London Borough of Islington

COUNCIL MEETING – 4 DECEMBER 2007

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

At an ordinary meeting of the Council held at the Town Hall, Upper Street, London N1 2UD, on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 at 7.30pm

Present:

The Mayor (Councillor Barbara Smith) in the Chair

ALLAN George ECE Meral PEASNELL Kelly BELFORD Paula EDWARDS Barry PERRY Rupert BERENT Anna FIERAN-REED Emily POLLING Ruth BOFFA Donna FOXSMITH Greg RAY Marisha BURGESS Janet GILBERT John SIDNELL Barbara BURGESS Wally GREENING Richard SMITH Paul CHATTERJEE Natasha HAMITOUCHE Mouna SPALL Lisa CHOWDHURY Jilani HULLS Daniel STACY Terry CONVERY Paul ISMAIL Tracy VAJA Jyoti CORNWELL Andrew JAMIESON-BALL Rhodri WATT Lucy COUPLAND Joan KASPRZYK Stefan WATTS Richard COUPLAND Shelley KELLY Phil WEST Catherine DAWSON Katie KEMPTON James WILLIAMS Julia DEBONO Theresa KLUTE Martin WILLOUGHBY Laura DOOLAN Gary MURRAY James WOOLLEY Ursula DUNLOP Fiona

1. MINUTES

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meetings held on 2 October (Special), 2 October (Ordinary) and 15 October 2007 be confirmed as correct records and the Mayor be authorised to sign them.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor Stacy - Item 4(c) - question re Housing Ombudsman Service.

Councillor Watts - Item 10.2 - motion re bottled water - personal interest by means of his employment.

Councillor Jamieson-Ball - Item 10.9 - motion re 20mph road safety limit - personal interest by means of his employment

Councillor Debono - Item 4(g) – question re youth work – personal interest as a trustee of Elizabeth House community centre

MINUTES – 4 DECEMBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

Councillor Janet Burgess - Item 10.7 - motion re youth work - personal interest as a trustee of Whittington Park Community Association.

3. MAYORAL ANNOUNCEMENTS

(i) Apologies for absence None, but apologies for lateness from Councillors Perry and O'Sullivan.

(ii) Order of business The Mayor announced that she proposed to take business in the order on the agenda.

(iii) Declaration of discussion items by the Administration and Opposition Parties Councillor Belford indicated that the Liberal Democrat Group wished to debate item 10.3 re Adult Social Services, and Councillor Watts, on behalf of the Labour Group, asked to debate item 10.7 re Council funding for vital youth work, before 9.30pm.

(iv) Former Councillor Bill Bayliss The Mayor formally announced with regret the death on 26 October of former Councillor Bill Bayliss. Mr Bayliss had been a member of the Council since 1953 and had played a leading part in housing and financial matters until his retirement form the Council in 1982.

The funeral had taken place at St Mary’s Church on 8 November and the Mayor and the Deputy Lieutenant had represented the Council.

All present stood in memory and recognition of the service of Mr Bayliss to the people of Islington.

4. PETITIONS AND QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

Petitions were received as follows:

Councillor Polling Residential apartments on Central Street and Mitchell Street/Helmet Row, EC1.

Councillor Willoughby Resurfacing of roads in Highbury East ward around Highbury Fields N5.

Councillor Convery The Huntington Arms PH.

Councillor West Highway works to Tollington Way N7

Councillor Klute Closure of Angel Arcade and jewellery and military markets.

Councillor Berent Building of new Council housing on garages behind Neptune House, Mayville Estate N1

Councillor Watt Postponement of lift renewal scheme at Newbery House, Northampton Street, WC1

Councillor Vaja Installation of security system at Quaker Court, Banner Street EC1

In accordance with the Constitution, these were referred to the appropriate director for action.

MINUTES – 4 DECEMBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

Questions from members of the public (a) Keith Angus to Councillor Andrew Cornwell, Executive Member for Finance

I would like to know what the consequences will be on council taxpayers in Islington of the government's comprehensive spending review?

Reply:

What does this mean for Islington?

The government uses population projections as a key indicator in the distribution of Formula Grant to Local Government. Islington receives just under £800 per head of population each year. Islington Council is very concerned about the quality of population estimates and projections used in the Local Government Finance settlement. In particular, inadequacies in the way the Office for National Statistics estimate inward migration in urban areas. These flaws mean that Islington is facing substantial pressures arising from an increasing population that is not reflected in the data used to allocate formula grant.

The Council, along with other London authorities, has also raised issues with the government on the definition of international in-migrants as it excludes those who intend to stay in the country for less than a year.

This means that despite the fact that these short term "residents" use local authority services, local authorities do not receive any funding for them. As well as receiving this reduced level of funding for services, there are increased costs in particular for schools, electoral registration, temporary accommodation and essential social services.

The Council continues to lobby government on population and migration estimates and last week Islington submitted evidence to the Treasury Sub-Committee’s enquiry on Counting the Population.

Now let me turn to inflation.

In each of the last two years, Islington has received the absolute minimum increase in grant. The Council received an increase of just 2.2% in 2006-07 and 2.7% in 2007-08. This is significantly less than the average for inner London of 2.7% in 2006-07 and 3.6% in 2007-08. Islington’s grant has been below average for the last six financial years and is expected to be below the average for the next three years.

An increase of 2.7% compares poorly to the government’s official rate of inflation, CPI, which reached 3.1% in March 2007 and RPI which is currently 4.2% and has been running in excess of 4% for nine out of the last 12 months.

In addition the Council faces other inflationary pressures, not taken into account in the government’s measures of CPI and RPI, such as the building maintenance index in London, which was running at 4.5% in March 2007.

The Council has identified £1.6m of inflation related pressures in 2008/09, which have been taken into account in the medium term financial strategy. This is equivalent to more than 2% on Council Tax.

MINUTES – 4 DECEMBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

The Council does receive an area cost adjustment in its Formula Grant allocation that is designed to reflect the varying costs of service delivery around the country. However, the Council is extremely concerned about the basis of proposals to update the way the Labour Cost Adjustment is calculated. This is now to be based on judgement informed by the analysis of survey data containing serious flaws in relation to London.

The final key uncertainty is around future housing funding. The Council faces several uncertainties surrounding future housing funding that have not been clarified by the Comprehensive Spending Review.

Islington is on track to achieve Decent Homes Standard by 2010, however government funding across London is set to decrease by £500m over the next three years, a 20% annual reduction from the previous spending round. It is not yet clear how this will affect the Council – details on Islington’s allocation for 2008-09 will be announced in the annual determination, which is due on 15 December.

The draft Housing Revenue Account Determination for 2008-09 was recently published. The Council had anticipated a two-year determination but the published determination is for one year only as the government is in the process of considering how the Housing Revenue Subsidy System might be radically reformed. While the Council welcomes a review of the subsidy system, this has increased uncertainty around the levels of housing subsidy in the short to medium term.

All in all even before the details of Islington’s settlement have been published, you will see that our finances are coming under serious pressure as a result of the Comprehensive Spending Review and inevitably that will impact on council tax.

How do we avoid a high increase in the face of so little help from government?

Well it has to be about seeking more efficiency savings.

In the last financial year we delivered £8 million of efficiency savings through smart working, better procurement, reducing admin costs, improving our processes and making better use of the property we occupy. We have reduced the cost of recruitment and temporary staff too.

This financial year we are on track to deliver more than £6 million of similar savings. Merging together departments such as revenues and benefits, and putting together housing and adult social services is helping deliver those savings.

We will continue to sell surplus operational properties to keep our revenue costs down and reduce the need to borrow in order to fund vital capital investment – which only puts the Council Tax up to meet interest payments.

However it is getting harder to find more savings each year and central government cannot continue to pass the buck to local government forever and expect reasonable increases in council tax at the same time.

MINUTES – 4 DECEMBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

During the course of this answer, the Council agreed to move to the next business which the Mayor ruled as the supplementary question.

Supplementary Question: As a result of this information, does this mean there will be big cuts in Council tax next year?

Reply: As to Council Tax, we will do our very best to keep this to the very minimum and thereby keep to our pledge to be lower than the London average. Council Tax is a tax on low incomes. I am pleased of our record of getting this tax down - from its highest ever level under Labour to where it is today. Last year's increase of 1.5% was among the lowest in London.

We are relying on efficiency savings of approximately £8m from smart working, administration costs etc., and we are on track to deliver another £6m, but this gets harder in the face of central government's trend of passing costs to local government.

I am proud of our record and I believe we can keep below the London average of Council Tax increases.

(b) Andrew Myer to Councillor Ruth Polling, Executive Member for Leisure and Equalities

Please could you confirm whether there is any truth in the rumour currently worrying residents that there is an intention to demolish the Sobell Sports Centre and replace it with a larger facility – and, if it is true, what is the programme for this redevelopment?

Reply: The Council is in the early stages of considering the future of the Sobell Centre. The Centre is now nearly 40 years old with a deteriorating infrastructure and an escalating list of major repairs. In fact one of my first visits as an Executive Member back in May was to see the state of the roof at the Sobell and the patching up work we have had to do this year.

It is appropriate therefore that the Council considers how it can continue to provide a first class leisure service at Sobell and best meet the leisure needs of the borough over the next forty years. We are already undertaking a comprehensive public consultation on future improvements to the Ironmonger Row Baths and the Finsbury Leisure Centre asking about both the overall shape and the range of facilities that local residents and users would like to see in the centres in the future. The consultation results will be analysed in the new year and we will be making a decision on the way forward for Ironmonger Row Baths/Finsbury Leisure Centre in the Spring. Once this is completed we will be working up options for Sobell in the same way we did for Ironmonger Row Baths/Finsbury Leisure Centre and will undertake a similar consultation exercise. I hope that Sobell users and local residents will take a full part in this consultation in the way residents of Finsbury have so that we can get a broad range of views before making any decision on redevelopment.

Supplementary Question: I am concerned at the timing of the closure of facilities prior to 2012 and the impact on communities. As it is likely that this will occur, will training facilities be maintained in the period leading up to the Olympics?

MINUTES – 4 DECEMBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

Reply: I cannot be completely accurate to the timing, as this depends on the nature of the improvements agreed - some will take longer to complete that others. A report on the Ironmonger Row Baths will go to the Executive soon, and once a decision has been taken on that it will free us to look at the Sobell Centre. We are looking at the phasing of works to the three leisure centres concerned to ensure that facilities are available in Islington at all times through the works. There will be ample training opportunities through other leisure centres and schools.

The Housing Act 1996 requires all social landlords to belong to the Housing Ombudsman Service but it does not include local councils such as Islington Council or its agents, Homes for Islington. Council tenants must complain to the Local Government Ombudsman.

Could you tell me who is the ombudsman for Tenant Management Organisations - both Council and social landlords such as Peabody Trust etc - as apparently neither the Housing nor Local Government Ombudsman addresses complaints regarding Tenant Management Organisations?

Reply:

The Local Government Ombudsman is the ombudsman for public services provided by councils, ALMOs and TMOs that manage council housing. The Housing Ombudsman Service is the ombudsman for housing associations and TMOs that manage housing association homes and so would not apply in the case example that Mr Worker gave.

The Local Government Ombudsman deals with complaints about the service provided to a resident or customer and does not investigate complaints about the internal running of an organisation. So, for example, misconduct by an elected councillor would not be investigated by the Local Government Ombudsman, but by the Standards Board for England. In the same way, the internal affairs of a TMO would not be investigated by the Ombudsman. Most TMOs are registered with the Financial Services Authority, and the FSA would have a role in investigating some complaints into the internal running of TMOs.

The management agreements of TMOs give their landlord, the Council, and in our case HFI, powers to deal with breaches of their management agreement. Members of a TMO have powers under the rules of the TMO to scrutinise the activities of its committees and staff and take action through decisions of general meetings.

Supplementary Question: You've got it wrong. Financial Services do not deal with TMOs - it's not stated in agreements with TMOs. There is no such thing - there is no means of residents making a complaint. Would you instruct TMOs to put into agreements who their Ombudsman is?

Reply: Regarding complaints from residents of TMOs, it is the Local Government Ombudsman, if the property is Council owned. If the property is housing association owned, it is the Housing Ombudsman. The FSA has a role even if limited by guarantee. Issues raised by John Worker are being investigated, but he is welcome to go to the Local Government Ombudsman.

MINUTES – 4 DECEMBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

(d) Rachel Tyler to Councillor Lucy Watt, Executive Member for the Environment

Is the Council aware of vehicles regularly driving above the speed limit along on Hornsey Street and what is the Council proposing to do?

Reply:

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. Speeding vehicles pose a danger to all road users and we take this issue very seriously.

I will arrange for an investigation to be carried out to establish the extent of the problem you have highlighted. This will include a speed survey, which will help our traffic engineers design and recommend an appropriate solution.

However, any proposals for improvements such as traffic calming, would be subject of consultation with all stakeholders, including local residents, businesses, waste depot operators, and emergency services.

Supplementary Question: How long will this take - we need action quickly?

Reply: Engineers will look at it as soon as possible, but I will ask them to write to you with a time-line.

(e) Andrew Berry to Councillor James Kempton, Leader of the Council (by arrangement, this question was answered by Councillor John Gilbert)

The Executive of the Council agreed in December 2005, to make a payment of approximately £3million pounds to Care UK. Recently the Director of Housing and Adult Social Services provided a budget for councillors showing that Care UK had spent £1,326,000 making compromise agreement payments to staff. The details of these payments were however not finally negotiated by the Council’s trade unions until February 2007, and could therefore not have formed part of original budget projections. Also quite strangely, the budget includes what I presume is a regular contractual payment to Care UK. Would Councillor Kempton agree that the Council plucked the figure of £3 million pounds from the air and that this budget has been made up in retrospect?

Reply: As the questionner was not present, the following written reply was sent:

The information provided to councillors gave the actual spend by Care UK. This made clear what was paid to staff for compromise agreements, as well as on holiday pay and overpayment write offs. A significant proportion of the Council’s payment to Care UK was part of its usual contractual payment to them, as was made clear in the briefing to councillors. The recent report on the Council’s dealings with Care UK makes it clear that older people in Islington have benefited from 3 new modern homes built and managed by Care UK which replaced poor quality homes in Islington. The report also makes clear that “the use of capital funds to reduce lifetime contract costs on this contract was a good business decision”. If the Council had not taken this step, local taxpayers would be paying much more over the life of the contract.

MINUTES – 4 DECEMBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

(f) Brian Gardner to Councillor James Kempton, Leader of the Council

The report of the internal review of the Council’s relationship with Care UK established that the council failed to obtain the authority of the Office Of the Deputy Prime Minster to capitalise funds as agreed at the December 2005 Executive. Given however that approximately £3 million was paid to Care UK, what budget did this money come from and when and how was it authorised?

Reply: As the questionner was not present, the following written reply was sent:

There have been suggestions made that the ODPM decision implies or demonstrates government disagreement with the payment to Care UK. This is not the case and to think otherwise is to read an implication into the CLG decision that was not intended.

It is quite normal for a Council application to be refused, the exception would be to have one approved.

The only question ODPM would have looked at is whether we could use capital resources for revenue expenditure. It is important to make clear that the refusal did not imply any value judgement on the part of ODPM about the purpose we wanted to use the money for. The refusal was based on technical criteria concerning the reduction of public sector debt and maintaining the Chancellor's fiscal rules.

Following the ODPM turning down the Council's request for a capitalisation direction, the Council was able to fund the payment to Care UK through an internal re-allocation of its resources. This process does not require approval by the ODPM as revenue funds were used and this did not impact on the then Chancellor's fiscal rules. If we had the revenue resources, which we did, they would not be concerned about us going ahead and using them for that purpose.

A budget was originally approved in the 2005-06 budget report for the Older Peoples Homes Business Case and was subsequently amended in the 2007-08 budget report. Full Council approved both reports.

The Council's budget report gives the Director of Finance delegated authority to apply capital resources to fund the ongoing capital programme in the most effective way for the Council. Through this process the Council was able to re-allocate its capital resources to replace the revenue funds used to pay Care UK. This enabled the Care UK contract variation to be paid for, without affecting the Council's overall resource position or budgets.

(g) Andy Hull to Councillor Ursula Woolley, Executive Member for Children and Young People

The best way Islington Council can help reduce youth crime and victimisation in our borough is to provide positive activities and safe spaces for our young people. Elizabeth House on Hurlock Street is the only centre providing such positive activities, and such a safe space, for young people in Highbury West. And yet Elizabeth House has to survive hand-to-mouth, its future uncertain, because it has no long-term funding in place. Will the Council please look at funding Elizabeth House in a sustainable way, and securing the future of this vital facility for young people in Highbury West?

MINUTES – 4 DECEMBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

Reply:

The Council supports Elizabeth House with funding to provide after school and holiday provision for primary school aged children because this is the group for whom its experience and expertise deliver a highly valued service for the community and add value to the offer in this part of the borough.

From 2008 all local authorities will have to allocate resources for services for young people on the basis of a robust needs assessment and this work is currently reaching its concluding stages in Islington. That will determine our priorities and planning for where services are to be provided. As we look to services to be commissioned in this area, we shall consider all the options for delivering what is needed and what young people tell us they want and need. If Elizabeth House wishes to be commissioned to provide a wider range of services, then the opportunity will exist at that time for discussions with the Council about what that might be.

Supplementary Question: When considering this, can I ask that you ask the young people from Elizabeth House what they want? As to the needs assessment, will you measure impacts on youth crime? There is an excellent youth worker at Elizabeth House.

Reply: I am happy to hear from young people about the facilities they feel they need.

(h) Marian Spall to Councillor Ursula Woolley, Executive Member for Children and Young People

What plans does the Council have to take responsibility for the £27,000 shortfall for youth projects in the Elthorne Estate, Miranda Estate and Archway Park areas?

Reply: The Council has no plans to take responsibility for this shortfall. The Council has never funded these projects directly but supported them professionally and levered in extra funding for them for particular projects from time to time. The Holland Walk Area Housing Panel has funded them for a number of years because the Panel clearly valued the contribution they made for local young people and the wellbeing of the local community. Unfortunately the Panel is planning not continuing to allocate resources from its £30,000 estate security budget to this important youth provision next year.

Local residents may wish to compensate for this decision and reduce the impact on their area through seeking funding from other funding sources.

The needs of this area will be considered alongside other local needs when, in accordance with government policy, the Council develops its commissioning plans for future services for young people on the basis of the needs assessment now being finalized. However the budget available, though higher than in most councils, will always benefit from being supplemented by additional sources of funding.

MINUTES – 4 DECEMBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

However the Council cannot make an open ended commitment to pick up these funding streams when they end. We shall therefore continue our successful approach of securing additional funding for services for young people from a wide variety of sources and we hope that groups of local residents and their elected representatives will continue to show their concern for their local children and young people by contributing resources from sources which they can access. It is also open to local young people to make a bid to the Youth Opportunities Fund, managed by local young people, for provision in their areas.

Supplementary Question: In the current climate there can be no greater priority, yet you are suggesting that housing panels should be funding these facilities. There is a crisis - the Council is not putting money in. Why should youth work for kids on Council estates be paid for by the residents and not by the Council?

Reply: Services are provided elsewhere in the borough, apart from what HFI choose to provide. In the past this has been of benefit to all across the borough. The Council has a commitment to provide high level activities no matter what the decision of the Area Housing Panel is.

5. ANNUAL REPORT OF THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE The Mayor formally moved, seconded by Councillor Stacy, the recommendation in the report.

Father Jim Kennedy, Chair of the Standards Committee, addressed the Council outlining the work of the Committee in the past year. He thanked all concerned for their work on Democracy Week.

He referred to the plan to re-visit area committees; he welcomed the new independent members to the Committee; the intention to consider scrutiny procedures and the need for the public to moderate their behaviour at area committees.

He also mentioned the Review on Services for Young People and the need for all to declare interests.

Councillors Watts, Stacy and Edwards contributed to a debate.

The Mayor, in conclusion, thanked Father Jim and the independent members of the Committee for their hard work during the past year.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

6. ISLINGTON'S SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY STRATEGY Councillor Kempton, seconded by Councillor Stacy, moved the adoption of the report.

Councillor Convery, seconded by Councillor West, moved the following amendment:

On page 11 of the draft (agenda page 59) amend 3rd bullet point to read:

'Raise the employment rate of the borough's residents to at least reach the national average by getting more people into sustainable work.'

MINUTES – 4 DECEMBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

On page 14 of the draft (agenda page 62) Add a further bullet point:

'During 2008, set an overall strategic target for affordable housing in the borough.'

Following debate - Councillors Ece, Edwards, Watts, Foxsmith, Paul Smith, Woolley, Greening, Stacy, Wally Burgess, Convery and Kempton, the amendment was put to vote and declared LOST.

RESOLVED: That Islington's Sustainable Strategy be endorsed.

7. ADULT SOCIAL SERVICES (Item 10.3) Councillor Ece, seconded by Councillor Belford, moved the motion in her name.

Councillor Kempton, seconded by Councillor Peasnell, moved the following amendment:

Council welcomes

insert new point 3. To read “The announcement on 29 November that the Government's Commission for Social Care and Inspection (CSCI) has awarded Islington's Adult Social Services Department three stars following its inspection for 2006/07, which is the highest ranking possible and builds on the steady improvements made in social services since 1999/2000 when the majority of performance indicators were in the lowest or next to lowest bands.”

After new point three add new paragraph “Council congratulates all the staff of Adult Social Services for their hard work and commitment to service users recognised by this 3 star ranking. Council notes that CSCI gave the department an "Excellent" ranking for leadership and commends Cllr John Gilbert, the lead member for Adult Social Services, the Director of Adult Social Services and her senior management team for the leadership they have shown in securing this achievement.”

On the original point three remove the numbering and after “service users” insert “and the recent ill informed and personal political attacks on Cllr John Gilbert by the Leader of the Opposition.”

I Insert new ‘Council notes’ section to read

“Council notes

1) That Islington remains one of 25% of councils across the country which have resisted the temptation to ration social services only to people with the most severe needs and continues to meet ‘moderate needs’ where council services can prevent dependency, such as through day centres for older people.

2) That thanks to Islington’s strong financial position, an extra £3 million was invested by Islington Council in adult social services in the 2007-08 budget to keep pace with demographic changes and to replace lost government funding.

Council applauds the recent improvements to social services provision delivered through the capital programme including the opening of Lennox House, the refurbishment of Orchard Close, and the re-openings of the Daylight Centre and the Alsen Day Centre.

MINUTES – 4 DECEMBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

Council resolves - add new point two and three

1) To thank Councillor John Gilbert for the role he has played in the last year and the strength of leadership and commitment he has brought to this service.

2) That councillors who have concerns about portfolio areas take up the many opportunities to talk with the relevant Executive Member before launching ill informed politically motivated attacks.”

Councillors Watts, Doolan, Gilbert, West, Peasnell, Spall, Foxsmith, Polling, Chatterjee and Belford contributed to the debate.

The amendment was put to the vote and declared CARRIED.

The motion, as amended, was put to the vote and declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED: That Council welcomes:

1) The many improvements in Adult Social Services in the last year.

2) The move towards individual budgets that will give care users the chance of a personalised service that meets their needs and will give them the freedom to make decisions for themselves about the care they need.

3) The announcement on 29th November that the Government's Commission for Social Care and Inspection ("CSCI") has awarded Islington's Adult Social Services Department three stars following its inspection for 2006/07, which is the highest ranking possible and builds on the steady improvements made in social services since 1999/2000 when the majority of performance indicators were in the lowest or next to lowest bands.

Council congratulates all the staff of Adult Social Services for their hard work and commitment to service users recognised by this 3 star ranking. Council notes that CSCI gave the department an "Excellent" ranking for leadership and commends Councillor John Gilbert, the lead member for Adult Social Services, the Director of Adult Social Services and her senior management team for the leadership they have shown in securing this achievement.

Council abhors the targets driven culture that national government is trying to create in councils which puts targets above the individual needs of service users and the recent ill informed and personal political attacks on Councillor John Gilbert by the Leader of the Opposition.

Council notes

MINUTES – 4 DECEMBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

Council resolves

1) To thank the many hard working social workers and other members of staff who improve services and work tirelessly to improve the lives of users.

2) To thank Councillor John Gilbert for the role he has played in the last year and the strength of leadership and commitment he has brought to this service.

3) That councillors who have concerns about portfolio areas take up the many opportunities to talk with the relevant Executive Member before launching ill informed politically motivated attacks.

8. COUNCIL FUNDING FOR VITAL YOUTH WORK (Item 10.7) Councillor Watts, seconded by Councillor Wally Burgess, moved the motion in his name.

Councillor Woolley, seconded by Councillor Ece, moved the following amendment:

In point 1 delete “the decision of” and insert “with concern the declared intention of the”. After 2008/09 delete “following its concerns that these services should be funded by Islington Council.” insert “after funding these projects for several years because of tenants’ and residents’ support for them, and despite a campaign of opposition now mounted by residents and councillors”

After point 1 insert new paragraphs to read “This Council is committed through the Review of Services for Young People, now taking place, to ensuring an equitable and accessible spread of excellent services for young people throughout the borough, and to maintaining and improving the high levels of coverage and accessibility of youth services which currently exist in Islington.

“This Council is also committed, on the basis of the outstanding example of the work of Listen Up, to leading the way in the involvement of young people in influencing the services they use and in managing and distributing grant-funding for an increasing portion of those services.

“This Council notes with appreciation and respect the work of local residents’ groups, voluntary sector organisations and ward councillors who have secured project funding from a range of outside sources over many years on behalf of young people in their own neighbourhoods and as an indication of the seriousness of their support for them.”

Point 2 remove “the following youth projects are currently funded by this budget” insert “In this context, this Council notes with regret the concern and anxiety of the young people who currently benefit from the youth projects which are funded by the Holland Walk Area Housing Panel:” Delete “these are vital services for our young people and hard working families and must be protected.”

After “Council therefore” delete “resolves to request that the Executive should fully fund these projects.” Insert “urges the Holland Walk Area Housing Panel to listen to all the residents it represents, including most importantly the young people who do not have a voice on the Panel, and reconsider its declared intention before final decisions are taken at its meeting in January.”

Councillors West and Janet Burgess contributed to a debate.

MINUTES – 4 DECEMBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

A recorded vote was demanded on the amendment which showed

For the amendment: Councillors Allan, Belford, Berent, Boffa, Cornwell, Dunlop, Ece, Fieran- Reed, Foxsmith, Gilbert, Ismail, Jamieson-Ball, Kasprzyk, Kempton, Peasnell, Polling, Ray, Barbara Smith, Stacy, Vaja, Watts, Williams, Willoughby and Woolley (24).

Against the amendment: Councillors Janet and Wally Burgess, Chatterjee, Chowdhury, Convery, Joan and Shelley Coupland, Dawson, Debono, Doolan, Edwards, Greening, Hamitouche, Hulls, Kelly, Klute, Murray, Perry, Sidnell, Paul Smith, Spall, Watts and West (23).

The amendment was declared CARRIED.

The motion, as amended, was put to the vote and declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED: This Council notes with concern the declared intention of the Holland Walk Area Housing Panel to withdraw around £27,000 of funding for youth services from its HFI security budget for 2008/9, after funding these projects for several years because of tenants’ and residents’ support for them, and despite a campaign of opposition now mounted by residents and councillors.

This Council is committed through the Review of Services for Young People now taking place to ensuring an equitable and accessible spread of excellent services for young people throughout the borough, and to maintaining and improving the high levels of coverage and accessibility of youth services which currently exist in Islington.

This Council is also committed, on the basis of the outstanding example of the work of Listen Up, to leading the way in the involvement of young people in influencing the services they use and in managing and distributing grant-funding for an increasing portion of those services.

This Council notes with appreciation and respect, the work of local residents’ groups, voluntary sector organisations and ward councillors who have secured project funding from a range of outside sources over many years on behalf of young people in their own neighbourhoods and as an indication of the seriousness of their support for them.

In this context, this Council notes with regret the concern and anxiety of the young people who currently benefit from the youth projects which are funded by the Holland Walk Area Housing Panel:

Elthorne Youth Club, Miranda Estate The Partnership Project covering the Brecknock Estate Ivinghoe, Lower Saxonbury Estate McCall House

Council therefore urges the Holland Walk Area Housing Panel to listen to all the residents it represents, including most importantly the young people who do not have a voice on the Panel, and reconsider its declared intention before final decisions are taken at its meeting in January.

MINUTES – 4 DECEMBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

9. REVIEW OF LICENSING POLICY The Mayor reminded Members that the report, under the name of Councillor Ray, had been sent second despatch so that the comments of the Licensing Committee, which had met the previous Wednesday, could be incorporated. Further legal advice had been supplied by the Director of Corporate Resources relating to the decisions of that Committee.

There were two technical amendments to the Director’s report - (i) on page 9 under Option 3 Licensing Policy 22, add the words 'and apply for a licence under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 if required.' and (ii) on page 10, to the first set of bullet points, add another reading 'residential accommodation.'

Councillor Ray, seconded by Councillor Edwards, moved the adoption of the report and the Licensing Policy as amended.

RESOLVED: That the Licensing Policy attached as Appendix A to the circulated report, as amended in the report of the Director of Corporate Resources and by the amendments set out above, be agreed.

10. CALLOVER At 10.30pm, in accordance with the Constitution, the following business was dealt with under the closure procedure. Motions were deemed to be formally moved and seconded.

11. REPORT OF CHIEF WHIP (Item 8) A number of amendments were notified to the Council during the moving of this item and which are contained in the following resolutions.

1. LONDON HOUSING CONSORTIUM

RESOLVED: That Councillor Laura Willoughby be appointed deputy representative on the London Housing Consortium for the remainder of the 2007/08 municipal year or until a successor is appointed.

2. WHITTINGTON HOSPITAL AND HOME TUITION SERVICE - MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP

RESOLVED: That Councillor Marisha Ray be appointed as the Council's representative on the Management Advisory Group of the Whittington Hospital and Home Tuition Service for the remainder of the 2007/08 municipal year or until a successor is appointed.

3. CENTRAL LONDON FORWARD

RESOLVED: That the Leader of the Council (Councillor James Kempton) and Councillor Terry Stacy be appointed to serve as the Council’s representative and deputy representative respectively on the Board of Central London Forward for the remainder of the 2007/08 municipal year or until successors are appointed.

MINUTES – 4 DECEMBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

4. LICENSING COMMITTEE

RESOLVED: That Councillor Laura Willoughby be appointed to serve on the Licensing Committee for the remainder of the 2007/08 municipal year or until a successor is appointed.

5. PERFORMANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE

RESOLVED: That Councillor Daniel Hulls be replaced by Councillor Richard Watts on the Performance Review Committee with Councillor Theresa Debono becoming a substitute for the remainder of the 2007/08 municipal year or until successors are appointed.

12. QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL The following written replies were sent to Members

(a) Councillor Andrew Cornwell to Councillor Lucy Watt, Executive Member for the Environment

I enjoyed attending Islington's successful European Car Free Day event in September, but I noted that as in previous years it was held at a location (Whitecross Street and Banner Street) that is often free of traffic already. Now that the Mayor of London is finally taking Car Free Day seriously, by closing the centre of the capital for the London Freewheel cycling event, would you agree that it is time Islington's event was moved to a more high profile location?

Reply: Thank you for your inquiry. It is great to have so much support for Car Free Day.

Islington Council has organised four highly successful Car Free Day events over the past four years, since 22 September 2003. Each year, the European, national and Londonwide guidelines for the event have changed slightly, including a standard theme (e.g. road safety, accessibility, etc), and with Transport for London (TfL) placing conditions on the funding we receive.

For the past two years, TfL funding has been dependent on linking the event with a permanent measure that supports sustainable transport. Therefore Islington's 2006 event at Cowcross Street, Farringdon, was used to consult on potential station improvements. The Council has since delivered the most preferred option. The September 2007 event celebrated improvements to the Whitecross Street market, and also consulted on a trial pedestrianisation of the end of Whitecross Street. The response to the consultation was overwhelmingly supportive and we are about to introduce the trial closure. The Council is keen to put on its largest Car Free Day event ever in 2008, and has recently been allocated £20K by TfL specifically for this event. We are now looking into the highest profile suitable site for such an event. We hope to announce the location in due course, and would welcome any suggestions.

(b) Councillor Andrew Cornwell to Councillor Lucy Watt, Executive Member for the Environment

Can you update Councillors on what progress has been made towards implementing the motion on removing gyratory road systems that was passed by Council on 26 June 2007?

MINUTES – 4 DECEMBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

Reply: Almost all the major gyratory systems in the borough are Transport for London roads, and we therefore need to work closely with TfL to look at how these systems can be improved. We have been extremely successful at lobbying TfL on this issue, and good progress has been made with looking at all the major gyratory schemes in the borough – not just those mentioned in the question. We are also very determined that any proposals to remove gyratory systems are properly coordinated with proposals to improve adjoining stations – particularly at Archway, Highbury Corner and Finsbury Park - and we are working hard to ensure that this happens.

In more detail:

1. Highbury Corner Roundabout The Council has allocated over £60,000 to develop and consult on proposals to transform the Highbury Corner roundabout. Transport for London has contributed a further £300,000. Public consultation on three options for improving the Highbury Corner roundabout started on 12 November 2007. Consultation is being carried out on options to remove either the western or northern arms of the roundabout, and a do-minimum option. Subject to the outcome of consultation, and if funding becomes available, works to improve the roundabout could begin in 2009 and finish by 2011. The outcome of the consultation on the options will be known in Summer 2008.

2. Archway Roundabout After lobbying from the Council and local residents, Transport for London has identified the Archway roundabout as one of the ten gyratory systems that it is looking to improve across London. It has recently allocated £250,000 for a feasibility study to investigate how the gyratory, interchange, and public realm at Archway can be improved. Consultants have been appointed to carry out the study, which is due to be completed by Spring 2008.

3. Old Street Roundabout In 2005 the Council allocated £50,000 to undertake a transport study of the Old Street area. Following this study, the Council has been working with Transport for London and the London Borough of Hackney to bring forward options to redesign the Old Street roundabout. TfL invested £150,000 to commission this work. A number of design options are currently being refined before consultation is carried out. In anticipation of larger scale changes to the roundabout, Transport for London has allocated £250,000 to undertake improvements to the triangular area between the roundabout and the Promenade of Light.

4. Kings Cross – York Way/ Wharfdale Road one-way system The Council would like to see York Way returned to two-way working, at least for buses, with the removal of the gyratory system via Wharfdale Road. Studies by the London Borough of Camden and Transport for London indicate that there is inadequate capacity at the junction of York Way and Pentonville Road to facilitate this change. Nevertheless Transport for London have agreed that new traffic counts will be carried out approximately three and six months after St Pancras station opens and local traffic levels have stabilised. This will enable us to reassess whether re-introducing two-way working would be feasible.

MINUTES – 4 DECEMBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

5. Nag’s Head One-way System In Spring 2007 Transport for London commissioned consultants to develop a Network Management Plan for the A503 (A400). This includes the Nag’s Head one-way system and the Blackstock Road/ Rock Street one-way system at Finsbury Park. As part of this process the Council has asked TfL to assess the potential scope to remove both one-way systems and introduce two-way working on these streets.

6. Brecknock Road/ York Way gyratory The Council and the London Borough of Camden have jointly commissioned consultants to undertake an integrated multi-modal corridor study of Brecknock Road/ York Way. As part of this study the removal of the one-way road system of Camden Road and Torriano Avenue will be assessed. Public consultation on options to improve the corridor is anticipated to take place next year.

What support is the Council offering to Islington schools to help increase take-up of school meals?

Reply: This Council has listened to parents on the matter of school meals and entered into a partnership with a contractor who shares our emphasis on providing high quality, nutritious, and most importantly tasty meals to children in Islington schools. As a result Islington schools are bucking the national trend. Whilst nationally the emerging picture is one of reduced school meals take-up, at schools in the Caterlink contract the take-up of meals is up by 4% compared to this time last year.

We know though that the take-up of meals is not just related to the quality of food on offer – we need to take a whole school approach. We are therefore continuing to encourage and support schools to achieve the healthy schools standard, and are pleased with the progress we are making. And we also ran a programme of training for midday meals supervisors to ensure that they have the skills and knowledge necessary to help children enjoy healthy meals in a pleasant environment.

(d) Councillor Richard Watts to Councillor Ursula Woolley, Executive Member for Children and Young People

How will the Council implement the Government and School Food Trust's 'Million Meals' campaign to increase take-up of school lunches?

Reply: Whilst we are pleased that each day 240 more Islington children are eating a school meal than last year, we are not complacent. The proportion of children eating a school meal varies considerably from school to school. Amongst children eligible for a free meal, take-up varies from just 60% to more than 80%. We will work with Caterlink and the schools with lower take- up to try to establish the reasons for these differences, for example whether additional staff training would be helpful, and will also encourage Caterlink to organise events such as taster sessions for pupils and parents.

MINUTES – 4 DECEMBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

(e) Councillor Catherine West to Councillor Andrew Cornwell, Executive Member for Resources

Do you believe that it is acceptable for customers to be kept waiting on the line for 'Contact Islington' to pick up the phone for a period of 5 minutes and 49 seconds?

Reply:

No.

(f) Councillor Catherine West to Councillor Ursula Woolley, Executive Member for Children and Young People

How many school playgrounds are currently used as car parking for teachers in this borough when streets outside are empty due to the current parking policy in the borough and do you think with the lack of play space available to our children the current situation is acceptable and in addition, with childhood obesity as high as it is in Islington do you think you as a member for children ought to be more pro-active in dealing with this regrettable situation?

Reply: Thank you for raising this important issue with me. We strongly believe that encouraging children and young people to take physical exercise is vital to their physical and mental well - being. We have therefore set ourselves a challenging target to do better than the national average in this respect.

I am therefore delighted to say that Islington schools have exceeded the national target for the percentage of school children who participate in more than two hours a week of high quality PE and school sport. The national target is that 80% of schoolchildren should do more than two hours a week. Last year 88% of Islington schoolchildren did more than two hours a week – a remarkable increase from the previous year when we achieved 75%. I hope that you will join me in congratulating our school children on this great achievement.

We also work hard to encourage teachers, students and other members of the school community to walk and cycle to school, and use public transport. Informal exercise taken through a daily walk or cycle ride can be just as beneficial as more structured exercise. To this end we have set ourselves a target of ensuring that all schools in the borough have adopted a school travel plan by 2008. Through the school travel plan process we provide measures that promote walking and cycling to teachers and students, for example:

- Car sharing promotion to staff through staff meetings and posters and leaflets; - Cycle training and promotion of cycle facilities (i.e. cycle storage; showers; lockers); - Promote the Free Cycle Parking Initiative; - Promote public transport links and cycle routes to staff members – by distributing Islington Public Transport and Cycling Packs.

When planning consent is given for new schools we require the school to prepare a school travel plan, and we look to reduce the level of parking that is provided within the school boundaries.

Most primary schools either use an area of their playground as car parking or have a separate car park often incorporating the access road to the kitchen area. These are the latest figures available for primary schools (excluding Prior Weston and St Mary Magdalene that are currently being re-developed).

MINUTES – 4 DECEMBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

- Car parking within playground = 11 - Dedicated and separate car park = 20 - None = 7 - No information = 5

As you know all these matters in relation to secondary schools will be reviewed as part of the BSF programme. Finally, I do not know of any schools where the use of playgrounds for teacher parking means that children are unable to take part in active play. I would be grateful if you could provide me with some examples, and I will, of course, take this up with the individual schools.

(g) Councillor Janet Burgess to Councillor Lucy Watt, Executive Member for the Environment

Given that the costs of the parking referendum have to be recouped by increased revenue, could Councillor Watt please let me know how much has been raised to date in increased revenue from parking permit charges, and what action the Council is taking to make sure that people who have cars registered before 2001 are not charged unfairly in the mistaken belief that their vehicles are high-polluters; I refer particularly to the case of my constituent whose parking charge went up from £95 to £160 although he drives a modest Volkswagen; after complaining, his charge was reduced to £55.

Reply: Our green parking policy is about encouraging people to switch to less polluting vehicles, not about making money. That’s why we designed the charges so that our income from parking permits is going to be revenue neutral overall, unlike many other boroughs introducing a similar system.

In Islington the vast majority of local residents - two thirds - pay less than they did previously, while those who have chosen cars that have a greater impact on the environment - pay more.

The first three months of permit sales under the new charging structure has led to income on average £10,000 a month higher than the same period last year, although new controlled parking zones areas have been introduced in the borough in the last year. We forecast that this amount will drop as the policy influences people choice of car, and residents switch to less polluting cars, which would fall into a lower band of permit charges.

With regard to individual cases, we’ve always been clear that there would be a majority of winners and a smaller number losers under this policy, because it’s about rewarding people for driving less polluting vehicles, while making the polluter pay more. We’ve calculated CO2 emissions for cars registered before 2001 using the same system as Camden, Richmond and Lambeth councils, who have all introduced similar policies. It’s the same one the Mayor of London will use for his congestion charging policy, and is generally recognised as the most reliable and consistent means of working out how much pollution a vehicle causes. We explained this in detail in the referendum papers sent to every house in the borough. More than 28 per cent of residents voted (similar to most local elections) and 56 per cent voted yes - a clear majority in every ward. For all these reasons we will not be granting further appeals, but as a gesture of goodwill we will not ask your constituent to repay the difference for this year.

MINUTES – 4 DECEMBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

But green parking charges are just one part of a bigger picture. Islington now has London's fastest growing membership of Streetcar - Britain's largest car club - as more people seek greener alternatives to car ownership, with 29 cars across the borough that people can use, without needing to own their own car. We're installing hundreds of bike racks across the borough, and delivering "Safer Routes to Schools" programmes. As a council, we’ve made it a top priority to do our bit to help tackle climate change by reducing local carbon emissions - most people agree we all need to make lifestyle changes to make Islington greener, and there's clearly a lot of support out there for policies that help people make these changes. It’s important to remember that we asked local people about green parking - and it was a change most residents felt we should be making.

(h) Councillor Michael O'Sullivan to Councillor Terry Stacy, Executive Member for Housing and Communities.

In the light of your interest in the current Housing Green Paper, did you make a submission to the Department of Communities and Local Government on this issue. If so, could you make a copy of their submission to members and the Islington public. And if not, why not?

Reply: As Vice-Chair of the London Councils Housing Forum I helped facilitate a cross party/cross London response, a copy of which I will gladly provide to you as I welcome your sudden interest in housing in the borough. I can assure you that we have had input to that.

This I believe is a comprehensive response and will continue to form the basis of representations to government by this Council.

There would have been little point in replying as an individual borough. It is clear from the haste with which the Housing Bill followed the consultation period and the lack of change to the green paper, that the consultation was nothing more than farcical.

(i) Councillor Michael O'Sullivan to Councillor Jyoti Vaja, Chair of South Area Committee.

Reply: No. Councillor Stacy is the Vice Chair of the London Council Housing Forum and he helped facilitate a cross party/cross London response to the Housing Green Paper. There would have been little point in replying as an individual or as an individual borough. It is clear from the haste with which the Housing Bill followed the consultation period and the lack of change to the green paper, that the consultation was nothing more than farcical.

(j) Councillor Barry Edwards to Councillor Terry Stacy, Executive Member for Housing and Communities

Have you had any contact with the Sustainable Energy Academy?

MINUTES – 4 DECEMBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

Reply: As I am sure you are aware, the SEA is the charitable arm of the Energy Centre for Sustainable Communities, and that the organisation focuses its work on domestic energy efficiency. We are very lucky as up until recently one of the staff in the advice team at the Green Living Centre used to work there. Our Energy Centre, now expanded into the Green Living Centre, is well networked with other organisations with similar aims, including the SEA. Our Energy Manager chairs the London Borough Energy Group, and sits on the steering group of the London Energy Partnership.

Islington Council advises over 10,000 households a year on energy efficiency, and is part of a consortium which has just won the Energy Savings Trust tender to provide energy saving advice for the whole of London for which I would like to put on record my congratulations.

We were recently commended by Defra for our Home Energy Conservation Act work to promote domestic energy efficiency and save carbon in the borough.

(k) Councillor Barry Edwards to Councillor Ruth Polling, Executive Member for Leisure and Equalities

Now that we are safe from killer pears, are there any other arboreal threats in wait for the people of Islington?

Reply: We were all able to enjoy a laugh at the coverage of the pear trees in St Johns Villas but there was a serious issue behind it. The Council had received strong representations from residents of the street who wanted the trees removed and once the signage went up we also received strong representations from those who wanted the pear trees retained. I am pleased to say that we listened to all residents’ views and in this instance were able to come to a compromise solution.

Three years ago the Council took a massive step forward in the way that it managed its trees. All highway trees are managed on a three year cyclical programme. We are now approaching the end of the last year. By spring 2008, every highway tree will have been inspected and any work required as defined by the tree policy will have been completed. By undertaking a three year cyclical programme we have uncovered problem issues that have not been tackled and attempted to resolve them. Trees can become a danger for a variety of reasons including damage from vehicles, vandalism and diseases making them unstable and at risk of falling or trees planted in inappropriate locations causing subsidence. Wherever possible we have resolved these issues through remedial work but we do have to remove trees as a last option in some cases. This was always highlighted as a risk of the implementation of such a programme but is outweighed by the benefits of a healthy and increasing tree stock. In the future only problems which have occurred since the previous inspection will have to be dealt with and so there will be far fewer trees which present any risks to the public on our streets.

Islington Council is rightly proud of its 40,000 trees of which over 10,000 are on our streets. We have more street trees per linear kilometre than any other London borough and only two other boroughs have increased their total number of trees more than us. We have increased the size of the Tree Service which is dedicated to protecting our tree resource and to ensuring that there will be more Council trees than we have at present for future generations.

MINUTES – 4 DECEMBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

13. NOTICES OF MOTION (Item 10) 1. TAXMAN'S ATTACKS ON LEISURE SERVICES Councillor Polling moved, duly seconded, the motion in her name.

RESOLVED: That 1. Council notes that Government policy has the stated intention of increasing physical activity and that policy paper Choosing Activity: a physical activity action plan sets out the Government's plans to encourage and co-ordinate the action of a range of departments and organisations to achieve this.

2. Council supports this Government initiative which is reflected in our own Proactive Strategy.

3. Council believes that physical activity and sport helps to reduce incidences of mental health problems, improve educational attainment, help cut crime, strengthen communities, and reduce the burden on the resources of the National Health Service.

4. Council notes the policy of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs on all-inclusive leisure facilities schemes, as advised in Revenue & Customs Brief 50/07, that leisure centre membership inclusive of taxable activities such as use of the sauna, will be charged full VAT on both taxable and non-taxable elements.

5. Council therefore notes that any membership of Islington leisure facilities inclusive of sauna usage will now incur a full 17.5% VAT charge.

6. Council expresses concern that if HMRC do not change their minds Aquaterra will be forced to offer the options of membership without sauna use or much more expensive memberships. This will make membership a less attractive option and is likely to discourage people from joining.

7. Council further expresses concern that, until Aquaterra can change their prices, this ruling is costing £10,000 a week which would normally be reinvested in facilities, and will cost a lot more if the payment is backdated as currently planned. While Aquaterra’s financial planning will allow them to survive this, across the country leisure trusts are at risk of going out of business, further undermining the Government’s aims.

8. Council therefore believes that this ruling by HMRC and the policy to increase physical activity are contradictory, indicative of a regrettable lack of joined-up working in Central Government.

9. Council therefore resolves to support Aquaterra and other leisure trusts through the Sports and Recreation Trusts Association to legally and politically challenge this VAT ruling.

10. Council instructs the Executive Member for Leisure and Equalities to write to the Minister for Sport demanding he meet with the relevant Minister at the Treasury and officials from HMRC to protest this discrepancy in Government policy and to reverse this judgement to help achieve the goal of increasing physical activity.

2. BOTTLED WATER

Councillor Kempton moved, duly seconded, the motion in his name.

MINUTES – 4 DECEMBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

RESOLVED: That Council notes that 1. London tap water is safe to drink

2. shipping bottled water increases carbon emissions and creates billions of plastic bottles, which then require recycling or end up in landfill

3. bottled water is unnecessary, tap water can be easily filtered, chilled and put into reusable containers, reducing waste, saving money and cutting carbon emissions.

That Council resolves

1. To stop the use of bottled water in Islington Council buildings, and at Council meetings.

2. That the Leader of the Council will champion this, and work with the Council’ s Green Liaison Officers and facilities teams to make sure this happens as soon as is practical.

3. ADULT SOCIAL SERVICES

This was considered earlier in the meeting.

4. NO CONFIDENCE IN EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR HEALTH AND ADULT SOCIAL CARE

Councillor West moved, duly seconded, the motion in her name.

Following a vote, the motion was declared LOST.

5. SAFETY AT ARCHWAY

Councillor Janet Burgess moved, duly seconded, the motion in her name.

Councillor Woolley, seconded by Councillor Kasprzyk, moved the following amendment.

Point one remove “Within a week, two men were stabbed in separate incidents” insert “This is in the context of a significant reduction in serious crime in the area: Council puts on record its gratitude for the commitment and quality of work of the outgoing Junction Ward Safer Neighbourhoods Team Sergeant Andy Henthorn and the achievement this represents for him and his team.”

Point 2. Remove “therefore conduct an urgent review, in partnership with the” Insert “ask local” before police and insert “teams and TfL “ after then remove “into” after “station can be” insert “made safer” remove “be improved so as to make people feel more safe.” After “This will include” remove “looking into” insert “evaluating the existing” reomove “extra” before CCTV and “security” before “lighting”.

Point 3. Insert “Through the relevant supplementary planning documents Council is committed” delete to “Council will also consider the levels of crime in the area when” insert “considering safety as part “ before “of any future” delete”Since the area is in urgent need of regeneration” It is important that replace “all” with “any” remove “seek to” and after “area” insert “rather than exacerbate ongoing problems “ remove “not add to existing issues”. After “Council” insert “is committed to” remove “will” and replace “consider” with “considering” insert “overarching” before “aims of regeneration”.

MINUTES – 4 DECEMBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

Point 4. After “business owners” remove “on such developments” after is crucial add “to the success of any regeneration project”. And remove “ if Archway’s regeneration is to be successful.” After “Where” insert “possible” after “future” remove “Council” after consultations add “whose purpose is to” replace discussing with discuss and insert “the future of delete “issues that affect” after “local people” insert “as they have been to date”.

Following votes on the amendment and the amended motion, it was:

RESOLVED: 1. Council notes with concern the two separate stabbing incidents which recently occurred at Archway Tube station. This is in the context of a significant reduction in serious crime in the area. Council puts on record its gratitude for the commitment and quality of work of the outgoing Junction Ward Safer Neighbourhoods Team Sergeant Andy Henthorn and the achievement this represents for him and his team.

2. Following these attacks, residents have reiterated concerns that they feel unsafe in the area. This Council will ask local police teams and TfL how the immediate area outside the tube station can be made safer. This will include evaluating the existing provision of CCTV and security lighting. 3. Through the relevant supplementary planning documents, the Council is committed to considering safety as part of any future developments at Archway. It is important that any future development improve the area rather than exacerbate ongoing problems. Council is committed to considering the overarching aims of regeneration and improvement in making any decision affecting the area.

4. Consultation with local residents and business owners is crucial to the success of any regeneration project. Where possible, all future meetings and consultations whose purpose is to discuss the future of Archway will therefore be held in the area to facilitate the contributions of local people as they have been to date.

6. PARKING SCHEME FOR USERS OF PLACES OF WORSHIP ON ARSENAL MATCH DAYS

Councillor Paul Smith, duly seconded, moved the motion in his name.

Councillor Stacy, seconded by Councillor Willoughby, moved the following amendment:

Point 1. After “Council” delete “will” change develop to developed. After “Arsenal Match Day” insert “’s in the closure zone last September, which is currently in the trial stage to determine its suitability for permanent introduction. Vouchers are provided to ministers to distribute to their congregation, to be supplied to older or disabled people who need to travel by car, or to facilitate parking for special services.”

Point 2. After Council remove “will consult with leaders and members of places of worship on exactly what they require from this scheme” insert “notes that only one congregation has so far taken up this scheme, so asks the Executive Member for Housing and Communities to write to all places of worship within the Match Day CPZ recommending the scheme and inviting comment”.

Point 3. After “report back with” insert “results from the trial scheme” after “and” insert “if appropriate” delete “the new scheme” and insert “its permanent introduction”.

Following votes on the amendment and the amended motion, it was

MINUTES – 4 DECEMBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

RESOLVED: 1. Council developed a scheme to facilitate parking for those attending places of worship on Arsenal match day’s in the closure zone last September, which is currently in the trial stage to determine its suitability for permanent introduction. Vouchers are provided to ministers to distribute to their congregation, to be supplied to older or disabled people who need to travel by car, or to facilitate parking for special services.

2. Council notes that only one congregation has so far taken up this scheme, so asks the Executive Member for Housing and Communities to write to all places of worship within the Match Day CPZ recommending the scheme and inviting comment.

3. Council will receive a report back with results from the trial scheme and, if appropriate, with proposals for its permanent introduction.

7. COUNCIL FUNDING FOR VITAL YOUTH WORK

This was considered earlier in the meeting.

8. CAPITAL MOVES

Councillor Stacy moved, duly seconded, the motion in his name and, in so doing, added the following paragraph :

“5. Council welcomes the climb down by the Mayor, in the face of opposition, to a target of only 5% of relets going into Capital Moves by 2012, but feels that far more discussion still needs to be had before this scheme can be palatable to London boroughs.”

Councillor Convery, seconded by Councillor Greening, moved the following amendment:

Following “Council notes” replace the text with the following”:

“that the Mayor's draft strategy has begun a debate about how we should address the crisis of affordability and supply in a city that is growing by about 50,000 people a year. The Mayor's draft suggests one way to make London's affordable housing system work better and it deserves to be considered calmly and rationally.

2. Council also recognise that greater housing mobility is needed within London but there should be a fair and effective allocation of new affordable housing. Council believes that many Islington tenants and people on our waiting lists aspire to move to other boroughs especially those where there is a traditional pattern of migration. We acknowledge that Islington, like most other inner London boroughs has always accommodated a mobile and changing population and we have traditionally welcomed arrivals from elsewhere in London, the UK and overseas.

3. However, we believe that our ambition to make Islington a more sustainable community also requires us to try and offer homes to many people whose families have roots in the borough. We recognise that Islington's massive building programme of the 1970s and 1980s has created a generational bulge of young adults, many of whom were new arrivals in the borough with their parents a couple of decades ago. The pace of affordable house building has not been sustained in recent years and, combined with huge increases in land values the market has pushed home ownership out of reach for these families.

4. We also recognise that considerable inter-borough mobility already exists, not least because many larger RSLs have the ability to offer tenancies across several different boroughs.

MINUTES – 4 DECEMBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

5. Council also recognises that many of the sites that are suitable for new affordable homes are unequally distributed across London and, for all boroughs to benefit, there should be a mix of locally determined affordable housing supply that is balanced by London-wide allocations.

6. However, Council believes that some London boroughs are not prepared to make a proportionate contribution and we recognise the valid anxieties of many boroughs that, under a more centralised scheme, they will be less able to house people who are on their own housing lists.

7. We believe that London needs a bold and effective solution to the continuing housing crisis. The Mayor's draft strategy should be considered as such and we commit this borough to engage in a considered debate about how the Mayor's new powers could be exercised.

On a vote the amendment was LOST. The motion as amended by Councillor Stacy was AGREED.

RESOLVED: 1. Council notes that the draft Mayor’s Housing Strategy proposes that all new affordable homes are incorporated into the Capital Moves programme and offered to applicants across London.

2. Council recognises that mobility is important, but expresses concern that the Mayor’s strategy will:

- reduce the accessibility of new-build affordable housing in Islington to local residents - reduce local support for affordable housing developments - risk taking advantage of boroughs that are building more affordable housing, such as Islington, which built more affordable housing in the last year than Camden, Haringey and Westminster combined - take decision making out of the hands of locally elected representatives.

3. Council believes that Capital Moves represents yet another centralisation of power into the hands of the Mayor of London.

4. Council therefore resolves to prepare and submit a response to the public consultation on the draft Mayor’s Housing Strategy highlighting these concerns and demanding that the importance of local lettings policies be properly taken into account.

5. Council welcomes the climbdown by the Mayor, in the face of opposition, to a target of only 5% of relets going into Capital Moves by 2012, but feels that far more discussion still needs to be had before this scheme can be palatable to London boroughs.

9. 20mph ROAD SAFETY LIMIT IN ISLINGTON

Councillor Dawson, duly seconded, moved the motion in her name. Councillor Edwards, seconded by Councillor Debono, moved the following amendment:

Point 1 of “The Council, accordingly, calls on the Executive”: insert a comma after “roads” and add “except major roads,”

Point 2 of “The Council, accordingly, calls on the Executive”: replace with “To liaise with TfL on how to rigorously enforce the existing 30mph speed limit on all other roads.

This amendment was put to the vote and declared LOST.

MINUTES – 4 DECEMBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

Councillor Cornwell, seconded by Councillor Watt, moved the following amendment:

In point 8 after “That work is already successfully underway in”, add “Liberal Democrat controlled”.

In point 9 delete “that the Council has recently introduced” and insert “That since 2002 Lib Dem Islington has been committed to implementing 20mph speed limits and that since then a total of twenty-one 20mph zones have been introduced with resident support. This includes” before “a 20mph zone”

Add new point 11 reading: “That the 2006 Liberal Democrat manifesto committed Islington Council to completing the 20mph zone programme in all areas of the borough where residents wish to see such speed limits.”

Add a new point 12 reading: “That the implementation of a further four 20mph zones is planned for 2008 in the Caledonian, St George’s, Dove Road, and Highbury Grange areas.”

Add a new point 13 reading: “That the programme of 20mph zones has helped contribute to an overall fall in the numbers of people killed and seriously injured on Islington’s roads from 174 in 2002 to 81 in 2006”

Add a new point 14 reading: “That on 22 November, the Council’s Executive approved a contingency bid of £60,000 in order to accelerate preliminary design and consultation on a 20mph zone in the Mercers Road area.”

Add a new point 15 reading: “That the principal road network in Islington (including roads such as Upper Street, Islington High Street, Holloway Road; Pentonville Road, City Road, Seven Sisters, Isledon Road, Camden Road, Farringdon Road and King’s Cross Road) is under the control of Transport for London, who have not to date supported the introduction of 20mph limits on their highways.”

Add a new point 16 reading: That TfL roads are not simply through routes, but roads where thousands of residents live, work and shop and attend schools and colleges.

Insert after “be extended to all residents in the borough”, the words “if they want it”.

In point one replace “bring forward proposals for” with “continue the successful Lib Dem policy of”, and inserts “after roads under the Council’s control,” the words “in response to residents and with approval of residents.”

Insert a new point 2 reading: “To discuss with TfL the enforcement of the existing speed limit on TfL roads in Islington.”

After “introducing a 20mph limit on TfL roads in Islington” insert the words “where residents are concerned that the current 30mph limits are not sufficiently low.”

Insert a new point 4 reading: “To lobby the Metropolitan Police to give a higher priority to enforcing the current speed limits on our roads.”

This was put to the vote and declared CARRIED.

MINUTES – 4 DECEMBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

RESOLVED: The Council notes:

1. That the recent report by the Parliamentary Advisory Committee for Transport Safety (dated 16 October 2007) recommended a default speed limit of 20mph in all built up areas, to be implemented in ways achieving high levels of compliance.

2. That the typical stopping distance for a car travelling at 30mph is approximately double that for a car travelling at 20mph (23m as against 12m).

3. That at 40mph, nine out of ten pedestrians hit by a car are killed, and at 30mph half of them are killed, while at 20mph over nine out of ten pedestrians will survive.

4. That lower vehicle speeds and steadier driving will help cut harmful pollution by greenhouse gases, and by pollutants such as carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides which affect breathing and heart conditions, thus improving local air quality and the health of residents as well as protecting the global environment.

5. That reducing traffic speeds has been shown to lessen public perception of danger on the roads and thereby to enhance walking and cycling rates, particularly among children, with corresponding improvements to health and quality of life.

6. That traffic flow can be improved by steadier driving, and that overall journey times in built up areas are only marginally increased by a 20mph limit (adding just 3 minutes to an average urban journey to work).

7. That a recent study of trial 20mph zones in Britain showed that average speeds fell by 9.3mph; casualties fell by 60%; and child pedestrian casualties fell by 70%.

8. That work is already successfully underway in Liberal Democrat-controlled Portsmouth to introduce a 20mph safety limit on almost all residential roads.

9. That since 2002 Lib Dem Islington has been committed to implementing 20mph speed limits and that since then a total of twenty-one 20mph zones have been introduced with resident support. This includes a 20mph zone in the area around Highbury Fields.

10. That a new report (dated 14 November 2007) commissioned by Play England has found that cars now outnumber children in the UK by three to one, and therefore recommends that more cities should adopt 20mph limits in residential streets where children might be playing.

11. That the 2006 Liberal Democrat manifesto committed Islington Council to completing the 20mph zone programme in all areas of the borough where residents wish to see such speed limits.

12. That the implementation of a further four 20mph zones is planned for 2008, in the Caledonian, St George’s, Dove Road, and Highbury Grange areas.

13. That the programme of 20mph zones has helped contribute to an overall fall in the numbers of people killed and seriously injured on Islington’s roads from 174 in 2002 to 81 in 2006

MINUTES – 4 DECEMBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

14. That on 22 November, the Council’s Executive approved a contingency bid of £60,000 in order to accelerate preliminary design and consultation on a 20mph zone in the Mercers Road area.

15. That the principal road network in Islington (including roads such as Upper Street, Islington High Street, Holloway Road; Pentonville Road, City Road, Seven Sisters, Isledon Road, Camden Road, Farringdon Road and King’s Cross Road) is under the control of Transport for London, who have not to date supported the introduction of 20mph limits on their highways.

16. That TfL roads are not simply through routes, but roads where thousands of residents live, work and shop and attend schools and colleges.

The Council therefore believes that the benefits of a 20mph safety limit should, if practicable, be extended to all residents in the borough if they want it.

The Council, accordingly, calls on the Executive:

1. To continue the successful Lib Dem policy of introducing a 20mph limit on all roads under the Council’s control, in response to residents and with approval of residents.

2. To discuss with TfL the enforcement of the existing speed limit on TfL roads in Islington.

3. To open a dialogue with TfL on introducing a 20mph limit on TfL roads in Islington where residents are concerned that the current 30mph limits are not sufficiently low.

4. To lobby the Metropolitan Police to give a higher priority to enforcing the current speed limits on our roads.

14. BRIAN WEBB

The Mayor informed all present that this would be Brian Webb’s last meeting as Executive Manager, as he would retire in February. Brian had worked with 4 Chief Executives and a number of administrations during his time at Islington and had seen many changes. He was highly regarded by members and officers alike. On behalf of the Council, the Mayor wished Brian a happy, healthy and prosperous retirement.

On behalf of the Labour Group, Councillor Greening thanked Brian for his work and support as a devoted and trusted member of staff.

The meeting ended at 10.45pm.

MAYOR

MINUTES – 4 DECEMBER 2007