Review of the Northwest Regional Funding Advice Consultation 11th December 2008 – 30th January 2009 The Northwest Regional Funding Advice was produced through an inclusive engagement and consultation process. The development of the advice was led by a steering group consisting of: - Northwest Regional Development Agency (NWDA) (Chair) - 4NW, the Regional Leaders Forum - Regional Skills and Employment Board - Government Office for the North West - Homes and Communities Agency - Environment Agency - Highways Agency - Network Rail A draft version of the advice was produced through strong stakeholder engagement based on existing regional structures. This draft advice was then circulated widely to all relevant organisations within the region for a six week written consultation (the timescale prescribed by Government for producing the advice prevented a full, 12 week consultation period). Due to the short period of consultation, the NWDA was flexible in receiving consultation responses up to one week after the stated close. In all, 191 organisations were formally invited to respond on the draft advice, including all of the region’s 43 existing local authorities and the two shadow authorities in Cheshire, three county councils, 76 MPs, universities, subregional partnerships, urban regeneration companies and Government Agencies with a regional presence. NWDA received a total of 153 responses. Of these responses, 35 were from the following organisations: Campaign for National Parks Central Lancashire Authorities Cheshire and Warrington Leaders Group Cheshire County Council Cheshire East Cheshire West and Chester Cumbria Tourism Environment Agency Friends of the Peak District Halton MBC Highways Agency Lancashire County Council Lancashire Local Authorities Lancaster City Council Liverpool University Manchester City Council Mersey-Dee Alliance
Merseyside Policy Unit MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale Natural England Network Rail NW Environment Link NWTAR NWUA Oldham MBC Pennine Lancashire Local Authorities Ribble Valley Borough Council Stockport Council Tameside Green Party Trafford MBC University of Central Lancashire University of Salford Wirral Economic Development and Skills partnership West Lancashire District Council Wirral MBC The remaining 118 responses were received from members of the public and pressure groups campaigning against the Mottram-Hollingworth-Tintwisle Bypass and associated Glossop Spur. The table below covers the main points raised by the received responses. Theme Overview
Main points of responses Question rationale of putting housing and regeneration together; Concentration on 3 city regions shouldn't be at expense of other localities; Option to vire resources between investment priorities should be available now (rather than at the end of 2010/2011) and that all partners should be consulted on any virement proposals; RFA 2 should also take account of significant investment inequalities resulting from some areas not having received WNF, despite having significant pockets of deprivation and high levels of worklessness; Linkages between transport/housing/economic development/skills should be more explicit – a more holistic approach should be taken; Geographical prioritisation could be stronger; Fails to set out how the region will meet GhG reduction target; The role of Universities as engines of economic growth should be more explicitly reflected in the vision and priorities for the region; Region should not to focus too exclusively on Greater Manchester but to look at other opportunities across the Region; Does not adequately address the issue of the impact of a 10 per cent decrease; Should use RFA as a call to Govt for greater resources to tackle recession;
Transport
Many public responses re: Mottram-Tintwistle - deprioritise; Concerns over overprogramming; Deferral of schemes may disadvantage some worthwhile proposals; Existing balance of funding streams should be maintained; Preference to top slice the major schemes rather than set aside funding from the LTP blocks to support the delivery of sub £5m schemes; Improve rail connectivity between Skelmersdale and Liverpool; Concern over lack of recognition of Ormskirk Bypass; Better public transport (esp buses) to increase economic inclusion in rural areas; TaSTS and DaSTS principles have not been adequately taken account of therefore no opportunity for new schemes to come forward or for existing schemes to be scrutinised under a new set of priorities, based on the principles in TaSTS/DaSTS; If SEMMMs is to be prioritised it should be against other Greater Manchester schemes in the first instance not the whole of the programme; The Advice needs to give a clear account of the implications of TIF issues for the RFA programme; Should review all transport schemes due to changed policy environment; Recognition of the role of Preston as a hub for transport in the Lancashire sub-region would help achieve the aim that growth in Preston would benefit Blackpool and Pennine Lancashire through improvements to East-West connectivity; Reference needed to Liverpool City Region MAA development around Transport platform.; All of Cheshire's current RFA major scheme projects are in the new Cheshire East Authority and the current process gives precious little scope for any new schemes to be considered until at least 2018/19 - serious consideration should be given to reviewing the current RFA programme at the time of the next scheduled refresh exercise. This will allow for a level playing field to re-assess the Northwest’s priorities in line with the changing national agenda which will emerge from the DaSTS process and local objectives arising from the preparation of the new LTP3. Network Rail expressed support for Crewe Green Link Southern A and the proposed Crewe Gateway; Region should review the transport list to identify those schemes that can go forward on the basis of funding availability, BCR score, and ability to start ‘on-site’; Highways Agency: A57/A628 – earliest start date summer 2011 (subject to public enquiry); A556 – earliest start date autumn 2012; advice needs to have regard to delivery programme for SEMMMS to facilitate early transfer of land and retention of property;
Housing & Regeneration
Recognise Skelmersdale’s need; Question designation of Growth Points; Need to address housing need (particularly affordable housing) outside growth points (i.e. south Cumbria); Need to address affordable housing in rural areas;
Liverpool City Region priorities to include reference to MAA; Stronger reference to the role that NWDA and HCA can potentially play in addressing the impact of the credit crunch/economic downturn by acceleration of “stalled” regeneration schemes; Greater affordable housing needed; More sustainability; The small amount of allocation is currently ring-fenced for statutory disabled facilities (DFGs) is insufficient; New Growth Points section needs to clearly explain their aims and how they are tied into the regional strategies; Economic Development
Lack of Substance in Rural areas/lack of measures to tackle downturn/insuffiecient references to tourism and visitor economy; Any increase in value of ERDF monies should be used to help businesses in the short term; Little mention of tourism: need to raise profile of visitor economy - should be a regional sector in RS; Response to econ challenges needs strengthening; biggest issue for LCR is best use of EU resources; More synergy between economic growth and Housing; Some reference to the Manchester Independent Economic Review (MIER); Would be helpful to show how priorities link to the Greater Manchester Multi Area Agreement;
Skills
The knowledge-based economy needs a larger percentage of the workforce with higher-level skills; Targeted support to business agencies and businesses themselves is required to incentivise skills development and to enable them to articulate future workforce skills/knowledge/experience requirements; Current funding for ‘in employment’ training is unhelpful; graduates in employment don’t qualify for financial support and non graduates only for support up to Level 4; Further clarity is required on the perceived mis-match between employer skills requirements and university supply, on whether more could be done to promote higher level skills development in the workforce, and on whether funds should be made available to suppliers to stimulate supply in critical areas where otherwise it may take too long to adjust supply patterns because of central funding (e.g. HEFCE) restrictions; HEFCE/DIUS embargo on growth in HE in 2009 will significantly decrease opportunities for Level 4 training at a time when it is needed most important to draw attention to the irreparable damage which will be caused by this growth embargo; The importance of level 4 skills in relation to non-prescribed HE is augmented (e.g. greater proportions of level 4+within the ESF programme), and we would press for enhanced inclusion of higher level skills within RFA2; Assessing the impact of regional/centralised contracts – the need for more feedback on local performance on programmes to enable areas to assess the impact for local businesses egg:
companies accessing train to gain; take up and success rates of integrated employment & skills programmes; companies accessing apprenticeship; There is little detail on the future role and place for existing LSC sector skills teams (currently regional) and economic development teams (currently sub-regional) in the new SFA. This presents an opportunity for further sub-regional influence in the dialogue with SSCs and development of sector routeways etc; Others
fails to suggest the establishment of a definition of a Low Carbon Economy; RFA does not acknowledge undertaking the delivery of all its ambitions in the face of accepted climate change as a major challenge. It could also require ensuring sustainable development is ‘embedded’ in all RFA activities; Regional Sustainability Framework: Action for Sustainability is out of date and requires substantial work to update it in light of changes to attitudes and policies around sustainable development – need to review this template; no identification or discussion is made of any alternative or innovative research on how to measure achievement – economic achievement ultimately should benefit the populace and not be an end in itself. The region could be truly innovative at this time of economic concern, in considering measuring outcomes in a variety of ways, in addition to GVA levels;
All responses were analysed and considered within the overall regional vision and priorities stated within existing regional strategies and documents. A consultation event was held in Warrington on 9 th January 2009. All consultees were invited to attend this event, with approximately 65 attendees representing a cross section of the invitees. All comments made at this event were also considered within the region’s overall advice that was submitted to the Government by their 28th February 2009 deadline.