Regeneration, if it is done right can
bring real and potentially long lasting benefits to many of our hard-pressed communities.
It is important that regeneration is a process rather than an event and that is
done for people rather than to people and does not end up simply enriching the
regeneration professionals instead of our communities. The unwritten rule should be if you are going
to spend public money then you need to work the money exceptionally hard to
ensure that every possible benefit is extracted. There is a real need to ensure
that any bodies set up to spend public money are democratically accountable and
are established after a wide ranging accessible consultation process. To most people this should
all sound pretty reasonable and sensible stuff, but it has often been to easily overlooked. The danger is that many of our local authorities simply perceive ‘regeneration’
as a means to accessing additional public monies rather than bringing
meaningful beneficial change too many of our communities. Hand in hand with
this concerning trend, in recent years there has been a disturbing tendency to
effectively marginalise any real community real involvement in the regeneration
process, something that undermines the very objective of community based regeneration.
Showing posts with label public money. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public money. Show all posts
Monday, 16 June 2014
Thursday, 1 August 2013
A HOME WIN
When it comes to spending public money
it makes perfect sense to work it extra hard, to extract as much value for
money from it as possible. One way we can (at all levels) work public money
extra hard is by raising the levels of local public procurement, to give Welsh
companies and Welsh workers more opportunities to benefit from public spending
so that and their wages can circulate in the local economy.
Back in 2012 statistics showed that
only 52% of Welsh public spending goes to companies based in Wales. Value Wales
calculated that every additional 1% increase means 2000 more jobs in Wales.
Improving Welsh public sector procurement to reach 75% would mean an increase
of 46,000 jobs in Wales. Plaid has rightly called for legislation in procurement
best practice to help create almost 50,000 jobs in Wales.
For once Wales has been ahead of the
curve (even if the current Labour in Wales government (in Cardiff) has been dragging
their collective feet), this is something that was recommended to the Welsh
Government in the summer of 2012 by the McClelland Report for the Welsh
Government. It is reasonable for the Welsh Government to take action to ensure
that a greater percentage of that money can be spent locally in Wales.
Our local authorities spend around £4
billion pounds (April 2012) worth of our money buying goods and services. A
target of 75% of the public sector spend, being spent here in Wales, is an
excellent idea, as it means that around £3 billion pounds of tax-payers
money staying in Wales.
A survey commissioned by the Welsh Government
(back in July 2010) reported that almost half of all food and drink bought by
schools, hospitals and local authorities in Wales was of Welsh origin. The 2010
Welsh Public Sector Food Purchasing survey revealed that Local authorities had
increased their purchases of local food by 90.5% in the previous six years.
Key categories included bread, milk,
fruit and vegetables, ready meals, soft drinks, dairy products and water. The
NHS (in Wales) purchased 69% of the food and drink products in Wales,
when it comes to milk on average, 50.9% of all the milk purchased by Welsh
local authorities for schools was locally-produced.
Welsh higher education purchases
accounted for 41.3% in 2009, this compared with 28.7% in 2003, in the field of
further education some, 39.6% of purchases were of Welsh origin, up from a
previous figure of 16.8%. The survey noted that only organisations the MoD and
our Police Forces purchased less food sourced from Wales with a 0.4% decrease.
The procurement process should build upon Local Sourcing Action Plan’s and should lead to real social, economic and environmental benefits for all our communities by retaining the money spent in the local economy. This is sustainable development as local investment can provide a range of benefits across the whole of Wales benefiting local farmers, local suppliers and producers and local people.
The procurement process should build upon Local Sourcing Action Plan’s and should lead to real social, economic and environmental benefits for all our communities by retaining the money spent in the local economy. This is sustainable development as local investment can provide a range of benefits across the whole of Wales benefiting local farmers, local suppliers and producers and local people.
One side effect of this should be a
reduction in food miles, reduced carbon emissions which to help fight climate
change and reduced transport costs. If this is done right then we can ensure
that more of that money remains in local economies longer and benefits local
firms and food suppliers, to use a footballing metaphor prior to the start of
the season, there is no reason why this should not be a real home win for
Wales.
Monday, 21 January 2013
TIME FOR A HOME WIN!
Plaid’s ‘Buy Local’ campaign which aims to raise levels of local public procurement, giving Welsh companies and Welsh workers more opportunities to benefit from public spending so that and their wages can circulate in the local economy. The latest figures show that only 52% of Welsh public spending goes to companies based in Wales. Value Wales has calculated that every additional 1% increase means 2000 more jobs in Wales. Improving Welsh procurement to reach 75% would mean an increase of 46,000 jobs in Wales. Plaid has rightly called for legislation in procurement best practice to help create almost 50,000 jobs in Wales. Scotland is consulting on legislation to ensure that best practice in some areas becomes common practice across the public sector.
Plaid Cymru leader Leanne Wood said:
“Public sector procurement in Wales has had some great successes in recent years to make sure that our Welsh pound is spent on jobs and skills in Wales.
“For example, 80% of money spent on the Arbed programme for home and energy efficiency improvements goes to companies located in Wales.
“That money means food on the table and a roof over the head for skilled Welsh workers and their families, and more money circulating within the local economy to be spent down the high street at the butchers, the hairdressers and the bakers.
“In contrast, money which goes to firms outside Wales is lost to our local economies – and that’s every one pound in two.
“There are ways of improving this at all levels, and it needn’t cost more.
“For example, professionally trained and specialised procurement staff in local authorities, such as those introduced by Caerphilly Council when Plaid Cymru were in charge, can generate both financial savings for the council and secure local jobs.
“Another good example is where Gwynedd Council agreed that the slate for improving Bangor High Street must come from local quarries, supporting 200 jobs in Penrhyn Quarry.
“However, the figures alone show that we can do better.
“If we can improve our procurement practices to increase from 51% to 75% of Welsh public spend to go to Welsh companies then that could create almost 50,000 jobs in Wales.
“The McClelland Report released last Summer suggested that, if best practice wasn’t being followed, then we should be legislating to make it happen.
“The Party of Wales believes that this legislation should be brought forward to ensure that this becomes common practice, not best practice.
“Plaid Cymru MEP Jill Evans has also called for the EU to simplify and relax their procurement rules to help Welsh businesses.”
For once Wales has been ahead of the curve (even if Labour’s elected representatives in Wales have been dragging their collective feet), as this is something that was recommended to the Welsh Government last summer by the McClelland Report for the Welsh Government. I think that it is perfectly reasonable for the Welsh Government to take action to ensure that a greater percentage of that money can be spent locally in Wales. If you are going to spend public money then you need to work it extra hard and make sure you get real value for money. At local government level our local authorities spend around £4 billion pounds (April 2012) worth of our money buying goods and services. A target of 75% of the public sector spend, being spent here in Wales, is an excellent idea, as it means that around £3 billion pounds of tax-payers money staying in Wales.
Back in July 2010 a survey commissioned by the National Assembly Government reported that almost half of all food and drink bought by schools, hospitals and local authorities in Wales was of Welsh origin, and the amount of locally-produced food bought by the public sector had risen by 65.8% in the last six years. The 2010 Welsh Public Sector Food Purchasing survey revealed that Local authorities had increased their purchases of local food by 90.5% in the previous six years. Key categories included bread, milk, fruit and vegetables, ready meals, soft drinks, dairy products and water.
The NHS (in Wales) purchased 69% of the food and drink products in Wales, when it comes to milk on average, 50.9% of all the milk purchased by Welsh local authorities for schools was locally-produced. When it comes to Welsh purchases in higher education, accounted for 41.3% in 2009, compared with 28.7% in 2003, in the field of further education some, 39.6% of purchases were of Welsh origin, up from a previous figure of 16.8%. The survey reveals that the only organisations to have bought less Welsh food than previously were the MoD and the Welsh Police Forces, which saw a 0.4% decrease in Welsh origin purchases.
The process should build upon Local Sourcing Action Plan’s and should lead to real social, economic and environmental benefits for all our communities by retaining the money spent in the local economy. This is sustainable development as local investment can provide a range of benefits across the whole of Wales benefiting local farmers, local suppliers and producers and local people. This should also be a reduction in food miles, and reduced carbon emissions to help fight climate change. Plaid is right to pledge action to ensure that more of that money remains in local economies, this is a home win for Wales.
Plaid Cymru leader Leanne Wood said:
“Public sector procurement in Wales has had some great successes in recent years to make sure that our Welsh pound is spent on jobs and skills in Wales.
“For example, 80% of money spent on the Arbed programme for home and energy efficiency improvements goes to companies located in Wales.
“That money means food on the table and a roof over the head for skilled Welsh workers and their families, and more money circulating within the local economy to be spent down the high street at the butchers, the hairdressers and the bakers.
“In contrast, money which goes to firms outside Wales is lost to our local economies – and that’s every one pound in two.
“There are ways of improving this at all levels, and it needn’t cost more.
“For example, professionally trained and specialised procurement staff in local authorities, such as those introduced by Caerphilly Council when Plaid Cymru were in charge, can generate both financial savings for the council and secure local jobs.
“Another good example is where Gwynedd Council agreed that the slate for improving Bangor High Street must come from local quarries, supporting 200 jobs in Penrhyn Quarry.
“However, the figures alone show that we can do better.
“If we can improve our procurement practices to increase from 51% to 75% of Welsh public spend to go to Welsh companies then that could create almost 50,000 jobs in Wales.
“The McClelland Report released last Summer suggested that, if best practice wasn’t being followed, then we should be legislating to make it happen.
“The Party of Wales believes that this legislation should be brought forward to ensure that this becomes common practice, not best practice.
“Plaid Cymru MEP Jill Evans has also called for the EU to simplify and relax their procurement rules to help Welsh businesses.”
For once Wales has been ahead of the curve (even if Labour’s elected representatives in Wales have been dragging their collective feet), as this is something that was recommended to the Welsh Government last summer by the McClelland Report for the Welsh Government. I think that it is perfectly reasonable for the Welsh Government to take action to ensure that a greater percentage of that money can be spent locally in Wales. If you are going to spend public money then you need to work it extra hard and make sure you get real value for money. At local government level our local authorities spend around £4 billion pounds (April 2012) worth of our money buying goods and services. A target of 75% of the public sector spend, being spent here in Wales, is an excellent idea, as it means that around £3 billion pounds of tax-payers money staying in Wales.
Back in July 2010 a survey commissioned by the National Assembly Government reported that almost half of all food and drink bought by schools, hospitals and local authorities in Wales was of Welsh origin, and the amount of locally-produced food bought by the public sector had risen by 65.8% in the last six years. The 2010 Welsh Public Sector Food Purchasing survey revealed that Local authorities had increased their purchases of local food by 90.5% in the previous six years. Key categories included bread, milk, fruit and vegetables, ready meals, soft drinks, dairy products and water.
The NHS (in Wales) purchased 69% of the food and drink products in Wales, when it comes to milk on average, 50.9% of all the milk purchased by Welsh local authorities for schools was locally-produced. When it comes to Welsh purchases in higher education, accounted for 41.3% in 2009, compared with 28.7% in 2003, in the field of further education some, 39.6% of purchases were of Welsh origin, up from a previous figure of 16.8%. The survey reveals that the only organisations to have bought less Welsh food than previously were the MoD and the Welsh Police Forces, which saw a 0.4% decrease in Welsh origin purchases.
The process should build upon Local Sourcing Action Plan’s and should lead to real social, economic and environmental benefits for all our communities by retaining the money spent in the local economy. This is sustainable development as local investment can provide a range of benefits across the whole of Wales benefiting local farmers, local suppliers and producers and local people. This should also be a reduction in food miles, and reduced carbon emissions to help fight climate change. Plaid is right to pledge action to ensure that more of that money remains in local economies, this is a home win for Wales.
Sunday, 29 April 2012
WORKING OUR MONEY HARD
One key issue in the election should be the way our local councils spend their (our) money. Our councils spend around £4 billion pounds worth of our money buying goods and services. Plaid is right to pledge action to ensure that more of that money remains in the local economies – which provide employment and support in our town centres and our communities.
I think that it is perfectly reasonable for the Welsh Government to take action to ensure that a greater percentage of that money can be spent locally in Wales. If you are going to spend public money then you need to work it extra hard and make sure you get real value for money. Plaid’s target of 75% of the public sector spend, being spent here in Wales, is an excellent idea, as it means that around £3 billion pounds of tax-payers money staying in Wales.
Plaid Cymru Leader Leanne Wood AM said:
“Small businesses are the lifeblood of our communities and of the wider Welsh economy. Plaid Cymru wants to see our public sector supporting small businesses by allowing them to bid for contracts to provide goods and services.
“The more public money we can lock into our communities, the more jobs will be safeguarded and created, the more businesses will flourish, and the more prosperity we’ll have as communities and as a nation.
“As part of the previous Welsh government, Plaid Cymru increased the number of public sector contracts going to Welsh companies to 50%. More work can be done to increase this figure to 75% which would lead to a £1billion boost for our economy.
“Plaid Cymru wants to see the Welsh government working together with local authorities to make this happen. Plaid Cymru councils will introduce procurement models that are accessible to smaller businesses and contracts which will include social and environmental clauses to promote the sustainable development of our economy.”
I think that it is perfectly reasonable for the Welsh Government to take action to ensure that a greater percentage of that money can be spent locally in Wales. If you are going to spend public money then you need to work it extra hard and make sure you get real value for money. Plaid’s target of 75% of the public sector spend, being spent here in Wales, is an excellent idea, as it means that around £3 billion pounds of tax-payers money staying in Wales.
Plaid Cymru Leader Leanne Wood AM said:
“Small businesses are the lifeblood of our communities and of the wider Welsh economy. Plaid Cymru wants to see our public sector supporting small businesses by allowing them to bid for contracts to provide goods and services.
“The more public money we can lock into our communities, the more jobs will be safeguarded and created, the more businesses will flourish, and the more prosperity we’ll have as communities and as a nation.
“As part of the previous Welsh government, Plaid Cymru increased the number of public sector contracts going to Welsh companies to 50%. More work can be done to increase this figure to 75% which would lead to a £1billion boost for our economy.
“Plaid Cymru wants to see the Welsh government working together with local authorities to make this happen. Plaid Cymru councils will introduce procurement models that are accessible to smaller businesses and contracts which will include social and environmental clauses to promote the sustainable development of our economy.”
Wednesday, 14 March 2012
HERE WE GO AGAIN?
News that the Westminster Government is preparing to save billions of pounds from public spending on the railways. The McNulty review (last year) recommended that running costs should be cut by one third to bring them into line with other European rail networks, may make many people wonder as to whether or not this is a case of here we go again.
McNulty also recommended that ministers should conduct a full review of fares policy and structures, and aim to move towards a system that is seen to be less complex and more equitable. He also said that this would aid the management of peak demand and the more efficient matching of demand with capacity. The devil will no doubt be in the detail, but, no amount of spin can hide the fact that rail privatisation was a disaster and a chronically underfunded British Rail was broken up into different competitive contradictory rail companies, which much plundering and disposal of assets along the way.
The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) fears that we could be talking about the loss of as many as 12,000 jobs, the wholesale closure of countless ticket offices and the creation of hundreds of unmanned station around the fragmented network . Rather than putting their hands up and recognising that rail privatisation failed (New Labour also failed to do this) the Con Dems will try to reduce state involvement by enlarging the private sectors share.
Ironically, despite the failed privatisation, our railways are currently booming, as a partial result of high fuel costs, which have driven car users back onto the rails. At the moment taxpayers (but not necessarily some Conservative party donors) pay around 40% of the rail costs. In January 2012, we saw the usual annual rail ticket price rises, when the average cost of regulated fares, such as season tickets, rose by some 6%.
To be honest, if the UK government wanted to cut the costs of running our railways, then they could do at a stroke by removing them from the control of private companies, who are more concerned with shareholders dividends and profit that providing a decent service to rail customers. Transferring the rail franchise to not for profit operations would eliminate the profiteering that has bled money from the system, cut waste and reduce fragmentation.
McNulty also recommended that ministers should conduct a full review of fares policy and structures, and aim to move towards a system that is seen to be less complex and more equitable. He also said that this would aid the management of peak demand and the more efficient matching of demand with capacity. The devil will no doubt be in the detail, but, no amount of spin can hide the fact that rail privatisation was a disaster and a chronically underfunded British Rail was broken up into different competitive contradictory rail companies, which much plundering and disposal of assets along the way.
The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) fears that we could be talking about the loss of as many as 12,000 jobs, the wholesale closure of countless ticket offices and the creation of hundreds of unmanned station around the fragmented network . Rather than putting their hands up and recognising that rail privatisation failed (New Labour also failed to do this) the Con Dems will try to reduce state involvement by enlarging the private sectors share.
Ironically, despite the failed privatisation, our railways are currently booming, as a partial result of high fuel costs, which have driven car users back onto the rails. At the moment taxpayers (but not necessarily some Conservative party donors) pay around 40% of the rail costs. In January 2012, we saw the usual annual rail ticket price rises, when the average cost of regulated fares, such as season tickets, rose by some 6%.
To be honest, if the UK government wanted to cut the costs of running our railways, then they could do at a stroke by removing them from the control of private companies, who are more concerned with shareholders dividends and profit that providing a decent service to rail customers. Transferring the rail franchise to not for profit operations would eliminate the profiteering that has bled money from the system, cut waste and reduce fragmentation.
Tuesday, 14 February 2012
A CARD CARRYING SCANDAL
I think that Plaid Cymru AM Bethan Jenkins is absolutely right to ask for assurances from the Labour Welsh Government that no public funds will be used to pay-off AWEMA officials that have been implicated in the charity's financial mismanagement. I for one share the concern that any officials who may be implicated in recent reports into financial mismanagement at AWEMA might receive 'redundancy payments' as the organisation's affairs are wound up. Considering the actual (if not potential) scale of the extent of maladministration highlighted in last week's official report, and previous reports, it would be scandalous for those responsible to receive any further public money. One impression I get it that Labour in Wales quietly hoped that they could ride out the storm and not so secretly hoped that the problem would go away. I just wonder that if the scandal had not involved card carrying members of Labour in Wales would they have acted a great deal earlier and with something like a degree of urgency.
Thursday, 3 March 2011
ECONOMIC REALITY AND VERBAL ASPIRATION
When it comes to economic development and regeneration providing the best conditions to enable our communities to grow and flourish, a sound planning policy is a key component. We should favour local small to medium sized enterprises and need to have much better thought out and far more consistent planning policies for in, out and edge of town retail developments, before our communities are damaged beyond repair.
Our Local Authorities have been too often tempted as developers offer includes, sweeteners and inducements to ease the passage of proposed developments. They may be advised of the financial consequences of planning applications being taken to appeal if permission is refused - so much for local democracy! Local Authorities periodically fail to have adequately researched retailing policies within their development plans. If retailing needs have not been assessed then it’s difficult to amend or refuse any potentially damaging planning applications from developers, then local small businesses and consumers pay the price.
Despite the talk (or lip service) about improving the vitality and viability of our town centres, many retail developments have consistently undermined this aim, many local authorities have turned a blind eye to the economic and social consequences of out of town or edge of town retail developments. The economic reality has fallen well short of the verbal aspiration, just look at the damage that has been done to Abergavenny, Chepstow and Monmouth within Monmouthshire and elsewhere in Wales.
How can local regeneration schemes work, when the once thriving commercial heart of our high streets has already been seriously damaged by an inability to compete on level terms with the increasingly aggressive tactics of supermarkets and retail chains who are chasing an ever larger market share. More than ever, our planners need to think about the long term economic consequences of planning decisions, to take the longer term view, rather than get fixated on short term financial gains and questionable inducements from developers.
You may have noticed that regeneration comes and goes in phases, in any particular community or town regeneration schemes will have cleaned areas up, built in cycle routes, created transport plans, pedestrianised streets, reopened them to traffic, re-pedestrianised them and made certain streets shared space with both cars and pedestrians (this is not as crazy as it sounds, and actually works) and so on.
We have restricted parking, created parking and removed parking, made it free and charged for it, created bus lanes, removed bus lanes and varied the hours when bus lanes can operate, etc - now this is all well and good and may reflect the latest trend in regeneration and development, but has it made the places where we live, work and shop any better? Has the regeneration process or scheme increased or generated wealth in our communities or provided people opportunities to get jobs, to go into business for themselves or generate wealth?
Regeneration is that often perceived (and sometimes it is) as being driven from the top down i.e. by elected bodies as a process that merely consults after the plans have been drawn up rather than before, during and after - any process run this way runs the risk of becoming deeply flawed. Our communities, towns and cities have over the years has been the recipient of much grant aid, development and redevelopment schemes and initiatives - how can we measure success?
Measuring a regeneration schemes success should be a key factor in the regeneration process. This is the question that needs to be asked - after the cement and the paint has dried, after the regeneration professionals have moved on - have the various schemes made a difference, I mean beyond any immediate physical improvements to the environment, have they made a real difference when it comes to wealth generation in the area affected by the regeneration scheme? If the end result is in reality a makeover, and the targeted community is no better off, save for being bereft of the 'regeneration funds' that have been effectively siphoned off by professional regeneration companies - is this success?
We need to think beyond the tick box list of the regeneration schemes managers? One key component that is often ignored or marginalised is the communities greatest resource - its people. So rather than regeneration and redevelopment professionals moving in and engaging in a token consultation process they should directly talk to and engage with local people and actually find out what they would like to be done, what they actually want for their community and their town.
Regeneration schemes and projects should be directed from the bottom up rather than the top down model that we often seem to pursue. When spending public money, then work it hard and squeeze out every possible benefit and maximise the impact locally of the regeneration process and build local benefits into the tendering process - whether by employing local people, using local resources, local skills and local input. If you are reusing or renovating old buildings then any regeneration scheme needs to ensure that old buildings can make a living after the regeneration scheme is finished.
If we do this rather than merely making a token gesture towards public consultation then any regeneration schemes will, with hard work really begin to deliver tangible benefits to our communities. After all regeneration should be a process rather than an event.
Our Local Authorities have been too often tempted as developers offer includes, sweeteners and inducements to ease the passage of proposed developments. They may be advised of the financial consequences of planning applications being taken to appeal if permission is refused - so much for local democracy! Local Authorities periodically fail to have adequately researched retailing policies within their development plans. If retailing needs have not been assessed then it’s difficult to amend or refuse any potentially damaging planning applications from developers, then local small businesses and consumers pay the price.
Despite the talk (or lip service) about improving the vitality and viability of our town centres, many retail developments have consistently undermined this aim, many local authorities have turned a blind eye to the economic and social consequences of out of town or edge of town retail developments. The economic reality has fallen well short of the verbal aspiration, just look at the damage that has been done to Abergavenny, Chepstow and Monmouth within Monmouthshire and elsewhere in Wales.
How can local regeneration schemes work, when the once thriving commercial heart of our high streets has already been seriously damaged by an inability to compete on level terms with the increasingly aggressive tactics of supermarkets and retail chains who are chasing an ever larger market share. More than ever, our planners need to think about the long term economic consequences of planning decisions, to take the longer term view, rather than get fixated on short term financial gains and questionable inducements from developers.
You may have noticed that regeneration comes and goes in phases, in any particular community or town regeneration schemes will have cleaned areas up, built in cycle routes, created transport plans, pedestrianised streets, reopened them to traffic, re-pedestrianised them and made certain streets shared space with both cars and pedestrians (this is not as crazy as it sounds, and actually works) and so on.
We have restricted parking, created parking and removed parking, made it free and charged for it, created bus lanes, removed bus lanes and varied the hours when bus lanes can operate, etc - now this is all well and good and may reflect the latest trend in regeneration and development, but has it made the places where we live, work and shop any better? Has the regeneration process or scheme increased or generated wealth in our communities or provided people opportunities to get jobs, to go into business for themselves or generate wealth?
Regeneration is that often perceived (and sometimes it is) as being driven from the top down i.e. by elected bodies as a process that merely consults after the plans have been drawn up rather than before, during and after - any process run this way runs the risk of becoming deeply flawed. Our communities, towns and cities have over the years has been the recipient of much grant aid, development and redevelopment schemes and initiatives - how can we measure success?
Measuring a regeneration schemes success should be a key factor in the regeneration process. This is the question that needs to be asked - after the cement and the paint has dried, after the regeneration professionals have moved on - have the various schemes made a difference, I mean beyond any immediate physical improvements to the environment, have they made a real difference when it comes to wealth generation in the area affected by the regeneration scheme? If the end result is in reality a makeover, and the targeted community is no better off, save for being bereft of the 'regeneration funds' that have been effectively siphoned off by professional regeneration companies - is this success?
We need to think beyond the tick box list of the regeneration schemes managers? One key component that is often ignored or marginalised is the communities greatest resource - its people. So rather than regeneration and redevelopment professionals moving in and engaging in a token consultation process they should directly talk to and engage with local people and actually find out what they would like to be done, what they actually want for their community and their town.
Regeneration schemes and projects should be directed from the bottom up rather than the top down model that we often seem to pursue. When spending public money, then work it hard and squeeze out every possible benefit and maximise the impact locally of the regeneration process and build local benefits into the tendering process - whether by employing local people, using local resources, local skills and local input. If you are reusing or renovating old buildings then any regeneration scheme needs to ensure that old buildings can make a living after the regeneration scheme is finished.
If we do this rather than merely making a token gesture towards public consultation then any regeneration schemes will, with hard work really begin to deliver tangible benefits to our communities. After all regeneration should be a process rather than an event.
Monday, 7 June 2010
AN INTERESTING IDEA?
Now there is an interesting idea, Local Councils in England are to be encouraged to publish details of their spending - on items over £500 as part of the new Conservative / Liberal Democrat Government's "revolution" in transparency. However, they won't be compelled by law to open their books, which is odd, especially as the Condem coalition agreement stated that councils would be "required" to do so.
According to the BBC, Government sources have said that "measures would be taken" against councils that did not co-operate. Not a bad idea, personally I think it might be something that the National Assembly might consider as a potential runner in Wales, if it was extended to all the Government Quangos in Wales, and the myriad of European funded schemes that run from one end of Wales to the other, full transparency in relation to the way public money is spent might prove to be interesting...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)