Agenda item

Julia Johnson, Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth, was in attendance to respond to clarification questions from Members regarding the Town Centre Regeneration report.

Members enquired how the recent announcement that no UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) would be allocated to London boroughs post-2026 would affect the current regeneration schemes. They queried whether the schemes were fully costed or if additional funding had been anticipated. In response, officers confirmed that the announcement had been unexpected and that the current programme was based solely on the funding received for the present year. It was stated that all allocated funds were required to be spent within the year, and the team was already exploring future funding options to continue the work, given its early positive impact.

Councillors asked whether local Safer Neighbourhood Teams or anti-social behaviour teams had been involved in the design of the regeneration schemes, particularly regarding night-time safety features such as lighting and open spaces. In reply, it was acknowledged that, while the Safe Communities Team had been engaged, there had not yet been direct involvement from police officers. The officer committed to following up on this.

The Committee raised concerns about unmet promises in previous developments, such as the absence of a cinema and health centre in the Old Vinyl Factory and High Point Village. Members requested that local Councillors be consulted in future planning processes and highlighted ongoing issues such as a non-functioning clock and persistent rough sleeping in the subway. They also advocated for the promotion of local heritage, including Fairy Corner. The officer acknowledged the shortcomings of past developments and stated that lessons had been learned. It was explained that future schemes would ensure community benefits were delivered before residents moved in. Specific actions included assigning an officer to be on-site weekly, forming a landlord liaison group, and hosting open days to attract potential occupiers. The Director of Planning and Sustainable Growth agreed to follow up on the clock and subway issues and expressed support for celebrating local history through regeneration efforts.

Members asked what incentives and support schemes were in place to retain businesses and attract new enterprises to Hayes, noting the proliferation of similar shops and the loss of major retailers. It was explained that the Council had limited control over shop types due to planning regulations. However, efforts were being made to attract creative and startup businesses, particularly those priced out of East London. It was noted that the Council was also considering expanding the town centre boundary to include areas like the Old Vinyl Factory, which would allow greater influence over ground floor uses.

Councillors asked how the success of regeneration efforts was being measured, particularly in the Owen Road and Austin Road estates. They also requested that construction hoardings be made more visually appealing. The response stated that Phase 1 of the estate redevelopment was nearing completion and that a housing regeneration officer was working on-site to monitor social value outcomes. Improvements to canal links and affordable housing provisions were also highlighted. The officer agreed to follow up on the appearance of the hoardings.

Members raised concerns about parking provisions in new developments, particularly in light of aggressive housing targets and limited public transport options. They asked what measures were being taken to prevent overflow parking in residential streets. The response explained that parking levels were determined by the London Plan and based on public transport accessibility. In areas like Hayes and Uxbridge, which had high accessibility, car-free developments were encouraged. However, the Council could collect funds to support future parking schemes if needed.

In response to Councillors’ requests for clarification regarding parking assessments in areas surrounding regeneration sites, it was indicated that parking data was collected during the planning application process and that post-occupancy surveys could be considered if specific concerns were raised.

It was confirmed that there was a growing emphasis on aligning planning with public health outcomes. Examples included proposals for leisure facilities and community kitchens, as well as ongoing collaboration with public health colleagues.

Councillors suggested exploring European models of regeneration, such as subsidised repair factories that promoted reuse and community engagement. It was confirmed that officers were open to such ideas and that similar creative initiatives were already being explored.

Members asked whether residents displaced from the Austin Road site had the right to return and whether parking needs had been adequately considered. In response, it was confirmed that returning residents would be accommodated and that parking provisions had been balanced against other planning priorities. It was noted that additional tools outside the planning system could be used if parking became problematic.

The Committee advocated for the establishment of a community centre in one of the new developments to serve diverse local communities. Members also questioned why Section 106 funds were not always spent in the areas directly impacted by development. It was explained that a community space was still expected as part of the cinema building in the Old Vinyl Factory and that discussions with the landowner were ongoing. Regarding Section 106 funds, it was clarified that some contributions were site-specific, while others, such as those for carbon offsetting or air quality, could be used more flexibly across the Borough depending on the nature of the mitigation required.

That the Residents’ Services Select Committee noted and commented on the programme of work outlined in the report.