Regeneration

Written submission from the Radstock Action Group

House of Commons Committee – Experiences of Regeneration

No regeneration has been completed in this area in spite of it being one of the worst in the Bath & North East Somerset Unitary Authority. This has not been because of claims by B&NES to be initiating such schemes, but in the manner or execution.

· There have been no successful regeneration attempts. Although a start was made in 1998 with the Single Regeneration Budget and alleged consultations took place, nothing resulted. Subsequently there have been other attempts, also failing due to the apparent desire to impose solutions on Radstock. An example of the attitude is that one Councillor called the area ‘bandit country’.

· To achieve regeneration, local people must be involved in the planning, not via a quango. There has not been any Masterplan for the area to which the local people could contribute. The Joint Local Transport Plan and the Core Strategy were not formally announced: nothing would have happened if our Group had not pressed hard for response documents and depended on one very constructive officer for assistance. Consultation in all things must be genuine and responsible: local councillors who are volunteers cannot be expected understand strategic planning.

· There is currently a scheme to develop 210 dwellings on an area of Radstock known as the Former Railway Land, which is now with the Minister. We, along with other residents have objected to many different aspects, such as detail (appearance, etc.) and the outline (insufficient space to reinstate a railway). Finally, the objection that the scheme did not provide any extra jobs after the initial building was completed (quietly admitted), was, like all others, totally ignored. As a sop some land was left for ecological mitigation, a significant proportion of which could not be used for housing. Another difficult has been that that the HCA appears to listen only to the Authority, not to the residents who will be living to the results.

· Certainly, insufficient was tried to involve local people, as suggested above. We would suggest that a Masterplan is essential which has been derived from the stated needs of the residents. When we presented a small exhibition of the plans and explained them, visitors were horrified, so before any type of ‘regeneration’ , local people should be ‘leafletted’ and a formal exhibition arranged by an independent body, not, as in our case, by the developer. Local volunteers cannot be expected to research all the implications, respond to local questions and also collate those questions for the LPA. The latter must be seen to respond to all, so that answers do not come simply from a Councillor or officer who has never visited the locality.

June 2011