Peter Snell, one of the key supporters of Dalston People's Festival in July reports on some of the great activity that took place. And also some of the key campaigning issues to take forward.
Our Dalston Futures Campaign will be addressing many of these issues - we will keep you posted.
Finding a voice on the future of
Dalston...
Sunday 14th July; 2.30 pm
till 5.00 pm, The Arcola Theatre, Ashwin Street (part of Arcola’s Green Sunday)
Cllr Vincent Stops, LBH Planning Chair explained recent
planning decisions on major developments in Dalston and the modifications
achieved through the application process despite the limits within which the
Council operates. Ray Blackburn of Dalston
Conservation Area Advisory Committee wanted conservation areas extended to
cover the centre of Dalston to better protect the traditional streetscape. Bill Parry-Davies of Open Dalston used a
series of slides to show what had already been lost and what new developments
were proposed. Oliver Schick of Hackney
Cyclists explained how the redesign of Dalston Lane to increase bus flow had
created a dangerous junction for pedestrians at Queensbridge Road and created
conflicts with pedestrians near Dalston Junction station. He suggested ways in which junctions could be
made more permeable to create more direct and safer routes for cyclists. John
Thornton of Disability Backup welcomed the formal role they had now been given
in the Hackney Planning process and some achievements such as the removal of
street clutter such as A boards and tables on public pavements. He noted that bus access was now far worse
than before the changes around Dalston Junction. Russell Miller of Sustainable
Hackney warned that current planning policies failed to address the scale of
the challenge posed by climate change and the loss of biodiversity. He characterised new homes with inadequate
open space as “prison homes guarded by crippling debt”.
In a spirited discussion Ursula Huws of the Rio Cross residents
complained that current planning and licensing policies seemed to give priority
to business need over residents’ concerns. Disability campaigners were
concerned that permeability for cyclists made streets less safe for users with
disabilities. Bill Parry-Davies
complained Hackney Planners should be less scared of losing planning decision
on appeal. Vincent Stops said Hackney’s rate of success at appeals was already
in decline as Planning Inspectors ensured decisions better reflected the light
touch policies of the current government.
Dave Holland pointed out that popular protest was needed to effect long
term change in the Planning Framework within which decisions are made. Both Oliver and Ray said current management
through guidance instead of rules created a presumption in favour of
developer’s proposals. Oliver said this
was highly unusual compared with other European countries and inevitably led to
poor planning outcomes while encouraging land owners to hold onto land rather
than release it for development.
Possible campaign issues
·
Extend conservation area to cover the whole of
Dalston Town Centre to provide better protection for traditional streetscape.
·
Redesign Dalston Lane to make it more pedestrian
and cycle friendly
·
Improve bus access in Dalston Town Centre
·
Reduce anti-social impact of night time economy
on local residents
·
Seek Council leadership of campaign for more
effective local Planning powers
Cllr. Stops then left the meeting so it could discuss
concerns about the proposals for the Dalston Cross Shopping Centre for which
there was a public consultation exhibition at the Kingsland Shopping Centre on
the afternoon of Friday 19th July and the mornIng of Saturday 20th
July. In discussion the following points were identified as needing clarification;
·
How it could be described as a retail
development when the overwhelming use was to create new flats?
·
Why existing green space would be lost to grey
paved areas?
·
Why the plans did not properly fit into existing
street patterns?
·
What would be done to mitigate the impact on the
existing infrastructure such as child play that was already overstretched?
·
How current use of the Eastern Curve garden
could be maintained if it was turned into a public thoroughfare?
·
How would the new flats will benefit local
residents space when none are at genuinely affordable rents or prices?
·
What could be done to prevent flats being kept
empty as investment properties?
·
Why is the bridge over the railway line not on
line with St Marks Rise?
·
How can Dalston take more car use from the new
parking spaces?
·
Artisans, designers and light industry are being
driven out of Dalston by residential conversions so how will the new
development create premises they can use?
·
Will the development so change the demography of
Dalston that it will kill the market?
Guided walks and discussion; reports
Each walk started from CLR James
Library at 6.30pm
Monday 15th, Respecting
our heritage.
Ray Blackburn, Secretary of Dalston Conservation Area
Advisory Committee led a walk around Dalston Lane, Kingsland High Street and
their back streets and talked about the history and merit of buildings in the
area. He explained the status of
existing legal protection for such buildings (listing, conservation area status
etc.) and brought to life the issues that have to be considered in preserving
our heritage. He posed the questions;
·
Should we preserve the relics of previous uses
such as the old entrance to Dalston Junction station?
·
Is it good enough to preserve the frontages of
historic buildings such as those on the south side of Dalston Lane while
completely rebuilding the rear?
·
If the missing buildings on Ashwin Street are
rebuilt should they be faithful copies of the building demolished?
·
Since former industrial buildings are what most
make Dalston distinctive can more be done to protect them (and such use)?
·
More modern buildings (the old Library and
Kingsland Estate) are regarded as good buildings of their era. Should their protection be given equal
weight.
Throughout the walk reference was made to the views and
recommendations of the Edmund Bird Dalston heritage report produced for Design
for London. The report is available at;
http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11870147/Dalston%20Heritage%20Report%20copy.pdf.
Another source of local social conservation history based on Dalston Lane was
“The last days of London; a journey through the ruins” by Patrick Wright. Ray said local conservation area advisory
committees wanted to expand their membership and suggested participants looked
at the Hackney Society website to find out how to join their local committee.
The walk retired to the Duke of Wellington on Balls Pond
Road to consider what had been learnt.
Ray reported that LBH officers had told him they would commission their
own heritage report for Dalston in August with a view to reviewing boundaries
and strategies in 2014. The Edmund Bird report was highly regarded so it was
important the LBH report addressed the issues raised therein.
Any review should address;
·
More effective enforcement of existing standards
·
A more strategic approach to protecting
Conservation Areas from development threats.
Those present;
·
Sought access to the Heritage Report to see if
they agreed with its suggestions
·
Questioned the degree to which Conservation
Status could defend mixed use
·
Said that the existence of conservation areas,
their purpose, their rules and the benefits should be better publicised
·
Suggested there was scope for training
apprentices in traditional building techniques
·
Conservation Area Advisory Committees should be
given access to pre-application discussions with developers.
·
Consultation for new developments would be assisted
by better techniques at demonstrating impact (travelling display ideas from
Hackney Wick)
·
Wider engagement important to appreciation of
conservation value
·
Dalston’s community, particularly its ethnic
diversity, was what made it distinctive and the protection of Ridley Road
market (an option in the Edmund Bird report) was essential.
·
Mixed usage was important and the Council should
utilise the sites it owned to support daytime economy uses.
·
Developers use what is distinctive about Dalston
to attract residents but destroy it with bad developments.
·
Neighbourhood Planning powers had been given a
bad name by the conflict generated in Stamford Hill but we needed to understand
the value of new localism powers (neighbourhood forums, community asset listing
etc.)
Other areas of discussion beyond heritage issues were;
·
The need for better toilets with longer opening
hours and effective removal of food packaging waste was needed in Dalston.
·
Islington and Docklands had become stale and
lifeless as high rents drove out genuine local business use.
·
Daytime studios and workshops should build on hidden arts foundation in
Dalston which was already being forced out by high costs
Tuesday 16th, Sustainable
Dalston.
The walk started with a visit to the Eastern Curve
garden. Marie Murray explained how they
had started to develop the land over the railway cutting as part of the Making
Space in Dalston project funded by Design for London and the London Development
Agency in 2010. The cutting had originally joined the North London Line to the
line into Broadgate until that was closed in the 1950s. It was filled with
rubble topped with earth. LB Hackney
owns 30-40% of the land from the Dalston Lane entrance to the wooden pathway
that divides it from the rest of the garden.
The space had become a popular retreat for residents in nearby grey
developments like Dalston Square and a hub garden to support other community
gardens. In developing the Dalston Area
Action Plan residents had overwhelmingly supported the use of the site for a
green park but the plan had instead designated it as a corridor to a
redeveloped Kingsland Shopping Centre.
The owners of the shopping centre did own the bottom part of the site
and had agreed to loan it for the creation of the garden. Because it was not
currently used as a corridor it was a safe space for children’s activities and
effectively policed. Arcola, Bootstrap
Company, HCD, HCVS, OPEN Dalston and V22 studios had developed a strategic management
board to originally develop the site.
MUF architects were responsible for overall design, EXYST for the
pavilion design and J&L Gibbons for landscape design. Since Summer 2012 it
has been managed by a social enterprise, ‘Grow Cook Eat’ set up by Marie and Brian
Cumming, local residents who had been involved in the running of the Garden from
the start. Income for the daily opening and management of the Garden is raised
by a café, space hire and events. A number of jobs have been created but the gardening
is done by volunteers.
The group agreed that the Eastern Curve garden was part of
what made Dalston distinctive and the obvious place for the main entrance to
the new development was the passageway at the end of Ashwin Street.
Amy Janina Cooper from the Rhodes Estate joined the walk at
the Eastern Curve and explained how it had inspired new community gardening
initiatives and provided a base from which they could collect compost. Russell and Marie agreed that ideas of
establishing a formal network and advice had been replaced by informal networks
as gardeners just wanted to get on with gardening.
Amy walked the group around community gardening initiatives
on the Rhodes Estate starting at a green corridor initiated as part of a
Groundwork Transform Project pathway from Forest Road to Gillett Square. Some
residents had initially claimed the initiative might attract Anti Social
Behaviour and knives had been found concealed in bushes but the opposition had
been based more on an expectation of traditional maintenance with mown
grass. Bird boxes at the entrance to the
route were being moved following complaints from the owner of the house to
which they were fixed that he had not agreed their installation.
Despite early setbacks local engagement has grown and the
residents had now notified the Council of areas they did not want sprayed with
herbicides and were waiting for the Council to respond. Parts of the Hackney Homes had been very
helpful. While scaffolding was erected for maintenance work they had installed
rain water runoff to water buts in each of the 4 community gardens. Amy led the
visit to various community garden initiatives and explained how they had
increased neighbour engagement particularly from children. She explained how the Tenants & Residents
Association was seeking to develop the community hall to increase its value to
the community and that this might open out opportunities for the wider
community to make more use of the Multi Use Games Area.
Russell Miller contrasted the amount of green space on the
Rhodes Estate with the grey expanses of Dalston Square and current planning
applications and offered advice on developing flower meadows. Peter Snell noted the inadequacy of home
insulation works completed on the Estate (further detail on the Sustainable
Hackney website) and his ongoing attempts to sort this out.
Oliver then led
the walk to Queensbridge Road and back along Dalston Lane explaining some key
outstanding transport issues in the area:
·
Hackney
was the first local authority n the country where more residents (15.4%) cycle
to work than drive (12.8%), yet it was required to manage its streets to assist
commuters from elsewhere to drive through.
·
There
were cycle permeability problems on the Rhodes Estate, as some gates were too
wide (designed to keep motorcycle traffic out) and some dropped kerbs were
missing.
·
Queensbridge
Road was a problematic street and needed a street-long review to improve
cycling conditions along it. Central hatching and pedestrian islands encouraged
drivers to speed and marginalised pedestrian use.
·
The
redesign of the junction of Dalston Lane, Queensbridge Road, and Graham Road to
increase bus flow had not gone far enough. While it was better than what had
been there previously, it still left the junction as a disjointed space geared
too much towards motor traffic throughput.
·
Motor
traffic capacity had been speeded up at the Queensbridge Road junction by
banning the right turn from Dalston Lane into Queensbridge Road. The ‘official’
route for making this turn was now along
Laurel Street next to the Rhodes Estate. Fortunately, this had not
developed into a significant rat-running problem.
·
Hackney
was thinking about removing the bus pre-signal facility before the Queensbridge
junction, as it was under-used; eastbound traffic queues there were not as long
as westbound queues.
·
Pedestrian
islands at the junction still featured raised kerbs to force pedestrians to
walk in a dog-leg that was intended to discourage running. The guard railing
that generally used to accompany such indirect arrangements had no longer been
installed following a change of policy, but the dog-leg was still there.
·
He
explained that the preferential layout for the junction was to remove the slip
roads to reduce motor traffic capacity and to create a single, unified junction
without requiring people on foot to cross in three stages.
·
The
widening of the traffic lane to allow cars to overtake parked buses on the
eastbound carriageway had made the westbound carriageway so narrow that it caused
cyclists to ride on the southern footway outside the library. This had been a
change required by TfL. The best layout at this point was to revert to the
previous arrangement of two wide kerb lanes 4.5m each in width, which were
flexible and allowed cyclists to pass vehicles comfortably.
Oliver said that
there was some work going on in Dalston Lane and that the London Cycling
Campaign (LCC) in Hackney had brought these concerns to the attention of
officers and Councillors. He was keen to work with Rhodes Estate residents to
look at permeability on the estate to increase route choice in the area.
Oliver is
currently writing a guide to sustainable urban design and the walk ended in
Dalston Square where he explained key background and concepts as follows:
·
Dalston
was one of many town centres in London which had until now been subject to a
presumption by TfL in favour of increasing motor traffic capacity there. This
had caused poor layouts such as the present one in Dalston. Oliver had been a
member of the Mayor of London’s Roads Task Force on behalf of LCC until they
had withdrawn because they couldn’t support the emerging recommendations in
full. It now appears to have set in
place a framework by means of which prominent town centres such as Dalston
could be developed with a greater emphasis on ‘place’ over through motor
traffic, so it might be possible to achieve the required changes to street
design locally. The Roads Task Force sought to maintain overall motor traffic
capacity on London’s streets through building new roads elsewhere. It contemplated a possible Paris style
‘périphérique’ ring road, possibly in
tunnels to counteract and motor traffic capacity reductions in areas like
Dalston or Elephant & Castle.
·
He
criticised aspects of the Dalston Square development, in particular the layout
and orientation of the square. He explained that the housing was “enabling
development”, built to finance other projects, which often caused proper
planning controls to be ignored or reduced. Dalston Square was such a
development; a grey paved wind tunnel, whose trees were dying and where all the
building surfaces were opaque including the windows, causing an unwelcoming
atmosphere. It was not a pleasant or attractive space and misconceived in most
of its aspects.
·
The
inexorable rise in London’s population could only be served by aligning
population density with density of activity. This in turn required the
creation, and in many cases the re-creation, of a hierarchy of dispersed urban
centres so goods, services, employment, and education were available to everyone with a reduced
need to travel.
Possible Campaign issues
·
Keep the Eastern Curve garden as a safe
defensible space and do not allow it to become a through route to the proposed
Kingsland development.
·
Redirect planning and regeneration strategies to
align population with employment and entertainment activity to minimise the
need to travel
Wednesday 17th, The
Cultural Quarter & Evening Economy
Feimatta Conteh (Arcola)
noted that the site of Dalston Square had once housed the Dalston Theatre of
Varieties which subsequently housed the Four Aces and the Labyrinth Clubs. The
Arcola Theatre had indicated it would have been interested in developing the
derelict theatre if it had not been demolished to make way for the new
development. The large residential
development was already leading to complaints about noise from nearby cultural
sites like the Arcola tent. Ashwin
Street also included arts studios, and Cafe Otto as well as the Arcola
Theatres. The Council’s Regeneration
Department had supported the designation of the site for cultural use in the
Dalston Area Action. Arcola had found
that the Council’s Property Management Department had been slow and
uncooperative with supporting that goal when they had moved in.
The Arcola Theatre had been started in 2,000 by Mehmet Ergen
who is still involved in its management. It now comprised;
·
A 200 seat theatre for major shows.
·
An 80 seat studio theatre for more experimental
work
It runs a fringe Grimeborn opera festival every summer and a
creative learning programme comprising 2 youth groups, an academy for older
youth, and a 60+ acting group.
Policy points noted were;
·
That sun surveys on new buildings should also
consider the shading impact on adjacent buildings to ensure they accurately
reflected overall impact on an area.
·
That independence of cultural organisations was
an essential defence against homogenisation.
Dan Beaumont, (Dalston Superstore),
took us to meet the owners of three diverse local bars before ending in the
basement of his new venture, Voodoo Ray to discuss the work of Dalston Pub
Watch and the Evening Economy Forum. The details of the Clubs visited, and
their owners, were as follows:-
Alibi
(Mark Schaffer)
Was set up as a collective with Real Gold who provided the
youth face of the Club which had a top end suspended dance floor, free entry, a
no guest list policy and viewed all who used it as celebrities. Staff were expected to generate use and
received a cut of profits. The owner had
moved on to establish Macbeth in Hoxton, Birthdays on Stoke Newington Road and
the White Rabbit restaurant on Bradbury Street.
A former musician he was drawn to new interests and said he was keen to
build institutions rather than earn lots of money.
Planning issues; yellow line needed across entrance to
Gillett Square from Bradbury Street as it is always blocked by parked cars.
Visions (Eddie Augustine)
The owner, had arrived from the West Indies in 1965 and
developed the Twylight Sound System from work DJing in youth clubs around
Ealing but eventually worked all around the country. He regularly visited Dalston which hosted 30
odd clubs (Dougies, Le Prison, Pier 1, the All Nations etc,) and where black businesses
could establish themselves in a way not possible in Ealing. On the back of this he developed a Visions
film business and in time developed a wedding video specialism. Visions was purchased and equipped with
multiple video displays showing the entire wedding preparations and service as
the reception dinner was served. His
traditional business had declined over the last 8 years as his mainly
Afro-Carribean clientele had been forced out of the area by high housing costs.
He had been forced to remodel the venue as a Club to stay afloat. Eddie had been required to move to a “primary
trading area” when he established the Club but now it seemed OK for residents
to move in and demand businesses like his be closed down.
Possible campaign issues;
·
Reduce pressures forcing black and minority
ethnic communities out of Dalston.
·
Be fair to established businesses and don’t
allow newly arrived residents to close them down.
Ruby’s Bar (Tom Gibson)
The owner had established an up market cocktail bar from a building
previously used as a Chinese takeaway but that had been a restaurant back in
1885 at the front of premises owned by his parents family business “Castle
Gibson ”. They had been in the furniture business until moving into the
provision of studio space to film units in the warehouses once used to store
furniture. The walk visited the studios at the back of Ruby’s bar which
attracted 20 – 150 users a day for filming and made extensive use of local
restaurants and other services. The
spaces were also used for pop up meals and similar uses which required
temporary licenses. An independent fire
adjudicator did an annual inspection to ensure they met fire safety standards.
Voodoo Ray (Dan Beaumont)
Dan Beaumont explained how he had started Dalston Superstore
with 2 partners as a queer friendly bar and felt humbled to build upon the
great traditions of venues like the Four Aces and Labyrinth. He would not claim
credit for being the first of the new wave of bars but they had arrived just as
Dalston was being recognised as a unique venue and attracting media
attention. Voodoo Ray was his latest
venue and was similar to Dalston Superstore acting as a cafe all week with a
basement music venue open Thursday, Friday & Saturday evenings. An
architect designed retro interior had been nominated for awards. He believed Voodoo Ray pizzas matched any in
London and they were based on extensive field research in New York.
Dalston Pubwatch & Evening
Economy Forum
Dan talked about this network of which he has been a key figure
for some years. Key achievements were;
·
Establishment of additional street scene enforcement through voluntary contributions
of between £50 and £200 per month from 15 bars
·
Additional street scene wardens who issue fixed
penalty tickets for antisocial behaviour, urination
·
“You drink here, people live here”
awareness campaign
·
Good neighbour agreement about to be ratified by
Council through which bar owners made a number of commitments which included
managing the pavement outside their venues.
·
Provision of free/ reduced price basement space
to arts and community groups when they were not open.
·
The Parliamentary All Party Special Interest
Beer Group had “specially commended” Dalston Pub Watch as one of the best three
in the country in 2013.
Key concerns were;
·
Street drinking rather than Club use was the
real issue. How could key stress points such as John Campbell Road outside the
Rio Cinema be better managed? The
drinkers were a younger transient crowd compared with those in Gillett Square.
·
Need to keep pavement clear. Revellers blocked
pavements without intent and needed to be reminded to keep them clear.
·
Time Out/ Evening Standard publicity as a trendy
youth venue undermined interest in attracting a wider range of age groups.
·
Need for new image; e.g. the best pizzas/
cocktail venues/ coffee suppliers/ record shops in London.
·
Poor engagement of a cross section of local
stakeholders; what do we want and how do we get it/ protect it?
·
Council proposals to introduce a Special Policy
Area could further restrict the issue of new licenses although may have little
effect as Police are already objecting to all applications on the basis of
cumulative impact. The danger of this approach was that it put a monetary value
on existing licenses and created an incentive for small local bar owners to
sell out to corporate interests.
Dan was disappointed that the Council’s scrutiny committee
enquiry into the evening economy had failed to come up with a proper plan to
better manage licensed premises through;
·
Diversifying the offer to attract a wider age
group and families.
·
Developing a policy for the proper management of
departures from Clubs and Bars
·
Better management of pavements
·
Staggering closing hours; 3.00 am is currently a
time for mass exits.
Thursday 18th, Building a
shared future.
Sara Turnbull (Bootstrap)
walked the group down Ashwin Street to the Printhouse and summarised the
history of Bootstrap as follows:-
·
Sara had been the Bootstrap Chief Executive for
one year.
·
It dated from 1977 and had a 99 year lease on
the Print House signed in the early 1990s.
·
Sara was working to standardise leases towards a
common level of rent and clamp down on non payment.
·
The building was occupied by a variety of
support groups, creatives, freelancers and design houses listed on website.
·
Renting half a desk and networking was a popular
use.
·
It was now generating a surplus which was going
to community projects.
·
The first project was Hackney Pirates – a
targeted literacy and numeracy project based in a model pirate ship which had
secured long term support and taken up a 5 year lease in the former Centerprise
building where a high end sportswear
shop would be set up on the ground floor and staffed with local unemployed
youth with disabilities.
·
Its latest project was Bootstrap Campus which
assisted 18-25 year olds to learn to love work.
·
An active programme of work placements had found
jobs for 2 out of 3 placements placed centrally and 9 business tenants had also
taken placements.
·
Complaints of noise nuisance from the roof
garden had been addressed by employing an “acoustician” so that sound levels
were now automatically managed at a level which did not cause nuisance to
neighbours.
·
Cafe Oto had been given a long 25 year lease in
return for significant investment to set up the cafe
·
Shared
desk space was let on a 2 week licensed basis.
·
Most tenancies contracted out of the Landlord
& Tenants Act.
·
Total use; 450 tenants, 223 tenancies, and 170
organisations .
·
Rent levels around £22-£24 psf
·
In choosing new tenants they were assessed on
the basis of social impact and management contribution criteria
·
Abbott Street premises. Bootstrap had the top two stories of
Colourworks on a 20 year lease (covered by Act) and a short lease (also covered
by the Act) with the private owner of Fitzroy House (already letting ground 2
floors but just extended to top two floors) along with the bunker, the space
above and the car par to the rear (Hackney Council owned).
·
Bootstrap welcomed the redevelopment proposals
for the Kingsland Shopping Centre and were keen to develop affordable retail
along Abbott Street
·
They were keen to follow the Coin Street
development model where residents focussed on what they wanted rather than what
they opposed and worked with local cafes and bars.
Sara felt that there were two main threats to community
business survival;
·
Reliance on grants
·
Inability to manage premises
Sub-market long leasing a public asset to a community
organisation in return for specified outcomes was a more robust means of
developing community capability than giving out grants. Locality was using Bristol City Council as a
best practise example of such an approach and Sara was involved with a local
network supported by Locality looking at the scope to apply such ideas in
Hackney.
Dominic Ellison (Hackney Cooperative
Developments) then led the
group to the Hackney Co-operative Development meeting room in Gillett Square
and made the following points;
·
The preferred pronunciation was with a hard “G”.
·
The HCD portfolio was valued at £6.5m six years
ago with most based around the square but some properties in Haggerston and on
Kingsland Road
·
Most were
on 99 year leases with peppercorn rents agreed in 1982/3 for properties owned
by Council and regarded as too dangerous to squat following bomb damage in the
war.
·
Roots in Co-operative Housing movement helping
residents into co-operative enterprise were still an important motive.
·
Refurbishment of the north side of Bradbury
Street fully funded through mortgage finance.
·
Culture House was a derelict factory purchased
from previous owner and co-funded with European and mortgage finance.
·
Continued place making role with occupancy by
art therapy and circle design projects.
·
Ken Livingston adopted Gillett Square as part of
his 100 squares project.
·
Various outreach projects are supported for
Square users suffering from mental illness, drug and alcohol abuse, often
provided in partnership with other third sector agencies as part of wider
ongoing financial investment into Gillett Square. HCD do not support zero
tolerance strategies in isolation if they just displace problems
and do not address causes.
·
HCD
generally offer 6 month licences for start-ups and pro-actively seek out and
provide business development support to new co-operatives.
·
HCD also support staff seeking to take over
businesses when original owners retire or want to move on.
·
Initially established as Company limited by
guarantee but now structured as a Community Interest Company
·
Entire 15 member board is Hackney based many of whom
have previously received support from HCD with 2 places kept for staff.
In discussion Sara and Dominic felt;
·
Hackney Business Venture was the prime vehicle
for giving business support in Hackney and did have a very wide outreach
(diversity etc) but did not give the level of detailed support provided to
tenants by HCD/ Bootstrap.
·
Andrew Sissons (LBH Head of Regeneration
Delivery) was often perceived as too business friendly but was successful in
getting deals, for example around local employment (90% on fashion hub
development).
·
Both HCD and Bootstrap would have been
interested in the Stamford Works site but its market price had been too high to
be economic for their users.
Dominic then took the group down to Gillett Square and
explained which was which of the various buildings. He said HCD’s preferred layout of the Square
was to make the north side entirely retail/ commercial to avoid conflict with
residential use.
Saturday 20th July, 10.00
am till midday, Developing a sustainable local economy; Presentation &
discussion, Duke of Wellington, Balls Pond Road (back room)
Cllr. Guy Nicholson, LBH, Cabinet
Member for Regeneration, explained that;
·
The Council was dealing with levels of change
unmatched anywhere else in the UK and was seeking to ensure that such change
was inclusive rather than exclusive and was affordable and accessible for the
existing community.
·
Shoreditch had become a transformed and dynamic
area
·
In the Heart of Hackney the fashion hub
attempted to bridge the gap between £1m houses one side of the railway tracks
and a deprived and young community looking for employment on the other.
·
“Ways Into Work” used a mixture of public,
institutional and private funding to secure work for local residents in new
jobs around Aquascutum (24 jobs), construction in Shoreditch, and Tech City in
the Olympic Park.
·
The Council was opposed to gated communities
that displaced social housing to lower value parts of Hackney but these made
the most money for developers. They
worked against sustainable communities by undermining social cohesion.
·
Locally
Labour recognised the need for more balanced and diverse communities and had
developed policies to support these goals but its powers had been limited by
the current government.
·
Nationally Labour did recognise the need for
more local control for example over the proliferation of betting and payday
loan shops.
·
Shoreditch was home to one of the UK’s largest
media companies which actively sought local sttisaff and employed over 200
people living in Hackney.
·
Mother London, the UK’s largest independent
advertising agency was based in Shoreditch and have been big investors in
apprenticeships along with many other
Shoreditch firms working with the Community College as the Council actively
promoted collaboration to support local unemployed into jobs.
·
The government changed policy to remove public
funding from affordable housing and define 80% market rents as affordable had
come at the worst possible time for ensuring local benefit from the building
boom in Dalston. It was Council policy to encourage developers to offer
affordable rents at 60% market values in order to maintain real diversity of
tenure. The building boom was happening at the same time as government had
removed capital support for infrastructure to support such developments in
areas of transport, healthcare and education provision.
·
Twin challenges from national government;
o
Reduced public controls over development
o
One third reduction in public operational
budgets + sharply reduced capital funding
·
Hackney was still building partnerships around
i-city which it hoped would generate 4,000 local jobs and hoped a new
government in 2015 might generate more scope for capital investment and more
powers over high street development.
In discussion participants said;
·
The Labour Party should have a clear public
position in favour of retaining mixed neighbourhoods and had shown a lack of
ambition in mobilising local opposition.
·
Transition Towns offered a model for supporting
carbon reduction targets , developing crowd funding for new projects,
supporting new entrepreneurs and increasing community resilience in dealing
with recent shocks.
·
Popular protests had forced developers of the
Wilmer Place Sainsburys to engage more with the community. The Council should be
more open about what it really wanted to support an evolving narrative between
residents and developers.
·
During consultation for the Dalston Area Action
Plan, local residents had demanded a community engagement forum to address
development issues. The Council had
seemed to agree it but it had never happened.
·
Current development proposals would permanently
change parts of Hackney which would stop being a Labour Borough. Should Labour not do more to prevent such
changes, in particular by helping local children find housing locally?
In response Guy made the following points;
·
After a long period of focussing on Hackney
Council management issues residents might support the Mayor in taking more of a
campaign role to deliver Labour objectives.
·
Developers could not be forced to participate in
pre-application discussions and some did not co-operate so community and
political pressure for such dialogue was essential.
·
The Dalston Area Action plan did still provide
some support to the Council in preventing applications being approved on
appeal.
·
Section 106 procedures would be replaced over
next 18 months with the Community Infrastructure Levy and residents should
participate n the current consultation to determine how such funding should be
used.
·
The key Regeneration concern for the Kingsland
Shopping Centre redevelopment was that it made a positive economic contribution
to the Borough. The current proposals
demonstrate a “highly commercialised approach to maximising development value
and it shows”.
·
Entrepreneurial networks tend to be clustered
locally. Incubator space in Shoreditch
was commercially led but in Dalston was primarily in social ownership. There were currently 7/8,000 jobs in Dalston
and if Ashwin Street was handed to Bootstrap they could let it out in a week.
·
Concerns about lack of affordable housing
provision were primarily the responsibility of his colleague Karen Alcock who
was planning to hold a community housing conference.
Andrew Sissons, Hackney Council Head
of Regeneration Delivery - then took over from Guy (who had to
leave) and focussed on issues specific to Dalston. He said that;
·
Increased amounts of online shopping did create
a danger that too much retail space was being created locally.
·
Major destination retailers had plans for how
many stores they needed to cover London
working down from a presence at four “Westfields” while taking account of existing local
provision. In a time of recession their main interest in Hackney was in bespoke
niche possibilities such as Shoreditch.
·
New Dalston entrepreneurs were attracted to food
and service provision.
·
The current Kingsland Centre shops were viable
and affordable but there was also scope to capture some of the middle class
“retail bleed” of spending – primarily to the Angel and Westfield-Stratford.
·
Although “regeneration” had no planning function
it had mobilised the local business community to get an exemption from
government proposals to prevent Councils stopping commercial property being
converted to residential use. 100
Councils had applied for such exception but only 17 had been granted. Hackney had succeeded after mobilising 400
letters from business and over 2,000
signatures on the petition.
·
Business mutual support networks were particularly
strong in Shoreditch covering fashion, technology, PR and media with similar
design based networks developing around Hackney Road/ London Fields. There was scope for further development of
such networks in Dalston which at the moment is under developed.
·
Hackney had supported various business support
initiatives such as the London Fields Design Festival, Hackney House, Digital
Shoreditch , Shoreditch Design Week and London Fashion Week.
·
Immediate concerns about the Kingsland Centre
development were that;
o
It focussed on maximising residential provision
on a town centre site for which the Council sought maximum appropriate
commercial provision.
o
Adequate consideration should be given to
address proven demand for commercial space.
o
It needed to avoid a “landlocked” shopping
centre which did not feed demand for adjacent provision, particularly Ridley Road market.
·
Redeveloped Council owned Dalston Lane terraces would offer outlets
to local small and medium sized businesses especially with the current demand
for small retail spaces for food and artisan production.
·
Keeping
Marks & Spencers, Primark and Boots
was essential to maintaining footfall in the Narrow Way.
·
Since Hackney was home to many ethnic minority
entrepreneurs regeneration should support them in moving up the value
chain. The Hackney Shop in the Hackney
Fashion Hub was an example of what could
be done. Businesses in studios on Ridley Road and Shacklewell Lane
could benefit from similar support.
·
The Council planned to use the development of
Birkbeck Mews to counter the loss of light industrial workspace and it could
provide 20-30,000 square foot of employment space.
·
Hackney was supporting the University of London
project to repatriate manufacturing jobs from overseas.
·
A particular focus of the Regeneration Team was
in maximising local employment in new developments across the Borough with 40
local jobs created in the Ace Hotel, 25 at the Aquascutum Shop, 15 so far with
BT sports on the Olympic park and many jobs in the food and restaurant
industry. A recent study by Nesta concluded that Hackney Regeneration had
helped to generate some 270 restaurant jobs for local people in the last year.
