Órganos que la integran y principales competencias

Evidence relating to a potential role of the public sector as a key enabling factor, either as a project partner, a funder, or as infrastructure provider has been provided. Oglethorpe (2013) claims that a key requirement of a successful regeneration project is the ability to work in effective partnership with the private and public sector. It has been highlighted that entering into partnership with public and private sector organisations for the sharing of skills, expertise and risk (The All Party Urban Development Group, 2009). Orbasli (2008, p193) states “in areas where investors are cautious in taking on a derelict building in a run-down area, it may be up to the public sector to kick-start revitalisation.”

Kellie (2014) implies the success of the “Manchester model” of regeneration and respective development and investment programmes has been anchored by successful public and private partnerships. Ball and Magin (2005) believe that partnerships between public and private organisations have gained prominence. This is because, they believe, of their ability to simultaneously solve urban policy problems. It addition they appear to be able to provide funding for urban regeneration, involve local communities whilst allowing the public sector state to steer project outcomes. Rodney and Clark (2000) believe that to encourage developers to take a wider view of participating in these regeneration projects it is necessary for the state to intervene and reduce the risks. Tyler et al (2016) produce case study evidence that appears to show the requirement for public sector intervention in physical regeneration projects where the private sector appears not to be able to operate in isolation. Land assembly by the public sector is potentially a key risk reduction method in urban heritage regeneration projects (Adair et al, 2007). Havard (2008) describes the role of the public sector in the property development process as pivotal.

However it has been claimed that the involvement of the public sector at particular stages of the development can provide a constraint to private sector companies. It is argued that whilst it may prove to be beneficial, involvement of public sector organisations will almost certainly lengthen the development process (Cadman and Topping, 1995).

2.4.4.5 Funding

Private sector development community ability to conduct development activity has been described as dependant on an adequate supply of finance (Henneberry and Rowley, 2001). The evidence suggests that obtaining project development funding to facilitate involvement in heritage regeneration projects may be a constraint to participation. It is claimed that a historic method of bridging the conservation deficit, introduced in section 2.4.4.1 is receipt of funding from public sector, heritage or economic development organisations (HWBPT 2011, English Heritage, 2013 and ODPM, 2004).

The importance of public sector or heritage funding availability has been highlighted as potentially significant in attracting private sector companies to engage in urban regeneration areas (Jones and Gripaios, 2000). Oglethorpe (2013) reported on case studies of regeneration projects involving historic industrial buildings in Scotland. It claimed that all regeneration projects received some element of public sector funding. Macdonald (2011, p895) states “the private sector will be willing or unable to take on the risks and costs of urban conservation alone. Incentives and/or public private partnerships will therefore be essential to long term success.”

Colliers International (2015) report outlines that private sector development company Urban Splash, has completed a number of urban heritage regeneration projects. The advisory body reports claims that the company often relies on public sector funding to make heritage regeneration projects viable. It also provides further evidence referring to the removal of 108 properties from the buildings at risk register in the Yorkshire region during the period 1999 to 2009. The report claims that 33% of these projects have received assistance from Historic England and the Heritage Lottery Fund. Described in detail by authors such as Atkinson and Moon (1994), Jones and Evans, (2013), Roberts and Sykes (2008) and Tallon (2013) regeneration funding has historically been provided via a series of discretionary based funding programmes. Funding and incentives for engagement in urban heritage regeneration projects looks to be obtained by via heritage and economic regeneration funding and tax incentives. Colliers International (2011) report states that the availability of assistance from the

public sector has changed significantly, with the availability of funding having been reduced.

Regional Development Agencies (RDA), non-governmental bodies, were setup in 1998 with an objective to deliver economic development and regeneration. The North West Regional Development Agency looks to have been a significant funder of heritage regeneration projects such as the Midland Hotel, Morecambe, Murrays Mill, Ancoats and Bluecoat Chambers, Liverpool projects (English Heritage, 2008, Heritage and Regeneration UK, 2009). Critics of the regional development agencies argued that these organisations were an unnecessary layer of additional bureaucracy. In contrast advocates of the former RDAs have claimed that the regional development organisation were significant investors in heritage regeneration (HWBPT, 2011). The successor economic development organisations to the regional development agencies, is currently known as the Local Economic Partnership (LEP). LEPs are required to liaise between public and private sector organisations. It is an organisation consisting of private and public sector partners to lead economic regeneration in a specific area. There are currently thirty-nine local economic partnerships in England. Their function is to provide strategic leadership in relation to include housing, planning and local transport and infrastructure priorities.

The National Audit Office (NAO) completed a strategic evaluation of the performance of Local Economic Partnerships (NAO, 2016). The key findings of the review stated that the LEP is the main regional facilitator for the creation of economic growth in a region. The LEP mechanism offered the opportunity for local decision- making and was in receipt of a combined budget allocation of £2bn per annum for the period from 2015 to 2021. Figure 14 below provides evidence relating to an apparent increase funding allocation to LEP’s indicating the potential significance of this organisation in the delivery of local economic growth.

Figure 14: Estimated Funding Allocation for Local Economic Partnership Organisations for Period 2011/12 to 2020/21

Source. NAO, 2016 and licenced for re-use

The report also provided evidence, shown in figure 15 in relation to an apparent reduction in local authority net spending for economic development. According to the graph, funding looks to have has reduced by 68% during the period from 2010 to 2016.

Figure 15. Local Authority Spending on Economic Development For Period 2011/12 to 2015/16.

Cushman and Wakefield study (2016) provide an overview of potential funding available to private sector development companies engaging in urban heritage regeneration. In relation to public sector incentives, they request for an alignment of economic regeneration funds in order to mitigate the risks of engagement in heritage regeneration.

The availability of heritage funding via Historic England appears to have also been reduced or more readily available to non-profit making organisations (HWBPT, 2011). The Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) is a significant funder of heritage projects however funding appears to be focused on not for profit organisations. Funding schemes such as Heritage Enterprise Scheme can provide funding to private sector organisations. The scheme contains a requirement for private sector development companies to enter into partnership with community and not for profit organisations (HLF, 2013).

The provision of tax incentives by central or federal governments look to have been effective in attracting private sector investment to regeneration areas internationally (Adair et al 2007, Williams and Boyle 2012). Taxation incentive schemes such as Business Premises Renovation Allowance (BPRA) described as potentially useful for heritage regeneration projects; is scheduled to be withdrawn in April 2017 (Pennine, Lancashire, 2014, Cushman and Wakefield, 2016).

2.4.4.6 Risk

The subject of risk has been described as a key consideration for private sector development companies’ involvement in property development projects (Havard, 2008). Bullen and Love (2011b), claim that building owners and practitioners have been reluctant to enter into re-use projects involving heritage assets. This is due to the risks associated with health and safety, increased maintenance, inefficiencies in spatial layout and commercial risk. Furthermore, Atherton et al (2011, p3) state: unless developers have a clear idea of the risks that they are facing then it is impossible to determine what returns they should be expecting to compensate for those risks.”

Colliers International (2015) report extensively on the risks associated with urban heritage regeneration. The report states that heritage regeneration projects can be

considered by private sector development companies and their advisors to carry a greater level of risk than conventional new build development projects. This is due to uncertainty about hidden and unfamiliar defects and associated costs. It appears that the perception of risk that is a barrier to private sector development organisations involvement in heritage regeneration projects.

Working with heritage assets have been described as expensive to deal with by their very nature (ODPM, 2004). This appears to directly contrast with property development organisations objectives to minimise risk. Colliers International (2011) completed an investigation into methods to encourage private sector investment into industrial structures that are considered to be at risk, highlighting the importance of the concept of risk. The report claims “Where buildings are at the margins of viability as is commonly the case with derelict industrial buildings; the additional cost and risk can influence developers in choosing between whether to proceed or to seek opportunities elsewhere (Colliers, 2011, p25).

2.4.4.7 Cost

A key factor that presents a constraint to participation in heritage regeneration project is the apparent cost associated with heritage regeneration. Bullen and Love (2011b) published research into adaptive re-use projects in Perth, Australia. Their qualitative analysis stated that whilst buildings of historical significance have been subjected to reuse “this can be a costly experience for developers and owners due to heritage and conservation requirements” (Bullen and Love, 2011b, p33). The cost of adaptation of heritage assets is considered to be a key issue that determines the feasibility of an urban heritage regeneration project (Cushman and Wakefield, 2016).

HWBPT (2011) stated that the input of expert advice on the cost implication of each building element was significant to determine the subsequent effect on project viability. The report claimed that unexpected costs have undermined project viability and that heritage regeneration costs may be greater that comparative new build developments. A summary of construction cost considerations that may require consideration in heritage regeneration projects has been provided in Appendix F. Colliers International (2015), note the issue of hidden and pre construction costs

environmental, maintenance and holding costs related to heritage regeneration projects, are also highlighted as potential constraints to participation (Cushman and Wakefield, 2016; English Heritage, 2013; HWBPT 2011; Macdonald and Cheong, 2014 and ODPM, 2004). A Heritage Investment Framework (Pennine Lancashire, 2014) has been prepared by Pennine Lancashire organisation. The framework claims that there a perception exists of high costs associated with urban heritage regeneration projects. Whilst no direct evidence is provided, the report observes “whilst there are many challenges in securing heritage investment, often in reality, that the extra cost and risk associated by comparison with new build structures can be minimum” (Pennine Lancashire, 2014, p12).

Shipley et al (2006) completed qualitative research involving semi-structured interviews with private sector development company employees who have participated in heritage re-use projects in Ontario, Canada. Their research into 132 adaptive re-use projects publish an apparent disparity of responses relating to the construction costs of heritage regeneration projects, in contrast to new build developments. They provided inconclusive evidence that identified heritage regeneration project cost may represent a saving relative to new build construction. This is due to the retention of existing structural elements. Conversely, the report produced evidence stating that the cost associated with heritage regeneration can be comparatively more expensive within the same use category, namely residential re- use projects.