Agenda item

Report of the Director of Director of Culture, Strategy & Engagement. To be presented by the Cabinet Member for Communities

The Cabinet Member for Communities introduced the report.

They explained that the report set out the new policy to determine subsidy levels on leases for voluntary and community sector (VCS) organisations operating out of council buildings and that this was an opportunity to ensure equality, equity, and fairness across Haringey assets, as well as support for organisations that brought social value to Haringey.

It was stressed that the Council recognised the importance of the work carried out by our VCS and the services it provided, especially at a time when global instability had a significant impact on our residents’ wellbeing and living standards.

Voluntary and community organisations worked closely with the council to deliver highly valued services and activities across the borough. However, there had been a historical lack of consistency in how we managed our property portfolio, including our Community Assets Portfolio.

The Cabinet Member explained that some rents were zero or peppercorn, while others approached market rates. Many leases had expired, and there was no formal policy or framework for determining the basis on which VCS organisations should occupy Council-owned buildings.

It was additionally noted that the Council’s proposed Strategic Asset Management and Property Improvement Plan (SAMPIP) 2023–2028, which this policy aligned with, committed to addressing these inconsistencies, which left the council vulnerable to perceptions of unfair treatment, lack of transparency, and ambiguity.

In line with our Haringey Deal, since March 2024, we engaged in extensive collaboration and consultations with a wide range of VCS and community networks in our borough. It was explained that the feedback received shaped the policy to ensure it was as robust and fair as possible.

In response to comments and questions from Cllr Brabazon, Arkell and Connor, the following information was shared:

• It was explained by the Cabinet Member that the rent for each site utilised by a community group would need to be assessed on own merits, but noted an example of community centre on a full repair lease, on £150,000 per year, would have a 80% social value rent reduction to £30,000 per year, which would be utilised for repairs.
  
  
• It was explained by the Cabinet Member that other comparable local authorities had undertaken similar schemes to the one proposed by Haringey.
  
  
• How to ensure equality of access. It was explained that Haringey Community Collaborative would provide support to grass root organisations to ensure that they can get the highest value possible.
  
  
• It was noted by officers that long term leases would be generally referred back to Cabinet, while short term leases could potentially be taken at an officer level. It was explained that this would be dependant, generally, on lease length and value, rather than repair liabilities.

RESOLVED:

That Cabinet:

1. Noted the engagement work conducted since the Cabinet meeting of 12 March 2024 to co-design and consult on a social value matrix for this policy,
   
   
2. Adopted the policy entitled ‘Community Assets Social Value Subsidy’ and approved the use of the self-assessment form.
   
   
3. Approved the implementation of this policy, initially for the 23 community centres that were out of lease in the council’s Community Assets portfolio, followed by the remainder of that portfolio as leases came up for renewal—noting that work continued under SAMPIP 2023–2028 to finalise the assets within that portfolio.
   
   
4. Approved the immediate commencement of lease negotiations with the two early adopter organisations.
   
   
5. Delegated any minor changes to the policy, following the application of the policy to early adopter organisations, to the Director of Culture, Strategy & Communities, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Communities.
   
   
6. Required a report on implementation of the policy to be provided to Cabinet by summer 2026 to enable an assessment of the policy’s impact, as recommended by the Equality Impact Assessment.

Reasons for Decision

The Cost of Living Crisis, following the Coronavirus pandemic, left Haringey’s residents extremely vulnerable. This increased the urgency of the VCS’s work, which delivered a range of affordable and accessible services and support across the borough.

Haringey had a rich fabric of VCS organisations. Some of these organisations—though not all—occupied Council-owned buildings under various arrangements, including leases at differing rental levels, expired leases held over, licenses, and tenancies at will.

There previously was no formal policy or framework determining the basis on which VCS organisations should occupy Council-owned buildings. This led to inconsistencies and the potential for perceptions of unfairness or lack of transparency.

The SAMPIP 2023–2028 included a commitment to a Property Review Process. A Cabinet decision in March 2024 set out principles for a new approach to managing and delivering subsidised rents reflecting the social value contributed by VCS organisations. The report recommended a social value matrix enabling organisations to self-assess their impact. Council officers would then verify this and assign a corresponding level of subsidy.

The March 2024 Cabinet decision authorised an engagement process with the VCS to co-design the matrix.

This process was concluded and this report presented the final proposal with the full policy and the self-assessment form.

The March 2024 report also committed to identifying early adopter organisations to test the framework. Following discussions with the Haringey Community Centres Network (HCCN), two out-of-lease organisations—Hornsey Vale and Markfield Park Community Centres—were selected. Property officers worked with these groups to inform the development of the policy and accelerated lease negotiations contingent on Cabinet approval.

Following this, officers planned to work through the remaining out-of-lease community centres using the policy.

Given that this was a new policy and process, minor amendments could be delegated to account for learning from early adopters. For instance, one proposed improvement included aligning subsidy levels to score quintiles within the matrix, e.g. scores between 80–100 receiving the maximum 80% subsidy.

The Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA) identified the importance of reviewing the policy’s impact to avoid unintended consequences and to begin capturing and recognising the social value delivered. A follow-up report to Cabinet after one year of implementation was proposed to provide insight and assurance.

Alternative Options Considered

Do Nothing – Without a new policy, Property and VCS teams would have to manage the portfolio without a consistent basis. This would have meant renewing lapsed leases at market rent, which would be unaffordable for many VCS groups and left the Council open to accusations of arbitrary or inconsistent treatment. This was not a viable option.

Circular Grant Model – This would have involved charging market rent and then awarding grants equivalent to the subsidy level. Although the same matrix could be used, this would have required additional budget lines, administrative complexity, and cashflow capacity from VCS organisations, which many did not have. The circular grant approach was rejected due to its impracticality, added administrative burden, and incompatibility with the Council’s current financial pressures.

Apply a 100% Subsidy – While recognising financial pressures on the VCS, this option was also rejected. The Council needed income to contribute to maintenance costs, especially as it retained responsibility for major repairs. The EQIA highlighted concerns that some organisations may struggle to pay even 20% rent; this would be reviewed after implementation to assess whether mitigations were needed.