Table Discussion 1
The aim of this session was to discuss the principles of the PID and to highlight any elements that they think are wrong.
1. RFA2 is about delivering existing strategies
§ Vision and end goal is set within existing strategies
§ Delegates on one table noted that ‘the world moves on’, and that we have to reinterpret strategies in light of current conditions
§ How can we use this money to best achieve these outcomes?
§ It was also commented that the SW may want to explore outcomes based accountability
§ We need to address social economic need and regeneration priorities, as well as facilitating economic growth as articulated in the RES.
§ Clarity and agreement required on the extent to which the aim is to target either;
o needs in line with the deprivation indices or
o investment in developing areas which are prosperous and growing
§ Does the evidence base exist to support the identification of infrastructure requirements? How does this feed through into prioritisation and the development of a set of criteria?
§ Test propositions against existing strategies
§ Unanimous acceptance in one group that the Region should be taking forward and delivering existing strategies (rather than re-inventing the wheel). However several people highlighted that the strategies mean different things to different people.
§ In achieving our regional objectives, it is important to note that we must not lose sight of quality
§ Need for clear vision.
§ What’s clear is significant growth and issue is scale and timing.
Alignment / involvement from Authorities
§ Also want other agencies to look at RFA and use it to align their investments with regional priorities eg. HCA, health
§ SNR – implementation needs to include local authorities. Who will be regional planning body? Where is democratic governance behind it?
§ It was felt that it is difficult for unitary authorities to get their voice heard and smaller authorities should not be marginalised.
§ Why are Local Authorities not represented on the steering group?
§ Need for visibility of process, particularly in terms of taking key decisions.
§ Structures that people are comfortable with. Who does leadership come from? Will it be executive and make decisions or just advice?
§ Managing the relationship/gaps between places, executive institutions and SW stakeholders
Structure of advice
§ Agreed starting point for one group was more work on regeneration
§ Need to be clear in the advice about the scope e.g. does it relate to the maintenance of existing and vulnerable infrastructure?
§ Need to understand lessons from RFA1 and project delivery in last 3 years.
§ Need to stick together economic sub-regions – MAA concept is about delivering this and need to influence RFA.
§ Need a thematic approach for MAAs to deliver - can we for example build social housing in advance.
§ Another place based tier MAAs. Single conversation etc feeds including Strategic Investment Strategy.
§ SIF style integrated priorities – more important in priority places than other places.
§ Flexibility is important
Concerns about RSS
§ Reservations that RSS is not yet settled/finalised – it’s not a done deal.
§ RSS was unrealistic (in terms of housing delivery) even before the credit crunch.
§ It is questionable that RSS should drive everything.
§ There should be a consistency between RFA advice and RSS feedback.
§ One group were informed that there is concern in certain areas over the proposed housing numbers and whether there will be sufficient investment in community infrastructure to cope with the increased housing numbers
Sustainability / low carbon
§ The principles established in draft RSS around sustainability and low carbon have been watered down by Secretary of State changes.
§ The region should recognise that it can still address these principles.
§ RFA should seek to support sustainable development principles.
§ Climate Change Action Plan should be added to the list of drivers for RFA.
§ The region could be far more specific about what modes will benefit a low carbon approach.
§ The locations where we would want to see and want to avoid investment/development are easy to identify if you use low carbon as a sieve/theme.
§ Some issues around sustainability still up for debate.
§ What does the region mean when it says “Growth within environmental limits”?
§ Sustainable economic growth = most important
§ Whatever we do has to support quality of life. Economic growth has to lead to better quality of life for all.
§ Sustainability does not mean just the environment. Quality of life is a better phrase.
§ A proper sustainability assessment, against all elements, of RFA Advice is important, as is the principle of sustainability being a key driver.
§ Would what you are proposing (to support through RFA) make the region more or less sustainable – that’s how to use sustainability as a sieve.
§ The region should invest in resilience measures (to climate change).
§ There are issues around understanding and deliverability (of low carbon/highly sustainable development).
§ The region needs skilling up to deliver low carbon growth.
§ Sustainability needs to be embedded in the process - particularly to deliver zero carbon aim
§ Need to deliver on ambition for more sustainable housing
§ Plymouth LAA targets around this issue are a good example.
§ Is there something that can be done in RFA to identify what is good and bad – a low carbon monitor?
Current economic situation
§ How will we respond to the credit crunch?
§ Is there the need for a short piece of work to be commissioned to account for the unexpected change caused by the current economic downturn?
§ How do you kick start development in the current climate and balance this with low carbon (and more costly to developers) ambitions?
Deliverability concerns
§ Important to determine what the spatial priorities are for the South West. Delegates commented that we are here to deliver, and in order to achieve delivery, we need to join up different objectives
§ The method of delivery of infrastructure/projects is important also.
§ Method of delivering affordable housing is currently weak, we could look at innovation here.
§ Looking at Housing delivery – the current market will affect this but there may well be opportunities in this market. Opportunism is important
§ If a project is not delivered in RFA1 is it automatically transferred to RFA2?
§ There should be a test of deliverability – are the reasons for non delivery explored?
§ Deliverability is an issue and a realistic delivery plan is required.
§ Deliverability should be a key focus particularly in terms of better understanding blockages. These are not necessarily limited to the region e.g. lack of resources in DfT
§ It was suggested and widely agreed in one group that strategic delivery plans should be given higher priority
§ Need to address technical skills shortages
§ Delegates spoke about having dedicated delivery teams in areas that are experiencing the highest levels of growth
§ Potential role for Regional Infrastructure Board in terms of providing active management over time, particularly to address potential underspend situations at the earliest opportunity
§ RIB: a concern was expressed that the Regional Infrastructure Board reflects a ‘supply side’ rather than a ‘demand side’ approach. There needs to be a more inclusive board. It is necessary to find a way for the demand side to express their demand.
§ When collecting evidence for the RFA it should touch on how delivery is managed in a realistic way and where does the high level strategy meet with the delivery levels?
2. The advice needs to present clear, integrated priorities for investment across the relevant funding streams.
§ Integration is needed between – the strands – spatial, housing, economic development, transport and all need to be within environmental limits.
§ A sustainable, joined up, local approach, is seminal for better integration of both schemes and of local involvement and for the achievement of sustainable outcomes.
§ RSS changes highlight the need for integrated advice.
§ Key to integration is to try and synchronise all parties involved as timescales for each agency funding are often different. Therefore a key positive from RFA would be to bring together these different agencies (in a way similar to the East of Exeter group) in joint delivery groups. Often all the funding streams are Government money so why can they not be more co-ordinated?
§ A danger that we go back into silos following cross-theme and stakeholder events.
§ Inter-agency working and co-operation
§ Pooling of resources to tackle key issues
§ Need for balance between large projects and smaller schemes
§ Look at investment holistically – private and public sector
§ It was suggested that private/public partnerships need to be developed further across all areas.
§ How to join up and use funding streams collectively to get best value.
§ We can look outside the specific RFA pots when giving advice (e.g. health etc) and could propose a process as to how to align these funds better.
Structure of advice
§ Simple methodology – look at 3 priorities under each theme
§ Feedback is needed, regular review, structured monitoring and LAAs need to be involved.
§ The ability of scheme promoters to come up with robust costs prior to projects is something that has not been successful in the South west
§ There is a challenge in providing a coherent, evidence-based approach to make a clear case for what our priorities actually are
§ There is a need to agree on how we can deliver better, especially considering time constraints. There needs to be a consistent approach in what is agreed.
§ It was discussed how there needs to be transformatory proposals and an overarching plan. Instead, we often get individual schemes. The South West is danger of falling in to trap of not thinking big enough.
Investment Frameworks / Local Strategies
§ We need to get to a position where there are place based SIF for all places through the single conversation and MAAs built on instinctiveness - use the evidence base available except for differences. Can also use LSPs.
§ RFA will complement strategic investment plans for places.
§ PSAs can be added to these plans to show how national objectives are being met.
§ RFA is almost a regional level LAA/MAA.
§ It can provide a description of regional level outcomes on a place basis and theme basis.
§ LSPs and implementation – are they effective in delivery?
§ Simpler LDF planning process – journey is too arduous
§ Less Government funding streams – ie Growth points, growth areas etc are too confusing
§ Concerns were voiced over the impact of major schemes in RFA, in particular transport schemes. It was suggested that, as evidence shows that most peoples movements are localised, that schemes facilitating local movements should be given priority. Furthermore, RFA should consider the way in which regional strategies interact with local strategies to ensure a sustainable outcome.
§ Reducing the number of trips through the provision of good quality local services such as schools a particularly popular suggestion – it was agreed that this would promote sustainable living and would result from integrated policy.
Place based advice
§ A focus on outcomes helps a focus on places.
§ Sequencing of investment will be important if we take the place based approach.
§ Place based approach – talk to partners to find out about barriers and opportunities – get integrated investment strategy
§ Pockets of deprivation are missed by space based priorities but picked up in the thematic approach.
§ There is disparity between rural and urban areas. It was agreed that a thematic layer is needed as well as place based priorities to address this problem.
§ What should place based investment look like? Which place – level? Town? Sub region? Which places should be focused on?
§ Places are already defined by existing strategies.
§ Take the best overlap from the 3 maps for the priorities (e.g. ec dev, deprivation) then debate other places
§ Themes are needed for areas outside priority places
§ Regeneration and economic inclusion are place based but some exclusion slips under the radar.
§ Concern that placed based approach could lead to a sense of exclusion. Different issues will give different approaches, some thematic – Cornwall is defined as a place but has thematic issues.
§ Places give different opportunities for achievement and also throws up a “value for money” issue
§ Need to recognise relationships between places e.g. in terms of connectivity
§ When focusing on places, don’t forget about interaction between places and regions – clear on transport.
§ Best way to demonstrate how funds are working is in a place.
Current economic climate
§ Economic climate – need for right investment strategy for when economy picks up.
§ Shocks in places – should we be ringfencing money to direct to certain places or be investing in public infrastructure to prepare for recovery.
Engagement
§ The group discussed the notion that the RFA was too top down and that problems derived from a lack of time for community engagement.
§ More emphasis on inclusive dialogue. The South West is a diverse region which requires managing regional identity.
§ Voice of the youth and older generation is missing – how do we change that? Process needs to be inclusive and consider needs of all groups.
§ Delegates noted that there is a need to engage the right people in discussions. I.e. who is the right person to be involved to shape place-making?
§ Focuses on particular groups will also be needed when looking at social, equality and diversity issues.
§ For example access by women to public transport in rural areas.
§ Other thematic issues:
o Innovation.
o Equality and diversity.
o Sub-regional thinking.
o Unemployment.
o Skills strategies/sectoral analysis.
o Carbon reduction.
o Resilience to climate change.