Agenda item
Questions from Members of the Council
Minutes:
Question a) from Councillor Clarke to Councillor Ward, Executive Member for Housing and Development:
Islington Council recently secured a High Court victory over a developer who was twice refused planning permission at the former Territorial Army site on Parkhurst Road, because the plans did not include enough genuinely affordable homes. This is a significant legal victory that will support this Council’s plans to deliver more genuinely affordable homes for local people, including at the former Holloway Prison site. Can Councillor Ward explain what steps he and the Council are taking to ensure the precedent this judgement sets is recognised by the development industry and by government?
Response:
Thank you for your question. Yes, this really is a landmark legal case, which will help the Council, as well as local authorities across the country, to maximise the delivery of genuinely affordable housing. It will be a powerful tool that will help us dissuade developers from paying too much for land and then using the “dark arts” of viability to reduce the amount of genuinely affordable housing on the site in question. Put simply, you can’t overpay for land, and then say “we can’t afford to build social housing”. They’re not going to get away with it anymore. This is a hugely significant victory and we are very proud of it.
Following the High Court decision on 27 April 2018, the Council publicised the judgment very widely. The Parkhurst Road case was then featured in a number of development industry, planning and legal publications, as well as several local papers.
The case continues to attract media interest – only last week City Metric published my article on the Parkhurst Road victory under the title “Developers can no longer over-pay for land to wriggle out of their affordable housing commitments”.
Over the last couple of months, the case has also featured at a number of legal seminars/events organised by leading law chambers. It truly is a case of national significance.
Council officers distributed the High Court decision to all the specialist officer networks related to planning and development viability in London and have also been invited to give talks on the matter.
You might also be aware that in a highly unusual move, in a postscript to the judgment, Judge Mr Justice Holgate also recommended that the current, widely used, guidance on viability assessments by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors should be revised. That is “in order to address any misunderstandings about market valuation concepts and techniques, the “circularity” issue and any other problems encountered in practice over the last 6 years, so as to help avoid protracted disputes of the kind we have seen in the present case”.
This is something that the Council has been calling for over the last couple of years, due to serious concerns about how the RICS Financial Viability in Planning guidance note was being applied in practice. We are now looking to join forces with the Mayor of London to seek engagement with the Ministry of Housing Community and Local Government, the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors to take forward the recommendations set out in the High Court decision.
This is not our only significant achievement in this area. For the Holloway Prison site we prepared and published our own development scenarios and viability advice. This indicated that 50% genuinely affordable housing could be provided on the site. Our aim was to discourage future purchasers of the site from overpaying and then claiming that they could not afford to meet our affordable housing target. We were the first local authority to take this approach.
Supplementary question:
We were told by the Ministry of Justice that the Holloway Prison site would be sold in the spring; we are now being told that the site will be sold by the end of the year. Does Councillor Ward agree that the Council’s demand for at least 50% genuinely affordable housing has put off those seeking to make a quick financial gain from the sale of public land at the expense of the local community, and does that bring hope that we can keep this land in public ownership, until we get a Labour Government in future, and we can then have full control over the site?
Response:
I heard Rory Stewart MPs statement last week, and all I can say is that there is no justice without housing justice. If the Ministry of Justice do not understand this, they are not worthy of the name. I hope Rory Stewart has done his homework, I hope Rory Stewart has read the high court judgement, I hope Rory Stewart has read Islington’s Council Planning Guidance on the Holloway Prison Site. If he has not, I can summarise it for him: 50 per cent genuinely affordable housing, at least.
Question b) from Councillor Heather to Councillor Ward, Executive Member for Housing and Development:
The former George Robey site in Finsbury Park Ward is the subject of negotiations between Islington Council’s Planning Department and a private developer for a chain hotel to be built there. I have asked council officers if genuinely affordable homes could be built on the site, in accordance with Council policy, but I have been informed this is not possible due to the location and size of the site. As there is enormous need for genuinely affordable homes in Finsbury Park Ward I am requesting your second opinion in this matter.
Response:
No one is in any doubt that Islington is facing an unprecedented housing crisis and there is a dire need for genuinely affordable homes across the borough and in Finsbury Park. I know you have personally been involved in much of the consultation on building new genuinely affordable homes in your ward. This Council administration is delivering Islington’s largest council house building programme in 30 years, and will have delivered 1,900 new genuinely affordable homes by 2022.
However, it is also important that we learn the lessons from the past, and that we ensure that any new homes, particularly council homes, offer their occupants a good standard of living and access to outdoor space. I am especially proud of the new council homes that we are building. I believe that they offer better living standards than many of the new private homes that are being built in the borough. This is in stark contrast to the ‘poor doors’ approach that is pursued and tolerated elsewhere. In addition, local residents are only likely to support increased housing densities, if any new homes are built to high standards.
As you are aware, the Sir George Robey site is currently in private ownership. The site faces directly on to Seven Sisters Road, which is a very busy road, and whilst it is not unusual for Islington residents to live on busy roads, the site also backs directly onto the railway. The site is also very small.
Due to its relatively narrow character and its location sandwiched between the elevated railway tracks and a very busy road, the site is exposed to high levels of noise and vibration and poor air quality. Unfortunately, planning officers have concluded that it is highly improbable that the site could deliver new homes that could achieve environmental health standards and meet the council’s planning policies in relation to the quality of accommodation within new homes and the provision of outdoor space. It is likely a high proportion of any new homes would have to be single aspect, and they may not be able to have windows that open. The highly constrained nature of the site means that it would also be very difficult to provide outdoor amenity space for future occupants, and the site was not therefore allocated for a residential use in the council’s Site Allocations Document.
As you have stated in your question, a planning application has been submitted for the construction of an eight-storey hotel on this site and planning officers are currently negotiating with the applicants. Planning officers are seeking to secure the inclusion of either affordable workspace or a music venue within the scheme.
I understand your disappointment, I am disappointed too, but we have looked very hard at this site, and our commitment to deliver good quality affordable homes for local people means that not every site is suitable. I would be happy to meet with you to discuss this further.
Supplementary question:
Obviously you will be aware that there is student accommodation next door, there is already a hotel fifty yards away, and you will be aware of the City North development, where there is no problem in building luxury homes. The noise and pollution doesn’t seem to be a problem for the hotel.
You mention quality, but we hear about people living in private-rented hovels all over Islington, so it’s all relative. What scares me is that development sites are not found easily, we need lots more genuinely affordable homes, especially in Finsbury Park ward, and do we really need another hotel fifty yards away from the other one? I don’t think we do. I think we need genuinely affordable homes. I accept your point, but I don’t feel as a local ward councillor that it is acceptable for this to go through without being questioned. So my question is, will you please go back and look into this again, just to check that it cannot be done? I want to be sure, and it is only fair to the electorate that we go through this with a fine tooth comb.
Response:
One thing that we agree on is that we are totally committed to building as many new genuinely affordable council homes as possible, so I would be very happy to go back and look at this one more time, just to make sure there is no way that we could develop genuinely affordable homes on this site. I will discuss this with senior officers and come back to you.
Question c) from Councillor Lukes to Councillor Ward, Executive Member for Housing and Development:
I know Councillor Ward will agree with me that it is unacceptable that anyone is forced to sleep rough on the streets, so I was concerned to find out that a couple of people had been seen sleeping on Highbury Fields. I know they are no longer there, and I know we are short of resources due to central government cuts, but could Councillor Ward provide an update on how this Council is supporting vulnerable rough sleepers, including those who may have no access to housing or benefits because of their migration status or rights to reside?
Response:
Thank you for your question Councillor; I completely agree that no one should be forced to sleep rough on our streets, and that’s why the council invests a significant resource into preventing homelessness and getting people into appropriate accommodation as soon as possible. The Council commissions St Mungo’s outreach team who make contact with those who are rough sleeping in Islington. This team offers support to all rough sleepers, including those who have no access to benefits and will signpost people to specialist services where needed. In recognising the increase in rough sleeping in the borough from 2016 to 2017, the Council has given additional funds to the outreach team for an outreach coordinator’s post, to increase the capacity of the team, including outreach and case work.
Not just that, we are also developing new innovate approaches to helping those who face homelessness, and that’s why I am very proud to say that we are piloting a Housing First model, which focuses on providing stable housing as a first step, to support people in leaving homelessness behind. But, ultimately we need a government that allows us to build the genuinely affordable council homes, and reverses all the damaging cuts to social security. We need a government that gives private renters more protections than rogue landlords, considering the most common reason for homelessness is the end of an assured short-hold tenancy.
We have been successful in bidding for funds from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government which will create additional roles, one of which is a part time No Recourse to Public Funds worker whose specific remit will be to work with rough sleepers who have no access to benefits.This is very welcome, but I would also like the Ministry to commit to more genuinely affordable homes and reversing austerity so that this Council can work together with them to prevent homelessness in the first place.
Supplementary question:
I agree with everything you said, but I am a bit concerned by the Homeless Reduction Act, which means that councils need to change the way that they are working with all of those who approach the local authority, and ensure that they actually do get help, advice, information and assistance to prevent their homelessness. I am concerned that we are not necessarily investing enough time and resources in training, supervising and encouraging our staff to take a collaborative approach with people who approach them when they are homeless. I would like to know what we are doing about training and changing the way our staff work with homeless people.
Response:
Thank you Councillor. The Homelessness Reduction Act is fine on paper; the elephant in the room is resources. This government seeks to place additional burdens onto local authorities, but without allocating additional funding. We are prepared for the Homelessness Reduction Act, and we have been busy training staff, and we have been looking over the past year at how our staff speak to homeless residents who need our help. I have shadowed our Outreach Team on an evening, and would be keen to get you involved in this process. I invite you to come out with me and the Outreach Team to see our process in action. Let’s work together to make the process as good as it can possibly be.
Question d) from Councillor Khurana to Councillor Webbe, Executive Member for Environment and Transport:
Crouch Hill station in Tollington currently has no step-free access to its platform, which makes it inaccessible to residents with disabilities and mobility issues. The Equality and Human Rights Commission identified access to public transport as a key barrier for disabled people in the UK. Do you agree that Transport for London and the Department for Transport should listen to the calls of local people, and those of my colleagues and I as local community champions, and bring forward plans to make Crouch Hill station accessible for all?
Response:
Thank you for your question. I share local residents’ and councillors’ concerns about accessibility at Crouch Hill station. The lack of step-free access at the station makes it inaccessible to people with disabilities or mobility issues, and anyone travelling with heavy luggage or young children.
We are committed to making Islington a fairer borough for everyone. We are a borough that seeks to be exemplary on the issue of equality. This includes ensuring our community and facilities are inclusive and accessible for all. Frankly, it is unacceptable that people with disabilities and mobility issues cannot access public transport, and therefore find it harder to access education and work, and socialise. There should be no public facility which is a no-go area for people with disabilities or mobility issues.
This Council administration has been urging TfL to develop plans for all its stations in the borough to be made fully accessible through step-free access. I fully agree that TfL should bring forward plans to make Crouch Hill station accessible for all. There is a real opportunity, because the Gospel Oak to Barking line, which serves the station, is becoming an increasingly important transport connection. Why not make it good practice all the way through, ensuring that people with disabilities are able to access the station.
I am pleased that, in response to a letter sent from local councillors, TfL confirmed last week that it will consider the case for step-free access at Crouch Hill station when the Department for Transport and Network Rail next invite recommendations for Access for All funding. We expect this will happen next year. Until then, I am happy to support Tollington residents and councillors in making the case for Crouch Hill station to be one of the first stations to receive this funding.
Question e) from Councillor Convery to Councillor Caluori, Executive Member for Children, Young People and Families:
Please outline how much money is being spent by the Council in Caledonian Ward on (a) general youth services; and (b) targeted youth services and other preventative measures aimed at reducing the high incidence of gang related crime and ASB.
Response:
Thank you for your question. I have a detailed breakdown on the spend on youth services in Caledonian ward, which I won’t talk through now but I will share with you. The top line is that we spend £77,903.60 on general youth services in Caledonian ward. In terms of Targeted Youth Services, they aren’t so easily divisible by ward, but the Targeted Youth Service holds one session per week in Caledonian ward, and that will soon be increasing to two. We also have the Y-Truck mobile youth centre which will be in the area. We’re also looking to provide summer programmes.
I’d like to thank Councillor Convery and his ward colleagues for the amazing work they’ve done locally to respond to the very understandable concerns about crime and disorder; I was really pleased to come along to a local meeting, and it’s really encouraging that people at the meeting wanted to support young people in the area, rather than demonising them. It’s really important that young people are taking part in positive activities, so we will continue to invest in youth services.
Supplementary question:
Thank you very much, I look forward to seeing the detail. I congratulate the administration on how they have safeguarded the level of spending on youth services over the past eight years, at a time when we have faced significant financial constraints.
The reason I ask this question is that Cally faces really considerable obstacles. At times it feels that we have an almost unbreakable culture of youth crime and anti-social behaviour, a culture of violence, that has a pervasive influence throughout the neighbourhood and is making youth work delivery very challenging. We tend to face an institutional response, which is a bit youth-averse, risk-adverse at times, that is not very geared to decisive action, and as a result we cannot say that all our young people are safe all of the time. It is worrying that there are hundreds of families that do not feel safe letting their kids outside. Do you agree that we could all work more effectively to make Cally safer for children?
Response:
I certainly agree that the funding we spend could have a bigger impact on the area, and I think we should look again at how that money is targeted at different groups. One issue we face in Cally has been providing activities for younger people, without them having the older young people around influencing what is going on, so I think we need to look at the details to make sure our services are effective.
I think this demonstrates a wider point, that things are not always interchangeable across the borough; some areas are very different, Cally is facing particular problems, other wards are facing other problems, and they are influenced by history, geographic location, and a range of other factors. I think we could do more to target our youth spending to reflect the needs of each area.
Question f) from Councillor Turan to Councillor Burgess, Executive Member for Health and Social Care:
Supporting local people to lead healthier lives is a key priority of this Council. Obesity costs the NHS alone £5.1 billion every year and obese individuals lose on average 12 years of their lives. In Islington, more than a fifth of children start primary school overweight and more than a third leave secondary school overweight. It is clear that the vast quantities of sugar in our modern diets is unhealthy and is contributing to this health crisis. Could Councillor Burgess provide an update on what the Council is doing to tackle obesity and what more can be done to tackle the high levels of sugar in people’s diets?
Response:
Thank you for your question. Last October Islington signed the Local Government Declaration on Sugar Reduction and Healthier Food. To sign the declaration, a local authority must make pledges across six different areas, details of this have been circulated in the handout laid round the Chamber. The aim of the declaration is not to ban sugar altogether, but to make a range of changes to make healthier choices easier and more convenient and affordable.
As part our commitment to raising public awareness, Islington has agreed to take forward the Sugar Smart campaign which is a vehicle for engaging our local communities and businesses to take their own action on sugar reduction. The official launch for Sugar Smart is now planned for later in the Summer, and some key local organisations have already given their commitment to signing up and to taking action. These include GLL, Arsenal and The Whittington Hospital.
One key aspect is giving local people access to free drinking water, so that people buy less sugary drinks. “Refill Islington” is a scheme that promotes local cafes, bars and other places that allow the public to come in and fill up their water bottles. 40 business have signed up already, and bids have also been submitted to the GLA to support the installation of water fountains in public places. In Islington we also offer advice and support to parents and their children around weight management which include cooking and eating sessions and 1-1 support. There is a range of work underway, and we will be doing more in this area.
Question g) from Councillor Hyde to Councillor Burgess, Executive Member for Health and Social Care:
The Roman Way Medical Centre, which serves 4,400 local patients, is due to close as one of the current GPs is retiring, the other GP proposes to move. As the GPs own the practice building, it will not be possible to continue providing NHS GP services from the current premises. Roman Way is a much-needed local GP surgery and the closure could particularly affect older and more vulnerable people, of whom there are many in the immediate vicinity. There is vociferous opposition to losing provision in this area from the residents. Working with Councillor Burgess and local people, the Caledonian ward councillors submitted a petition with 550 signatures calling for NHS England to provide a new NHS GP surgery for local people, or to ensure robust plans are in place to expand existing local NHS surgeries to ensure local people maintained good access to NHS services.
Now the NHS has delayed a decision on what to do next, will Councillor Burgess confirm that she will continue to work with us as local councillors to get the best outcome for local people, and can she confirm that this Council will always fight to protect the NHS and local people’s ability to access NHS services?
Response:
Thank you for your question, and thank you for your fantastic campaigning on this issue.
The Council responded to the NHS England consultation on the future of Roman Way Medical Centre strongly supported re-procurement of this practice. This was based on evidence of existing and future populations in the immediate area and around nearby practices, and also taking into account sheltered housing and also new housing planned for the area.
The Primary Care Commissioning Committee, which is considering options for the future of this practice, listened to councillors’ representations and the petition signed by residents, and took this into account at their meeting on 21st June. Recognising the impact on patients registered at the practice, and on other practices and their patients, the committee delayed making a decision on this practice’s future. NHS commissioners have committed to meeting the partners at Roman Way Medical Centre with an aim of extending their notice period, allowing more time to find an acceptable solution.
We will continue to work closely with the Clinical Commissioning Group to ensure accessible and high quality primary care provision across the borough. The Council’s Public Health and Planning departments have previously analysed the impact of new housing across the borough and practices that are likely to experience the greatest impact from this, and the CCG and the Council’s planning department work together to identify how to ensure adequate GP provision for residents in those areas.
In answer to your question, and on the 70th anniversary of the NHS, and I’m pleased to say that this Council will always support the NHS, and support our residents in accessing NHS services.
Supplementary question:
Thank you. In addition to your response, please can you provide us with detailed reassurance that the impending risk of us losing further GP provision in our ward will be considered in discussions with the CCG and other stakeholders. As you will appreciate, Cally has one of the highest levels of deprivation in the borough, and our residents desperately need NHS provision across the ward.
Response:
Thank you. I will certainly raise this with the CCG. We are committed to working with the CCG to make sure that provision is continued there, and I think that the CCG and NHS England need to take these issues into account when making decisions. I know there are some concerns about the future of the Bingfield Street practice, however we are aware that the premises are owned by the NHS, so there is no reason why that would not remain as a GP practice.
The Mayor advised that there was no time remaining for questions from members of the Council, and that outstanding questions would be responded to in writing. The following responses were issued following the meeting:
Question h) from Councillor Jeapes to Councillor Shaikh, Executive Member for Economic Development:
It has been just over one year since the unreasonably high increase in business rates on Islington’s businesses, for instance, Canonbury (the N1 area) has suffered a 39% increase. This will have the greatest impact on residents on the lowest incomes and/or those in receipt of benefits, the very people that the Prime Minister, Theresa May, has said she wanted to help – the “JAM’s” – “just about managing”. For example, a small business like a laundrette burdened with a 39% tax increase will put up their prices to compensate, so putting more pressure on Islington’s residents already struggling with this Conservative Government’s austerity agenda.
I would like to know if the Council has an idea of how many businesses have been so affected by this tax increase that they have left Islington to find cheaper, more affordable premises or have just gone out of business? What are we doing to get the message across that Councils do not set the rate, but that this is yet another example of a Conservative Government that actually does not care about the majority of residents, and in particular, has really no idea about JAM?
Response:
The Government’s decision to revalue business rates has had a significant impact on local businesses in Islington. Many who face huge rates rises may feel they have no choice but to increase prices, which in turn impacts on residents. I therefore share your scepticism that the Prime Minister is particularly concerned about people who are ‘just about managing’ after years of austerity.
Although the Council does not set business rates, we have been working tirelessly with our local business community to galvanise opposition to the rates increases following the Government’s revaluation last year. After a hard-fought campaign and delivery of a 14,000-strong petition to the Government, Islington received one of the largest shares of Government funding to help lessen the impact of the rates rise. Although this funding is by no means enough, this small amount of relief would likely not have materialised without this campaign.
At the time of the business rates revaluation, business rates bills rose by an average of 44 per cent. We do not have precise figures for how many local businesses have left Islington or gone out of business since the revaluation, but it is raised as a significant challenge in almost every conversation I and officers have with local small businesses.
As soon as the new business rates were set, the Council wrote to all local business owners to inform them that the Government had decided that their business rates would rise. In this letter, we made it clear the Council did not set the rates and urged all local business to check that their rateable value was correct. The letter also included details of how local businesses could find out if they were eligible for a discount, funding for which was secured following our aforementioned campaign with the local business community.
We have further spread the message that the Council does not set business rates through meetings and workshops on business rates, along with conversations with local businesses and Town Centre Management Groups. These conversations have resulted in a perceptible shift in understanding of traders, as illustrated by a notable fall in complaints about business rates. The Council is now seen more as a reluctant administrator of business rates rather than the rates setter.
We know that business rates is a key issue for businesses and we are in the process of developing another campaign to put pressure on central government to urge them to rethink the current system which is failing many of our businesses. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this campaign with you further.
This Council administration is firmly on the side of local businesses and residents. I urge you and your ward colleagues to contact me with any concerns you have about particular businesses who have been hit particularly hard by the Government’s hike in business rates in Canonbury.
Question i) from Councillor Russell to Councillor Ward, Executive Member for Housing and Development:
Given the smoke damage and difficulty in exiting the building experienced by residents in 6-10 Aberdeen Park in the recent fire, how many front doors are non-compliant with fire regulations in council properties, tenanted and leasehold, in each ward?
Response:
Fire safety is this Council administration’s top priority. Our £38 million fire safety programme is supported by the London Fire Brigade, and we will act to comply with all the recommendations that emerge from the national public inquiry into the tragic fire at Grenfell Tower.
In the Council’s directly-managed tenanted stock, we have 16,360 fire compliant doors. We are currently upgrading a further 3,539 doors and plan to replace a further 635. Where we have replaced doors to tenanted properties, we have also offered to replace leaseholders’ doors, as leaseholders are responsible for their own front doors. Take-up of this scheme has been low but we are working to increase it through engagement with leaseholders.
Attached as an appendix to this letter is a chart breaking down the number of fire compliant doors in tenanted and non-tenanted properties in each ward, and doors that are included in fire compliance packages. We are working to ensure that necessary works are completed on all doors so they are fire compliant. [The chart is appended to these minutes]
In homes managed by Partners for Islington, we plan to survey all tenanted flat front doors as part of a recently-let contract to install interlinked heat and smoke detection and alarms. This work is due to begin in autumn this year and is likely to take several years to complete.
I would like to reiterate my thanks to the council staff and fire services who responded to the recent fire at Aberdeen Park on 29th May, and to the residents for their co-operation while repairs are being carried out.
If you have any questions or concerns about fire safety in particular properties in your ward, please contact me.
Question j) Councillor Russell to Councillor Webbe, Executive Member for Environment and Transport:
The City of London has a pedestrian friendly Electric Vehicle (EV) charging policy that avoids any charging points or boxes being located on the pavement. Why has Islington Council allowed Source London to install EV charging equipment on the footway rather than on pavement build outs in the carriageway as has been done previously e.g. in Sherringham Rd?
Response:
Thank you for your question to me at Full Council on Electric Vehicle (EV) charging points.
I am pleased that Islington is leading the way in rolling out EV charging points. By 2022, we hope to have installed an extra 400 charging points across the borough, enabling local people who require a car to switch to more sustainable and environmentally-friendly options.
There are a wide variety of EV charging points, which vary in size and technical specifications. All of the Source London charging points are free-standing pillars and are significantly smaller than the rapid charger on Sherringham Road, which is approximately the size of a petrol pump.
The Council does not currently prohibit EV chargers on pavements. Instead, existing policy guidance is followed, which seeks to ensure that any new street furniture is appropriately designed and positioned to avoid obstruction on pedestrian routes. If all new EV charging points were prohibited from being located on the pavement, it would significantly hamper the Council’s ability to provide the infrastructure necessary to support the transition from petrol and diesel vehicles to electric vehicles.
However, we want to ensure our footways remain accessible and navigable for all pedestrians. I have therefore instructed council officers to work with Source London to ensure that all new EV charging points provide a wider clear footway width of 1.5 meters. Council officers are also ensuring that all new rapid chargers are installed on build outs in the carriageway, such as the one on Sherringham Road, unless there are special site circumstances.
I am sure you will share my excitement that the Council is currently trialling Ubitricity lamp column charges in Balfe Street, and intends to roll out more of these charging points in the future. Although lamp column chargers avoid the creation of street clutter, they can only charge vehicles at a slow speed. It is important that Islington’s EV charging network contains a mixture of slow, fast and rapid chargers, which all have different design and space requirements, to meet demand and need.
Supporting documents:
PDF 77 KB