Tag Archives: community cohesion

Fostering Community Cohesion in Diverse Neighbourhoods

NANM Logo

On June 22, the NANM London Learning Event was held at the Royal Institute of British Architects.  The event was attended by a professionally diverse audience of neighbourhood managers, community group leaders, NDC boards, and private sector regenerators. The event was kicked off by keynote speaker, Ted Cantle, Chair for the Institute for Community Cohesion. He was followed by, Local Improvement Advisor, Jo Broadwood, discussing the new community cohesion impact assessment she wrote for Department for Communities and Local Government.  The two morning speakers were joined by the workshop presenters on an interactive panel that connected the policy to practice.

In the afternoon, participants attended two sessions from three of the workshops held. The workshops included Renaisi’s Adam Barnett discussing how planning system can be used to improve cohesion, Fiona Berry, Neighbourhood Manager from Lewisham discussing the challenges faced in a diverse London borough and providing best practice examples from Lewisham.  EC1 NDC’s Kirby Swales and Kate Arnold presented on the communication and engagement tools that have been used in the NDC area to promote a sense of belonging and community cohesion.

Morning presentations summary

Keynote speaker Ted Cantle, Chair of Institute of Community Cohesion

Ted Cantle spoke about how national and local challenges facing cohesion, specifically:

- how national issues are manifested locally

- the challenges of plural identities to cohesion

- building social capital

- notions of citizenship and

- how to better engage at the local level.

He concluded furthering cohesion required building capacity and partnerships, developing an effective communication strategy, and promoting community leadership, improving the role of the voluntary sector.

Ted Cantle’s full presentation can be found here.

Jo Broadwood, Local Improvement Advisor, author Community Cohesion Impact Assessment and Community Conflict Prevention Tool.

Jo Broadwood discussed the steps to conducting a community cohesion impact assessment.  A community cohesion impact assessment test if the project/ activity planned will have a positive or negative impact on community cohesion and community conflict in an area.  Additionally, the assessment helps to clarify the aims and purpose of the project, engage project stakeholders and participants in development, and gather baseline information, so that the project can evidence that it has made a positive difference on the community.

Jo Broadwood’s full presentation can be found here.

Workshop Summaries

Workshop A:

Fiona Berry led workshop 3 discussing the challenges and successful strategies used in Lewisham.  Her workshop provided examples of how to actively engage local people in decision making and influencing services and what issues local people in Lewisham found most pressing.  She also discussed how to manage the allocation of limited resources and effectively communicate to residents why a particular course of action has been chosen.

Fiona Berry’s Presentation is available here.

Workshop B:

Renaisi’s  Adam Barnett presented on how to address cohesion through the planning system. The workshop discussed how the ‘new’ flexible planning system and comprehensive area agreements provide an opportunity to improve cohesion through spatial planning. Adam provided guidance on how to gather information and gain a thorough understanding of the social dynamics of a community.  He also discussed how to move beyond the bricks and mortar to improve cohesion through service delivery.

Adam Barnett’s workshop presentation can be found here.

Workshop C:

EC1 NDC presented a workshop on successful methods for fostering cohesion in their local area.  Their work included campaigning behind common interest, awareness raising monitoring population shifts and impacts, and improving joint working of community facilities. They also provided examples of the specific projects that promoted cohesion including:

- The EC1 magazine. The magazine has been very successful in communicating to residents and there are plans to continue publication after the close of funding for the NDC programme.  The magazine’s success is due in part because it provides a forum for local news and is not simply a marketing tool.  It covers local stories outside of the NDC, profiles local people and has wide distribution to every household in the NDC area.

- EC1 Summer Festival, an annual event, attracts a wide and diverse audience.  The festival encourages participation through recruiting local volunteers and booking local entertainment.

- EC1 Pride Awards, an awards programme, where local people nominate their local heroes.  The ceremony recognises the good work of residents and generates a sense of pride.

- Youth Film Project, KCP Youth and EC1 NDC used a film making project to generate discussion about generational cohesion issues.  The film gave residents a chance to dispel myths about young people and cross generational boundaries.

The EC1 NDC workshop presentation can be found here.

Participant Quotes:

“The ability to directly gain from Lewisham’s experience and share Best Practice

in Swale”-Kelly Walker, Swale Borough Council, Community Cohesion Worker

The Practical Workshop of Community Cohesion at the neighbourhood level provided good ideas to use in Dudley- Judith Ashford, Area Community Renewal Officer, Dudley MBC

“I enjoyed the workshops at they were small and interactive” – Dawn Miller, Aston Pride, Community Representative

“The theme of relating community cohesion policy to practice was most useful”-Dawn Osborne, Sunderland City Council, Policy Officer

A Space For Community Cohesion

Shaping the social fabric has played a critical role in the thoughts of those responsible for place making as far back as the start of the 20th century with Ebenezer Howard and his influential book Garden Cities of Tomorrow, and the work of his disciples in the emerging field of town and country planning.

Unfortunately, with the onset of professionalisations, specialisations and the fragmentation of government at all levels, the shaping of the social fabric has become separated from the physical, often resulting in government policies and practices, which don’t always reinforce each other.

However in 2007, community cohesion – in essence the business of shaping a more cohesive and sustainable social fabric – was brought under the aegis of Communities and Local Government. For the first time, the business of place-making and cohesion have been brought under the control of one department, which should provide the momentum and direction needed to join the two interlocking disciplines together on a national level.

Sadly this opportunity does not appear to have been exploited fully. Although community cohesion is currently high on the Government’s agenda, it seems the potential that shaping the physical landscape offers for promoting social cohesion and well-being is being overlooked. This was highlighted recently by the Government’s response to the Commission on Integration and Cohesion’s (CIC) report – a report which set out to demonstrate an approach to cohesion, which united it with the wider place shaping agenda and the regeneration of the most deprived areas in the country. Below we set out an assessment of how far the government’s response answers this call:

The Government’s Response
The response sets out a new way for local government to shape their communities into cohesive and integrated communities. At the top of the list is the government’s new definition/policy statement on cohesion and integration. This incorporates new thinking developed by the CIC on a shared identity, as below:

Our vision of an integrated and cohesive community is based on three foundations:
People from different backgrounds having similar life opportunities
People knowing their rights and responsibilities
People trusting one another and trusting local institutions to act fairly
And three key ways of living together:
A shared future vision and sense of belonging
A focus on what new and existing communities have in common, alongside a recognition of the value of diversity
Strong and positive relationships between people from different backgrounds
The government’s response responds to some fifty seven CIC recommendations, which address a number of areas from migration, citizenship, education, training and local lettings policies to government spending plans and the government’s new super quango, the Homes and Communities Agency.

The government expects to utilise sustainable community strategies (SCS) and local area agreements (LAAs) as the critical delivery vehicles to deliver better cohesion. The emphasis will be on giving cohesion a stronger voice in the existing system rather than giving it a separate platform on which to operate. It is expected that cohesion will be mainstreamed into the system as an integral element and not ‘hived off’ as a ‘tick box’ exercise on a monitoring form. On this issue, only time, strong local government leadership and flexible working arrangements from central government will ensure that cohesion becomes a central part of local government business and activity.

However, the major structural change is the introduction of a pubic service agreement on cohesion and integration (PSA 21). This sets out how HM Treasury will measure the success of cohesion funding:

PSA 21: Build More Cohesive, Empowered and Active Communities

% of people from different backgrounds that get on well together in a local area
% of people who have meaningful interactions with people from different backgrounds
% of people who feel that they can influence decisions in their locality
% of people that who feel that they belong to their neighbourhood
Perhaps PSA 21 can be taken as a more accurate reflection of the government’s thinking on cohesion and integration than the more aspirational definition set out in the vision statement above. And what are we to make of these indicators?

First of all, it appears that there has been a partial ‘re-invention of the wheel’. All of these indicators have been used in citizenship surveys over the past decade or so; they certainly do not represent a new innovative way of measuring cohesion. Equally, there are about three times as many ‘citizenship indicators’ that the government could have used, but didn’t. So what does this tell us?

The indicators chosen represent three key government concerns on cohesion. Firstly, the importance placed on people from different cultures getting on well together and ‘rubbing along’. Secondly, the critical importance of citizen empowerment to a cohesive community. Thirdly, the new emphasis on a shared identity and sense of place in a neighbourhood.

However, what about places and spaces?
This response, along with other Government endorsed community cohesion policy, including Communities Secretary Hazel Blears’ 2007 ten-point action plan to promote cohesion, make scant or no mention of the importance of places to cohesion and integration. They talk of people needing spaces to ‘get on well together’ and have ‘meaningful interaction’, however in a large number of towns, neighbourhoods and cities, these places or spaces are simply not available.

To me it seems that the critical missing link in the government’s response is the bricks and mortar element. About how physical development and planning in particular can help to create the necessary foundations for a cohesive and integrated community. Unfortunately, when it comes to planning, community cohesion does not hold the same weight as economic development or climate change in mainstream planning policy, if at all. This is a huge missed opportunity as creating a sense of place, and aiding people’s integration within the place where they live is essential to creating cohesive and sustainable communities and neighbourhoods.

At Renaisi, we have always been committed to developing and delivering regeneration interventions that improve both the physical and social fabric of areas. Based on our broad understanding, we think the debate for cohesive and integrated communities should now move away from delivery mechanisms, local area agreements and central government audit procedures to more tangible suggestions about how space can make more cohesive communities.
We suggest that there are a number of critical spaces that local authorities, in developing their community strategies and spatial plans, should be thinking about, as below. If agencies focus on these, we think that the link between place making and community cohesion can be restored:

Spaces which are truly accessible and open to all members of the community
Spaces which offer a forum for a range of interactions whether these be informal or structured, individual or group, physical or virtual
Spaces that link people and mainstream services together in an inclusive way that builds, trust, respect and empowerment
Spaces that reinforce civic identity and give people a sense of place in their locality
These spaces do not have to be new large developments or even building based, they can be a green space reclaimed after years of neglect or a shopping precinct resurrected with the introduction of new lights and seating areas, such as the award winning Promenade of Light or Spa Fields Park in the EC1 New Deal area of Islington, North London – see pictured.

EC1 New Deal for Communities’ public space strategy aims to improve the quality of public spaces within the EC1 area as a tool to improve the lives of those who live and work there. Creating free and safe community spaces in full consultation with the public that would be using them has helped reduce the fear of crime, increase the number of residents engaging in healthy lifestyle activities, and significantly improved the quality of the local environment. It has also provided inclusive spaces that act as a forum for a range of interactions between many different communities in the area.

Renaisi has also been developing an innovative approach to studying and measuring cohesion in a new mixed use regeneration scheme in Woodberry Down in Hackney. We have been putting our thoughts into practice and using space as a category alongside more mainstream methods of measuring cohesion. Using it has allowed us to add value to the master planning process and helped re-connect thinking on shaping the urban fabric of the area.

With examples like this it seems obvious that for sustainable and effective mixed communities to become a reality, there needs first to be a step change in the recognition of community cohesion as essential to the designing and shaping of modern living spaces.