Agenda item

The Committee received a report of the Corporate Director of Regeneration, Economy and Growth that outlined the process for managing change to the physical fabric of settlements through masterplan activity. It set out what masterplan activity relating to the settlements and town centres had taken place in the County to date; provided an update on the delivery of schemes identified within the approved local masterplans for those areas and highlighted proposed opportunities to review and replace masterplans with Strategic Place Plans, in line with the principles and priorities of the Inclusive Economic Strategy (for copy see file of Minutes).

 

A Kerr, Head of Economic Development introduced the report that set out how the Council had delivered masterplans with great success over the years, having a clear vision that had secured government funding.  Masterplans had been a key tool in leveraging funding however there was a new approach being developed that linked into the Inclusive Economic Strategy that focused on the local community being at the heart of the vision for their local communities.  He continued that DCC would work with local people, businesses and stakeholders to establish visions for each place, with a rolling programme to guide future and existing investment through Strategic Place Plans.  A range of new tools would be developed through innovative engagement methods.  These new plans would formulate the economic role of each town and would be developed in line with IES principles.

 

G Wood, Economic Development Manager commented that the masterplans had empowered the Council to gain government funding since 2009 for active regeneration efforts across the County. Spatial planning had a huge input into the masterplans that were used to draw down external funding from Government such as funding that had been invested in Bishop Auckland and through the Levelling Up Fund with additional specific masterplans for housing and strategic sites across the county. The Town and Villages programme had broadened the spectrum for masterplans in the county and a programme of Targeted Delivery Plans had been completed across the county, providing mini masterplans for key residential settlements as part of the Towns and Villages programme.  He noted that the report dictated what was in the masterplans, how they were put together and who were involved in their development. Masterplans had been developed across departments and had gone through a consultation process.  The level of response to the consultation exercises varied dependent on the town with delivery plans giving the direction of travel at a community level. 

 

He continued that the IES provided a new framework for improving economic performance in the county and acknowledged the importance of building vibrant and diverse towns and villages with the resulting delivery plan for the strategy considering the role that masterplans could play in driving delivery in our towns and villages.  Central to the new approach to building successful places would be empowering local communities to be at the heart of shaping the future of their Towns and Villages.

 

The Economic Development Manager further explained that there would be an open brief to work through a draft vision that would go out to consultation to conclude in developing a delivery plan to take things forward as there was a requirement to broaden the community buy in with the design process.  Reference was made to the commitment in the IES Delivery Plan to create a new vision and delivery framework for Durham City. There were also opportunities for lottery funding.  Government funding had recently been allocated to Spennymoor, Shildon and Newton Aycliffe with a requirement to have a renewed masterplan.  This had resulted in the above areas being identified for a pilot programme to test the Strategic Place Plan approach which if successful would then start to be rolled out across the County.  He noted that it would take approximately 18 months to refresh the suite of master plans to cover the remainder of the County.

 

G Smith Housing Development Manager mentioned that the Targeted Delivery Plans (TDP) directed activities in specific areas.  TDP areas were identified based on a cumulative ranking of a range of issues including deprivation, income and inequality and anti-social behaviour in an area.  There were 7 TDP’s in place at present that included New Kyo, Thickley, Blackhall Colliery South, Stanley Hall West, Coundon Grange Deneside East and Wheatly Hill.

 

The Economic Development Manager added that town centre work had looked at other themes based on the last suite of spatial master plans that moved the town centre boundaries to focus on outlying villages and how to move forward.

 

Mrs R Morris commented that she was confused over the number of different masterplans and spatial plans there were.  She felt that there should be clarity established quickly on what was proposed in the new approach of Strategic Place Plans and she was concerned that members had not been involved in the development or seen the format for the new Strategic Place Plans.  She perceived that towns with surrounding rural villages within County Durham also required plans and highlighted the importance of the new approach considering the impact of various development projects on villages surrounding the major town centres.  She continued by commenting that some big local community issues did not feature such as transport and it was crucial that it did feature.  She referred to paragraph 33 in the report that highlighted vast amounts of money and queried how this fit in going forward.  She thought that most local people wanted more jobs and employment in their local area which she could not see any mention of in the plans.  She queried if the Committee could have a draft of the new Strategic Place Plans.

 

The Head of Economic Development responded that historically master plans were based on spatial plans that looked at different areas that were coloured coded on a map across the Council to illustrate need.  The new application would include historic data but move away from the spatial aspect and move more towards the strategic side to work with communities on what they wanted. 

 

The new approach was a co-design model that would allow the plans to be defined by local people with that vision being used to develop the spatial, investment and delivery plans for that particular area.  In relation to the format for this new approach he confirmed that the Strategic Place Plans currently being developed were pilots and he highlighted that not ‘one size would fit all’ in relation to the development of future plans however what was provided by the new approach was a framework.  The framework would define the future vision for the local area and if transport was identified as a priority for that area then plans would be tailored accordingly. Concerning the funding, this was funding which had been allocated to the identified areas with the requirement that a new masterplan was produced, this was why these areas had been identified to pilot the new approach.

 

Mrs R Morris agreed that the plans should focus on the Inclusive Economic Strategy but was concerned that when engaging with local communities the priorities/key components within the IES would be used as cornerstones for this engagement process.  This would provide local communities with an opportunity for the priorities within the IES to be considered for inclusion within their resulting Strategic Place Plans. 

 

The Economic Development Manager replied that they would look to do so and use the Inclusive Economic Strategy as a touch stone on how to take it forward.  There would be an open brief with a period of direct engagement with local people to see what they wanted and how to develop that going forward.   He highlighted that there would be a need for officers together with local communities to determine how identified local priorities interpret with the priorities within the IES and then report through to DCC.

 

Councillor K Shaw was concerned that these plans had been originally developed in 2020 that looked at different areas in the county putting plans together for council housing but to date it seemed no progress had been made in any area.

 

The Housing Development Manager responded that the TDPs were distinct from the Council House Delivery Programme.   He continued that TDPs had been completed in a number of areas in the county and that they were developed as part of the Town and Villages Programme.  He continued that these plans focused on residential settlements and used the example of Wheatley Hill where the focus had been anti-social behaviour.  He continued that there was a list of activities identified in relation to TDPs that he could share with members.

 

Councillor K Shaw assumed TDP’s looked at areas where there was the greatest need and asked how many TDP’s there were.

 

In response the Housing Development Manager confirmed that there were 7 TDP’s that looked at the unmet housing need in the area to bring forward.  However, some of the settlements that had TDPs did not have areas for housing development.

 

Councillor A Batey commented that she was confused at the different elements referred to in the report concerning the new approach and had concerns that it would be difficult to relay to the community and wider public.  She was curious as to why Chester le Street had been referred to in relation to investigating town centres as work had already been carried out within a focused steering group that looked at the retail offer of the town centre 6 years ago. She was unsure of timelines as to when work on different areas was refreshed and highlighted the need for the local area to be looked at as a whole including links to transport to town centres from rural villages.  She then continued that Pelton and Great Lumley were referenced within the Town and Villages programme and that whilst work in Great Lumley had progressed in relation to shop fronts, Pelton had not.   She continued that areas which had featured within the T&V Programme no longer seemed to feature and asked whether the programme had changed in relation to areas of focus and queried if there was a peeking order.  She highlighted that there were several vacant units within Chester-le-Street and although she was not the local member for Chester le Street the town had been hit hard with banks reallocating from the town centre and there being many vacant units.She questioned as to how this seepage from the main towns could be prevented and wondered how we could support our villages when businesses were leaving our town centres.

 

The Head of Economic Development stated that existing masterplans would be refreshed but now the service would be addressing the Strategic Place Plans that would require a process to work through to outline needs.  He highlighted that we had an approach going forward within the IES and that we were looking to develop pilot programmes for Spennymoor and Shildon/Newton Aycliffe, they were top priority as they had received £30million government funding that required a renewed masterplan as part of the funding criteria.  It was unclear when or what would be included in the next phase.

 

The Economic Development Manager added that Masterplans were not the answer to all issues and made reference to the strategic sites being developed throughout the county and the Town and Villages programme which again had been rolled out across the county.  He continued that Masterplans looked at town centres and villages as part of the employment strategy to establish how things could be delivered to capture the needs of an area, they were one tool used by DCC. Masterplans worked well to engage with the community and were dependent upon funding whether internal or external via government to resource the programme.  Rural England also provided funding to help look at rural areas.  He concluded by confirming that the current process was vast, complicated and that it was part of a sequence.

 

Councillor A Batey thought that a meeting with Officers and Chester le Street Councillors would be beneficial to discuss where we were at and how we were progressing in relation to the various programmes and schemes together with detail of the various priorities within the Chester-le-Street area.

 

The Head of Economic Development asked Councillor A Batey if it was in terms of the sequencing and how the work delivered, progressing and planned is linked together.

 

Councillor A Batey responded that she was unclear as to why, the priority was as it was and the process being followed.

 

Councillor C Lines acknowledged that there would be difficulties and inconsistencies with local engagement and suggested that the neighbourhood plan approach could be helpful with this element.  He informed the committee that the neighbourhood plan had been followed for Sedgefield with the plan being owned by the local community and led by the Town Council, local businesses and local groups.  This created a huge buy in as there was a passion to deliver policies within the framework with guidance provided by Durham County Council throughout the whole process ensuring alignment with the local plan.

 

The Head of Economic Development confirmed that there was synergy with the local neighbourhood plan model and the new approach of Strategic Place Plans.  The actual approach required co-design with diverse open engagement.

 

Councillor C Line suggested the approach could use the neighbourhood plan model as it included the principle of local collaboration, that was open, transparent, builds relationships and develop trust to allow the project to work well.

 

The Head of Economic Development agreed that it was that type of model they wanted to create that did not follow a top-down approach.

 

Councillor B Moist commented that he was delighted that there was to be a refocus on masterplans to move away from the spatial element.  He did understand that there was a requirement for a spatial element to secure grant funding. 

 

He continued that he anticipated that the move to local targeted outcomes to regeneration and commented that Chester-le-Street was a hub for several villages and that there was a need to link issues such as transport and other common themes that apply.  He was concerned that there was a total of £113 million allocated to regeneration programmes in the county with £73 million of the total funding being allocated to Bishop Auckland, a concentration of so much in one particular area with only £60m for the remaining areas of the county across the five year period, although he was delighted that Bishop Auckland had received national recognition.  He continued that he wondered how priority areas were chosen and that the focus should be on areas with the most need.

 

He felt that Members would like a better understanding of where their area ranked.  He continued that the new Strategic Place Plans approach was a ‘step in the right direction’ and that he would not want to see a talking shop going forward and highlighted the need for the focus to be on delivery. He thought there was a requirement so see how delivery could be achieved. 

 

He was satisfied that the focus would be from the ground up but felt that members should have more input as they had an abundance of local knowledge and commented that member involvement was essential when developing the Place Plans.  He wanted regeneration in County Durham to be area focused, appropriately costed with accountability and the resources to allocate targets with agreed time scales. He noted that the current status of Masterplans projects was ‘progressing’ with very few complete which he could not understand.   He mentioned that although the £1.6millon project to refurbish the culvert at Chester le Street had been completed it had been an Environment Agency led project rather than a Durham County Council project. Work had also been undertaken to remodel the marketplace in Chester le Street but had then been left where more could have been done. 

 

Councillor K Shaw agreed with the points made by previous members, they were all valid. He was disappointed that very little progress had been made in relation to the Town and Villages Programme which had been put together in 2021.  He continued that originally meetings had been held with all members for them to develop a ‘shopping list’ when it came to regeneration projects in their division.  The schemes had then been costed with money set aside to deliver the schemes identified.  However, these projects had not been delivered and were having to be re-costed because of the delay in delivery.  He could not believe that the plans and budgets for the project put forward in 2020 had not been delivered.

 

Councillor B Moist stressed that the role of scrutiny was to scrutinise activities of the Council in delivering public services.  He questioned why these activities had not been delivered.  He suggested that this needed to be addressed with Executive Members and that there was a need to start asking questions of the relevant Cabinet members. 

 

Councillor K Shaw thought that it was down to the change in administration as to why projects were not delivered.

 

Councillor M Stead commented that he thought there had been delivery and that there was a need to take a wider view across the county.  He continued that he   had found the including of a RAG reading in previous reports showing progress and delivery very helpful.  He suggested that a wider view was required if external funding was awarded and that if there was external funding available for a specific area then it made sense to progress in that area and that area took priority to access the available funding.  He noted that Town Centres could not be addressed in isolation and required partnership working and not to rely on the private sector for financial aid as was the case in Bishop Auckland.  He continued that it was wrong to push one particular area during meetings and queried why Councillor B Moist continued to make reference to his ward of Chester le Street at every meeting he attended  He continued that Chester-le-Street had a World Class Cricket Club, that could not be said of any other town in the county and continued that Newton Aycliffe his local community had a Golf Club however this was paid for by local residents via the Council Tax.

 

Councillor B Moist commented that he was sorry if the member felt that Chester-le-Street was mentioned too many times however he was aware of the issues and concerns in relation to Chester-le-Street and that he would gladly speak to Councillor M Stead outside of the meeting.  He confirmed that the focus of the committee was on the economy of County Durham.  He acknowledged that he mentioned his ward as an example of how proposals could relate and that he was concerned for every resident and had no favouritism.

 

Councillor R Crute felt that Members had a valid point in raising their own areas when discussing masterplans as this local input was vital.

 

Councillor M Currah commented that any future criteria for Strategic Place Plans needed to be transparent with a pecking order.  He continued that the funding allocated to Shildon/Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor was unexpected however going forward there was a need for a transparent criteria that would be applied across the county.

 

The Head of Economic Development noted that it was important to work through government funding as a priority when allocated but it was disheartening to be told where to spend the money as it should be down to the Local Authority to define the transformation for the community.

 

Mrs R Morris commented that she would be interested to see how the planet theme within the Inclusive Economic Strategy would play into discussions with local communities and gave the examples of food production, retrofitting and energy production.   She continued that DCC had a role to raise the priorities within the IES with local communities, identifying areas for inclusion in their Strategic Place Plans that they may not have previously thought about.

 

The Head of Economic Development noted that the approach was for the local community to take the lead and responsibility for the macro effects on everything and not just at a local level but also on a national level. These would be different in each area and would need to be worked through but if they were local priorities they would be addressed and responded to.

 

He continued that clear and achievable outcomes should be identified as some could present challenges that were unattainable.  He gave an example of local communities wanting banks to be brought back to the high street which would not be achievable.

 

Councillor B Moist thanked Officers for the report and commented that it was   a step forward.  He recognised that there was no magic wand and a pot of money available for regeneration in divisions and therefore the Council should take advantage of any money that it could get.

 

Resolved

 

i)        That the previous programme of masterplan development and associated scheme delivery undertaken across County Durham be noted.

 

ii)       That the proposals to refresh the approach to the development of masterplans through a new programme of Strategic Place Plans in line with the principles and priorities of the Inclusive Economic Strategy be agreed.

 

iii)      That the Chair of the Economy and Enterprise Overview and

          Scrutiny Committee write to the relevant Cabinet Portfolio Holder 

          expressing the various concerns raised by members in relation to   

          the report and request that a response is provided to those          

          concerns.