Agenda item

(i)           Report of the Corporate Director of Regeneration, Economy and Growth.

(ii)          Presentation by the Economic Development Manager, Regeneration, Economy and Growth.

The Chair asked the Economic Development Manager to give an update on the progress of the Town and Villages Investment Plan (for copy see file of minutes).

 

The Economic Development Manager referred Members to the report and presentation slides contained within the agenda pack and noted the current approach to Town and Villages had been agreed by Cabinet in December 2018, with the Strategy agreed by Cabinet in October 2020.  He explained that it was linked with broader regeneration work and looked at the regeneration needs of the smaller town and villages, as well as the 12 main settlements. 

He added that it was noted in 2018 that there was pressure on retail, with disinvestment in town centres, and the work of the Committee had also fed into the Town and Villages Strategy.

 

Members noted that the overall package of investment across County Durham was £750 million, including some private investment.  The Economic Development Manager noted there were four blocks, with: strategic investments, which included leisure centres, accounting for £302 million; housing and community, £412 million; transport and connectivity, £39 million; and the built environment and health, at least £16 million.  It was noted there would be a focus on: partnership working; aligning activities and budgets; disadvantaged communities - equitable approach; and five themes. 

 

The Economic Development Manager noted the five themes were: strategic investments; housing and community; environment and health; built environment; and transport and connectivity.  He noted these aligned with the previous work of the Committee, an example being digital events to help draw people into town centres.  He explained as regards how the housing strategy would help, with selective licensing as one example, and with community housing progressing with various groups and Homes England.  He noted provision for those with specialist needs, including older persons and those with learning difficulties.  The Economic Development Manager added that work also included helping to improve energy efficiency for poorly performing properties, with works including those to help solid wall properties.  He noted that other work recognised the role community facilities had played during the pandemic and would look to extend the range of activities at those facilities to continue to support their surrounding communities.

 

The Economic Development Manager noted work undertaken in terms of the environment, including “spruce up” work, the work of the Community Action Team (CAT) and other physical works to ensure open space was accessible.  He added there had been a lot of work with AAPs and in terms of the increase in empty retail properties, with an empty property process being in place for residential properties.  He reminded the Committee of the Target Business Improvement Programme, with the Town and Villages programme looking to enhance the support offered, to include property conversion loans, recognising the demand for retail space within town centres was decreasing.  He noted, pre-pandemic, there had been a rise in use for food and beverage and hospitality, adding that those types were particularly expensive to bring forward.  It was noted that other potential options could be for conversion to high quality residential accommodation or for visitor economy bedspaces.

 

In respect of transport and connectivity, the Economic Development Manager noted consultation in October and November 2020 via the AAPs in relation to access in terms of walking and cycling routes, establishing links from town and villages to existing routes. 

He noted such connectivity works associated with the Stronger Towns proposals at Bishop Auckland, and the cycling and walking schemes being developed by colleagues elsewhere within the Council.     

 

Members were asked to note the five themes would be blended with existing schemes coming forward, and the Economic Development Manager explained that the Council had not eased off in terms of investment through the Town Centre capital programme, aligned with the existing Masterplans.  He explained with the County Durham Plan (CDP) there was a clear view in respect of housing allocations, and it was noted there was still a demand for large scale housing development which brought significant investment and improvement, and follow on benefits in terms of investment in community facilities and junction improvements.  He added there would also be the opportunity to maximise local employment with developers, sub-contractors and apprenticeship schemes.

 

The Economic Development Manager reminded Members of the large scale economic investments, with sites including: Jade Business Park; Integra 61; Aykley Heads and Forest Park.  He noted they would have a positive impact in terms of the demand for some of the towns and villages as residential locations.

 

It was noted the issues of selective licensing and empty homes had been mentioned previously, significant issues that Members had looked at within the work of the Committee and elsewhere within the Council.  The Economic Development Manager noted the continued importance residents placed on the maintenance of the local environment through the Council’s Clean and Green Teams.  He reiterated there was a significant investment budget coming forward in terms of leisure transformation, with similar opportunities to housing in terms of local contractors. 

 

The Economic Development Manager referred to the £750 million of investment and noted mapping of all the existing regeneration investments by area, whether current or planned, with or without planning consent, and whether there were confirmed budgets.  He added that developing the overall investment figure was important in terms of positive communications in relation to inward investment and also, at a practical level, in terms of understanding what investment were coming through to sequence investments coming through in communities most effectively.  He noted that the work in terms of the investment plan looked to sequence investment so that the Council was not doubling back, and to apply the same approach to private development and registered social landlord (RSL) partners with a hope to maximise the impact within communities.

 

The Economic Development Manager reminded Members of the consultation that had taken place with AAPs and the feedback that had been received. 

 

 

 

He noted that around 1,500 people had registered for the autumn AAP programme and there had been a significant range of comments and, when talking at AAPs as regards the approach to towns and villages, there had been strong support for the principles and useful commentary in terms of project opportunities people wished the Council to look at.  He explained the feedback had been looked at and summaries given back to each of the AAPs and the priorities and requests would be built into the forward programme where possible.

 

The Committee were reminded that the report which was presented to Cabinet provided a breakdown of the £25 million programme and it was added that there were some well received projects, such as Digital High Street, looking to provide town centre wi-fi across all of the main centres within the county.  The Economic Development Manager explained as regards the pilot programmes at Bishop Auckland and Stanley, both going live just prior to the pandemic.  He added that while there was some perception that wi-fi was a threat to town centres moving forward, people would look to spend more time in town centres through social activities and the availability of town centre wi-fi helped in delivering accessibility. 

 

It was noted that in terms of general retail, figures showed that consumers would price check while out shopping, and that the data gathered via wi-fi would help in terms of understanding footfall, peak times, and how people arrived, departed and moved around the town centres.  The Economic Development Manager explained that data could help in respect of planning events, car parking provision as well as providing opportunities for businesses and developers.  It was noted that the data would be anonymised and was compliant with legislation.  It was added that if users did choose to log in, that would provide an additional level of profile in terms of the demographics of town centre users.  The Economic Development Manager noted in the next month there would be the roll out of the next phase of the programme in Barnard Castle, Chester-le-Street and Seaham, with Durham City to follow after those areas.  He added that within the investment programme, future dates had been identified in respect of the survey work to be undertaken in the other town centres.  Members noted that as a part of Digital High Street there would be a package of support for town centre retailers to ensure they have the skills to maximise digital opportunities, from digital retail skills to basic IT competency.

 

The Economic Development Manager noted the Retail Hub proposal brought together a number of strands of support for retail, including training packages for retail; opportunities for test trade via markets or pop-up shops; or looking for other non-retail temporary uses for buildings to ensure active frontage and drive footfall.  He noted neighbourhood retailing was something that had fallen outside of the scope of the main centre programme, although the Authority was aware of the important of local retail parades, an issue magnified over the last 12 months with people being prepared to shop more locally rather than the larger centres or out of town supermarkets. 

 

He explained that the programme to be established would look to work with retailers for smaller scale improvement schemes, for example shop frontage works, property conversion and improving the adjacent environment, such as seating, neighbourhood parades and dedicated car parking.

 

Members were asked to note other large programmes included the green home fuel efficiency programmes, with allocations being provided by the Council against which the Authority had drawn down Government grants, providing an effective, targeted programme to address low performing properties countywide. 

 

The Economic Development Manager noted that communications and marketing would be used to help provide reassurance to local residents about what was happening in their area as well as providing information for external investors about what opportunities there were and how communities were changing.  Members were asked to note some of the logos and icons that would be appearing in publications going forward. 

 

The Economic Development Manager noted the next steps would include discussions with partners, Councillors and AAP Chairs at a meeting of the County Durham Partnership Forum.  He added there would then be further dialogue with AAPs as regards identifying local priorities, to be looked at ongoing on a twice yearly basis. 

 

The Chair thanked the Economic Development Manager and asked for Members comments and questions on the report and presentation.

 

Councillor F Tinsley thanked the Officer for his comprehensive presentation and noted that the project was first conceived by the lead political group around five years ago, recognising the significant investment in County Durham and being cognisant of “taking everyone with us”, with a need to reach into communities across the county.  He noted the investments in main centres was important, such as Durham City, and added that it was also important to push regeneration down.  He noted that figures showed that 47 percent of the population lived in areas that were in the top 30 precent in respect of deprivation in England.  He added there was a need to support those people and he noted the programme was unashamedly about going into those poorer communities.  He noted examples of deprivation within the county and added that it was important to ensure that money and investment was spread across the county to reflect that.  He continued that a good example was housing, with a new boom of 5,500 new houses allocated within the CDP.  He noted that the previous boom had been around the years 1880 to 1920 when a lot of the pit rows had been created, those properties coming to the end of their life and with those areas being in need of investment and regeneration.  He commented that private residential tenancies needed to be managed, with selectively licensing being an important way of achieving that aim.  He reiterated that the programme was about need, levelling up across County Durham and, alongside investment in main centres, looked to invest in local communities. 

Councillor F Tinsley noted that he felt no need to apologise to those that might say investment should be “equally spread”, as he felt while all should have a fair chance to access funding, it should be allocated in terms of need and that was why he felt the programme was the right thing to do.

 

Councillor M Wilkes noted he had not wished to be political, however, he explained that the project had not been formulated by the lead group, rather he submitted the original motion demanding a town and villages reserve, with he and his colleagues repeatedly mentioning the need for such a reserve since 2008 as there had been no funding for the areas outside of the main town centres and villages.  He therefore was delighted in terms of the funding however it had come about as a result of pressure on the issue from himself and others.  Councillor M Wilkes noted that there had been a two-year period where both Labour and opposition Councillors had been waiting for the original 21 schemes to be scoped so that works could start.  He added that the programme now had some of those original schemes allocated to next year, with new schemes now appearing in August and September of the current year.  Councillor M Wilkes noted this was disappointing for those that had been raising the issue for the last decade and had tried to get projects in their areas scoped for the last two years.

 

Councillor M Wilkes noted within the programme there was the neighbourhood retail improvements block and explained he had raised the issue with the Portfolio Holder at Cabinet and had not received an answer to his question in respect of what scoping had been undertaken.  He noted it was not possible to put forward an exact figure of £582,000 for the scheme for the financial year without knowing what would be done in terms of those schemes.  He added that two and a half years later he still did not have any information in respect of the scoping of the original schemes and noted he did not know how long it would be before he would be able to find out.  He noted he felt it was completely unacceptable to have waited that long and to continue to wait, not knowing how much money had been allocated to schemes, in particular the one important scheme in his area relating to Framwellgate Moor Front Street.  He reiterated that he felt that it was unacceptable for those Councillors, from all groups, who had sat patiently for two years to see schemes in their areas put back while new schemes elsewhere were brought forward to the front of the queue.  He asked how the specific figure of £582,000 was calculated for the upcoming financial year, divided among 21 schemes, without having scoped anything.

 

The Economic Development Manager noted the Neighbourhood Retail Improvement Programme development phase over the last two years, recognising that over the last twelve months that there had been a much reduced opportunity for engagement in developing those schemes.  He added that many of those within the teams that support town centres had been supporting the work in relation to COVID-19 recovery work with retailers, supporting over 700 retailers across the county, with some in-depth work with around 400 of those. 

 

He explained that development work for the programme set out Neighbourhood Retail Improvement Budget across the three years of the towns and villages work, identifying the settlements to be scoped as part of that work and budgets year-on-year.  He noted that the budget was not for one year divided by the number of schemes that year, rather it was a budget across three years with schemes starting at different phases within a year, some schemes being smaller and with some larger that could run across multiple years.  He explained this made it difficult, until there was a detailed plan of what was coming forward, to be able say what the individual investment in centres would be. 

 

The Economic Development Manager noted that, while there had been constraints in the last year in terms of programming scoping and design work, there had been some developments that had come forward and therefore some COVID-19 response monies had been utilised, for example at Framwellgate Moor in terms of Government cycling investment money, dedicated cycle routeways had gone in and from this the Authority would look to incorporate a range of improvements that would enhance and reflect the investment that had been made in recent times.

 

Mrs R Morris asked as regards the discrepancy in the totals for each of the partnerships, and for clarification on the criteria used, for example deprivation, digitalisation or something else.

 

Councillor R Bell noted the global figure of £750 million within the Cabinet report, broken down by AAP area, ranging from £219 million in East Durham to £1.3 million in Teesdale and asked if the £750 million figure and the AAP-wide figures from the Cabinet paper could be broken down so that the amounts could be understood in terms of what was Council investment and what was private investment.  He noted that in order to arrive at a total one must know what the breakdown was and gave an analogy in terms of an AAP project, where any contributions or match funding by local Members would be clearly set out.  He reiterated Members needed to see those figures broken down in order to establish whether funds were being allocated fairly and in order to see where funding was being allocated to.  Councillor R Bell noted the slide referring to the AAP events and feedback and noted feedback from Teesdale or any of the AAP Boards did not appear to be included and asked for reassurance that feedback from the AAP Boards and Local Councillors would be listened to in terms of local priorities.

 

The Economic Development Manager noted, in response to the question from Mr R Morris, that the £750 million figure came from the investment mapping process undertaken in preparation of the report to Cabinet.  He added that piece of work was ongoing, and schemes were fed in as they gained approval, either planning approval or private schemes that came forward.  He gave an example of looking at the Derwent Valley AAP area, showing around £6.8 million within the investment plan, when looking at the other approved regeneration spend in programme anticipated to come forward over the next couple of years, that would be closer to £78 million of investment in new facilities across the area.  

He noted that if you added the approximate 2,050 new homes to be developed in the area, being quantified as investment in Place, then that would represent a further investment of £200 million.  The Economic Development Manager noted that the £750 million was a conservative estimate of the improvements across the county and he explained that going forward there would be further work building upon that investment planning process and there would be better oversight of all the investment coming into communities. 

 

He added that, in response to Councillor R Bell, as the investment planning work was developed it would be shared with work ongoing to have it correctly mapped via the Council’s GIS system, similar to the town centre survey work that had been undertaken so that people could see what was happening in their area.  The Economic Development Manager explained that the slide referring to AAP feedback summarised against a number of headings and he accepted that broader comments had been made and added that additional comments had been received from AAP Boards after the summary.  He reiterated following the Committee meeting he would be attending a meeting of the County Durham Partnership Forum where he would be talking further with the AAP Chairs as regards the opportunities though the Town and Villages Programme for each of the AAPs and how he would support them through that process in the coming months.

 

Councillor A Shield thanked the Economic Development Manager, noting his comprehensive explanation, and adding that had appeared to be missing from the initial report.  He noted that he had raised his concerns at Cabinet as regards the rationale of the investment and had been unconvinced by the response from the Portfolio Holder.  Councillor A Shield noted he had attempted his own analysis to see whether it had been done on a demographic basis or indices of multiple deprivation.  He acknowledged that the Derwent Valley and North West Durham were not closely aligned to the A19 or A1 corridors, nor did they have a benefactor such as Bishop Auckland had in Jonathan Ruffer, and therefore there was a greater need for private investment and investment from the County Council.  He referred to a meeting he had with the Corporate Director and Head of Service as regards the figures and added that while the Economic Development Manager had explained that there was additional investment in terms of £78 million and potentially a further £200 million, he would wish to see the investments properly scoped to see exactly where the investment was coming from, whether it was much needed private investment or a combination.  Councillor A Shield noted he looked forward to further discussions with the relevant Officers in the future to determine, and correctly communicate across the wider public domain, information as regards the Derwent Valley.  He concluded by noting that the people of the Derwent Valley were quite clearly not happy receiving £147 per head of population from this level of investment.

 

Councillor L Maddison thanked the Economic Development Manager for his presentation and noted the importance of the Digital High Street in relation to the economy. 

She asked as regards town centre wi-fi and what the criteria was in terms of the roll out of wi-fi across the county, as she felt it was important for all areas to benefit from it, and what issues would prevent taking forward the roll out at a pace.

 

The Economic Development Manager noted the concerns raised by Councillor A Shield and was aware of the discussions he had referred to and noted the further level of detail would be provided going forward.  He added that ongoing engagement with AAPs would make it clear as regards the levels of investment in their area.  In response to Councillor L Maddison, the Economic Development Manager noted that in terms of Digital High Street, opportunities to tie-in with other opportunities or programmes of physical works would be looked at and it was hoped to be rolled out by the end of 2022.  He reiterated that next month would see roll out at Barnard Castle, Chester-le-Street and Seaham, with Durham City to follow in the summer subject to issues relating to wayleaves and heritage buildings, with development of the next phase of schemes to follow.  He referred to the demolition works that had commenced in Councillor L Maddison’s area and noted there was a need to be mindful of issues, such as line of sight for the wi-fi signal repeaters, in respect of new developments coming forward prior to a system being installed to help prevent any blackspots in the coverage.  He reiterated it was hoped to have town centre wi-fi coverage by the end of 2022 and that it would also help provide real-time information as regards town centre use and that it would provide an opportunity to do further work in relation to Digital High Street, such as local apps working with independent businesses to help encourage shop local schemes and other additional benefits.

 

Councillor E Adam noted the comments from Councillor M Wilkes and noted it was easy to criticise rather than scrutinise, and added he welcomed the level of investment the Council was making especially during the time of COVID-19.  Councillor E Adam noted he felt most of the works and investment was in Council owned Town Centres and asked about privately owned ones, noting Newton Aycliffe as an example, asking how much discussion will take place with the owner, Freshwater, what level of investment was expected from a privately owned company, and whether the Council was investing a significant amount in Newton Aycliffe town centre.

 

Councillor P Sexton explained he gave little kudos to AAP consultation as he felt they did not have the reach in terms of mainstream residents, adding he did not know that he had an AAP five years ago, prior to becoming a Councillor.  He noted some people would be drawn to political meetings and some would not, however, people did care about their communities.  He added that local Councillors and other organisations had far greater reach and therefore he would hope that in future any consultation would be widened beyond the AAPs.  Councillor P Sexton noted project methodology was the area in which he had worked during his career and explained that a project could not be delivered, and would have red flags raised, if there was not a settled scope, both costed and resourced and with an associated timeline. 

He added he felt it was being done the wrong way around, reiterating that the scope was key and noted that until there was a settled scope the rest was incidental.  He referred to a meeting of the Committee in 2017 where the Plan for Chester-le-Street had been discussed, with wi-fi having been mentioned and that to date had still not been delivered.  He asked as regards when would there be a detailed settled scope, so that Members could be assured as regards the plans that followed could be monitored.

 

Councillor D Hall noted he felt it was fantastic to be able to discuss the work in relation to such an amazing investment programme after years of austerity, with over £250 million cut from Government grants, not including the European funding that would be lost, and with over 1,000 staff lost from the Council over the years.  He added that other Councils nationally, even prior to the pandemic, had been facing bankruptcy and in was positive that Durham County Council had been able to invest.  He noted Councillors rightfully should be championing their areas, however, he felt it was important to reflect and give credit to the Council and all the staff working hard on the programme as well as investment in areas such as schools, town centres, leisure centres amongst others.  He asked whether there was the necessary staffing resource in place to be able to carry out all of the scoping work, noting the county was large and had many different types of areas with different demands, such as large rural areas and whether there would be the ability to recruit additional staff, even if only temporarily, in order to carry out the scoping work.

 

 

Councillor M Wilkes left the meeting at 11.11 am

 

 

The Economic Development Manager noted the Council owned very little in terms of town centres, with most being in multiple private ownership.  He added Newton Aycliffe and Peterlee were “new towns” and slightly different in terms of ownership.  He noted monies were not ringfenced in terms of ownership.  He added there was regular dialogue with Freshwater as regards their investment plans, with the MP in addition recently, as they would tie-in with the Council’s significant investment for example in the co-location of the library.  He also noted opportunities to provide support for tenants in respect of long-term leases in Newton Aycliffe and the retail hub support would be available to businesses in Newton Aycliffe.

 

In reference to the comments and questions from Councillor P Sexton, the Economic Development Manager noted that his recollection of the AAP consultation sessions was that a significant number of online messages that had been received through that consultation vehicle were from people that had not engaged with the AAPs previously.  He noted that the anonymised chat function appeared to be something people were quite comfortable with, adding people may have been hesitant to ask a question at a more traditional meeting. 

 

The Economic Development Manager noted that in respect of any consultation, there could always be more, and he noted that the necessity of having to carry out virtual consultations had been something Officers initially had concerns about, however, there had been a good level of response and Officers were now looking at traditional and virtual methods to continue that high level of engagement with residents and businesses at a local level.

 

The Economic Development Manager noted that building the programme was something that continued and, in reference to the question from Councillor P Sexton in relation to scope, there was scope and parameters for what the Council were trying to achieve under the different investment strands and projects.  He noted the mapping exercise that was carried out in the background to identify what had already been spent in those areas and to best identify how and when to invest.  He added that there were some projects where there was a defined budget, either against costed items or a contribution against other budgets that have already been identified for a place.  He noted that for other projects there would be a budget profile, a total figure for a strand of work, and the work to be carried out with the AAPs was about how to implement projects against that.  He added that, as with all project management, if there were other funding opportunities, contributions, or a better way of doing something then the programme would be flexed in order to maximise what could be delivered through that programme.  He noted it had been agreed that AAPs would be the prime vehicle by which to talk about issues within each locality.

 

The Economic Development Manager welcomed the comments from Councillor D Hall and noted that in terms of staffing, that Members would be able to see that the programme was not simply a regeneration programme.  He added the delivery of an additional £25 million would have been overwhelming if solely for his Team to deliver, however, the town and villages programme drew on most areas within the Regeneration, Economy and Growth directorate, with significant contributions from colleagues within Neighbourhoods and Climate Change and therefore the burden for delivery, for identification and scoping was shared across those areas.  He added that moving forward there was comfort in having the resource to do so, together with regular contact with the Corporate Director and senior Members so that any issues in terms of capacity could be raised at an early stage.

 

Councillor P Sexton noted he was not dismissing the AAPs, rather he would note there were broader avenues that could be looked at.  He asked as regards when a scoping plan would be available and when Chester-le-Street wi-fi would be rolled out.

 

The Economic Development Manager noted in respect of the scoping plan, he had indicated that there would be the two sessions with AAPs in identifying the plan for how the programme would be rolled out at a local level.  He added that would be this year.  He reiterated that the next full phase of wi-fi delivery included Chester-le-Street and it was hoped it would begin next month. 

He added the contractor for the delivery of town centre wi-fi had furloughed staff last year adding to delays.  He noted that prior to the pandemic there had been a change to the specification, as technology upgraded, and there had been a pause in order to ensure data collection was compliant with regulations.  He noted he appreciated that discussions had been ongoing for some time, however, the process had led to a better system, relying on fewer access points and with better reliability and he hoped that shortly Councillor P Sexton and users of Chester-le-Street town centre would be benefiting from free town centre wi-fi.

 

Resolved:

 

(i)        That the information provided in the presentation and report be noted.

(ii)       That the Economy and Enterprise Overview and Scrutiny Committee receives a further update on the progress of the programme as part of its 2021/22 Work Programme.

 

 

Councillors A Bainbridge and A Shield left the meeting at 11.16 am