Agenda item

(a) James O’Doherty to Cllr Champion, Executive Member for Environment, Air Quality and Transport

 

Please explain the legal basis for parking e-bikes on pavements in Islington.  I am asking for the explicit legal permission that e-bike companies have that allows the dumping on e-bikes on pavements. How does this reconcile with Rule 64 of the Highways Code which states, “You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.” I understand the need to promote cycling however why does the Council allow this kind of irresponsible dumping on pavements of e-bikes and why do resident have to deal this nonsense?

 

As the questioner was not present in the Council Chamber, a written response was sent:

Thank you for your question, James. You are correct to point out that Rule 64 of the Highways Code states “You must not cycle on a pavement.” Cyclists should dismount and walk with their bikes when on a pavement. However, the Highways Act 1980 permits bikes to be parked anywhere they do not cause nuisance or obstruction on the public highway so that pedestrian access is maintained. In order to try and regulate the scheme the council has a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with three operators (Lime, Forest and Tier).

 

We do believe that they provide a good option for local people to use sustainable ways of travelling in Islington and beyond.  They are certainly very well used. In the past year there have been 1.5 million trips made by dockless hire bikes in Islington alone.

 

But, with the strong uplift in trips last year there has also been an uplift in the number of poorly parked bikes causing very significant issues for people walking and wheeling especially those with visual or mobility impairments. This is something we do take very seriously. The Lime bike hack did not help. 

 

Officers work with the hire bike companies to require them to take what steps they can to make sure that bikes are not causing problems and that includes fining people who part their bikes inconsiderately as this does lead to behaviour change.  It includes ensuring badly parked hire bikes are either removed or relocated as soon as possible. 

 

It also includes setting up exclusion zones where there are particularly sensitive locations, such as near the RNIB offices on Pentonville Road or where there are particular problem areas.However, we recognise that we need to do more and are also rolling out the introduction of bays where users who park on the pavement outside of a designated space will be subject to penalties. A pilot of up to 10 locations are expected to be installed in the coming weeks, with a further 50 to follow in summer 2024.

 

Thank you again for your question.

 

(b) Rebekah Kelly to Cllr Champion, Executive Member for Environment, Air Quality and Transport

 

The latest proposals for the Barnsbury and Laycock Liveable Neighbourhood shows clear winners and losers, where some benefit from a "Liveable Neighbourhood" and some do not. How does this create a more equal borough?

 

Response:

Thank you for your question, Rebekah. The Council’s top priority and focus is to challenge inequality to work towards a more equal Islington. The development of Islington’s Liveable Neighbourhoods is a key part of this and we are working with teams across the council on this so people really can benefit from this.

 

Evidence from studies of Low Traffic Neighbourhood across London, including a study by the University of Westminster, shows that traffic filtering schemes do not benefit more affluent residents at the expense of less affluent residents. This is particularly prevalent in a place like Islington where large, expensive houses exist right beside large estates. The Barnsbury-Laycock Liveable Neighbourhood area includes some of the parts of Islington with the highest level of social housing. We want to make sure everyone can benefit from less traffic and cleaner air.

 

By addressing the negative impacts of through traffic, Liveable neighbourhoods aim to make the borough’s streets better for people who live, work, walk, wheel or cycle on them, transforming streets into more environmentally-friendly places where communities can come together and flourish.  With car ownership in London increasing with household income, public space improvements which support walking and cycling have a wide role to play in increasing inclusion and reducing inequality.

In parts of the Barnsbury and Laycock area, the historic traffic calming measures and traffic filters have resulted in areas of low traffic volume, speed, and noise, and it is clear that people do value these spaces.  There are, however, still a number of streets which, aided by satnav, provide cut-through routes and receive traffic volumes which are too high for the nature and design of these streets.  One of our priorities is to reduce the volume of overall traffic in the area, including streets which are not suited to the volumes of traffic they are currently experiencing, so that others in Barnsbury and Laycock can also benefit from low traffic volume, speed and noise.

 

The strategic placement of traffic filters in Barnsbury and Laycock will enable us to extend the benefits of low traffic environments to many others who live in the area, including children, people with more limited mobility, and people who would be inclined to walk, cycle or wheel more if there was less traffic and they felt safer doing so.  When there is less traffic on our streets, they also become spaces that can be enjoyed more by everyone with other improvements such as places for people to stop and rest, planting and trees which help the borough’s resilience to the impact of climate change including heat and flooding.

 

Supplementary Question:

Considering that these roads, like Holloway Road, are community main roads used by a diverse group of people, including those who are vulnerable and from minority or lower-economic communities. Do you find it fair that such a burden is placed on specific areas, potentially leading to social injustice for those residents, while the Council's inflexible approach may adversely impact people living, working, and going to school in those locations? Additionally, are you awaiting the air quality report to demonstrate the success of diverting traffic and improving air quality, particularly for individuals who may not have a choice in where they live or how they travel?

 

Response:

The annual report is currently being prepared and is expected to be released in the next few months. I completely understand your concerns, and we do share the same level of concern for every street and road. We've been closely monitoring road traffic in neighbourhoods, and what we've observed is that the feared impact hasn't materialised in Blackstock Road, particularly between Brownswood and Finsbury Park.

 

While traffic has reduced, we are committed to ensuring that streets like Blackstock Road also benefit from our initiatives. The challenge lies in addressing the serious traffic volumes on streets designed to accommodate them while encouraging people to make different choices. We aim to tackle issues such as freight to ultimately remove vehicles from main roads and local streets.

 

We recognise that some people will still need to drive, but there are alternative ways to encourage behaviour change. Combining trips and making car use inconvenient for short journeys can be effective. It's crucial for us to focus not only on internal areas but also on improving the experience for those who live, work, and travel on main roads. Additionally, we want to empower individuals who may not have considered biking or walking as viable options to feel confident in making such choices.

 

(c) Siobhan Cartwright to Cllr Champion, Executive Member for Environment, Air Quality and Transport

 

I’d like to address the problem re LTNs, road closures, left and right turn changes that are causing huge traffic jams on Islington main roads:

•         Upper Street

•         Holloway Road

•         Seven Sisters Road

•         Caledonian Road

•         Tufnell Park Road

How are the emergency services expected to reach an emergency situation when the traffic is jammed throughout the day on the above roads listed above? Emergency services are hampered by road and turning changes as none (to my knowledge) are indicated on GPS systems. Reliable GPS is absolutely vital for Emergency Service vehicles, along with access on ALL roads. Cars are unable to move out of their way due to traffic jams, cycle lanes and parked cars. Has there been enough consideration in the planning discussions re: Emergency Services response routes re: the latest road closures? It is apparent to anyone living, working, walking, driving and trying to navigate a way out of the latest traffic nightmare in Islington that planning consideration was not given to the points listed above.

 

As the questioner was not present in the Council Chamber, a written response was sent:

Thank you for your question, Siobhan. Resident health and wellbeing are at the forefront of all of our decision making as a Council, and supporting the emergency services to carry out their vital job is a top priority.

 

I am happy to assure you that the council does engage with the emergency services and liaises with them during the development of transport schemes so that they have an input at that stage.

 

Finally, before a scheme is implemented they are given a further opportunity as statutory consultees, that being a legal requirement to comment.  A number of designs have been changed in response.

 

Their feedback is the reason we use so many camera-enforced traffic filters rather than a physical (bollard) filter.  These filters allow emergency vehicles to drive through them, and therefore directly through the traffic calmed streets within the neighbourhoods.

 

As you can imagine, the council also has ongoing relationships with the emergency services as part of other council operations, which also gives other opportunities for feedback outside the transport planning forum.

 

In relation to the point about the satnavs, the council provides updates on any new traffic measures to one.network (a cloud-based platform that centralises official data from multiple road agencies) and satnav companies via the Traffic Information Manager at TfL.  As far as we are aware, all changes to the road network as part of the people-friendly streets programme are shown on sat nav systems, but we are happy to investigate any examples where these are not shown. Thanks again for your question.

 

(d) Patricia Niclas to Cllr Champion, Executive Member for Environment, Air Quality and Transport

 

Regarding all the LTNs currently in operation and planned for the borough and the method for recording and presenting data and statistics for use in consultation results.

 

Please confirm whether such data recording has ever been carried out during school holidays and if so, when and which LTNs has this applied to and if data has been collected during school holidays would she agree that this data cannot be considered as a true reflection of actual traffic counts?

 

As the questioner was not present in the Council Chamber, a written response was sent:

Thank you for your question, Patricia. Data collection has been central to the development and decision making on all of the council’s LTNs and continues to inform the council’s Liveable Neighbourhood programme. This is one of the reasons why we implemented all our LTNs as trials, allowing monitoring to take place both before and during the trial period to inform decision making on whether or not to make the LTNs permanent. 

 

When planning traffic counts as part of our monitoring strategy for the LTNs, we do try to make sure that the data is as representative as possible and I believe that this would avoid school holidays.

 

All LTNs are now permanent and the dates of the data collection that took place for each LTN is set out in each final monitoring report – this can be found at the beginning of each report in the ‘Traffic Counts Approach’ section. Thanks again for your question, Patricia.

 

(e) Antionette Fernandez to Cllr O’Halloran, Executive Member for Homes and Communities

 

What support is given to smaller charities and CICs to bid for council funding and to deliver council services?

 

As the questioner was not present in the Council Chamber, a written response was sent:

Thank you for your question. There are several methods and ways the Council supports smaller charities and Community Interest Companies to be able to bid for council funding and to deliver services.

One way is through the VCS Partnership Grants Programme 2021-24. We fund Voluntary Action Islington (VAI) as the CVS (Council for Voluntary Service) for the borough.  Through their capacity building work, they deliver:

a.     121 support in areas such as funding and finance

b.     Host regular meet the funder sessions such as The Big Lottery

c.     Host and deliver training on how to write successful bids

Additionally, the Community Partnership team and VAI are working in close partnership to relaunch The Compact. The Islington Compact is a written agreement outlining a shared commitment to working together effectively to meet the changing needs of Islington’s communities.  The Compact which is currently being redeveloped and will come into effective in 2024 and is the framework in which the Council and the VCS sector form alliances to enhance the relationship and equity in which we work. This provides a tool where the VCS are partners in delivering our ambitions of a ‘fairer Islington’. The Compact will look at thematic areas such as Funding and Commissioning cycles. Thank you again for your question, Antoinette.

 

 

(f) Rose McDonald to Cllr Ward, Executive Member for Finance, Planning and Performance

 

We're aware that the council and Peabody plan to put out a tender for the managing agent and operator of the Holloway women's space early next year. It’s key that these are chosen with the unique character of the site and the ethos of the Supplementary Planning Document in mind. What support will be offered to smaller organisations, who may have less experience but may have a connection to HMP Holloway? How will the council ensure that the bidding process to manage and operate the space is transparent, widely publicised, and managed in a fair and equitable.

 

Response:

Thank you for your question, Rose. The council is committed to tackling all forms of inequality in Islington including gender inequality and the unequal treatment that women receive in the criminal justice system. 

 

I am pleased to say that the construction of the Women’s Building is now underway as part of Phase One of the redevelopment of the Holloway site. Since the moment we knew that the Holloway site would become available for redevelopment, the council has always been very clear that we expect to see a Women’s Building provided on the site.

 

Under the terms of that legal agreement, Peabody is responsible for commissioning the operator of the building. However, the council is responsible for agreeing the operator prior to their appointment.

 

The legal agreement also requires Peabody to set up a Steering Group and for the Steering Group to guide the development of a Feasibility and Commissioning Plan. The membership of the steering group includes experts in the field of women’s services and a representative of the Community Plan for Holloway Group.

 

During the preparation of the Plan, there has been extensive engagement with a very broad range of women’s organisations including local women’s organisations. This Plan is currently being finalised and will guide the process for commissioning an operator. The council will be responsible for approving the Feasibility and Commissioning Plan.

 

You are of course correct that Peabody will start the process of commissioning an operator next year. I hope that this will be another major step forward in the delivery of the building.

 

I am assured that there will be an open and public commissioning process. Transparency will be secured by the fact that the documents setting out an invitation to tender will be in the public domain. As I have already said, the council is responsible for approving the operator prior to their appointment. We will therefore work with Peabody to ensure that:

 

• the opportunity to tender is publicised as widely as possible; and
• any recommendation in relation to the appointment is made in an open and transparent manner.

 

I have worked long and hard to secure the best possible Women’s Building. I will continue to do so in 2024 to ensure that we make the best possible use of this once in a generation opportunity to tackle gender inequality in Islington. Thanks again for your question, Rose.

 

Supplementary Question:

Would the criteria for occupants of commercial units include considerations for community benefit and the contributions that organisations or businesses can provide? This is to ensure that the development remains a community-oriented space and doesn't primarily cater to private rentals or purchases, potentially squeezing out social tenants. Additionally, can you commit to providing regular updates on the Peabody build at each housing scrutiny committee meeting? We would like to be involved as campaign for Holloway and collaborate with you to ensure that the community and social tenant elements are not overlooked in the planned construction. Can you confirm these commitments, acknowledging our desire for a closer working relationship with Campaign for Holloway, increased transparency, and representation of tenant interests in the decision-making process?

 

Response:

Thank you for your points. Social value is a priority in Islington, and we're deeply invested in community wealth building efforts. I collaborate with various community groups across the borough, and I fully support the involvement of local community organisations in these initiatives. Regarding updates on the Peabody build, while it might not happen at every housing scrutiny committee due to the slower pace of the process, I am open to discussing how we can ensure relevant updates are shared, whether through the housing or planning committees. I attended a recent community planning event where efforts were made to align with shared goals, including 415 social rent homes, a public park, and a women's building. I'm proud of these achievements and am committed to continuing collaboration with Campaign for Holloway and other community groups to keep residents at the centre of this transformative project. I'm more than willing to meet and discuss further.

 

(g) Susanne Lamido to Cllr Ward, Executive Member for Finance, Planning and Performance

 

The Community is really looking forward to seeing much needed council homes on the Holloway Park site. At least 40% of the flats will be sold privately. The last thing our community needs is a ghost development where flats are sold to overseas investors and remain empty for most of the year or let as Airbnb. Peabody has offered assurances that private leases will stipulate that flats can not be sublet for periods of less than six months and flats can not be left empty for periods of more than six months. There are strong concerns that these assurances might not always be met: what power does the council have to ensure that they are?

 

Response:

Thank you for question, Susanne. I too am looking forward to the delivery of 415 new high-quality homes for social rent on this site. 60% of the homes on the site will be affordable. This substantially reduces the risk that the new neighbourhood will be a ghost development. I do however share your concern that all the homes in the development including the private homes must be fully occupied. I therefore welcome the assurances that Peabody has provided.

 

The council is aware of the scourge of buy to leave properties. These are properties that are bought as investments and left empty by their owners. The council is the only local authority that has sought to tackle this problem through the introduction of a Supplementary Planning Document and the use of planning conditions.

 

However, our plans to formalise this policy in our newly adopted Local Plan were rejected by the Planning Inspectorate. We were deeply frustrated and disappointed by this decision. It means that we cannot now use our planning powers to address the problem of new homes being permanently left vacant by their owners.

 

At present, it is estimated that nearly 4,700 short term holiday lets in Islington are advertised on the Air BnB platform alone and nearly two thirds of these lets are entire homes rather than single rooms. These are homes that could be providing permanent homes to either owner occupiers or renters. The council has consistently lobbied for greater planning and regulatory powers to control short term holiday lets in the borough.

 

Earlier this year the Government consulted on planning proposals to enable yet more deregulation of the short term holiday let sector. We strongly objected to these proposals as they would greatly undermine the council’s ability to use its planning powers to regulate short term holiday lets where this would lead to a reduction in housing supply. We await an announcement from Central Government on this matter.

 

As I have said above, I very much welcome the commitment that Peabody has already made on this matter, and I can assure you that the council will work with Peabody to ensure that it keeps to these commitments. Thanks again for your question, Susanne.

 

Supplementary Question:

Can the council take action to address concerns about private houses being left unattended and the potential for anti-social behaviour issues? Given that Blackpool, Oxford, and Cambridge having a proactive stance on managing AIRBNBs and ensuring compliance with regulations, can the council implement a similar approach to control potential issues before Peabody completes construction? It's alarming that houses are already being sold in Hong Kong before completion, and there is a need to establish control mechanisms to address potential problems once the construction begins. Can the council initiate measures to ensure responsible behavior and prevent issues like parties leaving a mess in these properties?

 

Response:

We do have some powers regarding ASB and Environmental Health. However, the critical issue here is that, as a local authority, we lack the authority to halt short-term lets, and this extends to the Mayor of London as well. It's truly disappointing that in a global city like London, landlords, often from overseas, can freely use London property as a global reserve currency. It's imperative that we advocate for change at the government level and push for proper regulation in this sector. Similar to cities like New York and Berlin, London needs the authority to regulate short-term lets effectively. While we will work with the local community to address ASB and utilise the powers we currently have, the real solution lies in obtaining the necessary powers to ban short-term lets, ensuring that homes are available for genuine, long-term residents. This is crucial given the significant housing crisis we're facing, and we need every possible solution to address it.

 

(h) Pete Gilman to Cllr Ward, Executive Member for Finance, Planning and Performance

 

Across Britain many local authorities are in a dire financial position with some rumoured to be close to bankruptcy, and Islington council is facing an almost impossible situation. The reason is the withdrawal of government funding from local authorities on a massive scale. With next year's probable change of government will Islington council, preferably in alliance with many other local authorities, press for the restoration of government funding?

 

Response:

Islington provides over 600 services to our 239,000 residents including schools, services for vulnerable adults, support to local businesses, libraries, street cleaning and community safety.

 

Much of the funding for these services comes from central government, which is why the last 13 years of austerity cuts have had a devastating impact on councils like ours, forcing us to make nearly £300 million worth of budget savings.

At the same time, demand for many local services continues to rise, including adult social care and support for children with special educational needs and disabilities. We’re working hard to make the most of the finance and resources we do have to protect the things that matters to residents like yourself.

Since 2010, we’ve managed to make savings with only a limited impact on front-line services. We’ve done this mainly by being as efficient as we possibly can, for instance, selling our services to bring in revenue, and sharing services with other councils.

 

We have also had to be creative and rethink how we design our services around the people who use them to make sure they are joined up and residents get the support they need easily and quickly.

 

But you’re right, we cannot go on like this. The current piecemeal approach to funding is not sustainable – we need an ongoing settlement that creates a resilient adult social care system fit for the future and increases local government funding in real terms to help protect local services from further cuts.

 

Ahead of the Autumn Statement, the Leader of the Council and I wrote a letter to the Chancellor outlining our position and it is every intention that Islington would lobby a future Labour government to reverse the austerity measures implemented by the Tories. Thanks again for your question, Pete.

 

Supplementary Question:

Councils are performing actual miracles given the financial challenges, with many local authorities facing bankruptcy due to the government's fund withdrawal Given the government's options, such as selling off assets, and the potential impact on council housing and estates, isn't the only viable solution a new government? Despite the possibility of a new government next year, concerns arise about the shadow chancellor's statement on ‘no money for local authorities’, potentially leading to widespread bankruptcies. In light of this, can we unite councils across London and beyond to demand the funds owed to us as taxpayers?

 

Response:

In a word, yes. I am incredibly proud to lead this campaign, and the Leader of the Council and I have already reviewed the Government's plans ahead of the autumn statement. This situation is unsustainable. We must have adequately funded local services provided by local councils to serve the people of Islington, particularly those in urgent need in areas like adult social care, children's services, and council housing. The current financial strain on these essential services cannot continue, and we will persist in our fight for change.

 

(i) Naomi Peck to Cllr Khondoker, Executive Member for Equalities, Culture, and Inclusion:

 

It is my understanding that the only way that an Islington resident can ask a question at Full Council and be given a verbal response, along with the opportunity to ask a follow-up question is to attend in person. However, attending in person is simply not possible for many: those with caring responsibilities, those who work in the evenings, those who would find the formal setting challenging for all kinds of reasons, those who cannot afford the travel fare, those who do not feel safe leaving their homes in the evenings.

 

I know that the meetings are streamed but given that, since the pandemic, so many meetings in so many organisations are of a hybrid nature, does the Council not agree that it is somewhat behind the curve on this issue and it should implement a policy that offers an option for its residents to ask a question and optional follow-up question by Zoom (which seems to be the best option for meetings with external participants).

 

This would help to make the process a bit more inclusive than at present and this step towards an ‘equalisation of access’ would be in alignment with what seems to be a goal of the Council’s Islington Together 2030 plan. If the Council does agree, could this policy be implemented by the next Full Council meeting?

 

Response:

Tonight, your question highlights an important issue. Some people couldn't attend for various reasons, and it's worth noting that even if you're not present, you can submit a question and receive a response. I acknowledge the barriers such as caring responsibilities, work commitments, challenges with the formal setting, affordability of travel, and concerns about safety, all of which you rightly pointed out. I agree with these challenges and aim to make our meetings more accessible, especially in the evening.

 

This Full Council meeting is crucial in our democratic calendar, but it's set in an archaic manner. It should be a space where councillors and the public can come together, discuss issues, address concerns, and find solutions that matter to local people. We are regularly reviewing our meeting arrangements and democratic processes to enhance engagement and accessibility. Since May 2021, we've been broadcasting meetings, recording them for six months, and making improvements for accessibility.

 

We've even gone further than other councils, making our Scrutiny and Executive meetings open to the public, allowing them to ask questions in person. Despite our efforts, challenges arose in June 2021 due to social distancing, leading the council to pass a motion calling on the government to allow hybrid and virtual meetings. Unfortunately, it wasn't allowed, presenting a challenge that we continue to address.

 

While we can't immediately resolve this, we are committed to finding technical solutions that make these meetings more accessible. Thank you for raising this issue, and we appreciate your question.

 

Supplementary Question:

Can we include this issue on the list of concerns to be raised with the government, emphasizing the importance of making Council meetings more accessible to those who cannot attend in person? Given the challenges some people face in attending, could we explore the possibility of allowing proxies, similar to how they are used in local elections, to represent individuals who cannot participate virtually or in person? This could potentially enhance involvement and address mistrust by making participation easier for a wider range of people.

 

Response:

Absolutely, I'll take that first point. Regarding the second point, I'll definitely look into it. While I'm not certain about what we can or can't do, it's a priority for me to make council services and our activities more accessible. I'm actively discussing this with council officers, addressing inclusivity and accessibility across all our different directorates. It's crucial that we don't just sit in a room with only a few people understanding what's happening. If we can't get everyone in the room, how do we re-engage with them? How can we ensure their voices are heard, listened to, and inform the decisions we make? It's an ongoing conversation for us.

 

The Mayor announced that the time allowed for questions had expired and a written response would be sent for all remaining questions.

 

(j) Gill Shepherd to Cllr Champion, Executive Member for Environment, Air Quality and Transport

 

How aware is the Executive Member of the cumulative impact on boundary roads of more and more LTNs/LNs extruding traffic onto the same fixed number of boundary roads?  This will shortly become a major problem for Upper Street and the Holloway Road if Barnsbury and Laycock LTN goes ahead. And if Highbury New Park goes ahead this will have massive impacts on St Paul's Road and the Blackstock Road.

 

Written response:

Thank you for your question, Gill. Liveable Neighbourhoods are designed so that choosing alternatives to car travel is an easy choice to make. And we have the evidence to show it is working across our network of now permanent LTN’s, we have seen a reduction in the volume of traffic within the LTNs, and an increase in people cycling. 

 

We also monitor the volume of traffic on the boundary roads of LTNs, before implementation and throughout the schemes as trials. In most cases, traffic on boundary roads did not increase, and on a number of roads, decreases in overall traffic volumes were observed. On a small number of streets, we have seen an increase in the volume of traffic, including on Blackstock Road. In terms of Blackstock Road, as the Highbury LTN scheme settles in, we are observing that the overall volume of traffic on the street is reducing, and we expect this to continue. This is set out in the recently published Highbury LTN decision and monitoring report. 

 

All LTN schemes have published monitoring reports, publicly available to view on the council’s website, including monitoring data related to the main road network.

 

The council will continue to monitor boundary roads in areas where new Liveable Neighbourhoods are being developed and will work with Transport for London to understand and protect bus journey times. Liveable Neighbourhoods are intended to support more shorter journeys to be made by active and sustainable modes of transport, helping to keep the main roads clearer for journeys that must be made by motor vehicle. Thanks again for your question, Gill.

 

(k) David Twine to Cllr Champion, Executive Member for Environment, Air Quality and Transport

 

Climate Emergency UK assessed all UK councils on the actions they have taken towards net zero carbon and the findings were published in October 2023 - Council Climate Action Scorecards | Climate Emergency UK (councilclimatescorecards.uk). The assessment found that Islington scored more poorly than its neighbouring boroughs of Camden and Haringey for the following three questions on Buildings and Heating.

 

What lessons have the council learned from this Climate Emergency assessment for Buildings and Retrofit - especially in relation to at least matching, and ideally exceeding, what Camden and Haringey have achieved, and what actions will it take, and by when, to address these lessons?

 

Written Response:

Thank you for your question, David. The council has undertaken a full assessment of its housing stock and the capacity for net zero carbon retrofit providing both location opportunity and with an overall additional investment cost estimated at. £1.5billion.

 

The council has successfully applied for numerous grants and is progressing several schemes decarbonising street properties and retrofitting communal heating systems.

 

The council does not have sufficient funds to undertake all of this work within the current economic framework without Government subsidy, as the investment requirements to maintain our homes are substantial against a background of additional regulatory burdens, and inflationary cost pressure while rental income has been capped below inflation in 7 of the preceding 12 years by Government representing a real terms cut of £1.7bn in investment available to maintain Council homes.

 

The council will continue to work up schemes and bid for funding wherever possible balancing investment in this area with investment on fire and building safety and maintaining homes.

The council is also ensuring that where possible the delivery costs to leaseholders and running cost to residents are not negatively impacted by these schemes.

 

The areas the council scored low points reflect the challenges of investment and retrofit the borough is grappling with and will continue to work on. Thanks again for your question.

 

(l) Phillipa Dowswell to Cllr Ngongo, Executive Member for Children, Young People and Families

 

Whilst we, at the NEU, appreciate that the council has no wish to close any school in the borough, we are very concerned that the time for the proposed merger between Montem and Duncombe (which in practical terms is a closure of Montem) is too short for there to be time to explore alternative options.  We are also concerned about the likelihood of academisation of our primary schools - Blessed Sacrament is already exploring this option. Will the council consider a longer time frame for consultation, ensure that the borough NEU reps are consulted at an early stage in any future changes, and will the council take a collaborative approach, involving all the schools in the borough, not just those with the lowest rolls? The Council and NEU should challenge the Department for Education on the school funding formula, to address the funding gap facing our schools.

 

Written Response:

Thank you for your question, Phillipa. Our School Organisation Plan sets out our approach and strategy for managing the high levels of surplus capacity in our schools to ensure the best outcomes for children and sustainable schools.

 

Phase Two of this plan was approved by the Executive on 19 October 2023 which agreed to consult on a proposal to amalgamate – or merge – Duncombe and Montem Primary schools.

 

We have regular meetings with education unions to encourage a strong channel of communication and we have added additional meetings with representatives from all the teaching unions, specifically on the school organisation plan, to understand the rationale for the proposals we are making.

 

The consultation started on 15 November and will closed on 20 December. We have held a series of meetings at the school for parents and are including a public meeting on 12 December at Arts and Media School Islington (AMSI). We encouraged the NEU and anyone else to attend this meeting, and to submit their comments on the proposal on the Let’s Talk Islington site.

The process for managing school closures, including amalgamations, is determined by statutory guidance which includes a requirement to complete an informal consultation, and then to issue a formal proposal and a formal representation period. A final decision on the future of Duncombe and Montem Primary Schools will not be made until April 2024.

 

The Local Authority does not decide on whether schools can academise. A school can academise through one of two routes: either a forced academisation following an ‘Inadequate’ judgement from Ofsted, or a voluntary academisation by the school. Schools could choose to take this option to avoid being prioritised for amalgamation or closure, the final decision-maker is the regional director within the Department for Education and not a Local Authority decision. One of the determining factors for prioritisation within the school organisation plan is falling rolls and subsequently poor financial health which would be an influencing factor in their decision.  Thank you again for your question.

 

(m) Caz Royds to Cllr Champion, Executive Member for Environment, Air Quality and Transport

 

How is the Council responding to Islington’s recycling rate falling from around 30% to 27%, and in the light of this fall will its representatives on the NLWA board press for an urgent exploration of the potential for advanced mixed waste sorting to extract recyclables from residual waste?

 

Written Response:

Thank you for your question, Caz. While we’re disappointed to see this drop in the recycling rate, other Local Authorities have seen similar trends in waste tonnages and recycling rates and our overall tonnage of waste per household continues to be relatively low. The dry summer of 2022 resulted in significantly less garden waste being generated. In addition, there have been some issues relating to data compilation which has resulted in some recycling tonnages from 2022/23 being allocated to the following year’s data set. Islington’s provisional recycling rate for the first quarter of 2023/24 is 29.2%.

 

Islington has a Reduction and Recycling Plan that sets out a range of initiatives for increasing recycling in Islington, as well as reducing overall levels of waste, which is equally as important. As part of this plan, significant investment is being made to improve recycling facilities across Islington’s estates.

 

Food waste recycling services are being provided to all residents living in purpose built blocks of flats, and we also aim to provide this service to residents in flats above shops and businesses. However, we continue to wait for government to confirm details of promised funding to support food waste recycling services for our residents, as well as details of their important policy proposals relating to Deposit Return Schemes and Extended Producer Responsibility.

 

We’ve also been delivering a series of community repair events, aimed at supporting the Circular Economy, reducing waste and helping residents to reduce, reuse and repair.

 

NLWA’s focus is on maximising the quality of recyclable materials at the kerbside rather than after waste is already collected, because recyclables become highly contaminated in residual waste. NLWA has campaigned for compulsory recycling and powers for Local Authorities to enforce more recycling as well as a Deposit Return Scheme (DRS), which evidence shows greatly incentivises recycling. The DRS is due to be implemented across England in 2025. Likewise, Extended Producer Responsibility, once implemented by the Government, should help to create a change in the design of packaging, minimising waste and reducing plastics in residual waste. Incoming government legislation will also mandate the collection of plastic film for recycling, which will further remove the amount of plastic in residual waste.

 

We have looked at the performance of sorting facilities in the UK and these have not shown that it is viable to implement large scale advanced sorting of recycled materials from all residual waste, and it would not result in net zero carbon. However, as discussed with members of the Islington Environmental Alliance, we will look at the technologies in use overseas and their viability at the scale we need. There are opportunities to explore this more as we open the new recycling facilities at the EcoPark, where there is more space and flexibility to consider removing recyclable items from waste. NLWA officers have procured a consultant to look at a range of technologies which could be installed at the new Resource Recovery Facility, with an options appraisal to be completed next year.

 

We will request an update from NLWA regarding exploration of pre-sorting of household waste and share their response. Thanks again for your question.