Written evidence submitted by the Royal
Town Planning Institute
The Government has outlined what it sees as a radical
and transformational agenda which it hopes will contribute positively
towards the regeneration of towns, cities and rural areas throughout
England. Underpinning this approach are the concepts of Localism
and the Big Society, allowing policy and funding priorities and
decisions to be made at a more local level than previously possible.
The RTPI welcomes many aspects of the approach, particularly:
— The
increased emphasis on community involvement and empowerment.
— The
recognition that successful regeneration is about people, place
and economies and that integrated strategies are essential.
— The
potential benefits of an increased emphasis on neighbourhood and
community planning.
— The
need to address the over reliance of some places on the underperformance
of the private sector in delivering new jobs, especially in northern
England.
— The
importance of major infrastructure projects as a driver for growth.
— Payment
by results/ eg Social Impact Bonds.
— The
need for increased openness and transparency.
— The
introduction of Local Enterprise Partnerships, their local business
emphasis and possible access to funds.
— The
need for a National Planning Policy Framework to identify national
social, economic and environmental priorities.
The RTPI is concerned that these ambitions will not
be realised or may be undermined by conflicting aspects of Government
policy, principally:
— The
reduced powers that local councils and neighbourhoods will have
to ensure that development is encouraged to deliver regeneration
in areas of need.
— The
speed of implementation of major structural, policy and organisational
changes.
— The
potential for the overall effect of the policies to leave the
economically weak areas further disadvantaged.
— The
lack of resources/scale of reduction of resources to Local Authorities,
housing providers and the third sector.
— The
removal of key skills in regeneration and specialist advisors.
— The
loss of coordination at the larger than neighbourhood or Local
Authority area.
— The
lack of clarity over the Local Authorities future duty to cooperate.
— The
lack of transitional arrangements.
— The
lack of clarity about monitoring arrangements.
THE ROLE
PLANNING CAN
PLAY IN
REGENERATION AND
SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC
GROWTH
Planning plays a key role in the achievement of sustainable
growth and in the regeneration of underperforming areas. Planning
provides confidence for developers and investors that the quality
of development to which they aspire will be echoed in the wider
area. Planning brings together and co-ordinates the individual
roles played by the public and private sectors, particularly in
areas where intervention is required to provide the infrastructure
and the land remediation needed to make development viable. In
doing this, planning creates value—value to enable development
to go ahead and value for the community in terms of better places
and facilities.
Planning seeks to ensure that the range of facilities
that a community needs to function—jobs, housing, recreation,
shopping and health and education—is considered in any major
scheme. Planning acts to reduce the adverse impact on communities
when major development happens by helping to ensure that local
roads and other facilities have the capacity to cope. Planning
seeks to create inspiring places and developments and to get away
from the "pattern-book" approach used by some developers.
Planning provides assets that the public and the nation need—without
planning, there would be far fewer homes for those in most need,
for example.
Planning is the vehicle through which a community
can get involved in, and help to shape, its own future in a positive
and constructive way. Planning protects those assets—whether
they are historic areas or open spaces—that we all value.
Planning is key in ensuring that all development contributes to
the mitigation of, and adaption to, climate change and, thus,
is vital to the achievement of our national and international
targets and commitments. For example, planning seeks to ensure
that developments do not take place in areas that are subject
to flooding. Proper planning can reduce the reliance on the car
and, at the same time, can encourage a healthier lifestyle in
people. Planning provides the information and evidence so that
hard decisions can be taken in an informed way.
RESPONSES TO
QUESTIONS
1. How effective is the Government's approach
to regeneration likely to be? What benefits is the new approach
likely to bring?
The Government seeks to devolve decision making powers
and financial responsibility to the lowest level appropriate and
to considerably reduce the involvement of Central Government.
The Localism and Big Society agenda requires to be combined with
clear national priorities set out in a National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) and resourced Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs)
if regeneration is to be effective.
Thirty years of "regeneration" do not have
a universally successful history but there are many successful
examples during that period of community-led regeneration. This
has been actively supported by the RTPI for many years through
its extensive Planning Aid programme involving many planning professionals
in a volunteering capacity.
The overall effectiveness of the Government's proposals
will, however, be determined by the level of resources allocated
at a national and local level to regeneration and the relative
priority that Local Authorities can give to regeneration compared
to their other duties. The Government has stated that the scope
of local discretion will increase and some Councils will become
effectively "Government free" in terms of how their
resources can be allocated. This however has been undermined by
the latest announcements to create a presumption in favour of
development anywhere that is not designated Greenbelt.
The combined impact of these proposals therefore
is likely to lead to varied outcomes across the country. These
outcomes will also be influenced by key factors such as the economic
circumstances of the area. There is a real danger that the ambition
to spread the growth and raise economic performance will not be
achieved and that the relative disadvantage of parts of the North
and Midlands will get worse. How will rural areas be affected
as economic growth centres on the cities? A key question for Government
therefore is how it will ensure that the weakest areas do not
get left further behind while the more affluent areas continue
to move ahead and prosper.
This will be further compounded by other structural
changes to organisations that make a significant contribution
to regeneration outcomes. The demise of Primary Care Trusts and
Strategic Health Authorities will create a vacuum, hopefully temporary,
in terms of the ability of the health sector to contribute to
regeneration programmes. It should be noted that one of the most
fundamental aspects of regeneration programmes has been to address
the serious life expectancy differences experienced by those living
in deprived areas compared to more affluent areas. It will be
important, therefore, for Government to ensure that the new Health
Commissioning bodies engage positively with local regeneration
programmes as part of their core activities.
2. Will it ensure that the progress made by
past regeneration projects is not lost and can, where appropriate,
be built on?
The last Government set up the Neighbourhood Renewal
Unit (NRU) to ensure lessons and best practice from previous regeneration
programmes were shared. This led to the establishment of Regional
Centres of Excellence (RCEs), the Academy of Sustainable Communities
(ASC) and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment
(CABE). These have either been closed or absorbed into other organisations
by the last or current Government and it is unclear how best practice
will be embedded in future.
The Government also introduced the concept of Neighbourhood
Renewal Advisors, now called Local Improvement Advisors (LIAs),
independent experts who could be called in to support struggling
projects. This programme has actively supported regeneration projects
for over 10 years but ends in March 2011. The absence of
organisations like the RCEs and experienced individuals such as
the LIAs will place greater emphasis on Local Authorities and
CLG at a time when their own resources are being severely depleted.
A detailed proposal from CLG on how best practice will be captured
and disseminated in future is needed.
Local authorities are losing the specialist skills
necessary to deliver effective, sustainable regeneration (including
design, heritage, community engagement, regeneration). There is,
therefore, an increased level of risk of poorly designed, unsustainable
development and of repeating the mistakes of the past.
3. Will it ensure that sufficient public funds
are made available for future major town and city regeneration
projects as well as for more localised projects?
The Government is implementing a programme of major
reductions in public expenditure as a means of reducing the overall
budget deficit. Regeneration programmes cannot be immune from
this. However it is considered that as a result of these severe
resource pressures much of the Government's Localism Agenda faces
the significant risk that through inadequate funding and resources
little may happen in the areas of major need at a critical period.
This will place even greater weight upon maximising
the contribution that private sector investment can make through
the development management powers of planning authorities. Without
this, experience shows that such investment will be diverted away
from regeneration opportunities and often result in displaced
investment from established areas (in effect increasing the areas
requiring regeneration). In addition the potential to harness
local initiatives will be frustrated if the power to manage development
through the planning system is undermined by the proposed changes
announced by the Chancellor.
In addition many of the Government proposals described
in "Regeneration to Enable Growth" such as participation
in the structures for local councils and others will be resource
intensive. With enhanced local Community Rights, Neighbourhood
Orders and Plans, conduct of referenda and ensuring fit with Core
Strategies and other LDF documents, the resource burden will coincide
with severe local authority and public expenditure reductions.
A further difficulty is future dependence on regulations and implementation
orders which the Secretary of State is obliged to make, about
which there are few details.
The loss of Local Authority and other funding to
the voluntary/community sector is already having a serious impact
on many organisations. This runs counter to many of the intentions
and aspirations of the Big Society and is likely to limit the
capacity for third-sector led regeneration projects.
In addition, fundamental changes are proposed in
the housing sector and of particular note is the recommended change
to the funding regime of the HCA that will move payments to completion,
rather than phased throughout with up to 40% being claimed at
the outset of works. This will have a detrimental effect on developers'
cash flow and could further reduce appetite for development.
4. What lessons should be learnt from past
and existing regeneration projects to apply to the Government's
new approach?
A recent review of regeneration programmes identified
that a key lesson is that successive programmes had not impacted
on the most deprived areas—the same areas featured in the
most deprived neighbourhoods 25 years later despite numerous different
attempts to turn their fortunes around. However regeneration programmes
have been successful when there has been integration of programmes,
a long term commitment within a strategic (ie planned) context.
The RTPI would be able to assist in the promotion
of best practice through its existing networks (including the
RTPI Regeneration Network), regions and nations, practice information,
events programme, publications and website.
The ingredients of successful communities have been
widely acknowledged and can be demonstrated by the "Egan
wheel" illustrated below:
Most recently the Scottish Government has issued
a Regeneration Discussion Paper "Building a Sustainable Future"
(Edinburgh 2011). It uses the generally recognised definition
of regeneration which is the holistic process of reversing the
economic, social and physical decline of places where market forces
alone will not suffice.
It restates the key lessons as being:
— The
need for a combined physical, social and economic approach to
regeneration (ie a strategic and planned approach).
— The
importance of addressing worklessness to achieve lasting transformation
of areas as a key consideration.
— Partnership
working, along with strong leadership and clear visioning.
— The
levels of funding and project timescales are critical. Evidence
shows that many regeneration initiatives have been largely isolated
from mainstream programmes and services, with governments tending
to pursue short-term
initiatives rather than taking a longer-term
perspective driven by changes in mainstream services with greater
local co-ordination.
— The
need to engage communities in wider economic factors when planning
neighbourhood interventions. Researchers highlight that gaps between
policy intentions and outcomes remain due to an insufficient understanding
of the function played by a neighbourhood area in the wider housing
and employment market and the relationship with surrounding areas.
The conclusion the report reaches however is that
many of the traditional models of regeneration have fractured.
Development activity fuelled by rising land and property prices,
funded via debt finance has been shown to be unsustainable.
It recognises that with reduced public sector funding and
capital grant new financial models and different ways of funding
development will be required, and the relationship between
the public and private sector will need to adapt accordingly.
These conclusions apply equally to England.
5. What action should the Government be taking
to attract money from (a) public and (b) private sources into
regeneration schemes?
The Government proposed additions to the means by
which private sector resources can be attracted (notably the New
Homes Bonus, the Community Infrastructure Levy and Social Impact
Bonds) have yet to be proven in the terms of the extent and scale
of their impacts. However previous successful regeneration programmes
had two critical features: long term interventions (more than
five to 10 years) and a reliance on public sector funding to pump
prime the programme while private sector is nurtured. In the current
economic climate it is uncertain whether the incentives that are
on offer through the New Homes bonus, for example, will be maximised
in all areas and fill the gap left by reductions in mainstream
finance.
None of the Government's "Regeneration to Enable
Growth" initiatives, identified below, will in themselves
ensure that sufficient funds are available for regeneration projects,
whether at city wide or local level. The paper describes a very
wide variety of initiatives, with most not directly related to
planning or the planning process. It is acknowledged that DCLG
and others have made commitments to these initiatives but many
are still taking shape and their ultimate impact is therefore
uncertain. Included in this are the:
— Supporting
Communities and Neighbourhoods in Planning scheme, under which
DCLG will fund neighbourhood groups to assist their production
of Neighbourhood Development Plans and Neighbourhood Development
Orders.
— The
Sustainable Communities Act, giving communities and residents
more powers to seek local improvements, including support for
"barrier busting".
— The
training of 5,000 Community Organisers.
— The
Community Right to Buy and Community Right to Build.
— The
Community First small grants programme.
— The
Big Society Bank, with around £300 million to invest in its
first year. This compares with around £200 million a year
already going into social investment.
— Local
Council Asset Transfers.
— The
Transition Fund of £100 million for community and Third Sector
organisations spending at least 50% of total income delivering
public services for listed groups.
— Rural
Community Action Network with £8.5 million until 2014.
The Localism agenda and the "Regeneration to
Enable Growth" paper could be reinforcing if there is greater
emphasis on the special features of particular places. Each locality
has a particular heritage whether it be industrial or rural, inland
or coastal towns and the role of heritage as a means to delivering
dramatic physical and economic transformations could be significant.
Identifying and emphasising local heritage will help to raise
local pride and reduce the problem of clone towns.
It is recognised that in the short term funding will
be limited as the Government seeks to reduce the budget deficit.
One potential funding source that could be used to a greater extent
after the 2012 Olympics is the National Lottery.
6. How should the success of the Government's
approach be assessed in future?
There are a range of tests that should be applied
to assessing the success of the Government's approach. These include
for example:
— (i) The
net additional jobs created, excluding those diverted or displaced
from other areas;
— (ii) The
scale of land renewal in terms of the recycling of former urban
land and clearance of dereliction and decontamination, reduced
vacancy levels etc;
— (iii) The
reduction in the levels of social exclusion within the regeneration
areas eg in terms of relative unemployment rates and other measures
of social disparity;
— (iv) The
improvement in the quality of environment eg actual extent of
"greenspace" and perceived improvement in the levels
of satisfaction by local communities; and
— (v) Level
of civic / community engagement—the widening of the "civic
core" in terms of those involvement in forms of community
/ neighbourhood activities.
A key test for Regeneration programmes at a national
level will be whether they have reduced the gap between the more
affluent and less affluent parts of the country. At a local level
this overall indicator is also appropriate. This should be measured
in terms of the relative regional or local economic performance
but other factors such as relative life chances are also relevant.
The current programme of national regeneration projects,
in particular the 39 New Deal for Communities programmes and the
Neighbourhood Management Pathfinders are coming to the end of
their lifetimes. These have been long running experiments with
major community involvement which in many ways is in line with
the Government's Localism aspirations. There has been extensive
evaluation of these programmes. It is recommended that the outcomes
and successes from these programmes are suitably highlighted and
the lessons documented. Indeed since many have established long
term succession organisations and structures not reliant on public
sector support their ongoing progress should also be monitored,
alongside that of previous programmes such as the Urban Development
Corporations and Housing Action Trusts of the 1980s and 1990s
which laid the foundations for many of the programmes that followed.
March 2011
| 
