This week in Islington:

• The Licensing Sub Committee B was scheduled to discuss a premises licence variation for The Archway and a new licence application for Lot 103.
• The Planning Sub Committee B refused an application for a dwelling at 49 Richmond Avenue and approved a dwelling at 4-6 Shaftesbury Road with amended conditions.

Licensing Sub Committee B - Thursday 08 May 2025

The Licensing Sub Committee B scheduled a meeting to discuss a premises licence variation for The Archway, located at 1 Navigator Square, and a new licence application for Lot 103. Councillor Bashir Ibrahim was scheduled to chair the meeting, with Councillor Nick Wayne, Chair of Corporate Resources and Economy Scrutiny Committee, and Councillor Ilkay Cinko-Oner, Deputy Leader of the Independent and Green Group, also in attendance. No video was provided.

The Archway, 1 Navigator Square - Premises Licence Variation

The sub committee was scheduled to consider an application for a variation of the premises licence for The Archway, located at First Floor, 1 Navigator Square, N19 3TD.

The existing licence for The Archway allows: the sale of alcohol on the premises, regulated entertainments including films, live music, recorded music and the performance of dance, the provision of late-night refreshment, and the premises to open until 01:30 Sundays to Wednesdays, 02:30 on Thursdays, and 04:00 on Fridays and Saturdays.

Archway Bars Ltd applied to vary the licence to: extend the capacity of the smoking terrace to a maximum of 60 people when the rest of the venue is not in operation, from 09:00 to 01:00 Sundays to Wednesdays, and from 09:00 to 02:00 Thursdays to Saturdays, amend condition 12 to allow drinks to be taken onto the terrace after 23:00 when the rest of the venue is not in operation, amend condition 25b to allow one Security Industry Authority (SIA) operative after 23:00 on Thursday, Friday and Saturday when only the terrace is in operation, and amend condition 37 to allow 30 people on the terrace from 23:00 when the whole club is in operation.

According to the report pack, representations were received from the Licensing Authority and a local resident. The Metropolitan Police and the Council’s Noise Service made no objections, as conditions had been agreed.

The Licensing Authority noted that the premises is in the Junction Cumulative Impact Area¹ and that therefore Licensing Policy 3 applied, creating a presumption of refusal unless the Sub-Committee is satisfied that there will be no adverse cumulative impact on the licensing objectives.

The Licensing Authority also raised concerns that planning permission was not in place for the structure on the roof terrace. They also noted that the Commercial Environmental Health Team had advised that the roof terrace is substantially enclosed, and therefore may not comply with smoke-free regulations².

Lot 103, 103 Newington Green Road - New Licence Application

The sub committee was scheduled to discuss a new licence application for Lot 103, 103 Newington Green Road. This item was marked as 'PENDING' on the agenda.

Planning Sub Committee B - Thursday 08 May 2025

The Islington Council Planning Sub Committee B met on 8 May 2025, to discuss two planning applications. The committee refused an application for the construction of a dwelling at the rear of 49 Richmond Avenue, London, N1 0LX due to concerns about design, quality of accommodation, sustainability and fire safety. They approved, with amendments to conditions, an application for the demolition of a workshop and erection of a dwelling to the rear of 4-6 Shaftesbury Road, London, N19 4QN.

Land at the rear of 49 Richmond Avenue

The committee refused planning permission for the demolition of an existing single-storey garage and the construction of a two-storey, one-bedroom dwelling with a basement, roof terrace, and air source heat pump at the rear of 49 Richmond Avenue, London, N1 0LX.

The planning officer, Catherine Holness, explained that the application had been called to the Planning Sub-Committee by two councillors because of the need to weigh the provision of a new dwelling against housing delivery targets, and to consider the sustainability aspects of the scheme.

Objections to the proposal included concerns about overdevelopment, unacceptable design, impact on the historic terrace and surrounding area, foundations, loss of privacy and light, and construction impact. The planning officer reported that the design did not make a positive contribution to the local character, and that the quality of accommodation would be inadequate. The officer also raised concerns about inclusive design, sustainability, and fire safety.

The planning officer stated:

While the provision of the new dwelling would add to the number of dwellings within the borough, it's essential that new housing addresses relevant policies that seek to ensure the delivery of high-quality housing in appropriate locations. For the reasons set out in the committee report and within this presentation, the proposed dwelling would be harmful and would not present an appropriate quality of accommodation.

Councillor Martin Klute, Chair of Planning Committee, asked about the quality of the accommodation, particularly the number of stairs in the proposed house. He asked if there was anything in policy terms that would help the committee come to a view about that. The planning officer responded that the policies do not have anything specifically on stairs, but that the committee has to take a balanced view looking at the whole of it.

Councillor Benali Hamdache, Leader of the Independent and Green Group, asked about the number of stairs into the basement and into the reception area, and whether level access was possible. The planning officer confirmed there would be nine stairs leading into the basement and five stairs at the main entrance.

Speaking in support of the application, Tom Burns, speaking on behalf of four houses in Hemingford Road, said that the neighbours had looked at the plans carefully and would like to strongly support it. He said that the plan would rid them of a dreadful eyesore, that the design fits well with the street, and that it is built to high ecological and sustainability standards. He also said that it is a small house that could be bought and lived in by a young family or a young couple.

Another supporter, Mark Austin, read out comments from Dr Peter Willis, the immediate next-door neighbour of the proposed site, who said that he strongly supports the new application.

Councillor Russell spoke in support of the application, reading out comments from a heritage consultant who said that the scheme would have no negative impact on the significance of the conservation area, and that the scheme should be supported.

The applicant, Graeme McBride, said that the purpose of the scheme is a self-built, affordable, entry-level, one-bedroom home for his daughter. He said that the internal space exceeds the boundary plan minimum standards, and that the number of internal steps are similar to that in local terraces in the street.

The architect, Chris Proctor, addressed the five summary reasons for refusal in detail. He said that the visibility of reduced building depth would not cause harm, that the ceiling heights were designed to align with conservation neighbours, and that every level in the house and every room in the house is dual aspect. He also said that the proposal is fully M41 required³ and adaptive to Islington M42⁴.

Councillor Tricia Clarke, Chair of Environment, Climate Change & Transport Scrutiny Committee, asked how the applicant had dealt with objections from neighbours mentioning overlooking and loss of sunlight. The applicant responded that the house is to the north of those terraces, so there is no effect on sunlight, and that there is no overlooking because of big trees.

Councillor Hamdache asked whether any thought had gone into a flat entry, and what kind of considerations there were in terms of long-term accessibility of the building. The applicant responded that every other terrace on the street has the steps up to it, and that a building that had a flat entrance would noticeably stand out.

Councillor Klute asked about the fire safety report, and whether it was only required for two or more buildings. The planning officer responded that the local validation list does say for two or more dwellings, but that the London plan policy says all applications, so they have to take a pragmatic view on when it's appropriate.

Councillor Hamdache proposed that the committee defer the application to give planners the opportunity to meet with developers and try and iron out some of these issues and talk through them. Councillor Klute spoke against the deferral, saying that there were so many things that aren't quite right and seem to need work, and that he found it very hard to believe that this could be bent and pulled and moved around to get it to work.

The committee voted against the deferral, and then voted to refuse the application.

Land Rear Of 4 And 6 Shaftesbury Road

The committee approved, with amendments to conditions, an application for the demolition of an existing workshop/garage and erection of a two-storey, 3-bedroom single family dwelling with associated garden space, cycle store, bin store and soft landscaping at Land Rear Of 4 And 6 Shaftesbury Road, London, N19 4QN.

The planning officer, Catherine Holness, explained that there were two updates to the conditions of the officer report. Condition 16, relating to landscaping details, incorrectly mentioned that there should be 12 new trees planted on site, but that there is actually just the retention of the surrounding trees at the site. Also, condition 11, an inclusive design compliance condition, has been updated to request that details be submitted in the future for adaptable homes compliance with M4 2⁴.

The planning officer explained that the site is a backland site, accessed only from Shaftesbury Road, and surrounded by other residential properties. The existing building is quite dilapidated and has been vacant for some years. The proposal is for a two-storey building with a pitched roof form, and a smaller single-storey flat roof section.

The planning officer said that the issues of siting, scale, bulk, massing, height, outlook and sense of enclosure, which led to previous refusals, have been addressed in the current proposal.

Councillor Klute asked whether the proposed building actually sits entirely within the envelope of the existing building. The planning officer confirmed that the heights are within the existing. Councillor Klute also asked about a slide showing distances to adjoining buildings, which appeared to show fairly serious overlooking issues. The planning officer responded that those are showing the distances to the neighbouring windows, and that screening is proposed in all these cases.

Objecting to the proposal, a resident of 6 Shaftesbury Road said that the revised proposal fails to meet key policy tests, and that the planning officers report overlooks critical issues on design and materials. She said that the application consistently refers to the pitch roof as being clad in slate effect solar PV tiles, yet the report often refers to the pitch roof being clad in solar panels. She also said that the plans show two steep 1 in 12 flights descending to the lower dwelling from the street, each flight is significantly longer than the 2 metres that are maximum permitted for such gradients under approved document M42. She also raised concerns about the quality of accommodation and amenity, privacy and overlooking, and the effect on neighbour amenity.

Another objector, also a resident of 6 Shaftesbury Road, said that the proposed bike shed would sit directly next to the kitchen window, blocking almost all light into that space. She said that the planning report fails to address this, and that the daylight assessment appears to completely omit this window. She also raised concerns about the structural method statement, and where the MVHR⁵ or solar battery is going to be located.

Responding to the objectors, the applicant said that the drawings are fully understood and looked at, and that there were a few points which may come from a misunderstanding of what they are proposing. He said that the sections show how it's not just a question of opaque glazing, and that they have used different ways of preventing overlooking. He also said that the ground floor is compliant with the approved document M4-2, and that there is scope to adjust the ramp.

Councillor Clarke said that it's apparent that the applicant hasn't really engaged with their neighbours, and that if they had communicated with them, there would have been a more friendly development that would have suited everybody.

Councillor Hamdache asked about the cycling of the bike storage, and whether the applicant had any thoughts on whether they're open to look at different locations. The applicant responded that they were open to look at different locations, and that there is ample scope to put the bike storage in the kitchen garden.

The committee agreed to introduce additional conditions and updates, including:

• An alternative material to be used instead of corrugated metal on condition three (the materials)
• Cycle parking to require details to be submitted of an alternative location to that proposed
• Condition 11 on inclusive design to ask for some more details in terms of the ramp
• Condition 16 landscape to be updated
• The point that was made about the nature of the photovoltaic tiles rather than solar panels being clear in a condition

The committee then voted to approve the scheme with those amended conditions.

This week in Islington:

• The Health, Wellbeing and Adult Social Care Scrutiny Committee reviewed hospital performance, quality assurance in home care, and the Adult Social Care Quarter 3 performance report.
• The Corporate Resources and Economy Scrutiny Committee discussed the council's five missions and approved recommendations related to contract awards and the Packington Estate Highway Adoption.
• The Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee on Health was scheduled to discuss mental health pathways and review the committee's work programme.

Health, Wellbeing and Adult Social Care Scrutiny Committee - Tuesday 29 April 2025

Councillor Jilani Chowdhury, Chair of the Health, Wellbeing and Adult Social Care Scrutiny Committee, oversaw a meeting where the committee reviewed performance updates from the Whittington Hospital and University College London Hospitals (UCLH), discussed quality assurance in home care, and considered the Adult Social Care (ASC) Quarter 3 performance report. The committee also approved draft recommendations from a scrutiny review.

Whittington Hospital Performance

Sarah Wilding, Chief Nurse and Director of Allied Health Professionals at Whittington Health NHS Trust, presented the hospital's performance report, highlighting key achievements and ongoing challenges. The Whittington Hospital is preparing to support mothers from a wider geographical area following the closure of the Royal Free paternity ward. The hospital is navigating significant cuts to Integrated Care Board (ICB) resourcing and changes at NHS England by focusing on reducing temporary staff. While there had been improvements in A&E performance, there has been a recent dip, with 72% of patients seen within the four-hour standard in March. The hospital's key priorities include addressing hospital-acquired deconditioning, improving access to appointments, and reducing health inequalities.

Councillor Tricia Clarke, Chair of Environment, Climate Change & Transport Scrutiny Committee, noted the difficulty in changing appointments using the digital system.

UCLH Annual Performance Update

David Probert, Chief Executive of UCLH, provided an annual performance update, highlighting key areas such as infection rates, waiting times, cancer performance, and workforce. UCLH has maintained low levels of infections like MRSA¹ and Clostridium difficile, despite increasingly stringent targets. UCLH is working to reduce referral to treatment waiting times, with a focus on patients waiting longer than 65 weeks. UCLH has exceeded national targets for diagnosing patients within 28 days and treating 96% of patients within 31 days of a treatment decision. A&E performance is around the London average, with 72.8% of patients waiting less than four hours in ED².

Collaboration between UCLH and the Whittington is progressing well, with joint clinical and operational teams working to improve care. Councillor Chowdhury raised concerns about the digitalization of the appointment system and difficulties faced by older people. In response to questions from Councillor McHugh, David Probert, Chief Executive of UCLH, clarified the process for responding to coroner's court orders, stating that the hospital's legal team reviews cases and provides witness statements or evidence as requested by the coroner.

Quality Assurance and Home Care

Anna Makepeace, the assistant director of quality contracts and brokerage, presented a report on the council's quality assurance processes for home care providers. The council launched a rewritten Quality Assurance Framework in September 2024, emphasizing resident feedback. The framework includes annual quality audits, contract review meetings, and annual quality statements. The council uses a risk-rated approach to monitoring contracts, with more frequent monitoring for higher-risk providers, such as those providing personal care. The council works closely with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and monitors their activity and ratings of providers. Councillor Benali Hamdache, Leader of the Independent and Green Group, raised concerns about private equity firms in care homes and home care spaces.

Adult Social Care (ASC) Quarter 3 Performance Report

Councillor Flora Williamson presented the Quarter 3 performance report for Adult Social Care, highlighting key performance indicators and areas for improvement. The reablement service is performing well, with 76% of residents not needing ongoing support after reablement. Councillor Hamdache raised concerns about the proposed privatisation of the service, but Councillor Williamson said that the decision is not coming in place for nearly three years. Councillor Chowdhury raised concerns about the digitalization system and lack of replies to inquiries. A member of the public, Mrs. Roy, raised concerns about her father's unmet care needs, stating that he is not receiving the 24-hour care he has been assessed as needing.

Corporate Resources and Economy Scrutiny Committee - Thursday 01 May 2025

The Corporate Resources and Economy Scrutiny Committee (CRESC) met to discuss the council's five missions, review the work of the scrutiny committees, and consider recommendations for the scrutiny review. Councillors approved recommendations related to contract awards for estate recycling site enclosures and deep cleaning services, as well as the installation of electric vehicle charge points and the Packington Estate Highway Adoption.

Annual Review of the Five Missions

The committee reviewed the first annual review of Islington Council's five missions: child-friendly, community wealth building, empowering people, a safe place to call home, and greener and healthier. Councillor Theodore O'Harran, the Leaver of the Council, Stephen Biggs, the Corporate Director of Community Wealth Building, and John Abbey, Corporate Director of Children's Services, presented the report and answered questions.

Councillor Gulcin Ozdemir, Chair of the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee, raised concerns about the actions mentioned in the report relating to Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND). She asked about the target of having nine additional resource provisions (ARPs) in place by the start of September 2025, and wanted to know where the council was in relation to that target. John Abbey, Director of Children's Services, responded that there were three ARPs in place, and that the SEND strategy was ambitious. He noted the exponential growth in demand around SEND, which has outstripped the high needs block³.

Councillor Rowlin Khondoker asked about access to GP services and social care, referring to a recommendation from the health care scrutiny committee that GP federations should work with GP surgeries to establish a borough-wide charter to access primary care services. Councillor Khondoker also raised concerns about adult social care answering the phone and not answering swiftly.

Councillor Bashir Ibrahim asked about engagement and whether recruitment to panels is reflective of Islington's diversity. Councillor Ben Hayes asked about the community centre review and the timelines for tangible next steps.

Councillor Saiqa Pandor, Women and Girls Champion, asked about families being able to bid in temporary accommodation.

Annual Report of the Council's Scrutiny Committee 2024-25

The committee noted the Annual Report of the Council's Scrutiny Committee 2024-25, which sets out the work of the various scrutiny committees over the past year. Councillor Chowdhury highlighted the committee's work on housing for older people and its impact on the council's decision-making. Councillor Ozdemir discussed the committee's work on attendance and the complexities that have been unearthed. Councillor Wayne suggested that scrutiny committees could coordinate their work next year, particularly on issues such as inequality and poverty.

Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee on Health - Monday 28 April 2025

The North Central London Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (JHOSC) meeting included a discussion on mental health pathways and a review of the committee's work programme. The meeting was scheduled to cover updates on mental health services, particularly concerning the transition from children's to adult services, and improvements in information sharing between organisations. A key focus of the meeting was to be an update on mental health pathways in North Central London (NCL). The update was scheduled to cover transitions from Children and Young People’s (CYP) Services to Adult Mental Health Services, and strengthening information sharing.

This week in Islington:

• The Executive voted to close St Jude and St Paul's Church of England Primary School and Highbury Quadrant Primary School, and adopted the new Planning Obligations SPD.
• The Licensing Sub Committee A was scheduled to discuss premises licence applications for Doppio Zero, the Archway Tavern, Sweety Cooky, and the National Youth Theatre.

Executive - Thursday 24 April 2025

The Executive met to discuss several key issues, including the closure of two primary schools, the allocation of public health grants, and the adoption of a new Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). Ultimately, the Executive voted to close St Jude and St Paul's Church of England Primary School and Highbury Quadrant Primary School, agreed to allocate Drug and Alcohol Treatment and Recovery Improvement Grant (DATRIG) funds, and adopted the new Planning Obligations SPD. They also addressed corporate performance, local initiatives, and the redevelopment of the Finsbury Leisure Centre.

Primary School Closures

The Executive voted in favour of closing both St Jude and St Paul's Church of England Primary School and Highbury Quadrant Primary School on 31 August 2025, despite strong opposition from parents and local figures, including Jeremy Corbyn MP.

St Jude and St Paul's C of E Primary School

The decision to close St Jude and St Paul's was based on the school's low pupil numbers (46% surplus capacity) and a lack of a reliable route to achieving a financially viable future. The Executive heard from John Stansfield, Vice-Chair for Governors at St. Jude and St. Paul's School, who argued that the school was stabilising, with reception applications up close to 40% from the previous year, and had a viable merger proposal with Highbury Quadrant School that was not properly tested. He requested a four-week consultation with staff and parents.

Councillor Michelline Safi-Ngongo, Executive Member for Children, Young People & Families, stated that the decision followed a long process, including a seven-week formal consultation and four weeks of further consultation. She said that the falling number of pupils would damage the school's finances and jeopardise the quality of education. She added that both St Jude's and Highbury Quadrant had submitted proposals that involved closing the other school, and that there was no parental appetite for either option.

Councillor Diarmaid Ward, Executive Member for Finance & Performance, added that the amalgamation of both schools would mean the council would have to find money for the combined deficit, and that the Diocese could not underwrite £90,000 of income from the Mildmay Trust¹. He also stated that first choice numbers were up by 10%, but this only equated to 11 pupils, a deficit of 19 pupils and a £120,000 shortfall.

Jeremy Corbyn MP questioned the Executive on the Child and Child letter concerning the Mildmay Trust, the timeline of merger discussions, the distance to alternative schools, and the future of the school building. He also suggested that the doubt surrounding the school's future had depressed applications.

Paul Senior, Corporate Director for Children's Services, responded that the Diocese could not guarantee the £90,000 from the Mildmay Fund, that the merger proposal had not been put forward until the representation period, and that 88% of pupils lived within a 1.2 kilometre radius of schools with vacancies. He added that the diocese would decide the future of the building, and that the local authority had sufficient places in schools locally.

Councillor Sheila Chapman, Executive Member for Equalities, Communities & Inclusion, asked if Islington would lose out on funding due to parental choice. Mr. Senior responded that Islington currently had 560 surplus reception places, equivalent to £3.6 million in lost school revenue. Councillor Caroline Russell questioned the urgency of the decision, given that the school organisation plan phase 3 would cost almost £1.5 million.

A parent asked why the merger proposal with Highbury Quadrant was rejected based on guesswork. Mr. Senior responded that there was not an appetite from Highbury Quadrant parents to go to a religious-based school, and that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that an amalgamation would be viable. Another parent asked how Church of England parental choices were being protected, given the limited number of alternative church schools. Mr. Senior responded that the council had a legal responsibility to provide a school place, and that there were vacancies in church schools in both Islington and Hackney.

The Executive agreed to recommendations 1.1 to 1.5 on pages 173 and 174 of the agenda pack.

Highbury Quadrant Primary School

The decision to close Highbury Quadrant Primary School was also based on low pupil numbers and financial difficulties. Masood Sikta spoke on behalf of the school, arguing that the proposed closure was based on erroneous information and that community proposals had been unfairly rejected. He raised concerns about the impact on Muslim families², the distance to alternative schools, and the flawed financial assumptions in the report.

Councillor Safi-Ngongo stated that the process was about the number of pupils and the deficit budget, not about religion or discrimination. She said that the council had received four alternative proposals, but none were viable.

Councillor Ward added that the assertion of indirect discrimination was refuted, and that the four proposals had been evaluated and tested. He said that 85% of Highbury Quadrant pupils lived within a 1.2 kilometre radius of schools with vacancies, and that the amalgamation proposal was opposed by both schools.

Jeremy Corbyn MP asked about the number of children who come from homes where the first language is not English, and the large number of students that need SEND provision. He also asked what consideration had been given to suggestions of reducing the school usage to about half of the site, and then looking for other uses of the site. Mr. Senior responded that every child would go to a good or outstanding school in Islington, and that the diocese would make an informed decision about the future use of the building.

Councillor Russell asked if Islington would lose out on funding to Hackney because of the decision. Councillor Ward responded that this was a London issue, and that Islington currently had 560 surplus reception places, equivalent to £3.6 million lost in school revenue. He added that with 17 schools potentially heading for deficit, the council needed to act responsibly. Councillor Russell then asked if the $1.5 million cost of phase 3 of the school organisation plan included absorbing the deficits of the schools. Councillor Ward responded that a class needed at least 27 pupils to be viable, and that the schools in question had only 11 and 13 pupils signed up for reception, respectively.

A parent asked why one of the only cost-neutral alternatives was rejected based on guesswork. Mr. Senior responded that there was not an appetite from hybrid quadrant parents to go the other way, and that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that an amalgamation would be viable. Another parent asked how Church of England parental choices were being protected, given the limited number of alternative church schools. Councillor Ward responded that the council had a legal responsibility to provide a school place, and that there were vacancies in church schools in both Islington and Hackney.

Another parent asked about the 25 vacancies per pupil in Highbury Quadrant, and how she could not find a single one for her new reception child. Mr. Senior responded that the 25 vacancies were within 1.2 kilometres of each pupil address, and that the council had a duty to provide a school place for every young person within Highbury Quadrant.

Another parent asked if the Executive was comfortable voting on a report riddled with inaccuracies and disingenuous statistical information. Victoria, the chief executive of the council, responded that the reports were based on data, evidence, financial implications, and legal advice.

Another parent asked if the council accepted that the report ignored the religious makeup of Highbury Quadrant. Councillor Safi-Ngongo responded that everything was being done in accordance with the Equality Act, and that the process was about pupil numbers and finance, not about religion or race. Another parent asked if the school was not fit for purpose. Mr. Senior responded that the building was in a state of disrepair, and that it was not at the level that the council would want its children to be attending. A teacher then asked how the council knew that the quality of teaching was not good. Mr. Senior responded that the Ofsted report required improvement, and that the trend in standards over time fell below the national standard.

The Executive agreed to recommendations 1.1 to 1.4 on pages 239 and 240 of the agenda pack.

Local Initiatives Fund, Discretionary Rate Relief, and Community Chest

Councillor Chapman presented reports on the Local Initiatives Fund (LIF), Discretionary Rate Relief (DRR), and the Islington Council's Community Chest.

• Local Initiatives Fund: The Executive agreed to administer the LIF in 2025/26 in the same framework as in 2024/25, with each ward receiving £13,000 and a carry-forward limit of £1,000. They also agreed to delegate authority to the relevant Director to agree changes to the use of previously awarded funding, and noted the funding decisions and declarations of interest.
• Discretionary Rate Relief: The Executive noted that all DRR funds had been committed up to 31 March 2026, including awards to six organisations in round 3, and agreed to review the scheme for a new round from April 2026.
• Community Chest: The Executive agreed to renew the partnership with Cripplegate Foundation for the Islington Council's Community Chest (ICCC) programme for one year, committing £190,000 for the 2025/26 financial year. They also noted the funding decisions made by the ICCC panel.

Corporate Performance Update

The Executive reviewed the corporate performance update report, noting strengths in supporting residents into work, apprenticeship starts, call answering rates, and households in temporary accommodation being below the London average. Areas for improvement included household recycling rates, persistent absence in education, and delivering new green space.

Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)

The Executive agreed to adopt the Planning Obligations SPD, which sets out requirements around employment and training, local procurement, affordable housing and workspace, accessible parking, and other planning obligations.

Public Health Grant Allocation

Councillor Flora Williamson introduced a report on the allocation of additional grant funds for public health, specifically the Drug and Alcohol Treatment and Recovery Improvement Grant (DATRIG). The Executive agreed to accept the £3,384,684 in DATRIG funds for 2025/26 and allocate £2,058,707.19 of these funds to The North London NHS Trust.

Islington Dementia Strategy 2025-2035

Councillor Williamson also presented the Islington Dementia Strategy 2025-2035, highlighting its focus on prevention, diagnosis, and support for those affected by dementia. Councillor Rowena Champion raised the issue of medication for people with Parkinson's and dementia not being given on time in care homes. The Executive agreed to endorse the strategy and promote its priorities.

Finsbury Leisure Centre Redevelopment

Finally, the Executive addressed the urgent business of the Finsbury Leisure Centre redevelopment. Following a discussion, the Executive agreed to withdraw the plans for the redevelopment, citing financial risks and the economic environment. Councillor Champion asked what had changed in the last month, and if the decision was a manifestation of councils abandoning house building projects due to a lack of government support. The chief executive responded that the decision was to minimise costs and financial risk to the council, before moving into gateway four.

Jeremy Corbyn MP asked for assurance that the pitches would be protected for the long term. Councillor O'Halloran responded that the pitches would be protected, and that the council would work with the community and the leisure centre to make sure that they get proper social value for the local people that use those pitches.

Licensing Sub Committee A - Thursday 24 April 2025

The Licensing Sub Committee A meeting was scheduled to discuss four premises licence applications. These included a new premises application for Doppio Zero, a premises licence variation for the Archway Tavern, and new premises licences for Sweety Cooky and the National Youth Theatre. The meeting was due to take place at the Town Hall, Upper Street.

Premises Licence Review: The Sekforde Arms

The Licensing Sub Committee A previously met on 26 February 2025 to discuss a review of the premises licence for The Sekforde Arms, 34 Sekforde Street, EC1R 0HA.

The sub-committee heard from residents who supported the review, who raised concerns about noise from customers leaving the premises after 11pm, and customers drinking in Woodbridge Street and Sekforde Street. They also stated that pavements were often blocked by customers.

Other residents spoke in opposition to the review, stating that they had not witnessed any anti-social behaviour, and that the presence of the pub made the area a safer place.

The licence holder stated that he wanted workable conditions, and that he had tried to implement conditions imposed by the court, which had not always been successful.

The Sub-Committee decided to modify the conditions of the premises licence, including:

• From 1 April to 31 October, all doors on the ground floor shall be kept closed after 21.30 hours, save for access and egress, and save for 2x windows at the front of the building, all first-floor windows shall be kept closed after 21.30. From 1 November to 31 March, the times are brought forward to 20:00. On any occasion when amplified sound is employed on the first floor all windows shall be kept closed.
• The use of the door to the Sekforde Street elevation shall cease at 21.00 hours every night and notice shall be displayed on the door, until such time that an acoustic lobby or acoustic curtain can be installed, as agreed by Islington Council.
• Clear and permanent signage shall be prominently displayed within the premises highlighting CCTV in operation, Challenge 25 Proof of Age Scheme in operation, that it is a Residential Area and customers should be respectful of neighbours and leave quietly, and the current business contact telephone number for venue management.
• The outside drinking areas shall be closed and cleared of customers by 22:00.
• After 22:15 any customer who wishes to step outside to smoke shall be directed to Woodbridge Street. Numbers of smokers outside shall not exceed 10. They shall not obstruct the public highway. They shall not be permitted to take drinks outside with them.
• An SIA registered door supervisor shall be on duty at the venue subject to certain conditions.
• The SIA registered door supervisor shall be present from 18:00 or one hour before the event until all customers have left the vicinity of the premises to supervise the outside area, supervise the dispersal of patrons, and control noise levels from customers.
• The premises shall operate the Challenge 25 proof of age scheme, where the only forms of acceptable identification shall be Photographic driving licence, Valid passport, Military/ UK Services Photo ID, and PASS Hologram ID
• All staff members engaged in selling alcohol on the premises shall, upon induction and every 6 months thereafter, receive training pertinent to the licensing Act.
• CCTV shall be installed, operated and maintained, to function at all times that the premises is open for licensable activities.
• All staff responsible for selling alcohol shall receive regular training in the Licensing Act 2003 in terms of the licensing objectives, offences committed under the Act and conditions of the Premises Licence.
• The licensee shall develop a Noise Management and Dispersal Policy to control noise coming from the venue, including people noise and to control noise from guests either congregating outside or leaving the area.
• The noise management and dispersal policy shall include a demarcation of the outside drinking area to be agreed by the Licensing Authority.

New Premises Licence: The National Youth Theatre of Great Britain

The Licensing Sub-Committee was scheduled to consider an application for a new premises licence for The National Youth Theatre of Great Britain, 443-445 Holloway Road, N7 6LW. The application seeks permission for:

• The sale of alcohol on the premises, Mondays to Sundays, from 11:00 to 00:00
• Late Night Refreshment, Mondays to Sundays, from 23:00 to 00:00
• Plays, films, live music, recorded music, performance of dance, Mondays to Sundays, from 11:00 to 00:00
• Opening hours, Mondays to Sundays, from 09:00 to 00:30

Three local residents submitted representations regarding the application. Following this, the applicant wrote to the representors to address their concerns, including a copy of the operating schedule, agreed licence conditions, dispersal and management policy, and the operational management plan.

The applicant agreed conditions with the Council’s Noise Service and the Metropolitan Police, and they withdrew their representations.

New Premises Licence: Sweety Cooky

The Licensing Sub-Committee was scheduled to determine an application for a new premises licence for Sweety Cooky, 177 Junction Road, N19 5QA. The applicant has amended the application to remove off sales.

Representations were received from four local residents, the Better Archway Forum, the Metropolitan Police, and the Council’s Noise Service. Following contact from the applicant, the Noise Service and the Better Archway Forum withdrew their representations.

One local resident, however, maintained their representation, citing concerns about the potential for noise and disturbance, and the impact on their living environment.

The applicant wrote to the representors advising of the nature of the business and to address their concerns.

The Planning & Development section noted that a planning application for retrospective permission for the change of use of the premises from tattoo studio to café/bakery and restaurant is currently live, and a decision is due in the next few weeks.

Premises Licence Variation: Archway Tavern

The Licensing Sub-Committee was scheduled to consider an application for a premises licence variation for the Archway Tavern, Ground Floor, 1 Navigator Square, N19 3TD. The variation application seeks to permit the Ground Floor Live Room only for prebooked private events, with:

• The sale of alcohol, on the premises, Thursdays to Saturdays, from 08:00 to 04:00, Sundays, from 08:00 to 02:00
• Late night refreshment, Thursdays to Saturdays, from 23:00 to 04:00, Sundays, from 23:00 to 02:00
• Live music, recorded music, performance of dance, films, Thursdays to Saturdays, from 08:00 to 04:00, Sundays, from 08:00 to 02:00
• Opening hours, Thursdays to Saturdays, from 08:00 to 04:30. Sundays, from 08:00 to 02:30

Representations were received from three local residents and the Metropolitan Police. The applicant has agreed to incorporate the police recommendations into the operating schedule, and the police representation has been withdrawn. The applicant wrote a letter to the representors advising of the nature of the business and to address their concerns.

The Planning & Development section noted that the building is locally listed and is located within the St Johns Grove Conservation Area.

New Premises Licence: Doppio Zero

The Licensing Sub-Committee was scheduled to determine an application for a new premises licence at Doppio Zero, Ground Floor Cafe, 4 Gillespie Road, N5 1LN.

The premises was previously subject to a premises licence issued in February 2010, but this licence lapsed in July 2018. Licensing officers visited the premises on 13 September 2024 and found the premises selling alcohol without authorisation. A Section 19 closure notice was served on the owners, and the sale of alcohol at the venue then ceased.

A previous premises licence application by the proposed DPS³, Daniel Clark, was refused on 7 January 2025. The grounds for refusal were that the applicant has limited knowledge of the licensing regime and there is no evidence to suggest the owner has any knowledge.

The current application is now in the name of the premises owner, Mr Marco De Cristofaro.

The application is subject to eight representations from local residents. Two of these representations are opposed or partially opposed to the grant of this licence, and six representations are in support.

The item was heard on 1 April 2025, and the Licensing Committee decided to adjourn the application as they wanted clarification on several points, including the lack of a customer toilet at the venue. On 9 April 2025, the applicant confirmed that builders were removing the tent on the forecourt on 13 April 2025, and were also building a corridor access point so customers could use the toilet at the premises.

The Planning & Development section noted that the property is not a listed building nor located within a conservation area. A Certificate of Lawful Existing use was issued on 30 June 2006 for the use of the property as a fish and chip shop. A planning enforcement notice was issued on 15 November 2024 regarding the erection of a ground floor canopy extension with associated means of enclosure to the front of the property.

This week in Islington:

• The Employment and Appointments Committee appointed a shortlist of candidates for Director of Education and Achievement, and delegated authority to recommend candidates for the Audit and Risk Committee.

Employment and Appointments Committee - Thursday 17 April 2025

The Employment and Appointments Committee convened to appoint a Director of Education and Achievement, and to recommend candidates for Independent Persons for Standards and Co-Opted Members of the Audit and Risk Committee to the council. The committee approved a shortlist of candidates for the Director of Education and Achievement post, and delegated authority to Councillor Janet Burgess MBE, Carers Champion and Chair of the Committee, to recommend candidates for the Audit and Risk Committee to the council.

Appointment of Director of Education and Achievement

The committee convened to interview candidates for the position of Director of Education and Achievement. The advertised salary for the post was Grade CO2 £116,721 - £131,742. Following the interviews, the committee was asked to appoint a candidate to the post, agree on the final salary (or parameters within which the successful candidate should be offered the post), and note that any offer of employment would be subject to the completion of the Executive Notification Procedure, as per the council’s Officer Employment Procedure Rules.

The report stated that:

The appointment of a senior officer to the post will support the delivery of the council’s missions and objectives.

The appointed individual will also play a key role in supporting the delivery of the Islington Together 2030 Plan, as a member of the Senior Leadership Team.

Appointment of Independent Persons for Standards and Co-Opted Members of the Audit and Risk Committee

The committee considered the appointment of two candidates as Independent Persons for Standards for a four-year term, or until vacancies arise. The council is required to appoint at least one Independent Person for Standards, a statutory role under the Localism Act 2011 to advise the council on matters relating to the Member Code of Conduct. This includes reviewing complaints made against members, and deciding if members have, or may have, breached the Code of Conduct, and if those complaints should be investigated.

Nine applications were received for the roles, and interviews were conducted on 3 April 2025 by a panel including Councillor Burgess, the Chair of the Standards Committee, the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee, and Councillor Diarmaid Ward, Executive Member for Finance & Performance. The panel recommended two candidates for appointment, and the committee agreed to refer the appointments to the Council for consideration, subject to references.

The Council’s Constitution states that the Audit and Risk Committee will be comprised of five councillors and two independent co-opted members. These co-opted members provide an independent and high-level focus on the audit, assurance, and reporting arrangements that underpin good governance and financial standards.

Twelve applications were received for these roles. Interviews were scheduled for late April 2025, to be conducted by Councillor Burgess, the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee, and Councillor Ward, with support from senior officers. The committee delegated authority to Councillor Burgess to recommend successful candidates to the Council, for the appointments to be agreed at the Annual Council meeting on 15 May 2025, subject to references.

Independent Persons for Standards are entitled to an allowance of £1,025 per annum. Co-opted members of the Audit and Risk Committee will receive £139.77 per meeting, subject to any inflationary increases awarded under the annual Local Government Pay Settlement¹.