Minutes for Stoke Newington Neighbourhood Forum meeting, Sep 17 2009, 7.00PM official page

1.1  The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and the Councillors introduced themselves to the Forum.

2.1  Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Aussenberg, Bell, Borris, Khan, Krishna and Parker; and Sylvia Anderson (Co-optee).  

2.2  An apology for lateness was received from Councillor Linden.

3.1  There were no declarations of interest.

4.1  The minutes of the meeting held on 14 July 2009 were AGREED as a true and accurate record.

5.1  Questions from the public were as follows:-

5.1.1  English Heritage publishes guidance on conservation areas – does the Council take into account English Heritage suggestions when establishing conservation areas?

The response from the Urban Design & Conservation Manager stated that when considering conservation area designation, the council took into account national and local policies and guidance; including that published by English Heritage.

The overriding central government guidance was contained in Planning Policy Guidance 15, which set out the general powers and the criteria applicable to conservation area designation and management.  English Heritage had published two reports dealing respectively with the scope and content of conservation area appraisals and conservation area management. 

The council ensures that, as general good practice, our own conservation area appraisals follow the general form and consent set out by English Heritage.  The council also consulted English Heritage on specific proposals for new conservation area designations.

The resident also referred to a conservation area consultation document and raised the idea of having Member Champions to take responsibility for this.  The Chair requested that the Members for the Clissold ward follow up the idea of Member Champions.

Councillor Smith felt that it would be beneficial for Members to look at the document referred to at the meeting and come back to the next meeting with a recommendation – ACTION.

Councillor Alcock was also interested to find out where the resident felt the gaps where in the document and the best way for the council to deal with these gaps.  ACTION:  Councillor Alcock to follow up.

5.2  The Chair encouraged members of the public to submit questions prior to the meeting, if they wished to have a full response to their question.

6.1  Shalini Ramanathan (Principal Licensing Officer) and Butta Singh (Senior Solicitor for Environment) were in attendance to give a presentation on the Safer Communities Act.  A copy of the handout was circulated at the meeting.

6.2  The Sustainable Communities Act 2007 promoted the economic, social and environmental well-being of the communities and also provided the community with a vehicle to change.

6.3  It was explained that proposals were developed jointly between communities and their Councillors and that these were then put to the Council for their consideration.  The Council would then agree on which proposals to progress, after which time the Council would submit its proposals to the Local Government Association (LGA), who would then work with the Government on the proposals.  The Government would then decide on which proposals to approve.

6.4  A brief summary was given on what the Council had done so far, as follows:-

§  Collated evidence about the over-concentration of betting shops in some areas of the Borough;

§  Conducted a Scrutiny review into betting shops;

§  Carried out an e-panel consultation on betting shops;

§  With all the evidence put forward a proposal to the LGA;

§  The Council’s proposal was now under consideration.

6.5  The Forum was informed that as well as betting shops, there were a number of other issues that could be looked at using powers under the Act, including Licensing Laws and protecting essential local shops.

6.6  Shalini Ramanathan stated that the Council welcomed ideas on any challenges residents would like the Council to address under the Act and that these ideas be forwarded to Councillor Sophie Linden on the following address:-

  Councillor Sophie Linden

London Borough of Hackney

Town Hall

Mare Street

London

E8 1EA

6.7  A question and answer session followed:-

i.  What can be done to encourage other types of businesses to open up in vacant properties; not just betting shops?

It was explained that the Council did monitor the over proliferation of any service in a particular area and that this was also a matter that could be dealt with by the planning authority.  Roger Blake added that planning permission could be used as a way of controlling this, as permission needed to be applied for before any change of use could be implemented and that it was not only vacant properties that could be affected.

ii.  Councillor Smith made reference to the Government giving more powers to Councils, as a way of preventing town centres becoming ‘ghost towns’.  In response, a resident wished to know how the Council was or proposed to use the extra cash they had been given by the Government to prevent this type of thing from happening?

(Post meeting note: The Corporate Director (Finance and Resources) explained that the Communities and Local Government Department have awarded the LondonBorough of Hackney £52,632 in relation to the 'Empty Shops Revival Fund'.  It is being managed by the Neighbourhood and Regeneration Directorate and will be used to supplement existing investment in economic regeneration.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.1  Inspector Darryl Marsh and Barry Scales (Anti-Social Behaviour Team Manager) were in attendance to give a presentation on dealing with anti-social behaviour in Stoke Newington and Dalston.

7.2  Barry Scales explained that a new team was due to be established, which would replace the previously fragmented services provided by the crime and disorder partnership in Hackney.  This team would include officers from the Council’s anti-social behaviour team, RSLs, Hackney Homes and the Police.  The team was expected to be fully operational from 5 October 2009.

7.3  The main aim of the team was to ensure anti-social behaviour measures were being administered effectively, through partnership working. It was important to ensure that the right facilities and resources were in place and policies, practices and procedures were being re-aligned to enable this to be achieved.

7.4  Barry Scales referred to an example of where this had been achieved by partnership working on the Smalley Estate.  In May 2009 an issue had been raised through the panel about youth crime on the estate.  In response, meetings had been arranged between the panel and all other teams and a number of projects had now been implemented to try and eradicate the problem.  He added that significant improvements had already been made, although it was still early days; with new ways of working.

7.5  Inspector Marsh informed the Forum that a meeting had taken place between himself, Councillors Nargis Khan and Sophie Linden, and the anti-social behaviour officer for Dalston, which had resulted in funding being sourced for additional patrols in Dalston during summer months; to run until the end of the week commencing 21 September 2009.  These patrols had concentrated on the issue of prostitution around Shacklewell Lane and the night economy in Dalston.

7.6  Another scheme implemented during the summer holidays was the ‘Summer Nights’ project, which was in operation within the Dalston and Hackney Central area.  This project was in operation for 14 nights throughout the school holidays.  The project had been a success and had resulted in 31 arrests being made.  36 visits were also made to licensed premises and 168 stop and searches were undertaken.  He also informed the Forum of a number of other operations that had taken place during the summer months throughout Clissold and Stoke Newington Central wards.

7.7  A question and answer session followed:-

i.  In response to concern raised regarding overgrown trees potentially encouraging crime on estates, Barry Scales stated that any problems such as this should be reported to the Stoke Newington neighbourhood team who can then undertake an environmental visual audit on the area and refer it to the Council.  The Co-optee was asked to leave details of the problem area with Inspector Marsh and Barry Scales after the meeting.

ii.  A resident raised the problem of cyclists using the pavement or having no regard to traffic lights around the Stoke Newington High Street and Church Street area; which was causing a nuisance for pedestrians.  In response, Inspector  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

8.1  Esther Norman (Support & Development Manager) was in attendance to give a presentation on Hackney LINk – Health and Social Care Services in Hackney.  A copy of the presentation slides was circulated at the meeting.

8.2  It was explained that LINks (Local Involvement Networks) were ‘a local community-based network of organisations and individuals committed to strengthening and widening the influence of patients, users of social care services and the public in the process of planning and improving health and social care services’.

8.3  A LINk was being established in each local authority area through government legislation, which replaced the old Patient and Public Involvement Forums in April 2008.

8.4  Hackney LINk had a number of aims including ensuring that everyone had the opportunity to give their opinions on the quality and accessibility of their health and social care services; monitor and influence how these services were planned and run; and build on and develop the work carried out by the Transitional LINk Steering Group.  Esther Norman added that everyone in Hackney had the opportunity to get involved with Hackney LINk.

8.5  It was explained that Hackney LINk had the following powers:-

§  Enter premises and view the services provided

§  Request information and receive a response

§  Make reports and recommendations and receive a response

§  Refer matters to Hackney’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee and receive a response

8.6  Esther Norman welcomed views on the service and any ideas on how to make the services better.  Leaflets were circulated at the meeting, with more information on their services and how to get involved.  She also informed the Forum that they also had a website: - www.hackneylink.org.uk

8.7  The next Steering Group meeting was being held on 24 September 2009, 3-5pm at Navarino Mansions, Dalston Lane; which was a public meeting.

8.8  A question and answer session followed:-

i.  In response to a question regarding consultation and how Hackney LINk reached people that did not know about the service, it was explained that access was a big issue and that they had health guides that went into the community and reach out to people where there may be barriers in them obtaining information about the service.

ii.  A resident raised two items; the first regarding the next Steering Group meeting being held in the day which could exclude people that work; and also whether it was true that Homerton Hospital was going to be downgraded?

In response, Esther Norman stated that the newly elected Steering Group would be setting future meeting dates at the next meeting and that they would arrange these at various times and venues, in order to cater for the whole of the community. 

With regard to Homerton Hospital, it was explained that she did not have any information on the matter and that Hackney LINk had been given places on the strategic bodies of Homerton Hospital and so would have the opportunity to discuss such issues at future meetings.

iii.  What difference can Hackney LINk actually  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

9.1  Residents and Members made a number of suggestions for topics to be considered at forthcoming meetings.  Suggestions included:-

§  Update on the extension of the North London Line.

§  Future of Homerton Hospital.  The Chair felt that it would be too premature to have a presentation at the next meeting, due to the consultation timeframe.  He added that the PCT did have a long standing invitation for them to bring any relevant consultations to these meetings.

§  Audit into referral units and how they assist in rehabilitating people with long-term drug addiction.

§  Update on the Wilmer Place development

(Post meeting note:  Planning permission for the Wilmer Place redevelopment was refused on 14/9/09 for the following reasons:

1.  The new buildings would harm the setting of existing listed buildings, Abney Park Cemetery and the Stoke Newington Conservation Area;

2. The new buildings would not visually integrate with the surrounding area;

3. The proposal would provide insufficient affordable housing;

4. The proposed drinking establishments would have a harmful impact on residential amenity;

5. The proposal would provide inadequate larger family units.

The associated application for conservation area consent to demolish the existing buildings was also refused on 14/9/09 for the following reasons:

1. 193-201 Stoke Newington High Street are considered to make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area and an inadequate case has been made for their demolition;

2. The demolition of 193-201 Stoke Newington High Street would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area in the absence of a suitable replacement scheme.)

10.1  The next meeting is scheduled to take place on Wednesday, 20 January 2010.  Venue to be confirmed.