Agenda item

Councillor Poyser to Councillor Convery, Executive Member for Community Safety.

The Archway Bridge is an Islington symbol that is well known throughout London. Sadly and tragically, despite the current restraint measures, people still commit suicide from this bridge. Each suicide traumatises many people in Islington's mental health community, as well as the families and loved ones of the suicide victims. At last, steps are being taken by Transport for London (TfL) to add further anti-suicide restraints on the bridge and they are being submitted to the Planning Committees in Islington and Haringey. We hope the proposed measures are successful in their aim without too much compromise in the striking visual impact of the Victorian Bridge.  Suicide is frequently a spur of the moment act and potential victims go on to lead happy lives after they change their mind at the last minute. Could Councillor Convery please tell us about progress with plans to put up signs on both sides of the bridge giving a phone number for the Samaritans?

Reply:

Thank you for your question.  I’d like to thank David and Ros Miller from the Faiths Forum for campaigning on this issue.  Work on a suicide prevention plan is progressing and it is important that we recognise and respond to suicide risks and our local action plan, the Local Crisis Care Concordat provides support for those who display suicidal behaviour.  Any suicide is a tragedy that affects family and friends.  In the public realm they can have a very big impact indeed and dozens of people can be affected. Over the last two years there has been intense pressure and we now have agreement from Transport for London (TfL), Haringey Council and English Heritage to install anti jump fencing on the bridge, although there is some opposition from the Highgate Society and local Lib-Dem Councillors.  We also requested that TfL install CCTV on the bridge and they are funding the installation of this.  The CCTV will be linked through to our control room so we can respond quickly if anyone on the bridge appears to be agitated and finally, we have also spoken to the Samaritans about signs; there are some already installed but these are very small and we are seeing if these can be made more visible.

Supplementary Question:

Is Councillor Convery aware that Bristol Council have halved the number of suicides from the Clifton Suspension Bridge?

Reply:

David’s quite right.  It is a stunning listed Victorian bridge and I thought it very encouraging that Bristol decided to put up fences despite concerns about the aesthetics of Brunel’s bridge.  It is very difficult to prevent all suicides, but TfL have proposed a very high fence and think it will be very effective.  I hope we can placate the Highbury Society and Lib-Dem Councillors; safety has to come before aesthetics.  The most recent attempt was foiled by staff at St Aloysius College who physically restrained someone until the police arrived.  The impact on the school is traumatising and we will do our very best to stop it from happening.

Councillor Russell to Councillor Murray, Executive Member for Housing and Development.

The Lands Tribunal Decision No:   LRX 78 2014k   dated 26 January 2015, decided that  leaseholder charges must be calculated using figures obtained from the lowest hierarchical level (eg the nearest meter). Will the council agree to apply the same approach when calculating charges for tenants rather than the current system of pooled charges across the borough?

Reply:

We have made an active choice to pool tenants charging to ensure fairness, but we are required by law to recharge Leaseholders for the specific costs relating to their property.  With tenants we think it is fairer not to penalise those who live in older blocks and if we changed this policy the costs for residents in Turnpike House would rise by 30% because they’d no longer be protected.  The policy also helps those residents who are elderly, disabled or housebound as their costs are levelled out to some extent by pooling. There are issues that we need to look at; the rate is set each year in the budget and as costs are down on previous years it looks likely that we will be able to provide a rebate to residents. There are also some blocks which are very badly insulated where residents need the heating on for longer and the pooled charges helps spread these costs.  I know that the Environment and Regeneration Scrutiny Committee have been looking at this and I look forward to receiving their recommendations, but none of these issues detracts from pooling being the right thing to do.

Supplementary question:

I understand the fairness principles behind pooling, but it is not a way of tacking poorly insulated homes.  We need to insulate them.  Will you look at controls – at the moment there is no incentive to save heat?

Reply:

This is a very important issue and we have an insulation programme which includes external cladding to insulate buildings.  It is very hard to effectively insulate street properties, but we have a very good track record. The cost of insulation brings us back to pooling; even if we can only do one block, the saving is shared across all blocks.  We won’t have to say to some tenants that they have to pay more until we can afford to do their block; it is much fairer. We have looked at metering individual flats and I know the Environment and Regeneration Scrutiny Committee are similarly looking at this, but we have to consider the equality implications for elderly people and those who are housebound.