Agenda item

West End Masterplan Mid-term Review

Report of the Corporate Director (Regeneration).

 

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Archer)

 

(Councillor Robinson, who had requested to address Cabinet as a Harbour Ward Councillor, spoke to this item.)

 

The Corporate Director (Regeneration) submitted a report updating members on the Mid-term Review of the West End Masterplan and recommendations arising from appraisal and outline the next steps in implementing and maintaining local scrutiny of the refreshed priorities.

 

The Masterplan options, options analysis, including risk assessment, were set out in the report as follows:

 

The following options have been identified:

 

 

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

Risks

1. Do nothing – make no decision on West End Masterplan priorities. 

No advantages identified.

No clear statement of direction, in either strategic or development terms, of Council priorities for economic regeneration in the West End.

Potential for ‘drift’, confusion and waste in allocation of financial and human resources in development and delivery.    

 

2.  Cabinet endorses Mid-term review recommendations and implementation plan and notes the independent appraisal and consultation feedback appended to the report. 

 

 

Clear commitment to and direction for economic and housing regeneration work in the West End.

 

Independent appraisal has endorsed recommendations.

 

The West End Partnership has been consulted and provided formal feedback that has led to some changes in priority.

 

Although formal community consultation feedback has been received appraisal process has essentially been officer led.

 

Usual risks associated with practical delivery relating to achieving development funding, managing and shaping projects and initiatives.

 

 

 

 

While the focus of the review is around the economic regeneration theme, it should be noted that particular economically ‘low ranking’ proposals may find support within the LDLSP’s other Thematic Groups and their associated priorities.   Essentially the West End Masterplan Mid-term Review and the implementation plan is a programme rather than a collection of individual projects. It provides a strategic overview and a framework for any projects that are supported. As individual projects are developed they will be subject to detailed internal appraisal and conform to the Council’s project management systems.

 

Option 2 is the Officer preferred option as this providesa clear commitment and direction for economic and housing regeneration work in the West End through the stated priorities and outline implementation plan. Cabinet can be reassured by the fact that the projects and recommendations have been subject to independent appraisal and community consultation.

 

The Local Governance and Scrutiny of Masterplan implementation options, options analysis, including risk assessment, were set out in the report as follows:

 

 

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

Risks/Issues

1. Do nothing

Council has no view on the future governance and community scrutiny of Masterplan projects/ proposals. No advantages identified.

No clear Council position on local engagement in strategic or implementation for the West End.

‘Drift’ and uncertainty of position in relation to local engagement in ongoing West End proposals/projects.

2. New Morecambe Parish Council takes on West End ‘local engagement’ – potentially through its own sub-group or WEP.

 

The Parish Council can make a decision on resourcing ‘neighbourhood’ level input.   It may choose to develop a new West End focus group or ‘adopt’ the WEP or some elements of it.   

Provides a democratic first ‘port of call’ for raising West End issues, proposals and initiatives with the community.

The Parish Council has not made a decision on how it wants to conduct its business and whether it requires ‘neighbourhood’ level input. 

 ‘Gap’ until the new Council becomes operational and uncertainty of WEP position until elections and decisions on neighbourhood input requirements and resourcing.   

WEP (if a vehicle that the Parish Council wants to support) will still require its meetings serviced and a resource needs to be found to meet costs. 

3.  WEP supported to continue as an independent body.

Retains considerable local experience and capacity and could provide useful local commentary and input into projects and initiatives which have the potential to impact on the West End.

Could interact, assist and co-operate with Parish Council on an informal basis. 

No direct current funding to manage or distribute so relevance and usefulness of an independent body in the West End is questionable. 

Potential duplication of effort as issues will still need to be raised with the Parish Council and may work against achieving a clear community view with which to inform West End ongoing work.  

WEP will still require its meetings serviced and a resource needs to be found to meet administration costs although the number of meetings could be reduced. 

Potential for uncertainty if an independent City Council supported group stands outside the new Parish Council structure.

 

4.  Input and scrutiny via a specific West End Cabinet liaison group or Overview and Scrutiny task group? 

Direct West End Councillor involvement is maintained.  Links to Parish Council and wider project based community consultation also maintained. 

City Council led and may be perceived as closed to wider community input.

Issues will still need to be raised with the Parish Council with potential duplication of effort.

No substantive role for WEP would inevitably lead to loss of a well developed group that has a detailed understanding of the Masterplan and other neighbourhood issues.

5.  Utilise LDLSP Community Engagement Framework.

West End engagement could be accommodated within LDLSP’s Community Engagement Framework.

 

LDLSP has still to determine its optimum methods of engagement.  Work is ongoing in evaluating which methods are working well and which solutions it will adopt.

 

Detailed community input on particular proposals may be difficult to achieve or it may be inappropriate to channel such work through LDSLP. 

Uncertainty of position on West End local engagement until LDLSP makes a decision on its preferred engagement methods.  

 

 

 

Officers have considered all of the practical solutions to governance and would recommend that one of the options 2 to 5 would provide a robust governance structure.

 

It was moved by Councillor Langhorn and seconded by Councillor Kerr:-

 

“That Cabinet endorse the Mid-term review recommendations and implementation plan and notes the independent appraisal and consultation feedback appended to the report.”

 

Members then voted:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

(1)       That Cabinet endorse the Mid-term review recommendations and implementation plan and notes the independent appraisal and consultation feedback appended to the report.

 

It was moved by Councillor Archer and seconded by Councillor Kerr:-

 

“That Cabinet defer the decision on the options regarding local governance and scrutiny of the Masterplan implementation until Morecambe Parish Council is formed and the role be carried out by the West End Partnership until that time.”

 

By way of amendment, which was accepted as friendly amendment by the mover and seconder of the original motion, Councillor Barry proposed:-

 

“That Cabinet defer the decision on the options regarding local governance and scrutiny of the Masterplan implementation until the City Council has asked Morecambe Parish Council whether or not it wishes to take on West End local engagement (Option 2 in the report) and that the role be carried out by the West End Partnership until that time.”

 

By way of amendment, which was again accepted as a friendly amendment by the mover and seconder of the original motion, Councillor Mace proposed:-

 

“That Cabinet defer the decision on the options regarding local governance and scrutiny of the Masterplan implementation until the City Council has asked Morecambe Parish Council, as a matter of urgency, whether or not it wishes to take on West End local engagement (Option 2 in the report) and that the role be carried out by the West End Partnership until that time.”

 

Members then voted:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

(2)       That Cabinet defer the decision on the options regarding local governance and scrutiny of the Masterplan implementation until the City Council has asked Morecambe Parish Council, as a matter of urgency, whether or not it wishes to take on West End local engagement (Option 2 in the report) and that the role be carried out by the West End Partnership until that time.

 

Officer responsible for effecting the decision:

 

Corporate Director (Regeneration)

 

Reasons for making the decision:

 

Resolution (1) will provide a clear commitment for economic and housing regeneration work in the West End through the stated priorities and outline implementation plan.

 

Resolution (2) allows for robust governance and scrutiny of the Masterplan implementation structure to continue without incurring support costs for the West End Partnership which will now service its own meetings and supply a meeting room.

 

 

 

Supporting documents: