Skip to content

Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Committee Room 5, Town Hall, Upper Street, N1 2UD. View directions

Contact: Zoe Crane  020 7527 3044

Items
No. Item

25.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Councillors Doolan and Nick Ward.

26.

Declarations of Substitute Members

Minutes:

None.

27.

Declarations of Interest

If you have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest* in an item of business:

§  if it is not yet on the council’s register, you must declare both the existence and details of it at the start of the meeting or when it becomes apparent;

§  you may choose to declare a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest that is already in the register in the interests of openness and transparency. 

In both the above cases, you must leave the room without participating in discussion of the item.

 

If you have a personal interest in an item of business and you intend to speak or vote on the item you must declare both the existence and details of it at the start of the meeting or when it becomes apparent but you may participate in the discussion and vote on the item.

 

*(a)     Employment, etc - Any employment, office, trade, profession or vocation carried on for profit or gain.

(b) Sponsorship - Any payment or other financial benefit in respect of your expenses in carrying out duties as a member, or of your election; including from a trade union.

(c) Contracts - Any current contract for goods, services or works, between you or your partner (or a body in which one of you has a beneficial interest) and the council.

(d) Land - Any beneficial interest in land which is within the council’s area.

(e) Licences- Any licence to occupy land in the council’s area for a month or longer.

(f) Corporate tenancies - Any tenancy between the council and a body in which you or your partner have a beneficial interest.

 (g) Securities - Any beneficial interest in securities of a body which has a place of business or land in the council’s area, if the total nominal value of the securities exceeds £25,000 or one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that body or of any one class of its issued share capital. 

 

This applies to all members present at the meeting.

 

Minutes:

None.

28.

Minutes of Previous Meeting

Minutes:

 

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the Environment and Regeneration Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 13 November 2014 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them subject to Councillor Turan being marked as present.

29.

Public Questions

Minutes:

Questions from members of the public were addressed during the relevant items.

30.

Chair's Report

Minutes:

None.

31.

Fuel Poverty scrutiny review - witness evidence

Minutes:

The Committee heard witness evidence from William Baker, Head of Fuel Poverty Policy, Citizens Advice and Peter Smith, National Energy Action (NEA) who led on policy and research functions. Both witnesses also sat on the government’s fuel poverty advisory group.

 

In William Baker’s presentation the following points were made:

·         The government was consulting on the draft Fuel Poverty Strategy. This was the first strategy since the original in 2001.

·         The strategy proposed a new fuel poverty target as it was recognised that the previous target to eliminate fuel poverty by 2016 was not going to be met. Fuel poverty had increased since 2001. The new target was to get as many fuel poor homes as was reasonably practicable, to achieve a minimum energy efficiency standard of Band C, by 2030.

·         Citizens Advice supported the principle of setting a target for minimum energy efficiency and a date for this to be achieved as well as the interim targets which had been set. However it was concerned that as the target was just for fuel poor households, this would help those in fuel poverty but not prevent people from getting into fuel poverty.

·         William Baker raised concern that current programmes were not capable of meeting the targets. Suppliers were currently responsible for the delivery and the system was not set up to meet the multiple needs of those in fuel poverty. There were national programmes in Scotland and Wales but there was no longer one in England. Decentralising power to local authorities and registered social landlords could start addressing how the target could help to achieve the target.

 

In Peter Smith’s presentation the following points were made:

·         The government acknowledged the previous target would not be reached following a two year evidence based review. It was then considered that the target and timeframe should be changed.

·         People’s incomes had grown little in the last 4-5 years and the poor had become poorer.

·         The price of fuel had risen by 120% since 2005.

·         Professor John Hills, London School of Economics, had established a new definition of fuel poverty. If a household had an income of less than 60% of the national median and energy costs above the national median, it was deemed to be fuel poor.

·         The fuel poverty gap calculated the depth of fuel poverty for each household.

·         Approximately 255,000 households in London were fuel poor, with approximately 6,600 of these being in Islington.

·         The health agenda and the Seasonal Health Intervention Network (SHINE) were examples of the ways in which the council could help.

·         When a person was eligible for assistance and had applied, there should be a guarantee of assistance to include meaningful engagement, energy efficiency advice, checks to confirm they were on the right tariff and equipment checks to confirm it was working correctly.

·         Energy efficiency measures could reduce bills by £350-£400 per year. Generally, those on the lowest incomes returned money to the local economy more quickly than those on higher incomes so this could stimulate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

32.

20mph limit scrutiny review - report back pdf icon PDF 235 KB

Minutes:

Zahur Khan, Head of Traffic and Parking Services and Liz Wathen, Traffic and Safety Manager presented the report which updated members on progress on the recommendations of the March 2011 Regeneration and Employment Review Committee report on ‘The Introduction of 20mph Zones’.

 

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         20mph zones had speed reduction measures e.g. speed humps.

·         A 20mph limit was a scheme without speed reduction measures.

·         Islington completed the first 20mph zone in 2002 and completed the last in 2009.

·         The work to limit 50% of the borough’s roads to 20mph was completed in 2010 and was considered to be successful.

·         In 2011, the council decided to introduce a borough wide 20mph limit and the police objected. Only the police could enforce the scheme as speeding was a criminal offence and the police did not have the resources to undertake enforcement work.

·         The biggest challenge since the completion of the work had been to address the public perception that there was a lack of enforcement.

·         As part of the borough commander’s priority to make Islington the safest borough in London, since October 2014 the police had been enforcing the 20mph limit. Prior to this, they completed a series of 27 stop and advice sessions with the council in which those travelling over the speed limit were stopped by the police and given advice by council staff.

·         The police were working closely with the council. All Safer Neighbourhood Teams were involved and had been trained.

·         The police did not have to advise the council when they would be carrying out enforcement as it was part of their day to day activities. In response to the committee’s request for annual enforcement figures, the officers advised that they would request this from the police.

·         Speed cameras in Islington were being upgraded to enforce the 20mph speed limit.

·         Speeding ticket money went directly to the Treasury.

·         The council was keen to work with TfL which had control over the strategic roads in the borough.  TfL, which had initially raised concerns about the Islington 20mph limit, was now undertaking 20mph limit studies in the City of London and had started implementing some 20mph limits e.g. outside Waterloo Station.

·         There was more enforcement of the 20mph limit than there had been of the 30mph limit.

·         A cultural change was required to make speeding more socially unacceptable.

·         If buses travelled at 20mph this would help to reduce the speed of other vehicles.

·         Camden had introduced a 20mph limit and Hackney, Haringey and the City of London would soon be introducing the same or similar schemes.

·         The average cost to the country of a Killed or Seriously Injured (KSI) person was over £1million.

·         The number of accidents on Islington’s roads had reduced this year due to a number of factors.

·         Reducing the number of accidents could encourage more people to walk or cycle.

·         A member stated that a 20mph limit meant more people cycled and walked. This had effects such as a reduction in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

33.

Work Programme pdf icon PDF 61 KB

Minutes:

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the work programme be noted subject to the following amendments:

1)    That the Qir Quality report back be rescheduled to April or May 2015.

2)    That the Executive Member’s report be rescheduled to April or May 2015.