Tag Archives: local government

Whatever happened to Neighbourhood Renewal?

New Deal for Communities programmes and Neighbourhood Management Pathfinders are preparing to wind down, the NRU is no more than fleeting memory, the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal gathers dust on shelves in many a town hall, the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund has been replaced by Working Neighbourhoods Fund and Neighbourhood Renewal Advisors have turned into Local Improvement Advisors. So just what has happened to Neighbourhood Renewal and do we care anymore about neighbourhood approaches?

Well there’s no doubt that neighbourhoods still matter and neighbourhoods that have problems matter more than most. Although evaluation after evaluation demonstrates that the neighbourhoods that received all this attention have generally improved for the better there remain, especially in London, too many neighbourhoods were poverty and inequality persist, usually side by side, with great wealth and prosperity. Indeed London has become, over the last ten years, the most unequal capital in Europe despite the huge injection of public funds and the remarkable scale of development from Kings Cross to Stratford and from Cricklewood to the South Bank.

London’s growth as a world city, supported by the current and previous Mayor, and enshrined in the London Plan, was meant to result in a greater share of the benefits of growth for the poorer parts of London. It’s true that previously run down ex industrial areas and disused rail lands and canal basins have been transformed with new gleaming structures. It’s also true that these developments have delivered some benefits for local people in the form of social housing and jobs. However there’s still the feeling that this hasn’t been enough and despite  this splurge of growth and redevelopment, and the radical reformation of the social and economic structure of the capital over the past thirty years – the ‘poor are still with us’ and many of the poorer parts of the capital remain ‘too risky’ for mainstream private sector investors and developers.

To make matters worse the world recession and property slump has turned off the private capital. Mr Brown’s fiscal stimulus has delivered some respite, with the HCA racing to the rescue of some key schemes but many have been halted or mothballed. Certainly the public sector is braving itself for some punishing settlements over the next few years as whoever is in government attempts to re-balance the books.  So all-in-all not a very promising outlook especially if you happen to live in one of the many struggling neighbourhoods in inner and outer London. So is there any point in thinking about neighbourhood renewal? And if there is what is there to do?

Here at Renaisi we firmly believe there is. In fact there is now an even greater need to focus on issues at the neighbourhood level whether they be managing the impacts of rapid changes in the demographic composition of neighbourhoods; dealing with the effects of more entrenched worklessness; helping local enterprises survive; or ensuring that where development does occur it does so in a way that is environmentally sustainable and creates and sustains value for the community as well as the developer.

What we’ve learnt is that local problems are best resolved at the local level and by local people. That’s the only way that you get a solution that’s truly sustainable. This doesn’t mean that there aren’t greater social and economic influences at borough and city level that don’t have an impact or need to be properly understood, before deciding what to do at neighbourhood level. Indeed that is the key to developing solutions that are right. That’s why the most successful areas have thought long and hard about their ‘place shaping’ responsibilities and have begun to think for themselves about how they can renew their neighbourhoods without a national blueprint being handed down to them.

They’ve also developed ways of understanding their local economy, how it’s influenced by London’s wider labour, housing and property markets and what interventions they can make to protect and enhance local enterprise and employment. Within this they’ve carefully considered how major physical regeneration schemes can contribute more locally through innovative partnerships and funding mechanisms. They’ve also made the effort to try and understand the impact of social restructuring on local neighbourhoods and maintained efforts to better deliver and manage public services at a neighbourhood level.

The current recession will challenge all of this considerably especially in those areas where physical renewal is heavily dependent on private sector cash. However even in these dark times there are signs of life and a number of opportunities to protect what you’ve got and prepare for the upturn:

Firstly, we should all still care about neighbourhood renewal and redouble our efforts to deliver it in places where it is needed most. The emphasis of the new Comprehensive Area Assessment will be a sharp reminder to many of the need to tackle inequality. However a new narrative is needed and that should be a localist one and that needs local government to end its ‘parent child’ relationship with central government and start to think for itself once more.  The government, and its likely successor, appear to be willing to return increasing amounts of responsibility to local councils (unfortunately not enough real power) and some new tools such as Tax Increment Financing seem about to finally make an appearance. More councils should respond by taking up the challenge and making the best of what is on the table.

Secondly, understanding London’s economy and how local neighbourhoods and town centres relate to its shifting social and economic sands and the opportunities and challenges this brings and having the ability to plan effectively, at the right spatial scale, to maximise and mitigate these has never been more important.

Thirdly, being prepared to use the assets and financial resources available in bold and innovative ways. This includes new approaches to financing neighbourhood regeneration, including transferring assets to the community sector and building mechanisms that capture value for the long term benefit of local people. Many councils are already buying up land, at the bottom of the property value curve, in readiness for the upturn.

Fourthly, the days of large scale public spending are over for some time. Public sector intervention will still be necessary to deliver regeneration and renewal where it’s needed most. However it is likely to be even more targeted, be raised closer to where it’s needed, rather than delivered from on high by the Treasury or CLG, and involve new and (many not so new!) forms of public private partnerships.

Finally, this means councils having the ability to engage meaningfully with the private sector as the people charged with leading the remaking of London’s neighbourhoods. This requires an approach to plan making that not only reflects the needs and aspirations of local communities but is long term, built on a sound understanding of the local economy, provides a framework for the long term private sector investment and community benefit so sorely missing from many schemes. A new breed of person is needed in some of the regeneration and planning departments and council chambers across London, to make this happen as understanding risk and getting the right deal will never be more important.

Old style Neighbourhood Renewal is dead along with a ‘top down’ approach from government. But a new localist agenda and approach to Neighbourhood Renewal is beginning to emerge from the mist, with local government pulling the approach forward, rather than being pushed by Whitehall.  However, that said, the regeneration tool box is likely to remain frustratingly empty until a whole scale review of the structure of public finance, which is unlikely. The endemic political and investor shortermism may also never be overcome. So things do look rather bleak just now and just like the recession it remains unclear as to how things will pan out. However for those who believe in true neighbourhood renewal, and are committed to tacking the problems in our poorest neighbourhoods, now is the time to take action.  We need to be ambitious, grit our teeth and brave the challenges ahead.

For more information on Renaisi and our approach to Neighbourhood Renewal please conact Rob Pearce, Director of Strategy and Communication on r.pearce@renaisi.com

Darling, I think you’re doing it wrong

The Budget included several measures to improve regeneration and said yes to property sectors push for Tax Increment Financing. TIF’s, as they are called in the US, are public financing instruments that are widely used in the US to raise revenue for infrastructure, affordable housing, economic and community development, and environmental clean up. It has been pushed in the UK for some time by local government. Most notably the London Borough of Barnet, which has been pushing the Treasury since 2007 to raise revenue for its infrastructure development plans through tax increment financing instruments.

So what is it?
Tax increment financing is a mechanism that allows local governments to borrow against anticipated increases in tax revenue. It is usually structured as a municipal bond, which is sold to investors who are paid back from tax revenue. In the US, the investors also receive a tax exemption for the interest they receive.

Is it good for regeneration in the UK?
There are many characteristics of TIF that makes it an attractive model for the UK. First, TIF models give local government an opportunity to raise revenue for regeneration independently. Councils has been severely limited in their ability, since the Thatcher era, to raise revenue for infrastructure and housing because of a deep rooted culture of distrust in their ability to be credit wise borrowers.

Secondly, the TIF model means that local governments can raise capital without raising taxes. This assumption relies on increases in tax revenue due to growth and investment. So what happens if the movers and shakers with the money bags don’t produce? Or what if you are in an area that experienced stagnant growth even before the recession? Which leads to the next question- Does the TIF model really provide a mechanism for really tackling regeneration? As the Regeneration Framework acknowledged last autumn, regeneration and economic development are not the same and the evidence from the last 30 years demonstrates that despite strong national and regional growth there has been an increasing gap between wealthy and poor areas since 2001. Well before we entered the economic crisis, there lacked a real redistribution mechanism that delivered wider economic benefit and inclusion. And now more than before, there is a need for a regeneration model that addresses the widening gap between wealthy and poor areas.

Will this further regeneration in the recession and after?
TIF is unlikely to provide a real boost of investment to the poorest most needing areas during the recession and recovery. The reliance on growth to secure bonds means that only areas that are most likely to provide quick and reliable growth will be targeted for TIF style financing. Put in another way, TIF is likely to be launched successfully in areas that would have been invested in without government backing in a better market, not the most difficult to transform or economically stagnant areas. TIF’s weakness as a model to finance regeneration is reflected in Section 106 and the yet to be launched Community Infrastructure Levy, which relies on property uplift to incur community benefit. By attaching revenue and benefit to expected growth, investment will only occur in areas that are most likely to be successful.

We need a model for recruiting capital for regeneration and housing that is not connected to local property growth. There is a need for a real redistribution mechanism. The Community Infrastructure Levy, which has been postponed till April 2010, was seeking to do this in part by allocating a portion of the revenue raised to regional and central government for large scale infrastructure projects that would have wider social benefit.

A real redistribution mechanism
The changed economic environment is unlikely for quite a few years to be earmarked by high speculative development and growth that characterised the pre-recession market and in turn fuels tax increment financing, Section 106 and CIL type models.

Investment for regeneration needs to be detached from raising capital for economic development. A simple means of more effectively redistributing revenue would be to pool Section 106 benefits and allowing them to be redistributed more widely throughout a local area or over an extended period of time. This would allow Section 106 revenue to be shifted to poor areas and saved for use on a rainy day.

TIF is a noble effort. There is a need for new locally controlled financing mechanisms, but growth based models will unlikely provide the capital for low investment areas during a period of no growth. Maybe it is time to look at the tax system- particularly tax relief as a way to raise revenue for local areas. The tax increases proposed provide an opportunity to push for tax relief models to finance regeneration.

Community Investment Tax Relief (CITR)
CITR is a finance model where individuals and corporate bodies invest in accredited Community Development Finance Institutions which in turn provide finance for qualifying businesses, social enterprises and community projects. This model is already in place in the UK and would only require raising the incentives and take up. This allows for regeneration to take place from the ground up where local businesses, organisations, and people are financed to drive forward growth.

US Style Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)
LIHTC is a dollar for dollar sale of tax relief that individuals and investors purchase and in turn raises capital for affordable housing. Through the sale of tax credits enough capital is raised to lower the amount of debt taken on by housing providers and the cost savings are passed on to home owners. The tax credits are allocated to state and local governments who manage and distribute the credits to assist affordable housing builders.

It is without a doubt that the next few years will require an economic rebuilding effort near or equivalent to that of the post war era. There are real opportunities to address the widening gap between wealthy and poor areas that has characterised the last eight years. And when we finally emerge on the other side, we will have equipped local government and local people with the financial tools to regenerate their areas.

Written by Dekonti Mends-Cole, Rensaisi Senior Consultant

Budget 2009 – First Impressions

At first glance the Budget, with the snappy regeneration-related title of ‘Building Britain’s Future’, seems to offer a lot of positives for the regeneration sector, with the Chancellor committing more money to jobs, green growth and housing. But all this is balanced by a greater demand for efficiency savings from local authorities and lower spending growth and, in the longer term, record levels of borrowing.

First the good news: £600million will be allocated to stimulate housing investment and to kick-start stalled housing developments or dormant sites with planning permission. £100million of this will be used to allow local authorities to ensure higher energy efficiency standards in social housing developments.

The Budget also saw the confirmation of Leeds and Manchester as pilot city-regions, which will give them greater powers to integrate planning, housing, transport, regeneration, employment and skills programmes and increasing their ability to drive sustainable growth and economic development.

Perhaps the most daring move is the £1.2billion that has been given to the Young Persons Guarantee Scheme, which aims to help alleviate the danger that the recession will lead to long-term unemployment by guaranteeing a job, training or work placement for all 18-24 year olds who are unemployed for 12 months. This is a staggering and unprecedented move which will see funding made available for local authorities and voluntary organisations to employ 100,000 young people in ‘socially useful activity’ with 50,000 more jobs on offer in areas of dense unemployment; 10% of these jobs are in the ‘green’ sector. More concrete details about this are eagerly awaited.

Meanwhile a further £260million will be made available for education and training including the expansion of the number of places at sixth-forms and colleges by 54,000 starting in September.

Also of interest is a £750 million Strategic Investment Fund to support advanced industrial projects of strategic importance, £250million of which is earmarked specifically for low carbon projects, helping to create sustainable jobs for the future.

The bad news is that, whilst the Chancellor believes that the economy will recover and begin growth at the end of this year and will grow by 3.5% by 2011, the IMF are more pessimistic, predicting that the UK economy will shrink by 4.1% this year and 0.4% in 2010.

Increased public borrowing, at a record level, combined with less growth in public sector spending and demands for increased cost-saving and efficiency will place further pressure on public sector finances. And whilst the investment to get the housing market moving again are welcome, they represent a drop in the ocean compared to the bail-out of the banks.

The problem, as ever, will be to ensure these initiatives meet the needs of people and places at the neighbourhood level. Renaisi is all about the neighbourhood but the danger is that the initiatives announced in the Budget will not benefit the neighbourhoods and the people that need it most. Take the measures to boost housing development for instance – care will need to be taken to ensure the funding does not simply allow private-sector house-builders to profit at the expense of creating affordable housing for local people. Similarly the Strategic Investment Fund for industry must be careful to ensure local people are connected to the jobs being created and have the opportunity to fully benefit from the investment.

Written by Russell Spencer, Renaisi Consultant