Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

International Journal Neighbourhood Renewal Conference 2009


Published on

Creating Sustainable Communities: Tackling problems of persistent deprivation in a UK neighbourhood. From the Conference of the Journal of Neighbourhood Renewal November 19 2009. Presented by Nigel Berkeley and David Jarvis

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

International Journal Neighbourhood Renewal Conference 2009

  1. 1. Creating Sustainable Communities: Tackling problems of persistent deprivation in a UK neighbourhood<br />Conference of the Journal of Neighbourhood Renewal<br />19th November 2009<br />Nigel Berkeley and David Jarvis<br />
  2. 2. Structure of the paper<br /><ul><li>Persistent deprivation in a UK neighbourhood: a case study of Canley, Coventry
  3. 3. Understanding persistent deprivation: a three-fold typology
  4. 4. Tackling persistent deprivation: can a sustainable community be ‘created’?</li></li></ul><li>Persistent deprivation in a UK neighbourhood: <br />a case study of Canley<br /><ul><li>Case study of an unsustainable community and the way in which Egan’s wheel might be used to inform a new regeneration framework which moves towards the sustainable communities ideal
  5. 5. Coventry City Council commissioned SURGE to undertake Quality of Life survey of 300 Canley households as a baseline to a Regeneration Programme for the area</li></li></ul><li>Canley<br /><ul><li>Canley lies on Coventry’s south-western edge 4-5 miles from the city centre and has a population of 5,500 in 2,255 households
  6. 6. Characterised by: high proportion of young/older residents, predominantly white, high numbers of lone parents, high proportion of social housing, low rates of economic activity …in the top 20% most deprived in England</li></li></ul><li>Sustainable Communities: Egan’s Wheel (1)<br /><ul><li>Governance – Is there effective local leadership? Who is included and is this representative of the local population?
  7. 7. Transport and Connectivity – Are conditions enabling good access to opportunities and services? This also encompasses ICT.
  8. 8. Services – Are services appropriate to local needs? Are they responsive to meeting needs? Are they inclusive?
  9. 9. Environmental – Do places encourage environmentally sensitive lifestyles? Do they provide good environmental quality?</li></li></ul><li>Sustainable Communities: Egan’s Wheel (2)<br /><ul><li>Equity – Are there inequalities in the local area? Are services and facilities addressing these? Is there consideration of other communities being affected by local issues?
  10. 10. Economy – Is the local economy providing opportunities or is it in decline? Is it attempting to become more resilient?
  11. 11. Housing and the Built Environment – Is the local infrastructure well-maintained, invested in, and of high quality?
  12. 12. Social and Cultural – Is there a sense of cohesion within the community? Is the community able to adapt to change whilst remaining inclusive?</li></li></ul><li>Governance in Canley<br /><ul><li>There is a degree of apathy amongst Canley residents (relative to Coventry as a whole) in terms of their willingness to get involved in activities which contribute to improving their neighbourhood
  13. 13. This may reflect distrust of statutory authority intervention based upon ‘broken promises’ and a sense that Canley is ‘overlooked’
  14. 14. This is reflected further in a lack of belief that their voices are heard and that they can influence decisions in relation to services and developments in the neighbourhood </li></li></ul><li>Transport & connectivity in Canley<br /><ul><li>Canley is relatively isolated on the periphery of the City
  15. 15. suffers from poor transport links to key employment sites
  16. 16. Car ownership levels within Canley are low with greater dependent upon a reliable and efficient public transport service.
  17. 17. High levels of dissatisfaction with the frequency and punctuality of bus services
  18. 18. Canley residents are more likely to undertake journeys by foot than those in the City as a whole.</li></li></ul><li>Services in Canley<br /><ul><li>Economic profile of Canley combined with relative isolation, means that local services are especially important
  19. 19. Evidence suggests that satisfaction with shopping facilities is relatively low indicating the need to improve the quality and variety of existing provision.
  20. 20. Respondents looking for ‘better variety of shops’ and more shops generally in the area
  21. 21. Activities for teenagers (50%) and facilities for young people (41%) are ranked 1st and 3rd in ‘things that need most improving in the neighbourhood’ </li></li></ul><li>The environment in Canley<br /><ul><li>Level of satisfaction with quality of life in Canley are comparatively low
  22. 22. Driven partly by concerns over: levels of crime, cleanliness of streets, conditions of roads and pavements, and anti-social behaviour
  23. 23. Further highlighted in lower degree of attachment to the area, and lower levels of satisfaction with housing quality, tenant services, the quality and maintenance of green space and the streetscene generally</li></li></ul><li>Equity in Canley<br /><ul><li>Disadvantage in Canley is masked by the neighbourhood’s location in Westward ward and proximity to the City’s most affluent neighbourhoods
  24. 24. Means that Canley has largely missed out on mainstream government regeneration funding
  25. 25. Lack of public investment over many years relative to other disadvantaged neighbourhoods in the city
  26. 26. Over 20% of Canley residents are worried about ‘making ends meet’ </li></li></ul><li>The Canley economy<br /><ul><li>A victim of de-industrialisation and loss of manufacturing employment locally
  27. 27. Fewer than 50% of Canley residents are economically active. Those in paid work are in lower skilled, lower paid jobs
  28. 28. Economic inactivity, and resultant benefit dependency, is reflected in a significant proportion of working age households without an earned income
  29. 29. Exemplified by a high proportion of single parent households, where residents are: ‘at home not seeking employment’.</li></li></ul><li>Housing in Canley<br /><ul><li>A disjointed neighbourhood reflecting three distinct phases of growth divided by main roads
  30. 30. Has led to development of distinct, isolated communities that do not interact to any significant degree
  31. 31. Concerns about housing quality relate to outstanding repairs and accommodation that is too small
  32. 32. There is also weak attachment to place with a high desire amongst residents to leave the neighbourhood </li></li></ul><li>Society and culture in Canley<br /><ul><li>Geography of neighbourhood and lack of central hub discourages interaction between residents from opposite ends of the neighbourhood
  33. 33. The neighbourhood demonstrates low levels of engagement in cultural and leisure activities
  34. 34. In part a reflection of poor connectivity to social and cultural services located in the city centre
  35. 35. Lack of engagement in leisure activities compounds unhealthy lifestyle choices that are common amongst residents </li></li></ul><li>Understanding persistent deprivation: a three-fold typology<br /><ul><li>Economic restructuring, policy neglect and failure
  36. 36. Distrusting and disengaged residents
  37. 37. Poor liveability</li></li></ul><li>Economic restructuring, policy neglectand failure<br /><ul><li>Continued impact of deindustrialisation and globalisation
  38. 38. For many years, largely overlooked by area-based regeneration/ renewal policy due to proximity to prosperous neighbourhoods in the same Ward
  39. 39. Qualified for Neighbourhood Renewal Funding (NRF) on basis of being designated a ‘priority neighbourhood’ in the city
  40. 40. Limited success of NRF projects partly linked to lack of physical capital (i.e. premises to deliver large scale projects) </li></li></ul><li>Coventry highest & lowest house price areas<br />
  41. 41. Distrusting and disengaged residents<br /><ul><li>Lack of social capital
  42. 42. Lack of trust of neighbours as well as authority
  43. 43. Fragmented geography
  44. 44. High levels of transience
  45. 45. Anti-social behaviour
  46. 46. Trust can be undermined by: a legacy of policy failure; community infighting; antagonism between residents and officials; and programme institutionalisation</li></li></ul><li>Poor liveability<br /><ul><li>Lack of amenities/facilities especially for young people – link to anti-social behaviour
  47. 47. Poor public transport links
  48. 48. Poor maintenance of roads, streets and pavements; and degraded physical environment
  49. 49. Weak attachment to place</li></li></ul><li>Can a sustainable community be ‘created’?<br />The Canley Regeneration Programme<br /><ul><li>Adopted in March 2008 as a ‘community regeneration scheme’ designed to :</li></ul>“renew Canley as a successful, vibrant effective working community with good and well used public services and amenities where people positively choose to live”<br /><ul><li>Founded upon two core elements:
  50. 50. Priorities of residents
  51. 51. Evidence of need – informed by SURGE’s analysis of data presented here
  52. 52. Extensive (£13m) package of physical, economic and social benefits e.g. 700 new homes, a Community Hub, and improvements to local shops, public realm, green space and public transport links.
  53. 53. ‘Flagship’ schemes: amalgamated primary school and new Leisure Centre</li></li></ul><li>The Canley Regeneration Programme<br /><ul><li>Programme underpinned by delivery structure with central [ongoing] role for residents
  54. 54. Backed by substantial resources from land sales (but carries risk especially in the current economic climate)
  55. 55. Long-term programme: recognises the need to build and maintain momentum</li></li></ul><li>Conclusions<br /><ul><li>Area-based approaches can make a difference to improving neighbourhood sustainability
  56. 56. Case study of Canley (Coventry) highlighted:
  57. 57. extensive nature of neighbourhood level deprivation
  58. 58. the complex structural, physical, social, economic and political factors which underpin persistent deprivation
  59. 59. the difficulties of re-engaging communities
  60. 60. the evidence-based and community-led Regeneration Programme designed to renew Canley from within
  61. 61. the risk involved in terms of the Programmes financing
  62. 62. that the successful regeneration and sustainability of Canley will require long-tem commitment of residents, service providers, elected members and planners working together</li></li></ul><li>Any questions?<br />