Memorandum by Bracknell Forest Borough
Council
I refer to our conversation last week regarding
the above report, and thanks once again for allowing me to send
you my comments.
In my view, much of the comments raised in the
LGA New Towns Special Interest Group can be supported. The central
issue of maintenance of a substantial public assets, built contemporaneously,
is significant for Bracknell as a former New Town. However, I
believe that Bracknell's experience has a singular dimension which
may not apply in some of the other former New Towns. In particular,
remedying the problems of our town centre has been a focus for
the Council for over twenty years.
Bracknell Forest is rated 320 out or 364 in
the Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2007. We are one of the most
affluent boroughs in England by income, productivity is among
the highest, too, based on Gross Value Added per head. In short,
Bracknell has benefited by being in heart of the Thames Valley
economy. However, a consequence of this situation is that Bracknell
Forest is poorly placed to attract funding based on any serious
deprivation indicators, especially those which normally trigger
"traditional" regeneration funding.
Engagement with business last year made clear
that they see the condition of our town centre to be their principal
issue (together with transport) in terms of retaining staff. Businesses
looking to consolidate from a number of locations are choosing
to go elsewhere partly as a consequence of the town centre and
its attractiveness to families. Plainly unhelpful, given the importance
of Bracknell in the Thames Valley region/South East economy. Last
year, we concluded a development agreement with Legal and General/.Schroders
(who own the majority of the town centre's assets) to transform
most of the town centre. However, whilst this represents a major
milestone in redeveloping our town centre, the development agreement
unavoidably, leaves untouched significant parts of the town centre
infrastructure.
In common with many of the other New Towns,
Bracknell is exceptional because it was built from a standing
start during a very short period (50 years, 20 for the town centre).
All the infrastructure is aging at the same time, compared with
older or historic towns.
The town centre comprises a substantial amount
of historic public investment, including large areas of public
realm which are in need of regeneration.
Because Bracknell doesn't appear to qualify
for public funding, the public realm problems will have to be
solved using private money. The costs are substantial and have
resulted in a high-value scheme (ie one that relies on raising
Zone A rents significantly). We're striving to make a step change
which is unparalleled in towns of our size/type. The developers
are also "value-engineering" the scheme to take out
some of the quality and this is likely to be a continuing pressure.
Middle order towns like Bracknell are hampered
in comparison with centres like Reading in that it can't simply
generate more value by adding more retail floorspace. Indeed,
neither the Council nor the developers want to do that.
Given the South East Plan objective (supported
by the Panel) to tackle polarisation between centres and improve
middle order towns, we are trying to find creative ways to deliver
our community-led masterplan.
English Partnerships are the inheritors of the
CNT/New Town Corporation. EP has been very supportive but its
brief is focused on delivering affordable housing and raising
environmental and construction standards (apologies for my shorthand).
Therefore, its interest is no longer in dealing with the unique
public realm problems that Bracknell faces. Our work with EP has
been very constructive and we have spoken about ways to promote
renewable energy in the town centre (and beyond) and also whether
there might be creative ways that EP funding could pay for public
realm improvements if they unlocked other Council budgets to deliver
affordable housing.
So: In short, we believe that the situation
in Bracknell is unique (Basingstoke and Crawley are the only other
New/expanded towns in the region and both are higher in the "network/hierarchy"
and identified centres for growth). SEEDA paid half the costs
of our urban design consultancy to prepare the Masterplan in 2001/2.
This was extremely helpful. However, we think that there is strong
justification for targeted public funding to reduce the financial
pressures on the scheme, maintain high quality public realm and
reflect the objectives of the South East Plan and the particular
challenges of regenerating a New Town in the Thames Valley. This
should be recognised much more clearly in taking forward the Government's
policies for New Towns.
Victor Nicholls, Assistant
Chief Executive
9 May 2008
| 
