1 Providing leadership for the programme
1. The Thames Gateway stretches along the River Thames
from Canary Wharf to the mouth of the river at Southend-on-Sea
and the Isle of Sheppey (Figure 1). It covers an area of
almost 100,000 hectares and has an existing population of 1.45
million. It is one of the most deprived areas in the Greater South
East. The Government wants to reverse its relative decline with
the construction of 160,000 homes there between 2001 and 2016,
and the creation of 180,000 new jobs.
Figure 1: The Thames Gateway
Source: The Department
2. The Thames Gateway is one of 15 mission critical
programmes prioritised by the Government[2]
and is the only large scale regeneration programme managed directly
by the Department for Communities and Local Government (the Department).
The Department is investing £673 million between 2003 and
2008 to accelerate regeneration in the region. The regeneration
of the Thames Gateway requires broad cross-government working
so that new homes are supported by adequate transport, education,
health, community, leisure, green space and environmental infrastructure.[3]
3. It is unclear how the Department's management
of the programme has added value to the projects that they fund.
The Department points to its contribution in setting out a vision
for the Thames Gateway; winning collective agreement from the
Local Authorities; creating local regeneration partnerships to
coordinate local delivery; working on specific projects to release
sites; unblocking major developments and persuading other government
departments to invest in the area. But the Department could have
made these contributions without operational management of the
programme.[4]
4. In the future, large-scale growth area programmes
will be assigned to a new regeneration body, Communities England,
which will take over regeneration and housing delivery responsibilities
from the Housing Corporation, English Partnerships and the Department.
The Department believes that transferring responsibility for operational
management of the Thames Gateway programme to Communities England
would cause too much disruption to its delivery arrangements.[5]
5. Local partners and central government officials
involved in the programme and interviewed by the National Audit
Office (NAO) did not consider the programme well coordinated or
joined-up across Whitehall departments. Major sites are being
delayed due to a lack of joined-up infrastructure investment.
For instance the building of 9,400 homes at Barking Riverside
is reliant on further transport infrastructure that is not included
in the Transport for London or the Department for Transport's
spending plans, whilst development of 30,000 homes in Kent Thameside
is reliant on agreement from the Highways Agency, 12 years after
they first knew the Channel Tunnel Rail Link would lead to housing
growth in the area.[6]
6. Local stakeholders do not believe the Department
has developed the strategic influence within Whitehall to solve
such problems. The Department's capability review last November
found this lack of influence to be a general problem which the
Department faces, and may partially be as a result
of its history of machinery of government changes. The Department's
aim is to gain a reputation for strategic influence through its
actions over the next few years. Meanwhile, persuading other government
departments to contribute fully to the programme remains one of
the Department's biggest challenges, and its perceived lack of
clout within Whitehall reduces stakeholder confidence in its ability
to manage the programme.[7]
7. Responsibility for strategic coordination of the
programme at a ministerial level is through the Cabinet Committee
on Housing and Planning. The Housing and Planning Committee has
a wide remit "to set the Government's strategy to improve
the effectiveness of the planning system and the supply and affordability
of housing in England, and to monitor delivery". The Housing
and Planning Committee must balance its many responsibilities
and cannot devote much time to the Thames Gateway. The Committee
assumed responsibility in 2005 from the Ministerial Committee
on the Thames Gateway, which had focused solely on the Thames
Gateway programme.[8]
8. The Department has already acted on the NAO's
recommendation to establish a cross-government board of officials
to provide better cross-government coordination and to direct
the overall programme. It will look to the Housing and Planning
Cabinet Committee for strategic direction, and its effectiveness
will rely on getting all departments to agree a forward plan at
Ministerial level for which all Accounting Officers will be jointly
and severally accountable.[9]
9. The Thames Gateway Strategic Partnership was set
up in 2000 to provide cross-government coordination, but the Department
modified it in 2005 to focus exclusively on the relationship between
the Department and local stakeholders. Whilst the Department and
central government are responsible for overall leadership of the
programme and investment in infrastructure, most of the delivery
will be by local partners. The Department has established a network
of partnerships that provides coordination horizontally across
both the local and sub-regional level. These partnerships vary
in form from unincorporated partnerships managed by the Local
Authority to Urban Development Corporations formally accountable
to the Department. The Department provides nearly £10 million
a year for the administration of local regeneration partnerships
and sends a representative to their board meetings.[10]
10. This partnership approach has the advantage of
bringing stronger congruence between local and central government,
local accountability, local knowledge, flexibility of delivery,
and ability to bring in expertise. The Department believes this
partnership approach effectively balances devolution of power
and the involvement and inclusion of local communities, whilst
maintaining a strong grip at the centre. But there is a risk of
uncoordinated delivery across the Thames Gateway, inefficiencies
in procurement, and a lack of capacity in some areas.[11]
11. The complex partnership networks result in unclear
delivery chains for individual projects. Projects have multiple
lines of reporting and accountability. For instance the Royal
Society for the Protection of Birds was provided with more than
£4 million for the new visitor centre at Rainham Marshes
from four separate public bodies: the East of England Development
Agency, the South Essex Green grid, London Thames Gateway Development
Corporation and Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation.[12]
As each of these bodies is mostly funded by the Department, departmental
funding has used four different funding streams to reach one project.
In other areas it is unclear whether projects in the Thames Gateway
are part of the programme or not. The Sheppey bridge for example
was in the original 1995 Thames Gateway Planning Framework, but
did not receive direct support from the Department, whilst Regional
Development Agency support in the region is on the same basis
as for its funded work outside the region.
12. The Department does not currently have a framework
in place to judge the efficiency and effectiveness of partnerships
as organisations. Some Local Regeneration Partnerships lack the
capacity to manage significant developments, whilst others have
been slow to get up to operational capacity. The Department has
not set out clear expectations of local partnerships and has yet
to establish a clear framework of performance criteria.[13]
2 Mission Critical Programmes are the priority programmes
monitored by the Office for Government Commerce and reported on
to the Prime Minister. Back
3
C&AG's Report, para 1.9 Back
4
C&AG's Report, summary value for money statement; Qq 2-3 Back
5
Delivering Housing and Regeneration: Communities England and
the future of social housing regulation, consultation, Department
for Communities and Local Government, June 2007 Back
6
C&AG's Report, summary value for money statement; Appendix
four Back
7
Capability Review of Communities and Local Government,
Cabinet Office, p 17; Qq 14-16 Back
8
Ministerial Committees of the Cabinet and Policy Review Working
Groups Composition and Terms of Reference, Cabinet Office,
December 2006; Q 116 Back
9
Qq 18-21 Back
10
C&AG's report, paras 2.6, 3.2; Figures 8, 9; Appendix two;
Qq 21-25 Back
11
Q 53 Back
12
C&AG's Report, Figure 2 Back
13
C&AG's Report, Figure 10, Appendix one, recommendation 5;
Qq 65, 131-134 Back
| 
