Agenda item

6.1  The Chair welcomed to the meeting Councillor Guy Nicholson, Cabinet Member for Planning, Culture and Inclusive Economy from London Borough of Hackney.

6.2  The Cabinet Member provided written responses to the questions submitted in advance of the meeting.  They were related to Community Infrastructure Levy and Hackney Walk.  The reports in the agenda were taken as read and the discussion moved to questions and answer.

6.3  In reference to Hackney Walk the main points highlighted were:

6.3.1  The commercial ownership has changed and was transferred to Inguia Capital Group (ICG).  Originally commercial ownership was with Hackney Walk.  This was transferred it to Lab Tech who have recently transferred it to Inguia Capital Group (ICG).

6.3.2  Officers explained in terms of ownership Network Rail hold the freehold.  The commercial assets were passed to a company called The Arch Company last year to manage.  Arch Co commenced a 150 year lease from network rail last year. 

6.3.3  Hackney Walk purchased a 25 year lease in 2016.

6.3.4  The Arch Company is a new company that manages network rail’s assets.  Approximately 5000 arches.

6.3.5  The Hackney Walk lease for 25 years was passed to Lab tech who have now passed the ownership to ICG.

6.3.6  The Council is proposing to meet with the new lease owners in the coming days.  In addition it was noted the Council’s Head of Economic Regeneration has regular meetings with The Arch Company and Network Rail.

6.3.7  The officer pointed out the current planning permissions for the Morning Lane arches have a fashion use clause.  There means the current use is only permitted for fashion use.  The council would like to see this changed and was working with the previous owners to include in their plans for the site obtaining a change in use to mixed use.

6.3.8  The Council supports changing the use to mixed use.

6.3.9  The Council was expecting Lab tech to put in a planning application for change of use.  The Council will discuss the plans for the site with the new commercial owners.

6.3.10  The council is not considering acquiring the lease or properties.

6.4  Questions, Discussion and Answers

(i)  Members referred to point 8 on page 30 of the report which highlights that the funding pot would have 2 elements - borough wide and ward level.  Members made the following enquires:

a)  How the fund would be allocated for the 2 elements and if it would be an equal distribution per ward? 

b)  For the borough wide how will this be calculated in relation to the ward? 

c)  Will it be 50% ward element and 50% borough wide?

The Cabinet Member for Planning, Culture and Inclusive Economy advised in regards to the Neighbourhood CIL the detail about the distribution of the funds is still being developed.

The Cabinet Member pointed out the Commission could be involved in providing their thoughts to inform officer discussions in shaping the Neighbourhood CIL allocations in terms of a) what it can look like, b) how its monitored and the focus for its use to the community.

The Cabinet Member referred to the Hackney a Place for Everyone (HAPE) consultation which highlighted Hackney has an inclusive community.  One of the assets supporting this inclusivity and helping to build relationships in the community is a number of major cultural events in the borough e.g. Hackney Carnival.

The Cabinet Member highlighted the event has grown over the years and this year the numbers were quite significant.  The challenge for the Council now, is to look for other investors into the Hackney Carnival.  The last event was planned with the MET because the event classification has been moved up to being one of the leading cultural events for London.  This reclassification means elements of the policing costs fall to the MET through the GLA MET police funding.  However it was noted, as the event gets bigger it needs more resources in all aspects from the organising stage through to the management of the day e.g. volunteers, participation programme etc. 

This is starting to raise questions like the frequency of the event.  The Cabinet Member pointed out the council could choose to have a rotation like the Glastonbury event which has 3 years on and 1 year rest.  These conversations will help shape the future event and the future allocation of resources.  From there the council can consider what level of CiL resources could be used as a contribution towards the event.  The Cabinet Member assured the Commission not all the funding resource would be spent on the carnival. 

The Cabinet Member pointed out there are legalities on how they can deploy the funds and stipulations on what they can spend the funding on.  Therefore it will be important to link the investment back through to the inclusive economy strategy and other relevant policies.  The other aspect is to ensure the commissioning framework recognises the aim which is to bring people together.

As the borough changes - new developments come on stream, new neighbourhoods are formed or evolve and new members join the community.  The council can consolidate and broker relationships between the existing and new communities, through the Neighbourhood CiL investment, the Inclusive Economy Strategy and Cultural Strategy.

Therefore it should be noted that the Neighbourhood CiL covers different areas of spend to that of other forms of investment like the Section 106, which covers employment, training and skills as outlined by the Cabinet Member for Employment, Skills and Human Resources.

Taking this into consideration what has been highlighted is the need for an equitable distribution across the borough.  The Cabinet Member pointed out if the CiL was spent based using its current criteria and based on generation areas (mainly from 2 Wards in the borough).  This would not lead to an equitable distribution of investment across the borough.  It was noted there are contributions from other wards in the borough but largely most of the contributions come from developments in the southern part of the borough.

It was also pointed out that the Woodberry Downs development was exempt due to then level of affordable housing and the community infrastructure portfolio.  The level of investment in this scheme makes it exempt from Community Infrastructure Levy (CiL) contributions.

It was also highlighted that the areas covered by the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) are also exempt from making a CiL contribution to the borough.  The CiL generated in these areas currently goes to the LLDC’s CiL funding pot not the borough’s CiL funding pot.

(ii)  Members referred to the aim for the CiL to be aligned with community priorities.  Members made the following comments and enquires:

a)  Members commented there are a number of community groups in wards doing initiatives and looking for funding to supplement their work. 

b)  Members referred to the officer group looking at priorities and asked about the resident engagement with this group to help shape the priorities?

c)  Members also asked about the resident engagement for ward level funding too?

d)  If the council proposed to have a minimum application amount or a staggered grant that local people could apply for?

e)  Asked how the Council was planning to work with local residents to support people to apply for the funding outside of VCS organisations?  Making it available to a wider group of stakeholders.

The Cabinet Member for Planning, Culture and Inclusive Economy advised the next 4 months will be spent shaping the Neighbourhood CiL allocation.  The Cabinet Member welcomed contributions from the Commission to help shape the development of this work.

The Council is learning about allocation from the Shoreditch Art funds for the 2 Hoxton Wards.  This sum of money was accumulated over the last 2 years (under Section 106 for public arts).  The pot of funding is currently being managed by the area regeneration and cultural development team to connect the arts and cultural sectors in the 2 wards.  Although there is a slightly different legal regime for Section 106 compared to Neighbourhood CIL.  This will help all parties understand the required accounting, reporting and activities needed.  This aims to redefine art in the context of it being a people led experience and not necessarily a piece of art work in the community.  In this instance this is being led by arts organisations.

Notwithstanding this, it did not mean they would exclusively focus on a cultural investment fund from the Neighbourhood CiL.  But that the Council was thinking about how they could create a small grants initiative that fulfils the criteria around bringing people together to address neighbourhood change at a local level and in a meaningful way; whilst still being accountable.

This will need to be monitored by the council but having a role for professional artists, arts organisations, cultural practitioners (some of which have networks) and also use this as an opportunity to create match funding - this can be time not necessarily money- as a criteria to support residents.  This will ensure there is an opportunity to help, compliment, assist and enhance projects.

The idea is that there is a small scale portfolio alongside a medium scale portfolio.  That being said the larger scale events like the Hackney Carnival become a separate entity from a separate funding source.

The Cabinet Member pointed out there will be a criteria that will look at wards where there may be no applications.  The council will then work  with the community to bring in initiatives to help develop that activity or enable residents to put forward a programme.

The Chair asked the Cabinet Member to liaise with the Commission so they can contribute to the development of the process for the Neighbourhood CiL allocations over the next 4 months.

 

ACTION

The Cabinet Member for Planning, Culture and Inclusive Economy to liaise with the Commission about contributing to the development of the process for the Neighbourhood CiL allocation over the next 4 months.

 

(iii)  Members made the following enquires:

a)  Asked about the amount proposed for investment in cultural activities?

b)  Asked how the council proposed to avoid easy / cosmetic investment that usually had limited impact and does not result in sustainable inclusive activity or can be quite costly to maintain?

c)  Referred to the objective of bringing people together and asked if the council would be open to looking at other types of activities outside of specific cultural activities.  Specifically if these activities could be considered as fulfilling the aim of bringing people together e.g. using communal gardens.

d)  Referred to the fact that 80% of the funding pot will go on big infrastructure.  Members asked about the criteria for the investment on big infrastructure work? 

e)  Taking into consideration the Council’s ambition to be carbon neutral.  Members asked what sustainability requirements the council applies to the CiL?

The Cabinet Member for Planning, Culture and Inclusive Economy informed the Commission the total infrastructure bill for the borough is currently estimated to be about £1 billion.  The CiL levy has raised £24 million locally, this indicates a big gap in the funding required to complete the physical infrastructure needs.  Therefore the focus must be on delivering collective policies like zero carbon, reducing emissions as well as investment into wider public realm – like open parks and public spaces. 

In reference to the question about cosmetic investment.  The Cabinet Member explained this was the reason why the Neighbourhood CIL was focused on people activity investment rather than the infrastructure activity. 

The fund does not intend to create unsustainable schemes in a fiscal or physical sense.  The Cabinet Member pointed out as long as there is development in the borough the pot will continue to increase.  The plans for the funding pot are being developed in line with the timeline for this Council’s administration - £3.5 million – at the end of this administration they expect the funding pot to be replenished.

Generally the £3.5 million Neighbourhood CiL is there to commission people led activity.  Some will be used to fund the Hackney Carnival although it will not be the primary focus of the fund.

The challenge for the council with this work is to consider how to take development, mentoring and enabling and turn that into some form of sustainable platform going forward.  Rather than it just being a great onetime event for the community. 

The Cabinet Member pointed out 2 Hoxton Wards have a funding pot for cultural work.  Having this is enabling the criteria to be tested.  The learning from this journey should help to identify what an organisation should do to create a lasting legacy with the community.

(iv)  Members commented the council has been accumulating the Neighbourhood CiL since 2015 and now the funding pot has been established.  Members asked how will it be spent and why had it taken so long to identify how it will be spent?

The Cabinet Member for Planning, Culture and Inclusive Economy informed the Commission the legislation about the Neighbourhood CiL focuses on why the levy should be claimed from developers and new developments but it is vague about what happens after the pot has been accumulated.

The Cabinet Member explained there was no policy framework in place to support the spend criteria.  This is in place so there is now a basis to invest that money.  This should enable there to be a more equal distribution across the borough.

(v)  Member referred to the transparency and political oversight of the fund.  Members pointed out that Hoxton East and Shoreditch have benefited from CiL investment but it was not very clear the investment would come from a CiL contribution.  Members asked how the Cabinet Member had worked to include political oversight in the development of the structures and frameworks and in the investment decisions of the CiL.

(vi)  Members pointed out local ward councillors would be a good sources of information or could help support the decision making to ensure the right investment decisions are made.

In response to the first question the Cabinet Member for Planning, Culture and Inclusive Economy agreed.  He highlighted that the Mayor concurs with the points made by Members and has also questioned the political oversight in decisions made.  The Cabinet Member pointed out the legal oversight is in place the Council is meeting its legal duties in relation to this fund.

The Cabinet Member welcomed the desire for political oversight on spend and would reinforced the message from the Commission.  The Cabinet Member understood the desire from Members to be clear about why project B is getting Section 106 or CiL funding in comparison to project C. 

The Cabinet Member agreed this was currently missing in the process and will be addressed in the next 3-4 months.

The Cabinet Member pointed out there is a very clear corporate structure and currently the political oversight is in the form of retrospective reporting on spend in the Capital OFP report sent to the Cabinet meeting.

(vii)  Members asked if the Inclusive Economy Strategy would act as the framework or a driver for the Neighbourhood CIL, CiL and Section 106 allocations.

The Cabinet Member for Planning, Culture and Inclusive Economy confirmed this was for the Neighbourhood CiL.  Although the strategy will also cover Section 106 and CiL.

(viii)  Members referred to the list on page 31 in the agenda referencing 2010 regulations.  Members pointed out this list did not mention any of the sustainability points they have discussed in the meeting.  Members highlighted although the funding pot for Neighbourhood CiL is small having greening activity for pocket parks around the borough could still be extremely useful.

The Cabinet Member for Planning, Culture and Inclusive Economy clarified if they was creating pocket parks this would be an infrastructure activity and fall under CiL investment.  The Cabinet Member clarified if it was to fund resident led activity in the pocket park this would be Neighbourhood CiL.  To build a pocket park would be classified as an infrastructure project.

(ix)  For clarification Members asked if there was a project / activity that was about maintaining an infrastructure through resident activity would this be Neighbourhood CiL.

The Cabinet Member for Planning, Culture and Inclusive Economy advised it could be Neighbourhood CiL or something of that nature.

6.5  Hackney Walk Questions, Discussion and Answers

(x)  In discussions Members pointed out the previous businesses based in Hackney Walk Morning Lane sold products that were out of the price range of local residents.  Members urged the council when thinking about future plans to have conversations with the new commercial owners about having businesses that the local community can relate to and will find accessible.  Members enquired if the council would be having conversations with the new owners about this?

The Head of Area Regeneration confirmed they are having these conversations with the new owners.  The regeneration team agrees having the right mix of businesses for the local community was really important.  Although in the planning application process this was not in scope or within the role of the planning team, it would be a key objective for the regeneration team.

The regeneration team proposes to work with the planning team to have conversations about requiring some form of letting strategy from the new owners linked to the planning application.  This could require a submission to the regeneration team to satisfy the letting strategy condition.

(xi)  Members asked for clarification in relation to the properties being discussed and referenced as Hackney Walk.

The Head of Area Regeneration confirmed the properties referenced in the report as Hackney Walk related to the Nike store building, all the arches and the other book end building opposite the Nike building.

(xii)  Members pointed out that retail is under huge transformation and needs to consider different uses.  Members asked if the council had an idea when the new commercial owners would put forward new proposals.

The Cabinet Member for Planning, Culture and Inclusive Economy referred to the arches in Boeheim Place and pointed out this was still managed by Hackney Walk (Dukeminister).  Although it has higher occupancy levels it still requires a subsidy to keep it active.  The Cabinet Member pointed out this is being subsidised by the current commercial owners not the council.  However Boeheim Place is providing a very different environment to Hackney Walk in Morning Lane and equally giving people a different experience too.

The Cabinet Member acknowledged although it was a short distance between the 2 places it appears to have been difficult to fill the units and create the experiences that encourages people to want to work and shop, socialise there.

In relation to the employment statistics for Morning Lane the Council has noted that out of the 160 employments roles 44 are Hackney residents.  The Cabinet Member credited the joint working of the employment and skills and regeneration teams in building the relationships to enable this achievement.

(xiii)  Members commented that the council has made some contribution towards the refurbishment of Hackney Walk.  Members referred to The Arch Company plans to develop a tenant charter and that it would cover all the properties under its stewardship (5000 plus).  Members pointed out it might not work for some areas and referenced a consultation about this by the company last April.  Members asked if the council had participated in the consultation and if the Council has seen the tenant charter to consider if it fits well with Hackney.

The Cabinet Member for Planning, Culture and Inclusive Economy confirmed the Council did make a Section 106 contribution of £135k towards the investment.  The Cabinet Member pointed out Hackney Walk and the Mayor of London Regeneration fund invested over £16 million.

The Cabinet Member confirmed excluding Hackney Walk the borough has other arches that fall under The Arch Company which the tenant’s charter would apply to.  For these arches the Council’s regeneration team have been working with The Arch Company to ensure the charter is more sensitive to the local economy.

The Cabinet Members also pointed out there are other arches in the borough run by TfL too.  TFL are managing their own commercial property portfolio and have expressed a desire to be a more considerate commercial landlord. 

(xiv)  Members asked with hindsight of the last 9 years.  Is there anything the Council should have done differently in relation to Hackney Walk?

The Cabinet Member for Planning, Culture and Inclusive Economy explained the investment package into Hackney Central was quite extensive.  This also included investment in the Narrow Way prior to the pedestrianised walk way.  In addition to that over 30 business undertook direct investment, getting support with retail advice into improving their business marketing strategy and shop front improvements.  There was also public realm investment in and around Hackney Central.  The package provided some good investment and positive outcomes from that original investment.

The fact that Morning Lane is an element of that investment that is struggling has been frustrating.  Although this is a challenge.  From the Council’s prospective they have an effective regeneration team that is working to change this. 

The Chair asked for the Cabinet Member to provide feedback following the meeting with the new owners of Morning Lane Hackney Walk.

 

ACTION

The Cabinet Member for Planning, Culture and Inclusive Economy to provide feedback on the outcome of the discussions with the new commercial owners for Hackney Walk Morning Lane.

 

(xv)  For clarification Members asked if the 5.3 million from the GLA was all spent and part of the £16 million spend package referenced.

The Cabinet Member for Planning, Culture and Inclusive Economy confirmed the GLA funding was all spent and was part of the £16 million investment into Hackney Walk.