Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-87)
MR JAMIE
MERRICK, MR
PAUL LOVEJOY,
MR IAN
WRAY, AND
MR IAN
THOMPSON
27 JUNE 2006
Q80 Dr Pugh: Would you say that part
of your sensitivity to the issue is the fact that you are in an
area which does not have a particularly strong industrial conurbation?
This applies probably also to the East of England Development
Agency.
Mr Lovejoy: In the case of the
South East, the sensitivity would arise primarily from the fact
that per head of population we have a lower proportion of funding
than any other, so there is a risk of communities and interest
across the region being excluded from the benefit that the regional
development agency can bring precisely because its resources are
so limited.
Q81 Dr Pugh: To test the sensitivity
a little, the former Minister of Tourism said that every coastal
town you ever go to says that it needs better transport links.
I think this is recognised as a problem that is faced by all coastal
resorts. What specific measures are you taking in your own areas
to address these problems?
Mr Thompson: There are a couple
of examples in the South West where the region, not just the RDA
but other regional bodies and local authorities, is trying to
persuade the Department of Transport to look at a couple of key
link roads that would benefit resorts. One is the new link road
and bypass for Torquay; the other is a link road for the Weymouth
area, particularly related to the development of the 2012 Olympics
sailing site at Portland. That road would obviously benefit that
particular event. Those are two specific examples.
Q82 Dr Pugh: Mr Wray, do you have
similar examples?
Mr Wray: In the North West the
picture varies, in the sense that Blackpool has very good communication
links. It has motorway almost to the doorstep and a relatively
uncongested special road to the centre of Blackpool. It has fairly
good road links, but obviously they suffer from congestion from
time to time. It also has an airport.
Q83 Dr Pugh: And outside Blackpool?
Mr Wray: Outside Blackpool the
two key issues are access to Southport and access to Morecambe.
Dealing first with Morecambe, we have consistently supported the
Lancaster bypass, be it the northern or western route. We are
now firmly behind the northern route. There will be a public inquiry
into that shortly. We have lobbied very strongly for that route
which will deliver excellent access to Morecambe. As to Southport,
the position is slightly more difficult. In the past we have supported
an improved road link from the M58. That has not made it into
the regional funding allocations and list of priorities, but we
have a scheme in the list which will provide access to the Port
of Liverpool. Discussions are under way with the local authority
to see whether that can also help improve access to Southport.
Q84 Dr Pugh: Mr Merrick and Mr Lovejoy,
do you have examples in your areas?
Mr Merrick: I can give two specific
examples. In one case we have played a regional advocacy role
with national government. There was an announcement this morning
about major transport schemes which have the potential to be funded
through the transport innovation fund. We developed the evidence
case and lobbied government effectively about links to our ports
which in the east of England play a national economic role. We
have 53% of the national container traffic moving through ports
in the region. Clearly, we want to encourage as much of that as
possible to go onto non-road modal shifts. Today, there has been
an announcement about rail routes from the east of England to
the north and London to enhance capacity. That is the kind of
national and economic role that our coastal areas play. Secondly,
at the specific locational level we have established a number
of urban regeneration companies in coastal towns: Great Yarmouth,
Lowestoft and Southend. There has been more local work to develop
the business case and the potential funding mechanisms for local
infrastructure investment to support the growth of those towns,
including their tourism economies.
Mr Lovejoy: Similarly, in terms
of advocacy we have continued to promote the needs of the Sussex
coast in particular for improvements to the A27 corridor, which
implies road, rail and other solutions, in the aftermath of a
multi-modal study that concluded that there was no need for a
major highway enhancement there. In terms of more specific activities,
we invested in and contributed to a fixed-term revenue support
grant for early services from Hastings into London and late services
from London back to Hastings specifically to demonstrate the potential
of Hastings as a location to London residents and commuters. I
am pleased to say that after six months the franchise operator
took up both services as permanent ones.
Q85 Chair: Mr Lovejoy, I want to
ask about Objective 2 structural funding. For example, Thanet
has benefited from such funding, but that programme is due to
end in 2008. Do you believe that coastal towns will suffer disproportionately
from the end of Objective 2 funding, and what will replace it?
If not, does this mean that coastal towns will be even lower in
the pecking order for regional funds?
Mr Lovejoy: I should say first
that the South East is in an unusual situation in that only two
of our 55 district council areas, Hastings and Thanet, have been
eligible for Objective 2 funding. Therefore, the impact would
be rather more localised and rather different from that experienced
in other regions. It is certainly the case that in those two areas
concentrated programmes of additional capital investment have
been put to good effect in terms of releasing land for infrastructure
and supporting businesses, and there are real concerns about the
forward impact as those programmes cease. I think we can demonstrate
in both cases that certainly at regional level the needs of those
areas have been recognised in the regional programmes that my
organisation directly supports and in local frameworks for action
that we have agreed with local partners to spend regional money
at local level. It is the case that the replacement of the former
Objective 2 will have a less area-specific focus to it, which
means there will be new regional initiatives that can be applied
across the region, including those two areas, but we understand
their concerns.
Mr Thompson: I would echo the
point that we are looking to work closely with local economic
partnerships to ensure that the supply of matching funding for
key projects is maintained when Objective 2 eventually finishes.
I add that there are still some very important projects being
built and funded now under Objective 2, so it has a tail of about
a couple of years.
Mr Merrick: The east of England
is like the South East. We had relatively few areas that qualified
for Objective 2: Yarmouth, Lowestoft and Southend. There is a
need to look at the transition. In the context of a regional development
agency which has 0.1% of regional GDP and public expenditure of
£24 billion, I think we have to line up existing funding
and look at what is a relatively small amount of funding in the
great scheme of things and also how we catalyse the market to
deliver.
Q86 Mr Betts: When we visited Exmouth
the other week we saw a situation where quite a percentage of
the population is retired and a lower percentage of the population
works but not in Exmouth; they work in Exeter. Is it important
that coastal towns should be economically self-sustaining, or
does it really matter if they become retirement homes or commuter
belts by the sea?
Mr Thompson: Perhaps I may pick
up another example. In my region Weston-super-Mare has a very
similar demographic trend, with a large proportion of people commuting
to Bristol for work and some retirees and other people living
in the town. We think it is important in the particular case of
Weston, which is a large town of about 100,000 people, to try
to make it more self-sufficient economically and attract business
and employment to the town so that people who form a very skilled
workforce—they work in computer and aerospace companies
in Bristol—could work in the town itself. In the particular
case of Weston we would like to make it more self-contained.
Q87 Chair: Why is it important to
make it self-contained?
Mr Thompson: With its relationship
to the greater Bristol area, we see commuting as an issue; it
is causing congestion on the motorway and unsustainable patterns
of travel. A big town like Weston of 100,000 should really have
its own economic base, not act as a dormitory for a city 20 miles
away.
Mr Wray: Whilst I agree with that
up to a point, the residential population of coastal towns is
rather important because the demands that they generate are the
base load of demands for restaurants, shops, pubs—all the
sort of facilities that tourists use at certain times. In relation
to Morecambe, for example, we are quite anxious that in future
it should develop a residential suburban role, not a long distance
commuting role, in relation to Lancaster which is only a few miles
away.
Mr Lovejoy: I have nothing specific
to add, other than that to allow that trend to develop through
a policy of benign neglect as we have highlighted risks leaving
economic potential unused. It would be difficult to justify leaving
an area that could make an additional £13 billion contribution
to the UK economy, were it to perform at the national level, to
continue to drift behind national and not regional averages.
Chair: Thank you very much for your evidence.
As with the other witnesses, if when you leave you think of something
that you should have said or particular examples we shall be happy
to receive them.
| 
