Tag Archives: regeneration

Devolution and Regeneration: Warnings for Localism


Welsh Assembly.JPG
Creative Commons License photo credit: Wojtek Gurak

By Kirby Swales

Devolution seems to be a fact of life now for those working in the regeneration sector. Everything seems to be ‘England only’ or ‘Scotland only’ for much of the work we are involved with. I always found this a rather strange aspect of the cross-departmental move I made when working as a research manager in central government, from DWP to CLG. I rather missed the diversity that came from working across the whole of GB – indeed I always remember the Scottish DSS/DWP staff were always the best responders to surveys we ran.

However, it has not always been that way and there is a risk that we will lose something incredibly valuable from a GB wide focus, despite the benefits of more diversity and local control through a more devolved process.

I was reminded of that this week, as the Welsh consultation on Communities First came to an end.  They were grappling with many of the same questions and issues as the rest of us – where to target resources, how to balance central co-ordination and local freedom, the respective roles for different actors, and how to measure success. Renaisi has provided a response, trying to bring out some though of the lessons from ‘English’ regeneration policy – as highlighted here.

I will be genuinely interested to see how many responses the Welsh government receives from outside of Wales to this consultation. The fact  that the English government has launched a different programme with exactly the same name as the Welsh one suggests that there may not be that much joint working (or learning!) across governments or in the sector!!

Wales now seems alone in having a government sponsored small area-based programme, with England and Scotland both having total devolution to Local Authorities (except for physical and economic regeneration, with URCs/LEPs).

The impact of the localist approaches is already being felt, with a considerable waning in the power of Local Strategic Partnerships (or Community Planning Partnerships in Scotland).

This is not an argument in favour of centralist and top-down approaches – there have clearly been problems and contradictions with some of the previous approaches as acknowledge by John Houghton’s review here.  And local flexibility is a good thing.

However, it is important that there are structures and ways of learning from each other, sharing experiences, and supporting areas with less capacity – from the local to national and even global levels. Hopefully, sector bodies and others such as the Big Lottery Fund or Locality can CONTINUE help to ensure that there is a cross-national element to this.

 

 

The Future of Regeneration

In order to think about the future of regeneration, first of all you must look to the past. Regeneration has become a very big umbrella under which many people shelter. Originally regeneration and renewal was about the reversal of physical, economic and social decline in neighbourhoods – so no one would be disadvantaged by where they live. The Urban White Paper and the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal presented a very clear picture of what government thought regeneration was all about. There was a real ambition to tackle inequality in urban areas with those that received targeted interventions through NDC and NRF delivering
some improvements.

However over the past five years regeneration policy and its implementation have become muddled and unclear. Some would go so far as to say that regeneration has been bereft of any real policy since the demise of the ODPM. At the same time, we’ve witnessed a healthy economic boom with much speculative property development masquerading as regeneration. Now-a-days you can’t walk past a block of luxury flats on a Brownfield site without it being hailed as a flagship regeneration scheme. And yet many urban areas still have pockets of extensive deprivation, exploding the myth of trickle down.

So the party is over. Not only is there little public money available for regeneration, the development industry is also on its knees and as yet there is no clear steer from any of the parties about future regeneration policy. So what do we at Renaisi think the future should hold?

Firstly – we believe that there should be more rights and responsibilities for local people to genuinely shape what happens in their neighbourhoods. This means proper pots of money and influence as a right but also the responsibility to deliver. In the future, there needs to be a greater recognition that regeneration will only be successful and sustainable if it involves local people and is not imposed from on top – local or national.

Secondly, in addition to rights and responsibilities, local communities need to have more of a stake in their neighbourhoods. This means more locally owned and run development trusts and other similar organisations that are endowed with assets so they can borrow and are properly supported so they can become sustainable. This will not only put local people in control but can also provide more effective local regeneration services.

Thirdly, scare public resources must be better targeted at places where they are most needed. This will need not only a restatement of what urban regeneration policy is but also a lasting commitment to it.

Based on our experience over the past 11 years, we believe there should be a return to a greater focus on place based renewal and regeneration. If this is the case, then there are a number of big asks. Firstly, will whoever forms the next government take up this challenge? Secondly, can local government respond, providing the necessary resources and creating the kinds of partnerships that will deliver? Thirdly, whilst there are many good instances of the private sector investing in local communities, they are few and far between. Where developers invest in creating a place, actively tackling some of the social and economic issues in their area, they do so in the knowledge that they will secure a better return on their investment.

If the right kinds of partnerships can be created between the public, private and voluntary and community sectors then regeneration has a future.

Whatever happened to Neighbourhood Renewal?

New Deal for Communities programmes and Neighbourhood Management Pathfinders are preparing to wind down, the NRU is no more than fleeting memory, the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal gathers dust on shelves in many a town hall, the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund has been replaced by Working Neighbourhoods Fund and Neighbourhood Renewal Advisors have turned into Local Improvement Advisors. So just what has happened to Neighbourhood Renewal and do we care anymore about neighbourhood approaches?

Well there’s no doubt that neighbourhoods still matter and neighbourhoods that have problems matter more than most. Although evaluation after evaluation demonstrates that the neighbourhoods that received all this attention have generally improved for the better there remain, especially in London, too many neighbourhoods were poverty and inequality persist, usually side by side, with great wealth and prosperity. Indeed London has become, over the last ten years, the most unequal capital in Europe despite the huge injection of public funds and the remarkable scale of development from Kings Cross to Stratford and from Cricklewood to the South Bank.

London’s growth as a world city, supported by the current and previous Mayor, and enshrined in the London Plan, was meant to result in a greater share of the benefits of growth for the poorer parts of London. It’s true that previously run down ex industrial areas and disused rail lands and canal basins have been transformed with new gleaming structures. It’s also true that these developments have delivered some benefits for local people in the form of social housing and jobs. However there’s still the feeling that this hasn’t been enough and despite  this splurge of growth and redevelopment, and the radical reformation of the social and economic structure of the capital over the past thirty years – the ‘poor are still with us’ and many of the poorer parts of the capital remain ‘too risky’ for mainstream private sector investors and developers.

To make matters worse the world recession and property slump has turned off the private capital. Mr Brown’s fiscal stimulus has delivered some respite, with the HCA racing to the rescue of some key schemes but many have been halted or mothballed. Certainly the public sector is braving itself for some punishing settlements over the next few years as whoever is in government attempts to re-balance the books.  So all-in-all not a very promising outlook especially if you happen to live in one of the many struggling neighbourhoods in inner and outer London. So is there any point in thinking about neighbourhood renewal? And if there is what is there to do?

Here at Renaisi we firmly believe there is. In fact there is now an even greater need to focus on issues at the neighbourhood level whether they be managing the impacts of rapid changes in the demographic composition of neighbourhoods; dealing with the effects of more entrenched worklessness; helping local enterprises survive; or ensuring that where development does occur it does so in a way that is environmentally sustainable and creates and sustains value for the community as well as the developer.

What we’ve learnt is that local problems are best resolved at the local level and by local people. That’s the only way that you get a solution that’s truly sustainable. This doesn’t mean that there aren’t greater social and economic influences at borough and city level that don’t have an impact or need to be properly understood, before deciding what to do at neighbourhood level. Indeed that is the key to developing solutions that are right. That’s why the most successful areas have thought long and hard about their ‘place shaping’ responsibilities and have begun to think for themselves about how they can renew their neighbourhoods without a national blueprint being handed down to them.

They’ve also developed ways of understanding their local economy, how it’s influenced by London’s wider labour, housing and property markets and what interventions they can make to protect and enhance local enterprise and employment. Within this they’ve carefully considered how major physical regeneration schemes can contribute more locally through innovative partnerships and funding mechanisms. They’ve also made the effort to try and understand the impact of social restructuring on local neighbourhoods and maintained efforts to better deliver and manage public services at a neighbourhood level.

The current recession will challenge all of this considerably especially in those areas where physical renewal is heavily dependent on private sector cash. However even in these dark times there are signs of life and a number of opportunities to protect what you’ve got and prepare for the upturn:

Firstly, we should all still care about neighbourhood renewal and redouble our efforts to deliver it in places where it is needed most. The emphasis of the new Comprehensive Area Assessment will be a sharp reminder to many of the need to tackle inequality. However a new narrative is needed and that should be a localist one and that needs local government to end its ‘parent child’ relationship with central government and start to think for itself once more.  The government, and its likely successor, appear to be willing to return increasing amounts of responsibility to local councils (unfortunately not enough real power) and some new tools such as Tax Increment Financing seem about to finally make an appearance. More councils should respond by taking up the challenge and making the best of what is on the table.

Secondly, understanding London’s economy and how local neighbourhoods and town centres relate to its shifting social and economic sands and the opportunities and challenges this brings and having the ability to plan effectively, at the right spatial scale, to maximise and mitigate these has never been more important.

Thirdly, being prepared to use the assets and financial resources available in bold and innovative ways. This includes new approaches to financing neighbourhood regeneration, including transferring assets to the community sector and building mechanisms that capture value for the long term benefit of local people. Many councils are already buying up land, at the bottom of the property value curve, in readiness for the upturn.

Fourthly, the days of large scale public spending are over for some time. Public sector intervention will still be necessary to deliver regeneration and renewal where it’s needed most. However it is likely to be even more targeted, be raised closer to where it’s needed, rather than delivered from on high by the Treasury or CLG, and involve new and (many not so new!) forms of public private partnerships.

Finally, this means councils having the ability to engage meaningfully with the private sector as the people charged with leading the remaking of London’s neighbourhoods. This requires an approach to plan making that not only reflects the needs and aspirations of local communities but is long term, built on a sound understanding of the local economy, provides a framework for the long term private sector investment and community benefit so sorely missing from many schemes. A new breed of person is needed in some of the regeneration and planning departments and council chambers across London, to make this happen as understanding risk and getting the right deal will never be more important.

Old style Neighbourhood Renewal is dead along with a ‘top down’ approach from government. But a new localist agenda and approach to Neighbourhood Renewal is beginning to emerge from the mist, with local government pulling the approach forward, rather than being pushed by Whitehall.  However, that said, the regeneration tool box is likely to remain frustratingly empty until a whole scale review of the structure of public finance, which is unlikely. The endemic political and investor shortermism may also never be overcome. So things do look rather bleak just now and just like the recession it remains unclear as to how things will pan out. However for those who believe in true neighbourhood renewal, and are committed to tacking the problems in our poorest neighbourhoods, now is the time to take action.  We need to be ambitious, grit our teeth and brave the challenges ahead.

For more information on Renaisi and our approach to Neighbourhood Renewal please conact Rob Pearce, Director of Strategy and Communication on r.pearce@renaisi.com

Financing models are dead, long live financing models!

The 6th session of the APUDG which took place last Thursday 14 May at the Houses of Parliament, made clear that alternative financing arrangements such as ADZ have been given the thumbs up by business leaders, property developers and key public sector players. Accelerated Development Zones (ADZs), adapted from the US Tax Increment Financing (TIF) model are “well worth exploring” in such challenging times, highlighted Professor Michael Parkinson, head of the European Institute for Urban Affairs at LJMU[i].
Times have seldom been more challenging for financing regeneration; this inquiry aimed at analysing the regeneration financing environment and solutions to jump start regeneration and development.

Four key fundamentals for financing regeneration have been pointed out by Prof Parkinson: new money needs to be brought into the system, the flow of resources needs to be increased and regeneration projects need to attract new investors; greater expectations are put on public sector and we have to move our way towards a new investment culture, where public sector invests and takes the lead; financing regeneration is complex and technical, and needs simplification. Finally, masterplanning is going to be more and more important to prepare the work for developers and help them invest in places they know.

“The financing schemes which would have been valuable two years ago are not anymore”, confirmed property developers (Peter Vernon, Chief Executive of Grosvenor Britain and Ireland; Peter Miller, Chief Operating Officer at Westfield Centre). Existing financing models (such as Section 106, Local Asset Backed Vehicles, and the proposed Community Infrastructure Levy) work far better in the good times than in the bad.

With this context and those fundamentals in mind, the new financial tool ADZ would help getting investors back in by sharing the risks of development with the public sector. The public sector, in stepping in financing regeneration, would offer value for money to projects, underlined Ray Mills, (partner, regional development group Pricewaterhouse Coopers). ADZs would help reduce the burden for the private sector by securing the finance, and would give the public sector the strength to negotiate with the private. For the developers, it is a “win-win” situation where nobody loses, where the money spent gets back, generating income that can be invested to create new infrastructures.

For the public sector however remains the question of timescale and risks taking. What type of guarantee do the local authorities have that the private sector will step in and deliver investment that increases local tax streams? Even if TIF attracts private sector investment, the revenue predicted will not likely be realised for several years. Such financing schemes require a long term commitment from the private and the public sector and are what has been called for by Prof Parkinson in his report. The risks to the public sector purse require that ADZ schemes are accompanied by a strong risk-analysis. Local authorities have to be very clear about what the public benefits are going to be in this investment, insisted Chris Brown, chief executive of Igloo Regeneration Fund. To gain full benefit from TIF schemes, new skills such as financial awareness, risk and change management are needed more than ever amongst public sector leaders.

[i] Parkinson, M et al (2009) The Credit Crunch and Regeneration: Impact and Implications London: Communities & Local Government (the full report can be found at www.communities.gov.uk/publications/citiesandregions/creditcrunchregeneration).

Written by Claire Cunin, Renaisi Graduate Consultant

Financing Regeneration – A comparison with France

Faced with the challenges of narrowing gaps between deprived areas and the rest of the country and the huge financial resources needed to undertake urban regeneration projects, finding innovative tools for financing regeneration projects has always been a concern for governments.

The US-style funding mechanism called Tax Increment Financing (TIF) that is being examined by Whitehall may be an appropriate tool: it allows local and regional authorities to fund infrastructure projects by borrowing against the future tax revenues that the public works project is expected to create.

A TIF does indeed offer a wide range of advantages for the partners involved, local authorities, private investors and property owners. It is however being criticized for its limits in attracting investment in the poorest and most in needs areas and for the risk of pricing out residents due to the rise in prices and property taxes that it involves.

A similar funding system exists in France to remedy the absence of private initiative investment. Public investors such as the Caisse des Depots et des Consignations (public bank), or Industrial and Commercial Public Establishments develop financial packages to implement infrastructure projects, resulting in a significant amount of financial leverage and launching private investment in most deprived areas.

Such money is likely to be spent on infrastructure investments that are most likely to encourage greater private sector investment, and focuses in France on shopping center reconstruction, damaged co-ownership buildings, and hospitals settlements.

In France, this system has been integrated in a wider funding policy since 2002.

Faced with the complexity and the fragmentation of funding tools, and with the limitations apparent in the programmes implemented over the past 20 years, the French government has been led to implement a new co-financing process forming a one-stop funding centre. The Agence Nationale de Rénovation Urbaine (ANRU) – comparable in a way to the new Homes and Communities Agency – has been created to process files and allocate subsidies; it follows two main principles: fungibility and coordinated delivery. Fungiblity means that the subsidies coming from various sources (state, Caisse des Dépôts et Consignation, private sector and social partners) are used freely, without any relation to where they come from. Coordinated delivery implies that those credits are consistently invested in local projects.

This pooling of credits represents a simplified framework for regeneration projects, and a better joining up of regeneration and economic activity. But above all, it seeks to involve the local actors of urban regeneration. The funds are indeed allocated following a strategic application process, during which the need of the project and the backing-up of the local authority are evaluated, with one of the most important requirements being the political momentum by elected members. There may be disadvantages, but the new agency has the benefits of securing the local anchorage of a project and the involvement of local partners, and this could represent an example of best practice the HCA could look at.

Written by Claire Cunin, Renaisi Graduate Consultant

Darling, I think you’re doing it wrong

The Budget included several measures to improve regeneration and said yes to property sectors push for Tax Increment Financing. TIF’s, as they are called in the US, are public financing instruments that are widely used in the US to raise revenue for infrastructure, affordable housing, economic and community development, and environmental clean up. It has been pushed in the UK for some time by local government. Most notably the London Borough of Barnet, which has been pushing the Treasury since 2007 to raise revenue for its infrastructure development plans through tax increment financing instruments.

So what is it?
Tax increment financing is a mechanism that allows local governments to borrow against anticipated increases in tax revenue. It is usually structured as a municipal bond, which is sold to investors who are paid back from tax revenue. In the US, the investors also receive a tax exemption for the interest they receive.

Is it good for regeneration in the UK?
There are many characteristics of TIF that makes it an attractive model for the UK. First, TIF models give local government an opportunity to raise revenue for regeneration independently. Councils has been severely limited in their ability, since the Thatcher era, to raise revenue for infrastructure and housing because of a deep rooted culture of distrust in their ability to be credit wise borrowers.

Secondly, the TIF model means that local governments can raise capital without raising taxes. This assumption relies on increases in tax revenue due to growth and investment. So what happens if the movers and shakers with the money bags don’t produce? Or what if you are in an area that experienced stagnant growth even before the recession? Which leads to the next question- Does the TIF model really provide a mechanism for really tackling regeneration? As the Regeneration Framework acknowledged last autumn, regeneration and economic development are not the same and the evidence from the last 30 years demonstrates that despite strong national and regional growth there has been an increasing gap between wealthy and poor areas since 2001. Well before we entered the economic crisis, there lacked a real redistribution mechanism that delivered wider economic benefit and inclusion. And now more than before, there is a need for a regeneration model that addresses the widening gap between wealthy and poor areas.

Will this further regeneration in the recession and after?
TIF is unlikely to provide a real boost of investment to the poorest most needing areas during the recession and recovery. The reliance on growth to secure bonds means that only areas that are most likely to provide quick and reliable growth will be targeted for TIF style financing. Put in another way, TIF is likely to be launched successfully in areas that would have been invested in without government backing in a better market, not the most difficult to transform or economically stagnant areas. TIF’s weakness as a model to finance regeneration is reflected in Section 106 and the yet to be launched Community Infrastructure Levy, which relies on property uplift to incur community benefit. By attaching revenue and benefit to expected growth, investment will only occur in areas that are most likely to be successful.

We need a model for recruiting capital for regeneration and housing that is not connected to local property growth. There is a need for a real redistribution mechanism. The Community Infrastructure Levy, which has been postponed till April 2010, was seeking to do this in part by allocating a portion of the revenue raised to regional and central government for large scale infrastructure projects that would have wider social benefit.

A real redistribution mechanism
The changed economic environment is unlikely for quite a few years to be earmarked by high speculative development and growth that characterised the pre-recession market and in turn fuels tax increment financing, Section 106 and CIL type models.

Investment for regeneration needs to be detached from raising capital for economic development. A simple means of more effectively redistributing revenue would be to pool Section 106 benefits and allowing them to be redistributed more widely throughout a local area or over an extended period of time. This would allow Section 106 revenue to be shifted to poor areas and saved for use on a rainy day.

TIF is a noble effort. There is a need for new locally controlled financing mechanisms, but growth based models will unlikely provide the capital for low investment areas during a period of no growth. Maybe it is time to look at the tax system- particularly tax relief as a way to raise revenue for local areas. The tax increases proposed provide an opportunity to push for tax relief models to finance regeneration.

Community Investment Tax Relief (CITR)
CITR is a finance model where individuals and corporate bodies invest in accredited Community Development Finance Institutions which in turn provide finance for qualifying businesses, social enterprises and community projects. This model is already in place in the UK and would only require raising the incentives and take up. This allows for regeneration to take place from the ground up where local businesses, organisations, and people are financed to drive forward growth.

US Style Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)
LIHTC is a dollar for dollar sale of tax relief that individuals and investors purchase and in turn raises capital for affordable housing. Through the sale of tax credits enough capital is raised to lower the amount of debt taken on by housing providers and the cost savings are passed on to home owners. The tax credits are allocated to state and local governments who manage and distribute the credits to assist affordable housing builders.

It is without a doubt that the next few years will require an economic rebuilding effort near or equivalent to that of the post war era. There are real opportunities to address the widening gap between wealthy and poor areas that has characterised the last eight years. And when we finally emerge on the other side, we will have equipped local government and local people with the financial tools to regenerate their areas.

Written by Dekonti Mends-Cole, Rensaisi Senior Consultant

Budget 2009 – First Impressions

At first glance the Budget, with the snappy regeneration-related title of ‘Building Britain’s Future’, seems to offer a lot of positives for the regeneration sector, with the Chancellor committing more money to jobs, green growth and housing. But all this is balanced by a greater demand for efficiency savings from local authorities and lower spending growth and, in the longer term, record levels of borrowing.

First the good news: £600million will be allocated to stimulate housing investment and to kick-start stalled housing developments or dormant sites with planning permission. £100million of this will be used to allow local authorities to ensure higher energy efficiency standards in social housing developments.

The Budget also saw the confirmation of Leeds and Manchester as pilot city-regions, which will give them greater powers to integrate planning, housing, transport, regeneration, employment and skills programmes and increasing their ability to drive sustainable growth and economic development.

Perhaps the most daring move is the £1.2billion that has been given to the Young Persons Guarantee Scheme, which aims to help alleviate the danger that the recession will lead to long-term unemployment by guaranteeing a job, training or work placement for all 18-24 year olds who are unemployed for 12 months. This is a staggering and unprecedented move which will see funding made available for local authorities and voluntary organisations to employ 100,000 young people in ‘socially useful activity’ with 50,000 more jobs on offer in areas of dense unemployment; 10% of these jobs are in the ‘green’ sector. More concrete details about this are eagerly awaited.

Meanwhile a further £260million will be made available for education and training including the expansion of the number of places at sixth-forms and colleges by 54,000 starting in September.

Also of interest is a £750 million Strategic Investment Fund to support advanced industrial projects of strategic importance, £250million of which is earmarked specifically for low carbon projects, helping to create sustainable jobs for the future.

The bad news is that, whilst the Chancellor believes that the economy will recover and begin growth at the end of this year and will grow by 3.5% by 2011, the IMF are more pessimistic, predicting that the UK economy will shrink by 4.1% this year and 0.4% in 2010.

Increased public borrowing, at a record level, combined with less growth in public sector spending and demands for increased cost-saving and efficiency will place further pressure on public sector finances. And whilst the investment to get the housing market moving again are welcome, they represent a drop in the ocean compared to the bail-out of the banks.

The problem, as ever, will be to ensure these initiatives meet the needs of people and places at the neighbourhood level. Renaisi is all about the neighbourhood but the danger is that the initiatives announced in the Budget will not benefit the neighbourhoods and the people that need it most. Take the measures to boost housing development for instance – care will need to be taken to ensure the funding does not simply allow private-sector house-builders to profit at the expense of creating affordable housing for local people. Similarly the Strategic Investment Fund for industry must be careful to ensure local people are connected to the jobs being created and have the opportunity to fully benefit from the investment.

Written by Russell Spencer, Renaisi Consultant

The Indications are Good…

Hackney’s National Indicator Delivery plans

Following the introduction of the new local performance framework, included as part of the Local Government White Paper ‘Strong and Prosperous Communities’ in October, Renaisi has been commissioned by the London Borough of Hackney to establish a project management framework for the delivery of the eight national indicators assigned to the Regeneration and Planning directorate.

The indicators include ‘Tackling Fuel Poverty’, ‘Flood and Coastal Risk Management’, ‘Improved Local Biodiversity’, ‘Previously Developed Land that has been Vacant or Derelict for more than 5 years’, ‘Net additional Homes Provided’, ‘Supply of Ready to Develop Housing Sites’, ‘Per Capita Reduction in Carbon Emissions’, and ‘Adapting to Climate Change’.

Between now and March 2009, Renaisi will be delivering successful systems for reporting these indicators. A tool kit will be produced for each indicator to ensure that knowledge is transferred and embedded within the Council.

Four Stars for Waltham Forest

The London Borough of Waltham Forest has been awarded Four Stars in the council’s recent Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA).

This is the highest rating a council can achieve and shows just how far they have come since receiving a zero rating when the assessments started in 2002. They are in fact the only local authority to achieve this level of improvement.

The CPA is run by the Audit Commission, and rates local councils based on their performance and the services that they run for local people. The Commission’s report mentioned Waltham Forest’s “Well led and focused” Local Strategic Partnership, as well as their “clear and challenging vision” as delivered through their Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) and Local Area Agreement (LAA) as essential elements to their 4 star rating.

Renaisi is delighted that Waltham forest have received this recognition, especially seeing as they worked closely with the council to improve the LSP, ‘Waltham Forest Working Together’, as well as managing the development of their SCS and LAA as part of a commission to develop their vision.

Just 6 years ago the Commission gave Waltham Forest a zero rating and said that the council was “not serving the people well” and had “uncertain prospects”. With this amazing improvement the council are obviously very pleased, and as a result has given all council staff an extra day of annual leave next year to say thank you.

Planning & Regeneration Consultant Positions

Renaisi is currently a team of about 70 and we are looking to expand by recruiting to a number of exciting planning and regeneration positions accross the company.  If you are ambitious, hard working and want to develop your career in a friendly, forward thinking consultancy, then these positions might be for you.

Our client base and work portfolio is very diverse, so you can expect to be working with developers, local authorities, central government and the community and voluntary sector on projects that range from spatial planning, neighbourhood regeneration and place shaping through to economic development and community empowerment.

Please see our careers page for more information.

Consortium appointed to deliver Tower Hamlets Town Centre Spatial Strategy

A consortium of Renaisi, Roger Tym & Partners and Space Syntax has recently been appointed by Tower Hamlets Council to produce a town centre spatial strategy for the borough.

The strategy, which will be completed in October 2008, requires detailed research into the borough’s retail and town centre provision and will set out a vision and strategy for the borough’s town centres to 2020. It will also be used as a tool to inform the local authority’s Community Plan, Local Development Framework (LDF) and Regeneration Strategy.

The work will be undertaken in two distinct phases:

Phase 1 will primarily consist of gathering evidence to understand the function, performance and potential of Tower Hamlets’ town centres and retail provision in meeting the needs of existing and future communities. The research will frame the development of the strategy and will include scoping the socio-economic and spatial properties and value of the borough’s town centres; undertaking a retail capacity study; mapping the local and regional economic context; and identifying growth pressures and development and investment opportunities.

Phase 2 of the work will be the production of a town centre spatial strategy, which will be informed by extensive consultation with a wide range of key stakeholders drawn from across the community.

The strategy will set out the vision for the borough’s town centres to 2020, including identifying their specific role and function; establishing priorities and strategic interventions; and formulating a delivery and implementation programme which promotes sustainable town centre growth and development and supports the emerging priorities set out in the SCS and LDF.

This is in line with the Government’s new Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 12: Local Spatial Planning which states that spatial planning should aim to produce ‘a vision for the future of places that responds to the local challenges and opportunities, and is based on evidence, a sense of local distinctiveness and community derived objectives.’

Of the consortium that has been appointed, Cllr Marc Francis, lead member for Housing and Development at Tower Hamlets Council said:

“This is a really exciting time for Tower Hamlets. We are facing massive growth, driven in part by the success of Canary Wharf as an international financial centre and our position as one of the host borough’s for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

“This, together with the creation of around 32,000 new homes and 100,000 new jobs over the next decade, presents real opportunities for East Enders, but it also presents big challenges too. One of the biggest of those is how we boost our town centres so they serve local people much better.”

“We believe that the consortium led by Renaisi has the professional expertise, the depth of local knowledge, and the commitment to innovation needed to ensure that the growth of our town centres is developed and managed in a sustainable way.”

Commenting on the appointment, Rob Pearce, Director of Strategy at Renaisi and Project Lead, said:

“We are delighted to be working with Tower Hamlets to develop their Town Centre Spatial Strategy. It is a very exciting project, which requires a detailed understanding of how places work and why they matter. We believe we have assembled a unique partnership, which draws together specialists in town planning, regeneration, economic analysis and spatial economics to ensure that the borough’s town centres are vital and vibrant places which bring together and benefit all communities, now and into the future”.

2012 Behind the Headlines

It’s now nearly three years since that memorable day in July 2005 when London won the race to host the Olympic Games in 2012. Scenes of jubilation were splashed across the front pages of every newspaper the following day. Fast forward two years and it’s a very different picture. Now the majority of headlines appear to dwell only on the escalating costs of staging the Games.

Strange isn’t it that acquiring a vast swathe of previously derelict, contaminated land in fragmented ownership in one of the most expensive cities in the world and regenerating it into an area fit to host the biggest show on earth is costing a lot of money. Perhaps stranger still the fact that one of the wealthiest countries on the planet is struggling to justify the expenditure required?

Somewhere along the line we seem to have forgotten that the opportunities the Games bring for regeneration in all of its guises was one of the main reasons for bidding in the first place, and indeed one of the main factors in winning it. So, forgetting for a moment the headline grabbing costs – will the Games actually live up to their regeneration promise and deliver the much vaunted benefits for local communities in East London. I suppose the first question we need to ask ourselves is, do we understand all of the implications both positive and negative of hosting an Olympic Games?

There is an expectation that local authorities should be leading the charge on behalf of their residents and businesses in dealing with all things Olympics, but in reality how well prepared are they? Also, in a climate of significant budget restrictions how realistic is it to expect local councils to both understand and fully manage the implications of an event on this unprecedented scale?

Certainly in the ‘host’ boroughs – considerable efforts are being made to capture the benefits of staging the Games, with all of them employing dedicated 2012 resources to differing levels. The emphasis so far has been focussed understandably on the Olympic precinct itself, ensuring that the Games does indeed bring a lasting physical legacy to East London. However, it is in the context of making a place that we realise that staging the Games is only part of the story.

Yes, there will be a rich legacy of sporting infrastructure left after 2012 but there will also be significant development opportunities on the Olympic site itself after the Games. The proximity of Stratford City with its retail, residential and office development brings additional opportunity and potentially added complexity. The Legacy Masterplanning Framework process will frame the nature of this area for generations to come and so it is for this very reason that the nature of the place must take precedence over the desire to maximise value from the site. Failure to do so would have a significant impact on how the Games will be remembered.

Unless you are directly involved with one of the borough’s hosting the Games it is easy to forget that they are taking place in one of the most deprived areas in Western Europe. It is understandable then that opportunities for residents to gain skills and employment as a result of this wholesale physical regeneration are of paramount importance. Each of the host boroughs has already put in place training and brokerage services in an attempt to maximise local benefit. These are some of the positive consequences of staging the Games. But there are some downsides.

For those boroughs in the immediate vicinity of the park clearly there will be a significant impact on all of their services to a greater or lesser degree. They are already having to deal with road closures, construction traffic, a myriad of planning applications in addition to looking at how to maximise the wider social and economic benefits that can be had from being a host for the Games. Speculative land banking around the Olympic site in anticipation of value uplift is something else that the boroughs will be forced to deal with.

But it shouldn’t just be left to those boroughs that are most immediately affected. Local authorities further afield should also be considering how to take advantage of the 2012 Games. They should be thinking about opportunities that exist to up-skill residents; to get them involved in coaching; to raise sports participation levels amongst children and young people – as well as building capacity of local businesses to bid for contracts. There are also opportunities to act as a host, to accommodate visitors and spectators and the knock on benefits that brings in terms of the ‘visitor economy’.

All of these things can be promoted on the back of an event like the Olympics but how well are councils really equipped and how keen are they to undertake this role? And of course its not just local authorities who are facing these issues. I wonder how many borough commanders have thought about policing their boroughs when their officers are all on duty in the East End? Or how many PCTs have begun considering how the Olympics can be used as a catalyst for the healthy living agenda? Or indeed whether these discussions are being had within LSPs?

Experience from elsewhere can help answer some of these questions. If we look at how Manchester went about maximising the impact of hosting the Commonwealth Games then it is clear that there are some valuable lessons to be learnt. They developed a coordinated approach to volunteering, coaching, participation and employment, ensuring that the Commonwealth Games left a lasting social impact as well as some state of the art sporting venues.

So forget the current headlines, it is without doubt a story of so far so good. In 2005 we all knew that this really was a once in a lifetime event, wouldn’t it be a shame if in 10 years time we’re left thinking “If only I’d thought of that earlier……….”

Jon Stout, Renaisi Principal Consultant, is the former Interim Head of 2012 in Waltham Forest. Renaisi has been working with three of the host boroughs to help design and implement programmes and projects to maximise the benefits of the Games. For more information please contact Jon on j.stout@renaisi.com

Renaisi ‘highly commended’ at awards ceremony

The Regeneration and Renewal Awards 2007 were held in central London on 17th September. Renaisi was nominated as a finalist in the Regeneration Consultancy of the Year category along with Gardner Stewart Architects and Edaw. Sadly, we didn’t pick up the winning title on the night. We were pleased to receive a “highly commended” status however, which recognises the best of the finalists.

The awards, the first ever for Regeneration & Renewal magazine have been organised to recognise outstanding work across the regeneration sector covering economic development and community renewal as well as physical regeneration. Regeneration & Renewal editor Richard Garlick said: “We were delighted by the quality and quantity of the entries, particularly considering that this was our first year. The response was particularly gratifying, as we made quite a lot of demands of the entrants. They needed to make a detailed submission, showing how their entry met the awards’ various criteria, and back it up with relevant supporting documents and visual material… we are extremely pleased that so many people in the sector felt that entering our inaugural awards was worth substantial effort on their part”.