Regeneration must build on local strengths or risk undermining community

Drawing together the findings from research in Liverpool, London, Teesside and Nottingham, the report concludes that social cohesion and commitment survive in disadvantaged areas in spite of the multiple problems experienced by local people. It calls on professionals in central and local government to ensure that residents have genuine opportunities to influence the way that their neighbourhoods develop.

Regeneration schemes that fail to do this, or settle for half-hearted measures when consulting and involving local people, will risk being counter-productive by undermining the remaining sense of community and adding to the residents’ sense of powerlessness.

Key findings
The four contributing research programmes used interviews with residents to examine the physical and social qualities of disadvantaged neighbourhoods and the impact of existing regeneration initiatives. They found that:

• Many residents had a strong commitment to their local area irrespective of age, gender or ethnic background. Women were especially important in sustaining social cohesion across the community, establishing contact through activities such as care, play and education for their children. Older women were active in maintaining mutual support networks.
• Ethnic diversity was a source of strength, with minority communities exerting a stabilising influence in areas where population turnover was high. The wider social networks of ethnic minorities tended to make neighbourhoods more outward-looking. Ethnically-mixed neighbourhoods sustained a wider range of local shops.
• Tensions were evident between certain groups of residents, including those between older people and teenagers, between newcomers and more established residents and between council tenants and housing association tenants. Past efforts at regeneration were sometimes blamed for making these divisions worse.
• Efforts to build better relations and social links between groups were hindered by a lack of community buildings and organised activities. Residents wanted more attention and resources allocated to social facilities such as shops, cafes, youth clubs and opportunities for sport.
• The loss or deterioration of ‘landmark’ buildings had contributed to a loss of pride and confidence in the neighbourhood. The quality of the physical environment was important for morale and the way outsiders viewed the community – boarded-up homes and neglected green space were particular concerns among residents.
• Residents living on estates with a bad reputation felt stigmatised and discriminated against by service providers. They considered there had been a weakening of their right to be protected by the police, that they were unfairly treated in education and employment and that they were denied access to credit and other financial services.

Looking at existing regeneration programmes and the mechanisms for consulting and involving residents, the report finds that local people want an active role – but only if their views will make a genuine difference to decision making. Residents often complained that their suggestions had no effect and that their queries were not properly answered. They felt their problems had been ‘taken over’ by regeneration professionals and some thought they had been exploited.

Many residents were ill-informed about regeneration activities taking place in their area and sceptical about the ability of initiatives to tackle community priorities. There was evidence that attempts at involving local people in regeneration by appointing community representatives to committees was not working well. Many felt they had not had their say and had little power or influence over priorities or budgets.

Policy implications
The report identifies a number of areas where changes in regeneration policy and practice would serve to reinforce a sense of local community:

• Regeneration should take account of the social strengths and weaknesses within neighbourhoods and implement community development strategies to resolve tensions and build bridges between generations and groups.
• Housing allocation policies should be adapted to improve cohesion, by making it easier for networks of family and friends to remain together in the same area. Young adults, in particular, should have a reasonable expectation of being housed in the neighbourhoods where they grow up.
• Consideration should be given to new ways of involving residents in planning and implementing the regeneration of their neighbourhoods. More frequent polling, balloting and open meetings could be used to ensure that residents have a stronger voice. Communities could also be given control over all or part of the regeneration budget to ensure their particular priorities are met.
• Greater effort should be made to keep long-established buildings and other local landmarks, finding new uses for them where necessary. 

Ade Kearns, Head of the University of Glasgow’s Department of Urban Studies, who wrote the report with Ray Forrest, Professor of Urban Studies at the University of Bristol, said: “The communities under study have revealed significant strengths and resources that regeneration initiatives should build upon for the future. Regeneration agencies should attempt, as a major part of their strategies, to develop and support
local private and community businesses and services that meet local demands and needs.

“If this could be done through a community-led body, it would give local people control over the strategy and have as its main aim the development of community cohesion and inclusion.”