Pride in Place
I was recently selected to chair the Bristol Pride in Place board, currently consisting of only me. I should be able to keep myself in order, most of the time.
Pride in Place is a government programme to improve and regenerate around 300 of the most deprived areas of the country. Each community receives £20m over ten years, almost £6bn in total. Around two thirds (75% for earlier schemes) will be for capital projects, approximately £4bn nationally. This compares favourably to the £39bn allocated for the ten year affordable housing programme. The three overarching aims of the programme are: stronger communities; thriving places and taking back control (that third one sounds familiar).
As a bit of an old timer I have seen City Challenge, New Deal for Communities, Single Regeneration Budget, and others over the years. Unfortunately, these programmes have not always been successful in shifting the dial on local poverty and the same areas seem to crop up decade after decade in the league tables generated by the Indices if multiple deprivation. The exceptions are often areas which have been affected by gentrification, however in these cases poorer populations are often displaced rather than enriched.
In the late 1990s I engaged in a successful New Deal for Communities bid. The resource then was £50bn over ten years. The funding seemed to act like a huge honey pot, attracting many public and voluntary sector organisations all keen to help spend the money. Some dusted off plans for new buildings they were keen to develop. There was talk then of ‘Bending the Spend,’ making better use of all the public sector money flowing into the area. Not long after the bid was approved, I found myself working in the Midlands and my involvement in the project finished so I am not entirely sure how the resources were spent but the area is still one of the most deprived in the city.
The challenge for Pride in Place will be to identify and adopt initiatives and investment which has a lasting effect. In many areas this will require the funds to attract investment rather than just attracting projects. This means considering how the community can have control over assets, rather than liabilities, when the funding ends. What activities can generate surpluses?
In the prospectus, Secretary of State, Steve Reed writes, “This isn’t just about the money, it’s a new way of delivering change…each Board must transition towards a community-led model of delivery by year three of the programme.” The implication is that greater governance and involvement will extend beyond the programme to an enduring system of local governance.
The Pride in Place is not just meant to be a fund but a catalyst for wider and enduring change. If this nettle is grasped across the 600 communities, it could be as significant a change in how local government works as the current local government reorganisation. As local councils grow larger could new organisations grow up at the community level taking control of local services and assets?
