Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Transferring Assets to Residents
I think Matt has mentioned this a couple of times before. Today this crew found me on Twitter. So if anyone's up for a bit of Asset transfer, they're the peeps.
"The Asset Transfer Unit helps to empower local people and organisations to transform land and buildings into vibrant community spaces whilst supporting development of a thriving third sector."
"The Asset Transfer Unit helps to empower local people and organisations to transform land and buildings into vibrant community spaces whilst supporting development of a thriving third sector."
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Can I suggest a stage before Haringey begins to consider transferring any more public assets to semi-private or substantially private and unaccountable bodies?
In particular, it may be worthwhile looking looking very hard at those transfers which have already taken place - in Haringey especially, but elsewhere - and drawing some of the lessons, both negative and positive.
Otherwise, to adapt Marx, it will be: "the first time as tragedy, the second as farce”.
-
Permalink Reply by matt on
-
Alan,
Please do give examples, both positive & negative.
There's very little info on the ATU website that I can see. This is who backs them: The Asset Transfer Unit, delivered by the Development Trusts Association in association with Community Matters and the Local Government Association, and funded by Communities and Local Government. So effectively a govt initiative by the looks of it.
As Hugh mentions I have put up on HOL links to similar initiatives or funding streams from the lottery. E.g. Community land trusts.
It does appear that the current political climate is trying to encourage management of some 'assets' by community trusts rather than council bodies. It would take very serious commitment and expertise to make such a project happen.
-
-
Sometimes, Matt, a brief question needs a rather long answer. Especially if the answer tries to be balanced and fair. Unfortunately, I don't have a Government-backed (and paid) team of people available. But if you're interested in pursuing the topic, here are some possible starter questions for you.
I suggest you ask the Council for a list of the "community buildings' in Haringey; on what terms they hold leases; and who manages them? If they pay rent; how much and is it properly reviewed over time? (Some leases are on a 'peppercorn' - which really means that publicly-owned land and buildings have been given away for nothing to a small group.)
Ask the organisations themselves for their annual reports for the last couple of years; whether or not they are trusts or charities; and who is on the management committee? If they are charities this information should be on the Charities Commission website - but it isn't always up-to-date. Get hold of their accounts - not always available - and take a look at how much the paid staff (directors and other senior people) pay themselves; and whether or not the place balances the books or is run at a loss. Are they paying their bills promptly - including to the Council? Or are they using late payment on unpaid bills as cash-flow, for example? Is there a public subsidy - and if so, how much?
Ask how many Haringey residents are involved in the place. Who uses them? How many people and for what? As we all know, things change very rapidly in our Borough and whole groups of people move.
For buildings which have actually been transferred or sold to individuals or organisations, the key question is whether this was done at market value.
If all this makes me sound like a sceptic; well, I am. Especially when public money and property is concerned.
Of course, there are very many not-for-profit organisations in Haringey doing fantastic work. We need to value and support them. But just because someone sticks the labels 'community' and 'voluntary' on their door is not a reason for handing over the control and ownership of publicly-owned assets.
-
-
Thanks Alan. If you know of someone within the council or one of these charity/trust organisations that is willing to share their 'wisdom' on aspects of the above it would be useful.
Under the current deteriorating situation with council finances I'd imagine peppercorn rents are under review.
-
-
You don't need a named person, Matt. Just 'go through the front door' by making inquiries - to the Council and to the various trusts and voluntary groups.
The likely problem with peppercorn rents (sometimes for ninety-nine years) is that they can't be reviewed. That's why it's virtually the same as giving away a public asset for nothing.
-
-
Indeed we did! As often as possible. And I was very disappointed never to persuade Richard Landes to do a little recipe booklet. But he was probably right. The taste of the food was part of the whole experience.
You seem to have assumed this was an example of a community building leased by the Council. In fact the land and buildings in the Grove are owned by the Ally Pally. As far as I know, the cafe building was under the auspices of Mencap. Richard (who also worked for the Council) had a team of people who included volunteers from Mencap - some with learning disabilities.
It was originally the park kiosk. But totally transformed into a sort of ever-changing wooden chalet. It's an example not of what community and voluntary organisations achieve with land and leases, but what blooms and grows organically if creative people are given space by large bureaucracies. Exactly the same applied to the Actual Workshop the children's centre also in The Grove.
That's the beautiful upside. The downside is that you can't legislate for a thousand identical copies - all with the same 'offer', 'targets' and other management gibberish.
-
Permalink Reply by Zena Brabazon on
-
Hi Matt
Just so you know, I'm Alan's partner.
Transfer of Assets is a government initiative. The Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) commissioned a review on this subject which was led by Barry Quirk, then Chief Executive of Lewisham. Here's the link.
Many assets are, of course, owned by all of us, and managed on our behalf by Councils which are elected and democratically accountable. These can be worth millions of pounds especially if located on land which is ripe for development. When they are gone, they are gone - the same as school playing fields!!
For hard up Councils operating in a climate where government policy is promoting this as a means of community capacity building, transferring running, revenue and maintenance costs seems an attractive option. But, in the real world, it all needs very careful thought and safeguards. Groups come and go, and are often dependent on the commitment and drive of a few individuals. So what will happen to an asset once transferred is unpredictable. Buildings and land are expensive to run properly and maintain. Where will the money come from?
Of course there are many examples where this has worked well. But what will happen if the voluntary group becomes dormant or moribund as can and does happen? If transferred on a lease, what will the safeguards be to retain the land/property in public ownership? Harold MacMillan compared privatisation to selling off the family silver and, learning from this, we need to make sure we either keep it, or make sure we can get the silver back.
-
-
But what will happen if the voluntary group becomes dormant or moribund as can and does happen?
Same can happen with councils no? Very little has happened with Hornsey Town Hall over the last few decades, a local resource/space going to waste which the council can't afford to maintain. It's original use going into decline pretty much once it was decided to form the borough as it now is, with a new Civic Centre at its heart in Wood Green.
I understand your points above but I think things do move on for all sorts of reasons and transferring Hornsey Town Hall over (for example) into a trust (instead of selling off to developers) gives that site a chance once again to serve its surrounding community. That I think is the idea at least!
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
From Third Sector mag: Community organisations 'not trusted' with property
"Audit Commission report says councils fear mismanagement and loss of income
More than half of local authorities are reluctant to transfer land and buildings to community organisations because they are afraid they will be mismanaged, the Audit Commission will say in a report published tomorrow.
The commission surveyed 80 local authorities to find out whether they were making the best use of land and property. Its report, Room for Improvement, will say the second most common reason for not transferring assets is a reluctance to forfeit income.
"These concerns help to explain why councils want to retain the control of transferred property through leases and licences rather than transfer of freehold ownership," the report will say. "It may be necessary for councils to help to develop the capacity of the voluntary and community sector in order to transfer more properties."
Two years ago the Government-commissioned Quirk Review recommended that councils transfer assets to local people to give them a bigger stake in the future of their areas.
But the spending watchdog's report will reveal that councils have deep concerns about the ability of the voluntary sector to cope.
Most councils, it will say, have responded by offering long leases rather than ownership of property.
Almost half of councils said they had increased asset transfer since the 2007 review conducted by Barry Quirk, chief executive of Lewisham Council, on behalf of the Communities and Local Government department. But only one said the review had made a big difference to its policy. Six had never heard of the review.
Bharat Shah, deputy chair of the commission, will recommend councils draw up asset registers to show what properties are available and allow stakeholders to propose better uses for them."
-
-
I don't fear mismanagement by community organisations; I've seen and continue to see some mismanagement. Anyone can call themselves "a community organisation".
Without strict controls and safeguards, this has led to local councils divesting themselves of publicly-owned assets. And then, when they need land and buildings for new purposes - a school extension, say, or a new Day Centre, these assets are tied up by long unbreakable leases; or they've been sold-off.
So it's into the market using publc money to buy overpriced land.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
