Agenda item
Minutes:
The Committee considered the undernoted report and approved the comments as the Council’s response to the consultation:
“1.0 Relevant Background Information
1.1 The Department for Social Development (DSD) is currently running a public consultation on the Government’s proposals for an Urban Regeneration and Community Development policy framework for Northern Ireland. The consultation ends on 25 October 2012.
DSD state that the new framework will:
- shape the strategic direction of urban regeneration and community development policy over the coming years, and
- set out clear priorities for urban regeneration and community development programmes, both before and after the operational responsibility for these is transferred to councils under the reform of local government.
The Development Department led on the co-ordination of the council’s response working with the Centre for Local Economic Strategies (CLES) and the Chief Executive’s Strategic Planning & Policy team. Given its obvious cross-departmental implications input was gathered from across the council via a number of methods:
· A special meeting of the Development Committee was held in September, to which all Members of the Council were invited;
· A facilitated workshop for relevant officers from all departments; and
· A facilitated workshop for CMT
The three meetings all considered a series of questions which were used to frame the draft corporate response:
What were the council’s priorities for urban regeneration and community development?
How could the new framework contribute to these priorities?
How could the council best work with DSD post-RPA?
How could the council work strategically to support DSD to shape the final framework and its delivery.
2.0 Key Issues
2.1 The draft council response (attached as Appendix One) broadly welcomes the new Framework and suggests that it has the potential to set a clear direction for the future in its stated intention to establish clear priorities for urban regeneration and community development.
2.2 The response also endorses the policy objectives that are set out within it, particularly those which outline the ongoing focus on tackling deprivation and on city competitiveness. The response suggests that these are central to the success of any framework for urban regeneration and community development.
2.3 However, the council response also provides a series of challenging recommendations which would strengthen the final DSD framework. These are summarised below:
1. The framework should act as a catalyst for discussions on the future source and allocation of resources for urban regeneration and community development;
2. The economic and social potential of Northern Ireland is dependent upon effective urban regeneration and community development in Belfast City;
3. It must support the future role of local government in place making, post local government reorganisation;
4. Urban regeneration and community development must be fully integrated within the Framework to achieve positive social and economic outcomes;
5. The language of urban regeneration and community development used in the Framework should consider using an asset based approach, which recognises the opportunities as well as the challenges;
6. The private sector must be included as a partner in the process of urban regeneration and community development if progress towards a more balanced economy is to be realised;
7. The Framework must acknowledge that urban regeneration and community development in Belfast and other parts of Northern Ireland is still affected by the context of post conflict and sectarianism and aim to work towards a shared future;
8. It must reflect the important role of culture in regeneration.
2.4 The response notes that Belfast City Council looks forward to engaging with the department in the on-going development of the model. It suggests there is the opportunity, through joint working on key regeneration projects in the city, to test out and enhance the framework further in advance of the transfer of functions post RPA.
2.5 Following approval by Members the draft response will be forwarded to DSD with a note explaining that the response is subject to endorsement by Council in November.
3.0 Resource Implications
3.1 None.
4.0 Equality and Good Relations Implications
4.1 None.
5.0 Recommendations
5.1 Members are asked to approve the draft response to the consultation and raise any additional issues, relating to the consultation document, that they would like to be included in the final response.
DSD Consultation on a New Framework for Urban Regeneration and Community Development
Consultation response: Belfast City Council’s view
Belfast City Council welcomes the new Framework for Urban Regeneration and Community Development and suggests this framework has the potential to be a ‘high level’ strategic document which sets a clear direction for the future in its stated intention to establish clear priorities for urban regeneration and community development.
We strongly endorse the policy objectives set out in the Framework: particularly objectives one and two which outline the ongoing focus on tackling deprivation and on city competitiveness. We believe these objectives to be absolutely vital and therefore central to the success of any framework for urban regeneration and community development. Furthermore, these objectives are supportive of the key policy drivers set out in the Regional Development Strategy and in the Programme for Government and they highlight the strategic importance of Belfast as ‘the economic driver for the region’. This should form the basis on which resources are allocated to inform delivery against the framework.
Belfast City Council believes the framework might be strengthened in a number of key areas. Our recommendations include:
1. the economic and social potential of Northern Ireland is dependent upon effective urban regeneration and community development in Belfast City;
2. the framework could act as a catalyst for discussions on the future source and allocation of resources for urban regeneration and community development;
3. the Framework should support the future role of local government in place making, post local government reorganisation;
4. urban regeneration and community development must be fully integrated within the Framework to achieve positive social and economic outcomes;
5. the language of urban regeneration and community development used in the Framework should consider using an asset based approach, which recognises the opportunities as well as the challenges;
6. the private sector must be included as a partner in the process of urban regeneration and community development if progress towards a more balanced economy is to be realised;
7. the Framework must acknowledge that urban regeneration and community development in Belfast and other parts of Northern Ireland is still affected by the context of post conflict and sectarianism and aim to work towards a shared future;
8. the Framework should reflect the important role of culture in regeneration;
9. Belfast City Council looks forward to engaging with the department in the on-going development of the model. There is the opportunity through joint working on key regeneration projects in the city to test out and enhance the framework further in advance of the transfer of functions post RPA.
Future drafts of the strategy should explore these areas in more detail in order to effectively support successful urban regeneration and community development in Northern Ireland and Belfast City Council is keen to work with the Department to this end.
This consultation response therefore sets out Belfast City Council’s views on the new Framework in relation to the recommendations identified above; and includes detailed responses to each of the consultation questions in Appendix 1.
Reflecting the importance of urban regeneration and community development in Belfast, the City Council has developed this response from a series of facilitated workshops with Council Members, the Corporate Management Team and policy officers across the Council.
1. The economic and social potential of Northern Ireland is dependent upon effective urban regeneration and community development in Belfast City
Belfast has a key position within the Framework for Urban Regeneration and Community Development because of its economic role as a driver for growth in Northern Ireland. However, regeneration and community development are also priorities because of concentrations of deprivation in the city, which constrains, not only Belfast’s economy but the economy of Northern Ireland as a whole. Subsequently, there is an urgent need to prioritise support for those communities living in the city who experience deprivation, worklessness and poverty.
As identified in both the Regional Development Strategy for Northern Ireland and the Programme for Government, the new framework highlights the strategic importance of Belfast as ‘The economic driver for the region’ [1]. Belfast is a focus for the majority of economic activity and transactions in the region (e.g. Belfast accounts for 28% of the total employment in Northern Ireland, a figure which rises to 46% within the Belfast metropolitan area). The city is also a focal point for tourism in Northern Ireland. Belfast however also has some of the most serious regeneration challenges in the region. Fifteen of Northern Ireland’s 10% most deprived neighbourhoods are located within the city (out of total of thirty six across Northern Ireland)[2]. Many of these areas have been relatively ‘untouched’ by the economic growth that occurred in the late 2000s[3]. Whilst there is a not only a strong social justice argument as to why these areas should be supported, there is also a strong economic justification; social deprivation not only limits Belfast’s economic competitiveness but the competitiveness of Northern Ireland.
Deprivation in communities also weakens the resilience of our region to withstand future economic, social and environmental shock. Subsequently, supporting Belfast’s role as the key economic driver whilst addressing the deprivation that prevents the city fulfilling its potential is critical to achieving the outcomes identified in the Executive’s Programme for Government and should form a key element of the Framework.[4]
These should therefore form the basis on which resources are allocated to inform delivery against this framework.
2. The framework should act as a catalyst for discussions on the future source and allocation of resources for urban regeneration and community development
An important question which remains unanswered in the Framework is from where future resources for regeneration and community development will come and how these resources will be allocated. Given the reduction in funding available generally for urban regeneration and community development, this new Framework needs to to act as catalyst for new ideas and innovative thinking about how to fund urban regeneration and community development in the future.
Resource challenges
Nationally, the collapse of the banking sector and subsequent recession has led to deep cuts in public funding, as outlined in the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review and reiterated in the Budget 2012. Given the fact that the UK has slipped back into recession, there may be further reductions in expenditure announced in the Autumn Budget statement, expected on 5 December 2012. At the same time, specific funding programmes in Northern Ireland are also due to complete their current cycle in 2013. There has also been a gradual reduction in funding available from large philanthropic funding sources, such as Atlantic Philanthropies and the Building Change Trust,[5] although nationally, the UK government, through initiatives such as the Big Society Capital[6], have placed a greater emphasis on philanthropy as a potentially important source of funding for regeneration and community development in the future.
The Comprehensive Spending Review significantly reduced funding for area based regeneration in England, phasing out specific programmes such as the neighbourhood renewal and housing market renewal programmes.
Instead, greater emphasis was placed upon targeting long term unemployment through welfare reform. The key outcome of this reform, Universal Credit, is due to be launched across the UK in October 2013.
There has also been a change in the way in which the community and voluntary sector work, with funders placing a much greater emphasis on social enterprise, income generation, sustainability and public service commissioning; however the ability and resources to evolve to this new model of working varies enormously due to the diversity of the community and voluntary sector. Belfast City Council is working closely with the third sector to support organisations to develop capacity and assess the feasibility of this new model of working, particularly through its Community Development Strategy and Support Plan.[7]
Resource opportunities
The new EU Programme provides a real opportunity to the DSD and local government to resource an integrated urban strategy for regeneration and community development across Northern Ireland. Of particular interest are the opportunities for Northern Ireland in pursuing financial investments such as JESSICA. In their recently published regeneration strategy, the Scottish Executive have already established a regeneration investment fund, part funded from SPRUCE, which is the Scottish JESSICA funding programme worth £50m and providing loan support to thirteen eligible areas.
There is also much that can be learned from Belfast City Council’s planning and pilot work on a new community development strategy and support plan, particularly work to develop the Belfast Community Investment Programme (BCIP). This will play a key role in strengthening the capacity of community development infrastructure organisations. This is a model of supporting community development and regeneration that could be replicated in other areas post local government reorganisation.
Belfast has also been working closely with the DSD on a number of strategic projects including the BCIP, the University of Ulster relocation in North Belfast, City Centre redevelopment, and Glen 10. All of the joint working on these projects provides key learning for future initiatives as to how to effectively resource and project manage urban regeneration and community development in the future.
Finally, the Framework makes no reference to the potential role of local government financing (e.g. the role of levers such as council business rates, public procurement and local government borrowing may play in supporting future urban regeneration activities). These are key tools for understanding how to maximise the role of public money in urban regeneration (e.g. using public procurement to support positive economic and social outcomes through the use of social benefit clauses).
3. The Framework must support the future role of local government in place making, post local government reorganisation
The Framework states that it will shape the strategic direction for urban regeneration and community development in the future by setting out clear priorities, both before and after local government reorganisation. However, whilst the document sets out four clear policy objectives for the future, there is a lack of clarity about the role of partners in responding to them, particularly local government who will be taking on new responsibilities for regeneration, planning and community development from 2015 onwards. In this new operational context, local government will play a key role as a place maker[8] in the new council areas, providing a leadership role for the community and voluntary sector and the private sector. How will this impact on urban regeneration and community development activity? How will this change and impact upon the current systems of delivery? These types of questions are not addressed in the Framework, but for preparations towards the reorganisation of local government, these issues are critical.
The document also attempts to combine both strategic visioning and delivery through the policy objectives and key actions, but without identifying outcomes or local government partners. Belfast City Council believes that this Framework should establish a clear strategic vision for the future of urban regeneration and community development, which firmly establishes these functions as integral across the Executive for the development of a successful and shared future for all. A redrafted Framework with a clear focus on strategy could then be used to establish clear roles and responsibilities for local government and other partners in the design and delivery of urban regeneration and community development. Local councils like Belfast could then respond to this strategic vision with a plan of implementation.
4. Urban regeneration and community development must be fully integrated to achieve the positive social and economic outcomes
In parts of the Framework, urban regeneration and community development are portrayed as separate entities which, whilst complementary, are nevertheless undertaken separately. Belfast City Council firmly believe that, based on experience in the city’s most deprived communities, community development is both an enabling objective for regeneration and a positive outcome of regeneration. The importance of community development has also been recognised by the European Commission who describes it as ‘an effective and efficient tool in the delivery of development policies’ [9]. The EU also describes how community led development links to economic priorities suggesting that it helps to improve the ‘quality of growth and the need to ensure that it is inclusive and sustainable.’ [10]
Belfast City Council are currently finalising a new community development strategy for the city and would welcome the opportunity to contribute some of the learning from this process with the DSD to inform future iterations of the Framework.
Belfast City Council believe the framework should be a positive enabler to support integrated approaches to urban regeneration and community development and would point DSD to current demonstration projects, for example, the relocation of the University of Ulster and the regeneration of the Titanic Quarter. These initiatives successfully demonstrate the capacity of multi-agency approaches to affect combined and mutually re-enforcing impacts across physical, social and economic indicators.
5. The language of urban regeneration and community development used in the Framework should consider using an asset based approach, which recognises the opportunities as well as the challenges
Belfast City Council is increasingly reconceptualising regeneration activity in a way which attempts to present regeneration as a positive activity, aimed at making the most of the opportunities and strengths that exist within communities, rather than simply an activity responding to need or market failure. The language of the Framework is at times problematic and overly negative, defining places in terms of ‘areas of need’ and ‘areas of opportunity’. In recent years, there has been a move away from this type of categorisation because of its potential to problematise communities and further blight their reputation and potential[11]. We suggest that a different narrative, where the emphasis is one focused on the assets rather than the disadvantages that define communities, would be beneficial.
6. The private sector must be included as a partner in the process of urban regeneration and community development if progress towards a more balanced economy is to be realised
The focus of this Framework is upon the public and voluntary and community sectors; there is no mention of the role that the private sector can potentially play in regeneration. In a time of public sector austerity, the private sector is a key partner in regeneration, (e.g., in inward investment, employment and skills development). The private sector’s role is also important in the context of Northern Ireland’s Economic Strategy[12] and regional development strategy both of which stress the importance of rebalancing the economy by reducing the region’s dependence on public sector employment.
7. The Framework must acknowledge that urban regeneration and community development in Belfast and other parts of Northern Ireland is still affected by the context of post conflict and sectarianism and aim to work towards a shared future
It is important that the Framework does not lose sight of the fact that this work is still taking place in a post conflict context. Whilst the context for regeneration and community development has changed significantly, there are still serious divisions in society and community tensions, as demonstrated by the sectarian violence in North Belfast during August and September 2012. It is no accident that areas with the highest levels of deprivation, poor educational attainment and low levels of employment are also those areas who continue to experience social unrest. This context presents a set of very unique challenges for regeneration and community development, whereby traditional market failure is compounded by the legacy of conflict and social division.
Whilst the Framework suggests that housing led regeneration may be a solution to some of these problems, Belfast City Council believe that in the short and medium term, the priority should be to tackle not only the physical barriers of division but the social manifestations of sectarianism which persist in society. This means that despite the challenge of recession, resourcing and reform, the Framework must face up to these challenges honestly, otherwise the work that has been undertaken to date by DSD and partners to create a better and shared society for all will be lost.
8. Why culture’s role in regeneration must be recognised in the Framework
The role of the arts, music and language is increasingly recognised as making an important contribution to economic prosperity and community wellbeing, but unfortunately is not acknowledged in the Framework. Creativity and knowledge are now key drivers for the creation of new jobs, enterprise and investment, something recognised by the EU Commission’s Green Paper ‘Unlocking the Potential of Cultural and Creative industries’ published in 2010[13] and more widely in academic literature.[14] In addition, culture has played a significant role in Northern Ireland in recent years, particularly in Belfast, and the City Council has established culture as a key driver for regeneration in the ‘Integrated Cultural Strategy for Belfast.’ [15] Culture led regeneration was also central to the development of the Titanic Quarter of the city. Elsewhere in Northern Ireland, culture also plays a crucial role (e.g. the forthcoming city of Culture festival in Derry/Londonderry in 2013).
Appendix 1: Detailed responses to consultation questions
Consultation response: The Framework’s policy objectives
Belfast City Council strongly endorses the policy objectives set out in the Framework: particularly objectives one and two which outline the ongoing focus on tackling deprivation and on city competitiveness. We believe these objectives to be absolutely vital and therefore central to the success of any framework for urban regeneration and community development. Furthermore, these objectives are supportive of the key policy drivers set out in the Regional Development Strategy and in the Programme for Government and they highlight the strategic importance of Belfast as ‘the economic driver for the region’. This should form the basis on which resources are allocated to inform delivery against the framework.
We would however make the following observations in order to strengthen the framework:
· Make the objectives more specific: The objectives are extremely ambitious but, in their current state, too broad and generic. They lack focus and are not specific enough, neither geographically nor thematically.
· Present framework outcomes: The Framework refers to the importance of an outcomes based approach, and presents the logic model as a means whereby practitioners work backwards from the outcomes to design and deliver interventions. However, despite this sentiment, the Framework contains no outcomes and instead moves from policy objectives and enabling objectives straight to key actions. This means that it is difficult for respondents to the
Framework to have clarity on how success against the objectives will be understood and measured. Belfast City Council is currently working in partnership with DSD (BCIP) to
develop outcomes for community development and would welcome the opportunity to share some of this thinking to inform the Framework.
· Balance the current focus on physical and economic development with social development: The policy objectives are overly focused on physical and economic development. There needs to be greater exploration of people based development and social issues (e.g. the alleviation of child poverty, the removal of barriers to education, and consideration of health and wellbeing issues).
· Integrate the objectives across government departments to ensure connectivity: Achieving the objectives outlined in the Framework will necessitate an integrated approach on the part of the Executive and local government. Tackling the challenges of area based deprivation, improving competitiveness, developing infrastructure, and working towards a shared society will all require government departments to work together. This includes health, education, OFMDFM, regional development, and planning.
This Framework will fail if it is simply the responsibility of DSD alone. There must be commitment from other departments to endorse the Framework’s objectives and ensure that community development is of key importance across government departments. In the context of local government reorganisation, the Framework should also make reference to the current and future role of local government in the delivery of urban regeneration and community development. This can be informed form the significant historical and ongoing partnership between Belfast and DSD on the development of many strategic regeneration sites.
Consultation response: The Framework’s enabling objectives
The enabling objectives do seem to be appropriate for this Framework. They could however be strengthened, in that there are other enabling objectives which will also help to support future community development and urban regeneration. These enabling objectives require further work to ensure they reflect the existing work of councils like Belfast on community development.
· Enabling objectives reflect what is already happening in Belfast: The Framework presents the enabling objectives as a new approach. It needs to acknowledge that this type of work is already taking place in Belfast and other parts of Northern Ireland, and that the Framework is only attempting to build on this existing good practice. A key example of current practice is the BCIP Programme which is due to come into place in 2014. Other councils may be able to learn lessons from this work.
· The enabling objectives make no reference to other mechanisms: Planning policy, particularly the community planning agenda, will potentially be powerful enabling objectives for helping to support urban regeneration and community development. However, there is no reference made to these mechanisms, neither in the enabling objectives nor in the rest of the document.
· Enabling objective 2 – maximising the resources available: Enabling objective 2 makes reference to the use of new financial instruments, which is also a theme of UK national policy. However, there is no reference to what these new financial instruments might be and their usefulness in Northern Ireland (e.g. mechanisms such as Accelerated Development Zones (ADZs), Tax Increment Financing (TIF), charitable bonds and crowdsourcing). It would be helpful, particularly in the context of a reduced funding environment, if a redrafted Framework could present an options analysis which outlines the possible strengths and weaknesses of these new financial instruments for the context of Northern Ireland. It would also be useful if this analysis could look specifically at the options for social finance, building on previous research such as the recent report by Charity Bank and the Ulster Community Investment Trust.[16] It may also be important to examine the feasibility of the Big Society Capital model and its application in the Northern Ireland context.
· Enabling objective 4 – appreciate the diversity of the community and voluntary sector: This enabling objective makes assumptions about the capacity and composition of community and voluntary organisations, treating it as a clearly identifiable, distinct and measurable sector. However, this sector is extremely diverse and generalisations are difficult; therefore any interventions which attempt to work with this sector need to appreciate this complexity in both designing and delivering interventions. In addition, the policy objective of developing greater cohesion and engagement needs to be the responsibility of all partners across the public, private and community and voluntary sectors.
· The language of the framework is clumsy at times: The language of the Framework is not always appropriate (e.g. over emphasis on ‘efficiency’ in enabling objective 4 is not necessarily appropriate for the community and voluntary sector). In particular, it suggests that voluntary and community sector organisations have the capacity to bid for and deliver public service contracts.
Consultation response: The logic model
Belfast City Council welcomes the use of the logic model in the Framework because it enables project managers to reflect on whether ‘what we are doing is working?’ This is a well known and understood model for managing projects and programmes. However, the logic model has been presented in the Framework with no tangible outcomes; so whilst the model itself is not problematic, the decision to present the model with no associated outcomes against the Framework’s policy objectives certainly makes it difficult to assess the model’s long term usefulness. Whilst broadly supportive, Belfast City Council would also like to highlight some of the limitations of the logic model which should be acknowledged in any future guidance[17]:
· logic models can be overly reliant upon quantitative data which may not always be appropriate to develop a thorough understanding of community development, where qualitative data collection and analysis can be extremely important;
· logic models present an idealised way of understanding how programmes and projects work. They aim to generate positive outcomes but may also result in unexpected or unintended consequences which can only be identified by listening to the real life experiences of community members;
· the forces which change and impact upon communities can be extremely varied and any programme for urban regeneration and community development needs to consider the broader context for the intervention;
· logic models can be extremely difficult and complex to create and monitor. Thought needs to be given as to how this logic model for urban regeneration and community development will be developed for interventions in Northern Ireland. It would be useful if the DSD could provide examples of where the logic model has been used in Northern Ireland and with what success.
Consultation response: Definition of urban
The definition of urban, as set out in the Framework, is restrictive and does not reflect the geographies generally associated with regeneration and community development. A more flexible approach should be taken in the future. The key issues for Belfast City Council are as follows:
· the definition does not make clear how the settlement types set out in Annex A of the Framework relate to the RPA context, (e.g. how will the settlement type relate to resource allocation). In addition, there is no reference to the area based policy of distributing funding (e.g. will future resource be allocated on a per head basis or in relation to levels of deprivation?);
· the definition of ‘urban’ at a population of 4500 means that the range of urban areas varies enormously. This variation makes generalisation about urban regeneration difficult;
· it would be useful if the DSD could provide greater clarification on their ideas as to how the definition of urban can become more flexible to allow for better integration of funding opportunities;
· whilst the Framework recognises the economic role of Belfast as a key driver for competitiveness, the strategic importance of the city for economic growth, particularly the role of the city centre as a generator of taxes and income, could be given greater consideration within the document. Given the context of low economic growth, it may be more useful for the Framework to work towards greater economic resilience, rather than simply growth.
Consultation response: Definition of regeneration
The term ‘regeneration’ is a contested and complex activity involving many types of place; it is not only complex but is ‘an evolving problem’ which develops and changes according to the temporal and spatial context. Whilst the definition of regeneration used in the Framework reflects that used in other regeneration strategies, (e.g. the Scottish Government’s regeneration strategy published in December 2011), Belfast City Council are of the opinion that the definition is overly focused on economic outcomes, thereby neglecting the wider social importance of regeneration.
The language used in the Framework’s definition is overly negative; the word ‘failure’ suggests regeneration is about reacting to a problem, rather than a proactive activity which aims to make the most of the current and potential opportunities to create job opportunities and support private investment.
The conceptualisation of regeneration is also narrow and potentially restrictive. This conceptualisation is underpinned by the assumption that the challenges in Northern Ireland are the result of market failure, and that market failure should be the only premise for state intervention. However, in a context of ongoing social unrest, a legacy of conflict and the very physical barriers that still exist between communities, additional blocks to economic growth are created and perpetuated, preventing investment, entrepreneurship and growth. These challenges require more than a standard economic response to supply and demand. In order to build a shared future, economic responses to these issues must be developed alongside social people based regeneration responses, in order to fully address the complex inter-community divisions that still exist in neighbourhoods. This process can only be done through linking regeneration with a community development approach.
To this end, a more appropriate definition of regeneration could reflect the sentiments of the 1999 Urban Task Force definition of regeneration, which instead of focusing on the market, described regeneration as a ‘comprehensive package of regeneration measures to address both the physical regeneration of an area and the economic and social needs of the local population.’ [18] Or it might define regeneration as simply about ‘reinvestment in a place after a period of disinvestment.’ [19] The definition may also want to draw more on the growing interest in the concept of resilience. Resilience is defined as ‘the ability of a place to respond to the challenges that it faces.’ [20] In the context of the poor economic context, resilience is becoming increasingly recognised as a useful concept which helps policy makers broaden their approach away from a preoccupation with economic growth[21].
Finally, a definition of regeneration which focuses specifically on the market fails to recognise the role of the state as a provider of services such as health, housing, education, and community safety.
These are key services which have a direct link to the delivery of regeneration outcomes; therefore regeneration is not simply about achieving economic outcomes or creating competitiveness. Instead, all departments need to recognise their role within regeneration and the role that public services can play in tackling area based deprivation.
Consultation response: Definition of community development
The definition of community development reflects that of Belfast City Council’s own consultation on community development within the city. However, whilst this definition is clear, within the Framework the relationship between community development and regeneration is unclear. There appears to be uncertainty about how community development supports regeneration and vice versa. Community development is a key outcome for regeneration and needs to be more fully woven into the Framework in a way that gives the impression of being more than tokenistic. Belfast City Council takes the view that regeneration and community development are not separate activities but part and parcel of the same agenda. We would suggest that the Framework develops a definition of urban regeneration and community development which illustrates how they operate together and the synergistic effect of both activities for communities. An example of how this could work is presented below.
|
[1] From the Urban Regeneration and Community Development Policy Framework: Consultation Document (2012) Page 15, paragraph: 3.2.1
[2] Source: DSD website:
http://www.dsdni.gov.uk/index/urcdg-urban_regeneration/neighbourhood_renewal.htm
[3] Source: Belfast City Masterplan (draft) Review: 2012
[4] Northern Ireland Executive (2011) Programme for Government 2011-2015 Building a better future.
[5] Charity Bank and Ulster Community Investment Trust (2012) Social Finance in Northern Ireland: Innovative Thinking and Action
[6] More information on Big Society Capital can be found here: http://www.bigsocietycapital.com/
[7] A copy of the Community Development Strategy and Support Plan can be found here: http://www.belfastcity.gov.uk/communitysupportplan/cspconsultation.asp
[8] Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2007) Place shaping: a shared ambition for the future of local government. HMSO
[9] EU Commission (2011) Factsheet on Community Led Community Development Cohesion Policy 2014-2020. EU Commission page
[10] Ibid
[11] For example numerous examples quoted by, Imrie, R. and Raco, M. (2003) Urban Renaissance? New Labour, Community and Urban Policy Routledge and Porter and Shaw (2010) Whose Urban Renaissance? An International Comparison of urban regeneration strategies. Routledge
[12] For a copy of the strategy: http://www.northernireland.gov.uk/economic-strategy
[13] European http://www.northernireland.gov.uk/economic-strategy Commission (2010) European Commission’s Green Paper Unlocking the Potential of the Cultural and Creative Industries. European Commission
[14]Boddy, M. and Parkinson, M. (2004) City Matters Competitiveness, cohesion and urban governance
[15] Belfast City Council (?) An Integrated Cultural Strategy for Belfast Belfast City Council
[16] Charity Bank and Ulster Community Investment Trust (2012) Social Finance in Northern Ireland: Innovative Thinking and Action
[17] The Community Tool Box: http://ctb.ku.edu/en/tablecontents/sub_section_main_1877.aspx
[18] Urban Task Force Report ‘Towards a Strong Urban Renaissance’ HMSO
[19] Porter, L, and Shaw, K (2009) Whose Urban Renaissance? Routledge, Taylor and Francis. London and New York
[20] Centre for Local Economic Strategies (CLES) (2010) Productive Local Economies: Creating resilience places
[21]Dawley, S. Pike, A. and Tomaney, J. (2010) Towards the Resilient Region? Local Economy 25. 650:”
Supporting documents:
-
Draft Belfast City Council response to DSD’s Urban Regeneration and Community Development Policy Framework for Northern Ireland, item 34.
PDF 84 KB -
Appendix 1 - Belfast City Council Consultation Response, item 34.
PDF 132 KB