|
Policy arrangements Sheffield, England Carolyn Harrison, 2003, UCL Paper made available to the COST C11 Working party. 
Click button
to return to COST C11 - WG1B home pageClick here to return to the Sheffield Case study Policy
arrangements Discussion Cases |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sheffield,
UK The role of the Sheffield Wildlife Trust in regenerating Sheffield's city parks and open spaces © Carolyn Harrison, 2003, UCL Region/town/city: City of Sheffield, Yorkshire, England
1. How would you briefly describe your case? The case is about the policies, processes and practices being developed by Sheffield City Council to regenerate their inner city parks and informal open spaces and the active role played by the Sheffield Wildlife Trust (SWT). As a city Sheffield has more public parks and open spaces per head of population than other cities in England &endash; 49.3 sq m/head in Sheffield (UDP built up area - excluding the agricultural and wilderness land withing the Sheffield MDC boundary) compared with 21.3 sq m/head in Bradford; 25sqm/head in Dudley and an average of 36.2sqm/head for all metropolitan authorities (CIPFA Statistics). Successive rounds of public expenditure cuts inspired by central government throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s saw Sheffield City Council reduce its expenditure on parks as a percentage of net sport and recreation expenditure from 68% in 1982-3 to 32% in 1991-2. This latter figure represents an expenditure of £8.38 per head of population &endash; one of the lowest figures recorded among metropolitan authorities outside London. In the early 1990s the poor condition of the inner city parks and open spaces became a cause of concern for the City Council and residents alike. The case study examines the City Council's approach to regenerating inner city parks and open spaces in the period since 1993. In this period a new Sheffield Parks Regeneration Strategy was adopted and several urban regeneration projects associated with derelict and informal open spaces were undertaken to improve the local economy and social welfare of city residents. The study focuses in particular on the formative and instrumental role of the Sheffield City Wildlife Trust (a voluntary sector organisation) as a major partner in all these projects.
2. What is/are the most important discourse(s) in relation to urban planning and greenstructures in your case? Did these discourses change over time ? In what way?
The Parks Regeneration Strategy marks a shift in thinking and practices in several ways. Its principal message is that lack of public investment in Sheffield's parks and open spaces had led to a 'spiral of neglect' to the point where parks no longer proved attractive to local users and served as disincentives to much needed urban regeneration. It sought to address this 'spiral of neglect' through a new partnership approach to park renewal and urban regeneration that would: - secure additional financial resources - work with new partners and local communities to review and determine service standards - enable groups and individuals to actively contribute to the parks service - develop a ranger service to support activities in parks and - improve management for people, wildlife and heritage.
This partnership approach represents a move away from traditional, quantitative (technocratic) approaches to park/open space provision to one that is concerned with the specific qualities of individual spaces and management standards and practices that better reflect the range of benefits and functions modern society expects. In brief the new approach sought to be place and user orientated.
In Sheffield, traditional approaches to park planning and provision were based on normative, spatial models that linked park size with the spatial catchments from which users are drawn. It is a supply based approach that reflects national Planning Policy Guidance of that time (PPG 17) and in terms of planning practice used standards of supply based on the National Playing Fields Association (NPFA) &endash; 6 acres standard. The NFPA recommends a minimum standard of 2.4 hectares (6 acres) of outdoor playing space per 1000 population. In recognition of the size of the public estate, especially large areas of informal green space in the city, this standard was raised to 6ha (14.4 acres) /1000 population in 1993. Whilst recognising that the spatial supply of accessible parks is important, the new strategy emphasises a user-orientated approach to management. It recognises that park use reflects qualitative attributes of the resource and changing expectations of society. A user-orientated approach recognises that the standard and range of facilities provided, the qualities of natural environments present in the park, and the role of park staff all influence the range of pleasurable experiences each park provides. In this way the new strategy sought to respond to changing social trends including changing attitudes to health and the environment. Importantly it also sought to involve local people directly in discussions about how the parks and informal open spaces should be managed. This more collaborative approach involved the most extensive public consultation exercise the Parks Department had ever undertaken.
In terms of planning discourse, any review of parks as a legitimate land use identified in the Unitary Development Plan together with policies for their protection and management, would normally be regarded as the responsibility of professionals employed by the local state &endash; often officers in the Leisure Services Department. However, in Sheffield this review was prepared by a partnership between the local state (The Leisure Services Department of Sheffield City Council) and the voluntary sector (Sheffield City Wildlife Trust). It was funded from The Urban Programme &endash; a national fund designed to assist economic regeneration of disadvantaged areas. With high unemployment and structural decline in local industries such as the steel industry, Sheffield benefited from this new funding programme. As a result the City Council with the Sheffield City Wildlife Trust were joint sponsors of an Urban Programme funded scheme to produce a Parks Regeneration Strategy. They employed a specialist parks consultant to undertake this review - Alan Barber ( Past President of the Institute of Leisure and Amenity Management)
The partnership approach underpinning the Sheffield Parks Regeneration Strategy is consistent with dominant national discourses (meta-discourses) promoted by central government. These discourses emphasised the 'rolling back of the state' as public services were opened up to market competition e.g. Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT) of park maintenance services, and a partnership approach to urban regeneration that required 'cash-strapped' local authorities to work with other partners if they were to secure national funding for urban regeneration projects. However, it is also a distinctive local manifestation of these discourses. In particular, the direct involvement of the Sheffield City Wildlife Trust - rather than an amenity group for example, or private sector partner - as the co-sponsor of the Parks Strategy is a local response to these meta discourses and is one that reflects the distinctive commitment of the SWT to community-based, environmental regeneration.
The key local discourse became 'economic and social regeneration through open space improvement projects that are community-led.'
The discourse(s) in key words Pre 1990 - Single sector approach to land used for sport and children's play separate from other land-uses - Open space standards - Supply based approach - Technocratic - Normative - State provision &endash; public provided and managed
Post 1993: - User-centred - Place specific - Multi-functional &endash; including wildlife conservation, heritage, health, - Multi-sector &endash; improving the quality of open spaces as an integral part of economic and social renewal - Collaborative management as a means of empowering local people - Partnership sponsored and delivered - Cost efficient
Argumentation: Improvements to urban parks and open spaces are an integral feature of economic and social renewal programmes and public-voluntary sector partnerships are an important means of empowering local people.
What actor (coalitions), rules of the game, tools and resources go along with this/these discourses?
Chief actors are: - The City Council &endash; elected councillors/politicians - Professional Officers of the Leisure Department - Officers and members of Sheffield Wildlife Trust - Independent Consultant &endash; Alan Barber - The Universities of Sheffield and Sheffield Hallam - Volunteers - Private sector developers
The main coalition involved the City Council building on its partnership with the Sheffield Wildlife Trust to co-sponsor urban regeneration projects and to take forward the Parks Strategy.
Rules of the game: - How to establish a "Parks Investment Programme" that might permit the sale of some open spaces and receive public support? - How to work with park users as both customers and stakeholders? - How to enable the voluntary sector to contribute more effectively to the regeneration of parks, open spaces, woodland and countryside? - How to implement the Sheffield Nature Conservation Strategy and give priority to areas identified by the Sheffield Bio-Diversity Action Plan? - How can maintenance standards better reflect the needs of local communities and the distinctiveness of local spaces? - How to maintain and develop the partnership between the City Council, Sheffield Wildlife Trust, the Universities of Sheffield and others to develop a city-wide strategy and regeneration plans for all major parks? - How to develop a Ranger Service that actively involves individuals, volunteers and community organisations?
Resources: Political resources: A change in the political composition of the Sheffield City Council in 1997 from one which had been consistently dominated by a strong, socialist base to one that had a more liberal complexion is important for taking forward the Parks Strategy and regeneration projects.
The strong tradition of socialism in the City and its electors in part explains the size of the public green estate (another major reason being local topography and the river system which results in much land being unbuildable)and over time opened up as public greenspace). Public ownership of land was regarded as an important goal in its own right and as a means of protecting attractive landscape. The cost of maintaining this large public green estate however meant that during the economic recession of the late 1980s and early 1990s the quality of the maintenance suffered as the Leisure budget was repeatedly cut by the City Council. With its strong socialist base the City Council prioritised the economy, housing, education and social welfare. As a discreationary area of expenditure, the financial and professional resources available to the Leisure Services Department declined substantially. The absence of any political champion for Parks and open spaces on the City Council also meant that the active and potential role of open spaces in economic and social renewal never came under scrutiny. Financial resources: Funding for the Parks Strategic Review was linked to the Urban Programme &endash; a national source of funding that required public/private/voluntary sector partnerships to be in place. The City already had some experience with partnership work for, as a deprived area the South Yorkshire region benefited first from Objective 1 funding &endash; much of this provided funding for land reclamation projects associated with the demise of the coal industry. But it also benefited from Objective 2 Funding from Europe ( this ended in 2002). The Five Weirs Trust (another voluntary sector organisation) had been set up in 1986 to manage several urban renewal projects on former industrial sites along the river Don in the inner city. This Trust had involved members of the Leisure Dept and the Sheffield City Wildlife Trust who worked alongside the Development Corporation &endash; an independent organisation set up by central government to acquire land for urban development projects. In other words, during the 1980s new funding streams designed to assist areas experiencing economic and social deprivation provided an opportunity for voluntary sector trusts to work on environmental projects associated with re-development schemes.
For example: the River Don together with other rivers and canals had been identified in statutory Development Plans as corridors to be protected &endash; much as had been the case with Abercrombie's original plan for the city in the 1930s. The rivers had been identified as wildlife corridors and sites of wildlife importance and the Five Weirs Trust built on this assessment to promote landscape and wildlife enhancement schemes associated with industrial renewal of a number of inner city sites.
In practice these early urban renewal projects permitted only cosmetic, landscape improvements rather than providing opportunities for significant habitat creation and renewal. However, they provided important experience for the SWTrust not only in partnership working but also in mobilising and managing local volunteers who worked on these projects. In other words these new funding opportunities increased the SWTrust's local knowledge base and capacity to promote qualitative improvements in the local environment through the active involvement of local people. Empowering local people to take charge of their local environment provided the mechanism for ensuring that environmental improvement became integral to processes of economic renewal and community development.
Cultural resources: The pro-active approach taken by the Sheffield Wildlife Trust to community involvement in these projects has proved instrumental to the emergence of the Trust as a major player in discussions about policy development and delivery. Through their experience with a wide range of community-based projects undertaken in a variety of open spaces, the Trust gained authority and legitimacy. It is now a major player in strategic discussions: about the trajectory of urban renewal, the strategic development of park and open space renewal, urban green space planning, and in the practical delivery of community-based projects that provide employment and training opportunities and educational services.
For example, the recent report of the government's Urban Green Spaces Task Force (2002) recommended that the Deep Pits/Manor Fields Park and Play Area, Sheffield, be used as a demonstration site for implementing good practice in the improvement of green spaces. The project is located in one of the most deprived housing estates in the UK and The Sheffield Wildlife Trust is a founding member of a collaborative partnership between the local authority, Manor and Castle Development Trust, the housing associations and the private sector. The partners fund an Environmental team whose members are located on the housing estate. Their task is to take forward proposals for a park with local people that followed extensive community consultation.
The Sheffield Wildlife Trust now has an annual turnover of 2.5 million pounds and employs 75 people &endash; in other words it is a small to medium sized enterprise (SME) typical of the growing number of SMEs nationally and with a very strong local base.
The strong social commitment of the SWT to community&endash;led environmental renewal meshes closely with the political culture of the region and with the core values of the urban wildlife conservation movement in the UK as a whole. However, this pro-active approach does not find favour with all its members who would prefer to see the Trust concentrate its activities on protecting and conserving sites of high nature conservation value.
In practice the Trust has to compete for members with over 40 other campaigning environmental groups in the region and in future their role in community development will also be shared with a new Groundwork Trust in Sheffield. The Groundwork Trusts are central government 's preferred means of delivering their new funding programme 'Building Sustainable Communities' (2003). These trusts receive grant-in- aid directly from Central Government and require a formalised partnership with the local authority and other private sector and voluntary groups. The Wildlife Trust does not receive grant-in-aid directly from central government and it would compete with Groundwork for other national funding such as Heritage Lottery Funds.
How to explain the success of the SWT as a major player in urban renewal and green structure planning? The success of SWT as a major player cannot be attributed to one set of factors but rather to a combination or factors some national, some local. However, there can be little doubt that the drive and persistence of local officers in the Trust has been very important. In some ways it seems that the SWT is founded on the social commitment of its professional staff who themselves have been employed ( are employed ) in the public sector, for example, in local government, universities, education, museums. This experience and commitment has played an extremely important role in developing a vision for the Trust as key motivators of community development through the direct involvement of local people in environmental renewal projects. What are the rules of the game as far as partnership approaches to urban regeneration and green space improvement are concerned?
Changing roles of the state and other sectors: The role of the state has changed from being that of sole provider of green space to that of enabler. However, as elected representatives of the public, the local state is still expected to work in the 'public interest' rather than just pursuing market forces. Professional staff generally set the ground rules for determining what the public interest is guided by Parliamentary Planning Guidance Notes but politicians interpret these rules locally and will prioritise different arenas of local activity when allocating resources or in strategic planning &endash; economic, social, education, environment. Economic and social arenas are still dominant ones for the local state but 'Sheffield's green estate' became incorporated in the urban regeneration programme once a partnership approach to regeneration positioned the local state as an enabler and not as the sole provider. The role of the private sector: in partnership approaches to development is key because the private sector is asked to take financial risks &endash; especially in the reclamation of derelict/polluted land. In Sheffield the financial returns on development are not high - hence the special mechanism implemented by central government &endash; the Development Corporation. This designation by-passed existing planning regulations to some extent and offered developers preferential rates for development - it was the mechanism used to successfully regenerate the Lower Don Valley District of the city in the 1980s. In terms of environmental improvement however, outcomes can tend to be cosmetic, piecemeal and un-related to other environmental goals. The voluntary sector: groups can often be seen as 'single interest' groups unless their legitimacy to represent local peoples' views is achieved &endash; membership size, advocacy style, and participative ways of working all help to build legitimacy and trust. SWT has gained in standing and clout because it has succeeded in recruiting a large membership, has high professional standards and delivers results on the ground. Financial resources: partnership is a response to structural changes in funding streams and to the reduced income of local authorities under Thatcher cuts on public services that required local authorities to open up these services to the market place. The discretionary nature of leisure service provision and management has always meant that within central and local government green space planning tended to be a technical and normative exercise rather than a pro-active programme for improvement or the development of a service that could be responsive to residents needs. Partnerships requirements especially when linked to urban renewal projects seldom provide more than cosmetic opportunities to improve green space, and are often opportunistic projects that are not guided by strategic thinking about green spaces/structures. The Sheffield Parks Regeneration Strategy is extremely unusual in this respect because it provides a mechanism for prioritising parks as part of urban renewal initiatives, including informal open space associated with some very disadvantaged housing estates. Local Trusts provide a means of channelling funding that would otherwise not be available to independent organisations but these Trusts require knowledgeable individuals with key skills if they are to be accepted as legitimate by local people and the short-term funding cycle means that their future is not always very secure. Knowledge and competences Partnership requires all partners to work in different ways &endash; authority and knowledge can be challenged. For example, officers in local authorities often feel their own professional competence is questioned, voluntary sector organisations find their core values &endash; ways of working &endash; may be challenged, private sector organisations often take the biggest financial risks but as 'outsiders' are mistrusted by local people. Power Throughout the Thatcher period (1980s) planning and urban re-development followed the ideology of the market and outcomes tended to favour developers. Since property rights determine the extent to which other parties can effectively object to development proposals, partnerships are always likely to be unequal ones. Hence any environmental benefits/gains associated with re-development are likely to be small and cosmetic. Development of some of the most disadvantaged public sector housing estates in Sheffield through a partnership approach that also delivered environmental benefits challenges this traditional view. Its success owes something to the political culture of the local state in Sheffield and the community involvement culture of the officers of the Sheffield Wildlife Trust and many of its members Transparency, social inclusiveness, …. Less clear how these urban renewal projects 'work'. Certainly they have targeted areas that are socially very disadvantaged. As a result raising the capacity of local communities to eventually take over the management of new green spaces has to be built into the renewal programme. Remains to be seen how effectively this can be achieved without continuing support. A customer or stakeholder approach?: current government changes in the planning system and local government are trying to ensure that local authorities are more responsive to local people's needs. 'Best Value Initiatives' reward local authorities financially when services meet high standards as agreed by external audit. Local authorities are still trying to find ways of establishing what local people want, as opposed to single interest groups. Park Users Forums such as those established in Sheffield, are one means of taking this more community-responsive approach forward and Open Space Strategies are another. As yet however, little attention is given to the framing of the questions to be debated as part of the process of public engagement or to the conduct of this process. If public consultation is to move away from the traditional one of 'plan-reveal-defend' that favours the norms of professional planners, additional skills and resources will need to be invested in the process of public engagement and the implementation of its findings. As yet these additional resources are not forthcoming. In Sheffield a general policy that would permit the sale of open space 'surplus to requirements' has not found favour with the public or politicians. However, the use of Section 106 Agreements through which developers are required to make a financial contribution as part of the development process so that improvements identified in Open Space Strategies can be funded, has found some support. The use of 106 Agreements for this purpose however, depends much on the legitimacy of the Open Space Strategy as a representation of local peoples' views. The Sheffield Case Study
All photographs are © Anne R. Beer, 2003 but users are free to download and use as they wish, with the proviso that the copyright is always acknowledged. Students may use the text as they wish provided they again acknowledge the sources of the text. To view the Case Studies
of other cities click here |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Further information about some cities is available by
clicking here 
updated 25 oct 2002