Agenda item

For the Sub-Committee to receive a presentation giving an update on Grant Funded Regeneration Programmes, including the UK Shared Prosperity Fund, Levelling Up Fund and Good Growth programmes.

The Sub-Committee received the presentation set out in the supplementary agenda, which provided an update on Grant Funded Regeneration Programmes, including the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF), Levelling Up Fund, Historic England and Greater London Authority (GLA) Good Growth Fund. The Director of Planning & Sustainable Regeneration introduced the item followed by the Head of Spatial Planning, Growth Zone and Regeneration.

The Sub-Committee asked how Levelling Up Fund programmes integrated with wider work on Town Centre regeneration and whether bid submitted could be changed following business and community feedback. The Director of Planning & Sustainable Regeneration responded that there was good scope for changing details to ensure projects were deliverable; it was acknowledged that it was necessary for plans to evolve as projects become more detailed. Members heard that where there were changes there was engagement with key stakeholders and partners and that a communications plan around this was currently in the works. It was explained that simple changes could be enacted easily, but more major changes would need to go through a formal change control process with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). The Corporate Director of SCRER explained that there was constant engagement with partners delivering regeneration in the borough through various platforms, including the Mayor’s Town Centre Advisory Board. The Sub-Committee heard that a wider vision, spatial strategy and regeneration plan for the Town Centre was being developed to bring the different plans together and look at the Town Centre as a whole.

The Sub-Committee asked whether the Croydon Urban Room was focused on Town Centre regeneration or if it featured information on wider regeneration happening in the borough. Members further asked if the presentation received by the Sub-Committee and the full Regeneration Strategy could be added to the Urban Room website. The Director of Planning & Sustainable Regeneration responded that the Urban Room had predominantly focussed on the Town Centre, and was funded through the Growth Zone, but currently had a display on the Local Plan Review which was borough wide. Members heard that the Urban Room was a good resource for engaging with all residents about the borough as a whole and provided borough context for Town Centre regeneration. The Head of Spatial Planning, Growth Zone and Regeneration explained that the easy-read Town Centre Regeneration Strategy on the Urban Room website had been provided to stimulate engagement for defining the Town Centre strategic vision; as the Council developed the Town Centre strategic vision in Autumn 2024 the website would be updated with additional documents, such as the Spatial Framework and Delivery Plan. It was confirmed that a link to the presentation could be added to the Urban Room website.

Members asked how long procurement to deliver Levelling Up Fund programmes would take, whether safety and anti-social behaviour had been considered as part of the Historic England and GLA Good Growth Funded South Norwood scheme, and whether the Council would be bidding for more GLA Good Growth projects. The Director of Planning & Sustainable Regeneration explained that the major Levelling Up Fund procurements would be going out in July 2024, with it expected that procurement would be completed in November 2024 and schemes built out in December 2024. The Head of Spatial Planning, Growth Zone and Regeneration explained that safety and anti-social behaviour had not been a part of the criteria for the Historic England and GLA Good Growth Fund, however, it was thought that projects that improved the vitality of a high street would have a knock on effect in terms of surveillance and footfall. Members heard that this was a consideration under the UKSPF as it was set out in the criteria. The Sub-Committee heard that the Council always sought additional funding and bidding opportunities where available.

The Sub-Committee discussed anecdotal evidence that there had been graffiti on shop fronts in South Norwood and asked whether the Historic England and GLA Good Growth Fund would contribute towards any ongoing maintenance or repairs. The Head of Spatial Planning, Growth Zone and Regeneration responded that look, feel and cleanliness fell outside the scope of the funding which only covered the initial capital investment.

Members commended the approach the Council was taking in reaching out to residents in developing these plans and explained how this had brought communities together. The Sub-Committee raised concerns that residents may be reluctant to engage with the Council where they felt their voices had not been heard in the past. The Cabinet Member for Planning & Regeneration responded that there were a number of ways to build trust, goodwill and community, highlighting how the Historic England and GLA Good Growth Funded South Norwood scheme had been built around the local history of the area and the differences that even small elements of regeneration could bring.

The Sub-Committee asked what specific key performance indicators were being used to measure the successes of the various regeneration projects. The Director of Planning & Sustainable Regeneration explained that, for the Levelling Up Fund programmes, these included economic indicators, footfall, air quality, wellbeing, and more. Members heard that the success indicators were included in the initial bid and could be shared if requested. The Head of Spatial Planning, Growth Zone and Regeneration explained that funding agreements laid out expected outputs and that monitoring took place quarterly with all of the funders, in addition to internal monitoring by the Council.

Members raised concerns that a market on London Road could create competition for Surrey Street market and asked what measures were being considered to ensure that both markets would be able to thrive. The Corporate Director of SCRER acknowledged this concern and explained that the Council was liaising with a group of London Road traders around the kind of market that would work in the location. The Sub-Committee heard that London Road market would likely be a very different type of market to Surrey Street, and that the Council would always strive not to create competition by delivering a different offer. The Corporate Director of SCRER explained that the UKSPF would look at whether there was infrastructure that could go into London Road to enable a market, but that the first step was for traders to demonstrate that there was a viable proposal.

The Sub-Committee asked if the Mayor’s Town Centre Advisory Board had minutes that could be published and heard that, whilst short notes were taken, many conversations were about commercial operations, and that it would not be appropriate to produce and publish minutes.

Conclusions

1. The Sub-Committee welcomed the resident and stakeholder engagement that had already taken place as part of the regeneration schemes discussed and encouraged officers to continue this wherever possible.

2. The Sub-Committee were encouraged by the Council’s success in bidding for projects under the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF), Levelling Up Fund, Historic England and Greater London Authority (GLA) Good Growth Fund and welcomed that the Council would continue to bid for regeneration funding wherever it was available.

Recommendations

1. The Sub-Committee commended the Urban Room project and recommended that the Urban Room website be used to publish all relevant documentation on regeneration happening in the borough, including the presentation received by the Sub-Committee.