COMMITTEE FOR SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Inquiry into Town Centre Regeneration
13 December 2007
Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr David Hilditch (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Thomas Burns
Mr Jonathan Craig
Ms Anna Lo
Miss Michelle McIlveen
Mr Alban Maginness
Witnesses:
Mr Simon Quin ) Association of Town Centre Management
Mr Colin Neill ) Association of Town Centre Management – Northern Ireland
Mrs Sharon Scott )
The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Hilditch):
The Association of Town Centre Management – Northern Ireland (ATCM (NI)) network of town-centre management is represented by Colin Neill, chairperson of the network; Simon Quin, the chief executive of the ATCM; and Sharon Scott, the vice-chairperson of ATCM (NI).
You are welcome to the meeting. I remind Committee members and witnesses to switch off their mobile phones, because they interfere with the recording equipment.
Mr Colin Neill (Association of Town Centre Management – Northern Ireland):
I thank the Committee for allowing us to present evidence today. The inquiry into town-centre regeneration is extremely valuable, and it is to be hoped that it will achieve positive outcomes. I am the town-centre manager for Ballymena and the chairman of the Northern Ireland region of the ATCM. I am joined by Simon Quin, who is the organisation’s chief executive, and Sharon Scott, who is the vice-chairperson of the ATCM (NI) and town-centre manager for Coleraine. Simon will provide the Committee with an introduction on the ATCM (NI) and its credentials.
Mr Simon Quin (Association of Town Centre Management):
Thank you for the opportunity to attend the Committee. The ATCM is a UK-wide organisation with some 550 members, who are engaged in the promotion of the vitality and viability of town and city centres. Our membership comprises practitioner groups that are involved in town-centre management initiatives, and major stakeholders, such as retailers, property owners, Departments and Government agencies.
Through our members’ knowledge and also our work in leading the National BIDs Advisory Service, which promotes business improvement districts (BIDs) in the United Kingdom — particularly the work that we have done in England and Wales and that we are currently doing in Scotland, where we are supporting the Scottish Executive in introducing BID legislation — there are now some 60 BIDs in place. We are also engaged in the new professional body for people who work in place management, which is the Institute of Place Management. It was set up as an international body, and it includes universities, membership organisations, such as ATCM, and individuals from more than 30 countries. We have a reciprocal partnership arrangement with the International Downtown Association, which covers town-centre and downtown practitioners in Canada and the United States. That adds the knowledge of a further 550 centres. We are also engaged in a partnership called town centre management Europe (TOCEMA EUROPE). It is made up of initiatives from here and 12 other countries, and that brings in about another thousand examples of towns and cities that are under management.
From those organisations and projects, we have deduced that two factors are necessary to promote vital and viable town centres. First, it is necessary to have an initial town-centre planning policy to encourage development in town centres wherever possible — not only retail development but any development that is appropriate in town centres.
Secondly, there is a requirement for strong local initiatives, which are more effective if they are partnerships among the public, private and community sectors. Partnerships bring added value because all parties contribute, giving those involved greater knowledge about the issues that affect town and city centres. They are symbioses that enable the initiatives to do more than those that are purely led by one partner. Those requirements apply in large and small centres, although there is not a one-sized solution. The partnerships that have evolved across the world are different in many ways and must be contextualised to the local environment. It is important to remember that town-centre regeneration does not happen quickly but is a long-term process that typically takes 20 years or more. The partnership may evolve during that time from an ad hoc arrangement to a company limited by guarantee, or to — as is the case in many towns in England — a community interest company, or to a more formal arrangement in the long term.
It is not enough that regeneration consist of one idea. We have discovered over the years that town centres require a comprehensive strategy if they are to be successfully revitalised. That strategy must consider what the centre has to offer or what its attractions are. That should not only mean retail but that consideration should be given to a town centre’s role as a leisure and entertainment centre, a service centre for the community, a business location and a place in which people can live. The strategy must deal with accessibility and consider how consumers can get into and around the centre. It must also deal with the quality of experience that it gives visitors, — its amenity — and its safety. The strategy must ask the following questions: does the town centre feel clean? Is it a pleasant environment in which to spend time or do its visitors want to leave in a hurry? The comprehensive strategy must deal with initiatives, such as promotion, marketing and action, in order to bring together the partners.
Town-centre regeneration is best done through partnership. One might ask how partnerships can be best developed, how they can be sustained and how we can ensure that they are real. ATCM, working with a number of universities and our partners elsewhere in the world, has developed a 10-step programme that supports the establishment of BIDs and long-term town-centre management partnerships. We have already made a submission to the Department for Social Development (DSD) in which we gave details of the programme. It covers such issues as identifying stakeholders, developing visions and strategies, and monitoring and evaluation.
We believe that that is the best way in which to deliver a competitive advantage for town and city centres and to ensure that those centres that have served their communities for hundreds of years — in some cases, a thousand years — will not be destroyed in a generation by the out-of-town developments.
I hope that that gives the Committee some insight into the matter.
Mrs Sharon Scott (Association of Town Centre Management – Northern Ireland):
I shall pick up on a few issues, both at a strategic and an operational level, as I am a practising town-centre manager in Coleraine. There are about 16 practising town-centre managers in Northern Ireland, and the ATCM (NI) feels that the strategic framework under which it operates with the Department is somewhat lacking. I will present to the Committee the association’s views on a proposed hierarchical framework.
First and foremost is the regional development strategy, of which we are all aware. It has already identified cities and towns in Northern Ireland as regional and subregional hubs, and that provides a good framework for departmental intervention. The association has found that, in the past, the intervention has been somewhat piecemeal in approach and has been driven by single issues, and that it bore no real relevance to an overarching strategic framework, which ATCM (NI) would like to see adopted.
For some time, the absence of a clear retail planning policy has caused real problems at a strategic and operational level for practising town-centre and city-centre managers. The lack of such a policy has hindered the growth of town and city centres across Northern Ireland. That is well documented, and we would like that to be resolved as a matter of urgency, because it certainly would help to enable a strategic approach to be taken.
The next level down is the area plans. At present, DSD does not have any powers of consultation on area plans, and, in particular, on the comprehensive development schemes. The association would like DSD to have such powers in future. That would give some statutory basis to the work that town and city partnerships are conducting.
The next tier down should be town-centre master plans, which would provide a 10-year strategic framework for development. They would consider comprehensive development opportunities across the board and would deal with transport, retail development, tourism, and the real work of town and city centres today.
Below that should be a localised regeneration strategy, which would be a three- to five-year plan. It is the next step after a vision or development framework has been established, and it would involve creating a clear plan of action and looking at resources and budget. That strategy would be a very individual piece of work, drawn up according to individual needs. It would be driven by the town partnerships, which, as we have said before, should have firm representation from the public, private and voluntary sectors in the area.
Finally, a one-year operational plan would be really important to drive forward delivery. Again, budgetary and evaluation requirements are important.
That is the strategic framework. ATCM feels that it should be supported by long-term budgetary provision. Most of the town and city centres in Northern Ireland take a very ad hoc, piecemeal approach to their finances. Some have a 12-month funding period, while, at the other end of the scale, the majority have a three-year funding period. Such arrangements create problems at an operational and working level for town partnerships, because environmental improvement schemes can last 18 months, while major comprehensive development schemes can last 10 years.
I will speak about our experience at an operation level in Coleraine. As a member of ACTM (NI) for some 10 years now, Coleraine has followed best practice. In 1999, urban regeneration consultants drew up a master plan. That 10-year plan considered how Coleraine town could progress. In 2005, that plan was supplemented with a strategy, which identified five development-opportunity sites for comprehensive development. The Department’s involvement at that level was considerable. It considered retail planning, capacity building and the future retail needs of the town. Therefore, there were considerable financial and resource implications, for the partnership itself and for DSD as an active member of that partnership. That led to a series of development briefs for two of the sites, and that has culminated in two developments going ahead. Those developments represent £115 million worth of retail, leisure and housing development in Coleraine. From an outcome perspective, the plan and strategy have delivered the goods.
However, the association’s problems with the Department have been twofold. First, the lack of a statutory basis for the plans has been a concern and a major stumbling block. ATCM (NI) has not been given a statutory basis in the draft Northern area plan 2016, although both documents that were produced were done so with the area plan in mind. The association’s not having a statutory basis meant that those documents did not stand up. That resulted in the Department’s having to go back, re-evaluate and prove the facts and figures that came out of the town partnership document throughout the course of the development briefs. It involved the recruitment of another consultant, more finance and an 18-month delay in the release of the development briefs, which were at a critical stage, when developers were bringing in key commercial tenants. All those commercial planning issues were coming together, yet the project had to be stalled for 18 months to allow a verification exercise to take place, which, had the association had a statutory basis, would not have been necessary.
Secondly, without any disrespect to the DSD officials who were involved, because they were more than positive and worked extremely hard on a day-to-day and operational basis, they were hindered by a lack of resources and, by their own admission, by the lack of expertise available for the urban regeneration project that the ATCM (NI) was carrying out. The development site was huge, particularly for a regional town. Progress on that development was held up for several years because of resource and expertise issues. The association has discussed with officials at great length as to how that might be resolved. We want that progress to be made at an operational level, where intervention has been affected.
Mr Neill:
I want to raise an issue that is mentioned in the inquiry’s terms of reference, and that is the effectiveness of engagement. I want to reiterate what Mrs Scott has said — that that in no way reflects on individuals in the Department, for whom I have nothing but admiration. They work incredibly well, despite the lack of a structured policy.
However, the association recognises that there is weakness in the lack of policy and lack of urban regeneration experts. Current DSD intervention tends to be in response to opportunities that developers have brought to its attention. That can cause several problems. Intervention is not judged on key performance indicators. Unless those key performance indicators are ingrained, exit cannot be made after the intervention in order to measure it and ascertain whether it was effective.
Moreover, intervention by developers is all very well in a prosperous economy. However, if the market enters a recession, doubts would be raised about whether DSD can deliver comprehensive regeneration in town centres. The association is keen to see the introduction of models and key performance indicators that are used in BIDs. Northern Ireland is currently the only part of the UK and Ireland that does not have legislation for BIDs. Although a large majority of towns may eventually not want to move to a formal BID, it is important that it is recognised as a strong model that is driven by all the correct elements that feed into it.
The example of a development site in Ballymena illustrates the effect of engagement and a lack of policy. There has been a large derelict area in Alexander Street, in the north of the town, for several years. The process of development there began around 10 years ago, when the developer started to amass the site. After that had progressed for a few years, the developers approached the Planning Service with their plan. They were referred to DSD by the Planning Service, which said that DSD would have to role to play in the development. My understanding is that DSD identified its role and that it wanted there to be comprehensive redevelopment of the area. With DSD’s encouragement, the developers extended the footprint to cover other buildings that required vesting, because they could not be bought through the system.
Reasonable progress was made, with DSD driving the project. In fact, my understanding from the developers was that DSD indicated that it wanted to lead the project and that the developers would be the preferred developers.
Therefore, the project was going fairly well until it got on to the legal framework As I have said, vesting issues arose, and there were personnel changes in DSD. DSD took a backward step from legal action, because of a lack of policy and of threats of legal action from various areas. The Department had no policy that would stand up in court that could justify any potential intervention. It is almost 10 years since the project hit the ground — almost seven of those with DSD — and that situation has pertained throughout. Other than the developers trying to find ways around that situation to progress and reduce the footprint, the project has ground to a halt. The uncertainty over such a large development has rolled over into demographic changes and changes in footfall, and that has meant uncertainty for all development in the town centre. No one else will develop until that project moves forward. The project has priority 1 status, so other developers are lining up behind it, but they cannot do anything.
Although it is not a reflection on DSD staff, the policy is creating such problems throughout the Province. The threat of legal action against the Department and the lack of a policy to back development leave it embroiled in spending incredible amounts of money on consultants to back its case.
The Deputy Chairperson:
Thank you for your presentation, which included some strong and positive points. Your views were very informative to the Committee. Do any Committee members have questions that they wish to ask the delegation?
Mr Brady:
From what you have said, planning is a huge issue. Ten years is an ordinate amount of time for a project to have stalled. Do you envisage any way in which to speed the process up or to improve the timescale for development?
Mr Neill:
In this instance, planning permission had been granted for the comprehensive element of the development. The project ran aground because of the Department’s lack of policy, and because the staff attempted, through consultants, to show that they had the evidence to back what they were doing. The project ground to a halt because the Department felt that its position was not strong enough. However, ATCM (NI) keenly awaits the introduction of the new draft, or the final version, of Planning Policy Statement 5. There are issues around trying to drive retail and leisure elements into town centres first. In Northern Ireland, those developments are built anywhere but in town centres.
Mr Brady:
Do you feel that DSD could take a more holistic approach to leisure and retail?
Mr Neill:
It could, and a policy that backed that would allow DSD to take such an approach. The projects are developer-driven, so they depend on what the developer has in mind, and, a great deal of the time, that comes down to whether the value of the site stacks up to what the revenue returns need to be.
The Deputy Chairperson:
If there are no further questions, I thank the witnesses for their attendance. Your evidence has been very informative for the Committee.