Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160
- 170)
MONDAY 20 MARCH 2006
MR PAUL
SPOONER, MR
JIM GILL
AND MS
HEATHER EMERY
Q160 Janet Anderson: I could not
agree more with what Heather and Paul have said about the need
for early consultation, because I have got some of this going
on in my own constituency. I would like to ask you whether you
think there could have been better guidance to local authorities
about the way in which they involve the local community. I am
thinking in particular about some of the letters that were sent
out to my constituents which were very insensitively worded. Sometimes
there is a tendency to think if you have distributed leaflets
and held a couple of meetings, then you have consulted everyone,
and that is not necessarily the case. My short question is, could
better guidance be given to the local authorities and others that
are managing new schemes?
Mr Spooner: I do not know about
the particular case you are referring to, but I would say broadly
speaking there has been a lot of lessons learned over the last
10 years about consultation and engagement of local people in
the development of areas and particularly areas that are going
to be changed quite dramatically. I think it is very important
that that experience where it is has worked—and I can think
of examples, say, in East Lancashire where we have had particular
experience recently, but there are many other areas—is recorded
and shared, so best practice in terms of the way to engage local
communities in the process of change is spread across the country.
English Partnerships has a role there because part of our role
in supporting urban renaissance is to promote good practice. We
do that by producing best practice guides and holding workshops
that bring people together from different local authorities to
share their experiences. For example, we have a workshop on housing
market renewal which is being organised in April and that is two
years after the start of housing market renewals. We look at those
areas that have involved local people in the design and development
of neighbourhood renewal schemes to see what we can learn from
that experience. I do think it is important that best practice
is shared. However, I do feel the process of housing market renewal
does require in some cases the level of transformation and change
which means that even with every bit of consultation there will
be some people who feel that this is not the outcome they were
seeking. The overall aim must be to design with local people a
scheme which improves the quality of life and environment and
creates future prosperity for that area.
Mr Gill: Can I make an observation
on that point as well. It is not one which I make from personal
involvement so it may be prejudice as much as observation, but
Paul is right about best practice. It seems to me, as he said,
that we have learned an awful lot, and I am sure that Liverpool
City Council has learned a lot over the last 10 years and does
not insensitively send out letters, certainly not deliberately.
Best practice works both ways and I know that Pathfinders in the
early days were under huge pressure to spend the resources that
were allocated to them. I am sure the Chancellor will not change
practice on the basis of this conversation but annuality is not
best practice. Obliging the local authority to spend money by
31 March, and if it does not, it loses it, often makes people
rush rather than take the necessary time to do things. I think
there is a sense in which the balance and different priorities
affect things in different ways and sometimes that may explain
why people are insensitive or rush into things.
Q161 Philip Davies: Just to do this
to death to a certain extent, would you accept that the term "public
consultation" has got a pretty bad reputation in that many
people feel on all sorts of things that public consultation is
something that authorities, or whoever it might be, go through
because they have to go through, rather than with any genuine
intent to listen to what that consultation throws up? Therefore
many people will not take part in that consultation because they
think there is no point, the decision has already been made and
they are jumping through hoops now to say they have had public
consultation. Apart from best practice of local authorities, how
do you persuade the general public that the consultation is genuine
and their view is going to make a difference, because if people
do not feel that, they are not going to take part because they
think their view will not make a difference? How do you persuade
them that their view will make a difference?
Mr Spooner: I think, in our experience,
you do not do it by sending out leaflets saying, "Come to
a public meeting". You have to be a lot more sophisticated
these days and certainly you have to continue to involve local
people throughout the process not just once, not just in drawing
up the masterplan. English Partnerships has been involved in East
Manchester where, by any definition, it has gone through and is
going through dramatic change in terms of a lot of clearance of
run-down industrial buildings and a lot of brownfield sites which
have been remediated and brought back into proper use for public
benefit. All of that work with East Manchester, with Manchester
City Council, has been successful only because everybody involved
has repeatedly engaged local people at the local level by being
at the street level, involving people in the changes, not standing
back and inviting people to come to public meetings but ensuring
there are people on hand locally to give advice, counselling and
support to people during a period of change. We are investing,
as English Partnerships, significantly in an area of East Manchester
known as New Islington which has required the demolition of a
lot of, quite frankly, very poor condition 1960s housing which
local people were very pleased to see the back of, but they wanted
to be involved in the design and development of the new housing
which replaced it. For example, the architects on part of the
scheme have designed the individual properties to meet the bespoke
needs of those families who want to stay in the area and want
homes that meet their purposes today. That has been very successful
and that was not achieved by the traditional approach of formal
public consultation, but by having people from, in this case,
the City Council and the regeneration partnership on the ground
locally, working on site with local communities, involving people
and sitting around tables endlessly to discuss how those schemes
and designs might be taken forward. There is no panacea, but one
example of good practice is not to talk about public consultation
but to seriously engage local people at the local level in the
design of the scheme.
Ms Emery: Could I just add to
that, RENEW, the centre of excellence is working—Are you
aware of RENEW?
Q162 Philip Davies: Yes.
Ms Emery: It is the centre of
excellence for the North West and they are developing different
ways of understanding regeneration and good practice in regeneration
and in community engagement and how they can pass on the good
practice through masterclasses and exemplars. That whole process
has started and it is about learning lessons.
Q163 Mr Sanders: Simply, the bottom
line for any local authority that makes a decision which upsets
people is they do have the power to remove councillors via the
ballot box. If your organisations get it wrong or make the wrong
decision, how do people get rid of you?
Mr Spooner: More often than not
in English Partnerships we put the local authority in funds, so
it comes back to us through them eventually, I guess. I think
the important thing is that, as English Partnerships, we are only
one partner and we are part of a partnership locally which is
often rooted in local accountability through the local authority
being a partner in that scheme, so we work closely with local
authorities across the country. Again, an example at the moment
in Manchester where we are working with the Heritage Lottery Fund
and English Heritage is the Gorton Monastery area, which is a
fantastic listed building but we happen to own the site adjacent
to it. If we were to operate in a completely independent way,
we could have taken that site and gone to the market, got a developer
for that site and said, "Well, you work with the Council",
but no, we feel a responsibility, as the national regeneration
agency, to work hand in glove with the local authorities, local
members, local councillors and local people on the ground. In
this particular case of Gorton Monastery, we have said our land
and the refurbishment of the monastery will work as one scheme
and we will work with the local authority—and we are—to
appoint a developer who is sympathetic to the needs of the local
community. I do not think agencies like ourselves can operate
independently any more. We have to work hand in glove with local
accountability.
Mr Gill: If you bear with me,
I will tell you a little bit about Liverpool Vision. Liverpool
Vision is an Urban Regeneration Company. It was the first of the
regeneration companies established in 1999. The initiative came
from English Partnerships, the local authority and the Regional
Development Agency. The company is an independent company limited
by guarantee. It has 13 board members. The board members are the
members of the company, although we have representation from the
local authority, the leader of the council, the leader of the
opposition group and the Chief Executive. Paul is on our board
as a representative of English Partnerships, and the chief executive
of the Regional Development Agency is on the board. Between them
the public partners pay my salary, they cover the operating costs
of the company, some of the feasibility work and framework planning
work that I have talked about. We have influence but no formal
powers. We have influence because they have asked us to be here
and because of the quality of the non-public sector members of
the board. We do not have the power to take decisions on anything:
we do not have any planning powers, we do not hold land and do
not let contracts to undertake works. We work by persuasion, that
is persuasion of our core funding partners, as I call them, it
is the persuasion of the businesses that we work with and the
persuasion of the communities in the areas that we work. The City
Council, English Partnerships or the Development Agency could
get rid of us tomorrow by simply saying, "Sorry, at the end
of this year we will not be funding you any more". If councillors
start losing their seats because they have been listening to us,
then I am pretty sure indirectly the electorate will get rid of
them as well.
Mr Hall: I think just for the record,
with the scheme we have been talking about there is 72% approval
for this particular redevelopment and only one poster in one window,
so I do not think there is that much of an outrage about the proposals
that have been put forward.
Chairman: There were a few more.
Q164 Mr Hall: There may have been
a few more. Can I ask a specific question for English Partnerships,
the Government has just given English Partnerships responsibility
for taking ownership of 67 redundant hospitals. Has English Partnerships
got any brief to repair and maintain those hospitals while decisions
about this proposal are being made?
Mr Spooner: We do have responsibility
for the 67. They have already required some work. We do have management
responsibility for the 67 and are taking that responsibility very
seriously and yes, there are more coming our way.
Q165 Mr Hall: What basis is there
to determine what is going to be demolished or what should be
repaired?
Mr Spooner: Within the protocol
for the hospital sites and the large number of hospital buildings,
those formal sites are very significant in historical terms and
very important in the national heritage view. Knowing we were
going to take on board those heritage sites, we sat down with
English Heritage and started to use their expertise and knowledge
in order to determine what could or could not take place. That
has continued and we have very close liaison with English Heritage
and the local planning authorities in the areas where the hospital
sites are to ensure the plans for future development respect their
heritage and retain the buildings that need to be retained. To
give you one example, in the North West at the moment we are looking
for a development partner for a major hospital outside Preston
called Whittingham Hospital. It has a number of listed buildings,
but for the other buildings English Heritage has agreed a conservation
statement which we are inviting shortlisted developers to set
their proposals against so we do put them out to tender. We take
very seriously the responsibilities we have to protect their heritage
sites, where it is appropriate, and we are getting guidance and
good advice where we might go about that. What is interesting
in this case and in other cases is private sector developers are
equally keen to invest in those sites but to invest in the way
that we require.
Q166 Mr Hall: Who has the final decision
about which sites are retained and redeveloped? Is that English
Partnerships' decision?
Mr Spooner: The decisions that
are made in relation to each of these sites are guided and directed
by the local planning policy. The decision to develop a site,
for example for housing and in the case of Whittingham Hospital
the proposal is for building something like 580 new affordable
homes, is made in the context of the formal planning policy, formal
decisions made by English Partnerships, by our boards, and the
decision is made in line with approved planning policies. It is
not the case where English Partnerships are looking forward to
bring in sites in the Green Belt which are not zoned for residential.
Q167 Mr Hall: It is interesting that
you mention the Green Belt because in my constituency, in the
Osterley Green site which is in the Green Belt, we have a redundant
sanatorium in an appalling state of disrepair. The development
with the Crown Estate has come forward with a plan to redevelop
this for residential development. Because it is a listed building,
in the Green Belt and it is covered by planning guidance, the
Government has got to consider this for redevelopment. What have
you got to say about that?
Mr Spooner: English Partnerships
would continue to be guided by the local planning authorities.
The local planning authorities' view was the only way that building
would be maintained was if it was to be developed for some form
of housing that is considered as a suitable exception to the planning
policy. That is something we would consider is not our intention
or any intention for the 67 sites to go forward with.
Q168 Mr Hall: Just for clarification,
because national government policy exempts listed hospital buildings
from green belt constraints, this is why this particular land
can be developed? My local council has no control over that?
Mr Spooner: In that case, if it
is a governmental planning policy, we would be guided by that.
Q169 Janet Anderson: Just on that,
Mr Spooner, could I ask you, in what circumstances would you think
it feasible to demolish a former Victorian workhouse if the locals
wanted to demolish it and new build a new community hospital on
the same site? Is that an acceptable reason for you to demolish?
Mr Spooner: It is a hypothetical
example. Let us take it as a hypothetical example without referring
to a specific one. If there were no constraints on the demolition
of that property in terms of policy—for example it is not
a listed building or it is a building which the local planning
authority believe could be redeveloped and particularly redeveloped
for community benefit, perhaps to provide new health benefits—English
Partnerships would seek to do that with the PCTs, the Primary
Care Trusts. We have examples within the 67 Trusts. Although we
have an important role to play in creating many new homes, we
do recognise, and we have many examples, where the schemes involve
more than housing; they do involve in many cases new health facilities,
community facilities, new walks and open spaces and in some cases
new business opportunities. In Chester we do have a case which
will help create jobs for local people and we are trying to create
a scheme for planning policy that meets fully the community.
Q170 Philip Davies: One issue that
keeps coming up in all of the evidence we get is VAT and the cost
of repairs to historic buildings. It came up with Manchester and
Liverpool and again today. What do each of you think would be
the implication for you and for the private sector of the VAT
rate staying as it is at 17.5% or reduced to 5%? What do you see
the implications of that decision being?
Mr Spooner: The first thing to
say is English Partnerships is involved in a number of projects
which do seek to retain and convert property and to bring investment
partners in to converting property where houses can be retained
for the sake of the street scene, but where we are looking to
expand and improve them. In those cases, we do feel we are operating
with an additional cost base because of VAT which does not affect
other schemes that involve new development. We concur with points
made earlier by Manchester and Liverpool, the VAT implications
of refurbishment are disadvantageous compared with the non-VAT
implications of new build. Therefore anything that seeks to reduce
the VAT implication of 18% to 5% on refurbished property would
help to make schemes more viable and potentially reduce the public
investment to make them work.
Ms Emery: I can only agree with
that. Similarly, we have been involved in investing in the restoration
of buildings, and changes on the VAT would obviously help those
sorts of proposals.
Chairman: If my colleagues do not have
any further questions, thank you very much.
|
