SpitalHill

=What's this page for?=

This is a resource and information page for the campaign to establish a new, participatory planning and research process. The intention is to halt plans for demolishing large areas of Spital Hill, and to work on showing that the area is already 'regenerating' into a vibrant local economy. This needs building on - not knocking down!

This page is general useful resources - see the table above. But here are links to other key pages

-

Charter
This is a document, in Appendix 7 of the masterplan, that came out of the work of SHLV and Fir Vale campaigners. It may yet turn out to be wasted tree - but it does contain some participatory ideas that could be effective. More work to do...

Participation
Information and links on what work is being done towards participation and 'deep democracy'.

SpitalHillLocalVoice
This is the page for drafts and conclusions coming out of Local Voice meetings.

LocalMultiplier
The page for resources and planning for the local multiplier research project.

BurngreaveFood
This is a planning and resource page for the food strategy aspect of the project.

BurngreaveResearch
This is a general resource page for the proposed research project, including things like draft questionnaires, methodology notes, etc.

Housing
This is a general page for housing, which will hopefully cover things like:


 * Government housing bodies, like the Housing Corporation: roles, issues, contacts
 * Best practice links, e.g. the Building and Social Housing Foundation, the Association for Environment Conscious Building
 * Different housing types, e.g. HA, general social housing, council housing, private rented, home-owners - as well as new housing possibilities
 * The Decent Homes Standard
 * A link to the SSF co-housing page

---

''Community involvement in planning should not be a reactive, tick-box, process. It should enable the local community to say what sort of place they want to live in at a stage when this can make a difference.'' From 'Community Involvement in Planning: The Government’s Objectives' (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Feb 2004

''You never change things fighting against the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.'' Buckminster Fuller

=Extensive consultation...=

LDA Urban Design produced the plans, after a process of (ahem) 'extensive consultation'. This consisted in the first instance of offering people a choice of three different options -

developments;
 * Relatively little change in the form of environmental improvements;
 * Medium levels of change with environmental improvements and some new
 * Radical change with a large amount of new developments that could help transform the area and bring about comprehensive regeneration.

Well now - who could object to helping bring about comprehensive regeneration...?

=From the master-plan...=

The prime objectives of the Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder programme are to bring radical improvements to the housing market in selected areas and to bring transformational changes to towns and neighbourhoods to create successful, vibrant places where people will choose to live. These will be achieved by securing a different balance of tenure and house type, a quality environment and thriving centres, such that the area can be become a location of choice for both existing and incoming residents.

The masterplan cannot deal with every individual site in detail but rather attempts to focus on strategic sites which could bring about a significant change in the character and perception of the areas, combined with essential environmental improvement works to ensure that the whole neighbourhood is transformed. Our vision for Burngreave and Fir Vale encompasses:


 * Selective redevelopment in the major areas of change to provide higher quality housing, broadening the mix of housing types in the area.
 * Improvement to the local service centres of Spital Hill and Owler Lane/Page Hall.
 * General improvement to the retained housing stock by private investment and improvement grants where required;
 * Improved parks (Stanley Fields Park and Somerset Road), and small new parks in Fir Vale, where open space is currently lacking.
 * Environmental improvement in existing sustainable residential areas, including further feasibility studies to “design-out crime” in estates where existing layouts fail to achieve this.
 * Improvement of the Herries Road/Barnsley Road junction, to reduce traffic congestion while creating a vibrant sustainable centre.

=Links 1: our agenda is their agenda!=

This work won't succeed by looking to the powers that be for clemency. We need instead to 'constructively engage'.

This section supports this aim: links and info that will be well worth considering as part of the response to the master plan, in the form of government initiatives that (on paper at least!) heartily support what we're trying to do.

That (theoretical) support may give a lot of leverage. The reason? See the Arblaster quote at the top.

FoE planning guide
Friends of the Earth have produced a fantastic guide to the new planning laws, and how to engage with them. Here is a link to the pdf.

Planning
This link describes two recent new Planning Policy Statements, both of which may help us (if we can understand how to make them work for us!) Entitled LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE, the article says these new statements underpin:

1. The need to tie different schemes together (e.g. not stomping all over New Deal because you're pursuing Yorkhsire Pathfinder Money!)

2. The need for community involvement in the planning process - to quote Planning Minister Keith Hill -

"Both PPSs will greatly assist regional and local planning authorities in ensuring partnership working and community involvement so that their plans are in tune with regional and local aspirations. This whole new system is all about involving people in planning and I'm pleased these new PPSs will help achieve that."

Here's a link to the PPS itself. I'd particularly draw your attention to the fact that a 'statement of community involvement' is a required part of the Local Development Plan portfolio.

Ah, well I'm sure we can count on his support then! These are both part of the new Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, which came into force at the end of September, of which a representative of John Prescott said -

"The fundamental objective is to make the planning system fairer, faster and more predictable. We want to bring clarity, certainty, and a sense of strategic direction to planning."

"Our proposals will open up the planning system, reduce bureaucracy and increase community participation right from the start of the process."

One seminar website says of the act -

''The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is the first substantial reform of Planning Law since 1948. It will introduce a sea-change in the way decisions affecting land use are made. In addition, it makes significant changes to development control, planning procedures and the law and pracitice of compulsory purchase and compensation.''

Now, I'm not sure, but do we immediately believe all the claims being made about community involvement that have been built into this act? Well... I guess we're gonna find out!

The act is very new, and councils (so I read) are not sure about the impact. We'll probably be helping them out by testing it!

These new PPSs also require -

all Regional Spatial Strategy revisions and Local Development Documents to undergo a Sustainability Appraisal to ensure they are socially, environmentally and economically sustainable.

There is also the new planning aid website. Our first point of contact here is -

Alyson Linnegar, 0870 850 9808, at ykcw@planningaid.rtpi.org.uk.

Independent of local government, and voluntary, their aims are -

Every regional Planning Aid services is working to engage disadvantaged communities and individuals by operating a free, professional and independent advice service and through a programme of targeted community planning.

More details on the functioning and timescale of the Local Development Plans here.

Civil renewal and active citizenship
The Home Office and David Blunkett have been pouring resources into civil renewal. This (ostensibly) means -

Civil renewal is the development of strong, active, and empowered communities, in which people are able to do things for themselves, define the problems they face, and tackle them in partnership with public bodies.

''A key reason for pursuing civil renewal is that local communities are just better at dealing with their own problems. They have the networks, the knowledge, the sense of what is actually possible, and the ability to make solutions stick.''

''There are three essential ingredients to civil renewal:

*Active citizenship - people who take responsibility for tackling the problems they can see in their own communities

*Strengthened communities - communities who can form and sustain their own organisations, bringing people together to deal with their common concerns *Partnership in meeting public needs - public bodies who involve local people in improving the planning and delivery of public services

So - active citizenship. See, for example, the Active Citizenship Centre, where the quotes above came from.

Our local WEA has also developed an 'Active Learning for Active Citizenship' programme, and they should be able to offer some support - e.g. in terms of printing a report once we finish it, and helping to build the skills to make the project happen.

So why is the Govt cutting spending on participation...?
The Neighbourhood Renewal Unit is to cut funding to community participation programmes...

http://www.newstartmag.co.uk/news742.html

by Susan Downer

susan@newstartmag.co.uk

The government has moved to slash funding for community participation and neighbourhood management following forecasts of a £9.3m overspend.

Between now and the end of the financial year funding for community participation under the single community programme is expected to shrink by £4m. Neighbourhood management pathfinders have been told to make cuts of £2.5m.

In a letter to government office directors and other stakeholders, Neighbourhood Renewal Unit director of operations Alan Riddell says government offices should relieve the pressure on the fund by scaling back proposed allocations, especially to those with a history of low spending, and by managing neighbourhood and community participation programmes under a joint ceiling.

Government offices are advised to reduce payments for community participation to those who historically have been unable to spend their allocations.

While current commitments made by neighbourhood management pathfinders should be honoured, future expenditure and capital commitments could be deferred. If further reductions need to be made, these should be negotiated with those concerned.

The letter stresses: ‘At no time should government office staff initiate discussions around commitments or contracted work which has already been agreed with stakeholders.’

But one neighbourhood manager, who asked not to be named, said government offices were demanding, not negotiating, cuts.

‘The bottom line seems to be that we have got to do this. We are saying we are not going to. How can we say to staff, “By the way, between January and March we are not going to pay you.” It is completely unacceptable.

‘We feel they chose to pick on us because we have a much lower profile than new deal for communities or neighbourhood renewal. But our budgets are pretty small already. They are now trying to say we have to “uncommit” money.’

But a spokesperson for the NRU said the reductions were part of the normal ‘reprofiling’ process intended to ensure spending across programmes stays within budget.

Di Robinson, neighbourhood manager for Gloucester’s neighbourhood management pathfinder, warned that the credibility of the programme could be jeopardised.

‘Neighbourhood management isn’t an instant process - it takes time and it’s incremental,’ she said.

‘Credibility and trust need to be built both within local communities and with mainstream partners. If we are expected to make this level of cuts, much of the credibility and trust we have built in Gloucester will be hugely undermined.’

NRU 2000 - All up for social auditing of regeneration...
This is a document from the Home Office Neighbourhood Renewal Team from 2000 - the 'Policy Action Team 13' - dept of health bods. It's called Improving Shopping Access for People living in Deprived Neighbourhoods.

This is a link to a page just for this document - it has a lot of very, very useful stuff, in terms of how to work on an integrated food strategy - and has more weight because it's from the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit.

=Links 2: articles n reports=

The Barker Report
Executive Summary PDF. Main document PDF. Both from Home Office website link above.

The Barker report has recommended:


 * Between 70,000 and 120,000 additional private sector homes each year
 * Between 17,000 and 23,000 social homes each year, at a cost of up to £1.6bn
 * The government introduce a tax on land held with planning permission to stop house builders ‘land banking’
 * Planning laws be changed to make local authorities respond quickly housing demand
 * Planning bodies take great account of ‘market signals’ – such as hour prices, demand and affordability – when setting housing targets and allocating land
 * Local authorities be allowed to keep the council tax revenues from new housing for up to three years rather than pass it to the Treasury to give authorities incentives to support development
 * A Community Infrastructure Fund be established to help to unlock some of the barriers to development

Friends of the Earth, amongst others, are opposing it because it represents a move to full marketisation of housing, which they say will mean oversupply in the South and dwindling housing in the North.

FOE press release
'''Dump the Barker Report!

Feb 1 2005

This is a response by Friends of the Earth to the Deputy Prime Minister's launch of the Government's national planning policy for delivering sustainable development (Planning Policy Statement 1).

It's very interesting, in that it picks up on the gap between rhetoric and reality, and highlights the Barker Report, which I knew nothing about. This aims to 'marketise' the housing market, "leaving urban policy to be driven by market forces rather than social need."


 * dismiss all the Barker report's recommendations;
 * expand affordable housing through direct investment; and,
 * introduce more accountability for planning at a regional level. Currently there is no right to be heard and the public must rely on an invitation only system for involvement in planning decisions which affect their communities.

Outline of Barker Report on BBC Ican site
"According to a Treasury-sponsored report, 140,000 new homes need to be built each year in England to meet rising demand and hold down prices. A serious overhaul of the planning system was also recommended by Kate Barker, a member of the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee, who was asked by the chancellor last year to examine problems with Britain’s housing supply in this review."

Guardian stuff
Here's a little something on the civil renewal campaign launch.

A very good story on Housing Renewal and the history of 'slum clearance' - Razing Expectations.

Professor Anne Power has written a book on why demolition is not the way forward - here's a story on it.

Lib Dem MP tables bill to support local shops
['This is a link'] to a press release on the www.chamberonline.co.uk website, outlining a new bill -

"Lib Dem finance spokesperson Brian Cotter tabled a Bill in the House of Commons that would force local councils to take steps to protect small outlets against dominant supermarket chains."

Shelter Scotland article - On the up: the housing crisis in the north
Here's an excellent report from Scotland Shelter, and here's the press release if you want a summary.

Local Media
This is a link to an article in the Star that talks about a MORI survey in Burngreave, the successes the New Deal has had, and the fears surrounding the Pathfinder and demolition.

=Links 3: 'community engagement'=

RE:generate specialise in community-led research.

The LSE do a lot of work on Community engagement, community development and community training.

The website has a great deal of info on how they include communities in their research exercises.

Much of the research on socially excluded people and areas is typically done by people from outside those areas, with the research subjects having very little influence over the research process. LSE Housing has attempted to involve the people we are researching in our work in several different ways. Participatory approaches in our research include:


 * piloting research questionnaires with communities and changing their design based on feedback, and taking care to get feedback on our public research findings from interviewees. For example, we always check case studies of groups with the groups before the examples are disseminated;
 * where possible, holding more in depth discussions with a range of community groups on the strategic direction of the research. For example, for our original research on the community self help training and grant programme, The Gatsby Project, we held seminars in the first two years of the research for the groups involved in the programme where we discussed research questions starting from a blank sheet;
 * LSE Housing was a member of an advisory group for work commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on participatory approaches to work on poverty. Some of our work was featured in the report, which noted that there were some gaps in the extent of participation, but welcomed the attempts being made in the direction of more participatory approaches in academic research. For more information on participatory approaches to research on poverty see Fran Bennett and Moraene Roberts (2004) From Input to Influence: participatory approaches to research and inquiry into poverty, York: JRF (see the JRF Bookshop on The Joseph Rowntree Foundation website);
 * community ambassadors inputting into our policy development research through our 'Think Tank' model; and
 * exploring definitions of social exclusion with residents - outsider and insider expertise. We give an outline of this work and its findings.

The Think Tank model could be a way forward in the local area, but would need to be ongoing.

=Contacts=

Some people it could be worth getting into contact with.

Healthy Sheffield
Healthy Sheffield says that they're into the following things -


 * 1) A clean, safe environment
 * 2) All people’s basic needs are met
 * 3) Strong, supportive community
 * 4) High degree of public participation in local and city government
 * 5) Access to wide range of cultural events and experiences
 * 6) Accessible health services
 * 7) Diverse and innovative economy
 * 8) A sustainable eco-system.

They intend to do this "by encouraging people to challenge how things are done."

They would, maybe, be good allies for the food strategy part of the programme.

Julia South – 2735869 Julia.south@sheffield.gov.uk

Others
41 Southey Avenue Sheffield S5 7NN, Email ian@local41.co.uk, tel: 0114 249 1149
 * Heeley City Farm - They’ve done an LM3 project before
 * LOCAL, Sheffield – Longley Organised Community Association Ltd. (They’re also in the ‘Money Trail’. Ian Drayton is a name there.)
 * NEF - They may offer help, advice, support… and be interested in the findings.
 * New Start – They might offer support, and / or be interested to run a story of what’s happening in Burngreave, and what the local community’s response is.

=Other information...=

LocalMultiplier - working page for discussion of this concept

Local traders priced out
The New Economics Foundation has just published a new report on local traders and social enterprises being priced out of their areas - as a result of their own success!

Spiralling rents and property prices are forcing businesses to re-locate, for example, from inner city areas, undermining regeneration and weakening the enterprise base.

Bits from 'Ghost Town Britain II
the rate of 50 per week''
 * ''In the five years between 1997–2002, specialised stores including butchers, bakers, fishmongers, and newsagents selling confectionery, tobacco, and newspapers closed at
 * General stores have been closing at the rate of one per day
 * The impact of the rising dominance of the big supermarket may be hidden, as typically there’s a time lag of two-to-three years before smaller stores are forced to close, having used up their operating reserves in the battle with the big stores
 * The sudden growth of ‘fake local’ stores under the big supermarket brands presents yet another threat to small independent stores. For example, Tesco ‘Express’ stores have reportedly caused drops in business of 30–40 per cent for other local shops
 * The average person now travels 893 miles a year to shop for food

This next bit's interesting - it points to thinking about who supplies the shops that currently exist.

''Nor is it just small-scale retailers who are struggling. Independent shops selling food and beverages are reliant upon the country’s network of wholesale suppliers, abattoirs, dairies, and food processors. But this infrastructure is also under threat, and the number of suppliers available to small shops up and down the country has been steadily dwindling. This leads to a Catch-22 situation – without local suppliers, local retailers suffer; and when local retailers close, suppliers suffer as they become increasingly reliant on a handful of supermarket purchasers. Britain has lost nearly 2,500 food, beverage and tobacco wholesalers over the past decade. Other statistics reveal equally alarming trends in other parts of the food industry.''

From Scrutiny Board..
... 25th March, Burngreave New Deal for Communities

''Consultants (LDA Urban Design) have been appointed for the Burngreave /Fir Vale Masterplanning project. A Steering Group has been established to guide the process which includes community reps from New Deal, BCAF and Fir Vale Forum. A consultation programme is being negotiated with the consultant, which broadly consists of 2 Community Visioning events and 2 feedback sessions plus a Stakeholder Panel workshop and the specification of a 3D Virtual model. The brief includes the need for the consultants to work and liaise with the consultants appointed on the Nursery St Wicker Riverside Area Masterplan and the Fir Vale Housing Regeneration Vehicle to ensure synergy. The work on the Burngreave/Fir Vale Masterplan is due for completion in  July 2004.''

Burngreave and Fir Vale Masterplanning on the council’s website
http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/in-your-area/planning-and-city-development/planning-documents/consultation-drafts/burngreave-and-fir-vale

''In this context, LDA Urban Design have been commissioned by Sheffield City Council to produce the Burngreave: Fir Vale Master Plan. This Master Plan will provide the spatial framework for steering the work, and targeting resources from Transform South Yorkshire for this area. The Master Plan will focus on improving the local housing market, in order to create safer, more vibrant, sustainable, and successful neighbourhoods where people want to live. Within this good design and layout will be essential, as well as the inclusion of safety and security measures. Improving the physical condition of existing housing is also important alongside the introduction of new homes of different types. The Master Plan also looks at the potential development of key vacant and underused sites, and environmental improvements in the area.''

Report to North & West Planning & Highways Area Board, 19 October 2004
http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/index.asp?pgid=36321

This is fantastic!

2.        BACKGROUND

2.1      The Burngreave Panel Area falls within the Transform South Yorkshire Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder. South Yorkshire is the largest of the 9 Housing Market Renewal Pathfinders established in 2002. The fundamental objective of this initiative is to target resources over a period of 10-15 years, for radical interventions that will help restructure local and sub-regional housing markets, and create successful and sustainable communities through comprehensive regeneration.

2.2      The strategic goal of the Transform South Yorkshire Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder is:

“To build and support sustainable communities and successful neighbourhoods where the quality and choice of housing underpins a buoyant economy and an improved way of life” (Transform South Yorkshire 2003).

2.3      Transform South Yorkshire has 3 strategic objectives, firstly, to achieve a radical improvement in the character and diversity of neighbourhoods, secondly, to improve housing quality, and thirdly, to increase the range of housing types and tenures.

2.4      In the context of this LDA Urban Design were commissioned earlier this year to produce the Burngreave: Fir Vale Master Plan. The Burngreave: Fir Vale Master Plan will provide the spatial framework for steering the work and targeting the resources from Transform South Yorkshire, through the identification and costing of a range of critical initiatives and specific interventions, needed to achieve a self sustaining renewal.

2.5      The consultants LDA have undertaken several research exercises and there have been various rounds of consultation. In March 2004 a workshop event was held with key local stakeholders, to identify the key issues prevalent in Burngreave and Fir Vale. Following this there were 2 subsequent rounds of public consultation. The first round of public consultation was held on the weekend of 8/9 May 2004, confirming the issues in Burngreave and Fir Vale. This was the initial opportunity for the public to comment and make suggestions. The second round of consultation covered the duration of a month and comprised of the option development stage.

Within this round of consultation the public were given the opportunity to comment on a range of options put forward for key areas of change in Burngreave and Fir Vale building on the comments at the previous stage. Within this each area of change was presented with 2 or 3 options showing the following:


 * Relatively little change in the form of environmental improvements;


 * Medium levels of change with environmental improvements and some new developments;


 * Radical change with a large amount of new developments that could help transform the area and bring about comprehensive regeneration.

2.6 Over the course of the month, the Master Plan was exhibited at several locations and events. These were all well attended and proved to be highly successful, as there was an overwhelmingly degree of interest. Furthermore, we received a substantial amount of comments, highlighting the way people felt about their areas and the way they would like to see them change. Within the consultation process several methods were used, these comprised of presentations, workshop events, and exhibitions, all of which were fully staffed by people involved in the Master Plan. Popular events included the Fir Vale Forum AGM, the Abbeyfield Multicultural Festival, and the Burngreave Area Panel meeting.

3.        THE DRAFT BURNGREAVE: FIR VALE MASTER PLAN

3.1      The consultants LDA have now produced the draft Burngreave: Fir Vale Master Plan which is the subject of a third round of public consultation. This draft Master Plan is based on the views expressed on the options exhibited in June/ July. The key areas of change identified in the draft Master Plan are:

·       Spital Hill

·       Woodside

·       The Catherine Street Triangle

·       Owler Lane and Skinnerthorpe Road

·       Page Hall

·       Fir Vale and the Wensley Estate

·       Upwell Street

4. CONSULTATION

4.1 We have devised an extensive programme for the third round of public consultation, which includes exhibitions at the Fir Vale Forum Open Days on the 13/14 October 2004, the Burngreave Community Action Forum AGM, and the Burngreave Area Panel Meeting. All of the programmed events will be well publicised and we anticipate a large turnout, as levels of interest in the Master Plan have been escalating over the past few months. A timetable of events will be made available at the meeting.

5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

5.1 This work is being fully funded by Transform South Yorkshire, and there are no funding implications for Sheffield City Council at this stage.

6.        EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES

6.1      Throughout the Master Plan process we have tried to promote equal opportunities and involve a wide range of stakeholders in the formulation of the Master Plan. This is especially reflected in the configuration of the steering group, the membership of which comprises of Council Officers and chair of the Area Panel, local representatives from a range of organisations including Burngreave New Deal for Communities, Burngreave Community Action Forum, the Fir Vale Forum and Fir Vale Vision.

The Housing Corporation Community Enabling and Training Grant
Sheffield's Cabinet member for Neighbourhoods and Transform South Yorkshire Board member, Councillor Chris Weldon, said: "It's vitally important that we listen to what local people have to say about their neighbourhoods. The type of door to door, intensive consultation made possible by this funding will be invaluable in ensuring that Fir Vale develops into a place that local residents can be proud of."

''The Housing Corporation has pledged £2.7 million of Community Training and Enabling Grant to the nine pathfinders that the Government identified in the Sustainable Communities plan. For further information about the Housing Corporation's Community Training and Enabling grants in Pathfinders, go to .''

Link to original press release here.

Cuttings
This article in New Start magazine - 'Planning gain bond put to ministers' - sees those poor regeneration developers asking for more public money, because, as John McCready (partner in regeneration and housing at Ernst & Young) says,

‘The risk of putting in infrastructure is very big for developers. If you make it possible for that hurdle to be cleared, it opens up opportunities to regenerate the areas that are currently considered too risky.’

=Jargon-buster=

This is most definitely a work in progress - I'm currently just listing, but will try to do an analysis at some point. Hopefully, in the new year, we're going to do a 'power analysis' session...

ABI = Area-Based Initiatve: this is a catch-all term for any geographically specific body, such as NDC areaa (see below!), Governemnt Offices (e.g. GOYH), Yorkshire Forward...

ADF = Area Development Framework

Audit Commission = currently oversees the Housing Market Renewal process.

GOYH = Government Office of Yorkshire & the Humber: their role is to be the local implementing arm of government policy, including ODPM policies like Pathfinder. As to what that actually means...

LDF = Local Development Frameworks, which replace Unitary Development Plans now that the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act is in force.

LM3 = Local Multiplier 3. A measure of how much money stays in the local economy. See LocalMultiplier

LSP = Local Strategic Partnership (e.g. Sheffield First)

NDC = New Deal for Communities

BNDfC = Burngreave New Deal for Communities

NRF = Neighbourhood Renewal Fund

NRU = Neighbourhood Renewal Unit

ODPM = Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

RCU = Regional Co-ordination Unit (recently created to help align all of these disparate policies, initiatives, funds, bodies and acroynms! Oh, the Irony!)

RDA = Regional Development Agency (e.g. Yorkshire Forward.)

RIN = Regional Intelligence Network (e.g. Yorkshire Futures - the intelligence and research arm of the RDA.)

SIA = Strategic Investment Area

SRB = Single Regeneration Budget

UDC = Urban Development Corporation (Sheffield's was in the Lower Don Valley - called the, um, 'Sheffield Development Corporation...)

URC = Urban Regeneration Company (e.g. Sheffield One)

=Analysis articles=

Here's a link to an article about the subject, which should be going up on Indymedia at some point! Comments would be welcomed.

SpitalHillStory

And a link to a shorter version, for Feb 05:

SHFeb05

=Putnam on local government=

An excellent excerpt from Bowling Alone, where Putnam outlines why social capital is so important for local governments - and how a lack of social capital correlates to corruption. - Beginning in 1970, Italians established a nationwide set of potentially powerful regional governments. These twenty new institutions were virtually identical in form, but the social, economic, political and cultural contexts in which they were implanted differed dramatically, ranging from the pre-industrial to the post-industrial, from the devoutly Catholic to the ardently Communist, from the inertly feudal to the frenetically modern.

Just as a botanist might investigate plant development by measuring the growth of genetically identical seeds sown in different plots, we sought to understand government performance by studying how these new institutions evolved in their diverse settinammes and job training centres, promoting invstment and economic development, pioneering environmental standards and family clinics – managing the public’s business efficiently and satisfying their constituents.

What would account for these stark differences in quality of government? Some seemingly obvious answers turned out to be irrelevant. Government organisation was too similar from region to region for that to explain the contrasts in performance. Party politics or ideology made little difference. Affluence and prosperity had no direct effect. Social stability or political harmony or population movement were not thele might have expected. Strong traditions of civic engagement – voter turnout, newspaper readership, membership in choral societies and literary circles, Lions Clubs, and soccer clubs – were the hallmarks of a successful region.

Some regions of Italy, such as Emilia-Romagna and Tuscany, have many active community organisations. Citizens in these regions are engaged by public issues, not by patronage. They trust one another to act fairly and obey the law. Leaders in these communities are relatively honest and committed to equality.

Social and political networks are organised horizontally, not hierarchically. These ‘civic communities’ value solidarity, civic participation, and integrity. And here democracy works. At the other pole are ‘uncivic’ regions, like Calabria and Sicily, aptly characterised by the French term incivisme. The very concept of citizenship is stunted there. Engagement in social and cultural association is meagre. From the point of view of the inhabitants, public affairs is somebody else’s business – that of ‘I notabili’, ‘the bosses’, ‘the politicians’ – but not theirs. Laws, almost everyone agrees, are made to be broken, but fearing others’ lawlessness, everyone demands sterner discipline. Trapped in these interlocking vicious circles, nearly everyone feels powerless, exploited and unhappy. It is hardly surprising that representative government here is less effective than in more civic communities.

The historical roots of the civic community are astonishingly deep. Enduring traditions of civic involvement and social solidarity can be traced back nearly a millennium to the eleventh century, when communal republics were established in places like Florence, Bologna and Genoa, exactly the communities that today enjoy civic engagement and successful government. At the core of this civic heritage are rich networks of organised reciprocity and civic solidarity – guilds, religious fraternities, and tower societies for self-defence in the medieval communes; co-operatives, mutual aid societies, neighbourhood associations, and choral societies in the twentieth century.

Bowling Alone p.344-346