13^th March 2007

Matt Collins

Communities and Local Government
Eland House
Bressenden Place
London  SW1E 5DU

Dear Matt

The Role of City Development Companies in English Cities and City-Regions

Further to an earlier telephone conversation with our Vice President Wyndham Thomas, I have pleasure in setting out the TCPA’s view on the Communities and Local Government’s proposals for city development companies (CDC).

1. We note that “the government does not intend to establish CDCs on a statutory basis or vest them with statutory powers… and will not impose the CDC approach or propose a single uniform model.” We agree that this cautious approach is the right one; and that the evolution of CDCs and similar new bodies should be led by the local authorities, working in partnership with their Regional Development Agencies (RDA) and other agencies that have a development/delivery role.

2. CDCs or similar bodies are in fact already being set up by some local partnership groupings. This is being done without Government intervention. These localised city-region initiatives seem to flow from the rapidly growing recognition that neighbouring authorities and places have common needs – for economic growth and jobs, for instance, for better roads and public transport, for physical and social renewal and for advances in higher education. The conclusion follows that these benefits would be more readily achieved by a pooling of priorities, powers and resources than by unconnected endeavours. We also believe that those setting up partnerships should have access to delegated funds from RDA budgets without going to the trouble of setting up a CDC.

3. The realities of common cause are more easily understood where a city-region structure is self-evident or can clearly be defined. In most such areas, a previously narrow concern with municipal independence and separateness is now being replaced with a greater willingness among neighbour councils to co-operate in pursuit of economic and environmental benefit.

4. The progress that is being made is derived in fair measure from the apparent successes of the first four Urban Regeneration Companies (Liverpool, East Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds). But that ‘experiment’ lasted many years; and exceptional circumstances and exceptional measures (financial and otherwise) contributed to their success. The much larger number of second generation URCs have had much less time to prove their practical value. The auguries seem good, and a full account of their achievements, their structures, their operating methods and their financing would probably confirm this. But it would also show what changes might be made to improve their operational effectiveness and therefore their performance (with their local authority and other partners) in promoting growth and regeneration.

5. Accordingly, we suggest that such an examination be undertaken. It need not be profound or prolonged. Its broad purpose would be to establish whether, and how best, the URC method should be improved to make it more effective as a development-delivery agency and to be capable of operating in a city-region context. Such a study would, we suggest, be of substantial material benefit to all involved, in whatever administrative context, in promoting and managing urban growth and regeneration.

6. There is a view, to which we incline, that there are too many authorities and agencies now involved in the planning, organising and delivery of development for large-scale urban growth and regeneration. This creates uncertainty and even confusion. That in turn slows down the process. We think that the organisational arrangement and the delivery processes should be simplified rather than expanded hence our recommendations in our response to the consultation paper.

Apologies for the late arrival of our comments and I hope you are able to take these into consideration.

Yours sincerely

Robert Shaw

TCPA Director (Policy & Projects)