General Strategy

Broad Support for the strategy.

Berwick’s Future not sufficiently joined up.

Views differed in terms of whether the strategy is too or not visionary enough.

Some criticism of process – in particular that the briefs were shared too late for some but for others the design briefs were not things they wanted to see.

It was inappropriate to publish such documents before the outcome of the consultation is known.

Some questioned whether in the light of the general economic climate the proposals would go ahead.

Many of the schemes depend on private investment this is unlikely to be forthcoming unless there is a credible regeneration strategy in place which gives a promise of returns on the investment

The Steering Group appears to have ignored other relevant studies e.g. Conservation Area, Museum Study.

Some comparison towns were offered e.g. in Europe, Scotland, Hereford, Ludlow and Oban.

If Berwick is a key rural service centre then there is a need to consider health care.

Queries about will the regeneration happen and who will pay for it.

If the plan is adopted will be aesthetically pleasing but will not be economically viable.

Berwick has a history of taking a long time to get things done, wants to strangle itself. This work has to be done.

Difficult to see how the Steering Group’s ambitions to revitalise the economy, attract investment etc will be achieved by any of the redevelopment proposals.

The Steering Group ability to deliver seems weak; if they cannot deliver the consultation process they are clearly incapable of delivering a regeneration strategy.

Accept the delivery approach proposed by Genecon, the need for greater political leadership and for private sector involvement.

There are strengths and weaknesses in the report. Weaknesses failing to address the Conservation Area Character Appraisals, too early for the University initiative, underplaying the report on the Museum and Barracks and on the Learning Skills hub. The consultation has focussed on the 10 sites whereas the report has a much broader approach.

Main economic drivers are not the 10 sites but further and higher education initiatives, high speed data link, broader cultural and heritage offer, the Granary, enhanced sub regional health offer, a new housing strategy.

There are ambitious proposals but their very nature makes it unlikely that they will be achieved in the short term. Perhaps therefore it might be sensible to consider in parallel, some more readily achievable measures which focus on the towns considerable assets. Perhaps a case can be made for some of the funds designated for big projects to be used for smaller ones e.g. a tidy up (weeding), grass cutting, repair and painting of buildings (HERS type scheme), signposts/advertising, play area, toilet facilities, why get rid of the cinema when leisure facilities needs a boost. Most of the projects depend on finance that will be raised in the private sector. Recent dramatic shifts in the assumptions behind investment decisions leave the Vision Statement’s proponents in a passive position. Public sector investment is less fickle; the proposals for a small university college in Berwick would transform the cultural and economic life of the town.

Incremental erosion of what makes Berwick special, as is happening at Hide Hill, will not aid economic development, rather the reverse as a Berwick becomes more like many other places and is no longer distinctive. (Civic Society)

In summary – broad support for the strategy but observations on 10 sites were mixed. Some reservations were expressed as to whether the sites would contribute to economic revival and if they will happen in the current economic climate.

The partners in Berwick’s Future have found the engagement discussions to be useful and informative in terms of considering what projects to pursue and how to go forward. The Steering Group has considered the comments made through this period of engagement and are now finalising an action plan of next steps to carry forward this 20 year vision.

The schemes taken forward in this plan will be funded through different routes on different timescales, some will be taken forward by the private sector, others through mixed funding and some will be public sector led. For those projects seeking public funding we will need to demonstrate a sound economic case for investment. More detailed work on the schemes/plans for major projects will still be needed and then financial appraisals will need to be prepared. Planning permissions will need to be sought and this process will enable further consultation. Partners will also in the coming months be considering through what mechanisms projects will be delivered.

We have tried to use a variety of approaches to share information on the proposals and appreciate that some people have found that the development briefs have been helpful to understand what is being proposed whilst others have not. The partners have to consider the needs of a mixed audience hence the use of different tools.

See also Communications response section.