MATRIZ DE SISTEMATIZACIÓN DE DATOS (ANEXO Nº 5)

A key element in the retrofitting debate has been the need to engage consumers in the programmes of work, in order to access their homes and persuade them to invest significant amounts of their own money in upgrading their properties. Greater consumer demand is seen as vital for reducing costs – since the more appetite there is for the upgrades, the less it will cost Government to persuade people into action or pay for measures itself. While this is evidently true, this whole idea of ‘engaging with

consumers’ fails to identify the potential for communities to be part of the solution and the benefits this brings.

In addition to this, occupiers’ behaviour is a critical factor in ensuring the effectiveness of measures and upgrades installed to improve the environmental performance of neighbourhoods and homes; engaging resident is essential to achieve this.

Whilst there is limited quantitative evidence on the benefits of engaging communities, there are clear and consistent messages about the potential benefits, both from our own research and that of others working in this area (as referenced in Annex C). The consistent messages are that community involvement can:

Enable people to live more sustainable lives

• – using

existing community networks is a powerful way to communicate positive messages on this agenda. It can help to engage members of society more widely and engender long-term behaviour change in both individuals and communities. Engaging with communities can increase the success of policies in both the short- and long-term. This can be achieved through simple word-of-mouth recommendations, inspiration from real-life examples, structured learning from trusted intermediaries and mutual support groups, or the active involvement of communities in designing and managing programmes of work for their areas84

Reduce costs of delivery

• – as detailed earlier, this can be achieved through increased uptake of measures. Having an engaged community can also avoid delays or issues such as vandalism. On a £2.2m housing redevelopment project for the Shoreditch Trust, consultants at Dearle and Henderson Ltd. estimated that the additional costs saved from community engagement were circa £500,000. Their sum is based

on comparisons with similar projects where less effective engagement has resulted in time delays and additional costs from responding to residents’ complaints, reworking designs at a late stage to meet user needs, and on-site events (such as vandalism or crime)

Improve effectiveness of works

• – communities are

widely recognised as a vital source of knowledge on the concerns and priority issues in their locality. As such, they may be aware of practical and effective solutions that would address these issues. Communities are aware of the functioning of places and relationships that support this at a scale that is often invisible to local authorities. Feedback from the New Deal for Communities programme found that the critiquing of local services by residents was ‘absolutely vital in making more focused, refined and fit for purpose local delivery vehicles’. The report also noted that ‘some of the most successful projects… are those where we have engaged residents in the design of the process; and some of our least successful projects, including some of the disasters, have been the ones where we haven’t engaged residents’85

Generate public support for works

• – as the 20’s

Plenty For Us case study highlights, community groups can deliver positive change in an area through mobilisation of support for key issues. This can create a sense of local ownership over the issue, increasing the likelihood of positive, long-lasting impact.

Local and central government can also derive benefits from community involvement in neighbourhood partnerships. Not only can they have greater confidence that their targets will be more easily achieved (due to the willing attitudes, direction and resources provided by the community), but their reputation can be enhanced through a partnership approach and the greater accountability this yields. Whilst there is a growing evidence base on the benefits of working with community groups to deliver sustainable outcomes, this is largely anecdotal and it can be difficult to use this to ascertain the cost-effectiveness of such measures. This can result in community engagement being undervalued and under-resourced.

Recommendation

Government should improve the evidence base on the cost-effectiveness and benefits (monetised and non-monetised) of working with communities to deliver sustainable outcomes. This should include a review of projects such as the Low Carbon Communities Challenge run by DECC, DEFRA’s Greener Living Fund, NESTA’s Big Green Challenge,

and the Community Energy Saving Programme (CESP). It should bring in findings from the review of Scotland’s Climate Challenge Fund and the Research Council’s Energy Research Programme. It should also look to learn from previous area-based delivery programmes such as New Deal for Communities, Housing Action Trusts, and City Challenges.

Local authorities deliver, or have some responsibility for, more than 700 different services. These cover areas such as education, transport, planning, social services, public health, procurement, energy consumption and provision, recreation and leisure, housing, regeneration and environmental stewardship. Furthermore, the vast majority of a neighbourhood’s public space (streets, green space) is under local authority control, making the LA’s involvement essential to any adaptations made to this.

Local authorities have extensive experience in many key areas which would support delivery of neighbourhood retrofit. These include:

in-depth understanding of their local area, residents’

•

needs and opportunities

existing relations with key players (households,

•

community groups, businesses, utilities, other public bodies and central Government)

experience of working in partnership with these

•

groups to discuss a range of complex issues

creating local identity and providing civic leadership

•

inspiring and encouraging behaviour change

•

coordinating area-based housing and regeneration

•

initiatives

a political mandate to mediate between players

•

and achieve trade-offs.

Local authorities also have access to a range of data on their areas and those living within them that will be valuable in developing neighbourhood plans. Local authorities can also play a key role in accessing funding and using their powers to support delivery of the partnership’s aims. The most significant powers are those they hold over planning and building regulations and wellbeing.

Planning

Traditionally, a local authority’s planning role was to regulate new development. However, planning reforms have given authorities a new focus on spatial planning so as to better understand how to make our existing places more sustainable.

The Commission believes this approach must look at the need to retrofit existing infrastructure as part of these spatial development plans. Local authorities can also use their planning powers over new developments to require works that will improve the sustainability of existing places and make retrofits more viable. The London Plan86 _requires developers to connect to a heat network if there is one. If not, they should examine the potential of on-site CHP generation. This should be provided in such a way that it enables future connection to existing development. However, if councils are to mandate connection to heat networks, these should be regulated. Otherwise local authorities may be forcing people to connect to unregulated monopoly providers, which could have wider economic and social impacts.

Having local authorities as partners in neighbourhood partnerships will help ensure there are clear links between their plans for the neighbourhood and the Local Development Framework. It will also provide access to the spatial and socio-economic data they hold on the neighbourhood. Both of these can play an important role in providing other partners with the confidence to invest their assets.

Local Authority involvement in neighbourhood partnerships