South East England Development Agency (SEEDA)

MINUTES OF 56TH MEETING OF THE SOUTH EAST ENGLAND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY HELD ON 12TH MAY 2004 SEEDA HEADQUARTERS

Present:

James Brathwaite CBE (Chairman), Peter Jones, Mary McAnally, Rob Anderson, Rob Douglas, Phil Wood, Sarah Hohler, Peter Reed, Liz Brighouse, John Peel, Terry Mills, Clive Booth, Poul Christensen, Janis Kong, Keith House.

In Attendance:

Pam Alexander, Marianne Neville-Rolfe, Paul Hudson, Charlotte Dixon, Helen Hudson, Paul Martin GOSE.

Item 1 Welcome and Apologies

Apologies were received from: Jeff Alexander, John Parsonage arrival pm, Terry Mills later arrival

Item 2 Minutes of the last meeting ( 23 March 2004 )

1. Mary McAnally had been omitted from attendance list in error and was added. The minutes were then agreed and signed by the Chairman.
2. Trafalgar Day: this issue on the current agenda at item 11.
3. Derek Mapp's model of partnership had been circulated.
4. Sarah Hohler enquired about the action from Item 4, the Area Team report (paragraph 10), to provide a 5 year report on the scale and spread of SEEDA’s investment activity. This was in hand and would be put to the Board in July.

Item 3 Declarations of interest

5. Peter Jones as a Member of the Hastings Task Force, in relation to Coastal Towns Regeneration (Item 8).
6. Rob Douglas as Chair of the Surrey LLSC, in relation to the outcomes from changing the way LSCs were organised (Item 6).

Item 4 Housing "Rummage" and Barker Review

7. The Board had a general discussion of housing issues in the region.
8. The Board noted a paper introduced by Paul Hudson providing an overview of the issues and recommendations of Kate Barker’s Review of Housing Supply, and drawing out the key issues for SEEDA.

Item 5 Richard Bowker – Chairman & Chief Executive

Strategic Rail Authority

9. Richard Bowker introduced two of his colleagues, Martin Heffer, Regional Planning Manager, and Jonathon Bower, Executive Assistant.
10. Richard Bowker gave an overview of progress in the railway industry, pointing to real progress, with the benefits of major investment and change beginning to become apparent. The present coming together of the 2004 Spending Review and the Railway Review presented a once in a lifetime opportunity to establish the right structures and resources to plan properly and tackle the railway cost base as part of the path to a successful, sustainable future. It is essential to make the case for rail, and he was grateful for regional support for this.
11. Richard Bowker described the engagement by the SRA at regional level including the action being taken by the SRA to consult on route planning and development in a regional context, for example in relation to the Kent franchise, and to the engagement of local communities in reviews of route strategies.
12. In discussion, Sarah Hohler welcomed the consultation by the SRA, but raised a number of issues relating to the Kent franchise including the importance of the domestic use of the CTRL, and the issue of limited parking at some of the stations restricting use and access. She and other Board members asked about policy towards freight, with a view to reducing pressure on the road network.
13. Janis Kong pointed to the need for process improvement to increase capacity, drawing the analogy with runway utilisation principles at airports.
14. In responding to these questions, Richard Bowker pointed to a number of tensions between competing priorities and the choices that would have to be made to get the best out of the railways, which performed best for large volume, high speed traffic between nodes, for commuting if sufficiently dense and for access to airports. He confirmed the commitment to freight and pointed to success in increasing it, especially for new users: strategic freight hubs were facilitating logistics uses.
15. Peter Jones pointed to the importance of railway development in driving regeneration in East Sussex.
16. Clive Booth asked about station development projects, referring to Oxford and Reading , and about the position on East-West Rail.
17. Keith House referred to difficulties in engaging with the railway as land owner, where land release could facilitate housing development.
18. In response, Richard Bowker pointed out that the SRA is not a regeneration agency, so that projects for regeneration purposes would have to be funded from elsewhere. However, the SRA would be enthusiastic and helpful partners in the process of implementation. On East-West Rail, he pointed to the need to move on from the initial business case that had been made to detailed feasibility planning and the resolution of some strategic choices. He agreed there had been difficulties on property issues because of the division of ownership and obstacles to engaging with Network Rail, but pointed to appointment of a new senior Director there (Deborah Richards) which should help.
19. In summing up, the Chairman thanked Richard Bowker for a very valuable discussion. He summarised key regional priorities for regeneration and growth towards which the contribution of the railway industry is essential, and invited the SRA to become engaged with the new pilot Regional Transport Board in the SE.

Item 6 Henry Ball – Regional Director of the Learning & Skills Council

20. Henry Ball started by reflecting on the reputation built up in the region for good partnership working of the past 3 years. It is a now useful time to review progress and move our respective agendas forward. Its new Chief Executive has given the LSC a new approach to build a cutting edge public sector organisation, with a regional structure to:
• Make the managerial structure more effective – instead of 47 local LSCs and 7 national office directors tending to work in silos, a new managerial structure of 9 regional directors, with improved ability to contribute to the regional agenda
• Align a new business cycle allowing dialogue with providers and the network to ensure funding allocations reflect key priorities
• Introduce a new approach to capital expenditure – rather than a responsive ‘first come first serve’ approach, a strategic investment fund geared to overall objectives
21. This will introduce a sharper focus and partnership at regional level, while respecting the fundamental mission of the LSC. His approach would be built around three key ideas:
• Understanding of respective roles in promoting the discussion about identifying demand for skills (SEEDA’s lead responsibility) and ensuring supply for the Local LSCs (LLSCs)
  Developing the Action for Business Colleges – if this is to be rolled out as widely as he hopes this is a big challenge; the colleges will need help and there is a need for effective brokerage
  On finance and investment, an open book approach with SEEDA, e.g. to link the AIFs and LSC budgets and ensure both are used in the best way to support delivery
22. Janis Kong asked about the outcomes expected from these changes in process. Rob Douglas declared an interest as Chair of the Surrey LLSC, and went on to question the amount of effort being devoted to defining roles when the real need was to move forward to alignment and a focus on practical action and delivery. He referred to the difficulties with government on the divergence between national targets and regional needs: he felt the South East should use its good reputation for partnership to push through the right targets for the region. He also referred to problems with maintaining motivation for LLSC Boards. Peter Jones picked up the theme of strong partnership, pointing out that in Hastings and Rother this would support the case for abolishing 6th forms in under-performing schools. Clive Booth commented that the Action for Business Colleges needed to set a very high standard for accreditation.
23. In response, Henry Ball commented that Colleges operate on long time horizons. He felt however that there had been progress, with the dialogue between schools, Colleges and private providers beginning. But there was still need for much more clarity on demand, with SEEDA being proactive to engage business for example through its sector groups. He saw the outcomes as being a rising level of qualifications especially at age 17, and ultimately an increase in productivity.
24. In conclusion, the Chairman thanked him for joining the Board meeting and looked forward to ongoing dialogue.

Item 7 Planning: SEEDA’s Statutory Role

25. Paul Hudson introduced the paper setting out the amended planning process and SEEDA’s role within it. SEEDA has the responsibility to inform the planning authorities of the types of scheme on which it requires to be consulted, as a statutory consultee. The paper proposes criteria and lists schemes that meet the criteria. This is as limited as possible consistent with carrying out SEEDA’s strategic responsibilities as we need to bear in mind the extra heavy work load potential against very limited resources in SEEDA for this work.
26. Several Board members expressed confidence in the approach proposed, but were concerned about the adequacy of resources. Keith House pointed to the importance of the definitions and suggested consulting informally senior planning officers to ensure they are clear.
27. In response Paul Hudson said that resources were a concern but he considered at this point that the approach in the paper could be delivered; the issue would be revisited if necessary.
28. The Board approved the criteria to be put to Local Authorities

    Item 8 Coastal Towns Regeneration

29. The Board considered a paper summarising the issues facing the coastal towns of the South East, which proposed a new systematic approach to identifying those coastal towns where concentrated action by SEEDA and partners could be most fruitful, and to collaborate with other public agencies to concentrate resources and achieve greater synergies. The current priorities of the RES have already established a coastal regeneration bias in the delivery of existing SEEDA programmes; the proposal is to reinforce this in a systematic fashion. Margate offered the first opportunity to apply the new approach.
30. In discussion, Janis Kong welcomed a new vision for the future character of the coastal towns. John Peel suggested the need for a clear methodology for setting priorities. Peter Jones said that SEEDA should be engaged in practical action on specific projects.
31. Pam Alexander expressed her enthusiasm for the prospect of effective consolidation of the work of many agencies to achieve greater synergies. She agreed with the importance of establishing a sense of place and character for the coastal towns. She emphasised that this programme would be part of the framework driving the Area Investment Frameworks, not a new selection process.
32. The Chairman referred to a video presentation made by Will Alsop, and suggested this could be shown to the Board as part of a general ‘rummage’ discussion of these issues.
33. The Board approved the proposals for a cross-agency programme in the coastal towns.

Item 9 Business Plan 2004/05 final approval for publication

34. The Board noted the final draft of the Business Plan for 2004-05, previously discussed and based on the budget approved by the Board at its February meeting.
35. The Board approved the final draft Plan for publication.

Item 10 Major project update: Growth areas

36. Paul Hudson presented an update of SEEDA’s engagement in the Growth Areas, and in particular of its involvement in the land acquisition and physical regeneration projects in Ashford and the Thames Gateway as shown on the maps circulated to the Board. In Milton Keynes and Aylesbury the involvement was different in nature because of the lead role of English Partnerships in the development of Milton Keynes , but we were nevertheless fully engaged in the Local Delivery Vehicles, as we are in Ashford and Kent Thames Gateway.
37. Mary McAnally asked about the uses intended for the sites purchased in Ashford, and also questioned flood plain issues in relation to the Thames riparian sites. Paul Hudson confirmed that the Ashford sites are for mixed use, city centre regeneration, driven by the urban renaissance agenda, and that provision for flood protection is built into the Thames-side projects.
38. John Peel asked whether SEEDA’s purchases in Ashford were speculative in the absence of an established master plan. Paul Hudson replied that the Local Plan and town centre development framework give sufficient comfort. The master-planning will determine individual site use.
39. The Chairman asked that SEEDA ensure for all buildings not only high environmental quality but also broadband enablement.
40. The Board noted the report.

Item 11 Chairman's report – highlights

41. The Chairman reported on the visit by the No 10 Downing Street policy adviser, Geoffrey Norris which had addressed issues about the contribution of RDAs that could usefully be discussed by the Board at a future meeting. As there was the need to update the RES in 2005, this discussion could also review progress so far.
42. Having attended a dinner with the Chinese Premier, the Chairman pointed to the importance of Shanghai as a key focus within our global regions programme . He asked Jeff Alexander to provide an update on this as part of his paper on engaging with business for a future Board meeting.
43. Members noted the Chairman’s report .

Item 12 Agency Report

44. Referring to the item on nano-technology, Mary McAnally requested a further report to the Board on innovation. John Peel reported concerns expressed by the Regional Business Support Board on the future of R&D Grant.

Item 13 AOB

45. Poul Christiansen reported concerns from the Regional Assembly Rural Committee that the AIF process could take SEEDA funding away from rural areas. Charlotte Dixon responded that SEEDA’s rural funding is ring-fenced, and that AIFs are not just about rural funding.
46. Pam Alexander confirmed the arrangements for SEEDA’s presence at the Party Conferences in the same format as last year. The dates of the SEEDA events are:
•  
• Lib-Dem Sept 21st Bournemouth
• Labour Sept 28th Brighton
• Conservative October 5th Bournemouth
47. The Chairman advised the Board that Valerie Box was leaving SEEDA for family reasons and took the opportunity to thank her on behalf of the Board for her support to them and to SEEDA. He reported that a secondee from the DTI, David Rawlins, would be starting as Head of Secretariat on 17th May.
48. Rob Douglas asked about progress on the IIIE project, and was informed that this would come back to the Board later in the year.

Item 14 Date of next meeting

49. The next SEEDA Board meeting will be held at the SEEDA HQ on Thursday17 June 2004 starting at 10.15.