Agenda item

The Committee received a report of the Corporate Director of Regeneration Economy and Growth and presentation which provided an update on: the background in relation to  Strategic Place Plans(SPPs); what an SPP is; the process in developing a SPP; detail of the SPP pilots focusing on the Spennymoor pilot together with detail of the engagement undertaken with various community groups, the development of the investment plan and detail of  the additional data required to develop the SPP; routes for seeking and allocating funding and going forward the delivery of future SPPs highlighting the role of ongoing pilots, the transfer of Area Action Partnerships (AAPs) to economic development and an assessment of their role in developing SPPs in the future, the need for Cabinet to identify resources, the creation of a matrix approach to guide decisions in the future delivery of the programme and current thinking on factors to be considered when prioritising future delivery (for copy of report and presentation slides, see file of minutes).

The Head of Economic Development reminded Members that a previous report to the committee in January, providing an update on masterplan activity in the county, had highlighted to Members that SPPs were to replace Masterplans and that this change in approach was in line with the principles and priorities of the Inclusive Economic Strategy (IES).

He continued that central to this new approach is empowering local communities to shape the future of their Towns and Villages with engagement taking place with local people, businesses, and stake holders to establish a shared vision for each place. He highlighted that the plan will be a live document and will be supported by a combination of a Spatial Plan, Investment Plan and Delivery Plan.

In relation to the process, he commented that it will start with an open brief which involves direct engagement with local people and stakeholders to identify what they want for their area with open discussions highlighting any challenges. The next stage will be shaping/development of the vision with this part of the process led by DCC. A stakeholder group will develop the draft vision through a series of workshops which will be facilitated by DCC. This stage will then be followed by further public consultation focusing on the draft vision with various methods of consultation used including social media, questionnaires, and public engagement events. The fourth stage involves the refining of the vision based on public engagement and the adoption of the vision for that place by Cabinet with the final stage in the process involving the development of the delivery plan based on the adopted vision which is owned by the stakeholder group and adopted by Cabinet.

He continued that three Strategic Place Plans pilots are being undertaken within the county to help refine the approach, understand the resources needed and the timescales involved. The pilots are taking place in Spennymoor, Shildon and Newton Aycliffe and Durham City.  It was confirmed that Spennymoor had received government funding of £20m through the Long Term Plans for Town Programme, Shildon and Newton Aycliffe had received National Heritage Lottery Funding and Durham City had been chosen as Cabinet had agreed to create a new version for Durham as detailed in the IES.

The Economic Development Manager then explained in detail the Spennymoor SPP case study.  It was highlighted that there are some particular elements within the Spennymoor case study which will not be replicated elsewhere including the establishment of a Town Board to shape the co-design of the Spennymoor vision.  The Board will work alongside the community and its stakeholders, supporting the process of ongoing engagement.  The remainder of the requirements of the programme are in line with the SPP approach.

The Economic Development Manager then provided Members with detail of how the process for the development of a SPP had been undertaken in relation to the Spennymoor Pilot which included a three-month period of engagement activities undertaken with schools, a Stakeholder Engagement Programme, on street engagement, business drop in sessions and public engagement events.  It was highlighted that in relation to the timeline for the case study it would take 7-8 months from the start of the vision through to the delivery of that vision with the plan scheduled to go to government in August.  In relation to the development of an Investment Plan for the case study the Economic Development Manager confirmed that a matrix tool has been developed for the Town Board to support decision making on interventions they may wish to include in the town plan. It is designed to be a useful tool to aid discussion and ensure that all aspects of the project are considered. It was highlighted that through the Long Term Plans for Town Programme (LTPT) Government has issued a list of one off investments with some requiring a business case identifying interventions that provide value for money. The Economic Development Manager then highlighted the various additional data required for the development of a SPP which include a Town Centre survey, possibly a series of car park surveys and asset and investment mapping.

In relation to delivering future SPPs it was highlighted that future cabinet reports will be needed to identify resource and the future programme, consideration of a matrix approach to guide decisions on the roll out of the programme with the pilots helping to refine the approach and determine the exact need for resource and timescale for delivery.

The Head of Economic Development concluded by asking Members of the committee for comments on the list of factors for prioritisation when determining the roll out of future SPPs.

Councillor A Sterling referred to the Spennymoor case study and queried the reason why engagement had only involved one primary and one secondary school, and in relation to the business drop-in session, with only 11 engagements undertaken, she asked for clarification as to whether Business Durham had been involved in the process. She continued by asking for confirmation as to the number of days when the on-street engagement session had taken place and that engagement had been undertaken with older residents. She added that she agreed with settlement size being a factor for consideration in prioritisation, however emphasised there was also a need to consider the potential growth of settlements by looking at planning applications.

The Head of Economic Development confirmed that going forward, more on-street engagement would be undertaken. He added that generally it was older residents that engaged in consultation processes and that younger people aged between 30-40 tended to be the hard to reach category. In relation to the suggestion that settlement growth be factored into future prioritisation, he confirmed that a separate criteria could be created. The Economic Development Manager added that there was only one secondary school in Spennymoor and that the primary school was the feeder school for that particular secondary school. In relation to engagement with young people, a fun day was held which was a further engagement opportunity together with a park run. In relation to engagement with businesses, Business Durham fed into the process the points made by larger businesses within the county, however all businesses had been visited and in addition there were opportunities for online engagement. He continued by highlighting that, the Team had also visited community centres to ensure that both young and older resident groups were involved in the engagement process.

Councillor A Sterling commented that the use of social media was a great tool, however she highlighted the danger of potentially getting wish lists. She continued by adding that she would encourage more active on-street engagement as this was a great form of engagement with residents.

The Head of Economic Development confirmed that he agreed with the comments from the member, highlighting the importance of community engagement. 

Councillor A Batey thanked Officers for the presentation and commented that it would be interesting to see the priorities of the new Government. She added that the Committee had previously developed a list of priorities in relation to town centres having undertaken a mapping exercise of various towns within the County. She noted that Durham County Council had a large amount of current data and hoped that existing data would also be used in the SPP process. She continued that Chester-le-Street had a considerable outdoor leisure offer, however the Leisure Transformation Programme had not progressed in relation to the proposals for Chester-le-Street. She continued by highlighting the need for local Members to be central in the development of SPPs for their local communities and the need for DCC to provide feedback to all those engaged in the consultation process. The Head of Economic Development agreed that feedback to those who have engaged in the process was essential and confirmed that Spennymoor had created Working Groups to focus on particular elements of the vision.

Mrs R Morris asked for clarification as to whether the approach only applied to towns in the County and whether it included the wider area. She continued that her local community had a Neighbourhood Forum Plan and asked where such a plan, would fit into the new approach. She queried the data that would be used for the vision document for the area, noting that in County Durham there was a large percentage of the population not located in towns and commented that these areas would have different issues to towns. The Head of Economic Development explained that it was not a one shape fits all approach with each area requiring different support/intervention. The approach would look at each place separately and gave the example that if an issue identified during the process was the loss of shops in an area, then potentially what would be needed in the future was more local housing to retain local shops. He added that data and approach were equally important and used the example of parking and the need to understand the issues and perceptions as they were both equally as important.

Councillor B Moist highlighted that the Economy and Enterprise Overview and Scrutiny Committee had pushed for the move from Masterplans which were spatial plans to SPPs. He noted that SPPs would be developed across the twelve main towns in the County and noted that Spennymoor, Shildon and Newton Aycliffe and Durham City had been chosen as pilot areas. He referred to Durham City being chosen as a pilot area and raised concerns that SPPs could be held up for years with issues in relation to the development in Durham City and the Aykley Heads site. He continued that by Durham City being one of the pilot areas, the process/approach was Durham centric and highlighted that there were other areas in the County which should be included sooner in the rollout plan for SPPs. He expressed concern that there were no timescales for the roll out of future SPPs and highlighted that in his opinion the Durham City SPP would take the majority of the available funding. He commented that Bishop Auckland was an area currently doing well and that SPPs were a positive move, however more work was needed with regards to delivery and roll out to towns in North and West Durham. He referenced detail provided to Members in the presentation on the delivery of future SPPs and the transfer of Area Action Partnerships (AAPs) to the Regeneration, Economy and Growth Service Grouping and commented that AAPs did not have expertise in regeneration and the reach into businesses and local communities, highlighting that Members have these links and local knowledge and therefore should play a key role in the development of SPPs. He concluded by saying that delivery would be slow and that Durham was falling behind, both nationally and regionally.

The Head of Economic Development commented that in relation to two of the pilot areas, funding was available from various Government funding pots, and concerning Durham City private investment and the existence of an engaged business base had contributed to it being identified as a pilot area.  He confirmed that work was being undertaken to identify timescales and resources and that AAPs would become more engaged with the local community. He confirmed that in relation to future SPPs Cabinet and/or Government would need to be approached for future resources.

Councillor B Moist further added that there had been no consultation with Members in relation to Durham City being included as a pilot area and that the decision had just been taken. There was a need for more targeted help around the County and Cabinet needed to be pressed to look at other areas of the County for SPPs roll out.

Councillor C Lines highlighted the need for data within the County Durham Plan and Neighbourhood Plans to be taken into account and used to drive local discussion during the development of future SPPs.  He asked whether existing plans would be a fundamental part of future place plans. The Economic Development Manager confirmed that plans/data which already existed would be the starting point for discussions. He added that there was a wide range of teams involved in the process across the Council including the Spatial Policy Team who were familiar with issues at local level. Councillor C Lines added that it would be beneficial to go back to groups previously engaged in Neighbourhood Plan development.

Councillor G Hutchinson commented that he had been involved in the Spennymoor pilot. He referred to representation on the Town Board and commented that he felt that there should be more Member involvement at Board level. He added that many Croxdale residents were unaware of the pilot and development of the SPPs, highlighting that it was vital that local residents be involved in the process. He felt that the level of on-street engagement was relatively low and there was a need to involve residents in the process as early as possible. The Economic Development Manager advised that funding had been provided through the Long Term Plans for Towns (LTPT) fund and highlighted that Government had prescribed the number of Member representatives on the Board and confirmed that the Board had five allocated elective official places.

Councillor A Surtees thanked Officers for the presentation and commented that funding of £20m for the Spennymoor pilot did not extend to neighbouring settlements. She suggested that discussions take place with the current Government to see if this could be changed. She continued that she would want the SPP to look at the whole place and used an example across the east of the county, where the general perception is that Seaham gets all of the funding. She commented that SPPs provided the opportunity to look at areas not just towns and that prioritisation needed to include Lower Super Output Areas (LSOA). She asked whether in relation to the Spennymoor pilot the transport needs of Tudhoe and Page Bank had been considered. In relation to Masterplans she commented that she could not think of a plan that had been taken through and fully delivered and highlighted the importance going forward, that SPPs cover an area, not just a town. She felt the process needed to be inclusive and concluded by highlighting that her local AAP takes an holistic approach and were very much aware of what was happening at the local level.

The Head of Economic Development thanked Members for their comments which had been very helpful and that going forward, the prioritisation criteria would need to look at the biggest impact on surrounding settlements.

Resolved:

That the report and presentation be noted with Members comments on the Strategic Place Plans shared with the Service Grouping.