Written evidence submitted by Roselyn
Groves and Local Resident Groups
How effective is the Government's approach to
regeneration likely to be? What benefits is the new approach likely
to bring? In particular
The active engagement and inclusion of multiple stakeholders
proposed by the Government is a critical success factor in any
regeneration programme or project. This approach underpinned the
Housing Market Renewal (HMR) programme on Merseyside from 2003
and was formally recognized in the adoption of a Community Engagement
Strategy by the NewHeartlands Board.
Specific benefits of the approach include:
— The
creation of extensive and cohesive partnerships at a neighbourhood
level delivering buy-in and support from local residents;
— Effective
use of public funding to leverage investment from private, voluntary
and third sector sources; and
— Strategy
and policy alignment at a regional, sub-regional, local authority
and neighbourhood level to promote efficient programme delivery.
Will it ensure that the progress made by past
regeneration projects is not lost and can, where appropriate,
be built on?
The risk of a change of strategy leading to a loss
of momentum, investment and confidence is a major concern for
all stakeholders involved in regeneration. Given the long-term
nature of both the challenges and strategies linked to regeneration,
the Government should adopt an evolutionary approach. This would
enable Government to observe and learn from what has been done
to date, to link and evolve regeneration strategies and to minimize
the risks referred to earlier.
To date, the Government has ignored this methodology
and adopted a draconian, finance driven approach that ignores
the importance of maintaining local support and confidence to
deliver long-term regeneration and economic growth. This is evidenced
by the decision to end HMR funding beyond March 2011 without developing
an exit strategy with stakeholders and regardless of the effect
on local communities benefiting from the programme. This will
undoubtedly have a negative impact and will result in:
— Schemes
taking longer to complete, or not being completed at all;
— Residents
being forced to live in intolerable conditions for longer (or
indefinitely);
— Promises
to/expectations of residents will not be met;
— Loss
of confidence in the prospects of community regeneration from
residents, developers, members and stakeholders;
— Developers
delaying or cancelling schemes resulting in a lack of private
sector investment in those areas which are most in need;
— Areas
with the potential for regeneration becoming blighted;
— A loss
of levered in public and private match funding investment;
— A loss
of jobs affecting the construction sector, RSLs, delivery teams
and suppliers;
— Training/apprenticeship
opportunities will be reduced affecting neighbourhoods where training
opportunities and skills are already low;
— An
adverse effect on local economies if it is known that the schemes
will not go ahead or will be pulled;
— A reduction
in low demand housing will be reversed and areas will start to
display signs of housing stress and anti-social behaviour;
— Housing
choice for future generations will be reduced leading to accelerated
population loss and potentially greater long term public sector
costs as neighbourhoods continue to decline;
— The
aspirations of increased owner occupation will not be fulfilled;
and
— Scarce
local authority funds will have to be diverted from other areas
of need to minimise the negative impacts.
The impacts above are based on an analysis of the
removal of HMR funding on Merseyside but are transferrable and
applicable to other regeneration programmes where there is a failure
to evolve strategy in a considered and rational fashion.
Will it ensure that sufficient public funds are
made available for future major town and city regeneration projects
as well as for more localized projects?
The inclusive strategy adopted for the delivery of
HMR on Merseyside was arguably its greatest strength delivering
leveraged funding of £455.29 million over the eight years
of the programme. An impressive £207.61 million of the total
sum came from the private sector illustrating how Government funding
can build confidence and create an economic and business environment
in which investment can be secured and resources maximized.
The success of the HMR programme in leveraging funding
from the private sector to create an enhanced investment facility
undoubtedly enabled more to be achieved for less public investment.
This included tactical projects to stabilize and sustain areas
at risk of market failure that would otherwise have required more
radical interventions at a greater cost to the public purse.
The key to the success of the approach was the security
of long-term investment at a level that built confidence amongst
the private sector and other partners. This was achieved by the
Government committing resources to regeneration within a timeframe
and at a scale that generated confidence amongst potential partners
and investors.
At present, the current Government has failed to
make an equivalent commitment and is currently at risk of missing
an opportunity to maximize long-term private sector investment
in regeneration. If this approach is not reversed and the opportunity
to leverage in private sector investment is not realized, the
resources available will fall significantly short of those needed
to deliver strategic regeneration for town and city regeneration
projects alongside tactical interventions for more localized projects.
What lessons should be learnt from past and existing
regeneration projects to apply to the Government's new approach?
Over the eight years of the programme the residents
involved in the delivery of HMR on Merseyside learned a number
of valuable lessons that fall into three broad categories:
Complexity
There are no easy solutions and what works in one
area or neighbourhood may not work in another. This simple fact
demands that while an overarching strategy can be employed to
deliver regeneration, there has to be tactical flexibility to
adopt a range of approaches and interventions in response to the
particular needs of a community over time. This approach enables
various approaches to be developed and tested and best practice
to be shared and adopted.
Commitment
Change takes time and all partners have to be willing
to commit their resources to delivering regeneration in the short,
medium and long term. This applies most obviously to funding but
is equally important in terms of community engagement, political
support and economic impact. In the absence of such a commitment
any regeneration project is doomed to failure and where commitments
are given and broken the damage is often irreparable.
Confidence
The confidence of stakeholders, and most importantly
local people, is difficult to win but easy to lose and maintaining
hard won confidence during the inevitable challenges that accompany
regeneration is extremely difficult. However, it is possible if
critical decisions are taken openly, honestly and against a background
of informed consultation and discussion with those affected by
the decision. A failure to observe this guiding principle inevitably
results in a loss of trust and commitment and the withdrawal of
the resources essential to successful regeneration.
What action should the Government be taking to
attract money from (a) public and (b) private sources into regeneration
schemes?
The detailed answer to this question lies in the
responses above and can be summarized as follows:
— Engagement—active,
effective and ongoing engagement with all stakeholders throughout
the lifetime of the project or programme;
— Strategy—the
adoption of strategies and policies built on effective engagement
and aligned at a regional, sub-regional, local authority and neighbourhood
level to promote efficient programme delivery;
— Investment—allocating
and guaranteeing the resources necessary to deliver the project
or programme; and
— Leadership—providing
effective leadership in a way that builds confidence and commitment.
— Perhaps
the most important actions of Government are those which maintain
and enhance confidence in otherwise marginal areas. This confidence
enables homeowners, Developers and social landlords to invest
and encourages population retention and economic growth. If the
Government takes actions which damage this confidence then evidently
it has become a driver of negative change in marginal places.
The experience of HMR on Merseyside demonstrates
how these factors influence the allocation of scarce resources
by public and private sector partners. Individually they are important
and collectively they provide the platform for maximizing the
resources required to deliver successful regeneration.
How should the success of the Government's approach
be assessed in future?
Regeneration is not about bricks and mortar it's
about people. Any assessment of the Government's approach should
therefore be determined by the extent to which it delivers long-term
improvements to the lives of the people living in the places benefiting
from regeneration programmes with regard to:
— economic
inclusion and contribution;
— educational
achievement;
— quality
of housing and environment;
— health
and life expectancy; and
— community
and residential stability.
May 2011
| 
