Garden Town Governance and Delivery Mechanisms Charlotte Mitchell Senior Planner Quod
Challenges Previous masterplanning exercises have never been implemented - why? • Cross-boundary coordination • Lack of joined-up, strategic planning • No single body with specific focus on Didcot • Long-term vision • Focussed funding • Fragmented stakeholder engagement
Needs • Single body with specific focus on Didcot • Joined-up, strategic Leadership planning • Long-term vision and Strategy Community strategy • Long-term funding and delivery strategy Delivery Stakeholder Mechanism Involvement • Improved stakeholder Planning engagement • A role for the community
Powers Joint Steering Planning Group Urban Committee • Development Development Joint management Venture Corporation • Plan making Memorandum Urban of Understanding Regeneration • Funding Corporation • access to New Towns Development Joint • control over Corporation Planning Unit • Compulsory Purchase Strategic Order Delivery Board Bespoke? Regeneration Partnership
Powers Joint Steering Planning Urban Group + Committee Development Joint Corporation Venture Memorandum Urban of Powerful Understanding Regeneration Corporation New Towns Development Joint Corporation Planning Unit + Strategic Delivery Ease of setting up Board Bespoke? Regeneration Partnership
Funding Local Gov’t • Case-by-case bids Central Gov’t • Form company HCA Public • Council owned • SOHA Joint venture • Form delivery group/board • To oversee funding and delivery Developers • Strategise funding sourcing and priorities Private sector • Distribute funding partners Private Pension funds
Garden Town Bid
1 Urban Development Corporation • Fixed-life body established to regenerate an area • Non-locally led – felt to produce ‘democratic deficit’ • Established by Order of the Secretary of State (lengthy) • Powers transferred to body, except plan making • Development Management, CPO • Funding • Central government grants • Significant attention from Government
Urban Regeneration 2 Company • No fixed model • Limited company, established by local authorities • Joint ventures subject to EU procurement law • (Optional) fixed lifespan • Easy to establish • Powers retained by local authority • Governed usually by company Board and directors (usually lead councillor) • Funding often generated through private sector partners • Varying degrees of success
3 Bespoke Governance Structure • Powers ‘Pick ‘n’ Mix’ • Rest with local authorities • Plan making • Funding • Existing • Joint Venture • Formal/Informal agreement • Memorandum of Understanding • Statement of Cooperation
Current Governance Structure
Effectiveness of Models Proposed UDC URC Bespoke Increasingly Varies Strong Community strong Strong, centrally- Strong (with Varies Leadership led commitment) Effective, central Effective, Delivery Varies funding Coordinated Mechanism Focussed Varies Focussed Strategy Increasingly Strong, Stakeholder Varies Involvement strong Coordinated Split between Strong, Planning UDC and Local Varies Single focus Authority
Recommendation To develop a bespoke model that enables effective decision making and is inclusive and acceptable to all stakeholder groups.
Strengths • Strategic use of local authorities’ powers • Draws upon existing arrangements • Easy and quick to set up • Forum to carry out a single, unified vision • Coordination between strategy and funding • Democratic • Enhanced stakeholder involvement
Current status of Garden Town plans projects and strategies
Summary and Next Steps To produce a Didcot Garden Town Delivery Plan that; • Takes account of local community priorities and adheres to clear principles. • Facilitates economic and housing growth in a sustainable manner. • Identifies essential infrastructure requirements and provides an ambitious, deliverable, master-plan for a connected , super-green Garden Town. • Lists the main projects needed to achieve success, the budget needed to realise these projects and the delivery timeframe. • Sets out a clear plan for undertaking detailed feasibility testing and concluding agreements with landowners, potential funders, service providers and developers. • Proposes a bespoke governance structure, which is inclusive, focussed on delivery, and acceptable to all local stakeholders
Summary and Next Steps Date Action 20 January 2017 stakeholder presentation material placed on web site 22 January – 24 February 2017 ability for public to comment on masterplan, via website 3 March 2017 due date for final draft of delivery plan 22 March – public launch of delivery plan (launch event 22 March 2017 plus media coverage) 6 May – 19 June 2017 formal public consultation process Post March 2017 Representations made to government, to secure additional capacity funding needed to implement delivery plan July / August 2017 councils to discuss adoption of delivery plan as council policy Post August 2017 discussions with planning to determine how delivery plan can best be incorporated within planning policy
Questions
Recommend
More recommend
