Agenda item
Levelling Up Funding (19:05 - 20:05)
Minutes:
4.1 The Chair introduced the item and explained that the Levelling Up funding (LUF) was announced in November 2020 as part of the 2020 Spending Review. The Government’s funding for this work has totaled £4.8 billion.
4.2 Levelling up’ is a government-wide approach to reduce geographical inequality in a broad range of economic and social measures across the UK.
4.3 The purpose of this funding is to invest in “local infrastructure that has a visible impact on people and their communities and to support economic recovery.”
4.4 The first two funding rounds focused on three investment themes – transport, town centers, high street regeneration and cultural investment. The areas funded were determined by an index that ranked local authorities.
4.5 Following the 2 rounds of funding 834 bids were submitted, of which 216 were successful. 156 of the awards were made to local authorities in England, with a value of £3 billion (78% of the total funding). The funding awards made to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland across the two rounds totaled £798 million.
4.6 Local authorities were eligible to submit at least one bid, up to a value of £20 million. In round 2 Hackney successfully secured a bid for just over £19 million for renovating public spaces in Hackney Central. The town hall square, new creative workspace and Hackney Central Library.
4.7 The Commission asked for information about the Council’s plans and spending for the £19 million funding / investment in Hackney Central (HC).
4.8 The information covered:
1. Hackney Central regeneration
2. Community engagement, identified challenges and priorities in Hackney Central
3. The LUF program (aims, outputs and outcomes)
4. Community involvement in the LUF program and LUF project delivery.
4.9 The Chair welcomed to the meeting Suzanne Johnson, Assistant Director - Regeneration and Economic Development and Robert Offord, Area Regeneration Manager from London Borough of Hackney (LBH).
4.10 The discussion item commenced with a presentation from the Area Regeneration Manager from LBH. The presentation covered:
· Wider regeneration in Hackney Central
· Community Engagement process – challenges and priorities identified
· LUF program aims, outputs and outcomes
· Community involvement in the LUF program and project delivery.
4.11 The main points from the presentation were outlined as follows.
4.11.1 The officer explained that Hackney Central had been identified as a regeneration area by the Council (in its local Plan) and by the Greater London Authority (GLA).
4.11.2 In 2020 Hackney Central was elevated to a Major Town Centre status recognizing its role in the borough as providing services to residents and the opportunity for wider growth.
4.11.3 In line with the council’s approach to regeneration the aim, by Area Regeneration and Economic Development, is to deliver the wider corporate strategies relevant to the service area.
4.11.4 Detailed work at the town center information level was undertaken to understand how the corporate strategies related to the circumstances and needs of Hackney’s residents. This work fed into the development of the Hackney Central Town Centre Strategy that was adopted earlier in 2023.
4.11.5 The strategy represents the views of the community and other partners and helped to secure the Levelling Up funding.
4.11.6 Various engagements sessions have been carried out with residents. The first method of engagement was the Hackney Central Conversation. This led to subsequent pieces of work and included the borough wide libraries consultation.
4.11.7 Area Regeneration has continued to engage with residents via the Community Panel that was formed. They are engaged the Community Panel about bespoke projects and engagement plans.
4.11.8 The Hackney Central Conversation was a wide ranging conversation with residents. The Council’s engagement with residents started in 2019 with no preconceived ideas and was aimed at understanding the challenges and issues that local residents identified as affecting their quality of life. This conversation evolved to consider the opportunities to address these challenges.
4.11.9 The engagement methods used varied from 121 conversations to drop in public events to maximize involvement. This acknowledged that people may want to engage in different ways.
4.11.10 The HC conversation touched on a range of themes, for example like transport covering moving around in HC or the negative impact of transport (wider issues of transport).
4.11.11 Following the Council’s initial consultation conversation, engagement with residents in HC has continued, evolved and expanded to include discussions about possible solutions too.
4.11.12 The officer explained that the town center strategy reflects the intelligence gathered from the conversations with residents. The council has also captured and shared the learning from the process.
4.11.13 The council worked with community groups and attended the events they held.
4.11.14 Insight from the Hackney Library consultation fed into the Levelling Up bid and this is why Hackney Central Library is included in the plans.
4.11.15 The Community Panel (a representations of HC community) was set up following the Hackney Conversation. It is the space where the Council tests and trial engagement methodology and techniques before implementation.
4.11.16 Slide 7 provides a summary of the key issues identified as part of the conversation. The issues picked up were outlined on slides 7 and 8. These have been the focus and featured in the Levelling Up bid.
4.11.17 11 out of the 13 areas will be delivered / improved as a result of the levelling up funding investment. There are 2 areas that will not be addressed by this funding but the Council is considering other ways to address them.
4.11.18 Data from the engagement with residents informed the strategy that was adopted by Cabinet in 2023.
4.11.19 The Hackney Central Strategy covers a 10 year period and has a mission based approach outlining the collective change the council (in partnership with residents) wants to see in the town center.
4.11.20 The HC Strategy sets out 5 broad missions they want to achieve for Hackney Central. This also details a series of projects that were instigated prior to the Levelling Up funding being secured.
4.11.21 The projects were set up to apply for discrete funding pots that the council anticipated smaller pots of funding would be available.
4.11.22 The funding bid submission focused on the regeneration and cultural aspects rather than transport.
4.11.23 The scheme will be a £21 million pound capital investment scheme. Just over £19 million will be provided by the Department of Levelling Up, homes and Communities. The remaining £2 million will come from public and private match funding.
4.11.24 The funding is all capital and time limited to spend.
4.11.25 The three themes the Levelling Up investment is structured around are:
· Green and resilient Hackney Central (c £14m)
· Characterful Hackney Central (c £6m)
· Hackney Central Wellbeing (c£1m).
4.11.26 Slide 12 detailed what sections of the locality they would be investing in.
4.11.27 The significant investment in Green infrastructure was about greening Hackney Central street and making it resilient to climate change and the negative impacts. In addition to improving air quality and road safety.
4.11.28 There is a planned significant investment into the Town Hall square (identified by the council and residents in the town center consultation process).
4.11.29 Planned is significant investment into Hackney Central Library to improve digital access to lower the barriers to inclusion and supplement services.
4.11.30 Slide 13 listed the specific outputs the council has committed to deliver and the wider outcomes.
4.11.31 The bidding process was supported by the Theory of Change process. This sets out how the outputs and outcomes will deliver the long term change they want to achieve with the town center strategy and evaluation of the impact they hope to achieve.
4.11.32 The council plans to continue to engage residents in the successful Levelling Up project. This is based on a series of principles and objectives set out on slide 15.
4.11.33 Key is respecting the knowledge and input from people and to build on the existing relationships and connections they have with residents. Lowering the barriers to engagement for residents who want to be involved in the conversation and help shape the schemes. Also to target unheard voices.
4.11.34 The Council is continuously learning and reflecting on the impact from their engagement techniques. The aim is to improve all the time they engage with the community.
4.11.35 The council is taking a series of actions to raise awareness of the levelling up fund.
4.11.36 Outlined on slide 17 was the number of different ways residents will be involved. Each project will have a high level bespoke engagement plan mapping out stakeholders against the appropriate technique and methodology.
4.11.37 Slide 18 outlines a structure of the projects.
4.12 Questions Answers and Discussion
(i) Members asked the officer to clarify if the Levelling Up Fund was covering just regeneration and cultural aspects but not transport? Members pointed out that it might be hard for people to understand this when there is reference to the green corridor. Members asked how the council was separating culture and transport if it included the green corridor?
The Area Regeneration Manager from LBH explained the Government accepted bids for transport schemes if they focused on transport infrastructure such as new bridges, new rail infrastructure etc. A transport bid required a different business case and had an alternative sign off route because it was part funded by another department. The officer pointed out that a transport bid was heavily transport infrastructure based.
Whilst this bid does have some impact on transport the Levelling Up bid was focused on addressing the challenges, they face with their streets in the town center and linking spaces. Therefore, more like a regeneration scheme breaking down barriers for people to get access to Hackney Downs travelling to and from school or in and around the town center.
TheArea Regeneration Manager from LBH pointed out that whilst the wider air quality and safety improvements were transport related, they would make improvements to the town centre too. The Government view this as a regeneration scheme not a transport scheme.
The Chair added that the Government does not consider it to be transport if it does not involve moving around with wheels. This is part of the problem and might be an important point to raise in relation to bids being categorized in a particular way; otherwise they are not valued.
(ii) Members referred to the £19 million covering a large geographical area (from Pembury circus, town hall square, Tescos car park and Hackney Walk etc.) Members pointed out that although it is a large pot of funding it could be spent without seeing any significant change. Members suggested if the council wants to keep people engaged and enthusiastic with the project they will need to see some form of change as it progresses. Members asked what outcomes residents will see early on so they can feel like the investment is for them. Also Members wanted to know how this will be communicated.
The Area Regeneration Manager from LBH explained the Levelling Up Fund project is made up of 7 sub projects and some will take a long time to resolve because they are addressing intrinsic problems in the town center.
For longer term projects they hope to be raising awareness and generating excitement through their engagement and co-design.
Three out of the seven projects are bite size and can be implemented sooner. E.g. Marvin street, improvement to the car park and the interchange at Hackney Central train station. The projects that are within the Council’s control will require fewer sign-offs from partners like TfL. However the officer pointed out they must acknowledge that these projects will take some time to deliver in a busy town center therefore sequencing and phasing will be critical.
(iii) Members asked for more information about how they are analyzing value for money to ensure that all the projects will achieve the deliverables they outlined and how this is being evaluated in terms of value for money.
In response the Area Regeneration Manager from LBH explained this was done upfront. Pointing out that the bidding process was exhaustive. The process assessed the different ways to measure the impact. The council will be measuring themselves against the criteria that was agreed at the beginning in the business plan. This business plan has been shared with the Government as part of the bidding process. In the program management they will be delivering against this plan. In addition to the project being on time and within budget. If this is achieved, they should hit the targets set in terms of the cost benefit analysis.
From evaluation of the earlier schemes the council is continuing to reflect on the impact, through sense checking and learning to help shape and improve long-term projects. The officer informed the Members that there is a feedback loop within the project itself to monitor risks, issues and overruns. This is so that the lessons learnt from the earlier projects can be implemented in the wider project scheme.
(iv) Members followed up and commented that the Commission is aware of the increasing costs for regeneration projects due to inflation and asked if this is likely to have an impact on what can be achieved against the original plans?
In response the Area Regeneration Manager from LBH replied they are aware of the impact this is having on projects, so they were able to factor this in as they complied with the bid. Highlighting that as part of the exhaustive bidding process they bench marked costs at that moment in time and forecasted inflation costs. Therefore, they have accounted for significant cost inflation across the life of the project. Should the costs exceed their predictions they will have to consider how to continue to deliver the outputs and outcomes they hope to achieve. However, currently the projects are within the estimated costings.
The Chair comments that with projects like housing they have been severely impacted by inflation and construction costs. The Chair challenged the perception that this project was likely to continue on time and within budget with no impact due to inflationary pressures. The Member commented that this would need to be robustly tested to make sure they can reassure residents. The Member also suggested the council should be practical, open and honest about the type of impacts they could encounter in terms of delivering on time and within budget with projects of this size or bigger. Members pointed out that in terms of housing this has not been the case and projects are being delayed and the numbers completed reducing. Therefore, the question the council may need to answer is why this project is special or different to other projects.
(v) Members referred to page 13 in the agenda, the points about new creative and commercial workspace and ongoing discussions with the Community Panel. Members asked if the council was the council discussing affordability and a sliding scale of cost for new artists. Members pointed out that new artists were feeling challenged with some of the rates within the borough and wanted to find out if there was scope for this in relation to new workspace.
(vi) Members also asked about the diversity make up of the Community Panel used for engagement.
In response the Area Regeneration Manager from LBH replied there are a number of ways that they are supporting creative and commercial space in Hackney Central and that this is being done in partnership. The officer highlighted that there are significant vacancies in parts of the HC town center and they are working with the land owners to reduce the barriers to bringing those site back onto the market.
Where they identify genuine public purpose and investment, consideration is given to improving access, safety and CCTV coverage to bring the sites back into use. In addition, they will be working with users and residents who do not use Hackney Central library to change it into a space where local business people can work and rent a space at affordable rates. A space to work from, meet with clients and access the internet. Some of this work is within their control and in other instances they are laying the ground work for other people to help bring those spaces into productive use.
In relation to the question about diversity. The Community Panel was set up in 2021 and they reflect on the membership of the panel annually to ensure the membership and those who engage represents the wider Hackney Central community. Members of the panel are can also be representative of a group such as TRAs or have a specific interest. The council also relies on members taking information back to the community and bringing issues back from the community.
As part of another review of the Panel they also target specific community groups that were underrepresented on the Panel. The council worked with the Chinese Community Center and Hackney Youth Parliament to identify seats. The council will continue to regularly review and reflect on the diversity representation.
(vii) Members commended the project and were pleased about the level of investment in Hackney Central. Members commented that although further engagement was planned in 2024 they wanted more information about the town hall square plans and vision. Members asked if there was feedback from any specific group, what the activity will look like and what officers would find useful from the scrutiny commission.
In response the Area Regeneration Manager from LBH replied in relation to the town hall square they have done some vision work but not a design of what would be possible. Currently they are making sure the project is feasible and that there are opportunities. The council also needs to identify costs to make sure they are appropriate including inflation costs. The town hall square is being stretched to include outside of Hackney Central Library and the Hackney Empire. The officer explained they had no planned ideas. The investment in Hackney Central was because of the feedback received from residents that it did not represent the diverse communities of Hackney Central. The Windrush sculptures had helped but there was a lot of feedback about it being underutilized. There are plans to explore and understand how people might want to use the space. Feedback has also included information about crime and antic social behaviour, leaving people reluctant to use the space. People have expressed changing their habits e.g. not waiting at the bus stop in the town hall square and only going to the Hackney Empire if they go with a friend to leave there at night. The officer explained that they are aware of the issues and the potential opportunties.
(viii) Members commented that the area includes the Hackney arches / walk that was regenerated, using private funding and has become an eye sore. Members were pleased that this is in scope for the capital investment and asked if the council was knowledgeable about what the owners planned to do because residents would like to see this change.
In response the Area Regeneration Manager from LBH advised this was one of the projects that was in partnership with the private sector to ensure there is a minimum level of service.
The officer confirmed the council will not be investing in the private assets but they will be investing in the public realm and supporting the space that people want to use in the town center so that it is safe and secure for people to move around. This might mean investing in public infrastructure such as CCTV ensuring that access to the site is clean, safe and attractive.
The council is looking for the private sector to bring match funding to support the council in delivering the vision for the wider town center.
The officer pointed out it will be optimal when the sites work together. The council is aware that some of the sites are locust for the type of behaviour they do not want to see in a town center. But to leave these sites out would be a missed opportunity to bring them back into productive use.
(ix) In a follow up question Members asked for clarification if this was the match funding from the private sector referenced earlier in the presentation. Members also asked if the £2 million was coming from the owners of that private land on Morning Lane.
In response the Area Regeneration Manager from LBH explained that a proportion of this is coming from funding that has been secured from other public sources and another proportion from the private sector. This is accounting for work and investment that the private sector has already planned for the town center. The council hopes it will include these sites but potentially include other areas too.
(x) Members pointed out that the council has relied on the private sector to invest in Morning Lane before. Members asked what reassurances or contractual obligations have been put in place for the private sector to actually deliver. Taking into consideration the council is investing heavily in the public realm to help them.
In response the Area Regeneration Manager from LBH confirmed the they have been informed about the investment in Bohemia Place. This reflects the collective view from stakeholders to activate the space that has been inactive for a long time. The officer acknowledged that there are some continuing issues with some proportions of the site but they are aware that the private owners are issuing planning applications to bring the sites back into active use. This should trigger investment into the town center.
The Area Regeneration Manager advised that the council did not want to rely on the private sector because they are not in control of it and it would present a huge risk if the council committed to what the private sector could do.
The council has identified what they have already committed to doing. The improvements and investment will add value to the town center. However, a proportion of the investment the council is making would have been made regardless of the private sector investing. This investment is to improve the wider town center for access, safety and movement. Therefore, if the private owners invest in their assets then that will be a bonus.
(xi) Members referred to some problematic areas in the town center such as Hackney Walk and the Morning Lane car park. Members commented that their concern was that people will see the town hall square transformed and see nothing in the other areas and think that the council spent all the public money on the section in front of the town hall and nothing on the other areas which have been long standing problems. Members asked if there is a strategy to address this perception.
In response the Area Regeneration Manager from LBH explained that the levelling up fund of one of a number of things the Regeneration and Economic Development service are doing in the town center. The service is working with the private sector and other public sector partners on a series of projects and strategies that will be deployed across the town center. There is wider work to bring about the change they would like to see and some of this is reliant on the private sector and the council working together. The officer pointed out that the council did not want to commit funding to a site that was outside of their control and where the private / public sector partners could change their mind. However, this does not mean that they would not continue to work with them. The projects that they are prioritizing and taking forward are equally as important as those spaces they continue to work on under other programs.
The Levelling Up Fund is a time limited program with a specific focus which Hackney Council worked with to fit their needs. This is one of the tools being used to improve the town center.
(xii) Members commented that they are aware of how they define the issues related to levelling such as social economic issues. Members asked how confident the council was that this would address the issues in terms of bridging the gap and tackling inequalities. Members also asked if they were confident the project will reflect the voice of residents that the council heard from in the process of engagement to drive the authentic levelling up for Hackney’s communities.
In response the Area Regeneration Manager from LBH explained they have a large volume of data that sits alongside the valuable engagement contributions from residents. There is also empirical evidence that supported why Hackney Central was identified as a priority for regeneration and was factored into the way they finalised the bid.
The specific areas focused on is due to the information they have received from residents about the impact on their lives. E.g. the disproportionate impact of health inequality on the residents (particularly amongst the elder population in Hackney Central). For example, the impact of isolation and mental health.
The investment in Hackney Central library is to target and break down the barriers people experience using the space. Providing people with the skills either digital or analog to connect to the services available for them.
The same relates to the negative impacts of air quality on residents and the health impacts associated with poor air. This is the rationale for focusing that aspect of improvement on Pembury and Amhurst Road.
In addition to limiting crime and antisocial behaviour because this has been having a debilitating effect on people’s lives and how they use the town center and the services on offer.
The officer reiterated that the Levelling Up Fund is targeting some of the areas but is not the only project they are using to address some of the impacts and negative life experiences.
(xiii) Members referred to the information they heard about the outcomes, measures and upfront work. Members highlighted that there is still a lot of shaping to be done and engagement next year. Members asked how the scrutiny commission could add value to the remaining work.
In response the Deputy Mayor and Cabinet Member for delivery, inclusive economy & regeneration replied they will need to ensure they have the right governance and oversight (audit and reporting) in place. The Commission would add creditability to their reporting in addition to reporting to Government too. The Council wants to ensure that Hackney is seen as a delivery agent regardless of any changes to central government in the next 1-2 years. Having scrutiny as one of the important mechanisms in the program management and accountability will ensure that everything in relations to delivery happens. There is an important governance role for scrutiny and this would be valuable.
The Chair added that there are 3 measures that scrutiny will use in their oversight work and that is:
1) Value for money
2) Meeting the expectations, ambitions and aspirations of the community via the community engagement strategy
3) Measuring against the headline outcomes and outputs.
(xiv) Members referred to the output of creating 1600 square meters of creative and commercial workspace but pointed out this, in their view, did not represent an outcome. An outcome would be increased economic activity. The Member also highlighted that this point related to the digital inclusion investment in Hackney Central Library. Members pointed out that they noted the increased number of cultural events but were unsure how the investment linked to the outcomes. The Members asked for more measurable outcomes related to the investment in digital inclusion.
In response the Deputy Mayor and Cabinet Member for delivery, inclusive economy & regeneration from LBH replied in terms of the space and the points about outcomes that was a good point to raise. The main objective was for a thriving town center but the officer could provide more detail about this.
In response to the question about digital inclusion investment, the Cabinet Member for health, adult social care, voluntary sector and culture replied the library service recently heard about how digital inclusion can help people with visual and hearing impairments to access the space in libraries making them more accessible. In the consultation the feedback people wanted more digital tools available and more support for businesses. Hackney Central Library has started working with women, who are sole traders, running their own business to provide them with groups where they can meet, share ideas and information. They also have presentations from people who can help them make their businesses more digitally functional. The women also have access to the equipment in the library.
(xv) Members referred to the last time the council received a large pot of funding (following the riots) and pointed out this was spent on the Hackney Walk project. Members queried if for that project, the council was overly reliant on a private partner to deliver. Members asked what lessons have been learnt from this project that will be applied to this new investment. Members also asked for the headline lessons learnt.
In response the Deputy Mayor and Cabinet Member for delivery, inclusive economy & regeneration from LBH replied, the principle lessons they took away from that experience was to ensure the private sector contributed to public sector investment. Currently there is one private sector partner that has not been responsive to match funding.
In relation to the public investment in Hackney Walk this achieved the outputs and outcomes it set out to achieve in the first few year pre covid and lockdowns. The council has learnt to be confident knowing that public funding is a catalyst for greater value and investment. The council should be brave and bold in the way it sets out joint ventures and how to respond to partners who are engaging. The Cabinet Member stated if the partners do not contribute to the investment it will not progress.
The Cabinet Member pointed out that this does not resolve the issues of a private estate having community safety issues and this is a serious dilemma. The Cabinet Member acknowledged although the Police can respond this is usually a reaction to an event rather than a proactive action. The Cabinet Member added that not all organisations in the private sector work like this but when it does happen it is about the council being bold and saying no. Currently they are struggling to get one private sector partner to come to the table even though there is value for them too. The Cabinet Member highlighted that the private sector is concerned about making a commitment even if the investment would benefit their asset as well as the wider town center.
In essence it is about the council being clear that if they want to collaborate in a constructive way they need to make a contribution.
(xvi) In a follow up Members asked if the project would be jeopardized if the private sector failed to commit. Would the council pull out of investing?
In response the Deputy Mayor and Cabinet Member for delivery, inclusive economy & regeneration from LBH replied regeneration is about collaboration, negotiation and joint venture. There is room for negotiation to find a common position of consensus. Currently the council is able to invest £19 million into the town center and this is a position of strength. Therefore, partners must come to add value. The hope is this will lead to a productive and positive conclusion when the investment is carried out and it will lead to a successful partnership.
The Chair closed this item with the closing remarks that it was important that the Council did not repeat past mistakes and that the lessons learnt from Morning Lane / Hackney Walk are applied.
Supporting documents:
-
Item 4 - Coversheet-Levelling Up Fund, item 4.
PDF 120 KB -
Item 4a 13Dec23 SEG - LUF and UK SPF, item 4.
PDF 2 MB