News

Regeneration came under the spotlight last week when the government's £2bn initiative to revitalise deprived areas was criticised for not being inclusive enough.

The Right Rev James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool, said the New Deal for communities was not putting local people in the driving seat as Gordon Brown and John Prescott promised the scheme would when they launched it in 1999.

Addressing the first hearing of the House of Commons' urban affairs sub-committee on regeneration initiatives, Bishop Jones, who is chairperson of a New Deal scheme in Liverpool, also accused the government of failing to give local communities sufficient time to solve their problems.

The sub-committee was announced in July and it invited community organisations to submit their views on the operation and impact of regeneration schemes. The terms of reference range from the contribution area-based initiatives make to regeneration initiatives and regional strategies; to the characteristics of successful regeneration schemes; and what arrangements need to be put in place at the end of an initiative to ensure local residents continue to benefit.

In his written evidence to the sub-committee, Bishop Jones says there are eight key questions urban regeneration must address. He argues the government needs to look at how the benefit system can be used as an incentive rather than a hurdle to community involvement and how schemes reconcile the government's need to set targets and timetables with the needs to engage and secure the support of the local community.

The umbrella group for community initiatives the Urban Forum also gave written evidence to the sub-committee in London last week. It argues that the winding-down of the single regeneration budget announced by social exclusion minister Barbara Roche last month (see panel)would reduce the opportunities for voluntary organisations to reach communities.

It says: "In extreme cases this can contribute to a breakdown in community cohesion as evidenced by the riots in several English towns and cities in 2001."

Urban Forum policy development officer Caroline Bond says the forum is concerned about the government's plans to end the single regeneration budget and replace it with a single pot of funding administered by the Regional Development Agencies.

"What will community groups do when SRB comes to an end?", she says. "Will they be able to access the single pot of funding fairly?" In fact, the Urban Forum is in the process of conducting research into the impact of the new single pot on the deputy prime minister's behalf.

Bond says in order for initiatives to be successful they require "genuine community involvement" along with the resources to operate schemes long term. "It is unrealistic for the government to expect to turn around a deprived area in a short period. What is needed is long-term investment," she says.

Andrew Webster, director of public services research at the Audit Commission, also appeared before the sub-committee. He says the primary reason some regeneration schemes fail is because they are not clear what they want to achieve from an early stage.

Webster supports the move to axe health action zones and says they provide just one example of where agencies duplicate each other's work. He says: "Health action zones are doing the work of primary care trusts and if the trusts are not doing that then it's a problem that needs to be investigated."

He believes the government should adopt a new method of financing regeneration schemes that removes the emphasis on community groups in deprived areas applying for funding to meet needs defined by government. He says: "Local people have to chase pots of money designed to meet specific targets instead of working out a case for what their area's needs are and then asking the government for funding to address them."

So does the sector believe the government has learned from the success and failures of its previous regeneration initiatives? The Audit Commission does. Its written evidence says: "If you look at the way regeneration policy has evolved over the past 20 or 30 years it is clear that lessons have been learned from past experience. This is true both at the broad policy level and in relation to the design of individual initiatives."

However, it warns against the government rushing into launching new initiatives that repeat past mistakes. It says the neighbourhood renewal fund makes it difficult for applicants to properly develop and consult on their proposals with their local community because it has such short deadlines.


The second hearing of the sub-committee takes place in Sheffield on 26 November and is due to receive representations from Birmingham, Sheffield and Stoke on Trent councils, Nottingham New Deal for Communities, and Manningham Housing Association in Bradford.

Anil Singh, chief executive of Manningham Housing Association is eager to share his views with the sub-committee. In particular, he wants to ask its members why the decision was already made to halt the funding of some area-based initiatives before the sub-committee's first hearing was held.

He says: "What is the point of this debate? Isn't it a cosmetic exercise if the government has already made the decision to end the funding of some area-based initiatives? I can't understand the government's lack of consistency on this."

Singh is a strong supporter of area-based initiatives and has sat on the boards of a New Deal for communities scheme and on the now defunct city challenge initiative.

He says: "The New Deal for communities approach is excellent because it is bottom-up and is not controlled by local authorities. Although it takes longer to achieve improvements, its results are inherently more sustainable."

Singh says the effectiveness of regeneration initiatives comes from retaining its independence from local government. "To run a regeneration programme properly they have to be staffed properly. If it is run as an arm of the local authority it will have the power over what decisions are made and will alienate the local community."

He believes the sector and central government must look at what can be learned from area-based initiatives before throwing their weight behind new initiatives.

Bond is equally perplexed by the decision on area-based initiatives and describes Barbara Roche's announcement as "premature".

She says: "It seems a bit odd for a committee to be called and then have the government announce such a decision before the first hearing."

However, a spokesperson for the deputy prime minister says the social exclusion minister's decision is entirely separate to the sub-committee's investigation.

"The sub-committee's inquiry will feed into the general debate about regeneration and the government is very interested to hear people's views," adds the spokesperson.

Convincing a sector that doubts this will take sustained effort on the government's part.

Regeneration reorganisation

Since the Labour government came to power in 1997 it has introduced a variety of short and long-term regeneration programmes to rejuvenate some of England’s most deprived towns and cities. The sub-committee’s current remit of investigating the "effectiveness" of such initiatives fits neatly in with the government’s overall policy of reviewing them.

This started in 2001 when the regional co-ordination unit reviewed area-based initiatives such as Sure Start, the single regeneration budget and health action zones. It resulted in the social exclusion minister Barbara Roche announcing last month dramatic changes to the way area-based schemes are to be funded in the future (News, page 8, 24 October).

She said a total of 13 initiatives will be merged into three existing funding streams, and five schemes - including the single regeneration budget and health action zones - will end as a result of merger, mainstreaming or non-renewal of their funding.