We have a new website go to gov.scot

Interim Evaluation of the Cities Growth Fund: A Report to the Scottish Executive

Listen

APPENDIX 4: GLASGOW

The City Vision

A4.1 The Glasgow vision Metropolitan Glasgow, Our Vision for the City Region was developed to provide an overarching development context for the Glasgow City Region, by bringing together the key spatial, economic and social developments in a cohesive and integrated way.

A4.2 The City Council led on the production of the vision and developed the document in a consultative manner. This included working with representatives of the 7 local authorities within the City Region at both political and officer level. This ensured consensus on development priorities and engendered a sense of ownership across local authority boundaries.

A4.3 The vision took account of the wider policy and institutional environments as well as recent research completed by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development ( OECD) and Economic and Social Research Council ( ESRC). The vision was aligned with key national policy documents, such as Smart Successful Scotland, the Social Justice Strategy, Transport Statement and Scottish Planning Policy. It was also closely aligned with key regional documents, such as the Glasgow & Clyde Valley Structure plan 11, Western Scotland Objective 2 plan 2000-2006 and local policies, such as Community Plans and Local Economic Forum strategies.

A4.4 The vision sets a clear statement of intent to make the Glasgow City Region "one of the most dynamic, economically competitive and socially cohesive city regions within Europe". Building the city region around a vibrant core city and a strong surrounding network of healthy local economies and communities was therefore central to the vision. The key themes covered:-

  • A working region: which adapts to economic change, grasps new opportunities, encourages innovation and is attractive to investors;
  • A learning region: which maximizes the potential of its educational infrastructure and provides lifelong learning opportunities;
  • A living region: where citizens feel all their needs can be met and where their contribution to the city region is valued;
  • A vibrant creative region: harnessing the contribution of higher and further education, creative industries, tourism, culture and leisure. This is also a region that recognises the role that the built and natural environments can make to enrich the quality of life;
  • A connected region: which has well developed physical and virtual infrastructure that allows access to external markets;
  • An inclusive region: where programmes are in place to tackle the root causes of inequality and disparity; and
  • A well managed region: where public services are of the highest standard and where the agencies work together towards common objectives.

A4.5 The vision had 3 underlying objectives covering competitiveness, cohesion and sustainable development which were felt to be central to its achievement. Ultimately, this highlights 2 important challenges for Glasgow. The first covers developing the city's competitive position and continuing the economic renaissance experienced in recent years. The second focuses on addressing the social and deprivation issues that are concentrated throughout the city. This focus on both competitiveness and cohesion sets a challenging agenda for Glasgow, and the surrounding local authorities. It appears to be founded on research 12 that suggests economic competitiveness is founded on (and drives) social cohesion.

A4.6 In order to develop projects to be funded through CGF the City Council used a competition process. The competition was internal to the City Council and involved outlining the CGF's broad priorities and then asking Departments to submit bids. Bids totalling £80 million resulted, with many of these for projects that had been about for some years, with the CGF being seen as a way of realising them. However, a formal framework to select projects was not set up. The key assessment criterion was that projects to be funded should contribute to the economic and social advancement of West Central Scotland.

City Growth Fund Projects

A4.7 Nine specific projects that were to receive CGF funding in the first round allocation were developed. These are outlined in Table A4.1. The Table includes the project, the broader typology in which the project fits (developed by the consultant team) and the total original allocation for that project.

A4.8 The 9 original projects were funded to a value of £40 million. This is broken down in the following way:-

  • £13.2 million on private transport, or 33% of the total Glasgow first round allocation. This includes £7.5 million on the Clyde Gateway/M74 project alone;
  • £10.1 million on property for business use, or 25% of the original allocation. Almost two third of this allocation was committed to the Business Centres in Disadvantaged areas project;
  • £9.7 million on training and education. This is just under one quarter of the city's allocation and is mainly accounted for by delivery of the City's existing Schools Vocational Training Programme which is expanded into the adjacent authorities. However, 10% of this theme was to develop the Queenslie training centre, which was to act as a hub for the programme; and
  • £6 million was to be allocated to Streetscape works through the Broomielaw / Tradeston project, while £1 million was allocated to Economic Diversification through the Waste Management project.

A4.9 The basket of projects in Glasgow appears to be relatively narrow and focused on 5 main activity areas and 9 specific projects. The largest investment amounts to £8.6 million (or £9.7 million if the infrastructure element is included) in the case of the Schools Vocational programme. This is a significant investment even in the context of delivering the programme in 8 local authority areas.

A4.10 In the wider regeneration of Glasgow (£1.67 billion of investment in the Clyde Waterfront, £60 million in the City Science and £125 million from the Community Regeneration Fund) the CGF is relatively small. However, the targeted nature of the fund on a small number of key projects provides the opportunity to set in motion lasting change. The final report of the Urban Task Force 13 found that concentrating limited resources was one of the key elements of successful area regeneration. Glasgow appear to have targeted their approach in this way which could lead to more lasting change than if the resources had been spread more thinly. However, it could be argued that even greater concentration would bring greater benefits.

Additionality

A4.11 The view of the City Council interviewees is that additionality is high as without CGF support most of the projects would either not have gone ahead or would have been implemented in a reduced way as there was a funding gap. Thus:-

  • All planned funding for the Kelvingrove-Glasgow Harbour Access was planned to come through CGF, as was the Gartcosh Road works;
  • Millennium funding had been lost from the Forth and Clyde Canal, creating a funding shortfall. CGF was able to fill this thereby allowing the project to proceed; and
  • There was a funding shortfall for the Business Centres, in part caused by the reduction of Regional Development Fund support, which again CGF has met.

Accordingly it can be argued that CGF has resulted both in projects going ahead that would otherwise not have proceeded and in projects going ahead on a larger scale.

TABLE A4.1 Glasgow City Growth Fund Projects and Original Budget Allocation

Project

Description

Allocation (£)

Transport Infrastructure - Private

13,200,000

M74 and Clyde gateway

This project was designed to take advantage of the opportunities created by the proposed construction of the M74 completion scheme and the East End Regeneration route. The project involved site acquisition and assembly, land remediation, decontamination and infrastructure provision.

7,500,000

Easterhouse to Gartcosh

This aim of this project was to improve the condition of the Gartloch road, which is prone to flooding, has a poor running surface and inadequate footpath and lighting provision. The aim was to better connect residents of Easterhouse with jobs in North Lanarkshire.

2,200,000

Kelvingrove to Glasgow harbour

The project was considering future access/parking and environmental management issues associated with the refurbishment of Kelvingrove art galleries and the construction of the new museum of transport.

3,500,000

Streetscape

6,000,000

Broomielaw/Tradeston

This project aimed to contribute to a much more extensive investment programme in the Broomielaw / Tradeston area of the city. The project included development of public realm infrastructure within the International Financial Services District ( IFSD), the construction of a new bridge, reinstatement of the quayside area in Broomielaw/Tradeston and the development of a new masterplan for the Tradeston area.

6,000,000

Property (business uses)

10,100,000

Business Centres in Disadvantaged areas

This project involved the development of business and training facilities within disadvantaged areas.

6,500,000

Forth & Clyde Canal

This project involved early action to reconnect the canal between Port Dundas and Pinkston basin and in the process unlock a number of development opportunities.

3,600,000

Training/Education

9,720,000

Schools Vocational Training

This project aimed to expand Glasgow's existing vocational training programme into the 7 other local authorities making up the Community Planning Partnership area. The options covered include care, health and fitness; administration; sport and leisure; construction; horticulture; hospitality; and business and customer care which lead to qualifications equivalent to a general/credit standard grades.

8,595,000

Schools Vocational - Infrastructure

This is an addition to the Schools Vocational Programme to enhance/extend the training facilities within the Queenslie Training Centre which acts as the hub for the project.

1,125,000

Economic Diversification

1,000,000

Waste Management Innovation Fund

This fund was introduced at the request of partnership members to make available a challenge fund mechanism under which partners were required to submit applications towards waste management projects. The projects were to address innovation, sustainability, transferability and job creation/training.

1,000,000

Capital: Revenue Split

A4.12 Table A4.2 looks at then capital:revenue split of the projects. The allocation was largely committed to capital projects, with just under half (44%) of the total capital allocation committed to Private Transport Infrastructure. A further third of the capital budget was committed to Business Property Uses and one fifth to Streetscape activities. These three activity areas therefore account for 97% of the capital allocation. Given the strong focus of Glasgow on capital activities this means that they account for almost three quarters of the total CGF first round allocation.

A4.13 Only one activity was classified as revenue: the Training/Education activity focused on the School Vocational Training Programme. As such it accounts for all of the revenue allocation. This is still a significant area as it accounts for almost one quarter of the total Glasgow budget.

A4.14 There is a similar story in relation to the mixed projects, with the Economic Diversification activity accounting for all of the mixed allocation. This activity accounted for just 2% of the total Glasgow first round allocation.

TABLE A4.2 Capital and Revenue Split of Glasgow Projects
(Column percentages)

Type of activity/project

Percentage of CGF Allocation

Percentage of Capital Allocation

Percentage of Revenue Allocation

Mixed

Private Transport Infrastructure

33%

44%

0%

0%

Streetscape

15%

20%

0%

0%

Property (business uses)

25%

33%

0%

0%

Training/Education

24%

4%

100%

0%

Economic diversification

2%

0%

0%

100%

TOTAL

100%

100%

100%

0%

Leverage

A4.15 Glasgow has levered in £66.5 million of third party support, with the majority of this coming from the public sector (Table A4.3).

A4.16 All of the main activity areas, with the exception of Private Transport Infrastructure, have some degree of leverage. The single largest amount was through Business Property activity which accounted for £27 million of other public funds. The Streetscape activity amounted to £20.1 million. The largest proportion of this came from Scottish Enterprise Glasgow (£12 million) with a further £8.1 million coming from the European Regional Development Fund. Smaller amounts were evident across the remaining activity areas including:-

  • Private sector investment of £9 million in commercial development in and around the M74 project area, which is classed under Property (Business Uses) in Table A4.3;
  • Private sector leverage of £600,000 in the Business Property activity came from ISIS Waterside Regeneration 14;
  • £2.7 million in the Economic Diversification activity. This was co finance from 6 Clyde Valley Community Planning Partnership local authorities; and
  • £1.7 million in the Training/Education activity from the European Social Fund. All of this came from the Schools Vocational Training Programme itself.

A4.17 The limited private sector funding for the Glasgow CGF projects is surprising given the scale of some of the activities. However consultation with the CGF manager suggested that in the Streetscape activity the City's contribution was to fund the public realm, whilst the private sector was to fund the commercial and residential developments as well as infrastructure such as broadband capacity. Given the scale of planned and implemented private sector development it could be argued that potential leverage is considerable. For example private sector property investment totalling £425 million has been completed and BT is now installing broadband capacity estimated at £50 million.

TABLE A4.3 Public and Private Sector Leverage in Glasgow

Type of activity/project

Private sector leverage

Public sector leverage

Public Transport Infrastructure

0

6,000,000

Streetscape

0

20,142,000

Property (business uses)

9,600,000

26,395,000

Training/Education

0

1,750,000

Economic diversification

0

2,700,000

TOTAL

9,600,00056,987,000

Fit between the Projects and the City Vision

A4.18 The fit between the Vision and the project and activities was assessed, looking in particular for areas where there has been no clear link made between the project and the Vision. That is not to say that there are no linkages between the project and the aims set out in the vision, but that the link is not immediately clear or has not been made in the review documents.

A4.19 In Glasgow there are no apparent areas of mismatch (Table A4.4). Each of the projects fits closely with the aims set out in the vision. For example the working region theme in the vision fits with the activities around Business Property and Economic Diversification, whilst the Private Transport Infrastructure fits with the Vision's Connected Region theme.

TABLE A4.4 Fit Between Projects and City Vision

Type of activity/project

The Vision

Areas of mismatch

Transport Infrastructure - Private

v

Streetscape

v

Property (business uses)

v

Training/Education

v

Economic diversification

v

Progress with City Vision Projects

A4.20 The Glasgow CGF activities are at varying stages of completion (Table A4.5). Completion is assessed in relation to the money actually spent on the projects as outlined in the evaluation report ( CGF Evaluation Report 2003-2006).

TABLE A4.5 Project Spend and Underspend

Type of activity/project

Project value (£)

Total Spend (£)

Underspend (£)

Percentage of total underspend

Transport Infrastructure

13,200,000

5,469,000

7,731,000

62%

Streetscape

6,000,000

6,000,000

0

0%

Property (business uses)

10,100,000

9,219,000

881,000

7%

Training/Education

9,720,000

5,930,000

3,790,000

30%

Economic diversification

1,000,000

957,000

43,000

0.3%

TOTAL

40,020,000

27,575,000

12,445,000

100%

A4.21 The Streetscape activity has spent its full allocation of £6,000,000, covering the development of new public realm infrastructure, a new pedestrian bridge linking Broomielaw with Tradeston, reinstatement of the quayside and the development of a new masterplan for the Tradeston area.

A4.22 There has also been solid progress in the Economic Diversification and Business Property activity. More specifically:-

  • The Waste Management project that makes up the Economic Diversification activity has spent 96% of its allocation. One final contribution is still to be paid to East Renfrewshire Council's Waste Recycling Technology Centre that will lead to the full allocation being committed; and
  • The Business Property activity has spent 91% of its total allocation. However, the Forth & Clyde Canal project spent £51,000 more than the original allocation. This was because the project received some money from the Business Training Centres project which had not spent its full allocation.

A4.23 The largest underspend was accounted for by the Private Transport provision, which accounts for 62% of the total underspend. This activity area had the greatest budget allocation amounting to over £13 million. This has largely been driven by underspend across each of the three individual projects that make up this activity. More specifically:-

  • The M74 and Clyde Gateway had underspent by £2.9 million, though this was just 39% of the total budget for this specific project;
  • The Kelvingrove to Glasgow Harbour project had underspent by £2.8 million. This was because access proved not to be feasible as the costs of infrastructure would be excessive; and
  • The Easterhouse to Gartcosh Road Link underspent by £1.9 million. This is because the road link had to be redesigned when there were adjacent green field land releases that required the road to be capable of taking an increased amount of traffic.

A4.24 The Training/Education activity had underspent by 30%. This amounts to an underspend of £3.1 million. The reason cited for this underspend was a mismatch between the intake times of the schools and vocational trainers.

A4.25 Overall Glasgow has spent £27.6 million from its £40 million first round allocation. This means that around 69% of its total allocation had been committed to projects within the planned timescale. Delivering private transport infrastructure has been the greatest barrier to the achievement of the funding targets.

A4.26 The underspend was also analysed by the type of project, in effect capital, revenue or mixed. From this 75% of the underspend was accounted for by capital projects and 25% from revenue projects.

A4.27 More specifically the capital element of the public transport infrastructure activity amounted to 62% of the total underspend. The next largest area of underspend, coming some way behind the public transport activity, was the revenue element of the Training/Education activity which accounted for one quarter of the total Glasgow underspend. The capital elements of the Business Property and Training/Education activity accounted for 7% and 5% of the remaining underspend respectively.

A4.28 Overall, the original investment plan for the CGF has not changed significantly. The projects have, however, changed in scale since the original vision was developed, with the Kelvingrove to Glasgow Harbour Transport project proving not to be feasible and the money being reallocated.

A4.29 Current progress shows that the Streetscape, Economic Diversification and Business Property activities have progressed the most. Slowest progress has been made in the Private Transport Infrastructure activity which is also the activity with the largest allocation. However, early issues appear to have been dealt with that suggests that planned spend on these projects will be achieved over time.

A4.30 The CGF allocation could be used in the wider city region and not just in the core city. In total 1% of Glasgow's first round allocation was spent in the wider area

Project Management Issues

A4.31 Formal oversight of the Fund comes through the Clyde Valley Community Planning Partnership, although this has no formal legal status. The Partnership has parallel officer and political groupings, with the politicians meeting twice a year to consider strategic issues such as the development of Glasgow airport, transport and, now, CGF. The partners include all of the 8 local authorities, the police, fire, health boards and the universities. Currently Glasgow chairs the Partnership and does the secretarial work. However, this is soon to change when there will be a rotating arrangement. The Partnership is responsible for producing the annual report on the CGF which reviews progress against targets.

4.32 Day-to-day management of the CGF is the responsibility of a full time member of staff based within the City's Department of Development and Regeneration Services ( DRS), helped by an administrative assistant. Both are paid through the City's mainstream budgets rather than CGF.

A3.33 Within the City projects are managed through normal internal systems, which enable spend to be tracked against targets and outputs, with the CGF projects being a sub-set of the normal capital programme. There is a monthly ledger report that shows progress on spend and action will be taken if this shows that problems are emerging. Responsibility for delivery lies with DRS and Land Services, the 2 Departments who deliver all of CGF's capital projects. The type of action generally taken has been to reallocate funds from underspending projects, with the Executive allowing up to 5% of project costs to be vired to another project, as long as this project was within the approved CGF programme 15.

A4.34 For those projects that are to be delivered by external partners, legal agreements have been drawn up with the City which set out the terms and conditions of grant support. They then claim quarterly in arrears, with money being drawn down against outcomes.

Scottish Executive

A4.35 It is felt that the CGF is one of "the better examples of Executive funding". The main reasons for this view are, like the views expressed by other Cities, that the Fund has been managed in a way that:-

  • Was very light touch, with comparisons being drawn with the Derelict Land Fund that was far more prescriptive;
  • Very flexible, over such things as project slippage, the revenue:capital split and financial allocations between years; and
  • Realistic, especially regarding the difficulties that there can be with funding capital projects with the inherent risk of slippage. Related to this is the willingness to allow up to 5% of the funds allocated to an individual project to be vired to other projects in the approved project set.

A4.36 Where there had been issues these had been about minor things. For example guidance had to be sought about the need to publicise the CGF on the bill boards erected around development sites.

A4.37 There are concerns that the move of responsibility of the CGF within the Executive could see a change in the approach taken to management. In particular there is a fear that there might be far greater emphasis placed upon reporting and finance, with a concomitant down grading of the more visionary aspects of the Fund.

Impacts

A4.38 The extent to which the CGF projects are being evaluated varies. The Business Centres in Disadvantaged areas are part funded by the European Regional Development Fund. As such there is a requirement to monitor and to prepare a final report setting out progress and the extent to which objectives were attained. The Schools Vocational Programme operated within Glasgow prior to CGF support allowing it to be rolled out into the adjoining authorities. As such it has been subject to ongoing external evaluation. The other large infrastructure projects, such as the Clyde Gateway, have progress regularly monitored, although this is not specifically for CGF purposes.

The Future

A4.39 Undoubtedly one of the biggest challenges faced with the CGF is to ensure that it remains a strategic fund, supporting projects that are felt to have significance to West Central Scotland. Paradoxically, whilst involving more partners should ensure that the full range of issues is considered, the negative side is that there is greater likelihood of projects being brought forward that have local significance only. This is often linked to political pressure to fund local priorities. There is also likely to be pressure to spend more in neighbouring authorities, to the detriment of Glasgow. However the view is that the current balance of spend between the City and adjacent authorities (75:25) is the correct one.

A4.40 It may be that the use of some of the CGF for competitive funding, as has been done for waste management and heritage funding is one way of defusing local pressures, whilst maintaining a strategic focus.

Good Practice

A4.41 The Glasgow City CGF process would seem to exhibit a number of examples of good practice:-

  • The involvement of regional partners at the start of the process;
  • Strong political leadership; and
  • Use of challenge funds that are perhaps a way of reconciling local political priorities with strategic issues.