Agenda item

Question a) from Margaret Wolfe to Councillor Burgess, Executive Member for Health and Social Care:

 

Please inform us if you are aware that, as a consequence of this Council's decision to close Sotheby Mews Day Centre, a charge of indirect age discrimination and indirect disability discrimination could be brought against the Council because you have requested Highbury Roundhouse to accommodate the users of Sotheby Mews Day Centre at the new multi-purpose Highbury Roundhouse Community Centre on Ronalds Road; a location which for the majority of our users is impossible to access because the consequences of their age or disability. This is not the case for the majority of other users of the new Highbury Roundhouse Centre. 

 

Reply:

 

Thank you for your question. In 2011, Age UK decided that they were going to pull out of providing services at the Sotheby Mews Day Centre. The Highbury Roundhouse Association agreed to provide services for older people at Sotheby Mews, but this was always going to be an interim arrangement.

 

The arrangement for HRA to run these services while the site at Ronald’s Road was being built was a temporary solution for service users at both Sotheby Mews and Ronald’s Road; indeed, approximately 15 clients of the old Highbury Roundhouse Centre made the move to Sotheby Mews. HRA were provided with funding under the proviso that this funding would move with the provider from the Sotheby Mews site to Highbury Roundhouse’s new site at Ronald’s Road when that was ready.

 

We have all been working very hard to ensure that services are relocated to Ronald’s Road. The lunch club will continue, it will be as it is now, but it will be able to expand because the space at Ronald’s Road is bigger. I can refute a rumour that there will be no kitchen at Ronald’s Road, there will be.

 

We are working to resolve the issue of transport although I understand we haven’t quite cracked that one yet. I will finish by endorsing the words of Councillor Watts about housing. Earlier this week I had the case of a family of six, two adults and four children, sharing a flat with one double and one single room. We cannot allow this kind of housing to continue, and I support this council’s priority for housing. Councillor Ward will be saying more on this later.

 

However, I can assure you all that one of my major priorities is to ensure that your services continue, because they are wonderful services. I promise I will do all I can to make sure they continue.

 

Supplementary question:

 

I would like to give a short example of indirect disability discrimination. Sotheby Mews Day Centre has a very popular art room. At Sotheby Mews this is on the ground floor. At the new centre it will be on the first floor. The majority of Sotheby Mews users cannot use of the stairs, they will have to use the lift. The majority of the general public, however, will be able to use the stairs. This difference between these two groups raises a serious question. In case of a fire, how would mobility impaired users evacuate from the first floor room?

 

Reply:

 

Thank you Margaret. I do not believe that moving services from one location to another is age discrimination or disability discrimination. With regard to the art room, this will be fully safety compliant, and I am sure that all of the points you raised will be covered. The building will be built well, and will not present a risk to people with disabilities.

 

Question b) from Jackie Noone to Councillor Ward, Executive Member for Housing and Development:

 

We have been told by Janet Burgess, that no plans have been made for the Sotheby Mews site, despite an Islington media centre release to the contrary.

 

Why have no innovative options been considered to support both social housing and continued use of the community centre? For example, the front car park could be used for housing and also keep the centre in use.

 

Reply:

 

Thank you very much for your question. The first thing to say is that this council administration is dedicated to delivering more genuinely affordable housing; it is the right thing to do. But, we do appreciate that this change will affect the users of Sotheby Mews. I can assure you, and the other users, that the services are moving to a brand new centre at Highbury Roundhouse. We are working very hard to make that happen, and we are meeting with Highbury Roundhouse next week. 

 

Although there is the intention to look at the development of social housing on the site once the centre is closed, there is no viable proposal at the moment. We will of course consult residents prior to any planning application. Unfortunately, providing the maximum number of genuinely affordable homes and continuing to provide services at the site is not possible. We are in a housing crisis and we must deliver as much genuinely affordable housing as possible. But, if we can achieve this, whilst also delivering a brand new Highbury Roundhouse with existing services continuing, then that is a good outcome, and we are working very hard to make that happen.

 

Supplementary question:

 

Thank you for your response. The users of Sotheby Mews Community Centre do not object to social housing. We commend the council for looking at this issue. But, will you investigate solutions that will enable the Sotheby Mews lifeline community centre to remain open, and if so, if housing can co-exist on the Sotheby Mews site?

 

Reply:

 

Madam, I believe that there is a solution that will benefit everybody. We can build genuinely affordable social housing on the Sotheby Mews site, and the services that exist there can move to a brand new centre, and I will work with you to help make that happen.

 

Question c) from John Dear to Councillor Ward, Executive Member for Housing and Development:

 

Can the Councillors explain why the actual users of Sotheby Mews Day Centre were not consulted about its closure and why no mention of closure of Sotheby Mews had been in evidence until Feb this year when the "New" Highbury Roundhouse received further funding from Islington Council; particularly as residents and associations close to the New Highbury Roundhouse have been engaged since 2011. Was this a quick budgetary "kneejerk", a glaring mistake or lack of respect to the elderly users?

 

Reply:

 

Thank you very much for your question. As Councillor Burgess has already said, when the council commissioned the Highbury Roundhouse Association to provide services to older people from the Sotheby Mews site, this was on the proviso that it was an interim arrangement, and the services would move with Highbury Roundhouse Association, back to the new site.

 

We are sorry that this hasn’t been as well communicated as it should have been. It was hoped that the Highbury Roundhouse Association would engage with service users and communicate this change, and also explain the opportunities here, the exciting and energetic new opportunities presented by a brand new site. We do believe in our priority to deliver more genuinely affordable housing, especially given the housing crisis that we face. As Councillor Watts pointed out earlier on, there are 10,000 people in dire need. However, we can achieve that, whilst also ensuring that the services from Sotheby Mews move to a brand new centre. 

 

Supplementary question:

 

Thanks for your response. The users are appalled that they haven’t been consulted about these changes, and they should have been. Will you commit to come and visit Sotheby Mews and actually learn what we value about the site?

 

Reply:

 

Absolutely, sir. I have already been to Sotheby Mews and I would visit again.

 

Question d) from Hannah Staab to Councillor Greening, Chair of the Policy and Performance Scrutiny Committee and the Pensions Sub-Committee:

 

I am a member of the group Fossil Free Islington. We’re part of a wider campaign calling on public and private institutions to freeze new investments in fossil fuels, and divest from direct ownership or co-mingled funds which include fossil fuels within 5 years. This is vital to protect the pension fund from the carbon bubble and to send a strong public statement that the world is rapidly moving away from fossil fuels and towards a greener economy.

We appreciate that Islington pensions sub-committee has made some steps towards reducing the carbon footprint of the pension fund, in particular moving passive equities investments into low carbon funds. Please can you provide an update on the current status of this decarbonisation process - has this money been moved? What are your plans to further reduce the pension fund’s exposure to climate risk and what concrete targets do you have for the coming year?

 

Reply:

 

Thank you for your question. The Pensions Fund has made a commitment to reduce its exposure to carbon intensive companies and assets and decided to change both the UK equity index benchmark for the Fund’s internally managed passive equities and also the global equity index benchmark for externally-managed passive assets, to low carbon variants of the standard index. As a result of these changes, the Fund has a very much lower carbon footprint than a ‘normal’ equity portfolio, and therefore a low carbon footprint at the Total Fund level.

 

These changes have enabled us reduce the carbon footprint on equities by 45%. However, we are now looking at the other assets the fund holds, for example property, in order to similarly investigate how the carbon footprint can be further reduced.

 

Supplementary question:

 

Thank you. Other London boroughs including Waltham Forest and Southwark have fully divested from fossil fuels. Are you willing to meet with your counterpart at Southwark Council by the end of this year to discuss how they are putting their policy into practice?

 

Reply:

 

I am certainly happy to meet with colleagues in Southwark and Waltham Forest. The issue I think where we differ from the divestment campaign is that we think there is some value in engaging with oil companies, for example, in order to get them to change their behaviour. We are also reducing our financial risk by moving away from those companies, and I think we are having the effect that the campaign wants to see, but I am not personally convinced, and the Sub-Committee is not convinced, that simply exiting the deal and allowing supporters, for example, of President Trump to be the owners of these organisations will actually result in a positive difference. But the example of Southwark that you cited is certainly of interest to us, and I would be happy to meet them.

 

Question e) from Roderik Gonggrijp to Councillor Webbe, Executive Member for Environment and Transport:

 

How many metres of protected cycle lanes has Islington Council installed since May 2014?

 

Reply:

 

Thank you for this question, it is very important. Islington is a pro-cycling borough. We have done a great deal in recent years to improve cycle safety; we are the first borough to implement the 20 miles an hour limit; we have campaigned for the removal of some very dangerous gyratories at Archway, Old Street, Highbury Corner, Kings Cross and Nags Head; and we have recently completed works to open up Archway to the public, to make it much safer for pedestrians and much safer for cyclists. We want more people to cycle, and we won’t rest until every road is safe. We stand with those working hard for change.

 

We are working with Transport for London, who hold the funds for cycling in London. We are actively working for safer cycle routes, we want people to cycle away from dangerous roads, away from the main dangerous roads, and cycle on quieter roads. We are working hard to improve those around accident hotspots and sensitive junctions. In terms of actually how much segregated protected cycle lane we have installed since May 2014, we have installed five kilometres of cycle quiet-way, including 170 metres of widened segregated cycle lanes, and 20 metres of fully segregated lanes. We have also made Owen Street, a private road by Goswell Road, legally open to be used by cyclists and pedestrians.

 

We’ve also got further measures in the pipeline, including three new footway extensions to allow us to move the give way line at junctions and improve the position of waiting motor vehicles, and we also have many more cycle routes in the pipeline, including around Old Street and Clerkenwell, where we want to make those areas fully safe as well. We are working hard with our neighbours, working hard with Transport for London, working hard with the Mayor of London to attract the necessary resources, and to really realise our ambitions we are working with Cycle Islington as well.

 

Supplementary question:

 

Thank you Madam Mayor. In light of the tragic death of Ardian Zagani three weeks ago, who was cycling to work as a school caretaker, will you now contact TFL and ask them to progress plans for segregated cycle lanes around Nags Head gyratory?

 

Reply:

 

As I indicated, we are working hard on those gyratory removals, we do believe they are dangerous to cyclists. Because of the fact that we have been campaigning hard, we have got five gyratories on TFL’s agenda. We have been able to deliver one of those in Archway. We’ve got approval to go ahead with Highbury Corner and Old Street. We are working hard to get the consultation happening at Kings Cross, and we are working just as hard in relation to Nags Head. Admittedly, we haven’t yet got to the point of consultation, but the reality is we are working hard with TFL, we haven’t taken it off the table.

 

Our hearts go out to the family of the cyclist who lost his life. It shouldn’t have happened, we are working very hard to make the necessary changes so that cyclists and pedestrians can operate freely in boroughs like ours and across London, and get from A to B without a fatality, without any dangers. It is vitally important that cyclists and pedestrians and everyone is able to move around this city safely and without fear of accident, injury, or fatality. This is our vision, that is our goal. We will not rest, we will stand with you as cycle activists, and with people who want to cycle, because we know there are more people in London who want to cycle. Thank you. 

 

Question f) from Michael Kuhn to Councillor Watts, Leader of the Council:

 

Please tell us when faced with swingeing cuts in funding, whether the Council gives equal priority to housing the homeless and maintaining Islington’s open spaces?

 

Reply:

 

Thank you Mr Kuhn. Firstly, let me agree with your analysis about swingeing cuts.  The council has seen a 70% cut to its budget from the government, the biggest cut ever in its history, approaching something like the cash spending power of £200 million a year in cuts over the course of this decade. However, as I said at the beginning of the meeting, the Council was elected in 2014 on a manifesto that clearly prioritised housing, jobs, and helping our residents with the cost of living. We also maintained how vital it was to protect good quality services on the kind of tight budgets we are seeing after the government cuts, and also the importance of protecting our residents’ quality of life. 

 

Although we have universal public spaces for all of our residents to enjoy, in such a densely populated borough only one in six or seven of our residents are fortunate enough to have their own garden, and therefore for the vast majority of Islington residents the parks are effectively their garden, and we should value them as a publicly owned democratic spaces for residents of our borough to enjoy.

 

Supplementary question:

 

Why does the council spend scarce funds on failing to abate the nuisance on Highbury Fields? We estimate that the council has spent £60,000 so far, and will now have to spend a good deal more on legal action brought by the Highbury Fields campaign.

 

Reply:

 

As you are threatening legal action I am not going to address the issue about public nuisance in order to protect the council’s position, however, I did ask the Environment and Regeneration department today what the marginal cost of clearing up after barbeques this year was. The costs were met this year by staff who were already scheduled to be clearing up litter, and therefore the net cost to the public purse this year was zero, and there was no trade-off between barbeques and the housing crisis.

 

Question g) from Joanna Greatwich to Councillor Watts, Leader of the Council:

 

Are you, the members of our elected council - charged to protect all the inhabitants of the London Borough of Islington from:

 

a) unnecessary harm,

b) preventable- or potentially preventable ill health resulting from unnecessary and controllable actions of its inhabitants or visitors, and

c) any unnecessary hazards and nuisances that it has the authority to prevent? 

 

Yes or no?

 

Reply:

 

Thank you for your question. The council has various statutory duties to protect residents, particularly in relation to child protection, children with disabilities, protecting vulnerable adults, and duties of care under housing legislation.

 

We also have a wide range of ways to enforce these protections where the health and safety of residents or visitors is put at risk by the action of others, for example food safety, anti-social behaviour and statutory nuisances.

 

Supplementary question:

 

Thank you. Perhaps some explanation may help you in relation to my question. From your own scientific reports, current research suggests there is no safe level of exposure to PM2.5, which is emitted from barbeques. This particle is likely to cause the most serious health effects. Speaking as someone who has lived around Highbury Fields for 19 years as a council tenant, why are barbeques an exception to protecting the residents of Islington from the potential causes of ill health, what scientific evidence have you used to ensure that this is a completely safe exception in terms of the long term health of residents, and if there is such evidence, could it be put on the website please?

 

Reply:

 

Thank you very much. I need to be quite careful on this as Mr Kuhn has just threatened legal action and I can’t do anything to prejudice the council’s position. It is always regrettable when people threaten legal action as it curtails public debate on important issues like this. I’m afraid all I can say in response to your question, and I accept that this may get a further hearing elsewhere, is that there is a test for statutory nuisance as the council is very clear on its position that barbeques on Highbury Fields do not meet it.