Stoke Newington Town Hall revamp is ‘not a sell-off’, says Mayor as cabinet agrees site’s future
Shake-up: Stoke Newington Town Hall is set for a revamp (Photograph: Fin Fahey)
Hackney Council has insisted it is not “selling off” Stoke Newington Town Hall as a major shake-up of the site was agreed at a 27 November cabinet meeting.
The approved Planning and Design Guidance document sets out better uses for the Grade II-listed complex on Church Street, some of which is vacant.
Stoke Newington Library will carry on as normal but an “exhibition space or a small café/coffee kiosk” might be added to the foyer.
The Assembly Hall will see “the frequency of events intensified” and could include “live performances and festivals”, with “retail, restaurant or bar use” in rooms next door.
The former reference library could become a café or restaurant.
Cllr Guy Nicholson, Cabinet Member for Planning, Business and Investment, told the meeting: “It’s not a matter of selling off the Town Hall or anything of that nature at all.
“This is about finding out where and how we can in effect create enough of a revenue stream to support this building into the future, keep it in order, and take some of the cost away from the council.”
Mayor Philip Glanville added: “It’s not about selling off parts of the Town Hall, it’s about finding uses that can sustain those heritage and public access parts of the building in a way that works with the local community and works with the objectives of the council.”
Because Stoke Newington needs another cafe.
It was in that very town hall that the people of Stoke Newington told Hackney Council that they did NOT want CPZ. Over a 1000 people turned up to say NO – 5 people said they wanted it and so it was rolled out for them and then spreading like a virus throughout the borough. Once again Hackney council showing how it listens to the people it supposedly serves.
As for what Mr Glanville and Cllr Guy Nicholson say, it’s not about selling off all the boroughs heritage so that they can hand themselves backhanders, (as officers did in the case of Whatcott Mews N16) It’s not about lying to the public or running smear campaigns against them when they expose the absolute corruption in `Hackneys planning dept. These people will run your life into the ground and use all resources of the council to destroy your home and your life – “The proposal would adversely affect light and outlook to the rear of these properties to an unacceptable degree, reducing the quality of life of these residents”. After making this statement the council approved an even taller development and “mislaid” all relevant documents that described the truthful destruction to the environment that such a project would/has caused.
When questioned or asked to provide an answer to their coverup, lies and u-turns, Mr Glanville feels it’s perfectly okay for them not to give any answers. He doesn’t feel there is any corruption involved in his staff feeling they need to “concoct” stories about the citizens he supposedly serves. Or any corruption in his staff abusing their office and destroying peoples homes and environment. He feels that it’s perfectly okay for them to repeatedly lie obfuscate and smear and they can rest assured that he will not even question their criminal activities. Why does he turn a blind eye to such abuse of office? Why does he allow the officers to get away with such damage to the environment without even questioning them for an explanation or rational behind them deliberately destroying peoples homes and “…reducing the quality of life of these residents”.
Words in quotes are from senior (criminal) Hackney council officers