Issue - meetings

The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director, Children and Enterprise, which set out the potential regeneration delivery models to support Halton’s continuing regeneration.

 

The report advised that the drive behind the regeneration opportunity lay primarily within the Mersey Gateway Regeneration Strategy, the Core Strategy, the Housing Strategy and the Economy, Enterprise and Property Departmental Strategic Regeneration Framework. Each of these contained a broad spread of possible projects across a number of key geographical and thematic areas, which provided a range of regeneration outcomes.

 

A Regeneration Framework would provide an organisational umbrella under which projects could be progressed, monitored and controlled. The Framework would be developed through input from a range of stakeholder groups and accommodate projects of varying sizes and scope. It was proposed that oversight of a Framework would come from a Regeneration Board which would incorporate the activity currently undertaken by the Capital Development Group, and an illustration of how it would operate was attached at Appendix 1, with key benefits detailed in the report.

 

The following regeneration models were outlined in the report for consideration by Members:

 

·       Local Asset Backed Vehicles (LABV);

·       Joint Venture;

·       Public Sector Partnership (PSP);

·       The Council acting as a Developer; and

·       Developing Agreements.

In addition, there were a number of innovative financing models used in regeneration including:

 

·       Tax Incremental Financing (TIF);

·       Business Rates Retention;

·       Changes to Capital Receipts;

·       Community Infrastructure Levy; and

·       Venture Capital Loan Funds including ‘JESSICA’.

Reason(s) for Decision

 

In regard to the regeneration governance proposals, set out in the report, it enabled the Council to maintain a coherent and structured approach to how it managed and delivered on its existing and future regeneration initiatives. Regarding the delivery models in the report, the approach advocated, allowed the Council to ‘pick and choose’ the delivery model best suited to the development.

 

 

 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

Consideration had been given to establishing a Regeneration Company. However, this would be time consuming and would still require the Council’s Human and Financial resources to be factored into the development of such a company.

 

Consideration had been given to entering into a long-term arrangement with one ‘preferred’ developer/partner, but this may reduce the Council’s flexibility and rate of return on some developments.

 

Implementation Date

 

1 October 2013.

 

RESOLVED: That

 

1)    the preferred Governance Option outlined at section 3.2. of the report be developed further;

 

2)    a Regeneration Board be established in line with the preferred Governance Option;

 

3)    the delivery models outlined in section 3.3 of the report be noted;

 

4)    different delivery models be applied to different projects and programmes; and

 

5)    different financing models outlined in section 3.4 of the report be noted.