Memorandum by Royal Town Planning Institute
(ERF 26)
GENERAL COMMENTS
1. The Government's support for regeneration,
in particular now by English Partnerships (EP) and the Regional
Development Agencies (RDAs) through the Partnership Investment
Programme (PIP) has been considerably successful in kick starting
regeneration. The financial support from the Government has resulted
in high levels of private investment and substantial environmental
benefits. However, the system has not been perfect and perhaps
more could have been done to secure a financial return from the
government's investment as well as ensuring beneficial community
returns.
2. The current EC state aid constraints
have had two effects:
— a slowdown and delay in activity;
and
— a substantial increase in the calls
on UK government cash because of the need for public direct development
to replace PIP.
3. The Institute is not aware of evidence
that suggested that requiring Official Journal procedures
for consultant and private sector partner selection has resulted
in any increase in non-UK engagement.
4. The Institute considers that it is essential
that public sector accountability is sustained, but this should
not be at the expense of flexibility in addressing the various
and complex needs for public investment in regeneration. The new
RDA budgets are a move in the right direction but the results
of this have yet to be seen.
DETAILED POINTS
5. The sub-committee has indicated that
it will wish to examine the following:
— the effectiveness, usage and coverage
of the five new, EU approved, land and property regeneration schemes—Direct
Development, the Speculative and Non-speculative Gap Funding Schemes,
Community Regeneration and Environmental Regeneration;
— any barriers to regeneration caused
by the current framework;
— the consequences for the urban renaissance
in terms of outputs, outcomes and value for money; and
— the need for a new European Regeneration
Framework.
6. The identified schemes are welcomed but
require more funding than is currently available. To ensure a
thorough understanding of the situation the Committee should also
consider other regeneration programmes, for example those dealing
specifically with community and employment.
7. A facility which substantially speeds
up the Official Journal process is essential.
8. A new European Framework should be more
flexible, speedier and reflect a financial return for public investment,
ie a true partnership, sharing risk and allowing for reinvestment
of public overage as commercial returns are secured.
OTHER POINT
9. The Committee has a separate inquiry
into the Planning Green Paper (to which the Institute will be
submitting evidence). The reform of the planning system should
have an impact on regeneration, which the Committee may wish to
consider.
| 
