HANDSWORTH AND LOZELLS
COMMUNITY DIALOGUE
PROGRAMME
Technical Appendices Report
Alan Middleton
Patrick Loftman
GOVERNANCE FOUNDATION
David Kane
BIRMINGHAM CITY UNIVERSITY
Ray Goodwin
Safdar Mir
BIRMINGHAM SETTLEMENT
Carol Coombes
MAY 2009
CONTENTS
Appendix 1: Community Dialogue Programme
Methodology
3
Appendix 2: Handsworth and Lozells Community
Dialogue Programme Literature Review
10
Appendix 3: Handsworth and Lozells Community
Dialogue Programme - Semi-Formal Dialogue
83
Appendix 4: Handsworth and Lozells Community
Dialogue Programme - Informal Dialogue
112
Appendix 5: Informing Community Cohesion Practice
in Handsworth and Lozells
119
2
APPENDIX 1
COMMUNITY DIALOGUE PROGRAMME
METHODOLOGY
There were three components in the methodology for the Dialogue
Programme: A literature review, an Informal Dialogue with residents and a
Semi-formal Dialogue with residents and local public sector workers The
Informal component was carried out by Birmingham Settlement, the Semiformal component by Carol Coombes and the literature review by the
Governance Foundation with the assistance of Birmingham City University
(BCU). The Governance Foundation brought the three components together
to produce the final report.
1.
The Literature Review
The Governance Foundation and BCU identified documents and data sources
that were relevant to the main themes of the report and to the local area. The
main part of the local area was the Lozells and East Handsworth ward, but the
information that was gathered referred to different geographies that are used
by a variety of organisations, and these geographies have changed over time.
Over the past 100 years, the official designation of Handsworth has steadily
moved west1.
In addition, in the surveys consulted there were different survey questions
addressing the same issues, asked by different consultants working for Urban
Living and Birmingham City Council (BCC) at different times; and their
analyses did not use the same logical categories when discussing the
findings. Arising from this, there was some difficulty in making coherent
historical and spatial comparisons.
For example: the Urban Living area covers two authorities, Birmingham City
Council and Sandwell MBC, and within Birmingham it uses different spatial
units from the City Council. Within the City Council, the geographies of the
Neighbourhood Management Areas, which are based on the 1982 wards, do
not fit with the current ward administrative boundaries. The relationship
between the Urban Living sub-areas and the BCC management areas can be
seen in the Table A 1-1 overleaf.
Nevertheless, given that political and administrative boundaries are in a
constant state of flux and residents do not always recognise the administrative
names as the places where they live, we adopted a flexible approach to place
names while trying to say as much as we could, with accuracy, about the
current Lozells and East Handsworth ward. Our focus was therefore primarily
1
In 1913, its western boundary almost stretched to the Aston Villa football ground. (see Old Ordnance
Survey Maps, Handsworth 1913 and Aston Manor 1913, The Godfrey Edition).
3
on the ward and the areas immediately around it, leaving aside, as much as
possible, most of the wards of Aston, Perry Barr, Handsworth Wood and
Soho. From the Urban Living material, which includes not only these wards
but also part of the neighbouring local authority of Sandwell MBC, we selected
information that directly applied to the ward and we used any other material
that we thought would reasonably apply to the Handsworth and Lozells areas.
Table A 1-1: Handsworth and Lozells Sub-Areas Used by Urban Living
and Birmingham City Council
UL Sub-area
1. Soho West
2. Soho East
3. Handsworth Park
4. North Lozells
5. South Lozells
6. Gib Heath
7. Holyhead North
20. Birchfield West
21. Oxhill Road Area
2.
BCC Management Area
(Soho Finger & Gib Heath)
(Soho Finger & Gib Heath)
(Birchfield)
(Lozells)
(Lozells)
(Soho Finger & Gib Heath)
(Handsworth)
(Birchfield)
(Handsworth)
The Informal Dialogue
Reaching these groups was achieved through contacting voluntary sector and
community organisations to identify potential interviewees. A total of 260
people were interviewed and, while the sampling techniques means that the
responses are not technically representative, the methodology nevertheless
provided these normally hard-to-reach residents with a voice in the dialogue
process. The detail of the methodology is as follows:
1. Traders
A mapping exercise was carried out in relation to local shopping centres in
Lozells and East Handsworth, the local shopping centres in the area are
Birchfield Road, Lozells Road and Soho Road. There were other areas with
some shops such as Heathfield road and Wellington road.
The informal dialogue with the traders was carried by two local residents, who
have knowledge of the local shopping areas. The persons carrying out the
dialogue were shown the standard community dialogue forms, there were four
questions, question one was about issues in your area, question two were
asking for solutions to the questions, question three asked about long term
vision for the area and question four was a prompt question relating to issues
from a menu suggested by the local authority.
4
The consultants carrying out the dialogue were given a map of the area, as
well as information on the traders associations in the area, as well as
statistical information on the general population from the 2001 census. The
consultants were also asked to ask the traders on Lozells road about the
black cat development option’s, this work was additional to the general
informal dialogue.
2. Women and Families
We initially engaged with our partner organisations in the area, particularly our
partner organisations in the community facilitator’s project and the partner
organisations in our city spirit project. There was also a mapping exercise
done with regard to organisations in the area working with women and
families, particularly local health centres, local children’s centres and
organisations working with local women.
The informal dialogue with women and families were carried out by two local
women who were chosen because of their knowledge of the area, as well as
having taken part in other consultations. The women were shown the
standard informal dialogue form and briefed about the required information,
particularly the standard four questions as well as the standard monitoring
information.
The local women carrying out the informal dialogue were also given
information about local organisations working with women and families. They
were also given a map of Lozells and East Handsworth and the surrounding
areas. They were also given statistical information about the population in the
area from the 2001 Census. They were briefed to bear all the above
information in mind when carrying out the informal dialogue.
3. Young People
During the informal dialogue with young people, initially we engaged with our
partner organisations working with young people, particularly community
facilitators programme and My place project partners, the main organisations
engaged were Bangladeshi youth forum, Young disciples, Sikh community
forum, Lozells Recreation group, Aston Youth Forum & Network and Voice of
Aston.
The consultants we carried out the informal dialogue were from the locality,
and have good knowledge of the area as well as issues faced by young
people. The consultants were shown the community dialogue form and
briefed about the questions on the form and the information required. They
were also given a map of Lozells& East Handsworth, and the surrounding
areas, the geographic area covered by the informal dialogue. They were given
statistical information about the area, detailing population for the area and
were told to keep in mind the geographic area of the project as well as the
5
details of the communities in the area, when filling in the informal dialogue
forms.
4. Older People
During the mapping exercise for the community informal dialogue process, we
looked at engaging with the older people in the area, the definition for this age
group is anyone over forty five years of age. We also contacted our partner
organisations in the area, as well as organisations working with the elderly in
the area, organisations that were consulted in the area were, Ageing well
project, age concern, Asian resource centre, Sikh community forum, their very
helpful suggestions were taken into account.
The local people used for informal dialogue with the elderly, were briefed on
the requirements of the dialogue. They were given a map of Lozells and East
Handsworth and the surrounding areas and were given statistical information
about the area, detailing population statistics for the area. They were also
briefed about the standard dialogue form used for the dialogue, particularly
the four standard questions and the standard monitoring information required.
5. Newly Arrived Communities
During the mapping exercise for the informal dialogue process, various
organisations working with newly arrived communities were contacted, in
particular City Council refugee and Asylum seekers team, Piers road refugee
Centre, as well as refugee organisations from the Kurdish, Somalian, African
and other refugee backgrounds were contacted. The dialogue was carried out
by people from refugee background, but the individuals used had experience
of consulting with refugee groups.
We also looked at the report by CURS( Birmingham University) on the
“neighbourhood needs of new migrants” as background information and
reference point for refugee communities in East Handsworth and Lozells. The
individuals carrying out the dialogue were briefed on the questionnaire used to
elicit information, particularly the questions used and other monitoring
information required.
6. Hard to Reach (Gangs / Students)
During the mapping exercise for this part of the informal dialogue process, two
major groups that came to mind were gang members who by joining gangs
involved in criminal activity, by its very nature excluded themselves from
mainstream society. The other large group that hardly took any part in
community dialogue were students at University or college, who either
because their university was outside Birmingham
6
Or even if they were at a local university, because of their studies and lifestyle
did not take part in local community dialogue.
To carry out the dialogue with gang members, we worked with local youth
groups who had access to gang members or young people at risk of joining
gangs. To carry out the dialogue with students, local students who had access
to students were used.
7. Economically Disadvantaged
During the mapping exercise for economically disadvantaged, the groups that
came to mind were unemployed people, people on low income, or single
parent household, groups that are normally living on income below poverty
levels. We worked with our partner organisations, from the community
facilitators project as well as city spirit project as well as other community
organisations who work with low income families to reach the economically
disadvantaged groups in east Handsworth and Lozells.
The individuals carrying out the informal dialogue with this group were given
maps of the area and the surrounding areas, as well as briefed about the
dialogue forms, particularly the four questions on the forms and the monitoring
information required.
3.
The Semi-Formal Dialogue
The Semi-Formal Dialogue was carried out with residents, local public and
voluntary sector workers and members of Neighbourhood Management
Boards. It was carried out by Carol Coombes at a series of meetings across
the area with older people, young people, women and families, local workers
and members of the Neighbourhood Management Boards. Local public,
voluntary and community organisations were contacted to invite participants
to these events. The Birmingham City Council’s CommUNITY team arranged
for support to ensure targeted groups could participate (inc transport,
interpretation and translation, childcare, and reward vouchers and youth
leaders to accompany the young people) For the older people’s event, 12
organisations were contacted, along with 15 for the women’s event, 18 for
young people and 26 for local workers.
Around 176 people attended these sessions in total , including 104 residents.
There were 18 older people, 38 young people most of whom were
accompanied by adults, and 48 at a women-only event. Around 50 local public
and voluntary sector workers attended the session for local workers and 22
people turned up for the event for neighbourhood management board
members.
Each session was broadly World Café style, apart from the older people’s
event, and each was managed differently to make the most of the experience
in the room. They began with scene setting, the programme was outlined, and
7
the second and subsequent sessions were given information about the
previous sessions. The agenda and hopes for the session were discussed,
and each session emphasized why their ideas are considered a priority in this
vision.
Monitoring information was taken each time, and the context, as per the initial
scene setting, was reiterated at key points of each session.
Officers from Strategic Planning directorate attended the meetings and
encouraged opinions about The Black Cat site.
This was the first element of the dialogue programme to be delivered, and
conversations were managed (concentrating on the opportunities and ideas
rather than the issues) based around the Chartered Institute of Housing’s
framework of:







Active, inclusive and safe
Well run
Environmentally sensitive
Well designed and built (inc Black Cat site)
Well connected
Thriving
Well served
4. Summary
The methodological approach used throughout the Community Dialogue
process was not based on a statistically representative sample of Handsworth
and Lozells residents. This produces risks for generalising the Dialogue
outcomes and findings to the wider Handsworth and Lozells community.
The local people that took part in the Informal and Semi-Formal Dialogue
engagement activities were selected through working in close collaboration
with a range of public, voluntary and community sector organisations, which
provided support in identifying and contacting potential interviewees. The
process was reliant on the goodwill of members of many local organisations.
This use of targeted and snowball sampling2, rather than using a random
technique, means that the findings are not representative in a scientific sense.
Nevertheless, the Semi-Formal and Informal dialogues gave a voice to a
broad range of local residents.
The validity of community voices accessed through the Community Dialogue
process was confirmed by what emerged from the literature review (based on
information gathered from a range locally relevant of surveys, statistics,
official documents and other consultancy reports). The participants’ views and
2
Snowball sampling is a special non-probability method used when the desired sample characteristic is
rare. It may be extremely difficult or cost prohibitive to locate respondents in these situations. Snowball
sampling relies on referrals from initial subjects to generate additional subjects.
8
understanding of the issues and challenges facing the Handsworth and
Lozells area, was not dramatically different from what has emerged from
reviews of data and research work relating to the area. But the Dialogue
process gave many local people a unique opportunity to express their views
on potential solutions to local problems and their vision for a better
Handsworth and Lozells.
In producing the final report, members of the Community Dialogue consortium
(Governance Foundation, Birmingham Settlement, Carol Coombes and
Birmingham City University), met together to agree the accuracy of the key
findings that emerged from the process.
9
APPENDIX 2
HANDSWORTH AND LOZELLS
COMMUNITY DIALOGUE PROGRAMME
LITERATURE REVIEW
Alan Middleton
Patrick Loftman
GOVERNANCE FOUNDATION
&
David Kane
BIRMINGHAM CITY UNIVERSITY
May 2009
Contents
1.
Introduction: The Context ................................................................ 12
1.1
National and Regional Policies for Sustainable Communities ......... 12
2.
Community Cohesion ....................................................................... 15
2.1
Community Cohesion in Handsworth and Lozells .......................... 16
3.
Deprivation and Unemployment ...................................................... 22
3.1
Indices of Multiple Deprivation ......................................................... 22
3.2
Access to Income-Earning Opportunities......................................... 24
3.3
The Local Economy and Employment ............................................. 29
3.4
The North-West Birmingham Investment Plan................................. 32
3.5
The City-Region and Accelerated Development Zones ................... 33
4.
Education ........................................................................................... 34
5.
Handsworth and Lozells: A Good Place to Live? ........................... 36
6.
Housing .............................................................................................. 40
6.1
Housing Stock ................................................................................. 43
6.2
Community Requirements ............................................................... 45
6.3
Social Housing ................................................................................. 46
6.4
Private Rented Sector...................................................................... 47
6.5
New Arrivals .................................................................................... 48
6.6
Housing Requirements of the Black and Minority Ethnic (BME)
Community ................................................................................................. 49
7.
Environment and Neighbourhood ................................................... 53
7.1
General Cleanliness ........................................................................ 54
7.2
Other Environmental Concerns ....................................................... 56
8.
Community Safety ............................................................................. 58
8.1
Community Concerns ...................................................................... 61
8.2
Policing ............................................................................................ 63
8.3
Other Factors................................................................................... 63
9.
Travel and Transport ........................................................................ 64
9.1
The Eastern Periphery ..................................................................... 66
9.2
The North Western Periphery .......................................................... 67
10.
Health ................................................................................................. 68
11.
Young People .................................................................................... 70
11.1 Young Children ................................................................................ 71
11.2 Older Children / Youth ..................................................................... 72
12.
Culture and the Creative Industries ................................................. 74
13.
Empowering the Community............................................................ 76
14.
Conclusion......................................................................................... 79
COMMUNITY DIALOGUE PROGRAMME
HANDSWORTH AND LOZELLS COMMUNITY
LITERATURE REVIEW
1.
Introduction: The Context
1.1
National and Regional Policies for Sustainable Communities
The national context for this literature review is the Government’s Statutory
Guidance on creating strong, safe and prosperous communities3, the key
components of which are:

a recognition that every place is different, with distinctive strengths and
needs

a new approach by central government that creates space for distinctive
local priorities and local innovation

a commitment to widen and deepen the involvement of local communities
in shaping their own future

councils taking on the role of democratically elected strategic leaders and
convenors of local partnerships in the wider governance of their localities

a focus on coordinated action tailored to the distinctive needs and
opportunities of each place and its people
The Government proposes that to achieve positive outcomes for people and
places there needs to be a broadening of local government’s remit. This
includes responding to long-term challenges such as public health, climate
change and demographic fluctuations, ensuring continued economic
prosperity and environmental sustainability and building strong societies in
which people want to live and work. Amongst other things, this means all key
local partners working together to address the risks and challenges facing the
areas and involving and empowering communities. It is acknowledged that
services will be improved and communities strengthened only if local people
are effectively engaged and empowered.
3
Department of Communities and Local Government (2008) Creating Strong, Safe and Prosperous
Communities: Statutory Guidance, London
12
In the Foreword to the Report of the Commission on Integration and
Cohesion, the Chair of the Commission pointed out that4:
“Integration and Cohesion is no longer a special programme or project.
It is also not about race, faith or other forms of group status or identity.
It is simply about how we all get on and secure benefits that are
mutually desirable for our communities and ourselves”
The report shows that deprivation is a key influencer of cohesion but that the
complexity of influences ‘means that improving cohesion is about addressing
multiple issues at the same time’5. It is about ‘mainstreaming’ and ‘targeted
interventions’ – multiple local actions and the fair allocation of public services.
It is about creating sustainable and cohesive communities.
According to the Department for Communities and Local Government,
(DCLG)6, for a community to be fully sustainable there are a number of
important features, such as:










Jobs for those who need them
Less poverty and social exclusion
A range of environmentally and affordable housing
Good educational opportunities
Frequent and affordable public transport
Accessible and responsive health and social welfare systems
Low incidence of crime
Clean, productive and safe open spaces
Facilities for children and young people
High levels of public participation
The creation of these conditions has been adopted as aspirations for regional
and local authorities and, as we shall see, they reflect the concerns of people
who live in Handsworth and Lozells.
Regional Strategies for Sustainable Development
The UK’s Sustainable Development Strategy7 and the West Midlands
Sustainable Development Framework8 provide the national and regional
context for the development of thriving sustainable communities. The
Regional Housing Strategy9 seeks to contribute to the national and regional
4
Commission on Integration and Cohesion (2007) Our Shared Future, London, CIC, p 5
Ibid, p.8.
6
ENCAMS, Making Your Neighbourhood A Better Place To Live.YOUR AIMS
7
DEFRA (2005) Securing the Future: Delivering the UK Sustainable development Strategy, London
DEFRA
8
Sustainability West Midlands (2005) A Sustainable Future for the West Midlands: The Regional
Sustainable Development Framework, Birmingham
9
West Midlands Regional Housing Board (2005) West Midlands Regional Housing Strategy 2005,
WMRHB, pp.1-3.
5
13
sustainable development priorities by providing decent and affordable housing
for all in clean, safe, pleasant and healthy local environments. Core aims
include the creation of mixed, balanced and inclusive communities,
contributing to policies of urban renaissance and supporting the Housing
Market Renewal Area Pathfinder, Urban Living. The West Midlands Regional
Economic and Spatial Strategies reinforce the synergies between economic
development, regeneration, housing and transport and support the links with
health and education.
The vision of the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) incorporates the key theme
of the Bruntland definition of sustainable development and provides a context
for all to work together to improve the quality of their lives, contribute to a
diverse and thriving economy, participate in urban renaissance, live in a high
quality natural and built environment and have access to efficient and high
quality transport services10. The RSS provides a regional framework for an
urban renaissance that would reduce the outward flow of people, help ensure
that opportunities for growth are linked to reducing social exclusion and
modernising the transport infrastructure in support of sustainable
development.
This framework is consistent with the needs of the people of Handsworth and
Lozells, in that it supports Urban Living’s market renewal strategy and seeks
to: tackle deprivation and create employment opportunities in the South Black
Country and West Birmingham Regeneration Zone; protect and enhance the
quality of the urban environment; improve the quality of transport networks to
enhance social inclusion; improve economic performance and facilitate a
more sustainable pattern of development11. The Government Office for the
West Midlands proposes that local authorities and their partners should
restructure land use and transport networks, undertake environmental
improvements, raise the quality of urban design and public spaces and
increase accessibility for those currently disadvantaged in accessing jobs 12.
These partnerships between local authorities and other agencies will have a
key role in developing services in the fields of education, health, leisure,
community safety, environment and housing.
These sustainable development aims for the region are also entirely
consistent with the community cohesion objectives of Birmingham City
Council and, taken together, they provide a policy framework that would allow
the comprehensive regeneration of one of the most deprived parts of the
United Kingdom. However, it is a fundamental assumption of this project, and
of the Handsworth and Lozells Action Steering Group, that these broad
strategic statements of policy need to be completed in detail through the
participation of the local community. This raises the question as to whether
the community is cohesive enough to agree what this detail might look like.
10
Government Office for the West Midlands (2008) Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands,
Birmingham GOWM, p.7.
11
GOWM (2008) op.cit., p.12.
12
GOWM (2008) op.cit., p.18.
14
2.
Community Cohesion
‘Community cohesion is about everyone having a stake in society and being
able to join in and influence the decisions that affect their lives’ 13 The concept
of social cohesion is multi-faceted, covering many different types of social
phenomena and leading to many different definitions in practice. Access to
the material conditions of life are thought to be fundamental for social
cohesion – such as employment, income, health, education and housing14. A
second dimension is order, safety, freedom from fear and tolerant
relationships (‘passive’ relationships). A third refers to active social
relationships involving mutual support and trust. A fourth dimension is about
the extent to which people are integrated into the mainstream institutions of
society, including their sense of belonging and shared experiences, identity
and values. Fifthly, there is the dimension of equality of access to the
opportunities or the material circumstances that determine quality of life.
Social cohesion can have positive and negative attributes and outcomes.
Tight-knit communities can discriminate against other individuals and groups.
It is often the case that the social exclusion of some can be the result of the
social cohesion of others, such as white working class housing estates in
some parts of the country that are no-go areas for BME groups15.
Communities can cohere to exclude other people from different backgrounds.
Groups can also cohere around criminal activities. In some cases, gangs can
be extremely cohesive, with murderous outcomes. In promoting community
cohesion, therefore, it is important to be mindful of the potential for unintended
negative consequences.
For Birmingham City Council, community cohesion means its residents living
together positively, having a stake in society, building links and relationships
and being proud of the City. There are three sets of indicators that enable it to
measure change in social cohesion16:
1. People’s perceptions of community harmony, safety and decisionmaking
2. The extent to which people experience economic and social
inequality
3. The level of anti-social or intolerant behaviour
The causes of low community cohesion are seen to be17:

Structural disadvantage related to poor life, health, economic, educational,
housing and recreational opportunities
13
Cllr Alan Rudge, Birmingham Post 13.4.09.
Parkinson, M. et al (2006) The State of English Cities, Vol. 1, London, DCLG, p. 109-110.
15 Middleton, et.al (2008) The Social and Economic Impact of Large-scale Housing
Investment, BCU/Governance Foundation.
16
Birmingham City Council (2006) Community Cohesion Strategy, Birmingham BCC, p.7
17
Ibid., p.10.
14
15

Service, information and resource issues, such as perceived inequities in
public funding, the tendency of the media to focus on bad news and the
lack of service cohesion across the public sector
Inter-group tensions deriving from real or perceived differences between
groups
Incident escalation issues that lead to serious and damaging breakdown


To address these issues, the Council has identified the need to develop policy
responses that address structural disadvantage, deliver joined-up services,
prevent and resolve conflict, improve information and communication and
ensure diversity in staffing and recruitment in public sector organisations. Its
‘core policies’ for community cohesion seek to address structural
disadvantage, design community cohesion policies into the way the public
sector works and change perceptions for the better.
The Council recognises that their work must impact on the causes of
disadvantage that create potential disaffection and disharmony. This project
addresses fundamental aspects of the core policies for building community
cohesion. Removing structural disadvantage implies targeted action on18:






Worklessness
Housing
Environmental Services
Social care
Education
Health
The project addresses these themes, directly or indirectly, but also considers
issues around community safety, traffic and transport. It seeks to inform the
policy choices that may be available in Handsworth and Lozells, given the
social and economic circumstances of the residents of the area. Before going
on to look at aspects of these themes in more detail, it is necessary to
consider the evidence of community cohesion in the area.
2.1
Community Cohesion in Handsworth and Lozells
In October 2005, there were violent disturbances in Lozells, when members of
the African Caribbean and Asian communities clashed after the circulation of
rumours about an alleged rape of a 14 year old African Caribbean girl in a
local Asian-owned business, the Beauty Queen shop. Following
demonstrations and a call for a boycott of Asian shops, a 23 year old Black
Council IT worker was murdered by a group of Asian youths as he made his
way home from the cinema. In the violence, 347 crimes were committed,
18
Ibid, p.11.
16
including 12 firearms offences and 12 attempted murders and 80 people were
injured19.
These disturbances were different from previous riots or ‘uprisings’ in the
area, when the conflict was mainly based on tensions between the black
community and the police. In 2005, the disturbances were based on tensions
between the Asian and African Caribbean communities in the area. The
catalyst was the rumoured rape, but the underlying conditions had to do with
values, cultures and perceived inequalities in relation to access to material
benefits and resources. When the community was asked what had created
the disturbances, the answers were many and varied. Nevertheless, the two
dominant responses were ‘drugs and gangs’ and ‘community mistrust’. When
asked what could have prevented them, the focus of responses was on better
communication and a greater police presence20.
The Black Radley Report pointed to a number of issues that lay behind the
fault lines between the communities at that time: persistent disadvantage,
worklessness, housing and population change, democratic representation and
the orientation of the statutory agencies21. Related issues included the
changing ethnic population of the area; clashes of fundamental value systems
including views of women; unashamed stereotyping by young Blacks and
Asians; competition for commercial opportunities, access to jobs and public
funds; the exclusion of young people from community participation; the growth
of local gangs; statutory agencies that do not fully engage with the issues and
the distribution of community funding in a way that undermines cohesion.
The way the disturbances were handled and calmed down by a combination
of community representatives and facilitators, the police, city council officers
and members, the youth service and others is potentially an example of good
practice which has still to be written up. The immediate aftermath was then
followed by a flurry of activity by partnership agencies, much of which either
appears to have disappeared or to have developed into new actions and
policies. It is difficult to trace the linkages through to the present time but,
following the disturbances, Birmingham City Council’s response was based on
a partnership approach resulting in the Council co-ordinating and leading a
partnership of key agencies to develop and deliver a strategic agenda for
Lozells; it also commissioned two pieces of research on how local inequities
contribute to the fracturing of communities22 and on the work undertaken by
the Lozells Partnership23.
19
Black Radley (2007) Lozells Disturbances: Summary Report, Birmingham, Black Radley Ltd, p.5;
Focus Consulting (2006) Listening to Lozells: The Birmingham Dialogues, London, Focus Consulting,
p.4.
20
Black Radley (2007) op. cit.
21
Black Radley (2007) op. cit., p.10.
22
Focus Consultancy (2006) op. cit.
23
Black Radley (2006) Community Relations in Lozells: An outline of Good Practice, Birmingham,
Black Radley.
17
The Lozells Partnership Group, which was set up in response to the
disturbances included the West Midlands Police, GOWM, the Probation
Service, the Commission for Racial Equality, the Community Safety
Partnership, Birmingham University and various directorates and services of
the City Council including Local Services, Equalities, Housing, Corporate
Communications and PR, Youth Services and Regeneration. An action plan
with six core activity projects was agreed. The projects were Community
Consultation and Empowerment; Inter/Intra Community Relations and
Community Engagement; Safer Environments; an Investment Plan; Youth
Engagement and Services and Tension Monitoring.
The Community Consultation and Empowerment project considered how to
improve communication with the voluntary sector and community groups and
pointed to the need to bring some synergy and greater purpose to
communication and information channels. The objectives of the Inter/Intra
Community Relations and Community Engagement project were to research
the area of community relations and bring forward proposals on best practice.
The Safer Environments Project carried out an environmental audit to identify
litter hotspots and recommend action to reduce environmental crime. The
Investment Plan Project produced a ten year strategy for development in
Lozells and East Handsworth, based on encouraging investment into North
West Birmingham. The Youth Engagement Services Project set out to
develop a multi-agency development group which strengthened the young
people’s sub-group of Birmingham Reducing Gang Violence in the City
Council and develop key voluntary and community sector groups working in
this field. The Tension Monitoring Framework Project set up a framework for
analysing and reacting to rising tensions in the area.
In pursuit of community cohesion, a wide range of strategies, projects, priority
working groups and sub-groups, task groups, inter-faith groups, service teams
and commissions were set up both locally and at a city level. Although many
of these groups appear to no longer exist, the setting up of the Community
Team, the appointment of Neighbourhood Management Teams and the
formation of the Handsworth and Lozells Action Steering group are all
expressions of the public sector’s commitment to resolving the cohesion
issues in the area. However, recent information for Lozells suggests that the
problem has not gone away.
In 2006, Focus Consulting reported that:
‘Physical divisions are obvious along the Lozells Road. There are
separate community and voluntary bodies, employment places, places
of worship, language, social and cultural networks and this has resulted
in many communities living “parallel lives”24’
24
Focus Research (2006) op. cit., p30.
18
In the 2007 Local Area Agreement Survey, 80% of respondents from across
Birmingham agreed with the statement that their local area was one where
people from different backgrounds get along. This compared with only 11%
who disagreed and 9% who were not sure. The net agreement (80% - 11%)
with the statement, which is taken as a measure of cohesion in the report,
was 69%. (This has increased from 61% in 200425).
The survey also shows that the Perry Barr constituency has an 80% level of
net agreement, the highest of all the constituencies in the city and an
improvement of 5% on the previous survey of 200626. Following the
disturbances in Lozells in 2005, this would appear to be a remarkable result. It
has raised the question as to why such a high proportion of the residents of
the constituency are in agreement that they live in an area where people of
different backgrounds get on well together. It has been suggested that it may
be because the constituency is very diverse and has been so for a long time.
People from different backgrounds have become accustomed to living
together; neighbourhood management programmes in Handsworth and
Lozells have addressed community cohesion issues in their neighbourhood
plans and the introduction of neighbourhood policing has resulted in people
feeling safer and more committed to their communities. It has also been
suggested that, as each year passes following the disturbances, people’s
feelings of a sense of community and togetherness are increasing27.
In a household survey carried out for Urban Living in 2008, the results are
rather different28. In the Urban Living area as a whole, only 62% of
respondents agreed that ‘people from different backgrounds get along well
around here’. Net agreement with the statement was only 56%. In the
Handsworth and Lozells area, only 54% agreed that people get on and 7%
disagreed, giving a net agreement of just 47%. The balance of 39% would not
commit to either agreeing or disagreeing. In contrast with the constituency,
many people were not sure. Digging down further, the situation in the area
where the disturbances took place is even bleaker. In Lozells and Birchfield
West, only 45% agreed that people from different backgrounds get on well
and 7% disagreed, resulting in a net agreement of only 38%. If net agreement
is indeed a measure of community cohesion, this is a far cry from the
celebratory 80% in the Perry Barr constituency. The best that can be said is
that 48% of the people in Lozells and Birchfield West are not sure if people of
different backgrounds get along well in the area. The most likely reasons for
this is that people from different backgrounds do not mix with each other, do
not know each other, and make no effort to get along.
The Urban Living survey also suggests that there is a poor sense of belonging
in the area. While 21% of the population in the Urban Living area do not feel a
bond with their immediate neighbourhood (that is, not a very strong sense of
belonging or not at all), the corresponding figure in Lozells and Birchfield West
25
BMG Research (2008) Local Area Agreement Survey. BeBirmingham, p.26
Ibid., p.28. This compares with a 55% net agreement in Yardley, the lowest in Birmingham.
27
E-mail correspondence.
28
Vector Research (2009) Urban Living Household Survey 2008: Handsworth and Lozells, Vector
Research, p.36.
26
19
is 29%. The authors of the report also point out that ‘a quarter of respondents
[in the Handsworth and Lozells area] did not feel that bond with their
neighbourhood, area, city or England’29. In Lozells and Birchfield West,
around one third does not feel a bond with their local area, Birmingham or
England.
.
These figures would caution against the application of the constituency figures
to all localities within it. They also caution against complacency and raise
questions about the interpretation of the good constituency figures, which
appear to suggest that because the area has been diverse for a long time,
people have become accustomed to living together and, as time passes,
people’s sense of community is increasing.
The two constituencies that include the Handsworth and Lozells area are the
most ethnically diverse in the city30. Of the 28,806 people who lived in the
Lozells and East Handsworth Ward at the time of the Census in 2001, 83%
were in the Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) population. This compares with
30% in Birmingham as a whole31. However, the ethnic composition of these
areas is changing over time. In Table 1, we can see that in the inter-census
period 1991 and 2001, in addition to ‘white flight’, there was a substantial loss
of people with an Indian background, despite the growth in numbers in the city
as a whole. There was a growth of 20% in the Black population but, since this
was much less than in the city as a whole, we might assume that segments of
the Black population are also moving out. The Pakistani and Bangladeshi
communities are increasing substantially, but more or less in line with the
increase in these populations in the city as a whole.
Table 1: Change in Ethnic Populations 1991-2001
% CHANGE
IN % SHARE
Soho /
Handsworth
Birmingham
White
%
Black
%
Indian
%
-23.68
-10.35
19.19
34.06
-12.77
7.41
Pakistani Bangladeshi Chinese
%
%
%
51.42
54.82
63.25
60.98
1.06
51.72
Source: 1991 Census, 2001 Census – elaborated in Urban Living (2005) Black and Minority
Ethnic Housing Needs and Aspirations.
A variety of sources provide different figures for the current ethnic profile of
Handsworth and Lozells but by combining some of them we can get a
reasonable picture of the current situation32. In Table 2, we can see that in
Handsworth/Lozells the population is 48% Asian and 32% Black and that
there is some minor variation across the area.
29
Vector Research (2009) op. cit., p.38
BMG (2008) op.cit., p.97.
31
http://www.bebirmingham.org.uk
32
Sources include: BeBirmingham (2008)Lozells and East Handsworth Ward Profile; Vector Research
(2009); BMG (2008); BeBirmingham (2008) Neighbourhood Profiles.
30
20
Other
%
59.19
54.57
In Table 3, we can see that the Asian population, as a proportion of the total
population, is 20% Indian, 19% Pakistani and 8% Bangladeshi. This, of
course, is far from being a homogenous ethnic community. It is divided by a
history of conflict in the Indian subcontinent, territory in Birmingham and
religion - and there is anecdotal evidence that there is division not only
between these groups but also within them. It is to the credit of faith and other
community leaders that the historical conflict seldom finds its expression in
Birmingham but, once again, it would be wrong to be complacent
Table 2: Ethnic Diversity
White
Mixed
Asian
Black
Other
BMG
Birmingham Ladywood
%
%
67
29
2
3
21
39
8
25
2
3
Perry
Barr
%
43
3
33
18
2
H&L
%
14
3
48
31
3
Lozells &
BW
%
13
2
50
32
3
Other
H&L
16
3
48
30
4
Note: H&L is Handsworth and Lozells, BW is Birchfield West
Sources: BMG (2008), p.97; Vector (2009) p.6.
Table 3: Ethnic Profile: Handsworth & Lozells, Lozells & Birchfield West
(BW), and Other Handsworth & Lozells
Lozells &
Other
H&L
BW
H&L
%
%
%
White
White British
White Irish
Other White
Mixed
White & Black
Caribbean
White & Black
African
White & Asian
Other mixed
Asian
Indian
Pakistani
Bangladeshi
Other Asian
Black
Caribbean
African
Other Black
Other
Chinese
Other Ethnic Group
14.4
10.4
0.9
3.1
2.6
12.9
11.1
0.5
1.3
2.2
15.6
9.9
1.3
4.4
2.9
1.3
0.0
2.3
0.3
0.3
0.7
48.4
20.2
18.6
7.8
1.8
31.5
22.5
7.7
1.3
2.9
1.1
1.8
0.5
0.3
1.4
49.5
13.1
21.0
14.8
0.6
33.8
20.5
10.5
2.8
1.7
0.6
1.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
47.7
25.5
16.8
2.7
2.7
29.9
24.0
5.7
0.2
3.9
1.5
2.4
Source: Vector, 2009, p.6
21
The issue that most of the literature ignores is religion. In Lozells and
Birchfield West, the population is 34% mainly Christian Black, 36% South
Asian Muslim and 30% of a variety of religions and origins. The 2005
disturbances were an expression of an underlying tension between young
Christian Blacks and young South Asian Muslims that does not appear to
have gone away. Social cohesion theory would suggest that in an area like
this, with people of different backgrounds living closely together, we should
expect high levels of social cohesion. We have seen that the opposite is the
case. If we also have increasing Black middle class flight, leaving a residual
and increasingly resentful Black population who are excluded from the
material benefits of society, we have the perfect recipe for further trouble.
In order to increase social cohesion, promote inter-ethnic mixing and reduce
the risk of further disturbances, it is important to understand the extent and
nature of poverty and deprivation in the area, and how this compares with
other parts of the city and the country. As suggested above, removing the
structural disadvantage that causes low community cohesion is a fundamental
aspect of community cohesion policy, which will not only enhance residents’
quality of life but also improve both resident and external perceptions of
Handsworth and Lozells.
3.
Deprivation and Unemployment
3.1
Indices of Multiple Deprivation
In 1997, the Indices of Deprivation showed that Handsworth was the 30th most
deprived ward in the country, a position which was better than nine other
Birmingham wards33. Following the introduction of Output Areas in the 2001
Census and changes to geographies of wards in 2004, the boundaries of the
Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs) that are used in the Indices of Multiple
Deprivation (IMD) in 2007 are not consistent with the boundaries of the new
Lozells and East Handsworth Ward. Nevertheless, there are 18 LSOAs that
are within or mainly within the ward. The IMD scores for these LSOAs for
2007 provide a fairly accurate picture of the level of deprivation in different
parts of the ward and in the ward as a whole.
Of these LSOAs, two are amongst the one percent of the most deprived areas
in the country, a further seven are in the worst three per cent and six have
levels of deprivation that place them in the bottom 5%. That is, of the 18
LSOAs in Handsworth/Lozells, 15 (over 80%) are amongst the 5% most
deprived areas in England and Wales.
Middleton, A., Loftman, P and Schaechter, J (1997) Birmingham – The International Convention
Centre, Urban Redevelopment and Social Polarisation in the City: Vol 1, Lille, ILFRESI, p. 118.
33
22
The IMD are composed of seven indicators that are giving weightings to
produce the overall score34. Analysing the relative importance of these
indicators, it is clear that the main problem in Handsworth/Lozells is the
income levels of its inhabitants. Six of the LSOAs are in the worst 1% in the
country and a further eight are in the worst 3%. Put another way, around 80%
of the ward is part of the poorest 3% of the country. If we remove the two
most prosperous parts of the ward from the picture, the rest fall into the
bottom 1.5% in the country.
Related to income, we might expect that the second most problematical
aspect of deprivation would be employment, but it is not. The second biggest
issue in Handsworth/Lozells is the quality of the living environment. Within this
domain, three of the LSOAs fall into the bottom 1% in the country and a
further seven are in the bottom 3%. That is, in more than half the ward, the
quality of the living environment is amongst the worst 3% in England.
Nevertheless, the area does not fare much better on the employment
indicator. There are indeed two LSOAs that fall into the bottom 3% with
respect to the employment element of the IMD and a further five that are in
the bottom 5%. All are in the bottom 20%. Lack of employment is certainly a
major issue, but low paid employment may be a more important problem. The
fundamental problem of the area, therefore, is low income, which is linked to
benefits but may also be a feature of the type of employment that the people
of Handsworth and Lozells have access to. When the residents of
Handsworth/Lozells do find jobs, they tend to be low-paid, which will be a
function of skill levels and the types of work that is available locally.
One aspect of the local economy which we know very little about, of course, is
the importance of informal employment. Those working in the informal sector,
usually for cash in hand to supplement their income from benefits, are a
feature of the economies of poorer neighbourhoods all over the country.
People do whatever they need to do, legal and sometimes illegal, to support
themselves and their families. It may be a small part of the local economy, but
it is hidden from statisticians. These activities are a rational response to
exclusion from the formal labour market, which we will return to in a moment.
34
The IMD 2007 was constructed by combining the
seven transformed domain scores, using the following
weights:
* Income (22.5%)
* Employment (22.5%)
* Health Deprivation and Disability (13.5%)
* Education, Skills and Training (13.5%)
* Barriers to Housing and Services (9.3%)
* Crime (9.3%)
* Living Environment (9.3%)
23
Another feature of the area is the importance of new migrant communities.
Levels of international migration have risen significantly in recent years,
particularly from the EU Accession States. Employers have generally
welcomed new EU migrants, mainly because they have been filling jobs that
were previously hard-to-fill. It is argued that if these migrants are seen to be
displacing some indigenous people from employment, this could lead to
resentment35. More important for Handsworth/Lozells, migration from the
Indian subcontinent is still significant and, if the recent European migrants are
seen to be replacing either earlier migrants or their British-born children in the
labour market, this too could harm community cohesion. There is already
some evidence that young black people are expressing such resentment36
and that, within the migrant community itself, both Iranians and Kurds accuse
the Poles of working for less than the minimum wage37. Almost all Polish
respondents are employed, including Polish women. In contrast, the vast
majority of refugees are unemployed – between 70% and 90% of each
community and almost all women38. The main reasons for unemployment
amongst this group are language and lack of UK work experience or
qualifications.
3.2
Access to Income-Earning Opportunities
Over the past 25 years, unemployment in Handsworth and Lozells has been
well above the city average and there is evidence that the gap has been
growing. There is also evidence that as the economy of the city and the
nation improves, the relative performance of the area deteriorates compared
to the city and the country as a whole. When the national economy picked up
in the 1990s, the situation in the Handsworth ward improved more slowly than
the rest of the city. In 1992, in the midst of the last recession, the
unemployment rate in Handsworth was 1.8 times the city average but as the
economy picked up the gap between the ward and the rest of the city grew 39.
By 1997, unemployment in the old Handsworth ward was 2.0 times the
average. This is a reminder of what we might expect as the national economy
recovers from the current recession, with all its implications for community
cohesion, the image of the area and the image of the city as a whole. At 2.4
times the city average in 2008 (Table 4), the difference between
unemployment in the ward and the city is already greater than it was in 1997,
and it will inevitable grow as the economy moves out of the present recession.
Lower levels of education, skills and work experience will ensure that this
transpires.
35
West Midlands Regional Observatory (2008) Birmingham, Coventry and the Black Country City
Region – Outline Strategic Economic Assessment, Birmingham, WMRO, p.32.
36
Darcus Howe, full reference
37
Phillimore, et al (2008) The Neighbourhood Needs of New Migrants, University of Birmingham,
38 Phillimore, et al (2008) op. cit., p.42.
39
Middleton, A., Loftman, P and Schaechter, J (1998) Birmingham - United Kingdom Case Study,
Urban Redevelopment and Social Polarisation in the City: Vol. 1, Lille, ILFRESI, p. 39.
24
Table 4: Unemployment and Disability in Lozells and East Handsworth
Date
Unemployment (claimant
count)
Income Support
Incapacity Benefit & SDA
Long Term Unemployment
Youth Unemployment
Worklessness
Birmingham
%
May-08
Perry
Barr
%
8.7
L%EH/B'ham
L&EH
%
19.9
8.2
2.4
May-07
May-07
May-08
May-08
May-07
13.1
11
10.7
21.3
30.4
7.7
7.9
4.4
14.7
19.8
9.2
8.9
3.7
15.8
21.6
1.4
1.2
2.9
1.3
1.4
Source: http://local.bebirmingham.org.uk [Accessed May 2009]
Across the city region and in the city of Birmingham, levels of worklessness40
are high compared to the national average41. This is more concentrated in
certain demographic groups than others – under 25s and over 50s, those with
a disability and black and minority ethnic groups in particular. In central and
east Birmingham, areas with concentrations of young people, Pakistanis and
Bangladeshis have the highest rates of worklessness, especially among
women. The West Midlands Regional Observatory propose that ‘this
suggests that there may be cultural issues to be overcome as well as other
factors such as skills’42. This may be true, but whose cultural issues should
we be looking at? Amongst women and new migrants, lack of English
language presents a barrier to employment43. The traditional role of women in
South Asian society is different from their role in British society, so perhaps
this is what WMRO are alluding to. However, it is also the case that racism
amongst employers and the stigma attached to where people live are also
powerful issues that need to be considered when trying to stimulate
employment for residents in Handsworth and Lozells. These are aspects of
local culture that should be acknowledged.
In May 2008, 19.9% of the economically active population in Lozells and East
Handsworth aged 16-59 were claiming Job Seekers Allowance, 2.4 times the
city average (of 8.2%) (see Table 4). This showed a slight decline from May
2007, when the Lozells and East Handsworth figures were above the average
for the Priority Wards and unemployment rates were almost seven times the
national average for England and Wales (3.2%)44. The rates for the long-term
unemployed are even worse, at 2.9 times the city average.
40
Worklessness is defined as those of working age who are not employed, whether or not they are
seeking work. The ‘Working Age Client Group’ includes those not seeking work but in receipt of at
least one of a range of benefits that can be paid to people of working age.
41
West Midlands Regional Observatory (2008) Birmingham, Coventry and the Black Country City
Region – Outline Strategic Economic Assessment, Birmingham, WMRO, p.22.
42
Ibid, p.24.
43
Phillimore, et al (2008) op.cit.
44
Be Birmingham (2008), Lozells and East Handsworth Ward Profile, p.14
25
The proportion of the working age population in Lozells and East Handsworth
who have no qualifications is 10% higher than in the city as a whole (47%
against 37%) and 18% higher than the national average45. At the time of the
last Census, the proportion of people in the bottom three occupational
categories46 was 54%, compared to 32% citywide47. This is reflected in below
average earnings.
In June 2007, before the current recession, there were 22 applicants in
Handsworth/Lozells for every vacancy notified to the Jobcentre48. In the Perry
Barr constituency, the long-term unemployment rates were 3 times the rate for
the city and, as is the case across the city, unemployment rates were lowest
for the white population, followed by the Indian. The Bangladeshi population
was six times more likely than the white to be long-term unemployed, the
Pakistani more than four times and Blacks more than three times49. With an
estimated 86% of the population belonging to BME groups, the unemployment
figures are not surprising.
Other benefits associated with low incomes and worklessness are also higher
in Handsworth/Lozells than elsewhere. The percentage of the population aged
16-59 claiming income support is 1.4 times the city average, as is the
proportion of the working age population that is claiming out of work
benefits50. The percentage claiming incapacity benefit or severe disability
allowance is 1.2 times the city average. Incapacity benefit was being paid to
11% of the working age population (compared to 9% of the city as a whole
and 7.4% nationally).
The percentage of young people aged 18-24 claiming job seekers allowance
is 1.3 times the city average and NOMIS statistics suggest that youth
unemployment rates are 1.6 times those in the city as a whole51. However,
other figures show that young people, aged 16 to 18 years old, were only
marginally more likely to be ‘Not in Education, Employment or Training’
(NEETS) than people of the same age in other parts of the city
(7.15%compared to 6.9%)52. This may to some extent reflect an improving
educational performance in Handsworth/Lozells, to which we shall return.
However, youth unemployment remains a considerable barrier to the future
well-being of everyone in the area.
Out of the 2 million unemployed in the UK today, around 800,000 are under
the age of 25. Overcoming the low levels of individual and household income
45
Birmingham Economic Information Centre (2007) Perry Barr Constituency: Economic and
Employment Profile, Birmingham City Council.
46
SOC2000 - Sales and customer services; process, plant and machine operatives; and elementary
occupations.
47
www.birmingham.gov.uk/community
48
Birmingham Economic Information Centre (2007), op. cit., p.9
49
Birmingham Economic Information Centre (2007), op. cit., p15. This population, defined as
unemployed for one year or longer, have a similar pattern as Birmingham as a whole but the geography
is not the same as for previous unemployment calculations.
50
http://local.bebirmingham.org.uk/datasets
51
Birmingham Economic Information Centre (2007) op. cit., p.14.
52
Be Birmingham (2008), Lozells and East Handsworth Ward Profile, p.15.
26
will require the preparation of young people for employment that will pay more
than is achievable at present. In areas like Handsworth/Lozells, the numbers
of young unemployed will rise dramatically as young people leave school in
June to find there are no jobs. Already, applications for further and higher
education is rising, as young people decide to carry on with their education
rather than be unemployed, but young people in Handsworth/Lozells, with
their lower levels of school attainment, are less likely than teenagers from
elsewhere to be able to choose this option.
The Chancellor may raise funding for FE, but this may have less impact on
Handsworth/Lozells than other parts of the city. As unemployment rises
towards three million, young people in areas such as Handsworth/Lozells will
be disproportionately affected. This means not only higher unemployment
during the recession, with divergence between the area and other parts of the
city increasing, but also these differences in unemployment continuing to
increase during the recovery because the young people in
Handsworth/Lozells are least able to take advantage of the new opportunities.
Unemployment while young causes permanent damage for future
employment prospects. It increases the chances of unemployment later in life
and reduces lifetime earning capacity.
The Chancellor may provide employers with incentives to hire people but, all
other things being equal, will employers hire young people from Lozells and
East Handsworth, an area that is highly stigmatised? If it is the case that
employers outside Handsworth/Lozells are reluctant to employ people from
the area, what are the opportunities in the local economy?
Given the situation of high unemployment and worklessness, we have to ask
whether the local economy can be supported and improved to help residents
and, in particular, young people into well-paid employment. What types of jobs
exist in the local economy and what assistance can be given to support new
businesses and protect existing ones?
Since 1999, the ward has lost almost 60 of its 700 enterprises, after new
starts and closures are taken into account. This net loss of local firms
represents a drop of around 8% at a time of economic growth in the economy,
when the number of firms in the constituency grew by 5% and in the city by
6%. Business survival rates are also well below average. A new business in
Lozells and East Handsworth has less than a 50% chance of surviving 4
years, compared to 60% in Birmingham as a whole.
From conversations with different people, there appears to be a general
perception that there is a high rate of self-employment in Handsworth and
Lozells. In fact, the level is lower than in Birmingham as a whole and much
lower than is the case nationally (8.7%, 9.1% and 12.4% respectively, at the
time of the last Census)53.
53
www.birmingham.gov.uk/community
27
These figures underline an argument for support to be extended to local
businesses to help them survive and grow, but they also raise the question as
to what types of employers there are in the area that would benefit from such
support.
The size-structure of industry in the area is set out in Table 5 . Eighty nine
per cent of firms in the area employ less that 10 people and only 20
organisations, all of them public sector, employ more than 50. Of the 480
firms who employ less than 10 people, around 200 (42%) are in retail and
catering (which appear to be mainly fast food outlets).
Perhaps surprisingly, there were around 120 firms of all sizes in banking,
finance and insurance in 2007. In terms of number of firms, this was the
second most important sector. In the current climate, with the financial sector
in crisis, there can be little potential for employment growth in this type of
activity. However, as the economy recovers from the recession, close
attention should be paid to opportunities in this sector.
To get people into employment within the area, the role of the public sector as
an employer is critical. Birmingham City Council recognises that, through their
staff and recruitment policies, the Council and other public sector agencies
can improve the representative composition of their workforce at all levels
and, through these employees, can deepen community engagement54. The
City Council and its partner organisations in Handsworth and Lozells have a
potential for making a major impact on employment in the area, if they can
agree a recruitment policy for the area that prepares and allows residents
access to public sector jobs.
With the above industry structure, there is little potential for employment
growth without a major contribution from the public sector, both as an
employer and as an awarder of contracts. There may be a need to look more
closely at public sector recruitment practices in Handsworth/Lozells, to see if
there may be an opportunity to employ more local people, particularly but not
exclusively in the regeneration effort. At the moment, a large proportion
employed in this sector are likely to live elsewhere, have their salaries paid
into banks in other parts of the City, and spend their incomes far from their
places of work. Retaining more public sector salaries in the local economy
would support local businesses.
Encouraging contractors that are involved in the regeneration effort to employ
local labour could also make a contribution. There may also be scope for the
public sector supporting local social enterprises that can address some of the
issues that concern local residents.
Attracting new investment into the area will not be easy at the present time.
Nevertheless, with the development of the Asian economies and an expected
growth of inward investment from India and China into the UK economy over
the next 20 years, we might expect the cultural diversity of
Handsworth/Lozells to be a positive feature when efforts are being made to
54
Birmingham City Council (2006) Community Cohesion Strategy, Birmingham BCC, p.10.
28
attract these businesses to Birmingham. The area’s historical relationship with
the Indian sub-continent should place Handsworth/Lozells in a good position
to both export to South Asia and attract inward investment from the same part
of the world. However, this is unlikely to happen without the allocation of a
considerable amount of new land for industrial and commercial activity.
Unfortunately, as we shall see, development land is in short supply. Other
issues which are important, and to which we will return, are skills levels, the
appearance of the local environment and the levels and perceptions of
criminal activities.
Table 5: Number of Employers by Size-Band in 2007, Rounded to the
Nearest 10.
Industry
Agriculture and fishing
Energy and water
Manufacturing
Construction
Distribution, hotels and
restaurants
Transport and communications
Banking, finance and insurance
Public admin, education &
health
Other services
Column Total
11-49
employees
0
0
0
0
50-199
employee
s
0
0
0
0
200 or
more
employee
s
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
30
30
200
20
110
10
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
200
30
120
70
30
480
20
0
40
20
0
20
0
0
0
100
30
540
1-10
employe
es
0
0
30
30
Source: Birmingham Economic Information Centre
3.3
The Local Economy and Employment
The issues of low levels of participation in the labour market and high levels of
unemployment are only partially related to the existence of jobs in the area. It
has been recognised for a long time that it is not uncommon in inner city
areas to find high levels of unemployment and high numbers of jobs existing
side by side in areas characterised by poverty and exclusion55. The problem
in these areas is not that there are no jobs, for in some cases one can find
twice as many jobs as there are people seeking jobs. A major issue in these
places is that the people of the area cannot access the jobs that exist locally.
In Handsworth/Lozells, there is no abundance of jobs, but a further problem is
that the residents have difficulty in accessing jobs wherever they are to be
found. The lack of jobs locally distracts from the difficulty that residents have
in accessing jobs across the city or, indeed, in neighbouring metropolitan
boroughs.
Middleton, A. (1987) ‘Glasgow and its East End’ in Donnison, D. and Middleton, A. (eds.)
Regenerating the Inner City: Glasgow’s Experience, London, Routledge & Keegan Paul.
55
29
It should be clear from the above discussion of the local economy that solving
the jobs issue in Handsworth/Lozells will depend on the economic
development of the wider travel to work area. Dealing with the unemployment
issue in Handsworth/Lozells is a matter of ensuring that the residents have
the skills that are going to be required for the jobs in the wider area that will
emerge in the future. This implies education and skills training for a future jobs
market. But generating the employment that will serve both the needs of the
wider economy and the local population will need a broader geographical
perspective.
The Birmingham Economic Strategy and the Regional Economic Strategy
highlight the need to stimulate new industrial and commercial activity and
employment in North West Birmingham56. The Regional Spatial Strategy
points out that there is a ‘direct link between economic performance and
quality of life, particularly for disadvantaged groups and communities who
may suffer from high rates of unemployment and poor access to employment
opportunities’57. We have seen that this strategic framework is entirely
consistent with the needs of Handsworth and Lozells and we will argue in this
section that a broad sub-regional perspective is needed to tackle the issues of
worklessness in the local area.
Birmingham’s Council Plan for 2008-201358 proposes that, over the period,
more people will be in work and that unemployment and worklessness will be
reduced significantly. Important objectives are that ‘economic inequalities
between communities will reduce and disadvantaged people will have more
opportunities; educational performance and adult skills will continue to
improve; and more young people will be in education, training and
employment’. These objectives are particularly important for the people of
Handsworth and Lozells, particularly the commitment to reduce inequalities
between communities, for it implies that additional resources will be targeted
towards the area to address its levels of deprivation.
North-West Birmingham has been ignored as an area for inward investment,
presumably because demand for industrial and commercial locations in the
north-west of the city from potential incoming businesses has been low. There
are other parts of the city that are more attractive for mobile companies and,
in order to encourage them to locate in Birmingham, the Council and its
partner organisations have to present what these businesses would consider
to be the best available opportunities.
Nevertheless, North West Birmingham 59 received £39.9 million of SRB6
funding between 2000 and 2007, with the aim of working with the local
community to bring about the long-term sustainable regeneration of the area.
This focussed on the key corridors of Soho Road, Dudley Road and Midland
56
Birmingham City Council, The Aston, Newtown and Lozells Area Action Plan: Issues and Options
Report, p.9.
57
GOWM (2008) op.cit., p.45.
58
Birmingham City Council (2008) Council Plan 2008-2013, Birmingham, Birmingham City Council,
p10.
59
Soho and parts of Lozells and East Handsworth, Aston, Handsworth Wood and Ladywood Wards
30
Metro Line 1, along with the local centres of Lozells Road, Villa Road and
Rookery Road.
The Regional Spatial Strategy requires the council to identify a series of
Regional Investment Sites (RIS). Aston East, at the boundaries of the East
Birmingham and North Solihull Regeneration areas, has been proposed as a
site for an RIS60 . This would include office development, research and
development activities, light industrial and high quality general industrial
activities.
Across the City – Region of Birmingham, Coventry and the Black Country,
Skill levels are lower than the national average and the proportion of
individuals with no qualifications is higher. Worklessness rates are also
higher, with significant concentrations in disadvantaged communities,
particularly in the areas of multiple deprivation in Birmingham61. We have
seen that this is particularly true of Handsworth and Lozells. The City-Region
bid promised to measure success through ‘agreed targets for a reduction in
benefit claimants, an increase in employment rates and increases in the
number of people achieving NVQ Level 2 and NVQ Level 3 qualifications’62. If
key weaknesses that need to be addressed in the City-Region are low levels
of skills and high levels of worklessness63, focus on the needs of the people of
Handsworth/Lozells would help achieve these objectives through reinforcing
the momentum in education that is already improving.
The economic issues that the region needs to address include the need for
better infrastructure to attract new businesses and help indigenous
businesses to grow; a relatively low skills base, the need to diversify the
economy and the need to connect housing growth to job growth 64. Connecting
Urban Living to areas of development for new and indigenous business
through improved infrastructure fits the bill. There is little commercial and
industrial land within Handsworth/Lozells to support the growth of indigenous
companies and if the diversity of the communities can be linked to the
diversification of the economy through the international connections in the
area, investment in NW Birmingham and Sandwell makes sound economic
sense.
60
Birmingham City Council, The Aston, Newtown and Lozells Area Action Plan: Issues and Options
Report, p10.
61
Birmingham City Council, et al, (2009) City-Region of Birmingham, Coventry and the Black
Country, Draft, p.12.
62
Birmingham City Council, et al, (2009) City-Region of Birmingham, Coventry and the Black
Country: Proposal for a Pilot City Region, p. 18.
63
Birmingham City Council, et al, (2009) City-Region of Birmingham, Coventry and the Black
Country: Proposal for a Pilot City Region, p. 18.
64
Birmingham City Council, et al, (2009) City-Region of Birmingham, Coventry and the Black
Country: Proposal for a Pilot City Region, p. 21.
31
3.4
The North-West Birmingham Investment Plan
There is a shortage of land for economic development in Handsworth/Lozells.
The Birmingham Investment Plan65 identifies 16 potential sites in this segment
of the city, only one of which falls within the ward boundary. There are a
further three lying just outside, in adjacent wards, but in localities that local
people might refer to as being in Handsworth and Lozells.
The site located within the ward is at the junction of Soho Hill and Villa Road
(1 hectare) which is appropriate for mixed use development. The sites
immediately outside the ward are in Soho and Aston, but within a few hundred
yards of the ward. There is a 6.3 hectare site close to Lozells Road and
Birchfield Road, ‘which offers a major opportunity for transformational change
and a landmark building’66, but is currently identified for housing development;
another one in the same location of 0.55 hectare has potential for a
residential-led mixed use development; and a third (2.6 hectares) is to be
found at the opposite end of the ward close to the West Bromwich Albion
football ground, just off the Soho Road and located in the Soho ward. The
development of the two sites adjacent to the Birchfield Road are part of a
proposed radical change for the area, according to the Aston, Newtown and
Lozells Area Action Plan. They could also contribute to the transformation of
Handsworth/Lozells.
The North West Birmingham Investment Plan is an important development for
this part of the city, breaking with many years of piecemeal thinking and
neglect. Nevertheless, it is clear that the employment and income problems of
Handsworth and Lozells cannot be resolved by promoting economic
development within the ward or even in the surrounding area. Even if some of
the other sites in the north west of the city were to be developed, three of
which are of 15ha or more, this is likely to have little impact on
Handsworth/Lozells, as the local labour force does not have the skills to
compete effectively for the employment created.
In addition to an effort to increase education and skills levels, there is a need
for a wider view to be taken of the geography of economic development in this
part of the conurbation, which in turn raises questions about the infrastructure
of the area and the governance of future development. We would argue that
the situation in Handsworth/Lozells needs to be part of the debate about the
future of the City-Region.
65
66
Birmingham City Council (2009) Birmingham Investment Plan, Birmingham City Council
Birmingham City Council (2009) Birmingham Investment Plan, Birmingham City Council, p.61
32
3.5
The City-Region and Accelerated Development Zones
The implementation of an Accelerated development Zone (ADZ) approach for
the City-Region of Birmingham, Coventry and the Black Country has been
proposed as ‘a way of improving connectivity and transport infrastructure,
improving the accessibility of employment opportunities for local people’67.
The proposal to Central Government for City-Region funding identified seven
specific investment opportunities. The planned EDZ for Birmingham is in the
Eastside area. A cheaper option may be in the NW of the city, close to the
M5/M6 junction. Another proposed ADZ is along the West Bromwich –
Oldbury and Dudley – Pensnett Growth Corridor. Based on the growth of
West Bromwich town centre and along the corridor to Oldbury, this proposal
would reconfigure Junction 2 of the M5, unlocking development opportunities
in the surrounding area. There is currently an estimated funding gap of £40
million.
A question for Birmingham is whether such a development would benefit the
residents of the city, particularly the residents of Handsworth and Lozells.
Would current proposals represent a stimulus to the north west of the city, or
could they be modified to facilitate business and employment growth in North
West Birmingham, unlocking investment opportunities and, in addition,
generating substantial employment in the local construction industry? As part
of such a proposal, would it be possible to divert through traffic away from the
A41 and the Soho Road – without threatening the viability of this local
shopping centre? Such a proposition would relieve congestion, reduce
environmental pollution and have added health benefits for the residents of
Handsworth/Lozells. These are questions that must warrant further
examination, for if Birmingham, Sandwell and Dudley could collaborate on
such a development it would create modern infrastructure, stimulate economic
growth and employment and improve the quality of life for the people of
Handsworth/Lozells.
The longer term aim must be to ensure that the residents of Handsworth gain
access to well-paid employment in, for example, the knowledge economy. At
the moment, there are very few of these workers in Lozells and East
Handsworth, although there are more in the surrounding wards of Handsworth
Wood and Perry Barr68. On the other hand, if the aim is to retain higher
earners, it may be that these are amongst the workers who are moving out of
Lozells and East Handsworth, into the surrounding areas and who should be
targeted. Past educational performance might suggest that this is not a ward
that one would invest energy and resources in trying to achieve the levels of
further and higher education that are needed to gain access to this sector.
More recent performance, however, along with the aspirations of a growing
number of young Asians would suggest otherwise.
67
Birmingham City Council, et al (2009) City Region of Birmingham, Coventry and the Black Country:
Accelerated Development Zone Proposition, p.2.
68
Birmingham City Council, et al (2009) City Region of Birmingham, Coventry and the Black Country:
Economic, Social and Cultural geographies, Birmingham, p.9.
33
4.
Education
Educational performance in Lozells and East Handsworth is worse than the
city average in all areas of attainment, particularly in Early Learning where the
gap has been widening as performance in the rest of the city has been
improving in recent years69. However, performance at secondary level has
been improving, with the percentage of children gaining 5 or more GCSEs A*C including English and maths increasing by 7.3% between 2006 and 2007.
In Table 6, we can see the performance of pupils who live in Handsworth, as
distinct from the performance of the schools that are located in the area.
There are three schools in Handsworth that attract pupils from all over the city
and many children in the area attend schools that are outside the area. The
performance of two selective schools in Soho / Handsworth (Handsworth
Grammar School and King Edward VI Handsworth School) and one selective
school in Aston / Lozells / Newtown AIP (King Edward VI Aston School)
create a bias in the school statistics for the area70 These schools select pupils
on the basis of ability, and are not bound to accept pupils solely from
Birmingham, far less the local area. Focusing on the performance of pupils
who live in the area gives us a better understanding of the potential of the
young people who live there.
There are much larger numbers of children with speech and language
difficulties in schools in the area71. This may be linked to the fact that 39% of
residents were born outside of the UK72 and a very high proportion of
households do not have English as their first language. This may be
compounded by the fact that Handsworth/Lozells is an important reception
area for asylum seekers and refugees, over 50% of whom are unable to
speak English73. The lack of English in a home environment creates early
educational disadvantages for not only the children who are directly affected,
but also may affect other children in the early years of education. For those
schools attended by pupils resident in the ward, the proportion of pupils
whose language community is English declined between 2005 and 2008, from
27.4% to 25.6%74.
Linked to the fact that in many households English is not the first language,
many of the young children in the area start with an educational disadvantage
and the efforts that are needed to overcome this may also have an impact on
the education of other younger children. As the children move through the
educational system, however, the gasp between the ward and the city as a
whole decreases. This may be in part due to the children adjusting to and
adopting the English language, but it may also reflect both the contribution of
69
Be Birmingham (2008), Lozells and East Handsworth Ward Profile, p.15
Urban Living (2007) Educational Attainment and Attendance Indicators 2005, Sandwell, Urban
Living, p.2.
71
HESC (2009) Holte Extended School Cluster Action Plan 2008-9, p. 22.
72
Be Birmingham (2008) Lozells and East Handsworth Ward Profile, Birmingham, p.4.
73
Phillimore, et al (2008) op. cit., p.14.
74
Birmingham City Council (2005), Education Profile: 2004/2005 Lozells and East Handsworth;
Birmingham City Council (2009), Education Profile: 2007/2008 Lozells and East Handsworth.
70
34
teachers and the aspirations of parents. The improvement in GCSE
performance between 2004/05 and 2006/07 of 8.2 percentage points also
suggests that by this year or next, standards at this level may move above the
city average for the first time.
Table 6: Educational Performance in Lozells and East Handsworth (Pupil
Home Postcodes)
Early Learning (2005-07)
Key Stage 2 English &
Maths
Key Stage 3 English &
Maths
5+ GCSEs A*-C inc Eng
& Maths
Latest (2)
33.4
City
Latest
(2)
40.0
Latest
diff
WardCity
-20
59.0
66.3
65.1
-6.1
44.5
53.2
58.5
58.5
-5.3
30.8
39.0
42.0
41.7
-2.7
Ward
Ward
Constituency
Baseline (1)
29.9
Latest (2)
20.0
57.2
Source:http://local.bebirmingham.org.uk
[Accessed May 2009]
Notes:
1. 2004 and 2005
2. 2006 and 2007
This improving educational performance can have important implications for
the future of attracting investment to the area and, if the more educated can
be encouraged to stay, for the other key indicators of well-being.
A major issue for the area is the future of faith schools. Whilst there is
evidence that faith schools create unequal access to education through
sorting children along lines of class, ability and religion, there is no evidence
that they result in improved standards across a local area75. The theory that
competition between secondary schools in a local market for education will
raise the standards of all the schools in that area has no basis. The only result
is a more socially fragmented system with higher levels of pupil sorting across
schools. In areas with high proportions of children in faith schools, there is no
evidence that standards are higher. Across the country, faith schools get
better exam results because the pupils who attend them had good results at
primary schools and are from less disadvantaged backgrounds.
Anecdotal evidence for Handsworth/Lozells suggests that some catholic
primaries now have a majority of pupils professing other faiths. Given the
historical conflicts that are related to separate education in faith schools in, for
example, Northern Ireland, this is a trait that might be encouraged in the
interests of social cohesion.
75
Vignoles, A, et al (2009) paper presented to the Royal Economic Society, Guildford.
35
The future of educational attainment is crucial for the development of the area
and equalising educational opportunities through to further and higher
education is essential for the longer term vitality of Handsworth and Lozells.
Birmingham has been identified as a Wave Two Authority for the ‘Building
Schools for the Future’ programme, which will lead to the re-building of Holte
School in Newtown76 , one of the secondary schools used by school pupils
who live in Handsworth/Lozells. This and other secondary schools in the area
are performing better than they were in the past, but we also need to ensure
that those who succeed at this level have opportunities to continue with their
education to higher levels if they are to make a contribution to the knowledge
society. The local Further Education College and University should have a
role to play in this. We also have to ensure that they stay in the area, or return
to it after university. The local view of what makes an area an attractive place
to live in and the provision of the right kind of housing, addressing BME
needs, is of central importance for this.
5.
Handsworth and Lozells: A Good Place to Live?
When asked to identify what makes an area a good place to live in, the five
most important issues that residents of Lozells and East Handsworth
identified were levels of crime, health services, shopping facilities, job
prospects and affordable decent housing. All of these were mentioned by
more than 40% of respondents, but crime levels were by far the most
important, with 72% identifying this issue (Table 7). The proportion mentioning
crime, health services and shopping facilities was far higher than in the city as
a whole (column e), but it is significant that L&HE residents were also more
than twice as likely to identify job prospects and wages/cost of living as
people across the constituency or city. In Lozells, crime and clean streets
were seen as being much more important than was the case in the ward as a
whole.
In contrast, when asked what aspects of the local area were most in need of
improving, clean streets was by far the most important issue. Sixty five per
cent of residents in the ward mentioned this, as did 73% of those living in
Lozells. People in Lozells and East Handsworth were 1.4 times as likely as
people from across the city to say that the cleanliness of the streets was most
in need of improving (Table 8, column e). This was followed by the level of
crime (46%) and road and pavement repairs (32%). In 2006, crime and clean
streets were the issues that needed to be dealt with, particularly in Lozells.
Again, it should be noted that, with regards to the issue of job prospects,
respondents in Lozells and East Handsworth were 1.4 times as likely to
mention this as people from across the city or from the other priority wards
(Columns e and f).
76
Birmingham City Council, The Aston, Newtown and Lozells Area Action Plan: Issues and Options
Report, p11.
36
We shall return to deal with the issues of cleaner and safer streets in more
detail later. These are clearly fundamental issues for the people of
Handsworth/Lozells and we might expect that they might have an impact on
levels of satisfaction with the area as a place to live.
Table 7: Aspects That Are Important In Making A Place A Good Place To
Live
Level of crime
Clean Streets
Affordable decent housing
Parks and Open spaces
Facilities for young children
Health services
Shopping facilities
Job prospects
Activities for teenagers
Education provision
Sports and leisure facilities
Public Transport
Community Activities
Level of congestion
Wage levels cost of living
a
b
c
L&EH
72
38
41
31
22
53
45
43
10
31
6
4
8
3
14
Lozells
NEA
74
63
32
16
28
47
27
40
17
30
7
4
14
6
17
Priority
Wards
60
43
36
32
32
32
28
21
20
19
13
12
12
9
6
d
e
f
City
61
35
39
34
29
32
29
19
19
19
13
13
11
10
6
Relationship
L&EH/City
1.2
1.1
1.1
0.9
0.8
1.7
1.6
2.3
0.5
1.6
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.3
2.3
Relationship
L&EH/PW
1.2
0.9
1.1
1.0
0.7
1.7
1.6
2.0
0.5
1.6
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.3
2.3
Sources: LAA 2006 Survey; LAA Baseline Survey 2006,Neighbourhood Element Areas Report
Table 8: Aspects That Most Need Improving In Local Area
Clean Streets
Level of crime
Road and pavement
repairs
Facilities for young
children
Activities for teenagers
Parks and open spaces
level of traffic congestion
Health services
Affordable decent housing
Community Activities
Job Prospects
Level of pollution
a
b
c
d
e
f
L&EH
65
46
Lozells
NEA
73
51
Priority
Wards
(PW)
59
45
City
48
43
Relationship
L&EH/City
1.4
1.1
Relationship
L&EH/PW
1.1
1.0
32
22
32
39
0.8
1.0
30
23
19
17
12
8
8
11
9
36
28
15
9
14
11
8
16
18
28
22
22
22
9
8
8
8
5
27
23
22
30
10
9
9
8
7
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.6
1.2
0.9
0.9
1.4
1.3
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.8
Sources: LAA 2006 Survey; LAA Baseline Survey 2006,Neighbourhood Element Areas Report
37
Despite these issues, the people of Lozells and East Handsworth are slightly
more satisfied than people in the city as a whole with their area as a place to
live. This would imply that there are other aspects of living in the area which
are positive and are perhaps not being captured in the range of responses
being presented in the above table. The results are not statistically significant
but external perceptions of Handsworth and Lozells would lead one to believe
that residents of the area would be less satisfied than the average for the city.
In fact, they are much more satisfied than people in other priority wards. The
residents of Lozells, on the other hand, express the same lower level of
satisfaction as the residents of these other wards. In this case, crime and
rubbish in the streets may be outweighing any positive impact from other
factors.
Table 9: Satisfaction With The Local Area
Lozells
NEA
%
L&EH
%
Priority
Wards
%
Perry
Barr
%
City
%
76
10
14
62
83
7
10
73
77
9
14
63
n/a
n/a
n/a
76
81
9
10
71
Satisfied
Neither
Dissatisfied
Net
Sources: LAA 2007 Survey; LAA Baseline Survey 2006,Neighbourhood Element Areas
Report
Another piece of research, carried out by Vector Research in 200877 confirms
the lower satisfaction levels in Lozells and Birchfield West and suggests
slightly lower levels in the broader Handsworth and Lozells area78 (Table 10).
Table 10: Satisfaction With The Local Area 2008
Satisfied
Neither
Dissatisfied
Net
H&L
%
78
7
15
63
Lozells
and BW
%
71
10
17
55
Rest of
H&L
%
82
5
14
68
Urban
Living
%
82
7
11
71
Source: Vector Research, 2008
77
Vector Research 2008, op. cit.
Because of the different years and the different geographies, care must be taken not to read too much
into these figures, but they do confirm the differences between Lozells and the rest of the area.
78
38
The lower levels of satisfaction in Lozells, however, are not reflected in a
desire to move away from the area. Lozells' residents are actually less likely
than those living in Lozells and East Handsworth to want to move and only
slightly more than residents in the city as a whole. Ward residents, however,
are 1.6 times more likely than city residents to want to move out of their
locality and they are almost twice as likely as constituency residents to want
to move out (Table 11).
Table 11: Resident Intention To Move Out of Area In The Future, 2006
Intention To Move Out of
Area In The Future
Lozells
NEA (%)
L&EH
(%)
19
28
Priority
Wards
(%)
23
Perry
Barr
(%)
15
City
(%)
17
Sources: LAA 2007 Survey; LAA Baseline Survey 2006,Neighbourhood Element Areas
Report
Vector Research asked about plans to move in the next five years and
discovered that the residents of Handsworth/Lozells are much more likely
than the rest of the Urban Living area to want to move out. The residents of
Lozells are much less likely to commit to staying in the area (more don't
knows) (see Table 12 overleaf).
Table 12: Plans to move within the next five years
Definitely/likely
Unlikely/definitely
not
Don't know
H&L
%
29
Lozells
and BW
%
28
Rest of
H&L
%
29
Urban
Living
%
22
36
35
28
43
42
29
42
37
Source: Vector Research (2009) Household survey 2008, Handsworth and
Lozells
Around 22% of those in Handsworth/Lozells who say they are likely to move,
that is just over 6% of respondents, say the main reason they want to move is
to live in a better or more suitable area. More than twice as many say they will
not move because they like the area. Urban Living’s activities to improve the
properties and the housing mix in the area will have a clear impact on
people's decision to stay, since half of those who say they will move say that
the reason is to get a better or different property. Those living in
Handsworth/Lozells are slightly more likely to want to move for reasons
relating to the property, so the impact will be greater in this area than in the
rest of Urban Living. The impact of housing renewal in encouraging people to
39
stay is potentially greater in Handsworth/Lozells than in the rest of the
Pathfinder. In Lozells people are less likely to say they will not move and
those that say this are less likely to say it is because they are happy where
they are. Nevertheless, there is an apparent contradiction in that they are
more likely to say they positively like the area than people in other
neighbourhoods. They are twice as likely to say they cannot afford to move
than people in Urban Living as a whole.
Table 13: Local Resident Reasons For Moving / Not Moving Out of the
Area
Reasons for moving
Better/different property
better/more suitable area
Personal/family
Other
Reasons for not moving
Happy where I am
I like the area
Don't need to
move
Can't afford it
Other
H&L
%
Lozells
and BW
%
Rest of
H&L
%
Urban
Living
%
49
22
15
14
46
23
12
19
51
21
17
11
43
25
16
16
52
14
44
18
56
12
60
11
15
12
7
17
18
4
14
10
9
15
9
6
Source: Vector Research, Household Survey 2008, Handsworth and Lozells
We have seen above that the propensity to move varies across ethnic groups.
The needs of those who stay, along with the needs of new arrivals, will have
considerable impact on the future demand for housing in the area. Family
structures, cultural needs and affordability will undoubtedly condition the
future of housing supply.
6.
Housing
Recent information suggests that home ownership in Handsworth/Lozells
stands at 56%, compared with 71% the rest of the city and the same
percentage in the Perry Barr constituency79 (Table 14). In contrast, 21% of
housing in the city is social housing, compared with 27% in Lozells and East
Handsworth and 33% in L&BW. This balance of tenures is to some extent a
reflection of the social class composition of the ward, but it is the importance
of private renting that distinguishes it from other parts of the urban area and
helps explain some other features of the area. Seventeen per cent of the
households in Lozells and East Handsworth rent from private landlords,
compared to just 7% across Birmingham.
79
Vector (2009) op. cit.
40
Table 14: Housing Tenure
Owned outright
Buying with mortgage
Shared ownership
TOTAL OWNERSHIP
Rented from Council
Rented from RSL/Trust
TOTAL SOCIAL
HOUSING
Rented Private landlord
Other
Birmingham
%
47
24
Perry
Barr
%
46
25
71
11
8
Urban
Living
%
33
18
1
52
22
10
H&L
%
35
21
1
56
11
16
Lozells&
Birchfield
%
33
15
1
49
17
17
Rest of
Handsworth
%
35
25
1
61
8
15
71
15
6
21
7
<0.5
19
10
1
31
17
1
27
17
0
33
17
0
22
17
0
Sources: Birmingham City Council; Urban Living
Because of the way that the statistics are presented in different surveys, we
cannot compare length of residence of respondents in Handsworth/Lozells
with respondents across Birmingham. However, it would appear that residents
in Handsworth/Lozells may be just as likely as others in Birmingham as a
whole to have been living in their area for more than 10 years and more than
20 years. This requires further analysis and verification but these figures
suggest that there is a substantial long-term residential population co-existing
with significant short-term churning.
This raises the question of who is leaving and who is staying. We have seen
that in the inter-census period 1991 and 2001, in addition to ‘white flight’,
there was a substantial loss of people with an Indian background, despite the
growth in numbers in the city as a whole. There was a growth of 20% in the
Black population but, since this was much less than in the city as a whole, we
might assume that segments of the Black population is also moving out. The
Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities are increasing substantially, but more
or less in line with the increase in these populations in the city as a whole.
The complexity of the changes that are taking place in the ethnic composition
of the area are compounded by changes in other aspects of social
demographics that will be confirmed by the 2011 census. These changes
relate to class composition of the area; anecdotal evidence suggests that the
Black middle class is moving out, that family sizes may be getting larger and
that the numbers of young people are increasing. We might also anticipate
future changes in the importance and nature of the joint or extended family
system as young British Asians continue to move into the housing market. All
of these issues and other socio-economic factors will have an impact on
housing demand that we cannot fully analyse here, but there are some
aspects of the local housing market that we ought to highlight.
41
The fact that the private rented sector is so important has implications for the
stability of the population of Lozells and East Handsworth. This housing
tenure is characterised by relative ease of entry and exit, contributing to the
rate of immigration and out-migration in the area. Irrespective of the cultural
attraction that Handsworth and Lozells might have for new migrants, with its
high proportion of stable residents who were born outside of the UK, the ease
of entry into housing in the area confirms Lozells and East Handsworth as an
accessible destination for new arrivals. Once they find a niche in the city’s
employment market, if they decide to stay in the city, they are able to identify
locations where they would rather live, and they move on – leaving residential
space for other new migrants.
In 2008, 34% of new migrants to three Neighbourhood Management Areas in
north-west Birmingham were living in the private rented sector, many in
shared accommodation80. Some, such as asylum seekers, had little choice of
where to live when they arrived in the UK but stayed on because the area was
familiar to them and they had local friends and family in the community. For
others, the point of arrival was a starting point, before moving on. Some, such
as the Kurds, initially settled with friends around them but moved on later
because the area was seen as unsuitable for families. People come for the
cheapness and accessibility of housing, to enjoy the multi-cultural aspect of
the area and absence of racism, and move on for a variety of reasons.
Nevertheless, initial impressions were mainly negative: they had difficulty in
accessing information and were confused by the complexity of bureaucratic
systems; they thought the housing was of poor quality and that landlords did
not fulfil their responsibilities; they noted the dirtiness of the streets and
thought it was unsafe. Like the indigenous population and longstanding
migrants, they were deeply concerned about violent crime and the poor
environment81. Lack of English was an issue in their difficulties with
negotiating the systems and communicating with others around them.
Anecdotal evidence from around the country suggests that as councils and
housing associations improve the quality of life of their tenants by the removal
of problem tenants from their estates, these families are moving into the
housing that is being snapped up cheaply by private landlords in Housing
Market Renewal and NDC areas. We don’t know for certain if this is
happening in Birmingham but, if it is, it will be having a direct and negative
impact on the lives of the people of Handsworth and Lozells. The numbers
may be so small that they are not picked up in official statistics, but the local
impact of small numbers of anti-social residents can be immense.
80
81
Phillimore, et al (2008) op. cit., p.33.
Phillimore, op. cit., p.34.
42
6.1
Housing Stock
A large minority (39%) of private housing stock within the North West
Birmingham and Sandwell Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder area fails the
decent homes standard82. Accompanying issues in the pathfinder area include
overcrowding, problems of image and low house price growth.
The most recent data from the Annual Birmingham Local Area Agreement
Survey indicates that affordable decent housing is one of the major areas of
concern for people in Lozells with 47% considering the issue important and
33% believing that it requires improvement83.
Housing stock within the pathfinder area is varied. Although the majority of
stock consists of terraced housing, ‘the area also has an above average
number of flats and maisonettes at 25.2% of the stock, with greater
concentrations in certain neighbourhoods, such as Lozells, Newtown and
Aston’84.
In Handsworth, the housing predominantly comprises Edwardian terraces
although there are larger Victorian properties in the south eastern corner of
the area85 . As Dargue notes, in Lozells the Victorian streets and houses were
of good quality construction and therefore escaped ‘the 1960s redevelopment
of neighbouring Newtown’ 86.
However, housing in Lozells and the immediate surrounding areas is currently
the subject of significant investment via the Urban Living Pathfinder
programme. The over arching aim of this 10-15 year programme is to87:
…ensure the housing market remains strong and [makes] the right
types of homes available for existing residents and those who wish to
move into the area…provide more homes; connect housing
improvements with the regeneration of local commercial centres and
economic programmes; increase housing choice; transform the quality
of housing and neighbourhoods and make the area a safe, convenient
and popular place to live, work and invest’.
82
Latchford, P (2007) op. cit., p. 11.
Lozells Neighbourhood Management Board (2008): Lozells Neighbourhood Management Plan
2008/9, p.1.
84
Vector Research, op. cit., p.3.
85
Handsworth Neighbourhood Management Board (2007) Handsworth Neighbourhood Plan 2008/9
86
Dargue, W (2009): A History of Birmingham Places & Placenames . . . from A to Y – Lozells/The
Lozells. Online: http://billdargue.jimdo.com/placenames-gazetteer-a-to-y/places-l/lozells/ [Accessed
20/04/09]
87
Birmingham City Council (2007) Invest in North West Birmingham. Online:
http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/Media/North%20West%20AIP%2008_11_07.pdf?MEDIA_ID=27708
8&FILENAME=North%20West%20AIP%2008_11_07.pdf [Accessed 20/04/09]
83
43
The targeting of resources at the housing market in the area indicates
recognition of significant changes in community requirements. The literature
suggests that there has been a decline in the total net stock of dwellings in the
Pathfinder area over the last ten years and an accompanying significant
change in tenure patterns.
There has been a decline in the social rented sector, most notably as a result
of the clearance of the least desirable housing stock, whilst the private rented
sector has made ground on the owner occupied sector as a result of the
strong growth in buy-to-let investment88. The growth in private renting has, to
some degree, occurred as a result of the shortage of ‘affordable housing for
sale and a reducing/static social housing stock at a time of strongly rising
demand’89
An additional problem is that overcrowding is evident in both the social rented
sector and older private rented properties where, ‘there is also a concentration
of families living in unsuitable accommodation’90. This is reinforced by
Latchford who notes that91:
At 10%, the level of private renting in the Urban Living area is
significantly higher than the wider Birmingham [and Sandwell] average.
Over 80% of dwellings in the private rented sector are in the pre-1919
stock. With just over half of all tenants moving within a year and three
quarters within three years, churning in these neighbourhoods is high,
adversely impacting on neighbourhood stability.
Latchford concludes that without significant intervention, a potential scenario
for some residents in the area will include greater overcrowding, further
hardship for those on lower incomes as demand for private rented
accommodation increases and some families ‘forced to live in the least
desirable, crime-ridden areas, further undermining social cohesion’92.
In Handsworth, this view is reinforced by anecdotal evidence and data
gathered during the 2007 Keith Newell consultancy exercise, which suggests
that ‘double renting of rooms (day and night shift)’ is taking place in respect of
individuals from newly arriving communities93. This double-renting
phenomenon has been confirmed by local public sector workers in the area.
88
Urban Living (2008): Affordable Housing Policy for Urban Living 2008-11;
ECOTEC (2006): Future Demand for Affordable Housing: Final Report.
89
Urban Living (2008) op. cit., p.2.
90
ibid.
91
Lachford (2007), op.cit., p.11.
92
ibid, pp.11-12.
93
Keith Newell Consultancy (2007) Perry Barr District. Handsworth Neighbourhood Management
Initiative. Baseline Assessment, p.22.
44
A further complication, and one that much of the research undertaken to date
does not address, is the likely impact of the credit crunch, which has slowed
new building by the private sector and resulted in restrictions on mortgages in
the buy to let sector. As Urban Living forecast ‘the demand/supply imbalance
is set to worsen and affordability and related problems of overcrowding will
increase unless supply side blockages can be addressed’94.
As the above illustrates, there are a number of factors that combine to
influence appropriate interventions and determine policy in respect of housing
in the area. These factors will now be addressed in turn.
6.2
Community Requirements
Affordable, decent housing has been identified as a requirement for the
communities in Lozells and the surrounding areas. Achieving this goal,
however, is also seen as one of the major challenges facing the area95. The
Keith Newell Consultancy report96 noted that in the Lozells and East
Handsworth area, four of the five Egan97 components in respect of housing
and the environment had not been developed98.
The make-up of the community in the pathfinder area has been identified as
contributing to the pressure on the housing market. The area, as identified in
the last census (2001), is diverse. Lozells and East Handsworth has a greater
diversity of population than both the rest of the constituency and the city, with
the Pakistani community forming the largest ethnic group99
This diversity and the social and cultural conventions that accompany it,
translate into variations in demand for housing. ECOTEC identified that the
‘Demand for larger properties (3, 4 and 5+ bedroom) is likely to increase
substantially over the period 2006-2021’100. If this forecast is accurate, there is
likely to be a concomitant rise in affordability issues. Urban Living concurred,
94
Urban Living (2008) op. cit., p.5.
Be Birmingham (2008): Lozells and East Handsworth Ward Profile; Be Birmingham (2008a):
Birchfield Neighbourhood Profile; Be Birmingham (2008c): Lozells Neighbourhood Profile; Be
Birmingham (2008d): Soho Finger and Gib Heath Neighbourhood Profile.
96
Keith Newell Consultancy (2006): Perry Barr District. Lozells and East Handsworth. Baseline
Assessment.
97
The Egan Review identified a number of components and sub-components necessary to achieve
sustainable communities. In respect of housing and the built environment these are:
 Creating a sense of place (e.g. a place with a positive ‘feeling’ for people, and local
distinctiveness)
 Well-maintained, local, user-friendly public and green spaces with facilities for everyone
including children and older people
 Sufficient range, diversity and affordability of housing within a balanced housing market
 A high quality, well-designed built environment of appropriate size, scale, density, design and
layout that complements the distinctive local character of the community
 High quality, mixed-use, durable, flexible and adaptable buildings (The Egan Review, 2004;
21)
98
Keith Newell Consultancy, 2006. op. cit., p.9.
99
Be Birmingham (2008) op. cit., p.7.
100
ECOTEC (2006) op. cit., p.8.
95
45
noting that ‘most research supports the need for a much greater investment in
3, 4 and 5 bed units…’101. Correspondingly, a fall in the number of White
households and only marginally increasing numbers of Black households is
likely to result in a fall in demand for ‘smaller (1 and 2 bedroom) properties
and a mismatch between future demand and the size profile of existing SRS
(Social Rented Sector) stock generally’102 This point was emphasised by
Leather and Nevin, who noted that ‘There is an imbalance between the type
of housing on offer and the needs of the growing communities and the needs
of the new economy’103.
A further complication is that forecasts for the likely future ethnic composition
of the area indicate that, particularly in Lozells, Newtown and Aston, the
existing White and Indian populations are largely replaced by Bangladeshi
and Pakistani groups. As ECOTEC104 note, these groups tend to have the
lowest of average household incomes. This change could also lead to
increased demand for larger properties but insufficient wherewithal to
purchase, resulting in the exacerbation of existing overcrowding problems.
There is indeed recent evidence of difficulty in selling larger houses, which is
related to affordability and which may or may not be associated with the
current credit crunch.
The requirement for larger properties to meet existing and future demand was
also identified in the M.E.L. report105, compiled following a series of focus
groups with six key BME community sub-groups from the Pathfinder area.
The distinct needs of the different BME groups will be considered in greater
detail below, but it should be noted that in their focus groups the views of
young Asian women may have been under-represented. There may be an
assumption by the older generation, men in particular, that there will be
continuing or growing demand for larger houses to accommodate the joint or
extended family. This is far from certain.
6.3
Social Housing
An Urban Living report produced in 2006 concluded that demand for social
housing ‘is not particularly low’ and is in fact substantial in the
Soho/Handsworth and Aston/Lozells/Newtown areas106. Although applying
the caveat that existing data was not subject to a rigorous examination, the
report concluded that ‘demand is high for social housing in the Birmingham
side of the pathfinder area’ suggesting that ‘there is a large pool of Urban
Living residents who are keen to move into social housing, but who have so
101
Urban Living (2008) op. cit. p.3.
ECOTEC (2006) op. cit., p.8.
103
Leather, P. and Nevin, B. (2007) Housing Market Change in the Urban Living Area, Nevin Leather
Associates, p.3.
104
ECOTEC (2006) op. cit., p.4.
105
M.E.L. (2006): Urban Living BME Communities Housing Aspirations. Focus Group Research
Report.
106
Ibid., p.1
102
46
far not had the opportunity’107. As mentioned above, the majority of this
demand is for houses that have three bedrooms or more.
The same report suggests that ‘careful consideration be given to policy’ in
specific locations in the Pathfinder area where the existing stock of three
bedroom houses does not appear to be meeting the needs of prospective
residents108.
6.4
Private Rented Sector
The private rented sector (PRS) stock in the Urban Living area is estimated at
approximately 13.5% of total housing stock, representing a 39% increase
since 2001109.
Urban Living noted that the:
…significant growth and absolute size of the private rented sector gives
rise to concern in relation to Urban Living’s objective of stimulating the
conditions for a sustainable housing market – because a large private
rented sector tends to concentrate individuals and families on low
incomes and can be characterised by high levels of churn and housing
management problems110.
Concern regarding the PRS sector is also noted by Tribal who identify ‘risks
associated with the sector given the ability of landlords to disinvest if demand
slackens and rental and capital yields are at risk111. The high turnover, or
churn, of tenants is confirmed by Tribal, who indicated that 44% of tenants in
their survey had been resident for less than a year. The Tribal study identified
that the PRS market within the pathfinder area ‘continues to influenced by
international migration – 58% of respondents were born outside the UK’112.
107
Urban Living (2006) op. cit., p.5.
Ibid, p. 11.
109
Tribal (2008) Research into the Private Rented Sector within the Urban Living Pathfinder HMRA:
Final Report, Birmingham, Tribal, p.ii.
110
Urban Living (2008): Affordable Housing Policy for Urban Living 2008-11, p. 6.
111
Tribal (2008) op. cit. p. ii.
112
Ibid., p. ii.
108
47
6.5
New Arrivals
This influx of new arrivals has important implications for the area. Lozells,
East Handsworth and the surrounding areas have a history of diversity and
immigrants have a tendency to gravitate to areas for ‘support, security and
access to material necessities, including housing’113. Phillimore et al114,
drawing on the work of Travers et al115 note that areas with a tradition of
diversity can sometimes act as escalator areas for new arrivals i.e. the areas
accommodate new arrivals when they first arrive ‘and invest heavily in them
before they move on and are replaced with other new arrivals who also
require significant investment116. A corollary of this can be additional costs
incurred as a result of increased demand for services often in respect of
accommodation and increased demand for housing including administrative
costs associated with temporary households, increases in council tax
registration costs and increases in homelessness.
Drawing on the work of Staniewicz, Phillimore et al also note that it is
important to have accurate information regarding the long-term aspirations of
new arrivals in order to accurately plan service and housing provision117.
Economic migrants who are dependent on employment can be susceptible to
exploitation and anecdotal evidence suggests that this is happening in the
Handsworth area, where the phenomenon of ‘hot-bedding’ i.e. 12 hour letting
to cater for both day and night shift work is said to be occurring.
Phillimore et al observe that the majority of new arrivals to the UK tend to live
in poor quality housing. Cook118 notes that two migrant housing markets have
developed, one catering for permanent settled migrants and another for the
transient or those intending to stay on a temporary basis119. It is also evident
that the majority of migrant workers find out about accommodation from an
agency or friends and family and that few new migrants access social
housing120.
Previous research has indicated that the majority of economic migrants and
refugees find accommodation in the private rented sector and that much of
this accommodation is likely to be shared. In a study of the West Midlands,
Green et al121found that 68% of respondents occupied private rented housing,
113
Robinson, D and Reeve, K (2006) Neighbourhood experiences of new immigration: reflections from
the evidence base. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, p. 7.
114
Phillimore et al (2008) op. cit.
115
Travers, T, Tunstall, R, Whitehead, C and Pruvot, S (2007): Population Mobility and Service
Provision: a report for London Councils. London, LSE.
116
Phillimore et al (2008) op. cit., pp.10-11.
117
Staniewicz, T (2007): A critical evaluation of factors inhibiting A8 Polish Migrants’ full
participation in civil society. Centre for Rights, Equality and Diversity;
Phillimore et al (2008) op. cit., p.12.
118
Cook, L (2008): Housing Report for the Migration Impacts Forum.
119
Phillimore et al, (2008) op.cit., p.15
120
Phillimore et al (2004) op.cit., p.8.
121
Green, A, Owen, D, and Jones, P (2007): The economic impact of migrant workers in the West
Midlands, Coventry, University of Warwick.
48
often with friends or family. MEL Research reported that some asylum
seekers and refugees in the Urban Living area were living in overcrowded
accommodation122.
As Phillimore et al note, much of the available literature indicates ‘high levels
of overcrowding and poor living conditions’ amongst new migrants123. They
observe that while some take action to remedy the situation, others accept the
conditions as part of a cost minimisation strategy and/or because they are so
poorly paid.
In conclusion, it is clear that asylum seekers and refugees can form quite
negative first impressions when arriving in the Pathfinder area. Some of these
relate to difficulties in accessing information and environmental concerns.
However, poor quality housing and lack of access to housing support are cited
as significant contributory factors124.As noted by Phillimore et al, the presence
of a large number of refugees, who are often unemployed, will have
implications for the housing market in the area, due to their lack of buying
power and demand for low cost accommodation. It is also evident that this
group have low levels of knowledge relating to housing and that large
numbers live in temporary accommodation. The majority of refugees would
choose council housing if available although it is evident that they have
insufficient knowledge of alternatives to this choice of tenure. It is clear that
this group need access to information to enable them to make informed
choices about where, and in what sort of property, to live125.
6.6
Housing Requirements of the Black and Minority Ethnic (BME)
Community
As noted previously, the area has a history of diversity. Figures from the 2001
census indicate that the Urban Living area had a BME majority population of
65%126. The largest ethnic groups in the Pathfinder area are Black, Indian and
Pakistani, which together comprise more than half the population. As we have
seen, the white population is declining and, to a lesser extent, the Indian
population, while all other groups are growing.
The challenge is to provide housing that meets the current and future needs
of the growing BME communities and which contributes to the aim of creating
sustainable communities. The following section will report on the housing
requirements of the discrete BME communities, which are not homogenous
and which will need to be taken into account if the expressed aims of
achieving sustainable communities and offering housing that provides suitable
122
MEL Research (2006) op. cit., pp. 36-7.
Phillimore et al (2008) op. cit., p.17.
124
Phillimore et al, (2008) op. cit., p.34.
125
Phillimore, J, Fathi, J and Ferrari, E (2004) The housing needs and aspirations of asylum seekers
and refugees living in the Birmingham Sandwell Pathfinder Area, Centre for Urban and Regional
Studies, University of Birmingham, pp.25-27.
126
Urban Living, (2005) op. cit., p.3.
123
49
options at all stages of life are to be achieved. Although most of the
information refers to studies carried out across the Urban Living area, we can
assume that that the housing needs of the BME communities will not vary
significantly across the area and that the findings are therefore for
Handsworth and Lozells.
Black Residents
Urban Living note that the Black population have one of the lowest levels of
owner-occupation and the highest percentage of people in social rented
housing127.The 2005 survey undertaken by Urban Living indicated that there
was an interest in shared ownership amongst the Black population, a finding
replicated by MEL128. It is also apparent that Black residents are relatively
loyal to the area; Urban Living noted that ‘65% of Black participants had
always lived in the Urban Living area, compared to 40% of White’129
There are concerns expressed for the elderly including strong support for
sheltered accommodation and a need for financial assistance to improve and
adapt existing homes to make them suitable for the elderly community.
Finally, ‘the needs and aspirations of all ages of the Black population will have
to be considered’ in order to reflect the current age profile130.
Indian Residents
There is evidence to suggest that the Indian population is moving away from
the area. For example, ‘Aston Lozells Newtown has seen a 7.6% reduction in
the Indian population and Soho Handsworth a 12.8% decrease131 The Indian
population have the highest levels of home ownership in the Pathfinder.
MEL132reported that most of their respondents were content to remain in their
current homes although a desire for improvements was evident.
Both the Urban Living and MEL reports recommend that consideration should
be given to designing housing to appeal to Indian residents. Homes with
sufficient space to cater for larger families, or the possibility to extend would
be particularly welcome. A concern was also expressed for future generations
as it was felt that financial barriers were preventing younger members of the
community from achieving their aspiration of home ownership133.
127
Urban Living (2005) Black and Minority Ethnic Housing Needs and Aspirations, Birmingham,
Urban Living, p.28.
128
MEL (2006) op. cit.
129
Urban Living (2005) op. cit. p.29.
130
Ibid., p.31.
131
Figures based on 1991 and 2001 population census; Ibid., p.33).
132
MEL (2006) op. cit.
133
MEL, (2006) op. cit., p.18.
50
Pakistani Residents
Home ownership amongst the Pakistani community is the second highest of
all ethnic groups with home ownership an aspiration of the younger
generation, although financial barriers are a concern. Urban Living expresses
the view that home ownership at current levels ‘may not be viable into the
future without assistance’134.
As Urban Living note, ‘[the Pakistani population] is clearly a group that is
increasing in significance in the Pathfinder and therefore, its needs and
aspirations for the future, have to form a central part of the Urban Living
programme’135. Between 1991 and 2001, the Pakistani population has
increased by 53.5% and the group makes up nearly a quarter of the overall
population in the Aston Lozells Newtown area. The Pakistani population,
along with the Bangladeshi group, have the lowest age profile in the
Pathfinder. This could have implications in terms of future demand for housing
including meeting a demand for starter homes and providing larger
accommodation for extended families.
One important finding is that both Pakistani and Bangladeshi households are
more likely to live in households with more people than other ethnic groups.
As with the Indian group, this could have implications for future housing
demand as larger properties will be required to cater for extended families.
There is also a potential issue of overcrowding to consider and the likelihood
of poor quality housing as a result.
Bangladeshi Residents
With the Pakistani population, Bangladeshis are the dominant group in the
Aston Lozells Newtown area, comprising 14% of the total population; they are
also the ethnic group that has grown most significantly in the Pathfinder area
between 1991 and 2001136. The Bangladeshi population also has the
youngest age profile compared to other ethnic groups in the area, a factor that
will need to be taken into account when determining housing policy in respect
of the group. Another issue of some concern is that economic activity in
respect of the Bangladeshi population is the lowest in the Pathfinder area.
These two factors could potentially lead to reduced choices in respect of
housing and a ‘dependence on social housing and government assistance’137.
A slightly lower than average number of Bangladeshis own their propertys
while the poor supply and condition of social housing was identified as an
issue arising from the consultations carried out by MEL138. It is also evident
that, like the Pakistani population, the proximity of family and extended
families are important to the Bangladeshi population. This is likely to result in
134
Urban Living, (2005) op. cit., p.44.
Urban Living (2005) op. cit p.39.
136
Urban Living, (2005) op. cit 46.
137
Urban Living, (2005) ibid.,p.48.
138
MEL (2006) op. cit. p.27.
135
51
a demand for larger properties or housing that can be appropriately extended
and/or modernised139. Easy access to mosques, shops and local transport is
also very important140. The importance of community amongst younger
members of the Bangladeshi population was identified by Urban Living and
this could have implications in respect of housing policy for this population.
The importance of full community consultation in respect of housing
interventions appears to be more important for the Bangladeshi group than
any of the other ethnic populations141
It is evident from the above that there are a number of factors that will need to
be taken into consideration when designing and implementing housing policy.
The diverse history of the area continues to be influential today, with each
identifiable group expressing needs and aspirations that are individual to them
and their community. What is also apparent is that there is no homogenous
location within the area that will benefit from a single intervention. Instead, it
appears that there are ‘pockets’ of communities who live in close proximity to
each other but who have different housing requirements.
It is also evident that consultation with the various communities who make up
the area is necessary to determine future housing policy. This will involve
negotiations not only with community leaders but also groups including
women, old and young people, who all have different hopes and aspirations
relating to housing in the area. What these groups do share, however, is the
experience of the quality of their immediate environment.
It was also clear from the above housing reports that, for the BME
populations, there were considerable concerns about the quality of the social
and environmental conditions that surround them. Environmental concerns
were apparent amongst Black residents and there is a demand for better
social facilities, such as a community centre that could be used by Black
people of all ages. This is partly an expression of Black resentment deriving
from a perception that they have not benefited equitably from community
investment in the area. For the Indian population, traffic problems were an
issue for some respondents, as were a number of environmental concerns,
including street cleaning, litter and vermin. Drug-related crime, property
damage, vandalism and theft from vehicles were also identified as issues of
concern142. For Pakistani residents, environmental concerns similar to those
expressed by the Indian respondents were apparent. Litter, vermin and the
need for better street lighting are examples drawn from the MEL survey.
There is also a desire for facilities to cater for the needs of Pakistani women
including a women’s centre and gym143.
139
Urban Living, (2005) op. cit. p.48.
MEL, (2006) op. cit. p. 32.
141
Urban Living (2005) op. cit., pp.48-49
142
MEL (2006) op. cit., p.13.
143
MEL (2006) op. cit., p.22.
140
52
These are common issues about different neighbourhoods which are
important determinants of quality of life in Handsworth/Lozells. We will now go
on to deal with the issues of the local environment, community safety,
transport and health before returning to the needs and aspirations of young
people.
7.
Environment and Neighbourhood
We have already noted that the people of Handsworth/Lozells think that the
two aspects of their local area that are most in need of improving are the
cleanliness of the streets and the levels of crime. The City’s Council Plan for
2008-2013 commits the Council to ‘making our city a cleaner, greener and
safer place to live’ as a key priority. This implies that more people will judge
their neighbourhood to be clean and safe and that satisfaction with waste
management services will improve144. The importance of ‘clean, safe, healthy
and attractive environments’ to a thriving community is highlighted in the
spring 2009, Vision Lozells Residents’ newsletter145. Environmental issues
have been recognised as one of the major issues in the area, Urban Living
noting that ‘many neighbourhoods have a degraded and unpleasant
environment’146.
This section will discuss the environmental concerns of the residents of the
area, as identified in the literature and assess the impact of interventions to
address these issues. We will not concern ourselves here with the Council’s
aims with respect to renewable energy and carbon neutrality, important as
these issues undoubtedly are. Birmingham City Council’s ‘Vision for North
Birmingham’ describes how prospective developers will be expected to
minimise impact on the environment and incorporate ‘renewable energy
sources in their design to help attain a sustainable, carbon-neutral future for
Birmingham’147. Whilst this is a laudable objective, it is evident from the
literature that environmental issues of a more immediate and practical nature
are exercising the minds of the community in the Handsworth/Lozells area.
The Keith Newell Consultancy report observed that litter, rubbish and
speeding cars were ranked third in the top five responses when residents
were asked ‘What do you think are the current problems in Lozells? 148.
Similarly, correspondence supplied by a residents association in East
Handsworth documents a 12 year dialogue with the City Council in an effort to
achieve ‘a sustained effective rubbish collection and cleaning service from the
144
Birmingham City Council (2008) Council Plan 2008-2013, Birmingham, Birmingham City Council,
p.12.
145
Vision Lozells Residents’ Newsletter, p.2.
146
Urban Living (2006) op. cit. p.4.
147
Birmingham City Council, ‘Vision for North Birmingham’ (2007) p.8)
148
Keith Newell Consultancy (2006) Perry Barr District. Lozells and East Handsworth. Baseline
Assessment, p.27.
53
local authority’149. The Handsworth Neighbourhood Plan 2008/09 identifies
levels of detritus and litter as serious concerns noting that150:
41% of sites are unsatisfactory, compared to the city-wide target in
2007/08 of 12%. Smoking, confectionary, alcoholic and non-alcoholic
related litter were significant issues within the area.
The Plan also reports that ‘Environmental issues…have consistently
registered in local consultations as a critical concern for residents’151. This is
confirmed in the survey information we have referred to above and, although
the City Council has responded to some of these concerns, there are clearly
environmental issues that still need to be addressed in the area.
7.1
General Cleanliness
The Birmingham City Council Aston, Newtown and Lozells: Area Action Plan
– Issues and Options Report concedes that152:
General neighbourhood environmental conditions are categorised as
poor with more than half of dwellings suffering from poor environmental
conditions. This is reinforced by higher than average rates of resident
dissatisfaction with the area.
Fly-tipping is a major problem across Birmingham153 and it is a particular
problem in Handsworth and Lozells. A series of Be Birmingham reports154
suggest that the environment, particularly detritus, litter and fly tipping, are
issues of concern and this observation is corroborated by other research
conducted with residents from the Pathfinder area155.
The research undertaken by MEL, involving representatives from the many
BME communities in the area, reported recurring issues including156:





Properties not adequately maintained
Litter in the streets
Vandalism
Pet litter
Rats and vermin
149
Correspondence with Grove Residents Association, 2009.
Handsworth Neighbourhood Management Board (2007) Handsworth Neighbourhood Plan 2008/9,
p.7.
151
Ibid.
152
Birmingham City Council (2007) Aston, Newtown and Lozells: Area Action Plan – Issues and
Options Report, p.8.
153
Birmingham Strategic Partnership and Birmingham City Council (2007) Community Strategy for
Birmingham: Strategic Assessment 2006/07, p. 39.
154
Be Birmingham reports (2008, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c, 2008d) op. cit.
155
MEL (2006) op. cit.; Urban Living (2005) op. cit.
156
MEL (2006) op. cit., pp. 7-42.
150
54

Bulky waste left in streets
The general cleanliness of the immediate environment is a recurring theme
and one that is echoed by the Keith Newell Consultancy report, which
reported ‘litter and rubbish and ‘the dumping of bulky rubbish’ as the top two
issues reported by respondents when asked ‘What do you think are the
current problems in Handsworth’?157An earlier Keith Newell Consultancy
report noted that one item of concern for residents was the area occupied by
the Black Cat Café, which was identified as neglected and ‘a constant
reminder /enforcer of the area’s bad image and reputation’158
The Soho Finger and Gib Heath Neighbourhood Management Board Strategy
and Action Plan Update 2008-10 reports that progress has been made in
respect of environmental issues in the area. Improvements include the
introduction of a Ward Cleaning Team and other measures to address litter
and rubbish and a more effective rubbish collection service159. The Action
Plan Update lists ‘cleaner public spaces’ as a desired outcome during the next
two years160. It is evident however, that work still needs to be done to achieve
a satisfactory outcome in this area. Personal correspondence from a resident
in the area suggests that an effective waste collection and street cleaning
service has yet to be established with, it is believed, resources re-allocated to
Lozells resulting in a reduced service.
Similarly, the Lozells Neighbourhood Management Plan 2008/9 indicates that
‘Clean streets’ is the second most important issue for people living in the
area161.Desired outcomes for 2008/09 include:






Less litter and rubbish on the streets
Less fly-tipping
Fewer un-adopted sites/un-developed sites
Improved lighting
Better maintained hedges, trees and verges
More re-cycling centres
The Plan lists a number of activities designed to address this issue including
working towards the development of a Neighbourhood Charter, development
of environment education programmes aimed at residents, children and young
people, working with fast food outlets to encourage customers to dispose of
litter responsibly and to target and tackle neighbourhood ‘grot spots’ 162. The
Vision Lozells Residents’ newsletter notes that street cleansing has been
supplemented with an extra beat sweeper and that leaflets and literature
relating to environmental services have been distributed. In addition, schools
157
Keith Newell Consultancy (2007) op. cit., p.31).
Keith Newell Consultancy (2006) op. cit., p.39.
159
Soho Finger and Gib Heath Neighbourhood Management Board (2008) Strategy and Action Plan
Update 2008-10, p. 9.
160
Ibid., p. 16
161
Lozells Neighbourhood Management Board (2008): Lozells Neighbourhood Management Plan
2008/, p.1.
162
Ibid., pp. 1-2).
158
55
have taken part in programmes to raise awareness of environmental issues
and ‘local landholders have been required to clean up areas of derelict
land’163.
The issue of litter is clearly a concern to many in the community and
examples of interventions in other areas of the UK have been offered as
examples for the area to follow. One local trader has noted that a concerted
effort is needed to engage the community in this respect and has called for a
campaign similar to that undertaken recently in London164.
7.2
Other Environmental Concerns
Although the general cleanliness of the area appears to be the overriding
concern of residents, the literature does highlight other environmental issues
including lighting, the quality of pavements, parking issues and community
spaces.
The research undertaken by MEL highlighted concerns, specifically from
Indian residents about the state of pavements and problems relating to
parking in the area. The dangers for the elderly and families with pushchairs
were particular concerns165.
The Soho Finger and Gib Heath Neighbourhood Management Board also
identify parking as an issue noting that interventions have had a positive
impact but that ‘a longer term strategy is still required’166. In the same report, it
is noted that more progress is needed in respect of ‘street lighting, street
scene improvements [and] traffic calming’167.
Another issue of concern to residents is the desire for community spaces.
Birmingham City Council note that the Pathfinder area lacks ‘good and
positive design particularly in much of the post-war housing’ and a ‘lack of
public open space in certain areas and some poorly designed open space’168.
The City Council recognise that improving open space in the area would
improve residents’ quality of life and list a number of ‘opportunities’ that could
be taken to help in this regard169:


Develop a network of open space across the area including parks and
waterways
Improve existing open space by upgrading and refurbishment
Vision Lozells Residents’ Newsletter (2009) p.12.
ENCAMS, 2009.
165
MEL (2006) op. cit., p.13.
166
Soho Finger and Gib Heath Neighbourhood Management Board (2008) op. cit., p.7.
167
(Ibid., p.12).
168
Birmingham City Council (2007) Invest in North West Birmingham. Online:
http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/Media/North%20West%20AIP%2008_11_07.pdf?MEDIA_ID=27708
8&FILENAME=North%20West%20AIP%2008_11_07.pdf [Accessed 20/04/09] p.11
169
Birmingham City Council (2007) op. cit., p.21.
163
164
56

Where appropriate and possible reconfigure or relocate open spaces to
allow for greater use and natural surveillance
However, anecdotal evidence suggests that the process of utilising existing
open, vacant or derelict spaces for community use is subject to considerable
bureaucracy. As the Soho Finger and Gib Heath Neighbourhood Management
Board (2008) report, ‘change of use issues with land (in relation to playing
areas) is a relatively long process’170. In addition, the housing development
work of Urban Living seeks to build over existing green spaces with new
housing, something that is particularly noticeable in Lozells.
Finally, air quality in Handsworth is a particular problem that is related to the
traffic congestion on the Soho Road. The Council has identified nitrogen
dioxide as a key pollutant in the city and, while levels have been declining in
areas such as the city centre and Bristol Street, they increased in the Soho
Road between 2004 and 2005. Road traffic is responsible for 80% of nitrogen
dioxide and the city objective is 40ug per cubic metre. By 2005, the level in
Soho Road was 1.4 times this target, 1.9 times the level in Bristol Street and
1.6 times the level in the city centre171.
From the above, it is evident that the problem of environmental cleanliness is
a particular issue for residents and one that has been recognised by the local
agencies. There is evidence to suggest that interventions are in place to
tackle some of the problems identified and that some improvements are been
realised. It is also clear however, that the issues are multi-faceted and will
require an on-going programme of community engagement and education.
We note that there are interventions with school children in Lozells, but there
may be scope for adopting the robust methods of social marketing to not only
influence the behaviour of young children but also to reach their parents.
The City Council recognises that the creation of community spaces will
improve the quality of life for local residents. Currently however, the process
of re-assigning such spaces appears to be problematic in a number of ways.
An investigation and subsequent reform of this process might assist in
delivering the improvements to the area requested by the community.
170
Soho Finger and Gib Heath Neighbourhood Management Board (2008) op. cit., p.12.
Birmingham Strategic Partnership and Birmingham City Council (2007) Community Strategy for
Birmingham: Strategic Assessment 2006/07, p. 39.
171
57
8.
Community Safety
The vision of the West Midlands Police is to ‘reduce crime and disorder and
make our communities safer’172. Birmingham boasts the lowest overall crime
rate of the major English cities, with a 25 per cent reduction in crime since
2004. Birmingham’s Council Plan promises to reduce crime, particularly
violent crime, and reduce the fear of crime173. Its focus on young people
stresses the need to reduce their numbers as offenders and as victims of
crime. It will protect vulnerable young people, and tackle domestic violence,
public-space wounding and the impact of guns and gangs.
Along with housing and the environment, a primary concern of residents in the
area is safety. Crime, anti-social behaviour and the visibility of drugs in the
area are reasons residents give for wishing to move away from the area 174.
The need to reduce levels of crime is viewed as one of the key requirements
in improving ‘the quality of life for people living in disadvantaged areas’175.
The area attracts negative perceptions in terms of safety, probably as a
legacy of the disturbances of 1985 and 2005. The Be Birmingham profile of
the Lozells and East Handsworth Ward reports a ‘mixed picture’ in respect of
crime statistics176:




PSA 1 crime177 reduced in 2007/9 at a rate better than the city as a
whole
Burglary Dwelling (BDH) increased in 2007/8 however reductions have
been massive since 2003/4
Common Assault levels increased between 2006/7 and 2007/8
Vehicle Arson has reduced significantly over the past few years
The same report indicated that ‘the highest proportion, nearly half, think crime
has stayed the same in the past three years’ and ‘consider the same ASB
(Anti-Social Behaviour) issues as major problems as the rest of the City’178.
Soho Finger and Gib Heath Neighbourhood Management Board report that
‘Crime has fallen considerably within the NM area’ as a result of interventions
introduced in response to issues identified as priorities by residents and
service providers179.
172
www.west-midlands.police.uk
Birmingham City Council (2008) Council Plan 2008-2013, Birmingham, Birmingham City Council,
p12.
174
(Birmingham City Council, 2005)
175
(DCLA, 2006; 1)
176
(Be Birmingham (2008) profile of the Lozells and East Handsworth Ward p.4).
177
PSA 1 Crime Definition – The British Crime Survey Comparator Crime defines the following
offences as PSA 1: Theft or Unauthorised taking of vehicle (incl. attempts); Theft from a vehicle (incl.
attempts); Vehicle Interference; Domestic Burglary; Theft or Unauthorised Taking of Cycle; Theft
from a Person; Criminal Damage (excl.59); Common Assault (incl. on a PC); Wounding (serious and
other); Robbery of personal property (Safer Birmingham Partnership, 2008).
178
Be Birmingham (2008) Profile of the Lozells and East Handsworth Ward, p.4.
179
Soho Finger and Gib Heath Neighbourhood Management Board (2008) op. cit., p.7.
173
58
As illustrated in Table 15, the most recent crime and anti-social statistics for
the area are encouraging. Between 05/06 and 07/08, reported crime in
Handsworth/Lozells fell considerably. All crime, except common assault and
theft from individuals, has been declining and in 07/08, total recorded crime
was the same as for the city as a whole. The rates for hate crime, wounding
and theft of vehicles are similar to the rates across the city (1.1 times the city).
Domestic burglary and theft from individuals is slightly higher (1.2 and 1.3
times), while the rates for criminal damage, theft from vehicles, vehicle arson
and other arson are substantially lower. The rates for common assault are low
across the city. Robbery which has been declining in Handsworth/Lozells
nevertheless remained almost twice the city average in 2007/2008.
Table 15: Crime Statistics (1)
Total Recorded crime
Domestic Burglary
Criminal Damage
Common Assault
Robbery
Wounding
Public Place wounding
Hate Crime
Theft from person
Theft of Vehicle
Theft from Vehicle
Vehicle Arson
Dwelling arson
Other Arson
Ward
Baseline
(05/06)
134
47
20
2
10
22
10
7
2
7
6
146
39
123
Ward
Latest
(07/08)
105
24
13
4
7
16
7
2
2
5
6
39
57
63
Perry Barr
Latest
(07/08)
87
18
12
2
4
11
5
2
1
4
7
55
26
88
City
Latest
(07/08)
106
20
18
2
4
15
7
2
1
5
10
82
26
154
ward/city
ratio
(07/08)
1.0
1.2
0.7
1.9
1.9
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.1
0.6
0.5
2.2
0.4
(1) Rates per 1000, except Arson which is rates per 100,000
Source: Be Birmingham
More recent figures on crime are even more encouraging. Over the past three
years there has been a 10% reduction in total crime per annum and between
2002 and the present time, the number of crimes committed per month has
fallen from around 1,000 to 650. The period between January and March
2009 has seen the lowest recorded crime for a three month period since
records began. Serious Acquisitive Crime saw an 18% reduction last year and
robbery fell by 22%. Over the last two years there has been a reduction of
32% in street crime.
The most recent figures show that the overall improvements continue to be
sustained. In Table 16, we can see that overall crime rates for Handsworth
and Lozells are considerably lower than the city average for 2008-2009,
particularly in Lozells. In this area, overall rates are 20 crimes per 1000 lower
and only the figure for assaults remain above the city average. In East
59
Handsworth, overall crime rates are 10 per 1000 lower, but the figures for
both wounding and assaults remain above the city average.
A similar situation exists for anti-social behaviour (Table 17). Overall rates are
lower than in the city as a whole, with the figures reported for Lozells being
remarkably low. For all types of anti-social behaviour, reported incidents are
much lower than in the city as a whole. In Handsworth, the only figures that
are above the city average are for nuisance neighbours and hoax calls. Since
all of these figures refer to reported crimes and anti-social incidents, we need
to be careful about how we interpret them. The low figures in Lozells could be
the result of greater under-reporting for a variety of reasons – a history of poor
police-community relations in this area, a fear of reprisals for reporting crime,
a greater tolerance of certain types of activity, etc. Nevertheless, it is
important to recognise that the figures are improving over time.
Table 16: Crime Rates per 1000 Population, 2008-2009
Crime Type
Lozells
East Handsworth
Birmingham
All Crime
70.8
88.9
98
Residential Burglary
18*
17.3*
18.5
Non-Residential
Burglary
Criminal Damage
2
3
5.2
10.2
12.2
15.8
Wounding
11.4
16.9
13.3
Assault
3.7
2.7
2.3
Robbery (Person)
2.6
5.9
3.6
Theft from Person
0.5
1.2
1.3
Robbery (Business)
0.5
0.3
0.4
Theft of Motor
Vehicle
Theft from Motor
Vehicle
Other Crime
2.8
4.3
4.3
4.5
5.1
9.7
27
31.7
34.8
Source: www.west-midlands.police.uk/
60
Table 17: Anti-Social Behaviour Rates per 1000 Population, 2008-2009
Anti-social
behaviour Type
All Anti-Social
Behaviour
Rowdy Behaviour
(Alcohol)
Rowdy Behaviour
(Youth)
Rowdy Behaviour
(Alcohol & Youth)
Rowdy Behaviour
(Other)
Nuisance Neighbours
Vehicle Nuisance
Hoax Calls
Other
Lozells
East Handsworth
Birmingham
50.3
70.6
78.8
2.2
4.7
6.5
8.7
9.3
20.3
0
0.1
0.8
11.5
8.3
2.5
7.4
9.8
15.8
10.6
4.8
10
15.3
18.1
9.1
5
8.3
10.7
Source: www.west-midlands.police.uk/
The Police’s main focus in Handsworth/Lozells is on creating ‘safer places’
through dealing with the most serious violence, the activities that cause
substantial injury. The key activities, therefore, are concerned with tackling
gangs and guns in particular, along with other violent crime. Last summer, a
number of key figures were arrested and the statistics since September 2008
point to an overall reduction of 12% in violent crimes for the year. However,
although the media focuses on the conflict between gangs, there is inter-gang
and intra-gang violence. The composition of the gangs is not permanent and
there are inter-gang and internal power struggles to control the drug trade.
Despite the gains made in reducing crime, the area is still perceived as
challenging in terms of personal safety. Urban Living defines the whole
Pathfinder area as characterised by ‘high levels of crime’ and identifies the
need for safety as one of its five strategic objectives (Urban Living, 2008; 9).
8.1
Community Concerns
In an assessment undertaken by Keith Newell Consultancy in Lozells and
East Handsworth, the prevalence and visibility of drugs and the perception of
high crime levels were identified as the top two issues that respondents liked
least about the area. Similarly, 42% of respondents indicated that they did not
go out after dark, while 18% reported feeling unsafe after nightfall180.
When asked what they thought the current problems in Lozells and East
Handsworth were, four of the top five responses related to crime and safety
issues181:
180
181
Keith Newell Consultancy (2006) op. cit., pp.25-26).
Keith Newell Consultancy (2006) op. cit., p.27.
61




Drug dealing (72%)
Young people hanging about in groups (62%)
Gun crime (58%)
Burglary (homes) (56%) (p.27).
An assessment exercise undertake by the same consultancy in the
Handsworth district in 2007 revealed perception of high crime levels as the
issue that respondents liked least about the area. In the same report, 28% of
respondents revealed that they did not go out after dark and 14% reported
that they felt unsafe after nightfall182.
These findings were corroborated by the Lozells Neighbourhood Management
Board who noted that the level of crime was the item of most concern to local
people183.
The Handsworth Neighbourhood Management Board (2007) identified a
number of key themes relating to community safety in the area. Echoing the
statistics above, they noted that most crime figures were decreasing but fear
of crime was still apparent184. The need for residents to feel safe in the
streets was recognised as was the need to change the perception of crime
and address the area’s reputation.
It was also recognised that ‘a disproportionate amount of crime takes place in
particular areas185, a finding echoed in the Keith Newell Consultancy report
that identified ‘a proven crime hot spot’ and recommended that a specific
response be implemented to address the problem186.
Safety problems in the area have been highlighted as a particular problem for
newly arriving populations. Phillimore el al (2008) report that some new
arrivals did not realise that it can sometimes be unsafe to go out at night and
suffered physical attack as a consequence187. This is corroborated by MEL
Research who reported that refugee and asylum seekers experienced safety
issues in the area including violence, issues resulting from tensions between
other BME groups, drug problems and concerns about their children’s
safety188.
182
Keith Newell Consultancy (2007) op. cit., pp. 29-30.
Lozells Neighbourhood Management Board (2008) op. cit., p.1.
184
Handsworth Neighbourhood Management Board (2007) op. cit., p.11.
185
Ibid.
186
Keith Newell Consultancy report (2007), op. cit., p.23.
187
Phillimore el al (2008) op. cit., p.35.
188
MEL Research (2006) op. cit., pp. 33-39.
183
62
8.2
Policing
In 2005, Birmingham City Council (2005) identified ‘significant levels of
concern about current ways in which the police interact with local people’189.
In respect of the Handsworth area, the Keith Newell Consultancy reported that
40% of local resident respondents were ‘fairly satisfied with local policing
while the same number indicated that ‘More visible policing – especially foot
patrols in the evening’ would make policing more effective190. Two of the
recommendations of the report suggested greater interaction between the
police and the community to assist in ‘a structured re-assurance
programme’191
In respect of the Lozells and East Handsworth area, the Keith Newell
Consultancy reported in 2006 that residents were unconvinced that the police
understood local problems. More visible foot patrols in the evening, foot
patrols by regular officers and greater enforcement in respect of prostitution
and drugs were volunteered by respondents as interventions that would make
policing more effective192.
The Soho Finger and Gib Heath Neighbourhood Management Board report
that targeted and high profile policing has resulted in ‘a marked reduction in
drug dealing offences,’ while an additional policing team ‘has had a significant
impact upon public reassurance’193.
8.3
Other Factors
As well as the overt problems posed by violent crime, burglary and drugrelated offences, other safety concerns relate to environmental design.
Birmingham City Council recognises that design has contributed to safety
issues in the area, particularly in respect of pedestrian underpasses ‘and
generally poor passive surveillance’ that currently exists194.
Urban Living has responded to issues of this nature with interventions
including the installation of CCTV cameras and provision of increased security
features for properties in the area195. The Soho Finger and Gib Heath
Neighbourhood Management Board also report that deployment of CCTV
cameras has been effective as a ‘tool to provide public reassurance, to
provide a visual deterrent and to gather evidence’196.
189
Birmingham City Council (2005) op. cit., p.6.
Keith Newell Consultancy (2007) op. cit., pp.30-31.
191
Ibid, pp.22-23.
192
Keith Newell Consultancy (2006) op. cit., p.27.
193
Soho Finger and Gib Heath Neighbourhood Management Board (2008) op. cit., p.7.
194
Birmingham City Council (2007) op. cit., p.13
195
Urban Living, 2008 Urban Living (2008) Affordable Housing Policy for Urban Living 2008-11,
p.18.
196
Soho Finger and Gib Heath Neighbourhood Management Board (2008) op. cit., p.8.
190
63
The overall picture therefore is one of an improving situation but with
significant ongoing concerns. These concerns can be partly dealt with by the
police continuing to deal effectively with crime as it arises, but longer-term
improvements will also depend on tackling some of the conditions that
contribute to the high crime rates in the first place, particularly issues that
affect young people.
A key issue is raising the aspirations of the young people who are vulnerable.
This points to the need for a long-term approach. Recently, the police have
created three additional neighbourhood teams, with a total of 27 staff. The
neighbourhood police teams work with the communities, neighbourhood
managers, schools, traders, etc. There is a healthy neighbourhood
management picture in Lozells and community meetings are well-attended
and they address local priorities. To some extent, issues of violence have
become less obvious and current issues are litter, dumping and boarded up
houses.
Nevertheless, there is a high rate of re-offending amongst young men who are
sent to prison. Work with the probation service is important but these young
people come out of prison and return to the context that they were in when
they were arrested – the same roads, with the same people, and the same
low levels of alternative opportunities. Even if they want to get out of the gang
culture, it is not easy for them to do so. There are also many young people
who are associated with gangs, but who may not be too deeply embedded in
them, who need realistic alternatives. We will return to this issue when we
discuss issues around young people in general.
A related recurring theme is that of the underpasses on the Birchfield Road.
These are unsafe areas that are related to traffic and transport issues.
9.
Travel and Transport
As a major city, Birmingham is well served by a network of road, rail and air
links. The pathfinder area is situated close to the city centre and it could be
assumed that transport and travel is not an issue for the community. The
literature, however, indicates that the various elements of the community have
different expectations and requirements in this respect.
The Handsworth/Lozells area, as part of the Pathfinder, is defined by
Birmingham City Council as having ‘excellent locational advantages including
good transport links [and] proximity to the city centre’197.This is corroborated
by a further city council document that describes the area as ‘strategically
Birmingham City Council (2007a): Aston, Newtown and Lozells: Area Action Plan – Issues and
Options Report. Online:
http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/Media/Issues%20and%20Options%20Report.pdf?MEDIA_ID=280852
&FILENAME=Issues%20and%20Options%20Report.pdf [Accessed 28/04/09], p.9.
197
64
located’ offering ‘a great network of transport links and connections’198. The
Keith Newell Consultancy report, referencing the Egan recommendations for
developing communities, notes in respect of the area that ‘the transport
dimension looks promising at this point…’199. The same report noted that the
majority of respondents consulted felt that public transport in the area was
either very good, good or ok.
While it is recognised that the city offers a comprehensive road, rail and air
service that provides excellent links both nationally and internationally, the
transport needs of the community are often predicated on more mundane
requirements driven by the determinants of the area including low incomes,
worklessness and diversity.
From the literature, it is evident that a many people resident in the area are
reliant on public transport to travel to and from work, to go shopping and to
maintain contact with friends and relatives. The MEL survey corroborates this,
noting that Indian and Bangladeshi respondents identified good transport links
as attractive as they provide access to buses and shops200.
Problems with traffic and transport are evident however. The Keith Newell
Consultancy reports that speeding cars were identified as the third most
important issue by respondents who were asked what they thought the
current problems in Handsworth were201. Other problems caused by vehicles
include instances of noise pollution attributed to loud stereo systems in cars202
and issues relating to parking identified by respondents in the MEL survey 203.
The MEL survey also notes that African refugees and asylum seekers are
concerned about traffic and road safety although they also consider the area
to be well served by local transport. The Handsworth Neighbourhood
Management Board includes ‘Traffic congestion, parking [and] speed’ as one
of their key environmental issues204.
198
Birmingham City Council (2007b) Invest in North West Birmingham. Online:
http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/Media/North%20West%20AIP%2008_11_07.pdf?MEDIA_ID=27708
8&FILENAME=North%20West%20AIP%2008_11_07.pdf [Accessed 20/04/09] pp. 12, 26.
199
Keith Newell Consultancy (2006) op. cit., p.9.
200
MEL (2006) op. cit., pp.17, 29.
201
Keith Newell Consultancy (2007) op. cit., p.31.
202
Keith Newell Consultancy (2006) op. cit., p.45.
203
MEL (2006) op. cit., pp.14, 24.
204
Handsworth Neighbourhood Management Board (2007) op. cit., p. 7.
65
9.1
The Eastern Periphery
The A34 Birchfield Road is a major infrastructural feature that creates a
physical divide between Lozells and Aston/Birchfield - part of a ‘fractured
urban form caused by road severance and poor pedestrian links’205. While the
road offers excellent access to the north and centre of Birmingham206, it
divides communities and is a vehicle dominated environment. The pedestrian
underpasses lead to perceptions of poor safety, a lack of overlooked crossing
points and poor surveillance. This dual carriageway, which extends to three or
four lanes in places, ‘acts as a significant pedestrian barrier, due to its width
and the use of barriers along the central carriageway207’. The road is also
below grade where it passes under the roundabout at Perry Barr. The
pedestrian underpasses are perceived as unsafe and are seldom used as
pedestrians prefer to walk through the heavy traffic around the Perry Barr
junction.
The A34 is a potential metro route208. According to the Birmingham Unitary
Development Plan of 2005, the development of such a light rail extension
would further the city’s strategy for economic and urban regeneration. As part
of Phase 2 extension proposals, the Varsity North corridor would take the
tram system north of the city centre towards the Scott Arms or Junction 7 of
the M6 on the Walsall Road. A proposed Park and Ride facility close to the
M6 or at Perry Barr would potentially reduce traffic congestion on the A34209.
This would be a long term proposal, to be implemented around 2016.
Through collaboration with other authorities in the region, the City Council has
signed up to the West Midlands Local Transport Plan of 2006 (LTP), which is
committed to ‘a safer community with fewer road accidents and with
environments in which people feel secure’210. Other objectives include a
thriving, sustainable and vibrant community where people want to live and
where business can develop and grow; equal opportunities for everyone to
gain access to services and facilities and to enjoy a better quality of life with
travel choices that are attractive, viable and sustainable. The priorities for the
LTP include the regeneration of communities and the identification of new
opportunities for economic development and employment. Consistent with
other regional strategic documents, it seeks to promote social inclusion and
help disadvantaged groups to access the opportunities that will improve their
life chances.
205
Birmingham City Council (2007) The Aston, Newtown and Lozells Area Action Plan: Issues and
Options Report, p11.
206
Ibid., p.13.
207
Ibid., p.52.
208
Ibid, p.13.
209
Ibid, p52-53.
210
Birmingham City Council et al (2008) West Midlands Local Transport Plan: Delivery Report 20062008, Birmingham, p.9.
66
Birchfield Road offers the possibility of creating an enhanced living and
shopping space, upgrading the shopping experience, improving the quality of
life of local residents, getting rid of dangerous underpasses, removing the
physical divide between young people, and extending and upgrading the
shopping offer. Developing Birchfield road as a retail and leisure hub is a
longer-term option which would, of course, require considerable resources.
The concept of an urban boulevard has been suggested for the stretch of the
Birchfield Road that runs from New Town Row to the Perry Barr shopping
centre, pointing to the possibility of an improved environment for business and
leisure - an improved public realm, new mixed use development with tree
planting, attractive open spaces and a new landmark development. The
concept is based on211:







Humanising the impact of this major highway corridor, without reducing
capacity
Exploring the potential for developing a network of open spaces
Providing a pedestrian-friendly environment
Linking access to a new high capacity public transport system
Encouraging safety and security through human activity, active frontage
and overlooking of public spaces
High quality design
The development of community pride and neighbourhood identity
There are examples elsewhere, where similar types of development have
been implemented. In the case of Barcelona, the intervention undertook the
partial covering of the highway and introduced a tram system, reducing noise
pollution and creating new pedestrian routes that border public plazas.
Dropping the Birchfield Road below ground level, remodelling the approaches
to the One Stop shopping centre and creating a new public realm would be
expensive, but if Lozells is thought to be a priority neighbourhood for the city,
a redesign of this area could be a priority for infrastructure resources. Its
impact would be more than an infrastructural improvement. It would create
new spaces for social interaction and raise the quality of the environment for
the people of Lozells and the other surrounding areas.
9.2
The North Western Periphery
We have already discussed the potential of the north western periphery of the
city in terms of its economic importance and the possibility of redirecting
through traffic off the A41 Soho Road. We have also noted the pollution that is
generated by this traffic and have alluded to the health consequences of this
pollution. The general health of the residents of Handsworth/Lozells is another
issue of concern, as is access to health services.
211
Birmingham City Council (2007) The Aston, Newtown and Lozells Area Action Plan: Issues and
Options Report, p56.
67
10.
Health
The City Council is committed to working closely with health service providers
to help improve the health of the people of Birmingham and tackle the
inequalities in health, particularly in the most disadvantaged areas212. It will
intervene to improve the health of those in most need, narrowing the gap in
life expectancy between the least healthy wards and the city average,
encouraging people to adopt more healthy lifestyles, and improving people’s
mental, physical and emotional well-being. The city will develop policies that
will allow older people to live independently for longer, in environments that
encourage activity and promote well-being.
The Heart of Birmingham Primary Care Trust serves the people of Lozells and
East Handsworth and surrounding wards. The main hospital serving the area
is City Hospital. The PVT is committed to ‘serving our impoverished and
diverse community’213 through providing both better access to quality health
care services and encouraging individuals, families and communities to take
more responsibility for their own health and well-being. It seeks to deliver
care closer to home and ‘to reduce health inequalities, to close the health gap
in a generation through people, partnership and transformation of health
care’214.
The PCT are implementing the ‘Towards 2010’ programme, which should
result in health and social care services being delivered jointly and in a more
accessible way to local communities. Latest estimates suggest that just under
70% of the community it serves are members of the Black and Minority Ethnic
(BME) population. Of the 13,300 economic migrants to Birmingham in 2006,
65% are located in the PCT’s area and, in the same year, there were nearly
2000 asylum seekers in the area, bringing new challenges for the delivery of
health care.
The PCT have opened a new primary care centre in Lozells in 2007-08215,
which means that there are now two Primary Care centres in Lozells and East
Handsworth ward, with another four sitting just outside the boundary. There
are, however, no PCT health facilities within the Handsworth Neighbourhood
Management Area, although there are several on the periphery. There is a
planned development for a new health centre just outside the area, in
Handsworth Wood, for which a site has yet to be identified.
Recent figures for mortality and morbidity have therefore to be viewed in the
context of these even more recent improvements to the service. Mortality
rates in the ward have improved over the years since 1995-97 and the gap
between the city and the ward has almost closed216. Lozells and East
212
Birmingham City Council (2008) Council Plan 2008-2013, Birmingham, Birmingham City Council,
p14.
213
Heart of Birmingham Teaching Primary Care Trust (2008) Strategic Plan, Birmingham, p.5.
214
Heart of Birmingham Teaching Primary Care Trust (2008) Strategic Plan, Birmingham, p.6.
215
Heart of Birmingham Teaching Primary Care Trust (2008) Annual Report 2007-08, Birmingham.,
p.13.
216
Be Birmingham (2008), Lozells and East Handsworth Ward Profile, p.13
68
Handsworth is ranked 21st out of the 40 Birmingham wards and female life
expectancy has been improving217, although male life expectancy does not
appear to have changed. Although infant mortality has been improving, it is
worse than in the city as a whole218. Satisfaction rates with how hospitals and
surgeries are being run are similar to rates across the city219.
A higher proportion of residents in Handsworth/Lozells are new migrants than
is generally the case across the city, and there are some concerns about the
provision of health services amongst this segment of the population. New
Migrants found it difficult to register with GPs and negotiate the various parts
of the healthcare system. The registration process was thought to be
intentionally difficult; they struggled to get appointments when they needed
them and they went to hospital when they were unable to get GP
appointments. GPs were dismissive and unable to understand their
symptoms; children were left un-inoculated because of a lack of
understanding of the compatibility of Polish and UK inoculations; and many
went home when they needed either medical or dental treatment.
In Table 18 (overleaf), we can see that Perry Barr Constituency is a relatively
healthy place to live. It fares better than the city as a whole on all the main
health indicators except female life expectancy. In contrast, Lozells and East
Handsworth ward fares worse than the city on all indicators except deaths by
cancer. It is not clear why the incidence of deaths by cancer should be better
in the ward than in the constituency and the city, but the rate does appear to
be rising rather than falling. Historically, hospital admissions for older people
have been relatively low in Lozells and East Handsworth, but this has
increased dramatically recently.
Exercise levels in the ward are much lower than in other priority wards and
the city as a whole. Only 5% in Lozells and East Handsworth exercised at
least three times a week, compared to an average of 16% across all priority
wards. The impact of the introduction of the Gym4free scheme, whereby over60s can access leisure facilities free of charge, is not yet known in the ward.
According to the Council Plan for 2008-2013, a key objective for the quality of
life of older people are that they should remain active and involved in the
community, with the people who provide their informal care receiving better
support220. A commitment to locating the proposed new PCT Facility (ref
2B122) within the Handsworth NMA would be a practical demonstration of the
PCT’s commitment to the ideals contained in their Strategic Plan.
217
Now 80.5 years, compared to 72.7 for men.
10.1% compared to 8.5%.
219
There is 62% net satisfaction with hospitals and 68% net satisfaction with surgeries.
220
Birmingham City Council (2008) Council Plan 2008-2013, Birmingham, Birmingham City Council,
p16.
218
69
Table 18: Health in Lozells and East Handsworth
Low birth weight
Life expectancy
Male life expectancy (1)
Female life expectancy (1)
Deaths Circulatory Disease
Deaths (Cancer) (2)
Deaths (suicide) (2)
Infant mortality (3)
Child Hospital admiss. (4)
Over 65 Hospital admiss (falls)
(4)
Baseline
Latest
L&EH
L&EH
Latest
Perry
Barr
Latest
City
11.6
75.5
72.8
79.5
173.7
109.6
15
13.6
57.1
12.8
76.1
73.9
80.2
157.5
115.3
8.1
10.1
64.2
12.1
77.6
75.8
80.4
112.4
124.8
7
7.7
52.2
11.3
77.1
75.2
80.5
119.6
129.6
7.8
8.5
53.2
99.8
149.5
139.3
149.3
Notes
(1) Three year averages 2004
06
(2) 2003-05
(3) 2004-06
(4) 2005-06
Source: Be Birmingham
11.
Young People
A recurring theme in the literature on Handsworth/Lozells is the issue of
young people. At the time of the Census in 2001, 30% of the 28,800
population of the Lozells and East Handsworth Ward were under the age of
16221. This is in the context of the City itself having ‘the youngest population of
any European city’222. The Be Birmingham profiles of the different
neighbourhoods all suggest that the population has a younger age profile than
the city as a whole223.
It is evident that there are concerns relating to providing facilities for both
children and youths, improving educational results, diverting youths from
becoming involved in gang culture and providing opportunities for young
people to work and obtain housing in the area. There is a danger that,
because of issues relating to Guns and Gangs, that the young people of the
area could become demonised. As we discuss the difficulties that affect them,
we need to remember that these young people are the future of
Handsworth/Lozells.
221
http://www.bebirmingham.org.uk
Birmingham City Council (2007): Invest in North West Birmingham. Online:
http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/Media/North%20West%20AIP%2008_11_07.pdf?MEDIA_ID=27708
8&FILENAME=North%20West%20AIP%2008_11_07.pdf [Accessed 20/04/09], p.15.
223
Be Birmingham (2008, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c, 2008d) op. cit.
222
70
The relatively young age profile of the area does bring attendant problems.
Birmingham ranks 347th out of 354 local authorities for child well-being. The
question of support for children and youth is highlighted by the Handsworth
Neighbourhood Management Board who identify the need to provide facilities
and support for children and youth as a key issue224. Similarly, the Lozells
Neighbourhood Management Board report that the need to provide ‘activities
for teenagers’ and ‘play facilities for young children’ are key priorities for local
people225. Let us deal with some of the issues relating to young children
before turning youth issues.
11.1
Young Children
We have noted above the issues around the educational performance of
young children. This is confirmed by the Keith Newell Consultancy report,
which points to the poor performance in Handsworth in respect of children
achieving their early learning goals and highlights the need for improvement in
Early Learning and Key Stage 2 226. A similar picture emerges in the Lozells
and East Handsworth Ward, where achievement of early learning goals are
described as ‘50 per cent below the threshold levels…’227. We have seen this
confirmed by the educational attainment figures referred to earlier and we
suggested that these children may be at an early disadvantage because of
the very high proportion of households where English is a second language.
These same statistics show that, although children’s performance improves
as they go through school and secondary school performance is also
improving, they have been unable as yet to overcome this early disadvantage.
In terms of the provision of facilities for young children, the Keith Newell
Consultancy report indicated that more free nurseries were required as well
as stay and play facilities228. These results were echoed in the Handsworth
baseline assessment conducted in 2007229.
Issues with schooling are also identified by Phillimore et al in their work
relating to the neighbourhood needs of new migrants. Participants in this
research reported difficulty in locating nursery spaces for young children and
they pointed to other problems, due to a lack of local knowledge, which
hampered them in their efforts to identify the most appropriate schools for
their children.
224
Handsworth Neighbourhood Management Board (2007) op. cit., p. 13.
Lozells Neighbourhood Management Board (2008) op. cit., p.1.
226
Keith Newell Consultancy report (2007) op. cit., p.12.
227
The Keith Newell Consultancy (2006) op. cit., p.16.
228
It should be noted however, that the majority of respondents answering this question did not have
children of pre-school age and therefore did not have an opinion on the issue. Keith Newell
Consultancy (2006) op. cit., p.25.
229
Keith Newell Consultancy, (2007) op. cit., p.29.
225
71
Further problems were experienced in providing curriculum support for their
children when a school place was identified. They complained of bullying and
a lack of understanding from schools of the particular issues of children from
this background. The report also references research that identifies that ‘some
refugee children truanted from school because they could see little point in
remaining’230.
The research conducted by MEL in 2006 revealed that Indian residents and
African asylum seekers and refugees believed that there were not enough
safe facilities for children to play231. This report also highlighted the problems
experienced by older children and this will now be considered in greater
detail.
11.2
Older Children / Youth
Latchford identified that the higher proportion of younger people in the area,
combined with other factors such as worklessness, could have been a
contributing factor to the 2005 disturbances; ‘high levels of young men with
insufficient to occupy their time – is an incendiary mix’232. The literature
emphasises a lack of opportunities for young people, coupled with a distrust
of the statutory agencies. One could postulate that these factors could
contribute to draw young people towards the gang culture that exists in the
area and a continuation of the problems that helped to ignite the 2005
disturbances.
The Keith Newell Consultancy report (2006) canvassed the views of young
people in the Lozells and East Handsworth area and reported that the majority
of respondents felt that there was little or nothing for young people to do in the
area to occupy their time233. This response was echoed in a similar
assessment carried out in Handsworth in 2006.
The failure of the statutory agencies to understand the area and deliver
adequate services to young people is a recurring theme. The Keith Newell
Consultancy held discussions with mothers who had lost children to gun crime
and young men who had become involved in gang activity234. The group
criticised educational provision, noting that greater care should be given to
issues such as curriculum design, Black history, identity and stereotypical
labelling, an opinion echoed by Black respondents canvassed by MEL, who
felt that ‘Afro-Caribbean children are labelled badly in local schools’235.
230
Philimore et al (2008) op. cit., p.38.
MEL (2006) op. cit., pp.8,36.
232
Latchford (2007) op. cit. p.19.
233
Keith Newell Consultancy (2006) op. cit., p. 34.
234
Ibid.
235
MEL (2006) op. cit., p.10).
231
72
The gang members taking part in the former discussion identified their lack of
life chances and consequent long-lasting involvement in crime236. An
interesting corollary of the discussion was that the gang members identified
that ‘many young people want to kick gang membership and crime but…there
are no people and programmes to help them’237.
As we have seen above, the police have been effective in reducing crime in
the area, but the policing of the area has attracted criticism including the
following observations238:




The police do not understand the culture
Stereotypes fuel police harassment
Post code policing
Police/Black youth relationships are poor
Although it is recognised by respondents that Black and Asian officers have
been recruited to work in the area, a feeling that the officers have become
assimilated into a particular way of thinking persists. Suggestions to help in
this regard include allowing the community to be involved in police training
and having an opportunity to shadow or undertake work experience with local
police officers239.
It is evident that the local agencies have taken note of residents’ criticisms.
The Handsworth Neighbourhood Management Board recognise the
importance of delivering services ‘that respond appropriately to marginalised
youngsters’ and ‘provide facilities [and] development opportunities [and]
socially productive routes to achievement to meet their needs…’240.
The Soho Finger and Gib Heath Neighbourhood Management Board 241
reports successful consultation exercises with 13-16 year olds but has also
recognised that provision of improved facilities and activities for children and
young people is a priority area.
It is evident from the literature that the needs of children and young people
are not currently been met on a number of levels. Although perceptions of the
area might contribute to a certain extent in this regard, the aspirations of both
the council and the residents of the area will only be met by identifying needs
and responding to them in consultation with the community. Although there is
evidence to indicate that this approach has been adopted, there is clearly
more work to do.
236
Keith Newell Consultancy (2006) op. cit., pp. 39-40.
Ibid, 41.
238
Keith Newell Consultancy, (2006) op. cit., 41.
239
Keith Newell Consultancy, (2006) op. cit., p.42.
240
Handsworth Neighbourhood Management Board (2007) op. cit., p.13.
241
Soho Finger and Gib Heath Neighbourhood Management Board (2008) op. cit., pp.11-13.
237
73
For a sizeable minority of young people in Handsworth/Lozells, there is a
cycle of low educational attainment, youth unemployment, gang membership,
alienation from mainstream society, unstable low income employment through
out their lives, children born into disadvantage, low educational attainment
…… and the cycle continues. It is beyond the scope of this literature review to
deal with all of these issues, but it is clear that they need to be tackled
simultaneously.
Part of the solution could be to build on the cultural diversity of the area by
creating employment that is linked to the development of the arts. There is a
rich history of performing arts in Handsworth and Lozells, reflecting both the
history of the area and the international roots of its residents. There is scope
for more support to turn this into income-earning opportunities for young
people.
12.
Culture and the Creative Industries
The City-Region bid, referred to above, was seeking funding for the
establishment of a dedicated Cultural Lottery Fund, along with additional
powers to support the development of the City-Region’s cultural
infrastructure242. In its Plan for the period 2008 to 2013, the City Council
intends to provide residents with ‘the opportunity to access the very best
cultural and sporting activities and events, locally and city-wide’243.
This is an admirable aim, but by the way in which this commitment is
conceived, it does not allow for support to locally produced cultural activity
and events. The Council Plan says that the Council will continue to improve
and expand cultural opportunities, but this appears to refer only to staging
first-class cultural events and ensuring that people will take part in cultural
activities such as libraries and museums. In support of areas like Handsworth
and Lozells, the Council could go further with respect to a commitment to
community arts and their relationship to the cultural industries.
In Handsworth, Lozells and the surrounding area, there is a cultural narrative
that could be celebrated more effectively. Information about cultural activities
is fragmented, but the potential role of culture in the regeneration of
Handsworth and Lozells is immense. With its diverse population, the diversity
of culture could be promoted by investment in the cultural infrastructure.
There are opportunities to bring together young people through three-tone, an
amalgamation of art, music and minority theatre.
242
Birmingham City Council, et al, (2009) City-Region of Birmingham, Coventry and the Black
Country: Proposal for a Pilot City Region, p. 16.
243
Birmingham City Council (2008) Council Plan 2008-2013, Birmingham, Birmingham City Council,
p16.
74
The Cultural Narrative for the area includes:

The Beyond Bricks community arts programme244, which is being funded
by Urbal Living.

The Drum245 is renowned as a national centre for black arts and culture.
Located in Aston, it is an important focal point for the cultural identities of
the British African, Asian and Caribbean communities in Handsworth and
Lozells.

Nu Century Arts246 promotes the artistic development of the African
Caribbean community by supporting new writers, musicians, directors and
actors.

Punch Records247 have been investigating the history of Bhangra music
and the role that Handsworth and Lozells have played in this. Based in
Birchfield Road, it is a major, ideas-led cultural resource for the city of
Birmingham and the West Midlands through its advocacy, advice service,
productions, festivals and artist development.

The work of photographer Andrew Jackson in Handsworth and Lozells,
exploring issues of identity and diversity.

The Connecting Histories web page identifies the work of photographer
Vanley Burke248, who has been recording the people of Handsworth and
Lozells since the 1960s. It also highlights the work of the Banner Theatre
company249, which has produced documentary-based shows using a
range of multi-media techniques around drama, folk music, slides and oral
history recordings, providing support for amateur groups such as the
Handsworth Community Project, to produce their own work. Derek
Bishton250 is a journalist and photographer who worked in the Handsworth
area of Birmingham during the 1970s and 1980s alongside other
photographers, journalists and designers, including John Reardon and
Brian Homer, on photography and community projects.

The Centre for Music and Arts Technology251 provides quality training,
education and production resources for people from diverse ethnic
backgrounds who share a passion for music and other performing arts. It
is a social enterprise which supports local groups and provides facilities
and services for the creative industries. Run by Dr Bob Ramdhanie, who
has been involved in promoting black arts for over 40 years and nurturing
244
http://www.beyondbricks.net.
http://www.the-drum.org.uk
246
http://www.nucenturyarts.co.uk
247
www.punch-records.co.uk.
248
http://www.connectinghistories.org.uk/collections/vanley_burke.asp
249
http://www.connectinghistories.org.uk/collections/banner.asp
250
http://www.connectinghistories.org.uk/collections/bishton.asp
245
251 http://www.cmatltd.co.uk
75
the talents of hundreds of local artists, its events and training draw on the
experience of local musicians such David Hinds (Steel Pulse), Zirak
Hamad (Infusion), Carlos Munoz (Caliche), Dennis Seaton (Musical Youth)
and Pritam Singh.
The importance of recognising this cluster of activity is not only the
contribution it makes to the cultural life of the community, although this is
extremely important. All of the above are income-generating opportunities in
the cultural industries. There is a significant cluster of media activity in
Birmingham, which is supported by AWM. There is scope for involving AWM
in the funding of the creative industries in Handsworth/Lozells, thereby
contributing to the well-being and quality of life of young people in the area.
Where this activity takes place is also important. The most difficult part of the
area is also the location where impact could be greatest. The Villa Road is a
rundown stretch between the Soho Road and Lozells Road shopping areas
that is a hotspot for crime, gangs and drugs. An ambitious programme of
regeneration and renewal in this area could change the nature of
Handsworth/Lozells, contribute to social cohesion and fundamentally alter
people’s perceptions of the area. It is difficult to see how the image of
Handsworth/Lozells can be changed without such an effort.
This, of course would only be one part of an overall programme of work that
sees the young people of Handsworth/Lozells as the main resource for a
better future for the area. The overall programme should seek to raise their
aspirations with respect to their place in the developing knowledge economy
and support them in achieving these aspirations through education and
training. There are already people involved in this and there has been a
commitment of resources for this purpose. The future of Handsworth/Lozells
depends on their success.
13.
Empowering the Community
One of the aims of the Dialogue process, if not this project, is to enable and
empower citizens, stakeholders and communities to contribute to building
cohesion by engaging and being active. Empowerment assumes that people
wish to be involved in the first place. Enabling people to become active
citizens requires that there is a latent desire to become more involved in the
delivery of the services that affect the quality of residents’ lives. If there is no
willingness to participate, there can be no empowerment. The evidence
suggests that in Handsworth and Lozells, for whatever reasons, there is less
desire to get involved beyond the affairs of the family than in other parts of
Birmingham.
76
In Lozells and East Handsworth, residents are far less likely than those in
other parts of the city to help people other than their relatives. Only 11% of
respondents in the 2006 Local Area Agreement Survey252 said that they had
undertaken unpaid activities to help people other than relatives in the previous
year, compared with 23% citywide. They are also only half as likely to
undertake voluntary activities as residents in the other priority wards in the
city253. When they do, it is mainly to keep in touch with people who have
difficulty in getting out and about and/or collect pensions and shop for others.
When asked if they had sought to increase awareness of local issues they
were also less likely than others across the city to get involved. Only 7% had
tried to raise awareness, compared to 10% citywide, and only 4% had
contacted an appropriate organisation (5% citywide).
On the other hand, participation in local groups, organisations or clubs is
much higher than the city average. In the Lozells and East Handsworth ward,
31% had participated in local groups, compared to 21% across the city and
22% in priority wards as a whole. Twelve per cent of people in the ward
participated in children’s education, religious, and/or sports and exercise
groups.
This implies that bonding social capital is low, bridging social capital is high,
and linking social capital is lower than, but closer to, the city average 254.
Empowerment is about increasing linking social capital. The question, then, is
about whether this can be increased. Would local residents be interested or,
what would make them interested? There appears to be a great deal of
cynicism about whether that City is serious about involving people, listening to
them and following up with action255. This attitude will only be overcome if
issues around local governance and resources are addressed.
When asked about their satisfaction with the opportunities for participation in
local decision-making provided by local public services, satisfaction levels are
once again much lower than across the city (44% satisfied compared with
56%)256. The same is true of net satisfaction rates - 12 percentage points
lower. When asked whether they agreed or disagreed that they were able to
influence decisions that affect the local area, only 29% agreed. Across the
City 37% agreed. Twenty one per cent disagreed, the second lowest of the
city wards, leaving a net positive balance of 8%257. However, a full 50% said
‘neither’ or were unsure258. This suggests that for many respondents, this was
not a meaningful question. One interpretation of this is that for a large
252
BMG (2008) op. cit., p. 39.
Only Kings Norton had a lower level of activity.
254
For a Discussion of bonding, bridging and linking social capital in neighbourhoods that work, see
Middleton, A., Murie, A and Groves, R. (2005) Social Capital and Neighbourhoods that Work’, Urban
Studies, Vol. 42, No. 10, pp. 1711-1738.
255
Handsworth and Lozells Community Advisory Group (March 2009) Summary report on the work
and outcomes from the Handsworth and Lozells Community Advisory Group.
256
Only Sparkbrook and Washwood Heath come out lower.
257
In Lozells, however, more people were dissatisfied than satisfied . See: BMG (2007) LAA Survey:
Neighbourhood Elements Report, op. cit., p.30.
258
In Lozells it was 55%. Ibid., p32.
253
77
proportion of residents in Handsworth and Lozells, this is not something they
think about.
These figures would caution against putting too much emphasis on net
satisfaction rates when dealing with these questions. However, it is worth
noting that net satisfaction with ability to influence decisions fell right across
the city between 2006 and 2007 and in the Perry Barr Constituency they fell
from 37% to 14%259.
When asked if they would like to become more involved in decision-making in
the future, only 6% in the ward said that they would, compared to 11% in the
city and 14% in all priority wards. A further 24% said it would depend on the
issue, compared to 19% citywide.
With social relations based on the family rather than the community, with little
inclination to address local issues, with a low level of consciousness about
influencing decisions and a lack of motivation to participate, encouraging local
people to ‘be empowered’ will not be easy. Nevertheless, two potential areas
to explore are the Canadian concept of Citizens’ Assemblies260 and the
possibility of a local version of a Youth Parliament261, which would operate
more as a Youth Assembly.
The Citizen Assemblies concept involves a random selection of residents,
from which a quota sample is selected to reflect the social composition of the
area. The assembly would complement the work of elected representatives,
acting as a consultative group and sending their recommendations directly to
Councillors for debate and Council ratification. It would be larger than
Citizen’s juries and panels and a revolving membership would not necessarily
be representative of any local interest groups.
Rather than being directly elected, the Youth Assembly would follow similar
selection principles and would lock young people into the future of the area. It
would enable youths to use their energy to change their local area and would
be constantly renewed by new young people coming through.
Finally, these mechanisms will only work if resources flow from the advice that
is offered, raising the question of participatory budgeting262. Participatory
budgeting has many forms and can be adapted to local circumstances. Many
local authorities claim to be operating participatory systems when in fact they
are referring to the devolution of budgets to local areas through, for example,
constituency committees. Linked to a Citizen Assembly or a Youth Assembly,
parts of the City’s budget would be seen to be locally owned and they would
create a new local social dynamic.
259
BMG (2008) op. cit., p.35. We requested but were unable to obtain 2007 figures for the ward.
Dowden, O. (2009) Sorted: Civic lotteries and the future of public participation, Toronto, MASS
LBP.
261
http://www.ukyouthparliament.org.uk
262
http://www.participatorybudgeting.org.uk
260
78
These concepts tend to be based on the idea of a homogenous and cohesive
society, rather than a diverse and at times tense community. They work best
when there is common purpose. They are proposed here because they are
thought to be worthy of further investigation as a potential means of
enhancing linking social capital in areas such as Handsworth/Lozells.
14.
Conclusion
In the variety of documents we looked at, there have been many discussions
of issues and problems relating to rubbish, rats, crime, unemployment,
education, health, the needs of young people, community cohesion, and
access to services. The historical burden of these issues has led to a
significant image problem for Handsworth/Lozells but, behind the image, the
problems are real.
Recent surveys have shown that, for the residents of Handsworth and Lozells,
the level of crime is seen as the most important aspect of a place when
judging if it is a good area to live. Crime in Handsworth has been historically
higher than in the rest of the City, particularly violent crime and robbery. Crime
rates have been falling all across the country in recent years and in
Handsworth and Lozells the rates of decline for most crimes are much higher
than average. Violent crime remains an issue, but the gap in crime rates
between the ward and Birmingham as a whole, has been closing.
Nevertheless, local community concerns about crime remain high and many
people leave the area because of concerns about criminal and anti-social
behaviour.
Recent reports by consultants also show that residents think that the local
police are out of touch with residents and that more visible policing was
necessary. The police appear to have responded by becoming more engaged
with the community and by putting more community officers into the streets,
but it is not clear that the historical lack of trust between the police and
sections of the community have been overcome. This may be particularly true
of young people, who are seen as are the source of fear of crime for many
older people.
The problem of young people having nothing to do is a common complaint in
urban and rural areas across the country. From local reports, it is clear that
young people hanging around the streets are perceived by many people in the
community as a major challenge facing Handsworth and Lozells. It is linked to
both crime and anti-social behaviour, above, and to opportunities for
employment, below.
Hanging around on street corners is, of course, not only a result of lack of
social and leisure activities for young people; it is also related to a lack of
opportunities for employment and training. The statistics point to youth
unemployment as a continuing and serious problems that reinforces the
79
segregation of communities and contributes to a lack of cohesion within
different ethnic groups across the Handsworth and Lozells area.
Previous surveys have indicated that people in Handsworth and Lozells are
much more likely to be concerned about unemployment as a local issue than
others across Birmingham. This reflects the extremely high levels of
unemployment in the area. Their concerns about high rates of unemployment
are supported by statistics which show that these rates are not only high but
that, relative to the Birmingham average, the situation has been deteriorating
over the past 17 years. However, in addition to unemployment, the levels of
other benefits and disability are higher than average and the overall levels of
income are much lower, when compared with the city average. Part of the
reason for the higher incidence of low income levels across Handsworth and
Lozells, appears to be that those who have jobs may be over-represented in
low-income employment. The largest group of employers in the area are small
firms in retail and catering (mainly fast food outlets) and people are
concentrated in low-paid occupational categories.
Educational performance in Handsworth and Lozells has been well below the
Birmingham average in all areas of attainment, from pre-school to secondary
school. Historically, pupils living in Handsworth and Lozells have performed
very much worse that children from across the City and nationally, and there
is still some evidence that in early years of education this is still the case. The
most recent statistics show that there are lower levels of performance in both
primary and secondary education and few local young people go on to attend
college and university. However, the gap between the ward and the City
average narrows as children progress through school and there have been
recent improvements in pupil attainment, particularly at secondary level.
Local people’s concerns with rubbish, rats, dumping and run-down properties
are a constant feature of previous consultations in Handsworth and Lozells.
Calls for less litter and rubbish on the streets are reinforced by a community
view that this is the most important aspect of service delivery in Handsworth/
Lozells that needs improving. Recent surveys show that fly-tipping and the
dumping of bulky rubbish are major problems in the area, as is the number of
properties that are not being adequately maintained. Recent improvements in
the cleaning of the area appear to have been insufficient for many residents.
This issue of the environment is a major determinant of the quality of life in the
area and it contributes considerably to the negative image of the area. It is
also a deterrent for individuals who might otherwise stay and invest in the
area, and it reduces the morale of those who remain in Handsworth and
Lozells.
Home ownership is well below the Birmingham average and the private rented
sector is large and growing. The area is currently benefiting from a large-scale
investment by Urban Living as much of the private stock fails decent homes
standards. Some of the social housing is in a state of dereliction. There is a
rapid turnover of people, particularly in the private rented sector and, at the
same time, a group of long-term residents with particular housing needs.
80
Different people from the locality’s various Black and minority ethnic groups
have different needs, based on cultural influences, on family size and the way
in which houses are used. Furthermore, the demographics of the area
generate particular demands from the elderly and the large numbers of young
people who will soon enter into the housing market.
Local business is dominated by small firms employing less than 10 people,
and over the past ten years Handsworth and Lozells has been losing
enterprises, whilst the rest of Birmingham has been gaining them. Larger
employers based in the area are all in the public sector. New businesses
established in Handsworth and Lozells have a less than 50% chance of
surviving four years, a situation that is much worse than in Birmingham as a
whole.
Surveys have shown that residents of Handsworth and Lozells think that the
area has good transport links, both to the city centre and to other parts of the
city. There are long-standing issues of congestion on the Soho Road, where
health-damaging pollution is higher than in the city centre; and although the
A34 Birchfield Road is a main route into the city centre, there are issues in
relation to the safety of the pedestrian underpasses and the quality of the
physical environment adjacent to it.
Health statistics relating to Handsworth and Lozells are almost uniformly
worse than for the City as a whole. They should be seen in the context of the
investment that is being made by The Heart of Birmingham Primary Care
Trust to reduce health inequalities and there have been recent improvement is
mortality rates and infant mortality rates. Nevertheless, Handsworth and
Lozells fare worse than the City average on all major health indicators except
death by cancer. Levels of exercise undertaken by local people are also much
lower in the area. Some groups, such as new arrivals, have difficulties in
gaining access to GPs and this group also have particular language support
needs.
City Council policy documents have identified improving early learning and
providing play facilities for young children as key priorities; and a key objective
is to address the quality of life of older people. Nevertheless, at the present
time, a number of problems still remain in the area.
Lack of community cohesion in Handsworth and Lozells remains a serious
issue, particularly in the Lozells area. While across the Perry Barr
constituency people say they get on well together, the different ethnic groups
in Lozells and West Birchfield may be living together in close geographic
proximity, but they are leading separate lives. The underlying tensions that lay
behind the 2005 Lozells disturbances do not appear to have gone away.
One of the aims of the Dialogue Programme is to empower citizens to
contribute to building cohesion by being active in their local community.
However, the evidence suggests that in Handsworth and Lozells there is less
desire to get involved in community affairs than in other parts of Birmingham.
Handsworth and Lozells residents are far less likely than those in other parts
81
of the city to help people other than their relatives. When local residents were
asked if they had sought to increase awareness of local issues, they were
also less likely than others across the city to get involved. On the other hand,
participation in local groups, organisations or clubs is much higher than the
city average.
This broader evidence implies that in Handsworth and Lozells, bonding social
capital is low, bridging social capital is high, and linking social capital is lower
than, but closer to, the city average. There appears to be a great deal of
cynicism about whether the City is serious about involving people, listening to
them and following up with action.
With respect to satisfaction with the opportunities for participation in local
decision-making, satisfaction levels are much lower in Handsworth and
Lozells than across the city. When asked whether they agreed or disagreed
that they were able to influence decisions that affect the local area, half of the
area’s residents said they did not know. It would appear that their ability to
influence decisions is not something that residents in Handsworth and Lozells
think about a great deal.
Depending on the issue, dealing with the problems may require different types
of approaches. The range of policy options that will be needed to address the
issues will include both short-tern and long-term solutions. For example, the
question of rubbish on the street appears to drive an approach that
concentrates on cleaning up the mess, rather than dealing with prevention of
litter being dropped in the first place - the longer term and more intractable
challenge of changing people’s behaviour.
With respect to the underlying issues of low income and unemployment, these
are unlikely to be resolved by focusing on employment creation in the
immediate or surrounding locality. Given the number of firms, the size of these
firms, the type of businesses in the area and the occupational structure of the
inhabitants, local support can only make a small contribution to solving the
problem. It may require collaboration across local authority boundaries and
public sector organisations may need to review their recruitment policies.
82
APPENDIX 3
HANDSWORTH AND LOZELLS
COMMUNITY DIALOGUE PROGRAMME
SEMI-FORMAL COMMUNITY DIALOGUES
Carol Coombes
May 2009
Update on learning from semi formal Community Dialogues.
First draft document for conversation
Contents:
1.
Summary
2.
‘Sort out your own back yard’263:
Recurring themes
Ideas and Suggestions
Recommendations
3.
Supporting information:
Sample Session Framework
Event summaries and facilitator questions arising from them (for
discussion)
Group 1.
Group 2.
Group 3.
Group 4.
Group 5.
Group 6.
263
Older People
Women and Families
Local Workers
Neighbourhood Management Boards
Newly Arrived Communities
Young People
..before you try to sort out mine’- Caribbean saying
84
1.
Summary
This paper is intended as a Plain English and easily usable update on the
learning so far from the semi formal community dialogues, and as a prompt
to discussion.
There is a final ‘pulling together’ event to run, with the finished paper to follow.
The circulation of this has therefore been limited to avoid potential later
confusion.
The overall Objectives of the Community Dialogue programme are to:Facilitate, develop and deliver:
a. Informed understanding of the key issues and challenges in Handsworth
and Lozells building on the knowledge-base developed to date and
expanding and verifying this with new evidence from the dialogue
programme
b. Informed aspirations and a practical vision for today and tomorrow from
within the communities of Handsworth and Lozells
c. A community inspired call for action (for delivery by key partners and
stakeholders, including communities
d. Enabled and empowered citizens, stakeholders and communities
participating in the dialogue programme to contribute to building cohesion,
capacity and a willingness to engage and be active re outcomes:
The semi-formal element of the community dialogues programme supported
Objective a: by creating a good environment in which they treated issues as
information rather than problems, consequently sharing more
with each other. Each session was facilitated specifically to
maximise the input of those particular participants.
Objective b: By giving people security of a good space to try out ideas and
thoughts that could make a difference, and consistently building
the picture by sharing the previous and other thoughts about the
vision. By having this recorded accurately, with a primary
analysis, and ideas, based on the recurring themes in all
sessions. By setting the scene264 and reiterating it during each
session.
Objective c: Each session kept participants firmly pointed at opportunities
and vision rather than issues. The level of energy and
participation was high, and people were happy to take part
honestly once the scene had been set. The recurring themes
have been listed here to stress the emphasis given to them in
the sessions
Objective d: By attracting a broad range of opinions and experiences. Some
people attended more than one session, which enabled earlier
ideas to be built on, and targeted support was provided to
264
That the City is seeking their opinions on how to make this area great; is asking them as
they know the issues, and (the City) is interested in their own solutions; want to get beyond
problems and focus on their ideas, thoughts and vision. There is no new money for this: this is
an attempt for all stakeholders to paint a picture of what this area could look like, at it’s best,
in 10 years/ 5 years/ soon
85
enable participation, where appropriate (interpreters, transport,
reward vouchers, and targeted venues). A final event has been
agreed to enable them to hear and build on more of the
conversations from the sessions.
86
2.
‘Sort out your own back yard’:
Recurring themes plus italics= Ideas and suggestions
(including facilitator overview)
-
a. Participants wanted a new image for the area, and more information
about what happens here to be made available internally and
externally, as a regular thing
Competition to design the logo/ brand for the area: school
competitions, etc, public vote held to find the winning one from panel of
stakeholders; local news source,
b. Almost all sessions suggested a one-stop shop approach
- Local community buildings are underused: could be good to have 2-3
easily accessible physical venues, on a rota, plus additional ‘one stop’
information points (inc local website) in GP’s surgeries etc. Agreed
information partners to provide and update their own service content to
the links; overall aim was for social activities, education and training
opportunities, housing services etc to be informed from one point.
Health was separate, in that requests were for a one stop shop
approach to delivery, with triage/caseworker responsibility so one
person knew a persons requirements without the need to keep
explaining
c. The area has a rich social mix (culture, class, family status, Faith etc)
which is not being (positively) exploited, and learnt from, enough
d. Participants wanted the chance to learn more about others in the area,
and opportunities to spend more time across youth/age divides
e. Participants wanted the opportunity to become and see role models
from all respective communities in the area, crossing the impact over
into other communities/ Bringing different generations together/role
modelling/
- For each of these, living history stories could be captured and shared
(nationally) building the vibrant image that reflects this mix; we cold
create a resource (social enterprise?) that can provide diverse sample
opinions to pollsters; Story Boards of local achievements could be
shared and promoted: local ‘purposeful’ events that add to the overall
vision; Lots more cross generational work with a specific purpose so
people are clear of what they’ve achieved/ can use it on a cv;
-
f. For community-based groups, safety is highlighted as an issue most
often between different generational groups, rather than the physicality
of the area: ‘young people gather in street corners –vs- old people
stare at us’
Primarily living histories and finding our own unsung heroes, letting
young people learn interview and journalistic skills by interviewing their
elders and promoting their stories
87
g. People expressed being energised by the dialogues, and are willing to
be involved in more ideas-based discussions (as long as the context is
honest and overt)
h. Residents didn’t necessarily know who was providing their servicesthey knew if they thought it was good or bad, and tended to call it all
‘the council’: final session could add clarity, with policy makers
responding with their thoughts about the ideas suggested. One-stop
shop approach, if developed, could add further clarity and ease of
signposting
i.
Without exception, each group stressed the need to look after our
Young People/ increase their aspirations/ inspire them to become all
they can:
The results from this dialogue session have been used to help inform
the successful My Place bid.
This theme could be linked to the role model work. E.g an accredited
WM Young Leaders Academy could be formed, (funding through Govt
Policy?) to engage young people in purposeful leadership.
Interestingly, the young people’s session was the one that asked most
clearly for more policing, primarily to allow them to move back and
forth (within the area) to activities, giving their parents/carers peace of
mind
j.
Heath and wellbeing/ prevention rather than cure/ knowing where to
access advice and support/ demand for free gym/ exercise facilities:
could create targeted gym/exercise sessions (women only/ young
people etc) as well as some mixed classes/ escorted park walking etc
-
-
Overall, immediate recommendations265:
To:
Agree a long-term vision for the area, and to backcast from there, re medium
and short-term targets and measurements, in clear and plain English e.g
What did we say we would do?
What have we done?
What is the impact?
Communicate regularly, appropriately and well: beginning to work out the
best ways of doing so could form part of the dialogue in the final event
Gather the stories of the people of the area, and share them nationally: (a
series of web/ radio interviews, as part of a community radio/ journalist
scheme)
Consider social enterprise to meet some of the solutions and create additional
communities of interest
265
My own, as an overview of all sessions, not from any one event
88
Work with the/a Leadership Foundation to prepare community leaders/
stakeholders for leading in an area that has a vision to deliver.
Have a specific Young Leaders element to this
89
3.
Supporting information:
Sample session framework:
Each event was broadly World Café style, apart from the older people’s
Each event’s conversations were managed and paced differently to make the
most of the experience in the room
Promotion for each session was managed by the commUNITY team, through
a network of contacts, a website, and through specifically designed
promotional information
Each event began with scene setting266.
The programme itself was outlined, and how they could remain involved.
The second and subsequent sessions were given information about the
previous sessions
The agenda and hopes for the session were discussed, and began with why
their ideas are considered a priority by the City in this vision
Monitoring information was taken each time267, and the context, as per the
initial scene setting, was reiterated at key points of each session. The
commUNITY team arranged for support to ensure targeted groups could
participate (inc childcare, transport, interpretation and translation, and reward
vouchers and youth leaders to accompany the young people)
Officers from Strategic Planning directorate attended the meetings and
encouraged opinions about The Black Cat site.
Event notes were taken and typed up by various people from this collective,
and collated and expanded on here by Carol Coombes
266
: That the City is seeking their opinions on how to make this area great; (City) is asking
them as they know the issues, and are interested in their own solutions; want to get beyond
problems and focus on their ideas, thoughts and vision, There is no new money for this: this is
an attempt for all stakeholders to paint a picture of what this area could look like, at it’s best,
in 10 years/ 5 years/ soon
267
. Whilst not everyone provided this, many did, and the information we do have offers a
representative sample
90
Conversations were managed (concentrating on the opportunities and ideas
rather than the issues) based around the CIH268 framework of
 Active, inclusive and safe
 Well run
 Environmentally sensitive
 Well designed and built (inc Black Cat site)
 Well connected
 Thriving
 Well served
 Fair for everyone
268
Chartered Institute of Housing
91
Older People Community Dialogue: February 11 2009
Who?
C. 18 attendees, predominantly African-Caribbean women in attendance; all
primarily brought in through links with other resources/ services in the area
(luncheon clubs etc); CommUNITY team had arranged transport. Not a great
venue acoustically, so lots of additional checking needed to capture
everything.
How?
Context was set as per the session framework
Warm up with ‘irresistible’ questions
Moved into structured debate and Q and A about specific themes
Time spent in conversation prompted more ideas and information passing,
some of it immediately useful to others on the room.
Some of the points were raised several times in different/several parts of the
session.
What?(warm up questions)
1. What’s good about this area?
 The people/ People smile and say hello
 Community gardens and allotments
 Free exercise, gym and swimming
 Community socialising (e.g St Theresa’s)
 We know it
 Convenience: buses, churches, schools, shops and parks (but Many
buildings cannot be accessed of an evening: why not?)
2. What would we like more of?
 Cleanliness
 Feeling safer: walking past gangs/groups in the street
 Discussion (with no final recommendation) re more police –vs- less
police
 Street lighting
 Information and better access to better health services
 Doing more together/across age groups (e.g living history exchanges
suggested)
 Classes (exercise, learning new skills)
3. If I were Prime Minister for this area, I would (have):
 No litter- good bins and street wardens for each street
 Better housing for the elderly
 More trees and better street lighting
92









Good health care: (need better access to better services, GP
appointment system is poor, receptionists need better training in how to
talk with people) ; all services –e.g Doctors, dentists and opticians
should be in one place
Better care of the environment: handy person/ gardeners schemes to
help the elderly take care of their homes
No empty houses
Better reputation for this area; other areas have worse problems, good
things will change the reputation and make others want to be here and
feel safe: ‘it’s not the area that makes the people, it’s the people that
make the area’
Trips- to other places of worship, Perry park, other cities and areas;
Bring back Handsworth Flower Show
Put boats in the park
Get rid of the subways
Provide better education and training for all of us, lots more for the
young people
Key points of following discussions mainly came under 3 of the priority
headings:
1. Active, inclusive and safe (would look like):
 Learning more about each other/ doing more together so people can
get better attitudes toward different communities (age groups etc)
 More public toilets
 Shops are the heart of the area; they should be well kept, with people
able to walk past the front of them without having to go into the road
 Appearance could be improved: help with gardens/ street cleaning
 Better lighting in areas of concern
 Good ‘daycare’ activities for children and older people- some things to
do together as well as in groups/ more places to mix
 Tell us what’s happening with empty/ unused buildings such as tower
blocks
 Do something about the empty houses, and private landlords leaving
mess in the street/ front gardens
 A calendar of events for all people that we could book onto through the
a ‘one shop’ stop/ list everything that happens and what for so we can
see if we want to get involved (e.g St Theresa’s drop In centre/
Residents associations)
 Trips together, in communities: e.g going to other places to see how
they do things: we choose where, and going to different areas and
cities
 Special list of activities for this area in Birmingham Forward each
month, to go to everyone’s house
 More class-type sessions: flower arranging/ cooking/ sewing (some of
this group would be happy to share their skills in these areas)
2. Well served (would look like):

Healthcare delivered to us/ prescriptions etc
93






Appointments when we need them
‘One stop’ health shop// information service- dentists, opticians, nurses
and doctors under one roof
‘Casework’ approach to services- one named person who is dealing
with me/in overall charge of my services
Better information: what is going on in the area, and what is expected
of me if I live here
More use of the gym for free scheme: special sessions for the young/
youth
Where are the Black/female leaders?
3. Well Run (would look like):










Better communication: understanding the processes and
structures e.g to get rubbish removed/ children into
schools/change doctors etc) and access to IT.
Better leadership: not just councillors, all of us
More BME people at the top
Ditto women
‘..people at the top don’t know us’
One simple point of contact (one stop shop) and use everything
else that’s there (websites, Birmingham Forward etc) so
everyone knows it and begins to use it
Activities for young people
Opportunities for us to learn new skills (e.g I.T)
More Role models from within our own communities
‘The Government can help the unemployed but the unemployed
have to help themselves’ – local community programmes and
things that will help the area
94
Questions/ thoughts
As many of them are members of already established groups and activities,
this group between them had a wealth of knowledge of what happens in the
area, which generally increased their perception of safety (with one or two
exceptions who were frightened by groups/ gangs)
A community forum and the Churches seemed to be strong community
resources, with a number of the group having heard of clubs/events etc
through these routes.
Some of the churches could be supported to be centrepoints for information,
fairly quickly?
Most if not all of this group undertook some volunteering work: care and
support, mainly of neighbours, family, friends: these are our Leaders, often
from underrepresented communities, as they impact on so many people to
great benefit: the leadership Foundaton could benefit from their input
Many of the group, if not all, had anecdotal history of the area, which could
be lost when they are. We could interview them, tell their stories locally and
help to record their part of making the area great/ link this to the production of
local/ other news by younger people?
Social enterprise/ training schemes could be supported which created local
services such as window cleaning/gardening, and/ or a database of local
services created. ( as per Peace of Mind in Sandwell?)
95
Women and Families Community Dialogue: 25th February 2009
Who?
C. 48 attendees, women only event: good mix of ages, predominantly Asian
women in attendance
How?
Context was set as per the session framework
Key questions were posed and the conversations expanded on in various sets
within the session.
The CommUNITY team had arranged interpreters, a crèche, and a well
known/ trusted/ respected venue
What?
Key themes emerged from the question: ‘What would you like this area to be
like, when your children grow up?’ as:
1.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Jobs/education/training for adults
Back to work schemes
Paid work experience
Courses to retrain people who do not speak English (or very basic)
Basic jobs are hard to reach for people with little English skills
Free training courses for everyone (people do loose out on legibility)
Free exams at the end of courses
More courses accessible, which lead to a qualification
Local jobs for local people (what are the right jobs?)
Jobs to be advertised better locally so that people can access them/ Local
jobs agency to help people
Dad's clubs
References are hard to get for immigrants and newly arrived communities
making accessing jobs even harder
Barriers leading to unemployment due to unrecognised overseas
qualifications
Volunteering (that leads to work)
2.
•
•
•
•
•
Education/training for kids
Clubs for kids
Space for learning new skills
Space for learning good behaviour, role models
Scheme to recognise women as role models within the community
Higher aspirations for kids
3.
•
•
•
•
•
Health
Better ways to access local health care
Better service (polite, fast, accessible)
One stop shop to get all appointments
More lady doctors
Space on local website to give out information about local services
•
•
•
96
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
24 hr access to health care
Weekend appointments
Women only wards in hospitals
One GP relationships, especially for older people
Services tailored to people's needs, having a choice
Different services based on cultural differences
Lots more ways of getting information about different health issues
4.
•
•
•
•
•
Housing
‘Keeping neighbourhoods clean’ scheme (local people to get involved)
More council houses, social landlords
Better houses for older people (bungalows)
Places that have choices for older and younger communities to live
Private landlord can be a nuisance to neighbours by not maintaining their
properties. Enforcement actions are needed.
Better management of empty properties
•
Questions/ thoughts:
Many of the women had lost what they classed as low-skilled factory jobs,
and felt a need to replace the income immediately rather than feeling able to
think longer term. It could be useful for CAB or other income maximization
specialists to visit with them, alongside some work to identify their aspirations,
and see what support is possible to change this paradigm
There is a real wish to enable the recognition of women as role models
A Street Champion attended this, who was really clued up about the area.
Could the first wave of recruits to the Leadership Foundation be potential
Street Champions, and be developed to fulfill a specific welcoming and
supportive brief?
Great participation: more events targeted specifically at women and families
could generate positive participation in other local events.
A number of attendees didn’t have a good- or even basic in some casescommand of English, limiting their opportunities to participate in similar
initiatives unless specifically catered for. The interpretation support was
invaluable, and excellent. Again , there are potential social enterprise
opportunities, e.g if we could positively exploit the number of dialects within
the area.
Given that the pace was necessarily dictated by the translation/ interpretation
need, the group covered a huge amount, and were v passionate advocates
for their ideas. Clearly they have a number of ideas and wishes, and were just
waiting to be asked.
All evidently felt comfortable at the centre: could be a good catalyst for
personal and career development if extra capacity was in place (partnerships
etc)
97
Local workers: 4th March 2009.
Who?
c. 50 workers from within the patch across a range of sectors, some also
living within the area/ having family within the area
How?
Context was set as per the session framework
Participants were given specific headings to discuss within their tables: tables
fedback to others to add to discussion, and people switched to another table
to add their thoughts to those already recorded on the sheets. Consideration/
feedback/ q and a/ discussion, x 2
Very fast paced, lots of engagement, no sifting of ideas in ‘first cut’
What?
Starter question, from the launch event: How could we make this area
better than Sutton Coldfield, to live, work and play in?
1.









Health
Better information/awareness/ linkages to resolving poor housing,
education and diet; high crime.
Opportunities to promote health and wellbeing. E.g More community
nurses, Campaigns for blood and body organs, Increase healthy eating
campaigns within schools, Review ‘target’ groups for free health facility
slots/ encourage more regular health screening, More awareness on
high-risk diseases such as diabetes, sickle cell and thalassaemia, more
relevant to specific ethnic groups often living within this area, Emphasis
on tacking alcohol abuse (particular with newly arrived immigrants),
infant mortality and teenage pregnancy.
Better and more usage of leisure centres, affordable sport facilities,
running within parks and hosting of local marathon competitive
activities
‘Handy Person’ scheme for the older generation - visit homes to
support more independent living lifestyles such as home maintenance,
home accidents, home aids
Long-term funding strategy, supporting health issues including more
affordable health initiatives
Improve health services for substance abusers and people with mental
health difficulties
Inclusion of all sectors of the community in health education
programmes – highlighting on youth clubs, school
Reduction in GP/ patient ratio for both parties to develop good
relationship
New Health Centres- wider services in there
98


2.
















3.
Increase consultation and discussion forums with community
Regular consultation with neighbourhoods to identify their health
concerns and the type of activities and facilities they desire
Regeneration
Finding success elsewhere and seeing what we can use
Rejuvenation of opportunities, and upgrading of people’s skills via
retraining and education to access those opportunities
More fun and intergenerational evening activities such as festivals
within Handsworth Park
Inclusion of a wide cross section of the community in the
action/engagement dialogues: faith sectors, disable forums and young
people
Create smaller identified neighbourhoods for the development of
community spirit
Rejuvenation of community groups – Neighbourhood Forums,
Neighbourhood watch and Residents Association – to encourage more
positive community participation
Coalition of all community groups, agencies and institutions to plan and
review as equals
‘Planning for Real’ type workshops incorporated into fun days, feasting,
freebies and parties, to appeal to the widest audiences
Encouraging the positive involvement of all residents
Creation of more opportunities for employment, training and education
Closer links with schools including colleges and universities
Comprehensive programmes for newly arrived communities that offer
bespoke advice and guidance support
Celebrate diversity by accepting differences and similarities within
individuals
Joining of local resources to build skills, capacity and create
apprenticeships
One stop shop/ joint advice centre
Promoting community centres as a social meeting place and focal
points for discussions on any issues.
Housing






Rebuilding of larger/better family homes
Balance combination of extended family homes and smaller starter
homes
Restructuring of more flats into family homes Flexible housing, and the
right balance of it to address the needs of the community and it’s
differing populations (e.g older people)
Clarify role of Housing Authorities/ landlord options
Develop a clear vision on the housing policy for the area – ‘What does
great look like’
Improve physical Structure of Houses and neighbourhoods
99







4.















5.
Refurbishment or building of larger houses - 3-5 bedrooms – to
facilitate larger families and to encourage joint living of families to
tackle high living expenses
Re-introduction of ‘old style’ design for new housing
New housing design to cater for the elderly to enable more
independent living
Provision of affordable renovation grants/loans for households
Less private social landlords with more regulations to ensure better
provision of housing needs
More affordable and better quality social and private housing
Holistic approach in developing all strategies
Transport
Better roads and shipping system
Streamlining parking challenges
Develop car share scheme
Enforcement of parking regulations
Addressing traffic gridlock
Implementation of cycle lanes
Better street lighting
Improvement to pedestrian areas on Soho Road
Public transport should be clean, safe, timely and affordable, and
include access for the ageing and disabled population
Improvements to ‘Ring and Ride’ facilities
Finding solution to Soho Road gridlock crisis and poor pedestrian
facilities
Tackling the perceived intimidation on public transport
Allocation of more car parks/ improved parking outside public amenities
Improve quality of sleeping policeman
Consider narrowing roads
Communication







Messages should be aimed at raising awareness of available services.
Wider distribution of newsletters within communities
More co-ordination of all departments and services within Birmingham
City Council
Promotion of Handsworth as ‘a great place to live and work’ to bring
families back into Lozells and East Handsworth
Improve communication with residents - creation of resource centres
that allow councillors to share information with local residents/vice
versa
Cultural Embracement Strategies
Positive publicity on billboards that celebrate diversity
100
6.
Young people:




7.

























Development of a robust youth programme
Support and promote young achievers
Creation of more youth centres, with the positive Involvement of young
people, and their involvement in community issues
More quality engagement with young people that surround issues on
respect, motivation, community involvement and linkages with the older
generation.
Environmental:
Development of more green spaces including growing areas within
neighbourhoods
Creation of eco villages e.g solar panels, low energy heating
Improved street scene designs that take into account better parking,
bin storage and garden areas
Eco measurements
Waste recycling
Positive publicity promoting environmental improvements
Change names of notorious streets
Reduce negative substances from within the community
Area beautification projects
Improve derelict sites and littered area into green space facilities
Improve lighting and street fixtures
Cleansing street campaigns
Creation of additional open spaces/ parklands, better usage of existing
recreational spaces
Increase number of ‘free’ cash machines
More credit unions and banking facilities
Improve access to facilities and shops
Zero Tolerance in tackling littering/ fly tipping
Improvements to roads and transportation systems
Availability of more litter bins along roads, and generally
Creation of cleaner and greener communities
Improved cleansing standards
Quicker removal of unwanted items
Road beautification projects e.g wheelie bins to improve the sight of
roads on bin days
Develop cultural market (like Camden Lock) along Lozells and Villa
Road on Sundays - shops display should not only reflect the products
sold but the culture of proprietors.
Regular celebration of cultural events at Handsworth Park.
101
8. Safety
Policies should be long term strategies ( 5-10 year plan) on Neighbourhood
Management that are solution focused, aimed at identifying community needs
and responding appropriately to these needs.
‘less talking and more action’








8b.







Existence of more caring police officers and agencies
Increase in the number of CCTV cameras
More collaborative activities with law enforcers and the community
aimed at reducing the number of crimes
Common gateway to areas –safer, better control
Formation of ‘Reclaim the Streets’ Campaign
Increase police activity along Soho Road
More police drop in sessions to discuss local issues
Greater enforcement activities
Youth Focus (Safety)
Increase resilience of children to criminal lifestyle
Development of positive attitudes towards young
Implementation of diversionary programmes – more consultation with
young people
Increase aspirations of young people
Improve Community Cohesion
Increase individual awareness not only for their own personal safety,
but for the community on a whole
Role modelling
Questions/ thoughts:
Whilst not precious about their roles, this group was eager to ensure good
work, with quantifiable results and achievements were built on. The group
hold a huge amount of knowledge of what works not only in this area but in
others.
The initial tendency was to focus on issues, (due to often needing to
resolve them on a day to day basis), and people were really quickly
energised by the freedom to come up with unprescribed solutions.
The group felt they’d covered a huge amount in 2.5 hrs, in adequate depth
to prompt further conversations, so felt it was a useful addition to workload
It could be useful to hold regular/ purposeful ‘blue sky’ conversations,
giving people a safe space to challenge and get excited (not least to tap
into the commitment and passion for the area to succeed). This could
happen easily and quickly at local level , leveraging all the diversity of
opinions and experience within the group.
There’s a huge amount of information/ signposting possible through this
group.
102
People were so passionate about some solutions, they may well volunteer
to lead on the feasibility of them, without detracting from their other
priorities.
103
Neighbourhood Management Board Community Dialogue:
Thursday 5th March 2009
Who?
C. 22 attendees, semi closed as specifically targeted at NM boards.
How?
Context was set as per the session framework
Split into tables and asked to note their responses to one key question/ no
discussion, and feedback to other tables. Discussion then second round:
prioritising one/ two key hits (their Big Ideas) and developing them
What?
Main points from 1st round of discussions:
What would great look like for this area?






















Clean up the area/clean streets
Clear lines of communication (important to explain why things are/ not
happening)
Listening and then doing (rather than just listening)
Sense of community/smile & eye contact
Looking out for each other
Respect/local ownership
ATMs and Banks in the area
Signs of integration (area shouldn't look foreign)
More green spaces & activities in the spaces
Create meeting places in the area (places that bring different
community groups together)
Community hub
Less policing (sense of result, no more need)
Build on existing Neighbourhood Management
Make sure people's messages are heard
Deal with empty properties/stop dereliction
More activities to keep streets alive after 6 pm
Better understanding of each other's involvement
Learn more how to involve different communities
Better networked (socially) area/better sharing of information
Better one stop vision
Start doing/strategies = outcome based
Challenge each other/community leaders to stand up for that/be
accountable
104
















Draw on strengths of gifted people/talent in the area
Strength around culture/music. Showcase talent more and better
Banks in the area -sign of success
High street brands to come to the area
Social enterprise promotion. Set up more of them.
Redeveloping tower blocks on Birchfield Road would be sign of
success
Create high aspirations/expectations (from early age, at school)
Full employment for the area
Change mindset to can do
Safer/greener streets.
Pedestrianise Soho Road. Make it into a Boulevard.
Handsworth to become the greatest global village of England
Inspirational buildings
Buzzing Markets
Bring big employers/players into the area
Think the unthinkable
Big Ideas?








Big Idea - Apple or Bollywood to come into the area?
Transformational change- learn from people who worked on
Longbridge.
Small Idea - seeing visible changes and improvements in the area.
Visible actions (doesn’t matter how small) in the form of 5 flagship
transformations, e.g . Encourage local residents to do up shopfronts/gardens for a prize competition.
Don't re-invent the wheel. Make more use of research/experience/go
and visit places where things have worked.
If there is a concept inspire people by showing them how it may look in
practice. Find out where great happens and replicate it.
Market the area better, to attract major companies to the locality.
Market by drawing on positive role models. Use what we already have.
Small videos, stories already exist, use that to market the area and
build up into a national campaign.
Eco-theme. Run trips to other projects to show eco-technology. Be at
the forefront of the eco-agenda. Explore whole range of technology.
Could work as a great image transformation, but also reduce fuel
poverty, educate people etc.
Questions/ thoughts:
105
This session built on good stuff already suggested, and took the vision further
forward, strategically. This was helped greatly by people who’d participated in
earlier events, and by everyone there throwing themselves into it as peers
within the group.
First round of comments in answer to v broad question What would great
look like for this area? Centred primarily – on each table- on qualitative
impacts – i.e perceptions and emotions linked to living/ working/ playing in
the area - rather than hard edged facts: this socially intelligent approach
could add new value to identifying ‘value measures’.
Second round was more strategic and quantifiable, with lots of ideas, and lots
of encouragement for others to share theirs.
Entrepreneurial in approach, they liked ways of encouraging ideas and vision/
enterprise, (e.g Dragons Den, as per Enterprising Communities within BCC).
This could be done quickly, using this energy and structures already in place,
with minimal resource.
This would be great branding/ communications material, particularly given the
political/democratic provenance of the area.
106
New Communities: to be rescheduled/ findings to be taken from informal one
to one dialogues (via Birmingham Settlement) as part of hard to reach target
group
Questions/ thoughts: this is a community that often is one of interest, not a
geographical one, It could be good to build on Joyce’s suggestion of working
with Adrian Randall, Dennis Minnis and all. Their information and experience
could help to inform what the city picture is, and how we might best manage
that. (e.g ‘what’s the best housing policy?’ as a purposeful partnership
session.)
107
Young People’s Community Dialogue: Monday April 6 2009
Who?
C. 38 young people in attendance: (28 accompanied, 10 unaccompanied),
plus c 20 adults. C 58 people in attendance in total
How?
Context was set as per the session framework. CommUNITY team had
arranged support to enable the young people’s attendance – good venue,
information bus, refreshments, reward vouchers, and (their own) Youth
Workers to accompany them.
Young people and adults split into different tables, given an outline of the
successful My Place bid (£5m into area for youth provision and activities) and
an invitation to join/ information about the Youth Opportunities Forum (YOF)
Asked to note their thoughts about a key question for first round.
What would we have in this area, to make it great for young people?
Brainstorming without any further discussion, then to prioritise their top one,
and start planning how it would look, and how it would affect not only them but
their
friends, family and neighbours. They then fedback and took questions on this.
Each participant then added to the other tables ideas and conversations
the young people considered the second question ‘ If I had £5m to spend
on provision for me and my friends in this area, what would I spend it
on?’ and added to the My Place bid in between.
The adults were in 2 different tables responding to the two questions:
What would great look like for this area?
What should the My Place impact include?
The key points from each conversation were fedback to the group and
opinjos asked about those points
What?
Main points from 1st round of discussions:
Priorities agreed by each table, after having had feedback from each group:
tables asked to choose 2 key priorities to develop further and develop them
108
What would make this area great? (young people and adults)
More access to funding
More provision for young people (voluntary organisations)
Bigger police presence
More fun fairs
Make a local team
Less crime
More detached youth workers
Free indoor fun
Community market
Private homes
Fireworks display
Better schools
Positive publicity / media relations – recognition of good work taking place
Work with younger crowd (primary schools)
Better relations between the police and young people
Back to “old school” ways
Firemen’s assault course
More bins on streets
Sponsored run / sports day
Inspirational figures that have been born and brought up in the area
Free Wi-Fi
A football academy
Weekly barbecue
Help plant flowers at the park
More outdoor sports facilities e.g. tennis courts
More police activities
Film Nights
Youth fitness camps
Self – defence classes
RAP battles
Paint balling
Design your own community T – shirt competition
Boxing club
Free ESOL classes
Comedy night
More youth facilities for girls
Free PCs / free internet access
Improve houses and roads
Internet café – free for certain ages
An Astroturf – free access for young people
Learning centre for uneducated older people
Cinema
Leisure centre
“Chilling” place
Parks
Advice and support centre for young people
Indoor water parks with outdoor activities
More community performers
109
Function rooms (for birthday bookings)
Eco friendly
More green environment
Allotments
Youth forums
Keep the park clean and tidy
If you had £5 m to spend in the area on provision for you and your
friends (i.e the My Place bid), what would you spend it on? (Young
people and adults)
Training facilities e.g. motor vehicle maintenance, plumbing, brick laying and
“hands on” life skills
Equal opportunities for all young people and staff
Cyber suite: hi–fi, laptops and homework clubs
Educational workshops i.e. drugs and sexual health
Focus on good behaviour e.g. rewards
Free sports facilities e.g. astro – turf and sports hall
Should be aimed at younger age group
Music / recording studio
Showcase / promote talent and positive behaviour
Recreational activities e.g. song, dance and drama
Family focused workshops
Big ideas:
Group 1: Under 18 Gym (Free of Charge). Issues considered by the group:
Security
Instructors
Opening times
Sessions just for us: our music and younger people working there
More police around for added safety
Diet and nutritional needs
Cost
Taking deposit instead of money
How would you protect the gym?
Why wasn’t there a free under 16 gym before?
Why isn’t there any free under 16 gym’s outside school run by the council?
Can the council set up a under 16 gym in our local area?
Group 2: Reward scheme. Issues considered by the group:
What should you get a reward for and what should you just do?
What’s the maximum amount of rewards?
Who can get them?
110
Bikes as rewards – raffle ticket prize draw
Financial reward
Trips to other cities and countries
Trips for achievement and behaviour
Perceived rewards for children / young people who misbehave
Should there be a reward scheme?
Reward for helping others e.g. elderly, younger people
Rewards for healthy eating / promoting healthy eating to other young people
Teachers and others doing the same
Group 3: Girls only facilities / activities. Issues considered by the group:
Girls playing pool with boys
What’s stopping girls using existing facilities?
Develop parents’ confidence re using facilities with boys. What are the
reasons for their insecurity?
Cultural difficulties
Build on socialising skills
Bonding with the opposite sex
Residentials for girls
First girls youth parliament in the area?
Girls lounge
Questions/ thoughts:
We could set up an (accredited) WM Youth Leadership Foundation, linked to
the Leadership Foundation: some v influential young people within the group,
at ages where positive influences are vital to their future opportunities. Could
we set a challenge, geared around the vision for the area, or one big idea
and how they would sell it, to create a first cohort for a Young Leaders
Foundation, if there was one? (potential great press)
The forums and clubs could be invited to become regular support for ‘youthproofing’ ideas, (as they’ll ask the most straightforward questions): they could
‘Dragons Den’ the local politicians.
Each of the smaller groups mentioned the need for more policing/ better
obvious safety measures in the area to enable them to take part in more
activities.
Some of the younger people, whilst obvious peer leaders, were more
comfortable speaking in the smaller group than the large: could we develop
public peaking skills in them, to enable them to become more engaged
(maybe f through the local youth parliament/ my place bid?)
It could be good to look at menus of activities that cut across different target
groups, to provide information for the one stop resource. (e.g what happens to
young people who have been engaged in youth activities after the age that
provision ends?)
111
APPENDIX 4
HANDSWORTH AND LOZELLS
COMMUNITY DIALOGUE PROGRAMME
INFORMAL COMMUNITY DIALOGUE
Ray Goodwin & Safdar Mir
Birmingham Settlement
May 2009
Informal Dialogue Report
Executive Summary
Overview: Key Findings from Data Gathered
1.
Demographic summary
The informal dialogue was taken from individuals living in the same
geographic location to each other.
The following is a breakdown of participants interviewed:












166 x Male and 86 x Female between the ages of 17- 65
4 did not disclose their gender
15 x varied ethnic origins
220 with no disabilities and 16 with disabilities
20 people did not disclose if they had a disability
99 unemployed and 51 employed
63 did not disclose their employment status
8 people came from B18
143 came from B19
43 people came from B20
60 people came from B21
8 people did not disclose where they lived.
The overall key findings were taken from a cross section of individuals from
the following groups:






Traders
Older people
Newly Arrived Communities
Unemployed
Hard to Reach
Young People
Women and Families
113
Underlying themes
The individual’s, who have taken part in the Informal dialogue process,
primarily looked at having a more economical place to live with a better
outlook for those that reside there. These views were collated from
participants, after reviewing their problems and solutions
The underlying themes were taken from four categories:
 Vision
 Issues
 Solutions
 Cross-Cutting ‘Wicked’ Issues
The overall similarities from these groups concluded that:
Vision






Improved regeneration and new infrastructure for housing and the area
a prosperous place for all both socially and economically
Safer and Cleaner streets
Action made on crime and drugs
Diverse groups working cohesively together
Job, Activities and Opportunities for Young People
Issues










Gangs, Crime and Drugs
Young People
Low education and High Unemployment
Issues relating to the Environment; unclean areas, rats
Lack of visible police
Rubbish
Nothing to do in the area, lack of activities
Segregated communities, lack of cohesiveness
Health
Local Authority
Solutions

Improving the area, including the infrastructure for residents and
visitors
114







Education, Training, Improved facilities for Young People
Cleanup of the area, more rubbish bins
Access to jobs for local people
More visible police and CCTV cameras
Communities working cohesively together; focus groups and activities
Accessibility and awareness for health, and other local services
Improved parking facilities locally
Cross-Cutting ‘Wicked’ Cohesion Issues




Lack of Community Cohesion – awareness and concepts of each
cultures and general support that is needed for each group to live and
work together
Equilibrium balance and support for new and existing businesses for
all diverse community groups
Anti-social behaviour
Young People, Drugs and Gangs – local people in fear of crime.
115
Appendix 1 :Demographics of Participants
Diagram 1 :Gender Breakdown
Diagram 2: Ethnic Breakdown
116
Diagram 3: Disability
Diagram 4: Breakdown of Where Participants Live
117
Diagram 5: Employment Status
Diagram 6 : Age of Participants Interviewed
118
APPENDIX 5
INFORMING COMMUNITY COHESION PRACTICE IN
HANDSWORTH AND LOZELLS
The use of the concept of ‘best practice’ assumes that activities that have
been carried out in one place can be transferred to another. However, a basic
premise of the Sustainable Communities policy is that every place is different.
In this appendix, we have identified practice that may be relevant for
Handsworth and Lozells, without endorsing it with a ‘best practice’ label.
On most of the web sites that offer examples of ‘best practice’, there is no
evaluation of effectiveness. Organisations tend to promote their activities
without critically assessing whether or not they have achieved the objectives
they have set themselves. There is also very little consideration of the
duration of any impacts, whether they bring about long-term change or merely
result in short-term outcomes that are followed by renewed deterioration.
There are thousands of case studies covering the range of activities we have
discussed in this report. Some of them reflect temporary activities that may no
longer be in existence. Some may take place intermittently, dealing with an
issue temporarily before the situation reverts to what it was before. The cases
we have chosen to highlight in this section of the report are some examples of
community cohesion practice that may be relevant to the key issues and
challenges identified through the Community Dialogue process.
These initiatives have been identified as ‘good practice’ examples in central
government publications or on the Institute of Community Cohesion’s Good
Practice website (http://www.cohesioninstitute.org.uk/). The examples cited
here are intended as triggers for the development of bespoke ideas and
initiatives following on from the Community Dialogue Report.
119
Training of Bradford Community Leadership Resource Teams
Name of organisation: Diversity Hub
Region: North East
Sector: Voluntary and community services
Brief description of the work/project
The project involved running a series of four foundation Welcoming Diversity
and Prejudice Reduction workshops for over 500 people from very diverse
backgrounds. We successfully brought together people from different estates
or localities, and different communities of interest – forming groups of
‘concerned citizens’ rather than ‘spokespeople’.
Which groups does it relate to / who are the beneficiaries?
 Local communities
How would you categorise the project / what vehicle or theme does it
use?
 Education (includes schools, FE and HE)
 Intercultural dialogue
 Intergenerational
 Participation / engagement / empowerment / volunteering
 Training / development / capacity
What is the reason for the project/scheme?
The project aimed to develop community leadership resource teams in and
around the Bradford area. Following the 2001 street disturbances in Northern
Cities. Bradford City Council Community Development department invited us
to provide a training programme that would help the city respond to the needs
of the different communities.
After listening to their concerns and explaining our approach we were
contracted to train a group of people from many different areas around
Bradford to become a community resource team. Our aim was to empower
local people to listen to each other well; to effectively and positively dispel
negative myths held about some communities, to capable of undertaking a
range of preventative projects and to deal with conflict as it emerges.
What are the aims and objectives of the project/scheme?
We recognised the need to assist people to heal from the tensions spilling
onto the streets in 2001 and move on from traumatic experiences. The goal
was to channel concerned citizens energy into building community cohesion
by providing a leadership team and a focus for citizen action into the future,
utilising the ‘pebble in the pond’ approach.
120
Who is involved in delivering the project/scheme?
We ran a series of four foundation Welcoming Diversity and Prejudice
Reduction workshops for over 500 people. We advised on the need to reach
ordinary citizens, not just ‘community leaders’.
Our goal was to achieve as much diversity as possible in the recruitment of
the leadership team. As a result participants were recruited including
substantial numbers from three different estates: one predominantly White, a
second predominantly Muslim and the third an ethnically mixed community; as
well as from communities of interest. We successfully brought together people
from different estates or localities, and different communities of interest –
forming groups of ‘concerned citizens’ rather than ‘spokespeople’.
From these foundation workshops 32 people from very diverse backgrounds
were drawn to complete an intensive leadership training programme. This
provided skills in being effective allies to other groups, how to positively
challenge myths and stereotypes and conflict resolution. Many of those
people are still active today as Community Leaders.
How is the project/scheme funded?
Not currently funded.
What have been the project's outcomes and the benefits to participants
and how have these been measured?
This programme is designed to provide sustainability with a rolling programme
of new recruitment and training, mentoring and support, so that impetus is not
lost due to natural ‘wastage’ as people move on or leave, or become inactive
partners. The mechanism needs to be in place so new people can become
involved in the community resource team as full partners and players. Every
community involved benefitted in a similar way – namely, that they were at the
heart of building community cohesion in a proactive way.
Community leadership skills were held directly by the participants, and each
participant went on to take those skills into their community to create more
harmonious and safer communities. We provided a positive focus for people
to come together from different backgrounds and to interact and work together
as they developed and shared common vision and aims.
The development of their individual and paired projects ensured there was an
intentionality in everything participants did on the project, thus avoiding the
lost opportunities of many bridge-building activities where there is inadequate
focus and sense of purpose. The programme left in place a core group of
people who had not previously been identified with traditional community
leadership and who now perceived themselves as stakeholders with the
capacity to work for change in building community cohesion.
People attending reported making positive interventions repeatedly in all
areas of their lives (workplace, place of study, place of worship, family,
neighbourhood, communities of interest); actively and skilfully promoting
tolerance and understanding and respect between people who are different
121
from each other. People also report feeling increased levels of safety (both
emotional and physical) and resilience, self-esteem and confidence. The
communication and ‘soft’ skills help in all areas of their lives, from better
relationships to finding employment. Participants are still actively working on
creating a more positive and inclusive culture for all other people.
What are the challenges and how are these addressed?
The commissioning group were nervous about our approach, in that they
thought a workshop of 100+ people would be potentially dangerous, providing
opportunities for violence and abuse to erupt. However we encouraged them
to trust that the key factors that were the catalyst to the street disturbances
were not being replicated at these events – in fact the opposite would be
happening – and people would just be relieved to be listened to and inspired
to rise to their higher selves to work for the common good.
“It created a safe environment for individuals to really release all the junk
inside them, which can be very negative. People were surprised to benefit so
much from sharing their own and others issues, but the mutual learning was
the best aspect.” Participant at foundation workshop.
The workshops were designed to be completely safe and enjoyable; to
recognise and celebrate each participant, and to be high-energy, solutionfocused and productive. Through a series of structured activities we
encouraged people to share their own experiences and thinking, and to think
positively about their own and others identities. Interlinked activities enabled
people to explore stereotypes, where they came from and how they impact on
all people. Personal storytelling provided opportunities for people from
different backgrounds to be heard; whilst also developing real understanding
and relationships across difference. Practical community cohesion leadership
skills were taught including listening, anger management, and how to make
positive interventions to prejudicial comments avoiding ‘fight or flight’
responses.
The experiences from the one-day workshops; and the personally meaningful
interactions with people from very different backgrounds, provided a platform
for healing and understanding, which sparked interest and commitment to
being a part of the community leadership team.
The second stage of the programme was an intensive leadership training
programme for a group of 32 people drawn from the foundation workshops.
These people reflected the diversity of the foundation workshops. The focus
of the training was to provide the skills to lead the foundation workshop
participants had already experienced; being effective allies to other groups;
conflict resolution; and skills for principled leadership.
The impact on interculturality included participants learning how to build
bridges with people who are different; having personal commitments based on
their own experiences to positively intervene against prejudice and
stereotyping and a set of skills both to use themselves and to share with
122
others. These skills have a huge impact in all of their relationships and
encounters with others throughout their lives and very directly and clearly help
to build community cohesion.
Some of the participants are still active today promoting good community
relations and cascading practical techniques for dealing with conflict.
Contact for more information
Valerie Carpenter
Director
The Learning Exchange
Wygston's House
Applegate
Leicester
Leicestershire
LE1 5LD
UK
Telephone: 0116 222 9977
E-mail address: val@diversityhub.org.uk
Website link: http://www.diversityhub.org.uk/
Source:
http://resources.cohesioninstitute.org.uk/GoodPractice/Projects/Project/
Default.aspx?recordId=79
123
Intergenerational work
Name of organisation: Bradford Metropolitan District Council
Region: Yorkshire and the Humber
Sector: Local authority
Brief description of the work/project
An intergenerational project bringing together Primary School children and
elderly residents in four localities, to form relationships and to develop
priorities for local Neighbourhood Action Plans. The Project involves a series
of workshops comparing experiences of living in each area now and 60 years
ago. From this shared understanding, children and older residents identify
shared priorities for improving the environment and tackling community safety
issues. This information is shared with the wider community in the form of a
'dramatised' presentation by children to a Neighbourhood Forum, providing an
opportunity for feedback from the wider community, Police and Local Authority
representatives.
Which groups does it relate to / who are the beneficiaries?
 Older people
 Young people
How would you categorise the project / what vehicle or theme does it
use?

Intergenerational
What is the reason for the project/scheme?
 Concern re poor relationships between older children and elderly residents
in these areas – previous projects have demonstrated positive benefits in
improving intergenerational relationships, and in particular to assist
children and older residents to feel safer in their own communities.
 “Kick start” local action planning work in Shipley and Crossflatts
 Engage children and elderly residents in establishing priorities for Streets
Ahead” Improvement teams in Windhill and High Crags
 These groups traditionally have limited participation in “traditional”
consultation mechanisms. The Neighbourhood Forum wishes to engage
all groups in the community.
What are the aims and objectives of the project/scheme?
 Community cohesion – improve relationships between youngest and
oldest members of local communities. In Shipley, this has included an
multi racial element, working with a school where the intake has recently
become predominantly of South Asian origin
 Identify key issues / priorities to feed into the development of Local Action
Plans for Crossflatts and Shipley.
124

In Windhill and High Crags, work includes additional objectives to support
children’s learning and interest in education in schools where poor
attainment is a major issue.
Who is involved in delivering the project/scheme?
 The Neighbourhood Support Service
 Four Primary Schools: Crossflatts, Shipley CE Primary, Windhill CE
Primary; and High Crags Primary
 Elderly residents of: Hall Croft Sheltered Housing Complex, (Windhill), 81
Crag Road Sheltered Housing (High Crags), Peaselands Sheltered
Housing Complex (Shipley) and the Crossflatts Good Companions Group
 BCHT
 Various Local Authority Depts. responding to issues raised
 West Yorkshire Police – Neighbourhood Policing Teams
 Local residents – through discussion at Neighbourhood Forums.
How is the project/scheme funded?
 Area Safer Communities
 Streets Ahead
Approx £6000
What have been the project's outcomes and the benefits to participants
and how have these been measured?
 Feedback from schools and Project Leader suggests long term contacts
between elderly residents and children already established in at least one
area, with monthly visits facilitated by a School Governor. Project will be
followed up with questionnaire to school staff approx 6 weeks after to
assess impact on children of improved behavior, attainment etc
 At Crossflatts Primary School discussions are to take place about how the
intergenerational group can continue to meet and how older people can
continue to be involved with the school. Everyone wishes for the work to
continue
 The elderly residents will be approached for feedback. Their comments
and evaluation on the day was extremely positive
 Monitoring of attendances at Neighbourhood Forums where the Project
was delivered. This resulted in an increase in attendance with a high
proportion of residents attending a Neighbourhood Forum for the first time
What are the challenges and how are these addressed?
 Need for additional and long term support to enable schools to continue
supporting regular contacts between children and elderly residents.
Supporting visits out of school is a major issue in terms of staff time /
resources.
 Continued need to review format / delivery of Neighbourhood Forums to
ensure a broad cross section of the community is engaged.
 A number of issues concerning the delivery of key Local Authority and
Policing services were raised through the project.
125
Changes identified in Policing and other Services will be incorporated in the
Local Action Plans for Shipley and Crossflatts, currently in the very early
stages of development, and through the work of the “Streets Ahead”
Improvement Teams in Windhill and High Crags.
What could be done to improve or develop the scheme?
 Build in more support to maintain relationships between elderly and
children and consequently reduce fear and anti social behaviour. Further
initiatives are needed to utilise the skills and experience of older people in
schools.
 Development of Local Action Plans and Project delivery in “Streets Ahead”
areas.
Source:
http://resources.cohesioninstitute.org.uk/GoodPractice/Projects/Project/
Default.aspx?recordId=124
West Yorks Joint Services – Shared Histories
The ‘This Is Our History’ Project began its work in 2004 focusing on Bradford,
but since then it has grown and expanded into Leeds and Dewsbury. The aim
of the project was to open up the archives to a wider audience. The response
to the project in Bradford exceeded all expectations, and many community
groups came forward and produced digital archives.
These community archives provided groups with the opportunity to tell their
stories and share their memories with future generations. The success of the
project in Bradford led ASDA to provide funding to widen its scope into
Beeston and Dewsbury.
In Beeston, staff are concentrating on the subject of migration into the area.
Beeston remained a relatively small village until the 1930s, despite the
burgeoning industrialisation of Leeds and Bradford. As such, many stories
from the Beeston area are about what it was like to move there, and how life
has since altered.
‘This Is Our History’ has also been involved with Hugh Gaitskell Primary
School in Beeston to provide support for the ‘Historymakers’ project. This
project helped to raise awareness of archival material and its possible uses in
schools. The project also ran intergenerational sessions to allow pupils to talk
to older people who have lived in their area for a long time.
Staff of the archive service are also working with employees from the ASDA
store in Dewsbury to produce an archive of their memories of change in that
126
area, including why they moved to Dewsbury and what effect the ASDA store
has had on the area. Input has been sought from a wide range of employees.
Efforts to promote the project in Bradford continue through regular meetings
with the groups, the project newsletter and attendance at the Bradford Mela
and the Beeston Festival to encourage people to contribute their stories.
Source: Commission on Integration and Cohesion Case Studies (2007)
cited in Communities and Local Government (2009) Guidance on
Building a Local Sense of Belonging, p.17
Celebrating Southwark
Southwark has published A Sense of Belonging which was the first in a series
of booklets to promote ‘Celebrating Southwark’. It was a collaborative work,
which collated the views of pensioners about their experiences of living in
Southwark through the changes of the last 50 years through consultation. It
aimed to build understanding across communities, faith and generations and
encourage a sense of belonging through informing residents of their shared
geographical history.
It features details across periods of historical in-migration that has seen
Caribbean, African, Irish, South American, Balkan, Iraqi and Afghani
communities settle in the area. The booklet conveys local residents’ views
about their borough, and their perception of how people from different
communities interact. It acknowledges that some white communities feel a
sense of loss that coincided with the decline of traditional industries in the
area and the strengths of the area’s diversity. It provides an opportunity to
develop intercultural dialogue.
Source: Commission on Integration and Cohesion Case Studies (2007)
cited in Communities and Local Government (2009) Guidance on
Building a Local Sense of Belonging, p.18
127
Lister Park, Manningham, Bradford
The Commission on Integration and Cohesion “visited Lister Park in March
2007 and were inspired by the inclusive community facilities it now offers.
Previously dilapidated, and with a setting that provoked anti-social behaviour,
following a £3.2m grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund it was transformed into
a genuine space for interaction and reflection – and was recognised as such
when it won Best Park in Britain in 2006. What inspired us most was the
extensive community consultation that went into its planning
– creating a real sense of ownership among different groups in the local
community
– and how that translates into practice, with “pockets of culture” reflecting
local communities. For instance, the beautiful Mughal Water Gardens,
constructed using local materials and familiar plants, or the popular boating
lake and pavilion. Lister Park is a real community hub that is used by a broad
cross section of local communities.”
Source: Commission on Integration and Cohesion Case Studies (2007)
cited in Communities and Local Government (2009) Guidance on
Building a Local Sense of Belonging, p.19
Old Ford Women’s Exercise Classes
A well established voluntary sector organisation approached Old Ford about
hiring a venue to stage exercise classes for Bangladeshi women. It had
funding for them as a group with a varied set of health issues who were not
using gyms or other facilities due to cultural or religious barriers.
Old Ford said that it was happy to provide a venue but that it had concerns
about the effect on other communities of targeting this resource on a
particular group. Women from other ethnic or religious groups presented
similar health problems and they too were failing to access facilities due to
their own cultural, ethnic and other barriers. For example, other women of
European or Afro-Caribbean background had reservations about going to
gyms due a lack of confidence or a reluctance to exercise in front of men.
Similarly Somali women, many of whom share the same Islamic religion with
their Bangladeshi counterparts, were avoiding gyms.
Old Ford agreed to provide free use of its community facilities as match
funding on the basis that the sessions were open to all women in the area, yet
maintaining the sensitivity faced by different cultural groups. The voluntary
group managed to renegotiate funding for exercise classes and now provides
sessions for all women, regardless of their background
128
Source: Communities and Local Government (2009) Guidance on
Meaningful Interaction: How encouraging positive relationships between
people can help build community cohesion, p.28
Communities R Us, Bolton
Communities R Us investigates and promotes contact and communication at
a neighbourhood level between different communities with a particular focus
on areas where there has been recent in-migration.
The immediate aims of the project are to help residents get to know each
other through shared activities, to increase neighbourliness and benefit all
residents. The underlying aim is for different groups of residents to come
together through their common concerns and aspirations; for long-term
residents to recognise the positive commitment and contribution refugees can
make to the neighbourhood; and to give long-term residents the confidence to
communicate with, and live alongside, refugees and new settlers without fear
of their difference.
In Bolton, the project has worked in the Derby Road/Deane Road
neighbourhood where the long-term white residents and established Asian
population have experienced changes with the recent arrival of a number of
refugees – including Somalis, Iraqi Kurdish, Francophone Africans and other
Africans.
Interviews to collect opinions on the area were conducted by local
‘ambassadors’ who came from the same communities as interviewees. More
than 50 interviews were completed, covering all three target ‘groups’ (longterm white residents, medium-term Asian residents, and recent migrants).
This helped to establish trust and break down communication barriers
(including, of course, their ability to do the interviews in a shared language).
These interviews provided material for a locally-produced drama, with actors
recruited from the neighbourhood, to ‘play back’ and concerns about the
neighbourhood in a way which would provoke discussion and might help to
resolve conflicts The drama scenes relied on mime so that people speaking
different languages could understand.
Source: Good practice identified by the Commission on Integration and
Cohesion cited in Communities and Local Government (2009) Guidance
on Meaningful Interaction: How encouraging positive relationships
between people can help build community cohesion, p.44 .
Further information: www.hact.org.uk/downloads.asp?PageId=155
129