urban imagination report seldom heard voices in deprived communities

SELDOM HEARD VOICES PROJECT REPORT

CREWE, CHESHIRE EAST

&

FINGERPOST, ST HELENS

Funded by:

Report produced by Cheshire Community Action (CCA) in Partnership with St

Helens Community Empowerment Network (CEN)

Written by John Heselwood (CCA Senior Manager) and

Simon Skidmore (CEN Manager)

February 2011

Contents

Introduction 2

Aims 3

Scope of the Project 4

Research Methodology 5

Rationale Behind the Project – Why Crewe and Fingerpost? 6 – 9

The Rural Perspective –

How Rural Community Led (Parish) Planning Works 10 – 12

An Evaluation of the Drivers and Barriers to Involvement

with the Rural Community Led Planning Process 13 – 19

Fingerpost – Left Behind and Forgotten? 20

Community Information about the Fingerpost Neighbourhood 21 – 22

Key Research Findings from Fingerpost 23 – 25

Crewe Local Residents Focus Group 26 – 29

The Local Authority’s Perspective 30 – 31

The Housing Association’s Perspective 32 – 33

Local Decision Making in Action –

Crewe Participatory Budgeting Event 34 – 37

So what have we learnt from the research findings? 38 – 40

Appendices 41 – 45

Acknowledgements 46

Seldom Heard Voices Research Report – February 2011 1

Introduction

We are delighted to present our research findings from the Seldom Heard Voices Project.

This report has been produced with a number of key findings based on qualitative

research with both residents and professionals from Crewe, Cheshire East and from the

Fingerpost area of St Helens.

Cheshire Community Action (CCA) and St Helens Community Empowerment Network

(CEN) were pleased to team up on this joint research project in developing the project to

examine if there was the potential to develop Community Led Planning in Urban areas

and to see what lessons could be learned from the process.

In recent years Community Led Planning has become an essential tool in the strategic

development of villages and rural communities, and as the new Coalition Government is

placing an emphasis on localism and neighbourhood planning, we hope this report will go

some way to informing the development and scope of the localism agenda.

CCA for several years has been instrumental in assisting Rural Community Led Planning

/ Parish Planning, and the CEN were only too pleased to benefit from their expertise in

this area.

We hope that this report will go some way to not only help shape the future direction of

community planning but will encourage people to see the positives in doing so, and the

possibilities that can be created for local decision making to be owned by residents in

urban areas as well.

John Heselwood

Cheshire Community Action, Head of Rural Affairs

and

Simon Skidmore

St Helens CEN, Manager


Aims

To research and learn from the good practice elements of rural Community Led

Planning (CLP)

Identify the drivers and barriers to getting involved with local decision making and

how we can encourage under-represented groups in urban communities to be

more active.

Assess the potential for Fingerpost, a deprived area of St Helens, and deprived

areas of Crewe in Cheshire East to have Community Led Planning Exercises.


Scope of the Project The project used a range of methods in order to collect information and draw

conclusions.

The project covers the following aspects:

This activity covers two urban communities: Fingerpost in St. Helens,

Merseyside and Crewe in Cheshire East.

Evaluation of the rural CLP process through telephone interviews with

experienced community led planners (see Appendix A for questions)

Focus groups with local residents in both areas to explore the reasons for lack of

engagement.

Desktop research to identify the drivers and barriers to getting involved with in

local decision making.

Interviewing Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) that work with communities.

Telephone and face to face interviews with Local Authorities in St. Helens and

Cheshire East.

DVD Film to accompany this report, of stories in St. Helens with community

members showing their experiences.

Learning from rural toolkits and resources to help inform future CLP projects in

urban areas.

Organising a Participatory Budgeting event that focuses on projects that meet

community needs and demonstrating a different method of engaging people in

local decision making.


Research Methodology

The community research project was undertaken from October 2010 until January 2011

and involved desktop research of past research and documentation in relation to the

topic and a number of community interviews, telephone interviews and focus groups with

residents following a structured pattern of questions. The interviews were noted, audio

taped and transcribed with many of the resident’s comments being represented in the

findings of this report. The interviews are available as an appendix to the report.

In addition to the audio interviews we also conducted a number of film interviews to

produce a DVD record of the project.

In addition to local residents being involved, staff from the Local Authorities, Local

Housing Associations, the Primary Care Trust and Renew Neighbourhood Management

programme were interviewed. RE:NEW is currently a central player in community

regeneration and support across St Helens with them having a key role to play in

addressing community needs in Fingerpost. At the time of writing this report, its future

was uncertain as a result of the local Government spending cuts following the Coalition

Government’s spending review.

Renew has worked in the Fingerpost area for the last two and a half years since 2008

and has been regarded as a positive development from residents who were expressing

concerns that the work it was doing may not be continued into the future.

As part of the research project some people were interviewed twice as the initial

interview drew out findings that needed further exploration and this was followed up in

most cases by conducting a second interview.

The structured interview questions were framed around the approach of appreciative

inquiry in terms of asking positive open questions and asking residents what changes

have occurred and what would they like to see more of rather than simply focussing on

community problems and concerns and starting from a negative standpoint.


Rationale Behind the Project – Why Crewe and Fingerpost? Crewe – The Legacy of an Industrial Past

Crewe is a town situated within the unitary authority area of Cheshire East in the

ceremonial county of Cheshire, England. It has a population of approximately 70,000 and

is well known as a large railway junction. Its history and population in the twentieth

century largely centred on the major railway works that employed a large proportion of

the population. At its height, Crewe Works, where train maintenance and inspection is

carried out, employed over 20,000 people but by 2005 fewer than 1,000 remained.

From 1946 until 2002 it was also the home of Rolls-Royce motor car production. The

Pyms Lane factory on the west of the town now produces Bentley motor cars exclusively.

As of early 2010, there were about 3,500 working at the site.

These industries in their hay day supported a large proportion of the Crewe population

through philanthropy by providing jobs, accommodation and services for its workers.

Therefore many of the workers and their families were dependent on these industries for

more than just income, but often their whole livelihood centred on the local railway and

motor industries.

Times have changed, and these traditional working class industries play a much smaller

role in the local economy as it is now service and retail industries that prevail. This

decline in industry meant that a large proportion of the town have seen not only their jobs

change but with it, their whole livelihood and support structure.

This former dependency on the railway and motor industries appears to have had a

negative effect on Crewe’s reputation as a town, meaning that there is a wide spread

view that the residents are unable or unwilling to take local action on local issues and

instead expect the local authority to solve all of its problems.

In this piece of research we wanted to challenge this reputation and delve further into the

drivers and barriers to getting involved with local decision making and taking local action

in Crewe and explore how engagement can be made more effective.


Location Maps of Crewe, Cheshire East:

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cheshire_UK_location_map.svg, 31.01.11

Crewe

Source: maps.google.co.uk, February 2011


Why Fingerpost?

The Fingerpost area of St Helens has a thriving shopping facility so why choose to

conduct research in this community?

The area in spite of having some very good facilities such as a swimming pool and

fitness centre, a thriving shopping centre with very low vacancy rates, a public park, new

health centre, and a St Helens College Technology Campus close by, it is actually

ranked the highest out of all neighbourhoods in the St Helens Borough on the index of

multiple deprivation. It is currently in the top 3% of most deprived neighbourhoods in

terms of the super output area ranking in England.

For many years Fingerpost has been involved in several regeneration funded

programmes including Single Regeneration Budget (SRB), European Objective One

Pathways, Neighbourhood Renewal Funding (NRF) and latterly part of the St Helens

Town Centre North Renew Neighbourhood Management Programme from 2009. In spite

of this attention several issues remain stubbornly persistent including relatively high

incidents of Anti Social Behaviour, a poorer quality of housing than other neighbourhoods

in St Helens and environmental issues in terms of vacant plots of land.

There are lots of positives as well which include a very active tenants and residents

association “FINTRA” (Fingerpost Tenants and Residents Association) . In support of

evidence of need a recent newspaper article from town centre ward Councillor John

Beirne appeared in the St Helens Star during September 2010 claiming that Fingerpost

was forgotten and in need of rejuvenation (see appendix of report). As a result we

thought that Fingerpost would be an ideal neighbourhood to conduct the research based

on the number of regeneration programmes which had taken place in the locality and to

find out if residents had felt as though their voices had been heard as part of the

processes involved.


Location Map of Fingerpost, St Helens:

The Fingerpost area includes the streets to the east of Jackson Street and Atlas Street,

Higher Parr Street, Farnworth Street, Lascelles Street, Langtree Street, Sorogold Street.

Streets to the north of and east of the A58 including Farnworth, Pitt, Graham, Vernon,

Pocket Nook. Wood Street, Varley Road, Park Street, Recreation Street, Park Street,

Recreation Park (Nanny Goat Park)


The Rural Perspective – How Rural Community Led Planning / Parish Planning Works What is a Community Led Plan (CLP)? A CLP is a critical and in depth survey of a community carried out by the community

itself. The aim of the survey is to collect the views and opinions of the people who live

and work in that community and from this information find out how the community sees

itself developing over the next 5 to 10 years. An action plan is then devised based on the

community's views, which identifies what steps the community needs to take to move

itself forward from its present position to achieve its vision for the future of the

community.

Already undertaken by approximately 4,000 communities across England, it represents

an unparalleled opportunity for people to take responsibility for making things happen

locally, rather than waiting on others to do it for them. For a full list of completed CLPs

visit: http://www.cheshireaction.org.uk/completed-parish-plans

Who produces it? The community itself, working through volunteers, carries out the survey, creates the

action plan and implements the actions. It is a CLP Group that steers and drives the

project, usually in collaboration and co-operation with the Parish Council, the Local

Authority and a wide range of other agencies and partners.

In Cheshire and Warrington the process is facilitated by CCA, funded by Cheshire West

& Chester, Cheshire East and Warrington Unitary Authorities. CCA’s role is to ensure

that a good quality, step-by-step process is adhered to, and to provide the appropriate

links and connections with key agencies like the Local Authority with their strategic

priorities for an area. Notably following a national survey of rural CLPs, it was discovered

that 47% of the actions in CLPs are carried out by the communities themselves.

What is in a CLP?

Executive Summary

Background to the CLP – or how things began?

A description of the parish in words, figures and pictures

Maps and plans to set the geographical context

The process and methodology(ies) used


http://www.cheshireaction.org.uk/completed-parish-plans

The data and results collected

The Action Plan – the what, who, when, how and who pays section

The implementation Plan – monitoring and review

Acknowledgements and contacts list

A Summary of the Process in Rural Areas

Firstly a Parish Council will contact CCA for information / support

Hold open meeting/s and information events

Identify the issues and recruit volunteers

Form a steering group

Form working or focus groups

Devise a 12-18 month programme of work, events and tasks

Apply for secure grant funding and carry out other fundraising

Do your homework and local research

Consult the community widely using a range of consultation methods

Analyse the information and data

Report your findings back to the community

Devise an action plan with realistic and achievable actions

Consult your community again – get them on board

Launch your CLP widely within and outside the area

Start your implementation – form an implementation group

Continue to monitor and review progress

Undertake periodic review and renewal once most projects / actions are

completed

Benefits of the CLP Process

Provides a chance for everyone to be involved in local decision-making

Builds individual skills, confidence and unleashes hidden talents

It enables communities to establish a mutually agreed, long term vision with which

they can articulate their needs and aspirations in an evidence based, well

organised, structured and coherent way which is done by and for the community

Makes things happen, through sharing knowledge and ideas

Kick starts new local projects and improves access to external funding

Brings forward new volunteers to support local community action

Builds better relationships between local government, service providers and the

community

It engenders community spirit


It improves communication

It forms new partnerships

Delivers high rates of participation

Reaches those traditionally excluded from formal consultation approaches

Avoids consultation fatigue by involving local residents in a coordinated way in

which they take ownership of the process and the result

Provides access to community-based information that would otherwise be hard to

obtain

Harnesses community action and local volunteering to improve the quality of local

services

Highlights the community’s priorities and opportunities to help build high quality

Sustainable Community Strategies

Generates opportunities to deliver effective neighbourhood governance

Gives credibility to the advocacy of elected representatives

Communities Undergoing CLP in Cheshire 88 communities (as at Feb 2011) have completed or, are in the process of producing a

CLP. For a full list of CLP groups in Cheshire East and West see Appendices B and C.


Rural Community Led Planning – An Evaluation of the Drivers and Barriers to Involvement in the Process Past Research In 2008, CCA worked with the then Cheshire County Council to carry out a survey of CLP

groups across Cheshire to identify and explore ways to help communities achieve the

visions set out in the CLPs through the services it has responsibility for delivering.

In addition, some general questions were included to assist in identifying the perceived

benefits derived from the production of CLPs.

Key Research Findings from 2008 Survey

The most significant findings of the report can be summarised as follows: “Some of the most significant findings from the survey are that 100% of the respondents felt that the Parish Plan (PP) / CLP had improved communication to some extent within the parish and 100% of the respondents felt that it had increased volunteering within the parish. 71% of respondents also felt that the Parish Plan / CLP had improved quality of life within the parish.

The major benefits derived from the process largely revolved around:

benefit of local needs identification (around 33%) enhanced community spirit, community engagement,

communication and social interaction (around 32%) Improved relationships with the Parish Council was also referred to in around 13% of responses. Surprisingly, completed projects were only cited in around 21% of the responses as being the major benefit coming out of the process. The ‘softer’, social benefits appear to be more highly regarded by many communities than the harder more tangible outcomes and this should not be underestimated. 52% of PP/CLP Groups were still active and meeting after the CLP had been published. Ongoing practical support for such groups is important to ensure sustainability of the process.”

Source: Parish Planning Questionnaire Report, June 2008: Summary of Responses, Compiled by Bron Kerrigan (CCA) for Cheshire County Council.

Since this survey has been carried out, the support for the CLP process from CCA

has significantly developed and improved and the quality of CLPs has been raised

markedly.


Rural CLP Groups Telephone Interviews Four CLP group contacts were interviewed over the phone (questions in Appendix A) to

identify their motivations for getting involved, including positive and negative experiences

and how they overcame obstacles.

Key Research Findings from the Telephone Interviews Where?

Two contacts were interviewed (interviewees) from the Willaston Parish Plan

which is just south west of Crewe. Willaston is defined through statistical data as

relatively deprived (economically) for a rural area in Cheshire. Two other

interviewees were from the Rainow Parish Plan which is east of Macclesfield

bordering Derbyshire. Rainow is defined statistically as one of the least deprived

rural areas in Cheshire.

Sample Profiles?

The interviewees were a mix of female and male, all white British, ranging from

just over 40 to over 70 years old, also a mix of retired and full time workers.

How did you find out about CLP?

All interviewees found out about the CLP through the traditional routes of leaflet

drops, Parish Council newsletters and attendance at the first open public meeting.

Have you done volunteering before?

All interviewees had done some sort of volunteering before and those who were

retired were more readily involved in current local community activity. One person

said that volunteers value a professional person to coordinate and guide

them.

Why did you get involved?

Motivations for involvement in CLP ranged from single issues that people felt

CLP gave a structured method of dealing with e.g. development issues, problems

with the village hall or it was a specific person either a Parish Councillor, W.I.

member or friend that had heard of CLP and encouraged them to get involved.


Personal impact?

Meeting new people and increasing social interaction in the villages was by

far the most common outcome of CLP which opens up people’s lives and makes

them more aware of local community activity hence reducing social isolation and

all the issues that come associated with it including mental health problems. It

gives people the opportunity to put professional skills to good use. People also

felt that their awareness and knowledge of local decision making processes

in the Parish and Borough Council was increased including how to engage with

and influence them. Opportunities to present their experience to other

communities expanded their knowledge and network of contacts further.

Some interviewees said that the process was very time consuming and

sometimes stressful however, undertaking an active role on the CLP group

benefitted people mentally and improved IT skills overall. One of the contacts

reported that being Secretary of the CLP group gave her the confidence to

get a new job where she met her new husband!

Community Impact?

It increased community spirit, bringing the community together and raising

awareness of local activity were all common impacts on the community. Many said

that communication was markedly improved and that it “pulled things

together”. It demonstrates to people that they can volunteer for lots of different

types or tasks both large and small and all can make a valid contribution.

It helped the community reach a consensus on certain issues by improving

understanding.

It gave the community a clear vision for the future and therefore made it more

able to articulate its needs in an evidence based and coherent way

Difficulties arose when engaging with young people but it was worthwhile to

achieve a positive, tangible result – a skate park!

Other tangible community benefits included:

- New community magazine and village website

- New projector and PC

- Footpath improvements

- Re-energised local activities

- Higher grant success rate and achievement of funding


Were you put off and if so, why and what changed your mind?

Internal politics was a common issue that put people off. In the early stages

there were often divisions between the CLP group and Parish Council as they had

a fear of “loosing control” to an unelected group but some still understood the

reasoning behind the CLP. Personality issues sometimes arose between group

members.

There were times when the amount of intense work involved put people off, but

enthusiasm for the initiative got people through this.

There were also cases where low enthusiasm was off-putting to other group

members.

Concerns about the methodology was dealt with by giving reassurance at an

early stage in the process.

What would encourage more people to get involved?

Raising awareness of where the need is in a community was suggested by one

of the contacts.

Highlighting the small things where the community can get quick wins to gain

people’s confidence in the initiative and demonstrate that it really works. Fitting

with people’s circumstances e.g. delivery team for leaflets worked well for mail

outs.

Making people feel valued and that they are contributing to something

worthwhile and useful by helping them understand the impact (particularly the

tangible aspects like funding) of the work was a common theme amongst

interviewees.

Breaking down the ‘I’m too busy…’ attitude was seen as key to recruiting

volunteers at the beginning by demonstrating how the community can make a

difference itself by being pro-active. But public events, personal / direct contact

with people seemed to work well.

Having a well organised group that has good leadership which gives people

the opportunity to use their skills is important for wide participation.

One interviewee said:

“Too many people are too quick to point the finger without actually offering anything in the way of solutions or any other contributions.”


Any other barriers to getting involved?

Lack of time and commitment from people over long periods was often a

problem according to interviewees. People are much more likely to give time as a

one off for a short period than long term commitment.

The presence of people who have been involved for many years in local decision

making e.g. longer standing Parish Councillors who don’t do a lot can be

unwelcoming and wary of new faces and groups coming forward. “Clicky” and

“stagnated” were words used to describe them in some cases.

Lack of confidence – people often don’t realise that they have something to give.

People’s opinions not being valued - breakdown formalities as much as

possible otherwise this can be off-putting.

Are they personally more involved with local decision making as result of CLP?

A residing YES from all interviewees confirmed that the process has indeed

enabled them to become more involved with local decision making. The CLP

Action Plan enabled the communities to push actions with the Parish Council and

also things that are locally relevant that may not appear in the Borough Council’s

core strategies.

CLP group members often became Parish Councillors and now have a direct

influence over local decisions.

CLP groups seem to be more likely to attend Parish Council and Borough

Council public meetings to hold them to account following the work they have

put in themselves. At first this was met with some hostility from some Parish

Councils but the relationship has built and they are now more accepting.

The interviewees also felt that they were more likely to get money out of the

Parish Council as a result of the process.

One example of local influence was during the heavy snow in December 2010

when the Parish Council helped organise the diversion of gritters to clear the

village roads.

The Parish Council is now also involved with more strategic decision making

processes including Borough Council consultation responses.


Is the community more involved with local decision making as a result of CLP?

Yes – CLP consultations have enabled communities to get a clear mandate to

take forward projects. Interviewees reported that the CLP group has been more

engaged as a result of the CLP process, however in some parishes the wider

community involvement was improved but difficult to sustain.

In many cases the CLP appears to have sparked more readiness to change and

try different things including new groups and spin off activities.

In all cases, it has given the Parish Council confidence that is it truly representing

community needs.

Engaging with young people again, was a challenge but dealt with successfully.

The nature of the younger population means they often left for higher education

institutes shortly after participation so new volunteers were then required.

One interviewee said: “The CCA support was very helpful and Rainow Parish is very supportive of the organisation.”


What can we learn from the Rural CLP Experience?

CLP clearly works well in a rural setting and achieves tangible outcomes

including draw down of large grants into an area.

Many, but not all people involved tend to be those who regularly

volunteer / are part of a local group, however CLP does appear to

encourage people who otherwise would not normally take a local interest.

Single issues can often be the motivation for participation but being

involved with the process tended to promote understanding of wider

issues for the community.

Inspirational people and personalities are often the most persuasive

means of encouraging involvement.

Participants need enthusiasm to overcome obstacles.

Local government, whether it be at Parish or Borough level are often

apprehensive about working with some community groups and see it as a

threat to their role as elected members. Therefore building relationships

and mutual understanding about the partnership working is fundamental

to the success of the CLP and a group’s ability to influence key decisions.

CLP virtually always brings communities together and improves

communication and awareness of local activity.

CLP promotes understanding of local government decision making

structures and how to engage with them.

CLP gives communities a structured and evidence based way of

assessing and articulating their needs to the powers that be with a high

percentage community mandate.

CLP promotes understanding of what a community can do for itself by

being pro-active, and does not just form a “wish list” to present to the

local authority.

CLP gives communities more credibility in putting across their case to

local government.

Facilitation, support and guidance through the process by an

independent agency is crucial to its success.

Having skilled people with the will and the spare time is a fundamental

factor as well as having a well organised group with good leadership.

One of the most important points is that when working with volunteers,

they listen and value people’s opinions and contributions. Not valuing

people’s input in any form discourages them from giving their free time.

One way of avoiding this is making sure that everyone understands the

impact of the work and that all contributions are valued.


The next stage of the research looked at the urban communities in detail to see

where lessons can be applied from the rural study and opportunities for better

engagement achieved. St Helens CEN focussed on the Fingerpost neighbourhood

of St Helens and CCA focussed on Crewe, Cheshire East.

Fingerpost Left Behind and Forgotten?

During the last fifteen years the Fingerpost neighbourhood has been included in a

number of regeneration programmes and initiatives. Considering the amount of

regeneration programmes which have included the Fingerpost area over the past fifteen

years most people would think that the area has certainly not been forgotten about and

left behind. However, the impact of such regeneration remains questionable with the

area remaining the most deprived neighbourhood within the Borough. Whilst each of the

programmes have been well meaning in terms of narrowing the gap, real transformative

change to the whole area has been harder to evidence on the ground.

In recent years new building work has commenced in the Fingerpost area and vicinity

although when conducting our research, this was also partly to do with cheap land values

in the neighbourhood as much as a desire to see the area improved1. It is also of interest

that in terms of new construction projects in the community Helena Partnerships new

Headquarters, and the Children’s Services Building completed in 2008, both buildings

are the result of public sector investment on land which was formerly occupied by private

sector companies St Helens Glass and a Car Sales Showroom. This is of interest and

significance in view of the Coalition Government’s desire to rebalance the state in terms

of a larger private sector economy and some of the difficulties of attracting new

businesses to the area.

1 Information obtained from community interviews. Jan 2011


Community Information about the Fingerpost Neighbourhood

The Fingerpost area has a mix of housing types and tenures. Helena Partnerships is the

largest housing association operating in the area along with a significant number of

private rented sector properties. Owner occupation remains relatively low in the area.

Riverside Housing Association and Liverpool Housing Trust also each have a small

number of properties in the area.

Community Consultation taking place in Fingerpost as part of a Community Arts project in 2010 and Higher Parr Street the main shopping area in the Neighbourhood.

Adjacent to the main shopping area there is Parr Mount Court, a large residential group

of apartments for residents aged 55+ managed by Helena Partnerships and currently a

new hostel is also being built on vacant land in Fingerpost which will provide

accommodation to vulnerable and homeless young women in Holly Bank Grove near

Merton Bank Road.

The neighbourhood is not a new community and many of the private sector rented

properties in the terraced streets were built during the Victorian period. Much of the

social housing was constructed in the 1930’s and within the last eight years some of the

social housing which was constructed in the 1960’s has been demolished and not

replaced which has resulted in several vacant plots of land appearing in various parts of

the neighbourhood.


In the past there have been some problems in relation to subsidence and land

contamination issues from past industrial activity and new housing development has

been slow to materialise even though land values are low in the area.

Fingerpost is a strategic gateway into St Helens from the A58 and East Lancashire Road

and main A572 road from Newton-le-Willows. In recent years traffic congestion has

become a particular problem during peak hours. The design of the roads around

Fingerpost with Pocket Nook Street also becoming more frequently used by traffic means

that the community can also have an isolated feel to it. In recent years some of the social

housing that was demolished along the main route into Fingerpost has been replaced by

new private housing although much of the land remains vacant.

Fingerpost has on the whole a small thriving shopping centre with very low vacancy

rates. It is well served by public transport by Bus and St Helens Central station is only 5

minutes on foot. The community is served well by good sports facilities including a

community swimming pool and new fitness suite. A community park is adjacent to the

swimming pool which the tenants and residents association take a great interest in and

have worked hard with the Council to improve the recreation (Nanny Goat Park) through

a number of different schemes.

There is one church in the area Holy Trinity, which is served by the Church of England

Diocese of Liverpool but its future remains somewhat uncertain as the building needs

extensive renovation and repairs partly due to the industrial waste cobbled materials

used in its construction. Other than Holy Trinity Church and the community office at

FINTRA there is no central community hub.

The community has experienced a relatively high rate of crime although in recent years

the level of crime has been significantly reduced through positive partnership working

between the Tenants and Residents Association, Renew, St Helens Council and

Merseyside Police.


Key Research Findings from Fingerpost

The area has been subject to several regeneration programmes in the past. Residents

had been involved in these programmes but strongly felt as though they hadn’t been

heard by key decision makers in terms of their views, ideas and suggestions for

improvements. Some cited professionals that were reticent to take risks for their

community in making change happen and feeling let down by promises which weren’t

met.

There was a range of issues highlighted in the interviews from parking problems,

drugs, lack of jobs and unemployment, poor and inadequate housing, poor

environment, a lack of investment in building both new social and affordable

housing and the need for a community centre. Some of the new developments in

the area whilst improving the look of the neighbourhood had caused un-intended

problems such as local parking issues for Fingerpost residents.

Some of those interviewed mentioned that the community spirit in the area was a very

positive thing and the sense of community and friendly neighbours was one of the

best things about the area.

The Re:new Neighbourhood Management programme was mentioned in a very

positive light in contrast to previous regeneration programmes which had been deemed

to be less effective by those residents who were interviewed. Residents enjoyed and

appreciated the opportunity to be involved through the Re:new neighbourhood

management board and this was seen as more effective than other attempts to engage

with residents in the past.

Poor levels of health are a real cause of concern in Fingerpost to health

professionals.

Education for citizenship was felt as though it would help to address some of the

inertia in the community amongst residents.

The quality of housing was described as poor by health professionals interviewed in

the research study.

Mental health issues including depression and improving peoples self esteem

featured as an issue which needed to be tackled and people needed more help and

support in this area.


Traffic problems, congestion and parking problems were all cited in several of the

interviews as matters of concern to local residents.

The shopping facilities and local park were both mentioned as very positive features

of the area with them being described as friendly, convenient, “everything is here.”

(range of shops)

Anti social behaviour (ASB) and problem households were perceived as problems.

Better intelligence regarding residents with a previous history of ASB was seen as a

way of combating some of the ASB problems along with more proactive reporting of

problems to Police.

A lack of facilities for young people and positive activities for them to do was

perceived to be a problem by residents.

Older residents who had lived in the community for many years felt that the area had

declined due to drug and alcohol problems connected to the lack of work opportunities

for people in the neighbourhood.

The work of FINTRA was seen to be critical in providing positive activities for the

neighbourhood and without it the area would have little community activity. Although a

stronger focal point in the community was highlighted as a need.

Improved opportunities for work were seen to be critical. Equally some believed that

there had to be more of a challenge to people to encourage them to gain employment.

Some of the previous short term regeneration programmes ended without any long

term plan or ongoing vision to improve the area. Regeneration stopped as soon as the

funding did. The changing emphasis on different issues and priorities within

regeneration funding programmes impacted upon on the effectiveness of taking a

holistic view of community needs and regeneration. Programmes have been too short

lived. As soon as progress was made programmes stopped as the funding programme

ended. Some of this was directly attributed to the result of political cycles with changing

Government’s and changing ministers with new or different ideas and priorities along

with changes in priorities at a local level.

The Re:new Neighbourhood management programme had been more successful

from residents perspectives especially in terms of tackling environmental concerns and

involving them through the Renew Partnership Board, but there was real concern that

the funding cuts would mean that the work would come to an end with negative


consequences for the Fingerpost neighbourhood. This uncertainty epitomised the issue

connected to the short term nature of regeneration and not having a long term view

partly caused by the changing political cycle of elected Government and ministers.

The need for a longer term holistic neighbourhood development plan for the

Fingerpost area was made very clear as a result of the research. This was seen as

essential in order to address many of the issues and concerns highlighted by residents

and professionals interviewed and to ensure that any further regeneration programmes

aren’t hampered by short-termism and a lack of community input into the process.

A longer term study would have revealed much more information about community

needs which would go some way in informing the production of a neighbourhood

community plan. Residents believed that the development of such a plan would be

a useful tool in making real progress in enhancing many aspects of their

neighbourhood.

Whilst the name of the research programme was named “seldom heard voices in

deprived communities,” it was of interest to note that in many cases Fingerpost

residents views and ideas and concerns were often apparently heard by decision

makers, yet were not listened to and acted on enough, in their opinion.

So what have we learnt from the research findings?

The fingerpost neighbourhood has been subject to an array of

regeneration schemes over the years and none have been funded long

enough to give meaningful results for the residents.

There is clearly a will from residents to improve the area and a strong

sense of community to build on.

There is a strong potential for a CLP / neighbourhood planning exercise

in Fingerpost subject to funding and proper support.

A CLP / neighbourhood planning exercise could give Fingerpost a clear

framework to move forward and work with key decision makers.


Crewe Local Residents Focus Group Working with Cheshire East Council Officers, CCA organised a focus group of eleven residents from Crewe to have an open discussion about their experiences of getting involved with local decision making. We also handed out short questionnaires to supplement the discussions with further information about people’s experiences.


Key Research Findings from the Crewe Focus Group and Questionnaires Local activities, clubs and societies that the group was involved with included:

Local residents groups

Seniors groups and networks

Local history groups

Homewatch schemes

Arts groups

All residents were involved with some sort of local activity / community group.

About half of the residents had done some sort of volunteering either at a

hospital or working with older people.

Types of local decision making activities residents were involved with included:

Local Area Partnerships (LAPs) in Cheshire East

Consultation documents re the Lyceum Theatre, Crewe

Internet consultation exercises

Neighbourhood Watch Schemes

Development consultations through the former Crewe & Nantwich Borough

Council

PCT Consultation

Fire Service Consultation

Drop in sessions – less formal format

Parks and open spaces consultations

Things that would encourage them to get more involved with local decision

making included:

Single issues dominated the answers including a wide range of concerns with

highways, the Lyceum Theatre, support for older people and anti-social behaviour.

Some stated that they like where they live and wanted to put something back

into their community.

Knowing the right portfolio holders in the Council e.g. Cllr Rachel Bailey

(Portfolio Holder for Community Safety).

Drop-in sessions suit people low in confidence that may not be comfortable

speaking out in an open public meeting.


Passionate and professional Council workers and members that were

responsive to requests were said to be a key motivator to getting involved with

local decision making practices.

Many reported in the feedback that more open discussion meetings similar to

the format of the focus group itself would be beneficial.

Things that had put them off from getting involved with local decision making

included:

Structure of consultation sessions with limited time to ask questions.

Lack of feedback from Council officials appeared to be a popular problem.

Not having the right people in post to work with the community.

Intimidation - Using an approach to community engagement that does not

properly engage people but instead intimidates them and creates resentment

amongst those that want to participate.

LGR – the re-structure of an organisation the size of a Local Authority can take

years before systems and services are properly established and operate

effectively. LGR in 2009 still has repercussions for communities in Crewe as

Council staff continue to change regularly which has an impact on the continuity of

service quality and consistency.

Drop-in sessions did not always suit people’s working hours.

There was a feeling that there was poor leadership from the local authority which

had an effect on their experience with other staff.

Low staff morale - Lack of confidence and morale amongst Council staff was

perceived to affect their ability to offer a quality service.

Poor communication about where the public can feed information to the Council

was perceived to be a problem. Poor communication can also lead to opinions

and perceptions that may not be true.

Poor access and transport to Council consultation events and meetings can

prevent local residents from attending sessions, particularly those with poor

mobility and / or disability.

The personal impact of being involved with these processes included:

Frustration was felt by all residents.

The feeling that it was a “talking shop” with nothing getting done was also

common.

On a more positive note, sometimes people learnt the most effective routes to

getting things done and getting their voice heard by simply being involved e.g.


finding out useful information about what Portfolio Holder they need to contact

in order to have influence.

For some it made them less likely to vote as many felt disenfranchised by being

part of a process that didn’t have the outcome they desired.

A small proportion of the residents were inspired by their experiences and it

spurred them on to start up Homewatch schemes in their area which in turn

increased their awareness of local community activity and increased social

interaction with other members of the community

One resident was inspired to organise a street party to bring the community

together including people from different backgrounds and different ages, hence

improving community spirit

The impact on the community of being involved with these processes:

There were overall limited impacts on the community reported by the residents

Some reported more funding and support resources being allocated to certain

areas as a result

Some issues were tackled as a result including drinking problems and anti-social

behaviour e.g. through the initiation of Homewatch and alley gating schemes

Some were motivated to use the local press to influence the local authority on

issues such as highways which in some cases created enough interested for

action to be taken

Some reported a slight improvement in communication and raised awareness

of local issues in the community


The Local Authority’s Perspective – An Interview with Cheshire East Council Officers In order to get both sides of the story we interviewed some of the key Cheshire East

Council (CEC) Officers that work in the Crewe area to find out how they feel about the

involvement of local residents in decision making practices.

The Local Engagement Manager, the Crewe Local Area Partnership (LAP) Manager and

the Area Manager working on the 2011 census kindly allowed us to interview them about

their experiences.

Key Research Findings from Cheshire East Council Interview

A lot of experience - One of the Officers had been working in Crewe for over 10

years with communities that have been difficult to engage with.

There are locally set up committees active in 8 areas of Crewe which have action

plans to take forward.

One interviewee felt that there were significant differences in the nature of rural

and urban communities in Cheshire as Crewe has a culture of expectation from

the local authorities and they are used to being ‘done to’ and not as likely to take

action from within the community to fill a service gap, whereas rural communities

have a long standing tradition of self-help and local action to meet local need.

The LAP Manager is responsible for running the Crewe LAP and used a

combination of statistical data to draw up a profile of the area which has given him

a good baseline to work from.

The Council drawn up area plans and area action plans for the Crewe Local Area

Partnership.

The Officers felt that they generally favoured the ‘bottom up’ approach to

engagement.

Maw Green ward was viewed as one of the areas that does not have a lot of

community activism and people volunteering.

It was felt that young families and young people are much less likely to be part

of any process that can influence decision making.

The Council has also set up school drop in surgeries and tried different times of

the day to suit local people with little success.

They have also used mobile drop in surgeries and parked up where local people

go but again there has been limited take up.

Faith communities are scarce and not particularly well engaged.


It was felt that the culture of ‘there’s nothing in it for us’ is strong in some wards

of Crewe, for example, Maw Green. This presents an even bigger challenge to

implement the Big Society in somewhere like Crewe as the issue of encouraging

people to take responsibility for their own area will need to be achieved before

local residents initiate self-help projects that challenge the way the local authority

delivers services.

Wulvern Housing Association was highlighted as key partner and has done

some successful work with tenants and residents of their housing stock.

New housing and improved environments has had some effect in areas where

the collective will to improve a community has almost put ‘peer pressure’ on those

who would normally have no interest in taking local action.

CEC Officers have used gift vouchers and paid people to encourage them out to

discuss issues.

The interviewees felt that urban communities don’t necessarily see results to local

action as readily unlike in rural. Action can be diluted in densely populated areas

therefore the apparent reward is not as obvious.

CEC feel that their engagement is led by the community however there is an issue

with people and support disappearing due to public sector cuts.

The priority for CEC is to retain what little local engagement there already is

without people loosing faith due to the national cuts. According to the Officers

interviewed, the thriving Big Society is a long way off in Crewe and there needs

to be years more intensive work with communities to develop them and create

more active community leaders that can galvanise action and achieve results.


The Housing Association’s Perspective – An Interview with Wulvern Housing

Wulvern is the largest Housing Association in South Cheshire providing homes and

services for over 11,000 customers across Crewe, the historic market town of Nantwich

and a number of Cheshire villages.

Housing Associations are non profit making organisations that provide affordable homes

for people in housing need.

Wulvern was formerly the Crewe and Nantwich Borough Council Housing Department

but has since been transferred in to a Registered Social Landlord.

Key Research Findings from Wulvern Housing Interview

Wulvern engages with the residents in their housing stock very pro-actively

They have some very innovative assessment tools that gives them in-depth

information about tenant and resident needs including access to services

Wulvern tends to have direct engagement with residents and they therefore feel

that there is less need for people to organise into groups to make their voices

heard

It encourages community champions to come forward to represent community

issues

It was reported that resident associations which existed under the local authority

soon dissipated under the management of the newly formed Housing Association

thanks to their hands on approach to engagement and communication

Visibility was a key factor in their engagement strategy on certain estates – by

using radio stations, drugs action teams, newsletters, drop in sessions, regularly

cleaning windows, appointing a PCSO, fun days and after school clubs all

contributed to more meaningful engagement with the residents

Participatory budgeting exercises are also planned for the residents in Maw

Green

To engage some of the adult population, neighbourhood charters are being

drawn up

Working with the Police to do joint visits on homes where residents are

problematic has worked well in some areas

The history of Crewe was referred to in terms of the railway industry providing

jobs and homes for the majority of workers in the town and the Rolls Royce factory


adopted a philanthropic approach to supporting its work force. The West End of

Crewe was built around these industries and when these industries diminished in

the 1980’s, the communities that depended on them were hit hard which goes

some way in explaining some people’s attitude towards authority in the area

A new Chief Executive Officer at Wulvern following the stock transfer allowed a

fundamental change of culture to move away from the constraints and red tape

of local government

Branding and marketing everything they do has helped raise the profile and

clout of the engagement work


Local Decision Making in Action – Crewe Participatory Budgeting Event As a follow on to the focus groups and interviews, a small pot of funding from the

research project was used to carry out a participatory budgeting exercise to give the

Crewe residents a chance to fund small scale projects that will make a difference locally.

What is Participatory Budgeting (PB)?

The official definition is:

“Participatory budgeting directly involves local people in making decisions on the

priorities and spending for a defined public budget. This means engaging

residents and community groups representative of all parts of the community to

discuss and vote on them, as well as giving local people a role in the scrutiny and

monitoring of the process.”

Source: Participatory Budgeting – Values, Principles & Standards, September 2008

A common complaint about Local Authorities is that too many decisions on public

spending are made by people that do not have the knowledge about the communities

they serve. However, the PB approach gives people the power to make informed

decisions on how the money can be used to best effect.

Forms of PB

Awarding of specific grant funds;

Mainstream Council budgets devolved to local area committees;

Setting Local Authority wide priorities, agreeing projects and spending around an

annual revenue

budget-setting process;

Pooled budgets from partners through the LSP to tackle particular cross-partner

themes or Local

Using Town or Parish Council precepts; and

Agreeing wider Local Strategic Partnership priorities and spending

(mainstreaming)


The Benefits of PB PB is most effective when it is inclusive and can help make a real difference in the

relationship between individuals, communities, third sector organisations and local

authority officers and elected councillors.

Other benefits include:

Greater community cohesion, as diverse people come together and share a

common experience;

Better understanding of the complexities of setting public budgets and choosing

between competing priorities;

Real improvements in the way local people and elected councillors and council

officers work together;

Services better tailored to meet local need and improve local resident satisfaction;

Rejuvenate local democracy and get more people to become active in their

communities; and

Greater transparency in public spending


Crewe PB Event

CCA organised an event, held at the Municipal Hall in

Crewe where money was to be shared out and decisions

on where the money goes were taken by Crewe residents

themselves.

Many applications were received from local groups for

funding of up to £500. The applications were reviewed by

an independent grants panel and these were narrowed down to 6 projects, who each

gave a four minute presentation in front of all attendees, with those achieving the highest

scores receiving funding.

The four successful applicants were:

Autism Networks Resource Centre, a non-profit organisation which helps children and

young people affected by autism and offers drop-in activity sessions, as well as individual

support. They received funding to buy materials so that they can run extended arts and

craft sessions for those with Autism and their families and other affected persons.

Crewe Stroke Support Group, a voluntary led and self funded social rehabilitation

support group for stroke survivors and their carers and families. The funding will enable

the group to continue holding their fortnightly meetings and pay for the rent for the next

year.

Seahorse Swimming Club, a club that teaches swimming to people with disabilities.

The funding will go to training the club's volunteers in a variety of areas, including, health

and safety, safeguarding children and vulnerable adults, water activities for disabled

people, first aid, communications and equality and diversity.

The Greenscape Vision, an environmental action project, that explores the local area

and seeks to change the use of local open spaces. The group holds play activities and

fun family event days, which include environmental awareness and focus on community

pride and involvement. The funding they received will go towards buying equipment for a

new perennial event which is an awareness day of fun involving the whole community.

Part of the funding will also go towards funding a bird box making workshop for the new

Junior Green Warden scheme in the area.


Feedback from the PB Event

We asked attendees of the PB event to give feedback on how it went and how they felt

about the exercise and 100% of respondents on the feedback forms rated it either good

or excellent.

The interesting outcome of this was that nearly all who attended were driven by the

prospect of securing a small pot of funding for their respective organisations but the

feedback indicated that the most useful aspect of the event was learning about other

organisations and activities and networking with new people.

100% of those who attended fed back that they would like to see more of this type of

local decision making activity happening.

There was also the opportunity for groups to put forward their views on the types of

issues, projects and activities that need funding in Crewe as a priority. These included:

Activities for children and young people

Activities and support people with disabilities

Highways problems

Parking problems

Support for new community groups

A venue to showcase local arts

Intergenerational and multi-cultural schemes for community cohesion

Support for older people to live more independently

More information and communication about other local organisations in the area

Frequent small pots of funding available for local groups to access


So what have we learnt from the research findings?

The residents of Crewe appear to feel disenfranchised by their

experiences with local authority consultation exercises and other

engagement techniques.

There is a will from residents to get involved with local decision making

but the feeling they are not being listened to / heard is very strong.

Crewe has a reputation of dependence on the Council but the evidence

suggests that people in Crewe are active and the will is there amongst

people to help out with local activities and decision making but local

residents feel that progress is being held back due to:

- Poor quality engagement practices (certainly from past and on

occasion, current local authorities) that fail to meaningfully engage

people.

- Poor communication and feedback on their views sometimes

leaving them feeling under valued and frustrated.

- Lack of professional conduct when dealing with local people

resulting in a perception of poor leadership within the authorities.

However, success stories included the initiation of Homewatch and Alley-

Gating schemes in some areas where drinking and anti-social behaviour

was a problem.

It is clear that new techniques can and do work from the feedback from

the focus group and PB exercise. Crewe residents appear to value an

independent agency facilitating these types of sessions

Poor transport access to meetings and events can be a major barrier to

engagement for some who are less mobile.

The new Unitary Authority has explored new ways to engage which

haven’t had long to be tried and tested properly including drop in

sessions, area committees and area action plans but all with very limited

resources.

Continued…


Continued…

There is major concern (and quite understandably) amongst local

authority staff that they will not be able to retain even the limited

resources they currently have to engage with communities in Crewe.

Strong partnership working between the local authority and Wulvern

Housing has been vital to achieve progress in some areas.

Since Wulvern Housing transferred its housing stock from the former

local authority it has been liberated to try new ways of working thanks to

a more flexible leadership approach freeing up practice from red tape

It can’t be done over night – Wulvern had to play ‘the long game’ in order

to succeed with their most problematic areas by remaining visible and

setting a clear vision for their estates which involved a lot of input from

residents in a variety of ways. In turn, any community planning exercise

would need long term support and resources using a variety of

engagement techniques to really succeed as one size does not fit all in

diverse communities like Crewe.

Community development work to build a stronger sense of community

and greater capacity with intensive facilitation would be needed in order

to encourage more people to get involved and try out new initiatives

such as community planning exercises.


Summary of Project Research Findings

There is a strong feeling in both Crewe and Fingerpost that local

resident’s voices are heard but not necessarily listened to and acted

upon by the local authorities.

There is a lot to learn from the successes of Housing Associations and

Regeneration Programmes who work with deprived communities by

using a variety of engagement techniques that apply to different

sections of the community.

A well managed and properly resourced activity that is facilitated

independently such as CLP / neighbourhood planning or PB can

overcome many obstacles to engagement and people taking local action.

CLP can re-energise local groups and also lever significant levels of

funding into an area based on well evidenced community consultation.

47% of the actions in CLP action plans are done by the communities

themselves which helps deliver the Government’s Big Society agenda.

There is a strong potential for a community planning exercise in both

Fingerpost and Crewe but further work will need to be done (subject to

resources available) with each of these communities in order to build

capacity and identify the best approach to take.

Building strong partnerships and relationships from the outset is crucial

for the success of any community planning exercise.

Whether working in rural or urban communities, valuing people’s views

and opinions and promoting a good understanding of the impact of their

input and actions is fundamental to the success of any activity.

Short-termism on government funded regeneration or community

development schemes causes disappointment and discourages local

action when funding runs out at the point when progress is being made.

A holistic long term view is needed to solve the problems of deprived

urban communities.



Appendices

Appendix A – Learning Lessons from Rural Community Led Planning (Parish Planning) Interview Questions:

1. Age:18 or under, 19 – 25, 26 – 40, 41 – 55, 56 – 65, 66 or over?, Ethnicity: White British, Irish or other, Black, Asian, Chinese or other? Employment status: Full time, part time, self employed, unemployed, retired?

2. Where did you find about Parish Planning?

3. Are you involved with any local activities, clubs and societies?

4. Have you done volunteering before? If so what sort of volunteering? What did you

get out of it when you did it?

5. What was it that encouraged you to get involved with your Parish Plan?

6. Has being involved in the Parish Plan impacted on you personally and if so how? (things like improving confidence, making friends, learning more about their community, becoming interested in local democracy/politics might come out of this)

7. What benefits do you think the community has derived from doing a Parish Plan?

8. Were you at any stage put off from being involved with the Parish Plan? If so,

what was it that put you off and what helped you change your mind?

9. What, in your opinion would help encourage more people to get involved in this type of activity?

10. Are there any other barriers that might stop people getting involved in this type of

activity?

11. Do you think being involved with a Parish Plan has enabled you to be involved with local decision making? If so, how?

12. Do you think producing a Parish Plan has enabled you community to be more

involved with local decision making? I so, how?


Appendix B - Communities currently undertaking or have already completed Community Led Plans in Cheshire East – February 2011

Council Getting Started

Establish Steering Group

Apply for Money Consult more widely

Write Draft Plan Publish Plan

CCA points of intervention

PC / Open meeting to explain Parish

Plan

Community to proceed.

Help establish Steering Group

Help to apply for funding + initial

eligibility assessment

Help with methodology +

questionnaires + analysis of data

Help + advise on drafts and involve outside agencies

Help by attending launch to support Group

Cheshire East

Alpraham Alsager Arclid Ashley Burland Marton Mere Pott Shrigley Poynton Tabley

Sutton

Hankelow Sandbach Shavington-cum-Gresty

Lower Peover

Henbury North Rode Weston & Basford Worleston

Acton, Edleston + Henhull Adlington Alderley Edge Audlem Bollington Bosley Chelford Cranage Disley Dodcott-cum-Wilkesley Gawsworth Goostrey Haslington High Legh Holmes Chapel Knutsford Mobberley Newbold Astbury + Moreton Odd Rode Ollerton with Marthall Over Peover Pickmere Plumley with Toft and Bexton Poynton Prestbury Rainow Stapeley Warmingham Willaston Wincle Wistaston Wybunbury

11 1 3 1 4 31


Appendix C - Communities currently undertaking or have already completed Community Led Plans in Cheshire West & Chester – February 2011

Council Getting Started

Establish Steering Group

Apply for Money Consult more

widely Write Draft Plan Publish Plan

CCA points of intervention

PC / Open meeting to explain Parish Plan

Community to proceed. Help establish Steering Group

Help to apply for funding + initial

eligibility assessment

Help with methodology +

questionnaires + analysis of data

Help + advise on drafts and involve outside agencies

Help by attending launch to support Group

Cheshire West and Chester

Alvanley Broxton Delamere Great Boughton Lache Dennis Oakmere Saughall Utkinton and Cotebrook

Churton Kingsley Puddington

Christleton Dunham & Hapsford Great Budworth Lower Peover

Guilden Sutton Kelsall Tarvin Tilston

Antrobus Ashton Hayes Barnton Barrow Comberbach Hartford Helsby Lea by Backford Little Leigh Malpas Mickle Trafford Mollington Moulton Rushton Saughall Tarporley Tattenhall Tiverton & Tilstone Fearnall Weaverham Whitley Wincham

8 0 3 4 4 21

Appendix D – Supporting Information about the Neighbourhood Management Programme in Operation in Fingerpost

Re:new Town Centre and Fingerpost The programme of neighbourhood management is relatively new to St

Helens having been introduced into the Parr Neighbourhood in 2007 and laterly in

the Fingerpost area. The programme is the latest of the community regeneration

programmes to have been introduced into the area.

Renew’s Vision To improve the quality of life for the residents of Town Centre North and Fingerpost

by creating a safer, stronger community, where people feel proud to live and work

and where service providers continually improve their delivery by responding to

neighbourhood needs Re:new Town Centre North & Fingerpost is a Neighbourhood

Management project run by St Helens Council and social housing provider Helena

Partnerships. It was set up in 2008 to make the Town Centre North & Fingerpost

areas of St Helens better places for people to live, work and be part of.

Re:new Town Centre North & Fingerpost brings together local residents, local

councillors and local service providers (health, education, police, housing) on a

Partnership Board. The Board meets every eight weeks and takes joint decisions on

how to improve the neighbourhood. Residents also have the chance to identify hot

spots where issues such as crime, vandalism, litter or anti-social behaviour are a

particular problem. Day to day responsibility for the Re:new Town Centre North &

Fingerpost area lies with the neighbourhood management team made up of Helena

Partnerships staff. The management team, which is based on Standish Street, is

supported by outreach workers and street reps. By working together, the partnership

project aims to tackle the issues which matter most to local people.

Re:new Town Centre North & Fingerpost will work to tackle a range of issues

including: crime and community safety, health, the local environment, education,

employment and the local economy. A launch event was held in November 2009

giving the neighbourhood management team a chance to meet local residents, listen

to their concerns, and explain how Re:new Town Centre North & Fingerpost will

work. Future initiatives will include skip days where people have the chance to get rid

of household and garden waste, bulb planting, graffiti removal, and projects with

young people to divert them from crime and anti-social behaviour.


Appendix E – A Recent Press article highlighting concerns about Fingerpost ‘being forgotten’ by an elected councillor. ‘Fingerpost forgotten’ says ex-Mayor

5:30pm Wednesday 1st September 2010

OUTSPOKEN Liberal Democrat councillor John Beirne has accused St Helens

Council of "forgetting Fingerpost" in its shop local campaign. Cllr Beirne, a former

mayor, claims Fingerpost’s shopping area has been left behind, arguing it is in

desperate need of rejuvenation. After carrying out a survey and meetings with

shopkeepers, Beirne claims businesses in Fingerpost are keen to get the ball rolling.

Beirne told the Star: “Fingerpost is St Helens’ second shopping area and we just

want to help give shop owners a boost.

“Residents all said they want more support from organisations like St Helens

Chamber, the council, and re:new.”

Alongside shop owners, the town centre councillor is campaigning for extended car

park waiting hours for shoppers. He has also called for improved advertising,

including a sign to welcome people to the shopping zone, and more events in the

area.

Cllr Beirne added: “Because it’s near the dual carriageway, most people drive

straight past, so a sign welcoming people would be really good.

“We also want the electric bus to travel through Fingerpost to give more people

access to the shops, and would like more events because they’re all in the town

centre and there’s none in Fingerpost.”

In response, Bob Hepworth, St Helens Council’s director of urban regeneration and

housing, told the Star the council has plans to give Fingerpost an economic boost.

He said: “The most important requirement of any shopping centre is its customers.

“In recent years the council has facilitated new developments in Fingerpost, with

Atlas House accommodating 300 people who we know are regular shoppers at

Fingerpost. “In September work will start on a new 27,000 sq ft office for Helena

Housing employing around 200 people, who I’m sure will take advantage of the local

shopping facility.”



Acknowledgements CCA and St Helens CEN would like to thank the residents of Crewe, Cheshire East

Council, Wulvern Housing, the residents of FINTRA and the staff at the Renew Town

Centre Neighbourhood Management Programme for their time and support to the

project as without their involvement and help the project would have been more

challenging.

St Helens CEN would also like to thank Arkansha Mantri (a University of Manchester

Business School Masters degree research student) for her support on the project and

assisting us with the interview process which was invaluable. And finally, we would

like to thank North West Together We Can as this project would not be possible

without the funding it has provided.

Thanks also to the following people who helped us considerably in this project:

Crewe Project Fingerpost Project CCA staff: Residents of Fingerpost:

Alison Roylance-White Bette Yates Bron Kerrigan Paul Burke

Joseph Allen Cheshire East Council: Moya Saxon

Dawn Clarke Joan Swift Richard Christopherson Liam O’Connor Renew Staff:

Peter Anderton Wulvern Housing: Sarah Schofield

Sue Crum CLP Group Contacts:

Anna Cutts Ann Harding Ian Brammer Alan Brett

Residents of Crewe:

Eleanor & K. Blainey Paul Blurton Paul Dyer Peter Fradley Margaret Gregory

St Helens CEN, Cheshire Community Action Registered Address: 105 Corporation Street, Unit 3 Royal Mews St Helens, Gadbrook Park WA10 1SX Northwich Cheshire CW9 7UD Tel: 01744 759390 Tel: 01606 350042 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] www.censthelens.org.uk www.cheshireaction.org.uk Charity Number: 1074676 Company Number: 3555199 Registered Name:

Cheshire Community Council

FOR A LARGE PRINT VERSION OF THIS REPORT PLEASE CALL CHESHIRE COMMUNITY ACTION ON 01606 350042


urban imagination report seldom heard voices in deprived communities

Documents

voices research report

community information

planning parish planning

cheshire community action

voices project report

joint research project

neighbourhood planning

planning process