Garden Town Governance and Delivery Mechanisms Charlotte Mitchell - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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
• n Didcot
• Long-term vision
• Focussed funding
• Fragmented stakeholder

engagement

• Single body with specific

focus on Didcot

• Joined-up, strategic

planning

• Long-term vision and

strategy

• Long-term funding and

delivery strategy

• Improved stakeholder

engagement

• A role for the community

Needs

Leadership Strategy Delivery Mechanism Planning Stakeholder Involvement Community

• Development

management

• Plan making
• Funding
• access to
• control over
• Compulsory Purchase

Order

Urban Development Corporation New Towns Development Corporation

Joint Venture

Strategic Delivery Board

Joint Planning Unit

Memorandum

• f

Understanding

Joint Planning Committee

Steering Group

Urban Regeneration Corporation Bespoke?

Regeneration Partnership

Powers

+

Ease of setting up Powerful

+ Powers

Urban Development Corporation New Towns Development Corporation

Joint Venture

Strategic Delivery Board

Joint Planning Unit

Memorandum

• f

Understanding

Joint Planning Committee

Steering Group

Urban Regeneration Corporation Bespoke?

Regeneration Partnership

Funding

• Case-by-case bids
• Form company
• Council owned
• Joint venture
• Form delivery group/board
• To oversee funding and delivery
• Strategise funding sourcing and

priorities

• Distribute funding

Public Private

Local Gov’t Central Gov’t HCA SOHA

Developers Private sector partners Pension funds

Garden Town Bid

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

1

Urban Regeneration 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

2

Bespoke Governance Structure

• Powers
• Rest with local authorities
• Plan making
• Funding
• Existing
• Joint Venture
• Formal/Informal agreement
• Memorandum of Understanding
• Statement of Cooperation

3

‘Pick ‘n’ Mix’

Current Governance Structure

UDC URC Proposed Bespoke

Increasingly strong Varies Strong Strong, centrally- led Varies Strong (with commitment) Effective, central funding Varies Effective, Coordinated Focussed Varies Focussed Increasingly strong Varies Strong, Coordinated Split between UDC and Local Authority Varies Strong, Single focus

Community Leadership Delivery Mechanism Strategy Stakeholder Involvement Planning

Effectiveness of Models

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

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

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 2017 22 March – public launch of delivery plan (launch event 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