Agenda item

Hatch to present and open for discussion.

Dr Ricardo Gomez representing Hatch, Caroline Baker, representing Cushman & Wakefield and David Watson, representing Hatch attended the virtual meeting and gave a presentation on the four key areas:-

• Role of the TIP and its strategic context;
• Linking of the strategic framework to project packages;
• The emerging project packages;
• The next steps

Within the four key areas detailed information was presented on the following matters:-

• The town centre regeneration and FHSF bid;
• The TIP vision and objectives;
• The strategic priorities and emphasis;
• Project submissions;
• Transforming the town centre including creativity, culture and heritage and urban housing;
• Enhanced connectivity including specific reference to the Mill Street Opportunity Area, Valley Brook Opportunity Area and Digital Connectivity;
• Skills & Enterprise Infrastructure;
• Communities including community hubs and facilities and pocket parks and open spaces;
• Emerging packages including a funding summary and funding gaps;
• Details on the next steps to be taken

Given the short period during which project submissions had been made and the extent to which many projects were still at an early stage in development, the Board was not yet being asked to review and  approve a shortlist for the TIP.   Hatch presented the Board with an overview of the packages of projects which had come forward to date.  It was agreed that Hatch would carry out further work with working groups around each of the main project areas in order to reach a view on the recommended shortlist for the Board to consider by the end of November. 

An in-depth discussion then took place whereby the Board made the following reflections in response to the presentation:-

• Needed to remain strategically focused and follow a top down approach working down from the vision, through the objectives, through the intervention themes to the broad package themes which would then lead to the projects slotting in;
• Some of the opportunities identified were longer term and fell outside the scope of the immediate timeframes for the TIP.  Needed to focus specifically what would be placed into the TIP but to also look at other submissions to Government and the private sector to enable a longer-term vision to be delivered;
• Needed to look at Crewe’s position in the world and the potential to leapfrog other areas;
• Clear some projects had a longer lead in time, for example, HS2, however none of the projects put forward tackled the issue of how families/young people spent their leisure time. 
• Lack of detail so far and therefore difficult to endorse;
• Youth Capital Fund needed to be explored more;
• Whilst there was funding for the market hall and Lyceum Square there was a need to see what else was coming forward and how the Board could work with local landowners and vacant premises;
• Opportunity like Southport to use private sector finance and Crewe needed to follow suit;
• Good presentation which linked several things together.  Queried how different groups could work together;
• Timescales were against the Board;
• In respect of the eight groupings, it was felt the crossovers were quite subtle.  Some projects could be expanded to include other ones;
• Really exciting and great potential for other things to come forward;
• Number of exciting and interesting projects but needed to think about the sustainability of each of the projects;
• Commended Hatch on putting together a long list of projects but need to identify how could move from £82 million to £25 million.  It was queried if there were enough compelling projects put forward which went above £25 million;
• Great introduction to see the projects coming forward but didn’t get a sense as to what extent those projects were shaping up in terms of match from partners, private sector or the community.  There was a feel for the size of projects but not the buy in from partners;
• Crewe needed to maximise the opportunities as and when they came up;
• Spent a lot of time on the visions and objectives and these were reflected in the combination of packages put forward.  The headlines were spot on.  Wanted connectivity, community involvement, skills and enterprise and so forth and the packages reflected these;
• Had extensive community engagement;
• Timeframe meant larger projects had to be filtered out;
• Lack of enterprise projects had left a real gap;
• There was a need to demonstrate change and momentum for Crewe from the process;
• Agreed with the themes but needed to have projects which prevented the decline of Crewe;
• Towns fund couldn’t cover everything on connectivity.  More interventions needed to happen and there needed to be another plan.
• Needed to ensure Crewe was inclusive and attractive for all.  Not at the detailed stage yet;
• Community hubs were an opportunity to bring together the diverse community which existed in Crewe;
• Deliverability of projects was essential with a plan good for Crewe;
• Gap with skills;
• Needed to develop a TIP not reliant on HS2;
• Initial request for submissions of bids was a relatively short timeframe but now there was a further opportunity to develop a collaborative approach including within the skills area which could cater for every entry level including those projects which looked at the high skills level;
• Fantastic collaboration, welcomed the themes put forward by Hatch and the Board should now look at strengthening some of the existing smaller projects;
• Focus on the geographical remits

Hatch confirmed that it would continue to work with project leads where insufficient information had so far been provided to understand whether a project would be deliverable and have the potential to be included in the TIP shortlist. 

In respect of the comment about taking projects forward in excess of £25 million, Hatch advised that the majority of cohort one bids were under £25 million. It was understood that TIPs asking for in excess of £25 million would need to demonstrate regional and national significance, that projects would be subject to detailed scrutiny and that TIPs would be expected to meet in full all of the criteria set out in the Towns Fund guidance. and there would be no flexibility in respect of the criteria. 

In response to the skills comment it was acknowledged that there had not been a great volume of capital led skills projects.  In addition there needed to be a position within the TIP to deliver the infrastructure to provide the skills training. 

There were further discussions about connectivity and whether this was covered in the themes presented by Hatch.  The Chairman felt that the required interventions on the road could cost a significant amount and there was a danger the opportunity would be swallowed up in network infrastructure.  He suggested a commitment be written into the TIP stating what other interventions could be drawn in.  Connectivity was clearly a constraint and it was clear there needed to be a commitment to open up Crewe, but the funding needed to come from other areas.  Dr K Mullan MP felt further discussions were on this matter were required.  It was recognised that for transport there were alternative sources for funding that could be engaged with but for the purposes of the TIP it was important to make sure that not only was the plan adding to the infrastructure improvements put forward through the future high street fund but also thinking about how alternative modes of transport could be encouraged. 

Concerns were raised that focus was on alternative forms of transport rather than resolving the issues with congestion.  The Chairman responded by saying that he wanted a strong commitment from all areas, including highways which had an inclusive plan for Crewe pulling everything together including other interventions which would help to improve the connectivity and where this funding would come from.  It was requested if a paper could be provided on alternative funding opportunities available to help members on the Board understand the alternative options.  It was agreed the Director of Growth & Enterprise would provide this information.

It was reported that discussions were taking place with HCLG and DfT and soon the Treasury about a growth corridor to support HS2.  In addition other funding packages were available from DfT available for some of those schemes.  It was clear that the timescales nor the funding was there to support HS2 activity directly.

Further comments made in respect of the projects put forward would have substantial opportunities for co funding.  Finally further discussions were needed for the future, in terms of expectations around private sector investment. 

The Chairman bringing the item to a close requested that the Board confirmed its agreement with the package schemes put forward by Hatch were acceptable in order for sub-groups to look at short listing projects within the next two weeks.

RESOLVED

That the broad package areas put forward by Hatch be endorsed.