Continuing dilemmas for area based urban regeneration: evidence from the New Deal for Communities Programme in England

Abstract

A new study exploring the experiences of residents involved in urban regeneration projects suggests that there is still much to learn about involving local people in area regeneration initiatives. The study, by a team from Goldsmith's College, found: Communities are diverse and local interests may conflict with each other. If the community is seen as homogenous then only the most powerful voices will tend to be heard. Residents felt there was a gap between the rhetoric that demands community participation in area regeneration programmes and the realities of work on the ground. The study did find examples of good practice, but residents also had major criticisms to make. Too often, in their view, the mechanisms for effective community involvement had been inadequate, with too little time for effective consultation. Many commented that there had been insufficient support and not enough training (a conclusion shared by many professionals). There was broad agreement between officers and local community representatives that official funding for bids should be conditional on guarantees that there are adequate resources for community involvement. The study piloted 'Audit Tools' for area regeneration programmes – which could be used by communities themselves. Community representatives expressed their interest in using these as part of an obligatory system of monitoring community participation. The researchers conclude that: -debate should focus upon the most effective forms of dialogue between different structures of governance and different community interests, rather than simply polarising distinctions between 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' approaches; -mainstream policies and resource allocation decisions need to take account of the lessons of locally based programmes and policies; -community participation should be subjected to an auditing process that echoes the monitoring of 'hard outputs' and the financial accountability of major public spending programmes.