Old Street Police Station and community courthouse project

Report: 10
Date: 24 February 2005
By: Clerk

Summary

At the last meeting, the Authority considered a recommendation from the Finance Committee that Old Street Police Station and Courthouse should be placed on the market, as it had not proved possible to reach a conclusion with the Community Advice Project (“CAP”) or their development partners on way forward which satisfied the Authority’s statutory duties relating to the disposal of property. The matter was deferred for a full report and discussion at this meeting.

This report reminds members of the history of the proposal to dispose of Old Street Police station and courthouse to enable the Community Advice Project (CAP) to develop the Community Courthouse Initiative. The Community Courthouse Initiative would be facilitated by the preservation and adaptation of the listed buildings on the site and the redevelopment for residential purposes of the rest of the site. The broad intention all along has been that the MPA will sell the site to CAP, that CAP will grant a development lease to their development partner, and that CAP will retain the community accommodation.

It is now a question for the Authority to decide whether

1. to market the property as recommended by the Finance Committee; or
2. to instruct the officers to obtain an independent valuation of the property; or
3. alternatively for the Authority itself to look for a development partner to secure an appropriate development of the site including a defined community use of the building (which the Authority will expect to work up with CAP)

A. Recommendation

1. That the Authority decide whether
   • to market the property as recommended by the Finance Committee; or
   • to instruct the officers to obtain an independent valuation of the property; or
   • alternatively for the Authority itself to look for a development partner to secure an appropriate development of the site including a defined community use of the building (which the Authority will expect to work up with CAP)
2.  That the Clerk in consultation with the Director of Property Services, the Chair of the Authority and the Chairs of Finance Committee and Equal Opportunities & Diversity Board be authorised to settle the detailed terms of the preferred way forward.

B. Summary of issues for decision

1. At the last meeting, the Authority considered a recommendation from the Finance Committee that Old Street Police Station and Courthouse should be placed on the market, as it had not proved possible to reach a conclusion with the Community Advice Project (“CAP”) or their development partners on way forward which satisfied the Authority’s statutory duties relating to the disposal of property. The matter was deferred for a full report and discussion at this meeting.

2. This report reminds members of the history of the proposal to dispose of Old Street Police station and courthouse to enable the Community Advice Project (CAP) to develop the Community Courthouse Initiative. This is a flagship scheme of the Society of Black Lawyers of England & Wales, and is supported by the former Commissioner, Sir John Stevens, and the Mayor of London.

3. The Community Courthouse Initiative would be facilitated by the preservation and adaptation of the listed buildings on the site and the redevelopment for residential purposes of the rest of the site. The broad intention all along has been that the MPA will sell the site to CAP, that CAP will grant a development lease to their development partner, and that CAP will retain the community accommodation.

4. A brief description of the Community Advice Project (sometimes referred to as the “Community Courthouse Project”) and its potential benefits appears at Appendix 1. Members will recall that the latest Business Plan prepared by CAP was circulated with papers for the last meeting of the Authority.

5. The MPA, like local authorities, is given powers under the Local Government Act 1972 to dispose of land in any manner they wish. The only constraint is that a disposal must be for the “best consideration reasonably obtainable”, unless the Secretary of State consents to the disposal. By a general consent issued in July 2003, the Secretary of State allows the MPA to sell property for up to £2m below “best consideration” provided it is satisfied that certain conditions are met (as to which see later). If the undervalue is greater than £2m the MPA must apply for the consent of the Secretary of State. A fuller account of the legal position is at Appendix 2.

6. The MPA holds a valuation of the property prepared by the District Valuer in 2001 but has no up to date valuation.

7. CAP has arranged for offers to be submitted by two development companies with whom they have had discussions. Details are given in the accompanying exempt report.

8. As best can be judged at present, both of these offers represent an undervalue. This is because (apart from anything else) both imply a subsidy out of the development value to be given to CAP to cover the cost of the accommodation required by CAP. In effect therefore they imply that all or part of the undervalue will go towards funding the Community Project.

9. An assessment of the “best consideration reasonably obtainable” can derive from an independent valuation or from competitive offers produced by marketing the site. The problem is that in the absence of an assessment of the value of the property the MPA is

• Unable to be satisfied whether or not there is an undervalue and the amount of undervalue;
• Unable properly to consider whether it can legitimately use its discretion to sell at an undervalue up to £2m, or to apply to the Secretary of State for consent;
• Unable to judge whether any given level of undervalue (or subsidy) is supportable.

10. The Director of Property Services MPS advised the Finance Committee in January 2005 that in his view it was preferable to market the property in order to test the value. He felt that the absence of a planning brief issued by the local planning authority, combined with the listed building status, might make it difficult to produce a reliable valuation without marketing.

11. In all the circumstances, the Finance Committee considered that the best way forward was to market the property. The Committee indicated that marketing would not close down CAP’s opportunity to acquire the site: offers made on their behalf could be considered alongside offers from marketing, and the MPA would then be in a position to make a proper judgement whether it was justified to sell at an undervalue.

12. A further recent submission from CAP is at Appendix 3

13. It is now a question for the Authority to decide whether

13.1 to market the property as recommended by the Finance Committee; or

13.2 to instruct the officers to obtain an independent valuation of the property

as a basis for considering whether any offer from CAP represents an undervalue, and if so whether it is agreeable to dispose of the property at such undervalue (with the consent of the Secretary of State if the undervalue exceeds £2m).

C. History

14. The MPA and CAP have been in discussion over several years to agree terms for CAP to buy the Old Street Police Station and Magistrates Court. Originally, the GLMCA (as then owner of the courthouse) was also party to the negotiations, but in September 2004 the MPA acquired the GLMCA’s interest. The objective throughout has been to find a means – and agree a price – that would enable the MPA to comply with its legal duties, as outlined above.

15. In 2001, the District Valuer prepared a valuation for an unconditional sale. CAP made an offer in that amount, but conditional on obtaining planning permission. The Director of Property Services MPS was not satisfied that the offer matched the basis of valuation. The District Valuer maintained that he was unable to provide a valuation certificate on the basis of a conditional offer. However, he pointed out that if planning permission was granted for the development that he had assumed (i.e. for CAP’s proposed scheme) then the valuation certificate would be valid. Informal discussions with the External Auditor also took place, and the suggestion arose that the MPA might reasonably encourage and support CAP to pursue a planning application, in order to resolve the planning uncertainty and, in effect, crystallise the valuation.

16. In September 2003, following consultations with the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Finance Committee, CAP were encouraged to submit a planning application as soon as possible and no later than 3 months from the end of August 2003. It was envisaged that once planning permission had been granted, the MPA would then approach the DV to update his valuation and confirm whether or not the CAP offer represented best consideration at that time. The negotiations on terms of sale would then be concluded and contracts would be exchanged as promptly as possible. CAP was advised that the MPA would want to achieve exchange of contracts no later than September 2004. The MPA undertook not to market the property whilst the planning process was proceeding.

17. The Director of Property Services appointed a planning consultant to keep a watching brief on behalf of the MPA. The MPA has now acquired the interest of the GLMCA in the site. The purchase price for that interest was negotiated taking account of external professional advice obtained by the Director of Property Services; the purchase sum was also impacted by the lease terms of the GLMCA interest in the property.

18. The timetable slipped, largely because of the extent of the requirements of the local planning authority and English Heritage. Following consultation with the Chair of Finance Committee, in January 2004 CAP were assured that the MPA still supported their endeavours and would extend the timescale for exchange of contracts, provided they continued to drive forward towards the planning consent.

19. CAP’s development partner, then requested that the Authority should, in effect, give a legally binding commitment to proceed with the disposal if and when planning permission was granted. They were concerned that the costs associated with the planning application and surveys were rising, and that the company would be adversely exposed to risk without a concrete assurance of the MPA’s intent to complete the sale. Officers advised that an agreement as proposed would not be a prudent step for the Authority to take before planning permission is granted, and that it was doubtful if an agreement in the form proposed would be within the Authority’s powers.

20. In view of the MPA’s consistent support of the CAP project, it was proposed, and the Committee agreed, that officers should explore all avenues to try to provide a satisfactory assurance for the developer.

21. Discussions with that Developer failed to produce a mutually satisfactory conclusion. The difficulty was to find a contract formulation that satisfied the MPA’s statutory duty to get the best consideration reasonably attainable, without a planning determination, and the wish of the developer to have a substantive commitment from the MPA before incurring further costs.

22. In September 2004, CAP started exploratory discussions with another possible development partner, a company experienced in regeneration projects and with a track record of dealing with listed buildings. Proposals were subsequently submitted by that Developer and by another company invited by CAP (without the MPA’s knowledge) to bid. Details of those bids are set out in the accompanying exempt report.

D. Equality and diversity implications

23. The summary description of the CCP objectives and benefits at Appendix 1 demonstrates the significant and beneficial impacts that the project would have if it comes to fruition. Declining public trust and confidence in the justice system is one of the most significant issues facing the justice system today. The Community Courthouse Initiative represents a significant diversity initiative that, through its projects and services, will act as an interface between socially excluded communities and the wider criminal justice and legal systems, and that promises reduction in crime levels in the communities it serves.

E. Financial implications

24. There is a cost attached to the continued delay in disposal in terms of the maintenance and security of the premises. The local planning authority and English Heritage are pressing the MPA to carry out essential repairs to protect the fabric of the building from further deterioration. If a sale at an undervalue is agreed, the undervalue would represent, in effect, a capital grant to CAP of that amount.

F. Legal implications

25. The MPA must satisfy itself that the price to be paid for the site represents the best consideration reasonably attainable for the site. The MPA is empowered to dispose of the property at an undervalue of up to £2m provided it is satisfied that the terms overall support social and regeneration objectives and are incidental to or facilitate the MPA’s core statutory responsibilities. If the undervalue is assessed as greater than £2m, the MPA may not dispose of the property without the consent of the Secretary of State.

26. The MPA has duties under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 to eliminate discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity. The Authority must give due regard to these duties in reaching a decision in this matter.

G. Background papers

None

H. Contact details

Report author: David Riddle

For more information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Appendix 1: Community courthouse project

“It is an imaginative and constructive use of a historical building, which has processed its fair share of notorious cases in the past. It will provide a positive point of learning between disadvantaged communities and the criminal justice agencies”

~ His Honour Judge Roger Sanders
Former Stipendiary Magistrate at Old Street Magistrates’ Court,

There are approximately 430,000 members of ethnic minority communities within the Project’s Prime Target Area of Hackney, Newham, the City of London, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest, Haringey and Islington. Research clearly shows extremely negative statistics concerning the gulf between agencies of the law and the justice system, and ethnic minority communities, and that these communities are excluded, disadvantaged and discriminated against with regard to education, training, and employment. Rates of school exclusion are much higher than in the population as a whole, and although 19% of businesses within the capital are run by members of the Black and minority ethnic (BME) community, a high proportion have found that discrimination and prohibitively high legal fees are limiting opportunities to succeed.

The principal objectives of the CCP are to:

• Empower socially excluded and disadvantaged ethnic minority communities enabling them to deal with the root causes of their exclusion and disadvantage;
• Educate and inform ethnic minorities of their legal rights and responsibilities whilst improving relationships between these communities and the law and criminal justice agencies;
• Develop the capacity of ethnic minority community organisations, businesses and individuals to make tangible contributions to the social and economic regeneration of their communities;
• The adoption of a multi-disciplinary approach to altering the culture and negative perceptions held by many ethnic minority communities in relation to the agencies that make up the criminal justice system, the legal system and the police in particular by Increasing public knowledge and understanding about the courts and the legal system, and providing opportunities for positive interaction between criminal justice agencies and ethnic minority communities.
• Increase the employability and skills base of the ethnic minority communities within law related fields through training, mentoring and other programmes;
• Foster and promote good citizenship, community development, leadership and accountability as effective tools for creating and maintaining inclusive communities;
• Make a significant impact into the reduction of ethnic minority pupils excluded from schools, and provide foundations for the enhancement of their academic performance;
• Contribute to economic development and regeneration of the surrounding area in terms of property and social fabric.

Of particular relevance to the MPA, the Community Courthouse Project will aim to:

• Reduce youth crime through youth justice education programmes and restorative justice initiatives;
• Provide opportunities for positive interaction between criminal justice agencies and socially excluded/disadvantaged communities;
• Establish programmes to facilitate the recruitment and retention of more people from ethnic minority communities into the Metropolitan and City of London Police Services as well as other areas of the law and the justice system;
• Change the culture and negative perception among minority communities of the law and the justice system

The Community Courthouse initiative aims to produce the following key outcomes over the next 3 years:

• 540 Young people successfully graduating from the Youth4Justice education programme;
• 1500 Black and minority ethnic business members of the Business Law Clinic;
• 70 New jobs created directly within the Community Courthouse programmes and services;
• 60 New businesses created;
• 100 Public service and city law firms signed up to mentoring and work experience programme;
• 300 Long-term training places established;
• 60 Permanent jobs created;
• 750 Businesses supported with detailed legal and financial advice and assistance;
• 80 New jobs created through the Courthouse Business Incubator;
• Major regeneration work undertaken in restoration of a building of historical interest.
• A reduction in crime.

The project will work in full co-operation and co-ordination with all relevant initiatives, policies and reports including the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal, the Policy Action Team Reports, Youth Offending Teams, and the Hackney Strategic Partnership. It will work towards ensuring implementation and achievement of the recommendations set out in The McPherson Report.

The Project will see the establishment of a range of law related programmes and services that will strive to enhance the capacity of ethnic minority communities, increasing their employability within the field of legal/law services and providing opportunities for positive interaction with the law and criminal justices agencies. The CCP’s Programmes and Services will include:

• Volunteer Internship Programme: providing hands on legal training and experience for young people and unemployed adults;
• Youth4Justice Programme: working with young people to develop an understanding of rights and responsibilities and combat social exclusion;
• ICT learning centre: an Information and Communication Technology training centre targeting black and ethnic minority people of all ages;
• Public Service Recruitment and Training Programme: an initiative designed to improve recruitment and retention of ethnic minorities within the legal system and other related services;
• Prisoners Advisory Service: legal advice and workshops inside prisons to support the programme of rehabilitating young and other offenders;
• Service to Seniors: Welfare benefits advice and legal support for those involved in social/care services;
• Business Law Clinic: offering affordable legal services for ethnic minority enterprises, and providing a database of legal information for both professional and public use;
• Business Units and Office Space: affordable units, primarily for black and ethnic minority businesses with a bespoke range of support services.

A clear and inclusive management structure will be the hallmark of the project, ensuring that there is strong strategic guidance and leadership whilst encouraging and promoting input into service planning and decision making by key stakeholders.

The management and decision making structure will include a Board (containing professionals in finance, marketing, public relations, personnel management) an Advisory Council of key partners such as the Police and the Prisons Service, and Programme Advisory Groups, responsible for keeping individual programme areas on track.

The project will work closely with partner agencies (including the Metropolitan and City of London Police Service, the Magistrates Court Authority, the Prisons and Probation Service) in pursuit of the project goals. Key operating approaches will include: inter-agency working, and establishing strong alliances with central and local government, regeneration agencies and appropriate community organisations.

All the financial implications of establishing the courthouse project have been examined, including all capital acquisition and refurbishment costs and on-going running costs. The project’s capital cost requirements will be financed through a mix of commercial loan and a quasi-equity arrangement. Repayments will be met by income from the Business Law Clinic and rental income from letting of space for commercial use.

The operational costs of the social programme component are to be financed through grant funding. Initial assessment of value measure from the outputs anticipated, indicate a strong 15% return on grant funding investment. Funding is being sought from agencies such as the Criminal Justice Reserve Fund, the Heritage Lottery Fund, the London Development Agency and European Funding sources. Long-term viability will be under-pinned by the development of income generating aspects of the project including renting small business space and the Business Law Clinic.

The target date for the full completion of and beneficial occupation by the Community Courthouse Project has been set as April 2006.

A marketing and communications strategy, identifying all the appropriate public relations, promotional, communication, and other key marketing issues that are important factors for the fundraising and overall success of the Project will be developed and applied.

The Community Courthouse Project is being developed in order to make a real difference to the lives of ethnic minority communities throughout London in general and particularly within the Project’s Prime Target Area. All the various objectives and milestones indicated in the Business Plan will be measured against set criteria, and ongoing evaluation will ensure realisation of optimum benefit.

Appendix 2: Disposal of land for less than best consideration

Local Government Act 1972: General Disposal Consent (England) 2003
Extracts from ODPM Circular

Local authorities are given powers under the 1972 Act to dispose of land in any manner they wish, including sale of their freehold interest, granting a lease or assigning any unexpired term on a lease, and the granting of easements. The only constraint is that a disposal must be for the best consideration reasonably obtainable (except in the case of short tenancies, see footnote 3, paragraph 1 of the Consent), unless the Secretary of State consents to the disposal.

It is Government policy that local authorities and other public bodies should dispose of surplus land wherever possible. Generally it is expected that land should be sold for the best consideration reasonably obtainable. However, it is recognised that there may be circumstances where an authority considers it appropriate to dispose of land at an undervalue. Authorities should clearly not divest themselves of valuable public assets unless they are satisfied that the circumstances warrant such action. The General Disposal Consent has been issued to give local authorities autonomy to carry out their statutory duties and functions, and to fulfil such other objectives as they consider to be necessary or desirable. However, when disposing of land at an undervalue, authorities must remain aware of the need to fulfil their fiduciary duty in a way which is accountable to local people.

Section 128(1) of the 1972 Act confers on the Secretary of State power to give a general consent for the purposes of land disposals by local authorities carried out under their powers in Part 7 of the 1972 Act. The Secretary of State's sole statutory function in respect of the exercise by local authorities of these disposal powers is to give or withhold consent to a proposed disposal in cases where his consent is required.

The terms of the Consent mean that specific consent is not required for the disposal of any interest in land which the authority considers will help it to secure the promotion or improvement of the economic, social or environmental well-being of its area. Although these criteria derive from the Local Government Act 2000 (which does not apply to MPA), their use in the Consent is not confined to authorities with duties and powers under that Act. Therefore, the MPA can also rely upon the well-being criteria when considering disposals at less than best consideration. It will be for the authority to decide whether the decisions would comply with any other relevant governing legislation, in particular the Police Act 1996

In all cases, disposal at less than best consideration is subject to the condition that the undervalue does not exceed £2,000,000 (two million pounds).

In determining whether or not to dispose of land for less than the best consideration reasonably obtainable, and whether or not any specific proposal to take such action falls within the terms of the Consent, the authority should ensure that it complies with normal and prudent commercial practices, including obtaining the view of a professionally qualified valuer as to the likely amount of the undervalue.

It will be for the authority to decide whether any proposed disposal requires specific consent under the 1972 Act, since the Secretary of State has no statutory powers to advise authorities that consent is needed in any particular case. Once an application for a specific consent is submitted, the Secretary of State is obliged to make a decision on the proposed disposal on its merits. However, if he is of the opinion that his consent is not required (ie the sale is not at an undervalue), or if he believes that the case falls within the terms of the Consent, his statutory function to give specific consent will not arise.

The Authority may find it useful to keep its appointed auditor informed of any proposed action it wishes to take. An auditor has a duty to consider whether the authority is acting lawfully.

Before disposing of any interest in land for a price which may be less than the best consideration reasonably obtainable, local authorities are strongly advised in all cases to ensure that they obtain a realistic valuation of that interest, following the advice provided in the Circular.

An application to the Secretary of State for a specific consent to dispose of land under the terms of Part 7 of the Local Government Act 1972 for less than the best consideration reasonably obtainable must be supported by a report prepared and signed by a qualified valuer (a member of the RICS), providing the following information.

The report should set out the unrestricted and restricted values together with the value of conditions. Where any of these is nil this should be expressly stated. The valuer should also describe the assumptions made. These might include, for example, existing or alternative uses that might be permitted by the local planning authority, the level of demand and the terms of the transaction. The effect on value of the existence of a purchaser with a special interest (a special purchaser) should be described.

The Consent removes the requirement for authorities to seek specific consent from the Secretary of State where the difference between the unrestricted value of the land to be disposed of and the consideration accepted is £2,000,000 or less. The purpose of requiring the restricted value and the value of conditions to be reported as well as the unrestricted value is to ensure that the monetary value to the authority of any voluntary conditions can be taken into account when applications for specific consent are considered by the Secretary of State.

The valuer should take into account the requirements of the RICS Appraisal and Valuation Standards (Fifth Edition), ("the Red Book"), including UK Guidance Note 5. [1] All values should be assessed in capital, not rental, terms; and where a lease is to be granted, or is assumed by the valuer to be granted, the valuer should express the value of the consideration as a capital sum.

The unrestricted value is the best price reasonably obtainable for the property and should be expressed in capital terms. It is the market value of the land as currently defined by the RICS Red Book (Practice Statement 3.2) , except that it should take into account any additional amount which is or might reasonably be expected to be available from a purchaser with a special interest (a "special purchaser"). When assessing unrestricted value, the valuer must ignore the reduction in value caused by any voluntary condition imposed by the authority. In other words, unrestricted value is the amount that would be paid for the property if the voluntary condition were not imposed (or it is the value of the property subject to a lease without the restriction).

In general terms, unrestricted value is intended to be the amount which would be received for the disposal of the property where the principal aim was to maximise the value of the receipt. Apart from the inclusion of bids from a purchaser with a special interest it is defined in the same way as market value. For example, the valuer should take account of whatever uses might be permitted by the local planning authority insofar as these would be reflected by the market rather than having regard only to the use or uses intended by the parties to the proposed disposal.

The valuer should assume that the freehold disposal is made, or the lease is granted, on terms that are intended to maximise the consideration. For example, where unrestricted value is based on the hypothetical grant of a lease at a rack rent, or a ground rent with or without a premium, the valuer should assume that the lease would contain those covenants that a prudent landlord would normally include. The valuer should also assume that the lease would not include any unusual or onerous covenants that would reduce the consideration, unless these had to be included as a matter of law.

In the case of a proposed disposal of a leasehold interest, or where the valuer has assumed that a lease would be granted, the unrestricted value should be assessed by valuing the authority's interest after the lease has been granted plus any premium payable for its grant. This will usually be the value of the authority's interest subject to the proposed or assumed lease. In other words, it will be the value of the right to receive the rent and other payments under the lease plus the value of the reversion when the lease expires.

Where an authority has invited tenders and is comparing bids, the unrestricted value is normally the highest bid. But where, on the advice of the authority's professionally qualified valuer, the authority considers that the highest submitted tender is unrealistically high, or is too low, the unrestricted value may be assessed by the valuer.

The restricted value is the market value of the property having regard to the terms of the proposed transaction. It is defined in the same way as unrestricted value except that it should take into account the effect on value of any voluntary condition(s).

Where the authority has invited tenders and is comparing bids, the restricted value is normally the amount offered by the authority's preferred transferee. In other cases it is normally the proposed purchase price.

Appendix 3: Old Street Magistrates Court - Further submission from CAP

Introduction

CAP propose that the Old Street Magistrates Court and Police Station can be accurately valued by either one or possibly two independent property valuers, without the necessity for the property being tendered on the open market, with the obvious expense and delay that would entail.

CAP are extremely concerned that despite attempts to obtain a conditional planning route in partnership with the MPA we appear to be back to where we started some 3 years ago with a suggested sale on the open market. In the circumstances we welcome the decision of the Chair, and the MPA to pursue an early resolution to the issue of valuation. The valuations could be obtained speedily considering all the information we have gained as a result of our extensive discussions with English Heritage, the London Borough of Hackney and various developers on every aspect from the likely scale of proposed development to the potential costs and constraints of the building process.

CAP would not have any objections to the District Valuer (DV) being requested to conduct a valuation exercise, but feel that the DV would lend greater value to the process of reviewing the valuations conducted by two commercial property valuers with experience of the local area and of the regeneration value of listed buildings. The mean figure could then be adopted as representing market value.

The Planning Brief

The Old Street Magistrates Court and Police Station is a Grade 11 listed building situated in London Borough of Hackney opposite Shoreditch Old Town Hall, designed by John Dixon Butler. The building, which is some four storeys high houses two magistrates courts. The Courts have been in use from 1903 until the Court was decommissioned in 1996. The building, which has been on the English Heritage Buildings At Risk Register since 1999 lies in the Defined Employment Area (DEA) and therefore would require a planning application for change of use to be approved.

The central staircase forms an impressive entrance with ornate leaded and glazed stained glass windows depicting letters standing for Edward VII, coloured mosaic floor, with Metropolitan Police letters. The fine double flight staircase leads to a smaller courtroom on the first floor with wood panelling throughout. The main courtroom downstairs has a curved dais wall with an inbuilt bookcase.

Both Courts appear to be largely in their original condition, with the original dock, counsels bench, public gallery, ink wells, complete with iron railings and oak panelling. The cell area is still in its original position.

The front elevation provides a classic and imposing façade, which dominates the approach to the Railway Bridge on the main road to Hackney and the Hoxton square area. There is approximately 36,000 square feet of space in the current building line extending to some four floors. The two buildings, although linked, have separate access to the top floors. The basement provides for usable space running the entire length of the building. To the rear a car park with a separate entrance and exit provision has space for approximately 20 cars running in an L shape around the building.

In discussions with the London Borough of Hackney it has been disclosed that it would be highly unlikely that any development would be permitted unless it provided a proportion of social housing or space for community use, and retained the central staircase, the two courts, the entire façade, as well as some of the original cells. This view has been endorsed by English Heritage who also expressed the concern that there would need to be clearly defined conservation arguments presented prior to the demolition to the rear parts of the building line. neglect, the building will entail considerable cost, effort and time merely to the restoration and preservation of many of the characteristics which define its status as a Grade 11 listed property.

The building has deteriorated considerably in recent years with water ingress into part of the upper floors and roofline, and some quite serious damage to the walls and ceilings as a result. The original cornices are still retained and have in many cases been covered by suspended ceilings. As a result of damage and neglect, the building will entail considerable cost, effort and time merely to the restoration and preservation of many of the characteristics which define its status as a Grade 11 listed property.

"One of the finest Edwardian civic buildings in London, accommodating courtrooms, station, living quarters and cell blocks (to the rear) all in one building".

Community Advice Project
February 2005

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback