Report Social Impacts of Heritage-led Regeneration

Published on January 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 22 | Comments: 0 | Views: 241
of 45
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content


The Social Impacts of
Heritage-led Regeneration
 
Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

i

Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 
Aims and objectives ............................................................................................................ 1 
Defining Regeneration ......................................................................................................... 1 
Defining Social Impacts ....................................................................................................... 2 
Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 2 
Social Impacts of Regeneration .............................................................................................. 4 
Policy Context ..................................................................................................................... 5 
Social Capital .......................................................................................................................... 7 
How is Social Capital measured within Regeneration Outcomes? ..................................... 7 
Social Capital and the Built Environment ............................................................................ 7 
Heritage-led Regeneration and Social Capital .................................................................... 8 
Health .................................................................................................................................... 11 
How is Health measured within Regeneration Outcomes? ............................................... 11 
Health and the Built Environment ...................................................................................... 11 
Heritage-led Regeneration and Health .............................................................................. 12 
Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour .......................................................................................... 14 
How is Crime measured within Regeneration Outputs? .................................................... 14 
Crime and the Built Environment ....................................................................................... 14 
Heritage-led Regeneration and Crime ............................................................................... 15 
Education .............................................................................................................................. 17 
How is Education measured within Regeneration Outputs? ............................................. 17 
Education and the Built Environment ................................................................................ 17 
Heritage-led Regeneration and Education ........................................................................ 18 
Case Studies ......................................................................................................................... 20 
Regenerating aspirations: Victoria Baths, Manchester ..................................................... 20 
Combining Social and Historic Building Needs: Hearth .................................................... 21 
Establishing a baseline: Cadw Community Profiles .......................................................... 22 
Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

ii

Anti-ASBO: Engine House, Dowlais .................................................................................. 23 
Bright future: J ewellery Quarter, Birmingham ................................................................... 24 
Building Community Confidence: Cabbagetown, Toronto ................................................. 25 
A Safer Place to Be: Wilton’s Music Hall ........................................................................... 26 
Capturing the Intangible: Highland Building Preservation Trust ........................................ 27 
Community to the Fore: Castleford Heritage Trust ............................................................ 29 
Gaps in information ............................................................................................................... 30 
Lack of Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 30 
Limitations of Evidence ..................................................................................................... 30 
Future Work .......................................................................................................................... 32 
The Need for Further Evaluation ....................................................................................... 32 
Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 33 
Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................ 33 
Summary Recommendations ............................................................................................ 34 
Bibliography .......................................................................................................................... 35 


Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

1

Introduction
This report has been commissioned by the Agencies Coordinating Group (ACG), an
assemblage of historic environment organisations incorporating the Architectural Heritage
Fund, the Civic Trust, the Institute of Historic Building Conservation, the Association of
Preservation Trusts, and the Prince’s Regeneration Trust. These bodies or their members
are all at some level involved in the planning and delivery of regeneration across the United
Kingdom, and as such have an interest in the evaluation of such projects. During the 1980s
and 1990s, much prominence has been placed on the economic benefits of heritage-led
regeneration, with evaluation being focused on this subject. However, with the current
political emphasis on social issues such as crime and health, it may become imperative to
evaluate regeneration by its results in this area. In response to this need, in May 2008 the
ACG engaged Ela Palmer Heritage to investigate the social impacts of heritage-led
regeneration.
Aims and objectives 
The aim of this research is to examine the evidence base for the social impacts of heritage-
led regeneration, identifying models, gaps, and prospective work. The primary objective is to
produce a position statement as to the need for evaluation of social impacts, and a
suggestion as to how this might be achieved in the future.
The questions this study seeks to answer are as follows:
• What studies are available?
• Where are the gaps in the existing research?
• What are the findings of the existing research?
• What conclusions can be reached concerning the social impact of heritage-led
regeneration?

Defining Regeneration 
The word ‘regeneration’ has been a catchphrase in policy and planning for the past 30 years
There is no one set definition of regeneration, and the term seems to have been
appropriated by politicians, planners and managers in the cultural, social, architectural and
construction sectors as necessary to suit their changing agendas. Thus we have social
regeneration which revives social cohesion or communities, economic regeneration which
uses physical renovation to revive the economic market of a place, or perhaps cultural
regeneration where the arts are used to restore vibrancy and life. The common element of
these varying types of regeneration is the fact that in every case, regeneration has
comprised “the use of public funding to support an initiative which aims to achieve an
improvement to the conditions of disadvantaged people or places”.
1

Heritage-led regeneration therefore can be defined as the improvement of disadvantaged
people or places through the delivery of a heritage focused project. There are three distinct
types of heritage-led regeneration which have become apparent during research. These are:
• Area-based regeneration (for instance physical regeneration of a town centre,
conservation area, or historic landscape)
• Single building regeneration (the physical regeneration of a single building)

1
Definition utilised in Rebuilding London’s Future, Report of the London Assembly’s Economic Development
Committee, March 2002

Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

2

• Heritage project regeneration (a socially beneficial project not involving physical
regeneration, but based around a historic building).
These three terms will be used throughout this report in order to define what types of
heritage-led regeneration achieves certain results, and how each type is evaluated. It is
important to be able to make these distinctions, to ensure that a full understanding is
reached regarding the relative success of project types, whilst understanding that each type
has specific aims, and therefore may have very different outcomes.
Defining Social Impacts 
Social impacts are identified for the purposes of this report as:
• crime figures or instances of anti-social behaviour;
• physical and mental health;
• education;
• social capital, including community cohesion and social inclusion.
All these impacts have a bearing on the future sustainability of an area or community, and
many are mentioned in the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG)
Sustainable Communities work.
2
An impact on both mental and physical health has also
been identified as a possible result of regeneration. Taken as a group, the impacts are
indicators of the general wellbeing and quality of life offered by an area, and therefore have
the power to improve or degenerate social welfare.
These impacts have been chosen as being a measurable outcome of a project, either by
quantitative evaluation of statistics and figures, or the measurement of resident or visitor
experience through survey or anecdote.
It has generally been assumed that economic regeneration automtically bring about the
social impacts listed above. This study has endeavoured to gather the evidence for the
social impacts themselves, as opposed to relying on existing economic evaluation of
regeneration projects. However, it is true that economic change can be the determinant of
social change, and many of the social impacts discussed co-exist with economic
regeneration.
Methodology 
The approach taken towards this research has been selected to examine the greatest
amount of evidence within the constraints of time and contact, and to provide a general
overview of heritage-led regeneration impacts rather than a focus on any one project type or

2
Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2003, and updated by
the Department for Communities and Local Government as part of their continuing work towards Sustainable
Communities. As defined, sustainable communities offer:
“a sense of community identity and belonging
tolerance, respect and engagement with people from different cultures, background
and beliefs
friendly, co-operative and helpful behaviour in neighbourhoods
opportunities for cultural, leisure, community, sport and other activities, including for
children and young people
low levels of crime, drugs and antisocial behaviour with visible, effective and
community-friendly policing
social inclusion and good life chances for all.”

Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

3

funding source. The work has consisted of a desk based assessment of available resources,
using telephone and electronic contact to gather information. The information gathering
process has been gathered by the use of a series of key word or phrase searches
3
. These
key words have in turn defined categories of material for use in a database of documents
and projects, allowing for a quantitative evaluation of the types of evidence available, and
the projects they have come from.
In the region of 70 documents have been studied during the course of the research, of which
around 40 proved relevant. These documents have been produced by organisations in the
fields of heritage, culture, health, crime, urban design and regeneration; whilst not every
document discussed the impact of heritage-led regeneration, they all go towards an
identification of issues and methodologies in the evaluation of impacts. The nature of these
documents has ranged from academic study to project based evaluation, and gives wide
picture of the evaluation of regeneration, focusing on heritage-led regeneration.
The desk based assessment has allowed identification of case studies across the types of
heritage-led regeneration, which add depth to the knowledge base and provide models of
evaluation methods and aims. In some cases the evaluation has yet to take place, but has
been planned; in others, the evaluation is limited to only one or two of the social impacts
identified within this study. In the Heritage Dividend Methodology produced for English
Heritage in 2004, it is recognised that there are limitations on statistical evaluation of projects
due to lack of resource or skill
4
; whilst statistics have been sought for these case studies, the
majority rely on qualitative and anecdotal evidence.




3
Internet and catalogue searches were conducted using the following key words, or phrases made up of two or
more of these words, with those in bold denoting leading key words, for example ‘heritage +social inclusion’:
heritage; regeneration; culture; design; health; crime; social inclusion; community; education; society; anti
social behaviour; life style.
4
The Heritage Dividend Methodology, Urban Practitioners for English Heritage, 2004
Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

4

Social Impacts of Regeneration
The Indices of Multiple Deprivation, published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in
2004, identify seven domains of deprivation: income, employment, health and disability,
education, housing, living environment and crime
5
. Of these domains, income, living
environment and housing are determinants of the more specific social issues of health and
disability, education, employment, and crime. Regeneration has in the past been
concentrated on the resolution of the determinants, with area based and individual projects
aimed at improvement of economic conditions, housing, and the living environment.
The economic impacts of regeneration, including heritage-led regeneration, have been
widely documented. Indeed, in the case of many area based initiatives including the Housing
Market Renewal Initiative and the Heritage Economic Regeneration Schemes, economic
benefit and the renewal of the market in deprived areas is the primary objective. A headline
message of the document Heritage Works is that “There is a strong economic case for
regenerating historic buildings. The benefits relate not only to the individual building, but also
to the wider area and community”. Case studies across Britain have been evaluated, and
have proved that regeneration of all types can revive areas of economic slump, attracting
business and tourism and raising property values. A process will then occur whereby
physical and functional revitalisation leads to the economic revitalisation. This is then judged
to start a social revitalisation
6
; however, this outcome is an incidental and assumed benefit.

The improvement of housing, its standard and provision, is another determinant where the
social impacts are deemed to be an incidental benefit. As the Department of Communities
and Local Government states in its 2007 consultation Delivering Housing and Regeneration,
“Everyone needs a decent home. Everyone wants to be proud of the place where they live”
7
.
Initiatives concerned with the design and provision of new housing focus on space and
facilities, transport and movement. Heritage-led regeneration where housing has been a
priority has been undertaken by such companies as Urban Splash, where the refurbishment
and often change of use of buildings at risk or deprived historic areas to provide housing is
the prime regenerating factor. Housing Associations with a large stock of historic buildings
conduct regeneration through improvement of their stock, giving people a ‘decent home’
through regeneration.

Alongside economic and housing regeneration, which tends to be achieved with area based
initiatives, are those regeneration projects addressing the more general living environment,
often relating to open space improvements, arts provision and streetscape. These
environmental changes are aimed at improving quality of life, and therefore bear strong
relation to social impacts which can be said to be indicators of quality of life. However, this
quality of life is more often linked to economic quality, for instance the choice of cultural,
retail and leisure provision increasing the business and residential attractions of an area. It is
recognised in diverse research and evaluation documents that the improvement of
environmental features can act as a regenerating force; for instance, the Commission for
Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) note in their report Does Money Grow on
Trees? that “Local perceptions of the value of a local area and its future have been improved
because of the physical improvements to the park, increasing the confidence of people who
live and invest in the area to stay there and not leave”
8
.


5
Indices of Multiple Deprivation, ODPM 2004
6
Heritage Works, page 7 figure 1, Drivers J onas for English Heritage, British Property Federation and Royal
Institute of Chartered Surveyors 2006
7
Delivering Housing and Regeneration: Communities England and the future of social housing regulation, DCLG
Forward 2007
8
Does Money Grow on Trees?, Introduction, CABE 2005
Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

5

All of the regeneration objectives have as their central aim the economic sustainability of
neighbourhoods or areas, with the ‘socio-economic’ impacts limited to job creation and
increased apparent wealth or quality of life. Alongside these determinants of social impacts,
academic Robert Putnam has identified a fourth, ‘social capital’. His work recognises the
possibility that the “quality of social relations in society can have an important impact on key
policy outcomes such as health, educational achievement and economic growth”
9
. So, the
achievement of strong social capital, the community cohesion which is encouraged by policy
makers, can be seen as the chief determinant of other benefits, and the central element of a
sustainable regeneration process. Improvement of social capital can create greater
community cohesion, and address problems of exclusion and distrust.

All of the above determinants are assumed to be likely to have an impact on social issues
within or around a regeneration area. They have formed the objectives of past regeneration
projects, and in the case of the economic and socio-economic impacts have been evaluated
across many different types of regeneration, including theoretically in assessment
commissioned by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in 2006
10
. In contrast, the social
impacts, including the impact on social capital, have seldom been identified as objectives to
be evaluated.

Policy Context 
The reasons for this lack of evaluation can be found in previous national and regional policy
and guidance across Britain, which has concentrated on economic regeneration.
Assessment guides and criteria produced by government and government agencies, whilst
recognising that regeneration is often aimed at communities, has focused on the economic
welfare of an area, with social welfare second to this and an assumed outcome
11
. An
explanation for this is the need for government to justify public spending by measuring
successful outcomes – economic outcomes in terms of wealth and job creation being more
easily measurable than such intangibles as community satisfaction or inclusion.

Having concentrated on the economic impacts of regeneration, the tide at national
government level now appears to be changing in order to encompass the possible social
impacts. Transforming Places, Changing Lives, published in J uly 2008, shows a shift in
direction for the Department of Communities and Local Government in their approach to
regeneration and what the outcomes should be
12
. Although the focus continues to be ‘the
underlying economic challenges that hold back deprived areas’, the needs of people and
communities take the lead with social mobility, health, crime and education regarded as
issues to be addressed through regeneration funding; this may lead to a rise in the
evaluation of such outcomes. In general, the policy document continues the objectives of the
National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal, published in 2001
13
, which aimed to tackle
areas of deprivation and disadvantage.

The Scottish Executive has similar objectives, stated in the 2006 document People and
Place: Regeneration Policy Statement. Here economic impacts, market values and business

9
Putnam, R, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon & Schuster 2000
10
An exploratory assessment of the economic case for regeneration investment from a national perspective,
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2006
11
An example here is the National Audit Office’s Economic Regeneration – A Guide to National and Local
Indicators (2006), which concentrates on wealth (‘economic welfare’), employment and transport and success.
Education is also an indicator here, measurable by % numeracy and literacy.
12
Transforming Places, Changing Lives: A framework for regeneration, Department of Communities and Local
Government, 2008
13
A New Commitment to Neighbourhood Renewal: A National Strategy Action Plan, Department of Communities
and Local Government, 2001
Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

6

interests are given as the primary aims of regeneration, alongside educational and skills
improvement, community confidence and an enhanced built and natural environment.
People and Place recognises economic and social drivers for, and outcomes of,
regeneration; it would seem that in Scotland the concept of holistic regeneration is not a new
one.

The stated objectives of the Regional Development Agencies (RDA), often partners in
regeneration and funders of such projects, show an absorption in the economic status of the
regions. However, a policy note of 2005
14
prepared by the DCLG to guide the RDAs in use
of Community Regeneration funding targets support of community capacity building, and
clearly shows that social issues are addressed by RDAs notwithstanding their concentration
on the economic. The extent to which social impacts of regeneration are recognised by each
RDA differs, and their Corporate Plans either make mention of the need to use regeneration
to address social issues, such as the London Development Agency in tackling crime, or
continue to acknowledge only the economic values of regeneration such as that of Yorkshire
Forward. In this way, the common objective of economic improvement which concerns all
RDAs is probably the only requirement to be evaluated during or after a funded regeneration
project.





14
Government Guidance on Public Sector Assistance for Community Regeneration, Department for
Communities and Local Government, 2005
Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

7

Social Capital
How is Social Capital measured within Regeneration Outcomes? 
There is little quantitative evaluation of the benefits of regeneration on social capital. This
may be due to the difficulty of measuring the experience of a whole community. Therefore,
the most successful evaluation of this type has been of participant numbers in smaller
regeneration projects, for instance the level of local voluntary activity or civic action.
However, statistical information concerning social capital is available from the Office of
National Statistics, providing a baseline against which to measure success or failure.
Most evaluation of this topic has been qualitative, giving evidence of feelings and experience
of residents and participants through survey. For this reason, evaluation of smaller projects
is easier to gather than larger area based initiatives where it may be difficult to gather results
from a true cross section of the community. However, as feelings of well being or confidence
are a contributor to social capital, qualitative analysis captures relevant subjective
information.
Social Capital and the Built Environment 
The impact that regeneration can have on social capital stems from the power of a project to
bring a community together, or create social networks. A community or area with strong
social capital should have a heightened sense of personal and social responsibility, and be
inclined to respect social values
15
. In consequence, this social responsibility is likely to
ensure the sustainability of a regeneration programme, and to encourage resolution of social
problems such as health, crime and antisocial behaviour. Research has recognised that
“regeneration that focuses only on improving the physical infrastructure and built
environment of an area or investing money into its public services will rarely prove enough to
regenerate the communities that live in it: it is also essential to strengthen local communal
bonds and civic life”
16
.
Community cohesion and social inclusion can be encouraged by the consultation and active
participation of groups within areas of deprivation before, during and after a project. A high
level of civic engagement has been described as important in the “maintenance of local
community relations”
17
. Further to this, community involvement is seen as key to the
development of regeneration strategies and policy at local government level
18
. Participation
in regeneration results in a sense of ownership, increasing civic pride, which in turn could
improve the viability of the project.
Looking after communities, then, can both contribute to regeneration and be an outcome of
regeneration. However, it is as an outcome of regeneration, through participation and
increased civic pride, that strong social capital is achieved. Regeneration can provide many
opportunities for social inclusion, and engage minority groups or those in deprived areas,
and this community spirit mitigates the fact that “neither the state nor the market can solve
social problems alone; ...individuals are best off where they can rely on the help of friends
and the goodwill of fellow citizens”
19
.

15
Ed. Paxton, W and Nash, V, Any Volunteers for the Good Society?, IPPR 2002
16
Keaney, E, From Access to Participation: Cultural Policy and Civil Renewal, IPPR 2006
17
Nash, V, Making Sense of Community, IPPR 2003
18
A document produced by Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council states that “It is widely recognised that if the
outcomes of any regeneration project are to be sustained in the long term, then community consultation and
involvement must play a key role in informing the development of regeneration plans”. Other local authority
regeneration policy and strategy documents list consultation as a priority.
19
Keaney, E, From Access to Participation: Cultural Policy and Civil Renewal, IPPR 2006
Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

8

Conversely, increased community cohesion and social capital can also increase the social
issues of exclusion
20
. Increased community cohesion can isolate that community from the
rest of society, especially if the economic benefits of regeneration are not achieved or
sustained. Regeneration of specific areas can also widen the gap between rich and poor (the
‘gentrification’ effect), as the living environment and community becomes more attractive and
“wealthy... newcomers are congratulated for "improving" a neighbourhood whose... residents
are displaced by skyrocketing rents and economic change”
21
. By the same token, the
division of existing communities and their dispersal to new housing or newly regenerated
areas can have a negative impact on social capital, increasing mistrust within a community
and further exclusion of disenfranchised individuals. In general, however, strong social
capital is seen as a positive benefit of regeneration, and is encouraged as an outcome of
such projects.
Heritage­led Regeneration and Social Capital 
The heritage of a place is often very important to the community; it provides an identity, can
hold memories and meaning far beyond its architectural or historic importance, and
contributes to a unique environment. As the British Urban Regeneration Association (BURA)
state, “historic buildings can act as focal points around which communities will rally and
revive their sense of civic pride”
22
. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s (DCMS)
‘Taking Part’ survey has shown that 70% of adults visit a heritage site at least once a year,
the definition of heritage site including historic cities or areas
23
. As further proof of great
interest in heritage, the eighty member groups of Heritage Link have a combined
membership of over 4 million.
24
It is clear that heritage-led regeneration should therefore
have obvious beneficial impacts on social capital. As English Heritage note, “Regeneration
has to have the support of local people otherwise it is likely to fail. People are often
immensely proud of their local heritage”
25
.

Whilst communities can often have pride in their heritage assets, the same heritage can be a
source of disenchantment when it becomes derelict or has no obvious use. In a deprived
area, this dereliction can exacerbate the problems of low community cohesion, creating an
atmosphere of shame in the area, and distrust of those with responsibility to for the upkeep
of the built environment – namely, authority. The regeneration of a heritage area or building
is often seen as a change for good, and can kick start a ‘ripple-effect’ of further regeneration.
The increase in attractiveness of the heritage area in turn increases the confidence of
communities, and results in stronger social capital. Community cohesion, in particular, can
be achieved when a well-loved heritage feature or built environment is regenerated with the
active participation of the community in planning through effective consultation. The common
aim and interest introduces new social networks, and allows a community to have some
ownership of the project; this will encourage greater civic pride, social responsibility, and an
identifiable community value.

Whilst area regeneration can instil a general feeling of pride in place for a community,
individual building regeneration projects offer an opportunity for the community to be
significantly involved in creating the regeneration that will be of benefit to their locality. This
again can create new networks, and bring communities who may be dispersed or

20
Putnam, R, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon & Schuster 2000
21
Grant, B, What is Genrification?, accessed at
http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2003/flagwars/special_gentrification.html, 01.08.08
22
Learning from Experience:The BURA Guide to Achieving Effective and Lasting Regeneration, BURA, 2002
23
Taking Part: The National Survey of Culture, Leisure and Sport Progress report on PSA3: Provisional
estimates from the first six months of year three, DCMS 2008
24
Locker, B, How We Do It: The scale and scope of voluntary organisations in the heritage sector, Heritage Link
2006
25
Regeneration and the Historic Environment, English Heritage 2005
Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

9

traditionally disjointed. Participation in heritage-led regeneration projects can “bring people
from different backgrounds together in discovering more about the place they live in and
understanding common ground”
26
. Again, the success of regeneration can stem from the
efforts made by a community to ensure that success; when communities participate, they are
more likely to take responsibility for the historic assets, and wider built environment. One
level of participation that is often a factor in smaller heritage-led regeneration projects is
volunteer activity, giving such positive benefits as “building trust and confidence as well as
promoting equality and cohesion”
27
. Building preservation trusts throughout Britain carry out
both area and individual building regeneration, and can operate through voluntary activity.

Taking part in such a project can boost individual confidence, which in turn strengthens a
community, increasing feelings of well being for the individual within a shared environment.
Evaluation of projects funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund’s Your Heritage and Heritage
Grants schemes, conducted specifically to determine if participation does have a social
benefit, has shown that 77% of projects surveyed gave opportunities for volunteering to the
local community, and 19 out of 30 specific projects were seen to increase community
cohesion
28
. There is a clear link between participation and cohesion, which heritage projects
as a whole, and therefore heritage-led regeneration, can facilitate.

Alongside the invigoration of community spirit, improvements in social inclusion can also be
a benefit of heritage-led regeneration. This is largely due to the ability of heritage to be a
central focus within a community, an identifying mark that brings people together
29
. As
Stephen Shaw of the University of North London notes, many deprived communities are
“poor in terms of the disadvantage and social exclusion of their residents”
30
. He cites the
example of the London ‘city fringe’, where “local residents... may, with some justification, feel
marginalised from nearby, wealthier parts of their city”. An attractive, revitalised environment,
however, can contribute to greater social inclusion through pride in place and strong sense
of identity. Where there are marginalised groups within the regeneration area, heritage
projects which aide understanding of cultural and built heritage could attract less traditional
heritage audiences
31
; this has been the case where arts projects have targeted BME
communities, such as the Black Environment Network and One World Quilt 2000’s project
“creating awareness and opportunities in Sustainable Development” which brought together
excluded communities in an arts led discussion of local environment issues
32
. At best, a
heritage-led regeneration project can spark discussion and communication between diverse
community groups and individuals, and create an inclusive environment.

, Recent evaluation of the outcomes of Townscape Heritage Initiatives (THI) seems to
support the general view that regeneration will have the benefit of increasing social capital .
Most of the seventeen case studies found an increase in social cohesion as a result of the
THI, although there were still areas where the heritage-led regeneration had made no
perceptible difference, and one case study in which community cohesion was actually worse
than it had been compared to the baseline
33
. What is of most interest in this one case is that
levels of employment and income have improved in this area. Is this an example of the

26
Capital Values: The Contribution of the Historic Environment in London, English Heritage, 2008
27
Ed. Paxton, W and Nash, V, Any Volunteers for the Good Society?, IPPR 2002
28
Social Impact of Heritage: Evaluation report on research conducted for the HLF 2006-2007, Applejuice, 2008
29
Capital Values: The Contribution of the Historic Environment in London, English Heritage, 2008
30
Shaw, S, Multicultural heritage and urban regeneration in London’s City Fringe, undated article access at
http://www.heritage.xtd.pl/pdf/full_shaw.pdf, 28.06.2008
31
According to the DCMS Taking Part survey, the largest heritage audience is white, wealthy and of middle age
32
Shaheen Safdar, Creating Awareness and Opportunities in Sustainable Development, Black Environment
Network and One World Quilt, 2004
33
Townscape Heritage Initiative Schemes Evaluation, Five Year Review Report, Oxford Brookes University for
Heritage Lottery Fund, 2008
Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

10

sense of local identity and therefore community being lost through gentrification, as identified
in the landscape assessment of South Oxfordshire
34
, a desirable rural area under pressure
to provide the idyllic built environment?

Like other regeneration schemes, heritage-led regeneration does have the potential to
significantly improve market value of property, leading to the possibility of local residents
being priced out of their own communities, or suffering increased hardship due to rising rents
and other costs. The example of artists in London’s Hoxton, who increased the
attractiveness of the area only to find themselves unable to continue to reside and work
there due to increased prices, reflects the problems to be found where heritage is a catalyst
for change in the social make-up of an area
35
. The THI evaluation identifies problems with
social capital where there is a predominance of one social group, be that the young, the old
or another socially inward facing communities
36
. Key to success in heritage-led regeneration
is the inclusion of existing communities, and planning of projects having regard to their social
capital, rather than the creation of a new community with little local identity.

In summary, it appears that there is a general assumption throughout the heritage world that
heritage-led regeneration benefits communities and increases social inclusion, brought
about by anecdote-based reports of successful projects and evidenced by reports from
major heritage organisations including English Heritage. In the case of smaller heritage-led
projects, this may be the case, although there is little evidence beyond the numbers of
volunteers and attendees for heritage projects, and the experiences of participants. At least,
these smaller projects are likely to encourage inclusion of a diverse section of society.
Present evaluation of community cohesion and inclusion benefit relies on the feelings of
regeneration area residents; a wider picture of civic participation alongside qualitative
evidence may be required to ensure a true indication of how heritage-led regeneration
effects social capital. However, nearly all of the existing evidence does suggest that the
assumptions are correct; many heritage-led regeneration projects do offer substantial social
benefits, and can bring about real change in social cohesion and community pride.






34
South Oxfordshire – A landscape overview, South Oxfordshire District Council, 1998 (adopted Supplementary
Planning Guidance 2003)
35
Review of the Presentation of Contemporary Visual Art: East London Case Study, Hackney, Newham & Tower
Hamlets, Burns Owen Partnership for Arts Council England, October 2005
36
Townscape Heritage Initiative Schemes Evaluation, Five Year Review Report, Oxford Brookes University for
Heritage Lottery Fund, 2008
Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

11

Health
How is Health measured within Regeneration Outcomes? 
The impacts of regeneration on health are measured both qualitatively and quantitatively,
with national and local statistics on health widely available as a baseline against which to
measure improvement or decline for meaningful quantitative evidence. Health Impact
Assessment is an established methodology for testing the possible impacts of regeneration
on the health of the population at the outset of a project
37
.
Qualitative measurement is conducted by more informal communication, targeting the
thoughts and feelings of a communities and individuals about their perceptions of their own
physical and mental health. The health of a community can be linked to other quality of life
indicators, such as low quality housing or unattractive environment, as shown in the Fife
Regeneration, Health and Wellbeing Study
38
.
Health and the Built Environment 
Health is a recognised social indicator of deprivation, and therefore regeneration would
generally seek to overcome, at least to an extent, the problem of poor physical and mental
health in a target area. It can be difficult to see what impacts the built environment can have
on health, especially physical health. However, it is clear that the improvement of areas of
deprivation is seen as a positive step towards better health. As the Scottish Office states in
its Working Together for a Healthier Scotland, “Local neighbourhood renewal and other
regeneration initiatives are in a particularly good position to address health inequalities
because they have responsibility for dealing with the wider determinants that have impact on
people’s physical and mental health”
39
.
Cultural and arts based projects can have health benefits, and in some cases are targeted
specifically at such issues. The DCMS attaches value to cultural activities for their “far-
reaching benefits, including reducing problems in health”
40
. These benefits are often
assumed, however, as participation in arts and culture is seen to increase feelings of well
being, and therefore improve health or reduce risks of harmful behaviour
41
. Again, the effects
of arts and culture are seen to be on the determinants of health, such as social cohesion or
environmental improvements. Arts projects can also be a part of health delivery, directly
benefitting users and therefore more easily quantifiable
42
. Like regeneration, arts and cultural
projects can have better direct impacts resulting from smaller, more targeted programmes,
whilst wider arts and cultural projects are evaluated through assumptions following other
social outcomes.
The natural environment is widely believed to contribute directly to good health, and these
benefits have recently been evaluated by Natural England. Among the benefits of green
space for communities is a reduction in health problems for every 10% extra green space
43
.
In addition, green space can reduce stress, thereby improving mental health
44
. Ecotherapy is

37
Cave, B and Curtis, S, Health Impact Assessment for Regeneration Projects, Vol III: Principles, East London
and the City Health Action Zone, 2001
38
Accessed at http://www.trackingstudy.co.uk/index.html, 28.06.2008
39
Working together for a healthier Scotland, Scottish Office Department of Health, 1998
40
Culture at the Heart of Regeneration: A consultation document, DCMS, 2004
41
Culture and Health – Building the Evidence, Northwest Culture Observatory, 2006
42
New Directions in Social Policy: developing the evidence base for museums, libraries and archives in England,
Burns Owens Partnership for the MLA, 2005
43
Evidence Sheet 4: Communities and the natural Environment, Natural England, 2007
44
Evidence Sheet 2: Mental Health and the Natural Environment, Natural England, 2007
Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

12

a recognised form of therapy for mental health issues, and is promoted by mental health
charities such as MIND
45
. It is unsurprising, then, that urban design outcomes for health
focus on the benefits of new green spaces, as spaces for activity and relaxation. The
planning of facilities and connections are also seen as influencing the health of local
communities
46
. Participants in a workshop facilitated by the Built Environment Forum
Scotland noted that early planning philosophies were concerned with the impact of space on
health and wellbeing, and that the built environment should “offer something more than just
function”
47
However, a report for the North West Development Agency attaches a ‘weak’
importance to “townscape, cohesive value and design, outward appearance of buildings” in
their health impacts.
This would appear to be borne out by the findings of a review of literature concerning
neighbourhood and mental well-being, which in summary suggests that the external built
environment has less impact on mental health than the internal, whilst noting the lack of
evidence in relation to health and the built environment
48
. In contrast, documents concerning
regeneration make the assumption that physical improvement of the built environment,
leading to social and economic enhancement will have a beneficial impact on health. The
roots of ill health can be traced back to the economic and social determinants, which
regeneration schemes aim to address. However, it is the social aspects that are most
prominent in influencing health in a community; a lack of social cohesion can create stress
and therefore ill health
49
. In fact, the lack of long term evaluation of diverse built environment
improvements and their impacts on health does not allow a conclusive determination of the
benefits.
Heritage­led Regeneration and Health 
The specific impacts of heritage on health are as difficult to measure as the benefits of other
built environment improvements. There are three areas where heritage-led regeneration may
be assumed to have an impact: that of historic park or landscape regeneration providing
quality open space for health pursuits; that of health improvement by participation of groups
and individuals in heritage-led regeneration; and that of health impact through other
determinants, for instance a change in other indicators of deprivation.
The benefits of open space on health have been documented by Natural England in the
report mentioned above. Historic park regeneration, including the restoration of historic
buildings and features within parks, can therefore provide a benefit in the provision of
increased usable open space, assuming that a derelict, unattractive park is less used than
one which is tidy and inviting. It has also the case that 91% of the public believe that parks
and public spaces improve people’s quality of life
50
. Historic areas and landscapes, both
green spaces and structured heritage open space such as urban heritage trails, contribute to
these statistics as part of the wider benefits of open space. For example, heritage canal
systems are a popular venue for activities such as walking and cycling, allowing
opportunities to improve both physical and mental health. The work of the Inland Waterways
Association towards the restoration of the canals has therefore been of great benefit to the

45
Ecotherapy: The green agenda for mental health, MIND Week Report, MIND 2007
46
Building Health: Creating and enhancing places for healthy, active lives: What needs to be done? National
Heart Forum and CABE, Living Streets Campaign, 2007
47
Healthy Places – Towards a Mentally Flourishing Scotland, Report of workshop held 17th March 2008, Built
Environment Forum Scotland
48
Parry J ones, S, Neighbourhood accessibility, social networks and mental wellbeing: a literature review, Arup,
2006
49
This assertion is made both in Cadell, C, Falk, N, King, F, Regeneration in European Cities, Making
Connections, J ospeh Rowntree Foundation 2008 and Page, D, Respect and Renewal: A study of neighbourhood
social regeneration, J oseph Rowntree Foundation, 2006
50
Social Policy Research, MORI, 2004
Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

13

health of those people using the canals for recreation
51
. The popularity of trails through
regenerated heritage areas continues this theme, where heritage becomes an incentive for
people to exercise, and consequently become healthier.
The opportunity to participate in some element of heritage-led regeneration is often assumed
to have an impact on health, in common with other activities which promote inclusion. The
National Trust cite ‘personal or health problems’ as a motivation to volunteer in a heritage
capacity, and the majority of National Trust volunteers feel as though they are making a
contribution, a feel-good factor that may contribute to better mental health. For this reason,
both area and individual building regeneration projects can have a beneficial impact, bringing
communities and groups together with a focus and the means to make a contribution and
thereby improving feelings of wellbeing, as noted in the evaluation of Heritage Lottery
Funded Projects
52
.
The outcomes may be dependent on the success of the project in creating community
cohesion, and in including a diverse range of people. Some projects are specifically aimed at
creating that inclusion, and engaging people with mental or physical health problems. The
regeneration and extension of Margrove Heritage Centre, funded by the Heritage Lottery
Fund, has created a training environment for individuals who are recovering from mental
health problems, a high percentage of whom go on into full time employment following their
involvement in the project
53
.
Heritage-led regeneration is recognised as a socio-economic agent of change, creating
employment and raising market values. This difference in people’s lives, or in the social
make up of the regenerated area, can in itself improve mental and physical health through a
reduction of the stress and pressure of deprivation. The changes brought about to social and
economic forms in a neighbourhood as a result of regeneration may themselves lead to
extra stresses on an existing community; however, heritage-led regeneration involves less
change, and provides constant identifiers to reduce this pressure. In situations where derelict
historic buildings are regenerated, communities can change circumstances to the extent that
there can be no meaningful baseline against which to measure health benefits; for this
reason evaluation must take place over a number of years. Evaluation of health impacts
must also be carefully undertaken to be place specific, and to take into account differences
in economic and social circumstance in the regeneration area.

51
Our Year – Annual Review of the Inland Waterways Association, 2007/08
52
Social Impact of Heritage: Evaluation report on research conducted for the HLF 2006-2007, Applejuice, 2008
53
Ed. Catling, C, New Life: Heritage and Regeneration, Heritage Lottery Fund 2004

Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

14

Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour
How is Crime measured within Regeneration Outputs? 
Figures for crime, broken down into types of crime and geographical area, are readily
available from local and regional police, to varying degrees. The existence of crime figures
for distinct wards enables a fast statistical baseline for a regeneration locality to be
established. Often regeneration policy in relation to crime, safety and security will be guided
by the needs and problems of a specific area.
Aside from reported and therefore measurable crime, a prime factor in the measurement of
crime levels is through the perceptions of a community. Survey and anecdotal data can
reflect more accurately the instances of crimes such as anti social behaviour, and
threatening behaviour for instance aggressive begging.
Crime and the Built Environment 
The links between instances of crime and the built environment is recognised as a part of the
planning process in Britain. Initiatives which involve police and planning and design
partnership such as Design Out Crime are utilised to bring strategic crime reduction methods
to major regeneration and development schemes. Crime rates are also seen as having a
direct correlation with lack of economic opportunities, and so regeneration can be expected
to impact on the issue almost by nature. However, research warns that the built environment
alone cannot provide a significant crime reduction; it is the management of that built
environment and the attitudes of its users which are the most significant factor
54
. So, whilst
environmental improvements can have an effect, such measures as increased police
presence and security features must also be present.
Much regenerative power is accorded to the uses of buildings to provide new focus for
activity within a community, and therefore cut crime. This is especially true in the case of
young people; a survey has found that a major cause of anti-social behaviour is “boredom,
frustration and children/teenagers having nothing to do”
55
. In this way, arts and sports
initiatives working alongside physical regeneration can be effective in reducing anti-social
behaviour and youth crime at least. Schemes such as Summer Splash, funded by the
DCMS, Arts Council, and Youth J ustice Board, target young people vulnerable to crime.
However, although the scheme is seen as successful in reducing youth crime, there is little
more than anecdotal evidence for this. This is also true of the use of the arts to rehabilitate
offenders
56
.
The treatment of crime as a social ‘ill’ through regeneration is at the heart of policy in Britain,
and its reduction is an objective of government initiatives such as the New Deal for
Communities. Evidence has shown that the presence of crime in a locality can severely
affect the life chances of those within that area, reflecting as it does other social factors and
attitudes at play
57
. As such, crime is an indicator of social deprivation. Causes for crime may
be apparent in the low economic opportunity of an area, which can be addressed by
successful physical regeneration. Yet again, however, the quantitative evidence is lacking to
show the true benefits of the built environment in this respect. The need for long term
evaluation is recognised, with a time scale of 10-15 years necessary to allow for the various

54
Kitchen, T and Schneider, R, Planning for Crime Prevention, A Transatlantic perspective, Routledge, 2002
55
Page, D, Respect and Renewal: A study of neighbourhood Social Regeneration, J oseph Rowntree Foundation,
2006
56
Ed. Cowling, J , For Art’s Sake, IPPR, 2004
57
Ed. Delorenzi, S, Going Places: Neighbourhood, Ethnicity and Social Mobility, Introduction, IPPR 2006
Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

15

social determinants of high crime to take effect
58
, and for perceptions of the local population
to change.
It is not always possible to credit physical improvement of the built environment as causing a
reduction of crime in a particular area. Studies at King’s Cross in London show that although
instances of crime have reduced significantly between 2002 and 2005 as physical
regeneration of the area has taken hold, much of this reduction can be attributed to
displacement of criminal activities to other parts of the Borough of Camden. However, public
perception has changed, and regards the physical works that have taken place as making a
major contribution to the decrease in crime
59
. The control of visible anti-social activity, such
as begging or rough-sleeping throughout the area may have helped increase this perception
of safety.
Heritage­led Regeneration and Crime 
Heritage-led regeneration, in common with other methods of regeneration, is assumed to
have benefits on crime through the improvement of environmental and social factors. It is
widely considered that the revitalisation that can be provided by heritage restoration will
bring benefit by “reducing crime and vandalism... and making [areas] safer at night”
60
. The
document Heritage Works, which examines the economic dividends of heritage-led
regeneration, lists as a possible additional outcome “Improvements in personal safety and
the reduction of crime”
61
. However, this again is as an assumed result of economic upturn
and the resultant social changes, and does not reflect any evaluation of the subject.
The recent evaluation of the impacts of Heritage Lottery Funded Townscape Heritage
Initiatives (THI) provides a different picture of regeneration and crime. Crime is included
within a set of indicators to be measured in order to assess success of an initiative in any
area. The evaluation has been longitudinal, and therefore has been able to follow and take
into account social trends and economic changes as factors in evaluating crime. It may be
expected that the THIs, with their emphasis on revitalisation of urban areas and the increase
of business and economic desirability, would have a positive effect on crime figures and
other anti social behaviour, and there are instances where there is less crime reported, crime
statistics showing improvement. This is the case in both Bodmin and Creswell, amongst
others, where reported crime figures are lower following the regeneration projects. In fact
seven out of the seventeen case studies contained in the evaluation report show a fall in
crime rates, with a further four providing no data. Overall the trend is positive, tending
towards the impression that heritage-led regeneration can be beneficial in terms of crime.
However, in some cases the opposite is true. Burslem in Stoke on Trent and Newport in
Wales are two areas where crime figures have risen following the heritage-led regeneration
scheme. This evidence is drawn partly from reports of public perception, with questionnaires
used during the evaluation showing that fear for individual safety, and a feeling that the
streets are not safe, are a problem for many respondents
62
. It is difficult in these cases to
pin-point exactly why the rises in crime have come about. There is a possibility that the
stresses of regeneration activity on excluded communities have contributed to the rise

58
Hancock, L, Urban Regeneration, and Crime reduction, contradictions and dilemmas in Matthews, R and
Young, J , The New Politics of Crime and Punishment, Willian 2003
59
Crime displacement in King’s Cross, Centre for Social and Evaluation Research at the London Metropolitan
University for London Borough of Camden, 2006
60
Ed. Catling, C, Homes with History, English Heritage, Housing Corporation and Institute of Field
Archaeologists, 2003
61
Heritage Works, Drivers J onas for English Heritage, British Property Federation and Royal Institute of
Chartered Surveyors 2006
62
Townscape Heritage Initiative Schemes Evaluation, Five Year Review Report, Oxford Brookes University for
Heritage Lottery Fund, 2008
Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

16

through increased aggression on the part of individuals who have not benefitted from the
process, or that the improvement of the fortunes of the area will lead to the increase of
certain types of crime, for instance theft from premises or robbery. The wider trends of the
locality must also be taken into account, and conversely the possibility that results from one
portion of the THI area may skew the perception of the area as a whole. The THI evaluation
warns that whilst crime and anti social behaviour levels are indeed indicators of success,
their increased or reduced presence does not preclude success of other objectives
63
.
Heritage-led regeneration can be successful in cutting crime in a specific local area when the
project involves the restoration of a derelict building or area which has been the focus of
vandalism and anti social behaviour; drug and drink related crimes have been cited in
anecdotal evidence as being issues in buildings at risk. Empty buildings often attract anti
social behaviour, and increase the perception of crime in the streets of a local area
64
.
Therefore it is clear that an active use in the restored building must have a positive impact
on the amount of crime in the locality of the regeneration. However, the reduction of the
behaviour in this one area may be at the expense of its increase elsewhere; the reality is that
physical works may displace an activity, but are unlikely to reduce the tendency towards that
behaviour in the individuals who partake in criminal activity.
In contrast to this, the perception of crime by the community living in an area is a significant
indicator of regeneration success, and can contribute towards the long term effectiveness of
a project. The restoration of a local building at risk can give confidence in the locality that the
area is safer, in turn leading to reduced stress and greater civic pride. Anecdotal evidence of
perceptions is therefore as important as the collection of statistical data, as regeneration
success relies on the attitudes of local people – if they think a project has made a difference,
then it will. If they do not feel that any change has occurred, then the project will appear to
be less successful, and there will be none of the community confidence needed to continue
the regeneration beyond the physical and into the social realms.



63
Townscape Heritage Initiative Schemes Evaluation, Five Year Review Report, Oxford Brookes University for
Heritage Lottery Fund, 2008
64
PRODs: Bringing Public Buildings back into Use, Empty Homes Agency, 2006
Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

17

Education
How is Education measured within Regeneration Outputs? 
Education has different meanings according to the objectives of different projects. For this
report, two types of education are assumed to be impacted by regeneration: student focused
education; and adult education and training.
Statistical measurement of the impact of regeneration on education must be a long term
proceeding, as changes in educational attainment are likely to reflect socio-economic
changes and subsequent changes in attitude and aspiration. Changes in educational
achievement may be tracked by the use of school Ofsted reports, as well as by national and
local figures of examination results or attainment of other qualifications.
More often, the short term effects of educational projects attached to regeneration are
measurable, both by statistical measurements in terms of participant numbers and
attainments, and by anecdotal evidence of the impact on the perception of education
throughout a group or community.
Education and the Built Environment 
Studies on the effect of place on education show that those residing in an area of
deprivation, be that physical or economic (usually both) are more likely to face problems of
low aspirations and low self-esteem in education
65
. This could be due to the lack of
encouragement received by earlier generations in a tradition of educational apathy,
especially in traditionally working class areas
66
. It is thought that a culture of low attainment
can result in poor educational results, and it may be assumed that a lack of economic power
in an area is a determinant on attitudes to education and aspiration
67
. However attitudes are
based on personal experience and opinions and may vary from individual to individual, and
therefore cannot be generalised across a wide area.
The built environment has been used to provide educational and training opportunities
across Britain, both as a place in which to offer the resource, and as a resource in itself. An
interesting example is the use of empty upper floors of buildings in declining retail areas for a
Foyer Scheme in Redruth, Cornwall. The Foyer Scheme aims to provide accommodation
and training opportunities to homeless young people
68
, and uses regeneration of empty and
deprived areas to instigate the service.
The Foyers have a very specific target, as many education schemes do; the use of
education in regeneration is often planned to tackle the problems of an area, be that low
employment, poor literacy, or wider social problems such as crime and health. In Hastings,
the development of education in the area was a primary objective of the regeneration
scheme, setting policy from the start of the project
69
. In fact, educational change can be
viewed as both an outcome of regeneration, and a determinant of other outcomes. The
success of built environment schemes providing some form of education for a broad range of
groups and communities may indicate the future success of the whole project.

65
Lupton, R, How does place affect education?, IPPR, 2006
66
Payne, J , Choice at the end of compulsory schooling: A research review, Department for Education and Skills,
2003
67
Page, D, Respect and Renewal: A study of neighbourhood social regeneration, J oseph Rowntree Foundation,
2006
68
http://www.aimhighersw.ac.uk/cases/casestudy59.htm accessed 25.07.2008
69
Hastings Education and Regeneration, accessed at http://www.rudi.net/pages/18484, 12.08.2008
Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

18


Heritage­led Regeneration and Education 
Heritage contributes to education both in traditional schools based learning, and also to out-
of-classroom, hands on learning. Around 98% of people in England believe that the historic
environment is a “vital educational asset”
70
. There are a wealth of heritage education
projects, many of which are centred around local history and heritage to provide a means to
participants of indentifying with their surround historic built environment. The presence of
creative, non-traditional learning activities can be beneficial for a community, as
demonstrated by the impacts of arts education as discussed above. Heritage is known to be
a source of educational opportunity in this fashion, and this is borne out by the figures: an
English Heritage report states that Historic Royal Palaces caters for 209 education visitors
for each of its staff members
71
, whilst the National Trust has around 600,000 student
educational visits to its properties each year
72
. There is a definite history of education
provision through heritage means. What the impact of this provision has been in terms of
statistically measurable educational attainment is as yet unknown.
Qualitative evidence gathered by the Heritage Lottery Fund when evaluating their Young
Roots funding scheme suggests that individual participants in heritage education projects do
find the experience inspiring. The benefits to the young people involved in projects ranged
from confidence building, to a desire to use skills and knowledge in the future. There was
also a benefit to being outside a traditional learning environment, shown by the comment of
one participant who noted that projects were a “different type of learning to school, college
and university”
73
.
The engagement of new audiences with heritage can also produce results in educational
attainment, both for students and for adult learners. English Heritage aims its outreach
programmes at hard to reach audiences, and through regeneration projects such as the
creation of a community garden can offer education to “groups such as young people, ethnic
minorities, low-income families and people with disabilities”
74
. The provision of education to
excluded groups who might have attitudes of distrust or apathy towards school based
learning may change that attitude to one of interest and optimism, which could be passed on
to future generations. The development of skills can be positive for both child and adult
learners, and heritage can provide that opportunity; 84% of surveyed projects funded by the
Heritage Lottery Fund through Your Heritage or Heritage Grants were seen to develop skills
and capabilities, both in providing a resource for schools, or in providing a role for
volunteers
75
.
Heritage-led regeneration can go beyond that, in providing opportunities for participation and
training that may result in a long term change in attainment and future employment of
individuals in deprived areas. Large scale area based regeneration projects often
incorporate a scheme of training for construction skills, targeted at increasing the
qualifications and employment of local people. The schemes are essentially an added
investment in the future of the area, and can allow the local community to participate in the
regeneration whilst gaining skills. The Coalfields Regeneration Trust has undertaken to fund
such a scheme across the South Yorkshire Coalfield areas
76
; in areas of deprivation, where
the economic status of residents is low, these benefits can instigate long-term change.

70
Power of Place: The Future of the Historic Environment, English Heritage, 2000
71
Capital Values: The Contribution of the Historic Environment in London, English Heritage, 2008
72
Taken from a leaflet, ‘Learning and the National Trust’
73
Young Roots: Evaluation Report Stage Two, Hayton Associates for the Heritage Lottery Fund, 2003
74
Borman, T, Bringing History to Life, a paper given at the conference ‘History in British Education’, 2005
75
Social Impact of Heritage: Evaluation report on research conducted for the HLF 2006-2007, Applejuice, 2008
76
See http://www.coalfields-regen.org.uk/, accessed 12.07.2008
Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

19

Farfield Mill Heritage Centre has also succeeded in using traditional skills, in this case textile
working on the original Dobcross looms, as a way to extend the education of the local
community, and further hopes to use this training to create a business around the wool
products that are manufactured. According to an evaluation of the Centre by nef and Burns
Collett, the provision of training and education within Farfield Mill having heritage at its
centre has drawn the local community closer to the resource, and given them opportunities
previously unavailable in the area
77

Large area based regeneration projects are also well placed to offer skills and training
initiatives which may result in a change of life for participants. The regeneration of Grainger
Town in Newcastle incorporated initiatives centred on construction skills for young people
and unemployed in throughout Newcastle
78
. Unfortunately there is no measurement of how
this affected participants. In this case evaluation would have needed to be cross-city, not
only in the project area, which is difficult to achieve where funds are necessarily directed at
issues within the project area. In addition, evaluation must be long term; it will be impossible
to judge the results of these schemes in any measurable way for years to come. Currently,
anecdotal evidence suggests that the provision of training opportunities does raise
expectations of attainment in those who participate, but it may be that real social impact will
not come for one or two generations to come.
Most basically, the regeneration of historic buildings can provide space for educational
resources, be they based around the heritage which contains them, wider local history, or
subject specific and unrelated to heritage. The preference for community access in heritage
buildings to satisfy funding requirements is evident in the Heritage Lottery Fund publication
New Life, which contains 66 case studies, 25 of which contain educational facilities of some
sort
79
. These facilities provide an added value to heritage led-regeneration, with the greater
educational opportunities available resulting in a change in educational achievement
amongst local people.

77
Farfield Mill: A social return on investment pilot analysis, nef/Burns Collett, 2008
78
Been there, done that: Grainger Town 1997-2003, Newcastle Grainger Town Partnership Ltd, 2004
79
Ed. Catling, C, New Life: Heritage and Regeneration, Heritage Lottery Fund 2004
Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

20

Case Studies
Regenerating aspirations: Victoria Baths, Manchester 
Victoria Baths in Manchester is a Grade II* listed building which closed in 1993 and then fell
into disrepair. In its heyday, the Baths housed a laundry, private baths, swimming pools and
Turkish baths, as well as an Aeratone (jacuzzi) installed in 1952. The building was a public
facility, giving the local community the means to keeping clean and healthy. Although
disused for so many years, the Baths are still intact, and are the subject of a regeneration
project led by the Manchester Victoria Baths Trust. Restoration work is progressing,
alongside educational and arts initiatives and plans to involve the community in the reuse of
the building.
An important part of the regeneration process at Victoria Baths is the development of
accessibility to the baths for the community. The Trust have produced an evaluation of
access to the Baths in response to a commission by English Heritage, entitled Whose
Building is it Anyway?: Widening access to heritage sites. The report summarises the results
of a number of projects that have been targeted at ‘hard to reach’ groups including children
and young people, BME communities and disabled people, improving social inclusion for
these groups through the regeneration of the building. To give a context for the work, Whose
Building is it Anyway? notes that “Victoria Baths is situated in a very multi-cultural and
deprived inner city community in the Ardwick ward of Manchester. Local residents have
been instrumental in raising the profile of the building, providing public access and securing
funds for the first stage of its restoration”
80
. However, the core audience for the general
Open Days at Victoria Baths is white and middle aged or older; not a true reflection of the
community around the site. The concern then is to involve the local community by creating
greater participation in the regeneration, thus providing a focus for community cohesion, and
increasing awareness of heritage and the opportunities it can bring.
Projects aimed at young people through schools and educational initiatives were evaluated
in the report, and included heritage skills days as well as other creative activities based
around the building. Evaluation was undertaken by the collection of responses from
participants; the success of the projects is measured in terms of the feeling of the young
people taking part. For example, participants in the Whispered Histories activity learnt “that I
can be creative & have more confidence”, “that if I try hard I will succeed”, with one young
person saying, “when I go home I want to do something for the community”. These
comments give anecdotal evidence of benefit, but are also meaningful in terms of evaluating
the benefit of regeneration as they may be the first sign of beneficial change. The report
provides a baseline for further evaluation, and in the future will allow determination of
whether a successful heritage project does have a long term social benefit to the community.

80
Whose Building is it Anyway?: Widening access to heritage sites, Manchester Victoria Baths Trust, 2008
Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

21


Combining Social and Historic Building Needs: Hearth 
Hearth consists of two charities, a housing association (HA) and a building preservation trust
(BPT). The HA works with historic buildings exclusively, but what it is doing is essentially
providing social housing, offering a choice denied to most tenants of social housing -
whether they would like to live in an old building as opposed to a new or comparatively
recent one. The BPT also provides some houses for rent which are generally allocated with
social needs in mind. A survey of tenants showed that 80% preferred to live in an old,
regenerated house to a new one.
Hearth does not undertaken specific evaluation of the social benefits of its regeneration
projects, feeling that its provision of social housing provides self-evident benefits through
retaining local built environment and identity and education. However, through anecdotal
evidence the organisation knows that its small projects can make contribute to a big
difference, and give confidence to the local community.
Projects in Armargh and Belfast undertaken by Hearth are examples of heritage-led
regeneration creating social inclusion and greater pride in place. At Hamilton Street in
Belfast Hearth provided the first owner-occupied houses in the city centre for many years, in
an atmosphere of bombing and intense crime and vandalism. Critical to this project was the
need to include suspicious residents, and to ensure that the community was not broken up in
the spirit if ‘gentrification’. A discount system for local residents has resulted in a desirable,
mixed area, and has increased the self-belief of the community in their surroundings.
Similarly in Armagh, Whaley's Buildings were roofless and very derelict in the early 1990s,
lying in an area highly decorated with slogans, tricolours and even the occasional black flag.
There was little pride in the area amongst locals. Following Hearth’s regeneration of the
buildings, values have risen both in terms of property and social capital, with the now mixed
community taking great pride in their built environment. In these areas it is true that other
regeneration schemes and political changes have had a wide impact on social issues;
however, the Hearth projects have made a difference on a local level, and contributed to the
overall change in fortunes of Belfast and Armargh.
Hearth has undertaken the restoration of buildings in parks, and sees the revitalisation and
use of park houses as a factor in greater park safety and therefore park use. These
restoration projects have impacts then on both crime and health. At Wallace Park in Lisburn
two lodges have been restored, which alongside the work of the local residents to secure
safety features and greater police presence, has resulted in a perceived decline in agression
and vandalism. Crime statistics for the whole of Lisburn show a decrease in crime from
2006/07 to 2007/08 of 17.5%
81
, towards which the Wallace Park regeneration may have
contributed. Now the park is seen as a safer place to be, increasing the usable green space
of the area and therefore impacting on the health of residents.

81
Statistics of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Annual Statistical Report, 2008
Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

22


Establishing a baseline: Cadw Community Profiles 
Recognising the need for evaluation of the impacts of heritage on a community, Cadw have
commissioned a series of Community Profiles in order to set a baseline against which to
measure progress. The profiles are of communities around monuments cared for by the
Welsh Assembly Government through Cadw, and aim to highlight issues to be addressed in
the future. Each profile identifies community priorities and problems. Amongst the issues
highlighted so far are instances of vandalism and antisocial behaviour, and also the
presence of community participation.
It is clear that heritage is seen to be both beneficial and detrimental, depending on area and
circumstance. It is interesting to note that there is a general sense of community ownership
of the heritage, an indication of how heritage regeneration could benefit inclusion and
community cohesion through participation. This is certainly the case at Flint Castle
82
,
although here there are problems associated with antisocial behaviour, chiefly underage
drinking and litter. However, the perception amongst the local community is that these issues
are best addressed by wider regeneration of Flint Town, which is the subject of such
schemes, including a Townscape Heritage Initiative. Neath Abbey
83
also suffers from
antisocial behaviour. In both examples, it was felt that increased maintenance, security and
Cadw presence could improve the problem – a sign that living, well used heritage areas may
have beneficial social impacts.
Further to the baseline data gathered from the communities around each site, the profiles
establish a baseline for the town or locality in terms of demographic, health, crime, economic
activity and deprivation, amongst other indicators. This data will in the future provide a series
of figures against which to measure the results of heritage projects or regeneration. This
material is essential to enable meaningful long term evaluation, and should be the first stage
of all evaluation programmes.

82
Dr Collins, S and Begum, H, Flint Castle Community Profile, Evidence Base Ltd 2008
83
Dr Collins, S and Begum, H, Neath Abbey Community Profile, Evidence Base Ltd 2007
Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

23


Anti­ASBO: Engine House, Dowlais 
The Engine House was built as to serve the Merthyr Tydfill iron industry in 1905, during a
time of technological advancement in the area from which 188,000 tons of iron rails were
exported all over the world every year. The decline in industry saw new uses for the Engine
House, including car sales and haulage depot, and until 2000 a chocolate factory made use
of the building. When they moved it, it was necessary to find a new guise for the building,
and this came from a Boys and Girls Club active within the Dowlais community.
Local people fought to secure the lease of the building and to raise the funds needed to
transform the building into a centre of sporting and cultural pursuits. The centre, now
completed following a spend of one million pounds, provides five full time and five part time
jobs, 23 sporting competitive teams, a computer room, projection and music facilities, and a
cafe. The building is used by 550 young people and 24 different local organisations,
including a Youth Club with 187 members on Friday and Saturday Nights.
The social benefit of the regeneration of this building is three-fold. At a basic level, the
project has provided a safe and vibrant place for a community to gather and enjoy; a much
needed amenity in an area of post-industrial deprivation. As Paul Marshallsea, Project
Coordinator of the Engine House, says, “the forgotten words ‘community spirit’ were never
dead, they were only sleeping and wanted a nudge to wake them up”; the community has
rallied round the focus provided by their industrial heritage in this case. He sees the
regeneration of the Engine house as of vast importance to the futures of young people in
Dowlais, and another benefit that the project has is the provision of hope to the local young
people through new opportunities and education. In addition, the Engine House project is
already making a significant difference to local crime, with Anti-Social Behaviour down by
80% since the project opened according to police statistics. It is clear that the combination of
local heritage and a meaningful project have in Dowlais had social impacts measurable both
statistically and in the perceptions of the community.
Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

24


Bright future: Jewellery Quarter, Birmingham 
Birmingham’s J ewellery Quarter was in the 19th century a thriving hub of the jewellers’ craft,
home to the Birmingham Mint and giving employment to over 30,000 people at its busiest.
The trade suffered during the post-war period of austerity and with the threat of cheap
imports consequently buildings fell into disrepair as businesses closed or downsized and
numbers in employment dropped to around 4000. Regeneration of the J ewellery Quarter
began in earnest in the 1990s. The J ewellery Quarter Regeneration Partnership (J QRP) has
been working to secure the future of the area for many years, with the first phase of their
project established in an Urban Village Framework Plan in 2000. More recently, the
J ewellery Quarter Regeneration Charter was adopted in 2004; this has since been updated
in 2008 to provide a current set of objectives for the project.
One of these strategic objectives is to establish a ‘sustainable community – involvement of
the local residential and business communities from grass roots’. Alongside the burgeoning
business community, mainly jewellers and creative and media industry, around 3000 people
reside in the area, mostly young professionals in privately owned homes. So, there are in
effect two communities, both of which are affected by the regeneration of the area.
The extent of the impact of the regeneration on these communities has not been fully
evaluated in a paper exercise, although regular meetings of the various constituent groups
give anecdotal evidence, and a steer to the authorities undertaking the work. Andy Munro,
Director of the J QRP, cites the high cost of meaningful evaluation of social impacts as a
primary reason why none has been attempted for this project, although the J QRP recognises
the benefits of need for such evaluation and intends to develop some appropriate
measurements. However, this evaluation will have to take the views and agendas of the
different groups living and working within the Quarter into account, ensuring particularly that
the J ewellery industry is not adversely impacted and giving weight to each set of perceptions
of the social impacts of the regeneration work.
It is also seen as necessary for this evaluation to take full account of circumstances across
Birmingham and nationally. For instance, Birmingham has been the subject of a wide range
of regeneration schemes in recent years, including the Bull Ring and Brindley Place areas.
The success of the J ewellery Quarter regeneration may have a knock on effect on the wider
area, taken as part of this wider context. This makes evaluation of social benefits even more
difficult; should the impact be measured only locally, or for the whole of Birmingham? The
J QRP has much to consider when designing their evaluation programme.
For example, the crime rate in the Quarter has been reduced by 7% within the last two years
according to West Midland Police statistics; however, the reduction has been 11%
throughout the West Midlands, so is the drop in crime due to regeneration, or a wider trend?
Further interrogation of crime figures shows that although figures for robbery and criminal
damage have fallen substantially (27%), the rates of crimes such as assault and wounding
have fallen by only 3%. Do residents and those who work in the area feel safer? Often it is
the perceptions of local communities which are the key factors in the evaluation of
regeneration, and in the success of the project into the future.
Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

25


Building Community Confidence: Cabbagetown, Toronto 
The Cabbagetown area of Toronto was named for the Irish settler’s practice of growing
cabbages in their front gardens after they made homes there in the 1840s. The area
declined over the early and mid 20
th
century, and was widely regarded as a slum. However,
the Victorian buildings were preserved, probably due to the long period of economic
inactivity in the area, and in the late 1970s and 1980s Toronto residents ‘rediscovered’ an
area of heritage and housing stock ripe for regeneration. The regeneration process here has
been very gradual, and is ongoing, but as Stephen Yeates of the Cabbagetown Preservation
Association
84
points out there has been no “homogenous gentrification” in Cabbagetown,
which has led to a mixed income, culturally vibrant area of the city.
The mixed population of Cabbagetown, which includes a high concentration of facilities and
shelters catering for the homeless or addicted, have created mixed perceptions of the level
of crime in the area. Crime is seen to be driven by poverty, addiction and mental health
issues, and therefore the everyday evidence of these issues lead to the assumption that
crime levels must be high. Indeed, perceptions of community safety in the main street of
Cabbagetown, Parliament Street, point to crimes such as begging (or panhandling) to be the
major problem in the area
85
. However, such crimes are often unreported, whilst having the
greatest impact on the community. In fact, according to the crime statistics of the 51
st

Division of the Toronto Police Service, crime figures for Cabbagetown and surrounding
areas have dropped by 18.9% from 2007 to 2008
86
. Of these reported crimes, theft is the
biggest problem, whilst instances of assault and violent crime are low. As Stephen Yeates
notes, the use and population of what was once a very run down area has resulted in
constant foot fall in the streets, making Cabbagetown a generally safer place to be.
The gradual regeneration has also benefitted the community, with a mix of “every possible
combination of race, gender assignment and lifestyle that exists downtown”, and a resultant
high level of tolerance and participation. Cabbagetown residents can take part in a range of
activities, from the Cabbagetown Festival, the Youth Groups and Film Festival to heritage
days and tours. There is a true community here which has at its heart the future of
Cabbagetown and its heritage, people who have chosen to become a part of the area and
work towards its regeneration. Success has come not from forced social and economic
change, but through the use of assets to make Cabbagetown attractive, lively and safe.

84
Website of the Cabbagetown Preservation Society: http://www.cabbagetownpa.ca/index.html, accessed
28.07.2008
85
Results of survey undertaken by the Don Vale and Cabbagetown Residents Association in 2007,
http://www.donvalecra.ca/index_files/ParliamentSurvey.htm, accessed 14.08.2008
86
http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/d51/neighbourhoods.php, accessed 28.07.2008
Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

26

A Safer Place to Be: Wilton’s Music Hall 
Grade II* listed Wilton’s is the world’s oldest and last surviving grand music hall, built in 1858
to provide entertainment in London’s East End. The building comprises a terrace of
Georgian houses including the original pub and the music hall which is built across the back
yards of the houses. In 1888 the music hall closed, and the building was taken over by the
East End Methodist Mission until in 1956 it became a rag warehouse. Since that time it has
been owned by the Greater London Council and the London Music Halls Trust, but gradual
deterioration left Wilton’s in a semi derelict state. In 2004 the Wilton’s Music Hall Trust
(WMHT) was formed, and they have undertaken to open the building to the public, both for
entertainment and as a community resource.
Situated down an alleyway next to a large hostel for the homeless and amongst large areas
of social housing, Wilton’s has over the years been a target for vandalism and anti-social
behaviour, particularly intimidating groups loitering, and drug dealing and use in the
alleyway. The WMHT was galvanized into addressing this problem when, shortly after they
took over the building, Director Frances Mayhew narrowly missed injury when vandals threw
a brick through a window. As she says, “we quickly realised that to achieve success at
Wilton’s we had to tackle the problem of anti-social behaviour and become involved with the
community”.
WMHT have used the building to communicate with local people, and have found that now
the community realises the amazing resource in their area, they are incredibly supportive.
Through projects targeted at local children, and cinema screenings for local groups such as
mothers and toddlers, old people, and teenagers, the community around Wilton’s have
realised that they are welcome at the building, and now take pride in its existence. The
association of the building with the rich and famous (Princes Harry and William have visited
the building) has added to the feeling that Wilton’s makes this area of the East End a great
place to live. As a result, vandalism and antisocial behaviour around the building has
dropped significantly, and France Mayhew believes that young people will grow up knowing
and loving Wilton’s, sustaining local pride and ensuring a safe future.
In addition, WMHT have forged links with the police. In 2004, the alleyway where Wilton’s is
located was not on the police beat, and it was difficult to convince them that it should be. A
group of local supporters wrote to the police confirming that the alley was a target for
antisocial behaviour and in 2006 WMHT became a member of the Neighbourhood Watch
Scheme. Now the building is on the police beat, and in fact the Trust are able provide
information to the police regarding night time criminal activities, as they are the only local
venue operating at night.
The progress of crime reduction at Wilton’s is monitored by the WMHT in a diary, and
observations are integrated into regular reports to the Trustees. In this way the Trust has the
evidence to show how much crime and antisocial behaviour has fallen in the vicinity of the
building, and the knowledge of what measures have caused this reduction. It is clear in this
case that a combination of links with the community and the police, and the use of a building
which local people can be proud of, has made the Wilton’s regeneration successful in
addressing social issues.
Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

27


Capturing the Intangible: Highland Building Preservation Trust 
The Highland Building Preservation Trust (HBPT) is a charity which regenerates buildings
that have fallen into disrepair, and are beyond the capability of the private sector to restore.
It terms itself a ‘restorer of last resort’, and often tackles buildings that lie at the heart of
small rural communities. The HBPT used to operate as a revolving fund trust, selling on
regenerated buildings when completed with receipts then being used for the next project.
The Trust is now increasingly acting as a charitable consultant to smaller, non staffed trusts
within the Highlands and Islands, assisting them with the management and delivery of
projects and building capacity in the sector.
Due to the nature of this type of organisation, which has to pass on their buildings into
different ownership as soon as a project reaches its conclusion, evaluation of the results of
projects is very difficult to undertake. Limited resources exacerbate the problem, and tend to
impede activities such as this which are outside the requirements of a funding grant. For
example, the Heritage Lottery Fund require evidence that project objectives have been
achieved, but do not seek appraisal of social benefits beyond what can be offered in terms of
making a building accessible to the public. Where assessment is sought, it will usually be of
the socio-economic impacts of the project, in terms of visitor numbers, economic
opportunities created through tourism and job creation.
Mia Scott of the HBPT points out that such a focus on the economic / access impacts puts
small, rural revolving fund trusts at a great disadvantage when seeking funding. Too often,
rural projects will not meet funding objectives such as job creation or accessibility,
prejudicing funders towards urban projects which can deliver more tangible outputs. For
example, a small rural agricultural community of 50 individuals may have a Grade A listed
building which has fallen into disrepair. It is unlikely that this number of people can support a
community use; similarly, the village would be under severe pressure should it be the focus
of increased tourism. Residential use often remains as the only long-term, viable use, but
this is not acceptable to many funding bodies because of the lack of physical access to the
completed project for the general public. HBPT have been refused funding on just these
grounds.
What is sometimes forgotten by funders with a requirement for quick figures showing impact
is the great significance of the buildings themselves, and the intangible social impact their
regeneration can have on a community. Mia Scott describes the ‘emotional impact’ of the
HBPT projects, which have touched the communities which surround buildings in a
meaningful way, providing a focus for civic pride, and unleashing a wellspring of stories,
memories and feelings which strengthen the connection between the population and their
environment. As well as the instant recognition that a used building is not such an easy
target for vandals and other anti-social behaviour, communities are encouraged by a
successful restoration. When the regeneration of 58-59 High Street, Ardersier was
completed, local people commented that it was simply good to ‘see the lights go on’, and
know that families had a home. The effects of a BPT investing in a community, that has
hitherto not been valued for its built heritage, cannot be underestimated in terms of the
increase in confidence and civic pride. Likewise, Townlands Barn, Cromarty (actually a small
Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

28

laird’s house) is seen as ‘the last bad tooth in a smile’ by the community, who look forward to
its reuse and rejuvenation as a family home.
Finally, the conversion of the Sail Loft in Stornoway has given new found confidence to a
community who had always assumed that the outside perception of their town as lacking in
any architectural merit was correct. The completed project has provided a building to be
proud of, and creative activities around the restoration work, including story-telling evenings,
have again given the local people a new sense of identification and connection with their
historic built environment. The Sail Loft project has also kick-started further regeneration
across Stornoway, with repairs being undertaken to neighbouring buildings and
environmental improvements to the harbour area in progress. Although these impacts on the
community cannot be easily quantified, in a rural area they can be of far greater significance
and more achievable than economic impacts, and this fact should be taken into account to
ensure adequate funding enables the future regeneration of rural buildings
Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

29

Community to the Fore: Castleford Heritage Trust 
Castleford is a former pit town in West Yorkshire, which in the past was dominated by mining
which provided employment and prosperity, alongside a successful pottery industry. With the
closure of the pits came the decline of Castleford, and over time most vestiges of its heritage
have disappeared, either “sold off, knocked down, covered over or taken away”
87
. The late
twentieth century saw Castleford down at heel and down at heart, with parts of town in the
top 5% of deprived areas in Britain. The general perception was that nothing good would
come to Castleford.
In spite of this there continued to be a strong community spirit in Castleford, and in the year
2000 the people of Castleford voiced their desire to reclaim and celebrate their rich heritage,
using it to achieve regeneration. Following a public meeting which attracted over 400
residents, the Castleford Heritage Group was formed as an umbrella organisation combining
representatives from other groups in the town with an interest in heritage and culture.
Initially, the Heritage Group hoped to restore the empty Market Hall and Library to hold a
gallery, museum and community resource which would celebrate Castleford’s cultural
heritage. In 2001 a Feasibility Study was undertaken in close liaison with the community.
This resulted in the Castleford Forum project, and in the engagement of a Community
Facilitator to refine the community’s vision for the project through extensive consultation.
From this, other projects were identified as important to the community, new groups formed,
and new events initiated. Examples include the Festival, incorporating a traditional maypole
dance, and the Maypole Group which has given deprived local children the opportunity to
learn about dance, traditions and heritage. Many of the projects undertaken by the Heritage
Group and their counterparts the Town Centre Partnership were supported by Channel 4 in
their ‘Big Town Plan’, and publicised on television in 2008.
Alison Drake of the Heritage Trust is convinced that Castleford would not have attracted the
Big Town Plan, or any other support, had it not been for the persistence and enthusiasm of
the local community. They have pulled together to help deliver regeneration in the town,
much of it with a heritage element, creating a variety of projects that attract the young such
as the CHYPS (Castleford Heritage Young People), that educate and inspire such as the
gallery at Sagar Street, and that create a focal point for community pride. This last has been
an important benefit of the regeneration work, and projects such as the new footbridge have
improved both physical connections within the town and connections between people as
they use the new facilities. One local couple even have a framed photograph of the bridge in
their living room.
Castelford is a model of a community which has successfully taken the lead in its own
regeneration, using partnership opportunities and consultation to create true community
cohesion in the town. The sense of ownership and pride shared by the community, coupled
with the opportunities that regeneration has provided, have had a clear beneficial impact on
social issues, and although there has been no statistical evaluation due to lack of capacity
within the Trust, the stories of local residents and experience of the Heritage Trust provide
the evidence.


87
http://www.castlefordheritagetrust.org.uk/, accessed on 14.10.2008
Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

30

Gaps in information
Lack of Evaluation 
There is a distinct lack of quantitative evaluation concerning social impacts as identified in
this report, throughout not only heritage-led regeneration projects, but also more general
built environment regeneration and development projects. Four reasons for this situation
predominate: there has been no requirement for such evaluation; the benefits have been
seen as self-evident; evaluation of social impacts has not been seen as particularly relevant;
and there have been few resources to undertake such evaluation.
The lack of requirement for social impact evaluation has stemmed from a focus on the
economic impacts of regeneration, mainly concentrated on market value, job creation and
the desirability of the area for business as shown in the Heritage Dividend Methodology. In
many documents concerning these economic impacts, the social impacts are mentioned as
indirect benefits of the main objectives. However, this report has shown that without the
direct assessment of social impacts no assumptions should be made about these impacts,
as complicated variables could have unforeseen effects, or indeed very little effect.
Resources for evaluation are problematic for small organisations undertaking heritage-led
regeneration, as long term quantitative analysis requires substantial staff time and therefore
funding. The need for evaluation to take place over a number of years, especially in the case
of measuring crime, health and education, can also discourage groups who dispose of the
buildings they regenerate on completion of the project, and start on the next; these
organisations are unlikely to evaluate a past project.
Limitations of Evidence 
Although anecdotal evidence of social impacts is more prevalent than statistical evidence, it
is by no means consistently available across all sizes of project and type of organisation.
Whereas quantitative evaluation is more likely to take place where there are staff and
resources to undertake it, anecdotal evidence is available from smaller organisations, often
local or charitable groups. In itself, anecdotal evidence must be qualified as it is the opinion
of one or more people who may have particular outlooks or agendas. This can also be true
of evaluation itself, as The Heritage Dividend Methodology proves; this particular evaluation
was designed to give a ‘good news message’, and therefore limits the evidence used to
further this goal
88
.
Although anecdotal evidence is not always sufficient to judge the impact of a project, it can
be meaningful in gauging the perceptions of a community. Larger organisations, such as
local authorities or regeneration companies who are more concentrated on the measurable
and often economic outcomes of a project, can be less able to utilise this evidence source,
depending on how engaged they are with the community.
Where survey is the method used to evaluate project outcomes, it is necessary to note that
unless measurement of the social impacts is an objective of the survey, the questions asked
may give a false impression of the extent of change, be it an underestimation due to the
social impacts not being taken into account, or exaggeration due to the assumptions made
on the evidence of socio-economic change.
Finally, in the case of many heritage-led regeneration schemes, there has simply not been
enough time from the completion of the project to the present day to allow measure long
term social impacts. For each social impact to take effect there must be time for the

88
The Heritage Dividend Methodology, Urban Practitioners for English Heritage, 2004
Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

31

determinants of social change to have their own impact. Therefore, the lack of information
cannot be taken as evidence that there is no positive social impact of heritage-led
regeneration, rather that more evidence must be sought from evaluation of current and
future projects to supplement the already strong anecdotal evidence that this is the case.
Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

32

Future Work
The Need for Further Evaluation 
This report has established a need for further evaluation of the social impacts of heritage-led
regeneration across the varying types and sizes of projects, to form a solid base of evidence
which will quantify the value of the historic built environment to those involved in
regeneration, including funders, managers and the local communities at the heart of
regeneration projects.
This study does not attempt to formulate a methodology for the future evaluation of social
impacts. However, several basic steps towards such a methodology arise from the evidence
of heritage-led regeneration projects and those from the wider built environment. The first is
the establishment of a clear baseline such as the Cadw Community Profiles, which to be
effective must be detailed and provide figures and facts against which to measure the results
of future evaluation. The second is the examination of other variables, such as trends in
crime and health in an area wider than the regeneration area, and the possible effects of
other regeneration or development schemes. The third is the determination of a realistic
timescale over which to conduct the evaluation, for instance at five, ten, or fifteen years.
There are projects beginning now, including the regeneration of Gloucester led by the
Gloucester Urban Regeneration Company, which have made arrangements for this
evaluation through establishment of a factual baseline; in ten or fifteen years, or perhaps
longer, the fruits of their studies will show more clearly the social impacts of regeneration.
The setting of these foundations is essential to gain meaningful data about social impacts,
and even then any evidence is likely to be qualified by variables, as has been shown in other
studies. It is also important not to underestimate the power of public perception; it may be
that statistics do not bear out the results of qualitative evaluation, perhaps due to those
perceptions not having had time to reverse patterns of decline or deprivation. It is likely that
the true results of regeneration programmes will not be plain for one or two generations to
come.
However, it is important to remember the value of anecdotal evidence, and in some cases
such as the work of the smaller rural building preservation trusts such as the Highland BPT,
this word of mouth approbation provides enough evidence to gauge the success or
otherwise of a project in impacting upon social issues. Indeed, if heritage-led regeneration
has the power to make people ‘feel better’, then it is likely that it is already providing a
beneficial social impact judging by the evidence provided by other sectors.

Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

33

Conclusions
Summary of Findings 
The available evidence discussed in this study clearly indicates that heritage-led
regeneration can influence on social issues such as crime, health, education and particularly
social capital. The case studies strongly suggest that the impacts on a community can be
significant; largely it seems through a ‘knock on’ effect of inclusion and participation on the
other signifiers of wellbeing. The case studies, and other anecdotal evidence, provide
knowledge that heritage is making a difference to peoples’ lives. However, because of the
lack of quantitative evidence in the field of heritage, and the dearth of published evaluation,
the results of this examination of the evidence base are mixed. It has been necessary to look
at the impacts of other built environment and regeneration methods, and take from this a
model to fit the pattern of heritage-led regeneration using extant material from the heritage
sector to determine how far this evidence is relevant, and if heritage fits the mould.
It has transpired that many assumptions that have been made about the positive benefits of
the historic built environment on social issues are not substantiated by wider evidence,
although this should not lead in turn to the assumption that there is no benefit. Taking
heritage as a part of wider culture, the social benefit resulting from art and cultural projects
give positive evidence that heritage can make a difference, but even here studies admit that
further evaluation is necessary as there is little quantitative evidence in the sector. More
encouraging are the assertions of Natural England in terms of the natural environment and
health, which are based on statistical fact, and while it must be admitted that the qualities of
the natural environment are often very different to those of the built environment, there are
elements such as the tradition and encouragement of pedestrian movement in historic areas,
and the importance of open space in historic planning, which begin to show how heritage
could be making a social impact. At present the findings of many more relevant studies are
based on theory rather than practice, and therefore we cannot judge heritage impacts
against other environmental sectors. That being said, the effect of a good quality built
environment, including the historic, should not be underestimated.
It is clear that the impacts of heritage led-regeneration on social issues have not been
consistently evaluated across all projects, and that evaluation has depended on availability
of resources and the type of organisation undertaking or funding regeneration; much of the
existing evaluation appears to have been instigated by English Heritage and the Heritage
Lottery Fund, probably the two biggest funders of heritage-led regeneration in Britain. This
means that it is not possible at this time to make a statistical judgement of the impacts of
regeneration in social capital, crime, health or education, beyond assumptions based on
information gathered from the evaluation of socio-economic impacts and the impacts that the
economic determinant can produce. The fact that funders are producing some evaluation of
social impacts is encouraging, and may lead to further and wider evaluation across the
heritage sector in the future.
This being the case, the anecdotal evidence gleaned from projects is the best evaluation we
have at present of heritage led-regeneration and its impacts on social issues. This evidence
is often relied upon as a means of verifying successful achievement of objectives, and for
smaller and rural projects, where resources are few, the opinions and comments of the local
community are of great significance in determining success where the economic results of a
project are irrelevant or less obvious. With larger projects, the evidence of participation,
through volunteering or education, is also a way to exhibit the social value of the
regeneration. The significance of this anecdotal evidence is far too easy to ignore, but is in
fact a great indicator of social benefit as regarded by the communities and individuals
targeted by regeneration. After all, the improvement of these ‘disadvantaged people or
places’ is the key outcome of heritage-led regeneration.
Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

34

It is in this way that the most meaningful evidence has been shown of the impacts of
heritage-led regeneration on communities, particularly in projects focused on a single
building or small area. These projects tend to be more active in creating links with a
community, and therefore go a long way towards boosting civic pride and changing the way
people feel about the place they live or work in, and therefore their own lives and aspirations.
Examples from the Highlands BPT and Wilton’s Music Hall in particular show how successful
community engagement will generate interest and ultimately result in a successful
regeneration project. The fact that evidence is anecdotal should not be seen as detrimental
to its credibility; such evidence taken from a smaller group of people can be a true reflection
of the feelings and experiences of a community.
The need for an established baseline at the beginning of a project, and the necessity of long
term evaluation is common across the possible social impacts. It is only in this way that
quantitative evidence can be procured. To achieve this, resources in terms of funding and
expertise must be provided to establish programme of evaluation. At present, it would be
difficult for time and cash poor heritage organisations to evaluate their projects beyond what
is already available from anecdotal evidence. However, if the sector is to show that it can
and does make a significant difference to people’s lives through regeneration so justifying
future funding and support, this evidence is an essential tool. The methods for applying this
evaluation must depend on the nature and objectives of the project; in the mean time, those
involved must continue to gather anecdotal evidence to highlight the good that heritage-led
regeneration can achieve.
Summary Recommendations  
Further work is needed to firmly establish the social impacts of heritage-led regeneration,
and to determine the best methods and practices for future evaluation. Therefore,
recommendations are made here to guide the first stages of activity in this direction.
1. There is recognition of the social benefits of regeneration in recent policy; therefore
the heritage sector must answer that interest by providing evidence of the social
impacts of heritage-led regeneration to ensure future support and funding.
2. Further in-depth examination of the evidence base, evaluating the known and
assumed benefits of a wide range of completed heritage-led regeneration projects
and enabling a greater understanding of what is required of project teams, assessors
and funders to achieve consistent evaluation.
3. Current regeneration projects, such as Gloucester, should be used as pilot schemes
to establish preferred methodologies, give solid factual case studies, and to
determine the realities of undertaking such evaluation.
4. Existing longitudinal evaluation, such as that undertaken by Oxford Brookes for the
Heritage Lottery Fund concerning the Townscape Heritage Initiatives, should be
maintained and shared, as this is the most significant evaluation of heritage-led
regeneration in print to date, provides method and best practice for future work, and
will continue to provide important and possibly changing evidence.
5. The well documented impacts of heritage-led regeneration in terms of community
cohesion and the benefits this brings should be celebrated, and the importance of
these factors built into future funding evaluation requirements alongside the existing
economic deliverables.
Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

35

Bibliography
An exploratory assessment of the economic case for regeneration investment from a
national perspective, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2006

A New Commitment to Neighbourhood Renewal: A National Strategy Action Plan,
Department of Communities and Local Government, 2001

Athey, G., M. Nathan and C. Webber. Cities and Innovation Project: What role do cities play
in innovation, and to what extent do we need city-based innovation policies and
approaches? Centre for Cities, London, 2007.

Been there, done that: Grainger Town 1997-2003, Newcastle Grainger Town Partnership
Ltd, 2004

Bennett, J . and M. Nathan. Who would live in a house like this? IPPR, London, 2006.

Beresford, P. and M. Hoban. Participation in anti-poverty and regeneration work and
research: Overcoming barriers and creating opportunities. J oseph Rowntree Foundation,
York 2005.

Borman, T, Bringing History to Life, a paper given at the conference ‘History in British
Education’, 2005

Building Health: Creating and enhancing places for healthy, active lives: What needs to be
done? National Heart Forum and CABE, Living Streets Campaign, 2007

Burns Owen Partnership. New Directions in Social Policy: developing the evidence base for
museums, libraries and archives in England. MLA/Burns Owens Partnership, London, 2005.

Cadell, C, Falk, N, King, F, Regeneration in European Cities, Making Connections, J ospeh
Rowntree Foundation 2008

Capital Values: The Contribution of the Historic Environment in London, English Heritage,
2008

Carley, M., K. Kirk and S. McIntosh. Retailing, sustainability and neighbourhood
regeneration. J oseph Rowntree Foundation, York 2001

Ed. Catling, C, Homes with History, English Heritage, Housing Corporation and Institute of
Field Archaeologists, 2003

Ed. Catling, C, New Life: Heritage and Regeneration, Heritage Lottery Fund 2004

Cave, B and Curtis, S, Health Impact Assessment for Regeneration Projects, Vol III:
Principles, East London and the City Health Action Zone, 2001

City Markets. IPPR, London

Collins, S and Begum, H, Flint Castle Community Profile, Evidence Base Ltd 2008

Collins, S and Begum, H, Neath Abbey Community Profile, Evidence Base Ltd 2007

Commission on Sustainable Developement in the S/E. Final report: executive summary.
IPPR, London.
Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

36


Cowling, J amie, ed. For Art's Sake: The Arts in the 21st century. IPPR, London 2004

Crime displacement in King’s Cross, Centre for Social and Evaluation Research at the
London Metropolitan University for London Borough of Camden, 2006

Cullen, F. Inherit / Stages of Heritage-led regeneration. Newcastle City Council, Newcastle,
2006.

Culture at the Heart of Regeneration: A consultation document, DCMS, 2004

Culture and Health – Building the Evidence, Northwest Culture Observatory, 2006


Cutts, G. Culture at the Heart of Regeneration. DCMS, London 2004.

Delivering Housing and Regeneration: Communities England and the future of social
housing regulation, DCLG Forward 2007

Ed. Delorenzi, S, Going Places: Neighbourhood, Ethnicity and Social Mobility, Introduction,
IPPR 2006

Does Money Grow on Trees? CABE 2005

Economic Regeneration – A Guide to National and Local Indicators, National Audit Office,
2006

Economic Social and cultural impact assessment of heritage in the north east.
ARUP/NEHEF, London 2005

Ecotherapy: The green agenda for mental health, MIND Week Report, MIND 2007

Evidence Sheet 4: Communities and the natural Environment, Natural England, 2007

Evidence Sheet 2: Mental Health and the Natural Environment, Natural England, 2007

Farfield Mill: A social return on investment pilot analysis, nef/Burns Collett, 2008

Government Guidance on Public Sector Assistance for Community Regeneration,
Department for Communities and Local Government, 2005

Hayes, H. and A. Rifkin. New Life: Heritage and regeneration. HLF, London

Hancock, L, Urban Regeneration, and Crime reduction, contradictions and dilemmas in
Matthews, R and Young, J , The New Politics of Crime and Punishment, Willian 2003

Healthy Places – Towards a Mentally Flourishing Scotland, Report of workshop held 17th
March 2008, Built Environment Forum Scotland

Heritage Dividend Methodology, Urban Practitioners for English Heritage, 2004

Heritage Works, Drivers J onas for English Heritage, British Property Federation and Royal
Institute of Chartered Surveyors 2006

Indices of Multiple Deprivation, ODPM 2004
Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

37


Keaney, E. Art, Heritage and Civil Renewal: Do we have the right policies? IPPR, London,
2005.

Keaney, E. From Access to Participation: Cultural Policy and Civil Renewal Renewal. IPPR,
London 2007

Kitchen, T and Schneider, R, Planning for Crime Prevention, A Transatlantic perspective,
Routledge, 2002

Learning and the National Trust, National Trust

Learning from Experience:The BURA Guide to Achieving Effective and Lasting
Regeneration, BURA, 2002

Locker, B, How We Do It: The scale and scope of voluntary organisations in the heritage
sector, Heritage Link 2006

Loveday, M. Heritage Led regeneration. HEART, Norwich 2008

Low Demand Housing. EH, London 2005

Lupton, R, How does place affect education? IPPR, 2006

Merchant City Phase 2/ Stage 2 submission. Glasgow City Council, Glasgow

Minutes of Meeting Tetbury Town Council's Heritage and Regeneration Committee. Tetbury
2007

Morris, J . Removing the barriers to community participation. IPPR, London, 2006

Nash, V, Making Sense of Community, IPPR 2003

Nathan, M. and C. Urwin. City People: City Centre living in the UK. IPPR, London.

Nathan, M. The Wrong Stuff: Creative class theory, diversity and city performance. Centre
for Cities, London 2005

New Directions in Social Policy: developing the evidence base for museums, libraries and
archives in England, Burns Owens Partnership for the MLA, 2005

Our Year – Annual Review of the Inland Waterways Association, 2007/08

Page, D, Respect and Renewal: A study of neighbourhood social regeneration, J oseph
Rowntree Foundation, 2006

Payne, J , Choice at the end of compulsory schooling: A research review, Department for
Education and Skills, 2003

Ed. Paxton, W. and V. Nash, eds. Any volunteers for the good society? IPPR, London, 2002.

Parry-J ones, S. Neighbourhood accessibililty, social networks and mental wellbeing: a
literature review. ARUP, London 2006

Power of Place: The Future of the Historic Environment, English Heritage, 2000
Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

38


PRODs: Bringing Public Buildings back into Use, Empty Homes Agency, 2006

Putnam, R, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon &
Schuster 2000

Recharging the Power of Place. CPRE, London, 2004

Regeneration and the Historic Environment. EH, London 2005

Review of the Presentation of Contemporary Visual Art: East London Case Study, Hackney,
Newham & Tower Hamlets, Burns Owen Partnership for Arts Council England, October 2005

Sanfilippo, L. and P. Ngan. Value Added: the economic, social and environmental benefits
from creating incentives for the repair, maintainance and use of historic buildings. NEF,
London 2007.

Shaheen Safdar, Creating Awareness and Opportunities in Sustainable Development, Black
Environment Network and One World Quilt, 2004

Shaw, S. Multicultural heritage and urban regeneration in London's City Fringe. London

Social Impact of Heritage: Evaluation report on research conducted for the HLF 2006-2007,
Applejuice, 2008

Social Policy Research, MORI, 2004

South Oxfordshire – A landscape overview, South Oxfordshire District Council, 1998
(adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance 2003)

Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2003

Sutherland M. and C. Tweed. An Investigation of Good Practice in Heritage Led
regeneration. Queen’s University, Belfast 2007

Taking Part: The National Survey of Culture, Leisure and Sport Progress report on PSA3:
Provisional estimates from the first six months of year three, DCMS 2008

Taylor, A. Homes with history. EH, London, 2003

The Commission on Sustainable Development in the South East: Final Report. IPPR,
London

Townscape Heritage Initiative Schemes Evaluation, Five Year Review Report, Oxford
Brookes University for Heritage Lottery Fund, 2008

Transforming Places, Changing Lives: A framework for regeneration, Department of
Communities and Local Government, 2008

Trevelyan, V. Minutes of Meeting Norwich Heritage Economic and Regeneration Trust.
Norwich Town Council, Norwich, 2006

Working together for a healthier Scotland, Scottish Office Department of Health, 1998

Would you live here? IPPR, London 2006
Ela Palmer Heritage
2008

39


Yorkshire Historic Environment Forum. Investing in Yorkshire's Heritage: An investment
strategy for the historic environment Sector in Yorkshire and the Humber. EH, York 2005.
Cities Northwest. IPPR, London, 2006



 
Contact details for the Agencies Co-ordinating Group
Architectural Heritage Fund
Alhambra House, 27-31 Charing Cross Road, London WC2H 0AU
www.ahfund.org.uk
UK Association of Preservation Trusts
Alhambra House, 27-31 Charing Cross Road, London WC2H 0AU
www.ukapt.org.uk
The Civic Trust
Essex Hall, 1-6 Essex Road, London WC2R 3HU
www.civictrust.org.uk
IHBC
Jubilee House, High Street, Tisbury, Wilts. SP3 6HA
www.ihbc.org.uk
The Prince’s Regeneration Trust
111-113 Great Portland Street, London W1W 6QQ
www.princes-regeneration.org
.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank all of the organisations and individuals who provided evidence
and information during the compilation of this report. Special thanks to the Agencies
Co-ordinating Group, particularly Ian Lush, for their support.
Report compiled by:

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close