This is a web page preview of a Microsoft Word document from the London Assembly Liberal Democrats site. It is generated by a computer and is not manually edited. Formatting and content may be displayed differently to the original document, and should not be regarded as definitive.
THAMES GATEWAY URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (UDC)
LIBERAL DEMOCRAT DRAFT RESPONSE PAPER
Foreword
The ODPM has published proposals for a Unitary Development Corporation to take forward regeneration of the Thames Gateway Area. The deadline for consultation responses is Friday 6th February 2004. With a view to making a co-ordinated, Londonwide Liberal Democrat submission to the consultation, the London Assembly Lib Dem Group have drawn up this draft response paper. We would very much appreciate your views on the suggested positions and the questions that are raised.
Roles and Responsibilities
There is a plethora of boards, partnerships and organisations already in existence and operating in the Thames Gateway:
Thames Gateway Strategic Partnership (TGSP)
Thames Gateway Strategic Executive
London Thames Gateway Partnership Board
Thames Gateway Steering Group
Thames Gateway London Partnership (TGLP)
South Essex Partnership
Kent Partnership
The ODPM's Sustainable Communities Delivery Unit
GLA
LDA
Housing Corporation
London Riverside Ltd.
English Partnerships
The specified role of the UDC's Board is to set a strategic vision for the UDC and take the decisions required to deliver that vision. How is this distinct from the role of the LDA and the Olympic Masterplan? The Thames Gateway Strategic Partnership aims to develop and implement a pan-Gateway regeneration agenda, whilst the London Thames Gateway Partnership Board has the objective to co-ordinate and oversee the activity of delivery agencies. In addition, there is a Thames Gateway Steering Group, which has the aim setting and taking forward the agenda.
Suggested LD Response & Questions
With a myriad of boards, partnerships etc already responsible for strategy and delivery it is not clear what value a UDC can add. There is a danger that the UDC will serve to further cloud transparency and duplicate efforts of others organisations.
Is a new and separate really quango required?
The ODPM proposals do not mention nearly enough about linkage and joint-working arrangements between the UDC and the other groups involved in the Thames Gateway. The lines of responsibility are not clear and this creates the potential for conflicting aims and leadership.
Call for more detailed information about which organisations are going to be responsible for different projects and objectives. Do we have any views on the existing effectiveness of organisations already operating in the Gateway?
Boundaries
The UDC will cover three key locations:
East London Gateway (Stratford and the Lower Lea)
South of the Thames (Thamesmead, Belvedere/Erith)
North of the Thames (Barking and Dagenham)
This means that it would operate in areas of the following eight London boroughs:
Barking and Dagenham; Bexley; Greenwich; Hackney; Havering; Newham; Tower Hamlets; Waltham Forest
Need for a UDC
In the Thames Gateway areas of the Greenwich Peninsula to Woolwich, Ebbsfleet and North Thamesside it is planned to charge Regional Development Agencies and local authorities with the responsibility for conducting regeneration. Why a UDC is considered particularly necessary for Stratford and the Lower Lea and North of Barking Reach has been inadequately explained. It suggests a lack of confidence in the ability of the London Development Agency (LDA) to lead the project.
Lower Lea Valley
The wisdom and necessity of including the Lower Lea Valley within the UDC boundaries is not clear either. The LDA has already commissioned a distinct and comprehensive masterplan for regeneration for this area in view of the 2012 Olympic bid. Although the Lower Lea is a hugely significant part of the Thames Gateway, there is clearly the potential for a conflict of interests and duplication of efforts if the UDC takes over strategic power.
Suggested LD Response and Questions
Call for more clarity as to how the UDC's responsibilities will mesh with the masterplan for the Lower Lea.
What view should we take of the LDA's role? Do we need to insist that the strategic activities, which it is already undertaking, remain intact?
Bexley Liberal Democrat Group has suggested omitting the Lower Lea from the boundaries of this UDC. Is omission of the Lower Lea from the boundaries a position we should support? If not, what can we suggest to ensure that special arrangements are made in this area to preserve ongoing LDA activities and the continuity of Olympic planning?
Areas not included
Presumably it is expected that benefits will be felt by those areas included within the UDC's boundaries. We need to consider the implications be for those areas not included.
Suggested LD Response and Questions
Highlight the risk that regeneration in areas outside of the UDC's boundaries will receive less funding and attention and that they may miss out on renewal.
Call for clear proposals to mitigate against any detrimental effects for non-UDC communities? What suggestions do we have in this regard?
Specific Borough Concerns
Generally the boundaries of the UDC seem to have been arrived at fairly arbitrarily. Some Boroughs have already started making representations about specific pockets of land which they advocate should/should not be included.
Suggested LD Response & Questions
Borough Groups are invited to make representations about their specific local wishes so that these can be reflected in the co-ordinated, Londonwide response.
Democratic Accountability and Representation
Although some positions on the UDC Management Board have been reserved for borough appointees, local accountability is severely lacking. The Board comprises appointees rather than directly elected officials - the Secretary of State appoints the Chair and Deputy. Essentially the body is another government quango, which lifts responsibility and decision-making power away from locally elected councillors. Moreover the UDC Board will be made up of 13 seats and as the ODPM has made it clear that no one faction should have a majority, it is very unlikely that all of the 8 affected Boroughs will have representation on the Board. As such, there is a real danger that the communities without a member will feel effectively disenfranchised.
Suggested LD Response and Questions
Comprising elected officials with too few seats for all effected Boroughs we consider that there is potential for the Board to compromise elements of local democracy and accountability.
Are quangos of this kind really suited to and capable of handling the complex human (not just physical) challenges presented by the remodelling of entire communities? Will they really have adequate knowledge of specific community dynamics?
What is the justification for not having an elected Board to manage the UDC? Are there any alternative membership structures we would wish to propose?
Call for need more detail about how and by whom it will be decided which local authorities have a seat on the Board and which don't. Do we want to posit any suggestions about representation?
Planning Powers
The UDC will handle large, strategic planning applications only. There is a possibility that the individual community views be will not heard and respected.
The UDC proposals do not provide enough clarity about which planning powers are to become the responsibility of the UDC and which are to be retained by the boroughs. This untidy split will only lead to planning difficulties and delays in the future.
It is proposed that the UDC will have the ability to call upon borough planning departments for assistance. Considering the well-documented shortage of local authority planning expertise and skills there is a danger that the UDC's establishment will act as a drain on scarce planning resources.
Suggested LD Response & Questions
Call for the establishment of formal communication channels with Boroughs and communities to ensure local engagement in the planning process.
Insist upon more specific details about how planning powers are divided and exactly what jurisdiction Boroughs will retain.
Call for a commitment from the ODPM towards establishing a programme of measures to address rather than exaggerate this skill shortage.
Funding
It is planned to fund the UDC through a significant slice of the Thames Gateway programme, which will be made available over the initial three-year period. The ODPM states that the exact amount of resources available to the UDC will be dependent upon its final operational boundary.
Far more detail is required about the resources available. The ODPM has given the UDC an indicative lifespan of 7 years, however it has only specified the funding stream for the next three years, which will prevent proper long term planning.
Suggested LD Response & Questions
Emphasise that the success of regeneration in the Thames Gateway is dependent on the availability of sustained financial commitment from central government.
Call for more details about the finances available over the full 7-year indicative lifespan of the UDC and on what this can be used for. What about funding for schools, hospitals, etc? Will provision of such facilities fall into the UDC's brief and will it be afforded sufficient resources to ensure such provision?