Transcript

This meeting has been webcast to enable those who cannot attend a meeting in person to follow the proceedings. Please could I ask all attendees to turn on your microphones, and when invited to speak, remember to turn them off when you finish speaking. Please note that this is a council meeting held in public, not a public meeting. All marks should be addressed through me as chair. Also, please note we are not expecting a fire test this evening, so if the alarm is sounded, please follow my instructions and evacuate the building. As usual, each item will be introduced by the exec member, followed by an opportunity for members to ask questions, and then an opportunity for members of the public to ask questions. Questions must relate to the agenda item being deliberated. When the questions on each item are complete, I will move the agenda item to a vote. Once the vote has been taken, there will be no further discussion of that item. I would like to reassure everyone that the executive members have read all the reports and appendix supplied to them for this evening's meeting. Please note there are three agenda items this evening are exempt. However, these items are for information only, and the executive members have read the appendix thoroughly. I would ask members to ensure that they do not make reference or to ask any questions about any information that's exempt. In order to facilitate members of the public who are here for the agenda items on the proposal for St. Jude's and St. Paul's CV Primary School and Hybrid Quadrant School, I would like to propose to my colleagues on the executive that we bring these items forward first. Is that agreed? Thank you. In addition, I've agreed to a deputation from Becky Hunter. Is Becky here? A parent from Hybrid Quadrant School. Welcome, Becky. You will have three minutes to make your address to the executive. We will hear your address to the executive when we consider the report on Hybrid Quadrant School. There are a few formal matters on the agenda to consider first. Apologies of absence received from Councillor Bradford Bell and Councillor Weeks. Any other apologies? Declarations of interest. Does anybody have anything to declare? Item A3, non-except minutes of the previous meeting held on 16th January 2025, pages 1 to 7 of the Agenda Pack. Can we agree the non-except minutes of the last meeting as a correct record, please? Thank you. And I'd also just like to welcome the MP. I think he's just arrived as well. Mr Corbyn, thank you. Item 1st. Item B7, proposal on the future of St Jude and St Paul's CV Primary School, pages 385 to 434 of the Agenda Pack. There are exempt appendix companies to report on page 539 of the Agenda Pack, which execs members have read, and which offer information only. Councillor Safi Nogongo, please could you introduce this report? Thank you very much, Chair. Chair, this report is just to highlight, I'd like to start to say, really, to say thank you to parents, school, and children, really, for them to engage with us during this informal consultation. The main reason we went out to engage with schools, St Jude's school and so forth, is about the current situation we are facing in our education settings. This is not just in the Flintstone problem, it's across inner London, where we face the number of people is going down the hill, which is affecting our schools. And when there is not enough children in schools, it's also bringing a problem within finance. And during a consultation, I believe you see everything we put in our path. It's about to exercise, to hear from parents, from children, and from school about what can be an alternative situation to do. Because where there is not many people in school, it's really putting the school in difficult situation, because it is going to affect their budget. That means there is not any decision that has been made yet. We still, during consultation periods, to hear the reviews, and to discuss if there is any alternative approach, how we can really make sure the quality of education, and also the services in the school can carry on to work adequately. But so far, we haven't had any alternative position. This paper tonight is to ask if we can go to formal consultation for four weeks. That means formal consultation is for us to carry on to engage with parents, to engage with the school community. No decision has been yet made. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions from any exec members? Councillor Wolfe? Yeah, thank you. Something to this paper being passed, as we go into the next phase of consultation, can we get reassurance that all options will be considered? Yes, Councillor Wolfe, all options, all view, every single alternative position we are here, we put in the pack, including children, including parents, including all the community, everything we hear, we're going to bring back again to the executive. Thank you. Councillor Williamson. Just for complete clarity on what the decision is this evening, so no decision has been made on the school. It's just moving to that formal consultation, so to get those formal responses in from the consultation. Correct, Councillor Williamson, that means no decision has been made at all, it's just to carry on from informal consultation, for us to go to formal consultation, again, is engagement with school community. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions from the bench, Councillor Benoni? Thank you very much. Thank you very much. So, throughout this issue, the Council have described it as a school places crisis. But I'm very conscious that when you compare our school class sizes to other economies in the OECD, our primary school classes are some of the biggest across Europe, across the G7. And if we had school primaries classes, the size of some of those other economies, we wouldn't be facing the place crisis that we have. So, will the Council reconsider describing it as a school place crisis and start talking about a school funding crisis? Yeah, thank you for your questions. I want just to highlight, we have to bear in mind, every single child bringing a funding in school for having a good quality of education, as you said, they need a budget. Not having a budget, no matter what, even a class can have two or three young people, they can't achieve better with not having a funding. The current school formula, that is where it's basing. A child brings that funding, and that funding is what the school has to spend for them to have a good quality of education. With not having funding, it is going to jeopardize a good quality of education. Thank you. Just a follow-up question for me. I absolutely agree that the Council finds itself in a really challenging position. Councils like ours have been starved of funding deliberately by the former Conservative Government. Our Member of Parliament, Gerry Corbyn, raised in Parliament the idea of more funding for schools in central London to help deal with the democratic crisis that we're facing. It would be good to understand what kind of lobbying the Council has done to ask more money out of this new government to help prevent difficult decisions like this. As I said, it's not a Clinton problem, it's a cross in London. My equivalent, we managed to meet with the Minister, we discussed, and I think you are aware there's going to be a review on all education settings. But it will be defensive about the outcome. And you have to understand they are new in position, it will take a bit of time. But at the same time, we have to protect our children and also to protect the quality of education. No one at this stage can set how the new model is going to look like. We are conditioned for a new model really to answer this crisis we are facing. But we need to do the right thing for the quality of education. Do you want to come in later? Thank you, Chair. Just getting into the detail, as part of the school organisation plan, closure is said to be as the last result. And I have seen some descriptions, discussions about amalgamation and joining of schools. But not really much discussion about federation of schools. And we know that with small schools, being part of the federation can be a very effective way to save costs. But also to ensure that there is sustainability and that it can continue to function. So has federation been discussed and consulted on? Yes, thank you. Thank you. If you see there, into the report we highlight, we try all the exercises. You know our ambition. Closure is the last decision. Before even we reach that decision, we have to really look at any other alternative. Because our plan is to avoid closure, and we are not really being happy and no one comes to work or in this position to close school. In one way or another, it is just a challenge facing in front of us we have to deal with. That is why you can see closure is the last decision. We try everything and we engage the school as much as possible to look at the native position. We are still in stage of engagement. We are engaging with them. We haven't made any decision about any closure. That means any other alternative is still on table. That is why we need to go to the next stage for us to go to formal consultation. Carry on the discussion with school. Carry on the discussion with school community to see what can be the outcome. Closure is the last decision and there is not any decision being made regarding closure. Mr Corbyn, would you like to speak? Chair, how many questions do you allow in the circumstances? Are you intending to ask a lot? There might be members of the public as well. I understand that. I will be very brief then on the points I have got. First of all, thank you for giving space for us to raise our points tonight. I want to thank Micheline and Paul Senior and others for the many meetings I have had with them and with the schools in preparing the very lengthy submissions I made to the council on this. I understand falling roles are a submission, are a real issue for the council. But I also understand how important schools are within our community. And I raised with the Secretary of State the question of funding for inner city schools in communities like ours that should be supported in the same way that falling roles in rural schools are supported. And they have got quite interesting and not a hostile answer at all from those points. Specific questions. On Highbury Quadrant School, there is a claim that to… Could we take the questions first? Because we are discussing the item line agenda with St. Newton. Sorry? We are discussing the other school first. Okay. Yeah, so I have got to take them. Okay, fine. We are taking them separate, they are separate schools. Fine. Okay. On the question of St. Jude's School, which is a very good small faith school. The equality assessment says that SEN is broadly a level of the rest of the borough. It is not. It is 26% in St. Jude's. The borough average is 20%. And has the council taken into consideration the very full accessibility of every room in the school? And the fact that the school has spent a great deal of money via the church for the school enrichment program and ensuring that is the case. It also says that there is neutral equality impact on it, even though it is a church school. It must be very obvious that it is a church school and therefore the parents have chosen it, I would imagine, for faith reasons. That does not mean there is faith school places available nearby. And the schools referred to for children to be decanted to are mostly in Hackney, not in Islington, where obviously Islington has no control over what is going on there. So I am very concerned about the, in my view, inadequate assessment on equality effects that have been made in the report concerning St. Jude's School. And also the assumption that Hackney schools, many of which are due for closure anyway, will be able to absorb the needs of those pupils. This is a new school. This is a new school. I remember it being built. Thank you very much, Mr. Corbin, for your question. As I said before, no decision has been yet made. The main reason for this paper today is for us to go to formal consultation, as we discussed when we met with you before. Meaning, depending on the outcome from the formal consultation. But what always we do, we take the view of parents and also we care about our young people. We are fully aware about the sense level is going on. All those young people at St. Jude's, we know their needs, we know their capacity and we are aware they need support. As no decision has been made yet, we have to carry on to engage with the school and to engage with the parents. I would make is that if the school were to close, and obviously I hope it doesn't, because it's a much loved and very important local school, what would happen to the building? It is obviously destined for educational use. The record on empty school buildings is not a good one. Montem School building is still empty and unused. That was closed almost last summer. And I think with the parents who have given so much for this school and the teaching staff deserve to know that we are going to resolve this quickly. And I hope the council will agree. They will work with the school to ensure its continued support and sustainability and recognise its accessibility and support for SEN children. And also that many of the parents that go there are not well off and they rely heavily on free school meals as an indicator. So closing two schools in the same ward, both with fairly poor working class communities backing them up, is not a good look for our council. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Can I take questions from any members of the public from St. Jude School? Thank you, Councillor. My name is John Taskley. I'm a resident of Mark May and a lay minister of St. Jude and St. Paul's Church. church. I'd like to follow up the point that Councillor Wolfe was making about alternative options and ask what are the alternative options that the council has already put to the school we know from what they have said previously that that has been done so can we be told what alternative options have been put and when that happened and did the council provide support to the school for those options to be considered. Thank you. I can see Paul is indicated he wants to take that question. Thank you Paul. Thank you Councillor Saffi-Nagongo and thank you for the question. With regards to alternative considerations obviously the school has a governing body. The school governing body I understand have worked closely with officers particularly in the financial department as well as in the school improvement department to consider the best and most viable options for a school. The school is close to 50% vacancies in terms of empty seats within the school. When we know that each school place or each empty place is bringing an AWPU an age-weighted people unit for a figure of about £6,000 per child. If you can imagine the school has 50% vacancies that makes it very very hard for it to be viable and the DAP are telling us that ideally school should be getting to at least 27 places per class for school to be viable. I've heard the narratives earlier from a colleague here about the sizes of school classes are maybe too big in England but obviously we have to operate as best as possible within a national policy framework that is within us. But coming back to the original question what other options have been considered? I know that our schools have considered restructuring I know the schools have cut back on teaching assistants, cut back on back office staff, cut back on other measures to be as viable as possible. Obviously the school's governing body and this is what my team we work with all governing bodies of all schools where there is a deficit situation to put forward alternative approaches as well. So yes, the local authority will work with schools to look at restructuring, the local authority will look at other options as well but it's obviously a governing body that has an appropriate role to play to put together proposals for consideration. Is there anybody else that's got questions? Good evening, I'm Paul Levy Adoffi, parent and friend of St Jude's. I have a question. So far, the staff, the diocese, parents and so forth have made great effort to impress upon the council how they feel about their school. I've heard from Michelin Ngongo that we're now, or she's proposing that we go to the formal process. What I'd like to know is, are those representations that you've received so far, are they automatically going to be fed into the formal process? Or will all those representations and all those efforts have to be duplicated to be entered into the formal process? In other words, are we starting from scratch? We are not starting from scratch. We are carrying on from what we start from informal consultation. Even the executive board, they receive every single comment, question, recommendation from informal consultation. Next stage is just to carry on from what we started. Is there any more questions? Thank you. This year, our school received 28 applicants, which is doubled what we received last year at 14. During the report, the local authority have suggested that there's no evidence that our enrichment grant scheme has helped attract new parents. And we would like to know what else you suggest be the reason for the duplication in our applications this year. If the efforts our school has made to increase our pupil numbers are being ambushed by yourselves in your closure. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. Paul is going to answer that question because he had a meeting discussing the details of the data. Paul? Thank you, Councillor Satya Nugongo. And it's encouraging when we do get those expressions of interest, but until the actual final, as I say, National Offer Day is made in submissions and acceptances, we're not sure how many will go through. I understand, at the moment, on the school role, with St. Jim's and Paul's, it's down to 99 children on the school role, making it very, very difficult to use it to assemble. It's not, as of the end of December, I understand it was 99. So, okay. It's not 50%. Okay, okay. All right. Well, the figures that we have, as of the information received from working with the school, it was 99. If that's gone up, then that's encouraging. Then that's encouraging. Look, as the leader members set out, and I think everyone here has set out, it's in everyone's interest to try and find compelling alternatives. No one wishes to be in a position where we have to consider school closure, but given where we are at, the school that's carrying such vacancies, a school that's carrying a deficit of this nature, we do have to go through a process that means we look at this very, very seriously. But no decision has been made as yet that we do have, we are due to go, to go through this process, to explore how best we can actually remedy to try and secure viability for the school going forwards. I'll take the other question. Sorry, Chair. A colleague back there asked about these submissions. We had a deadline to submit. My name's George Sharkey. I'm from the GMB Trade Union. I know my fellow unions, also in the NU, Unison and Unite also submitted, along with the general public. Council said there'd be alternatives. Therefore, I thought you would have looked at them already and give some feedback on them. Otherwise, you're just disregarding what was put on. Even though it was informal, you're disregarding. Otherwise, we would not be pushing to formal consultation if you took on board some of the comments that were made in the submissions. Yeah, so far, the alternative proposition is not viable. That is why we need to carry on for this consultation, carry on the discussing. Because I know everyone wants a small class chair, which everyone agrees with it. But sometimes small classes with this current funding, it's not going to be easy for us to make sure the quality of education has been secure. That is the main reason we are carrying on in engagement. As I said before, no decision has been made. We need to carry on engaged to make sure we have a very viable alternative proposition. So, Chair, I'd like to reply. You've just clarified if I'm wrong, but you're just saying you're actually disregarding that. All those submissions that came in prior to it, because you're saying that they weren't feasible. So, you're going ahead with formal consultation without actually responding to the submissions that individuals and unions have put forward there. Paul, I think we answer to what people have read with us. Yes, we did, Councillor Sapien. There are many submissions made whilst collating information in December as part of the consultation process were responded to. And as you say, the key is about viability. If viable options are presented, stress tested and can stand up to scrutiny, then it's duty bound on officers on behalf of the administration to look very, very seriously at those. But none have been submitted as yet that have met that test that would warrant, as you say, serious alternative consideration. But Councillor Saffi Nogongo has said, this is still an ongoing consultation. So, there's no decision being made. And like Councillor Wolfe said, it's just going through to the next stage. So, I'll just take a couple more questions from St. Jude. But Chair, the comment that we got responses back. I know for a fact that I submitted something on GMB and all I got was, yes, it's been accepted. I've not got response. So, if I can have the response, I'd be grateful. I'm happy to look at that, Chair. If viable options, if serious, compelling options, considerations have been put forward. If they're not in the report and you've not received one already, then I'm sure I'll ask the team to look at that. We'll make sure you get a response to that. So, I'm going to take the last two questions from St. Jude's and St. Paul's. I'm going to try and take people who haven't spoken, if that's okay? Is there anybody that hasn't spoken for this school? Yes, sorry. So, our school does not have the biggest deficit. So, I wonder how you came to the agreement that that would be one of the schools that would be looked at? Is this St. Jude's and St. Paul's? Yeah. Okay. Ms. Lynn, are you going to answer that? Hold on. Yes, thank you. According to the last data we received from school, the deficit accumulated is $154,000 at the last finance year, 2023-2024. Sorry, just to the gentleman. Excuse me. The gentleman, because he's taking pictures and there's young people in the room. Sorry. I just thought, because there's a lot of children in the room, I don't like people filming people's children. And the meeting is being closed. It is being closed, yeah. Sorry. Do you want to carry on? Sorry. Sorry. Do you want to carry on? Sorry. Yes, Chair. Because according to the data we received from school, because schools have a duty to submit a finance situation. And the last finance situation has been putting forth to us, there is a deficit of $154,000 at the end of annual year 2023-2024. It's still not the biggest deficit in Islington, is it? It is. No. No. No. It is. Yes. John, do you have... Yeah, I mean, we can only go with the information that we provide here. It's not for us to go back to schools. And please do provide that information if you feel it's inaccurately. Yeah, we're quoting the figures we've got. Excuse me. Excuse me. Can we not have a meeting in a meeting? The lady asks a question and somebody's going to try and answer it. There's a number of factors that come into that. We look at the viability across all of the school estate. We look at the pupils on role. We also look at the trajectory of numbers on role. We look at the finances. And there is no confidence in the sustainability of those numbers. The birth rate continues to drop up until 2031, 2032. And so we look at all that, as Paul has already said, it's the smallest school in the borough. We recognise, you know, as Mr Corbyn has said, all of our schools are good or outstanding except one. But we have to look at the quantum of the data and then have to then think about what the proposal might be. I'm going to just take one last question. Hi, Ray from St Jude and St Paul's. The local authority used planning area wall data for pan reductions across other schools. Page 310 of document and appendix 6, 314 of 556 in PDF. Why was this data suddenly abandoned in favour of geographic zones when assessing St Jude and St Paul's? The data hasn't been abandoned. Obviously, in recent years, the local authorities have seen a considerable drop in the amount of children in our local area. Schools, some schools have been closed, some have been amalgamated. Some colleagues may be aware that we've had to go through a formal process recently of applying to the Department for Education to reduce the number of place planning areas that we have across our local area. So we now have less planning areas. And what we've looked to do is working with our colleagues in housing to look at the actual volume, potentially for future projections and future current needs as well, to actually realign our planning areas. So it wasn't abandoned in response to any specific situation pertaining to any individual school. We've repurposed and replanned so we now have less planning areas. And the borough of Islington size cannot carry six or seven separate planning areas so we've actually got less planning areas to actually try and consolidate the amount of schools we have so we get closer proximity to actually help with future place planning as well. I'm going to ring the questions now. I'm going to the executive. Can we agree recommendations 1.1 and 1.2 on page 385 of the agenda pack? And note the exempt appendix, please. Thank you. Item B8, Proposal on the Future of Hybrid Quadrant Primary School, pages 435 to 478 of the agenda pack. There are exempt appendix accompanying this report on page 731 of the agenda pack, which exec members have read and which offer information only. And Becky Hunter, please would you come to the microphone to make your address to the executive and she will have three minutes. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'm here as a parent of a child at Hybrid Quadrant and as a member of the local community. As you can imagine, we are passionately opposed to the closure of our school. Indeed, the report in front of you says that the overwhelming majority of respondents to the online consultation did not support the proposal. We believe that there are various questions yet to be answered and there is flawed information in the report. Unless you can clear this up tonight, you must not continue with this process. I say this within the context of the Council's own school closure plan, which says we will only consider school closure where it is in the best interest of children to do so. We have yet to see any evidence showing that it is in the interest of the children, the current students and the potential future students of HQ to have this school closed. So I'm speaking about the above average number of children in the school with SEND, EHCPs and FSM entitlements who are already disadvantaged. I'm talking about the children who speak English as an additional language. We've got the highest level in the borough. The children with respiratory illnesses for whom the implementation of a low traffic network restrictions were important. The children of whose parents specifically chose the school because of its secular teaching and for whom a Christian school is not appropriate. The children whose parents chose the school because of its close proximity to home and place in the heart of the local community. And the children looking for places in future years who find themselves not close enough to any school to be sure of being in the catchment area. We understand that there are issues with falling numbers, but we cannot know that this is permanent. Have you considered the following? Sadiq Khan's speech where he urged councils not to make permanent decisions on school closures based on current fall in birth rates. The Office of National Statistics who recently published figures projecting a population increasing at a faster rate than previously thought. Nat migration at 1.6 million over the next 10 years. The challenge from the government to construct more homes at speed and the various developments underway close to the school. The possible reduction in the number of children going to private schools in the area. The increase in the number of children with SEND requirements as seen since the pandemic. We know HQ has a considerable success in attaining EHCPs for our pupils with three in the last month. So unless you're confident that all of these issues have been addressed, you cannot continue with this process on the basis of falling numbers. We also know there's a budget deficit. However, as we've seen from announcements by the Secretary of State for Education recently, there is funding on the way in the first instance. That's for those schools who need to make adaptations in relation to SEND accessibility. And Mr Corbyn's just mentioned that he's had encouragement in this area. So HQ should be in the front of the queue for this. I know there are concerns about the investment needed to improve the school buildings, but we are unconvinced by the amount we've been told is necessary to improve them. This was highlighted by Mr Corbyn in his submission to the consultation. So these figures are fair representation of the cost of keeping HQ open. What's the cost of maintaining and skewing school buildings in the event of closures? They've been taken into consideration. These are matters that you need to be sure of before you vote to proceed. The children have been promised places in local schools, but what counts as local? The report highlights that there are various schools within a 1.5 mile walking distance of HQ and there's also five Hackney schools within this range. Anyone who has walked a small child to school will know that that would be a significant undertaking. You have fallen over the three minutes, but I'm going to just let you finish off. I'm really close to my conclusion. Anyone who's walked... Sorry, sorry. We're not aware of any undertaking by Hackney who have their own school closure program underway, that they will help with accommodating children from HQ. So that's something you would need to be sure of before you proceed. I'm going to skip a bit just because I really do want to get my conclusion in. So unless you are certain that all opportunities and solutions have been explored, please do not pursue this plan. If you have doubts about anything included in the report before you, or if there are questions unanswered, you cannot vote to proceed. And if you are paying attention to those who have taken the time to participate in the consultation, to come tonight, I think you've heard what's been the noise outside, or if you are one of the 900 people almost who signed our petition, then you absolutely must not vote to close this school. You do have a choice. Thank you, Becky. I'm going to now hand over to Councillor Safiya Gongou to introduce the report. Thank you very much, Chair. I'm going to introduce the report just to answer to your question, Becky. No decision has been yet made. We still carry on in consultation. As you said about the people number, in every question, Chair, we have 56 vacancies. That means it's empty, empty school. We are taking everything in consideration, as we said, and we know everything we are doing. By going even to the next day, it's for the best interest of children. For us to carry on to engage with parents and the school for us to fund alternative decision. As you said, the number, it is going to increase. But according to the last week report from London Council, it shows 7% reduction decline in reception, and also 6.7% reduction in secondary schools, especially in year 7. That means the number is still going rapidly down the hill. It's not promising for it to change or to come back up as soon as possible. That is where the problem is. Yeah. Thank you. I see Paul is educated. He wants to contribute. Thank you very much, Councillor Satya Nogongo. And thank you, Becky, for those passionate comments. And I must submit, when spending time meeting with parents and meeting with members of staff and members of the community at Hybrid Quadrant, the passion and the commitment for the school. And I think we all recognise it so much more than the school and the community that it's served. So, as everyone here appreciates, these are never easy decisions. With regards to pupil numbers in locality, schools and offices have been looking at within a kilometre radius, not within a mile radius. So, hopefully that makes it slightly closer. But nevertheless, there are places from conversation. From looking at the data, there is capacity at a number of local schools, and particularly the ability to scale up and increase published admission numbers as well, if need be, to scale up capacity if there is a need to go down the eventual route, which may well mean the potential closure of Hybrid Quadrant school. So, there is, from looking at the data, we do have surplus places across the borough. We do have surplus places in a number of schools across the locality. And we do have schools that have the capacity to scale up their admission numbers as well, to go above. And so, in terms of sufficiency of provision, and the local authority being positioned to discharge its duties for ensuring all children have access to a local place, the data makes clear that there is enough provision, there are enough places in a number of schools in that locality, if need be. Thank you. Any questions from Mike? Thank you, Councillor Williams. Just the same question from last time. Just for complete clarity, tonight we are just voting on moving from effectively informal consultation to formal consultation, and no decision is actually being made tonight. Yes, Councillor Wilson, no decision has been made. It's just for us to carry on engagements to the next stage of consultation. Good. Mr. Fernando. Thank you. So, I just want to dig into, I think, one of the comments that was made by the speaker just then. Highbury has a number of developments coming forward. So, Parkview Estate, it has new homes. Highbury Quadrant Church has been demolished and a new development is forthcoming. It would be interesting to understand how much future homes are put into the plans when you're looking at modelling this and looking at needs that are needed more than just the immediate future. Thank you for that question, actually, and that came up several times. When we're having the engagement sessions with parents and a number of the parents made clear that those new developments are likely to be coming in terms of new accommodation and more accommodation, the data would suggest that the yield in terms of child return numbers may not be sufficient to make the school viable. It's important development, as you can imagine, when we go through processes of evaluation of this nature, we do look at our strategic housing marketing assessment data. We do work closely with our colleagues in housing and projections as well. So, place planning is also important. So, it's not just an education department decision alone. We do cross-reference with our housing colleagues and other departments as well, considering future options. The GLA data, the Greater London Authority data tells us until 20, 31, 32, that not just Islington but London is going to see this continued decline. So, it's how best we manage that situation. But, at a local level, we do ensure and one of the strengths of actual Islington, compared to my work in other London authorities in recent years in this space, one of the strengths of Islington is the effective joint working between housing, place planning and education and really looking at these numbers. So, in terms of the numbers are really robust and can stand up to scrutiny. One more question from me. I did speak to the parents at Hybrid Quadrant who did talk about how they found the consultation quite confusing and quite challenging to engage with. I wonder whether there will be a moment of reflection and an opportunity for feedback for parents before we move on, if we do move on to the next stage, so that actually those learnings can be taken on so that it is actually easier for parents to engage with a process that is very complicated, very technical and quite challenging to engage with. Chair, do you mind if I can ask a bit more clarification about the challenging? Because we engage, we add a series of face-to-face meetings to give parents options to ask us, for us to have that dialogue and to give them a chance if they are confused or they are not clear about anything, they can ask us and we can clarify. And we know there are some parents, English is northern-face language like myself, English is my fourth language, to make sure we do have interpreters there, for them to understand and to question us. I wonder really if you can try to make me understand a bit what you heard from parents for when we are going to do formal consultation for us to take it into consideration. Because the main point is for us to engage. That is what we have to use every tools we can to make sure that engagement moves smoothly. If you can please elaborate a bit more. I'm sure some of the parents in the room will have an opportunity to say directly, but I think some of the issues that were raised with me was maybe the lack of meetings with governors and the challenges in understanding the documentation and not always getting, I think we have heard a little bit of not always getting responses as has been mentioned in the room today. I would love for us to investigate a little bit further. But what I am keen for is that there is a process for that feedback to be garnered. Because that is what I have heard and I would love for us to reflect on it if that is some of the feedback the parents are telling me. Thank you and thank you for that and I think we all strive to ensure that our processes are robust as possible. But as relevant as possible to make sure that our parents and carers and members of the community who are engaging in this process do have the opportunity to engage as effectively as possible. I am sure your colleagues would be aware that we did extend the consultation period in good faith as well to allow for the canvassing of extra views and additional information. I understand I think there were three different parent engagement sessions with parents at the school as well during the window as well as I think it was 212 submissions or representations made by the consultation process. But absolutely officers are committed to learning and making sure our processes are responsive to needs. So I would welcome any feedback along those lines because anything that we have can only make it better. It makes it a better outcome for our parents and our carers then we are open minded to improving it. But that is the first time I personally have heard that. But again we are open minded to how best we can strengthen it going forward. So thank you for your views. One tiny feedback follow up from that. Because we have heard that of course Highbury Quadrant has some of the highest amounts of students that do not have English as their first language. So it would be just to understand what specific outreach was done to enable parents who maybe do not have English as their first language in this process with this being a school being the most diverse in the borough. It would be good to understand if we did anything special or extra in this process to help those parents engage. Thank you. We did recognise that I am sure you were aware that we had interpreters at a number of the consultation events to help ensure that those parents maybe with English as an additional language had access to narratives. And also at the same time the information that was made available online was also made available in other languages as well. So we did use best endeavours. Our officers worked closely with the school's governing body to make sure the process was co-designed and jointly delivered in response to needs. So look we can throw a lot at it. We can always do more. But without doubt I think this is the first time I have heard that maybe we could have gone further on a specific area. But in terms of having interpreters available at a consultation event and in terms of making the consultation process available in other languages as well. And I feel that officers, the approach was proportionate and justified. Councillor Munestis, would you like to speak? Thank you Chair. What I don't really understand is, kind of from a bird's eye perspective, it feels like almost a council's picking on the smallest and the most vulnerable. And the reason why I say this is, last year when you looked at the surplus places in the Highbury planning place area, it had the smallest surplus. Even in the report today, later on when we were looking at PAN, it actually, using that same area, has got under 10%, only a 7% surplus, which is what London is actually suggesting. It is only by redrawing the lines of boundaries, which has been mentioned earlier by a resident, that the surplus has increased. So, I think I would like to understand why these two schools, and then secondly, I think it has been mentioned as well, the mention of Hackney. We have no authority in terms of what Hackney does. So, I think, and we've got a duty, a legal duty, to provide a place for every single child in Islington. And I just want to make sure that that is a guarantee. And I think any future mention of Hackney should be taken out from this consultation. We don't have a say. Thank you. Thank you. The local authority has sufficient provision to offer a place to every Islington child that wishes to attend an Islington school. Regardless of what happens in Hackney or doesn't happen in Hackney, the data makes very clear in that North East planning locality that there is sufficient provision. In the North East planning area now, the new planning area actually sees a decline in 20% places, whereas the borough average is at 11. So, that catchment area has seen significant decline. So, looking at that, officers are duty bound to look very closely at that and make the aforementioned recommendations to exactly that have been made. So, regardless of the Hackney context, there are sufficient places in Islington schools and in the North East area in response to local needs. Mr Corbyn, would you like to speak now in Highbury? Thank you. Thank you very much. And I ask you to think very, very seriously about the future of Highbury Corbyn School. For too long, I have been seeing insufficiency of spending on decorations, on support for the school. I believe there has been a subplot agenda always of saying, well, this school is a falling wall and somewhere along the line we are going to close it down. Secondly, it is the school in the borough with the highest number of students whose first language is not English, over 70%. And it has higher levels of deprivation than the borough average. It has higher demands for discretionary educational needs than the borough average. And it is a school that is much supported by its local community. And in paragraph 4.6 of the report, there is a claim that the idea of letting out the rest of the school for non-school purposes would be difficult because of the condition of the building. I beg to differ that many community groups would be very happy to take over parts of the building if you downsized the use in order to ensure that you maintained a school and were able to get an income for the rest of the building. Now, on the question of funding, the figure of £2 million appears very strongly in the report. Well, you have to dig a bit deeper and ask around a bit more to find out that 50% of that £2 million is for Grade B work which would not even start until 2029, four years on from now. There isn't a £2 million requirement this year. Secondly, the £720,000 that is being spent at the moment, I understand quite a lot of that was spent on windows and so on and paid for by the school itself. It seems to me there is an exaggeration of the financial issues surrounding the school to support the case for the closing of the school. And then goes on over the pupils that would be rendered school-less if this building were to close, would be allocated to other schools. And the way this report is constructed, one of the other schools included is St. Jude's and St. Paul's which you've just voted to say would be later closed down. So, I don't think it's really viable to say there are sufficient other spaces available or that you can rely on the hackney element in order to ensure that the pupil needs are met. And so, it also goes on to say that it would be a negative for disabled children and the equality assessment that's being there. And then I would make very strongly the point that in the school in the borough with the highest number of level of children whose first language is not English, to close this school would be very damaging for them and their community. This is a chance to do something different here. To say we value this school, we value this community and we're going to be imaginative about the use of the building and the land, maintain the school but also get income for the school by letting out some of the rest of the building for special educational needs and the many, many community groups that would be looking for spaces. And it is a building that's so laid out it would be quite easy to construct separate entrances to ensure that the obviously very necessary safeguarding policies are adhered to. I just ask you to think very seriously about this and give some confidence to the parents that have shown such confidence in the school by doing something different here and looking for a more imaginative solution put forward by the parents and by the joint union submission which I was also in discussion with the unions about. So please, have a think about it and see if you can just do it differently where hybrid quadrant is concerned. Just before I go over to the officers, I really do want to say I find your comments, you know, serious comments to say there's some kind of plot. I think that's really offensive, you know, just so I would like that said. You know, I'll give the credit, you know, the respect to listen but to say there's some kind of plot when this is webcanned, councillors have, you know, we're data-led and we have a duty and we're trying to be fair here tonight to listen to people's comments. There's still time, there's been no suggestion that either school is closing. We're following all the DfE guidelines. So I just think a member of parliament to say some kind of plot out there when we go out from this town hall, people, you know, we have knives and we live in the community. So I just want to say that we're very data-led. I'm going to ask Paul to answer the question. Thank you Chair and thank you for those comments and those representations and I think everyone here would agree that Ivory Quadrant is a wonderful school. In the meetings, when meeting with the parents and members of the community, our political colleagues, before we've begun the process, during the process, throughout, it's a wonderful school with a rich history that has served an important community and made such a difference, which makes a process like this even harder. When we look at the capital element that features in the report, obviously you have the quantum of the investment required, not just to get the school up to where it would wish to be, to make it as appealing and as attractive and as sustainable as possible, but then we have to look at the forward capital plan, which has been mentioned as well, the investments going up to 2029. So there's something about here and now in over the coming years to sustain and maintain that from the school's maintenance budget in addition to the local authority capital budget. This, how this compares with other schools as well, is considerably an outlier when compared with others and some of that investment would have to be taken away from other schools to sustain that. With regards to why St Jude and St Paul's on the list, it has to be on the list because it's in the proximity because no decision has been made as yet to close St Jude and St Paul's. In fact, if we were not to have St Jude and St Paul's on that list, given the proximity to hybrid quadrant school, officers could be challenged and rightly so. Why have you not put that on? You've made a decision already. Are we saying that we could be perceived to pre-enter or undermine forthcoming due process? So that's the rationale why St Jude and St Paul's is on the list. And with regards to the high volume of children and young people, and families in particular with additional needs in English as an additional language needs as well, Islington has 97% schools that are rated good or outstanding. All schools within a kilometre or in and around a kilometre walking distance from that school are high functioning, are rated highly by the regulator, Ofsted, as well as the DfE, as well as the local authority and well recognised for their inclusive practice and well recognised for accommodating families with English as an additional need as well. So we recognise it's highly emotive and it's incredibly difficult, but we do have a highly effective functioning education system that's highly inclusive and sustainable. I'm going to take some questions to public. I think that lady had her hand up for a while. Hi, thank you. I'm Ruth Edwards. I'm a parent of two children at St Jude's and St Paul's. I'm just hearing, you know, a lot of talk about numbers and we're data-led and there's a lot of robust... You know, I'm just worried we're making decisions on data, but I'm hearing already that even the numbers of pupils at the school is incorrect. And I'm just... It makes me worry about the other data and who is challenging that. Are we all getting an opportunity to scrutinise the data and make sure we're not making decisions based on bad data or incorrect data? Just who gets to see it and who's challenging it? Just to make sure we aren't making, you know, decisions based on incorrect information. Because something quite fundamental is the school roll number. We've got, I think you're saying 90 and we've got 120. It's quite different and I just think, you know, a decline of 6%, does that represent one person in a class? It's not huge when you think about it in numbers, in pupil terms. So, you know, that, you know, I just think we're... I'm just worried that, you know, we're not using the correct figures here and we can make some bad decisions. So, thank you. Thank you and you're absolutely right. It's important that we have data that's compelling. If we are to conclude with confidence about making decisions on how best to proceed, the accuracy of the data will be important. I have to make a mistake or admit you that earlier, when I said 99 pupils on roll at St. Jameson Paul, it is actually 99 at the end of December from year reception to the end of year five, because officers were looking at the potential for maybe in the future needing to consider relocating. If a decision is made in the future, that we will have to find alternative placements for these children, officers have been evaluating. So, it was 99 children from reception to year five, because obviously the year six cohort wouldn't be considered as part of that because they would be moving to secondary estate in September. I'm going to be taking questions now on Highbury Quadrant School, because we've finished. So, is this about Highbury Quadrant? Yeah. Is your question about Highbury Quadrant as well? I'll take that gentleman and then you. Is that OK? Cool. Thank you. Just firstly, just feedback. The gentleman over there talked about engagement from parents in the consultation. As a parent of Highbury Quadrant, I just want to firstly say, we did have face-to-face engagement with Paul, but it felt deliberate, like the amount of time that was given to parents to ask questions and to gain feedback, felt like it was deliberately kept short to limit the amount of engagement parents could have. So, that's just feedback on the consultation. And then when we submitted questions via the email address, it took a long time to get responses back. So, then even if you had follow-up questions, you knew you wasn't going to get an answer. So, engagement on the consultation, I think it was quite poor. My question around, and similarly I'll echo what others have said, around the data in the report, it definitely seems flawed. And I appreciate you keep mentioning a decision hasn't been made for the schools to be closed, but you're here today to make a decision on whether to propose, go move forward with a formal consultation or not. If the data in the report is flawed, such as the amount of capacity available, if the work hasn't been done around, you know, with the local schools around to say, okay, yes, we can increase capacity, because we have engaged with the school to say, yes, there is capacity available, so we can accommodate children, we can put 30 schools, we can make new classrooms. I appreciate why they kept saying that, well, if it looks like we engage with the consult with other schools, then it's a decision to be made. But surely for the committee to be able to make an informed decision, you need to have all of the answers and informed answers to be able to move forward, such as, yes, if we did decide to close the school or go forward with the proposal, this is what the plan would be for the children. We have X amount of spaces in the school, we can increase capacity, we've engaged with the school, and you can continue forward down that line. Thank you. Before I pass over to Paul, thank you for your comments about you felt you didn't have enough time, because we will feed that back, and we will make sure that, you know, if you need more time, that we will feed that back in. I'll hand you over to Paul. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for those comments. I do recall the gentleman attending the free engagement meetings that we had, and he asked some very, very relevant questions which were really helpful. And in terms of, I think that feedback has been quite helpful if it was perceived, but the time is too short. We had three sessions with parents. The sessions were an hour long after the initial data presented. Parents were afforded an opportunity for questions and answers. And also, when those sessions finished actually. Each parent that wanted to ask a question was afforded the opportunity for a one-to-one with me, or my assistant director, or our head of service who was also there in attendance as well. And that meant officers were waiting around, sometimes half an hour, 45 minutes, after the meetings had finished, where possible to actually answer questions. And I appreciate that maybe not have been long enough for some, but we did use best endeavours within available time. In addition to the hour session, on each occasion, to actually spend time. And the gentleman who asked that question was actually, I do recall spending time with him after one meeting at least, answering his questions directly as well. With regards to the data in Florida, I would challenge that. Our data is held up to the highest level of scrutiny. If there is a few that there is data that we have, Florida, I'd welcome hearing about that, to contest that perceived factor and accuracy. Our data has to stand up to scrutiny from Ofsted, stand up to scrutiny from the Department of Education, and also informed by information received from the schools as well, to help triangulate that. So if there is the perception that there is for data, obviously we are in the business of making sure that our information is as accurate as possible. I'd welcome sighting to help our processes be as best as possible in response to local needs. We need to make sure that we are presenting information that is fit for purpose so our political colleagues can make informed decisions based on the best information possible. But I would contest the perception that we have flawed data because it is based on the information presented. What I am aware of, I am not aware of that. Thank you Chair. I'll take the question. Whenever this process is put in place to close a school, we keep on hearing this thing about no decision has been made yet. Could the relevant official tell us, in the last ten years when a school has been proposed for closure, has there ever been a case when the decision has been reversed? I don't know if I have the history for that, if anybody does in the room. I don't believe we have closed school, but I could be wrong. Thank you Chair. I'm aware that some schools, I mean I've only joined ISM until in September, so I can't maybe give the organisation memory going back ten years, but I know that there have been a number of schools that have potentially been earmarked for potential process of evaluation, dialogue with the respective governing bodies in those schools. And we've found an alternative way, such as we had similar dialogue with the governing body at St. Jude of St. Paul's, and similar dialogue with the governing body at Highbury Quadrant as well. So where there's an alternative process or an alternative pathway to going down that route, then I'm aware in my limited time that I've been here that there are one or two schools that potentially through, as I say, confidential conversations that we've found an alternative way. Chair, that didn't really answer the question. He may well have had these little chats over cupcakes and tea, but I'm talking about when the process has gone like this. We haven't closed school. We haven't closed school since I've been a councillor. Do you want me to respond to that, Chair? Yes. So, Paul's question is over the last ten years, before when I arrived, I was told very clearly we hadn't closed school for a number of years. That's beyond ten. We've had three phases. This is the third phase of school reorganisation. In that first phase, there was an amalgamation between schools, Victoria and Copenhagen, last year. There were a number of PAN reductions. Paul was well known at the Paul's Park, where an alternative viable case was put forward to the Secretary of State around joining an academy mat. And that transposed in September, October. There was Duncan-Montum, which amalgamated with the closure of Montum last academic year. And then there's phase three proposals here. So I think that gives a chronology of where and what we've been doing. That means the answer to my question is the negative. No school has ever been left alone. So when you say that no decisions have been made, to us, the public, we believe it's a foregone conclusion. It's going to happen anyway. We have to follow the DSE guidelines. So, you know, this is why we're here tonight to, you know, and we've said, I don't know how many times people have asked, there is no decision yet to close either schools. We have to follow process to move on to formal consultation. I'm going to take a couple more questions. Would you like to speak? Hello. My name's Phoebe. I'm a teacher at Highbury Quadrant. In the report, it states that there are numerous alternative primary schools within close proximity to Highbury Quadrant. As teachers, I'm here with my colleague, we have already lost a considerable amount of children to nearby schools, as well as, even though, as we've discussed, the decision allegedly has not been made already. We know from anecdotal, from our experiences, that local schools have limited to no spaces, especially in relation to the capacity for needs for our children, either with SEN or due to religious reasons. In fact, I've had children in my class who've been rejected because their needs are too severe for other schools in walking distance. My question is in relation to this, how do you work out appropriate walking distance? How is the walking distance different for the toddlers in the Parkview estate who would be attending our nursery provision in the future versus, say for example, the year five children? Those will have different times, and I think that's a really pertinent question considering lots of the data you talk about is in relation to there being schools nearby. Thank you for that question. Actually that question came up, I think, on a regular basis in the conversations that officers were having with professionals but also with parents and carers. It's something that we wish to ensure that our children, young people and families have access to a significant amount of places without having to walk or travel too far. In line with our school organisation plan within the national framework guidelines, we look at within one kilometre and then we also look at category between one kilometre and one mile radius as well to ensure. So there are sufficient places, the data does make that very clear. In addition to what the published admission number is, and there is the published admission numbers which will say how many places available. In addition to that, we have a number of schools that have the potential to scale up from being one form entry to two form and two form to three form if there is a need to bulge as well. So conversations have been undertaken with headteachers with the potential for just in case there is a need to in the future scale up our populations in other schools to accommodate to ensure that no family will have to travel a disproportionate distance to get to school. As you would imagine, we have to consider all potential opportunities or options, should I say. But we do have a number of schools. The data makes very clear the potential within published admission numbers but also the flexibility to scale up the published admission number to bulge as well if need be. If anybody wants to ask a question that hasn't spoke, I can see George wants to, but I just want to go. Sorry, I can't help you ask my question. My question was, how did you take into consideration the fact that a toddler that will be coming to our nursery is going to manage the walking distance versus our older children? You cannot apply the same criteria to children that have different needs. We are not even talking about age, but that is a consideration for our school because we have provision from nursery all the way to year 6. I don't feel like my question was answered. Thank you. Our earliest team who oversee the work of the 0-5 age category have played a considerable part in shaping and designing the work of this report as well. And you can imagine that. We are probably not facing too many challenges that are different from Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the school organisation programme that Islington Borough Council has in recent years had to undertake. So we have applied the same methodology when comparing and contrasting and having those conversations with neighbouring schools and neighbouring nurseries and children centres as well. So you are absolutely right. Some children of a particular age may not be in a position to travel between one kilometre and one mile radius, but some may be able to do so within one kilometre as well. But we are, as I think has been repeatedly said tonight, there is no mention of closure. We are talking about evaluating the process to move to the next phase to consider that. And if it is something that does not feature strong enough in the report, our early years team and children's centres team have actually played a part in shaping this. We will make sure that that features in the next phase should we get to that juncture. It is an important consideration. I am going to take two more questions. So if you have not spoken, can you put your hand up? I am going to take the lady and the man. Is that ok? Because I will take three. I will take George, the man and the lady. Mine is quick. I just wanted to ask about the environmental impact on the area. Because we have a bus service that actually goes and basically around there. We may see a bus route cut because of the impact of that school closure and the highway quad. And also you are not taking the impact on the public transport that is now going to be needed. It is going to be pushed out. So you are going to have an environmental change because there is not enough buses. They are not going to put up more buses. I have already seen where we have got the academy on Blackstock Road etc. Where kids are turning up late now because they can't get on the buses. So you are going to get more children and you are going to get more and more lightness in those schools. Because of the impact pushing them to other schools. I am not sure that Paul can answer about cutting of bus routes but we will feed that in. I am going to take the other two questions. Hello, thank you. I am also a teacher in Highbrook Quadrant. I just wanted to ask since there is no decision has been made and we are still in a consultation period. I just wanted to know is there a list of things that each of the schools can do to actually stay open? And what are these? Because it feels like we have not been supported enough to actually pursue any other opportunity to keep our schools closed and our communities intact. Do you want to answer that? And then I will take the last question. We have mentioned the importance of viability. Often the biggest problem here is pupil numbers. We recognise that across London, London has seen a loss of 50,000 children from the education system in the last five years. 50,000 of which Islington has had its fair share. At a local level, tough decisions have had to be made on schools in recent years during Phase 1 and Phase 2 as part of our school organisation programme. And here we find ourselves at Phase 3 having to make some tough decisions to consider. How best we reduce the surplus to keep alive an education system to be as viable as possible. What can be done? The biggest drivers are here the loss of children, the loss of children. I think I mentioned earlier, ideally the DfE recognises or recommends that we shouldn't be carrying a surplus in more than 5% places. Schools that are carrying 15 to 20%, it makes it very difficult. So unless we can get more children into the system, unless there can be improved confidence, unfortunately schools such as Highbury Quadrant, it serves the community that is important and has served the school very well and the school has served the community very well. The primary driver here is about children. It's do we have enough children in the school or is there an alternative way? Is there an alternative compelling approach that can be undertaken to avoid the consideration for closure? But the amount of children in the school is the biggest driver here. I am so sorry. So that means that we're going to close? That's what you're telling me? No. That's what I understood. He did not say that. He said we don't have enough children. He said the biggest driver here. The biggest driver here. You were asking the question. He did not say we're going to close the school. He said we don't have enough children, so there's so much we can do. I'm going to take the last question there. Hi, I'm Mark, Premises Manager at Highbury Quadrant. In reference to the report, it mentions Hackney over 35 times. Yet, I was under the impression that this was an issue. I don't understand what Hackney has to do with this report. Do you want to answer that? Thank you. Given the proximity of the school and the place planning area to Hackney, as you would imagine, my officers have been working very closely with their equivalents in Hackney. It's important that we work closely because Hackney have been working closely with our team. Unfortunately, Hackney are going through a process of having to consider how best to remove the surplus in their system as well. We have to have regards to what's going on in Hackney because Islington alone cannot be making decisions of this nature. And it's possible, depending on where our families live, and looking at the postcodes and looking at the addresses, some of them have a closer, they live closer to the Hackney border. So, we do have to consider this. Whilst we wish to retain and keep all of our children in Islington and schools, and we do have the capacity to do so, to be fair to our families, we will have to consider joint working with Hackney as Hackney has to joint work with us as well, en masse as its nature. I think it's the geography of this situation requires a situation that requires joint working. But that means the catchment isn't, isn't it? Excuse me. I've taken the last question now. I'm going back to the executives now. Can we agree the recommendations 1.1 and 1.2 on page 435 of the Agenda Pat? And note the extended appendies, please. Thank you. For those that want to leave the meeting tonight, but you're more than welcome to stay because we have our budget. If you are leaving, I'd appreciate if you could leave as quietly as possible, because the meeting is webcamed and we've still got quite a bit on the agenda. Thank you. And also, thank you to the parents, Becky, the teachers and everybody that come here tonight to speak. To the exec, I'm going to just take a five-minute break. Is that okay? Five minutes. ...rategic, on pages 9 to 266 of the Agenda Pat. The comments of their Corporate Resources and Economy Sprutiny Committee, which we are required to consider in accordance with the Constitution, was circulated as a second dispatch earlier this week. Councillor Ward, can you introduce the report? Thank you very much, Chair. So the budget has been to Executive in January. It has been to, as you say, Corporate Dosis Economy Scrutiny Committee. It has also been to Audit Committee. It has now come back to Executive for February Executive. There are minimal changes to the budget. There has been some further work on parking, which is now in the new budget papers. But the main crux of what I want to say is that we cannot reverse 14 years of Tory austerity, but we can do everything we can to protect frontline services in this borough. That includes investing £200 million in homelessness support and prevention over the next two years. I know Councillor Wolfe is doing some excellent work there. That means supporting an inclusive, fair economy by enabling the delivery of 1,000 apprenticeships and putting 5,000 people into work. Councillor Bell Bradford is doing some great work there. Creating a greener, healthier borough by continuing to invest in recycling and by planting 600 trees a year. I know Councillor Champion is very, very passionate about that. Making Islington a child-friendly borough, where young people can fill their full potential, providing a seamless offer of support for all speed-age children and empowering people across the borough by making sure we have the right support and a more effective response to resident enquiries. We have been working hard on our Resident Experience programme, which is an investigative programme. Thank you, Chair. Happy to take any questions. Just before I want to just say my thanks on record, not only to you, to the Executive members, to the Council and all the Council staff and everybody in finance. We really do appreciate the work year on year in that goes into a budget. We have a legal duty to set a budget and I'm proud that this Council always does set a legal budget. So any questions from members of the committee? Any questions from Councillor Benali? Thanks very much. So, yep, pleased to see the proposed changing to residence parking. I'd be keen to better understand the rationale behind residence parking because we've got a £10 increase plus 1.7 which means that we are levying a steeper percentage increase on the least polluting cars than on the most polluting cars. So I'd be keen to understand the Council's rationale and thinking on how we got to that decision. I'd be very happy to take those comments away, Councillor Hamdash. We do have regular meetings with the Green Party. I'll hand over to Councillor Champion in a second, but I will just say from the outset, if you want to speak to me about potential changes or amendments, my door is always open. I'll always speak to you about that. If we receive potential amendments at six days before full Council, I've said it before, I'll say it again, there probably isn't very much that we can do with that because it's just not enough millers. I'll hand over to Councillor Champion. I think the reason we took with the view we did, we have a very high gradation based on emissions. So if you look at the most polluting vehicles, the charge for them per year and actually per month, because actually lots of people purchase by month now, is actually considerably higher than those in the lower bands. I can't recall, I think it's something like seven times. So you've already got a really big differentiation. I think one of the issues we're starting to look at now also is emissions absolutely is really important and continues to be a driver because of air quality, etc. But also, there is space taken up by vehicles. So some of the increase is a reflection of the fact that actually the curbside is a really, really valuable resource at the moment. And I think if you look at the cost of the lower-based permits, which I completely understand that for many people, cost of living, but we're looking at, for the lowest-based permit, we're looking at about 160, 160-odd pounds a year. So I think it's that. It's just a reflection of the fact that we have have very, very good emissions-based policy. And that has led perhaps to an emphasis on that, rather than the fact that actually we are now also taking up space that we're very much in demand for things like sort of greening. We know that we have to make this into much more resilient to climate change in terms of both cooling, but also in terms of absorbency. So there's all these, there's all these competitions at the curbside. This is just a reflection of the fact that that's become a very valuable space. Thank you. A follow-up question in the intersection of both comments, which is really helpful. You know, we absolutely do have ideas for those amendments. You might have seen it in the pages of Islington Tribune. We'd like to know whether the Council has explored a SUV tax. So we've been talking to parking officers who have told us that the Diaville Aid is now providing more information about the weightage of cars. And the opportunity to put a supplement on very heavy cars that are over two tons in the model of Paris seems like a much more progressive way of bringing in parking income than levering less income rises on the most polluting cars than on the east. So as I've said, Councillor Hamdash, I have made sure that we have a regular meeting with the opposition to discuss any budget options that you may wish to talk about. That's why I was incredibly disappointed that I heard about these potential changes in the Tribune. If you wish to play politics with this, that's entirely a matter for the opposition. But there's one way to effect change and that's to talk to us and try and work together. If you want to do that, my door is open. If you want to politic, put things in the Tribune and don't tell us about them, so be it. But do put people before politics. Thank you. I mean, just a quick clarification. We've been asking questions about an SUV tax for years, so it's not anything new. I've never been asked about an SUV tax. Councillor Estes, would you like to ask a question? Thank you, Chair. And I completely agree with you. Amazing report. Well done. There's lots of numbers in it. So just for clarity, has Islington Council's core spending power gone up this year or has it gone down? Are you referring to a particular paragraph in the budget, Councillor? I'm just referring specifically to the amount of money that we get from the national government. And I know we've had a final settlement. And in terms of us being able to leverage that against purchasing things, are we more empowered or less? So, our core spending power has gone up. You mean, again, you seem to be trying to make a political point. In answer to your question, our core spending power has gone up. If you want to refer me to a particular paragraph, I'm happy to give more detail. It's in the report. You can read it. 1.86%. Sorry. Paragraph 1.86. Sorry. I wasn't sure what you exactly showed me. Has he got any other questions? Thank you for that. I think that really exemplifies what I mentioned about loads of numbers and being confused by all of them. Is that taken after inflation or before? So, just to be absolutely clear, the Council's core spending power has gone up. You can read about that in paragraph 1.86. Councillor Ward, I'm going to move on because it's obvious that sometimes we sit and read all these papers and it's a bit off-putting when someone's just looking and you haven't read the whole budget. Thank you. Is there any questions for members of the public? Thank you. Please, can we agree? Recommendations 2.1 on page 9 of the agenda pack. Note and endorse recommendations 1.2 to 1.29 for approval by the Council. Note the observations of the corporate resources and economy scrutiny on the budget process. Item B5, Corporate Performance Update, QT 2425, pages 267 to 294 of the agenda pack. Councillor Ward, please, could you introduce the report? Thank you, Chair. In a nutshell, Chair, a lot done, but a lot to do. I think the new format for corporate performance is incredibly helpful, very, very simple, and we can see exactly where we're doing well and where we need to improve. In terms of performance area to be celebrated, persistent absence is better than the same period last year. The delivery plan target of 5,000 people into work has been exceeded, and 51 per cent of Ismson's population live within 400 metres of a strategic cycle network, and that's up 3 per cent since 2016. There still are stubborn areas which need to be improved, especially around school attendance, care levers in employment and education, and the percentage of household waste to be recycled and composted. So, a lot done, Chair, but a lot to do. Thank you. Any questions from the executive? Any questions from the bench have there? Thank you. Can we agree recommendations 2.1 on page 268 of the agenda pack, please? Thank you. Thank you. Item B6, Admissions to Islington Community Schools, 2026 to 2027, pages 295 to 384 of the agenda pack. Thank you, Stephanie Nogongo. Could you say a few words for the induction of this report, please? Yes. Thank you very much, Chair. Chair, this is an annual requirement from every local authority to publish and to determine the admission arrangement for a year. That means this is a bad recommendation for us to publish our 2026-2027 admission arrangement. Thank you. Any questions from the executive? Any questions for the bench? Councillor Onestas? Thank you, Chair. I think the pound reduction in primary schools is extremely welcomed. I know how difficult it is for schools to make those decisions. I'm sure there's been lots of dialogue between all the officers and the exec to make that happen. And I think when we talk about the school organisation plan, the number one thing that we're looking to change, that's what we're looking for. Just to check, because we have had a change in the school boundaries for the places. This report still uses the old boundaries of the areas. It doesn't use the new boundaries. Should that be taken into account? No, it doesn't have to be taken into account with regards to that area, no. Are there any questions from members of the public? Can we agree recommendations 2.1 to 2.3 on page 296 of the agenda pack? Thank you. Next item, item B9, extension to the parking enforcement services contract. Pages 479 to 486 of the agenda pack. Councillor Champion, could you please introduce the report? Yes, so very basically, this report seeks approval to extend the existing parking enforcement contract for another six months, just to complete a procurement process. Any questions from the executive? Any questions from the bench? Any questions from the public? Thank you. Can we please agree the recommendations 1.1 and 2.2 on page 479 of the agenda pack? Thank you. Item B10, procurement strategy and contract award for cashless parking services, page 487 to 494 of the agenda pack. Councillor Champion, please could you introduce the report? Compared to the earlier items, this seems quite dry one. So again, so it really just is an extension to the contract for cashless parking, which at the moment is Ringo for another year. Any questions from the executive? Any questions from the bench over there? No? Any questions from the members of the public? Please can we agree? Recommendations 1.1 on page 487 of the agenda pack, please. Agreed? Now the last item on agenda, E11, is appropriation of the land at the Sinsbury Leisure Centre for planning purposes, pages 495 to pages 538 of the agenda pack. There's an exempt appendix accompanying this report on page 873 of the agenda pack, which exempt members have read, which will inform, which is for information only. Councillor Wolfe, can you introduce this report in Councillor Bradford Bell's absence? Sure. Thank you, Chair. And as you said, the purpose of this decision is to agree in principle that the land associated with the proposed Finsbury Leisure Centre redevelopment, Finsbury Leisure Centre redevelopment is appropriated for planning, a decision that's fairly typical for development of this nature. The actual appropriation would only happen when the scheme commences, subject to consultation, of course, and other processes that are required before an appropriation can happen. Essentially, this decision does two things. Firstly, it helps ensure the development can proceed, subject to planning consent and ongoing viability, and not be unnecessarily delayed. Secondly, it ensures neighbours who may be entitled to statutory rights of light compensation can still exercise their rights. This is a technical matter, and it is distinct from the broader decision about the scheme, which the Executive will consider later in the year. Is there any questions from the Executive, Councillor Wolfe? Thank you. Thanks, Councillor Wolfe. So, you confirm, this is not a planning application, nor anything like it. This is merely a technicality. Any planning application will come later, and will be subject to consultation. That is correct, yeah. Any other questions from the Executive? Any questions from the Bench? Is there any questions from the members of the public? If you'd like to put your hand up so I can see who wants to speak. If you could just say your name. Hi, I'm Francis Moss, and it's very good to hear that the Council is using its budget to support a child-friendly and a green borough. In the case of the Finsbury Leisure Centre and this appropriation of land, why is the Council not looking to protect this much well-used and much-needed land as open space, leisure land, and green land as well, and the trees on it for the next generation? Thank you, and thank you for your patience as well. To be really, really specific on this, this is very much a technical matter with regard to the principle that land association redevelopment is appropriated for planning. These sorts of questions, I'm very happy to have further discussions, but this is not planning consideration in terms of the nature of the development of the site, which is subject to planning consent and ongoing viability. So, very happy to say those questions are flying, but this is purely a kind of technical paper. Can I just follow up on that, because I think just to make the link quickly, because obviously the appropriation also has an impact on the right to light of residents, and, in fact, it can diminish the potential of residents to protect their right to light of neighbouring residents, and I think that's an important technicality that hasn't been mentioned in the technicalities. So, I just want to ask, in that case, does the council feel that the neighbours of the Finsbury Leisure Centre site have less of a right to standard minimum levels of daylight, as opposed to other sites, as opposed to other neighbours next to other developments where this is not being done, and this is not something standard that's done on all development sites. And, also, you know, it's probably good to note that what is proposed currently on the site is also a tall building which is not in line... This is, we're not talking about the FLC, we're talking about land appropriation, so we'll only take questions on that, you know, a lot about tall buildings or anything, so we'll get it clear. So, if you want to answer that, and then I'll see the other gentleman's got his hand on it. Thank you. So, I'll take this gentleman, and then I'll take you. I mean, all I would say on that, with regards to technicalities within this paper, that it clearly establishes the right to light compensation or rights of way is available. But, beyond that, we're really getting into planning discussions. Thank you very much for this question. I'm not sure that, because it's being covered in this idea that it's a technicality, but necessarily all the councillors here who are actually voting on this are aware, and I think Francis has tried to make it clear, but I think that it's being brushed over, that what is actually happening here is a process whereby, by appropriating the land, you are making the development, you are saying that the development is of such a kind of social necessity that it doesn't fall within the normal rights that people are allowed. Now, this change of appropriation is really used in exceptional circumstances. It's not generally used, and by making this claim, you mean that it will completely stop any opposition that people have made. To stop the process, you're only going to be allowed to make a claim, and this will be at a greatly reduced value. So, it's not a very neutral reclassification of the site, and if you believe that, then I'm afraid you'll need to actually go and read up and find out what is actually involved in this. I'm only saying this as a point so all the councillors realise that this isn't a neutral technicality. This is a very important point in the process that stops local residents either stopping the site on the basis of it being an obstruction to light, and also stops reasonable claims in compensation. Thank you. I'll defer to my corporate director shortly, but this is appropriate. This is a fairly typical procedure for development of this nature, and this decision today, if taken, does not preclude planning considerations at planning stage. So, the various issues that you're raising are still subject to planning consent, not to mention ongoing viability. So, I'm not sure that's technically correct, but I don't know if Stephen would like to come in. Happy to. Thank you, Council. Good evening. I'm Stephen Bakes, Corporate Director of Community Wealth Building. Yeah, just two things. This is still subject to planning consent, so your good selves and anybody else has the right right up to the point on planning committee to raise any objections and, indeed, to come along to planning committee. No decision has been made on the scheme. And as the paper said, and as Councillor Wolfe said, in no way does the decision to appropriate the land in any way undermine statutory rights to rights of light compensation, which are assessed, I'm sure you've read, on a normal formula. So, there's no contradiction. Thank you. I might just quickly reply to that. I think that it's a smokescreen to say that. It's simply not true. It completely fundamentally changes the legal position of residents around the site. And the Honourable Gentleman must be aware of that. So, you know, thank you. But we do know and we do understand the technicalities of this, and we are aware of what this means. And if the councillors who are voting on this aren't aware, they should be made aware. They should research it and understand what's going on. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to take the other gentleman. You had a question. Okay. Thank you. My name is Michael Riggs. Related to the question that Matthew has just asked, can I ask what the current statutory purpose for which the land is held, what is the current statutory purpose? And secondly, what is the council's motive in going for appropriation? Why are you appropriating? Stephen, the director. Good evening. So, it's held in our general fund for leisure purposes. For leisure. Okay. And what's the motive for appropriation? Is this in order to allow the land to be rezoned for building? Is it for the reason that it prevents injunctive relief of the neighbouring properties? Or what's the motive? Yes, please. I wouldn't describe it as a motive, but the purpose to... So, it's currently used for leisure purposes. There is a leisure centre there in Sports Pictures, as you'll be aware. Subject to planning and viability, we're proposing, as you know, to build some houses and to re-provide the leisure provision. In simple terms, at the point that we commence that work, should it be approved, it will be appropriated for planning. We'll go ahead and build the development, and then it will be re-appropriated for a mixed-use development of both housing and leisure. A very normal process, as the councillor said. So, the appropriation for planning is a fixed term to manage the development, and then it will be re-appropriated for its future use, which, subject to the planning proposal, will be a combination of housing and leisure. So, my understanding would there be that the primary objective is to allow the land to be re-zoned from leisure to building? Yes, it will need to... We have statutory duty to appropriate land in relation to its use, and if it does go forward, it will have a change of use. Can I ask just a supplementary question as to why Appendix 3, the right to light advice received from your consultants, is not being made available to the public? I understand the legislative structure under which the councillor isn't able to do that. Mark Jankovic has advised me of that. But I would like to understand why you're withholding that information. So, I think there's been communication on this. The council is always in favour of disclosing as much information as possible about the decisions that the council takes. However, in some limited circumstances, there is a need to safeguard certain information that would be inappropriate to disclose to the public. And a list of the exempt categories of information can be found in 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. It's important for us, as a council, to strike a balance between the public right to inspect related documents and the need to safeguard information which should be exempt from public disclosure. In light of the sensitive financial information contained in the right to light report the council received, it was determined that this report be exempt from disclosure by virtue of the Local Government Act 1972. Okay. I understand that. Mark has highlighted that to me, in fact. I think that lady, you had your hand up to ask the question, because I'm going to take the last question. Mark has explained that to me, and I've looked at the legislation. But what I don't understand, and what's not clear, is why are you withholding it? What's the nature of this financial information that is so sensitive that the elect Islington voters aren't allowed to see it? As I said, we must strike the right balance between the public's right to inspect related documents and the need to safeguard certain information. And in light of the sensitive financial information, which I can't disclose, because therefore it wouldn't be exempt, we've had to strike that balance. I'm going to take one last question. Has anybody got a last question yet? Do you want to come in with the last question? Yeah, obviously, you raised the issue of right to light, councillor, so we need to press you on this. Based on what you've said, and that one of the objectives is to address the issue of right to light, are we correct in assuming that you and the council are entirely comfortable with the idea that the development might limit our right to light, that our light to right might be deprived as a result of this development, and that your purpose is to limit our ability to object to this proposal based on the right to light, or even to claim proper compensation. Isn't that why you're taking this action tonight? And is this really the action of a Labour councillor? So far, this development is destroying community football fields. Is there a question? This is the question, madam. Is there a question or a speech? This is the question, madam. So far, this development is destroying community football fields. It's taking down a bunch of trees. We're not here to think, sir. And now, what I want to know is... OK, here's the question. No, I'm going to stop you now. This is a council meeting held in public. Not a public meeting. Not about football pitches. We've been really reasonable. I've tried to let as many people speak tonight. And I'm sorry, I'm taking no more questions. I've asked the question, and I'd like it to be answered. I'm taking no more questions. I would like my question to be answered. You can't answer my question. Can we please agree the recommendations on 2.1 to 2.4 on page 496 of the Agenda Pack? And note the exempt appendix, please. Thank you. Thank you very much. There's no other items to consider that concludes our meeting this evening. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.