6 Promoting a localist approach
"Community-led regeneration"
113. The Government has indicated its commitment
to the principle of "community-led regeneration". Its
Regeneration to enable growth document is subtitled "What
Government is doing in support of community-led regeneration",
and speaks about its approach "putting residents, local businesses,
civil society organisations and civic leaders in the driving seat
and providing them with local rewards and incentives to drive
growth and improve the social and physical quality of their area".[214]
Mr Shapps, the Minister, told us that the document represented
"a very deliberate attempt to move from the top-down, centrally
driven, bluntly unaffordable and certainly unsustainable approach
to redevelopment and regeneration".[215]
114. Our evidence was generally supportive of a "community-led"
approach to regeneration. Igloo welcomed the move to a "more
localist approach to regeneration" because it believed that
"local communities contain 'locality experts' without whom
regeneration will be unsuccessful".[216]
Ros Groves, the Chair of a Liverpool residents' group, said that
regeneration "has to be community-led, because from the community
up is where it will start, and where it will pass and flourish",
adding: "The community knows what is best on the ground for
the neighbourhood that it lives in".[217]
She also stressed that "community-led regeneration"
was nothing new, saying, "We have been doing it voluntarily
forever".[218]
A similar point was made by Mike Taylor, Director of Nottingham
Regeneration Ltd, who said, "In terms of the ideas and the
revitalisation of communities, that has been very much bottom-up
driven for many, many years".[219]
In Chapter 4, we found that the extent to which communities had
been engaged was one of the determining factors for successful
regeneration.
115. While supporting the principles, the evidence
raised concerns about the ability of the Government's approach
to deliver "community-led regeneration". Representatives
of the voluntary and community sector were particularly forthright.
Toby Blume, Chief Executive of Urban Forum, said that it was "not
particularly clear how [the Government was] going to marry up
'community-led' as a phrase, with regeneration".[220]
John Tizard, a trustee of National Association for Voluntary and
Community Action (NAVCA), said that his organisation "[subscribed]
to that commitment to community-led regeneration in the title
but [...] much of the content does not give us the confidence
that it is going to be seen through". He cautioned: "The
emphasis is on infrastructure-led regeneration and the role of
the private sector [which] could, unless there are counter-measures
included, exclude communities and this could then be very much
about regeneration being done unto communities, rather than community-based
and led".[221]
116. Our evidence expressed doubts about the role
of voluntary and community groups under the new approach. The
Joseph Rowntree Foundation warned that "the options or powers
for communities outlined in the CLG document tend to be substantial"
when "in practice, neighbourhood groups are often keen to
take on smaller projects".[222]
It said that when competing for rights and powers with larger
bodies, community groups could often lose out, adding: "Few
things will disillusion communities more than the realisation
that these words ['community-led'] actually mean 'private sector
led' or 'local authority led'".[223]
NAVCA told us that voluntary and community organisations had "already
been sidelined or overlooked completely in some of the new initiatives
under the regeneration umbrella", suggesting by way of example
that their involvement in Local Enterprise Partnerships had been
limited. It asked us to "recommend that civil society, including
[voluntary and community organisations], [be] given equal status
alongside the public and private sectors in a new approach to
regeneration".[224]
117. There was particular concern about the capacity
of community groups to deliver regeneration, given the impact
of recent funding reductions upon the voluntary and community
sector. The Institute for Historic Building Conservation and Historic
Towns Forum warned that "the loss of funding to the voluntary/community
sector from both local authorities and the various special interest
non-governmental bodies" was "limiting capacity for
third sector led regeneration projects, and [seemed] to fly in
the face of the Government's aspirations for The Big Society and
locally determined policies and agendas".[225]
Locality, a voluntary sector interest group, noted the Government's
intention to provide a £100 million Transition Fund but argued
that it did "not go nearly far enough in addressing the scale
of the cuts facing the sector". It said that "many voluntary
groups, charities and social enterprises that have in the past
delivered effective regeneration programmes, now face a very uncertain
future".[226]
Barbara Harbinson, Chief Executive of the Halifax Opportunities
Trust, a social enterprise organisation and member of Locality,
spoke of the funding cuts creating "a difficulty at local
level" and said: "Unless something else is put in place,
I think that the mechanisms to deliver [Regeneration to enable
growth] are just not there, as far as I can see it. Aspirations
are there, but not the practical mechanisms".[227]
Ros Groves said: "You ask us to do things, but there is nothing
here to be able to implement it with".[228]
She spoke about the responsibilities that had been placed upon
her as a volunteer, telling us that she had been responsible for
informing residents in her area, her "neighbours and [...]
friends" that Housing Market Renewal funding had been withdrawn.[229]
118. We fully support the Government's commitment
to delivering "community-led regeneration". We have
heard strong evidence about the importance of involving local
people in projects that affect their area. Witnesses have stressed
that this is nothing new and that there are many existing approaches
to community involvement from which positive lessons can be learned.
More worryingly, we have also heard significant concerns, particularly
from the voluntary and community sector, that, in spite of the
Government's enthusiasm for giving communities greater involvement
in regeneration, its approach will do little to enable such involvement.
Moreover, there is a risk that, against the backdrop of significant
spending reductions, many of the community groups most closely
involved in regeneration will struggle to stay afloat. If a "community-led"
approach to regeneration is to succeed, community groups need
some certainty about the future. We agree that while the "aspirations"
for "community-led regeneration" are there, the "practical
mechanisms" to deliver it are often lacking. We
recommend that the Government work with representatives of the
voluntary and community sector to develop more detailed proposals
for promoting the active involvement of communities and community
groups in regeneration. We invite the Government to provide us,
in its response to our Report, with a number of examples of "practical
mechanisms" for implementing community-led regeneration,
both those which are already in use and those which the Government
intends to develop. These examples should address the particular
concerns community groups have expressed to us about their capacity
to play a greater role in regeneration, and set out how they will
give such groups confidence about their future and a degree of
certainty about funding.
'Strategic localism'
119. As
well as expressing support for the close involvement of communities
and community groups, our evidence also stressed the need for
a co-ordinated, strategic approach across the wider local area.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation pointed to research which suggests
that "community
empowerment and community engagement, while necessary components
of good regeneration, are not sufficient in themselves" but
need support "from players at other levels of government".
Councils and their partners, for instance, "play a key role
in setting overall priorities, providing an overarching framework
for planning [and] overseeing broader policy issues".[230]
The Local Government Association expressed support for "a
locally led approach to regeneration with decisions taken by democratically
accountable local councils working with residents, local businesses,
the voluntary sector and social enterprises to promote economic
growth and a high quality of life locally".[231]
Earlier in this report,
we saw that a key lesson learned from earlier approaches to regeneration
was the importance of the council providing "stewardship
of place" and political leadership to bring together the
range of public, private and voluntary sector organisations with
a contribution to make to regeneration.
120. Lord Heseltine argued that the current way in
which Government operated made it difficult for councils to deliver
a co-ordinated approach to regeneration at the local level. He
cited Manchester as an example:
There is no one in central Government looking at
Manchester and asking what can be done to enable Manchester to
excel. There are people in central Government looking at its housing,
education and transport. It is all micro. I know of no other country
of our sort that behaves in this way. But the staff working in
Manchester respond to all of this. The power and money they have
comes from the central Government in a functional route. The circulars
they get do not talk about going to Manchester, they talk about
a particular function of Manchester. They send the same circulars
to Newcastle, Liverpool, Leeds and Bradford. There is an all-seeing,
all-knowing, all-thinking functional direction from London.[232]
COMMUNITY BUDGETS
121. Time and again, the evidence we received suggested
that the Community Budgets[233]
initiative had an important role to play, not only in facilitating
a more co-ordinated approach to regeneration, but also in ensuring
the best use was made of the limited resources available. Chris
Murray, Director of the Core Cities Group, said that Community
Budgets "have the potential to work at a much wider level
and to take in a much wider range of funding from different Whitehall
Departments and resources, and to pool these at the local level".
He told us that this would "do two things. It will create
a massive efficiency in our view and secondly, it would create
leverage on private sector investment for private sector growth".[234]
CEDOS/ADEPT argued that "a genuinely localist approach would
allow organisations in the local area to pool budgets for whatever
purpose they choose so as to provide the best service for local
people". It saw "considerable potential for this in
economic development and regeneration", believing it "essential
that all levels of funding and intervention are covered".[235]
122. There was also support for this initiative from
the private sector, with the British Property Federation (BPF)
urging Government to "fully
embrace the concept of Total Place/Total Capital that seeks to
achieve a more joined up approach to all funding destined for
a particular area, creating shared facilities where feasible".[236]
Ken Dytor, Chair of the BPF's Regeneration Committee, spoke of
the need "to be getting cleverer at the way we package the
cash that is coming out of Government":
I have long been arguing about the fact that there
are capital cash flows going into health, education, housing,
etc. We need to be looking more cleverly at how we harness those
cash flows. They are in silos still, such as university funding,
and there are opportunities to break down the barriers for mixed-use
developments. A lot of thisuniversities and educationcan
be in areas where you need regeneration. Let us be a lot cleverer
about how we use those cash flows and how the schemes are put
together. The silo mentality still exists.[237]
Chris Brown, Chief Executive of Igloo, spoke about
the importance of "aligning the public funding flows from
all sorts of different programmes so that we can use what public
money there is to attract private money".[238]
We also heard from the Core Cities Group that
the principles behind the Community Budget approach
[hold] out a potentially different future model for capital finance.
The development and devolution of single capital budgets for economic
development, housing and transport to cities and city-regions
would be a significant measure to enable areas to better plan
and co-ordinate development and attract private sector investment.[239]
123. When visiting Greater Manchester, we heard that
local partners had developed a proposal for a single Greater Manchester
Budget for economic development, housing and transport. It was
claimed that this would lead to a more efficient, more co-ordinated
approach, make it easier to focus on key priorities, and allow
for a long-term strategy uninterrupted by changes at the national
level. Private sector representatives strongly supported the proposal,
arguing that it would make it far simpler for them to invest,
and would improve their engagement with public sector organisations.
Alongside this, there was an ambition to create a Greater Manchester
Community Budget through which the local authorities and partner
organisations would pool portions of their budgets. The Association
of Greater Manchester Authorities was keen to ensure that Work
Programme prime contractors, Primary Care Trusts and General Practitioner
commissioners were engaged in the process.
124. Some witnesses suggested that a lack of a co-ordinated
approach within central government was hindering efforts at the
local level. Paul Evans of UK Regeneration said that it was "critically
necessary" for DCLG, the Department for Work and Pensions
and the Department for Education to "come together and understand
how far they are releasing the boundaries".[240]
Richard Summers, President of the Royal Town Planning Institute,
added that DCLG and the Department for Business, Innovation and
Skills did "not speak the same languageit is like
Latin and Aramaicbecause they come from such completely
different points of view".[241]
We also heard from Lord Heseltine that DCLG did "not have
the clout" to deliver the joined up approach he believed
was needed at local level.[242]
In our recent inquiry on Localism, we considered Community
Budgets in some detail. We heard from the Minister of State for
Decentralisation, Rt Hon Greg Clark MP, that while there was an
onus upon central government to become more joined-up, local bodies
also shared some responsibility for making Community Budgets work.
He said that Government was establishing an "ethos [...]
whereby communities themselves can suggest different ways of doing
things".[243]
In our report, we noted that some departments were far more enthusiastic
than others, and recommended:
that the Government publish regular reports on the
progress of the community budgets programme, specifically the
progress that is being made by individual departments in identifying
their contributions, and how those contributions match up to requests
made by local authorities. This is a crucial programme that demands
a great deal more concrete commitment from government departments
than has thus far been demonstrated.[244]
125. Mr Shapps told us that "no Department can
make it happen on their own" but said that Community Budgets
were "an idea whose time has come, and we must absolutely
deliver on it". He told us that it was "crazy to have
so many completely unlinked funding streams, often not appreciating
that the other one is there". Mr Stunell added that he did
not think it "a secret that there is a silo mentality in
policy delivery terms in central Government". He spoke of
a "really significant challenge" but said that there
was "real energy behind it both inside the Department and
across Departments to make sure that we can deliver". While
the initial focus would be on "quite a small number of local
authorities and quite a confined set of policy areas", he
believed that "very quickly we need to get that to be looking
holistically at neighbourhoods and all the public funding going
to specific neighbourhoods".[245]
126. Subsequent to this session, Mr Shapps wrote
to us with a copy of the terms of reference for the second phase
of the Local Government Resource Review. DCLG said that they demonstrated
that "all of Whitehall [was] on board and taking practical
steps to explore a very radical approach to Community Budgets,
which will cover all spending on local public services in an area".[246]
One part of the review would "involve inviting communities
in two local authority areas to co-design with local services
and Whitehall how a Neighbourhood Level Community Budget and Local
Integrated Services approach could be implemented"; the other
would "involve two areas, comprising local authorities and
their partners, working with Whitehall to co-design how a Community
Budget comprising all spending on public services in an area might
be implemented".[247]
A position statement on the Capital and Assets Pathfinder Programme,
published by DCLG in August 2011, set out some of the benefits
identified by this programme and stated that the Government "[wanted]
local areas to recognise the potential of greater collaboration
across the public sector when managing capital investment and
assets".[248]
In September 2011, DCLG announced that an amendment made to the
Localism Bill would enable "cities to bid for new powers
to spark economic growth". The announcement said that the
amendment "opens the door to greater local control over investment
to drive growth, for example for housing and planning, economic
development, or pooling resources and effort across functioning
economic areas".[249]
Giving evidence to us on 12 September 2011 about the Local Government
Resource Review, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government, Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP, said that the previous week
the Prime Minister had "put [him] in charge" of the
Community Budgets initiative. Asked who had been in charge prior
to him, Mr Pickles said, "I think it was the Secretary of
State for Good Intentions. They were not doing such a good job".[250]
127. As part of a localist approach to regeneration,
councils have an important role to play in providing a strong
"stewardship of place", bringing partners together and
ensuring regeneration activity is co-ordinated across their local
area. The Community Budgets programme offers opportunities to
facilitate this co-ordinated approach and to ensure that public
money is spent according to a shared understanding of local regeneration
priorities. Moreover, at a time when resources for regeneration
are very limited, it is capable of generating significant efficiencies.
There is also the potential to extend the initiative to explore
the pooling of capital funding through a place-based approach.
At a time when the lack of available capital is a major barrier
to regeneration, the alignment of various capital public funding
streams could play an important role in levering in private investment.
128. We have commented previously on the importance
of all Government departments contributing to the Community Budgets
initiative. We are pleased that some progress has been made and
welcome the action proposed for the second phase of the Local
Government Resource Review: it is especially promising that this
will consider the possibility of Community Budgets covering the
totality of public spending in an area. It is also welcome that
the Prime Minister has now put the Secretary of State in charge
of co-ordinating the initiative. The Government should, however,
be taking the initiative forward at greater speed, particularly
in places such as Greater Manchester where there is great enthusiasm
amongst local partners to get on and deliver a new approach. We
are concerned about the risk of opportunities being missed and
money wasted, in regeneration and across public services more
widely.
129. We recommend
that the second phase of the Local Government Resource Review
consider how Community Budgets can be used to support regeneration.
The Government should ensure that areas with a clear regeneration
need are included amongst those chosen to pilot the new neighbourhood
level and whole area Community Budgets. These pilots should look
in part at how Community Budgets can best be used to tackle issues
of deprivation and disadvantage.
130. We recommend
that the Government allow Greater Manchester to take forward its
proposal for a single budget at the earliest opportunity, as one
of a series of pilots exploring the pooling of capital budgets
in areas such as housing, economic development and transport.
These pilots should consider the potential of this pooling approach
to lever in greater private sector investment. There is an onus
upon local authorities as well as central government to make Community
Budgets work. We therefore urge other councils and partnerships
to come forward with innovative proposals which build on the Community
Budgets model. The Government should ensure such proposals are
given the necessary support.
214 Regeneration to enable growth, Introduction Back
215
Q 350 Back
216
Ev 212, para 2.0 Back
217
Q 278 Back
218
Q 270 Back
219
Q 181 Back
220
Q 251 Back
221
Q 252 Back
222
Ev 136, section 3.2. A similar point was made by Nigel Mellor,
a Cheshire resident who has been involved in regeneration for
many years, Ev w175. Back
223
Ev 136, section 3.2 Back
224
Ev 227 Back
225
Ev w106 Back
226
Ev w170, para 2.2 Back
227
Q 277 Back
228
Q 270 Back
229
Q 272 Back
230
Ev 135, section 3.1 Back
231
Ev w126 Back
232
Q 292 Back
233
A 2010 Government publication sets out what Community Budgets
involve: "We believe that communities should be able to combine
different sources of public money to create pooled budgets to
tackle difficult cross-cutting issues within an area. These are
known as 'place-based' or community budgets". Department
for Communities and Local Government, Decentralisation: An
Essential Guide, December 2010, p 8. Community Budgets build
upon the previous Government's Total Place initiative. Back
234
Q 195 Back
235
Ev 120, para 22 Back
236
Ev 211, para 23 Back
237
Q 207 Back
238
Q 203 Back
239
Ev 200, para 5.1.7 Back
240
Q 116 Back
241
Q 117 Back
242
Q 293 Back
243
Oral evidence taken before the Communities and Local Government
Committee on 14 February 2011, HC (2010-12) 547-i, Q 514 Back
244
Communities and Local Government Committee, Third Report of Session
2010-12, Localism, HC 547, para 156 Back
245
Q 411 Back
246
Ev 179 Back
247
Department for Communities and Local Government, Second phase
of the Local Government Resource Review: Terms of Reference,
June 2011 Back
248
Department for Communities and Local Government, Capital and
Assets Pathfinder Programme: Position Statement, August 2011,
para 12. The Capital and Assets Pathfinder Programme involves
Government working with 11 pathfinder areas to help them make
more effective use of public land and buildings. As part of this,
Government developed a "capital template" to help local
partners map and make more efficient use of the capital funding
streams coming into their area. Capital and Assets Pathfinder
Programme, www.communities.gov.uk. Back
249
"Cities to bid for new powers to spark economic growth",
Department for Communities and Local Government press notice,
13 September 2011 Back
250
Uncorrected transcript of oral evidence taken before the Communities
and Local Government Committee on 12 September 2011, HC (2010-12)
1470-i, Qq 80-81 Back
|