Decision details

To determine whether to adopt the Park Wood Planning for Real Action Plan and release the resources necessary to implement the actions it identifies. To identify and agree the second phase of work necessary to complete the Park Wood Neighbourhood Action Plan.

1.  That the initial work on the high priority actions listed in the draft Planning for Real Action Plan and the release of £50,000 capital budget set aside to speed their implementation, subject to the results of a participatory budgeting exercise carried out with local residents and stakeholders, be agreed.

2.  That the second phase work be progressed by the Local Strategic Partnership with the exact arrangements agreed by the relevant Cabinet Member.

3.  That an evaluation be undertaken on completion of the second phase of the neighbourhood planning work to inform the roll-out of neighbourhood planning to other priority areas.

The Sustainable Community Strategy for the Borough 2009-2020 identifies that 11% of Maidstone’s population live within areas that fall into the most disadvantaged 20% in the country across a broad range of issues as identified by the Government’s Index of Multiple Deprivation.  The issues faced by the people living in these areas are manifested in a number of different ways, including:-

·  Lower than average life expectancy

·  Higher rates of teenage pregnancy

·  Lower levels of skills, qualifications & educational attainment

·  Higher levels of crime

·  Higher numbers of young people entering the criminal justice system, and

·  Child poverty.

Due to the extent of these issues, the Sustainable Community Strategy had a cross cutting objective to:-

·  Tackle health, education and employment inequalities in areas of disadvantage.

The strategy identified that the Council was looking for an approach of neighbourhood planning in conjunction with residents for these areas of high need, including parts of Park Wood, Shepway north and south and High Street wards.  In response to this, the Sustainable Community Strategy identified as an action, that a multi agency neighbourhood planning task group, to develop area based initiatives to tackle inequalities in the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods in south Maidstone, was necessary.

To take this work forward, Park Wood was identified as the first pilot area and a Neighbourhood Planning Project Board was created in June 2009. The Board was chaired by the Cabinet Member for Community Services and had representatives from key agencies and latterly from the community.  The work on Park Wood was, depending on the outcomes, to act as a model for future work in other areas.

The original Terms of Reference of the Neighbourhood Planning Project Board set out the purpose of the project, its objectives and the outcomes it was seeking to address.  The overall purpose was to work with local communities / residents to examine, make recommendations then tackle the problems and opportunities that exist in the area.  The objectives were to:-

·  develop a common understanding of the issues within the area of high need,

·  make recommendations to the key Agencies that will develop into the Neighbourhood Action Plan,

·  influence the development of other policies, plans and strategies and investment decisions relating to these areas

This is to be achieved through an ongoing programme of community engagement and dialogue with local communities.

The Neighbourhood Planning Project Board also identified as an objective, examining with the community how successful the interventions have been by the Agencies in achieving their outcomes and how effectively they have utilised public resources. In relation to the work with the Agencies, the aim was to identify the major projects completed or under way and to understand the extent of the interventions:-

·  to build up an understanding of the investment by the Agencies in the priority areas, and look for opportunities for efficiencies in the future,

·  to gain an understanding of the impact of these projects in resolving the issues faced by people living in Park Wood,

·  to understand the success factors, the barriers to improving outcomes and the weaknesses in the approaches utilised by the projects,

·  to develop a series of recommendations to inform the neighbourhood planning process and other future interventions in the priority areas.

The Board determined to use the Planning for Real methodology as a mechanism of engaging with the residents to identify their high priorities.  As set out in its terms of reference of the Board (Appendix B of the report of the Assistant Director of Regeneration and Cultural Services), the Board would continue to report to the LSP Board and ultimately to the LSP Full Group. The results of the Planning for Real exercise are set out in Appendix A of the report of the Assistant Director of Regeneration and Cultural Services.

Planning for Real Process & Results

Planning for Real is an established means of engaging disadvantaged residents in neighbourhood regeneration developed by the Neighbourhood Initiatives Foundation (now Neighbourhood Resource Centre, part of the Accord Housing Group). It is particularly recommended for engaging so called ‘hard to reach groups’ including people with poor literacy skills or who speak English as a second/alternative language. Key to the process is resident involvement from the outset.

The project started in Park Wood in September 2009 by recruiting and training a group of fourteen resident volunteers. The resident volunteers supported by MBC staff then spent a week with year four pupils in Bell Wood Community Primary School building a 3D scale model of the estate. The resident volunteers and MBC staff, supported by the neighbourhood policing team and Golding Homes’ staff then took the model on a road show around the estate. Residents were able to choose from a selection of issue/idea flags and place these directly onto the model. The issue and location of every flag was recorded. Twenty road show events took place over a period of three months –with parent and toddler groups, in schools, after church services and, utilising an events marquee, on open spaces close to people’s homes. The events are listed on page 9 of Appendix A of the report of the Assistant Director of Regeneration and Cultural Services.

A total of 471 residents took part in the initial consultation identifying 2800 issues/ideas. This equates to 11% of 4280[1] Park Wood residents between the ages of 5 and 85 or 21% of the 2,200 households. Approximately half the residents consulted were children and young people. The project focussed on the centre of the ward which matches the statistical area (Lower Super Output Area) which is ranked in the 10% most deprived in the UK by the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2007, meaning that a higher proportion of the most disadvantaged residents were able to take part.

The key issues identified by residents were:

·  Community safety and crime – young people hanging around (recognised by the Home Office as a proxy indicator for anti-social behaviour)

·  Alcohol and people afraid to go out at night

·  Ideas to improve leisure facilities – particularly the park and Heather House

·  Transport – mainly road safety and parking

·  Environmental issues such as dog mess and litter

·  Housing issues included condensation, damp and over crowding

·  Some high priority issues were cross cutting such as noisy neighbours.

·  There was a strong correlation between the issues identified by children and older residents – community safety being the shared top priority.

Having identified the residents’ issues, three prioritisation and action planning workshops took place at Heather House in March. Residents and stakeholders including local councillors and agencies took part, categorising the issues as high, medium or low priority and identifying short, medium and long-term actions to address these. Following the workshops, one to one meetings were held with the key agencies operating in Park Wood to fine tune/check that they would support and resource the recommended actions. An exhibition was created highlighting the high priority short-term actions which was taken to the Easter Fair at Bell Wood School and a week long exhibition was held at the parade of shops. A further 120 residents voted on their top actions (Appendix A of the report of the Assistant Director of Regeneration and Cultural Services p36) and gave feedback on the process. All their comments have been included in the report.

Such has been the momentum developed by the process that some actions are already underway including:

·  litter picks, enhanced street cleaning, weekly enforcement patrols and the issue of 5 fixed penalty notices on Park Wood parade

·  the launch in Park Wood of the borough wide anti-dog fouling campaign

·  the removal of rubbish and making good of lock ups to the rear of the shops.

·  setting up of a job shop by the Tomorrow’s People charity

·  a clean up by the newly formed residents’ group Park Wood Pride of two rubbish dumping hotspots close to the parade of shops. They secured donations of compost and flowers to replant an area that had been an eyesore for years.

Already, there is a high expectation for the area as evidenced by residents’ feedback from the exhibitions: ‘At the moment we are being listened to but remain a little sceptical. Just hope all plans and comments are stuck to, to build a brighter future for our children.’

A detailed action plan is included starting in Appendix A of the report of the Assistant Director of Regeneration and Cultural Services page 38. It is intended that 44 of the 81 actions listed in the action plan will be met through realigning existing resources or efficiencies. Funding for a further twenty has been identified through Section 106 Agreement monies or the £50,000 capital budget. Ten, such as the refurbishment of Heather House, will be dependent on successful funding bids supported by the action plan. Five, will be dependent on increased revenue funding and so are least likely to be realised in the current funding climate. Twenty four of the actions have MBC as the lead agency. The key actions have been highlighted in the Summary on Page 4 of the Planning for Real Action Plan and are listed below:

·  Police to enforce the Alcohol Exclusion Zone/Designated Public Places Order on the parade, extend it to the park and educational campaign to tackle alcohol abuse (Within year one).

·  Environmental and crime reduction improvements to the parade and nearby areas (Within year one).

·  A ‘What’s On Guide’ of services, facilities and activities for every household and for each new resident as they move onto the estate (Within year one).

·  The Council will help Park Wood Pride and young people design & fundraise for a skating and BMX facility at the park (Within three years).

·  New ‘Foul Play’ anti-dog mess campaign to change behaviour of dog owners – increased fines and patrols for litter as well (Within year one).

·  Park Wood Pride, MBC & Golding Homes to develop an improved programme of cleaning on the estate (Within year one).

·  MBC and Golding Homes will review the condition of homes, demolish the least fit and where homes are unlikely to be replaced, improvements made (Starting in year one and continuing over the five years of the plan).

·  New streamlined approach to tackling noisy neighbour issues, protect victims and if necessary take a range of sanctions including eviction to tackle persistent offenders (Within year one).

·  Tomorrow’s People to set up new ‘Job Shop’ and ‘Working it Out’ to improve skills and help people into employment (Within year one).

·  Families and schools to work together to improve educational attainment (Within year one).

·  Refurbish the Heather House Community Centre and its surroundings (Starting in year one and continuing over the five years of the plan).

Further Work

Planning for Real has been a valuable tool in identifying key issues in the minds of residents and developing actions to address them. There was some agreement between the residents’ priorities and the statistical evidence of need, for instance in terms of crime and environment. However, the results that have come from the Planning for Real exercise have not identified other fundamental or underlying issues as identified by the statistical evidence that residents regard as being significant issues.  Further work needs to be taken forward to engage the Agencies in the development of a composite action plan that draws together the residents’ issues and the underlying issues to ensure that whatever resources are available, are utilised in the most effective manner possible to address all the issues that exist in the area. The need for this has increased as the level of public expenditure available will be less. The underlying issues as identified by the statistical evidence include:

·  Teenage pregnancy

·  Economic inactivity

·  Skills & qualifications

·  Health

Additionally, the Planning for Real exercise only partly addresses the initial objectives of this work which was to examine the effectiveness of the different initiatives and determine with the Agencies whether there are more cost effective ways of working with the residents to tackle their stated concerns and the underlying issues.  It is therefore considered that in order to maximize the effectiveness of the neighbourhood planning work to date, there needs to be a second phase of work with the residents and agencies to

·  improve the understanding of the causes of the underlying issues and to discuss more effective ways of addressing them

·  establish whether the actions of the different Agencies can be more effectively tailored to address the underlying issues and the residents’ stated concerns.

Underlying issues:

Teenage Pregnancy

Recently released information from the Kent Public Health Observatory (included in Appendix A of the report of the Assistant Director of Regeneration and Cultural Services p26) suggests that while teenage pregnancy numbers in Park Wood ward are reducing, it still has the second highest rate of any ward in West Kent. While a small number of residents did identify the need for ‘support for teenage mums’ and ‘condoms – free issue wanted’ the need to reduce teenage pregnancies is given a lower priority by residents than the statistics suggest it should have. Further, a review of the priorities of the Fusion Healthy Living Centre and Meadows Children’s Centre show that while they prioritise sexual health or supporting teenage parents the need to reduce the number of teenage pregnancies is not directly prioritised. West Kent NHS did not identify it as a priority at all until challenged.

Economic Inactivity

While a small number of residents identified the need for a ‘job club’ or ‘help to get back to work’, this was given a much lower priority than for instance crime, leisure or environment. This is despite the statistical evidence (included in Appendix A of the report of the Assistant Director of Regeneration and Cultural Services p23) which shows that 28% of adults of working age in the ward (810 out of a working age population of 2900) were claiming an income related benefit in November 2009 (the last month data was available). This compares to the Borough average at the time of 18%. Additionally unemployment has risen by 7.5% since November 2007. Of these, only 5.5% were on Job Seekers Allowance and could be categorised as actively seeking work. The largest group (11%) were claiming Employment Support Allowance, the new name for Incapacity Benefit. Despite this evidence, Job Centre Plus isn’t funded to deliver any outreach work in Park Wood beyond a small project at the Meadows Children’s Centre to encourage teenage parents back into work. A new group Tomorrow’s People has now started a ‘Job Shop’ and ‘Working it out’ programme for young unemployed people at Fusion and Heather House in Park Wood. However, numbers accessing the former are low and no Park Wood young people at all joined the first ‘Working it out’ programme that started in July although Tomorrow’s People are seeking to remedy this.

Skills and Qualification

Up to date statistics on skills are hard to obtain at a ward level but the 2001 Census identified that 40% of residents had no qualifications. The percentage of students living in Park Wood achieving five or more A*-C at GCSE in 2007 (the last year geographical data is available) was 28%. At the same time the borough average was 68%. This was a three year low falling from 41.3% in 2005. At the same time the Maidstone average was rising. However, recently published results for New Line Learning Academy – the principle secondary school for Park Wood – do show a significant improvement with students achieving five or more A*-C at GCSE rising from 53% in 2009 to 71% for 2010. Despite this, residents did not identify a lack of skills or qualifications as an issue.

For children living in Park Wood, primary school Key Stage 2 results for English (included in Appendix A of the report of the Assistant Director of Regeneration and Cultural Services p27) were 18% below the Maidstone Borough average in 2009. The gap widened from 10% in 2005 and the rate is now at a five year low. The principal primary school Bell Wood is in ‘special measures’. Despite this only seven residents identified low educational attainment and that the:‘school needs improving’ as an issue.

Health

Health generated the least number of comments from residents. This may reflect the good provision of services provided through the GP Surgery, Meadows Children’s Centre and Fusion Healthy Living Centre. While up to date statistical information at ward level is limited for health the statistical evidence that does exist does suggest this could be a higher priority. According to the ward profile available from KCC’s Research and Intelligence Unit, life expectancy in 2007 in Park Wood was five years less for males than the district average and 2.4 years for females. The Office of National Statistics places the central part of the ward as within the 20% most deprived neighbourhoods in England for health outcomes (2007 Index of Multiple Deprivation). Eleven percent of adults of working age claimed Employment Support Allowance (formerly Incapacity Benefit) in November 2009. They are by far the largest group of claimants. There was a 2% increase between 2007 and 2009.

Way Forward

The first objective of the Neighbourhood Planning project board was to: ‘Develop a common understanding of the issues within the area of high need’ and the Planning for Real work has done that in part. However, to extend the understanding of the residents and agencies’ views of the underlying issues it is now proposed to undertake work with both residents and stakeholder agencies to examine these – particularly to continue a dialogue with the key agencies on the quality and effectiveness of their service delivery, how to remove barriers and avoid duplication. The process will involve;

·  meeting with residents (ie through focus groups) and agencies (depth interviews) to examine the underlying issues,

·  to agree these and discuss choices and develop actions  (ie through a strategic choices event),

·  and for these to go into a composite action plan.

The list of stakeholders is included in the terms of reference (Appendix B of the report of the Assistant Director of Regeneration and Cultural Services). In addition to those listed it is the intention to include the local GP Practice, the Meadows Children’s Centre, Bell Wood and Holy Family Schools, and other community, faith or voluntary groups providing services as well as key health and social services professionals active in the area. The finally agreed action plan will then be brought back to the LSP and Cabinet for final agreement/adoption in December 2010.

It was felt appropriate to enter into a dialogue with the agencies through the Local Strategic Partnership and that officers agree the detail with the Cabinet Member.

The Park Wood Neighbourhood Action Plan is an example of ‘localism’ and evaluation of it is important in determining how the council takes this work forward in the future.

External funding of £55,000 has been secured for the neighbourhood planning work in 2010/11 from; Growth Point Revenue, KCC, Golding Homes and Performance Reward Grant with MBC’s contribution being £5000 (from the Sustainable Development budget). This has brought the engagement of key partners and the LSP to the continued development of the project.  It is proposed that £50,000 from MBC’s capital programme, earmarked for improvements identified by the neighbourhood planning process can now be drawn down to deliver a small number of environmental and other enhancements on council property. It is proposed that residents and stakeholders are involved in prioritising these through a participatory budgeting exercise. The total cost of implementing all the schemes listed in the action plan would be in the region of £350,000. However, a substantial proportion of the works are the responsibility of Golding Homes or KCC Highways and further discussions will be held with them about taking these forward.

The use of volunteers has enabled a great deal more to be achieved than by the agencies working alone. This taps into the principle of ‘people support what they help to create’ and localism – devolving greater powers to neighbourhoods. The restructure of the Community Services Section to create a Community Development team as well as the support of partners will bring additional staff resources.

The project has revealed the appetite for residents for greater use of enforcement powers for instance fixed penalties to address littering, dog fouling or nuisance noise. The challenge for the council and its partners is to match up to residents’ aspirations to drill down on these issues.

The project has used the principles of the Equalities Framework to involve people of all abilities, race and age to identify their issues and ideas.

The principles of environmental sustainability have been adhered to in the development of the action plan to ensure that the measures put in place will be sustainable and will have a positive environmental impact.

The project will have a significant and positive impact on community safety and has had the full and active support of the police and MBC’s Community Safety Section throughout.

The Planning for Real Action Plan should be adopted, as the actions it contains will benefit the community and meet their stated needs.  Not acting on the residents’ issues now, having raised expectations, would damage any trust and good will built up through a prolonged period of positive community engagement. However, further work is required with residents and agencies to ensure a fuller understanding of the issues and their support for the subsequent action plan and its implementation. Also, while public bodies have been encouraged to engage with residents and respond to the issues they raise, public bodies are equally being encouraged to take an evidence based approach to developing policies to improve the quality of life for residents, particularly the most vulnerable residents. This will be achieved by pursuing this next phase of work. Finally, undertaking this further work will ensure that the original purpose, objectives and particularly the outcomes (based on the Kent Agreement priority outcomes) listed in the terms of reference (Appendix B of the report of the Assistant Director of Regeneration and Cultural Services) area met in full.

The adoption of the Planning for Real Action Plan without further work will not assist in resolving the underlying issues in Park Wood or meet the objectives stated by the Project Board of tailoring the actions of the Agencies in a cost effective manner to the needs of the community.