Agenda item

Report of the Cabinet Member for New Homes, Jobs and Investment.

This report details the Camden Evening and Night-time Strategy. The strategy aims to preserve and grow the borough’s dynamic evening and night-time economy in a way that is inclusive and safe for all and balances growth with responsible stewardship and a focus on what makes Camden’s evening and night-time economy special.

The report is going to the Cabinet because the Strategy needs to be approved and adopted.

Consideration was given to the deputation statements referred to in Item 4 above.

Superintendent Jack Rowlands Met Police Officer was in attendance and was invited to comment on the deputation statements and the Evening and Night-Time Economy Strategy.

He informed the Committee that from the Police perspective the Nighttime Economic strategy impacted the higher generating crime wards not only in the borough but across London, highlighting that Bloomsbury and Camden Town were amongst the top 20 of the highest generating crime wards in London. Remarking that although the Police had dedicated town centre teams, emergency response teams and other units that policed those areas, resources were limited and there was not likely to be an increase in resources in the near future. He was of the view that putting communities first, connecting and listening to residents’ needs was always the right way to go as well as being mindful that there were both positive and negative impacts of the strategy. Commenting that Camden did not want to see an increase in crime and anti-social behaviour in the area providing reassurance that he would work with the Council to mitigate it.

The following responses were given by the deputees to members questions:

• The strategy appeared to be concentrating on post-midnight drinking, it needed diversification and to include things that would encourage young people and families to get out and about. This included developing nondrinking and non-alcoholic venues.
• The Council should consult with young people and should not assume it was only about alcohol venues.
• Residents did not like the proposals in the policy to remove the cumulative impact zones in areas around Camden Town.
• There were a lot of issues with the strategy particularly in relation to anti-social behaviour in the green space off of Camden High Street. There were health and safety risks with broken glass and cabs causing noise nuisance in the early hours of the morning when picking up patrons.
• The concern for residents was that the Licensing Policy was based on the Evening and Night-time Economy Strategy which was proposing to extend the hours for all venues including alcohol serving venues.
• The issue also for residents was that balance was not included in the vision. The Licencing Policy was looking to extend the hours for venues and remove cumulative impact areas which would increase the consumption and sale of alcohol in the area on the other hand there was not enough balance and consideration provided from the point of view of residents.
• A range of diverse and different types of venues could not flourish in the borough presently until the prevalence of alcohol led venues was reduced.
• In terms of consultation on the strategy and involvement with the Citizens Assembly, Katie Gemmell was asked for her comments prior to the Citizens Assembly being established and applied to be involved in the Citizens Assembly but was not selected and was not involved. The only input she had was to respond with the deputation when the draft Citizens Assembly report went to Committee.
• In relation to the strategy being aligned with the Licensing Policy, Katie Gemmell was of the view that the strategy needed to be in place and several policy work streams developed. The strategy needed to be developed to balance the needs of all the stakeholders.
• David Kaner was involved in pre-discussion and applied to be on the Citizens Assembly but was not selected and not given the opportunity to participate. The only time he got to participate in the process was to comment on the presentation on the first day the Citizens Assembly met.
• The Citizens Assembly report was produced and then the Licensing Policy was derived from the Nighttime Economy Strategy, there was no discussion with residents in between the production of the two reports.
• There was a lot of good stuff in the strategy, however residents wanted a vision statement that had been debated, discussed and agreed on.
• A priority for the Council that needed to be addressed was to review how the evening and nighttime hot spots were managed, to work with local partners to ensure there was active stewardship in street problem solving.
• The problem and issue for residents and families was the disturbance after 11pm, the evening activities before this were fine.
• Families were moving out of their apartments in Camden because of the number of nighttime activities and associated issues which were preventing kids from sleeping at night.
• Tricia Richards highlighted that the feedback from residents that lived close to Camden Market and the High Street had indicated that the area became loud and noisy after 11pm and residents did not want their kids on the street anywhere near Camden market in the evening because the streets were not safe. Most of the demography of the area had changed over the last two years with more Air Bed and Breakfast accommodation and short term lets becoming prevalent in the area.
• Everybody appreciated the importance of the nighttime economy for the borough, however the strategy required more work, more imagination, more partnership work which would take residents views into consideration was what was being asked for.

Committee Members made the following comments:

·       I believe this strategy was what was really needed and was welcomed. It corrected the imbalance towards it being massively weighted to anti-nighttime economy over the past decade. The nighttime economy was at the heart of Camden and was what made Camden an amazing creative borough.

·       Reference to drinking in the strategy was not mentioned enough given the effect that it had on the Community, the strategy should be withdrawn and worked on further to take on board the views of residents.

·       I agree with the deputees view that the vision statement does not reflect the concept of balancing the needs of residents. A lot of the process had focussed on the Citizens Assembly. Although the strategy was good in many ways, if stakeholders such as Tenants Residents Associations and Community Associations had been consulted more along the way and allowed to respond when it was at the draft stage it would have been a better strategy.

·       Camden was a vibrant borough, fighting to keep its nighttime economy alive. It was an industry worth in the region of £955m which needed protection because it employed so many people in the borough, brought in many visitors and contributed to business rates payments.

Councillor Beales (Cabinet Member for New Homes, Jobs and Investment), Gillian Marston (Executive Director Supporting Communities), David Burns (Director of Economy Regeneration and Investment and Patrick Jones (Business Growth Manager) made the following comments in response to the deputations and members questions:

• The Council used the Citizens Assembly to conduct varied and significant consultation on the Nighttime Economy Strategy. People were independently and randomly selected resulting in a group of people that were demographically representative of the community.
• There were a number of useful Citizen Assembly sessions of which the Cabinet Member for New Homes, Jobs and Investment attended one listening to the views of participants. Some Councillors also attended some of the sessions.
• Other consultation included online surveys, use of a stakeholder group which worked with the Council throughout the process, Area based workshops which were open to all who wanted to participate, independent consultants were recruited to interview stakeholders. Council Officers and the Cabinet Member did a nighttime walk about visiting venues including the Youth Centre and Youth Council, talked to residents, people that worked in the venues and neighbours. The Council also engaged with the GLA who were kept up to date with the process.
• The Council engaged with over 1500 people, majority of which were residents also running disability workshops and engaging with Age Concern UK the group for older residents.
• There were wide ranging diverse, different and conflicting views from residents and various groups. The feedback from all the various forums and consultation fed into the strategy and report.
• In terms of balance residents were referred to 14 times in the document and were very much key stakeholders alongside businesses, visitors and workers. The strategy’s vision referred to the borough being welcoming, safe and inclusive for residents, businesses and workers.
• The status quo was not helping anyone, the strategy was seeking to remedy issues the deputees had referred to such as safety, better management of venues and liveability.
• The Strategy does not refer to extended hours or cumulative impact areas, that related to the Licencing Policy which was a separate process and subject to further consultation and engagement.
• Some suggestions made by the deputees including transport movements, street cleaning, women’s safety were already included in the strategy. In addition, helpful suggestions provided by the Cabinet Advisor on Safety for Women and Girls would be incorporated into the strategy.
• The Council was seeking to balance the needs of residents, businesses and visitors and improve case management. Committing £1.4m more to street cleaning and jet washing of the high streets in the evening and at night.
• Engagement with the community had been significant, the deputees had indicated that they were not happy with the engagement that had occurred. However, this was the start of a process, where an ongoing Stakeholder Panel would be established which would include residents and would oversee the delivery of the strategy including identifying gaps and develop actions to remedy issues.
• The strategy does refer to family friendly evenings, a focus on culture, promoting alternatives to alcohol, cleaning streets, improved lighting and making the evening and nighttime economy much more family friendly was a key part of the document.
• The key vision of the strategy was for the borough to be a safe, welcoming inclusive place for all with an Independent Panel of stakeholders overseeing the delivery of this.
• The strategy document was widely advertised, there was nothing preventing Housing Associations and other organisations from engaging in the consultation. There was widespread interest, the Council made a significant effort to go above and beyond engaging with people.  It was accepted that some people felt that insufficient consultation was conducted, the Cabinet Member apologised for this indicating that this would be reflected on and learnt from going forward.
• The document was a positive document that reflected a majority of the issues that had been discussed today.
• The document does talk about a balanced approach which met the needs of visitors,
• The Council had also had a full debate on the evening nighttime economy which was open to all and which a lot of the people present this evening had participated in. The need for balance to address the issues and concerns people had as well as the scope to innovate and grow responsible evening and nighttime economy businesses were discussed.
• People had raised concerns that the borough was losing cultural venues, community pubs with many struggling to survive. The Council was seeking to support these types of businesses as well as growing a family friendly responsible culture led evening and nighttime economy offer to keep the borough’s high streets thriving, whilst also addressing concerns some residents had about management of poorly managed venues.
• Some actions in the strategy included activation of public spaces in the evening which were accessible for families and did not cost a lot of money, improving employment standards, working with partners to look specifically at safe travelling to and from work in the evening.

Councillor Sue Vincent with the agreement of the chair also addressed the Committee informing the Committee that she was concerned that the appropriate information on noise nuisance, complaints from residents and anti-social behaviour had not been presented to members. She was of the view that the nighttime economy caused a lot of disturbance for residents and in agreement with the deputees asked that balance from the point of view of the residents be included in the vision statement of the strategy.

Responding to a Committee member’s question, the Cabinet Member for New Homes, Jobs and Investment commented that although the strategy document referred to balance many times, when introducing the report to Cabinet he would specifically talk about the need for balance which would be minuted at Cabinet as the intention of the strategy, should the report be agreed. Priority for place management which had come through strongly at this meeting would be included as an important action for the Stakeholder Panel as well as inclusion of resident representation on the Panel.

Councillor Kirk proposed a recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Stark that the strategy be withdrawn and a proper full consultation process which included the deputees, Chairs of Tenants Residents Associations and Community Associations took place to develop a strategy to manage the balance between residents and businesses.

The Committee voted on the recommendation and by a vote of 2 in favour and 5 against

Resolved

That the recommendation be rejected.

The Chair thanked the deputees, the Cabinet Member, Councillors and officers for attending.

RESOLVED –

THAT the report be noted and recommended that Cabinet approve the recommendations in the report.