Report of the Director of City Centre Growth & Infrastructure and Director of Strategic Housing & Development

This report provides an overview of the role, purpose and process of producing Strategic Regeneration Frameworks (SRFs) and Neighbourhood Development Frameworks (NDFs) for different areas of the city. It also provides some case studies of SRFs and a list of existing and upcoming SRFs and NDFs.

The Committee received a report of the Director of City Centre Growth and Infrastructure and the Director of Strategic Housing and Development which provided an overview of the role, purpose and process of producing Strategic Regeneration Frameworks (SRFs) and Neighbourhood Development Frameworks (NDFs) for different areas of the city. It also provided some case studies of SRFs and a list of existing and upcoming SRFs and NDFs.

Key points and themes within the report included:

• Background information;
• SRF/NDF overview;
• Case studies; and
• Summary list of all existing and developing SRF/NDF.

Key points and queries that arose from the Committee’s discussions included:

• Developer-led and Council-led frameworks, including how particular areas were chosen for Council-led frameworks and whether there were any opportunities to influence these decisions;
• Consultations, including ensuring that these were meaningful in relation to developer-led frameworks, changing residents’ perceptions, where they believed that these were just tickbox exercises, and ensuring that all communities were reached, noting the number of people in the city who spoke languages other than English;
• Monitoring progress; and
• Ensuring that development helped to address inequality and child poverty in the city.

In response to a Member’s question, the Strategic Director (Growth and Development) reported that SRFs were usually of a larger-scale geographically and delivered over a number of phases, such as Victoria North.  She informed Members that Council-led frameworks were usually determined through need and opportunity; however, where frameworks were developer-led, the Council still played an active role in determining what was acceptable in a particular area.  She advised that consultations were meaningful but that there were parameters for some sites, for example, if a site was a key strategic employment location, it would not be changed to a different use, for example, a public park, but consultation responses would be taken into account, for example, in terms of public spaces within the area.  In response to a further question, she outlined the mechanisms used to consult with residents.  She confirmed that progress was monitored, although in some cases frameworks could be refreshed due to changing circumstances, outlining changes in relation to Central Retail Park, which a Member had referenced.  She reported that the opportunity to purchase land assets was a key factor in deciding to initiate a Council-led framework in a particular area.  She recognised the Member’s point about the pressure that multiple developments happening at the same time could put on communities and outlined work that was done to minimise disruption, including the phasing of developments and clear communication to residents.  She reported that SRFs and NDFs were useful for attracting funding and that having projects in the pipeline meant that, when funding was announced, the city had projects ready to go.  In response to a question from the Chair, she reported that, when a refreshed framework was brought to scrutiny or the Executive, the reasons for the refresh were set out; however, she acknowledged that residents might not see this information and that it was important to maintain good lines of communication with communities about what was happening in their area and the reasons for any changes.  The Chair asked whether people who had previously responded to a consultation could be kept updated.  The Strategic Director (Growth and Development) reported that she would look into this.

In response to a Member’s comments on consultations and co-design, the Director of Strategic Housing and Development provided an example of how residents’ views had informed the plans for Moston Lane.

The Executive Member for Housing and Development advised that, particularly on brownfield sites and where there were a number of planning applications in the pipeline over a number of years, it was useful to have a framework in place so that planning decisions were not made in isolation.  He recognised a Member’s point about the impact of developments on neighbouring wards and the importance of good communication and consultation with Ward Councillors in those wards, noting that meetings were due to take place in relation to the specific area the Member was referring to.  He acknowledged the importance of engaging with all communities across the city through a range of methods, such as providing information in community languages, and engaging with people through community groups.  He also supported a Member’s comments about addressing inequality and poverty, stating that the Council wanted to use the tools it had to address this, including providing social and affordable housing and local jobs.  The Strategic Director (Growth and Development) advised that it was important to have clear social value expectations from the outset, including jobs, supply chains, apprenticeships, work with schools and community facilities and to monitor this closely.

The Chair commented that short, easy-to-read summaries were important when consulting with residents.

In response to a question from the Chair about Section 106 funding, the Executive Member for Housing and Development drew Members’ attention to a report on this which had been considered at a meeting of the Resources and Governance Scrutiny Committee the previous week and reported that this was part of the planning process rather than directly part of the SRF but that the Council was committed to getting the most value possible out of this funding. 

The Strategic Director (Growth and Development) reported that there was a weekly email to Ward Councillors listing planning applications, that Members could also register to be informed about developments in their ward and that developers were actively encouraged to engage with Ward Councillors prior to submitting their application.  She outlined the planning process, including Section 106 funding, highlighting that this funding was to mitigate the impact of the development so there were restrictions on what it could be used for.  The Director of Strategic Housing and Development clarified that Section 106 monies compensating for affordable housing were ringfenced to be spent only on affordable housing.

Decisions:

1.            To note the report.

2.            To request a further report on the evaluation and monitoring of SRFs.