Urban Development Corporations Quinquennial Review
Contents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Introduction to the Review Introducing the UDCs How have the UDCs performed? The changing context • National • Regional and local Planning Finance What are the alternatives? Working arrangements The UDC Quinquennial Review 2
1. Introduction to the Quinquennial Review
Why a Quinquennial Review? It’s normal – NDPBs are usually reviewed about every five years We made a public commitment when establishing the UDCs to a review Things have changed since the UDCs were established The UDC Quinquennial Review • Timing no longer centrally (and arbitrarily) mandated… …but Cabinet Office issues guidance about the scope and approach to reviews • There is an expectation that a review will take place this year • It’s right to give stakeholders the chance to say what they think about UDC’s achievements • It’s good practice to review progress in order to inform future UDC activity • Also an opportunity to look forwards; are the UDCs fit for purpose? • Economic context • Changes at regional and local level • Institutional change, e. g. establishment of the Homes and Communities Agency • National policy, whilst evolving, continued to prioritise growth to support the capital in key areas such as Thames Gateway 4
The Quinquennial Review began in June 2009 Scope: the Review is considering… Approach Timeline The UDC Quinquennial Review • Whether the UDCs have fulfilled the rationale for establishing them, and how well they have performed. • Whether changes locally or regionally affect the continuing need for a UDC. • The impact of the changing national context, particularly the establishment of the Homes and Communities Agency. • Efficiency, in the light of the Government’s Operational Efficiency Programme. • Whethere are obstacles that if removed, or greater freedoms that if given, would enable the UDCs to operate more effectively. • The UDC’s were given an initial 10 year life in recognition of the time it takes to establish ‘traction’ in challenging locations, therefore how damaging would a change in policy mid-term be? • The Review itself is being undertaken by a cross-departmental team from Communities and Local Government and the Government Offices; a public consultation forms an important part of the Review. • The Review has been designed so it can reach different conclusions for each UDC. • Preparatory work by Communities and Local Government was undertaken in early 2009. • The Review itself started in June 2009 and completed in January 2010. • The public consultation ran from 22 June to 18 September. • Implementation will take place from January 2010 onwards. 5
The rationale for establishing the UDCs we recognised in 2003 that a step change was needed in delivering housing… • • Part of the action plan Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future (ODPM, 2003) showed that as demand for homes continued rising – smaller households, people living longer and migration all playing their part – the number of new homes built had not kept pace with that demand to accommodate the economic success of London and the wider South East and to sustain the international competitiveness of the region, the plan identified four ‘growth areas’ as the focus for housing and economic growth § § Thames Gateway Ashford Milton Keynes-South Midlands London-Stanstead-Cambridge The UDC Quinquennial Review …in the growth areas, strengthened delivery vehicles would be needed • in the growth areas the plan committed us to set up strengthened local delivery vehicles where necessary with the powers to drive forward development and the necessary public and private investment • the plan recognised that the funding, singular focus and special powers of a statutory UDC would be required in certain locations with clear regeneration needs and large scale or particularly difficult sites • other delivery vehicle models across the growth areas include local authority partnerships, companies limited by guarantee, Urban Regeneration Companies, and in Milton Keynes a statutory Urban Development Area • In London Complicated cross borough boundary site assembly, planning and delivery issues confirmed the need for a focused agency to bring forward development for the benefit of London 6
The objective and statutory purposes of a UDC The objective of a UDC as set out in the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980 is to “secure the regeneration of its area”, which shall be done in particular by; For the purpose of achieving the regeneration of its area, a UDC may; The UDC Quinquennial Review • Bringing land buildings into effective use; • Encouraging the development of existing and new industry and commerce; • Creating an attractive environment; • Ensuring that housing and social facilities are available to encourage people to live and work in the area • Acquire, hold, manage, reclaim and dispose of land other property; • Carry out building and other operations; • Seek to ensure the provision of water, electricity, gas, sewerage and other services; • Carry on any business or undertaking for the purposes of regenerating its area; and • Generally do anything necessary or expedient for this purpose, or for purposes incidental to those purposes. • The UDCs have also been granted powers to determine certain planning applications (although they do not have statutory plan-making powers). 7
From concept to inception 1. Consultation Government consulted on: how the UDC should relate to local authorities and existing agencies; the UDC boundaries; planning powers and board composition Government also consulted on the life span for UDCs The UDC Quinquennial Review 2. Consultation Response In response to consultees’ views, government set out its decisions on the matters on which it had consulted 3. Legislation Orders were then laid before Parliament to define the area and constitution of each UDC, and their planning powers 8
2. Introducing the UDCs
London • • the Lower Lea Valley stretches from the 2012 Olympic Games site at Stratford, south to the River Thames: it is bounded by Hackney Wick and Hackney Marshes to the north and extends eastwards from the A 12 to the rail line between Stratford and Canning Town. The plan is for it to become a new city district set within an unrivalled landscape. • London Riverside, downstream of the Thames from the Lower Lea Valley, takes in Beckton in the west, Barking and South Dagenham, and Rainham in the east – here, a modern linear city is planned to be created, reinvigorating 30 km of neglected Thames frontage • the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC) was formally established on 26 June 2004, its Board appointed on 1 November 2004, and it became fully operational when planning powers were transferred to it in October 2005 • LTGDC covers parts of 5 east London Boroughs, 224 hectares of browfield land in its area and has the capacity for 40, 000 new homes and 28, 000 new jobs by 2016 • The UDC Quinquennial Review London Thames Gateway Development Corporation operates in two non-contiguous parts of East London: the Lower Lea Valley and London Riverside The success of the 2012 Games and Stratford City development will act as a driver for investment over the next 30 -40 years. 10
Canning Town Lea River Park Bromley b y Bow Olympic Arc London: the Lower Lea Valley The legacy of the 2012 Games will be felt throughout the region but nowhere more keenly than in the areas surrounding the Olympic Park. The huge investment in the 2012 Games and Stratford City development will have a positive and permanent impact on the surrounding areas of Hackney Wick, Fish Island, Stratford High Street and Stratford town centre, together with Leyton and Leytonstone. Bromley by Bow and Leaside benefit from a waterside and a heritage setting, hosting London’s largest film studios but although well connected by tube and bus, they remain areas of high deprivation, underused land poor physical environment. Further south down the River Lea, derelict sites and utilities lands dominate and obstruct a stunning waterside setting. The Lea River Park forms the southern leg of a green corridor of public parkland which will extend 26 miles from the Lee Valley Regional Park in Hertfordshire through the Olympic Legacy south to the River Thames at East India Dock Basin. It will be an accessible recreational amenity for local people with six fantastic new park areas linked by the Fatwalk - a linear riverside parkland route with six kilometres of footpaths, and cycle ways, new bridges and tow paths. ‘Canning Town and Custom House are the focal point of a multi-billion regeneration scheme to transform an area once identified as amongst the 10 per cent most deprived in the UK. LTGDC has been working with the LB of Newham to prepare the area for transformation through buying back leasehold interests, demolishing outdated and unused buildings in the area, supporting new homes for tenants, and funding a local information and public services centre’. The UDC Quinquennial Review 11
Riverside Parklands Rainham Village South Dagenham Barking Town London: Riverside Barking town centre is a priority for investment and new development; LTGDC is leading it’s revitalisation with projects that improve transport services, provide new retail and leisure facilities, create new space for cultural industries and secure new housing. By securing the regeneration of vacant and underused former industrial land south of the A 1306 a ‘new heart’ of mixed use development will be established for the area. At Dagenham Dock, the development of a Sustainable Industries Park incorporating the Institute for Sustainability, will transform this area into London’s premier location for green industries and technologies. Rainham’s historic village character is being enhanced by a series of projects identified by the LTGDC in partnership with the London Borough of Havering, with input from the Environment Agency, the National Trust and English Heritage. More activity is being brought to the village centre with new homes, improved transport interchange, a public square, places to eat and a library and learning centre. Across London Riverside LTGDC intends to provide a network of publicly accessible green spaces, open spaces and connections. The largest of these, the nature reserve at Rainham Marshes, is managed by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and provides 645 hectares (an area twice the size of Hampstead Heath) of park and wetlands. The aim is to incorporate new areas of land currently used for landfill to create London’s largest public park for over a century. The UDC Quinquennial Review 12
Thurrock • Situated just to the East of London, Thurrock comprises the urban settlements of : § § § • Aveley and South Ockendon to the west Stanford-le-Hope and Corringham to the east Purfleet, Grays, and Tilbury to the south as well as more rural settlements to the north Famous for Lakeside shopping centre, the borough is also home to several important industrial sites including Coryton Oil Refinery, Proctor & Gamble and the Port of Tilbury, and will be home to London Gateway • • The UDC Quinquennial Review Thurrock is also strategically positioned on several key transport corridors including: § the M 25 London orbital motorway § the A 13 arterial trunk road (London to south Essex) § fast passenger rail to London (from Purfleet 30 minutes) § freight from the South Essex ports cluster to the rest of the country The Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation (TTGDC) was established on 29 October 2003, its Board was appointed on 1 January 2004 and it became fully operational when planning powers were transferred to it on 12 October 2005. TTGDC’s projected wind-up date was extended in 2007 from 31 March 2011 to 2014. 13
Purfleet The Port of Tilbury is a major and long established employer in the Borough, and is likely to play a vital role as an entry port for materials and components for the 2012 Olympics. The redevelopment of Lakeside and West Thurrock will bolster its position as a regional retail and leisure destination. The Lakeside Shopping Centre and surrounding units already form the largest aggregation of retail floor space in Western Europe. Shell Haven Situated on the riverside, next to the M 25, Purfleet has a number of locational advantages which provided opportunities for significant development. Thurrock UDC created a dedicated public private investment vehicle named PRIDe (Purfleet Regeneration Investment and Development) to deliver the creation of a new centre for the community by enhancing local services and replacing current industrial uses with new sustainable housing provision and value-added employment opportunities. Tilbury Grays town is the biggest centre in Thurrock, but the towns centre’s viability was virtually decimated by the development on Lakeside in the 1990. Despite being disconnected from its waterfront, Grays’ location offered a number of advantages including rail and road connections with the rest of the Borough and the sub-region of South Essex. Lakeside Grays Thurrock: key areas In May 2007, planning permission was granted at the former Shellhaven site (a 1, 500 acre former oil refinery) to provide the largest deep-water port in Europe. The £ 2. 3 bn investment by DP World is the second largest ever inward investment into the UK. The new London Gateway port will also include one of Europe’s largest business and logistics parks. Its position beside the port provides an opportunity to establish an integrated supply chain with road, rail and sea connections. The UDC Quinquennial Review 14
West Northamptonshire • Part of the Milton Keynes South Midlands (MKSM) growth area, West Northamptonshire comprises 3 areas: • Northampton; • Daventry; and • Towcester Strategically located in the centre of the country: • at the southern edge of the East Midlands region, providing a bridge between North and South; • halfway between the UK’s two major cities, London and Birmingham; • at the heart of the Oxford to Cambridge arc; • on the key transport corridors of the M 1 and London to Birmingham rail link. • the West Northamptonshire Development Corporation (WNDC) was formally established on 15 December 2004, its Board appointed on 15 March 2005, and it became fully operational when planning powers were transferred to it on 6 April 2006. The UDC Quinquennial Review 15
Daventry The vision for Northampton is to transform it into a prosperous and dynamic regional city with a growing knowledge based economy. A "Development Framework for the Central Area" has been completed identifying major opportunities for redevelopment in the town centre. Northampton Waterside will deliver flood alleviation work, transport improvements, 2, 000 housing units and flagship commercial development safeguarding local jobs and paving the way for a new healthcare facility. Investment in road schemes in the South West District of the town will further open up development and improve the town's connectivity. A landmark development of the Castle Station is also planned to reflect the transformation from town to city Between now and 2021, Daventry’s population is planned to rise from just over 20, 000 to 40, 000. The opportunity to capitalise on this growth has never been greater. The new, revitalised Daventry will be able to maintain its historic charm whilst also emerging as a bustling town with much improved shopping facilities housed in modern, attractive centres. Road improvements, further retail outlets, car parking, a unique learning quarter and an innovation centre in support of sustainable construction technologies will also enhance the town. Transforming the infrastructure of Daventry will not just restore its character and energy, it will create thousands of new jobs and homes. Towcester Northampton West Northamptonshire – Key Areas Over the last 30 years the market town of Towcester has experienced significant levels of growth. In 1971 it had a population of less than 4, 000, today it is just under 9, 500 and by 2021 it will grow to 14, 000. The evolution of this beautiful locality must create significant areas public open space, new retail and commercial opportunities, new schools and connected but distinctive neighbourhoods. It will also need to enable the construction of a much needed bypass that will help Towcester town centre improve its air quality through a reduction in traffic congestion. The UDC Quinquennial Review 16
3. How have the UDCs performed?
Approach Taken The ‘performance’ of each Development Corporation has been considered in a number of ways: Ø Have the UDCs achieved the delivery targets set for them? Ø What difference has their activity made to their localities? Ø Have they gone about their work in a way that fosters effective engagement and builds capacity? The UDC Quinquennial Review 18
Challenges in Assessing Performance There were several challenges in assessing performance which were considered throughout the review: ØUDCs have been in existence a relatively limited time ØThe difficulty of establishing what might have happened anyway in each locality and so what difference the UDCs have made ØThe difficulty in benchmarking targets and measuring consistent outputs across the UDCs Therefore, the performance review takes a broad approach to assessment, and reached some general conclusions based upon available information. The review draws upon material in the UDCs’ own business plans and reports, any independent evaluations that they have commissioned, the results of the public consultation on the Quinquennial Review and the knowledge of the Government Offices in each region. The UDC Quinquennial Review 19
London The UDC has set itself specific delivery targets to be achieved by 2016, although those in its latest (2008 -11) Corporate Plan have had to be revised to take into account the effects of the recession, with the full benefits from some projects not now expected to materialise until after 2016. The changes are felt particularly in relation to housing and job outcomes: LTGDC delivery targets (to 2016) Corporate Plan 2008 Revised (April 2009) -11 Variance Housing (units) 8, 200 5, 260 - 2, 940 Jobs (number) 7, 900 5, 285 - 2, 615 1, 800, 000 1, 619, 252 - 180, 748 73 63 - 10 Commercial floorspace (m 2) 225, 000 289, 675 + 64, 675 Green / open space (m 2) 371, 500 310, 306 - 61, 194 Private investment (£ 000) Brownfield land (ha) Source: LTGDC. Note that these totals reflect both direct and indirect benefits. The UDC Quinquennial Review 20
London – Outputs delivered Plans and Strategies Soon after its establishment, LTGDC completed regeneration frameworks, together with costed delivery plans, in partnership with the Greater London Authority (GLA) family and the local councils for both the Lower Lea Valley and London Riverside. While not a plan making body the UDC has worked actively with the boroughs to produce various Local Development Framework documents, such as an Area Action Plan (AAP) for Barking Town Centre, (an AAP for Stratford and the Lower Lea Valley) and a Land Use and Design Brief for Bromley by Bow. It has also published a coherent transport vision for the area, and commissioned a prospectus for investors prior to the economic downturn. Land Acquisition LTGDC was established without a land asset base and consequently over 50% of spend to date has been directed at land assembly. Approximately 30 hectares of land has been acquired for redevelopment sinception and the terms have been agreed to acquire a further 105 hectares [Regenerating East London: A Report on Progress & Future Activities (LTGDC, 2009)]. While progress is being made with this programme, the biggest advances have been achieved where the key land owner has been the local authority, for example in the London Borough of Newham on the Canning Town and Custom House Regeneration Programme. Compulsory purchase powers are likely to be required to support the majority of future land acquisition. In the four quarters of January to December 2009, 50% were determined within 13 weeks and if applications decided within agreed PPAs are included, the figure is 62%. It should also be noted that the Corporation’s thresholds for deciding applications are well above the definition of Major Cases. Planning Performance LTGDC became the decision making body for all major planning applications in its area in October 2005. Much of the work involved in processing those applications has in practice been carried out by the five London Boroughs within its area through a Planning Service Agreement. The complex (and often controversial) nature of schemes falling within the Corporation’s remit, and some capacity problems in the Boroughs, have affected its decision-making performance relative to national targets. [Quinquennial Review – Planning Workstream paper] In 2008 the Corporation negotiated revisions to the Planning Services Agreement, tailoring the approach to the particular circumstances of each Borough. It has also promoted greater use of Planning Performance Agreements to assist the effectiveness of major case handling, and it managed to determine 43% of major cases within 12 weeks in 2008 -09 (still below the national average of 71%, although the indications are that the Corporations is managing to improve this position further). [Ibid] By August this year LTGDC had granted consent for over 9, 500 residential units (including 2, 275 affordable units) and commercial developments that could generate over 9, 5000 jobs. The Corporation has also sought to streamline the approach to negotiating financial contributions to infrastructure provision by introducing a standard charge approach for residential schemes. [Planning Obligations Community Benefit Strategy (LTGDC, 2008)] To date LTGDC has agreed more that £ 60 m of contributions to infrastructure [Regenerating East London: A Report on Progress & Future Activities (LTGDC, 2009)]. By the end of December 2009, 11, 100 residential units were agreed , of which 2900 are affordable and 13, 000 ( not 9, 5000) jobs ‘created’. The UDC Quinquennial Review 21
London – Progress in key locations (i) The Corporation has taken steps towards realising its ambitions in all of its eight priority locations, although inevitably master planning and land acquisition have featured prominently in the work undertaken to date, given the limited amount of time that LTGDC has been in operation. [Much of the material in this section is taken from Regenerating East London: A Report on Progress & Future Activities (LTGDC, 2009)] In the Lower Lea Valley the proposals in a new master plan for Canning Town and Customs House are being taken forward through a programme of land acquisition and clearance, while the Corporation has also made funds available for helping to relocate displaced council tenants and provide temporary community facilities. LTGDC also led the work to secure £ 18 m of Community Infrastructure Funding and the subsequent planning approval for the removal of the A 13 roundabout at Canning Town and the remodelling of the traffic layout to improve pedestrian connections. A developer consortium led by Bouygues UK has been selected to develop the town centre. LTGDC is implementing the Land Use and Design Brief in Bromley by Bow, negotiating land assembly and utilising CPO powers where necessary. Nearby around the Olympic Park, LTGDC is ensuring effective integration between Park and fringe areas by planning and implementing enhanced connections and public realm, and negotiating to bring sites forward for development aimed at maximising the opportunities for local communities after the Games. LTGDC has also funded the creating of an inward investment and marketing suite overlooking the Olympic Park and the Lower Lea Valley, as well as contributing to a visitor and community centre. A key component of LTGDC’s plans for the Lower Lea Valley is its aspiration to extend the Lea Valley Regional Park southwards. To this end the Corporation has developed a vision for a Lea River Park with new parkland, walkways and bridges along the Lower Lea from the Olympic Park to the river Thames, which it is now implementing. The Corporation was a key partner in delivering the £ 24 m Prescott Lock which enables the Lea River to support leisure activities and allow commercial water freight to service the construction of the Olympic venues. The UDC Quinquennial Review 22
London – Progress in key locations (ii) In the London Riverside area particular activity has been focused on transforming Barking town centre and riverside. Again, master plans and briefs have been used to both identify opportunities and guide land assembly, and tangible progress has been seen in the delivery of the award winning Town Square redevelopment (where LTGDC worked in partnership with the Borough). Progress is also being made towards delivering a new cultural quarter, including refurbishment by LTGDC of the historic Malthouse which is now occupied by a range of art and design companies. In June this year the Corporation granted detailed planning permission for the first two stages of development at Barking Riverside, comprising 3, 300 homes, a primary and a secondary school, neighbourhood centre and community facilities (part of what could eventually be a new community of 26, 000 people). In Dagenham the Corporation has been instrumental in assembling over 40 acres of land for the first phase of the London Sustainable Industries Park (SIP). The first occupier, Closed Loop Recycling, opened in June 2008. Terms have been agreed that should see a 20, 000 m 2 energy-from-waste facility under construction by summer 2010. LTGDC also led work on a master plan for South Dagenham and Chequers Corner which identifies potential for up to 3000 new homes together with a new school. The Corporation acquired the former Dagenham Motors showroom to assist in bringing this proposal forward. LTGDC is also working to deliver a headquarters for the recently established Institute for Sustainability on a 0. 75 ha. Site south of Choats Road. To the East, the Corporation has used its land acquisition and grant funding powers to help secure improved communities facilities in Rainham, including land premises to enable the expansion of Havering College. At Rainham Mashes LTGDC’s financial support helped to fund the new visitor centre, a ‘marshland discovery zone’ and new paths and bridges opening up the area to local people and visitors. The UDC Quinquennial Review 23
London – Wider Outcomes (It is difficult at this stage) It is to early to gauge the overall extent to which the Corporations’ work is delivering tangible benefits for East London, especially in terms of housing, jobs and commercial investment. While planning consents that should deliver substantial amounts of regeneration have been granted, (some of these were inherited from the Boroughs) while the recession is clearly affecting the speed with which permissions will be implemented as well as the delivery of some infrastructure schemes. This impact is felt in the changes to the delivery targets that LTGDC has agreed with CLG (see table above). Nonetheless the proactive role taken by the Corporation has undoubtedly had some impact in terms of keeping schemes on track and improving outcomes, for example through its significant capital investment in the Canning Town and Custom House Regeneration, its continuing support for Barking, Environmental Technologies at Dagenham and Rainham, and promotion of family sized housing (compared to the position had the Corporation not existed). Outcomes continued to be delivered in 2008 -9, albeit that some of these will reflect schemes initiated prior to the downturn: More generally the very existence of the Corporation, its role in developing new and coherent visions for the area, and work that it has undertaken with Gateway to London, Think London and Invest Thames Gateway to promote the area to investors, means there is evidence to suggest it has played a role in helping to support the area’s economy. It is notable that the relative economic decline of the Lower Lea Valley and London Riverside has not accelerated further over the past few years (relative to other parts of London) [London Thames Gateway Development Corporation – Mid-term Review and Evaluation (presentation by Regeneris Consulting and Rocket Science, September 2009)], although this ‘convergence’ is seen against the backdrop of the recession and its impact across the city, so caution needs to be exercised in the extent to which this can be attributed to the work of LTGDC. Alongside its work in promoting development and investment, the Corporation has developed a significant education and skills programme, recognising that this is vital in making the area an attractive place to live and in raising its economic performance. [Building a Better Future 2008/9: Education in the London Thames Gateway (LTGDC, 2009)] LTGDC has contributed £ 6 million of capital to boost the Government’s Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme and an additional £ 2 million of revenue funding to enhance the academic standards and increase employment potential at a number of local schools. It has also supported investment in FE/HE provision and research, including a Construction Skills Training Centre at Havering College, the National Skills Academy for Financial Services and a planned research centre at the London Sustainable Industries Park at Dagenham Dock. The UDC Quinquennial Review 24
London – Progress Against Key Performance Targets LTGDC delivery measures Estimated indirect benefits by 2016 # Actual outputs 2008 -9 Housing (units) 173 4, 300 Jobs (new or safeguarded) 107 950 Private investment (£ 000) 24, 000 150, 000 2. 3 11 Commercial floorspace (m 2) 6. 500 sq. m 44, 000 Green / open space (m 2) 2, 877, 650 24, 000 Brownfield land (ha) Source: LTGDC 2008 -9 Annual Report and Accounts. # Outcomes anticipated in future as a result of investment made in 2008 -9. The UDC Quinquennial Review 25
London – Building Relationships and Capacity The Development Corporation operates in an area characterised by a complex administrative geography. This operating context, and the extent of its powers, means that effective partnership working is vital for developing the capacity of the area to deliver change, and for achieving results on the ground. LTGDC has been able to bring an area traditionally not known for working closely together into a much more focused sub-regional approach to investment and regeneration, and brought particular skills and experience to bear in helping to drive renewal. Relationships with the six London Boroughs have varied and been dependent on the scale of opportunity, investment and spatial relevance to each place, although in all cases the relationships have improved over time and have allowed for much more effective cross boundary working. Of the £ 133. 5 million of capital invested by LTGDC up to 31 st March this year, it is notable that 40% was made through grant funding, the majority of it to the Boroughs. [Regenerating East London: A Report on Progress & Future Activities (LTGDC, 2009)] The Corporation has also maintained effective relationships with both commercial and residential developers, in particular through: Ensuring that developers (and other public sector partners) are aware of and respond to the wider regeneration goals for each place; Using (or threatening to use) their statutory powers to ensure that sites are assembled in an appropriate way; and Acting as a arbiter between the Boroughs, landowners and developers, for example in relation to Canning Town and Barking. There is evidence from stakeholder feedback that the Corporation has gained a reputation for being an important and effective catalyst in driving regeneration in this part of East London, and that its intervention has initiated or enabled continued progress with a number of key projects. [London Thames Gateway Development Corporation – Mid-term Review and Evaluation (presentation by Regeneris Consulting and Rocket Science, September 2009)] The UDC Quinquennial Review 26
Conclusions for London’s Performance The work of London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC) has focused on delivering regeneration in eight priority locations within its two broad areas of operation (the Lower Lea Valley and London Riverside). There is evidence that the London Thames Gateway area has suffered less than other areas in the recession and is forecast to come out if it more strongly (i. e. earlier and faster) than elsewhere (Experian 2009). This, some observers believe, is due to the maintained public sector investment and leadership/co-ordination during the last 2 -3 years. It has succeeded in creating coherent visions for these areas, as well as in making some progress on the ground, though more so in some locations than others. There has been significant investment in land acquisition to help facilitate change, although most progress has been made where the key landowner has been the local authority, and compulsory purchase powers are likely to be required more frequently in future. While planning consents that should deliver substantial amounts of regeneration have been granted, (some of these were inherited from the Boroughs, ) and the recession is (inevitably) affecting the speed with which these will be implemented. Overall it is too early to judge what impact the work of the Corporation itself will have in delivering wider outcomes in East London, especially in terms of housing, jobs and commercial investment. It has however brought a more focused and coherent sub-regional approach to investment and regeneration, in an area where this has been lacking in the past, and has been an important catalyst for some major regeneration projects. In doing this the Corporation has developed effective partnerships with key development interests, improved its relationships with the Boroughs and also invested heavily in local communities through its education and skills programme. The UDC Quinquennial Review 27
Thurrock The Corporation identified nine broad Strategic Goals to guide its strategic direction and investment decisions. These goals were developed through the production of its (initial) Regeneration Framework [Transforming and Revitalising Thurrock: A Framework for Regeneration and Sustainable Growth (TTGDC, 2005)], and have featured consistently in its Medium-Term Strategies, Corporate Plans and Annual Reports: • • • Contribute to the provision of sufficient capacity to meet strategic growth targets, including 26, 000 new jobs and 18, 500 new homes in a sustainable way by 2021; Increase participation and attainment in life long education and skills development; Create a wide range of jobs with a future; Increase the choice and quality of housing provision for everyone; Provide modern community infrastructure and service delivery; Enhance the quality and use of valuable green space; Increase opportunities for entertainment, leisure and culture; Ensure that all parts of Thurrock are accessible to, from and within the borough; and Ensure that development and regeneration take place in an environmentally sensitive way. In spatial terms the Corporation also identified five ‘economic hubs’ with the greatest potential to drive Thurrock’s regeneration, and on which it would focus its interventions. These have also been consistent features of the Corporation’s strategy: • Shellhaven (London Gateway port and logistics park) • Tilbury (expansion of existing port facilities) • Lakeside / West Thurrock (expansion of existing retail and leisure offer) • Grays (town centre and waterfront regeneration, including enhanced education and health facilities) • Purfleet (mixed business, community and residential development) Although the Regeneration Framework identified a wide range of potential indicators for monitoring progress, in practice as required by CLG only a small number of ‘key performance indicators’ were adopted covering housing delivery, job generation and investment [2 Year Corporate Plan 2006/07 - 2007/08 (TTGDC, 2006)]. However, TTGDC has reported regularly to HCA on a broader range of KPIs. Targets for handling planning applications were also adopted, in line with those applying to local planning authorities nationally. The UDC Quinquennial Review 28
Thurrock – Outputs Delivered (i) Plans and strategies Although Thurrock Development Corporation was not granted statutory plan-making powers, one the key objectives of the newlyestablished Corporation – and something that many partners regard as a key achievement – was to produce an up-to-date policy framework to guide regeneration and investment activity. This was to address what was seen as a significant ‘policy void’ as the statutory planning framework for the borough was out-of-date [Thurrock Thames Gateway Independent Narrative & Stakeholder Interview Feedback Paper (Shared Intelligence, 2009)]. The Corporation addressed this by commissioning an overarching Regeneration Framework (published in 2005), a Spatial Plan (2007) to translate these principles into broad locational proposals, and a series of master plans for key parts of Thurrock setting out detailed proposals for change. Six (FIVE) master plans have been published to date (for Purfleet, Grays Town Centre, Aveley & South Ockendon, East Thurrock, South East Thurrock and Lakeside Basin & West Thurrock), with one further plan – for North Grays – in preparation. Against a background of continuing delays in preparing Thurrock’s Core Strategy (partly as a result of the review of the RSS concerning Lakeside Basin), this series of documents has articulated a clear and accessible set of spatial proposals for the borough. Their production has, however, created some tensions and confusion over roles and responsibilities, and the Corporation lobbied hard for the plans to be given formal status as material planning considerations by CLG, despite the fact that they had not been subject to independent examination – something that the Department resisted. However, on appeal they have been found to have some weight. [Ibid] Alongside these land-use proposals, the Corporation has commissioned and/or co-funded a suite of documents to guide work on delivering wider economic and community outcomes: an Economic Development Strategy, Sports and Active Recreation Facilities Strategy, Community Education and Workforce Development Strategy and a Planning Obligations Strategy. The UDC Quinquennial Review 29
Thurrock – Outputs Delivered (ii) Land acquisition The Corporation regards land acquisition as vital to its prospects for driving regeneration in Thurrock, especially as it did not inherit any land or property assets to work with. Its first strategic acquisition was completed in March 2006 ][TTGDC Annual Report and Accounts 2005 -06] and over 90 acres had been purchased by July this year, with a further 92 acres in prospect through option agreements or the PRIDe special purpose vehicle [TTGDC Annual Report and Accounts 2008 -09]. The latter – the Purfleet Regeneration Investment and Development project – is a public-private investment vehicle, through which the Corporation’s assets will be used to help lever increased private sector funding to create a new centre for Purfleet [Ibid]. Planning performance The Corporation gained strategic development control powers on 12 th October 2005. By July 2009 it had determined over 200 applications, involving over 1, 500 housing units and what the Corporation estimates to be potential for 4, 200 jobs on completion. Alongside this approximately £ 1. 6 million in S. 106 contributions for local infrastructure has been negotiated Ibid]. The Corporation estimates that it has determined over half the major applications that have come before it since 2005 within 13 weeks. This is below the national average of 71%, although the nature and complexity of the cases (some of which were inherited from Thurrock Council) needs to be considered when interpreting this figure [Quinquennial Review – Planning Workstream paper]. In addition since the economic downturn, developers have been reluctant to sign Section 106 Planning Obligations agreements further delaying the issuing of planning permissions. Until recently the administrative work on planning applications had been carried out by Thurrock Council through a Service Level Agreement, but the Corporation felt that this had also contributed to delays and so acted to bring the whole process in-house from April 2009. Progress in key locations Much of the Corporation’s work to date has focused on creating the conditions for sustained regeneration, through its master planning and land acquisition programmes. In addition funding received from CLG during the period was well below the amount the Corporation sought and needed to make good progress. This means that signs of progress on the ground are limited, although more has been achieved in some of the ‘economic hubs’ than in others: The site of the former Shellhaven oil refinery in east Thurrock has outline planning consent for a major deep-water container port and logistics/business park (London Gateway), granted by the Secretaries of State in 2007. Implementation has been delayed while the scheme’s promoters – Dubai Ports World (DPW) – have been reviewing their global investment plans in the light of the economic downturn. The Development Corporation has been playing its part in discussions between DPW and the public sector about ways in which the up-front infrastructure costs associated with the scheme can be lessened to improve its prospects of delivery. Also pre-development conditions and submissions have been processed promptly. The UDC Quinquennial Review 30
Thurrock – Outputs Delivered (iii) Progress in key locations cont… The Corporation has published its master plan for South East Thurrock which includes proposals for expansion of Tilbury port. Proposals for the Lakeside Basin have also experienced some delay, due to the Secretary of State’s decision to request a single-issue review of the Regional Spatial Strategy to assess the scale of retail and leisure development that might be appropriate (due to be completed by the end of 2009). The Corporation pressed ahead with adoption of its master plan for the Basin as the RSS review got underway Lakeside-West Thurrock Master Plan (TTGDC, 2008)], so this may need to be revised depending upon the review’s findings. At South Stifford, to the south of the Basin, the Corporation has prepared a development framework and acquired a number of sites to promote residential and community development [TTGDC web site]. Tangible progress at Grays has been seen in the provision of temporary FE facilities (forerunner of a planned Thurrock Learning Campus) that the Corporation has helped to fund, while work continues to secure a site and funding for a permanent facility (progress with which has been hampered by the funding problems at the Learning & Skills Council) TTGDC Annual Report and Accounts 2008 -09]. Other land is being assembled by the Corporation to enable provision of a new community hospital in Grays and to enable the redevelopment of Grays waterfront, including a new marina (although the latter has been strongly opposed by Thurrock Council). Some of the Corporation’s most significant achievements are at Purfleet, where it secured a significant investment by the Royal Opera House in creating a state-of-the art production park, work on which began in June 2009. As well as facilities for the ROH itself, the production park will include linked community and business facilities, and a planned National Skills Academy for Creative & Cultural Skills. The Corporation created a new subsidiary company (High House Production Park Ltd) to be the landowner for the Production Park, and has undertaken much of the initial infrastructure work on the site. The Corporation has also been engaged in an ambitious site acquisition programme elsewhere in Purfleet to help deliver the proposals in the Purfleet Master Plan, and which now forms the focus of the PRIDe initiative [Ibid]. The UDC Quinquennial Review 31
Thurrock – Wider Outcomes Given the limited operational lifespan of Thurrock Development Corporation to date, and the emphasis that the Corporation has placed on master planning and land assembly as prerequisites for delivery, it is too early to judge the extent to which the Corporation’s work will bring long-term and lasting benefits for Thurrock. Improvements in the range and quality of housing available, employment prospects, skill levels and the quality of Thurrock’s environment will take time to realise, and the recession is likely to hinder the pace at which these changes can be achieved [TTGDC Corporate Plan 2008 -11]. The Corporation has reported progress in its Corporate Plans and Annual Reports against the two key performance indicators that were requested by CLG: the dwelling numbers, and job-generating potential, of planning consents given and direct interventions by the Corporation. Estimates of the investment attracted to date have been supplied direct by TTGDC. In addition the Corporation has reported regularly to HCA on a broader range of Key Performance Indicators. It will be some years before the planning consents reflected in this table are fully implemented and translate into real homes and jobs, although the Corporation’s role in actively looking to assemble sites, attract investment and encourage proposals is likely to have had some impact on the extent and/or speed with which these schemes have come forward (over and above what would have happened in Thurrock anyway). While it is likely that some of the public and private sector investment reflected in this table would have happened anyway, much such as the Royal Opera House investment occurred because of the Corporation’s activities. In support of this, (anecdotal) evidence – from a survey of key stakeholders conducted for the Corporation – suggests that the Corporation’s main achievements to date are its driving roles in creating a new vision for Thurrock, in attracting increased investor interest and resources, and in bringing an increased focus and capacity to bear in project delivery (all of which contrasts with perceived weaknesses in these areas in Thurrock previously) [Thurrock Thames Gateway Independent Narrative & Stakeholder Interview Feedback Paper (Shared Intelligence, 2009)] The UDC Quinquennial Review 32
Thurrock: Progress against key performance targets: Thurrock DC Target (2006 -11) Achieved (to 2008 -9) Dwellings 4, 020 1, 500 Jobs 4, 900 3, 800 Private sector investment attracted £ 153 m £ 69 m Public sector investment attracted £ 121 m £ 71 m Source: TTGDC Targets for 2006 -11 are amalgamated from 2006 -8 and 2008 -11 Corporate Plan periods The UDC Quinquennial Review 33
Thurrock – Building Relationships and Capacity From the outset the Corporation was keen to emphasise the importance of building partnerships with other agencies and the wider community in Thurrock in order to realise its ambitions [e. g. TTGDC Annual Report and Accounts 2004 -5]. Early on in its life the Corporation joined the Board of the Local Strategic Partnership, and has remained an active member. It is the lead partner for taking forward joint work on three of the priority indicators in Thurrock’s Local Area Agreement, and a contributing partner for 11 others. It has also forged strong links with other bodies involved in seeking to improve the wellbeing of Thurrock’s communities, including the Primary Care Trust and the Learning & Skills Council. As well as fostering relationships with the other key agencies working in Thurrock, the Corporation has taken a proactive approach to engaging the wider community. It developed a programme of public exhibitions, workshops and tailored seminars to meet the needs of different groups and localities, in particular as it took forward its programme of master plans and development briefs. It has also used its resources to support a wide range of community organisations and invest in new community facilities. A Community Development Fund for small scale voluntary and community sector projects was established during 2006 -7, and has made awards totalling nearly £ 600, 000 (which in turn, is estimated to have levered around £ 1 m of additional funding either directly or indirectly) [Source: TTGDC Annual Reports]. This money has gone to a variety of causes that will help regenerate the area such as leisure activities, community premises improvements and environmental projects. Other awards have been used to support larger projects, including improvements to Thurrock’s cycle network, Corringham Fire Station Community Safety Centre, temporary FE facilities in Grays, the RSPB Visitor Centre at Rainham Marshes and West Thurrock Civic Amenity Site. Nevertheless, the Corporation’s engagement has not always been as clear or as constructive as it could have been. The recent stakeholder survey points to the need for the Corporation to communicate its role (and how it relates to that of partners) more clearly, and to be more responsive in addressing community concerns [Thurrock Thames Gateway Independent Narrative & Stakeholder Interview Feedback Paper (Shared Intelligence, 2009)]. Many consultation documents have not, for example, explained the links to the Council’s planning work, or been clear about how the Corporation will realise its ambitions and involve the community. The Corporation’s latest Annual Report does however recognise the need for it to enhance its communication effort. A major factor which has inhibited the Corporation’s overall effectiveness in strengthening capacity within Thurrock has been a history of poor relations with Thurrock Council [ibid]. This has been more at a political level than an operational one, and surfaced particularly in relation to certain master plan proposals and planning applications, although there has also been some friction over service delivery. At the start of April 2009 the Corporation terminated its service level agreement with the Council, under which the latter had provided administrative support for the Corporation’s development control work. Relations have however improved considerably since then, and this was given further impetus by the appointment of a new Council Leader in March this year. The UDC Quinquennial Review 34
Conclusions for Thurrock’s Performance From its inception, Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation has set out a clear strategy for Thurrock which focuses on delivering transformational change in five key locations. It has consistently pursued this strategy and the underlying target it was set of delivering 18, 500 homes and 26, 000 jobs by 2021. Particular key projects such as the development of the Royal Opera House Production Park in Purfleet, are now well underway and promise to transform not just the business landscape but the community. The Corporation has sought to work in partnership, and has supported a wide range of community groups and projects. As it moved into active delivery phase during 2009, it has intensified engagement with local business and launched a number of well-received marketing and communications initiatives including the skills challenge supported by CLG, Thurrock’s Next Top Boss, a refreshed website aimed at business and the community and an informative and widely-read bi-monthly publication. Improvement at the Council and team work has resulted in a much stronger, mutually consultative relationships and joint working has been established in a number of key areas, such as economic development. The UDC Quinquennial Review 35
WNDC - Objectives Mission – to promote and deliver the sustainable regeneration and growth of West Northamptonshire, within the context of the national policy set out in the Sustainable Communities Plan, the plans for the wider Milton Keynes and South Midlands sub-region, and for the East Midlands as a whole”[1]. Corporate Plan objectives[2]: • Delivering sustainable growth and infrastructure that enables housing growth; • Ensuring new development meets design and environmental quality standards and is integrated with existing communities; and • Ensuring new development is supported by appropriate infrastructure, employment and town centre regeneration; which developed in more specific terms through the Corporation’s spatial vision, which is to see Northampton “transformed from market town to a prosperous and dynamic regional city”, while Daventry and Towcester will be consolidated as distinctive market towns[3]. To deliver this change WNDC’s activities are focused on[4]: Northampton Town Centre improvements, particularly: - redevelopment of Castle Station and Greyfriars retail centre; - transport improvements, including the Plough junction; -Waterside, including Avon/Nunn Mills/Ransome Road sites; South West Northampton - transport and green infrastructure, community facilities, and greater utilities capacity; North West Northampton - highway improvements are required. Daventry Town centre improvements including the new Abbey Retail Park and the i. Con centre for sustainable construction. Towcester Town centre improvements including redevelopment of Moat Lane area, plus provision of a bypass to the A 5. Key Performance Indicators have been used in WNDC’s business plans, and these were supported during 2008/9 and 2009/10 by performance monitoring measures agreed directly between WNDC and CLG. These related to progress in delivering housing and key investment projects, and the level of revenue support made available by the Department was made partly conditional upon their achievement. Targets for handling planning applications also applied. These performance measures have since been removed. [1] WNDC Prospectus Consultation ‘Realising the Opportunity’ (ODPM, 2006); [2] WNDC Corporate Plan 2008 -2011; [3] Ibid; [4] Source: WNDC Business Plans. The UDC Quinquennial Review 36
WNDC – Outputs delivered (i) Plans and strategies • While WNDC is not a plan-making authority, the absence of up-to-date development plans for its areas of operation has been a difficulty for the Corporation in bringing forward and considering planning applications[1]. Partly to address this deficit WNDC has sought to drive or coordinate work on infrastructure needs in key locations, notably an infrastructure strategy for Daventry developed during 2007 -8. • The Corporation also devised a more open and transparent infrastructure prioritisation framework as part of a refreshed ‘Programme of Development’ submitted to CLG in 2008 (as a basis for growth funding awards). It is also working to finalise an Infrastructure Plan to sit alongside the emerging Joint Core Strategy being prepared by the West Northamptonshire Joint Planning Committee. In addition WNDC published a Planning Obligations Strategy (also in 2008), which has helped to lever increased contributions from development (see below). • Another area of focus has been promoting quality development. WNDC has produced a statement of ‘Planning Principles’ to set out both its own performance standards and its quality expectations in handling planning applications. It has pursued the use of design codes on all major developments, and is preparing a Manual for Design Codes to support this drive. • The Corporation has also contributed to broader studies in support of Core Strategy production affecting its area, including the West Northants Water Cycle Study and a draft Economic Action Plan for the county. [1] WNDC Corporate Plan 2008 -11 The UDC Quinquennial Review 37
WNDC – Outputs delivered (ii) Planning performance • Development control powers were given to WNDC only in April 2006, and for the rest of that year the development control service was provided through service level agreements with the councils. With the volume of planning applications increasing, WNDC brought the service in-house from the start of January 2007. • The Corporation caseload is dominated by major applications, and it has given approval for schemes involving around 5, 000 new homes and 400, 000 m 2 of commercial development. Over £ 21 m in s. 106 contributions for local infrastructure has been negotiated, with over £ 12 m agreed in 2008 -9 despite the effects of the economic downturn [1]. The Corporation’s Planning Obligations Strategy has introduced a standard charge approach, which it estimates has increased the amount secured per house from a few thousand pounds to around £ 20, 000 [2]. • Initially WNDC struggled to deliver planning decisions within target, particularly in relation to major applications. Performance has improved since, and the Corporation is now processing about 40% of major applications within 13 weeks[3] – still low compared to the national target of 70%, but as with the other UDC areas not directly comparable with other planning authorities due to the particular characteristics of the Corporation’s caseload. The Corporation has also had to deal with an inherited backlog of applications, as well as the responsibility of determining almost all planning applications in central Northampton which has diverted resources from other priorities [1] WNDC Business Plan 2009 -10; [2] WNDC Quinquennial Review Response, September 2009; [3] Quinquennial Review – Planning Workstream paper The UDC Quinquennial Review 38
WNDC - Progress in key locations • WNDC was established later than Thurrock and London UDCs, so inevitably much of the main progress to date has been in developing studies and using funding to identify and enable projects to come forward. • Nonetheless the new performance targets agreed with CLG for the current Comprehensive Spending Review period did reflect government concerns (and those of stakeholders in the area [1] ) about the pace of progress, particularly in delivering some key infrastructure projects. Since this regime was introduced the Corporation has managed to meet all except one of its agreed targets for project delivery in 2008 -9, and all those for 2009 -10. • The majority of outputs on the ground have been in Northampton, where WNDC funding has helped to secure completion of the Cross Valley Link Road and progress with the Sandy Lane Relief Road, both of which will help to facilitate planned expansion to the south-west of the town. The Corporation has also contributed to flood mitigation works at Upton and public realm improvements in the town centre and waterside area. In addition, they have supported three major culture/leisure facilities (the refurbishment of the Royal and Derngate Theatre, new visitor facilities at 82 Derngate, and the creation of an arts facility at the former home of Northampton’s Fishmarket in the town centre)[2]. • In Daventry the Corporation’s involvement in securing land and/or funding is aimed at bringing forward improved community and business facilities, notably the i. Con (a flagship centre for training in sustainable construction), while in Towcester most activity has been focused on strategic land acquisition in the Moat Lane area to help implement the plans for its regeneration [1] Senior Stakeholder Engagement – Qualitative Research Conducted on Behalf of West Northamptonshire Development Corporation (Ipsos MORI, 2009); [2] Source: WNDC Business Plans The UDC Quinquennial Review 39
WNDC – Wider Outcomes • As in the other areas being examined as part of this review, it is premature to judge the extent to which the Corporation’s activities to date will deliver lasting benefits in West Northamptonshire. At this early stage of the Corporation’s work, judgements have to be based on the types of activity underway, the extent to which they can reasonably be expected to foster wider improvements and stakeholder perceptions of achievements and benefits. • A limited survey of key stakeholders commissioned by WNDC suggests that its broad vision and objectives are seen as appropriate in seeking to drive forward regeneration and growth in the area, though with some criticising the Corporation for focusing too much on handling major planning proposals rather than exercising its wider powers to secure delivery. This must, however, be seen in the context of the major schemes that the Corporation is responsible for determining and which should – eventually – deliver the majority of growth currently planned for the area. The Corporation has either dealt, or is dealing with, planning applications for at least 30, 000 homes[1] • In terms of infrastructure provision, WNDC’s own estimate is that the £ 60 m of government funding that it has invested to date (along with £ 32 m of central, regional and European funding secured for the 2009 -11 period), has levered nearly £ 140 m of additional investment from the public and private sector into Northampton, Daventry and Towcester[2]. [1] WNDC Corporate Plan 2008 -11; [2] Source: Urban Development Corporations Quinquennial Review: Consultation (CLG, 2009) The UDC Quinquennial Review 40
WNDC – Building Relationships and Capacity • Effective partnership working has been mixed. When WNDC was created it did would have benefited from better stakeholder support [1]. This contributed to some poor relationships and negative perceptions developing, both in the local press and in the Corporation’s working links with some key agencies. This situation was not helped by the sometimes strained relations between the local authorities in the area. • At the same time the Corporation does have a history of working successfully with some other agencies, notably English Partnerships, with whom they delivered projects such as the Upton Flood attenuation works, the Sandy Lane Relief Road and are now (with the HCA, the successor body to EP) working on the Northampton South West and Waterside areas. • Partnership and wider stakeholder relations have also begun to improve more generally[2]. The new Chairman, interim Chief Executive and new Chief Executive have all made efforts to build stronger relationships with key partners, and leading Members from all three councils in WNDC’s area now sit on its Board. • As part of the work to develop a refreshed Programme of Development up to October 2008, WNDC established a more transparent and open infrastructure project prioritisation system for growth funding, which also helped to foster more joined up working between the Corporation and the local authorities. • WNDC is also focusing more of its effort on engaging with – and addressing the needs of – the local communities in its area. Construction Futures, developed in partnership with Northamptonshire Enterprise Limited and the Learning and Skills Council using developer contributions, enables young people to receive practical construction skills training on new developments alongside college programmes. This is the only scheme of its kind in the UK and has gained academy status. • WNDC has also funded new community facilities at the Kings Park Youth and Conference Centre, and has launched a Stronger Communities Fund with a £ 750 k pledge. This benefits not-for-profit groups, with support ranging from new sports facilities at the Northampton Sikh Community Centre to the provision of a new minibus for Daventry-based community groups. [1] Ibid; [2] Senior Stakeholder Engagement – Qualitative Research Conducted on Behalf of West Northamptonshire Development Corporation (Ipsos MORI, 2009) The UDC Quinquennial Review 41
Conclusions for WNDC’s Performance • The remit and objectives of West Northamptonshire Development Corporation (WNDC) have focused on the challenge of delivering high levels of growth in a sustainable manner, and supported by appropriate investment in infrastructure, employment and town centre regeneration. • The Development Corporation has been operating for a limited period (and has had certain planning powers for just three years), making it difficult to judge its effectiveness at this early stage. • Nevertheless there have been concerns about the pace of progress (particularly in delivering some key infrastructure projects and processing major planning applications), prompting CLG to agree new performance targets with the Corporation. • WNDC’s early life was also characterised by ineffective engagement with some stakeholders, although some good partnerships were forged with particular agencies involved in delivering key projects. • Operational performance and stakeholder relations have improved more recently, with the organisation hitting more of its targets and engaging more proactively with local councils and the wider community. • While performance in the speed of processing major planning applications remains poor compared to national targets, this needs to be set against the complexity of many of these proposals and an inherited backlog of applications (as well as its responsibility for determining almost all applications in central Northampton). • The Corporation has put in place more transparent and prioritised approaches to planning for infrastructure and capturing developer contributions, as well as promoting quality standards for new development. • Most delivery on the ground has been in Northampton, although some key schemes in Daventry and Towcester have also been progressed. More significant is the delivery potential of the schemes given consent by the Corporation, or currently in the pipeline (WNDC has either dealt, or is dealing with, applications for at least 30, 000 homes). The UDC Quinquennial Review 42
4. The Changing Context
National Context
Housing supply continues to be important… The long-term drivers for housing continue to grow The long-run demand for housing continues to grow, driven by demographic trends and rising incomes. • The number of households is growing and is projected to increase by an annual average of 252, 000 between now and 2031, due to increased fertility, longevity, migration and a trend towards single person households. • Even assuming a low level of migration the number of households would still grow by 221, 000 per annum. • Real household disposable income per capita Rising incomes: Despite the recent economic downturn, the long-run trend is for real household incomes to grow at a rate of 2. 4% p. a. The UDC Quinquennial Review 45
… but supply strategy has evolved… 2003: The challenge was to accommodate the economic success of London, alleviate pressures of services and ensure where new and expanded communities were needed, they were sustainable, well designed, high quality and in attractive places in which people would choose to live and work. Four growth areas were identified in the regional planning guidance for London and the rest of the South East: Thames Gateway; Milton Keynes/South Midlands; Ashford and London – Stanstead – Cambridge - Peterborough. 2005: Growth Points Initiative launched to support growth proposals outside the growth areas. 2007: In Homes for the Future: More Affordable: More Sustainable (2007: CLG) a broader strategy was developed an additional round of growth points announced. • Extension of geographical coverage Including, for the first time, North England. • An ambition to develop 50, 000 new homes • Less pressure on a small number of regions to deliver housing The result was less dependence on original growth areas for overall housing supply, but their potential remains 2009: Amidst housing supply not keeping up with rising demand from an ageing, growing population there is now a recession. The UDC Quinquennial Review 46
… and the task is becoming harder… UDC Business Model • A trouble shooting organisation that can tackle the infrastructure problems that blight many brown field sites and can be used to underpin new ones. • For areas where there is private sector appetite for investment. • Highly focused body with statutory powers, including planning and a dedicated ring fenced funding stream from grant in aid. • Significant resources and CPO powers to pursue the purchase of large swathes of their areas. A considerable proportion of their budget is spent on infrastructure and land purchase. Additional capital receipts can also be generated from reinvestment in land property and the sale of land. The UDC Quinquennial Review • The recession has made the task for UDCs more difficult • The success of UDCs is often in capturing and recycling rising land values in their area • Therefore, the UDC business model is less compatible in a time when private sector investment in land is subdued 47
…there is a reduction in Medium Term Spending… Current spending will grow by 0. 7 per cent each year between 2011 -12 and 201314, with additional efficiency savings allowing the Government to focus resources on front-line public service priorities The UDC Quinquennial Review 48
There is also a new institutional landscape… The advent of the HCA has required us to rethink funding for deliver bodies. A comparison can be drawn between the objectives of the HCA and UDC The statutory objects of the HCA, as listed in the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 are to: • improve the supply and quality of housing in England The statutory objects of a UDC are to: • secure the regeneration or development of land or infrastructure in England • encourage the development of existing and new industry and commerce; • support in other ways the creation, regeneration or development of communities in England or their continued well-being • creating an attractive environment; and • contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and good design in England, with a view to meeting the needs of people living in England. • bring land buildings into effective use • ensuring that housing and social facilities are available to encourage people to live and work in the area. Key issue: does a focus on the three UDC areas limit the value of our investment, by constraining flexibility and restricting the benefits from establishing the HCA? The UDC Quinquennial Review 49
The Key issue is therefore… …with shrinking finance available, which is turn reduces the scale of programme, and what can be achieved, is a UDC more or less justified? In a poor economic climate the strength of the UDC business model is highlighted. When there is little private sector appetite for investment should we be ring fencing funding to specific geographical areas? Therefore, if it is vital to maximise investment in the Thames Gateway should we be ring fencing UDC budgets…is this distorting the potential value for money? The UDC Quinquennial Review 50
Regional and Local Context
Approach Taken This contribution to the Quinquennial Review examines the regional and local context in which each of the Urban Development Corporations has operated since their inception. In doing so it pays particular attention to whethere have been any significant changes over the past five years that bear upon the continuing rationale for the UDCs, or the particular model adopted in each place. The review complements work on changes in the national context led by CLG. Approach Taken The review has focused on a small number of themes that are of particular relevance to the UDCs’ existence and operation: the policy context (and how it has changed), economic context, community context and organisational context. A series of questions was developed for each theme to guide the analysis (see next slide) In responding to these questions information has been drawn from published reports, official statistics, reviews commissioned by the UDCs themselves (where available), complementary Quinquennial Review workstreams and the knowledge of the relevant Government Offices. For each Development Corporation brief conclusions are drawn about the key contextual issues and implications for the Quinquennial Review as a whole. The UDC Quinquennial Review 52
Regional and Local Context – Approach Taken Theme Issues Prompts Policy context Regional & sub-regional strategy What is the current/emerging strategic policy framework for each area, in relation to the objectives driving the UDCs’ activities? Have there been any significant changes over the past five years that influence the rationale for the UDCs? Local spatial strategy What is the current/emerging local spatial strategy for each area, in relation to the objectives driving the UDCs’ activities? Have there been any significant changes over the past five years that influence the rationale for the UDCs? Economic context Local economic climate What is the economic performance of the area, and how has it changed over the past five years? What impact has the recession, in particular, had on economic performance and outlook (and hence the degree of ‘challenge’ to delivery)? Community context Population, migration & cohesion How has the composition and cohesion of the local population changed over the past five years, and what are the implications for delivering growth and regeneration? Worklessness & skills What is the level of worklessness & skills, and how has it changed over the past five years? What impact has the recession had? Institutional landscape How has the range of organisations & partnerships concerned with growth and regeneration in each area changed over the past five years? How does the role of the UDCs relate to other partners locally, and how effective are those relationships? Organisational context Partner capacity & competence How well-run are the local authorities in each area? How effectively do they deal with planning/ regeneration issues? Any changes over the past five years? The UDC Quinquennial Review 53
London – Policy Context (i) London Thames Gateway Development Corporation operates within a complex administrative – and hence also policy – context. Its operational territory covers six London Boroughs split over two major (and disconnected) areas: • • The Lower Lea Valley, which takes in parts of Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Newham and Waltham Forest – an area that is closely connected with the Olympic Park regeneration. London Riverside, which takes in parts of Newham, Barking and Dagenham and Havering. The Corporation operates against the backdrop of the spatial development policies contained in the London Plan and Borough Core Strategies, or saved Unitary Development Plan policies. The Lower Lea Valley, including Stratford, and London Riverside are both identified as Opportunity Areas in the Mayor’s London Plan [The London Plan: Consolidated With Alterations Since 2004 (Mayor of London, 2008)], which contains ambitious targets for their growth and regeneration. For the Lower Lea valley the indicative employment capacity is 50, 000 jobs in the period 2001 -26, with a minimum homes target of 32, 000. For London Riverside the employment capacity is 14, 000 and the minimum homes target is 20, 000. The Mayor is currently undertaking a full review of the London Plan with a view to publication by the end of 2011 [The London Plan: Consultation Draft Replacement Plan (Mayor of London, 2009)]. The draft retains the existing plan’s targets for significant growth in the Lower Lea Valley and London Riverside, apart from the latter’s housing target (which is increased to 25, 000). The time horizon of the plan has however been extended from 2026 to 2031. While there are no specific references to LTGDC in the draft, the Mayor does commit to work with partner authorities and agencies, providing leadership and where appropriate support to realising the ambitions for the Opportunity Areas, and for London Thames Gateway more generally. The UDC Quinquennial Review 54
London – Policy Context (ii) At Borough level, there is variable progress with the preparation of Core Strategies to set out the local vision and spatial strategy for future development. Havering has an adopted Core Strategy, the strategy for Barking and Dagenham has been submitted for examination, Hackney published its Core Strategy in June this year and Tower Hamlets published in September. Waltham Forest is scheduled to publish its Core Strategy in May 2010 and Newham in October 2010. Although these plans are at varying stages of development, their strategies (or emerging work) tend to reflect the priority accorded to regeneration in the LTGDC’s area, and the significance of particular locations where major change is envisaged. Each of the East London Boroughs has either published or is in the process of publishing an updated Sustainable Community Strategy. Those for the Olympic Boroughs focus particularly on the legacy of the Olympics and what the park and its environs can deliver for the economy in terms of skills, jobs and homes. The outer Boroughs’ strategies tend to focus broadly on economic and ecological sustainability and Barking and Dagenham mentions working directly with the LTGDC on the Sustainable Industries Park (contained within the London Riverside area). All of the individual Borough strategies support the objectives of the LTGDC. Each Borough has signed up to a Local Area Agreement (LAA) and identified priority National Indicators for intervention, most of which reflect the importance of the Thames Gateway transformational themes, and also the LTGDC’s strategic priorities (there is some variability in the particular set of indicators selected in each place, although all include NI 154 – net additional homes delivered). The UDC Quinquennial Review 55
London – Economic Context Prior to 2004 the economic performance of the areas covered by LTGDC was in decline relative to other parts of London. This trend has been arrested since then [Executive summary: ‘An Evolving Rationale for LTGDC’ (Regeneris and Rocket Science, 2009)], with small net increases in business registrations and a larger rise in jobs in the period to 2007, although the picture is skewed by the role of Tower Hamlets (and of the Canary Wharf area in particular) in driving investment and economic growth. For example whilst the overall number of jobs in the six Boroughs in which the LTGDC operates increased by 6. 1% between 2000 and 2007, the increase in Tower Hamlets alone during this period was 38. 8% with the only other borough showing a net increase being Newham [Source: NOMIS]. It is also the case that not all of these jobs have benefited local residents, and indeed some individual wards within the UDC’s area saw decreases of over 2500 people employed in the period 2004 -07[Ibid] As elsewhere the onset of the recession has had a significant impact on the UDC’s operating environment. Development activity and investor confidence have been affected, with the promoters of some schemes seeking actively to renegotiate terms in order to keep development prospects alive. Perhaps the biggest impact of these changes has been a forecast reduction in the projected level of receipts accruing to LTGDC, from £ 117 m to £ 34 m over the 2008 -11 period, due to a reduction in land values and to a deferral of receipts from developer partners [Executive summary: ‘An Evolving Rationale for LTGDC’ (Regeneris and Rocket Science, 2009)] Unemployment has also increased as a result of the downturn, though not evenly: ONS returns show that outer London Boroughs (Havering and Barking, lying partly within the London Riverside UDC areas) have been relatively badly hit, as evidenced by increases in applicants for Job Seekers’ Allowance. For example the JSA trends for Havering and Barking & Dagenham show a 125% and 63% increase in JSA claimants over the 12 month period April 08 – April 09, compared to an increase of 33% in Tower Hamlets [DWP statistics (source: Government Office for London)] The UDC Quinquennial Review 56
London – Community Context As in Thurrock, growth and regeneration in East London have been accompanied by increases in the area’s population, but also a change in its social mix as a result particularly of international in-migration. Indeed net increases in population across the six Boroughs within LTGDC’s area mask some significant declines in domestic residents. For example in Barking and Dagenham the increase in the BME population has been the fastest nationally with a 15% rise since the 2001 census. BME communities now make up 25% of the borough’s population compared to 10% 7 years ago [Source: NOMIS]. This ‘churn’ in the population has had some impact on social cohesion in the area. Reporting against National Indicator 1 (proportion of residents who feel that people from different backgrounds get on well within the area) shows that all six Boroughs – with the exception of Hackney – are below the London average [Place Survey (source: CLG)]. Recent figures from the 2008 Annual Population Survey reveal that 11. 6% of working age people in London overall have no qualifications, but the position is worse across the 6 boroughs covered by the LTGDC where this stands at 18. 8% [Source: ONS]. Additionally a large proportion of people have literacy and numeracy and/or language needs. There have, however, been some measurable improvements across a select number of indicators such as skills and qualifications. For example National Indicators 163/164/165 (adult skills have shown some improvement recently in all of the LTGDC Boroughs, though sometimes from a low base). The UDC Quinquennial Review 57
London – Organisation Context (i) One of the biggest changes in the past five years has been the formation of the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA). The HCA works closely with the Mayor of London and the London Assembly, the London Development Agency, Transport for London and other partners to improve the supply and quality of housing, support the regeneration or development of land or infrastructure, and create sustainable communities. Operating nationally, it nonetheless recognises the Thames Gateway as one of its key priorities. The GLA Act 2007 included strengthened planning powers for the Mayor, enabling him to determine strategically important planning applications. These powers do not apply to planning applications falling within the geographic area of the LTGDC. However the Mayor’s existing power to direct refusal of appropriate applications that are deemed to be of potentially strategic significance is unaffected. The awarding of the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics Games in July 2005 has made the East End of London the focus of significant games-related investment, creating a ripple effect of regeneration, including improved transport links and the development of a number of skills academies across this part of London. The games have – inevitably – fundamentally changed the context in which the LTGDC operates in the Lower Lea Valley, and to a lesser extent in London Riverside. The LTGDC is listed as a delivery partner for PSA 22 (delivery of a successful Olympic and Paralympic Games with a sustainable legacy and get more children and young people taking part in high quality PE and sport) published in October 2007[PSA Delivery Agreement 22 (HM Government, 2007)] When the Corporation was established in 2004 there were few sub-regional structures or strong alliances across its area to ensure that planning, housing and regeneration efforts were mutually reinforcing. Since then, and particularly for the five Olympic Host Boroughs (Greenwich, Hackney, Newham, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest), there has been a significant evolution of cross-boundary working arrangements, often brokered by LTGDC, making LTGDC part of a complex pattern of administrative and partnership responsibilities. The UDC Quinquennial Review 58
London – Organisation Context (ii) LTGDC has no direct planning and regeneration relationship with the newly-formed Olympic Park Legacy Company, but the Olympic Park is within the LTGDC area. There is however an interface between the work of the two bodies in relation to the Legacy Masterplanning Framework and the fringe master plans, especially around the Lower Lea Valley. Separately, the 5 Host Borough Unit has been set up to deliver a Strategic Regeneration Framework (SRF), due for publication towards the end of 2009. There is however, a close working relationship between the LTGDC, OPLC and the 5 Host Borough Unit through the SRF specifically, and via the wider Olympics Governance arrangements – for example through their membership of the Senior Officers Legacy Group (SOLG) and the East London Legacy Board. The collective capacity to lead and develop major regeneration projects and the ability to work across boundaries is now much enhanced, and the development of the City Strategy Pathfinder (DWP led joint worklessness solutions in the East and South East of London), as well as the newly formed 5 Host Borough Unit and developing Strategic Regeneration Framework all provide evidence of the growing maturity of the partnerships in this part of the Capital. Strong Partnership working also occurs through the Thames Gateway London Partnership which has political leadership from the London Boroughs as well as senior officials from Government and educational establishments. The UDC Quinquennial Review 59
London – Organisation Context (iii) The overall performance of the individual Boroughs covering LTGDC’s area in delivering services has also improved in recent years, as evidenced by the last round of Comprehensive Performance Assessment scores: • • • Barking and Dagenham: 4 star council – improving strongly Hackney: 3 star council – improving strongly Havering: 3 star council – improving well Newham: 3 star council – improving adequately Tower Hamlets: 4 star council – improving well Waltham Forest: 4 star council – improving well In terms of dealing with major planning schemes, the Boroughs have demonstrated some improvements in handling times over the past few years, and indeed have decided a greater proportion of major applications within the 13 week target than LTGDC. However, this does not mean that the Boroughs would necessarily be in a position to make faster decisions than LTGDC, were this role to be returned to them in whole or in part, because: • • • The Corporation deals with a caseload of particularly large and/or complex applications, which inevitably take longer to determine; Depending on the handling arrangements with each Borough, much of the work processing the LTGDC’s applications is done by the Borough itself; The total number of cases per annum is limited, and this together with gaps in the data can affect the overall picture in any one year. The Boroughs have also been forced to reassess their staff resources and structures in light of the downturn in the number of planning applications over the last two years, which may affect their ability to easily absorb extra work in the short term. The UDC Quinquennial Review 60
London - Conclusions The London Plan maintains a focus on regeneration and growth within LTGDC’s operational areas, with ambitious targets for housing and job creation (reflected, to varying degrees, in the strategies of the respective Boroughs). The relative economic decline of the Lower Lea Valley and London Riverside compared to the rest of London was stemmed during the middle part of this decade, although overall performance figures are skewed by the role of Canary Wharf and its surrounds. The recession has had a variable impact, with the outer Boroughs worst hit in terms of worklessness. The area has experienced considerable population ‘churn’ as new development, new employment opportunities and in-migration have occurred. East London’s workforce is relatively poorly-skilled, though some improvements have been made recently. The organisational context within which LTGDC operates has become significantly more complex since its establishment, reflecting in particular the additional arrangements put in place to secure delivery of the 2012 Games and their legacy. Partnership and crossboundary working have matured and strengthened. The performance of the Boroughs covering LTGDC’s area in delivering services has improved, as has their performance in processing major planning applications, although the drop in planning casework as a consequence of the recession is having some impact on their fee income and wider resourcing. Overall, and given the level of ambition for this part of London (and the Lea Valley in particular), this context suggests a continuing rationale for strong delivery arrangements, albeit with scope for some streamlining of organisational structures in the longer term. Publication of a revised London Plan in 2011, the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2012 and the Olympic Park Legacy Company becoming fully operational all point towards a particular opportunity to review progress and implement possible changes in about three years’ time. The UDC Quinquennial Review 61
Thurrock – Policy Context (i) Current regional strategies place significant emphasis on Thurrock as a focus of growth and regeneration. The Regional Spatial Strategy [East of England Plan (Government Office for the East of England, 2008)] identifies the ‘Thurrock Urban Area’ as a key centre for development and change, with a particular emphasis on achieving an urban renaissance through the re-use of previously developed land, exploiting the Thames riverside, improving the quality of the urban environment and diversifying the local employment base. A minimum target of 18, 500 additional homes for the period 2001 -21 is set. The Regional Economic Strategy Inventing our Future (East of England Development Agency, 2008)] is similarly ambitious, with Thurrock seen as a key element of the South Essex ‘engine of growth’ – one of seven areas that are expected to be at the forefront of driving the region’s economic performance. Skills deficits, infrastructure and the area’s image are identified as particular constraints to be overcome. The Government’s own Thames Gateway Delivery Plan [Thames Gateway delivery Plan (HM Government, 2007)] reaffirms Thurrock’s position as one of six strategic priorities for government investment across the Gateway, including £ 90 m earmarked for the Development Corporation during the current spending period. The policy focus on regeneration in Thurrock is a well-established theme. By the time the Sustainable Communities Plan [Sustainable Communities: Building our Future (ODPM, 2003)] was published in 2003 (which set out the intention to move towards an Urban Development Corporation in Thurrock), the Thames Gateway had been recognised as an area of significant potential for more than a decade. This includes the specific role of Thurrock, especially in terms of the opportunities it presents for physical transformation and commercial investment [e. g. Thames Gateway Planning Framework (RPG 9 a, Department of the Environment, 1995)]. The UDC Quinquennial Review 62
Thurrock – Policy Context (ii) If anything this focus on Thurrock’s physical transformation has intensified over the past five years, as strategic planning and investment frameworks have sought to become more prioritised, and as the level of ambition has increased. Just one indication is the amount of housing being planned for, the average of 925 per annum in the present RSS being over 70% higher than that being considered in the Council’s draft Unitary Development Plan in 2003 [Unitary Development Plan – Deposit (Thurrock Borough Council, 2003; note that this plan was not adopted due to the introduction of Local development Frameworks)]. The importance of regeneration is also reflected in Thurrock’s Sustainable Community Strategy [Our Sustainable Community Strategy for Thurrock (Shaping Thurrock, 2007)], whose priority is the regeneration of Thurrock for the next 10 to 15 years, and which makes this a much more prominent theme than the first Community Strategy published in 2003. The UDC is now a key partner responsible for delivery as they are named as the performance lead for half of the 12 strategic objectives in the strategy. Thurrock’s Local Area Agreement 2008/09 -2010/11 contains a range of targets supporting regeneration as a priority for Thurrock. The UDC is the lead partner four of the targets relating to additional homes delivered, affordable houses delivered, average earnings and business registrations. It is a contributing partner for a further 11 targets. The UDC Quinquennial Review 63
Thurrock – Economic Context As elsewhere, regeneration activity in Thurrock has been affected by the economic downturn and the Borough has been identified as being particularly vulnerable to its effects. It has been identified by CLG as a repossession “hot-spot”. Thurrock’s employment base is relatively narrow, with strength in the logistics, wholesale and retail sectors, whereas employment in knowledge driven sectors and the creative and cultural industries is low. Just prior to the downturn Thurrock’s economy was experiencing a modest net increase in business registrations (averaging +100 per year from 2003 to 2007 [Source: NOMIS], but this was from a low base of small business and start-up activity compared to the rest of the region. Unemployment claimant rates are above the regional average and closer to the national rates; having remained reasonably constant in the five years to late 2008, they have risen sharply since in line with wider trends. The claimant rate now stands at 4. 4%[[Job Seekers’ Allowance claimants, September 2009 (source: NOMIS)] in Thurrock compared to the regional average of 3. 5%. Decline in both private and public funding has put some major transformational projects at risk. A start on the biggest single investment in Thurrock – and one of the largest inward investment projects in the UK – has been delayed as a direct result of the global economic context: Dubai Ports World announced early in 2009 that it was reviewing all of its schemes, including the proposed London Gateway Port and Logistics Park. The Government, regional and local agencies have been working together to help find a way forward, and the Development Corporation has been contributing to that work in considering the local issues and options. Investment in education and training has been seen as particularly important for Thurrock’s future, as at present the area suffers from a poor skills base and low levels of aspiration. However constraints on the capital funding available from the Learning and Skills Council have put a major FE/HE proposal at Grays (the Thurrock Learning Campus) at risk, with no short-term prospect of adequate funding coming forward. There is limited FE provision in Thurrock at present. The UDC Quinquennial Review 64
Thurrock – Community Context Thurrock contains a number of areas that face social as well as economic difficulties, with 12 of the Borough’s Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs) within the 20% most deprived nationally (and Grays Riverside in the top 3% most deprived nationally). However it is not a uniform picture, as there also areas of relative wealth – South Chafford ranks in the 10% least deprived LSOAs nationally [Index of Multiple Deprivation 2007]. Thurrock’s poor skills base is evident particularly in terms of Level 3 and Level 4 qualifications, although almost 20% of Thurrock’s working age population have no qualifications at all, significantly above regional (11. 8%) and national (12. 4%) rates [Annual population Survey, ONS Jan 2008 -Dec 2008]. At the same time the Borough is a place of significant social change, partly as a product of its growth and regeneration activity. Population annual growth rates have been significantly above the national rates for much of this decade, and on the whole greater than those for the East of England for the period 2002 -2009. According to Experian data [Experian © for CLG], during this period Thurrock’s population has increased by 10, 048. This represents a rise of 7%, against an increase nationally of 4. 2%. Population change has been accompanied by an increasing diversity of backgrounds. During 2005 -2007 almost 3, 000 non-UK nationals registered for a national insurance number in Thurrock, mainly from Eastern Europe [Insight East Economic Profile: Thurrock, July 2009]. Change has caused some tensions within the community: just 54% [Place Survey 2008 (source: CLG)] of Thurrock’s population have reported that they believe people from different backgrounds get on well together in the local area – significantly fewer than the regional average and well below the national rate of 76%. The British National Party has one seat on Thurrock Council, gained in 2008. Thurrock also scores poorly across a range of other perception-based national indicators Ibid]. For example: overall satisfaction with the local area, anti social behaviour, people not treating others with respect, feeling that drug dealing or use is a problem, and parents not taking enough responsibility for their children. The UDC Quinquennial Review 65
Thurrock – Organisational Context Thurrock Council has been experiencing a period of instability and – in relation to some service areas – poor performance. In 2008 the Council was rated as a ‘ 2 star’ authority (out of a possible 4 stars), but in the most recent ‘Direction of Travel’ statement (March 2009) was deemed to be ‘not improving adequately’, one of only a handful of councils in England to be in this category. This reflected a range of issues, including poor officer-member relations contributing to deteriorating performance on housing, environment and benefits. In the past five years there have been two permanent and three interim Chief Executives. The Council has had a voluntary improvement board in place since January 2009, and is being supported by sector partners in making improvements to its operation and effectiveness. It will, however, take time for the necessary changes to be embedded, and the Council is still looking for a permanent Chief Executive. Although the Council’s planning services and decisions have not been a principal cause of these organisational problems, there has been friction between it and the Development Corporation over the handling of some cases. A service agreement between the Council and TTGDC through which the Council undertook the processing of cases on behalf of the Corporation was terminated unilaterally by TTGDC earlier this year, with the Corporation bringing the work in-house. This will have had knock-on implications for the resourcing and capacity of the Council’s own planning functions. Wider partnership activity in Thurrock has also suffered from weaknesses. While the Corporation is an active member of Thurrock’s Local Strategic Partnership (‘Shaping Thurrock’), the LSP as a whole has not been performing strongly, and a review of its governance arrangements has been carried out during 2009, supported by the IDe. A and GO-East. Thurrock Council’s relatively small size and internal performance issues have inhibited its involvement in sub-regional working within South Essex, although it is starting to play a more active role in the Thames Gateway South Essex Partnership (TGSEP), which brings together the local authorities and Regional Development Agency to address issues of sub-regional importance. TGSEP itself underwent an internal review last year, and has become more firmly a local authority-led vehicle; the Development Corporation does not have a seat at the key meetings. The UDC Quinquennial Review 66
Thurrock - Conclusions The priority to be given to regenerating Thurrock is recognised across regional and local strategies, and if anything this emphasis has intensified over the past five years. As elsewhere, regeneration activity in Thurrock has been affected by the economic downturn, although the area has been identified as being particularly vulnerable to its effects, and some major transformational projects have been put at risk. Thurrock remains a place of relatively low educational aspirations, low skills and higher-than-average unemployment. There also problems of community cohesion, in part linked to inward migration and the growth agenda. Thurrock Council has been performing relatively poorly and is undergoing a voluntary improvement programme. While a change of Leader and new executive appointments are beginning to make a difference, it remains fragile both politically and in terms of its corporate capacity. These factors – whether individually or in combination – point to a continuing rationale for some form of special purpose vehicle to provide vision and capacity in driving regeneration in Thurrock, although any vehicle needs to be sensitive to the political and community context locally. The UDC Quinquennial Review 67
WNDC – Policy Context • The growth potential of West Northamptonshire has been a feature of strategic planning policies for many years. Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG 9 2001) identified the general area of Milton Keynes and the South Midlands as one of four potential major growth areas in the wider region, and proposed a sub regional study to investigate in more detail the extent of future development. • The MKSM Sub-Regional Study[1] was published in draft form in 2003, and in 2005 the relevant policies for Northamptonshire were incorporated into the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East Midlands[2]. Echoing the Government’s Sustainable Communities Plan (February 2003) the Sub-Regional Study highlighted the significant growth potential of the area, and provided strategic guidance on the scale, location and timing of development and associated employment, transport and other infrastructure. • The current review of RSS 8[3] has not sought to revise the housing figures for Northamptonshire or the preferred locations for growth. A full review of housing provision in the county is planned as part of the next review of the East Midlands RSS currently scheduled to be completed in 2011. • To help translate the strategic emphasis on growth into local spatial policies a Joint Planning Committee for West Northamptonshire comprising the districts of Northampton Borough, Daventry and South Northamptonshire was established in October 2008. The Core Spatial Strategy is expected to be published in March 2010. • In the East Midlands Regional Economic Strategy[4], Northamptonshire’s position within MKSM is recognised as presenting significant challenges as well as opportunities for the area. In this context it makes specific reference to the need for the “continued development of the Urban Development Corporation in West Northamptonshire and the Local Delivery Vehicle in Northamptonshire” to assist with delivery. • The Strategic Northamptonshire Economic Action Plan[5] (SNEAP) was commissioned by WNDC, NNDC and NEL in 2008 to support the Core Spatial Strategies of both West and Northants. Its aim was to recognise and devise ways of overcoming the challenges of delivering high levels of housing growth across Northamptonshire and ensuring a corresponding increase in the number and quality of jobs. • The growth agenda is considered to be one of the key challenges in the Northamptonshire Local Area Agreement for 2008 -11 and targets have been derived from the Sustainable Community Strategy[6] priorities. The LAA notes that “the impact of growth on the chosen improvement targets will be important”, recognises the role of the various delivery vehicles in addressing these implications, and identifies a particular complexity arising from what it sees as the limited relevance of the National Indicator set to the growth agenda. [1] Milton Keynes & South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy (Government Offices for the South East, East Midlands & East of England, 2005); [2] East Midlands Regional Plan (Government Office for the East Midlands, 2005); [3] East Midlands Regional Plan (Government Office for the East Midlands, 2009); [4] A Flourishing Region: Regional Economic Strategy for the East Midlands 2006 – 2020 (East Midlands Development Agency, 2006); [5] Northamptonshire Enterprise Ltd, 2008; [6] Source: Northamptonshire County Council The UDC Quinquennial Review 68
WNDC – Economic Context • Generally, the economic performance of Northamptonshire is above that of the rest of the region. The Regional Economic Strategy confirms that Northamptonshire is relatively affluent, with high levels of labour market participation and higher than average property prices, though with pockets of deprivation in both urban and (to a lesser degree) some rural areas, where access to key services can be difficult for less mobile groups. • Indicative of the County’s economic strength have been very high employment and economic activity rates, below-average unemployment, and earnings that are above the regional average, although indicators of productivity (gross value added per employee) shows the county is behind the national and regional average. Northamptonshire has also had a relatively significant share of the region's business stock (over 17% of the East Midlands total at the end of 2004) and a particularly high business registration rate (at 44. 2 per 10, 000 people in 2004, almost 25% higher than the regional average)[1]. • During 2008 the employment rate in South Northants and Northampton remained above the county, regional and national averages[2]. For Daventry it was just below the county level but still higher than regional and national figures. • As much of the latest available data reflects the period up to the end of 2008, it is difficult to assess the impact of the downturn on the economic climate in Northamptonshire in terms of jobs and business registration rates. Job Seekers’ Allowance claimants have risen significantly[3], although claimant rates in Daventry and South Northamptonshire remain below the regional average. Anecdotal evidence from the delivery vehicles in the county suggests that the recession took longer to bite than in many other places in terms of housing development, but that progress with sites did eventually slow considerably as it had done elsewhere. [1] Source: East Midlands Regional Economic Strategy [2] ONS Annual Population Survey 2008/09 [3] ONS Claimant Count - monthly The UDC Quinquennial Review 69
WNDC – Community Context • Northamptonshire generally has a relatively youthful population (which is reflected partly in the high levels of economic participation within the county). • In 2007 Northampton's BME population comprised just over 12% of the total, with significantly higher than average percentages of people of mixed race parentage and Chinese origin[1]. Daventry and South Northamptonshire as a whole are much less diverse with rates of BME residents well below the average figures for the East Midlands and England. • Skills levels present a mixed picture – South Northants has high rates of achievement across the range of NVQ level 2, 3 and 4 qualifications, while those in Northampton and Daventry lag behind the national average. Some 22% of the working age population in Daventry are reported to have no qualifications. [1] Source: ONS Population Estimates by Ethnic Group 2007 The UDC Quinquennial Review 70
WNDC - Organisational Context • As in London, the operational area of WNDC covers more than one authority: the whole of Northampton Borough, three wards in South Northamptonshire (covering Towcester and Grange Park) and four wards in Daventry (centred on the town itself). Relations between the authorities have been strained at times, both before and during WNDC’s existence, culminating in the County Council’s suggestion in late 2006 that unitary status for Northamptonshire be pursued (a proposal resisted by the districts). • This has complicated the context within which the UDC operates, but to an extent also provided some of the rationale for its establishment (alongside specific concerns about delivery capacity and performance in addressing the scale of growth). There has been some improvement in relationships since, including those between WNDC and the councils. A Joint Planning Committee and Joint Planning Unit were established for the whole of West Northants in October 2008, charged with delivering a joint Core Strategy for the area and any other joint documents. WNDC is not part of the formal Joint Committee, as they are not a plan making authority, although a WNDC Board Member is an observer on the Committee. • Northamptonshire Enterprise Ltd (NEL) was set up in 2007, as a merger of the economic development arm of Northamptonshire County Council, Northamptonshire Observatory, and various other Northamptonshire based organisations. This took responsibility for delivering the £ 6 m Growth Fund project ‘Fit for Market/Invest Northants’ charged with providing a range of high quality employment sites across Northamptonshire as well as marketing the suitability of Northamptonshire as a prime area for new businesses. • While partnership working has improved recently, the corporate performance of the three district councils covered by WNDC has not been strong, with Northampton still officially in ‘special measures’ and its planning services having been an area of particular weakness until relatively recently. In their 2004 CPA, Northampton Borough Council was rated as ‘poor’ and this remains the current rating. The Council is still in formal engagement, although a decision on whether to lift this status is expected soon. Both Daventry and South Northamptonshire were rated ‘fair’ in 2004 and ‘fair’ again in February 2009. In the Audit Commission’s most recent Comprehensive Area Assessment, Northampton Borough Council is assessed to perform adequately overall and the council is assessed as having the leadership and capability to continue to improve. As such, the council has been removed from formal engagement. • The growth agenda was always seen as challenging and led to a number of tensions both within the local authorities and with the WNDC when it was established. However recent efforts to gain buy-in from the authorities (such as ensuring each Council has a leading Member on the WNDC Board, and WNDC was the first UDC to have local authority councillors on its planning committee) seem to have increased local authority acceptance and recognition of WNDC’s role. • WNDC took on development control powers for major planning applications and all applications in Northampton town centre in April 2006. The reason for the more wide-ranging powers in Northampton town centre was a record of poor performance in this area on the part of Northampton Borough Council. It is understood that the Borough’s performance has improved significantly since then. However, there is no certainty that the local authorities in the area would have the capacity or expertise to deliver the planned high levels of growth in the area by themselves, bearing in mind the number, scale and complex nature of the proposals involved. The UDC Quinquennial Review 71
WNDC - Conclusions • The focus on growth in WNDC’s area is a well-established and continuing theme in strategic policy documents, though recognised as one presenting significant delivery challenges for the area. • The area’s economy has been relatively strong and resilient, but the recession has impacted in terms of increasing worklessness and a slowdown in bringing forward development. • The communities within which WNDC operates are mixed, with variable performance in terms of skills and differing degrees of BME representation. • WNDC has operated within a context of sometimes strained relations between the local councils (and indeed between those councils and itself), although this situation has improved more recently. • Alongside WNDC, cross-boundary strategy and delivery capacity has been enhanced by the creation of a Joint Planning Committee, Joint Planning Unit and Northamptonshire Enterprise Ltd. • Nonetheless the corporate performance of the councils covered by WNDC has not been strong, with Northampton still in formal engagement (since lifted) and its planning services having been an area of particular weakness until relatively recently. • These factors do suggest a continuing rationale for the existence of a special purpose delivery vehicle to help deliver sustainable growth across West Northamptonshire, although this needs to be seen and to operate as part of wider efforts to foster more joined-up and effective service delivery and partnership working in the area. The UDC Quinquennial Review 72
5. Planning
Planning – Legal Context Where an area of land has been designated as a UDC area, the So. S can make a provision by Statutory Instrument (SI) so that a UDC becomes the local planning authority for the whole or a portion of its area for Part 3 of the 1990 Planning Act purposes. Part 3 of the 1990 Act is concerned with control over development- it defines the meaning of development and provides for applications for planning permission and for appeals to the Secretary of State. Each UDC’s planning powers were conferred by a different statutory instrument and are all slightly different. The exact details are set out in the SI’s, web links to which are copied below. Generally speaking all UDCs have powers over developments of more than 50 houses, developments on more than 1 hectare of land of more than 2, 500 sq m of floor space and developments that prejudice green belt or playing fields. Each UDC has a slightly different permutation of these. Waste and mineral applications over a certain size are also covered. Some have height parameters. West Northants has different regimes for different areas within the UDC. Thurrock and London have powers over Listed Building applications but West Northants does not. All had transitional powers to deal with pending applications at the time the powers were conferred. None of the UDCs have plan making powers. Thurrock http: //www. opsi. gov. uk/si/si 2005/uksi_20052572_en. pdf West Northants http: //www. opsi. gov. uk/si/si 2006/uksi_20060616_en. pdf London http: //www. opsi. gov. uk/si/si 2005/uksi_20052721_en. pdf The UDC Quinquennial Review 74
Management of applications in UDC areas The SI’s are not prescriptive about the ways that the Local Authorities deliver their role as the local planning authority and each has chosen to arrange this differently. Both Thurrock and WNDC used the local authorities in the beginning to process and validate applications although Thurrock has recently terminated this arrangement and since January 2007 WNDC have been operating as a separate entity. London also use the constituent boroughs to prepare reports on the applications. The agreement is that each local authority will notify the UDC when an application is submitted. The process is as follows: all consultation is carried out by the LA; UDC suggests the timetable; LA provides a draft report to the UDC under the supervision of the overseeing officer at the UDC. However, this arrangement has been subject to change recently in some boroughs. The UDC Quinquennial Review 75
Performance of the UDCs and local planning authorities in UDC areas against planning performance targets 2008/09 Large* 2008/09 revised Small* 2007/08 2006/07 2005/06 2004/05 No % % No % London Thames Gateway UDC 73 27 30 60 43 25 24 20 20 N/A N/A Barking & Dagenham 38 62 21 76 76 16 81 25 84 31 77 25 60 Hackney 2 98 49 65 65 73 70 80 70 104 61 74 46 Havering 0 100 28 75 75 64 94 38 87 58 83 66 61 Newham 9 91 35 74 73 102 62 90 50 162 73 181 66 Tower Hamlets 12 88 90 48 48 65 57 60 38 40 35 41 63 Thurrock UDC 47 53 32 53 44** 18** 39** 33** 52** 0** N/A Thurrock DC 7 93 14 93 93 25 64 16 63 24 67 53 66 West Northants UDC 22 78 46 43 39 24 17 0 0 N/A N/A Daventry 47 53 19 53 42 16 56 12 75 24 42 28 43 Northampton BC 8 92 12 50 58 19 68 15 67 68 66 78 64 South Northants DC 5 95 21 67 67 27 63 18 61 28 71 30 73 DSO 5. 4 All LPAs to manage development effectively in accordance with the relevant DPD, and within acceptable timescales • Target is 80 per cent of major applications nationally to be processed within 13 weeks by 2011. • 2007 -08 baseline was 71% • From April to June 2009, 71% per cent of major applications nationally were processed within 13 weeks • *The figures for WNDC do not include minor and other applications for which they hold responsibility in central Northampton, for these applications WNDC is exceeding national targets. • **There was a disparity between CLG and Thurrock UDC figures. Thurrock reported the figures were inaccurate and provided their own: 53, 23, 35, 33, 64, 8, 80. The UDC Quinquennial Review 76
Planning performance The development control statistics show that the UDC’s are not performing as well as the local authorities when measured against the targets however as they are dealing with the more complicated major applications this is not surprising. Their performance has also improved over time. That said the national average for dealing with major applications within 13 weeks is 71% and the UDC’s are falling far short of this. This should be considered against the backdrop that they are dealing with the most complex applications in the country by nature of the area and their aims which may explain this. In addition as the aim of the UDCs is to secure regeneration they will negotiate with a developer to make a scheme acceptable rather than refuse for the sake of performance statistics. In addition the UDC’s have invested time in plan-making to compensate for many of the local authorities slow progress on their core strategies and this has diverted resources away from development control. However, in Thurrock, for example, this has resulted in a very high success rate with planning appeals. The stakeholder comments set out that developers have invested time and money in building relationships with the UDC’s and there was a general feeling that time and progress would be wasted if they needed to rebuild these relationships with the local authorities. Given the nature of the planning applications commonly submitted to UDC’s it is difficult to draw conclusions on planning performance of the UDC’s against Government targets. Similarly the exclusion of such applications from the statistics of the local authorities may skew their figures upwards. The UDC Quinquennial Review 77
6. Finance
Finance Observations Financial data is available from annual reports however non-statutory data on outputs (i. e. that not audited by the NAO) is not consistently presented across the three UDCs. It is therefore difficult to benchmark and make a robust assessment of performance. CLG would benefit from adopting a set of KPIs (e. g. jobs created, area of land re-developed, funds leveraged) and requiring UDCs to report against them on a regular basis. Over the period from 1 st April 2004 to 31 st March 2009 the UDCs incurred the following expenditure: The London figure for Administration at £ 3. 1 m is clearly wrong – according to London Annual Report and Accounts Administration totaled £ 13. 7 m for the two years 2007/08 and 2009/09 alone. Staff costs for Thurrock include Board Members costs whereas London’s are within Administration. So this is not a like for like comparison London Thames Gateway (£m) Thurrock West Northants (£m) Administration 3. 1 7. 1 2. 8 Programme 35. 6 29. 2 4. 2 Grants/ Projects 65. 5 19. 3 58. 3 Staff Costs 8. 5 9. 9 6. 0 112. 7 65. 5 71. 3 Total *Includes asset impairment The UDC Quinquennial Review 79
Staffing levels (permanent staff and interim/contracts) in the 3 UDCs is summarised in the table below: 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 London Thames Gateway 5 17 32 40 42 Thurrock 8 22 28 35 44 West Northants 2 10 21 45 56 The UDC Quinquennial Review 80
7. What are the alternatives?
Options suggested in the Public Consultation Option 1 – No change Given the stage reached in their work, and their plans for the future, the UDCs could continue in their current form, with no change planned for the remainder of their respective life spans. Option 2 – UDC becomes an agent of the HCA The UDCs could be appointed by the HCA to act as its agent in the UDC area, for all or some of the HCA’s functions. This would extend the work of UDCs, covering regeneration of land provision of infrastructure, social housing provision, etc. Option 3 – Return Powers to Local Authorities The UDCs could be dissolved with the relevant local authorities resuming powers and responsibilities transferred to the UDCs, with the Homes and Communities Agency assuming responsibility for assets and for supporting the local authorities in delivering their regeneration and growth plans as part of the ‘single conversation’ process. Option 4 – New form of Delivery Mechanism The UDCs could be dissolved but with a new form of delivery mechanism put in place. Some possible options include: Option 4 a – HCA Sub-Committee The UDCs could be dissolved, but with the HCA being designated as the planning authority (in relation to development control) for the area. This is similar to the model that is used to support delivery in Milton Keynes. Designation of the HCA as planning authority would be subject to Parliamentary approval. Option 4 b – HCA Company The HCA could establish a company to succeed the UDCs and to which their assets would be transferred. Option 4 c – Economic Development Company Establishing a non statutory Economic Development Company to support the local authorities in delivering their regeneration and growth plans. The UDC Quinquennial Review 82
Consultation Summary Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation The perception is that the Thurrock has taken a constructive approach to identifying and delivering regeneration. It has put in place the building blocks by master planning and relationship building with stakeholders and the community. Respondents felt that given the performance challenges faced by the local authority, the UDC has a crucial role in stimulating continuing private sector investment. London Thames Gateway Development Corporation The perception is that the UDC was slow to become established, but is now on the cusp of delivering very real change on the ground; stakeholders report it have been a positive influence on the private sector, maximising investment. Respondents felt there should be a formal relationship between the Corporation and the Olympic Park Legacy Company but not with the HCA West Northamptonshire Development Corporation The perception is that WNDC has had some success delivering regeneration and infrastructure in West Northamptonshire but this delivery has been hampered by its focus on its development control function. Many respondents felt that while there is a continuing need for the regeneration of West Northants, and a need for focussed delivery arrangements to support this; a change was needed to how the development control function was performed. The UDC Quinquennial Review 83
Скачать презентацию Urban Development Corporations Quinquennial Review Contents 1
3110e7cce4f658c5fe4efe27053216eb.ppt