The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

3. The Projects and Progress with City Visions

Introduction

3.1 In this section we set out an overview of the projects that were identified by the cities to implement their Visions. The chapter looks at the projects selected, as a whole, and attempts to present a consistent picture of exactly what CGF monies have supported. The chapter covers a number of main issues including:-

• The types of projects CGF supports;
• The capital:revenue split;
• How the CGF projects were selected;
• The extent to which the projects were visionary;
• Progress with implementing projects;
• Leverage from CGF projects;
• The extent to which CGF projects were additional;
• The contribution to the Executive's Cross Cutting Themes;
• Revenue spending;
• City-regional spending;
• The emerging evidence on the economic impact of CGF projects;
• The evidence of impact on long term planning;
• Views from Local Authorities; and
• Emerging good practice.

3.2 For details on individual cities, reference should be made to the case studies presented in Appendices 1 to 6.

What Projects did CGF support?

3.3 It is difficult to be precise about the number of individual projects that are being funded through CGF. This reflects the fact that some cities have chosen to disaggregate funding to projects on which relatively small amounts of money are being spent. Others may be funding exactly the same type of project but choose not to break funding down to this level. Accepting these caveats it seems that:-

• Dundee is exceptional in that all of its CGF allocation is being spent upon what is essentially one project;
• Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Inverness are individually funding between 9 to 15 projects, although the differing financial allocations that they have means that the average size of project (in cash terms) varies considerably; and
• Stirling, which receives the smallest CGF allocation, is spending it on the largest number of projects, around 20.

3.4 Table 3.1 looks at the projects in terms of a broad classification. It can be observed that:-

TABLE 3.1 City Growth Fund Project Classifications

Note:-
1. Dundee is essentially implementing one large project. As it has several elements it does not fit easily into any one category. Accordingly it has been split into its 3 main component parts for this analysis.

• Streetscape accounts for the most projects, over a third of the total. Examples include improvements to the public realm around Inverness Castle, upgrading of the streets in Glasgow's financial district and streetscape work in Castle Street in Edinburgh;
• Marketing (for example Stirling's attempts to gain World Health Organisation accreditation for the city and the development of Edinburgh's city brand) and public transport infrastructure (such as Edinburgh's bus tracker system and bus stop improvements) each account for 10% in total;
• Cultural investment (for example refurbishment of Edinburgh's Usher Hall and the creation of a Cultural Arts Centre in Aberdeen), community participation (as with support for the Merkinch Social Inclusion Partnership in Inverness) and business property (such as the development of business centres in disadvantaged areas in Glasgow and the development of a sustainable business centre in Stirling) each account for 8%; and
• The balance is accounted for by 6 project categories. Interestingly inward investment and economic diversification projects each figure in only one of the cities.

3.5 Table 3.2 looks at the distribution of first round projects according to the amount of money allocated to each category. What emerges is that:-

• Streetscape is again the most important category, accounting for almost a third of spend. However, this goes from as much as 60% in Stirling to 15% in Glasgow. What may, however, be significant is that 5 of the 6 cities are funding streetscape works. No other project category is represented across so many of the cities;
• Private transport infrastructure (mainly roads) is the second largest spending category, even though only 2 cities account for this;
• Public transport infrastructure and training/education each account for 13%. However, training/education is largely accounted for by Glasgow's spend in this area; and
• Three cities are spending money on domestic property. In the case of Edinburgh this is low cost housing to help overcome labour shortages.

The Capital:Revenue Split

3.6 Table 3.3 looks at the capital:revenue split across the 6 cities and the various types of project. The figures should be treated as indicative as a number of projects contain elements of both capital and revenue spend and the exact proportions of each were unclear. Accordingly, in these cases a judgement was made as to where the balance of spend was. It can be seen that we calculate that around 24% of spend is going on revenue projects. Glasgow, with its vocational training, and Edinburgh, with its support for events, account for £13.7 million of this. In terms of project type, streetscape accounts for 30% of capital spend followed by private transport infrastructure (25%). This latter category is concentrated in Glasgow and Dundee.

TABLE 3.2 City Growth Fund Financial Allocation by Project Classification
(Percentage of funds allocated to each City - column percentages)

Note:-
1. Dundee is essentially implementing one large project. As it has some many elements it does not fit easily into any one category. Accordingly it has been placed here into its 2 main component parts.
2. Columns may not total to 100 because of rounding.

TABLE 3.3 The Capital-Revenue Project Split Across the 6 Cities
(£ million)

Note:-
1. All projects were allocated to either Capital or Revenue. In some of the smaller cities some projects were a mixture of capital and revenue and the exact split between them was not clear. In these cases they have been allocated to the category that seemed to account for the majority of spend.
2. Because of rounding the total do not equate to the total CGF first round allocation of £90.1 million.

How were the CGF projects selected?

3.7 The process whereby projects were selected varied. Although the Visions involved consultation with agencies outwith the councils, for the most part the first round projects were generated from within the councils. The process involved asking departments to put forward projects for funding. The outcome of this was that often large numbers of projects were proposed, many of which had been about for many years and often did not "fit" with the Vision.

3.8 To cope with this, a number of cities used formal evaluation processes. For example Edinburgh invited all departments to put in bids. They were to be submitted on a pro forma that, amongst other things, asked for the links with the Vision's themes to be identified, need to be justified and details of the option appraisal process to be given. This enabled the £60 million worth of bids to be reduced to the £24 million CGF allocation in a way that was transparent and as objective as this type of process probably can ever be. Other cities used less transparent and more qualitative approaches. For example, Aberdeen selected projects on the basis of debate and discussion as to which would bring the most benefit to the city, whilst Glasgow selected projects based on the contribution they would make to the economic and social advancement of the West of Scotland and Stirling.

3.9 In Dundee and Inverness slightly different approaches were taken. In Dundee there were a number of potential projects that might have been pursued through the CGF support. The Community Planning Partnership was asked to identify a series of principles that should influence how the CGF monies were to be distributed. The partners agreed that the CGF monies:-

• Presented an opportunity to implement a project of scale;
• Should focus on a project that had the potential to impact on the wider city-region;
• Should be long term and focus on harnessing growth potential; and
• Should not be dissipated on a large number of small projects.

3.10 Only one project, namely the Central Waterfront project, met all these principles, and as a result was the unanimous choice of the Dundee City Community Planning Partners. Indeed, the existence of the Central Waterfront vision since the early 1990s meant that it was considered to be the "natural" fit for Dundee's CGF allocation.

3.11 While Inverness had also identified a range of potential projects through the City Vision work and the earlier conferences on the impact of city status, the opposite view in terms of concentration of effort was reached. Instead the Community Planning partners argued that Inverness needed to pursue action on a number of fronts. The selection of projects was further influenced by 3 other factors:-

• Projects should contribute to the development of the city centre;
• They should help to promote wider growth in the city region; and
• They should help to bring forward partner projects by filling funding gaps.

The effect of these selection criteria was that, through CGF, Inverness aimed to support 4 large projects, each of around £500,000, 8 smaller projects each of up to £100,000 and provide some financial support for project management and implementation. What is perhaps surprising is that the different approaches taken by Dundee and Inverness were both accepted by the Executive and seemed to be seen as having equal merit, albeit that it is likely that the long term impacts of each will differ considerably.

3.12 In Stirling as with development of the City Vision, the selection of projects was decided through the Community Planning Partnership. The selection process was relatively informal, and reflected much of the discussions and debate that had taken place during the preparation of Stirling's bid for City Status. In summary two themes emerged:-

• There was to be at least one project under each of the four themes identified in the Vision (Sustainable Stirling, Healthy Stirling; Inclusive Stirling and Vital Stirling); and
• The majority of the funding was to be allocated against the last of these themes, with the 'creation of a city buzz' seen as the most important element of developing Stirling as a city.

Are the Projects Visionary?

3.13 An assessment of the extent to which the CGF projects are visionary can be made on 2 levels:-

• The extent to which the implementation of the projects will help to realise at least part of the Vision. Essentially this is assessing the extent to which there is a "fit" between the project set and the Vision. As the earlier section has shown, the extent to which this "fit" was assessed by the local authorities varied from the formal to almost the impressionistic; and
• An assessment of the nature of the projects in order to see if, as well as resulting in "clear, measurable improvements" (Scottish Executive, 2005a), some iconic developments might result that would have a significant impact upon perceptions of the city region. The alternative is that the projects are "more of the same": that is CGF support is being used to do the sort of things that the local authority and its partners would generally undertake although budget restrictions might currently restrict the scale of activity.

3.14 When the range of CGF projects is considered the 6 cities fall into a number of categories:-

• Dundee stands alone in that, of all of the cities, it is spending all of its CGF on what is essentially one large project, the Central Waterfront. This is a project that is visible, being centrally located, of strategic significance and (depending upon design) may become an iconic symbol for the City. The view in Dundee was that by taking on the significant risk associated with a project of this scale, the potential returns to the city region are greater than those expected from a range of smaller projects. It could be argued that this is a "visionary" project in terms of the second definition given in Paragraph 3.11;
• Stirling, although it has the smallest grant is choosing to concentrate spending upon Streetscape, which accounts for almost two thirds of its CGF allocation. Of this half is going on one project, Port Street;
• Edinburgh and Glasgow are both spending CGF money on a number of reasonably sized projects, the former focusing upon public transport and streetscape the latter upon road infrastructure and vocational training. In both cities the projects are addressing significant problems that, if not tackled, might impact adversely upon the cities' growth potential. Thus Edinburgh is trying to overcome some of its access problems whilst also enhancing its streetscape so that it can match its comparator cities in terms of the quality of the environment. Glasgow is spending money on roads, intended, amongst other things, to open up development opportunities and is also trying to address the education and training problems of school leavers. However, where these 2 cities differ from Dundee is that CGF seems to be being spent upon what is essentially "more of the same": it is funding the things that the councils have supported in the past and will no doubt do again in the future. In this respect it could be argued that spend is not especially "visionary" in terms of the second definition in Paragraph 3.11, nor will it necessarily leave a lasting, identifiable impact;
• Aberdeen and Inverness have spent their CGF allocations on a large number of relatively small projects, albeit that in both cities streetscape is the main area of spend. There are clearly reasons for this pattern. Thus, in Aberdeen the spread of projects is seen as a strength. The CGF project board felt that by spreading the allocation over 12 projects, the opportunity to simultaneously impact on several areas of the city would be increased. Using the money in way also meant that there was engagement with a range of partners at the same time as maintaining political interest. However, one is left with the feeling that money is spread across many disparate projects that do not attain the critical mass needed in order to make much of a lasting difference.

3.15 What we can therefore see is three trends across the 6 cities, trends that seem to be independent of the amount of the CGF allocation. We have:-

• Cities that have decided to concentrate spend upon a limited number of projects in a concentrated geographical area as have Dundee and Stirling. In this way the potential benefits of CGF seem likely to be maximised;
• Cities, such as Aberdeen and Inverness, that spend across a number of reasonably small and geographically dispersed projects; and
• Edinburgh and Glasgow that are spending money on a number of large projects that are geographically dispersed.

3.16 However, there is a need to consider issues of scale and development pressures. For example, the physical size, complexity and range of planned developments in both Edinburgh and Glasgow make it far harder for the type of iconic development supported in Dundee to be undertaken. Although Glasgow may be atypical, the scale of developments underway dwarfs the CGF allocation, as the Glasgow case study makes clear. This would seem not to be the case in Dundee. The city seems to be the appropriate size for a programme of CGF's scale to make a real difference, albeit that this is only coming about because there is the political will to spend CGF in this way. The CGF money was seen as the catalyst required to "kick-start" the Central Waterfront project. If Dundee had done what most other cities have done, then the ability to use CGF to make a significant difference would have been lost.

3.17 This line of argument is backed up to some degree by research evidence. For example the Urban Task Force, drawing upon the evidence from a number of evaluations of urban policy, identified the 3 main characteristics of successful regeneration (Urban Task Force, 1999) as being:-

• Taking a strategic approach, which we would argue the City Visions do;
• Integrating economic, social and physical measures. Again we would argue that the mix of CGF projects in each City and the existence of structures, such as the Community Planning Partnerships (that are integral to the CGF approach and which bring together key policy making and delivery agencies from across the activity spectrum) do this; and
• Concentrating limited resources spatially. Our analysis shows that some of the cities are doing this. Others are not.

3.18 Whilst accepting that the Visions are about more than area regeneration, regeneration in all its many guises figures strongly in most of them. If the CGF is to learn from past experiences then it may be that there is a need to give guidance on concentrating spend if maximum impact is to be achieved. In its turn this might imply that funding formulae based upon population levels (as currently drive CGF allocations, see Paragraph 2.1) be revised in favour of ones that can support projects that seem to be "visionary" and will impact upon the wider city region.

Progress with Project Implementation

3.19 Table 3.4 looks at project underspend across the 6 cities and the activity types. Overall there has been a 38% underspend for the first round of CGF projects. What can be seen is that:-

• Underspend varies considerably across the cities, from 7% in Aberdeen ² to 59% in Dundee; and
• It also varies across the activities, with private transport infrastructure, streetscape works and public transport infrastructure accounting for two thirds of the total.

3.20 What is evident is that the majority of underspend, probably inevitably, is on capital projects. For example, in Edinburgh the need to secure planning permission has meant that public transport projects have been delayed, whilst some of the delays with streetscape works reflect uncertainties about related developments. In Glasgow there were problems with road design that delayed spend. In addition, one transport project proved, upon detailed investigation, not to be feasible. Glasgow also has significant underspend on a major revenue project, the Schools Vocational Training Programme. This is said to be caused by the mismatch in the intake times for secondary schools and vocational trainers.

3.21 The minimal slippage in Aberdeen can be explained by initial delays on a city wide Cultural Investment project and through a change of emphasis on a Streetscape project. In Dundee the principal factor behind the slippage has been the strengthening of a rail tunnel in the Central Waterfront area. Lengthy negotiations with Network Rail around disruptions to the rail network led to a number of proposals being considered on how to undertake this crucial aspect of the development. The result was considerable slippage on the project. A way forward has now been agreed between the Central Waterfront board and Network Rail and work on the tunnel is expected to commence in early 2007.

3.22 What must be a cause of concern is the large underspends for some of the cities that have the smallest financial allocations, in particular Inverness and Stirling. In Inverness there was recognition that the initial basket of projects was perhaps over-ambitious, given the lack of dedicated project management support available to implement projects. Some steps have been taken to address this and, whilst spend has accelerated and the partners are choosing to pursue a smaller number of projects, much progress still needs to be made.

3.23 In Stirling the Council decided to delay spend on some proposed streetscape works to carry out a strategic review of where the investment might have the highest impact on the town and on the achievement of the Stirling City Vision. Following a prioritisation exercise, two projects were agreed, both of which are now making good progress. The consultations suggested that this delay was worthwhile as it ensured, not only that the streetscape projects with the greatest potential impact were implemented, but also that potential follow on projects could be delivered, given the availability of additional funding in the future. At the same time the budget available for streetscape works under the Vital Stirling theme increased due to the a switching of resources from the Raploch project, which achieved URC status not long after agreement of the original City Growth Fund projects.

3.24 In Inverness the largest underspend is down to the lack of progress with the Streetscape projects. The reasons for these delays are complex and inter-related. First we have already made reference to the ambitious scope of the Inverness project set. The lack of dedicated project management resource in the first 18 months of CGF was a contributory factor to the delays in progressing the streetscape projects. More specifically the City Centre Streetscape project was delayed due planning issues, the need to consult more widely with local businesses on the proposed changes, and the lead time involved in procuring contractors through an OJEC tendering exercise. Work is expected to commence in the Autumn of 2006 and spend should accelerate quickly once commenced.

3.25 To confuse the picture it is also the case that 2 of the cities that have underspent have also overspent on some projects, as Table 3.5 shows. In Aberdeen's case the City saw CGF as being a 5 year programme from the start and as such spent more money "upfront" than was in the original financial allocation. The rationale adopted in Aberdeen was that as the programme of works had been accelerated in the city, it would seem sensible to maintain the momentum by drawing down their 2006-2008 CGF allocation. This proposal was put to the Executive and approved.

TABLE 3.4 Project Underspend By Activity Area
(Column percentages)

Note:-
1. Columns may not total to 100 because of rounding.

TABLE 3.5 Project Overspend By Activity Area
(Column percentages)

Leverage from CGF projects

3.26 In any evaluation of regeneration initiatives the extent to which public spending has levered in money from other sources is a key evaluation criterion. On first viewing CGF leverage to date has been generally poor, especially from private sector sources (Table 3.6) ³. The largest amount of private sector leverage is in Glasgow where £9 million of private investment has been identified as emerging from the early stages of the M74 extension (which was supported by CGF). In Aberdeen it is claimed that £3.46 million has been levered from the private sector as part of the Castlegate Regeneration (Cultural Investment) whilst a further £3.123 million is claimed for sports development (Community Participation). In Edinburgh £1.9 million had come through events such as the MTV awards. The view of most interviewees is that the limited leverage to date reflects the nature of the projects: very few were attractive to the private sector at this stage.

3.27 The main activity where public sector resources appear to have been levered in has been streetscape works. Here the Local Enterprise Companies and European Regional Development Funds have been significant funders. For example, in Edinburgh Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh and Lothian has made significant contributions to streetscape works, largely as this fits within its strategic priorities, whilst in Dundee, Scottish Enterprise Tayside ( SET) contributed to the Western Road re-alignment phase of the Central Waterfront project as it improved access to SET's new digital media park. Glasgow also levered a large amount of public funds (£20 million) to support its streetscape projects. Significant public sector leverage has also come from business property projects, especially in Glasgow where £27 million has been levered from other public sector sources.

3.28 Each of the cities was also asked to provide details of anticipated leverage from first round CGF projects. Three cities, Aberdeen, Glasgow and Dundee provided details (Table 3.7). The key message from the table is that leverage from the City Growth Fund projects, particularly from private sector sources, is expected to increase significantly over the next few years. In total some £1.4 billion of private sector leverage was forecast, although this comes from only 4 projects: the Streetscape Investment in Broomielaw / Tradeston in Glasgow; Glasgow's Business Property Programme; the Dundee Waterfront; and Aberdeen's Energy City Project. In the Dundee Waterfront and Glasgow Business Property projects there is strong anecdotal evidence to suggest that a significant majority of this anticipated investment would not have come forward in the absence of the original CGF investment. For Aberdeen Energy and the Broomielaw/ Tradeston projects it would appear that, whilst some of this private sector investment may have taken place in any case, CGF funds have helped to bring it forward at a greater scale and potentially much more quickly. Taken together these 4 projects represent good examples of using CGF to invest in projects which have the potential to deliver strategic change at the city and city-wide level.

TABLE 3.6 Claimed Leverage to date (£ million)

TABLE 3.7 Expected Leverage from 2007 onwards (£ million)

3.29 Leverage ratios to date are shown in Table 3.8. Overall Inverness achieves the highest ratio, with £3.27 being levered in from private and public sources for every £1 of CGF spend. The other extreme is Stirling that appears to have been unable to lever in any funds from any source. What can be seen is that overall every £1 spent on the CGF first round projects has levered in £1.42 of which £1.19 has come from other public sources. Aberdeen is exceptional in the level of private sector leverage that it has attained which is almost 3 times as high as the next City (Glasgow).

TABLE 3.8 Claimed Leverage Ratios - First Round Projects

Note:
1. Leverage = Other investment (private or public)/ CGF allocation.

3.30 How does this level of leverage compare to other public sector programmes? Table 3.9 compares CGF's leverage to that of 5 other schemes, most of which were funded through the Single Regeneration Budget ( SRB) ( Appendix 7 gives further details of each of the comparators). These were selected as they are similar to CGF, in so far as they are funding "packages" of projects intended to support particular themes. The packages also seem broadly similar to those being supported through CGF. What can be seen is that overall CGF is performing poorly in comparison. However, there is overlap between the 2 Tables, with Inverness, Aberdeen and Glasgow achieving ratios that are similar to (and in the case of Inverness better than) 2 of the comparator programmes. Given this, it may be that the challenge for CGF is less to do with matching the leverage ratios of the comparators and more about raising levels to match those achieved by these 3 cities.

TABLE 3.9 Claimed Leverage Ratios of Comparator Projects

3.31 The data on leverage does, however, need to be viewed with some caution. Firstly, actual leverage is likely to increase as projects are implemented (as we have noted there has been significant slippage in some projects). Related to this, a number of projects are expected to act as catalysts for private sector development to follow in time (the Dundee Central Waterfront project being a key example of this). Some of this is captured in Table 3.7. This leads onto the third point of caution, namely that there appears to be little consistency in how local authorities are defining leverage. In some cities a narrow definition of direct match funding for projects appears to have been adopted, whilst in others a broader view, encapsulating complementary investments appears to be used. Both approaches have their merits and disadvantages. However it makes a consistent assessment of leverage difficult at this time.

Were the CGF Projects Additional?

3.32 English Partnerships (2004) defines additionality as:-

"the extent to which activity takes place at all, on a larger scale, earlier or within a specific designated area or target group as a result of the intervention".

This definition does, however, need to be extended by including quality: when the quality of the activity is better than would have been the case but for the intervention. This is especially relevant to CGF given the significance of streetscape works.

3.33 Additionality is therefore the difference between what would have happened anyway and what has happened as a consequence of a project being implemented.

3.34 Most interviewees argue that CGF projects are additional. By this it seems that CGF has resulted in:-

• Projects going ahead on a large scale, in those instances when CGF has been used to plug gaps caused by other funding sources (usually public) being lost;
• Projects starting sooner than would otherwise have been the case;
• The quality of what has been done being better than would have been the case but for CGF, as is claimed for the various streetscape works; and
• In some cases, projects proceeding that would otherwise not have happened. One example of this is Edinburgh's streetscape works where it is argued that budgets are fully allocated each year on maintenance. Without CGF not only would the City Council have been unable to undertake streetscape works but the matching money from the Local Enterprise Company would not have been forthcoming.

3.35 However, it does seem to be the case that relatively few CGF projects were devised solely in response to the Vision and the availability of CGF. In part this may reflect the short time in which the Visions had to be prepared, which militated against developing totally new projects.

3.36 There are also some examples where the additionality of CGF funding is open to question, especially given the relatively small amount of CGF support that was allocated and the relatively high level of "leverage" claimed at the project level. Overall, though, these examples are rare.

3.37 There may also be an issue about the extent to which some projects are additional to Scotland. For example, it was argued that the MTV Awards, held in Edinburgh, would otherwise have been held in Glasgow. However, again this is a relatively unique example. Most CGF spend is upon capital works that are immobile.

Contribution to the Cross Cutting Themes

3.38 Part of the evaluation was to assess the contribution that the CGF was making to the Executive's 3 Cross Cutting Themes: Growing the Economy; Sustainable Development; and Closing the Opportunity Gap. The Executive's intention is that these themes should permeate the implementation of all public policy in Scotland.

3.39 Assessing the contribution that the CGF projects will make to the Themes is both subjective and difficult. It may also be premature in some respects in that, as developments begin to come on stream, it may be possible to set up structures and processes that will ensure that some of the benefits are captured for local residents thereby contributing to themes that currently seem to be ignored. The most obvious example of this is pre-recruitment training to ensure that those who are unskilled or unemployed have the skills and attitude necessary to fill any jobs that are created in office and retail developments. What this means is that the contribution to the Cross Cutting Themes may only become apparent a number of years after projects have been implemented.

3.40 Table 3.9 gives the initial assessment of the contribution that CGF expenditure is likely to have on the Themes. The assessment was undertaken by taking each of the projects (Table 2.1) and allocating 10 points to it. These points were then distributed over the 3 Themes according to the extent to which it was felt that the project would impact upon them. The points allocated to each city on each theme were then summed. These totals were then standardised so that the sum for each city was 100, as is shown in Table 3.9. The process is clearly very subjective, although to arrive at the individual scores the detailed project descriptions were used.

3.41 As can be seen from Table 3.9, we estimate that the greatest contribution is being made to Growing the Economy on which over half the CGF allocation is being spent. Aberdeen is the main exception in that only a third of CGF spend is allocated to this Theme. Slightly less than a third of spend is allocated to Closing the Opportunity Gap. Here Dundee stands out in that our methodology assumes that there is no impact upon this Theme. Although jobs will be created there is no indication that these will be taken by those in most need. Indeed, part of Dundee's argument is that it is a regional centre and therefore acts as a job and service focus for the adjacent authorities. As such it may be that any jobs created in the Waterfront may be taken by relatively affluent and skilled residents from Angus, Fife and Perth and Kinross, rather than the deprived areas of Dundee.

TABLE 3.9 The City Growth Fund's Contribution to the Cross Cutting Themes

Note:-
1. The figures do not sum to the CGF total allocation as it proved difficult to allocate all projects to a theme.

Revenue Spending

3.42 A number of the projects involve revenue rather than capital expenditure. Some cities, for example Edinburgh, were aware of the dangers of supporting revenue funding from financial sources that were time limited. As such any revenue projects had to have exit strategies. It is also the case that the main revenue project, Glasgow's Schools Vocational Training Programme has exit strategies built in for its partner authorities, with there being commitments to mainstreaming the programme once CGF funding ends.

3.43 However, the use of CGF for revenue purposes may bring longer term problems, ironically for Edinburgh which had tried to counter this problem from the start. It is now in a situation where funding for the Winter Festivals is dependent upon CGF. Was this source not to be used then:-

• The Festivals would not run;
• They would run on at a significantly reduced level; or
• The Council would have to think more strategically about its priorities and make budget reallocations accordingly.

It may therefore be the case that using CGF in this way means that authorities are able to put off making difficult decisions about strategic priorities, albeit that this is a criticism that can be made of any "one off" funds.

Regional Spend

3.44 One of the things the first round of guidance was clear about was consultation with adjacent authorities and other partners. Although there was consultation over the Visions, generally the first round of projects came from within the city councils and was for spend within their areas. Table 3.10 looks at spend outwith the City boundaries for the First and Second Rounds of projects. What can be seen is that:-

• Very little spend occurs outwith the cities' boundaries for the 4 cities that have relatively small CGF allocations. However, this statement has to be tempered by consideration of the extent to which some spend is of regional significance and will therefore have an impact outwith the cities' boundaries. The best example of this is Dundee's Waterfront project where there is explicit recognition of its regional potential; and
• Both Edinburgh and Glasgow have increased significantly project expenditure in adjacent authorities in the second round of projects. In part this reflects CGF "bedding in", in that there was not sufficient time to bring forward first round projects from other authorities. Where this was attempted, as in Edinburgh, many of the "projects" brought forward were more in the nature of aspirations rather than planned and costed initiatives. In Glasgow's case much of the out-of-city spend has come about by extending strategic projects across the City's boundaries.

TABLE 3.10 CGF Allocation Spent Outwith the City
(Percentages)

Note:-
1. Glasgow's figure for the First Round Projects does not include the spend in adjacent authorities on the Schools Vocational Training Programme.

3.45 One interesting feature of Glasgow's expenditure on projects outwith the City boundary is that in both the first and second rounds the money was allocated through competitions. Thus, for the waste management and heritage funds, authorities had to submit bids that were then appraised by the Council and funding allocated according to the fit with the Vision. This may be one way of defusing local political and community pressures whilst using the Fund in a way that maintains a strategic focus.

Economic Impact of CGF projects

3.46 Assessing the impact of the various CGF projects is, at this stage, difficult for a number of reasons. These include:-

• The scale of slippage with many projects which means many, in particular the larger ones, are only partially complete;
• Related to this is the capital nature of the Fund, which implies that benefits will only be apparent in the longer term. This may be a particular issue for streetscape projects;
• The small size of the projects in some cities which means that disaggregating impact from other activities will be very difficult; and
• The difficulty in establishing causal links. This is a particular problem with streetscape works. The justification for these, as articulated in Edinburgh, is that competitor cities spend money on streetscape therefore Edinburgh needs to do the same otherwise it will suffer. However, relating such spend to tangible economic benefits may be difficult

3.47 However, a number of project evaluations have been commissioned by some of the cities. These fall into a number of categories:-

• Ex ante evaluations, as has been undertaken by Dundee City for its Waterfront development;
• Evaluations of on-going projects, as with Glasgow's formative evaluation of the Schools Vocational Training Programme; and
• Evaluations of one-off projects, as with Edinburgh's evaluation of the MTV Awards.

3.48 There is therefore a variety of evaluation information available. However, we would estimate that the ex-post evaluations cover less than 10% of the first round project expenditure.

Partnership Working

3.49 Our overall assessment is that partnership working is generally good. However, there are a number of caveats around this statement. For example, in some cities, the range of partners involved in CGF has been relatively limited, with local authorities being the key ones. There has also been limited involvement with the wider group of community planning partners in most areas, albeit that in some cities formal approval of the Visions and the CGF submissions came through the Community Planning Partnerships.

3.50 Partnership working has often been facilitated through the use of existing structures. In some cities, for example Dundee, these have existed for a number of years and the CGF was able to feed into these. This no doubt facilitated the project selection process. Although there were initial problems in Dundee, in developing good working relationships with neighbouring councils, the sub-regional nature of the project has been instrumental in overcoming these ⁴.

3.51 In Glasgow the initial efforts by the Leader of the Council and the Director of Development and Regeneration Services in visiting their counterparts in adjacent authorities and the resultant selection of a pan-authority project (vocational training) greatly facilitated buy in to both the Vision and CGF. Glasgow's use of competitions to allocate CGF funds to other authorities for specific purposes seems also to have facilitated better working relationships.

3.52 Where there have been tensions these have generally been caused by unhappiness about the focus of spend upon the cities rather than the wider sub-region. This seems to have been a particular problem in Aberdeen where the qualitative project selection process undertaken by the City has not been seen as particularly objective.

3.53 As the CGF beds in then more formal partnership structures are being set up, particularly to bring the local authorities involved in delivery together to discuss progress and common issues, as is happening in Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Management

3.54 The consultations suggested that the cities have adopted a broadly similar approach to the strategic management of the F monies. In each City the overall responsibility for tracking progress with projects and taking decisions on amending budget allocations to projects has been retained by a strategic board consisting broadly of the original community planning partners involved in developing the Visions and selecting the projects. This has been an important point of continuity

3.55 There was however some important variations in the project management approaches adopted. In Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee there was a clearly identified project manager who had a remit to influence individual officers charged with progressing projects. In Stirling and Inverness there was no perceived need for this level of project management initially, perhaps given the relatively limited scale of the City Growth Fund monies. Individual officers and departments charged with delivering projects were expected to report into the strategic management boards.

3.56 Concerns over lack of progress with projects in both cities however led to the introduction of more formal project management procedures. In Stirling, given the focus of the Fund on streetscape works, a Roads and Transport Manager was given overall responsibility for tracking progress across the four themes, and pushing individual project managers. In Inverness the Community Planning partners appointed a dedicated project manager with a remit to review progress to date and streamline the wider package of measures into a more effective and deliverable package of projects.

Long Term Planning

3.57 There is some emerging evidence that, in some cities, the Visions are moving beyond being solely a mechanism for accessing CGF resources, towards having a wider role in guiding the policy of community planning partners and therefore strengthening long term planning. Possibly one of the best examples of this is Edinburgh where the need to develop a Vision coincided with a move to develop a more cohesive, inclusive and strategic approach to the planning and delivery of services within the City. In part this was stimulated by Community Planning. The Vision, therefore, now seems to have a life independent of CGF.

3.58 Given this, it may be that the challenge for the future is to refresh the visions so that they are seen as inclusive documents that steer policy for the cities and, in appropriate cases, the wider region. If this is to happen then there may be a need for guidance, or at least clarification, that looks at the Vision's relationship to the many other plans and strategies that now figure on the cities' landscape. There may also be justification for questioning the need for some of these other strategies.

Views on the CGF from Local Authorities

3.59 The overwhelming view is that the CGF is a "good" scheme. The main reasons for this view are that it operates with the minimum of formality and the maximum of flexibility. For example:-

• Rarely, if ever, were the contents of the Visions or the constituent projects questioned;
• The Executive were willing to see funds reallocated to other projects within the Vision if there were difficulties spending the allocation, to vary the capital:revenue split and to vire finance between financial years;
• Monitoring requirements were not onerous; and
• The Executive was felt to have been realistic, especially about the difficulties inherent in keeping capital projects to programme.

3.60 However, what is clear from the interviews, is that it was felt that the Guidance for the first round projects could have been more explicit. For example, not all cities were clear at the start of the process that CGF was intended to be mainly a capital fund. There is now a degree of unhappiness amongst some about the amount of revenue spend that some cities are making. This could have been avoided if there had been clear guidance at the start of the process.

3.61 There is also a degree of concern about the change of responsibility for CGF within the Executive. The general concern is that the Fund might become far more prescriptive and place greater emphasis upon reporting and financial monitoring to the detriment of such features as flexibility.

Emerging Good Practices

3.62 Assessing good practices in relation to the CGF is to a certain extent difficult. What is clear from the review is that while each of the Visions were developed through a similar process, there have been very different outcomes in terms of the types of projects selected and significant differences in the progress made with the implementation of projects. The flexibility that was the hallmark of the CGF monies, and the lack of definitive guidance on what outcomes might look like, also make it difficult to assess the "performance" of each of the cities against a definitive benchmark.

3.63 Having said that some interesting messages have emerged through the review to date. The main good practices to emerge are:-

• The Executive's flexibility in administering the Fund - The Visions had to be prepared in a short time, whilst the capital nature of the majority of the projects meant that slippage was likely to occur. The Executive has responded positively to the challenges thrown up and has worked with the local authorities to ensure that the projects are delivered;
• Project selection templates - A range of different mechanisms were used to select and prioritise projects for CGF support. Edinburgh stands out as perhaps being the most robust and transparent, and sought to select projects that contributed to the achievement of the City Vision. As a result there are no gaps in terms of projects-city vision fit;
• Securing senior political and officer support at the start of the process - Most of the cities had ensured that there was buy-in to CGF at a senior level early in the process of developing the Vision. For example, in Glasgow the Vision and the projects were driven by the then Leader of the Council and the Director of Development and Regeneration Services. Likewise in Aberdeen the Council Leader sits on the CGF board;
• Securing the involvement of adjacent authorities - Again Glasgow is a good example of this in that at the start of the process of developing the Vision the Council Leader met his counterparts in adjoining authorities. As a result the Vision covers the priorities of the wider sub-region, whilst projects such as vocational training act as the "cement" that holds the authorities together and gives them a stake in the CGF, even though the money goes to Glasgow;
• Good partnership working at the local level - Often partnership structures were already well developed within the cities before CGF came along. A good example of this is Dundee where partnership structures had existed since the 1980s. CGF was able to fit into these structures so that the final project selection had wide agreement amongst local partners;
• Using existing structures - Related to this is the use of existing structures, such as the Community Planning Partnerships, to develop the Vision and the project set;
• Using the Vision as a mechanism for planning the city - The danger with programmes such as CGF is that time is put into preparing Visions that are used solely for the purposes of securing "one-off" funding. In Edinburgh it now seems as if the Vision is playing a far wider co-ordination role in providing a focus for the city. Similarly in Aberdeen some aspects of the Vision are now influencing the Council's wider regeneration priorities;
• Having effective management and delivery structures - Although there has been widespread slippage with spend, a number of cities have management structures that seem likely to ensure that these problems will be overcome. For example, in Dundee staff responsible for CGF co-ordination and delivery sit within the same department that ensure effect co-ordination and communications;
• Fewer projects may result in a clearer focus - For those cities that are supporting a number of geographically dispersed projects in different topic areas it is difficult to see what the focus of CGF expenditure is and accordingly what impact it will have. Having a small number of geographically concentrated projects may mean that all partners can grasp what CGF is trying to achieve and can relate to this; and
• Challenge Funds - Glasgow has allocated some of its CGF monies to adjacent authorities through the use of challenge funds in which competitive bids are submitted and then assessed against the Vision. This would seem to be a good way of diffusing the political and community tensions that are likely to arise when funds are being allocated from one authority to another.

3.64 Having outlined some examples of good practice we will now, in the final Chapter draw some conclusions and look at the way forward.

« Previous | Contents | Next »