Written evidence submitted by Urban Pollinators
SUMMARY
— The
questions posed by the select committee are important, but more
fundamental ones should be asked in order to think clearly about
the future of regeneration.
— A recent
Scottish Government discussion paper goes much further than the
UK Government in recognising that old models are no longer appropriate.
— The
Scottish Government, unlike the UK Government, also defines regeneration
and why it is needed. Without doing this any regeneration policy
will flounder.
— The
UK Government should clearly identify the beneficiaries of regeneration,
what benefits are envisaged, and how they will be achieved.
— There
has been much debate about whether people-based or placed-based
interventions are more likely to address deprivation. Both are
needed.
— A locally-based
approach to regeneration needs to build local capacity to respond
to external pressures in hard times as well as opportunities in
prosperous times.
— An
independent national body is required to share learning, collect
and disseminate evidence and critique policy. Such a body should
be funded with an endowment to free it from political interference.
— Current
approaches to town and city centre revitalisation are based on
an outdated model. Strategies that rely on rising land values
will only work where the market is strong and demand is high.
Town centres need to reinvent themselves as social centres meeting
a wealth of needs for their local populations.
— Six
key lessons should be learned to inform future approaches. These
are outlined in paragraphs 5.1 to 5.6.
— Economic
development requires extra public support where the market has
not provided solutions. Local authorities should be lead investors
in their communities.
— The
key question to ask of future regeneration programmes is whether
they will build local people's confidence and capacity.
— That
question cannot be answered without addressing three challenges:
the impacts of climate change; the persistence of worklessness;
and the reconnection of place with wealth creation.
1. Introduction—defining the issue and
the value of context
1.1 Following the publication of the Department
of Communities and Local Government's paper, Regeneration to Enable
Growth,[1]
the CLG select committee has posed five important questions.
1.2 This submission seeks to answer those questions,
based on my experience over 12 years as editorial director of
the regeneration magazine, New Start, and as a consultant
and trainer working on placemaking and sustainable communities.
It suggests we should pose some additional and more fundamental
questions if regeneration is to succeed in the future.
1.3 To set the scene, it is instructive to compare
the DCLG approach with the discussion initiated last month by
the Scottish Government through its paper, Building a Sustainable
Future.[2]
1.4 The Scottish Government begins by defining
the issue. It states that "regeneration is the holistic process
of reversing the economic, social and physical decline of places
where market forces alone will not suffice". This encapsulates
the view, based on evidence and experience, that regeneration
entails a systemic approach to complex problems; that it is required
because a market economy leaves unsolved problems for which there
is no commercial solution; and that it requires a combination
of place—and people-based interventions.
1.4 Secondly, the Scottish Government paper seeks
to open a dialogue. It invites contributions to "a wider
debate and discussion about how we make all of Scotland's communities
resilient and attractive places to live, work and invest in".
1.5 Third, it recognises that we cannot do regeneration—particularly
the physical development of towns and cities—as we have
done in the past. It points out: "The economic crisis has
meant that many traditional models of regeneration are now fractured.
Development activity fuelled by rising land and property prices,
funded via debt finance has been shown to be unsustainable."
1.6 By contrast, the DCLG publication fails to
define regeneration, does not invite debate and lacks analysis
of what has worked and what hasn't. It offers unevidenced assertions
linking economic growth, housing development, localism and community
regeneration with no reference to the knowledge garnered in the
past, and no articulation of how circumstances have changed and
what that means. Indeed, its emphasis on incentives for new housing
and finance for infrastructure suggests DCLG is wedded to precisely
the model of development linked to rising land values that the
Scottish Government believes has failed.
1.7 On the positive side, DCLG's belief that
local residents should determine regeneration priorities is sound.
But we still need to know why some places have failed, and what
kinds of intervention will support locally-led approaches. DCLG
appears to have no view on this. Without understanding the causes
of decline, we can only hope to create sticking plasters for the
symptoms. And a belief that the markets will regenerate the places
the markets have left behind flies in the face of both logic and
evidence.
1.8 DCLG argues that "a new approach is
needed to ensure that local economies prosper, parts of the country
previously over-reliant on public funding see a resurgence in
private sector enterprise and employment, and that everyone gets
to share in the resulting growth". But as the Scottish Government
notes, economic turbulence drives a "flight to quality"
rather than extra investment in marginal markets.
1.9 A new approach must recognise why and how
things need to change. In part that is because development-led
models no longer work as they did; but there is more to regeneration
than addressing market failure. That implies a deficit model of
people and place. An asset based approach is needed that balances
an awareness of the impacts of market forces with a recognition
of the value of local people and their potential.
2. How effective is the Government's approach
to regeneration likely to be? What benefits is it likely to bring?
2.1 To answer this question we should identify
who the purported benefits are for; what they are; and how to
achieve them.
2.2 To specify who should benefit, we need to
identify where regeneration is needed. This is not difficult:
the 2010 Indices of Multiple Deprivation will show which areas
suffer most in terms of ill health, poor housing, worklessness,
crime and poor education and skills. Comparison with previous
indices provides a fine-grained picture of the persistence of
these problems in particular places. However, it is unclear whether
the Government plans to focus on the most deprived areas.
2.3 The benefits should be a reversal of the
problems that together we call deprivation. But regeneration experts
get sucked into unproductive debates about whether people-based
or place-based interventions are more likely to address these
challenges. The issue can be summarised in the title of a 2008
Joseph Rowntree Foundation report: "not knowing what works".[3]
The difficulty can be described as a problem of dispersal on the
one hand and displacement on the other. Interventions focusing
solely on improving individuals' life chances may help some to
change their circumstances, but in doing so they may choose to
move; while interventions focusing solely on place may improve
the prospects of a neighbourhood by displacing some of the people
with the lowest incomes or most intractable problems.
2.4 To maximise the benefits for the most disadvantaged
places and people, we need to invest in education and opportunities
that link people to labour markets and encourage enterprise and
transferable skills, and in actions that improve quality of life
and quality of place for all, whether or not they are in work.
We need to do this because poverty is concentrated among those
at the margins of the labour market[4]
and because we can safely predict that around 30% of working age
people may be outside the workforce at any given time (see paragraph
8.3.2).
2.5 This requires a wide range of complementary
activities. At the heart of localism must be a concern to get
the ordinary things of life consistently right in our poorest
places. Such a view may be implicit in the UK Government's approach,
but it would help if it were explicit. The disproportionate cuts
to local government finance over the next few years will make
this much more difficult, and potentially more expensive, to achieve.
2.6 But localism also needs to be informed by
the knowledge that localities are subject to forces and trends
that operate at national and global levels, such as demographic
change or the cost and availability of energy. A locally-based
approach to regeneration needs to build capacity to respond to
these pressures. We will be able to tell if regeneration is working
in future not by a place's ability to rise in prosperous times,
but by its capacity to survive and rethink in hard times.
3. How do we build on previous progress and
ensure learning is not lost?
3.1 The evidence of what has worked is mixed.[5]
However, there is a broad consensus that provincial city centres
have improved their public realm and cultural offer; that neighbourhood
renewal made significant strides in the first phase of the Blair
administration; that the quality of social housing improved; and
that the living standards of the poorest increased in real terms
(though not in comparison with the best-off).
3.2 Looking back, the landmark moments in regeneration
were the publication of the Urban Task Force report[6]
and the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal[7]
and the actions that flowed from them. The Egan Review of skills
for sustainable communities[8]
reinforced learning amassed through previous programmes.
3.3 But the approach to learning the lessons
was half-hearted, and has now run into the sand. The Regional
Centres of Excellence advocated by the Urban Task Force took inordinately
long to establish and were removed prematurely. While bodies such
as the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE)
and the Academy for Sustainable Communities produced high quality
material on placemaking, their influence on government was limited.
3.4 While the previous government's record was
disappointing, the coalition's approach seems to have bypassed
the value of learning altogether. There is no acknowledgement
within the DCLG paper of the complexity of regeneration and the
importance of a holistic understanding of place; the withdrawal
of support for CABE and diminishing of the Homes and Communities
Agency, coupled with the squeeze on higher education and on local
government, risks creating a generation of local practitioners
with greater responsibility but much less knowledge.
3.5 So there is a strong case for an independent
body to curate, disseminate and critique the learning of the past
decades and the next phase in the story of regeneration. To ensure
continuity and independence, it should be established with an
endowment fund (rather like the UnLtd foundation for social entrepreneurs[9]).
Such a body should host a national archive of regeneration practice,
research and case studies; fund and disseminate new and user-friendly
material accessible to professionals and the public; and run workshops
and courses for those new to regeneration or wishing to improve
their skills. This body should take over the skills development
function of the HCA, recognising that regeneration skills extend
far beyond the HCA's remit.
4. How do we ensure sufficient public funds
are available for major town and city centre regeneration projects
as well as more local projects?
4.1 Before we ask how we continue to fund major
town and city centre regeneration projects, it is worth asking
whether we should keep doing so, and if so where and to what ends.
4.2 The DLCG paper suggests funding will be obtained
locally through incentives such as the new homes bonus and mechanisms
such as tax increment financing. Both these approaches rely on
land value uplift to encourage speculative development, and draw
down some of the proceeds for the local area. In other words,
they work well where the property market is buoyant and less well,
if at all, where it is stagnant.
4.3 The revitalisation projects of the last decade
have sought to gain competitive advantage for regional centres
by improving the public realm, offering cultural and community
facilities, and creating desirable destinations. Progress has
been measured in increased rental values and shopping centre footfall.
But it has been dependent on a booming economy and underpinned
by heavy public investment. Neither of these factors still hold
good.
4.4 The UK economy is stagnant. Costs of essentials
are increasing while consumer spending power is likely to fall.
The money consumers do spend will be spent differently as online
markets grow. Capital values are unlikely to recover in the short
term and rental values risk continuing decline[10].
This suggests we need new approaches for all but the strongest
regional centres. We should be reimagining many of our town centres
as social centres meeting a wealth of needs for their local populations,
from housing and learning to community activity[11].
4.5 The same questions hold true for investment
in major infrastructure such as high speed rail. While there is
a strong case for better and more reliable public transport between
cities in the north and midlands, we need clarity about what kind
of activity this is likely to enable and what benefits will accrue
to the most disadvantaged communities. The caveat about infrastructure
development as a regeneration tool is that it relies on a trickle-down
theory of benefits that remains unproven. Enabling more law firms
to locate in Leeds is unlikely to provide tangible improvements
for the residents of Beeston or Harehills.
5. What lessons should be learned to apply
to the Government's new approach?
5.1 Perhaps the most important lesson is that
we must keep learning, and to do that we need to collect, record,
store and share the stories, research findings, policy developments
and experiences of regeneration. That will not happen by itself
(see paragraph 3.5).
5.2 The second lesson is the importance of clarity.
Regeneration has for too long been a catch-all term. Clarity is
not the same as imposition or top-down direction; it is a recognition
that some things have regenerative effects while others may simply
be commercial activities. We should only subsidise activities
that directly improve the lives of the poorest or the quality
of disadvantaged places.
5.3 The third is to recognise the function of
markets. One of the greatest failures of the last decade has been
the unwillingness to acknowledge that the market forces that create
prosperity and opportunity also bring decline and deprivation.
5.4 Fourth is that regeneration can only happen
if we build community. It is by supporting community networks,
building skills and facilitating aspiration that we will create
the conditions that create resilient and resourceful places. Without
this, place-based interventions are cosmetic.
5.5 Fifth is that the most important assets are
the ones we already have. This is true for the built environment,
where we bulldoze history and character at our peril; it is also
true for the assets that exist in people and networks and relationships,
from the imam to the pub landlord, from the public servant to
the local councillor. Too often those assets are undervalued.
5.6 The sixth lesson is that regeneration is
a continuous and repeating process. It is something we do in response
to challenge and change, and some places will always struggle
more than others to benefit from change.
6. How should the Government attract money
into regeneration schemes?
6.1 We should start by asking what each scheme
is intended to achieve. Is it shoring up a failing market, creating
a market where there was none, or providing basic amenities and
services where the market can't or won't offer them?
6.2 Economic development in regeneration areas
is likely to require deeper and more sustained support from the
public purse because these are areas where the market has failed
to provide solutions. However, this is not an argument for unlimited
subsidy. Rather, public support should be given at least in part
in the form of risk capital to be used to provide services, infrastructure
and cashflow support to local and community-based enterprises.
These need to be long term, sustained interventions that create
the confidence that things are changing.
6.3 The idea of place-based budgeting should
be pursued, allowing the pooling of public funds to meet common
objectives (for example, health funds could support the provision
and maintenance of parks and open spaces and gym facilities in
areas with a high degree of obesity-related illness).
6.4 We should avoid using public money to underpin
false expectations. Not every town can rebuild its shopping centre.
New infrastructure and big-ticket facilities are not justified
simply because neighbouring localities have them. Sometimes the
best thing public agencies can do is to say no. In a localist
era, it is important to have sufficient checks to avoid money
being wasted on vanity projects.
6.5 Attracting private money is also fraught
with pitfalls. Financiers may have little commitment to an area
and be happy to leave sites mothballed for years in the hope that
values will improve. Large swathes of English town centres are
owned by pension funds and absentee landlords with little apparent
interest in creating thriving places. Such "investments"
can do more harm than good.
6.6 In such circumstances there should be a primary
emphasis on creating sustainable community infrastructure, owned
and managed by local people. Government proposals to grant a community
right to buy via the Localism Bill should be extended to allow
local people to identify and take over premises neglected by commercial
businesses. This will require time, financial support and skills
development. But a town or neighbourhood with a high level of
community owned infrastructure is likely to prove a surer investment
for private finance than one characterised by blight and neglect.
6.7 The local authority has an important role
to play here as a lead investor. Not only can it create regenerative
effects through the intelligent use of procurement, but it can
also act as a gilt-edged investor, underpinning joint venture
companies and local asset-backed vehicles. To enable this to achieve
the maximum impact, though, local authorities in the poorest parts
of the country will need to be recapitalised via central government.
Land value taxation may be one way to achieve this.
7. How should the success of the Government's
approach be assessed in future?
7.1 The key to a successful place isn't income:
it's confidence. Increasing the income of the poorest is an essential
part of regeneration, but on its own it may simply provide an
escape route. Confidence is what enables someone to open a shop,
buy a house or use the local park. As one resident interviewed
for the evaluation of the guide neighbourhoods programme[12]
put it: "There is a lot of jargon about regeneration... but
really, as a resident, there is only one question. Is this an
area I want my children to grow up in?"
7.2 So the questions I would ask of physical
interventions are: do they create places that are lively, where
people want to be, with a good mix of activities, and well designed
facilities using high quality, lasting materials?
7.3 Do social interventions improve the quality
of life for the worst-off, not just their incomes? Do they generate
transferable skills and aptitudes that are as useful in a community
setting as in the labour market? Do they build social connections
and networks that allow people to find support in a crisis and
give them the courage to seize opportunities?
7.4 Do economic interventions create resilience,
not just growth? Is investment helping to create new products
and routes to market? Does it provide opportunities for low-skilled
as well as high-skilled jobs, and lower the hurdles to employment
and advancement?
7.5 Overall, we should ask whether regeneration
creates communities where people feel at home, welcome, connected
and confident; places where people are productive, skilled, and
coping; towns and cities that are well designed, built to last,
animated and active; and that have a high degree of participation
in governance, self-sufficiency, and mutual support.
7.6 This is a framework for thinking rather than
a set of performance indicators. For a more formal approach, we
could do a lot worse than adapt the Freiburg Declaration on Sustainable
Urbanism.[13]
8. Three hard questions we should also ask
8.1 There are three urgent challenges for public
policy: how to live within environmental limits, how to create
meaningful life chances for a generation that won't have its predecessors'
access to cheap credit or affordable housing, and how to manage
in a much harsher economic and public funding climate. The task
can be summed up as creating resilience: environmental, social
and economic.
8.2 Should we stop relying on growth?
— 8.2.1 The
first question, which challenges the assumptions underpinning
the approach of successive governments, is whether continuous
growth is a realistic and valid objective in a world facing unprecedented
environmental challenges.
— 8.2.2 The
financial markets fell because the assets against which loans
were secured proved worthless. At the same time the world has
borrowed against environmental assets at an unsustainable level.
The effect, ultimately, could be the same: the asset cannot cover
the activity secured against it.
— 8.2.3 How
will this affect regeneration? The areas most vulnerable to economic
shocks will be among those most vulnerable to the impacts of climate
change: higher prices for commodities, shortages of energy, food
or water, increasing costs of transport. So sustainability must
be paramount in regeneration strategies, not just in terms of
green technologies or energy efficiency, but through local sourcing
of life's essentials wherever possible, and the creation of self-help
networks that enable communities to withstand the unexpected.
8.3 Are the poor always with us?
— 8.3.1 The
idea that we should live with continued poverty is, quite rightly,
regarded as offensive. Yet poverty persists. The previous government's
regeneration framework[14]
declared that mass unemployment and youth unemployment had been
"conquered" but recognised that worklessness had persisted
in deprived communities. On its own analysis, the most significant
difference between deprived areas and the rest had not changed.
— 8.3.2 There
is nothing new about this. A study by the Office for National
Statistics in 2003[15]
found that the employment rate for 15-64-year-olds in 2000 was
remarkably similar to that in 1902: 71% compared with 69%. For
a century or more between a fifth and a third of working age people
have been outside the labour market.
— 8.3.3 It's
time to recognise this reality and rework the social contract
in a way that values the time and contribution to society of those
who are not working. Just as those in work pay a percentage of
their income to the Exchequer, so those who cannot find a job
should contribute a proportion of their time to the common good.
In return, they should expect a level of state support that meets
life's needs and rises with the cost of living. This would help
to create a pool of community workers and carers who could begin
to realise the ambition of a "big society".
8.4 Are some places beyond regeneration?
— 8.4.1 The
third hard question is already being asked in parts of the US,
where cities like Flint and Detroit have seen large-scale abandonment.
UK towns are, for the most part, a long way from that position.
Yet the logic of a localism that ignores market failures and seeks
to pick winners may well be that some places will die. Ministers
should be open about whether they consider that an acceptable
consequence of their approach.
— 8.4.2 There
is an alternative to cutting the losers adrift. But it requires
reconnecting places with wealth creation—with locally based
activities and industries that reinvest in the locality, rather
than fleetfooted multinationals with no lasting commitment. Most
places, given long term support, can create a viable and flourishing
future for themselves, but it may be on a more modest scale than
in the past.
9. Ruskin famously said there is no wealth
but life. The failure of early 21st century regeneration programmes
has been to consider that wealth exists in everything else: property,
finance, careers, consumption, measurements of economic success.
We now have a chance to redress the balance.
March 2011
1 Department of Communities and Local Government (2011).
Regeneration to Enable Growth [online] http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/regeneration/communityledregeneration,
accessed 8 March 2011 Back
2
The Scottish Government (2011). Building a Sustainable Future-Regeneration
discussion paper. [online] http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/02/07095554/0
Accessed 8 March 2011 Back
3
Griggs et al (2008). Person or place-based policies to tackle
disadvantage? Not knowing what works. [online]
http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/person-or-place-based-policies-tackle-disadvantage-not-knowing-what-works
Accessed 8 March 2011 Back
4
Parekh, A, Macinnes, T and Kenway, P (2010). Monitoring Poverty
and Social Exclusion 2010. [online] http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/monitoring-poverty-2010
Accessed 8 March 2011 Back
5
Hills, J, Sefton, T & Stewart, K (2009). Towards a more
equal society? Poverty, inequality and policy since 1997.
Bristol: The Policy Press. Back
6
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1999).
Towards an Urban Renaissance. London: E & FN Spon. Back
7
Social Exclusion Unit (1998) Bringing Britain Together: A national
strategy for neighbourhood renewal. London: The Stationery Office. Back
8
Egan, J (2004). Skills for sustainable communities. London: HMSO. Back
9
See http://www.unltd.org.uk Back
10
David, Rosalind (2010). Secondary Centres: the impact of the recession
on secondary shopping centres. London: BCSC Back
11
See Seven Steps from Ghost Town to Host Town: http://urbanpollinators.co.uk/?p=415 Back
12
McCabe et al (2007). Learning to Change Neighbourhoods: Lessons
from the guide neighbourhoods programme. London: Department of
Communities and Local Government. Back
13
The Freiburg Charter for Sustainable Urbanism. [Online] http://www.academyofurbanism.org.uk/images/aou_freiburg_charter_final_sml_screen_spreads.pdf
Accessed 8 March 2011 Back
14
Department for Communities and Local Government (2008). Transforming
Places; Changing Lives: A framework for regeneration. London:
DCLG. Back
15
Lindsay, C. (2003) A century of labour market change: 1900 to
2000. Labour Market Trends, March 2003, pp 133-144. [online] http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/labour_market_trends/century_labour_market_change_mar2003.pdf
Accessed 9 March 2011. Back
| 
