Recommendation 166

This process also carries a risk that Government funding may be directed towards projects which may not have the greatest impact on high street and town centre renewal. Councillor Slade stated: “if you do not bid, you are not looked at as being ambitious” and that “your MPs quite rightly get cross because they think you should be bidding for everything” but that “you sometimes get money for things that are not seen by your communities as the biggest priority” 327 . The then Government preferred “shovel-ready” 328 bids but the NAO reported that this did not result in quick delivery on the ground, nor did those projects necessarily address the greatest needs of the community. 329 Councillor Brown suggested that councils might find themselves bidding for lower-priority projects if they were the only ones that could satisfy specific criteria; which may not help to deliver coherent placemaking in line with the wishes of local residents. 330 Power to Change was also critical, saying the Government’s approach had “led to the prioritisation of ‘shovel ready’ projects over creating an inclusive and long-term approach to regenerating high streets.” 331 However, Mr Melia noted that with planning it was possible to strike the right balance in designing projects that were ’shovel-ready’ to apply for funding whilst still being meaningful for the community. 332 He said: “We have been very careful in Sunderland to make sure that the projects that are “shovel-ready” align with our vision and what we are trying to achieve at a strategic level for the local authority and for our population.” 333