Those in Glasshouses: A Cautionary Tale; Hackney’s Cumulative Impact Policy
In 2019 there was considerable outrage from a number of quarters (and a legal challenge) at Hackney Council’s decision to extend its Shoreditch Special Policy Area (or Cumulative Impact Zone. (NB. Cumulative Impact Zones are a policy tool that make it more difficult (although by no means impossible) to get an alcohol / food / entertainment licence in areas suffering from crime and disorder, nuisance etc).
For information, Shoreditch is now London’s second most important leisure and entertainment district after the West End (which sits within Westminster and Camden). Part of this growth has resulted from Westminster’s own West End Stress Area (i.e. the name it has given its cumulative impact policy) which itself displaced later nightlife out to Shoreditch and nearby Dalston.
As many of those objecting to Hackney’s decision don’t appear to understand how CIZs actually work, here’s our expert view on the Shoreditch Special Policy Area (CIZ), the area’s night-time economy and those who tried to resist the policy. (NB. We have advised more operators and councils on the evidence for CIZs than anyone else. We have also undertaken independent multiple research projects into CIZs).
Shoreditch is an amazing place with world class restaurants, bars, shops, creative firms and a diverse range of residents who have worked hard to be there and created something special. But (and there is a but)…
There has been little strategic thought or investment either by night-time businesses or Hackney Council to plan and manage Shoreditch’s night-time economy (albeit the latter has made some effort within its Development Framework and 2019 Future Shoreditch document to address the challenges around the area’s NTE).
As a result, alcohol-related crime levels related to the NTE have risen dramatically over the past 20 years in Shoreditch, and particularly in the last decade. Whilst there are annual fluctuations, they remain high in the Shoreditch Special Policy Area (CIZ) when compared with the wider Shoreditch and Hackney areas, as well as by London and UK standards.
In the late noughties, Shoreditch went from a longstanding residential and business community as well as an emerging destination for a generally well-behaved cool ‘hipster’ crowd to a much more mainstream alcohol-focused night-time ‘play park’.
A good example of the conflict is Boxpark, or ‘Boozepark’ as locals named it. This quickly went from a high-end niche retailer mall with street food stands to a series of bars and externalised noise at night. This change resulted in huge opposition in 2017 to its application for an extended licence due to its impact and that of its patrons on local residents who had lived there much longer. Boxpark have since had the good sense to soundproof and change the management of the site to reduce negative impact.
The conflict between long-term residents (both those in the area’s council housing and the wave of 90’s artists occupying old warehouses) and the massively expanded night-time economy is played out across Shoreditch (and much of London’s East End). There are complex reasons for this, but our view is that much of the conflict could have been avoided had business and the authorities come together to plan and manage the area ‘after dark’ from the outset of this urban change.
It’s also imperative that we consider not only the impact of any NTE on residents but also on public services such as council and police. These agencies are now hugely under resourced due to a decade of austerity. They are, unsurprisingly, looking for ways of curbing a major source of violence, noise and ambulance call outs. (NB. the vast majority of those who come to Shoreditch do not fight, vomit, urinate or call an ambulance, but as the council’s evidence base shows, too many do).
Special Policy Areas (or CIZs) are not a ban or a ‘curfew’ on new licensed premises. The term curfew was deliberately misleading and was part of the lobbyists’ PR spin #fakenews. There are a huge number of existing late licences in Shoreditch, none of them are affected by the new policy.
Legally, any council must have the evidence to introduce or extend a CIZ. This research process is one we pioneered here at MAKE. We did not research Hackney’s in this case, but the process appears sound to us (albeit some of the new boundaries we might question and some of the research we would have done differently).
Based on this evidence, Hackney Council was within its rights to introduce the CIZ. We see no evidence that the council made any flaws in its method this time (it was its second attempt at the policy extension).
A number of industry bodies such as NTIA, UK Hospitality, BBPA etc. opposed the policy. Lobby group, We Love Hackney, was the key local opposition to the CIZ. Our analysis shows that it frequently misled the public during its comprehensive PR campaign to encourage people to respond to the council’s consultation process. For example, it consistently gave the impression that the new policy would apply to ALL venues not just new applications. There were some coherent arguments and genuine concerns underneath the headlines, but its credibility was undermined by its (deliberate?) misrepresentation of what a CIZ policy is.
We Love Hackney promoted the benefits of the night-time economy (which of course there are – it was MAKE that came up with the idea of measuring the ENTE in the first place!). But there was also absolutely no understanding of, nor the taking of responsibility for, the negative externalities of the NTE (violence, noise, congestion, resident disturbance, cleansing costs, public service impacts, exclusion, displacement etc). At no point did any of the key figures behind We Love Hackney appear to publicly acknowledge that they and their businesses had a role to play in coordinating and resourcing measures to mitigate Shoreditch NTE’s impact.
To all intents and purposes, the We Love Hackney campaign, and its legal challenge, appeared to be a group of affluent venue owners lobbying against further restrictions that may limit their own trading environment and business models. This may be unfair, but that is certainly what the judge in the judicial review (see below) seemed to conclude.
Crucially, We Love Hackney made a major play of the council’s own research with residents into the CIZ, saying it showed that 77.5% of respondents were against the new CIZ policy. (NB. it should be noted that We Love Hackney and others ran a major campaign to get nightlife lovers (predominantly young people) to respond to the consultation. The council’s own committee report notes an upsurge in consultation responses corresponding to the dates of this campaign.
We found this result unusual because in all the other residents surveys we have completed for CIZ proposals (e.g. Hammersmith, Fulham, Shepherds Bush, Twickenham, Richmond, Hounslow, Bedford), we have found the reverse - that around 70-80% of residents in or near to night-time economies and with problems of crime and disorder and nuisance, favour cumulative impact policies. Only around 10-15% oppose them. The rest don’t have a view.
However, it appears that no one involved in this process understood that the consultation, while perfectly legitimate in its own right, was open to undue influence.
If we had been advising Hackney Council, we would have recommended that they run a separate face-to-face survey that randomly selected respondents living in and adjacent to the CIZ area using doorstep interviews (rather than online surveys that are open to influence via social media and other communications efforts).
We Love Hackney noted that of the respondents to the survey, 85% were Hackney residents or businesses. However, closer inspection revealed that the vast majority were not from Shoreditch and certainly not from within the Shoreditch Special Policy Area (and its proposed extension) which includes only parts of the E1, E2, EC1 and EC2 postcodes. Because 6-digit postcodes were not presented by the council, it’s not possible to be exact.
The maximum it could be is around 16.5% from within the Shoreditch Special Policy Area (and its proposed extension) but these 2- and 3-digit postcodes cover a much larger area than Shoreditch itself (let alone the CIZ). We would estimate that of this 16.5% perhaps a quarter to a third of the responses from those who actually live or run businesses in the current and proposed CIZ. (i.e. only around 5% of ALL respondents!) Quite different to the 85% headline.
The council also presented no breakdown of the responses between those who live in Shoreditch and those who live outside (a huge number lived in Dalston). Thus it was impossible to tell whether or not people who are most impacted by the ENTE by living in it, are likely to be more for an extension of the Special Policy Area than those less by the NTE or not affected at all.
In short, our view is that the consultation, whilst not flawed, was highly open to outside influence.
It should be noted that during any CIZ consultation the views of all stakeholders should be taken into account (as they were in this case), not just residents in the current or a proposed CIZ. However, our view is that, given the negative externalities of the NTE that residents should be given particular weight as they are best placed to report on both the challenges of the night-time economy as well as the most immediate users of local venues.
In this case, and based on the evidence of crime and disorder and public nuisance as well as a public behaviour study conducted by an academic and a cost impact analysis of the NTE to the council (e.g. cleansing, noise services etc), Hackney Council decided to proceed with the adoption of the new CIZ.
We Love Hackney decided to challenge this decision in court and to pursue a judicial review. Undertaking a judicial review against a licensing policy is complex and costly. To succeed would require proving that there had been a serious failing within the council’s researching, drafting and publishing of the policy.
We Love Hackney brought the review on the specific and novel grounds that the new policy prejudiced the LGBTQ+ community because they were particularly reliant on night-time economy venues. Whether this would have been enough to convince a judge we will never know because, before proceeding to the review they sought a cost-capping exercise so that, as individuals behind We Love Hackney, they couldn’t be held liable for the council’s costs should they lose (they had at that stage raised around £20k of a £50k+ target).
The judge at this hearing, refused the cost-cap on the basis that the individuals behind the review were evidently wealthy enough to absorb the costs should they lose. Her words were:
"A number of well-resourced individuals have chosen to litigate the claim via an impecunious [lacking in funds] company which has taken possession of funds donated by members of the public…I do not accept on the evidence before me that the claimant[s] would be forced to withdraw the claim through impecuniosity."
We Love Hackney appear to have ceased their campaign as soon as the individual directors were judge to have been personally liable for any costs in excess of what they had raised via crowdfunding.
28. So, what are the morals we can take from this saga?...
Firstly, everyone (including Hackney Council) agrees that nightlife is important to Shoreditch and Hackney and that it should be supported to thrive in the right way. Crucially, from the council’s perspective, the emphasis is on it being sustainable and balanced.
There is clearly an assumption still common amongst some venue owners and nightlife consumers that the night-time eocnomy is so important that it should remain untrammelled in any way and that any controls or restrictions on it are harmful, no matter how well the evidence highlights the dis-benefits.
Sadly, it should never have gotten to this stage. Given Shoreditch is one of London’s (and thus the world’s) leading nightlife destinations, businesses there should have self-organised long ago (at least a decade hence), not simply to protest against regulation, but to develop a comprehensive management plan with public agencies and residents and an accompanying funding programme to ensure that the positives are maximised and the negatives minimised.
There are great examples of this such as Heart of London Business Association (a BID) in Leicester Square and Piccadilly Circus and the Temple Bar Company in Dublin (a mutual) whose business members pay an annual fee for a programme of action to manage and improve their night-time economies for their own benefit as well as that of the community.
Sadly, there is still no business improvement district in this part of Shoreditch and the area, its night-time economy and the individual business. We suspect that footfall has increased hugely over the past decade delivering turnover and that partnership working is not something that they have felt necessary to engage in.
All areas go through developmental phases. Shoreditch will never be the same as it was in the late 90s. It caters to a different market now and requires a much greater level of planning and management than when it was an underground secret. The key is to encourage entrepreneur’s in to diversify the area and to mitigate the negatives. The council, in its Future Shoreditch planning document, has been clear it wants to diversify the area, offering more cultural rather than alcohol-led activities that appeal to a wider range of people rather than simply those in their 20s and early 30s. This is to be welcomed.
The council would have been best served by undertaking a randomised household survey to provide an objective corollary to its public survey, which was open to influence.
There is also a strong argument that the council could have done a lot more, a lot earlier in the genesis of Shoreditch to ensure it had the right data, intelligence and partnership arrangements to ensure a more effective place-shaping agenda.
What next? Well already the fears of campaigners (and probably to the chagrin of some nearby residents) have proved unfounded. Nearly all licence applications that have come forward in the Shoreditch Special Policy area (and nearby Dalston) have been approved (providing they were not simply more late-night alcohol led businesses).
NOTE: At MAKE despite our critique of the process and some of the actions involved from all partners in the case study above, we neither advocate for or against the introduction of CIZs. They are a tool that may be of some use in some locations in addressing the negative externalities of the night-time economy, but which may (there is no evidence yet) deter investment or innovation. Recent research published in the British Medical Journal by academics Carolyn Sharpe and Richard Pinder from Imperial College found that there was little if any evidence that the rate of licences granted by Southwark Council slowed after the introduction of cumulative impact zones in that borough for example.
For more information on CIZs, research and policy advice click the button below…