House of Commons - Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions

Select Committee on Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Seventh Report

REGENERATION: WHAT IS NEEDED

Addressing people and places

11. The SRB National Evaluation Team, suggested that areas requiring regeneration often suffer from a number of inter-related problems;

The area concerned usually has a weakened economic base (perhaps as a result of the closure of a large employer in the area concerned). There are large concentrations of unemployed and socially disadvantaged residents and a poor physical environment often characterised by a high degree of physical dereliction. Once underway the problem seems to have a momentum of its own passing from one generation to the next. It is the cumulative nature of the decline that is the problem....The problems of the most depressed areas appear to be resistant to solution by market forces and the operation of mainstream programmes operated by government.[5]

12. It is argued that area-based initiatives (ABIs) can be used in such areas to overcome the market and public sector failures that prevent areas from self-regenerating.[6] Submissions to the inquiry highlight that the inter-related, deep-rooted nature of the problems in these areas require a 'holistic' approach.[7] This comprehensive, multi-agency approach which targets physical, economic and social problems received unanimous support from witnesses. Many witnesses suggested that area-based regeneration will only be successful and sustainable if programmes address all these problems, something that has not always been done in area-based initiatives;

The UK has a rich history of doing lots of economic things on the ground in areas which have helped substantially. Where we have fallen down is bringing the three together, the physical, economic and social.[8]

13. A key issue in both the focus and evaluation of area-based regeneration programmes

is the extent to which regeneration is designed primarily to benefit the residents currently

living in the area, helping them find jobs, improve their health and so on, 'people-based'

regeneration: Or to improve the neighbourhood itself, its amenities, dwelling conditions,

physical environment, 'place-based' regeneration. Past initiatives have oscillated between

these two approaches.

14. There is an argument that improving the socio-economic characteristics of the people living in an area has more of an impact than improving the physical environment. The SRB research team suggest that adverse peer pressures and demoralisation can render it difficult for individuals in deprived areas to improve their position and circumstances.[9] Investment in the community and the individual in addition to the environment is therefore vital. The Community Regeneration Department in the Diocese of Birmingham concluded;

There are clearly areas which have been physically changed for the better as a result of regeneration intervention but this has not brought about significant change in the lives of local people leaving them frustrated and disempowered. Long term sustainable outcomes must remain the goal in regeneration and residents should derive economic, social and spiritual benefits from the process.[10]

15. There are however problems with 'people-based' regeneration, whether focussed on a particular neighbourhood or a broader area:[11]

those families or individuals who benefit from improved circulation or enhanced employment opportunities or better health prospects, may well move out of the target area;[12]
the areas concerned may in any event have a history of high turnover of population, acting as a temporary home for incomers;
results may be exceptionally hard to demonstrate, let alone quantify, and may be only expressed as the absence of some malign outcome, such as prevalence of drug abuse or juvenile crime.

16. In contrast, there can be relatively easy wins early on in the process of 'place-based' schemes. They can demonstrate practical results to a possibly sceptical community, persuading individuals to stay in the area.

The reality is, it is quite difficult to make a neighbourhood, or an area, feel better about itself if the buildings remain unimproved and if the physical environment does not exhibit any signs of change and improvement. I think that one of the advantages of investment in the built environment, in the physical fabric, is that it is lasting, it is more enduring, and I think the problem with some regeneration initiatives is that they do not endure, in that sense.[13]

17. The provision of decent shops, of better street or estate lighting to deter crime[14], improved public spaces[15] and of course visibly improved housing can have a rapid effect, especially where there is a conscious effort to ensure that local people benefit from the associated capital programmes. Evidence we received, including that from NACVS and the Paddington Regeneration Partnership underlined the importance of this mix of 'people' and 'place' regeneration.[16]

18. One of the strongest messages we received was the importance of a 'holistic' approach to regeneration. The most deprived areas suffer from a combination

of physical, economic and social problems. We are convinced that regeneration will

only be successful and sustainable if programmes seek to address the array

of challenges, striking a balance between 'people' and 'place' based regeneration,

and recognising that neither can succeed without the other.

Matching initiatives with local needs

19. The targets and outcomes of area-based regeneration programmes need to be matched to the needs of the area concerned.[17] Some evidence suggests that regeneration practitioners are not systematically analysing the needs of an area, and are not developing a focussed, coherent vision of what they are trying to achieve. The result of this approach is that practitioners chase any and all programmes in an attempt to secure funds without having considered if the outcomes of the programmes are appropriate for their locality. For example, Clive Dutton, a private developer told us;

[...] holding my hand up, there have been things that have been done that have been patch and mend and driven by the initiative and the availability of the cash rather than potentially what was in the long-term interests of the area.[18]

The Audit Commissions's evidence also identified this practice;

Our hope is that people will develop their capability and confidence to have a much more coherent local vision of what they are trying to achieve, to use their own resources to do it and to draw in government and other resources to match that, rather than what many perceive to be going on the other way round which is that local resources get skewed by chasing a particularly attractive source of funding which the government or European Union have introduced more recently.[19]

20. Funding for a regeneration initiative should only be given to an area that can demonstrate a genuine need for the outcomes of that particular initiative. We recommend that Local Regeneration Plans should be adopted to establish whether funding should be made available under any specific initiatives. Bids should be aligned with the strategic steer given in regeneration plans.

Evaluation and sharing best practice

21. There is widespread consensus on the importance of early, persistent and rigorous evaluation of initiatives. This can ensure that existing programmes can be improved while in progress or, if failing, terminated without further waste of time and effort: and that new initiatives and programmes learn from past successes and failures. As Joe Montgomery put it

The important thing is that we learn along the way from the things which worked in each of them, retain those things which worked in the next iteration and try and lose some of the things which did not work.[20]

The Chief Executive of Nottingham NDC told us—

If we are not operating a rolling programme evaluation during the ten years, we will not be able to modify and change the programme and respond to what we are finding during that time period [...][21]

Mr Singh told us—

Bradford New Deal for Communities has learnt from the mistakes of past regenerations, whether it is the City Challenge programme or the SRB programmes[...][22]

22. The Government is publicly committed to evaluation and to publicising the results. Barbara Roche told us that the third principal lesson learned from previous schemes had been that, "you need to have continuous evaluation of the schemes as they are going on".[23] Mr Wheatley of the Treasury spoke of the department's "keen interest in the evaluation of all kinds of programmes" and that the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal reflected the results of past evaluation.[24] Joe Montgomery of the NRU emphasised the financial commitment involved in evaluation, at between 1 and 2 per cent of programme resource, and the creation of a dissemination tool; "renewal. net", a "web-based repository of much of the evaluation material which is available, a lot of the academic material which is available and a lot of information about case-based good practice evidence".[25] Mr Riddell of ODPM referred to the thorough real-time evaluation of NDCs, and to the publication of What Works documents.[26] Mr Jonathan Blackie of the Government Office for the North East suggested that lessons had been learned from previous regeneration initiatives and noted the practice in the North East of running regular events for LSPs to come together to discuss good practice:

Too many regeneration programmes in the past have not shared those experiences"[27]

23. There are however three warning notes we wish to sound.

Professor Lawless, Director of the New Deal Evaluation Team, told us that the evaluation had not been commissioned until 2001, for an initiative begun in 1998: with the result that the baseline for evaluation is 2001—

[...]there is a very strong argument to have evaluation in a sense not as the second or third task, but a very strong argument that with the announcement of an initiative an evaluation team should be set up at the outset. It would have saved a lot of time and we would now be in a position to reflect on three or four years of experience which we cannot do.[28]

That is a sorry picture. The Regional Coordination Unit should make it its business to ensure that no initiatives get through its portals which do not provide for real-time and funded evaluation.

From our visits and discussions, and from evidence heard and read, we are disappointed at the lack of intellectual sophistication and rigour in evaluation of regeneration, so that bold claims of "jobs created/saved" or "housing units improved" seem to go unchallenged and unmoderated. Much of the evidence supporting claimed successes is narrowly focussed, subjective or anecdotal. There would be benefit in the professions concerned with economic and social evaluation in creating a more challenging and persuasive framework for evaluation of regeneration outcomes.

Evaluation of places — how they change and how they have responded and might respond to different types of regeneration programmes — seems to be lacking. Anybody familiar with English cities can point to neighbourhoods which have been the subject, or victim, of successive waves of initiatives. The medicine and its consequences have been evaluated, but what has happened to the patient? We recommend that some places be selected for evaluation of outcomes taken as a whole over the 30 and more years of a proactive urban policy, with a view to determining more closely the appropriateness of different categories of scheme for different types of place.

Identifying the right boundaries

24. Any area-based initiative, whether focussed on a small neighbourhood or city-wide, has to have boundaries: and boundaries are artificial, excluding what could usefully be included, and including what may not merit inclusion. ABIs are normally defined in terms of local government wards, in the absence of any obvious alternative. Ward boundaries are drawn up in order to produce electoral boundaries that are similar across a local authority area. They neither reflect natural communities nor do they necessarily incorporate areas of land which can be used for regeneration. As the Chair of the Ouseburn Trust, the Archdeacon of Lindisfarne, put it, "Area based schemes have not always been sufficiently related to identifiable or coherent areas community wise".[29] Communities are not always neatly based on ward areas, they can be based as much on shared interests as on shared geography[30]. The Chief Executive of Nottingham NDC gave us an example of ward boundaries which cut through a 'natural community';

Some local people take these boundaries literally and do not wish the funding to be given to the road on the opposite side of Gregory Boulevard, for example...one side of Hartley Road is in the NDC area and the other side is not. That is ludicrous. If you are looking to improve a shopping district you need to include the whole road as opposed to just doing one half of it.[31]

25. Rob Smith of the RCU accepted, from his experience of Sure Start, the importance of sensitivity to boundary issues.[32] Joe Montgomery of the NRU also accepted the problem;

We do not have much in the way of data streams, data sets and hard information on which to base a policy that is rooted in this unit of analysis called the neighbourhood. One of the principal purposes of the NRU, jointly with the colleagues in the Office of National Statistics, is to create richer data streams by breaking down the existing data and commissioning new data, so that we can use the neighbourhood as a smaller unit of analysis.[33]

26. Conversely, there can be and have been disastrous results where ABI boundaries have reflected neighbourhoods only too accurately. We were told that the distribution of SRB resources may have contributed to the tensions between communities in the North of England that resulted in the disturbances in 2001 in Bradford, Burnley and Oldham. The competition for recoveries between communities had exacerbated divisions in areas where there was a strong correlation between wards and different ethnic groups.[34] Thus focussing resources on, a predominantly white council housing estate or Asian area of run-down private housing could cause serious resentment in the area that did not receive funding.

27. There is no alternative to having sharply focussed area-based initiatives. Financial and human resources are limited. But there is room for a more careful and flexible approach to drawing the boundaries of areas subject to regeneration, and for explicit recognition by all participants, that funding may be as or more effectively used outside whatever boundaries are established. There is no particular merit in ensuring areas are consistent in size, we look to rapid completion of the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit's work with the Office of National Statistics in creating a public data set for neighbourhoods which will make it easier for those at every level seeking to minimise the artificiality of areas defined for the purposes of regeneration.

28. We also consider that the building of bridges between divided communities should be an explicit objective of regeneration initiatives, drawing for example on the experience of European funded work in Northern Ireland. We have heard of some developing practice, for example, residents involved with the West Pennine Housing Association capacity building project in Hollinwood (a predominantly white ward in Oldham), invite residents from neighbouring wards (some with high Asian populations) to the project's away day in an attempt to develop projects beneficial to both communities.[35] We recommend that the Community Cohesion Unit follows up its May 2002 guidance with regular reports on implementation, and that it be tasked with reporting publicly on the community cohesion implications of any new regeneration initiatives, including the recently announced Enterprise Areas. The consequences of area-based initiatives upon community cohesion should be covered routinely rather than exceptionally in project, neighbourhood and programme evaluations.

Connecting to the wider area

29. ABIs must be linked into the wider city and region. Regeneration cannot succeed when area-based programmes ignore the wider geographical context. Areas cannot sustain improvements gained through regeneration programmes unless the economic performance of the wider area and the standard of public services are improved.

30. There are difficult choices inherent in having area-based initiatives. Concentrate on regeneration of a city centre, and the immediate periphery is neglected: concentrate on regeneration of a peripheral site or neighbourhood and the town centre's survival is threatened. Regeneration of one neighbourhood can lead to the export of its problems to another. Concentration on neighbourhoods leads inevitably to neglect of dispersed deprivation, notably in rural areas, as persuasively argued in evidence from the Countryside Agency.[36] Some evidence suggested that areas which focussed regeneration programmes on their city centres left more peripheral neighbourhoods behind. As Joe Montgomery explained;

It is possible for regeneration to be pursued with some success at a city wide level whilst leaving particular neighbourhoods and particular sub parts of the city behind. The purpose of the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal is to ensure that does not happen.

But;

I will be the first to concede that neighbourhoods which simply concern themselves about their parochial problems may not be those neighbourhoods that will recover best and sustain their recovery[...][37]

31. Where cities have managed to integrate their regeneration at neighbourhood and city level, the results have been widely applauded, as can be seen by the example of Hulme in Manchester. Many witnesses highlighted Hulme as a sustained success story. We were told that Hulme's success lay its geographical, economic and public service connectedness to the wider city.

[...] Manchester as a city did not isolate Hulme as just one place and put everything there. They did try to see it in the context of the rest of the city. It is a location close to the city centre [...] it [the regeneration activity] was never seen in isolation from the rest of what was going on in the city [...] you have to make the connections both to other public service provision and wider economic development and that is what they made sure they did [...] that [connectedness] is essential if things are not going to be seen as isolated developments which then are very difficult to sustain.[38]

32. One function of regeneration initiatives is to re-instate a sense of pride in an area. We think it is important that people can feel a sense of pride and ownership in both their neighbourhood and the wider city. It need not be a question of choice between regeneration of the neighbourhood and the city, if the need for connections is explicitly recognised in the early stages of local planning and discussion.

Regenerating whole cities

33. The committee is concerned that in some areas ABIs are not sufficient to address the levels of deprivation. Stoke for example has six wards in the 10% most deprived wards in the country, and another 10 in the next 10%.[39] Such mass deprivation makes it difficult to focus on one area or neighbourhood. Neighbourhood renewal must be in the context of a clear economic purpose for the wider area, as Vince Taylor highlighted, "[...] Area-based initiatives will never work if they are placed within a weak economy and kept within a weak economy."[40] There are some areas where neighbourhood focussed regeneration is insufficient. We recommend that Government establish a central resource which can provide extra support and resources to cities where heavily disadvantaged wards are the norm rather than the exception. Larger disadvantaged towns such as Hull and Stoke which are outside the core cities require support through a special unit to develop strategic thinking, to learn from the shared experiences of core cities, and to enhance innovative practice in regenerating these areas.

Getting transport right

34. In our Annual Report we concluded that the separation of the functions of the former Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) in 2001 and 2002 had produced a loss of coherence between transport, planning, housing, regeneration and environmental policy.[41] Our visits as part of this inquiry, in addition to written and oral submissions of evidence, support this assessment.

35. Many regeneration schemes are dependent on new local transport infrastructure, linking neighbourhoods into city centres or other employment sites. In Stoke for example we heard that development in Festival Park (the Garden City site) was being hampered by a lack of road access. In Birmingham we heard that people living in peripheral neighbourhoods felt disengaged from the city centre regeneration which was difficult to get to on public transport. CABE highlight that most initiatives do not have a transport infrastructure component to them.[42]

36. Government regeneration priorities are not reflected in its transport priorities which seem to be focussed on long distance transport requirements. We recommend that all regeneration partnerships, including Local Strategic Partnerships, engage with local transport providers. Consideration of transport requirements should be a mandatory and fundamental part of all regeneration plans.

Using asset based regeneration

37. It is vital that the benefits brought about through time-limited area-based regeneration activities are sustained after the initial funding of the area-based initiative expires. Hence the importance of investing in assets which can provide continual funding for regeneration projects:

If you can establish an ongoing revenue stream that will underpin whatever activity it might be, maintenance or the support of people, whatever it is, clearly that is one way of sustaining the future of that particular initiative[43]

On our visit to Sheffield we witnessed the sustainability of initiatives through a community trust and asset revenue stream, something NACVS also advocate;

Means of transferring ownership and management of assets to the community should be considered. Community-based organisations, such as neighbourhood trusts, can ensure sustainability at the end of a project.[44]

38. Asset-based regeneration provides sustainable benefits. We recommend that Government review the existing structure of rules and regulations, including the fiscal system, to ensure there are no unintentional or perverse obstacles to asset-based regeneration.

Empowering communities

39. Many witnesses stressed the importance of community involvement in regeneration programmes.[45] In the past ABIs had a tendency to be 'top-down'. This approach did not encourage communities to 'own' and therefore sustain initiatives. Without being engaged with regeneration programmes, communities are not empowered, or linked into mainstream providers. This means that when the funding comes to an end, so does the process of regeneration. The Minister told us that empowering the community is key in a regeneration strategy;

The third one [change delivered to the everyday lives of people] actually, I think, which for me is the most far-reaching, is to have involved people who may not have been involved before in actually reclaiming back their neighbourhoods, actually feeling that they can make a difference, empowering them to change things round and putting power in their hands. [...] that aspect of bringing on people who I think will never look after this, bringing them into taking control of their own lives and taking control of their communities and neighbourhoods, I think is the lasting change.[46]

40. In order to empower communities, Government have in the recent past required regeneration projects to be community led. Many areas have successful examples of community led regeneration programmes; we heard evidence from several.[47] In order to raise the confidence of those in the community, many programmes have had to 'build capacity' in community members. This approach aims to give community members the ability to identify their areas needs and solutions; articulate them to practitioners; and then be involved in the development of the solutions. We received evidence from the West Pennine Housing Association who focussed on building capacity in 'local champions' who could pass information on to the wider community.[48]

41. A number of witnesses highlighted the problem of community 'burnout' or 'fatigue' induced by the pressures and responsibilities placed on people whose capacity is not limitless.[49] The Cities research centre suggest that

[...] Principles of bottom up regeneration need to be maintained but greater thought needs to be given to effective ways of engaging residents in long term meaningful activity that impacts on the decision making process without inducing meeting fatigue.[50]

42. Over reliance on the same community representatives, is unhealthy for the individuals concerned and the communities they represent.[51]

43. Relying on the community to solve deep-rooted problems is not fair on the community members, many of whom will have job and family commitments in addition to any voluntary contribution they make to community programmes. Moreover it is impossible for most community groups to devise the detailed funding profiles and plans required by Government without expert guidance and access to funding. The Shilbottle Village Forum submitted a memorandum which identified the difficulties they had encountered in raising money to fund a consultant to bid for regeneration funds. Mike Dixon, the Chair of the Forum suggested Government expectations were unrealistic;

Community led projects are produced by people (a limited number) who have other jobs, limited funds and limited time. The assessment panels seem to be unaware of the real nature of life on the ground, and expect limitless time, money and expertise.[52]

44. The Regeneration Practice told us that "the ability of community groups to show an interest in government designed regeneration initiatives has been widely reported as a failure".[53] The current reality is that most regeneration programmes are in the control of local authorities. It can be difficult for local authorities to work with communities, when they have to try and balance aspirations with practical realities. As the Archdeacon of Lindisfarne highlighted, there can be tension between taking the views of community members seriously and the local authority's responsibility to the whole town or city. Community members can feel their views have been ignored, but the local authority has to think in terms of securing inward investment, creating employment, providing housing and building an image for the wider area.[54]

45. Community consultation and empowerment is a key element of the regeneration process. Government should recognise the contributions communities can make and consider using the fiscal system to provide further incentives to community activists. Capacity building in the community has been successful and should continue. Government now need to invest in the capacity of local authorities to consult with the community, create genuine partnerships and deliver regeneration successfully.[55]

Providing strong leadership

46. Evidence suggested that communities often struggle to make decisions because they cannot agree. In this situation strong, clear leadership is vital because the programmes have to keep running.[56] Several witnesses suggested there was uncertainty where government agencies such as LSPs and the local authority were unconcerned. This uncertainty led to loss of time and inefficient use of resources.[57] It is very important that the source of leadership, and therefore accountability for each initiative is clearly identified. Strong leadership, from politicians or corporate bodies, religious[58] or civic leaders was highlighted as a key factor in ensuring community cohesion.[59]

Encouraging public space and good design

47. A number of witnesses stressed the importance of public space in regeneration, what CABE called, "the bits between the buildings" and of good building design:[60]

[...] there is quite a lot of compelling evidence that a good quality of local environment produces benefits for local economies, as well as making people feel safer and promoting better health, and so on. So that is something we would very much favour [...][61]

We note too the professional interest in good design of affordable housing.[62]

48. CABE stress that public spaces and buildings have to be well-designed in order for them to be sustainable and have the beneficial impact the Treasury refer to; "I think we need to have a mechanism to ensure that what is built is actually going to be seen as an asset in the longer term."[63] However in oral evidence expert witnesses suggested that the RDAs' target framework was not conducive to encouraging good design

[...] the core benchmarks are what are called the Tier Three targets, and these are jobs created, learning opportunities taken up, hectares of derelict land reclaimed and new businesses assisted and surviving for a year. That is to be added to for next year with a fifth target, which is the amount of investment leveraged into disadvantaged areas. Now together I think those are having the effect of making us focus on quite a narrow vision of what is economic. [...] if we are to work on those [aesthetic] issues they should be reflected in the framework that we are measured against [...] I think there will be a pressure to focus on those measurable outputs, and that may mean aesthetic issues, like design, are harder to achieve.[64]

49. Mike Shields of the RDA for the north-west argues, "The fact that it is not encapsulated in a neat little target in the Tier Two list, I do not think anyone should assume that means we are not bothered about it, we are."[65] This is not our impression. Brownfield redevelopment has been of poor quality in many deprived areas, often compounding negative external images - we recommend that public subsidy for regeneration should be conditional on an urban design guideline being in place for the scheme. We recommend that the Regional Development Agencies' objectives be reworded to include an explicit aim to improve the design of buildings and public spaces in regeneration areas. In order to measure this objective we recommend that design standards and targets be built into the Regional Development Agencies' Tier 3 targets.

Developing skilled regeneration practitioners

50. The challenge of delivering area regeneration requires a new generation of specialists who can combine skills in planning, urban design, surveying, public policy and management. Many witnesses highlighted a deficit in the numbers of such skilled regeneration

practitioners

One of the big problems I am absolutely certain that we have, in urban regeneration, is a lack of really well-qualified people to implement the whole subject. [...] It is an enormous problem to get the right quality of people into Urban Regeneration Companies, for example.[66]

Joe Montgomery for example highlighted the importance of investment in skills in response to skills deficit was identified in the report of the Urban Task Force.[67] There is some activity to address the issue. For example, English Partnerships is now working with CABE to create a new unit to encourage the delivery of a modular training programme for professionals in this area.[68] Information on the goals and progress of these 'Centres of Excellence' is not easily come by. Another suggestion was that more training in urban regeneration should be available at higher education level in order to produce well-qualified people. The British Property Federation told us that they were anxious about the shortage of well trained planners. However it is unfortunate that their concern did not stretch to considering providing sponsorship to students undertaking planning courses.[69]

51. There has been a failure in central Government and in the professions and trades involved to address this skills shortage. If talented, experienced regeneration practitioners close to retirement were moved into managerial positions, Government would be able to capitalise on their expertise. We recommend a forum for all those involved to identify practical measures to increase wider-graduate and post-graduate training opportunities in regeneration and to take forward an agenda for generally recognised professional accreditation. Skills training and capacity targets should be an essential component of local regeneration plans.

5 Ev 22 Back

6 Ev 22 Back

7 Ev 8, Ev 28, 148 Back

8 Q31 [Peter Tyler] Back

9 Ev 22 Back

10 Ev 27 Back

11 For example, Q 3 [Paul Lawless and Peter Tyler] Back

12 For example, Qq 31, 121, 400-1, 624 Back

13 Q 322 [Mr Dickon Robinson] Back

14 Ev 122 Back

15 Ev 167, 180, 190 Back

16 Ev 29, Q 233ff [Ms Jackie Sadek] Back