Democracy

Agenda item

Health Inequalities - Council Regeneration Initiatives

The Council’s Director of Regeneration will be in attendance to provide an update on how Council regeneration initiatives can help to reduce health inequalities.

Minutes:

The Director of Regeneration and the Programme Management Team Leader for Public Health provided the Panel with information about how local regeneration initiatives could help reduce health inequalities.

 

The Panel was made aware that health inequalities and regeneration were cross cutting and there was a clear link between the two.

 

One of the clearest links was the relationship between employment and health outcomes, notably those in work tended to be healthier. Importantly, the work of Public Health in this regard could also contribute people’s mental as well as physical health.

 

A number of regeneration initiatives could actively contribute to reducing health inequalities by emphasising place making. The need to improve environments for residents and maintain links between place and well-being had been growing for a number of years and was likely to continue. It was also explained it was easier to plan for healthier places rather than retro-fitting them, with Middlehaven provided as an example.

 

It was possible to be more innovative when planning for healthier spaces and that regeneration initiatives could be a catalyst for improved health provision and vice versa. For example, the need to plan for new medical facilities, such as doctors surgeries, could affect the overall scheme for a particular area.

 

Going forward there was a need to examine how the plans for the town centre could employ effective health and regeneration initiatives. As previously described, the link between work and wellbeing was well established. Therefore, any plans for the town centre had to include job creation for local people. However, this also had to be balanced with creating appealing open spaces that people could visit.

 

Plans to improve well-being in the town also included sustainable and joined up transport provision that allowed people to easily access employment opportunities and open spaces. This also has the benefit of reducing loneliness and isolation.

 

The Council did help improve well-being by controlling opportunities for negative health impacts using mechanisms such as licensing processes. However, there were limits to how effective these could be.

 

A Member commented that while improvements to open spaces were being made it was important not to lose momentum where such work had already begun, with Linear Park being used as an example.

 

The Council secured funding from the Town’s Fund as well as the Future High Street Funding amounting to approximately £37 million. Further funding was posible from the Levelling Up Programme and the Shared Prosperity Fund. As part of this funding the Council was working with a delivery partner (Arup) that had carried out research resulting in the Total Town’s Framework. Arup’s research found a healthy community is key when developing and planning spaces, as well as the necessity to empower the local population. Going forward it was important that planning for a healthy community was a key objective in every investment.

 

However, those objectives did not need to be limited to economics, as the Council’s Events Team also contributed to this objective by holding cultural events that promoted social inclusion.

 

Investment and planning for healthier communities was happening at ward level but its extent was dependent on available funding. Where projects had been prioritised they included planting and growing vegetables or any sort of physical activity. Where possible other stakeholders, such as Sport England, were engaged to assist with funding for projects, as well as actively engaging with local people on the outcomes they wanted. 

 

Other initiatives included improved cycling and walking networks as well as a Welcome Back Fund, drawn from Covid-19 recovery funding. This funding helped to create an App to inform businesses when the town centre was busy to assist service provision but also improve the public’s well-being to assuage concerns over Covid-19 transmission.

 

The Council had assisted businesses extend their operations to accommodate Covid-19 restrictions including increased outdoor seating and any licensing issues that may arise from it. As part of this, the Public Health team was working with the Planning department to ensure public health issues were embedded within the Planning process. This included limiting the number of fast food takeaways in any given area. While progress had been made, more work was required.

 

An example of best practice in collaborative working included Bicester where a partnership had been formed between the NHS, developers and the council to increase physical activity among residents. This project included the creation of greater connectivity, green corridors, and community assets to build a walkable and cyclable community. This was an example Middlesbrough may want to explore going forward. A similar example was Leeds where the council's work with developers helped created a mixed-use neighbourhood with low energy homes and conversion of an industrial environment into a family-friendly one.

 

While Middlesbrough could explore similar arrangements, the Design Council also produced five barriers to the creation of healthy places to live and work. They were; insufficient funding; requirements or expectations of developers; other priorities driving the project; requirements and expectations of politicians and insufficient time. From Middlesbrough’s perspective time limited funding could be the most significant barrier, as the funding received needed to be spent within a couple of years. 

 

Middlesbrough experienced significant health problems and as such a key priority was to increase physical activity as well as improving air quality and improving access to employment opportunities.  

 

There was also a need to empower the community to participate in the creation and support of new designs and developments. A play area in Redcar was cited as an example, whereby children and parents had taken ownership of the play area to the extent that repairs had been carried out before the Council had chance to respond.

 

The Chair thanked the officers for their presentation.

 

The Chair also commented that while work had been undertaken to embed public health principles in to the planning process, there remained inconsistencies in terminology that could affect planning considerations. These inconsistencies focussed on “Fast Food” and “Restaurant” with the latter being used to sell fast food. 

 

A Member queried if the Council had already worked with developers on brown field sites, similar to The Place development in Leeds. The Director of Regeneration clarified that Middlesbrough had not done enough work in this area, however this was due to the commercial marginality of most developments in the town. As such, the green agenda would likely be introduced in future phases of developments, such as Middlehaven, rather than its initial phase.

 

A Member commented that while implementing initiatives to reduce health inequalities was worthwhile individuals had to take some ownership for their own well-being and to adopt a healthier lifestyle.

 

A Member commented that while priorities had been outlined there was not a vision for the town, and that all developments seemed to benefit the town centre and not localities. The Member was also concerned the Council did not have an up to date Local Plan and queried how success would be measured and what timescales were applicable.

 

The Director of Regeneration clarified that in Middlesbrough many developments were driven by funding rather than an overarching vision for the town. Incorporating well-being elements into developments was difficult, whether that be building or retrofitting. Incorporating the green agenda was also quite expensive and required external funding.

 

The possibility of incorporating well-being elements into developments was easier if there was a suitable market for it. This was the case for office accommodation, as companies were concerned about employee welfare, whereas there was not the same market in terms of housing. There was, however, potential to capture some of that market in Middlehaven.

 

There was a great deal of work to be done with regards to a vision for the town, but there was an expectation that government would increasingly place sustainability and well-being at the forefront of future planning requirements. There were initiatives to encourage healthier living at a community level but work in this area was in its formative stages. However, with Public Health and Regeneration teams working together there would be greater clarity on how to achieve healthier living in the town. 

 

It was clarified there was work underway to change the perception of the “town centre” to the “centre of town” which would contain several important facilities. It was also clarified that the type of facilities would be determined by housing demand.

 

A Member queried if a detailed breakdown of how funding was spent could be provided to Members. The Member also commented that there was a need to educate the public to raise awareness of the benefits of healthy living. It was also commented that education was only one aspect of the process and that reducing poverty levels was critical.

 

A Member queried what work was being undertaken to improve the town’s existing housing stock, much of which was in poor condition. It was clarified that improving existing housing stock would not be cost effective. It was important to understand that most funding received required developments to the town centre.

 

A Member queried if any other authorities had stipulated that any new developments had to include minimum standards with regards to the green agenda. However, this would depend on the agreement of the local plan.

 

It was clarified that outputs associated with successful funding were focussed on the short term physical alterations and that specific health benefits were not a requirement to secure the funding.

ORDERED that:

 

1.    Performance targets associated with housing developments in the town to be shared with the Panel.

2.      The information presented be noted.

Supporting documents: