Download RTPI response to APPG call for evidence

Royal Town Planning Institute Response:
All Party Parliamentary Group on Local Growth, Local
Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) and Enterprise Zones call for
evidence ‘Rising to the challenge: how LEPs can deliver
local growth strategies’
The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) is the largest professional institute for planners in
Europe, representing some 23,000 private and public sector spatial planners. It seeks to
advance the science and art of spatial planning for the benefit of the public. As well as
promoting spatial planning, the RTPI develops and shapes policy affecting the built and natural
environment, works to raise professional standards and supports members through continuous
education, training and development.
Summary





The rules governing LEP strategic plans should remain flexible, but where housing
shortage exists in a subregion, LEPs will definitely need to establish policy positions on
this
Joined up thinking and spatial awareness is needed across Whitehall departments and
acting as champions of individual LEPs would assist this
As LEPs are given more public responsibilities governance should be reviewed so that it
is fit-for-purpose
All departmental and non-departmental bodies should promote and assist others in
achieving sustainable economic growth through integrated local planning
Relationship between LEPs and LAs should be strengthened, but there is a variety of
models for this and each area should evolve as it thinks fit
The evolution of LEPs
Common criteria or themes
LEPs will naturally need to work out their own priorities. However we think that where they are
focussing on growth in circumstances where there is a housing shortage, addressing this
question through joint working with local authorities must be a priority. The suggestions in the
Infrastructure publication on 27 June are encouraging in this respect1, although they should go
further to specify the issue of housing supply in areas where this is relevant. It is not enough for
LEPs to assume this matter will simply sort itself out: local authorities can only plan housing in
the context of well-expressed local opinion, which needs to include an articulate business
voice.
1
See page 4 in this document
1
Support from Government and joined up thinking
There are some who question how long LEPs will be in existence following national elections
and potentially a new government coming to power. The fact there is any uncertainty is
damaging. The RTPI urges the political parties to allow LEPs continue without unnecessary
interference so that there is some added certainty and the regional architecture is not upset
further. By keeping the same system in place lessons can be learned to strengthen the
programme into the future leading to sustained economic growth. Evidence from other
countries suggests that stable institutions are one of the key factors in local economic
performance. This stability could be one of government’s key gifts to LEPs.
As regards a single minister, as suggested by the BIS Select Committee, we would have more
sympathy with the proposals by Lord Heseltine that having single accountable persons, both in
the Senior Civil Service and among Ministers, would assist LEPs to overcome the inertia to
local growth which so often arises from the silo effect of different ministries and government
agencies and regulators. Lord Heseltine also made the valuable point that doing this would
increase spatial understanding within government. However we would suggest there would
definitely need to be a number of such Ministers and officials, acting as champions for
individual areas alongside their main duties. One would not wish to see an additional
bureaucracy established. In addition, or instead, committees of MPs for the LEP areas could
provide informal Parliamentary scrutiny.
In a situation where LEP resources and limited and local authorities’ strategic planning abilities
are subject to heavy resource constraints we are concerned to maintain two distinct support
mechanisms for local growth is wasteful. We are told that City Deals’ rules are unclear and
there has been a history of changing criteria.
Governance
Many LEPs will need to rethink their governance arrangements in light of impending
responsibilities related to European Union (EU) Structural Funds because EU investment
strategies are much broader than economic growth. There are specific requirements to engage
with a broader range of stakeholders (e.g. environmental groups, social actors) than LEPs
presently do. A closer working relationship between LEPs and LAs could help ensure an
adequate amount of stakeholder engagement is obtained.
Government is also encouraging LEPs to undertake a role in securing additional housing which
is commendable given the housing crisis faced. However, LEP boards have little if any housing
expertise or experience of engaging local housing actors. In the beginning LEPs were
established with no formal function or dedicated central government funding meaning
governance could be light-touch. As LEPs are given more public responsibilities governance
should be reviewed so that it is fit-for-purpose.
LEPs and value for money
We are not submitting evidence in this section
2
Local leadership, collaboration and legitimacy
Collaboration with others and boundaries
There must be robust engagement with community experts, local residents and the business
community which by and large LEPs have been fulfilling successfully. If engagement is
considered inadequate by the local community there is little chance for the LEP to be
successful. LEPS are supposed to bring the private sector in, but the private sector utility
companies such as Network Rail remain difficult to engage with, who seem to want to be paid
to invest for growth. It would be useful if they played a constructive part in LEPs and the
‘greater good’ generally. There have been a number of examples where Network Rail has
demanded substantial ransom payments given their vast and unique crosscutting landholdings.
There have been recent signs of collaborative progress including the Automotive Council
announcing improved strategic interaction with key automotive LEPs.2
A majority of the LEP boundaries are new meaning they will naturally experience some
challenges as relationships are established and bed down. Artificial boundaries can be difficult
to get right and become further complicated when different boundaries overlap amongst
political, institutional or personal differences. We can all point to cases where the LEP areas
are not functional; however, not all local authority boundaries make sense either. Opposed to
making them the same as economic geography it is better to concentrate on the advantages of
operating in consortiums people want to be in. Interestingly the split in the West Midlands
between Black Country and Birmingham has really incentivised some good practice within the
Black Country on economic development and spatial planning which might not have happened
if it was part of the Birmingham city region.
Ability to negotiate with Government and non-departmental public bodies
LEPs have an open door to various Government departments due to the priority Ministers place
on them. This is appropriate and should continue. Nonetheless, LEPs’ hands are tied to an
extent when trying to influence non-departmental public bodies and indeed other key
infrastructure providers. There must be a clear message from Government that all departments
and non-departmental bodies should promote and assist local authorities and LEPs in
achieving sustainable economic and housing growth. Government has indicated that it is
working on providing a growth duty on regulators, but work the RTPI is now doing on large
scale housing growth across the country have revealed it is the actions of bodies such as
Network Rail which are frequently cited as holding up development.
Working with local authorities
Relationships between LEPs and local authorities can provide legitimacy. There are however a
variety of mechanisms. The combined authority approach emerging in northern England is one
model but it may not be suitable for all circumstances. Our work with Janice Morphet at UCL
has explored other options such as
a. Local Government Joint Committee;
b. Structured Engagement: this adds to the joint committee process a requirement to
treat the key ‘stakeholders’ as more than another group of consultees;
c. Combined Authority;
2
Driving Success – as strategy for growth and sustainability in the UK automotive sector, Industrial
Strategy: government and industry in partnership, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and
Automotive Council UK, July 2013, available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/211901/13-975driving-success-uk-automotive-strategy-for-growth-and-sustainability.pdf
3
d. Supervisory Body (e.g. Heseltine idea for Greater Birmingham and Solihull LEP);
e. Incentivised Body as typified by the City Deal process; and
f. Elected strategic planning authorities comparable to GLA or the former Scottish
Regional Councils
The Leeds City Region Partnership has been working together since 20043 and shows how city
region governance can evolve naturally. Leeds City Region has a Leaders’ Board which brings
together the Leaders of the eleven councils. It was established as a Joint Committee in April
2007. Following the establishment of the LEP in 2010, the LEP Board and the Leaders’ Board
have become the joint focus for decision-making.
Relationships between LEPs and local authorities could be strengthened in some places. Some
LEPs and local authorities work closely with one another, but there are some examples where
there is little cooperation between the two. Both LEPs and local authorities have valuable
insight and resources that are critical for communities to promote sustainable growth.
Cooperation between the two to integrate planning for housing and economic development
should be encouraged as much as possible without placing additional undue burdens. The
RTPI has been made aware through its work with the BIS/CECA/RTPI Local Infrastructure
Demonstrator programme of an instance where a local authority has found it difficult to engage
with LEPs. When approached by the local authority for loans the LEP was only interested in
lending for a short period of time and for high interest. This meant it was best for the local
authority to go elsewhere for infrastructure funding.
Place based leadership
It is widely recognised that local economic growth and regeneration depends on combining
spatial planning, housing, transport and other elements together. Few LEPs have integrated
their economic strategies with local planning strategies meaning the essential role of spatial
planning in enabling local economic growth is ignored. This is not a new problem as the same
existed under Regional Development Agencies (RDAs).
Spatial planning and economic development must be integrated to achieve success. Local
economic, housing and transport development can create employment and generate local
multiplier benefits to the local economy. Government with the publication of the National
Infrastructure Plan has begun to develop a greater understanding of the role of national
infrastructure programmed or proposed in generating economic growth. Properly planned and
targeted infrastructure spending could significantly help LEPs achieve their objectives. The
RTPI’s Map for England campaign4 shows how the country could benefit from a more holistic
approach to making national policy that recognises the different effects of government policies
and programmes on individual areas such as LEP boundaries. LEPs need more resources and
support from government to develop their strategic planning roles and their local delivery roles.
According to research by Professor Janice Morphet of University College London’s Bartlett
School of Planning there is little evidence of coordination when developing local area’s
Infrastructure Development Plans (IDPs). Few IDPs reference Government’s national
infrastructure proposals despite a requirement included within the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) that national infrastructure should be a primary component of local plans.5
The opportunity exists for LEPs to combine the IDPs of local authorities within it when crafting
strategic plans. A combined IDP across the LEP would “boost economic confidence and create
a climate for investment”.6
3
What is Leeds City Region?, Leeds City Region Partnership, July 2013, available at:
http://www.leedscityregion.gov.uk/about/
4
Map for England, Royal Town Planning Institute, 2012, available at: http://www.mapforengland.co.uk
4
It is encouraging that following the Comprehensive Spending Review earlier this year and
within Investing in Britain’s Future Government has indicated LEPs are expected to “to have
strong and effective governance in place and support pro-growth reforms, including a
coordinated approach to spatial planning (through the duty to cooperate) and the use of their
own resources in line with strategic plans”.7 This should result in LEPs and LAs working more
closely with one another which would be a positive outcome for all.
7
Investing in Britain’s Future, HM Treasury, June 2013, available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/209279/PU1524_IUK_new_tem
plate.pdf
5