The o

ptics of what the City of London council spends Community Infrastructure Levy money on, and what the fund might finance otherwise, is appalling from almost any perspective. Why are the council splashing this cash on supporting the Culture Mile, temporary street art such as The World Reimagined and even property developers’ lobby group the City Property Association, when money is desperately needed for our community’s physical infrastructure?

This archived link shows some of what CILNF (Community Levy Infrastructure Neighbourhood Fund) money has been used for to date. While well-intentioned as a project, the City hijacked The World Reimagined to reputation wash itself- as we detailed in a previous post. This attraction, like some other recipients of CIL funding, was ultimately designed to bring visitors into the City and provided no real benefit to the local community – or even those who work in the City and live elsewhere. City CILNF awards have supported very little actual physical infrastructure.

On CILNF money supporting the Culture Mile see point 31 on this Culture, Heritage & Libraries Committee document dated 16/07/22. Besides the fact that CILNF funding could be better used on actual physical infrastructure projects, we have been arguing since 2017 that rather than benefitting the local community, the Culture Mile has a largely negative impact on it. After the key Centre For Music project was dropped, the Culture Mile became more of a branding exercise with a few inconsequential pubic art projects connected to it. That said, while the Culture Mile’s social cleansing aspects may have been mitigated by the Centre For Music failure, they were not removed.

It is also worth pointing out that some of the claims in the 16/07/22 Culture, Heritage & Libraries document about the Culture Mile don’t stand up to scrutiny. For example, involving a very minor project that might be utilised to justify CILNF funding, the production of Culture Mile play packs “…for families living in central London who lacked internet access… (20,000) distributed through food banks, mutual aid groups and community centres.”

We know that in Cripplegate ward these play packs were very largely distributed to families with – and not as claimed without – internet access. As far as we can tell, the same holds true for their distribution beyond Cripplegate. The food bank run independently of the council from the Golden Lane Community Centre in Cripplegate during the height of the Covid pandemic was, from what we could see, the main place from which these play packs were distributed. Many of the families provided with these play packs weren’t very interested in them and didn’t really want their second or third iterations.

The current plan is for the Culture Mile to be transformed into a Business Improvement District, which is essentially a way of privatising services and disenfranchising local residents and communities, and fulfils none of the functions CILNF supposedly supports. It can be seen from the way those on the Middlesex Street Estate were stitched up over planning approval for the Houndsditch Tower, that the City Property Association – alongside the parent and sister organisations the London Property Alliance and the Westminster Property Association – promote and intertwine with City BIDs to the detriment of City communities and the physical infrastructure they require.

City Property Association and the City BIDs vehicles letters that form part of a successful campaign on their part to stitch up the local community and, in a total affront to democracy, prevent a planning application with a massive negative impact on Middlesex Street Estate being discussed at a general council meeting. Note Charles Begley, the boss of the City Property Association who signed their anti-democratic missive, is featured in our header with City council leader Chris Hayward at a City of London Planning Committee dinner January 2020 (shortly before theses events started attracting protests from residents).

The City’s CILNF money going to developers’ lobby group the City Property Association – £100,000 over two years awarded in September 2021 – looks bad enough on its own. Given the entangled relationships between the City Property Association and related Westminster Property Association and London Property Alliance – all headed by Charles Begley – and the City of London council (especially its planning committee), it becomes even more problematic.

We have detailed the ongoing relationships between those who have led the planning committee including Alastair Moss (scroll down to see description of header), Shravan Joshi and Chris Hayward and the Charles Begley led property lobby operations in various posts. These relationships go right to the top of the council. Below is a picture of the former leader of the City council (leader at the time the photo was taken and described as such in a Charles Begley tweet caption) Catherine McGuinness at a Westminster Property Association breakfast on 2 October 2018.

Our view is that rather giving CILNF money back to property developers and to projects property developers are entangled in such as the Culture Mile, the fund should be put uses that will benefit our communities and NOT those have a negative impact on them. This would include purchasing a site away from residential buildings for a police compound on the east side of the City and the construction of new drainage in places where there is persistent flooding. For example, there are ongoing issues with flooding on the City’s listed modernist Golden Lane Estate (specifically in some basement storage areas currently used as bicycle sheds).

When the City proposes to carve a police compound out of a council housing block against residents’ wishes, instead of spending money on purchasing a suitable site – at least part of the price of which might be taken from CILNF, since it is intended to be used for the prevention of crime and anti-social behaviour – then there is clearly something very wrong with the way the fund is being deployed. Instead money goes to the developers’ lobbying group the City Property Association.

Before moving on to more general overview of the bizarre way the City council has distributed parts of its CILNF fund, it is worth noting that alongside the council, the City Property Association has played a significant role in foisting undemocratic business improvement districts on City residents and the current attempts to transform the Culture Mile into one of these. See, for example, the screenshot of a City Property Association webpage immediately below.

Moving on, in July 2022 the Policy and Resources Committee of the City of London Corporation received a report (in relation to this agenda item) from the Managing Director of the Bridge House Estate and Chief Charities Officer which provided an update on the Community Infrastructure Levy Neighbourhood Fund (CILNF). It advised that that £3,446,526 had been committed “in support of City Communities” since the CILNF was launched in September 2020. The balance of the neighbourhood portion of the City CIL stood at £5,205,356.

The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a component of the planning system. It was introduced as part of the government’s Planning and Localism reforms. The government’s Impact Assessment of the proposed CIL policies, published in January 2011, stated (page 9 under subheading ‘Policy Objective’):

“The Government wants a planning system which incentivises sustainable development, and where communities can shape the places where their inhabitants live. We want to give local authorities the flexibility to respond to the needs of their communities and businesses to maximise the funding available for infrastructure. We also want to empower local communities to participate in this process and to have a real say in how funding for infrastructure is spent.”

The Government’s CIL policy requires a “neighbourhood portion” of each developer’s CIL contribution to be ring-fenced and used to pay for “community infrastructure” in line with the priorities expressed by the people who live and work in the vicinity of a new development, thereby mitigating the negative impacts on the people most affected by it. The government’s Impact Assessment states (page 21 under subheading ‘Wider Impacts’):

“…the reforms to give back a meaningful proportion of the Community Infrastructure Levy funds to the neighbourhood in which it was raised will incentivise development, as communities will see the benefits of development, not just its costs”.

A review of community initiatives was recently published jointly by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. It provides a useful definition of community infrastructure:

“Physical infrastructure within the community (including places, spaces and facilities) that supports the formation and development of social networks and relationships”

The review also explains:

“…the purpose of the funds is to contribute to the costs of hosting development, not for the money to be substituted for general spending”

Throughout London and the rest of England, neighbourhoods hosting new property developments have been regularly consulted about their community infrastructure priorities. Local Authorities have reported investments in community infrastructure projects which typically include:

Feasibility studies and research to enable the identification of eligible infrastructure projects. Public realm enhancements. Open spaces, parks landscaping, community gardens and play facilities upgrades. Health facilities. Sports & leisure facilities (community centres, libraries, local museums and cultural centres). Food banks and community cafes. Utilities/waste, e.g. deep drainage improvements, Street markets utilities improvements. Transport/highways, e.g. junction improvements to improve pedestrian safety, electric charging rollout, cycle docking stations, bridge refurbishment. Prevention of crime and anti-social behaviour.

Community Infrastructure Levy income from developer contributions should be managed in line with established Treasury standards and best practice for project and programme appraisal, reporting, evaluation and financial accounting for grant-making. Local authority Chief Financial Officers must be able to demonstrate that public money has been used appropriately, economically, efficiently and effectively.

It doesn’t look to us as if the City of London Corporation is disbursing the CILNF resources as the government intended. The City of London’s CILNF distribution doesn’t appear to be aligned with the government’s policy objectives and therefore it is unlikely that the impact of CILNF project grants will act as an incentive to acceptance of developments by people who live in the neighbourhoods directly affected by them.

We think it is particularly inappropriate for the City Property Association to receive CILNF funds, especially when improvements to drainage are urgently required and our sports facilities are badly managed and in some cases – i.e. Golden Lane Leisure Centre gym – incredibly cramped and inadequate.


The header shows Chris Hayward with Charles Begley of the City Property Association/London Property Alliance at a City of London council dinner for property developers and their friends. Note also the invocation of councillor and Guildhall establishment supporter Tom Sleigh in the tweet the photos is taken from. (immediately above). Sleigh additionally comments on the post. City residents protested against council links with property developers outside a more recent committee dinner, see this post.

Advertisement

Privacy Settings


Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *