Memorandum by Kent County Council (CT
33)
SUMMARY
I. Kent County Council finds the ODPM Inquiry
into Coastal Towns welcome and timely. Coastal Towns, throughout
the nation, have suffered decline since the 1960s and the unique
problems they face can make regeneration much harder to deliver.
The combined effects of poor accessibility, social dumping, ageing
population, deteriorating physical fabric, 180 deg catchment and
a low-wage seasonal economy have prevented many coastal towns
from successfully reversing decline despite a range of imaginative
regeneration initiatives supported by SRB, European and other
external funding.
II. Within Kent, the impact of the disappearance
of the traditional English seaside holiday has been compounded
by the decline of other key sectors not just within the towns
themselves but within the immediate agricultural and mining hinterland.
Recovery is progressing but is still hampered by a range of impediments
including low basic skills and skill shortages, low property and
land values and an enduring perception of peripherality.
III. We find the inquiry timely. It comes
just as many of Kent's coastal towns are developing clear regeneration
strategies and now have major opportunities to lift themselves
out of a long period of decline—yet major funding streams
are being lost.
IV. As well as ODPM funding, there must
also be effective liaison with other government departments with
funds to tackle the root causes of deprivation on the coast—in
particular: transport, housing, culture/media/sport, industry,
education, work & pensions and health.
1. THE CASE
FOR SPECIAL
INITIATIVES TO
TACKLE THE
NEEDS OF
COASTAL TOWNS
1.1 Kent's coastline runs for 350 miles
from Romney Marsh to Dartford—longer than any County in
England and more than half of the rest of the Region's coastline.
The north Kent section from Dartford to Sittingbourne currently
benefits from ODPM Growth Area Funding, but from Herne Bay to
Lydd no such dedicated funds exist and support has been piecemeal,
area-based, and often subject to very complex funding bids and
monitoring. Consequently this stretch of coastline, a prominent
part of our prosperous southeast, remains one of the poorest parts
of Britain and Europe.
1.2 Kent's Coastal Towns face key social
problems arising out of a number of factors:
— higher than average benefit dependency
and in-migration of benefit dependants;
— higher than average proportion of
elderly;
— higher than average levels of infirmity;
— higher than average unemployment
and underemployment;
— low qualification levels;
— low seasonal wages; and
1.3 The Kent Coastal Towns Analysis (KCC
Feb 2002—Appendix 1) examines Kent's urban areas and clearly
reflects this position. While it is apparent from this analysis
that Kent's most deprived areas are primarily around the coast
in the eastern half of the county, based on the Index of Multiple
Deprivation 2004, it shows that 19.4% of Margate's Super Output
Areas (SOAs), 15.8% of West Sheppey's, 15.4% of Ramsgate's and
9.7% of Folkestone's are in the 10% most deprived in England.
19% of Dover's SOAs are in the 20% most deprived.
1.4 In housing terms, the issues are equally
stark. These towns experience:
— lower than average property values;
— a high proportion of private sector
absentee landlords;
— higher than average building repair
maintenance costs;
— a higher than average proportion
of older buildings in multiple occupancy, particularly former
hotels and guest houses; and
— remote access and a 180 degree hinterland.
1.5 The findings of the Thanet Inquiry 2005
(Appendix 2) found that these circumstances combined to produce
a substantial in-flow of population with a preponderance of older
people and benefit claimants. It also highlighted the fact that
several of Kent's coastal towns are significant importers of children,
placed there by other local authorities. This constant population
churn produces highly transient populations resulting in unstable
and unsustainable communities. These issues are addressed in the
negotiation of Public Service Agreements with central government
and are key targets of the County Council's Supporting Independence
Programme.
1.6 Kent's coastal towns have suffered from
their proximity to London and the effect of London dumping since
the 1960s and 1970s, but have not yet benefited from the combination
of faster rail links and low property values that should give
rise to a growing demand for middle class second homes and a lively
cultural economy. There are examples where this is just beginning,
eg: Whitstable and Folkestone, but the pressures from other factors
in towns such as Dover, Margate, Ramsgate and Herne Bay are such
that the decline has not been arrested and, in Thanet, unemployment
is rising. Consequently, intervention by ODPM would be both timely
and welcome.
1.7 As the London Olympics approach, the
global spotlight will fall increasingly on East London and its
environs, where Kent's coastal towns may become Olympic "gateways".
Dover is a case in point. Some 25 million passengers pass through
its port each year—and this throughput is expected to double
during the Olympics.
1.8 Considerable public investment is still
required if these towns are to create an appropriately positive
impression while, at the same time, providing good bases for Olympic
visitors with a modern range of visitor facilities. The image
of despair and dereliction evident at the centre of too many of
these towns at present needs to be sharply reversed if they are
to benefit from a positive "Olympic effect". As part
of a package of Olympic related opportunities, we should ensure
that our coastal towns share in the new employment created from
the construction phase onwards, both directly and through the
supply chain, particularly for high quality local produce that
will have travelled the minimal number of food miles.
1.9 A KCC Select Committee on Coastal Towns,
reporting in 2004, identifies the need for a County Strategy and
Action Plan aimed at improving the Coastal Economy and redressing
decline. The emerging Kent Coastal Towns Action Plan establishes
a 15-year vision for the Kent coastal zone with an initial seven-year
revival programme leading into the London Olympics.
1.10 Skills and opportunities for young
people; improved accessibility; and diversification of the economy
and more effective integration of the visitor and evening economy
with other economic activity, including leisure, creative industry,
business development, catalytic design, ports, sports and culture;
are key elements of this plan.
1.11 There is a need to work with Kent's
coastal airports at Lydd and Manston (avionics engineering, business
parks, cargo) and its port and harbour authorities (marinas, short
sea shipping, freight and materials handling) to ensure that they
are in a position to exploit development opportunities while at
the same time making a positive contribution to the prosperity,
vitality and environmental appeal of the Kent Coast.
1.12 Within this, every attempt should be
made to enhance the role played by the fishing industry. Links
between marine-based industry and leisure activity should be exploited
where possible, taking account of the attractiveness to visitors
of a bustling waterfront, active at all hours.
2. THE WORK
ODPM IS DOING
TO ADDRESS
THE SOCIAL,
HOUSING AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
OF COASTAL
TOWNS—IS
IT EFFECTIVE,
WELL-FOCUSED
AND ADEQUATELY
FUNDED?
2.1 Although the ODPM has generally not
been particularly active in the regeneration coastal towns, in
recent months, Kent County Council has welcomed significant initiatives
from the ODPM that begin to address some of these issues. Thanet
is to be the main beneficiary but it is, as yet, too early to
comment on the likely effectiveness of the developing programmes.
2.2 In July 2005, Thanet was allocated £3.7
million in Neighbourhood Renewal funding through the Safer &
Stronger Communities Fund (SSCF). Assuming that the approach to
the use of this funding is approved by GOSE in February, the initiative
should provide significant support to Thanet District Council's
Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) for Margate in three Super
Output Areas. The NRP is, in turn, an integral part of the Margate
Renewal Partnership's plans for the town and, since this new Partnership
brings together all major agencies and authorities with an interest
in Margate's regeneration, there is every possibility of ensuring
a well co-ordinated approach to the town's renewal and development.
2.3 The Margate Renewal Area is also being
considered by the ODPM and local partners as the focus for a Mixed
Communities pilot demonstration project. While this project has
still to be finalised, it offers a unique opportunity to focus
on the area's housing tenure, which, unusually for such an area,
comprises predominantly small units within the private housing
sector. All of this work fits well with the issues addressed by
the Local Area Agreement.
2.4 Kent County Council, in partnership
with the four District Councils of Dover, Shepway, Swale and Thanet,
recently launched No Use Empty—a campaign aimed at tackling
the problem of empty housing in the East Kent region. No Use Empty
aims to bring some 7,000 empty properties back into use. The strength
of initiatives such as Local Area and Public Service Agreements
shows that, working with government, local authorities can tackle
new issues.
3. ASSESSMENT
OF THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF
ODPM'S LIAISON
WITH OTHER
DEPARTMENTS, IN
KEY AREAS
SUCH AS
EMPLOYMENT, MIGRATION,
AND SOCIAL
HOUSING, AND
CO -OPERATION
WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES
3.1 There is a vital need for better liaison
with other government departments, particularly in terms of issues
relating to housing, in-migration and social dumping. As well
as better liaison with government housing and employment departments,
liaison in the following areas is critical:
— Transport: improved access alone
will have a major impact on the economic vitality of coastal towns
and, without it, none of the other measures will achieve their
full impact. Key issues to address are speeding-up and improving
efficiency of rail travel including extension of CTRL domestic
to Dover; a fast effective long-term government response to Operation
Stack; investment in seaports and coastal airports. As a key transport
hub, Dover's traffic issues must be resolved.
— Community Infrastructure Fund (CIF)
is a welcome additional funding stream, targeted at facilitating
regeneration, employment and housing in Growth areas. CIF should
be extended to coastal towns where the objectives are equally
valid.
— Sport and Culture: A notable difference
between those coastal towns that are beginning to pick-up and
those that are still very much in decline is the lack of a lively
evening economy and cosmopolitan year-round leisure and cultural
offer. Where this is good or improving, new residents, businesses
and visitors are attracted; and sense of place, identity and local
pride are strong.
— Industry and Education: a particular
focus on strengthening the links between business and education
and those key sectors supported by vocational skills in construction,
catering, leisure, beauty, healthcare, and all the cultural and
creative industries would bring direct benefits to coastal towns
and the development of construction, leisure and visitor economy
throughout the southeast.
— Work and Pensions: need to reduce
the high concentrations of benefit dependency and pilot measures
suggested in the recent Green Paper to support people back into
the workforce. This could be the basis of an Explorer Partnership
with ODPM, DWP and the Kent Public Service Board, linked to the
Kent Local Area Agreement.
— Health: across a range of public
health indicators, Kent's coastal towns are amongst the most disadvantaged
in England. The joint KCC/NHS Dept of Public Health for Kent gives
us a unique opportunity to integrate tackling health inequalities
with wider social regeneration.
4. IS THERE
A CASE
FOR MORE
SPECIFIC REGIONAL
INITIATIVES, IS
ENOUGH ATTENTION
PAID TO
REGIONAL DISPARITIES?
4.1 The South East is one of the UK's most
prosperous regions. In recent years, nationally, it has exhibited
the highest growth in productivity and in Gross Value Added (GVA)
per head, it has the best performing labour market and the lowest
proportion of its population living in the country's most deprived
areas. But this picture obscures significant disparities in economic
performance and prosperity across the region.
4.2 In the evidence base of its review of
Regional Economic Strategy 2006-16, (November 2005), SEEDA points
towards the rise of three conceptual economies within the region:
— the Inner South East, a relatively
wealthy core around London;
— the Outer South East, a largely rural
area with well-established market and county towns; and
— the Coastal South East, a less prosperous
periphery with large urban areas offering strong economic potential
alongside coastal towns that have had mixed success in reinventing
themselves.
4.3 The Coastal South East is characterised
by low productivity and employment rates, a high concentration
of economic inactivity and structural unemployment, a low skill
profile with low business density and start-up rates. This is
accompanied by a high dependence on public sector employment,
a low proportion of employment in knowledge based sectors and
an increasingly ageing population. When this is then combined
with poor infrastructure and connectivity and a tired public realm,
there can be little doubt the communities living in these parts
of the South East, which include Kent's coastal towns, need more
attention. The market is clearly not delivering. Public sector
intervention is required.
4.4 A new concerted approach, owned by all
authorities, agencies and stakeholders, is now required to address
the broad regeneration needs of our coastal towns. Such an approach
would be aimed at influencing the spending plans of major funders
and government departments and better integrating their activities.
In Kent's case, this requires the establishment of a strategic
and widely accepted vision for the coast and its towns, anchored
within a wider vision for the Region with mechanisms to marshal
and focus funding capable of achieving a sea change in the fortunes
of these areas.
5. THE SECURITY
OF FUTURE
FUNDING FOR
REGENERATING AND
SUPPORTING COASTAL
TOWNS
5.1 Major funding streams are being lost.
ERDF Objective 2 funding, which has been applied to Thanet and
parts of Dover, is coming to an end. The Single Regeneration Budget
is also now exhausted, as is the Heritage Lottery Fund's Seafront
and Townscape Heritage Initiative. The uncertainty about regeneration
funding for these needy urban areas on Kent's coast is in stark
contrast to the high level of Government attention and funding
afforded to Kent's "Growth Areas" where the case, in
terms of Indices of Multiple Deprivation, is much less compelling.
This funding imbalance needs to be addressed and it must be ensured
that some of the benefits of development planned for the Ashford
Growth Area feeds through to the surrounding coastal communities.
5.2 This was recognised in "What Price
Growth?", KCC's 2003 response to the ODPM's development proposals
(Appendix 3) which identified the need for a 20 year, public sector
spend of almost £1,000 million in the coastal districts of
Thanet, Dover and Shepway alone. The need to redress this imbalance
and ensure that "Growth Area" benefits filter through
to the coastal zone is also reflected in SEERA's developing sub-regional
strategy for Ashford and Coastal Kent.
5.3 It is to be hoped, as with former coalfield
communities, that the government and particularly the ODPM recognises
the levels of deprivation being experienced by communities in
many of our coastal towns. Uncertainty about funding remains a
major obstacle to progress. A clear lead is now required from
government, Regional Development Agencies and English Partnerships
with a realistic funding stream that enables:
— long-term joined up delivery with
commitment from other government departments, particularly transport,
housing, health, education, industry and culture/media/sport;
— establishment of Coastal Task Force
for Kent; and
— extension of Community Infrastructure
and Neighbourhood Renewal Funding together with more support for
LAA and PSA delivery in the coastal zone.
6. EVALUATE THE
SUCCESS OF
SEEDA, ENGLISH PARTNERSHIPS
AND OTHER
BODIES IN
SUPPORTING AND
DEVELOPING THE
ECONOMIES OF
COASTAL TOWNS
6.1 Across the Region, SEEDA has devoted
considerable funding to coastal town regeneration and achieved
marked success in Woolston, Portsmouth, Cowes and Shoreham. Its
work in Hastings through a significant funding package and the
creation of a dedicated task force has been even more noteworthy.
But more than half the SEEDA coastline is in Kent and, as yet,
its coastal towns have received less attention from the Agency
and less direct development funding than coastal towns in other
parts of the region.
6.2 But this is not to imply that SEEDA
has not worked effectively in coastal Kent. For example, working
with KCC and its District Council partners, SEEDA has overseen
the creation of the East Kent Spatial Development Company, which
is now working to fill the gap in the provision of utilities on
key development sites in the districts of Dover and Thanet. It
has also acquired and is now developing the key Buckland Mill
site in the centre of Dover. The Development Agency is also active
in partnerships formed to take forward the planned regeneration
of Margate, Dover and Folkestone.
6.3 In addition to its direct funding of
projects, SEEDA has developed a system by which an amount of its
funding is channelled through Area Strategic Partnerships (ASPs).
Each of these has developed an Area Investment Framework (AIF)
and from this identified key regeneration and economic development
priorities. SEEDA has made a welcome three-year funding commitment
to each of these partnerships, but the proportion of this devolved
funding against the Agency's overall budget is small.
6.4 Furthermore, it could be argued that
the geographical boundaries of the ASPs in Kent are not always
appropriate for addressing key strategic issues. While the coastal
districts of Dover, Canterbury and Thanet are joined within the
East Kent Partnership, Shepway, which shares many of the same
challenges, is placed within the Channel Corridor partnership
which also includes Maidstone and Ashford.
6.5 As currently configured, no partnership
can speak for, prioritise or integrate regeneration activities
along the whole Kent coast. The County is probably the natural
level at which to develop policy with the Kent Local Strategic
Partnership and its Public Service Board overseeing the delivery
of the first wave pilot Local Area Agreement informed in its decision
making by the content of the Area Investment Frameworks. This
role of rationalising coastal town activities at a sub-regional
level is particularly critical with regard to inward investment,
tourism and transport infrastructure.
6.6 Within the emerging Regional Economic
Strategy, SEEDA's identification of the "Coastal South East"
as its less prosperous periphery is very welcome. It remains to
be seen how this will be converted into interventions that address
this major area of market failure and in particular how these
will benefit Kent's coastal towns.
6.7 English Partnerships are potentially
a key partner in the regeneration of Kent's coastal towns, the
centres of which abound with brownfield sites and housing need.
Currently their main investment priorities in the south-east remain
Hastings and Bracknell and with their increasing focus on the
NHS portfolio and East London ahead of the Olympics, it remains
to be seen how much resource they will able to commit to the Kent
coast.
6.8 While many of the agencies have worked
towards regeneration in the coastal zone, there is a lack of cohesion
in the approach of different regional agencies and key issues
are often hampered by political/geographical boundaries and area-based
or boundary constraints. We welcome the intervention of ODPM,
particularly where it can enable a cross-boundary approach and
the opportunity to tackle strategic issues that hamper effective
robust regeneration.
|
