Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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