Agenda item

Question 1: Mr Danny Simani to Councillor James Murray, Executive Member Housing and Development

Most disabled people live alone.  According to police records, there were over three hundred disabled hate attacks reported to police in London in 2012.  A member of my family and I were victims of such an incident in 1991 whilst living in a Council flat in the Andover estate.  Several youth addicts kicked down the front door and jumped on my relative’s bed, cutting their forehead.  Their life was saved by swift police action, as they took my relative to Whittington Hospital in their car.  The Council discrimination officer ordered our transfer to lower Hilldrop estate. In fear of a repetition of another discriminatory or disability hatred attack, I added front door and window security in 1995 without any Council objection and on three occasions since this has saved me from being attacked. 

I would like to know why Islington Mayor is taking me to the Clerkenwell County Court in order to obtain injunction forcing me to dismantle my present safety security so that the Council contractors can install double glazing while knowing that remaining alive with the aid of security features is surely more important and beneficial to me than being dead in a flat with double glazing?

Reply:

Thank you for your question.  I am sorry to hear about the incident and I understand your concerns about extra security.  We are currently installing new double-glazed uPVC windows to Coombe House as part of the Cyclical Improvement Programme works. The new windows are secure by design and are vastly superior in terms of security than the existing ill-fitting Crittall units. The works to replace the windows will only last for a single day, when there will always be operatives present. Officers have spoken to the contractor, Mears, and asked them if possible to reinstate the security grilles, but if this proves impossible, the new windows not only reduce heat loss, they are also more secure; we have looked into it and I think we are doing the right thing, but I am sorry it got to the stage it did with the legal case.

Supplementary question:

Thank you.  I made it clear that my question concerns all disabled people who live on their own.  We want two doors, but the council said we must have a single entry door.  This is an issue for all disabled people who face a lot of harassment.  The Housing Department doesn’t look into it.  You need to consult us about this type of change.  A disability officer would, but I presume you haven’t got one as you are forcing something on us that is not suitable for physically disabled people who can’t defend themselves.  I hope that the council will look into the issue and come up with some solution.

Reply:

Ensuring that people feel safe in their homes and that their homes are decent and affordable is a priority.  I will make sure that your case is being followed up.  With regard to the general issue, many people have different requirements and if anyone is concerned they should talk to their councillors.

Question 2: John Ackers to Councillor Claudia Webbe, Executive Member for Environment and Transport

Waltham Forest council should be congratulated on their Mini Holland project and in particular the introduction of filtered permeability and public realm improvements into Walthamstow Village, which the council says will reduce traffic flow on residential streets.  Can comparisons be made between Walthamstow Village and Highbury West – is their Orford Road, which is being closed to motorised traffic, the equivalent of our Gillespie Road?

Reply:

Thank you for your question.  I am aware of this project; it highlights an issue with funding for cycling improvements and whether or not you are an inner or outer London borough.  The Mayor of London has over £900 million available to support cycling improvements.  I am delighted for colleagues in Waltham Forest, Enfield and Kingston, they are all outer London boroughs, who all got £30M each for their Mini Holland projects.  It was the outer London boroughs who were able to apply for investment.  We have lobbied hard to ensure that we got a share of the £900M to enable cycling improvements and I am delighted that Transport for London (TfL) will fund the council to deliver the quietway cycle route connecting Finsbury Park to Kings Cross, but compared to the £30M we got a small allocation of £2M.  I appreciate that there have been calls for road closures and we will look at these in the design, but we will also continue to campaign at TfL.

Supplementary question:

Waltham Forest’s approach was about achieving modal shift to help fight obesity and reduce air pollution; they had a clear vision.  Will you look at how they did it and sold the scheme and bought residents round?

Reply:

All the successful boroughs who had funding to do studies and ask residents about road closures were able to do modelling, to work out where traffic would go and how modal shift could be achieved.  Eight boroughs applied and only three were successful.  Whilst I welcome their success and applaud it, I’m dismayed that inner London boroughs are not getting their share of resources.  Look at what they can do; a cycle super highway, a new style roundabout and a whole programme of activity, which they are able to do because of the investment.  We are of course concerned about pedestrian and cyclists’ safety.  We already have up to thirty roads closed to motorised traffic, but the reality is the borough is a motorway; traffic comes through.  We can’t close major roads without thinking about where that traffic goes and we need funding and resources to be able to do it.  I urge you and your colleagues to campaign government for us to receive our fair share.

Question 3: Claire Poyner to Councillor Watts, Leader of the Council.

With regard to the Islington Armed Forces Community Covenant has the council taken into consideration that the UK is the only country in Europe and the only permanent member of the UN Security Council that recruits 16-18 year olds into the Armed Forces and allows 15 year olds to sign up?

Reply:

I wasn’t aware, but I am not sure we are in a position to do anything about that.  I suggest that you write to your MP.

Question 4: Barry Edwards to Councillor Webbe, Executive Member for Environment and Transport.

Does the council recognise the importance of our green and open spaces such as school wildlife gardens and parks and support the proposal to protect and link together all of London’s parks and open spaces?

Reply:

I think that you are referring to the concept of a London National Park.  I think we can broadly support the principles; we recognise the value of green spaces to our urban environment, cultural heritage and wildlife.  We can all be proud of that.  We will happily look into supporting the idea, although unfortunately that will not protect us from the huge ideologically driven cuts in this borough and this city.  We need to elect a labour Mayor who will truly stand up for this city. 

Supplementary question:

I support your comments in terms of the London Mayor, but this campaign is being led by a small and strategic organisation.  Will you contact them and be represented at the event in July?

Reply:

Yes.

Question 5: Ian Hunt to Councillor Claudia Webbe, Executive Member for Environment and Transport.

Spraying with glyphosate has been a ‘business as usual’ approach to weed control in Islington.  Can Greenspace and Islington Council consider a more pro-active approach to weeding on its streets, as a way of reducing glyphosate use, in line with EU and state policy?

Reply:

Councillor Russell has a motion on glyphosate use later this evening.  In reality we use glyphosate and didn’t know very much about it until the motion.  We are not going to be supporting the motion so I can’t support this question or request either, but there will be further discussions about this when we reach the motion.

Question 6: Jo White to Councillor James Murray, Executive Member for Housing and Development.

The residents of Kings Square Estate have recently been given a refund as we were overcharged for the heating.  Why could the refund not have been used to leave the heating on yearly which is what we want to happen?

Reply:

There was a refund for residents with communal heating and we have had discussions about how the refund system works in this chamber.  We refunded payments excess built up because we smooth out costs for residents across the year.  With regard to the heating, some people do want it on for longer than others and we recently consulted residents regarding June and September.  Broadly speaking, residents don’t want the heating on for the extra months because of the extra cost.  The building fabric is poor at retaining heat which does make it difficult.  We will be talking to ward councillors and residents in certain blocks that are poorly insulated and very hard to improve and details are still being worked out at the moment.

The Mayor advised that the time set aside for questions from members of the public had expired and moved to: