Memorandum by Barnsley Metropolitan Borough
Council (UWP 109)
COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED URBAN WHITE PAPER
The Press Notice raises a number of specific questions:
HOW POLICIES
FOR EMPLOYMENT,
COMPETITIVENESS, HOUSING,
TRANSPORT AND
OTHER PUBLIC
SERVICES SHOULD
BE INTEGRATED
TO FOSTER
URBAN REGENERATION
The future of urban areas suffering from low demand
for housing and social decline
As a starting point we need to recognise that different
areas require different solutions. For instance, the Coalfield
is quite different from an urban conurbation like Sheffield, in
both its character and its problems.
The Barnsley Coalfield is characterised by isolated
settlements which grew up around the coal resource; a complex
but largely closed rail network; very poor road infrastructure;
limited public transport and worn out late 19th and early 20th
century housing. These settlements were the model of sustainability—the
product went out by rail, people went to work on foot or by bus
and there was a cohesive self sustaining community.
Following the colliery closures the settlements
have been deprived of jobs and purpose and as a result they have
been physically, economically and emotionally isolated from the
outside world.
So far, the major attempts to revitalise the
Barnsley economy (Urban Programme, City Challenge, SRB, ERDF)
have been successful, but only in stopping things getting worse.
Something far more radical is needed if Barnsley is to become
a buoyant community with more jobs, better education, improved
environment, more confidence and a better sense of well being.
To achieve this requires progress in achieving
the four broad objectives set out in the Governments strategy
for sustainable development including, in particular, the first
two:
— economic growth and employment requires
more prepared employment sites (the problem in Barnsley being
that the cost of site preparation nearly always exceeds the market
value of serviced land);
— social progress requires better education
and training, better housing, improved town and village centres
and better cultural, leisure and retail opportunities.
The solution to the problems of places like
Barnsley lies in the provision of adequate funding to deliver
the holistic regeneration advocated by the Coalfields Task Force
Report (see para 1.18 and 1.21)
Objective 1 funding does offer the prospect
of significant regeneration funding for South Yorkshire. However,
the job outputs in the Single Programme Document are modest (but
realistic) when set against South Yorkshires job needs. It is
also significant that European funding is primarily aimed at increasing
wealth and employment—and does not therefore facilitate
holistic regeneration embracing housing and environment.
A good example of delivery of holistic regeneration
is the work of the Grimethorpe Regeneration Executive (funded
by the Council and Yorkshire Forward and with strong community
input). The Executive is pursuing a wide ranging programme of
regeneration initiatives including employment site development,
marketing, restoration of derelict land, housing renewal, town
centre improvement, training and community building. The overall
project is relatively well resourced through Yorkshire Forward,
SRB, EC and other funding regimes. Perhaps most tellingly, the
provision of a dedicated local agency allows the programme to
be co-ordinated for maximum benefit over a sustained period. While
the Executive is still in its early years and the problems of
Grimethorpe remain immense, improvements can already be seen.
Perhaps most significantly, Grimethorpe is now, against all conventional
wisdom, attracting development interest from private sector house
builders and inward investors. A copy of the Grimethorpe Action
Plan can be provided if useful.
While Grimethorpe had a very obvious need for
this kind of approach, there are many other areas in Barnsley
and South Yorkshire with problems of a similar kind, scale and
range. The benefits of an agency approach could very usefully
be extended.
The consequences for the urban renaissance of
housing and business development on greenfield sites
In urban conurbations where there is an adequate
supply of well located brownfield sites for housing and employment,
the development of greenfield land may well hinder urban renaissance.
However, in areas like the Barnsley Coalfield where there may
not be an adequate supply of well located, suitable brownfield
sites the renaissance of communities may actually need some development
of greenfield sites.
The need for comprehensive regeneration in Barnsley
is recognised in the emerging Regional Planning Guidance for Yorkshire
and the Humber. For instance, RPG housing policies acknowledge
a need for significant new housing in the Barnsley Coalfield to
help regeneration. However, RPG states that only 49 per cent of
this development can be achieved on brownfield sites—because
of Barnsley's geographic characteristics, even making allowances
for significant increases in urban capacity.
While the closure of the collieries and the
collapse of the Barnsley economy created a vast legacy of brownfield
land, much of this is unsuitable for redevelopment. Many collieries
were so isolated that to redevelop them would have been unsustainable.
In addition, much of our derelict land comprised spoil tips and
old railway lines which simply cannot be used to provide new housing
or jobs and have been reclaimed for green open space uses. In
contrast, the collapse of the steel industry in Sheffield and
Rotherham left a legacy of brownfield land which was well suited
for redevelopment in terms of accessibility, topography and demand.
Barnsley has now re-used all feasible brownfield
land for development, the priority having been given being to
re-use for employment purposes. The remainder has by and large
been greened. 66 per cent of Barnsley's portfolio of new employment
land is brownfield—yet even if all of this is developed,
the jobs created will only result in a relatively small reduction
in the overall jobs need.
In addition, it is worth noting that the boundaries
of the Barnsley Green Belt were drawn up in the early 1980s when
the mining industry was buoyant and still subject to significant
investment. Unemployment was at a low level and there was no indication
that within a few years most of the industry would have closed.
The Green Belt boundaries were therefore designed to protect the
environment of colliery villages. Now we face a position where
the Green Belt which once protected these settlements may now
act as constraint on their regeneration.
In conclusion, if there is to be holistic regeneration
of these areas, including the provision of new housing, new jobs
and the revitalisation of the population, it is inevitable that
some development will take place on greenfield sites and if radical
change is to be achieved this may require a review of Green Belt
boundaries.
How planning authorities should be encouraged
to bring about the speedy release of brownfield sites
The main problems lie with the cost of re-using
brownfield sites, the (legitimate) concerns of people and businesses
who feel uncomfortable living or working on top of what may have
been a contaminated site and problems of ownership. In Barnsley
multiple ownership and land banking awaiting higher land values
have both been problems. Land banking of employment land is inevitable
as the private sector has legitimate difficulties making a profit
from employment development without public sector subsidy—not
surprisingly the prospect of retail development is more attractive.
The powers and mechanisms to resolve these problems
are already largely in place, though smoother Compulsory purchase
powers would help. The real solution, as ever, lies in the level
of resource. For instance, it is technically feasible for the
Council to acquire land the private sector cannot or will not
deliver by Compulsory Purchase. However, in practice the Council
and the RDA simply do not have the funds to acquire land in this
way.
What Added Value a Government White Paper Should
Provide
Two key points should be emphasised:
— recognise that different areas require
different solutions;
— recognise the scale of the task facing
all urban areas requires radical solutions. More of the same will
not reverse the decline.
Which of the recommendations of the Report should
be a priority for implementation?
The priority should be to implement the three
main recommendations set out under "Delivering Urban Regeneration"
with particular emphasis on the creation of "Urban Priority
Areas", to assist in the delivery of area based comprehensive
regeneration in urban and coalfield areas.
The Council would be happy to provide further
information to support the arguments made above. We would also
be happy to contribute to the Inquiry.
Jeremy Youle
BMBC Planning Services
February 2000
| 
