This publication is produced by:This publication is supported by:

LEARNING FROMTHE PAST?

Building community in new towns,growth areas and new communities

By Marina Stott, Neil Stottand Colin Wiles

The Development Trusts Association (DTA) is the leading network ofcommunity enterprise practitioners dedicated to helping people set updevelopment trusts and helping existing trusts to learn from each otherand to work effectively. Development trusts are community organisationsusing self-help, enterprise, and asset ownership, to find local solutions

and transform their community for good. The DTA also influences government and others at nationaland local level, to build support and investment for the movement.

The DTA is aiming for a successful development trust in every community. There are now over 460development trusts in DTA membership, in both urban and rural areas. While many are still small, othersare operating at scale: the combined turnover is £275m and development trusts have £565m of assetsin community ownership.

DTA is a member of the Community Alliance with bassac and Community Matters.

Development Trusts Association Tel: 0845 458 8336 Email: info@dta.org.uk

This publication is supported by:

SPONSORS

THE FIRM Perrins Solicitors was established in 1997 by Frederick Perrin andbecame an LLP in November 2009. The firm was founded primarily to servethe social housing sector, and clients benefit from the fact that this continuesto be the core of the firm's business, enabling it to understand the particularchallenges arising in the provision and management of social housing.

The approachability and accessibility of the firm and all staff is a critical component of the value providedto satisfied clients. Perrins aims to ensure that clients regard the firm as an 'extension of the in-houseteam' and as the leading specialist law firm in the South East providing advice in social housing. Theethos of the firm is to always look to be proactive and creative and to help clients throughout the life ofprojects and cases, from initial planning to completion and/or resolution.

Perrins Solicitors LLP Tel: 01582 466140 Email: mail@perrins-solicitors.co.uk

bpha is a leading Housing Association, working in Bedfordshire,Cambridgeshire, Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire, with 15,000affordable homes in management and currently providing over 1,000 more peryear. We also provide residential and nursing care accommodation for older

people in Oxfordshire and Gloucestershire.

bpha specialises in working with partner organisations to build sustainable communities in newsettlements and major urban extensions. We have worked on some of this publication’s case studydevelopments, and are pleased to be a co-sponsor. Whilst not entirely concurring with all the viewsexpressed, the conclusions on the central importance of good design, community participation, timelyprovision of key facilities and infrastructure, strong public/private/voluntary sector partnerships, and tenureblindness are very well made.

This challenging document should cause organisations from all sectors to review their contributionsto the creation of new communities to ensure that we create even better places for people to live inthe future.

bpha Tel: 01234 791000 Email: info@bpha.org.ukISBN 978-0-9564398-0-2

9 7 8 0 9 5 6 4 3 9 8 0 2

3

CONTENTS

LEARNING FROMTHE PAST?Building community in new towns,

growth areas and new communities

CONTENTSExecutive Summary 5

Chapter 1 Introduction 6

Chapter 2 What is community? 9

Chapter 3 The New Town experience 22

Chapter 4 Learning lessons from the past? Recent literature on new towns and new communities 30

Chapter 5 Case Studies in Cambridgeshire 39

Chapter 6 Conclusion 44

Chapter 7 Bibliography 45

AuthorsMarina Stott Senior Lecturer in Social Policy, Anglia Ruskin University

Neil Stott Chief Executive, Keystone Development Trust

Colin Wiles Chief Executive, King Street Housing Society

Review GroupJess Steele Head of Consultancy, Development Trusts Association

Carole Reilley Regional Manager (East), Development Trust Association

Maxine Narburgh Director, Bright Green (East of England)

Clare Younger Editorial Assistant

Published byKeystone Development Trust

The Limes, 32 Bridge Street, Thetford, Norfolk IP24 3AG

www.keystonetrust.org.uk

All photographs copyright of Keystone Development Trust or King Street Housing Society

© Keystone Development Trust 2009

Printed by Renaissance Creative, Office 1 Heath Business Park, Coalpit Lane, Wolston CV8 3GB. Tel: 024 7654 5666

4

FOREWORD

Do we learn from the past or make the samemistakes and continually re-learn lessons thatwere evident to our regeneration forebears?Do we ‘talk the community talk’ prior to newregeneration schemes only to see our aspirationsunravel as schemes progress?

This report reviews the history of communitybuilding in New Towns and recent policydevelopment around a new generation of newtowns, growth areas and eco-towns. It outlines apattern of policy makers and developers (publicand private) emphasis on the importance ofcommunity yet frequent chronic underinvestmentin community development and infrastructurein schemes. The results are often long andfrustrating community campaigns to secureresources or remedial investment whencommunities unravel.

Learning from the Past provides the reader witha critique of the New Town experience of buildingcommunity and recent developments. It drawsattention to the hard learnt lessons that can makea difference in creating new places that supportvibrant communities.

This report was developed with the DevelopmentTrust Association’s support as the issues discussedare increasingly pertinent to the communities inwhich Trusts operate.

I am indebted to the team who made thereport possible.

Neil Stott

Chief Executive

FOREWORD

5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• The concept of community is a slippery termand one that may be interpreted in a myriad ofways. Individuals may belong to any numberof ‘communities’ simultaneously based onnotions of place, identity and/or interest.Policy-makers, planners, developers mustappreciate the variety of ways in whichdifferent communities operate and ensure thatone type is not privileged over another.

• Neighbourhood design and layout can facilitatecommunity cohesion, interaction andintegration but it does not determine it.Neighbourhood layout intended to encouragesocial interaction and belonging throughinnovative designs have since become a havenfor anti-social behaviour and generatedinsecurity among residents. Carefulconsideration is needed to ensure that fleeting‘fashionable’ trends are not equated with‘innovation’ which takes precedence overpractical liveability issues.

• Housing type and tenure are likely to play animportant role in creating cohesive andsustainable communities. Although there is ageneral consensus that tenure should be ‘blind’and ‘pepper-potted’; it is also suggestedthat considerations of housing should gobeyond this. The ‘right mix’ should includeconsiderations of income, ages, ethnicity andhousehold types to ensure a range ofhouseholds with different social characteristics.

• Neighbourhood identity and reputation areestablished early on in a development and areresilient to change. This is influenced by factorssuch as unmatched/coordinated developmentwith population growth, a lack of communityfacilities and unfulfilled s106 agreements. Thiscan impact on attracting investment and newresidents. Timely and coordinated delivery ofdevelopments along with enforcement of s106agreements is needed to ensure newcommunities do not ‘fail’ before they beginand become communities of ‘no choice’.

• Involvement, not mere consultation, of existing(nearby) and prospective communities isrecommended to engender a sense ofbelonging and attachment and minimisepotential tensions. Listening to and actingupon the views of communities can aidcohesion and integration. A model of successis recommended for developments to followwhich included community planningweekends, themed interest groups and a seriesof public events to facilitate continuedcommunity involvement in the planningprocess.

• Community development workers play acritical role in developing new communities.Although this has long been recognised,resources remain sporadic, uneven and areoften the first to go in expenditure cuts. If thegoal of sustainable and cohesive communitiesis to be achieved, community developmentmust have a strategic and secure position inany new developments.

• Community buildings provide space andopportunity. Usually they are designed tomaximise community use and not financialsustainability. While achieving both in aparticular building is not impossible with publicgrant/ revenue support, it is usually challengingwithout public income. This is particularlypertinent in areas/neighbourhoods whereresidents have little disposable income. Thealternative to public revenue subsidy isbuilding-in trading opportunities (not justmarginal activity such as community cafes orroom hire) such as rental space and/or‘counterweight’ building or activity that cangenerate considerable income.

• Community building designs need to balanceperceived community needs, financial andenvironmental sustainability.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

6

CHAPTER 1

The New Towns programme is often referred toas one of the most ambitious urban planningexercises of the twentieth century. Influenced byEbenezer Howard’s concept of the garden city,the new towns sought to address housingshortages, stimulate economic growth and create‘balanced communities’ through mixed tenurehousing and mixed industry. On the whole theNew Towns programme was viewed largely as asuccessful endeavour. To date, the new townshave accommodated over two million people andprovided over one million jobs.

However, the New Towns programme has neverbeen comprehensively evaluated. The degree towhich they are ‘successful’ is currently the subjectof debate in the context of the government’sSustainable Communities Plan to provide threemillion new homes by 2020 through GrowthAreas, New Growth Points and Eco-Towns.Lessons are being sought from the New Townsprogramme and reassessed to help deliver thesenew developments. Areas in which the newtowns were initially seen as successful, are nowbeing questioned as many experiencedeprivation, high levels of unemployment andhousing need. These and other issues werehighlighted by the Transport, Local Governmentand the Regions Committee who called forurgent evaluation which “identified good practiceand mistakes before any major new settlementsare considered” (2002:para. 39, 40).

In 2002 Members of Parliament warned that thenew towns were in danger of falling into a "spiralof decline". The Transport, Local Government andthe Regions Committee said many of thecommunities built as a model of 20th centuryliving now suffer from collapsing house pricesand high crime rates. The 22 new towns hadbeen overlooked in successive governmentprogrammes to regenerate urban areas and werein danger of becoming expensive liabilities.Telford in Shropshire, for example, suffers from acollapsing housing market, high crime levels andpockets of severe deprivation. A comprehensiveinvestment programme is needed to prevent aspiral of decline. Another problem highlighted bythe report is that many of the new towns weredesigned around the car and their central areas

need to be completely rebuilt to reflect this.Committee chairman Andrew Bennett MP toldthe BBC: "The government needs to recognisethat the new towns are up to 50 years old, andlarge amounts of the housing and infrastructureare desperately in need of a thorough overhaul.They also have major social and economicproblems." The report adds that, "This failure ofpublic policy to adapt to change may well createa text book example of how not to managepublic assets." (TLGR 2002).

Don Burrows, of the Neighbourhood InitiativesFoundation - a Telford-based charity that aims tohelp improve local communities said the originaldesign of some estates had led to many of theproblems. "High density large estates with pooramenities, mainly designed for the car not thepedestrian are turning into breeding grounds forpetty crime and drug abuse" he said in a BBCreport (BBC News 2002).

The MPs suggest regional development agenciesshould take control of strategic sites and a NewTowns Reinvestment Fund could allocate profitsfrom the sale of these according to need.

The cause of many of these issues is attributed tolayout, construction and designs that were seenas innovative at the time of the new townsbuilding. Non-standard building materials havereached the end of their lives, spaces that wereintended to facilitate social interaction and asense of community resulted in a lack of privacyand increased fear of crime. Although each ofthe new towns have fared slightly differently,these are problems common to many of them.Key information on new towns in the East ofEngland are presented in the table below.

1. INTRODUCTION

7

CHAPTER 1

Focus on the East – New towns

Date ofdesignation Population Key issues and facts

Letchworth 1903 35,000 Established stable community. Is home to one of the only colonies of black squirrelsin the country

Welwyn Established stable community. EnglishGarden City 1920/1948 55,000 Partnerships is drawing up plans to

regenerate Hatfield town Centre.Until a mistake in 2005 there were nostreet names with the word "street"in the town.

Harlow 1947 80,000 Town centre to be regenerated. HarlowGateway project will build 450 newhomes on 11 hectares. Proposals toextensively extend the town to the north.

Basildon 1949 102,000 Now in need of regeneration. Basildon is akey hub for the Thames Gatewayredevelopment. Much of it is built on anold plot lands area.

Stevenage 1946 80,000 Town centre being redeveloped.

English Partnerships owns a 28 hectareformer waste disposal site adjacent to theA1 that could be developed along withadjoining land holdings to relieve housingpressure in the area.

Hemel Famous for its magic roundabout where Hempstead 1947 83,000 traffic apparently flows the wrong way.

English Partnerships is working withStanhope Plc to bring forwardemployment opportunities for Breakspearand an adjoining site, in the east of HemelHempstead.

Peterborough 1967 160,000 City centre undergoing regeneration toexploit distinctive features such as its riverfrontage and the potential for asubstantial increase in shopping, leisureand urban employment.

Housing stock now transferred to CrossKeys Homes.

8

CHAPTER 1

The purpose of this document is to provide anoverview of the New Towns programme toidentify transferable lessons in delivering theSustainable Communities Plan and creating newcommunities. Chapter two discusses notions of‘community’, a concept which has proliferatedpolicy developments in recent years andbecome a catch-all term. According to RaymondWilliams it is a unique term in never beingused unfavourably (in Day 2006:14). Theimplications of this are discussed in light of themyriad of ways in which community is definedand the increasing expectations of communitiesto deliver government outcomes. An overview ofhistorical and contemporary debates aroundcommunity is offered along with the role ofcommunity workers in addressing the needs ofdiverse and complex communities.

Chapter three charts the successes and failures ofthe New Towns programme as they were viewedat or near the time of their completion. Althoughthey were seen as successful, some cracks werebeginning to appear even in the early stages.Despite calls for lessons to be learned, particularlywith regard to the development of communityfacilities, the programme continued relativelyunchanged. Chapter four looks at more recentliterature on the new towns to see if these lessonshave changed since the earlier publications.Chapter five looks at a selection of casestudies of new developments in and aroundCambridgeshire which illustrate the extent towhich lessons have been applied. It also drawsattention to the development of Eco-towns andraises questions around the notion ofsustainability. There is concern that some of thenew settlements that are proposed, such asNorthstowe near Cambridge, are not largeenough and are too close to existing towns andcities to be self-sustaining. The fear is that theywill merely add to traffic congestion becauseresidents will look elsewhere for work and leisureopportunities.

The final chapter summarises the issues raisedand the implications of these for the developmentof new communities.

9

CHAPTER 2

2.1 IntroductionAttention to notions of community has waxedand waned amongst academics and policy-makers for decades. Debates have tended toconcentrate on attempts to define whatcommunity is, whether it does and should existand how to maintain and utilise its perceivedbenefits. In recent years community has againtaken centre stage in policy circles, promoted asa panacea for a raft of social ills rangingfrom crime to ill-health, poverty to disharmonyand exclusion. Restoring and strengtheningcommunity has become a political imperative forNew Labour with few policies neglecting thetopic (Blair 2002).

Despite this intensification, notions of community,what is sought from it and what it can achieveremain ill-defined and ambiguous. Suchuncertainty has not halted the government’s aimsof creating new communities in the context ofthe Sustainable Communities Plan (2003). Somefear that this lack of clarity will result in repeatingpast mistakes and perpetuate existing problems(Bennett 2006). This chapter will provide anoutline of historical and contemporary debatesaround community .

2.2 The Policy ContextThe Sustainable Communities Plan (2003) setsout the current framework for creating newcommunities in designated growth areas. TheSustainable Communities Plan aims to addresscurrent low demand and housing supply issues aspart of a wider remit to improve the quality of lifethrough a joined-up approach to economic, socialand environment development, creating placeswhere people want to live and work (pg.5). Thesubsequent Egan Review of Skills (2004) set outthe vision for sustainable communities;

‘Sustainable communities meet the diverseneeds of existing and future residents, theirchildren and other users, contribute to a highquality of life and provide opportunity andchoice. They achieve this in ways that makeeffective use of natural resources, enhancethe environment, promote social cohesionand inclusion and strengthen economicprosperity’ (pg.18).

Egan identified the essential components ofsustainable communities as:

• Governance – effective and inclusiveparticipation, representation and leadership

• Transport and connectivity – goodtransport services and communicationslinking people to jobs, health andother services

• Services – public, private, community andvoluntary services that are accessible to all

• Environmental – providing places for peopleto live in an environmentally friendly way

• Economy – a thriving and vibrantlocal economy

• Housing and built environment –high quality buildings

• Social and culture – active, inclusive andsafe with a strong local culture and othershared community activities (pg.19-21)

2. WHAT IS COMMUNITY?

10

CHAPTER 2

Egan urged for this to become a commonlanguage for everyone involved in deliveringsustainable communities and provided a list of 50indicators by which progress could be measured(pg.22, Annex B). These include indicators tomeasure a sense of place and belonging,cohesion and influence. In addition to the builtenvironment specialists, community workerscomprise one of the core occupations and skillssets involved in creating sustainable communities(pg.53). Since and prior to this, there have beena range of policies aimed at increasing communityinvolvement in decision making and engenderinga sense of belonging as routes to improvingservices and addressing disadvantage.

The Modernising Government White Paper(1999) made a commitment to listen to localpeople and involve communities in decisionmaking (para. 3.6, 3.7). Giving local communitiesmore influence in decision making was identifiedby the Social Exclusion Unit in the NationalStrategy for Neighbourhood Renewal (2001) aspart of the solution to entrenched poverty andarea deprivation (pg.43-53). A range of fundingstreams were established to help ‘empower’communities and facilitate their involvement inNeighbourhood Management Schemes andLocal Strategic Partnerships. The emphasis oncommunity involvement and empowermentcontinued in the 2005 progress report Making ItHappen in Neighbourhoods along with calls for itto continue in the creation of sustainablecommunities (2005:60-62).

The Together We Can (2005) strategy for civilrenewal aimed to empower communities to workwith public bodies to shape the policies andservices that affect them. This, it argues, willengender a sense of ownership and belonging,reduce social tensions, crime and fear of crimeand improve health and educational attainment(pg.4). Building on this and Citizen Engagementand Public Services (2005), David Milibandcalled for a ‘double-devolution’ of power fromWhitehall to town hall to local communities andcitizens to strengthen communities and promoteequality (2006:8). The Strong and ProsperousCommunities White Paper (2006) maintains thetheme of empowering communities, pledgingsupport for communities to have greaterinvolvement in owning and managing communityassets and more control over their lives (pg.32).This is done primarily through strengthening therole of local authorities and local councillors asrepresentative bodies of the community(pg.32-36).

The Sustainable Communities Act 2007 providesa channel for people, through their localauthority, to ask central government to takeaction to promote sustainable communities. Itstarts with the premise that local people knowbest how to improve their area (LGA online).

The most recent policy push to devolve power tocommunities is outlined in the CommunityEmpowerment White Paper, Communities inControl 2008. This aims to pass power into thehands of local communities and give real controlto a wider pool of active citizens (pg.12). Localcouncils have a strengthened ‘duty to involve’local communities and promote democracy whilecommunities are encouraged to become moreactive through volunteering, serving oncommittees, standing for election or running andmanaging local services and assets (pg.8-10).Community development workers are identifiedas playing a vital role in achieving this withincreased support pledged from the government(pg.40-42).

11

CHAPTER 2

Alongside these developments, there has beenincreasing attention paid to the notion ofcommunity cohesion. Cohesion was thrust intothe policy limelight after the 2001 disturbancesin Oldham and Burnley, culminating in the CantleReport which drew attention to the ‘parallel lives’led by many communities. This was, in part, dueto a lack of coherence around notions ofcitizenship, a lack of cross-cultural contactbetween different communities and a lack ofparticipation in decision making across allcommunities (pg.10-11). The latter was promotedas vital to achieving community cohesion withcurrent methods of doing so inadequate (pg.58).Since this time, community cohesion has beenmainstreamed with a plethora of guidance onhow to achieve it, progress reports, a ‘duty topromote’ in schools (outlined in Strong andProsperous Communities 2006), its relation to thesustainable communities agenda and a dedicatedbody to oversee it (The Institute of CommunityCohesion).

This is not an exhaustive list of recent communityfocused policy. Rather it is intended to offeran overview of the development of this focusand the increased importance placed uponcommunities to deliver. Underpinning thesepolices is an assumption that a sense ofcommunity, cohesion and belonging eitheralready exists or can be created without problems.This has important implications for creatingcommunities in the Growth Areas and the rolethey are expected to play.

12

CHAPTER 2

2.3 Defining Community:key debates

2.3.1 Definitions

There has been an increased emphasis on thenotion of ‘community’ in UK social policy, as thepreceding section illustrates. The US, Canadianand Australian governments have also joined thequest for restoring and strengthening‘community’ (Fremeaux, 2005). Such globalpopularity points to a growing confidence in theability of local communities to deliver solutions toa range of social issues – crime and fear of crime,social unrest, ill-health, among others – and instila sense of security and belonging. The emphasisis such that any anti-poverty strategy ordevelopment project is doomed to failurewithout the central involvement of communities.However, there is startling uncertainty amongstpolicy-makers and academics about what theterm ‘community’ actually means.

Definitional difficulties have plagued the conceptof community for decades, not least becausethose who promote its recovery refuse toacknowledge any negative effects; not unlike theconcept of social capital, also seen in recentdecades as a cure-all for society’s ills. The conceptof community is a loose and all embracing term,used to denote membership along the lines ofinterest and identity, as well as physicalboundaries (for instance, the Gay community,Faith communities or the business community).Although Brent (2004) argues that ‘dictionarystyle definitions do not untangle the complexityof community in practice’ (pg.214), they serve asa useful indication of both the variation andsimilarity. A selection of definitions are listedopposite:

• A territorial group of people with a commonmode of living striving for common objectives(Durant, 1959)

• A specific population living within a specificgeographical area with shared institutionsand values and significant social interaction(Warren 1963). Both in Graham Day (2006)Community and Everyday Life

• A collection of people in a geographical area;Collections of people with a particular socialstructure; there can be collections which arenot communities; A sense of belonging orcommunity spirit; All the daily activities of acommunity, work and non-work, take placewithin the geographical area; self-contained.Nicholas Ambercrombie et al (1994)Dictionary of Sociology Penguin

• …some combination of small-scale, relativeboundedness, strong affective ties,traditionalism, and face-to-face contact.Craig Calhoun (ed) (2002) Dictionary of theSocial Sciences Oxford University Press

• Community is not a place, but it is a place-orientated process. It is not the sum of socialrelationships in a population but itcontributes to the wholeness of local sociallife. A community is a process of interrelatedactions through which residents express theirshared interest in the local society”Wilkenson, 1989, p. 339 Richard Meeganand Alison Mitchell 2001’It’s not CommunityRound Here, It’s Neighbourhood’ in UrbanStudies Vol 38 No. 12

• As a social or political principle - a socialgroup that possess a strong collective identitybased on the bonds of comradeship, loyaltyand duty. Andrew Heywood (1997) PoliticsMacmillan

13

CHAPTER 2

• “Communities are social webs of people whoknow one another as persons and have amoral voice. Communities draw oninterpersonal bonds to encourage membersto abide by shared values…communitiesgently chastise those who violate sharedmoral norms and express approbation forthose who abide by them. They turn to thestate (courts, police) only when all else fails.Hence the more viable communities are, theless need for policing. Amitai Etzioni (1994)The Spirit of Community

• The web of personal relationships, groupnetworks, traditions and patterns ofbehaviour that develops among thosewho either share the same physicalneighbourhood and its socio-economicsituation or common understandings andgoals around a shared interest.. Val Harris (ed)(2001) Community Work Skills ManualAssociation of Community Workers;Community Work Training Co., NationalLottery Charities Board

Bell and Newby note that Hillery (1969 in Bell andNewby 1974:3) identified ninety four definitionsof the term community, the only commonalityamong them being that they all dealt with peopleand interactions. Beyond this, there was noagreement. What is certain is that ‘community’is something that has been ‘lost’ and needs to berecovered.

Community discourse is characterised by themesof loss and recovery. Bauman (2001) describescommunity as a warm and cosy place; anothername for paradise lost; a world that is notavailable to us but one that we hope to return to(pg.1-3). Delanty (2003) also notes the enduringnostalgia for the idea of community, seen as thesource of security and belonging in anincreasingly individualised and globalised world.Community is generally seen as somethingessentially good and its decline something aboutwhich to be concerned. The decline ofcommunity is perpetuated as both cause andeffect of, for example;

• The decline of the traditional family

• The breakdown of respect for others

• The rise in crime, fear of crime and anti-socialbehaviour

• A lack of shared values, norms and morality

• Increase in ill-health

• Increased social exclusion and isolation

The community whose return is sought today isbased on romanticised notions of what isimagined to have existed in the past. In thecommunity of the past, neighbours knew andlooked out for one another, child care was acollective responsibility and everyone generallygot along. It is argued that these characteristicsno longer exist. They have been lost in the pursuitof individual success and the exercise of rights,brought about by increasing industrialisation andthe growth of capitalism.

14

CHAPTER 2

2.3.2 Historical context

Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft

Contemporary debates on community can betraced to the publication of Gemeinschaft andGesellschaft (Community and Society, 1887) byGerman sociologist Ferdinand Tonnies, thefounding father of community theory (in Bell andNewby 1971). In it he contrasts the socialrelations characteristic of each in the contextof increasing industrialisation, urbanisation andmigration.

In community (Gemeinschaft) relationships arebased on blood, kinship ties and friendship. Theyare intimate and enduring. Roles are specific,status is ascriptive and culture is relativelyhomogenous. There is a strong moral code,conflict is rare and members are loyal to eachother and have a strong attachment to place. Allinteractions are based upon members’ consensusand adherence to the moral code and take placewithin the locality. Such a structure necessitatescooperation and solidarity.

In society or gesellschaft, relationships arecold, impersonal and fragmented. They areindependent of one another, devoid of mutuality,familiarity and are artificial. Interactions arecontractual and take place only in so far as theycan further the interests of the individual, ifnecessary at the expense of another. Gesellschaftrepresents interaction and existence on a largescale and is everything that gemeinschaft is not(Bell and Newby 1971, 1974). The passing ofcommunity is to be feared and regretted.

Community studies

The ideas of Tonnies heavily influenced thecommunity studies which took place throughoutthe middle decades of the twentieth centuryin the US and the UK (see for example Belland Newby 1971, 1974). Social surveyors andstatisticians sought to understand variationsbetween local populations. Social anthropologistsfocused on understanding the distinctive ways oflife of small social collectivities to show howsometimes bizarre patterns of behaviour madesense once they were set in context. Socialgeographers drew contrasts between rural andurban communities seeing how they developedover time whilst political scientists wereconcerned with small town democracy andcommunity activism.

The community studies were holistic in theirapproach, in that they sought to provide acomplete picture of a community’s nature andtended to focus on three particular types oflocale – the rural or village, small towns andworking class communities (Day 2006:26-27;Delanty 2003). These generated a perception ofcommunity as a particular kind of social structureor environment, with very specific characteristics,within which certain typical patterns of actionand belief were likely to appear. Communitystudies tended to define community as ‘a localitywith settled denizens, a stable social structureconsisting of dense networks of multiplexrelations and a relatively high boundary to theoutside (Day 2006:47). The maintenance of thesenetworks rested primarily with women (see forexample Young and Wilmott, 1957). These wereseen as essential requirements for the well beingand functioning of communities, the absence ofany one of which signalled the breakdown ofcommunity and the emergence of the problemcommunity (Taylor 2003).

15

CHAPTER 2

Such problem communities were the subject ofthe Community Development Projects (CDPs) inthe 1960s. An ambitious and contentiousgovernment programme, the CDPs were five year“neighbourhood based experiments aimed atfinding new ways of meeting the needs of peopleliving in areas of high social deprivation” (CDP1977:4). It was assumed that it was thecommunities themselves who were to blame fortheir deprivation, the solution to which wasfor community workers to promote self-helpand overcome communities’ apathy. However,findings from the CDP research pointed tostructural causes and “forces outside [workingclass communities] control” of deprivation.Subsequently, the CDP workers found themselvesbetween a rock and hard place; working onbehalf of the state to quell growing social disquietand advocating on behalf of working classcommunities in revealing the causes ofcommunity breakdown. The CDPs simply echoedearlier assertions that community breakdown wasthe result of policy not the people.

The community studies emerged at a time whensuch communities were seen to be in sharpdecline with the advent of slum clearance anddeveloping ‘homes fit for heroes’ to address poorquality housing, overcrowding and economicgrowth. City planners and policy makers cameunder heavy criticism for destroying socialnetworks and building housing estates and newtowns that were ‘soulless’ and lacking incommunity spirit (Jacobs [1961] 1993, Taylor2003, Fremeaux 2005). It was the task ofcommunity development workers to rebuild thesesevered social networks, re-instil a sense ofcommunity and remedy the problems.

Community studies have been roundly criticisedfor presenting communities as cohesive,harmonious and stable places when they werefull of conflict, division and fluidity. They alsoneglected issues of power both internal andexternal to the communities and failed to connectthem with the wider society to which theybelonged (Day 2006; Fremeaux 2005).Community studies fell out of favour shortly afterthe publication of Bell and Newby’s CommunityStudies. Although the CDPs pointed to structuralcauses in the decline of communities, the stateresponse was to prescribe community self helpand organising, a theme that continues to informcurrent policy. Similarly, despite their criticisms,the community studies are still influential inproviding a benchmark of desirable socialrelations and the ‘good life’ for contemporaryexpectations (Day 2006).

16

CHAPTER 2

2.3.3 Contemporary Debates

The community studies in the previous sectionsaw communities as the basis for providingstability, cohesion and a sense of belonging andidentity within a relatively bounded physicalspace. Many of these assumptions arequestioned in contemporary debates oncommunity, not least whether the communitiesof the past ever really existed. Consensus andagreement on what community is, what it doesand what it can achieve still elude commentators.

Place

For some, notions of place are still a keycomponent of community, providing a physicallocation and focus for human interaction, theundermining of which has had devastating effects(Freie 1998 in Brent 2004). The concern with thelocal grows out of wider concerns about theforces of globalisation. Many see the increasingglobal interconnectedness and mobility of goods,people, services, capital, as rendering the local asirrelevant. For many, the local or physical spaceis no longer considered important for socialinteractions, collective organising or as a basis foridentity. Cohen (1985) and Anderson (1983) talkof symbolic and imagined communities. ForCohen, the “symbolic nature of the oppositionmeans that people can ‘think themselves intodifference’ whether or not that ‘difference’ isvisible. This is done in subtle ways by using aframework of symbols, such as religion, ethnicity,certain traits or values, the actual content ofwhich may vary and be invisible to those who arenot part of the community (1985:117). ForAnderson, the community exists in the minds ofindividuals “because members will never knowmost of their fellow members, meet them or evenhear of them, yet in the minds of each lives theimage of their communion” (1983:5-7).Individuals can be members of ethnic, religious orclass based communities, which entail a sense ofbelonging without face-to-face contact. This canalso be seen in the rise of virtual onlinecommunities, for example on social networking

sites such as MySpace, Facebook and Bebo. Perksargues that these virtual communities can repairbroken social bonds and provide new arenas forpublic and civic engagement (in Clements et al2008:104-114).

Fremeaux notes that most territories are arbitrary(e.g. administrative districts, local housingdevelopment) and do not necessarily representthe cognitive maps that inhabitants have of theirlocality. Furthermore, these cognitive maps arenot automatically shared by the inhabitants whomight have differential vision of what constitutes‘their’ locality (2005: 271).

Nash (2003) argues that although place-basednotions of community may seem outdated ornostalgic in the current climate of mobile,electronic and individualistic lifestyles, it is still ofkey importance, a “vivid reality” for many“whose family or friends live nearby, whilst forothers who are tied to a locality in virtue ofparenting responsibilities, lack of income or age,there is little choice to be had in where or withwhom they socialise” (Nash with Christie 2003,p. i). Indeed, Forrest notes that “its degree ofimportance depends on who you are and whereyou are” (in Kearns and Parkinson, 2001: 2103).Considerations of how much time is spent theremay also be important in determining thesignificance of place. Robertson et al (2008) notethe continued significance of place in determininga sense of belonging and community (pg.62).Geographical location and clearly demarcatedareas were important factors in developing anassociation with a place and identifying withit (ibid).

17

CHAPTER 2

Family and friendship networks

Robertson et al (2008) further noted thesignificance of the immediate and extendedfamily and friendship networks in fostering asense of community, particularly in the absenceof wider social welfare infrastructure (pg.47).The sense of community was maintainedthrough these networks and the “mundane androutine interactions that take place at the localshops, hairdressers or post office” (pg.53). Theloss of such places was seen as having quitedevastating effects on the sense of community asopportunities for social interaction andengagement were reduced. Ironically, theauthors of this study note that the mostaspirational neighbourhood looked at, had noobvious community (ix). Their social networksextended beyond the local to a much wider socialworld. This has important implications for thefocus on developing social networks that are lessclose-knit and dense to those that are weak butwide ranging and diverse (pg.100). The sum ofthese different types of social networks iscommonly referred to as ‘social capital’ (Putnam,1995, 2001).

Social capital

Social capital, although variable and contested inits definition , generally refers to the ways inwhich our lives are made more productive bysocial ties and networks (Putnam:2001:19). It isgenerally accepted that different types of socialnetworks bring different rewards. Networkswhich are close-knit, referred to as bonding socialcapital, are good for providing social andpsychological support and usually found amongfamily members, close friends and members ofethnic groups (Putnam, 2001:22). Bonding socialcapital acts as a social glue and is good formobilising solidarity and ‘getting by’ (ibid).Bridging social capital represents social networksthat are weak but connect people who move indifferent circles, facilitating diversity in groups.This type of social capital is good for ‘gettingahead’ (Putnam 2001:23).

It is asserted by social capital commentators (forinstance Putnam 1995, 2001; Aldridge et al2001; Halpern, 2004) that the social ties ofexcluded and disadvantaged communities wereclose-knit, dense and inward looking. Thesedense ties prevented such communities fromaccessing employment and opportunities whichwould improve their situation. The lack ofdiversity of these ties was also seen as preventingcohesion across different ethnic groups. Theproposed solution then was the development ofbridging social capital and later linking socialcapital which connects communities to those withresources and power (Aldridge et al 2001;Woolcock 2001; Halpern 2004). The point thatwas missed was that these dense social ties oftendeveloped in response to social exclusion, ratherthan a pre-cursor to it and so act as survival socialcapital (Creek, 2003). Putnam believed that therewas a decline in social capital, indicated by a lackof participation in civil society institutions and thatthis was cause for concern.

For Putnam and many others social capital is seenas a resource of empowerment; a facilitator in theattainment of collective goals, the creation ofwhich is contingent on shared values, norms,effective sanctions and trust. The decline insocial capital is important to the debates oncommunity because it marks a decline incollective activity and in participation. What thedebates on community and social capital miss isthat both can be an oppressive force which canresult in further exclusion of groups alreadyexcluded and make it difficult for new membersto become a part.

18

CHAPTER 2

Multiple communities

Community is not only descriptive, it is alsonormative, entailing expectations about standardsof behaviour, values and loyalty. For thoseunwilling or unable to adhere to such norms,community becomes oppressive and membersmay find themselves excluded, for examplebecause of religious affiliation, ethnicity orsexuality. It is likely that people will belong tomany communities, along the lines of identity andinterest in addition to those based on place.Allegiances to these communities may comeinto play at different times and may pull indifferent directions. Taylor notes that there is amisconception for policy makers wishing toengage communities that shared identity, locationor interests will necessarily translate intocohesion, security and action (2003:37-38). Shecalls for more understanding of how thesedimensions of community overlap and interactand about what choices people have in makingconnections between them (pg.227). Clementset al (2008) call for a radical rethink in the current‘participatory paradigm’ which dominatescommunity debates (pg.13-16). They assert thatfar too much government intervention in tryingto create communities has undermined them.What is needed instead for the ‘communitycreators industry’, is a focus on delivery of servicesrather than the social engineering of the shape ofcommunities (ibid:184). Such an approachhowever may be seen as complete abandonmentby the state and wider society of thosecommunities in most need, and least able toaddress these needs. Furthermore, it was justsuch an approach that some claim has led tothe current predicament of disadvantagedcommunities (Skocpol 1996; Wilson 1996).

2.4 Community infrastructureDeveloping appropriate community infrastructureis perceived as an essential ingredient in achievingvibrant, cohesive and sustainable communities.Community infrastructure combines people,places and property. Place and property providethe physical opportunities/limitations tocommunity activity, people (communitychampions, activists, dedicated staff) provide theinitiative, leadership and expertise;

• Place has an important impact on communityinfrastructure as it physically provides/constrains community activity throughavailable space to develop communitybuilding etc. The socio-economics of placealso influences the availability of time andresources, emergence of communitychampions and the levels of inter communitycooperation or conflict.

• Although community activity can existwithout community ‘property’, there is asymbiotic relationship between the amountof dedicated community space and the abilityof communities to develop and deliverappropriate services.

• The motivation and empowerment of localpeople to engage and develop communityinfrastructure is integral to any successfulplace. This can be enhanced/ constrained bythe above and the actions of public, privateand third sector organisations. Supportiveframeworks include access to expertise suchas community development staff, access toresources for example in kind or grant and aparticipatory approach to civic governance.

19

CHAPTER 2

Community capital

Community capital is a term which combinesPutman’s notion of social capital with human,physical and financial capital to give a holisticdevelopment construct applicable to placecommunities (KDT 2004). The community capitalconcept fuses community development andcommunity economic development theoryand practice.

Community capital is the collective skills,knowledge and experience, facilities andorganisations which ensure greater returns in thequality of life for all. To achieve communitysustainability it is essential to anchor communitycapital locally to ensure sustainable returns.

Building community capital focuses on‘empowering’ individuals, groups andcommunities to tackle their own needs andissues; creating their own solutions, organisationsor enterprises. Anchoring community capitalis about creating sustainable opportunities suchas training, jobs, or community spaces insocial/public (or commonly owned and managed)assets or enterprises. Community capital isintegral to achieving resilience in communities,especially those experiencing rapid change.Community infrastructure is a key ingredient inbuilding community capital.

Existing places

Most existing places in the UK have welldeveloped community infrastructure which iscontinually changing to meet new demands andcircumstances and combines to varying degreesthe following elements;

• Community buildings; buildings which werepurposefully developed to meet community,cultural or sporting needs or ‘retrofitted’/converted for these purposes; many inpublic/social ownership and publiclysubsidised.

• Myriad local/grassroots groups often utilisingthe above to meet perceived needs.

• ‘Formal’ local, regional and nationalvoluntary/charity/Third Sector organisationsdelivering services to meet local needs andaspirations and often coordination orjoint work.

• Community strategies developed anddelivered by local public agencies (usuallycoordinated through Local StrategicPartnerships) as well as;

o direct service delivery

o support to local communitybuildings/groups through for examplegrant, rate relief, in kind (officer)support

o Partnership/delivery fora frequentlyinvolving the Third Sector

• Community strategies, partnership work andfinancial support through regional or nationalgovernment or their ‘agents’, such as theBig Lottery.

• Private sector delivery through contracts, suchas leisure.

20

CHAPTER 2

New places

New towns and communities are created withinexisting public and Third Sector frameworks.Development is framed through a combination ofnational, regional and local policy as well asdeveloper aspirations. Therefore there is usuallyan overarching framework of policy and ‘formal’Third Sector organisations and umbrella groups.New towns and communities usually requireadditional community infrastructure capacity inparticular;

• The buildings purposefully designed toprovide space for community activity,including cultural and sporting opportunities.

• Land set aside for future development ofcommunity buildings.

• Dedicated staff and resources to promote anddevelop community activity.

• Support to the ‘formal’ Third Sector to extendservices into new areas.

• Support to local people to developcommunity activity/groups.

2.5 Summary and ConclusionsThere remains startling uncertainty anddisagreement about the nature of the concept ofcommunity. It is a concept which means differentthings for different people at different times, theallegiances to which may pull in oppositedirections simultaneously. The lack of definitioncan result in the concept of community beingmanipulated to the ends of differing andcompeting interests. Resolving these anddisentangling the complexities has often been thetask of community development workers whofind themselves balancing the needs ofdiverse communities with policy requirements.Community is necessarily a relational concept;defining who is ‘in’ a community must entailsome designation of who is ‘out’. This is a keyarea of tension in creating new communities anda degree of conflict is inevitable according tosome. The remedy is to ensure that there areenough communities, all with equal status,equality of opportunity and access to resourcesand power, for all to belong to; communities of‘choice’ rather than ‘no choice’. Ensuring thisand managing conflict will be a task forcommunity development workers, especially forcommunities who have experienced exclusionand disadvantage.

It is essential that space and opportunity for socialinteraction are available to allow communities todevelop on their own terms and at their ownpace. The current policy context suggests this isincreasingly an area for which communitiesthemselves should be responsible. This could beseen by some as a state abandonment of itscitizens. It is those communities who are mostoften required to participate that are least able todo so. However, this could be a welcome andlong awaited move in allowing communities tofinally exercise some control over their owndestinies. If communities are to be empowered,expected to run and manage community assetsand organise themselves for action, they must begiven the power and resources to do so, not justthe burden of responsibility. If this is the case,many more resources will be needed to enable

21

CHAPTER 2

them to do so, for this is not a quick fix. Buildingcommunity capacity to realise the goal ofcommunity empowerment is a long termcommitment. Above all else, this should be achoice for communities rather than a duty.

Key Lessons

• Recognition that people will belong to manydifferent communities which may be basedon identity, interest and place, each of whichmay accrue different and unequal benefits.

• Some will be able to exercise more choice inrelation to the communities to which theybelong and the duration of that membership.

• Community development workers shouldensure that new communities are sufficientlyclose knit to afford support to their membersbut also sufficiently loose to avoid oppressionand exclusion.

• There must be sufficient space andopportunities for interaction to enablecommunities to develop.

• Creating communities that are empoweredrequires long term commitment andresources.

22

CHAPTER 3

3.1 IntroductionThe New Towns programme is often referred toas one of the most ambitious urban planningexercises of the twentieth century. Influenced byEbenezer Howard’s concept of the garden city,the new towns have accommodated over twomillion people and provided over one million jobs(English Partnerships, online). The literature thatemerged around the time of completion of thenew towns hailed them largely as a success.However, the literature was sparse and much ofit either uncritical of the New Towns programmeor lacking a comprehensive evaluative approach.The following chapter discusses some of thefindings of the key texts written at that time,concluding with a summary of the key lessons forcreating new communities.

3.2 Howard’s VisionEbenezer Howard (1850 – 1928) was the fatherof the new town movement. His book GardenCities of Tomorrow (1902) led directly to theconstruction of Letchworth and Welwyn GardenCity. Howard was a social visionary rather than aplanner, who envisaged garden cities of around1,000 acres joined together in a vast conurbationof perhaps millions of people, all connected byrapid transport systems. Moreover, thesecommunities would be self-governing with theland owned by the community and where thegrowing value of land would create a localwelfare state without the need for statesupport. As with so many visionaries Howard’srevolutionary ideas were corrupted and onlycertain elements were taken forward.

Howard sought to ‘marry’ the virtues of town andcountry without the vices of either to create“third alternative” (Howard [1898] 1989:8). Heconceived this alternative in his now famous threemagnets diagram:

Howard’s Three Magnets Diagram No. 1, pg.9

The virtues of the ‘town’ magnet wereopportunities for employment, high wages andsocial opportunities. However these were offsetby the vices of the city -high rents, lack of sunlightand fresh air and the “isolation of crowds”(ibid:10). While the country magnet “declaresherself to be the source of all beauty and wealth,she is very dull for lack of society and sparing ofher gifts” (ibid). Howard believed it was possibleto create such a place where the best of bothworlds could be found. He envisioned an area ofabout 6000 acres at the centre of which andcovering 1000 acres, would be the garden city(pg.14). The centre would comprise a large publicgarden surrounded by public buildings, whichwere in turn encircled by a larger park of about145 acres and the Crystal Palace – a glass arcadeof shopping and gardens. The city is arranged incircular form with a three-quarter of a mile radiusdecreasing in density from the centre to theoutskirts with an upper population limit of32,000. The furthest removed inhabitant wouldbe only 600 yards from the central park(pg.15-17).

3. THE NEW TOWN EXPERIENCE

23

CHAPTER 3

Howard also intended for the inhabitants of thenew city to be in close proximity to theiremployment, which was located in an industrialbelt on the outer ring of the town connected bya main line railway (pg.18). The most outer ringof the town comprised allotments, farms, fieldsand small holdings to produce goods for theinhabitants and “whosoever they please” (pg.19).When the city had reached its upper populationlimit, another town offering the same benefitsand opportunities, would be built a short distanceaway, connected by a rapid transport system toeventually form a cluster of cities. This isencompassed in Howard’s Social Cities diagram:

Howard’s Social Cities Diagram No 7 in Halland Ward 1993:23

Howard’s vision of cities in which work, homeand the goods needed for day-to-day living wereall contained within walking distance, connectedto other centres in relative close proximity toaccommodate growth, is commensurate withcontemporary notions of sustainability. It wasthese principles of self-containment which mostinfluenced the development of the New Townsprogramme, although the degree to which theyadhered to them varied.

24

CHAPTER 3

3.3 The New Towns ActIn October 1945 the Labour governmentappointed Lord Reith as chairman of a NewTowns Committee which concluded that newtowns should be created by government-sponsored corporations financed by thetaxpayer. This top-down planning was in directcontradiction to Howard’s bottom- up approach.The New Towns Act 1946 designated Stevenageas the first new town. The key principles of theAct were:

• new towns should be located sufficiently farfrom their mother city at least 40 km fromLondon and 20km from other metropolises;

• they should target a population of 20,000 to60,000 inhabitants;

• they should feature predominately single-family housing, albeit with much lowerdensity rates;

• they should be built, as far as possible, ongreenfield sites;

• a green belt should be created around thenew towns;

• quality sites should be chosen, but outsideareas of exceptional natural beauty, whichhad to be preserved;

• housing had to be organised inneighbourhood units around a primary andnursery school, a pub and shops selling staplegoods, with in every case a meeting-room forclubs and voluntary groups to meet;

• a balance had to be struck between housingand jobs, by making it obligatory for thedevelopment corporation to offer everybusiness moving into the new town onehousing unit for each job created.

The Act recommended the establishment ofdevelopment corporations, responsible for thedevelopment and layout of each new town. Thedevelopment corporations were given special andwide ranging powers with which to do this andwere answerable directly to the government(section 2). Funding of the new towns wouldcome in the form of loans from the Treasury, paidback over 60 years at the current rate of interest(section 12). The development corporationswould be wound up once they had fulfilled theirremit and assets and liabilities transferred to thelocal authorities (sections 14, 15). Any surplusafter the winding up of the developmentcorporations would be payable to theTreasury (section 15). However, there were someamendments made to the original act. Ratherthan transfer assets to the local authorities, thegovernment created the Commission for the NewTowns (CNT), which from 1961 was responsiblefor managing and disposing of the land andproperty assets of the development corporations.The CNT later merged with English Partnershipsand now owns about 5,700 hectares of landvalued in excess of £1bn. By 2009 EnglishPartnerships had merged with part of theHousing Corporation to form the new Homes andCommunities Agency.

25

CHAPTER 3

The Act enabled the development of 32 newtowns in three phases across the UK between1947 and 1970. The first generation of newtowns concentrated on easing congestion andhousing shortage in major cities, especiallyLondon. Eight of the first 11 new towns werelocated in relative close proximity to London(Basildon, Bracknell, Crawley, Harlow, Hatfield,Hemel Hempstead, Stevenage and WelwynGarden City). The other first generation newtowns were Corby, Cwmbran, Newton Aycliffe,and Peterlee. The second generation new townswere Redditch, Runcorn, Skelmersdale andWashington. The third generation new townswere Central Lancashire, Milton Keynes,Northampton, Peterborough, Telford andWarrington. The remit of some of these newtowns was to attract new industry in regions ofeconomic decline and address forecastedpopulation growth and housing demand. At thetime of their near completion, the new townswere viewed largely as a successful endeavour ofa social experiment in urban planning. Theenthusiasm with which they were celebrated isepitomised in the following quote:

‘We claim full success for the first stages ofthe experiment in creating British newtowns...They provide good homes in healthy,pleasant and well planted surroundings, neverfar from the country and in most cases nearplaces of work. They are centres of efficientand advancing industry and commerce;equipped with modern urban services,schools, shops, churches and public buildings.They are financially sound, not only moreeconomical to construct and maintain thanany alternative type of development, butpositively remunerative as capital investments’(Osborn and Whitick 1963:133).

The above quote however is qualified with theacknowledgement that the new towns do not“meet every possible requirement of every kindof human being, every personal or associatedactivity in urban civilisation. No town old or newis perfect in this sense” (1977:90). It is in thisspirit that the new towns are judged successful;many have experienced some difficulties, but nomore and no different than in wider society (Pitt1972:140). The notion of ‘success’ must also bequalified. Aldridge argues that the New TownPolicy was far too vague in what it was supposedto achieve and how, which greatly inhibitsattempts to evaluate their success or otherwise(1979:162). Aldridge refers to a consultationdocument produced by the Department of theEnvironment in 1974 on the new towns inEngland and Wales. The document was publishedas a “comprehensive review of the new townspolicy” but there were few recommendations, itavoided prickly subjects and simply endorsed thestatus quo (ibid:157). According to Aldridge thedocument was “bland, imprecise, a little selfjustifying and propagandist – even patronising”(ibid:159).

The literature on new towns during this time wasdiverse and fragmented, much of it in the formof annual reports of the New Town DevelopmentCorporations which “whistle a happy tune” andthe locating of which was like “panning for gold”(ibid:ix, 54). The development of each new townwill not be discussed in detail, but will be referredto where they are attributed special mention inthe literature for their success or failure in relationto aspects of the developments.

26

CHAPTER 3

3.4 The Masterplan principlesAlthough considered on the whole relativelysuccessful, all of the new towns experienced somedifficulties. The enthusiasm with which they wereapproached began to wane as some of thedevelopment corporations themselves realisedthey had not achieved all they intended;

‘On the one hand there is a sense ofachievement that so much has beenaccomplished; on the other there is anappreciation that not all the high hopes heldin 1947 have been fulfilled.’ (HemelHempstead DC, 1957 in Aldridge 1979:41).

In the literature, discussion of the extent of successis structured around the guiding principles of newtowns which were that they should be “selfcontained and balanced communities for work andliving” (Reith Committee, 1945). These principleswere integrated into the masterplans to form abroad pattern of development whilst allowing fora degree of variation for each new town:

• segregation of home and work

• opportunity to enjoy open air exercise andnature

• privacy for the individual family

• some measure of community life

• 2 storey houses with private gardens

• Largely dependent on motor transport, ideallythe private car

The masterplan was based on ideas about theways of urban life (Gibberd 1972:90). Most earlyschemes consisted of two storey houses, mainlyterraced with rear gardens, arranged around theroads to forms closes, squares and other patternsconsistent with the garden city design. It becameapparent that repeating this design over largeareas resulted in a monotonous feel. The designsevolved to include three story and patio houses,combinations of houses and flats and tall flatblocks which were less tied to road layout. Therewas also a change in the materials used, undergovernment directive, to supplement traditionalbrick and timber with ‘non-standard’ materials.Gibberd believed that Harlow represented anexample of “design coming to terms withindustrialised building” (ibid:98-99).

Balanced communities?

There was a desire for a ‘balanced community’although the precise meaning of this wasambiguous. In relation to class, it was assumedthat this would be achieved by attracting a variedrange of employment and industry and providingdifferent types of housing (Cresswell and Thomas1972:73; Pitt 1972:138). While none of the newtowns can be said to have a serious imbalance,they have tended to have a higher proportion ofskilled manual workers than the rest of thecountry as a whole (ibid). Housing layoutfavoured separate clusters of rented and freeholdhousing rather than being mixed in the samestreets. However this did not lead to a classpolarisation in the new towns (Brook-Taylor1972:133).

A popular design layout for housing used in manyof the new towns was based on the Radburnlayout to achieve the segregation of pedestriansand traffic. This provides pedestrian access at thefront of the houses, which are situated alonga green facing each other, with vehicularaccess via the back. It was believed that such alayout was conducive to privacy and safetywhilst being “aesthetically pleasant” and “a pitywhere it [did] not feature” (Osborn andWhittick 1963:126,290). The layout of suchneighbourhoods was thought to encouragesocial groupings and encourage socialinteraction (Gibberd 1972:93; Llewlyn-Davies1972:102). However, Pitt notes that there was“overwhelming dissatisfaction” among residentswith this design and it led to a “closed-in” feeling(1972:139).

27

CHAPTER 3

Neighbourhoods and Community facilities

The notion of self containment, described as“having the full range of amenities” underpinnedideas about social interaction in the new towns(Aldridge 1979:108). Many of the early new townestates were based on the neighbourhood unit, inwhich there were schools, shops and communityfacilities within walking distance of each home(Gibberd 1972:90; Price 1972:118; Aldridge1979:129). These were intended to provide forthe day-to-day needs of the communities. Eachof these neighbourhoods usually had a communitycentre, which was often little more than a hut butprovided a focal point for organised social life (Pitt1972:135). The provision of community facilitieshas varied through “luck and judgement” oftenexperiencing long delays (ibid). Aldridge offers anexample of such delays in East Kilbride whereresidents campaigned for a cinema from 1951-1955. It was finally received in 1966 (pg.55,74).Pitt also offers an example in Crawley where theonly new public building, a civic hall, was designedas a foyer for an assembly hall that was never builtand remains wholly unsuitable. Various schemeswere planned but “never left the drawing board”despite years of local protest and pressure(1972:136). Duff echoes these sentiments (1961).He argues that the common suggestion of usinglocal schools for community activities is inadequateand that even where development corporationshave obtained planning permission to buildcommunity buildings, they cannot secure thefinance to do so (1961:81-82).

There was no shortage of community activity andmany note vigorous social, recreational andcultural clubs, groups and societies. Osborn andWhitick (1963) include Corby, Redditch, Harlow,Hatfield, Stevenage and Basildon among thosewith many diverse community associations, butentirely lacking in premises. However, Brooke-Taylor includes Harlow along with Crawley andHemel Hempstead for having good communityfacilities (1972:131). Osborn and Whittick didnot see the “provision of social life” as theresponsibility of those building the new towns,rather it must “spring from the peoplethemselves”. It was however, their responsibilityto provide the setting and premises for suchactivity (1963:301).

Osborn and Whittick argue that population size isan important determinant in fostering communityspirit and the continuing tendency to increasepopulation targets goes against the principles onwhich the new towns were planned and inhibitthis (1977:631). The lack of community facilitieswas a general criticism across many of the newtowns and for those that had community facilities,obtaining them was a “long story ofprocrastination” (1977:457; Duff 1961). Becauseof the age structure of the new towns, someexperienced a ‘bulge’ of 15-21 year olds (Self1972:9). This presented particular problems withthe provision of youth facilities.

Many new residents experienced a ‘gap’ betweenanticipation and reality of community and socialfacilities (Brooke-Taylor 1972:125). Thomasargued that “a little planned deprivation” was notnecessarily a bad thing and that sharing acommon adversary was the best way to engendercommunity spirit (1972:52). This, he claims, wascertainly the case in his experience at HemelHempstead. Osborn and Whitick also support thisview, arguing that the absence of facilities “threwpeople back on their own resources” and avigorous community life “sprang into being”(1977:19). In the early stages of development, thefeeling of being a “pioneer” can, according toDenington, engender a sense of belonging andcommunity spirit. However, there is a limit to theenthusiasm of the pioneer:

‘They have a strong feeling of being involvedin something new and exciting and of‘belonging’...They survive the mud and lackof facilities because they feel adventurous.They may have to put up with travellingshops or shops in converted houses andwhen the enthusiasm wears off, the timetaken to get a substantial shopping centrebuilt and operating or to provide places ofentertainment, causes disgruntlement. Theyget tired of having no buses, no chemist,no doctor’s surgery and no competingsupermarket next door. They find there ismore to happy living than a good joband a nice house with a view.’ (Denington1972: 146).

28

CHAPTER 3

Howard’s vision and the Reith committee hadplans for recreational and cultural activities butthey had disappeared from the new towns plansby the 50s and most centres were not starteduntil 1954 (Aldridge 1979:55). The first phase ofnew towns did little with regards to ‘socialdevelopment’ or community facilities. There werea few who had the foresight to appoint dedicatedstaff responsible for social development whichincluded community development activities at theoutset, although these were to fluctuate over theyears (Hemel Hempstead, Harlow, Stevenageand Crawley) (Brooke-Taylor:1972:130). Theattention, or lack of it, on social developmentbegan to change with the later new towns andthere was increasing importance attached to thisand informal social relationships in relation toencouraging a sense of belonging andattachment (Aldridge 1979; Brooke-Taylor1972:130-131). This led to the establishment ofsocial development departments in many of thedevelopment corporations.

Social Development Departments

The activities of these departments were wideranging and covered community developmentactivities, social planning, information andparticipation. The size and scope of them variedacross the development corporations with somehaving no department at all. Any sense of howthey might proceed was established by trial anderror (Brooke-Taylor 1972:130). They helped newresidents to establish social clubs and tenantsassociations, organised social activities, provideda feedback loop between residents anddevelopment officials and generally helpedresidents settle in and develop a sense ofbelonging (Brooke-Taylor 1972:130; Denington1972:147; Gibberd 1972:98; Osborn and Whitick1977:93; Aldridge 1979:113). Despite this rangeof activities and the increasing importance withwhich they were viewed, there was nocomprehensive service in any of the new townsand the social development officers were notwelcome by the planners and other professionals(Brooke-Taylor 1972:130). Nor were the resourcesto fund community development staff, buildingsand activities forthcoming.

This remains the case throughout the New Townsprogramme. Funding for community projectsvaried across ministerial departments and nopolicy was developed to set aside cash for these.Development corporations in Harlow, Cwmbran,Stevenage and Welwyn Garden City commentedin the 1953 annual reports on the limitations onspending for community facilities. Harlowdevelopment corporation reiterated this in 1957but it remained unresolved in 1970 (Aldridge1979:49,113). Milton Keynes was to have asocial plan in parallel with the physical/financialplan, but it did not materialise (ibid). Despitebeing a large and active department in thesecond generation new towns, socialdevelopment does not have a pivotal position.Throughout the New Town programme,expenditure cuts and squabbles over who shouldfund what, curtailed spending on “frills” such ascommunity facilities (ibid:49). However, manysaw this as an integral part of creating acomplete community and recommendedprovision of staff and resources to achieve this.Such recommendations appear to have fallen ondeaf ears.

29

CHAPTER 3

3.5 Conclusion and SummaryAlthough there is no comprehensive evaluationof the New Towns programme, the review of thefragmented literature in the preceding sectionalludes to some common problems in thenew towns even in the early stages of theirdevelopment. Some general criticisms notcovered in the previous section were inadequatepublic transport and an inaccessibility of the newtowns to poorer sections of the community. Both impact on achieving balance and selfcontainment. Some critics decry the suburban,low-rise style of the new towns but this wasexactly what appealed to their new residents -typically the ambitious working class. It was onlywhere architects and planners sought to create abrave new world that things went badly wrong.Cumbernauld, with its brutalist town centre andreliance on the motor car has been voted as oneof the worst places to live in Britain (Jordison andKieran 2003).

There was a continuing need for and neglect ofcommunity provision, despite persistent calls fromseveral of the development corporations. Thisneglect was primarily related to funding of suchprovisions, which were either not figured into theplans or were the first to be cut when there werelimitations on spending and resources becamedifficult to obtain. Despite, or because of this,many new towns were humming withcommunity activities and community spirit. Thissometimes appeared to “spring into being” andat other times was fostered by the communitydevelopment officers employed in the socialdevelopment departments. Although oftenmarginalised in the administrative structure of thenew towns, the community development staffplayed a key role in settling in new comers andproviding a link between them and thedevelopment process as a whole, and inestablishing new communities. Havingcommunity development staff in place at theoutset “pays off handsomely” (Thomas 1972:52).

The English new towns have accommodated overtwo million people, provided more than onemillion jobs and on the whole have evolved intoeconomically successful communities. Whetherthey are socially successful is probably, as Chouen Lai said of the French Revolution, “too soonto tell”.

Key Lessons

• Importance of community facilities forgenerating sense of belonging.

• Community and social outcomes should begiven same attention and resources aseconomic outcomes.

• Community facilities developed in step withgrowing population.

• Importance of role of ‘social development’staff in supporting new residents.

• Need reliable and consistent source offunding for community facilities anddevelopment staff.

• Clearly defined role and secure position forcommunity development staff.

30

CHAPTER 4

4.1 IntroductionIn 2002 the Select Committee on Transport, LocalGovernment and the Regions was “astonished”to learn that the new town ‘experiments’ hadnever been evaluated. As such, urgent evaluationwas called for which “identified good practiceand mistakes before any major new settlementsare considered” (para. 39, 40). Learning lessonsfrom the New Towns programme is particularlypertinent given the government’s targets ofproviding three million new homes by 2020through Growth Areas, New Growth Points andEco-Towns. Despite these calls, there remains apaucity of research on the New Townsprogramme. There have been a few attempts inrecent years to draw out transferable lessons fromthese for current new developments. The NewTown programmes were wide-ranging and therecent research tends to be equally so. The focusof this chapter is less wide-ranging, concentratingon the development of communities. A selectionof recent research is outlined below, identifyingthe key findings of each and suggestions for whatthese might mean for developing newcommunities. The chapter concludes with asummary of the key lessons across the research.

4.2 TCPA (2007) Best Practice inUrban Extensions and NewSettlements

Aim and Scope

This report is carried out by TCPA and identifiestransferable lessons for new developments froma series of case studies, each of which are atvarying stages of development. The case studiesincluded differ in composition and size and offerexamples of urban extension and new settlementtypes. Each case study provides details of numberand type of dwellings, community infrastructureand factors determining the overall aims of whatthe developments hoped to achieve. The themeswhich are of most relevance here are creating theidentity of new developments, cohesion andcommunity participation.

4. LEARNING FROM THE PAST –Recent Literature on Communities and New Towns

31

CHAPTER 4

Community engagement

Lessons around community engagement in thecontext of new developments were identified inone particular new settlement. CaterhamBarracks established a development trust (CBDT)comprised of local authority reps, the developer,new and existing residents, as part of s106agreements which received awards for its level ofcommunity consultation during the developmentprocess. The methods employed by CBDT andachievements were:

• A community planning weekend whichattracted over 1000 people.

• Themed workshops covering housing, thelocal economy, social provision, movement,transport, and the quality of the environment.

• Seven interest groups formed drawn fromlocal community covering sports and leisure,townscape and heritage, arts and culture,environment, employment and enterprise andcommunity management.

• Interest groups held further meetings andinvolved additional residents.

• Specific workshops targeting young peopleand children.

• Consultation exercises resulted inmodifications to the original masterplan.

According to TCPA the consultationexercises have:

• Ensured integration of new development withexisting neighbourhoods.

• Through the special interest groups the needsof existing the community as well as potentialnew community were identified and aidedcohesion between the two settlements.

The CBDT is seen as “continuing success” and assuch is recommended as a model for otherdevelopments to follow (pg.37).

Best practice

The remainder of the report includes examples ofbest practice across all areas of new settlementdevelopment in order to create successful,balanced communities. Although tangential tothe focus of this review, the elements of newsettlement developments are interrelated and thesuccess or failure of one of these parts is likely tohave an impact on the development as a whole.With this in mind, a summary of these widerelements of best practice are:

• New developments should have distinctiveidentities to provide sense of place andbelonging whilst not being too out ofcharacter with adjacent/nearby communities.

• Shared public space based on short walkingdistances encourages cohesion andbelonging.

• Design codes should be employed to ensurean overall coherent theme but also allow adegree of variation to avoid ‘visual boredom’.

• Mixed use areas and pepper pot mix ofhousing types and tenure.

• Infrastructure – strategic and communityshould be developed before residential areasand before residents move into area.

• Adequate public transport withindevelopment and linkages to adjacentsettlements essential.

• Developments delivered most efficiently whenthere is a single land owner/developer.

• A single body such as Management orCommunity Trust is recommended to overseeoverall development.

• Community involvement (existing and new)essential to ensure cohesion and interest indevelopment.

• Upfront investment.

• Critical mass between 5000-10,000dwellings.

32

CHAPTER 4

Aldridge referred to the TCPA as ‘uncriticalcheerleaders’ of the New Towns programme (inBennett 2005:18). It is possible that TCPA arerather optimistic about what has been achievedin some of their case studies. Residents’ websitesindicated there were problems around theprovision of community facilities, car parking,public transport, retail facilities, anti-socialbehaviour and crime (Solihull, online). Thissuggests that what looked good in theory maynot have worked in practice (Bennett 2005:19).

4.3 DCLG (2006) TransferrableLessons from the New Towns

Aim and Scope

This is an extensive literature review carried outby Oxford-Brooks University. The aim was toidentify lessons from the New Towns programmethat might be transferrable to the Growth Areasbased on the assumption that these might act asa starting point for policy and practice. Theresearch identified over 2000 books, articles andother published material, around 200 of whichwere reviewed. The range of sources includedgovernment/local government publications,journal articles, newspaper articles, books,research reports, conference papers, thesis/dissertations and other published materials fromprofessional bodies (pg.18). The findings werestructured around themes with key lessons foreach presented in a series of tables. The themeof creating communities is of key relevance here.The authors note the difficulty of identifyingtransferrable lessons in relation to creatingcommunities because of social and economicshifts that have taken place.

Creating communities

The authors make the following observationsin relation to creating communities in thenew towns:

• Identified community development officers(CDO) as playing a ‘vital’ role in creating newcommunities (pg.40).

• The activities and methods employed byCDOs varied across each of the new townswith little assessment of what worked best.

• Local Councils for Voluntary Service used asstarting point to establish neighbourhoodassociations to facilitate residents’participation in decision making. This alsoidentified as vital means to create integratedcommunities (pg.41).

• Most voluntary activity came from women inthe new towns.

• Community and social infrastructure (multi-use community centres, sports facilities,children’s facilities, schools, health centres,playgrounds, shops, post offices) were withinwalking distance and seen as central tomaking a ‘living community’. The provisionof this was seen as the responsibility of thedevelopment corporation (ibid).

• Housing stock is an important factor increating cohesive communities. Earlier newtowns were dominated by rented housingwhich failed to attract the middle classes;there was a lack of housing for older peopleand the needs of BME groups were notcatered for. These factors inhibited trulycohesive and integrated communities frombeing achieved (ibid).

• There were often tensions between newlyarrived residents and the establishedcommunities. It is important to treat existingresidents with equal importance to newresidents to avoid tensions (pg.42).

• Although there is no consistent evidence andfurther research is required, the authors citeevidence suggesting that it could take up 15years before residents of new townsestablished stable social networks and wereconsidered ‘integrated communities’ (ibid).

33

CHAPTER 4

• Master planning identified as playing asignificant role in creating integratedcommunities. This worked best when therewas a clear idea of the in-coming population,participation in the planning process,providing choice and adaptability andkeeping community and social aspects on theagenda (pg.43).

• Where community infrastructure was alreadyin place, social networks were formed morereadily.

• New towns tend to have more communityorganisations than older cities withcomparable socio-economic characteristics(pg.57).

• Issues around funding provision.

Lessons

In view of these observations, the authors putforward the following lessons:

• Put in place mechanisms for communitysupport and social capital building. This caninclude community development workers; a‘community chest’ for funding small scalecommunity projects; working with thecommunity and voluntary sector; workingwith church and faith groups; providingresources such as buildings, computers, etc.In the current climate, a CommunityDevelopment Trust that could be funded bydeveloper contributions may be considered.

Harness the support and collaboration ofneighbourhood councils, neighbourhoodassociations and voluntary organisations.

• Ensure that local social facilities are alreadybuilt before the community moves into thearea, and that buildings can be multi-use.

• It is important to have a mix of housing stock,in terms of tenures and providers, andprovide the appropriate facilities and services(families, older people, single people, etc.).

• There needs to be a consideration of theexisting population, treating existing residentsas being of equal importance as the newones. Anticipate, and build a strategy fordealing with resistance to new settlementsfrom the existing community in the area, orfrom communities nearby (pg.46).

There is a clear role for community developmentwork in creating cohesive and integratedcommunities, which in turns rests on theprovision of facilities to enable this. What isunclear is the definition of cohesion andintegration being used by the authors andwhether this is applicable to current policyconceptions. The nature of social networks is alsounclear and whether these are strong but closeknit or loose and wide-ranging. These arereferred to in the current policy context asbridging and bonding social capital respectivelyand each accrues different benefits. It issuggested in recent social capital literature thatthe presence of both types is required in order tocreate cohesive and integrated communities.

34

CHAPTER 4

4.4 Bennett, J et al (2006)Would You Live Here?Making the GrowthAreas Communities ofChoice IPPR

Aim and Scope

This report draws upon qualitative research withprospective and existing residents of the ThamesGateway growth area (Bennett and Morris 2006).It focuses on how inclusive and cohesivecommunities can be achieved in the face of socialand economic challenges in the Growth Areas.The authors highlight the potential for tensionsbetween existing and new communities andsuggest that unless sufficient attention andresources are given over to communityinfrastructure and development, creating inclusiveand cohesive communities will not be achieved(pg.27).

The ‘Right Mix’

The authors argue that if sustainable communitiesare to be achieved, the right balance must gobeyond tenure mix. The ‘right mix’ should alsoinclude considerations of income, householdtypes, ages and ethnicities (pg.21). Looking atthe experience of mixed communities to date,those that encourage mix are characterised by:

• Avoidance of mono-tenure social housing

• Local economies which support variedcommercial services

• Good social relations between social rentersand private owners

• Attractive places for families to move to

Although they support the notion of mixedtenure developments, they argue that there is“limited evidence” to support the benefitsassociated with mixed tenure communities (ibid).Furthermore, even where there is evidence ofpositive outcomes in mixed communities, it is notclear exactly why this is the case. They suggest itis a mix of households with different socialcharacteristics which deliver benefits (ibid).

Another important consideration in creatingsustainable communities is the extent to whichthe profile of the new communities will mix withthat of the existing community (pg.22). Theauthors suggest that Growth Areas outside ofLondon are likely to attract families with childrenrather than single households or childless couples.They also suggest that this depends onperceptions around the available facilities, such asschools, open spaces and health care, etc.Responses from research participants indicatethat the capacity of public services to cope withpopulation growth was a key area of concern forexisting residents and many of them believed anyimprovements would only benefit newcomers(pg.23). Existing residents also expressed concernabout the different social and ethnicbackgrounds of newcomers and the extent to

which they would integrate. Some of this wasexpressed using racist language and should“sound a strong warning about the prospect forcommunity cohesion in some parts of the growthareas” (ibid).

35

CHAPTER 4

Lessons

In order to achieve sustainable communities,Bennett et al suggest the following must beaddressed:

• ‘tenure blind’ developments, so that socialrented and affordable housing units areproperly integrated with market housing andbuilt to the same standards.

• include a high quality public realm, supportedby a single management organisation.

• include public spaces and communityfacilities, which are essential to providingplaces for social interaction and as a focalpoint for community development action.

• include access to play and sports facilities forchildren and young people

• maximise the potential role for ICT to supportthe development of local social networks.

• have public services delivered alongsideresidential development and be accessible to,and reflect the needs of, existing residents aswell as new residents.

• provision of resources to support communitydevelopment work. Failure to do so risks newcommunities developing reputations similarto those of the new towns (lifeless) which can“significantly damage the ability to becomeplaces of choice” (pg.28).

Bennett et al draw particular attention to the lastpoint, arguing that Growth Areas will have“significant problems” if this warning is notheeded.

4.5 Bennett, J New Towns togrowth areas LessonsIPPR 2005

Aim and Scope

This paper attempts to draw out lessons from theNew Town programmes which are applicable tothe Growth Areas. Whilst recognising that thenew towns were developed in a very differentpolitical and policy climate, the author arguesthose delivering the Growth Areas are likely toface similar challenges. The paper focuses on anumber of themes that were key features of theNew Towns Programme, which are most relevantto the Growth Areas comprising six in total. Twoof these are of relevance for this chapter arebalanced communities and commercial and socialdevelopment.

Balanced communities

This section outlines the differences between theconcept of ‘balanced communities’ used withinthe new towns and the current sustainablecommunities plan. Bennett asserts that the keydifference is that the new towns had a clear visionof what kind of communities they wanted tocreate. This is lacking in the current policyframework but is underpinned by a presumptionof a mix of people of different ages, householdtypes and incomes and a wide range of othercomponents, including economic, democratic,environmental and physical factors. The mainpublic policy mechanism for achieving balance isthe provision of a diversity of housing types, interms of size, tenure and cost within a given area.Bennett suggests that there is a danger that thebalance of communities in the Growth Areascould be determined by public expenditureconstraints and the limitations of planning policyrather than what is appropriate for communitysustainability or housing need, particularly giventhe absence of a clear vision of new communitiesin the Growth Areas (pg.9). Lessons along thistheme are therefore:

36

CHAPTER 4

• The need for a vision for the newcommunities in the Growth Areas.

• Priorities about who the additional housing isfor should be part of comprehensive plans fordelivery in each of the Growth Areas.

• The need for clear objectives about theappropriate housing types, including socialhousing, which must be delivered to achievemixed communities.

Commercial and Social Development

The social and commercial development of newtowns was dominated by excessive paternalism,despite efforts to avoid this, and represented apassive approach to addressing inequality basedon a ‘trickle down’ effect. Commercial facilitieswere not prioritised, because of delays andfinancial difficulties in delivering some of thefundamental elements of infrastructure.Commercial development had to wait untilhousing development made them economicallyviable (pg.15).

There were significant numbers of socialdevelopment staff employed to foster socialnetworks of new residents, help them settle in totheir new homes and address the ‘new townblues’, especially where local shops, facilities andpublic transport had yet to be developed. Thesocial development staff also encouragedparticipation in sports and social activities,ensured planning decisions were sensitive tosocial issues and ensured residents were involvedin planning decisions. Although never formallyevaluated the author suggests that the continuedstrong emphasis on social developmentthroughout the New Towns programme wasindicative of the benefits (pg.16).

The lack of social and commercial facilities wouldhave contributed to some of the stigma that builtup about the new towns, which in the long runimpacted on their ability to attract furtherinvestment. The Sustainable Communities Planplaces significant emphasis on cohesion and localculture and a key lesson for the Growth Areas isthe recognition that large scale housing growthrequires skills and capacity to address socialdevelopment. Therefore:

• Responsibility and resources for socialdevelopment needs to be allocated toagencies with the capacity to deliver supportto new communities.

• Capital funding to support the provision ofsocial, cultural and community facilities willalso be essential to the creation of sustainablecommunities.

37

CHAPTER 4

4.6 Hall, P (1993) New Town,New Home: The Lessonsof Experience CalousteFoundation

Aim and Scope

The focus of the book is on the new townsdeveloped or extended under the provisions ofthe New Town Act of 1946, 1959 and 1965 andexcludes NI new towns because of differences instructure and administration. Beginning withHoward’s vision of a ‘social city’, Hall draws upona wide range of sources including academic,policy and media reports to trace the evolution ofthe new towns. He goes onto identify lessonsfrom the new towns in relation to the differentoutcomes they sought to achieve, such asemployment, green spaces and better housing.Community development activity in the newtowns was carried out under the remit of socialdevelopment and often under a range of differenttitles. Key observations:

• Reith Committee 1964 identified a need forcommunity development in order to promotea sense of belonging (pg.51).

• Although widely employed in the new towns,social development officers were notenshrined in legislation (pg.52).

• Obtaining development officers andcommunity provisions, such as communitycentres, proved difficult and involved‘conspiracies’ and conflict (pg.53-54).

• Social development the first to go in spendingcuts (54).

• The status of social and communitydevelopment was dependent on the prioritiesof the manager of the New Town (pg.54).

• Provision of social development officers basedon an assumption that new towns hadparticular problems which existingsettlements did not and that NT residents hadweak community membership (pg.51, 56).

• Assumptions that ‘neighbourliness’ (theequivalent to today’s notion of cohesion),could be created by the physical design of theneighbourhoods (pg.52).

• Activities undertaken by social developmentofficers included providing information onplanning, acting as a mobile CAB, organisingsocial activities and get people together torespond to perceived injustices (pg.53-58).

• Importance of community developmentrecognised in second generation of newtowns which provided a dedicated budget(pg.58).

On the success of building communities, Hallconcludes that although an elusive term,‘community’ however defined was as present inthe new towns as anywhere else (pg.147). Thereare two key lessons that can be drawn from theseobservations:

• Community development has a key role toplay in creating new communities.

• In order for community development to beeffective and reduce the risk of becomingmarginalised, political, financial and policyprovision must be made to accommodate it.

38

CHAPTER 4

4.7 Conclusion and SummaryCommon themes emerge across the literature inrelation to creating communities in the newtowns. In much of the literature there is anassumption that the physical environment andlayout will create community cohesion. Theseassumptions also underpinned much of thedesign/layout of the new towns. Achievingcommunity cohesion or neighbourliness as it wasreferred to then, based upon the physicalenvironment did not happen in the new townsand yet is still sought, by the same means incontemporary developments. The literature alsotends to ignore issues of tenure balance andlettings policy which were first highlighted byDavid Page in Building for Communities (1993).Although this report took a generic look athousing estates the lessons were equallyapplicable to new towns, and stressed theimportance of avoiding mono-tenure estates,pepper potting social housing among markethousing and applying a sensible lettings policy, sothat disadvantaged tenants were notdisproportionately housed in any neighbourhood.

It would appear that lessons from the originalnew towns have not been learned in relation tothe limits of what the physical environment canachieve. New developments need co-ordinationof all the parts, including funding and communityinfrastructure, to ensure that the failure of onedoes not signal the failure of the whole.

Despite being identified as an essentialrequirement in the creation of communities,community development work has not found apermanent and strategic position. This issymptomatic of the ways in which communitydevelopment work has often been seen as anoptional extra throughout its history (for examplesee Popple 1995; Taylor 2003). The researchreviewed here provides opportunities to learnfrom the past. The fact that current newdevelopments have highlighted similar issues tothose of the new towns suggest theseopportunities have been missed.

Summary of Key Lessons

• A clear vision of who the community will beand addressing their requirements.

• Adequate funding for communityinfrastructure is essential.

• Dedicated community development workersplay a key role.

• Financial and policy provision is needed toensure that community developmentmaintains a strategic position and does notbecome marginalised or omitted.

• Neighbourhood design may facilitatecommunity cohesion and integration butdoes not determine it.

• Involvement of new and existing communityin the development to promote a sense ofbelonging.

• Holistic view of developments to ensureco-ordination of the parts.

39

CHAPTER 5

5.1 CambourneCambourne is a new settlement of 3,300 homes9 miles to the west of Cambridge. It is not due tobe completed until 2012.

The history of Cambourne illustrates the lengthyplanning process that any major developmentgoes through in the UK. Cambourne had itsgenesis in the 1986 consultation draft ofCambridgeshire County Council’s structure planwhich included proposals for two newsettlements in the county. The exact locations ofthese were not shown, but after 3 years ofconsultation and deliberation the governmentapproved the final draft of the structure plan in1989, including proposals for a new settlementof 3,000 homes on the A45 (now the A14) tothe east or west of Cambridge. It was not until1992 that the district council received an outlineplanning application for Monkfield Park, as it wasthen known. Work did not begin until 1998, ledby a developer consortium comprising Bovis,Bryant and George Wimpey, and is due to finishin 2012. Generally, the quality of design andconstruction is high and the settlement has anintegrated feel, the design is pastiche neo-Georgian or Victorian.

Cambourne comprises three distinct villages –Great, Upper (not yet complete) and LowerCambourne. The finished development willinclude over 3,300 homes, a business park, asupermarket and filling station, village greens andwildlife areas, a cricket pitch and outdoor sportsarea, a church and burial ground, two primaryschools, allotments, a high street with shops, anursery, a health centre and library and a hotelwith conference facilities.

Approximately thirty percent of the new homesare affordable, provided by three housingassociations. These properties have been split50/50 between Cambridge City Council andSouth Cambridgeshire District Council. For manynew tenants, Cambourne was their firstexperience of living away from Cambridge or inthe countryside. This led to some settlingin/cohesion difficulties.

There were also concerns raised locally at the highproportion of properties being let privately, andfeelings that this led to a high turnover ofresidents and acted as a barrier to communitycohesion.

The overall density of Cambourne’s residentialareas is 30 homes per hectare, ranging from 49per hectare in the village centres to 12 per hectareat the edges. Although there is a 20 minute busservice to Cambridge, public transport links areperceived to be poor, and most residents arereliant on private transport. Moreover, there is nosecondary school or public swimming pool,cinema or theatre – which is not surprising in acommunity of this size.

By 2009, the settlement had an active communitylife with many groups and community websitesup and running. However, the developers failedto meet many of the milestones in the planningagreement for the provision of communityfacilities and local campaigners had to battle hardto ensure these were provided. Paradoxically,these battles helped to bring the communitytogether. South Cambridgeshire District Councilhas worked hard to build relationships withlocal people and encourage community activity;there is a vibrant network of social andcommunity activity.

5. CASE STUDIES – Cambridgeshire

40

CHAPTER 5

Cambourne – key lessons

• The section 106 planning agreement shouldset out a clear timetable for completion of allunits, not just the affordable units.

• Developments of this nature require a strongmaster-plan and design code. Housingassociation partnerships need to be based onco-operation. Associations should not beforced to work together.

• Strong leadership from the local authority isessential, particularly where unforeseenevents such as the credit crisis affect planningprocesses.

• The community needs to be involved in theprocurement process for communitybuildings.

• Youth facilities (including youth workers) arean essential part of any new community;freely accessible ‘youth spaces’ are alsocrucial.

5.2 Orchard Park (formerlyArbury Park)

This is an urban extension of 900 homes on thenorthern fringe of Cambridge, of which 280 areaffordable. The master developer, GallagherEstates, sets out a vision on its website “to createa viable and sustainable community, which isintegrated into the local area.” The site includeslocal shops, a hotel, a primary school, play areasand research and technology based premises toact as a noise buffer adjacent to the A14. The siteis split into four notional neighbourhoods, TheHedges, The Square, The Circus and The Park.

Gallaghers carried out infrastructure and masterplanning but individual parcels of land were soldon to private developers and housingassociations. Although the site sits in SouthCambridgeshire, it is perceived as an urbanextension to Cambridge. However, it could beargued that this site should never have been usedfor residential development as it sits alongside theA14 and no part of the site is less than 300metres from this busy and noisy road.

The housing association partnership was putin place following a competition run byCambridge City and South CambridgeshireDistrict Councils. The housing associationconsortium is led by Places for People groupworking with a partnership comprising bpha(lead), Papworth Trust and King Street HousingSociety. Places for People and the bpha group didnot bid together but were required to worktogether by the local authorities. It is fair to saythat this partnership has been strained from theoutset and has not delivered an integratedpackage of affordable housing.

Work began in 2005, and by the end of 2008around 350 homes had been completed and theprimary school was open. However, by this date,although all of the affordable housing had beencompleted, work stopped on the remainingprivate housing due to the impact of the creditcrisis, leaving around 550 homes un-built.

As at February 2009 the site resembles a mouthwith many missing teeth. It is a patchwork offinished sites surrounded by empty sites, oftenlittered with untidy building materials. Many ofthe roads do not have their top surface and manystreet lights do not work. There is no timetablefor completion of the properties. The overalldesign of Orchard Park does not appear to be co-ordinated and individual parcels of land appear tohave been developed without reference tosurrounding parcels. The commercial and researchunits alongside the A14 have not been built andit appears that the developer may be seeking achange of use for these units, or even seeking tobuild residential units along this strip.

A Scrutiny committee set up by SCDC in 2008looked at the issues caused by the credit crisis,but the situation on the ground does not appearto have improved. A community developmentplan was put in place early in the development,led by bpha, but this has not been amended totake account of the cessation of work on the site.There has been little or no consultation withresidents over the delay in completing thedevelopment and the opportunities this maypresent in terms of spare land, which could beutilised for a variety of community uses.

41

CHAPTER 5

Orchard Park: Key lessons

• The section 106 planning agreement shouldset out a clear timetable for completion of allunits, not just the affordable units.

• Developments of this nature require a strongmaster-plan and design code.

• Housing association partnerships need to bebased on co-operation. Associations shouldnot be forced to work together.

• Community development plans need to beflexible to take account of external changessuch as the credit crisis.

• Strong leadership from the local authority isessential, particularly where unforeseenevents such as the credit crisis affect planningprocesses.

5.3 Kings Meadow CambridgeThis development is on land on the northern edgeof Cambridge, but just south of the Orchard Parkdevelopment. Although it sits within SouthCambridgeshire district it is an urban extension toCambridge. In 1994 the City Council sought todevelop the site for affordable housing and ran acompetition among housing associations. Thiswas won by Circle 33 Housing Trust in partnershipwith King Street Housing Society who providedsome of the shared ownership homes. The designwas put together by Cambridge City architectsand included a large community centre with ayouth wing, children’s’ wing, sports hall and café.260 new homes were provided, mostly for socialrent, but with around 40 for shared ownership.

The scheme, built by Higgins, was completed in1999. It is a low rise development of houses,bungalows and flats built in the style of a cottageestate. The properties have good space standardsand are well built. There is an estate office at thecentre of the estate. The housing associationscarried out a great deal of pre-tenancy work andtenants were given significant choices overkitchen and bathroom fittings, garden fittings andcolours of doors and decorations. A great deal ofwork was done to achieve a balance of residents– working and not working, households with a

range of younger and older children etc. Thehousing associations also invested heavily incommunity development work, providing adedicated officer and a significant level of fundsto run a number of projects. These included childcare, IT training and help with starting newbusinesses. Strong partnerships were forged withthe City Council’s community centre team andthe centre acted as a strong focal point for thedeveloping community.

The City Council not only built a state of the artcommunity facility, it provided extensivemainstream revenue funding for a communitywork team (which included youth andchildren workers). Crucially, the centre wasoperational as new tenants moved in and acomprehensive welcome and communitydevelopment programme in place.

Although there have been some anti socialbehaviour problems on the estate, it is generallyperceived as a success and a good place tolive. However, it does have the feel of a“monolithic estate” and was one of the lastdevelopments to include such a high proportionof affordable housing.

King’s Meadow: Key lessons

• Intensive pre-tenancy work with incomingresidents pays off in the long run. Providingresources to aid community developmentis critical.

• Strong partnerships between housingassociations, developers and local authoritiesalso pay off in the longer term.

• Pepper potting of affordable housing withinareas of private housing is preferable.

• Community infrastructure provided earlyand comprehensive community developmentprogramme has a real impact.

42

CHAPTER 5

5.4 Eco-towns – New Townsrevisited or ‘greenwash’?

In July 2007, as part of its response to climatechange concerns, the Government launched aprospectus for a new generation of settlementsto be called “eco-towns”. Up to ten newsettlements were proposed.

According to the prospectus these would be“small new towns of at least 5 -20,000 homes”(although more recent government publicityproposes an upper limit of 15,000 homes). “Theyare intended to exploit the potential to create acomplete new settlement to achieve zero carbondevelopment and more sustainable living usingthe best new design and architecture.” Thesenew developments “as a whole to achieve zerocarbon” as well as a “separate and distinctidentity but good links to surrounding towns andcities in terms of jobs, transport and services” andthey would have “a good range of facilities withinthe town including a secondary school, shopping,business space and leisure”. Five new schemeswere envisaged.

The prospectus made a passing and briefreference to community balance and cohesionand stated that the following were essential;

• ‘Community empowerment in both thedevelopment and operation of the eco-townto hold those who make the decisionsaffecting the town to account and givegreater power for more people to controltheir lives with community ownership ofassets.

• Encouraging active communities by creatingthe conditions for community participationand involvement in civic activity, for exampleresidents undertaking formal volunteering ona regular basis. Encouraging participation incultural and recreational activities.

• Community assets: An eco-town shouldenable greater community ownership andmanagement of assets, for example througha Community Development Trust.

On 3 April 2008, the shortlist of fifteen sites forthe next phase of public consultations wasannounced.

The short listed sites are:

• Bordon, Hampshire (Army base and existingtown)

• Coltishall, Norfolk (RAF Coltishall airfield)

• Curborough, Staffordshire (Fradley airfield)

• Elsenham, Essex

• Ford, West Sussex

• Hanley Grange, Cambridgeshire (nearHinxton and Duxford)

• Imerys, near St Austell, Cornwall. (China Clayquarries)

• Leeds city region, West Yorkshire (site to bedetermined)

• Manby, Lincolnshire

• Marston Vale, Bedfordshire

• Middle Quinton, Warwickshire (army depot)

• Pennbury, Leicestershire

• Rossington, South Yorkshire (colliery)

• Rushcliffe, Nottinghamshire (site to beconfirmed)

• Weston Otmoor, Oxfordshire

43

CHAPTER 5

The proposals were met with considerableopposition, not just from those residents directlyaffected by the proposals, but by individuals andorganisations as diverse as the CPRE, the LGA, theRTPI and Jeremy Clarkson. Many commentatorsfelt that “eco-friendly development” was acontradiction in terms, as the development ofnew settlements by its very nature consumes vastamounts of carbon. Although the governmentprospectus pledged that eco-towns would be “asa whole” carbon neutral it was pointed out thattheir residents would drive to work, fly, consumegoods and produce waste, so the developments“as a whole” could never be carbon neutral.Moreover, many of the proposed sites would havepoor public transport links and the use of privatemotor vehicles would significantly increase. Manycommentators condemned the proposals as“greenwash” (for example see Wiles 2008Inside Housing).

Hanley Grange was one of the proposedeco-town sites, where 8,000 homes would belocated on the junction of the M11 and A11 justsouth of Cambridge and a 30 minute drive toLondon. Most commentators could see that thesite would be highly attractive to Londoncommuters and the developer’s website made nomention of new public transport facilities. Butlocal campaigners also discovered that Tesco wasthe principal developer behind the scheme.Unsurprisingly, Hanley Grange would haveincluded a huge new superstore that would be“one of the first carbon-neutral stores ever”according to Tesco (Hall and Sawer 2008).Campaigners quickly pointed out that asuperstore selling produce that had been flownin from all over the world and that would attractdrivers from every surrounding village could neverbe carbon neutral. Not surprisingly, every localauthority in the area opposed the Hanley Grangeproposal, even though it would have producedthousands of new affordable homes.

At a time when food prices were soaring andclimate change forecasts worsening by the monthit seemed incredible to eco-town protestors thatthe government should contemplate the creationof artificial new settlements on prime agriculturalland, especially as the government had set a

target in its climate change bill of a 60%reduction in carbon emissions by 2050.Campaigners also felt that the proposed modestsize of eco-towns, with a cap of 20,000 homes,would simply not be large enough to host a fullrange of community, retail and leisure facilities,forcing residents to drive elsewhere to accessfacilities such as cinemas or swimming pools. Eco-town sceptics proposed instead that futuregrowth should concentrate on urban extensionsof existing towns and cities and a re-definition ofthe green belt so that higher urban densitiescould be achieved in order to make publictransport more viable.

Although it is was not originally envisaged as anew town, the government prospectus includedthe new settlement at Northstowe, nearCambridge, which had been on the drawingboard for some years previously. Its inclusionseemed to highlight the government’s confusionover the eco-town concept. Northstowe hadoriginally been put forward as a new settlementthat would act as an overflow for growth in theCambridge sub-region, but it had never been veryclear whether Northstowe was to be a markettown, with its own identity and focus, an urbanextension to Cambridge or a dormitorysettlement for commuters to Cambridge andelsewhere. The eco-town issue seemed to furthermuddy the waters.

By the middle of 2008 the plans for HanleyGrange had been shelved, as had plans forCurborough in Staffordshire and Manby inLincolnshire. Fierce opposition continues at manyof the eco-town sites. But Margaret Beckett, thehousing minister (as at February 2009) will makea final decision on the sites to be developed laterin 2009. She has described eco-towns as "aunique opportunity to deliver much-neededaffordable housing, built in a way which, byincorporating the very latest energy-savingtechniques, benefits both residents and the widercommunity” (BBC News 2009).

44

CHAPTER 6

The development of the new towns during themiddle of the twentieth century is today seen asan adventurous social experiment which offeredsolutions to the problems of overcrowding,housing quality and economic growth. Many ofthe early successes have not stood the test of timehowever and several of the new towns nowrequire substantial regeneration. Although theyvary in social and economic needs, almost all ofthe new towns include areas of deprivationwith high levels of unemployment and housingneed (TLGR 2002: para 41). What has figuredconsistently across the literature is the importanceof coordinating all the parts of new developmentsand the significance of community developmentin creating new communities.

In many of the original new towns provision ofcommunity facilities often lagged far behindpopulation growth and other parts of thedevelopment. Despite much of the literatureindicating the importance of communityinfrastructure, recent new developments appearto following the same path. Resident ‘blogspots’in locations such as Cambourne, Orchard Park inCambridge (formerly Arbury Park), Dickens Heathin Solihull and areas in the Thames Gateway allrefer to a lack of community provisions andunfulfilled promises. Neighbourhood identity andreputation is influenced by such factors andestablished early in its development. Whetherdesignated as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ these prove resilientto change and can have further impact onattracting investment and new residents(Robertson et al 2008). This has importantimplications for the current drive to establishsustainable communities.

Community development work has also beengiven prominence in the literature as animportant feature in creating new communities.Its importance in the literature has not translatedinto equal importance in practice. In the fewcases where staff and resources were available forthis, they were often the first to go duringexpenditure cuts. This is symptomatic of the wayin which community development work andindeed community infrastructure as a whole, hasbeen seen as ‘optional extras’ to developments.This is also indicative of different views aboutwhat a community is, what the needs ofcommunities are and ideas about belonging.Community membership is multiple, overlappingand at times conflicting and unequal. It has oftenbeen the task of community developmentworkers to disentangle the complexities ofcommunity and manage the tensions and conflictthat arise from inequalities between differentcommunities. Time and again the literaturehas pointed to the critical role played bycommunity development staff in creatingcohesive communities that are vibrant, engagedand empowered.

Key Lessons

• Adequate and reliable funding for communityinfrastructure is essential.

• Dedicated community development workersplay a key role in creating cohesivecommunities.

• Creating communities that are empoweredrequires long term commitment andresources.

• Financial and policy provision is needed toensure that community developmentmaintains a strategic position and does notbecome marginalised or omitted.

• All separate parts of the development need tobe coordinated and aligned with the needs ofthe community and in step with its growth.

6. CONCLUSION

45

CHAPTER 7

Aldridge, M (1979) The British New Towns:A Programme without a Policy Routledge andKegan Paul

Aldridge, S., Halpern, D and Fitzpatrick, S (2001)Social Capital: A Discussion Paper Performanceand Innovation Unit

Ambercrombie, N., Hill, S. and Turner, B. (1994)Dictionary of Sociology Penguin

Anderson, B (1983) Imagined Communities Verso

Baron, S et al (eds) (2000) Social Capital: CriticalPerspectives Oxford

Bauman, Z (2001) Community: Seeking Safety inan Insecure World Polity

BBC News Campaigners lose eco-towns appeal27th January 2009

BBC News New towns suffer 'major problems' 27July 2002

Bell, C and Newby, H (971) Community Studies:Studies in Sociology George Allen and Unwin Ltd.

Bell, C and Newby, H (1974) The Sociology ofCommunity Frank Cass and Co. Ltd.

Bennett, J. With Hetherington, D., Nathan, M.And Urwin, C (2006) Would You Live Here?Making the Growth Areas Communities ofChoice IPPR

Bennett, J and Morris, J (2006) Gateway People:The aspirations and attitudes of prospective andexisting residents of the Thames Gateway IPPR

Bennett, J (2005) New Towns to growth areasLessons IPPR

Blair, T. (2002) ‘New Labour and community’,Renewal 10(2): 9-14

Brent, J (2004) ‘The Desire for Community:Illusion, Confusion and Paradox, CommunityDevelopment Journal Vol 39 No 3

Brooke-Taylor, G (1972) Social Development inEvans, H ed.

Calhoun,C (ed) (2002) Dictionary of the SocialSciences Oxford University Press

Cantle, T (2001) Community Cohesion, Report ofthe Independent Review Team Home Office

Clements, D., Donald, A., Earnshaw, M. AndWilliams, A (2008) The Future of CommunitiesPluto Press

Cohen, A (1985) The Symbolic Construction ofCommunity Tavistock

Creek, M (2003) Social Capital: Exploring the DarkSide Unpublished Undergraduate DissertationAnglia Ruskin University

Cresswell, P and Thomas, R (1972) Employmentand Population Balance in Evans, H ed.

CRU (2005) Together We Can Home Office

Day, G (2006) Community and Everyday LifeRoutledge

DCLG (2008) Communities in Control: RealPeople, Real Power TSO

DCLG (2006) Transferable Lessons from theNew Towns

DCLG (2006) Strong and ProsperousCommunities Local Government White Paper TSO

Delanty, G (2003) Community Key IdeasRoutledge

Denington, E (1972) New Towns for Whom?In Evans, H ed.

Duff, A.C. (1961) Britain’s New Towns: AnExperiment in Living Pall Mall Press

Etzioni, A (1994) The Spirit of CommunityFontana Press

Evans, H ed. (1972) New Towns: The BritishExperience Charles Knight & Co. Ltd

Fremeaux, I (2005) New Labour’s Appropriationof the Concept of Community: A Critique,Community Development Journal Vol 40 No 3

Gibberd, F (1972) The Master Design: Landscape,Housing, Town Centres in Evans, H ed.

Hall, J and Sawer, P (2008) Tesco 'secret bidder'behind eco-town project, The Telegraph 6th April

Hall, P (1993) New Town, New Home: TheLessons of Experience Calouste Foundation

Halpern, D (2004) Social Capital Polity

Harris, V (ed) (2001) Community Work SkillsManual Association of Community Workers;Community Work Training Co., National LotteryCharities Board

Heywood, A (1997) Politics Macmillan

Howard, E (1989[1898]) Garden Cities ofTo-morrow Attic Books

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY

46

CHAPTER 7

Jacobs, J (1993 [1961]) The Death and Life ofGreat American Cities Modern Library Edition

Jordison, S and Kieran, D (eds) (2003) The IdlerBook Of Crap Towns Boxtree

LGA (n.d.) Sustainable Communities Act – KeyFacts online available at: http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/core/page. do?pageId=561663

Lin, N (2001) Social Capital: A Theory of SocialStructure and Action Cambridge

Llewelyn-Davis, Lord (1972) Changing Goals inDesign: The Milton Keynes Example in Evans, H ed.

Meegan, R and Mitchell, A (2001) ’It’s notCommunity Round Here, It’s Neighbourhood’ inUrban Studies Vol 38 No. 12

Miliband, D (2006) Empowerment and the Dealfor Devolution ODPM

Nash, V with Christie, I (2003) Making Sense ofCommunity IPPR

Pitt, G (1972) A Consumer’s View in Evans, H ed.

Putnam, R (2001) Bowling Alone: The Collapseand Revival of American Community Touchstone

ODPM (2005) Citizen Engagement and PublicServices: Why Neighbourhoods Matter ODPMand Home Office

ODPM (2005) Making It Happen inNeighbourhoods: The National Strategy forNeighbourhood Renewal Four Years On ODPMand NRU

ODPM (2004) The Egan Review: Skills forSustainable Communities RIBA

OPDM (2003) Sustainable Communities: Buildingfor the Future ODPM

Osborn, F and Whittick, A (1977) New Towns:Their Origins, Achievements and ProgressLeonard Hill, Routledge and Kegan Paul

Osborn, F and Whittick, A (1963) The NewTowns: The Answer to Megalopolis Leonard Hill

Popple, K (1995) Analysing Community Work: ItsTheory and Practice Open University Press

Portes, A (1998) ‘Social capital: its origins andapplications in modern sociology’ in Annual

Review of Sociology 1998 Volume 24 No.1p 1-24

Robertson, D., Smyth, J and McIntosh, I (2008)Neighbourhood Identity: People, Time and Place JRF

Savage, M., Bagnall, G and Longhurst, B (2005)Globalisation and Belonging Sage

Self, P (1972) New Towns in the Modern Worldin Evans, H ed.

SEU (2001) A New Commitment toNeighbourhood Renewal National StrategyAction Plan Cabinet Office

Skopol, T (1996) ‘Unsolved Mysteries: TheTocqueville Files, Unravelling From Above’, TheAmerican Prospect Vol 7 Issue 25

Taylor, M (2003) Public Policy in the CommunityPalgrave Macmillan

TCPA (2007) Best Practice in Urban Extensionsand New Settlements

Thomas, W (1972) The Management Task inEvans, H ed.

TLGR (2002) New Towns: Their Problems andFuture 19th Report to the TLGR Committee

Wilson, WJ (1996) When Work Disappears:The World of the New Urban Poor Vintage

Woolcock, M (2001) ‘The Place of SocialCapital in Understanding Social and EconomicOutcomes’, The Canadian Journal of PolicyResearch Vol 2 No 1

Young, M and Wilmott, P (1957) Family andKinship in East London Routledge and Kegan Paul

£9.99

“This challenging document shouldcause organisations from all sectors to

review their contributions to the creationof new communities to ensure that wecreate even better places for people to

live in the future.”Bhpa

Do we learn from the past or make the samemistakes and continually re-learn lessons thatwere evident to our regeneration forebears? Dowe ‘talk the community talk’ prior to newregeneration schemes only to see our aspirationsunravel as schemes progress?

Learning from the Past reviews the history ofcommunity building in New Towns and recentpolicy development around a new generation ofnew towns, growth areas and eco-towns. Itoutlines a pattern of policy makers anddevelopers (public and private) emphasis on theimportance of community yet frequent chronicunderinvestment in community development andinfrastructure in schemes. The results are oftenlong and frustrating community campaigns tosecure resources or remedial investment whencommunities unravel.

Learning from the Past provides the reader witha critique of the New Town experience of buildingcommunity and recent developments. It drawsattention to the hard learnt lessons that can makea difference in creating new places that supportvibrant communities.

About the authors

Marina Stott is Senior Lecturer in Social Policy atAnglia Ruskin University where she teachescommunity development, neighbourhoodrenewal, research methods and social problems.Marina is currently researching ‘redneck identity’for her PhD.

Neil Stott is Chief Executive of KeystoneDevelopment Trust which delivers community,social enterprise and property related projects inNorfolk and Suffolk. Neil is the Eastern regionChair of the Development Trust Association.

Colin Wiles is Chief Executive of King StreetHousing Society, Cambridge. Colin is the Easternregion Chair of the Institute of Housing.

ISBN 978-0-9564398-0-2

9 7 8 0 9 5 6 4 3 9 8 0 2