Agenda item

Question a) from Sebastian Sandys to Councillor Ward, Executive Member for Housing and Development:

 

What conditions are the Council proposing to attach to the planning permission granted to the developers of the Richard Cloudesley site?

 

Response:

 

Thank you for your question. On 1 March 2018, the Council’s Planning Committee resolved to grant planning permission for 66 much needed new council homes and a new two–form entry primary school on this site.  This resolution was made subject to the City of London resolving to grant planning permission for a duplicate planning application; this resolution was subsequently made by the City of London Planning and Transportation Committee on 26 March 2018. The resolution was also subject to any direction made by the Mayor of London, and the Mayor confirmed on 18 June 2018 that he did not intend to intervene in this application.

 

In addition, the resolution to grant planning permission was made subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement, and a number of planning conditions that were set out in Annex 1 to the committee report, which is available on the Council’s website.

 

The Planning Committee also resolved to delegate authority to the Corporate Director of Environment & Regeneration, in consultation with the Chair of the Committee, to make minor amendments to the Section 106 heads of terms and the conditions.

 

In accordance with the council’s procedures, the committee report, including Annex 1, was published in advance of the meeting of the Planning Committee, and any late representations on the application were reported to the Committee.   In addition to this, people who wished to speak for and against the planning application were given the opportunity to do so at the Committee meeting.

 

Interested parties were therefore provided with an opportunity to view and comment on the draft conditions either verbally or in writing.

 

Before taking their decision, the Committee properly and fully considered all the written and verbal material that was presented to the meeting, including Annex 1 of the committee report.

 

The Local Planning Authority is now in a position to issue its decision on the planning application in accordance with the resolution made by the Planning Committee. 

 

Prior to the decision being issued, there will be some changes to the planning conditions set out in Annex 1 of the committee report.   These changes will be extremely minor in character and do not materially or substantially change in any way the conditions that were agreed by the Planning Committee.  In line with the resolution made by the Planning Committee a decision on these changes will be made by the appropriate officer following consultation with the Chair of the Planning Committee.

 

Supplementary question:

 

This afternoon the crowd funder successfully reached its target, which means that the decision will be subject to judicial review. Will you meet me and the objectors to ensure that money is not wasted, and the London Borough of Islington is not again hoodwinked by the Corporation of London.

 

Response:

 

I am not going to apologise for 66 new socially rented homes. This Council has a clear mandate for building council housing; I acknowledge your request Sebastian, but given the circumstances will have to defer to our Director of Law and Governance.

 

Question b) from Benali Hamdache to Councillor Webbe, Executive Member for Environment and Transport:

 

Can the council inform me what the number 08449312211 is for and how many signs it's currently being displayed on in Islington?

 

Response:

 

Thank you, this is a really interesting question that has taken me on a journey. As you probably know, when you call this number, as I did, it plays a recorded message telling you to call an 03 number, which I appreciate is a frustrating experience. The 08 number, which is the original Arsenal Hotline number, was set up to provide information to local residents and businesses about Arsenal match days. The signage was created in 2007, under the Liberal Democrat administration.

 

I thought about this, and wondered what use the number is for the future, because if you have a smartphone you can easily look up Arsenal match day information online for free, whereas a phone call to the 08 number costs 7p or 8p per minute, and a call to the 03 number costs 3p per minute, although may be free depending on your mobile phone tariff.

 

The signage is a problem, and is clearly of no use to anyone, so I thought about what we could do. Then I discovered that the signage is due to be there until 2094, and would you believe, the number is displayed on approximately 4,000 signs. Unfortunately, as you can imagine, the cost of removal would be prohibitive.

 

Supplementary question:

 

Is there an overall plan to reduce street clutter, like redundant signage, and is there a way to check how many other redundant signs there might be around Islington?

 

Response:

 

I think that is a sensible question, during times of austerity it is right to consider the signage we put up, to ensure we are not wasteful. What I want to do in future is move towards smart city innovation, if we can install digital signs then we can change them instantly, and we can make streets more inviting at the same time. We are keen to work with those developing these sorts of solutions, I think it is the future, and that is what we will look to in future. 

 

Question c) from Kaily Fox to Councillor Webbe, Executive Member for Environment and Transport:

 

What representations has the Council made to TfL in the last three months regarding the delayed improvements to the Shepherdess Walk/City Road/Bath Street junction?

 

Response:

 

Thank you for your question. This is of particular interest to me, and my fellow ward councillors, as well as colleagues in Hackney. We are keen to see this junction improve, and I know you are passionate about it too.

 

We have engaged with Hackney and Transport for London to push for improvements at this location, we are holding regular meetings and we are allocating resources to this issue. Over the last three months we have met with our counterparts to discuss this and other cycling-related issues, as it is important we see approach cycling as a cross-borough issue.

 

The progress of this TfL scheme has also been raised at a number of meetings of TfL’s ‘Islington Working Group’, that focuses on the progress of TfL road and cycling improvements. I am increasingly frustrated by the length of time from the decision being made to the improvements being realised, although I understand that these things take time, and need detailed work.

 

Myself and my fellow ward councillors previously campaigned for two-way cycling on Bath Street. It took a long time, but eventually the changes were made, and it benefitted the local community. We will do the same now. We want to see the improvements happen, and we will be working hard to make sure they happen.

Supplementary question:

 

What will you do to make sure that the proposals happen?

 

Response:

 

It is important that we have engaged residents, who are keen to see things move. I am delighted that residents are pushing for change, because it will help the boroughs to reach an agreement. We will continue to work with TfL, and I hope that works will start mid-August. Thank you for all you do to push this agenda.

 

Question d) from Sarah Weiner to Councillor Ward, Executive Member for Housing and Development:

 

As a parent and local resident, I hope the council shares the commitment of residents and local councillors to supporting the Highbury/Finsbury Park community; preventing pollution increases in schools and standing up to Sainsbury's attempt to bully its way into Highbury (having revived its plans for building a second store on Blackstock Road).  How can the council help us as we try to protect our children, support local businesses, and keep our pavements for pedestrians?

 

Response:

 

The Council is committed to working with the local community to protect and support small businesses including local independent shops. As you are aware, the Council refused the previous planning application by Sainsbury’s and successfully defended its decision to refuse the application when Sainsbury’s appealed to the Planning Inspectorate.

 

Local ward councillors and Executive Members have been working with the local community to oppose plans for a second Sainsbury’s store on Blackstock Road.   We are therefore extremely disappointed, and quite frankly angry, that Sainsbury’s has come in with a second planning application in the face of intense local opposition to their plans.

 

The Council refused the previous planning application due to its concerns about the impact that the proposals would have on the vitality and viability of Finsbury Park Town Centre and Highbury Barn; and the failure of the applicants to make adequate and safe provision for the unloading and loading of goods.

 

Unfortunately, the Planning Inspector did not agree with the Council that the application would harm the vitality and viability of the town centre and Highbury Barn.  However, he did however agree that the proposed arrangements for loading and unloading were inadequate and dismissed Sainsbury’s appeal.  Sainsbury’s new application therefore includes revised proposals for the loading and unloading goods at the store.

 

Public consultation on the planning application is still taking place, and I would encourage anyone who has an interest in the application to respond.  I have had various representations on this issue from Councillor Gantly, Councillor Lukes, and Councillor Hull, the ward councillors have been very involved in this, and together with Councillor Shaikh, I have written to the owner of the site to ask for a meeting. I hope they will be willing to work with the Council to find an alternative to a Sainsbury’s store on the site.

 

Supplementary question:

 

I’d like to thank the councillors for supporting the community on this. There has been a lot of talk tonight about taking the community with you, and I wanted to let you know that since submitting my question we have launched a petition against Sainsbury’s, and in 8 days it has been signed by over 1,000 people. The community is furious about the arrogance of Sainsbury’s. Work has already started on the building, if you look inside the building now, all it needs is some shelves. We thank you for your support. Given that the last planning application was almost two years ago, and we now have new data on pollution in the borough, can you re-assure us that there will be a new, full environmental and business impact assessment in relation to this application?

 

Response:

 

This will be an entirely new planning application, so it will need new assessments. They can’t just amend the previous application.

 

Question e) from Nikki Uppal to Councillor Comer-Schwartz, Executive Member for Community Development:

 

Islington is one of the most deprived local authorities in the UK where a third of

residents live in poverty and almost 70% of secondary school girls are eligible for pupil premium. Given this, what is the Council’s short and long term strategy to address period poverty in the borough for both women and girls?

 

Response:

 

Thank you for your question. I share your concerns about period poverty, which means some girls are forced to miss school and women cannot afford to buy sanitary products. This Council is firmly committed to championing and protecting women by prioritising services and support that makes a difference to them.

 

On International Women’s Day, the Council launched its Tricky Period scheme, in partnership with Streets Kitchen. We are stocking Islington’s libraries with free sanitary products, for women and girls in need, and have been widely promoting the scheme.

 

We are exploring how we can further expand this scheme and work with more Voluntary and Community Sector organisations, and the private sector. This includes talking to Unilever and Boots about bringing the scheme into our schools, and we will be consulting with women and girls about how to do this. We want to ensure that every woman and girl who needs sanitary products has easy access to them in a dignified setting.

 

Period poverty is a symptom of the inequalities facing women and girls, so it is vital we tackle those inequalities too. This includes our work to fund targeted employment services to help longer-term unemployed women back into work, keeping open all three refuges in the borough, and changing our licensing policy so that more can be done to protect women in licensed premises.

 

Of course, there is plenty more to do. I am confident that the appointment of our new Women and Girls Champion, Councillor Woodbyrne, along with this Council administration’s commitment, will enable us to further tackle period poverty and other inequalities facing women and girls in Islington.

 

Supplementary question:

 

Thank you for your response. We are pleased to hear that a champion for women and girls has been appointed. We are also pleased to hear that the Council is working on this issue. However, is it fair that the third sector are taking the lead on this? One of the things we are concerned about is period poverty among school girls, because we know it can affect their attendance and performance. We need to tackle this and make sure that menstrual products are available in schools. Islington has a flagship policy on universal free school meals and spent £1.7 million last year on this. It is a good policy, but it costs £500 per child per year. To provide free sanitary products in school would only cost £40 per girl per year, a fraction of what we spend on universal free school meals. Given that, what possible reason is there for the Council not to put the money forward?

 

Response:

 

Thank you. I disagree with your interpretation that the voluntary sector is having to lead on this work. I am really proud of our libraries, as well as the partnerships we have with the voluntary sector, and how we are working together on this issue. It is our ambition to get free sanitary products in as many schools as possible, and we are looking at creative ways of doing that. We think it would cost around £100,000 a year, which is not a small figure, and because our funding will be cut by 70% by 2020, we know that these decisions need to be taken very carefully. That’s why I want to discuss how the private sector can work with us and do the right thing for women and girls.

 

Question f) from Ernestas Jegorovas to Councillor Hull, Executive Member for Finance, Performance and Community Safety:

 

How important is it for the council to work closely with the local police to address high crime levels in the borough?

 

Response:

 

Thank you for your question. This administration takes tackling crime very seriously and is committed to keeping our communities safe. To this end, it is vitally important that the Council works closely with all our partner organisations, as well as with residents, to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour in Islington. The Police are certainly one of these key partners and we do work closely with them, day-in, day-out.

 

The government, on the other hand, seems hell-bent on making our borough less safe, cutting 70 per cent of the council's core funding since 2010 and leaving Islington with 300 fewer police officers than it had less than a decade ago. Regressive Government cuts to the Police leave our neighbourhoods less secure. Under a Labour government, the ward I represent, Highbury West, had a dedicated Safer Neighbourhood Team of one Sergeant, two PCs and three PCSOs. We now have a third of a Sergeant, two PCs and one PCSO. That's three and a third officers left policing a population of 16,000 residents.

 

Nonetheless, despite the government's short-sighted cuts, locally we have had some success of late, particularly when it comes to tackling youth crime in the borough, not least due to the £2m of extra funding we are investing in targeted work with young people on the cusp of criminality. Moped-enabled snatch-theft in Islington is down 60 per cent since Christmas. It is still too high, but concerted partnership action is having an effect.

 

In our Integrated Gangs Team, the council’s youth services are working directly alongside Police and voluntary sector partners to identify and support young people to help them turn their back on gangs, as well as the siblings of gang members. In the last year, the IGT has worked with 133 young people to help give them the best possible start in life. It is, of course, challenging but we are pleased that Ofsted inspectors recently praised the ‘strong and robust’ support that our Children’s Services give to vulnerable adolescents.

 

Since the launch of the council’s youth crime action plan a year ago, knife crime with injury among under-25s has fallen by 13%, bucking the trend in London which saw a 2% increase. Gun crime offences also fell by almost 24.4% in Islington, compared to 3.7% across London.

 

We cannot be complacent though, and we will continue to work closely with police colleagues to tackle crime and the fear of crime. National government, though, has a role to play too. That is why this Council administration will continue to make representations to the government in the strongest terms to fund our police service properly, in order to keep our residents safe.

 

Supplementary question:

 

I have recently spoken to police officers, who told me they are finding it increasingly difficult to find space to hold drop-in sessions. I was surprised to hear that the council charges the Police for hiring their venues. Would you consider working closer with the Police, to ensure that they can hold these sessions with local people?

 

Response:

 

I will look into the Police being charged for the use of our facilities for their Safer Neighbourhood meetings, I am surprised to hear that happens, so if you have specific examples please let me know and I will raise it. We have a good working relationship with the Police and I know that they have used council facilities in the past.

 

The Mayor advised that there was no time remaining for questions from the floor, and encouraged members of the public with outstanding questions to submit them in writing for written response.