisure centres, are those with unrestricted public access on a pay and play basis without membership being required.”

 

The existing sport pitch due to its current poor standard does not meet the stated definition of a sport’s pitch to which this policy is said to apply.

 

Policy 6.3 ‘Protecting Open Space’ sets out at part F) that existing play spaces across the borough will be protected by resisting their loss, unless i) a replacement play space of equivalent size and functionality is provided to meet the needs of the local population. Where this is not possible development will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances where there are over-riding planning merits to the proposal.

 

In this regard, it is the view of officers that exceptional circumstances were demonstrated and that there are over-riding planning merits to the proposal, in the context of the borough having the second lowest amount of green space per person in England (Core Strategy 2011 supporting text 3.6.5). Due to the nature of housing development in this part of the borough, many of which being flatted and without access to private public open space and given that Barnard Park is close to the ward boundary with Caledonian ward, which is a priority area for increasing the quantity of public open space (due to a current deficiency).

 

Additionally, Greenspace, having carried out a significant degree of public consultation with local residents in developing their plans, put forward a proposal for a variety of play spaces including a reduced size sports pitch of significantly improved quality, supplemented by an area of ‘Village Green’ that can also be booked formally, or alternatively used for more information play and recreation. The proposals provide enhanced amounts of green space to support biodiversity, open up more routes through the park improving the connectivity and the usability of the park and these were considered to be valid material considerations, particularly in the context of the need for public open space in the borough to be as flexible as possible so as to maximise the park’s usability as a result of the significant number of competing demands due to the considerations set out above.

 

The original 18 July 2016 Sub-Committee A report sets out the fuller details as to what material considerations were weighed against the non-compliance with this policy.

 

 

Question n) Michael Coffey to Councillor Webbe, Executive Member for Environment and Transport:

 

Are the council aware that the Department of Local Communities and Government have extended the time for the review of their planning application for the reduction in pitch size at Barnard Park by 70%, and that Sports England have objected to the Council’s planning application?

 

Reply:

 

·         We are aware of the objection from Sport England to the planning application. It was reported to the 18 July 2016 Planning Sub-Committee A meeting whereby the Committee resolved to defer making a decision to allow for further discussion.

·         There are differing views on this project, but following extensive discussions with the community and park users, we agreed a plan, with majority support, that sought to strike a reasonable balance so that Barnard Park could be enjoyed by all including parents, older people, footballers, children and young people and other park users. We want the park to meet diverse local needs.

·         The final decision was based on extensive consultation over many years and strong support from the local community.

·         The Council is also aware that the decision has been referred to the Secretary of State. This is normal procedure that is required under law for applications that involve the loss or replacement of a playing field, or otherwise.

·         The Council cannot grant planning permission on the application until after 21 days of the Secretary of State receiving the consultation. That time elapsed on 15 June but the Secretary of State wrote to us requesting an extension as they were unlikely to be in a position to respond in time – understandably it has been a very busy time for his Department and there was also a General Election.

·                     On 24th August 2017 we received notification that the Secretary of State had called in our planning application for Barnard Park. We are of course disappointed. Islington is a densely populated and geographically small borough, and its parks are rightly very highly valued.

·                     We are now carefully considering the detail of the call-in and our response.

 

 

Question o) from James Dunnett to Councillor Burgess, Executive Member for Health and Social Care:

 

The Sobell Centre is recognized as work of architectural importance, nominated for listing at national level by the Twentieth Century Society when threatened with demolition eight years ago. 

 

In view of this, why have Greenwich Leisure Ltd been permitted to start implementing works that will radically alter the internal architectural qualities of the Centre without consulting the planning department or the users of the Centre or making proper drawings available to them - to the extent that even the official User Representative was unaware of the works until they started?

 

Reply:

 

Although the Sobell Centre is not currently listed at either national or local level, we recognise the centre’s architectural magnificence, and wish to celebrate it, by enabling more people to use it and to experience the scale of the space available

 

The works to the main sports hall arena are built and designed to be retractable if required to reinstate the space to its original form. We have gone to great lengths to ensure that there is minimal intervention to the existing space, including the introduction of a floating floor to protect the Sprung floor.  The works do not require planning permission and are therefore only a matter for building control. The business plan has been structured to allow for the project to reinstate the sports hall to its original state or to future leisure need.

 

Details of the proposed works were made known to the Sobell User’s Group and to the Customer Representative Committee.

 

I know that you have met one of the council Officers involved with the scheme, and indeed have had considerable email correspondence about it with detailed responses to the points you raised.  If you have any outstanding queries with regard to detail, please do contact Mark Christodoulou again, and copy me in.