Agenda item

 

Question (a) from Nick Clarke to Cllr Champion, Executive Member for Environment & Transport:

 

As we welcome the Council's carbon net zero 2030 and biodiversity plans we recognise that at this moment in history we truly must act locally and think globally. For example every minute an area the size of a football pitch is cleared in the Amazon - most of it to be used for cattle or crops to feed animals. 8% of global CO2 emissions come from the production of concrete.

 

We cannot achieve net zero if we do not change our diets and change our use of concrete.

 

Therefore, will the Council take account of the carbon emissions and biodiversity impacts of the food it serves in the schools it controls and the events it hosts, and of the construction processes of the buildings being erected in the borough (e.g. including the CO2 used in the production of the cement and transport)?

 

In particular, will the Council follow Enfield and make all meals at Council events vegetarian or vegan and include school meals in its calculations of its CO2 emissions and biodiversity impacts, and measure the CO2 emissions involved in construction and require that they be offset by developers?

 

Response:

 

Thank you very much for your questions Nick. I think the point you are making is about behaviour change and how that affects the global impacts of climate change and in particular our food choices.

 

You ask if we would make meals vegetarian or vegan. I am very happy to confirm that, with the exception of meals at the Assembly Hall which you will appreciate is a very different section of the council, we will do that. We have to make the exception as the Assembly Hall is used by different people for different events, weddings parties and so on, and they provide their own refreshments.

 

You also ask the question about school meals. Schools decide what they wish to serve, but we do work with schools to reduce their carbon emissions and what we can say is that, for school meals prepared within Islington, we will be accounting for the emissions in the calculations we make about our targets.

 

You ask about sustainable development and building materials. We have an ambitious draft local plan that includes information on reducing emissions and encouraging more sustainable development. In addition to requiring all major new developments are net zero carbon, to fully capture a development’s carbon impact we will also require such proposals to calculate and reduce whole life-cycle carbon emissions. This captures not only a building’s operational emissions from energy consumption, but also captures its embodied emissions (such as those associated with raw material extraction, manufacture and transport of building materials, and construction) and emissions associated with maintenance and eventual material disposal.

 

We also have new policy developments to adopt a circular economy approach to design and construction to keep materials in use for as long as possible, minimise the environmental impact of the materials used, require a minimum amount of construction materials to be from recycled/re-used content and minimise construction waste.

 

Supplementary question:

 

Thank you that was very encouraging. One thing I’d want to check, is the draft local plan available to the public? And on constitution emissions, accounting is one thing, but who will pay? Will the developer be required to offset their emissions? And who in the council at director level is responsible for reaching Net Zero by 2030? And will the Council be providing training and information to staff so they can be partners on this journey?

 

Response:

 

The Draft Local Plan is out for consultation, I’m not sure if it’s available in public at the moment, but I will check that. In terms of the offset, we have an offset fund and developers are required to pay a sum of money to offset carbon emissions that we use for environmentally sustainable projects. The Corporate Director of Environment and Regeneration is responsible at director level, however everyone throughout the Council is involved in this, including the Chief Executive.

 

Question (b) Talia Hussain to Cllr Champion, Executive Member for Environment & Transport:

 

The pandemic has precipitated a significant increase in online shopping, with an attendant increase in the amount of packaging and waste for the council to handle. Before the pandemic, Islington’s recycling rates were lower than the London average and going down. What steps is the council taking to improve recycling rates in the borough?

 

Response:

 

Thank you for your question. Islington has the second lowest rate of residual waste per household in London. This is incredibly important as we want to generate as little waste as possible in the first place.

 

Islington Council has continued to offer a full recycling collection service for all households throughout the pandemic period. The service has done a really good job despite some difficult circumstances. That includes a full range of materials including much of the packaging material mentioned in your question, but I agree it is very worrying the amount of waste still generated.

 

Our latest figure for our recycling rate is 31%, which is an increase from 29% last year.  Islington approved its Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan this time last year which sets out a range of actions for increasing recycling, and this has been incorporated into our Vision 2030 Net Zero Carbon strategy. There are a number of initiatives that are either new or we are continuing to do, including improvements in communal recycling, as we know that’s really important. We are also going to expand food waste services to all of our main estates. We do a lot of communication with residents particularly around food waste and the use of single-use plastics. I would say, in terms of packaging, there is an awful lot the government should be doing with industry to make sure that packaging is reduced and is recyclable. 

 

Supplementary question:

 

My question notes that Islington has some of the lowest recycling rates. I appreciate they have gone up. I wonder how you feel about how we are doing. Do you think we are doing well enough?

 

Response:

 

I think we all need to do better. There are certain challenges we have in the borough, but absolutely we need to do better. It isn’t easy though. It’s not that we have a bad service, but we have a lot of challenges that we are trying to work through and address. 

 

Question (c) from Jeremy Drew to Cllr Champion, Executive Member for Environment & Transport:

 

The recently agreed Transport Strategy has the objective of limiting car journeys to essential ones. Does the council have a view on what types of car journeys are essential?

 

Response:

 

Thank you for your question Jeremy. On the issue of if we define essential journeys by car, no we don’t. It will very much depend on individual circumstances, and I think it’s very much self-defining. Some people will always need to use vehicles, if you have a particular disability that requires that, or if you are moving around for work, or another reason. But we can also change people’s perception of what is essential. We know that people feel they have to use cars because they feel it is unsafe to cycle or walk. What we have to do is make our streets safer, healthier, more attractive, and that will change what people feel they can do. That may help to redefine what people see as essential.

 

In a way, we are very lucky in Islington, as we are well suited to changing to more sustainable ways of travelling. The borough is largely flat, and very dense, so we have amenities very close to people. In many cases people only need to make short journeys. So if we can make those journeys attractive, encourage people to use local shops perhaps, then we can help people to reassess their journeys, rather than us as a council defining it for them.

 

Supplementary question:

 

Thank you. The Transport Strategy has a target of reducing vehicle kilometres by 15.7% by 2041. Does this reflect on what different types of journeys are essential? This seems like a very modest reduction. It would seem that you need to be more ambitious to reduce the number of vehicle kilometres on the road.

 

Response:

 

We are trying to give people the options of safer travel, so they reduce their car journeys and what they see as essential. We’ve looked at it and decided what we think is possible. If we can reduce it by more, then that would be an incredible achievement. I take your point though, we need to get as many people using sustainable transport as we possibly can. It’s a really important thing to do.

 

 

Question (d) from Susan Lees to Cllr Champion, Executive Member for Environment & Transport:

 

I am pleased to learn that the Council is very keen to assist local residents in accessing the Green Homes Grant Scheme, and that the Council will develop and adopt a Supplementary Planning Document (or SPD) setting out detailed planning guidance on the installation of measures to reduce carbon emissions and promote energy efficiency. Will this cover retrofitting in conservation areas?

 

Response:

 

Thank you for your question Susan. We are very committed to doing what we can on sustainable development, the SPD will cover a range of topics, including guidance and examples of energy efficiency measures. Yes, we have conservation areas, but we must find a way to do both. We are subject to lots of legislation and case law, but the purpose of the SPD will look at how we can maximise energy efficiency.

 

Supplementary question:

 

Thank you. I’m wondering whether the council will help local contractors to get accredited under the Green Homes Grant Scheme, thereby actively supporting local environmentally positive jobs?

 

Response:

 

I know that Cllr Shaikh and her team are very keen on looking at green jobs. I will look into this further.

 

Question (e) from Ernestas Jegorovas to Cllr Comer-Schwartz, Executive Member for Children, Schools and Families

 

What support has Islington Council provided to students in Islington to overcome the digital divide?

 

Response:

 

Thank you for your question Ernestas. We are acutely aware of the impact that a lack of access to digital devices and the internet can have on some of our least well-off families. This has only been made worse during the pandemic and as a Council, we are determined that the pandemic must not lead to a widening of the achievement gap between those who have access to digital devices and those who do not.

 

Since lockdown in March we have been working on a rolling programme of issuing devices to children and young people through the Local Authority. This has been in addition to the provision some schools have also made for their pupils. By the end of the year, approximately 3000 devices will have been issued to children and young in the borough. These have been funded from a range of sources including grants from local charities, the Department for Education and the council itself. Devices have been targeted for disadvantaged pupils in priority year groups and vulnerable children.

 

The School Improvement team has been working very closely with schools and settings to develop remote learning provision this year.  This has included the development of online resources to support those who can access it from home and learning packs for children who cannot access their work remotely but can’t go to school for a variety of reasons. A series of meetings have been held for schools in the borough to share best practice. Tackling the digital divide and education priorities is a fundamental priority to minimise the inequalities compounded by the current pandemic and to make our borough the best place for our children to grow up.

 

Supplementary question:

 

Thank you. In 2016 the United Nations declared internet access to be a human right. In fact, in 2005 free Wi-Fi was provided on Upper Street. In the 2019 Labour Manifesto there was the promise of free internet. When can our students who need internet access expect to receive it?

 

Response:

 

Thank you. You make a really valid point, as well as devices, we have been looking to provide internet routers for those who need them. We have undertaken several surveys with the help of schools to understand what the picture looks like in the borough. We have had significant stumbling blocks, as we have tried to access the government Wi-Fi router scheme repeatedly, having been promised this would be provided London-wide, but this has not been delivered, so we are looking at a variety of different sources. Please be assured we are looking at the problem and we are committed to making sure our young people get access as soon as possible.

 

 

Question (f) from Emily Tims to Cllr Tuan, Executive Member for Health and Social Care

 

I understand that several UK councils (and countries) have paused the roll-out of 5G until the potential health implications are more clear. Under what circumstances, if any, would Islington Council pause the roll-out of this untested technology?

 

As Emily Tims was not present in the meeting, the following written response was sent: 

 

The roll-out of 5G technology is covered by Central Government policy (National Planning Policy Framework, established by the Digital Economy Act 2017). As a Council, we can only make decisions on the rollout of 5G technology based on planning legislation and cannot make health-based decisions that are different to the international and national guidelines.

 

The Council has looked into this important issue and the following bullet points provide additional information and assurances:

 

·         The masts on Braithwaite house and Michael Cliffe House are Wifi masts, not 5G

·         The Council has approved permission for 5G masts on Widnes House. This was a planning decision but all public health advice shows that they are completely safe.

·         Public Health England issued its most recent guidance specific to 5G in October 2019. As 5G is rolled-out, exposure to radio waves is expected to remain well below the safety limits set out in guidelines.  As such, there should be no consequences for public health.

·         Ofcom regularly monitor radio wave emissions near 5G base stations.  In its most recent report on 5G-enabled mobile phone base stations, it found that the highest level of electro-magnetic fields from 5G recorded was approximately 1.5% of the relevant safety threshold, and 5G contributes a smaller amount of electro-magnetic emissions than previous generations of mobile technology 2G, 3G, and 4G.

·         Be assured that we work with our local Public Health teams and Public Health England to monitor the effects of all new technologies.