Premises Forum meeting, 29th March 2016
2pm, Tower Hamlets Community Transport
Kirsty Cornell, THCVS;
Dave Ahlquist, THCT;
Simon Rouse, THCT;
Jon Hems, J-Go;
Kate Gould, Scallywags nursery;
Ismail Saray, AND association;
Jenni Boswell-Jones, AND association;
Natalie Dinsmore, 1 Love Community CIC;
Vivien Thomas, EYNTH;
Shamsul Islam. Osmani Centre;
Jama Omar, SSCC;
Hussein Ibrahim, SSCC;
Jocelyn Hayford, Black Women’s Health and Family Support;
Julia Hunt, Stepney Historical Trust;
Brian Nicholson, London Dockers;
Matin Miah, St Katherine’s Trust;
Daniele Lamarche, St Katherine’s Trust.
Kate Gould had kindly drafted and circulated a paper with proposals prior to the meeting.
Confidentiality
It was agreed that the forum should be aware of sensitivities in discussing individual organisations’ circumstances and should focus on a collective approach.
Community benefit and lease negotiations
Organisations have been asked to sign new leases but are unable to properly negotiate with the council until they know what the council policy will be regarding community benefit and how this could impact upon rent.
The forum want the council to agree that any legal action or threat of legal action – or indeed any statement of or negotiation of rent levels - relating to community premises and leases is halted by the council until the wider process, including the second linked report and full consultation, has been completed.
It is still a little unclear whether the community benefit report is going to the commissioners meeting on the 12th April for decision (Kirsty thinks it may have been pulled). The forum want there to be full and proper consultation before the report is considered by commissioners. THCVS to work with the council on how the consultation on community benefit should be undertaken.
Forum members felt that although there was a question about measuring community benefit within the VCS strategy consultation the format of the question seemed unlikely to yield any useful feedback.
Council
Kate Gould has spoken to John Biggs about the review of community premises – John Biggs stated that it is a council, not a commissioners’ decision.
The forum asked whether it was likely that our report and recommendations would be included in the council’s policy.
Jon Hems’ letter will be sent to John Biggs within the next few days, asking for a response within 10 – 14 days. If there is no response (or an unsatisfactory one) then Jon may make his letter public.
Concerns about who the forum talks to at the council about this issue – it’s unclear which staff and / or councillors people should talk to.
The third sector team – feeling amongst the premises forum that the third sector team should be supporting the sector and challenging the asset management team over the community premises review, but they are not.
VCS
Concerns were raised that there is no leadership for the voluntary sector in the borough to take forward this issue. The sector needs to be organised.
2013 – A draft report and policy was developed by THCVS on the allocation of community buildings, but was not agreed by the council. That report and work should be included in the report this forum is developing.
Action: Ismail to send Kirsty minutes of meetings relating to the work in 2013.
Best value
The council appear to be interpreting best value to mean maximising income. Concerns that the officers are beyond the control of councillors on this issue. The council’s definition of best value needs to be challenged.
The forum also raised concerns that current officers aredirectors of property development companies and aren’t required to declare interests as councillors would be.
At the premises forum on the 11th Feb the council said that the review would be cost neutral. Kate’s report suggested that the group using the building would cover the cost of maintenance to the building. If a group is responsible for the upkeep and employs contractors themselves it is much more cost effective than if the council do it.
The council’s current arrangements are cost ineffective, they admit in their report of the 1st December that they don’t know how much community buildings cost to run.
Identifying and use of community spaces
Agreed that we need a list of premises dedicated for community use. At the moment the council’s list seems limited in that it relates only to one team, does not look at the wider estate etc). We want to start with a list of council buildings for community use and then extend that to housing associations, faith buildings etc.
There are concerns that other landlords, such as housing associations, are looking at what the council is doing and will implement the same thing.
LBTH have spoken of developing community hubs but there has been no progress on this issue.
Desk space is really important for some groups – they need somewhere they can hot desk from.
Leases need to allow for the sharing of space and not be restrictive.
Market rent
The forum agreed that we need an alternative to market rent. The forum agreed that the approach to rent needs to be fair and consistent (the stated aim of the review), but it needs to be an alternative to market rent.
Other groups / individuals to talk to
MPs – question about whether they are aware of what is going on and if so, whether they are aware of what the potential impact on the sector might be.
Citizens UK – is there some value in us talking to Citizens UK?
The premises forum needs the participation of trustees and those running organisations in its work.
Agreed actions:
- We will analyse the council’s report of the 1st December report critically; ask the council to withdraw it and put together our own proposal. Jon possibly to undertake the work but will need to be funded to do so.
- Kirsty will look into using a consultant(s) to undertake some of the work (possibly using expertise from within the borough and outside). Kirsty will talk to the council to see if they will contract with THCVS to work on community buildings.
- If we are unable to obtain funding (THCVS or council) then we could ask those affected to make a contribution to the costs of the work.
- We need to be able to demonstrate the size of the sector – GDP, staff and volunteer numbers etc. The size and shape of the sector. THCVS to work on.
- THCVS to set up an email group for premises, all of the premises forum to circulate information to groups we know of who are affected. People can refer small groups to the CVS for support, advice and for inclusion in the mailings.
- The council are due to send a communication to the sector about community use of councilbuildings and the review, Kirsty to ask if there can be something included in the letter to make groups aware of the premises forum and work it is doing.
- THCVS to contact the council to request:
- That no report is presented to the commissioners for decision on community benefit criteria until there has been full and proper consultation with the sector. THCVS to liaise with the council on what form the consultation should take
- Any threats of legal action relating to leases are withdrawn until the review is completed
- Development of a full list of premises dedicated for community use (all council departments, housing associations, faith groups etc.)
- All ongoing lease negotiations are halted until the review is completed and no new lease negotiations are started
Premises forum report to include:
- Reference to the previous work from 2013 on a draft allocations policy for community buildings
- Our definition of how best value should be applied to council buildings
- Recommendations for how community buildings can be cost neutral to the council
- Recommendations on the development of community hubs
- An informed view on pro active options such as comminity asset transfer
- Lease requirements (such as the ability to sublet and fair arrangements for property maintenance and / or service charges)
- An alternative to market rent