COMMITTEE FOR SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT
(Hansard)
Town Centre Regeneration
23 April 2009
Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr David Hilditch (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr Fra McCann
Miss Michelle McIlveen
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín
Witnesses:
Mr John McGrillen ) Northern Ireland Local Government Association
Mrs Karen Smyth )
The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Hilditch):
We will now receive a briefing from the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA) on town-centre regeneration. I welcome John McGrillen and Karen Smyth. You can make a presentation after which members will ask questions.
Mr John McGrillen (Northern Ireland Local Government Association):
On behalf of me, Karen and NILGA, thank you for inviting us this morning. My day job is chief executive of Down District Council. Given that my council has some coalface experience of town-centre regeneration, NILGA has asked me to assist with the project. We invited all councils in Northern Ireland to provide evidence, and many made submissions. However, rather than relay specific instances that were raised in that evidence, we will give an overview of local government’s view on the success of town-centre regeneration.
We recognise the importance of town-centre management, which is a complex issue that is at the core of tackling disadvantage and poverty. That is also at the core of local government. Therefore, NILGA has a significant interest in the matter. We recognise the complexity of the issue and contend that effective town-centre regeneration cannot be the responsibility of one Department only. In order to address deprivation and poverty successfully, local government must produce sustainable, social, economic and environmental benefits to local communities.
In order to achieve that end, we require a committed, co-ordinated and resourced programme of work by a range of stakeholders, including the Department for Social Development (DSD); the Planning Service; Roads Service; Invest NI; the Northern Ireland Tourist Board; occasionally the Arts Council; local councils; and local communities. Furthermore, the utility providers are key stakeholders, because they provide services in town centres. Difficulties can arise if utilities are not co-ordinated when work begins.
Successful regeneration relies on a medium- or long-term commitment, as opposed to a short-term commitment. Moreover, its approach must be integrated. Most local authorities recognise DSD’s huge efforts to address town-centre issues. However, as I said previously, those authorities recognise that the Department cannot address those issues on its own. The belief is that DSD’s current approach tends to be slightly project-driven and, as a result, is narrowly focused. It could be more broadly focused.
Local government believe that many Government agencies are failing to fulfil their obligation to create vibrant town centres. For example, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment does not see any role for itself in the development of the retail sector. It concentrates on manufacturing and tradable services. Although area plans often recognise the need to develop master plans for town centres, the Planning Service has not recognised any need to develop those master plans. In many instances, that role has been left to the local authority or, increasingly in recent times, to DSD.
Roads Service simply does not recognise the benefits that arise from high-quality public realm or the critical role that its services play in delivering vibrant town centres. One could argue that DSD’s current work and spending on master planning and investment in the upgrade of streets and street lighting is addressing other Departments’ fundamental failure to fulfil their contribution to the town-centre regeneration effort. The lack of co-ordinated action and commitment of other statutory bodies, such as Roads Service and the Planning Service, could negate DSD’s investment in the longer term. Without a co-ordinated and sustainable long-term approach, those towns could easily return to their original state in a short space of time. Therefore, the effectiveness of that spend could be questionable if other bodies do not commit to projects.
Many councils that made submissions to us believe that DSD’s work to date has focused principally on environmental improvement schemes. Although we welcome such schemes, many people argue that a more holistic approach must be taken in order to tackle issues such as dereliction. Such an approach would include the use of vesting powers to create comprehensive development schemes, and shopfront improvement schemes could be used more widely in order to deliver more effective overall outcomes.
A number of respondents argued that on some occasions there seemed to be a reluctance on the part of the Department to engage in public-private partnerships, which has led to an uncertainty about the future development of town centres. The central promenade in Bangor is an example of that.
The Committee has asked NILGA to identify where the application of regeneration funding has failed to address disadvantage and poverty. It is fair to say at the outset that that is quite a difficult question to answer, as it would require us to have established baseline indicators for disadvantage and poverty before the commencement of any of the DSD work. It would also require an ability to measure against benchmarks. We are not clear as to what extent that has been done.
It is difficult to establish the causes and effects. If there has been improvement, has that come about as a result of DSD spend, or has it come about as a result of other measures, such as better training, job creation through a large inward investment project in the area, or better educational attainment? It is difficult to establish whether those objectives have been met. Such measures tend to be long term in nature; one cannot really take a short-term approach, as it is difficult to establish the implications of a short-term project on the reduction of poverty and deprivation.
Many councils are of the view that the areas that are designated by DSD for neighbourhood renewal are not recognisable, coherent communities for local people. The designation of such areas does not necessarily make sense to people who live in them because they tend to be geographically based. To ensure a meaningful change in impact, NILGA proposes that there is a need for a radical change in the approach to targeting resources to larger subregional areas that are experiencing poverty and disadvantage. Factors that impact upon a community do not necessarily rest within that community, and such factors need to be considered when addressing those issues.
A number of councils believe that DSD intervention is inconsistent when dealing with derelict sites and properties. A number of key opportunity sites were identified in council responses that had remained undeveloped for a number of years despite approaches to DSD for intervention. Those continue to be major blights in town centres. The experience has been that the approach that has been taken has been successful in some town centres, but that that approach has not been taken in other town centres.
NILGA was asked to consider the nature and effectiveness of engagement with local communities when taking forward regeneration initiatives. Most councils commented that there is a genuine commitment by the Department to engage with local communities, however, a number felt that some more work needed to be done through councils to sustain and develop relationships, particularly with traders and residents. From a personal point of view, having been involved a project in Downpatrick and one in Newcastle, the Department has done an excellent job in engaging with local stakeholders in delivering those projects. However, that would not appear to be the case right across the board.
We were also asked to identify examples of best practice from elsewhere. For the purpose of the submission, given the limited time that was available to the officials, they principally examined other initiatives that are taking place in GB. A number of councils have suggested that the Department should give serious consideration to the introduction of legislation to allow for the creation of business improvement districts.
Business improvement districts have been introduced in town centres right across other parts of the UK, and Northern Ireland is the only jurisdiction in the UK that has not yet enacted that legislation. It has proven to be successful, and there has been a significant uptake across Britain. It is a concept whereby businesses within a defined geographical area can elect to pay additional rates to a local authority to address issues that affect the area in which they conduct their business.
It is a flexible approach — a business improvement district can consist of as little as two properties or shops, or it could be as large as a whole town centre. It works on the basis that people vote on whether they wish the areas to be allocated as a business improvement district, and if more than 50% of the businesses in the area do so, they can identify a programme of work that can be taken forward to address some of the issues that they want to see tackled. That can cover matters such as crime reduction; improving cleansing; promoting and marketing the town; and improvements to the public realm.
Therefore, although we in local government recognise that a business improvement district might not be suitable for all towns in Northern Ireland, we believe that the process of business consultation and the potential to enhance existing town-centre services should be given consideration. We must consider how that might be applied in Northern Ireland.
At present, it is clear that council leaders in England and Wales are calling for powers that would allow them to use vacant premises to provide services such as training centres, libraries and youth clubs. They see that as a temporary measure that would allow councils to get hold of properties, keep them from falling into dereliction and allow services to be provided from them.
We understand that a proposal to cut VAT on the refurbishment of empty shops from 15% to 5% is also being considered to encourage new businesses. I assume that if that were applied across the UK, it would, obviously, apply in Northern Ireland as well. We would welcome that.
We believe that it is not possible to look at the future of town-centre regeneration without taking into account the review of public administration (RPA) and considering matters in that context. The Minister of the Environment, Sammy Wilson, has established a group of elected representatives known as policy development panel A, which was set up to consider the development of policy and implementation proposals for governance arrangements for new councils.
From the point of view of town-centre regeneration, we are particularly interested in the fact that one of the recommendations is that there needs to be greater cohesion between local government and central Government in the development of policy. Again, that is linked to the broader issue of community planning. We believe that the implementation of community planning and the community-planning approach will allow for more effective delivery of programmes at local level to address matters such as town-centre regeneration.
Local government in Northern Ireland shares the view of Sir Michael Lyons. When he carried out his review of local government in England and Wales, he basically defined its as “place shapers”, that is, its role is to shape place. Clearly, town-centre regeneration falls into that remit. We believe that community-planning powers will allow all the agents who are responsible to work together to develop a plan that is coherent, integrated and resourced in order to deal with issues that must be addressed.
There is also a specific issue about the role of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) in town-centre regeneration. It is pretty impossible for local communities to comprehend why DSD can engage in town-centre regeneration activities in some town centres, but not in others. That comes down to the definition of what falls into DSD’s remit, and what falls into DARD’s remit. Responsibility for a town that has a population of fewer than 4,500 people actually lies with another Department.
From a council’s perspective, therefore, we find it difficult to explain to ratepayers why we can regenerate Ballynahinch, for example, but not Saintfield or Killyleagh. Therefore, we believe that, in considering the matter in the round and in the broader RPA context, there needs to be further engagement with DARD to determine how that particular issue is addressed, because it has resulted in inconsistencies in the way that town-centre regeneration matters are tackled.
Previously, I referred to the policy development panel that has been set up by Minister Wilson to consider community planning and interrelationships between central Government and local government. Another group is considering what functions should transfer from the centre to local government. It is examining particular areas, which may not have been identified at first, but may more sensibly belong with either the centre or with local government.
An area that has been identified is the Living over the Shops scheme, the responsibility for which, at present, lies with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. NILGA regards that as an integral part of town centre regeneration, and would like those powers to be transferred to local government alongside regeneration powers. That was not identified at the outset, but the association believes that doing so would result in greater integration and effectiveness in delivery.
From the RPA perspective, the association recognises significant challenges in how the DSD budget is transferred, because, somehow, that must be disaggregated across 11 new councils. The policy that dictates the distribution of money when powers are transferred must be thought out. There are also issues about schemes that are currently being delivered by DSD and which, at the point of transfer, will, theoretically, become the responsibility of councils. A map of how best to manage such transfers must be drawn up. NILGA’s view is that early engagement on certain projects would be helpful.
In summing up, NILGA believes that DSD has taken a stand on tackling town centre dereliction, and that has been welcomed by local government. However, to some extent, the Department is fighting with one hand tied behind its back, because it does not have the commitment that is required from other Departments. Therefore, NILGA believes that a joined-up approach is the only way forward in tackling the issues. A discussion must take place at Executive level about how to deliver that approach more effectively.
As I said, NILGA would like the transfer to local government of initiatives such as the Living of the Shop scheme to be considered, because such schemes may become more effective. We want much greater engagement from the Planning Service in order to ensure that master plans are in place and that an environment and a land-use plan are created that will allow effective change to occur in our town centres.
Roads Service has a significant role to play in that. Some of the restrictions in town centre regeneration are a consequence of a lack parking facilities in town centres. A big frustration for councils in delivering the Living over the Shops scheme has been that it is promoted by the Housing Executive, but Roads Service tells the Planning Service that planning permission should not be granted because there is inadequate parking for people who will end up using the scheme.
NILGA would welcome a much more medium- to long-term approach, because that is what is required in order to make these programmes sustainable and to deliver their declared objectives. Furthermore, more discussions about the transfer of the functions are required.
That sums up our submission to the Committee. Thanks again for the opportunity to present the association’s views.
The Deputy Chairperson:
Thank you, Mr McGrillen. Mrs Smyth, do have you anything to add at this stage?
Mrs Karen Smyth (Northern Ireland Local Government Association):
I apologise to the Committee for the fact that we have no councillors with us. We were hoping to field an elected member, but the Committee is aware of the sheer workload of councillors at present and their involvement in various policy development panels, and so forth. Therefore, unfortunately, none of them were available to attend.
Mr Craig:
That is because we are all here. [Laughter.]
Ms Ní Chuilín:
I am not a councillor. I do not believe in “double jobbing”.
The Deputy Chairperson:
The Committee is coming to the conclusion of its inquiry, and the briefing has been beneficial.
In 2008, the Department advised the Committee that it was to undertake a stocktake of its town centre regeneration policies. Did that stocktake take place, and did the Department seek NILGA’s views on it?
Mrs Smyth:
I am not aware of that.
The Deputy Chairperson:
Will you check whether that happened?
Mrs Smyth:
Yes.
The Deputy Chairperson:
A few master plans have been rolled out in Northern Ireland in recent months. Do you think that it would be better to do a total roll out across the Province or to set up a few pilot schemes?
Mr McGrillen:
Our view is that the master-planning process should be part of the planning process. The Down/Ards area plan — which is the most recent area plan to be released — identified the need for more detailed plans of town centres to be developed in order for those towns to become effective and vibrant and to deliver on behalf of their communities.
The Planning Service does not see that as part of its responsibility. That responsibility lies either with the local authority or with DSD, which in many instances has ensured that any work that it does is done in the context of a master plan being effective in the longer term. Our contention is that the Planning Service should have done that.
I suppose that that responsibility will transfer to local government in the not-too-distant future. Our expectation is that local government will engage in providing the master plans for all the key towns for which they are responsible. My experience is that the master-planning approach is the right one. Any master plan that either the council or DSD has taken forward has certainly provided a long-term framework for redevelopment and allowed for an integrated approach to be taken.
The Deputy Chairperson:
Is NILGA suggesting that the Department should take a more active role by investing in empty sites in order to promote regeneration issues?
Mr McGrillen:
Yes. That is one way of tackling the dereliction problem and bringing about a more comprehensive redevelopment of town centres. Victoria Square is a good example of what has been done in Belfast. However, outside of Belfast and Derry, limited examples exist of similar schemes being rolled out in other towns, which is what we have been asked to look at specifically.
The Deputy Chairperson:
You spoke about partnerships and the benefit of those, does NILGA have any other suggestions to try to get those partnerships up and running? In Carrickfergus, where I live, the locally elected representatives and business people got together to form Carrickfergus Development Company. The company sought the Department’s help, and it has now got a master plan that will be rolled out in August.
Will NIGLA suggest any other way forward for partnerships, besides local people having to take the bull by the horns?
Mr McGrillen:
Typically, it has been either local people or the local authority that has taken the bull by the horns and engaged with the various Departments. As I said previously, the implementation of community planning should allow that to happen. Effectively, the community plan will require a local authority to take the lead in ensuring that all the relevant statutory bodies and other stakeholders, including the community, come up with a community plan for their local area. I see town centre regeneration as being an integral part of that community planning process. If we are looking at pilot schemes or community planning projects, that is one area that we could look at as part of that suite of work.
Mrs Smyth:
Certainly, NILGA and local government are very excited at the prospect of community planning coming in as part of the RPA. One of our key concerns is our experience of the relationship between local and central government. It will be important to have that strategic partnership between the Departments and local government at a high level and to have local government treated as a partner rather than as a stakeholder. That will reflect downwards in the community planning process. We have been effective, on the ground, with local communities in building upwards; however, we also need to have a top-down approach in order to give local government its proper place. It has to be said that some Departments are better than others in engaging with local government.
Miss McIlveen:
Thank you for your presentation. I have to declare an interest at the outset in that I am a member of Ards Borough Council, of NILGA, and NILGA’s policy development panel B (PDPB). Therefore, I am the elected member who is here for those groups.
The Deputy Chairperson:
Do you want to go down to sit at the other end of the table? [Laughter.]
Miss McIlveen:
Perhaps not. You talked at length about the transfer of powers and about partnerships and stakeholders. I am concerned about how those transferred powers are monitored, how the key performance indicators are set, and who controls those and ensures that they are met in the long term. You spoke about local councils taking a lead on that, but does that mean that you are letting Departments off the hook? What will be the nature of the relationship in that area?
Mr McGrillen:
That all comes back to the community plan, which will have local area agreements attached to it. Specific requirements will, therefore, be placed on all stakeholders whereby outcomes will be expected. People will, I understand, be held to account for the outcomes that are agreed as part of that process. For example, councils that are tasked to carry out a particular piece of work or project that impacts on a town centre or on DSD, Roads Service or whatever, will be publicly held to account for its delivery.
Miss McIlveen:
Should the outcomes be based, for example, on economic activity or the alleviation of poverty?
Mr McGrillen:
They should be multifaceted. Projects are carried out for a range of reasons in order to improve the well-being of people in an area. Well-being could be identified by a range of measures, so levels of poverty, employment, educational attainment, longevity and antisocial behaviour could be among the performance indicators introduced in order to address such issues. It depends on the nature of the project and what outcomes are expected from it.
I have no doubt that there is significant experience in other jurisdictions where such performance indicators and frameworks for performance management have been drawn up. I have no doubt, from your role in PDPB, that that is something in which you would have a significant interest.
Miss McIlveen:
Neighbourhood renewal would, obviously, tie into that. How do you feel about the process that is used for neighbourhood renewal and how it should be improved?
Mr McGrillen:
We have given evidence to that effect here before, and it was not necessarily well taken either.
Miss McIlveen:
Please explain just for the record again.
Mr McGrillen:
A lot of the problems that local neighbourhoods face are multifaceted. The programme, the way in which the moneys are spent and what it is spent on recognise that. A partnership approach is needed in order for that to be effective.
Our issues with effectiveness are a result of there being a lack of commitment on certain occasions, or a lack of resources being made available by other Government Departments that have a role to play. In some instances, they would see the neighbourhood renewal money as replacing expenditure that they would otherwise provide, as opposed to seeing it as additional, and allowing them to spend money and to be more effective in spending their own budgets. Our big issue, therefore, has been about other Departments regarding neighbourhood renewal as a process into which they buy and to which they should be committed. I believe that the community planning model will address that.
Another issue has been about how areas have been defined. The policy of defining areas on a geographical basis has been seen as not necessarily making sense to local communities. In Downpatrick, for example, the way in which the map was originally drawn excluded an already disenfranchised unionist/loyalist community, which saw that as further excluding them, when what we really wanted to be doing was trying to ensure greater integration. Local need must be reflected in policies that are driven from the centre. When one gets into the detail of delivery, not every policy suits every instance.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
Thank you. Of course, district, town and local councils would never use neighbourhood renewal money in place of their own money. That has been a concern.
Mr McGrillen:
That is probably a legitimate point, and I would not disagree with it.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
It is a legitimate point, because during our inquiry into neighbourhood renewal, and even anecdotally, evidence has come to light of people’s concerns that efforts to target money to its best effect waned as the programmes were rolled out. You said that neighbourhood renewal programmes have been only partially successful in attracting the buy-in of other Departments, so what difference will community planning make? How will local councils and local government bodies make Departments accountable? Although DSD has the main role in neighbourhood renewal, it has not led by example in making other Departments more accountable. How will local government do that?
Mr McGrillen:
That is one of the fundamental questions the local government bodies are asking, and development panel A is looking into the whole subject —
Mrs Smyth:
There needs to be a statutory framework.
Mr McGrillen:
Indeed, there needs to be a statutory framework that ensures that people buy in, and commit, resources. I accept your point, because, otherwise, we will end up facing the same issues that the neighbourhood renewal programmes have faced up to now.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
If economic and urban regeneration is to address poverty and deprivation, there will always be tensions. Michelle McIlveen asked about determining baselines for funding poverty- or economic-based activities, and you said that there should be a mixture of activities. Who will dictate the areas of need to enable you to target resources? That is a concern for local communities.
Another concern is about whether the relationships that have been built up over years through neighbourhood renewal partnerships will be respected, valued and maintained during the process.
Mr McGrillen:
I will answer you question in two parts. First, there are always tensions in life and in trying to determine benchmarks to address such problems. One could argue, for example, about what Invest NI giving money to a business has to do with tackling poverty. On the other hand, one could say that it creates employment, which, ultimately, takes people out of the poverty trap. It is a difficult conundrum, to which I do not have the answer. However, it is a matter for all the stakeholders — not least the community — to help decide what is best for a community. It is not for us to tell communities what is best for them; it is for us to listen to communities and for them to establish what is required in order to address the issues that they face. It is Government’s role to reflect on that and to try to address people’s issues, rather then telling people what they need and what is best for them.
The Deputy Chairperson:
No other members have indicated that they wish to speak, so, John and Karen, thank you very much for attending; it was very beneficial.