Annex
Follow-up to recommendations made by the
ODPM: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committee
in Session 2002-03
We asked the ODPM to provide an update on a number
of recommendations that the ODPM: Housing, Planning, Local Government
and the Regions Committee had made in Session 2002-03. We identified
a number of recommendations that the Government had accepted and
on which it had promised action.
Our questions appear below in italicised text. In
some cases, ODPM has simply answered our questions, in other cases,
it has also provided a general update on the subject of our inquiries.
Third Report - Affordable Housing (HC 77)
(CM 3783)
Recommendation:
(m) Local authority housing needs surveys should
consider the need for subsidised housing for sale to workers who
provide key local services as well as social rented housing. New
guidance is required to ensure that the surveys identify demands
for low cost home ownership (paragraph 85).
Government Response:
Guidance on housing strategies highlights the importance
of local housing authorities developing a clear understanding
of the nature and operation of all sectors of the housing market
in their area. We expect the assessments of housing need which
underpin local housing strategies and local plan policies to assess
the range of needs for different types and sizes of housing across
all tenures in their area. This should include affordable housing
and housing to help meet the needs of specific groups, including
key workers. Research is currently underway to examine approaches
to the analysis of housing markets in low, high and balanced demand
areas. This will develop a Housing Market Assessment toolkit for
use by local authorities and groups of authorities working at
the sub-regional level. The research is due to report in Autumn
2003 and will cover housing demand issues across all sectors.
As such, the tool is expected to include advice on assessing demand
for key worker housing and low cost home ownership. The Government
will then consider whether further guidance is needed for authorities
on the assessment of the need for housing for key workers and
other support for low cost home ownership.
Question
Government is carrying out research to examine
approaches to the analysis of housing markets and to develop low
demand toolkit. It is supposed to be published in Autumn 2003
- when is it going to be published.
Answer:
The ODPM is currently commissioning guidance on
updating the existing Housing Needs Assessment and integrating
it with the forthcoming Housing Market Assessment manual, which
is due to be published early February 2004. The new guidance will
cover all tenures, including the full range of the intermediate
housing market such as Low Cost Home Ownership. It will also encompass
the housing needs of specific groups, including key workers.
Recommendation:
(s) There is a considerable amount of brownfield
land available for development but councils and the RDAs have
done too little to bring sites forward for development. The Government's
proposals to simplify the use of Compulsory Purchase Orders will
help. Councils need to be proactive in assembling sites to take
forward the findings of their urban capacity studies. The Government
should give RDAs a clear role in ensuring a good supply of sites
for housing development to meet the needs of their regional economies.
Setting up trusts to assemble and prepare sites would be helpful,
but they will require significant start-up funds (paragraph 110).
Government Response:
The Government agrees that local authorities need
to take a more proactive approach to facilitating site assembly
if the Government's objectives of more efficient use of urban
land and the re-use of previously-developed sites are to be achieved.
We expect local authorities to work with landowners so that suitable
sites identified in urban housing capacity studies are brought
forward for development. In some instances, the local authority
may need to purchase land to facilitate redevelopment. Wherever
possible, this should be done by negotiated agreement but may
involve the use of compulsory purchase powers. The new Compulsory
Purchase Orders Circular now includes guidance to RDAs and EP
on the use of their compulsory purchase powers. There is also
revised guidance to local authorities on the use of their planning
compulsory purchase powers. Provisions in the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Bill are designed to make this power easier to interpret,
so removing a barrier to its use in bringing forward redevelopment
schemes. Further work on compulsory purchase procedures and compensation
is being undertaken by the Law Commission, to complement the Government's
longer-term policy intentions to make the compulsory purchase
process quicker, simpler and fairer. English Partnerships (EP)
are developing a comprehensive national strategy for brownfield
land. This will start from a detailed understanding of what brownfield
land is available, making full use of the National Land Use Database,
which identifies 66,000 hectares of previously used land capable
of redevelopment. The strategy will cover how best to bring sites
back into use, especially in growth areas. RDAs have been set
challenging targets on reclamation of brownfield land to achieve
the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's PSA target to reclaim
at least 1,100 hectares of brownfield land per year by 2004.With
1,086 hectares reclaimed in 2001-02 under the Land and Property
Programme they are well on target to meet this. From their mid
year forecasts they are also expected to successfully achieve
this target in 2002-03.
Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future
sets out the key role RDAs will play in
tackling the housing problems across England. To date they have
played a crucial part in helping to deliver sustainable communities,
but their role will now go beyond strategic directions to delivery.
RDAs will produce Brownfield Land Action Plans in co-operation
with local authorities, and other relevant agencies and statutory
bodies, to assist in bringing previously developed land back into
use. These plans will develop EP's national strategy.
Question:
The Law Commission is considering how to make
the compulsory purchase process quicker, simpler and fairer. When
will it publish its recommendations?
Answer:
The Law Commission published its Final
Report on a CPO compensation Code on 16 December 2003, and is
due to publish a further report on CPO procedures during 2004.
Question:
RDAs are supposed to produce Brownfield Land Action
Plans - how many have? What progress has there been on RDAs drawing
them up?
Answer:
The Sustainable Communities Plan set out the requirement
for RDAs to develop EP's national strategy to produce Brownfield
Land Action Plans. In advance of the completion of the national
brownfield land strategy, the North West Development Agency (NWDA)
has been working with EP and the Housing Corporation, to undertake
two pilot studies for the preparation of brownfield land management
action plans in part of Greater Manchester, and in East Lancashire.
These pilot studies will link to the emerging
National Brownfield Strategy, with the aim of improving the supply
of brownfield land for development in these two important areas.
Consultants have been appointed to develop the action plans, with
the Northwest Regional Assembly, Government Office for the North
West, and eleven local authorities in Manchester and East Lancashire
also playing a key role.
Lessons learnt from these pilot studies will be
applied across the entire Northwest region and throughout the
UK.
Recommendation:
(t) Public agencies are having major problems recruiting
staff to provide services because of the high house prices. They
also have a significant landholding which is surplus or underused.
The Government should allow public agencies more flexibility in
the disposal of their assets, to encourage the sale for affordable
housing not least for their own workforce (paragraph 111).
Government Response:
The Government agrees that value for money rules
on public sector land disposals should encourage sensible decisions
about the use of land for housing. Sustainable Communities:
Building for the Future indicates that sponsor Departments
and/or employers will contribute to the cost of key worker housing
programmes from 2004. Such contributions could take the form of
public sector land, as well as cash, building on existing successful
arrangements to use public sector land and resources to provide
affordable housing. Some Departments and Government Agencies are
already using their sites for key workers: for example, NHS Estates,
in partnership with housing providers, has made good progress
towards meeting the NHS Plan commitment of providing 2,000 additional
units of accommodation for nurses in London by July 2003. Many
of these units are sourced by NHS Trusts from their own assets.
The Department for Education and Skills has asked all local education
authorities to consider the potential to use their assets in providing
teacher accommodation; and local police authorities are pursuing
local housing initiatives to support their key workers in areas
with a high cost of living. EP will adopt a strategic role for
surplus public sector land. Their portfolio already includes 42
strategic sites, many in growth areas. EP will now draw up a register
of surplus public sector land across Government. Working in collaboration
with the RDAs, EP's involvement will help ensure that wider government
objectives, including housing need and regional economic strategies,
are factored into disposal decisions.
Question:
EP is drawing up a register of surplus public
sector land across Government. When will it be available; how
will it be used?
Answer:
Information from the register is now available
to government departments through EP. This includes lists of sites
by geographical location, which is proving useful for departments
wishing to obtain land, as well as those wishing to dispose of
it. The register is designed to make the best possible use of
surplus public sector land in meeting government targets and objectives,
and in particular in relation to key worker and affordable housing.
Recommendation:
(x)We welcome CABE's proposal for a Best Value framework
to set standards for the quality of new affordable housing schemes.
We look forward to CABE providing more detail.
Government Response:
The Government is seeking to develop a Best Value
indicator or set of indicators on the quality of the planning
service for introduction in 2004-05.We will seek to incorporate
design quality in these indicators, and we will continue to involve
CABE in discussions.
Question:
A Best Value indicator for introduction in 2004-2005
on the services provided by planning departments is being drawn
up - when is it going to be available?
Answer:
The ODPM has gone out to consultation on the introduction
of two new planning quality indicators. The two indicators have
been devised after extensive consultation with stakeholders (including
CABE).
Fifth Report - Department Annual Report and
Estimates 2002 (HC 78) (CM 5841)
Recommendation:
(gg) "We are concerned that the Government plans
to take funding away from areas of need, on the grounds that they
are not spending the money allocated to them. The Government's
own strategies recognise that capacity in these areas is weak,
and programmes should be mindful of that - Government should deal
with the problem by streamlining its bureaucracy not by penalising
local communities."
Government Response:
The Government is investing substantial resources
to help support community involvement and empowerment in the New
Deal for Communities and other neighbourhood renewal or regeneration
programmes. In the New Deal this has included a longer lead time
than usual for preparing and submitting bids, spending on capacity
building and active supportive involvement from officials. In
most cases this is bearing fruit and good progress is being made.
The Government remains committed to the £2 billion
promised over the lifetime of the New Deal for Communities programme
and in last year's spending review has re-profiled this total
to reflect the rate of spend proposed in the Delivery Plans that
local communities have put in place. While the re-profiled figures
form the basis for each NDC partnership's annual budget, Government
Offices have the flexibility to manage resources across the programme
in their region each year, giving more to those partnerships who
can progress more quickly and less to those where projects have
slipped. This ensures that expenditure each year is managed to
meet the overall provision, but allows each NDC partnership the
ability to spend at a realistic rate for its stage of development.
The Government is also seeking to streamline bureaucratic
processes - for example by establishing a single performance management
process for all neighbourhood renewal activities. However, if,
after all the efforts of Government and others, the conclusion
is reached that a particular delivery vehicle or mechanism is
simply not working, the Government will want to find other ways
of targeting resources at neighbourhoods, rather than removing
resources from them, to ensure that local residents are not penalised
just because the delivery vehicle chosen has not done its job.
Question:
The Government is seeking to streamline bureaucratic
processes (used by the Government Offices in allocating funds)
- for example by establishing a single performance management
process for all neighbourhood renewal activities. What progress
has there been?
Answer:
A Performance Management Framework has been developed and implemented
for Neighbourhood Programmes. This looks at issues such as governance,
spending and strategic priorities. After piloting it was fully
launched across NDCs earlier this year and as a result each NDC
drew up a performance improvement plan. Neighbourhood Management
Pathfinders have just completed the process and the results will
be moderated shortly. Feedback from programmes suggests the partnerships
find the process useful. Furthermore the process seems to be fully
'owned' by the partnerships.
In NDCs the Performance Management Assessment
has enabled us to extend delegation to better performing partnerships
thus reducing the bureaucratic demands further.
Recommendation:
(z) "We welcome the fact that the ODPM has responded
to criticisms of DTLR from our predecessor Committee and others.
It is now increasing its internal staff capacity and taking active
steps to promote a more consistent and prioritised approach to
local government across Government. We will seek to discover the
extent to which the Cabinet Sub-Committee concerned is achieving
that."
Government Response:
The Government is developing a more consistent and
discriminating approach to managing relations with local government.
There is a balance to be struck between the focus of departments
on delivery and their need to engage with authorities, particularly
where performance requires improvement. The Government view is
that to achieve better performance which meets local needs it
is necessary to reduce burdens and allow councils more flexibility
to manage their own processes and budgets. The Office is taking
the lead in working with departments to this end.
On the issue of the passporting of education provision,
the Government have a long standing interest in the increases
of schools spending from year to year, which authorities with
education responsibilities will want to take into account in setting
their budgets. Authorities had the opportunity to discuss with
DfES on an individual basis any problems they would have experienced
in passporting the increase in education provision. Two authorities
submitted draft schools budgets which DfES considered inadequate,
but were able to reach agreement with the Department subsequently.
The Central Local Partnership has discussed the issue of education
funding and agreed to work together to improve the system in 2004/05.
A jointly agreed list of key priorities for central
and local government has been drawn up, under the auspices of
the Central Local Partnership, to focus improvements in public
services. These priorities played an important role in last year's
Spending Review and they will increasingly inform the development
of the Government's approach to performance management. A new
Ministerial Cabinet sub-committee - GL(D) - has been established
to help drive performance improvement and to oversee the detailed
implementation of the Local Government White Paper. This machinery
will also oversee collective arrangements to examine new regulatory
requirements or burdens on authorities.
The Office is also developing the role of relationship
managers and teams, using greater numbers of people with local
government experience, to provide an ongoing relationship with
groups of councils across the range of performance issues.
Supplementary Question:
A new ministerial cabinet sub-committee - GL (D)
has been established to help drive performance improvement and
to oversee the detailed implementation of the Local Government
White Paper. How often has it met and what issues has it considered?
Answer:
In July 2003 GL(D) which dealt specifically with
the Local Government White Paper, was disbanded. It was replaced
by GL(P), which has a wider remit. The Committee meets on a regular
basis, but, it has been the practice of successive administrations
not to disclose specific details of meetings.
The terms of reference and composition of GL (P)
is provided for your information.
TERMS OF REFERENCE
"To consider issues relating to the performance
of local government and the development of local Public Service
Agreements (PSAs), and to report to GL."
COMPOSITION
Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime
Minister (Nick Raynsford)
(Chair)
Chief Secretary to the Treasury
Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor
of the Duchy of Lancaster
Minister of State, Home Office (Hazel Blears)
Minister of State, Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs (Alun Michael)
Minister for Transport
Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media
and Sport (Estelle Morris)
Minister of State, Department for Education and
Skills (David Miliband)
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Office
of the Deputy Prime Minister
(Phil Hope)
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department
of Health (Stephen
Ladyman)
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department
for Work and Pensions
(Maria Eagle)
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department
of Trade and Industry
(Gerry Sutcliffe)
Recommendation:
(hh) "Any future claims that targets have not
been met as a result of the costs of meeting the fire strike,
from a department with such strong track record of underspending
should be treated with scepticism until they have been reviewed
by the National Audit Office."
Government Response:
This conclusion is noted. As set out in the response
to (ff) the Office has introduced measures to reduce underspending.
We are unable to calculate the final costs of the fire dispute
as it is still unresolved. Any effect on targets will be clearer
after the fire dispute has been settled and the final costs are
known.
Supplementary Question:
Have the final costs of the fire dispute led to
a reduction in funding to other programmes?
Answer:
The costs of the fire dispute have
not led to reductions in spending on any of ODPM's other programmes.
Seventh Report - The Effectiveness of Government
Regeneration Initiatives (HC 76-I) (Cm 5865)
Recommendation 'd' (paragraph 23):
There would be benefit in the professions concerned
with economic and social evaluation in creating a more challenging
and persuasive framework for evaluation of regeneration outcomes.
Government Response:
The performance management and evaluation of earlier
regeneration programmes, up to and including the Single Regeneration
Budget, did rely on information about programme outputs to draw
inferences about the extent to which wider social, physical and
economic regeneration goals were being achieved. This programme
output information was, however, only one part of the evidence
against which the achievements of the programme were judged. Additional
information - for example from household surveys, and interviews
with programme participants and stakeholders - was also important
in shaping these judgements. Information on outputs plays an important
role in testing the link between programme activity and programme
outcomes. Responding to earlier criticisms over the bureaucratic
burden of providing output data, work on the Neighbourhood Renewal
Unit's current area based initiatives has reduced the amount of
information being collected about programme outputs. For example,
in the New Deal for Communities programme there is no requirement
on partnerships that they supply any output data either to the
Neighbourhood Renewal Unit or to the Government Offices. However,
evidence about outputs is still a useful ingredient in assessing
the extent to which New Deal for Communities partnership activity
is responsible for changes in outcomes (such as reduced levels
of burglary or improved respiratory health) in the partnership
area. This work is being undertaken through the national New Deal
for Communities evaluation. The plausibility of an apparent effect
often rests in part on evidence that there has been delivery of
some of the key elements, such as diversionary activities for
young people at risk of offending or smoking cessation programmes,
in the neighbourhood. A similar approach is being taken in the
evaluation of other Neighbourhood Renewal Unit area based initiatives.
Question:
What have these evaluations revealed? Do these
evaluations influence the subsequent development of the programme
under scrutiny, and can you give examples of where this has taken
place?
Answer:
The development of the ODPM's Neighbourhood Renewal
Unit's programmes has been influenced by the findings of previous
research on the lessons learned from earlier regeneration programmes,
such as the Urban Development Corporations, City Challenge and
the Single Regeneration Budget.
These indicated that sustainable renewal was more
likely with appropriately funded, community-led and long-term
programmes focused on tightly defined communities that successfully
engaged all local stakeholders in delivering improved outcomes.
The design of the New Deal for Communities programme embodies
all of these features. Community engagement and participation
is key to improving the delivery of services in deprived areas
and is supported through a number of NRU programmes, such as the
Community Chest, the Community Empowerment Fund.
Recommendation 'e' (paragraph 23):
We recommend that some places be selected for evaluation
of outcomes taken as a whole over the 30 and more years of a proactive
urban policy, with a view to determining more closely the appropriateness
of different categories of scheme for different types of place.
Government Response:
We welcome the Committee's recommendation for long-term
evaluation, and this chimes with a wider desire to move, where
possible, to studying interventions and their impact over a longer
time period. There are, however, difficult methodological issues
that a study of the type recommended would need to surmount. Policy
interventions have often had overlapping aims, objectives and
- as importantly - target areas. Documentation and evidence about
older policies is surprisingly sparse and often hard to compare
with information about more recent interventions. We have reservations
about the feasibility of a study that could helpfully assess the
combined and individual impact and appropriateness of interventions,
and that will provide useful pointers to future targeting. However,
it may be that academic researchers with an interest may be able
to think further about some of the Committee's interests here,
and we would certainly wish to encourage such independent research.
On a related point, we are currently undertaking technical scoping
work to assess ways of undertaking a long-term evaluation of the
National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal. As part of any such
study it would be important to look back at the history of any
case study areas as well as to study in real-time the impact of
current policies to inform future targeting. We hope that such
work illustrates that we share the Committee's interest in encouraging
long-term, rigorous and challenging research to understand how
we can best intervene in particular areas.
Question:
What was the outcome of the technical scoping
work? And what progress has been made in encouraging academics
to develop long term evaluation methodology? when will the long-term
evaluation commence?
Answer:
The technical scoping study on evaluation of the
National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal (NSNR) is now in final
draft stage and approaching finalisation. It will be used, as
intended, as a background document for those selected to submit
a bid to undertake a full evaluation of the NSNR. The scoping
study reports a strong appetite for an evaluation of the NSNR:
across government and beyond, and for local as well as regional
and national levels audiences. The study proposes that a wide
mixture of methods and sources will be useful, and that much existing
data and evaluation evidence can and should be drawn upon. A decision
about commissioning the full study will be taken by Ministers,
and, should they wish to proceed, our hope is that consultants
could commence work in Spring of 2004.
ODPM is developing networks with a range of academic
and other research communities, and through these networks we
hope to improve understanding of our interests and needs within
the research communities. As part of this, we are expressing our
interest in objective, long-term analysis of trends.
Recommendation 'f' (paragraph 27):
There is no particular merit in ensuring areas are
consistent in size, we look to rapid completion of the Neighbourhood
Renewal Unit's work with the Office of National Statistics in
creating a public data set for neighbourhoods which will make
it easier for those at every level seeking to minimise the artificiality
of areas defined for the purposes of regeneration.
Government Response:
We agree with the Committee's recommendation. Ward
boundaries are used as the current geography for deprivation data
through lack of an alternative small area geography. The Office
of the Deputy Prime Minister is working closely with the Office
for National Statistics to develop a better geographical base
for data, which will aim to overcome:
- problems of consistency of size, which is an
important issue when current wards vary in size from a
few hundred people to tens of thousands
- the fact that ward boundaries experience a high
level of change, which makes it
difficult to track change over time; and
- to reflect, as far as possible, natural neighbourhoods.
We are also exploring the potential for users of
government statistics to define and draw their own boundaries
on which to display and collate data. In all this work a key issue
is preventing the disclosure of individuals' private circumstances
through the display of data. This places some obvious limits on
what can be achieved.
Question:
What has been the outcome of the work with the
ONS? What is the timescale for tangible progress?
Answer:
The outcome of the work with the ONS is the production
of geographical building blocks on which future data can be released.
Super Output Areas (SOAs) are a layered geography with areas intermediate
in size between 2001 Census Output Areas and local authority districts.
Three layers are proposed, with each layer nesting
inside the layer above. SOAs offer a choice of scale for the collection
and publication of data that could be disclosive if published
for Census OAs. They give an improved basis for comparison across
the country, because the units are more similar in size than,
for example, electoral wards. SOAs are also intended to be highly
stable for significant periods of time. Such stability should
enable improved comparison and monitoring of policy over time.
The lower layer and middle layers have now been
generated by zone design software.
- Lower Layer: Around
35,000 zones, each comprised of groups of Census OAs: almost all
between 1,000 and 2,000 residents in size.
- Middle layer: Around 7,000 zones, almost all
between 5,000 and 10,000 in size.
- Upper layer: when developed, is expected have
about 1500 zones mostly between 25,000 and 50,000 in size.
A methodology is in place that will complete production
of the SOAs - essentially rolling forward the method used for
Census OA production. Production of the lower layer SOAs and prototype
middle layer SOAs has now been completed,
and is being checked.
Recommendation 'g' (paragraph 28):
We recommend that the Community Cohesion Unit follows
up its May 2002 guidance with regular reports on implementation,
and that it be tasked with reporting publicly on the community
cohesion implications of any new regeneration initiatives, including
the recently announced Enterprise Areas. The consequences of area-based
initiatives upon community cohesion should be covered routinely
rather than exceptionally in project, neighbourhood and programme
evaluations.
Government Response:
The Guidance on Community Cohesion - a joint initiative
by the Local Government Association, the Commission for Racial
Equality, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Home
Office - is due to be revised and updated in 2004. This new version
will report on implementation, with examples drawn from the Community
Cohesion Pathfinder programme, and those authorities awarded Beacon
Council status for their work on community cohesion. Furthermore,
the Regional Co-ordination Unit's area based initiative guidance
recognises the potential impact of geographically targeted funding
streams on community cohesion The guidance states that: "Departments
should demonstrate that they have considered the community cohesion
issues raised in the Denham report, by consulting the Community
Cohesion Unit. In some cases, they may like to consider allowing
flexibility for small additional areas to be included within a
scheme, at the discretion of those on the ground, if this would
prevent tension arising." Ministerial commitment to comply
with this guidance will ensure that community cohesion impact
is routinely considered during the design stage of new policy
initiatives. The Regional Co-ordination Unit is working closely
with the Community Cohesion Unit and the Neighbourhood Renewal
Unit to make sure that departments are fully aware of the importance
of these issues, and will be issuing joint supplementary guidance
and presenting roadshows across Whitehall in the coming months
to raise awareness. 4Building Cohesive Communities: A Report of
the Ministerial Group on Public Order and Community Cohesion
We agree that previous evaluations of regeneration
initiatives paid insufficient attention to the impact of programmes
on communities as opposed to people and places, though there was
evidence that some groups were less likely to benefit than others.
Achieving community engagement with neighbourhood renewal is now
fully recognised as an important element in the design, delivery
and sustainability of regeneration programmes on the ground.
Current evaluations of Neighbourhood Renewal Unit
area based programmes are looking at their impact on all sections
of the community in the neighbourhoods covered by the programmes.
In addition, the national New Deal for Communities evaluation
is assessing the extent to which the New Deal for Communities
programme is impacting on wider community cohesion across the
district, and at how possible tensions have been identified and
managed.
Question:
Has the joint supplementary guidance been published?
Have the roadshows taken place? What progress has been made on
the Guidance for Community Cohesion? What approach has been taken
to ensure community engagement in neighbourhood renewal programmes?
How will the Community Cohesion Pathfinder Schemes, introduced
by the Home Office, relate to issues considered here?
Answer:
Work was carried out over the summer to see how
community engagement could be better integrated into NRU programmes,
and how lessons from outside NRU (eg tenant participation) and
outside the ODPM (eg Active Communities Directorate, HO) could
be brought in. This has been followed up with a NRU-wide forum
on community participation with action points to be taken forward.
Research colleagues have built community participation into other
evaluations - eg NDC and LSP to ensure that lessons and good practice
are being drawn out.
The single Community Programme's focus on supporting
community involvement at neighbourhood level in the delivery of
Local Neighbourhood Renewal Strategies is reflected in the LSP
Toolkit.
The Cohesion Pathfinder Schemes are based around
the priorities and actions as determined by local areas rather
than national priorities. However, NRU is involved in the learning
coming from the Pathfinder Schemes.
The Cohesion Pathfinder
Schemes, jointly funded by the CCU and the NRU, are based
around the priorities and actions as determined by local areas
rather than national
Recommendation 'j' (paragraph 36):
We recommend that all regeneration partnerships,
including Local Strategic Partnerships, engage with local transport
providers. Consideration of transport requirements should be a
mandatory and fundamental part of all regeneration plans.
Government Response:
Last year we asked local authorities to report in
their Annual Progress Reports on what they were doing to link
the implementation of their Local Transport Plans to their Community
Strategy, for example, through the development of Local Strategic
Partnerships. We think it equally important to look at how best
we can ensure Local Strategic Partnerships take account of the
role of transport, when considering, among other things, ideas
for using Neighbourhood Renewal Fund resources.
Question:
What progress has been made on this?
Answer:
The 2003 guidance on Local Transport Plans invited
local authorities to report on how the implementation of their
plans were contributing towards the delivery of access to jobs
and services, particularly for those most in need. This information
was not made mandatory and the data has not been yet been analysed.
We do encourage Local Strategic Partnerships to use Neighbourhood
Renewal Fund to address transport priorities in their Local Neighbourhood
Renewal Strategies, but it is not one of the five key themes of
employment, education, health, crime and housing against which
spend is analysed at a national level.
Recommendation 'k' (paragraph 38):
Asset-based regeneration provides sustainable benefits.
We recommend that Government review the existing structure of
rules and regulations, including the fiscal system, to ensure
there are no unintentional or perverse obstacles to asset-based
regeneration.
Government Response:
The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is already
actively considering issues relating to asset-based regeneration,
working with colleagues across Government, in the context of the
New Deal for Communities programme. This includes consideration
of whether there are unintentional or perverse obstacles to asset-based
regeneration. The Department will take account of the points made
by the Committee as part of that programme of work.
Question:
What progress has been made on this?
Answer:
A programme Note providing guidance on the acquisition
and management of assets has been issued to NDCs, This deals with
the current rules and arrangements.
A Neighbourhood Renewal Adviser is currently carrying
out work to inform discussions with Treasury regarding those changes
that might both facilitate the acquisition and management of assets
by partnerships but also ensure an appropriate level of oversight.
Recommendation 'q' (paragraph 75):
We acknowledge that it is early days, and recognise
that several witnesses suggested that Local Strategic Partnerships
could in the long-term play a significant role in "defining,
implementing and organising the ABIs within their areas."
However we have received no evidence to suggest that Local Strategic
Partnerships add value to the regeneration process. Without significant
review, and revision of accountability to make Local Strategic
Partnerships subject to the same scrutiny processes as local authorities,
we fear they will amount to little but 'talking shops'.
Government Response:
Local Strategic Partnerships are the key forum for
co-ordinating delivery of Area Based Initiatives (and mainstream
services) at the local level, bringing together the range of accountable
bodies in a single forum to ensure coherent planning and delivery.
As such, they will often be key stakeholders in ensuring the success
of the "single local management centre" approach, driving
change and simplifying funding stream management from the bottom
up. All Local Strategic Partnerships have now largely developed
effective and inclusive structures and working practices, that
are encouraging a more strategic and integrated approach to the
planning and delivery of services. Nearly every Local Strategic
Partnership in the 88 Neighbourhood Renewal Fund areas has drawn
up a Local Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy, and Local Strategic
Partnerships are well advanced in developing Community Strategies.
These strategies set out each Local Strategic Partnership's proposed
actions and targets for tackling deprivation and provide the framework
for public sector Local Strategic Partnership members' own plans
and programmes. Local Strategic Partnerships are now focusing
on the implementation and delivery of their strategies and targets.
Many Local Strategic Partnerships in the 88 Neighbourhood Renewal
Fund areas are engaged in the development of more detailed neighbourhood
action plans in consultation with local communities and other
stakeholders. Some Local Strategic Partnerships are already developing
new structures, such as neighbourhood management, to support delivery
of their plans. Over the summer of 2003, the Office of the Deputy
Prime Minister will issue a toolkit of practical advice and
support to help Local Strategic Partnerships make the shift from
partnership and strategy development to the delivery of real change
on the ground.
Question:
Have the toolkits been well received? What do
they consist of? How will they really help deliver change? Has
independent evaluation been undertaken into the impact of LSPs
on the development of regeneration programmes? If not, is any
planned? Have the neighbourhood renewal strategies been subject
to independent scrutiny? What difference have LSPs made here?
Answer:
The web based LSP Delivery Toolkit was launched
on Tuesday 2 December following an intensive period of consultation.
It complements the introduction of a performance management framework
which, Local Strategic Partnerships in the 88 Neighbourhood Renewal
Fund areas must complete by April 2004 to review how their action
plans will deliver the commitments made in their Local Neighbourhood
Renewal Strategies. The toolkit contains a mix of guidance on
the priorities for neighbourhood renewal, the role of Local Strategic
Partnerships in neighbourhood renewal, constructing and reviewing
action plans, and practical case studies highlighting 'what works'.
Those LSPs who do not receive Neighbourhood Renewal Fund as also
encouraged to use the toolkit.
ODPM has commissioned an independent evaluation
of Local Strategic Partnerships, and this will report on the formative
stage of LSP development in 2005 before considering impact issues.
The NRU plans to commission complementary research on the impact
of Local Strategic Partnerships during 2004, as part of the overall
evaluation of the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal.
In addition an independent analysis of Local Neighbourhood Renewal
Strategies has been undertaken by academic contractors and the
results used to inform development of the toolkit.
Recommendation 'v' (paragraph 90):
We recommend that those in Government designing programmes
and the Civil Servants managing them at regional level participate
in secondments with local regeneration practitioners to learn
about the realities of delivering regeneration and the delivery
channels available.
Government Response:
We fully agree with this recommendation. Our approach
is set out in Action 12 of The Learning Curve10, which states:
The Neighbourhood Renewal Unit is working with Government Offices
for the Regions to ensure that Neighbourhood Renewal Unit, Government
Office staff, and civil servants across Whitehall have the skills
and knowledge they need to develop and implement neighbourhood
renewal policy. The Cabinet Office Interchange Unit is working
with the Government Offices on interchange opportunities for civil
servants in neighbourhood renewal. Some secondment opportunities
have already been taken by civil servants arranged on an individual
basis. We are now working with central and regional Government,
and local regeneration bodies, to develop a more structured programme
of interchange, which can take the form of visits, exchanges,
job shadowing and mentoring, in addition to longer-term secondments.
Question:
How many secondments have now taken place? Where
to and for how long?
Answer:
As stated in our previous response, a number
of secondment opportunities are taking place. This activity includes
long term secondments, short term secondments, ad hoc attachments
and work placements as well as other forms of learning such as
visits, exchanges, job shadowing and mentoring. It is difficult
to present an accurate figure because the activity is not managed
centrally and is often not formally recorded.
Secondment and other experiential learning is
part of a much broader programme of learning support developed
by ODPM, often delivered by Government Offices, to improve the
delivery of neighbourhood renewal.
Eighth Report - Planning for Sustainable
Communities: Sustainable Communities in the South East (HC 77-I)
(Cm 5895)
Recommendation:
(j) Employment and enterprise creation are vital
to creating sustainable communities, alongside new housing development.
There is very little in the Government's plan about how new business
and job creation will take place within the Growth Areas. The
sub-regional plans for the Growth Areas must include employment
and business growth strategies alongside the housing proposals
to reduce commuting into central London and to create more economically
sustainable communities (paragraph 47).
Government Response:
The Government expects the strategies for the Growth
Areas to plan for sustainable communities, in which strategies
for employment and business growth are integral to the overall
strategy. We agree that the aim should be to ensure sustainable
patterns of development, with economic development, housing and
infrastructure being planned in an integrated way. We are currently
revising guidance for regional planning and for economic development.
These will both recognise the need for an integrated approach
to sustainable communities.
Question:
The Government say that it is revising guidance
for regional planning economic development. What progress has
there been?
Answer:
Draft Planning Policy Statement 11: Regional Planning
is currently out to consultation.
A new draft Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning
for Economic Development is being prepared for publication in
spring 2004.
Recommendation:
(r) Rigid highway standards and design guidance are
inhibiting the implementation of the aspirations in PPG3 to create
well-designed neighbourhoods. New highway standards and guidance
are urgently required which are more flexible to allow architects
and planners to draw up designs to fit a particular locality (paragraph
86).
Government Response:
The Government expects well-designed new development.
This is why its policies in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 (PPG3)
expect local planning authorities to adopt policies which "focus
on the quality of the places and living environments being created
and give priority to the needs of pedestrians rather than the
movement and parking of vehicles". PPG3 is supported by good
practice guidance, Better Places to Live: by Design. We
have commissioned research on barriers to residential developments
designed to reflect PPG3's emphasis on quality and sustainability.
The work has examined the technical, legal and institutional context
and thrown light on impediments which prevent the achievement
of better quality and more innovative residential layouts. The
research, led by WSP in partnership with David Lock Associates
and Transport Research Laboratory, has found that much of the
technical framework in place is not geared to the delivery of
better quality streets. The research team's report is being finalised
for publication and we will give careful consideration to the
issues it raises.
Question:
The Government says it has commissioned work by
WSP and others on impediments to good housing design - when will
it be published?
Answer:
The Government published this report, Better
Streets, Better Places on 17 July 2003, to accompany
its Parliamentary Statement on Planning for Housing. This report
thoroughly examined the difficulties of integrating well-designed
higher density housing with local highway requirements; and it
concluded that the technical, legal and institutional framework
in place are not sufficiently well geared to delivering the better
quality and more innovative residential layouts expected by PPG3.
ODPM and DfT aim to publish an action plan to
take forward the recommendations in
Better Streets, Better Places early in the New Year.
Recommendation:
(w) The first Millennium Village at Greenwich has
demonstrated the benefits of incorporating environmental features
within a new housing development. However, overall the Millennium
Communities programme has failed to achieve significant results.
English Partnerships needs to review the programme to identify
the reasons for the delays and produce a revised programme which
includes clear deadlines and criteria against which the success
of these developments can be assessed (paragraph 91).
Government Response:
The Millennium Communities programme has achieved
significant results in demonstrating the benefits of incorporating
environmental features within a new housing development. At Greenwich
Millennium Community 346 homes have been developed, of which 41
are affordable. A formal evaluation of the first 300 homes against
the benchmarks and targets is being completed. The results will
be published within the next few months, and interim indications
show that good progress against the targets has been made. The
Millennium Community programme was planned to be a long term programme,
and the final three locations were announced in July 2002. Each
of the seven sites is therefore at a different point in the development
process, and providing results against objectives relevant to
that stage of development. For example, increasing social inclusion
and participation is an important objective and many of the sites
are currently undertaking an intensive community consultation
process with positive results. It is a measure of the success
of the programme that targets that were considered to be at the
cutting edge in 1997 are now perceived as more routine since the
programme has demonstrated that these issues are achievable. Thus
the Government does accept, in light of the recent launch of the
Sustainable Communities Plan, that the Millennium Communities
programme should be reviewed to take into account current thinking
and objectives which have emerged since the launch of the programme.
The Department and English Partnerships will be working closely
together to undertake a review over the next 6 months.
Questions:
1. The Government says that the evaluation of
Greenwich Millennium Community development is being completed
- when will it be published?
2. ODPM and EP are working on a review of the
Millennium Communities Programme - what is its brief and timetable
for publication?
Answers:
1. A formal evaluation of the first 300 homes
against the benchmarks and targets is being completed. The results
will be made available to ODPM by end of January 2004, and interim
indications show that good progress against the targets has been
made.
2. The Review has commenced and the Department
and English Partnerships will be working closely together to complete
this over the next 4 -5 months. We are aiming to announce results
in spring 2004. The steering group looking at the review has its
first meeting on 17th December. The brief will be
finalised then.
Recommendation:
(y) The costs of providing the infrastructure for
the house-building programme in the South East are likely to be
very high but as yet there has not been a full assessment. We
look forward to the preparation of a whole scale plan for the
provision of all the infrastructure when the new house-building
targets have been prepared (paragraph 100).
Government Response:
The Government is working to develop a better understanding
and assessment of the costs of supporting infrastructure for the
30 year programme set out in the Sustainable Communities Plan.
This is clearly essential to ensure delivery of this ambitious
programme. ODPM is working with other Departments and local partners
on the infrastructure required and will have a more thorough assessment
of potential costs once this is complete. But we do not intend
to prepare a plan of investment over the 30 year period covered
by the Communities Plan. It would clearly be unrealistic and inappropriate
for the Government to make commitments to infrastructure provision
over a 30 year period. However, the Government intends to provide
more details of ODPM's spending plans over the next three years.
In addition, DfT will be making announcements on the outstanding
Multi Modal Studies shortly which will be relevant to the growth
areas. DfT will also take account of the Growth Area agenda in
their future investment decisions. By the time the house building
targets are incorporated in RPG, we will have a very thorough
understanding of the infrastructure costs for each area.
Question:
The new housebuilding targets for the Growth Areas
are being integrated into RPGs. What progress is there in assessing
the overall infrastructure costs?
Answer:
The actual number of new dwellings
in each of the growth areas, and their location, is subject to
the review of relevant regional plans and to the completion of
more detailed local studies which include assessment of infrastructure
needs. For example an initial view by regional partners of some
of these needs is included in the draft RPG for Milton Keynes/South
Midlands published for consultation in July.
Government is working with regional
and local partners to assess what is required and a summary of
its initial commitments is included in the first stage report
on "Creating Sustainable Communities: Making it Happen -
Thames Gateway and the Growth Areas". In addition work is
in hand across Government to look at issues such as the responsiveness
of health and education services to areas of rapid growth.
Recommendation:
(kk) The ODPM and DEFRA need to develop a joint programme
of flood protection which identifies areas where development can
be allowed and where the habitat should be protected and improved
(paragraph 126).
Government Response:
The ODPM and DEFRA already work very closely together
(and with the Environment Agency, English Nature and others) on
strategies and policy on development and flood risk. The Government
is obliged and committed to protecting internationally important
conservation areas. In pursuit of this objective, we have launched
the Coastal Habitat Management Plan (CHaMP) initiative to identify
the flood and coastal defence requirements for such sites. In
addition, DEFRA has made it clear that any flood management works
that are necessary for maintaining the integrity of these internationally
important sites will receive funding. The question of where development
can be allowed and where habitats should be protected is, however,
a matter for local determination in the light of Government strategy
and policy. The Government's strategy for flood and coastal defence
was published 10 years ago and it is now being reviewed. This
will involve all departments with an interest, together with local
government and external stakeholders. The Environment Agency is
seeking to work closely with development partnerships to identify
sustainable defence solutions that take sufficient account of
the need to protect and create habitats. The whole of the coastline
of England and Wales is already covered by Shoreline Management
Plans developed by the coastal groups (primarily the maritime
Councils and the Environment Agency) that set out sustainable
coastal defence policies for the coast. The second generation
of shoreline management plans is now being developed and will
involve close co-operation between those responsible for the planning
of development and flood management. Inland, DEFRA and the Environment
Agency have piloted a similar approach to the management of river
flooding through Catchment Flood Management Plans. The roll-out
of this programme will enable a more holistic appreciation of
flood risk to be incorporated in spatial development planning
to identify areas for development and for protection and improvement
of habitats.
Question:
The Government strategy for flood and coastal
defence published 10 years ago is being reviewed - what is the
timetable for the review and when will the final strategy be published?
Answer:
The current timetable foresees a public consultation
period over summer 2004 and the publication of a new strategy
towards the end of 2004.
| 
