Written evidence submitted by the Centre
for Comparative Housing Research, De Montfort University
SUMMARY
— We
welcome the role of this inquiry in generating a much-needed debate
on the future direction for regeneration. The impacts of the credit
crunch, the recession and public expenditure cuts necessitates
a rethink.
— The
coalition government's commitment to community-based regeneration
is, in principle, to be welcomed. But the detailed proposals are
biased against towns and cities in many parts of the North of
England and the Midlands.
— The
significance of community-based regeneration has been underplayed
in recent decades but has considerable potential in shaping a
future trajectory. There are many neglected examples of community-based
regeneration such as social enterprises, community land trusts
and neighbourhood initiatives.
— However,
strategic leadership by local authorities is essential if community-based
regeneration is to flourish. Councils have a vital role in setting
the strategic agenda and providing a supportive environment.
— There
are important lessons to be learnt from the successes and failures
of regeneration in North America and Europe. In particular, community
development corporations in North America and the "shrinking
cities" programmes in the USA and Eastern Germany are relevant.
— A major
omission from the community-led regeneration guidance is the lack
of focus on measuring outcomes.
INTRODUCTION
The Centre for Comparative Housing Research (CCHR)
at De Montfort University has a track record of engaging with
research, policy and practice on regeneration. We have undertaken
research on housing markets and neighbourhood regeneration in
urban and rural areas of England including Birmingham, Coventry,
Shropshire and parts of South & West Yorkshire. We have worked
with councils and communities in Shropshire on the development
of a community asset trust to regenerate a rural district. Dr
Tim Brown was previously a neighbourhood regeneration advisor
for the government. He has recently participated in conferences
and symposiums in the United States and Europe on initiatives
for tackling regeneration issues. In 2009-10, the Centre undertook
research, in collaboration with Hull City Council, for the Northern
Way[43]
on "co-ordinating regeneration".[44]
Our evidence centres on the latter study including
on-going work in Hull as well as comparative material from the
USA and Europe. Our response focuses on the following questions:
— 1. Will
Progress Made by Past Regeneration Projects Be Lost and Can They
Be Built On?
— 2. How
Effective is the Government's Approach Likely To Be?
— 3. What
Benefits is the New Approach Likely to Bring?
— 4. What
Action Should the Government Be Taking to Attract Money from (a)
Public; and (b) Private Sources into Regeneration Schemes?
— 5. What
Lessons Should Be Learnt from Past and Existing Regeneration Projects
to Apply to the Government Approach?
— 6. How
Should the Success of the Government's Approach be Assessed in
the Future?
1. Will Progress Made by Past Regeneration
Projects Be Lost and Can They Be Built On?
Lessons from the Last Decade
Whilst we may, with hindsight, be tempted to look
back on the last decade of a multiplicity of programmes and big
scale projects as a progressive era, the successes should not
be over-estimated. In summary, there is compelling evidence that,
although the built environment can be transformed, deep-seated
health inequalities remain and educational attainment levels in
deprived neighbourhoods are persistent. Private investment supported
by a favourable economic environment and the facilitating role
of central and local government helped to transform prime sites,
but peripheral locations remained stubbornly unattractive. Gap
funding from the public sector was insufficient to transform the
financial viability of projects for such sites.
The proliferation of partnerships and local delivery
vehicles, such as urban development corporations and economic
development companies, was promoted as a means of ensuring the
implementation of strategies and specific projects. A myriad of
time-limited national programmes, such as education action zones
and health action zones were established. But councils and their
partners were faced with abortive costs in putting together bids
for competitive national programmes with no guarantee of success.
Even "winning councils" were faced with unforeseen transaction
costs in co-ordinating a multiplicity of programmes, acting as
the "accountable body" and succession planning at the
end of time limited projects. From a private sector viewpoint,
there was often confusion, if not dismay, on the apparent overlap
and duplication of initiatives. Research by Brown and Lishman[45]
found that there were over 20 regeneration initiatives in East
Hull involving a range of separate local delivery vehicles. Similarly,
local residents, while acknowledging some of the benefits of investment
and community engagement after many decades of perceived neglect,
were bewildered by the number of proposals. This duality of view
was summed up by a resident in East Hull, who commented:
"We ain't neglected no more. There's lots happening
but I don't have a … clue who's doing it and why. Do I care?
I don't know but I think I should…there are too many cooks
spoiling the broth." (Interview with East Hull resident,
18 November 2009).
2. How Effective is the Government's Approach
Likely To Be?
Current State of Play
The credit crisis, the economic recession and public
expenditure cuts have transformed the regeneration landscape.[46]
After at least a decade of supportive government approaches, such
as housing market renewal pathfinders, public private partnerships
(including private finance initiatives—PFIs) and new deal
for communities (NDCs), major schemes are in retreat in many midlands
and northern cities. The current state of play is now one of uncertainty.
The Audit Commission[47]
in its strategic review of Gateway (the housing market renewal
pathfinder)highlighted that the abrupt ending of the specific
regeneration programme only half-way through its lifespan has
left the city's housing market in a fragile position.
This has been more generally highlighted by Hull
City Council[48]
in a report entitled "Tipping Point City". It contrasts
the progress made over the last decade with the challenges ahead.
On the one hand, it has completed, in partnership with the private
sector, the internationally acclaimed St Stephens Centre that
has transformed the retail, leisure and cultural offer so enhancing
the city's sub-regional role. It has also made considerable progress
in delivering the building for schools programme. Gateway has
facilitated the demolition of over 1,100 units and the refurbishment
of 1,300 properties and enabled the development of over 350 new
units. Opportunities continue to be exploited. In early 2011,
there was extensive media coverage of the joint initiative by
Associated British Ports and Siemens for a proposed wind farm
manufacturing facility in East Hull. This has, in part, been facilitated
by the local authority and may create between 500-1,000 jobs directly.
But, on the other hand, over 40% of neighbourhoods
in Hull are within the bottom 10% nationally on indices of deprivation.
The city has an employment rate of less than 63%.[49]
At the same time the ring-fenced funding for Gateway has been
withdrawn by the coalition government and the Treasury has announced
that it will no longer support a housing PFI scheme to regenerate
the Orchard Park estate in North Hull. In relation to the former,
the abrupt cessation of guaranteed funding has meant that Gateway
cannot even meet its current contractual obligations to contractors
and existing residents.[50]
The coalition government's change of thinking on
regeneration and the timing of the related public expenditure
cuts put in jeopardy many well-developed policies and programmes.
3. What Benefits is the New Approach Likely
to Bring?
Community-Based Regeneration
A community-based approach potentially has interrelated
advantages. These include, firstly, empowering local people to
work with other stakeholders to develop and deliver solutions
that address neighbourhood issues. Secondly, it helps to build
social capital and enhance community cohesion. Thirdly, it makes
more effective use of resources, which is of paramount importance
in an era of financial austerity and uncertainty.
A useful starting point is to analyse the coalition
government's proposals for community-led regeneration. The publication
of "Regeneration to enable growth: what government is doing
in support of community-led regeneration"[51]
is a welcome "in principle" sign of commitment. It links
with the Toledo Urban Development Declaration in summer 2010 by
the relevant European Union Ministers.[52]
The coalition government highlights four areas. Firstly, reforming
and decentralising public services are emphasised, for example,
a simplified national planning framework and the focus on neighbourhood
policy making. Secondly, incentivisation is stressed (rather than
the carrot and stick approach of the previous government) for
councils and their partners to "go for growth". Thirdly,
removing barriers to investment is highlighted, such as the continued
abolition of ring fenced funding for councils. Lastly, there is
a focus on targeted infrastructure investment such as transport.
However, despite the rhetoric of localism and a different
strategy from the previous administration, it is still a top-down
approach through measures such as enterprise zones, local enterprise
partnerships (LEPs), local housing trusts, the regional growth
fund and tax increment funding (TIFs). Each of these initiatives
is subject to much debate and scrutiny. Collectively, they represent
a continued requirement for councils and their partners to adopt
a competitive bidding strategy with no guarantee of success. But,
a major difference with these coalition government proposals is
that there is a greater reliance on private rather than public
sector funding. This is evidenced by the cut backs in regeneration
funding announced in the comprehensive spending review in October
2010. On the one hand, the regional growth fund was highlighted
as providing £1.4 billion of investment over the next three
years. But existing funding streams were withdrawn, for example,
the working neighbourhoods fund of £0.5 million per annum,
while specified programmes (such as the housing market renewal
pathfinders) were no longer protected.
Modelling the impact of these policy changes is not
straightforward. But, overall, there is a bias against towns and
cities in the North of England and the Midlands.[53]
For example, the major element of the affordable housing programme
for the next four years is the affordable rent scheme. This involves
setting rents at 80% of market level and providing fixed term
tenancies as short as two years. From a financial viability perspective,
this approach does not stack up for providers in areas where social
housing rents and private sector rents are approximately the same.
Similarly, providing short term fixed tenancies does not help
to build and sustain strong communities in neighbourhoods where
stability and social investment by residents is required as part
of the coalition government's big society.
Nevertheless, the principles of community-led regeneration
remain pivotal in a period where there is a consensus among the
main political parties in England on the need to tackle the public
spending deficit even if there are differences in the timetables
for action. Indeed, there is cause for optimism as there is a
wealth of evidence stretching back over many decades of diverse
and successful community-led regeneration initiatives. But much
of this material has been marginalised and neglected because of
the focus on large scale projects. They include neighbourhood
initiatives in the 1970s to improve older housing areas in inner
cities rather than wait for slum clearance and redevelopment,
the use of community land trusts in rural areas to protect and
enhance local facilities including workspace and affordable housing
and the growth of social enterprises in many parts of England
to provide training and employment opportunities for disadvantaged
communities as well as improve the quality of life.
In the case of Hull, our research on co-ordinating
regeneration identified a diverse range of interrelated actions.[54]
These included, firstly, the work of the Goodwin Development Trust,
which is a large social enterprise that employs over 300 people.
It was set up in 1994 by a group of residents on the Thornton
Estate. It has developed and runs a large number of city-wide
schemes including a community warden project, a community integration
service and training and support for residents groups. Secondly,
the city council and its partners have been investigating the
opportunities presented by urban community land trusts. Thirdly
residents on the North Bransholme council estate have been instrumental
in taking forward a stock transfer proposal that will help to
ensure that the decent homes standard for the properties will
be achieved. These findings were reinforced in September 2010,
when CCHR staff participated in a 'gearing up for the big society'
event in Hull led by the Institute of Community Cohesion[55].
This found a wealth of neighbourhood initiatives operating at
the grass-roots level in some of the most deprived areas of Hull.
4. What Action Should the Government Be Taking
to Attract Money from (a) Public; and (b) Private Sources into
Regeneration Schemes?
Strategic Leadership Role of Councils
Our research on co-ordinating regeneration[56]
found that public and private funders wanted clarity and certainty.
Councils as strategic leaders have a vital role to play in creating
the appropriate climate to link investment with community-based
regeneration.
The strategic enabling and facilitating role of local
authorities is essential. Each of the examples from Hull in the
previous section illustrates this point. Debates on the stock
transfer option in North Bransholme have been facilitated by the
council. The idea of urban community land trusts was taken forward
as part of a city-wide discussion on the future of regeneration.
The Goodwin Development Trust works in partnership with the local
authority on many projects and is integral to the activities of
One Hull—the local strategic partnership. Investment from
the public and private sectors followed.
Our research illustrated how Hull City Council was
fulfilling its strategic leadership role by:
— Working
with the Homes and Communities Agency on a geographic investment
programme to target funding on agreed priorities.
— Realigning
the focus of Gateway on delivery rather than strategic policy
and research.
— Transforming
the urban regeneration company, Hull Citybuild, into an economic
development company, Hull Forward.
— Establishing
a regeneration board comprising chief executives and leaders of
the main organisations and projects to co-ordinate strategies
and action plans.
However, for the current decade, the strategic leadership
role of councils is even more necessary yet additionally challenging.
As we have already pointed out, public sector funding for large
scale regeneration projects will be the exception rather than
the rule. At the same time, councils and other public sector bodies
are faced with an unprecedented requirement to cut expenditure.
This puts in jeopardy their ability to provide previously taken-for-granted
support for community groups (for example, advice, loans and grants,
secondments, etc) either directly or through funding to third
sector agencies.
Nevertheless, there are opportunities as well as
challenges. At a strategic level, policy direction and co-ordination
are vital in setting the context for community-based regeneration.
The former centres on vision setting, prioritisation and policy
development through local strategic partnerships. The latter involves
aligning the activities and programmes of public, private and
voluntary organisations. In relation to supporting and facilitating
community-based regeneration, there is a strong case for councils
helping to establish a city-wide local delivery vehicle in the
form of, say, a community asset trust. This would overcome a frequently
cited weakness of neighbourhood organisations in England that
are unable to benefit from operational economies of scale and
lack the skills and resources to achieve their ambitions. The
role of a community asset trust could include:
— Pro-actively
managing land and property from an asset transfer, including generating
funds for reinvestment.
— Commissioning
projects that meet city wide visions and priorities where there
are currently no active community groups.
— Facilitating
community engagement by building up the skills and expertise of
local communities (including the business sector) so that neighbourhood
plans and initiatives can be developed.
— Providing
expertise and support for in the development and delivery of community-based
regeneration. This might include budgeting, project management
and administrative support.
A community asset trust would be managed by a board
comprising council representatives, the business sector and the
community. In the medium term, it would be expected to be self-financing.
But it would need an initial injection of resources that should
be derived from the transfer of assets from public and private
sector organisations.
5. What Lessons Should Be Learnt from Past
and Existing Regeneration Projects to Apply to the Government
Approach?
Lessons from Abroad
It is important to appreciate that learning lessons
from other countries is not straightforward. Policy transfer is
often problematic because of different economic, political and
social environments. However, a comparative approach can provide
a useful role through "shock therapy" ie challenging
our existing and traditional approaches as well as providing inspiration
for new ideas that can be developed to reflect our own needs.
The concept of community asset trusts is inspired
in part from community-based regeneration initiatives in North
America and Europe. In the former, as in England, there is a tension
between large scale initiatives such as the HOPE VI (housing opportunities
for everyone) programme and neighbourhood-based community development
corporations. The former focused on redeveloping large public
housing estates in the major cities to form mixed communities.
Actions included redesigning areas using new urbanism principles,
encouraging through subsidies higher income households to move
into the redeveloped neighbourhoods, intensive local management
and helping low income households to relocate to suburban property.
The overall principles have been similar to initiatives in England
with the outcomes being a higher quality built environment but
persistently low levels of health and educational achievement
for low income households that remain. The latter (ie community
development corporations) emerged in inner city areas and declining
rural communities as a local response to the neglect by municipal,
state and federal governments to the problems of urban and rural
decline. There is no one single community development corporation
template. They have developed to reflect local requirements over
the last three decades. They may deliver affordable housing, carry
out property modernisation projects, provide training and employment
opportunities for local people, supply health services, run schools
and offer neighbourhood policing. As such they are able to benefit
from economies of scale in terms of back office functions and
manage their property portfolios to ensure a stream of income
from investments. The outcome have generally been positive in
relation to neighbourhoods and services with relatively high degrees
of on-going community involvement.
Community development corporations are useful in
provoking a debate on the type of community-based regeneration
that may be relevant for some parts of England over the next decade.
It is, however, not the only model:
— In
parts of rural USA, community land trusts are well established
and operate on a much larger scale than in England. Frequently
they operate on a town scale providing and managing significant
numbers of affordable housing, undertaking property renovation,
offering grants and loans to homeowners and providing serviced-business
units for local entrepreneurs. They work in partnership with local
government to help deliver the equivalent of our sustainable community
strategies.
— In
a number of Dutch cities, such as Amsterdam, there are neighbourhood
councils that form the lowest tier of representative government.
These formally are responsible for delivering a small range of
services as well as putting forward plans and policies for the
area.
— Effective
public private partnerships to drive forward regeneration are
also a feature in Dutch cities. In Enschede, in the Eastern Netherlands,
where there has been a major decline in the traditional textile
industries over the last three decades, this involves the municipality,
the university, housing associations, the equivalent of our chambers
of commerce and a local financial institution. The latter is particularly
relevant as they focus on providing loans at preferential rates
for local organisations. There is less reliance on national and
international financial institutions.
Equally relevant and thought-provoking are the initiatives
in parts of the USA and Eastern Germany to tackle the phenomenon
of "shrinking cities". There are many definitions and
they focus on population decline though short and long distance
migration, fundamental shifts in the economic base leading to
high and persistent levels of unemployment and a fiscal crisis
through a falling tax base coupled with an increasingly dependent
population. Frequently quoted examples in the USA include Buffalo,
Cleveland, Detroit and Youngstown (Ohio). The latter witnessed
a halving of the population between the 1970s and the middle of
the last decade. In Eastern Germany, a similar phenomenon has
affected cities such as Dresden and Leipzig. The population of
the latter has declined from over 700,000 to less than 500,000
(and this figure includes a suburban area of over 50,000 population
which was recently annexed to form part of the city). The overall
housing vacancy rate is over 20% which equates to neatly 60,000
units and 15% of the land area comprises derelict and vacant brownfield
sites. This is not to suggest that the trajectory of some towns
and cities in the North of England and the Midlands will necessarily
follow this scenario. Instead it is illuminating to consider the
initiatives that have been put forward to address the issue of
shrinking cities.
In both the USA and Eastern Germany, there is a tension
between large scale regeneration projects focussing on revitalising
high order functions (for example, retail, commerce and culture/leisure)
and neighbourhood initiatives. The former continue to be difficult
to implement because of the global financial crisis and there
is evidence that they may detrimentally affect the economic position
of nearby towns and cities. The latter centre on planned downsizing
of cities and neighbourhoods with an emphasis on:
— Demolition
of vacant stock: In Eastern Germany since 2000, federal government
subsidies have been available for demolition as well as new construction.
Match funding is required from state and municipal authorities
and clearance proposals must be in line with the urban planning
and development strategy. In the USA, the focus has been to de-urbanise
through encouraging the emptying of neighbourhoods by offering
incentives for businesses and households to relocate prior to
large scale demolition and clearance.
— Socially
integrative cities programme: This initiative in Eastern Germany
focuses on preparing a long term integrated plan for failing neighbourhoods
with an emphasis on aligning strategies and actions across a city-region/municipality.
In the USA, cities such as Detroit are attempting to manage "decline
programmes" so that the population and businesses are concentrated
in fewer neighbourhoods.
— Project
specific plans: In the USA, the emphasis is on creating more green
space and new parks. In Leipzig, for example, the municipality
is working with major public and private land owners to regenerate
brownfield sites for public open space use.
6. How Should the Success of the Government's
Approach be Assessed in the Future?
Measuring Outcomes
One aspect of the coalition government's announcement
on community-led regeneration that was of particular concern was
the paucity of information on evaluating outcomes.
There is a general recognition in policy making of
the importance of an evidence-based approach. This is in order
to assess successes and failures as well as to improve programmes.
There is a wealth of coverage of this issue in the work of the
Audit Commission in its assessment of housing market pathfinders
as well as in evaluation of the "new deal for communities"
programme and the neighbourhood renewal strategy. These sources
need to be revisited.
There is, however, one additional element that is
now required. A community-led approach needs to measure the outcomes
in terms of capacity building, participation and empowerment.
March 2011
43 The Northern Way was set up in 2004 by a coalition
of partners to promote the North of England and address the challenges
of improving economic performance and the quality of life. Back
44
Brown, T and Lishman, R (2010). Co-ordinating Regeneration:
Improving Effectiveness in Local Delivery, Newcastle, The
Northern Way, Research Paper 3 (available at http://www.thenorthernway.co.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=762). Back
45
Ibid Back
46
Parkinson, M et al (2009) The Credit Crunch and Regeneration,
London, DCLG. Back
47
Audit Commission (2011) HMR Strategic Review 2010: Gateway Hull
and East Riding, London, Audit Commission. Back
48
Hull City Council (2010) Tipping Point City: The Case for Hull,
Hull, Hull City Council. Back
49
Commentators in the USA suggest that a fall below 60% represents
a threshold from which economic regeneration is highly problematic. Back
50
Cooper, K (2011). Nightmare on Greek Street, Inside Housing,
21 January (available at http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/analysis/in-depth/nightmare-on-greek-street/6513321.article). Back
51
DCLG (2011) Regeneration to enable growth: what government is
doing in support of community-led regeneration, London, DCLG. Back
52
See http://www.eukn.org/News/2010/June/Ministers_of_Housing_and_Urban_Development_approve_the_Toledo_Declaration. Back
53
Brown, T (2011). An Effective Carrot to Encourage Housebuilding?
Town and Country Planning Vol 80 No 1, pp 44-46. Back
54
Op cit Back
55
See http://www.cohesioninstitute.org.uk/AboutUs/Services/BigSocietyRapidAction.
Back
56
Op cit Back
| 
