Memorandum submitted by Association of
South East Colleges (AOSEC) (SE 01)
ABOUT AOSEC
Association of South East Colleges (AOSEC) represents
59 Further Education (FE) Colleges in the South East of England.
Member colleges include General Further Education Colleges, Sixth
Form Colleges, Tertiary Colleges and Specialist Colleges (eg land-based).
AOSEC's Chief Executive sits on the Regional Assembly
(SEERA) which scrutinises the Regional Development Agency (SEEDA).
In addition AOSEC is one of the regional partner organisations
with responsibility for delivering some of the targets identified
in the Regional Economic Strategy.
AOSEC is affiliated to the Association of Colleges.
SUMMARY OF
THE KEY
POINTS IN
AOSEC'S RESPONSE
— The South East England Development Agency
(SEEDA) has a valuable role to play in providing expertise to
deliver a holistic response to the region's planning needs such
as for housing, transport and the economy. — The recession
is impacting on businesses and Further Education colleges in the
South East substantially. Many businesses are seeking to take
advantage of the Government's Train to Gain service to up-skill
their employees, however a funding cap on the budget has meant
that FE colleges are not able to respond to the high business
demand. Likewise a short-fall in the funding for the new FE college
building programme risks undermining the plans to deliver world-class
facilities for young people and adults to gain the skills which
the region's businesses and economy require. This also impacts
significantly on the construction industry.
— AOSEC welcomes plans to increase local
accountability and the introduction of Local Authority Leaders'
Boards in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction
Bill. However, there needs to be a mechanism in place to ensure
that the expertise of Social and Economic Partners can robustly
feed into the planning process, particularly for further education
and skills, which are at the centre of the region's economic and
sustainable development strategy.
1. The role, responsibilities and accountability
of SEEDA
1.1 The South East has a three-tier economy
with inner, rural and coastal variation. AOSEC considers that
the Regional Development Agency, SEEDA, is well-placed to make
decisions which require a regional overview, such as in policies
relating to the housing, education and transport needs of the
South East. An example from Further Education of where this overview
is worthwhile is with the region's four agricultural colleges
which serve the South East as a whole, rather than just a local
area.
1.2 SEEDA also has a useful role to play in targeting
market failure within the region. It has been instrumental in
bringing about education-led regeneration projects, such as at
Hastings where SEEDA supported Sussex Coast College (formerly
Hastings College) with its new build, resulting in £120m
being invested by central Government.
1.3 In addition, SEEDA has the regional
expertise to pull together the varying requirements of the sub-regions
and provide useful monitoring of plans and statistical information.
1.4 In terms of accountability, AOSEC (alongside
other Social and Economic Partners) has sat on the Regional Assembly
Committee which scrutinises SEEDA. This provides an invaluable
opportunity to ensure that the views of the FE sector (which is
at the heart of many of the region's economic and sustainable
development plans) are made clear to policy makers. However, as
a result of the Sub-National Review, the Regional Assembly is
now dissolved. The stakeholder partners brought valuable experience
and a place in the new structure is being sought.
1.5 AOSEC welcomes plans to make Regional
Development Agencies more democratically accountable via Local
Authorities which will improve transparency. However, it would
emphasise the value of keeping Social and Economic Partners to
input into the RDA accountability process to ensure that the regional
expertise and perspectives (such as for education) are retained,
which Local Authorities are less likely to have. AOSEC notes that
Further Education colleges tend to work sub-regionally with a
strong steer from the regional Learning and Skills Council (LSC).
As the LSC is being discontinued, there needs to be a structure
in place to maintain this regional and sub-regional educational
perspective.
1.6 AOSEC considers that SEEDA, along with
other RDAs, also needs to remain accountable to Parliament through
its sponsoring department.
2. The process by which the RES was drawn up and
the level of involvement of regional stakeholders
2.1 Further Education, through AOSEC, has
been fully involved through the development of the RES. It continues
to be part of the monitoring and review processes and present
at the stakeholder conferences.
3. The effectiveness of the RES for the South
East in delivering against its targets including the degree to
which the regeneration of areas of deprivation and the former
coalfield areas has been successful
3.1 For Further Education, the priorities and influence
of the Learning and Skills Council have been more significant
at a local level.
4. The effect of the financial and economic situation
on businesses in the region including the effect on different
sectors such as manufacturing, service industries etc
4.1 AOSEC has been aware of various effects on business
as a whole across the South East. In particular, the recession
has led to more organisations sending their employees to FE colleges
for training and learning new skills. In the South East, there
has been a massive take-up of people following courses under the
Government's Train to Gain service, which has resulted in the
Train to Gain budget being depleted and Colleges no longer able
to deliver the free training which they had initially marketed.
4.2 More specifically, AOSEC is conscious of the
impact of the recession on the FE college sector and the construction
industry. Many FE colleges in the region have been due to undertake
extensive rebuilding programmes, but due to a short-fall in the
funding by the Learning and Skills Council, these plans and the
construction contracts have been unable to progress. This will
also impact businesses in general as the new college building
programme is necessary to provide the best possible facilities
for young people and adults to learn the skills which the region's
economy and local businesses will need in the future.
5. The changes to regional policy proposed in
the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill
and the potential effect on the work of SEEDA
5.1 AOSEC welcomes plans to improve local accountability.
FE colleges, universities and Local Authorities all have a vital
role to play in strengthening local communities and need to be
entrusted with more control to respond to local needs. As the
Learning and Skills Council (LSC) will cease to exist in 2010,
and the regional structure of the future Skills Funding Agency,
Young People's Learning Agency and National Apprenticeship Service
has yet to be clarified, AOSEC proposes that FE colleges (instead
of the LSC) should be included in the list of organisations to
be consulted directly, to ensure that the voice of the FE sector
is understood at regional level.
5.2 AOSEC supports the introduction of Local Authority
Leaders' Boards to increase local accountability. This democratic
input should provide greater transparency to the work of the Regional
Development Agency, thereby increasing the public's perception
of SEEDA and the Integrated Regional Strategy. However, AOSEC
is also concerned that much of the expertise from the Social and
Economic Partners on the Regional Assembly would be lost in the
new arrangements. AOSEC would suggest that there needs to be a
mechanism in place to ensure that Social and Economic Partners,
such as Further Education and Higher Education, can effectively
input into the economic and sustainable development plans for
the South East.
6. The role of other Government agencies such
as the Government Office for the South East, and of partnerships
between Government agencies, local government and the private
sector, in delivering the aims of the RES
7. How effective initiatives such as Business
Link are being in assisting businesses in the current climate,
including helping them to gain access to funding both from Government
funding streams and through the banking system
7.1 AOSEC would again highlight the point made
above (section 4) that in the South East there has been tremendous
demand for training under the Government's flagship Train to Gain
Service (and funding stream). FE Colleges have now reached the
funding cap and are no longer able to respond to business demand.
AOSEC strongly recommends that this funding stream be increased
to allow colleges to deliver the training that businesses require
to pull through this recession and emerge well-placed in the future.
Memorandum submitted by the Campaign for the Protection
of Rural England (CPRE) (SE 02)
SUMMARY
CPRE South East understands and generally welcomes
the purpose of SEEDA. We continue to have concerns however that
SEEDA's remit, and its preferred indicators of success are biased
towards a narrow definition of economic growth, rather than using
broader measures of sustainability. We are concerned also that
the changes proposed by the Local Democracy, Economic Development
and Construction Bill (LDEDC Bill), which include giving the same
body spatial planning powers and a remit for driving economic
development, are a recipe for confusion. We regret the downgrading
of partnership working, and the possible impact on bottom-up participation
in the region.
1. Background
1.1 CPRE South East welcomes the South East Regional
Select Committee's Inquiry into the work and effectiveness of
SEEDA and the RES. The Campaign to Protect Rural England exists
to promote the beauty, tranquillity and diversity of rural England
by encouraging the sustainable use of land and other natural resources
in town and country. CPRE submitted comments on the original RES
in 1999, as well as on all the subsequent reviews and implementation
plans. CPRE has always welcomed the work of SEEDA, and recognised
the need for a Regional Economic Strategy which places sustainable
development at its core.
1.2 We are aware that the 1998 Act sets out the
Regional Development Agencies' statutory duty to contribute to
the achievement of sustainable development in the UK where it
is relevant. This is an important requirement that has been increasingly
well addressed by SEEDA. Changes which we have welcomed include
SEEDA's use of a basket of indicators to measure growth, beyond
GVA. CPRE recognises that GVA is important, and that other Quality
of Life indicators can include measures of environmental capacity,
and such aspects as tranquillity. Our concerns about the emerging
changes to regional structures are that this element will be either
lost or eroded, as the indicators of success under the changes
to regional policy proposed in the Local Democracy, Economic Development
and Construction Bill (LDEDC) are all narrow economic measures.
1.3 Under the LDEDC, the RDAs may be unable to
address matters that do not directly contribute to economic growth.
We are concerned about the dangers of narrowing the meaning of
"sustainable economic development". This could run counter
to the concept of sustainability in its broader sense. "Sustainable
economic development" could, of course, be interpreted as
a broad expression that includes wider aspects of sustainable,
and if so, this should be explicit.
1.4 We set out below our comments to the
areas the Committee has indicated they are particularly interested
in. We have also suggested some additional themes and issues which
we consider relate to the Parliamentary Select Committee's Inquiry
into SEEDA and the RES, and are of direct concern to CPRE.
2. The role, responsibilities and accountability
of SEEDA
2.1 SEEDA was given a clear base mandate
to promote economic development and regeneration in the region,
mainly through the RES. The RES was never seen as SEEDA's own
strategy, but that of the region itself. SEEDA's work has been
continually assessed through the Regional Assembly's programme
of regional scrutiny committees. The LDEDC Bill will implement
the Government's reforms to regional planning. Ahead of this Bill
receiving Royal Assent regional structures have already begun
to evolve.
2.2 SEEDA will now have to work with the new
Partnership Board of local authority leaders in developing the
new Regional Strategy. SEEDA will have to face a culture change
and, critically, will have to acquire a new set of spatial planning
skills to underpin its new role. The issue of accountability remains
important and all meetings of the new regional boards need to
be held in public. SEEDA may wish to consider the role of stakeholders
in the process of strategy development.
3. The process by which the RES was drawn up and
the level of involvement of regional stakeholders
3.1 CPRE South East considers that the RES
consultation process could have been clearer and more democratic.
The RES process was mainly developed through internet consultations.
Hard copies of the consultation documents were often sparse, and
enquirers were referred to the website. This has not always helped
to stimulate a high level of responses or generate public interest.
The consultation documents were never a draft of the next RES,
and this led to confusion over how to respond. Rather than "drafts",
they were discussion papers. Accompanying documents, such as the
Economic Profile were substantial and thought provoking documents,
yet it is not clear how they related to each other. The status
of the Chairman's introduction, however crisp and powerful, was
never clear and many of its welcome sentiments were not reflected
in the subsequent text.
3.2 The relationship to sub regional priorities
was also unclear. If these are merely supplied by others, as appears
to be the case with the Environmental Initiatives, then they must
fit in with the overall strategy. Another puzzle is the role of
the Action Plans, which under the first RES were largely impenetrable
documents. A better explanation of the whole process was needed.
4. The effectiveness of the RES for the South
East in delivering against its targets
4.1 The South East region plays a critical
role in shaping the future of this country, the challenge is to
do this in a way that is sustainable within the region and which
recognises the role of other regions. Our publication Even Regions,
Greener Growth, (CPRE, February 2002) dealt with this question
by offering up the concept of "discerning development".
This would allow the less prosperous regions to "catch up"
economically, and, if harnessed to urban renaissance, may also
help to relieve pressure and congestion in the wider South East.
4.2 The SEEDA Corporate Plan targets are only
one measure to be considered when assessing the effectiveness
of the RES. The RES is a partner-approved, rather than a single
corporate strategy. The RES has produced innovative principles
to promote development. The concept of Smart Growth, with its
emphasis on innovation and creativity and its focus on carbon
footprints is the most sustainable approach to measuring development.
However, its "drivers of prosperity" will falter without
addressing the challenges posed by both sustainability and the
challenge of global pressures. Challenges for the RES include
the need to promote economic growth which is sustainable, and
therefore consistent with the principles set out in the Government's
Sustainable Development Strategy.
4.3 In line with the Sustainable Development
Strategy the key challenges of sustainable "prosperity"
should include references to rural economies, and the importance
of a healthy region. We support the inclusion of climate change
and energy as key issues in the RES, as well as natural resource
protection and environmental enhancement. These factors are important
in determining delivery against objectives.
4.4 The impact of the Regional Economic
Strategy has been considerable. It is accepted that the RES is
primarily an economic instrument; this, however, does not preclude
assessing and making provision for a range of other factors that
are an essential support to economic success. The relationship
of the RES to RSS has long been of concern. The creation of a
single Regional Strategy by the LDEDC Bill will help integrate
spatial and economic planning, but economic concerns should not
be seen as the overriding priority for regional planning in the
future.
4.5 The role of the "Greater South
East" needs to be more clearly set out in the RES and successor
documents, as well as the interrelationship of the region to London;
the South East is no longer a rural hinterland, but this is not
always apparent within Government policy.
4.6 The RES has not always been consistent
with the South East Plan and this has caused confusion in the
region. The RES should not, for example, be promoting levels of
growth that are inconsistent with the South East Plan.
5. The effect of the financial and economic situation
on businesses in the region including the effect on different
sectors such as manufacturing, service industries
5.1 The economic downturn is having a devastating
effect on businesses in the region, with a marked slowdown in
the housing market and other sectors, although some areas and
sectors remain active for now. More broadly, we have shared with
SEEDA the view that the quality of the countryside and the urban
environment are critical factors in regional economic success.
This means a clearer focus on using brown field land for all kinds
of economic development, such as factories, offices and warehouses.
The cultural, historic and natural assets of the region are easily
threatened by inappropriate development, and incidences of urban
decline and dereliction will inevitably undermine regional prosperity
in the longer term. We are particularly concerned that, in the
current climate, the search for growth and development should
not come at the expense of the countryside—the brown field
targets must remain in place.
5.2 CPRE is strongly of the view that new businesses
should be supported and encouraged. Rural business and genuine
diversification should receive support in greater measure. Overall,
sustaining existing and new businesses must be preferable to stimulating
outside investment. SEEDA has a potentially unique role in this,
and its scope and coverage should be clarified.
6. The changes to regional policy proposed in
the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill
and the potential effect on the work of SEEDA
6.1 The LDEDC Bill has led to the demise
of the Regional Assembly, and to the down-grading of partnership
working. The partnership approach had spread across a wide range
of structures, and had endured for a decade. An essential element
lost in the partnership approach is the involvement of stakeholders.
The new Partnership Board proposed for the South East is an amalgam
of SEEDA Board members and Council Leaders. There is no room for
stakeholders in decision-making any more, as there was with the
Assembly and with SEEDA committees and advisory groups. The involvement
of stakeholders in task and finish groups or in technical working
parties is a poor substitute for direct or closer level engagement.
This diminution of engagement will have a detrimental effect on
the region, insofar as it will lose many levels of understanding
as well as coherence and legitimacy.
6.2 Although SEEDA has begun to make changes
in recognition of its new role in regional planning they will
need to continue to evolve. Land use planning must place equal
weight on environmental, economic and social issues and this will
require a further shift in thinking. SEEDA was established to
be economically focused and business-led, but this cannot continue
to be the case if it is to successfully undertake this vital role
in regional planning. We are concerned about the propriety of
giving the same body spatial planning powers and a narrow economic
development remit, without receiving reassurances that checks
and balances will be in place.
6.3 The development of the new regional
strategy must fully involve local communities and stakeholders
and this cannot be done purely through web-based consultation.
SEEDA will need to consider carefully how best they can consult
people and work closely with the Leaders' Board. There is a need
for more transparency as the new Boards also have a planning remit.
There is a fundamental need to have all full meetings in public,
following the tradition and practice of local authorities.
6.4 CPRE considers that SEEDA should primarily
adopt a strategic role, allowing other partners and agencies to
deliver the agreed objectives of the RES. SEEDA should essentially
drive the strategy, monitor performance and help others, including
identified key partners, to deliver. SEEDA can also help by facilitating
partnerships. Project initiation is also beneficial, particularly
where these act as demonstration projects, to encourage others
into an emerging market such as renewable energy. Monitoring and
publicising knowledge transfer should be seen as an essential
and budgeted part of SEEDA activities.
7. The role of other Government agencies such
as the Government Office for the South East, and of partnerships
between Government agencies, local government and the private
sector, in delivering the aims of the RES
7.1 With the dissolution of the Regional
Assembly the only remaining partners with a real overview of the
region are GOSE and SEEDA. The new Leader's Board will have to
acquire a similar perspective. It is important that the Government
Office seeks to create a clear model of engagement. This should
cover business, communities and other stakeholders, allowing the
diversity of the region to inform its work. There is scope to
improve the current model of "stakeholder engagement"
and to benefit from the knowledge and perspectives that organisations
like CPRE can contribute. Possibly a shared approach with SEEDA
to regional engagement would provide a much more valuable and
robust approach than the current model.
7.2 The Government Office is an ideal focus for
regional intelligence gathering and would add real value if it
could bring together the expertise of organisations with essential
knowledge of the region.
7.3 CPRE will continue to co-operate and
champion activities in our areas of key interest. We are pleased
to work with SEEDA, and had active representation on the SEEDA
Sustainable Development Committee, on a partnership basis. This
committee went into abeyance with the departure of its chairman.
It was a useful forum showing SEEDA's close involvement with these
issues, and should be reconvened. We will support SEEDA in its
sustainability objectives and would be pleased to help facilitate
partnerships with our branches, as appropriate. Our regional group
co-ordinates eight county based branches. Many of these would
be able to help deliver agreed sustainability initiatives in their
areas. We would expect such initiatives to help encourage a vibrant
countryside and environment.
8. Other Key Challenges
The following paragraphs highlight some of our
concerns about the scope and coverage of the Regional Economic
Strategy:
8.1 Transport Infrastructure
— The RES should align itself with the wide
ranging consideration of transport policy over recent years. This
includes the Regional Transport Strategy of 2004, and the revision
in the draft South East Plan. The work of the Regional Transport
Board in defining strategic priorities is innovative, and should
be supported by the RES.
— The RES should develop policies to reduce
travel-to-work time, and to promote greater sustainability and
self-containment in all future developments.
8.2. Sub Regions in the RES
— Overall, the strategy needs a stronger
urban emphasis for future development; appropriate levels of rural
development, and the addressing of intra-regional economic and
social disparities. The RES should support continued economic
growth in ways that minimise pressures on land and labour resources;
as well as protection and enhancement of key environmental, cultural
and historic assets.
— The defined Economic Areas in the South
East need to relate better to the South East Plan. The spatial
emphasis appears to coincide, but has been simplified.
— The suggested Diamonds for development,
such as Gatwick, should complement, and relate well to the rural
fringes, as well as the "string of pearls" along the
coast.
8.3. Rural Economy and Communities
— Declining services and deprivation in
rural areas remains a problem, as well as homelessness and access
to affordable housing. Rural businesses are increasingly lifestyle
enterprises, and the attraction of country living is important.
— There is a need to continue to foster
the local food sector, including infrastructure, downstream to
supply chains, but also upstream to link supply chains to local
landscapes. Support for the successor Rural Board and Rural Forum
is vital to help facilitate and monitor developments.
— Rural development should focus on Smart
Growth, and development that supports rather than detracts from
local assets, including landscape and tranquillity.
8.4. Building Sustainable Communities
— Prosperity and quality of life should
be seen as working together. Similarly, the inequalities of the
region need to be fully addressed in SEEDA programmes.
— The value of culture and heritage in
binding communities should not be overlooked. It should be seen
as a positive force giving character and stability to communities,
as well as providing continuity and adding value.
— With many people now asked to live in
higher density developments, there is a need to demonstrate high
quality design, as the key to long term success.
— The South East region has a vital role
to play in health innovation and enterprise. This should also
link to the environmental agenda.
| 
