London Borough of Islington

LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

COUNCIL MEETING – 2 OCTOBER 2007 DRAFT

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

At an ordinary meeting of the Council held at the Town Hall, Upper Street, London N1 2UD, on Tuesday, 2 October 2007 at 8.55 pm

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 O’SULLIVAN Michael

1. MINUTES

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 26 June 2007 be confirmed as a correct record and the Mayor be authorised to sign them.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillors Greening, Gilbert, Sidnell and Vaja declared a personal interest in agenda item 5 – New build Council housing - as Directors for Homes for Islington.

3. MAYORAL ANNOUNCEMENTS

(i) Apologies for absence None.

MINUTES – 2 OCTOBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

(ii) Order of business The Mayor announced that she proposed to take business in the order on the agenda. She had agreed to two urgent motions being considered by Council; one on the subject of Care UK and the other on voter registration, both of which had been laid round. These would be debated after consideration of other motions, unless they were brought forward.

(iii) Declaration of discussion items by the Majority and Opposition Parties Councillor Watts confirmed that the Labour Group wished to debate the urgent motion on voter registration and Councillor Belford that the Liberal Democrat Group wished to debate agenda item 11.6 – motion on Housing Green Paper - before 9.30 pm.

4. PETITIONS AND QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

Petitions were received as follows:

(a) Councillor Janet (i) 20mph zone in Pemberton Terrace, Burgess Pemberton Gardens, Monnery Road and St John’s Grove (ii) Traffic calming in Mercers Road

(b) Councillor Debono From residents in Highbury, requesting the Council to mediate with AFC on the removal of phone masts

(d) Councillor Gilbert From residents of residents of Whistler Street about phone masts on the Emirates Stadium

(e) Councillor Stacy Phone masts on the Arsenal Tavern

(f) Councillor West Works to Blenheim Court

(g) Councillor Convery Installation of a pontoon at Ice Wharf

(h) Councillor Klute From traders in Camden Passage and the Mall.

RESOLVED: That, in accordance with the Constitution, the petitions be referred to the appropriate Director for action.

MINUTES – 2 OCTOBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

Questions from members of the public

(a) Martin Fisher to Councillor Marisha Ray, Executive Member for Community Safety and Performance

Home Office reports which have outlined the costing of the National Identity Scheme did not include those costs which will be incurred by those who will use the scheme. If there is a requirement to re- engineer the Council's computer systems to make use of the National ID system, what does the Council believe the likely cost to be? What provisions do you have to find this information out?

Reply: Thank you, Madam Mayor and thank you Mr Fisher for the question. I will say again that few people in Islington will be pleased to hear that the Labour government is spending yet more money on an IT mega-project where costs of billions of pounds double, spiral and even the London School of Economics persists in its previous estimate that costs will treble again before the project is completed and more recently with increasing concern calls for an independent review of the scheme.

May I remind you that the implementation of ID Cards is no ordinary, central government IT fiasco. This is about routinely treating the innocent as though they are guilty; about holding at least fifty pieces of information about them to “track them”; it is about sharing that information with public and private bodies without consent; it is about implementing a scheme which would be prohibited by the constitution in some countries, the like of which is known in no other country; it is about enabling technology which could so easily be used for discrimination; It will be about paying a £1000 fine if you fail to notify that your address has changed once having a card is compulsory. It is about government entering or updating information about you without your knowledge and keeping it even after death. It is about undermining the bonds of trust in our community for example between doctor and patient or teacher and pupil.

Is it therefore any surprise that the role of local authorities in implementing this Scheme remains unclear and unspecified?

There is no Act of Parliament stating that this Council or any other must co- operate with the Identity Card Scheme.

There is no guidance whatsoever on the budgetary implications of this scheme for local government and no information is available as to the cost of equipment to read cards.

MINUTES – 2 OCTOBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

It is clear to me that to state clearly and in some detail what the scheme intends to achieve, would be so controversial, so unacceptable, so contrary to the rights of people living in a democratic society with free speech and a free press, that to do so is well nigh impossible.

In such an environment, re-engineering and bringing benefit becomes a pipe dream and this lack of a clearly stated objective means that this country is destined to haemorrhage yet more money over this project.

The procurement originally scheduled for October 2005 only just began a couple of months ago, but the timetable for the scheme as a whole is unaltered. No doubt you will find this an unbelievable as I.

This Council’s policy is that national ID cards will not be required to access council services unless specifically required to do so by law.

(b) Claudia Webbe to Councillor Ursula Woolley, Executive Member for Children and Young People

Since the Lib Dems took control of Islington Council it can be argued that there has been significant 'cut back' in funding for 'detached youth workers' and failure to recognise that building based work does not meet the challenging needs of our young people. Essentially the Council has wasted the resources in work with young people, reduced funding to voluntary and community organisations and not targeted spend to the essential need to tackle knife, gun and violent crime.

How many detached youth workers does the Council employ to deliver social education programmes working directly on Islington's estates, neighbourhoods and streets?

Reply: There are 12,750 young people aged 13-19 in Islington. The inspection of the youth service in autumn 2006 confirmed that Islington spends above the national average per head of population in this age group and has a ‘ reach’ into this population of 28% - above the national target of 25%. In addition to the Council’s budget there is approximately £1m external funding spent on youth provision each year.

Our offer for young people has a balance of buildings based and detached work. Buildings based provision will be a statutory requirement from April 2008 when authorities will have to ensure that all young people can access at least 4 hours per week of positive activities (including educational and recreational activities, sports, arts, and activities designed to develop social and emotional skills.)

MINUTES – 2 OCTOBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

Detached work is aimed at those groups of young people that do not wish to attend mainstream provision, or their behaviour has a negative impact on those young people who are engaging positively. It involves building relationships with young people on the street, on their territory and on their terms. Through the workers’ intervention these issues are addressed and as the relationship and work with young people develops they are able to progress and engage in social education and positive activities. This includes activities that excite and stimulate the young people and give them the opportunity to test their abilities, take risks, explore new possibilities and challenge behaviour and deal with conflict and drugs education work, sexual health and relationships, education, employment and active citizenship.

Evidence shows that detached youth work is most effective when it is connected to and co-ordinated with a comprehensive universal youth offer of social education and positive activities.

There are currently 12 full time and 26 part time detached youth workers working in Islington offering a total of more than 500 hours per week, funded through a mixture of council and external funding.

Supplementary question: What is the Council going to do to recognise the cuts in funding to ……….. ………..detached youth work? When is that report going to come back to us? Where are the voluntary and community organisations that provide that wealth……. I welcome the move to set up a Commission. However, again, taking it into the Regeneration scrutiny will exclude again the same people, the voluntary sector, people like myself from being involved ……….

Reply: There was previously very little detached voluntary youth work and I am proud to re-introduce this service. I am very keen that anyone who has strong feelings on the mix of youth work take them to the new Commission which we have just established.

During Arsenal matches is the space under Emirates Stadium (originally designated for parking of 40 coaches but since prevented by police because of terrorism) occupied by other vehicles and if so, what vehicles; and if not, why is it left empty?

NB – D. Fitzpatrick was not present and therefore a written reply was sent as follows by Councillor Stacy

Reply: I have spoken with the LBI Arsenal Transport and Match Day Operations Planner, who advised me that at present there is only space for 15 allocated coaches parking bays (not 40 as implied above) under the basement of the Emirates Stadium. Due to the ongoing security threat 15 of these vacant

MINUTES – 2 OCTOBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

bays are now divided between parking bays on the southern section of the ring road and the loading bay area under the Stadium. The spaces on the southern area of the ring road are used for parking the sun lamp for the turf, and the loading bay area is used to park Metropolitan Police Service vehicles.

The other 25 coach spaces (of the 40) are currently parked outside the Emirates Stadium located at the adjacent (part derelict) Queensland Road site.

(d) Adrian Sibley to Councillor Terry Stacy, Executive Member for Housing and Communities

Will the Council please let the residents of Lion, 24 North Road, who are supporters of the new development although directly affected by it, know why we are still waiting for Southern Housing and Islington Council to honour their commitment made at the original planning meeting several years ago to have trees and a suitable pavement outside this Grade 2 listed building which was built as part of the original market and why, for over 16 months, we have had to continually ask and pursue both parties to do what they agreed at what we presume was a legally binding public meeting held to hear those who would be affected by the development?

NB – Mr Sibley was not present and therefore a written reply was sent as follows by Councillor Stacy

Reply: Unfortunately this has been a rather complex issue as it has involved the construction of a new road (Drovers Way) to adaptable standards. Some final amendments are being agreed with Islington Council’s Highways Department. From there, Southern Housing’s intention, subject to approvals, is to complete the tree planting within the next few weeks. Southern Housing will be confirming the final details to the residents in the next couple of weeks. I have asked to be kept fully informed of the timetable for this and will get back to you if there are any problems.

I hope this reassures you that we are working to meet our commitment.

(e) James Humphreys to Councillor Lucy Watt, Executive Member for the Environment

What estimate has the Council made of the number and/or weight and/or volume of newspapers and magazines discarded in streets and other public areas within the borough of Islington each day, month or year (that is, excluding domestic and commercial refuse or recycling); what is the current capacity provided by the Council for on-

MINUTES – 2 OCTOBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

street recycling of newspapers and magazines; and what plans does the Council have to expand this capacity?

Reply: The Council does not have an estimate of the weight of newspapers and magazines discarded in the streets.

There are recycling bins at most tube stations and gateway points through which approximately one tonne per month (from each station) of materials are recycled, including newspapers and magazines. There are over 200 public recycling points located throughout the Borough where residents and visitors can recycle mixed paper.

Door to door recycling is provided to all street properties, many estates and flats above shops. Approximately 8,000 tonnes per annum of paper are currently recycled from door to door schemes and bring sites in Islington. We will review the potential to extend schemes on a periodic basis, particularly around bring sites.

The Council is also keen to explore the feasibility of collecting recyclables thrown away as street litter and to this end ICSL are piloting a collection method that allows bottles, cans, newspapers to be 'picked' out of street litter. This is currently being trialled after matches at the Emirates Stadium, and if the scheme is viable, it may be rolled out across the Borough, once this pilot has been assessed.

Supplementary question: I’m very grateful that the Council is taking this issue seriously, particularly in relation to on-street re-cycling. Keep up the good work and, if possible, accelerate the pilot scheme. I wonder if you could look again at reinstating the recycling bin outside the Arsenal tube station?

Reply: Yes, I’m happy to do that.

5. MOTION 11.6 – HOUSING GREEN PAPER Councillor Vaja, seconded by Councillor Belford, moved the motion in her name.

After debate – Councillors Greening, Kempton, Watts, Stacy, Convery, Klute, Jamieson-Ball, Edwards, Murray, West, Cornwell and Vaja – the motion was put to the vote and it was -

RESOLVED: 1. That Council notes 1) that we need more affordable homes in Islington for families on the waiting list.

MINUTES – 2 OCTOBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

2) that local first-time buyers and key workers find difficulty in getting on the property ladder. 3) that, when the current Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he failed to provide a spending plan for housing, prevented the building of new council housing and starved councils of funds for housing.

2. Council welcomes the success of Islington Council in working to increase the Borough’s supply of affordable intermediate and key worker housing, as well as housing for rent and sale on the wider market. 3. Council therefore welcomes a change in Government policy which appears to recognise the scale of the housing crisis over which it has presided. 4. Council expresses concern

1) that the Housing Green Paper is too little too late and that the Government’s own housing advisers have stated that the Green Paper will not provide enough housing to meet increasing need for homes. 2) that the Housing Green Paper appears to propose the imposition of yet more central control, with the Government dictating what houses will be built, where they will be built, and in partnership with whom. 3) that the Housing Green Paper fails to tackle the problems of high housing density and runs the risk of creating ghettos of social housing rather than mixed communities.

5. Council expresses its disappointment

1) that the Green Paper says so little – despite recommendations in the Government’s own review of social housing, chaired by Professor John Hills – about the need to enable social housing tenants to move to take up new employment. 2) that the Housing Green Paper is not actually very green and that the DHS will continue to ignore environmental standards for council housing. 3) that there are still no plans to create a minimum size for new homes, despite new homes in the UK being the smallest built in Europe.

6. This Council instructs officers in their response to the Housing Green Paper to reflect the views above and to emphasise:

1) the greater need for local authorities to deliver the amount and type of housing appropriate to their area. 2) the need for local authorities to set their own targets. 3) the importance of mobility schemes enabling social tenants to move to take up employment. 4) the need for environmental concerns to be reflected in all future housing plans.

6. URGENT MOTION – VOTER REGISTRATION Councillor Paul Smith, seconded by Councillor Watts, moved the motion in his name, which had been laid round.

MINUTES – 2 OCTOBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

Councillor Cornwell contributed to the debate and, seconded by Councillor Allan, proposed that the question be now put.

RESOLVED: That, in the event of a general election being called before December 2007 when the annual register takes effect, the Council will write to all residents who enrolled in the 2007 annual register, who are either not on the current voters register or enrolled at another address, with a letter alerting them to the need to enrol to vote for the general election, and enclosing the correct enrolment form with a reply paid envelope.

7. NEW BUILD COUNCIL HOUSING Councillor Stacy, seconded by Councillor Kempton, moved the recommendations in the report.

Councillor Greening, seconded by Councillor Paul Smith, moved the following amendment:

Add new recommendation 2.7 – “ To ask officers to bring to the next full Council meeting proposals to end severe overcrowding within four years”

After debate – Councillors Kempton, Spall, Wally Burgess, Greening and Stacy –the amendment was put to the vote and declared LOST.

RESOLVED: That an additional capital allocation of up to £1m in the current financial year be approved to undertake works associated with the Council’s proposals to deliver a pilot scheme of new build Council housing in Islington.

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

9. HIGHWAYS CAPITAL INVESTMENT The Mayor advised Councillors that the recommendation before them was to approve a capital allocation. This subject had been called in to the Overview Committee and the decision would therefore be made subject to the decision of that Committee.

Councillor Watt, seconded by Councillor Cornwell, moved the recommendation in the report.

Councillor Kelly, seconded by Councillor Chowdhury, moved the following amendments:

Add recommendation 2.2 – “Consult with the local community on where the funds should be spent”

MINUTES – 2 OCTOBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

Add recommendation 2.3 – “Work with HfI to ensure funds are allocated to and spent on estates”

Following a vote, the amendment was declared LOST.

RESOLVED: That, subject to the decision of the Overview Committee on 4 October 2007, an additional capital allocation of £5m be approved for highway maintenance in 2007 – 2008.

10. ISLINGTON COUNCIL CORPORATE STRATEGY – SERVICE PLAN 2007 – 2010 AND ANNUAL FINANCE AND PERFORMANCE REPORT 2007 Councillor Stacy, duly seconded, moved the recommendation in the report.

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

Delete recommendation 2.1 Add new recommendation 2.1 “refer the service and financial plan 2007 – 2010, including the additional information on finance and performance for 2006 – 2007 to Performance Review Committee for pre- decision review”

Following a vote, the amendment was declared LOST.

RESOLVED: That the service and financial plan 2007 – 2010, including the additional information on finance and performance for 2006- 2007, detailed in the report by the Executive Member for Community Safety and Performance, be noted.

11. LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILLS

RESOLVED: (a) That the Council’s inclusion in the promotion of the tenth London Local Authorities Bill for submission to Parliament in November this year be approved (b) That the inclusion in a bill or bills to be promoted by Westminster City Council or, as the case may be in a bill or bills to be promoted jointly by Westminster City Council and any other person as appropriate, of provisions effecting all or some of the purposes set out in Appendix 1 of the report by the Executive Member for the Environment, be approved.

MINUTES – 2 OCTOBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

12. REPORT OF THE CHIEF WHIP – AREA COMMITTEE BUDGETS AND CIRCULATION OF EXEMPT REPORTS, APPOINTMENTS TO CITY OF LONDON ACADEMY, JOINT OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE ON HEALTHCARE, PERFORMANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE AND REGENERATION REVIEW COMMITTEE

Councillor Belford moved the recommendations in the report and that Councillors Ece and Chatterjee be appointed as representative and deputy representative respectively on the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee on Healthcare and that Councillor Boffa be appointed to fill the vacancy as a substitute on the Regeneration Review Committee.

RESOLVED: 1. (a) That the words “No project or organisation shall receive funding for more than one consecutive year” be deleted from paragraph 11.3(f) of the Constitution (page 60). (b) That it be noted that the Financial Procedures and Controls on Area Committee budgets (pages 180 – 182 of the Constitution) have been amended in the following ways: (c) That the reference to “30th October” in paragraph 3.1.7 has been deleted and replaced with “30th November” (d) That it be noted that paragraph 3.1.8 has been deleted. (e) That it be noted that paragraph 3.2.5 has been deleted and replaced with the following words: “Where a member is making a recommendation in relation to his or her share of the area committee budget and, should a decision be made to allocate funding to a particular organisation, he or she would have a prejudicial interest in that decision, the existence of that interest shall be declared on the form on which the recommendation is made.” (f) That Councillor Ursula Woolley be appointed to the Board of the City of London Academy, once it is incorporated. (g) That, with regard to the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee on Healthcare: (i) Councillor Ece and Councillor Chatterjee be appointed as representative and deputy representative respectively on this body (ii) That the Council’s representative, in liaison with the Director of Corporate Resources and with other authorities involved, agree the terms of reference for the Joint Committee. (iii) That the terms of reference be reported to the Overview Committee at its November meeting, with a progress report on the discussions of the initial meeting of the Joint Committee. (h) That Councillor Janet Burgess replace Councillor Spall on the Performance Review Committee for the remainder of the municipal year, or until a successor is appointed. (i) That Councillor Boffa be appointed to fill the vacancy as a substitute on the Regeneration Review Committee.

Following a vote, it was further RESOLVED:

MINUTES – 2 OCTOBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

2. That, with effect from the date of this meeting, committee reports (including executive reports) which contain exempt information (within the meaning of schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972) shall be distributed to the following people:

a) The Chief Executive, Directors and officers contributing to the report and the heads of the respective group offices; b) Members of the body concerned; c) In relation to Executive reports, the Leader of Opposition and chairs of the Overview and Review Committees; d) In relation to Executive reports which have been called in, all other members of the Overview Committee; e) Any other member of the Council who can demonstrate a need to know the information contained within the report.

13. QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL

(a) Councillor Paul Convery to Councillor Terry Stacy, Executive Member for Housing and Communities

Would he say what he believes to be the principles underpinning the neighbourhood management projects that will commence in 8 areas of the borough?

Reply: The principles of neighbourhood management have been developed by the ISP rather than the Council, but I am happy to endorse them. They recognise that there is a lot of work to be done by agencies coming out of their silos and joining together to improve the delivery of rational and seamless services, without the kind of gaps which people in deprived communities are particularly prone to fall through. There is a very real relationship between the quality of public sector services and the quality of life - particularly in more deprived communities where people cannot exercise choice in who will provide services to them. This is why we have been and continue to strive for excellence in council services. No amount of regeneration funding is going to improve the quality of life if basic services are poor.

Beyond that, neighbourhood management is about forging a partnership between local people and communities - both resident and business - to tackle issues together. It requires local leadership and local accountability. It requires a reliable evidence base on which to make decisions about priorities and actions. It works best when there is a competent and confident individual, respected by all parties, who can motivate people to engage and, more importantly, to change the way they do things. But it also has to be accountable to the centre and has to provide some evidence of its effectiveness over time.

MINUTES – 2 OCTOBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

(b) Councillor Paul Convery to Councillor Lucy Watt, Executive Member for the Environment

Can she please say whether the former Core Strategy of the Local Development Framework stands as a sufficiently robust set of policies with which the Council's area planning sub-committees can confidently take decisions on planning applications?

Reply: Thank you for this question. As you know, the Council has formally adopted the core strategy as 'non-statutory guidance for development control purposes'. This is something we have successfully done in the past (the masterplan for City Road Basin) and I am assured by officers that this will enable us to place substantial weight on the policies contained in the strategy. In saying this I am especially mindful that strategy has been subject to three rounds of public consultation and is very much in accord with both regional planning policy (the London Plan) and national planning guidance, most notably in respect of sustainability requirements and affordable housing.

Beyond this, as we apply the new policies to development schemes and, in the event of any of those schemes being refused, we test those policies at appeal, we will be able to gain a further appreciation of the robustness of the new planning regime.

You have recently chaired a committee review on fuel poverty. How many pensioners' homes could be insulated instead of putting a windmill on top of Kestrel House?

Reply: The wind turbine project will cost approximately £30K (including structural and noise surveys and installation costs), and this will be funded from the ring-fenced budgets allocated by Members to Homes for Islington (HFI) in 2006/07 for environmental improvements. The Kestrel House turbine will function as a pilot to assess the effectiveness of harnessing wind energy on residential tower blocks, and will be a clear, visual demonstration of the Council’s and HFI’s commitment to reducing carbon emissions from housing stock.

MINUTES – 2 OCTOBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

This will certainly not be at the expense of ensuring our customers’ homes are adequately insulated. HFI is a signatory to the Climate Change Partnership, and has developed a clear programme of work to deliver efficiency savings to achieve the 15% carbon reduction target by 2010. Renewable installations are an important part of the Council’s action to tackle climate change, alongside insulation. HFI is working closely with the Energy Centre to develop an over-arching strategy to improve the energy efficiency of housing stock. A significant component of this relates to insulation, and a targeted programme to improve SAP (standard assessment procedure for energy efficiency) ratings will assist tenants with the poorest properties and largest energy bills. The strategy includes roof insulation, loft insulation and cavity wall installation among other energy-saving projects.

HFI will maximise all opportunities offered by the Decent Homes Standard to improve insulation standards. However, a number of properties in low-rise blocks will not be covered by the Decent Homes Standard, and HFI is in the process of finalising a request for additional HRA resources to install cavity wall insulation in these properties. The wind turbine is a new initiative that will offer long-term environmental benefits, and if the pilot is expanded, could also result in financial benefits for our customers.

Investment in Islington housing stock (all tenures) has increased energy efficiency by 27% since 1996, with the greatest annual improvement (4.5%) reported in 2005/6 (the 2006/07 figures aren't yet available). The overall investment in energy efficiency in 2005/6 was £21.8m. Of this, £11m was in owner occupied property, £7m in Council housing, £2.2m in private rented and £1.4m in housing association housing. Council investment was £7.5m – i.e. 34% (£7m of this on council housing). The rest of the investment is attracted from a range of partners including power companies, Energy Savings Trust, EAGA. Action on energy efficiency is monitored by Defra, and Islington is the second highest performer in London.

(d) Councillor Martin Klute to Councillor Lucy Watt, Executive Member for the Environment

On 3 September, South Area Planning Sub - Committee approved a single 12m high wind turbine on the roof of Kestrel House, in a very prominent position on the City Road.

Can you explain; Why was a single large turbine the only proposal for this site, when other applications to the same committee were presented with similar schemes which relied on a number of smaller, less obtrusive turbines to achieve the same effect? What plans does the Council have to locate other wind turbines in the borough, and where is it intended to site them? Was the turbine assessed against other forms of energy-saving (such as home insulation), and can the Council demonstrate that the turbine is more cost effective than other forms of energy saving?

MINUTES – 2 OCTOBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

Who takes the commercial risk on the development, and how does the capital cost compare with the likely annual revenue? How much power will be generated? What happens to the power generated? Will there be any surplus, and will it be sold to the Grid.

Reply: To address each of these points in turn:

1. To achieve as high an energy output as the model of turbine proposed, between 10 and 15 smaller turbines would be required. Not only would this significantly increase the cost of the project, but as the smaller turbines would have to be of the same height as the proposed turbine (due to the location of the plant room on the roof of Kestrel House), this would also increase the visual impact. Furthermore there would only be sufficient space for four smaller turbines, which would be well below the energy output we anticipate from the proposed model. There is also evidence to suggest that more turbines would compound the noise effect – while we are confident that the single turbine will not be audible, the same cannot be guaranteed for multiple turbines.

2. In addition to the wind turbines on 222 Upper Street and the Ecology Centre, and the proposed turbine for Kestrel House, the Energy Centre is exploring other sites including the Market Road football pitch. The latter site is in the early planning stages and no other ‘firm’ sites have been identified. The Climate Change Fund will offer further opportunities for renewable energy sources, and further potential sites may be identified from October onwards.

3. The turbine is considered to be a pilot to assess the viability and effectiveness of harnessing wind energy to reduce the carbon emissions of Council housing stock. A formal assessment was not made of the turbine in comparison to home insulation as this is part of a separate and comprehensive programme being worked up by Homes for Islington in liaison with the Energy Centre. An initial assessment was carried out against smaller turbines (as per the first question) and solar power, and in both cases the single turbine compared favourably in terms of both energy output and cost. The turbine’s performance will be monitored closely and the results will inform decisions about future proposals to harness renewable energy.

4. We expect the capital costs to be in the region of £30K, including the turbine itself, installation costs and costs of other professional services e.g. structural and noise surveys. The annual revenue generated by the turbine will be around £1,620, therefore the revenue will pay for the turbine after at most 16 years (the average lifespan for this model of turbine is approximately 25 years). The cost of electricity is likely to increase over time which will only decrease the payback period.

MINUTES – 2 OCTOBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

5. The turbine is expected to generate 13,000 kilowatt hours, which approximately equates to 10% of the block’s communal electricity consumption. This will lead to a reduction of 5.59 tonnes of carbon according to the DTI definition (0.43 Kg per kWh). It may result in an even greater reduction, as the Building Research Establishment recommends 0.52 is used as a multiple, i.e. 6.76 tonnes.

6. The power will be recycled into Kestrel House’s communal services: lifts, lighting, CCTV, concierge, ventilation and water pumps. It is anticipated that no surplus energy will be generated as, at any given time, the block’s electricity consumption is unlikely to fall below 10% (which is the proportion of the block’s communal energy requirements the turbine will contribute).

(e) Councillor Katie Dawson to Councillor Lucy Watt, Executive Member for the Environment

Does Islington Council intend to support and actively promote the campaign by London Councils to introduce a London-wide ban or levy on plastic shopping bags?

Reply: The organisation London Councils, of which Islington is a member, is proposing to introduce a London-wide ban, or levy, on throw away shopping bags as part of its plans for the 10th London Local Authorities Bill.

Islington currently promotes reuse of carrier bags, and gives away thousands of reusable cloth carrier bags at events each year (and on request). All visitors to the i-recycle education centre receive a cloth carrier bag ('goodie bag').

We also have produced an advert promoting cloth bags that is used on the side of our refuse trucks (one of the first adverts in the country to promote reuse).

Item 11.5 on this agenda specifically discusses the Council’s support for this campaign.

(f) Councillor Barry Edwards to Councillor Lucy Watt, Executive Member for the Environment

How do you justify the massive difference in parking charges between cars in Band E and Band F (88%), in view of the fact that there is little difference in the amount of pollution they emit? Why do these new parking charges not reflect the CO2 emissions of vehicles?

Reply: The purpose of the green residents' parking permit scheme is to encourage

MINUTES – 2 OCTOBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

people to drive cars that are less damaging to the environment. We know that some people can be cynical about green charges. We therefore made a decision early on to go for a scheme that would influence peoples’ behaviour, but would also be revenue neutral i.e. that there would be no financial loss or gain to the Council. This is in strong contrast to schemes adopted elsewhere. For example, Transport for London’s current proposals for an emissions based congestion charge are predicted to increase income from congestion charging by anything between £3 to £36 million a year.

The green parking permit scheme rewards people for driving less polluting cars. Two thirds of borough motorists own this type of car and will pay less under the new system (these people are in bands A-E). The remaining third own the more polluting vehicles and will pay more (i.e. the people in Bands F and G). It was recognised that in order for the scheme to be effective, charges for the most polluting vehicles would need to be at a high enough level to influence peoples’ choice of vehicle.

In Islington, people who own cars in Bands A-E will pay less for their permits than people living in boroughs where similar schemes have been introduced. We are therefore offering a greater incentive than others to switch to a less polluting vehicle. Islington motorists whose cars fall into bands F and G will either pay the same or slightly more than people living in boroughs where similar schemes have been introduced.

Before we introduced it, we recognised that the scheme was likely to be controversial, and that is why we carried out a referendum. Throughout the referendum we made it very clear that the scheme that people voted on would be the scheme that was introduced. You will of course be aware that there was a good turn out for the referendum, and that the majority of people who voted were in favour of the scheme.

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

Has the Executive Member for Housing visited 73 Chester Road, Highgate, 2 Coleman Road, Camberwell or 78 Carshalton Road, Sutton?

Reply: Sadly I wasn’t able, as I normally do, to get round as many of this year’s Open House events during the weekend of the 15th and 16th September so was unable to visit these addresses. I did, however, manage to visit the Bedzed development in Wallington and was impressed by the environmental standards of this development.

I can assure you that sustainability issues are at the top of the Council’s agenda in planning its new Council homes building programme as I know they are in the Homes for Islington managed decent homes programme.

MINUTES – 2 OCTOBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

(h) Councillor Katie Dawson to Councillor Barbara Smith, the Mayor

Why is a seconder always required in order to present a motion to Council and what legal or other changes would be necessary to amend this?

Reply: The reason a second name is required to motions is to show sufficient support to merit a debate. I am sure both Whips would be happy to work with you to help you find a formal seconder to ensure you can take motions to Council.

(i) Councillor Andrew Cornwell to Councillor Catherine West, Leader of the Opposition

Will you on behalf of the Labour Group issue an apology to members of the public, planning applicants, council officers and Councillor Emily Fieran- Reed, all of whose time was wasted when all five Labour Members of West Area Planning Sub-Committee failed to turn up to the scheduled meeting on 6 September, causing that meeting to be cancelled?

(j) Councillor Andrew Cornwell to Councillor Catherine West, Leader of the Opposition

Will you explain your absences from the Overview Committee on 15 February, 10 May, 12 June and on 19 July, and your absences from North Area Committee on 8 January, 22 May and 17 July?

Reply to questions (i) and (j): I will take both questions on attendance of members at meetings together. There is no doubt that attendance at meetings is very important and that is why we have a number of substitute members who ought to step into the role if a committee member is not present, for example on Overview, where there has always been the correct political balance on any meeting of the Overview Committee since May 2006. Where there are important decisions to be made at meetings, councillors’ attendance is especially important. An apology has already been issued by the Chair of the West Area Planning Sub-Committee for the planning meeting that was cancelled.

I notice that my Liberal counterpart, Cllr James Kempton, has also missed 40% of his Area Committee meetings, underlining the particular pressure on Leaders of all political groups to attend extra-council meetings in an official capacity.

The most serious ramification of missing a meeting is where councillors attend a meeting in a decision making capacity. For example, Cllr Stacy, who was in a decision making capacity, has missed two of the three Executive meetings that have taken place this municipal year.

MINUTES – 2 OCTOBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

However, the lack of attendance at the recent North London Waste Authority meeting takes the cake in terms of lack of attendance. Councillors Allan and Watt failed to attend in their decision making capacity. This led to a Tory majority on the committee pushing through harmful measures, having a negative effect on thousands of London families who previously received a subsidy to encourage the use of reusable cloth nappies but who will no longer benefit from this scheme. This seems to me to be the most serious lapse of duty in terms of non-attendance at Council meetings in recent times.

14. NOTICES OF MOTION

11.1 COUNCIL’S FAILURE TO REDEVELOP FINSBURY SQUARE Councillor Klute, seconded by Councillor Doolan, moved the motion in his name and the following amendment: Point 7 – omit the words “due to commence on 3rd October” and add the following after the final word “eviction”, “This action, which was due to be heard on 3rd October, having now been deferred until December, due to the Council being found to be in “brazen dereliction of its obligations of disclosure” in relation to information which should have been provided for the October 3rd hearing”.

Following a vote on the amended motion, it was declared LOST.

11.2 ARSENAL AND A SPORTS CENTRE FOR ISLINGTON Councillor Greening, seconded by Councillor Wally Burgess, moved the motion in his name.

Councillor Stacy, seconded by Councillor Kempton, moved the following amendments:

Delete point three. Add new point three which reads:

3. This Council notes that: Arsenal FC has agreed to provide £1.8 million earmarked for the regeneration of the Sobell Leisure Centre; and Arsenal FC agreed to facilitate a minimum of 17 hours community leisure provision on other sites in the borough, principally Holloway School, equating to the same level of provision as the JVC Centre.

Add new point four which reads:

4. Council believes that this fully satisfies the decision reached by the Corporate Services Committee on 26 July 2004 that although community leisure provision may be provided outwith the Arsenal Sports and Community Centre, they are obliged to provide provision “at least to the same extent…… for so long as the new Stadium remains in use” (10.19 – 10.24)

MINUTES – 2 OCTOBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

Add new point 5 which reads:

5. Council further notes that the alternative scheme agreed at the Corporate Services Committee on 26 July 2004 also provided much-needed key worker affordable housing and an improved ‘Red Zone’ online learning centre.

In the former point four, now point 6, after “Arsenal” insert “continue to” after “Islington residents, and” insert “continue to after “sports” delete “centre they have promised” insert “provision as was agreed” instead.

Following a vote, the amended motion was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED: 1. This Council notes recent press reports that the Arsenal intends to submit a planning application that would include a multi-screen cinema, shops and a private gym. 2. It further notes the huge sporting and cultural contribution the Arsenal has made to both residents of Islington and to Gooners everywhere. 3. This Council notes that: Arsenal FC has agreed to provide £1.8 million earmarked for the regeneration of the Sobell leisure centre; and Arsenal FC agreed to facilitate a minimum of 17 hours community leisure provision on other sites in the Borough, principally Holloway School, equating to the same level of provision as the JVC Centre. 4. Council believes that this fully satisfies the decision reached by the Corporate Services Committee on 26 July 2004 that although community leisure provision may be provided outwith the Arsenal Sports and Community Centre they are obliged to provide provision “at least to the same extent… for so long as the new Stadium remains in use” (10.19- 10.24). 5. Council further notes that the alternative scheme agreed at the Corporate Services Committee on the 26 July 2004 also provided much-needed key worker affordable housing and an improved ‘Red Zone’ online learning centre. 6. Council requests that Arsenal continue to take into account the wishes of Islington residents, and continue to provide the provision as was agreed.

11.3 APOLOGY FOR SHODDY WORK Councillor Paul Smith, seconded by Councillor Murray, moved the motion in his name.

Councillor Stacy, seconded by Councillor Vaja, moved the following amendments:

In point 1, delete “shoddy” insert “poor quality” after “Partners for Improvement” insert “in some cases in Islington. But that PFI have also improved many properties up to an exceptional standard after years of neglect.” Delete “that Islington residents living in council housing have had to suffer.”

MINUTES – 2 OCTOBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

Add new point two which reads “Council also notes that due to complaints from residents about the quality of work, Councillors in Canonbury held meetings with the Managing Director of Partners and the former Leader of the Council which resulted in changes to the management at United House, improved independent surveying and better customer liaison. This led to an improvement in the quality of works and customer satisfaction. The Residents Forum for PFI have also taken a large part in scrutinising work by partners and suggesting improvements.”

Add new point three which reads: “Council recommends that Councillors who receive complaints about Partners from residents take these complaints to Homes for Islington so that they can properly monitor the situation”

In former point two, which is now point four, after “Islington residents” insert “who have suffered any” before inconvenience delete “for the” after inconvenience delete “caused”. Delete “the Executive” and insert “Homes for Islington continues to” in its place.

Following a vote, the amended motion was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED: 1. This Council notes the delays and poor quality work, carried out by Partners for Improvement, in some cases in Islington, but that PFI have also improved many properties up to an exceptional standard after years of neglect. 2. Council also notes that due to complaints from residents about the quality of work, Councillors in Canonbury held meetings with the Managing Director of Partners and the former Leader of the Council which resulted in changes to the of management at United House, improved independent surveying and better customer liaison. This led to an improvement in the quality of works and customer satisfaction. The Residents Forum for PFI have also taken a large part in scrutinising work by Partners and suggesting improvements. 3. Council recommends that Councillors who receive complaints about Partners from residents take these complaints to Homes for Islington so that they can properly monitor the situation. 4. Council apologises to Islington residents who have suffered any inconvenience and resolves to request that Homes for Islington continues to improve its oversight of the work by contractors.

11. 4 ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOUR CONTRACTS Councillor Foxsmith, seconded by Councillor Willoughby, moved the motion in his name.

RESOLVED: 1. That Council notes and deplores the records of the following Home Secretaries: Jack Straw, David Blunkett, Charles Clarke, and John Reid for their inconsistent messages on anti-social behaviour, particularly for failing

MINUTES – 2 OCTOBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

to clarify their position on the use of acceptable behaviour contracts to tackle anti-social behaviour. 2. Council therefore welcomes the statement by the current Home Secretary, the Rt. Hon Jacqui Smith MP, that acceptable behaviour contracts, pioneered and developed in Islington, will be a central focus of a new Government initiative to tackle anti social behaviour across the country, acknowledging that acceptable behaviour contracts are more successful than ASBOs. 3. Council acknowledges the success of the Lib Dem policy ASBO + which has been trailed in Islington and has seen ASBO breach rates fall to just 8% in their first year compared to the national average of 50%. 4. Council recommends that the Executive Member for Community Safety and Performance writes to Jacqui Smith, welcoming her recommendation of ABCs and highlighting our success with the ASBO+ scheme which could be used nation-wide.

11.5 PLASTIC BAGS Councillor Berent, seconded by Councillor Jamieson-Ball, moved the motion in her name.

RESOLVED: 1. Council welcomes the consultation being done with residents by London Councils on banning plastic bags in London as part of their 10th London Local Government Bill. 2. Council notes that over 17 billion plastic bags are given away each year and that most of these bags end up in landfill. 3. Council supports i) the move to reduce usage of disposable bags in London ii) London Councils' move to consult residents over their proposals for the 10th London Local Government Bill.

4) That the Council responds to the consultation supporting a ban on free disposable bags. 5) That the Council works generally to promote this consultation by, for example, carrying information on it in Islington Now. 6) That Council urges its Leader, James Kempton, as a member of London Councils’ Executive, to continue his support for this initiative. 7) That Councillor Lucy Watt write to the lead member for sustainability on London Councils (Lib Dem Councillor Sean Brennan) to congratulate him on this initiative.

(NB – Motion 11.6 on Housing Green Paper was dealt with earlier in the meeting)

11.7 URGENT MOTION – CARE UK Councillor Gilbert, seconded by Councillor Kempton, moved the urgent motion, which had been laid round, in his name.

MINUTES – 2 OCTOBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

Councillor Convery, seconded by Councillor Hamitouche, moved the following amendments:

Remove paragraphs 6 (a) to (c)

Add and renumber: 6. Notes that (a) authorisation for the variation of the contract to buy out people’s terms and conditions was not sought from Finance or from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and it remains unclear whether central Government has ever authorised the scheme. (b) The amount of money paid to Care UK was almost £3m - far higher than the previously estimated £1m.

7 Council believes that (a) the report paints a picture of an Executive Member who has lost control of his portfolio. (b) the Council’s Social Services Directorate refused to communicate with staff, service users, or even other departments. (c) Council’s own incompetence resulted in it paying a private contractor to buy out the pensions and terms and conditions of its employees.

And under “Council therefore:” Delete “…2. to ensure the best possible outcome in any future outsourcing situation.” Add: “3. Calls on the Executive Member for Adult Social Services to resign.”

Following a vote, the amendment was declared LOST.

RESOLVED: Council notes: 1. Its decision in 2003 to contract with Care UK to open three new care homes, and subsequent decision in December 2005 to vary the contract to reduce the annual payments from the Council to Care UK. 2. That the three care homes, Muriel Street, Highbury New Park and Carnegie Street, have all now opened and provide a high standard of care to many of the Borough’s older residents 3. That subsequent to the variation of the contract, concerns were raised, including by the relevant trades unions, about the nature of the contract variation, and its impact on staff. 4. That, as a result in March 2007, the Leader asked the Chief Executive to investigate these concerns 5. The consequent report from the former Deputy Chief Executive, into the process of the letting of the contract to Care UK, and subsequent decision to vary the contract 6. That the report concludes: (a) That at all times Council officers acted lawfully and in what they considered to be in the best interests of the Council, and that there is no evidence of any untoward actions

MINUTES – 2 OCTOBER 2007 LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON

(b) That, however, some aspects of the procedures at the time were a cause of concern, including in relation to financial input, officer communication with members, and Committee report and decisions (c) That in particular the sensitivity of staff and unions in circumstances of a recently outsourced function need to be recognised (recommendation 4) 7. That since the time of these actions, steps have already been taken to reform the relevant Council procedures.

Council therefore - 1. Calls on the Chief Executive to ensure that the recommendations in the report are fully implemented, to prevent any future recurrence of the situation. 2. Commits to working more closely with staff and trade union representatives to ensure the best possible outcome in any future outsourcing situation.

The meeting closed at 10.42 pm.

MAYOR

MINUTES – 2 OCTOBER 2007