“Cities are designed by men, for men”: why local government needs more female leadership

Just one of the issues women face more than men. Image: Ardfern/Wikimedia Commons.

Cities are largely designed by men, and for men. There is nothing unusual in this – we instinctively design, plan and make policy that reflects our own experiences and biases. However, this has led to places that don’t work as well for women as they should.

This has safety implications: clearly anyone who de-prioritises the importance of streetlights has never had to walk home in the dark worrying about the footsteps behind them, and while men are attacked and mugged as well, the danger to women is significantly greater. But even leaving that aside, there are numerous less well documented issues in cities that affect women.

And even simple things like cracked and crumbling pavements have a greater detrimental impact on women. The vast majority of people pushing either prams or wheelchairs are women, and while having to navigate a giant set of wheels around tree roots and potholes is unpleasant enough for the person being pushed, getting around shouldn’t have to be the daily equivalent of Ninja Warrior.

The perpetual closure of public toilets affects women more than men. The fact that women are still most likely to be carers – let’s not forget that less than 2 per cent of men have taken the option of shared parental leave – means that public access to toilets becomes an issue that disproportionately affects women. It makes it difficult to leave the house if you don’t know where you will be able to access changing facilities. Reducing amenities like these ends up confining women to their homes or places they know will be convenient. 

This is why we need more women at senior levels of local government, to improve the standard of our places for women. So for International Women’s Day, NLGN has made a series of films about the experiences of women in local government. And, in particular, we looked at the issue of why diversity is important.


As councillor Judith Blake, the leader of Leeds city council, said in one our films: “Too many areas of policy covered by local government are male dominated – infrastructure, highways, planning… The most important thing is to put women in positions of responsibility in those areas, leading by example, reflecting the needs of their communities, and making a difference.”

And while there are a huge number of women working in local government, reaching the senior levels of management is still much rarer than it should be. But council workplaces are becoming more open and less hierarchical, there is a greater allowance for flexible working, and many women who do reach the top are keen to mentor and support those at the beginning of their careers.

It is crucial that local government does what it can to support women in their careers, at all stages and levels of seniority. Until we have senior management that is representative of the area it creates policy for, our places won’t improve in the ways that they need to.

Claire Porter is head of external affair at NLGN. The three films are available on the NLGN YouTube channel.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.

 
 
 
 

Two east London boroughs are planning to tax nightlife to fund the clean up. Will it work?

A Shoreditch rave, 2013. Image: Getty.

No-one likes cleaning up after a party, but someone’s got to do it. On a city-wide scale, that job falls to the local authority. But that still leaves the question: who pays?

In east London, the number of bars and clubs has increased dramatically in recent years. The thriving club scene has come with benefits – but also a price tag for the morning clean-up and cost of policing. The boroughs of Hackney and Tower Hamlets are now looking to nightlife venues to cover these costs.

Back in 2012, councils were given powers to introduce ‘late night levies’: essentially a tax on all the licensed venues that open between midnight and 6am. The amount venues are expected to pay is based on the premises’ rateable value. Seventy per cent of any money raised goes to the police and the council keeps the rest.

Few councils took up the offer. Four years after the legislation was introduced, only eight local authorities had introduced a levy, including Southampton, Nottingham, and Cheltenham. Three of the levies were in the capital, including Camden and Islington. The most lucrative was in the City of London, where £420,000 was raised in the 2015-16 financial year.

Even in places where levies have been introduced, they haven’t always had the desired effect. Nottingham adopted a late night levy in November 2014. Last year, it emerged that the tax had raised £150,000 less than expected in its first year. Only a few months before, Cheltenham scrapped its levy after it similarly failed to meet expectations.


Last year, the House of Lords committee published its review of the 2003 Licensing Act. The committee found that “hardly any respondents believed that late night levies were currently working as they should be” – and councils reported that the obligation to pass revenues from the levy to the police had made the tax unappealing. Concluding its findings on the late night levy, the committee said: “We believe on balance that it has failed to achieve its objectives, and should be abolished.”

As might be expected of a nightlife tax, late night levies are also vociferously opposed by the hospitality industry. Commenting on the proposed levy in Tower Hamlets, Brigid Simmonds, chief executive at the British Beer and Pub Association, said: “A levy would represent a damaging new tax – it is the wrong approach. The focus should be on partnership working, with the police and local business, to address any issues in the night time economy.”

Nevertheless, boroughs in east London are pressing ahead with their plans. Tower Hamlets was recently forced to restart a consultation on its late night levy after a first attempt was the subject of a successful legal challenge by the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers (ALMR). Kate Nicholls, chief executive at the ALMR, said:

“We will continue to oppose these measures wherever they are considered in any part of the UK and will urge local authorities’ to work with businesses, not against them, to find solutions to any issues they may have.”

Meanwhile, Hackney council intends to introduce a levy after a consultation which revealed 52 per cents of respondents were in favour of the plans. Announcing the consultation in February, licensing chair Emma Plouviez said:

“With ever-shrinking budgets, we need to find a way to ensure the our nightlife can continue to operate safely, so we’re considering looking to these businesses for a contribution towards making sure their customers can enjoy a safe night out and their neighbours and surrounding community doesn’t suffer.”

With budgets stretched, it’s inevitable that councils will seek to take advantage of any source of income they can. Nevertheless, earlier examples of the late night levy suggest this nightlife tax is unlikely to prove as lucrative as is hoped. Even if it does, should we expect nightlife venues to plug the gap left by public sector cuts?