Poverty and Neighbourhood Renewal
in
West Cornwall
Final Report
Sarah Cemlyn
Eldin Fahmy
David Gordon
University of Bristol
Simon Bennett
Cornwall Health Research Unit
January 2002
CONTENTS
Chapter One - Neighbourhood Renewal 1
Introduction 1
Development of the Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy 2
The Lessons of the Past 2
The Goals of Neighbourhood Renewal 3
The National Strategy Action Plan (NSAP) 4
Local Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy 6
Neighbourhood Renewal & Rural Communities 8
Conclusion 11
Chapter Two - Mapping Deprivation 13
Introduction 13
Index of Local Deprivation 2000 14
Index of Local Deprivation in Cornwall 15
Income and Employment 15
Housing, Health and Education 17
Access to Services 19
Child Poverty 20
Multiple deprivation 20
Crime and Neighbourhood Renewal 22
ILD Deprivation in Kerrier and Penwith 33
Small area measure of deprivation 35
Methodology 35
Findings 37
Identifying Priority Areas 43
Poor Consumers & Social Entrepreneurs 45
Methodology 45
Findings 46
Chapter Three - Consultation With Stakeholders 49
Methodology 49
Research Findings 52
Perspective on identifying deprived neighbourhoods 53
Identification of priority neighbourhoods 53
Problems faced by deprived neighbourhoods 53
Strengths and resources 59
Possible solutions and ways forward 60
Inclusive approach to involving the community 64
Conclusion 66
2
Chapter Four - Community Audit 69
Introduction 69
Services in Cornwall 72
Methodology 72
Key Indicators 74
The 2000 Parish Survey 79
Regeneration and Community Funding 85
Area based regeneration initiatives 85
Sources of community funding 89
Community Fund spending in the South West 89
Community Organisations 91
Introduction 91
Methodology 92
Findings 93
Chapter Five - Conclusions and Policy Options 95
References 99
Appendix I 105
Remit of the Policy Action Teams 105
Public Service Agreement Targets 106
Appendix II 107
Priority Areas 107
ILD Indicators 108
2000 ILD Deprived Wards in Cornwall by Domain 109
Wards within ILD 2000 most deprived 20% of English wards 110
Wards within ILD 2000 most deprived 10% of English wards 111
Priority Neighbourhoods at 33% Population Threshold, 1991 Census 112
Inverse Distance Weighting 114
GB MOSAIC: Neighbourhood Classifications 115
Appendix III 107
Interview sample 118
Semi-structured interview topic guide 120
Appendix IV: Audit of Local Services 124
3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A large number of people have given up their valuable time to help the research team. Without their
willing and enthusiastic cooperation this research would not have been possible. Although it is
invidious to single out individuals when we have been helped by so many, we would like to give
special thanks to all the members of the NRF steering group for their help, expertise and constructive
criticism.
In particular we wish to thank Matthew Brown, Alan Bruce, Andrea Gilbert, Fergus Murray,
Malcolm Brown, Mark Richardson and Anthony Ball. We also received considerable help in our
analysis of crime from several members of Devon and Cornwall Constabulary.
We thank Claire McCann of the South West Government Office for her help and advice.
We interviewed 51 people (who are listed in Appendix III) and we would like to thank all of them for
their help.
Finally we would also like to thank Helen Anderson for her usual excellent help with editing this
report.
We acknowledge crown copyright of much of the data used in this report.
1
CHAPTER ONE:
NEIGHBOURHOOD RENEWAL
INTRODUCTION
This report is designed to update some of the work in Poverty and Deprivation in West Cornwall in
the 1990s which was published by the University of Bristol in 1996. However, this current research
is more limited in scope and examines these issues from the somewhat narrow confines of the
National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal. Readers who are interested in the broader issues of
poverty and deprivation should therefore refer also to the 1996 report
In 1997, the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) was established with a remit to:
“Develop integrated and sustainable approaches to the problems of the worst housing
estates, including crime, drugs, unemployment, community breakdown and bad
housing.”
In September 1998, as part of this strategy, the SEU published a report recommending the
introduction of a National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal to address the problems faced by
deprived neighbourhoods (SEU, 1998). The report advocated a comprehensive and coordinated
response to the complex problems faced by deprived neighbourhoods and recommended setting up
18 Policy Action Teams (PATs) to focus more closely on selected areas. By bringing together
Government officials with local residents, local professionals and academics, the SEU sought to
combine local expertise with research evidence in addressing difficult problems.
The work of the 18 PATs was directed towards addressing five overarching themes:
q Getting people to work
q Getting the place to work
q Building a future for young people
q Better access to services
q Making Government work better
The remit of each PAT focused upon one of these themes and is summarised in Appendix I.
Drawing upon ongoing work and the initial recommendations of the PATs, the SEU published a
proposed framework for the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal (SEU, 2000). This
second report outlined the main principles underpinning the Neighbourhood Renewal initiative and is
discussed in more detail below.
Following a major consultation based upon this document and ending in June 2000, the Government
set out the main elements of its National Strategy Action Plan for Neighbourhood Renewal in
January 2001 (SEU, 2001a). Together with the subsequently published PAT Audit (SEU, 2001b),
this document outlines the Government’s key commitments and targets for neighbourhood renewal.
2
For the 88 most deprived Local Authority districts, including Kerrier and Penwith, a £900 million
Neighbourhood Renewal Fund will kick-start implementation of this National Strategy. The Fund
will be used by Local Strategic Partnerships to tackle deprivation and improve local services.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEIGHBOURHOOD RENEWAL STRATEGY
The Lessons of the Past
Since the 1960s, there have been many initiatives aimed at tackling the broader problems of poor
neighbourhoods. The first Urban Programme began in 1969 and was followed by Urban
Development Corporations, Task Forces, Estates Action, City Challenge, Housing Action Areas,
Renewal Areas, Housing Action Trusts and the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB), in subsequent
decades. As Figure 1.1 shows, Cornwall has received funding under most regeneration and regional
development schemes operating since the Second World War:
Figure 1.1: Regeneration Schemes in South West England since 1945
Source: Kain and Ravenhill (1999)
Whilst each approach had some successes, none entirely succeeded in ensuring that all aspects of
neighbourhood improvement (eg in jobs, crime, education, health and housing) reinforced each other
in a “virtuous circle of regeneration” (SEU, 1998:9). Although systematic evaluation of the
effectiveness of regeneration schemes is difficult, official studies are equivocal in their evaluation.
Many schemes have had a mixed impact with improvements in housing, employment and crime
being patchy and short-lived after the completion of regeneration projects (DoE, 1994; Home Office,
1993).
As a result, the condition of many deprived areas has either not improved or, in some cases, has
actually worsened. Despite measurement difficulties, it is clear that the most deprived areas of
nearly 20 years ago are still amongst the most deprived areas in the country (Robson et al, 1995;
1998). This is in spite of the fact that most of these areas received various targeted interventions
over the years. It is important to stress, however, that this does not mean that targeted policies have
not been successful because areas might have been even more deprived without this kind of
intervention.
3
Nonetheless, as the September 1998 report acknowledges, previous schemes have been “thin and
ineffective” (SEU, 2000:7) with an over-reliance on small-scale, short-term regeneration projects
which lack strategic co-ordination. Although structural, economic changes are partly to blame for
the increasing concentration of deprivation in some neighbourhoods, Government regeneration
policies appear to have exacerbated these trends. The September 1998 report identifies nine points
(SEU, 1998:38-40):
q Mainstream policies not helping, or making it worse. Regeneration spending forms only a
very small part of total public spending. Mainstream programmes rarely acknowledge and
support the special needs of deprived communities.
q “Initiative-itis”. Regeneration policies themselves have often fragmented into small and
confusing initiatives that lead to duplication in applying and running separate schemes.
q Too many rules. Regeneration programmes often have subtly different rules that make little
sense to those on the ground.
q Lack of local co-operation. Administrative fragmentation at a local level has meant that routine
joint planning, where local services come together to tackle similar problems, is rare.
q Too little investment in people. Regeneration schemes have too often emphasized physical
renewal (eg of housing stock) at the expense of creating better opportunities for people (eg in
terms of jobs, education, healthcare, etc).
q Strategies not ‘joined up’. Policy has often focused upon ‘turning around’ one neighbourhood
in isolation from the surrounding area. However, neighbouring communities depend on each
other in many ways.
q Poor links beyond the neighbourhood. Communities thrive when there are well-established
links with other areas. Too often in the past, policy has unintentionally worsened the detachment
and isolation of poor communities.
q Community commitment not harnessed. There has been a tendency to ‘parachute in’ solutions
from outside rather than engaging local communities and building local capacity to act
independently.
q ‘What works’ neglected. New initiatives often fail to build upon past successes because lessons
from good practice have not been widely circulated.
Above all, as the September 1998 report argued, there has been a failure to address inter-related
problems in a “joined up” way. Problems have often “fallen through the cracks” between Whitehall
departments or between central and local government. At the neighbourhood level, there has been no
one in charge of pulling together all the things that need to go right at the same time (SEU, 1998:9).
The Goals of Neighbourhood Renewal
The shortcomings of previous schemes have also resulted partly from a failure to address the
underlying structural causes of neighbourhood decline. Although deprivation is spatially
concentrated, the narrow focus upon a minority of Local Authorities arguably deflects attention away
from the widespread nature of poverty and inequality which have resulted from mainstream policies
and processes of economic ‘restructuring’ in post-1945 Britain.
4
For example, estimates of the effects of current Government policies on poverty levels over the next
five years show that, while the New Deal and the minimum wage will reduce poverty, these effects
are far outweighed by the implications of macro-economic policy and the failure to up-rate social
benefits in line with rising national output (Piachaud, 1998). Local initiatives alone cannot provide
solutions to problems where the causes are national or even international. Governments have often
seemed to have learnt little from previous failures and ignored “the strongly held view of those
working in regeneration and anti-poverty, that resources should be allocated overwhelmingly
according to need and not by competition” (Alcock et al, 1998).
The problem of the relative lack of effectiveness of area-based policies has been known and well-
documented for over 25 years (Barnes and Lucas, 1975; Townsend, 1979; Robson et al, 1994;
Glennerster et al, 1999). Inequality and deprivation are national problems that require national
solutions. Local initiatives must be supported by the right kind of policies at regional and national
levels (Kleinman, 1998).
The April 2000 report identified four principle causes of neighbourhood decline:
1. Economic ghetto-isation
2. The erosion of social capital
3. The failure of services
4. The absence of a clear strategy of joint action (in partnership with non-governmental
agencies)
Of these, the absence of a clear strategy of joint action is viewed by Government as the key to
addressing the more basic social and economic causes of neighbourhood deprivation. Few would
dispute the importance of strategic co-ordination and joint working in facilitating successful
regeneration. However, this emphasis upon technical and administrative solutions can obscure the
importance of mainstream policy changes and increased public expenditure in achieving the type of
basic structural changes necessary to effective neighbourhood renewal.
The National Strategy Action Plan (NSAP)
The initial consultative framework outlined four key themes in neighbourhood renewal:
q Reviving local economies
q Reviving communities
q Improving local services
q Encouraging leadership and joint working
Within these broad themes, the April 2000 report outlined a range of policy initiatives or ‘key ideas’
emerging from the work of the 18 PATs, as a basis for consultation with interested parties (see
Appendix I). This framework and process of consultation informed the development of the National
Strategy Action Plan (NSAP) published in January 2001. The NSAP outlines the Government’s
strategy for achieving its overall objective that “within 10 to 20 years no-one should be seriously
disadvantaged by where they live” (SEU, 2001a:24), although performance targets for this ambitious
goal have yet to be established by central Government. This objective is reflected in two long-term
goals:
q To have lower worklessness; less crime; better health; better skills and better housing and
physical environment in all the poorest neighbourhoods
5
q To narrow the gap on these measures between the most deprived neighbourhoods and the rest
of the country
The NSAP contains three main elements:
1. New policies, funding and targets to tackle the problems of deprived neighbourhoods
2. Effective ‘drivers of change’ at local and community level
3. National leadership and support
Policies, Funding and Targets
Following the 2000 Spending Review and the work of the PATs, every Department with an impact
on the key problems of deprived neighbourhoods has new policies, new funding and new targets as a
focus for their efforts. These focus primarily upon:
q Employment and economies
q Crime
q Education and skills
q Health
q Poor housing and physical environment (eg air quality, derelict land, etc)
These targets are part of the Public Service Agreements (PSAs) to which central Government
Departments are committed (Appendix I). In future, it is anticipated that these Agreements may also
be developed at Local Authority level (SEU, 2001a)
1
.
Effective Drivers of Change
A central part of the Strategy is the creation of Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) which bring
together Local Authorities and other public services as well as residents and private, voluntary and
community sector organisations. LSPs thus provide a new way for local areas to take ownership of
these targets and to set their own ambitious targets for deprived neighbourhoods.
LSPs will be the key to developing and implementing local strategies. They will identify which
neighbourhoods should be prioritised, find the root causes of neighbourhood decline, develop ideas
on how organisations and individuals can improve things and implement agreed actions. LSPs will
also be able to set local targets for improving outcomes in deprived neighbourhoods. They provide a
means to allow partners to link existing local partnerships and plans, bringing strategic functions
together.
LSPs will need to complement their strategic activity with a focus on specific neighbourhoods.
There is no single model for this kind of activity – in many areas, including Kerrier and Penwith,
neighbourhood organisations and/or partnerships already exist that can make a contribution to the
Local Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy. In other areas, the Government is piloting the idea of
Neighbourhood Management
2
.
1
At the local level, 20 Local Authorities (although not Kerrier or Penwith), will pilot the idea of local PSAs in 2001–02.
If successful, authorities in the most deprived areas will – in order to receive further NRF support – need to
demonstrate that local PSAs include a focus on tackling deprivation and contribute to delivering national targets
(SEU, 2001a:84).
2
This involves devolving power down to a single person or neighbourhood institution and involves making service level
agreements, running local services and managing a devolved budget (SEU, 2001a).
6
However, encouraging community and voluntary sector participation in neighbourhood renewal
requires additional funding specifically for this purpose. The new Community Empowerment Fund
(totalling at least £35 million) will provide around £400,000 over the next three years to each of the
88 NRF areas (including Kerrier and Penwith), to support community and voluntary sector
involvement in LSPs. This could fund activities such as resident meetings and surveys to gather
views and feed back what happens, outreach to residents to encourage people to express their views
and training and support to help residents participate in partnerships.
To support community groups and activities, the Government will also be introducing a fund of
£50m, over three years, to set up local ‘Community Chests’ to provide small grants for community
organisations in deprived areas.
National Leadership and Support
As noted above, the Government has identified the absence of leadership and poor joint working at
national level as a major obstacle to past efforts at regeneration. In September 2000, the Prime
Minister announced the setting up of a Neighbourhood Renewal Unit in the DETR to spearhead the
follow-up of the National Strategy. This Unit will monitor the implementation and further
development of the Strategy and be responsible for a number of the funding streams.
At regional level, the Unit will work closely with Neighbourhood Renewal Teams in Government
Offices for the Regions (GOs). These teams will be the main interface with LSPs, as well as ‘joining
up’ regional activity, working closely with Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) and other
regional players.
Local Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy
The Role of Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs)
The Government is promoting LSPs as the key local vehicle for implementing and leading
neighbourhood renewal. As noted above, the absence of joint working at local level has been one of
the key reasons for lack of progress in tackling neighbourhood deprivation. Surprisingly, it has been
no-one person’s job at local level to pull together all the different agencies with an impact on
deprived neighbourhoods. The trend for greater partnership working, fostered by many Departments,
has been an attempt to improve matters but has sometimes resulted in too much time tied up in
multiple small-scale partnerships, unconnected by an overarching local strategy.
LSPs aim to bring together public, private, voluntary and community sectors in a single overarching
local co-ordination framework which:
q Enables priorities to be set and services to be aligned
q Brings those who deliver or commission different services together with those for whom the
services are provided
q Ensures other local partnerships know how they fit into the wider picture, and allows local
partners to move to simplify structures where appropriate
The LSPs’ key task is to prepare a Local Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy. This should:
7
q Outline an agreed vision and plan for positive change in as many neighbourhoods as are in
need of renewal
q Have the agreement and commitment of all the key people and institutions who have a stake
in the neighbourhood, or an impact on it
q Outline a local strategic level framework for action that responds to neighbourhood needs and
puts them in the context of the area as a whole.
LSPs would be expected to set targets for how things should change over time in their most
disadvantaged neighbourhoods, especially in terms of the key outcomes of reducing worklessness
and crime, and improving skills, health, housing and the physical environment.
Developing a Local Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy
The right approach to drawing up Local Neighbourhood Renewal Strategies differs greatly
geographically. However, the Government’s guidance to LSPs identifies five common stages in their
development (SEU, 2001a: 47). Figure 1.2 illustrates the key steps.
Figure 1.2: Developing Local Neighbourhood Renewal Strategies
STEP 1: IDENTIFY PRIORITY
NEIGHBOURHOODS
Are areas in 10% most deprived wards?
Are areas falling below floor targets?
Are these neighbourhoods areas that should be
priorities for other reasons?
STEP 5: IMPLEMENT AND MONITOR
AGREED ACTION
Implement agreed changes
Monitor changes in outcomes and ways of working
Adopt strategy in response to risks and opportunities
STEP 2: IDENTIFY PROBLEMS OF
DEPRIVED NEIGHBOURHOODS
What are the baseline statistics?
What are the key problems in the areas?
How have they changed over time?
What are the causes?
STEP 3: MAP RESOURCES GOING
INTO PRIORITY NEIGHBOURHOODS
How much time and money do organisations (incl.
community & voluntary groups) spend in the area?
What other assets exist? (eg. volunteers, buildings,
services, networks)
STEP 4: AGREE ON WHAT MORE
NEEDS TO BE DONE
Agree goals and make commitments, eg. to:
• Set targets
• Change the way existing services work
• Introduce new services (eg. Neighbourhood
Wardens)
• Join up services (eg. co-location)
• Expand existing services
• Try Neighbourhood Management
• Consider the most effective use of assets
• Rationalise activity
• Bid for new money
8
NEIGHBOURHOOD RENEWAL AND RURAL COMMUNITIES
As noted above, the right approach to developing a Local Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy will
differ greatly between places. This is especially pertinent in the context of rural deprivation and
regeneration. Historically, regeneration schemes have been a policy response to urban and especially
inner city decline and the solutions to problems of community deprivation have thus been informed
by this urban focus.
This legacy raises two key issues for rural regeneration partnerships:
q Geographical dispersion. Deprivation in rural areas tends to be ‘hidden’ rather than absent
due to the geographical dispersion of rural communities. This makes rural deprivation much
more difficult to address through area or regionally-based initiatives.
q Different needs. The key dimensions of deprivation in rural and urban areas may differ. For
example, poor access to jobs and services due to isolation, transport costs and inadequate
public transport are far bigger issues for rural than urban communities (Countryside Agency,
2000).
Geographical Dispersion
The Government’s 1998 Index of Local Deprivation (ILD) placed five rural districts (including
Kerrier and Penwith) amongst the 100 most deprived areas. Using a wider range of measures, the
revised 2000 ILD, which takes greater account of rural poverty than its predecessors, identified the
88 most deprived Local Authority Districts (LADs) eligible for NRF support. These 88 LADs
account for 82% of the 841 most deprived wards in England. Although most of these wards are in
urban areas, at least 16 of the 88 most deprived districts contain substantial rural areas, as Figure 1.3
shows:
9
Figure 1.3: The 88 Most Deprived LADs in England (2000 ILD)
Source: SEU, 2001a: 13-14
Although the 2000 ILD does make greater allowance for the special characteristics of rural areas
(DETR, 1998), the problem of spatial scale is especially pertinent in the rural context.
There is no exact definition of what makes a neighbourhood. Local perceptions of neighbourhoods
may be defined by natural dividing lines such as roads and rivers, changes in housing design or
tenure or the sense of community generated around centres such as schools, shops or transport links.
To get an idea of what is going on at neighbourhood level, statistics from electoral wards are often
used as a proxy measure (eg in the ILD statistics). However, in rural communities, ward-level
statistics are not precise enough to identify priority neighbourhoods partly because income disparities
in rural areas are especially marked, with the very wealthy living ‘alongside’ the very poor
(McLaughlin, 1986; Shucksmith, 1996). Measuring rural deprivation therefore requires the
development of indicators at a sub-ward level to identify priority areas.
Different Needs
The nature of deprivation in rural areas and small towns often differs from that of industrial
conurbations and inner-city communities and this should inform subsequent policy responses. Poor
access to jobs and services due to isolation, transport costs and inadequate public transport are far
bigger issues for rural than large-scale urban communities. In addition to high levels of long-term
registered unemployment, the seasonality of work together with low wages and low rates of
economic activity, are also major problems for rural areas and small towns. Figure 1.4 (below)
illustrates the seasonal pattern of unemployment in Cornwall for the 1996-1999 period:
10
Figure 1.4: Seasonal Unemployment
3
in Cornwall, 1996-1999
Source: Claimant Count, ONS
In addition, whilst rural areas are generally characterised by lower levels of registered
unemployment, there are pockets of high unemployment and other employment disadvantage in rural
areas, particularly in isolated locations.
Similarly, housing deprivation in rural areas is often manifested in increasingly unaffordable housing
stock and not simply in its physical dilapidation. The demand for owner-occupied housing in rural
areas is often very high, partly due to new household formation and the tendency towards smaller
households but also as a result of demand from relatively affluent incomers and second-home buyers.
However, the supply is often highly constrained and prices tend to be high, generating problems of
affordability for those on low or middle incomes. Furthermore, the proportion of social housing to
rent is low in rural areas, not only because of right-to-buy sales but also because of historically lower
rates of Local Authority and Housing Association provision. This restricts further the choice
available to those seeking affordable housing in rural areas.
Clearly, rural areas themselves differ considerably as a result of their unique histories and
development. There are marked differences between those living in remote rural areas and those
nearer to conurbations. Appendix II illustrates the geographical distribution of deprivation in rural
areas, using ward-level ILD statistics for employment, income, education and health (see also
Countryside Agency, 2001). These analyses show that, within rural England as a whole, low
incomes, educational deprivation, poor health and unemployment are greater in remoter rural areas
(and areas that are particularly reliant on agriculture) than in more accessible ‘commuter’ areas. The
Southwest region and, especially, Cornwall, performs poorly on all four of these scales.
3
Figure 1.4 is based on Claimant Count data, however Labour Force Survey (LFS) data on unemployment in Cornwall
also shows a similar seasonal; pattern.
11
CONCLUSION
The Neighbourhood Renewal initiative seeks to provide a new means of tackling the complex and
inter-related social and economic problems faced by deprived communities. In contrast with past
schemes which have frequently been blighted by an absence of overall strategic co-ordination and
joint working, Neighbourhood Renewal seeks to provide ‘joined up’ policies and ways of working in
order to tackle ‘joined up’ problems. The issues facing deprived communities are complex and raise
a number of issues that need to be addressed in order to identify the most appropriate and effective
solutions. These include (Glennester et al, 1998):
q How much is the increasing concentration of poverty due to a decline in the fortunes of
existing area residents and how much to housing or transport factors which have increasingly
driven the poorest people into fewer areas?
q How much is decline due to structural factors such as the loss of traditional industries, how
much to market forces such as housing supply and quality and how much to changes in
housing policy, or decline in local services or area stigma?
q Why do poor areas matter to the extent that people with choice refuse to live in them or invest
in them and how far does this de-selection by people with choice make matters worse?
q How do area concentrations of deprivation in themselves result in a diminution of the life
chances of their residents?
q How do housing policy and housing management contribute to educational prospects?
q How much do transport links affect employment chances or the ability of families to provide
healthy diets on low incomes?
q How does pre-school provision affect later delinquency or employment prospects in areas
where jobs are, in any case, hard to come by?
A strategy of analysis that is sensitive to the unique history and economic and social development of
Cornwall (even in comparison with other remote rural areas) is essential to addressing these
questions. ‘Off the peg’ solutions to problems of neighbourhood deprivation are thus unlikely to be
effective in the Cornish context. Mapping of the key indicators of local deprivation as identified by
the SEU (ie employment, housing, health, education and crime) at a very small scale is a first step in
exploring the inter-relationships between these different dimensions of social inequality. However,
other data sources and local knowledge, together with a detailed audit of community services,
facilities and organisation, will be central to the development of an effective regeneration strategy in
west Cornwall.
The key steps towards an developing an effective strategy for neighbourhood renewal are:
q Identifying and mapping the priority areas
q Identifying the significant problems and resources within each priority area
q Ensuring that there is full consultation with the local communities
q Locating each area within its context - the most effective renewal strategy may involve targeting
resources in adjacent areas rather than into the most deprived area itself (eg job creation,
transport links, etc)
q Learning from the mistakes of past efforts in area regeneration
12
13
CHAPTER TWO:
MAPPING DEPRIVATION
INTRODUCTION
It is of great importance when developing neighbourhood renewal policies that the meaning of
neighbourhood deprivation is clearly understood. Unfortunately, the term area deprivation can have
at least three different meanings:
1. A compositional meaning, whereby an area is considered to be deprived if it contains a large
number of poor people. In this case, the spatial effects are entirely due to the concentration of
poor people in a given area – there are no independent area effects.
2. A collective meaning, whereby an area is considered to be deprived because if it contains a lot of
poor people a ‘social miasma’ may exist. That is, a concentration of poor people will exert a
collective influence, above and beyond their individual circumstances, for example, it may be
difficult to find a job if you live in a deprived area because employers are prejudice against
people from poor areas. Although, this is a commonly held belief there is relatively little (other
than anecdotal) evidence to support it.
3. A public goods or environmental meaning, whereby an area is considered deprived because it
lacks facilities (roads, hospitals, schools, libraries, etc.) or because it suffers from high pollution
levels.
These three meanings of area deprivation are separate and distinct, but are often confused. For
example the Government’s neighbourhood renewal strategy confuses all these three different
meanings of neighbourhood deprivation and the Index of Multiple Deprivation confuses two of them
(e.g. poor people and poor services). Unfortunately, the polices necessary to effectively help an area
with a lot of ‘poor’ people may be different from the policies needed to help an area with ‘poor’
services. Similarly, a different set of policies may be effective at reducing area ‘stigma’, since not all
poor areas are stigmatised and not all stigmatised areas contain a lot of ‘poor’ people.
It is also essential to be clear on the definition of area deprivation that is being used when attempting
to develop measures to identify the ‘poorest’ areas, since the three types of area deprivation have
different geographies. For example, on the national scale the majority of poor areas which contain
‘poor’ people are found in the major cities (Inner London, Bristol, Plymouth, etc). Whereas the
majority of areas with ‘poor’ access to services are often the remoter rural areas where lower
proportions of ‘poor’ people live. The inner cities by contrast often have very good levels of public
services. It makes little scientific sense to include both measures of ‘poor’ people and ‘poor’ access
to services in a single national index as in the IMD 2000 since the higher weighting given to the
service domain the more ‘rural’ areas will appear deprived and conversely the higher the weightings
given to the domains that measure ‘poor’ people the more the cities will appear deprived.
14
INDICES OF LOCAL DEPRIVATION (ILD) 2000
The ILD 2000 are measures of deprivation for all 8,414 wards in England. They describe a range of
indicators classified in six main ‘domains’ of deprivation:
q Income
q Employment
q Health Deprivation and Disability
q Education, Skills and Training
q Housing
q Geographical Access to Services
In addition to these six domains, the 2000 ILD also contains a supplementary Child Poverty Index.
The 2000 Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) combines the six main domains within a single
deprivation score for each area.
The 2000 IMD uses up-to-date information from 33 indicators to describe deprivation at ward level
(a detailed listing of the ILD 2000 indicators is presented in Appendix II). Most of the indicators can
be updated regularly and so form the basis for a dynamic index. In addition to the Domain Indices,
the overall ward level Index of Multiple Deprivation brings this substantial amount of knowledge
and information together for the first time at a small geographical level.
Methodology
For the Income and Employment domains, the scores are presented as a simple rate, as these domains
represent the percentage of the population affected by this type of deprivation. This is also the case
with the Child Poverty Index.
The Health, Housing, Education and Access domains could not be combined in this way for two
reasons:
1 The individual indicators may be measured in different ways. For example, in the Health
Domain it would not be appropriate to simply add a standardised mortality ratio to a proportion
of people receiving Attendance Allowance as these are on different metrics.
2 There might be overlap between indicators within a domain. A simple combination of these
indicators could result in double counting.
Instead, these four domains were each combined using Factor Analysis (see Noble et al, 2000 for a
detailed description of the statistical procedures used to generate the IMD). Factor Analysis is a
statistical procedure which attempts to deal with both the problems outlined above
4
.
Once the six separate domains scores for every ward have been calculated, it is then possible to
combine these into an overall index. However, as with the indicators, the domains cannot be simply
added because they are not all on the same scale. In order to combine the domains, they must first be
standardised to a uniform metric by ranking the domain scores. Secondly, it is important to ensure
that each domain is transformed to a common distribution. This is necessary because combining
4
Factor analysis attempts to identify underlying variables, or factors, that explain the pattern of correlations within a set
of observed variables. Factor analysis is often used in data reduction to identify a small number of factors that
explain most of the variance observed in a much larger number of manifest variables.
15
domains with different distributions can result in misleading results with some domains having
unanticipated disproportionate effects on the overall index score.
From the outset, the DETR proposed that the Income and Employment Domains should carry more
weight than the other domains (Noble et al, 2000). It was also proposed that the most robust
domains should carry the most weight. This means that the contribution of each domain to the
overall Index varies as follows:
q Income 25%
q Employment 25%
q Health Deprivation and Disability 15%
q Education, Skills and Training 15%
q Geographical Access to Services 10%
q Housing 10%
It must be stressed that neither the six domains or their weightings are the result of scientific analysis
they are mainly reflections of the Government’s priorities and data availability.
ILD 2000 DEPRIVATION IN CORNWALL
Income and Employment
The scores for the Income and Employment Domains (as well as Child Poverty and Multiple
Deprivation) are rates. So, for example, if a ward scores 38.6 in the Income Domain, this means that
38.6% of the ward’s population are Income Deprived. The same applies to the Employment
Domain. In the 20% most income deprived Cornish wards at least 28% of the population is income
deprived.
It is also instructive to explore how Cornwall compares with the rest of England. The 2000 ILD
assigns a rank to each of the eight indices for all 8,414 wards in England. The most deprived ward
for each index is given a rank of 1 and the least deprived ward is given a rank of 8,414. Figure 2.1
illustrates the distribution of Income Deprivation in Cornwall by showing the distribution of Cornish
wards within the Income Deprivation ranking for English wards.
16
Figure 2.1: ILD Income Deprivation Rank, 2000 (quintiles)
As Figure 2.1 shows, most Cornish wards fall within the most deprived two fifths of the Income
Deprivation ranking for England, although deprivation is most concentrated in West Cornwall
(Kerrier and Penwith).
Figure 2.2: ILD Employment Deprivation Rank, 2000 (quintiles)
The spatial distribution of Employment Deprivation in Cornwall reveals a similar picture. Overall,
in one fifth of wards, at least 15% of the population are classified by the 2000 ILD as employment
deprived. Again, high levels of employment deprivation are concentrated in the west of Cornwall, as
17
Figure 2.2 (above) illustrates. As with income, Cornwall fares poorly compared with the rest of
England on the Employment Deprivation Index. Indeed, none of the Cornish wards fell within the
least deprived fifth of English wards on this measure and only eight within the next fifth of the
distribution, as Figure 2.2 (above) shows.
Housing, Health and Education
Deprivation scores for the Housing, Health, Education and Access to Services Domains are not rates.
Within each domain, the higher the score, the more deprived the ward
5
. Housing deprivation in
Cornwall is concentrated mainly in western Cornwall although the pattern of deprivation is
somewhat more dispersed as Figure 2.3 shows:
Figure 2.3: ILD Housing Deprivation Rank, 2000 (quintiles)
However, as with income and employment deprivation, few wards perform well in comparison with
the rest of England, with only four wards falling within the least housing-deprived fifth of English
wards.
Comparing health deprivation in Cornwall with the rest of England suggests an even more
depressing picture. None of the Cornish wards are ranked within the least health-deprived fifth of
English wards and the majority fall within the most deprived two fifths of the distribution. Again,
the majority of the most severely health-deprived wards are in Kerrier and Penwith, as Figure 2.4
(overleaf) illustrates.
5
However, the factor scores should not be compared between domains as they have different minimum and maximum
values and ranges. To compare between domains, the ranks should be used.
18
Figure 2.4: ILD Health Deprivation Rank, 2000 (quintiles)
In terms of educational disadvantage, the picture is slightly more encouraging. As Figure 2.5 shows,
educational deprivation within Cornwall is less spatially concentrated than for many other domains,
although again some of the most deprived wards are in Kerrier:
Figure 2.5: ILD Educational Deprivation Rank, 2000 (quintiles)
Overall and in comparison with the rest of England, the Cornish wards fare better in terms of
educational deprivation than for economic (income, employment) and social (housing, health)
deprivation. Fewer Cornish wards fall within the most deprived fifth of the distribution for
educational deprivation, although many of these are in Kerrier.
19
Access to Services
Perhaps unsurprisingly given its remote rural location, Cornwall as a whole fares poorly in terms of
the accessibility of local services compared with the rest of England, as Figure 2.6 shows:
Figure 2.6: Access to Services Rank, 2000 (quintiles)
20
Child Poverty
As with the Income and Employment Indices, the scores for the Child Poverty Index are rates so the
deprivation scores represent the percentage of children within each ward currently living in poverty.
Figure 2.7: Child Poverty Rank, 2000 (quintiles)
In one fifth of Cornish wards, more than 43% of children are currently living in poverty, according to
this measure. As Figure 2.7 shows, the most severe concentrations of child poverty are in Kerrier
and Penwith. However, as the figure also illustrates, child poverty is quite widespread throughout
Cornwall in comparison with the rest of England. Only seven of the Cornish wards are ranked
within the least deprived two fifths of the distribution for this indicator and the majority are within
the most deprived two fifths of English wards for child poverty.
Multiple Deprivation
In 80% of Cornish wards, 20% of the population is experiencing multiple deprivation and, in more
than one fifth, over a third of the population is experiencing multiple deprivation, according to this
measure. Comparing the scores for Cornish wards with the rest of England reveals the extent of
multiple deprivation in Cornwall. Only five of the 133 Cornish wards were amongst the least
deprived two fifths of English wards and the great majority were amongst the most deprived two
fifths for this measure, as Figure 2.8 (overleaf) shows. Within Cornwall multiple deprivation is
again spatially concentrated within the districts of Kerrier and Penwith.
21
Figure 2.8: ILD Index of Multiple Deprivation Rank, 2000 (quintiles)
22
CRIME AND NEIGHBOURHOOD RENEWAL
Introduction
Crime and disorder have been acknowledged by central Government as an important feature of
deprivation and a key theme within the context of neighbourhood renewal (SEU, 2001a). However,
adequate data on crime was not available during the review of the 2000 ILD and this domain was
therefore not included within the final indices (DETR, 2000b).
One of the reasons that a crime domain was not included in the final index of multiple deprivation
was because of the detailed comments from Christina Pantazis, at the University of Bristol, who
reviewed the problems of measurement of the crime domain proposals. Many commentators assume
that all poor areas suffer from high levels of crime. However the relationship between crime,
poverty and area is much more complicated than this. This section draws heavily on Christina’s
analysis with additional material on the situation in West Cornwall from the research team.
Crime, Poverty and Space
The interest in crime and poor localities has a long history. Henry Mayhew’s (1862) comprehensive
survey of Victorian London, provided detail on various ‘rookeries’ (slum criminal quarters); whilst
concern with the rise of ‘dangerous poor’ led to a focus on various specific localities (see Morris
1957 for further details). Spatial analyses undertaken in the 1970s and 1980s revealed strong
connections between the location of poverty and the occurrence of crime. Baldwin and Bottom
(1976), in their classic Sheffield study, found a high concentration of offenders on deprived council
estates, whilst Herbert (1977) also found links between poverty, social deprivation, substandard
housing and crime. Following the inner-city riots in the 1980s, a number of commentators made
links between deprivation and public disorder. Specifically, left realist criminologists such as Kinsey
and Young (1986) put forward the theory of relative deprivation to explain rising rates of crime and
disorder.
Poverty and Crime: some recent evidence
Recent research into crime and disadvantage in Merseyside, in north west England demonstrated that
rates of recorded crime and repeat burglaries were significantly higher in the most disadvantaged
areas (Hirshfield and Bowers, 1996). Furthermore, the level of social cohesion was thought to
influence the recorded crime rate, so that disadvantaged areas lacking social cohesion experienced
far greater levels of crime than similarly disadvantaged areas with higher levels of cohesion.
Home Office research confirms the link between crime and poor areas. Findings from the combined
1984, 1988 and 1992 British Crime Survey demonstrate the link between some poor areas and
specific types of crime such as burglary and robbery (Mayhew and Maung 1992). Figure 8 shows
the relative crime rates (national average = 100) for burglary and robbery, for residents of different
ACORN neighbourhood groups (CACI, 1992). Mixed inner metropolitan areas and less well off and
poorest council estates suffer from relatively high crime rates. Mixed inner metropolitan areas have
the highest rates of muggings and robbery, whilst the poorest council areas have the highest rates of
burglary. These ACORN neighbourhoods are characterised by low-income households. On the
other hand, ‘high status, non-family’ areas which are characterised by households with well above
23
average incomes, also suffer from high crime rates, and ‘agricultural’ areas and ‘older terraced
housing’, which typically contain many low-income households, have respectively very low and
average burglary and robbery rates.
Figure 2.9 Indexed crime rates for combined 1984, 1988, and 1992 British Crime Survey by
ACORN
Agricultural areas
Mod fam, high income
Old hse, Intermediat
Rich suburban
Better-off retired
Old terraced housing
Better-off council
Less well-off counci
Poorest council
Mixed Inner Metro
High status, non-fam
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Burglary Mugging/Robbery
More recent evidence, based on the 1996 and 1998 British Crime Surveys, confirms the link between
poor areas and crimes such as burglary, violence and vehicle-related theft (Mirrlees et al. 1998).
Figure 2.10 shows the proportion of households and adults who have experienced burglary, vehicle-
related theft and violence by ACORN neighbourhood groups (CACI, 1992). Striving areas
(neighbourhoods with local authority and multi-ethnic, low-income households) contain the highest
proportion of victims in relation to all three types of crime.
Twenty three percent of people in striving areas experienced vehicle-related theft in the previous
year. A further 9% and 7% had experienced burglary and violence, respectively. However, rates of
victimisation are also high amongst the population in rising areas (neighbourhoods containing
affluent urbanites; prosperous professionals in metropolitan areas; and better-off executives, in inner
24
city areas). Thus, the proportions of victims in rising areas were 19%, 8% and 6% for vehicle-related
crime, burglary and violence respectively. The lowest rates of crime exist in thriving areas – which
typically contain a relatively higher proportion of elderly people.
Figure 2.10 Proportion of households/adults who are victims of burglary, vehicle-related theft
and violence by ACORN (1996 & 1998 British Crime Survey)
Thriving Expanding Rising Settling Aspiring Striving
0
5
10
15
20
25
3.8
4
7.9
5.3
6
9.2
14.2
18
19.1
16.8
18.2
22.9
3.5
4.5
6.4
4.6
5.1
6.6
ACORN
% victims once or more
Burglary Vehicle-related Violence
Much of the Home Office research into poor areas has highlighted the extent of crime in areas
containing large council estates (Hope, 1986). Hope and Hough (1988) attempted to tease ‘whether
it is tenure itself which is associated with crime, or the ecological distribution of tenure types
between different neighbourhoods’ (page 41). Their re-analysis of the 1984 British Crime Survey
demonstrated that it is the latter which important: ‘it is the interaction between individual tenure and
the predominant tenure of the neighbourhood which is important, especially the concentration of
council tenure in small residential areas, that is on ‘estates’ (Hope and Hough 1988: 41). Overall,
council tenants had a greater chance of experiencing burglary compared with owner-occupiers.
However, council tenants in non-council areas had a risk of burglary around the national average.
The greater crime risk faced by council tenants was largely associated with neighbourhoods that
were dominated by council housing. Thus, council tenants on estates were particularly vulnerable.
Even between estates which were predominantly council-owned, there was a considerable variation
in risks of crime. Council tenants in the poorest council areas have a rate of burglary fives as that of
25
tenants on the better-off estates and those in predominantly non-council areas (Table 2.1). At the
same time residents of poor council housing area were twice as likely to be very worried about
becoming victims of burglary in the coming year, as those in those better off areas.
Table 2.1 Number of burglaries (including attempts) per 1,000 households by tenure ecology
(1984 British Crime Survey)
Burglaries per 1,000 households
All owner occupiers 34
All council tenants 55
Better-off council tenants 38
Average council tenants 66
Poor council tenants 190
Source: Hope and Hough (1988)
Most studies linking crime with poor areas fail to address whether the main victims of crime are poor
people. It is misleading to assume that poor people live in poor areas only, or that only poor people
live in poor areas. By avoiding these assumptions we may ask the question who are the main victims
of crime in poor areas? It may be, for example, that the victims of crime are disproportionately the
‘better off’ who live in poor areas. In other words, social scientists need to be aware of the pitfalls of
the ecological fallacy (Robinson 1950; Baldwin, 1979). This refers to instances in which
inappropriate inferences about relationships at the individual level are made on the basis of aggregate
data obtained at the area level. In such situations, individuals are assumed to have the same
characteristics of the areas in which they live. Many of the early ecology studies of juvenile
delinquency fell into the trap of the ecological fallacy (Polk, 1957; Willie, 1967). In Britain,
inappropriate conclusions were made about immigrants and their propensity to commit crime based
on recorded crime data showing that crime was highest in areas with an immigrant population
(Wallis and Maliphant, 1967). While there is limited discussion of the ecological fallacy in the
criminological literature, there is a danger that current assumptions about poverty and crime are
failing to take into account the full effects of the fallacy.
Poverty and crime: exploring the ecological fallacy
This next section examines the impact of poverty at the area level, and the extent to which there are
differences in risks of victimisation between different income households using the 1992 British
Crime Survey and the 1991 Census. It confirms the correlation between crime and area poverty,
although the relationship between crime and poverty at the individual level is more ambiguous.
The 1991 Census was used to construct a deprivation index known as the Breadline Britain index in
order to link it to the 1992 British Crime Survey. Any census based index will comprise variables
that are, at best, proxy indicators of deprivation because none of the questions in the 1991 census was
specifically designed to measure poverty or deprivation. The Breadline Britain Index is based upon
the characteristics of households and individuals found to be living in poverty from the results of the
1990 Breadline Britain survey (Gordon, 1995; Gordon and Forrest 1995).
The findings confirm the importance of area poverty in determining risks of victimisation. Figure
2.11 demonstrates the risks of victimisation according to whether households are in areas of below
average poverty or above average poverty (as defined by the Breadline Britain index using the 1991
26
Census). Forty-five percent of households in areas of above average poverty suffered victimisation
in the previous year, compared with only 35% of those households in areas of below average
poverty.
Figure 2.11 Percent of households experiencing total crime, household crime, burglary, theft
around the dwelling and household vandalism in the previous year
Note: 1992 BCS: Core sample: weighted data and 1991 Census
Total crime Household crime Burglary Dwelling theft Vandalism
0
10
20
30
40
50
35
12
4
6
4
45
21
10
9
6
Type of crime
Percent
Below average poverty Above average poverty
Sources: 1992 British Crime Survey, 1991 Census of Population
Households in poor areas are 1.8 times more likely to experience household crime (which includes
burglary, theft around the dwelling, vandalism) compared with households in areas with below
average poverty levels. A similar pattern can be observed in relation to the separate components of
household property crime. In comparison with households in areas of below average poverty,
households in poor areas are 2.5 times more likely to be burgled and 1.5 times more likely to
experience theft around the dwelling and vandalism.
Having established the correlation between area poverty and victimisation, Figure 2.12 illustrates the
risks of experiencing total crime amongst different income households within poor area and non-poor
areas. It shows that regardless of area poverty levels, there is a positive relationship between total
victimisation and household income. In areas of below average poverty, the richest households
experience the highest levels of victimisation (49%). They are more than twice as likely to
experience some type of victimisation than households in the poorest households. There is a
similarly positive relationship between household income and victimisation in areas with above
average poverty. Sixty four percent of the richest households experience crime, compared with only
35% of the poorest households. Richer households are more likely to experience total victimisation
because a large proportion of crime is vehicle-related, and vehicle ownership is higher amongst
richer households than in poor households.
27
Figure 2.12 Percent of households experiencing total crime by gross annual income groups and
area poverty (1992 British Crime Survey and 1991 Census).
Note: 1992 BCS: Core sample: weighted data and 1991 Census
Below average Above average
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
23
35
28
42
35
52
38
54
43
57
49
64
Area poverty
Percent
< £5,000 £5,000-9,999 £10,000-14,999
£15,000-19,999 £20,000-29,999 £30,000+
The next figure (Figure 2.13) examines the relationship between the risk of experiencing household
property crime according to household income group and area poverty. Unlike the previous figure
the positive relationship between victimisation and income is absent. Instead Figure 2.13 shows that
regardless of area poverty levels, there is little difference in victimisation risks amongst the different
income groups. In areas of below average poverty, victimisation risks range from 11% to 14%,
whereas in areas of above average poverty, the victimisation risks for households are between 19%
to 24%.
28
Figure 2.13 Percent of households experiencing household property crime by gross household
income group and area poverty (1992 British Crime Survey and 1991 Census)
Note: 1992 BCS: Core sample: weighted data and 1991 Census
Below average Above average
0
5
10
15
20
25
13
22
11
19
14
24
12
22
13
24
14
23
Area poverty
Percent
< £5,000 £5,000-9,999 £10,000-14,999
£15,000-19,999 £20,000-29,999 £30,000+
The conclusion that can be drawn from these analyses is that it is often ‘richer’ households in poorer
areas that are victims of crime. If Neighbourhood Renewal projects in ‘poor’ areas are effective in
reducing crime levels this will be of obvious benefit to the community as a whole but it may also be
of greater benefit to the ‘richer’ households than the ‘poorer’ households. This should be borne in
mind when establishing expenditure priorities.
Criminal Statistics: Notifiable Offences
The Criminal Statistics England and Wales are published annually, together with volumes of
supplementary information. The Criminal Statistics provides detail on the number of offences
recorded by the police, otherwise known as notifiable offences. This information is routinely
available at police force area level and regional level. Information is also contained on offender-
based data such as offenders found guilty or cautioned, otherwise known as ‘known offenders’.
Statistics on those found guilty and cautioned are presented by offence group and by police force
area, with separate tables for indictable
6
and summary offences
7
.
Notifiable offences relate to those offences that the police are required to record. The Criminal
Statistics provide information for different offence groupings, but not for other (non-notifiable)
offences. This information is available for the 43 police force areas.
6
Those offences tried by judge and jury at the Crown Court.
7
Those offences tried at Magistrates’ Courts.
29
The Crime and Disorder Act of 1998 places a new statutory duty on local authorities and the police
to produce an audit of crime and disorder, and to develop and implement a crime safety strategy.
The result of this is that crime data is now being made available at a more localised level. For
example, in Kerrier and Penwith data on notifiable crimes are available for police beat areas and this
report has analysed the latest available data.
However there are a number of serious limitations with using the Crime and Disorder Audit data to
measure crime at small area level.
Firstly, Police statistics are collected at ‘beat’ level but these areas do not necessarily relate to other
administrative boundaries such as parishes or wards. Even higher level police boundaries do not
necessarily correspond with district or other administrative boundaries.
There are other concerns relating to the recording and reporting of police data. Offences recorded by
the police represent only a subset of total crime committed. According to the British Crime Survey
there are four times as many crimes than the police record (Mirrlees-Black et al. 1998). This is
mainly because only 44% of crimes are reported to the police. The majority of crimes are therefore
not reported to the police. Reporting varies considerably by type of offence. Thefts of cars are most
often reported: 97% were in 1997. Burglaries in which something was stolen were also reported
(85%). Theft from the person and vandalism were the least likely offences to be reported: 35% and
26% respectively. The most common reason for not reporting crimes is that they are seen as too
trivial, or involved too small a loss to warrant police attention. Unreported thefts from vehicles, no
loss burglaries and vandalism were particularly likely to be seen as too trivial to report. For violence
such as wounding and robbery, the most common reason for not reporting was that the victims felt
that the matter was private or had dealt with it themselves.
Furthermore, not all reported crimes are recorded by the police. In 1997 the British Crime Survey
estimated that about 54% of all reported crimes were recorded (Mirrlees-Black et al. 1998). Again
the recording varies according to offence type. Thefts of cars and burglaries with loss were the most
likely offences to be recorded, attempted vehicle related thefts and violence (wounding and robbery)
the least likely. There are a number of reasons for this discrepancy, including police discretion. The
police may not record a complaint because of their compliance with victims’ wishes not to proceed.
Other incidents may be regarded as too trivial to warrant formal action, or the police may feel the
report is mistaken or disingenuous, or there is insufficient evidence to suggest a crime has been
committed. However, the main reason for non-recording is due to the strict Home Office guidelines
that Police Forces must follow. However, from April 2002 new guidelines for “ethical crime
recording” should result in crimes being recorded as initially reported, which should lead to some
improvements in the statistics.
Finally, considerable fluctuations over time in levels of recorded crime are evident when mapping
crime at a very small spatial scale such as the ward or parish. This means that any given spatial
distribution of crime levels even on an annual basis will be characterised by substantial ‘random’
changes.
Addressing these issues would ideally involve undertaking a large-scale local victimisation survey
similar to the British Crime Survey. However, in the absence of such data all these problems should
be acknowledge in interpreting available crime statistics. Therefore the following results on crime in
West Cornwall need to be interpreted with caution when drafting neighbourhood renewal policies.
30
Methodology
In Kerrier, police beat areas are coterminous with parish boundaries. However, there is some
divergence between police beats and parish boundaries in Penwith with only approximately two
thirds of police beats being coterminous with parish boundaries, effectively constituting sub-
divisions within parishes. In these cases and for the whole of Kerrier, it has thus been possible to
aggregate total crime statistics to parish level. However, in some areas of Penwith, beat boundaries
are unclear and do not correspond with parish boundaries (ie Ludgvan, Madron East, Madron West,
Towednack). These areas are therefore excluded in the spatial analyses presented below.
Findings
During 2000-2001, 52,399 incidents were reported to police across Kerrier and Penwith. Of these,
only a small proportion (18.3%) were considered by police to be sufficiently serious to be classified
as crimes. In addition to these reported crimes, total crime also includes crimes identified through
police investigations. Figures 2.14 and 2.15 below illustrate the frequency of total crimes for the
period April 1998 to January 2001 for Kerrier and Penwith respectively.
Figure 2.14: Total Crime in Kerrier, 1998 – 2001
Source: Kerrier Crime and Disorder Audit, 2001
In Kerrier, 5150 crimes were recorded during 2000-01 - or 56 crimes per 1,000 people (based upon
CDRP population estimates). Figure 2.9 (above) is suggestive of a long-term decline in levels of
total crime – from over 500 in April 1998 to just over 400 in January 2001. However, as noted
above, and given the substantial fluctuations evident over this period, this general decline should be
treated with caution.
31
Figure 2.15: Total Crime in Penwith, 1998 – 2001
Source: Penwith Crime and Disorder Audit, 2001
In Penwith, 4443 crimes were recorded during 2000-01 - or 74 crimes per 1,000 people (based upon
CDRP population estimates). Figure 2.10 (above) is also indicative of a long-term decline in levels
of total crime – from over 500 in April 1998 to 350 in January 2001. Again, however, this general
decline should be treated with caution given the substantial fluctuations from month to month e.g.
recorded crime was over 600 in September 1999 and then halved to 300 in April 2000 before rising
again.
In general, the highest levels of recorded crime are concentrated in the more populous areas of West
Cornwall (as would be expected). In Penwith, approximately one third of total recorded crime is
concentrated in Penzance and Hayle and St Ives each account for around 13% of the recorded total in
Penwith. Similarly, in Kerrier most crime occurs in the more densely populated areas, with
Cambourne accounting for nearly one third (32%), and Redruth nearly one fifth (18%), of the
recorded total for the district.
Controlling for the disparity in population between the more populous large towns in the region and
smaller settlements in more remote rural areas has a levelling effect on the spatial distribution across
west Cornwall. Figure 2.16 below shows total recorded crime per 1,000 population aggregated to
parish level across west Cornwall
8
. On this basis police beats within the larger coastal towns of
Penzance, St. Ives and Hayle, and the Camborne, Pool, Redruth area recorded higher numbers of
recorded crimes per 1,000 population than rural areas although the disparity between urban and rural
areas is considerably reduced. However, it must be noted that some of the victims of crime,
(particularly in costal towns) will have been tourists, so the adjustment that has been made for
population size will overestimate the ‘true’ crime rates in the tourist areas.
8
The population weighting used here is based upon Office for National Statistics 1998 mid year population estimates.
32
Figure 2.16: Total recorded crime in Kerrier and Penwith by parish per 1,000 population,
2000/01
99
Source: Kerrier and Penwith Crime and Disorder Audits, 2001
In 2000/01 the incidence of reported crime per 1,000 population in the parishes of Penzance (93),
Camborne (84), Pool (112), and Hayle (90) was considerably higher than for those rural parishes
with the lowest levels of recorded crime per 1,000 population over this period – namely St. Martin
(11), Zennor (12), Perranuthnoe (14), Sancreed (15).
However, it must be strongly emphasised that the levels of recorded crime throughout west Cornwall
remain considerably lower than in most other areas of England and Wales. Recorded crime statistics
provided by the Home Office suggest that the incidence of crime in all the main categories is lower
in rural areas than in urban areas
10
. Levels of recorded crime in 2001 in the rural areas of the South
West were lower than in urban areas within the region, and levels of crime are generally lower than
in other rural areas in England for almost all categories of crime, as Table 2.2, below, shows.
9
Excluding the following police beat areas: Ludgvan, Madron East, Madron West, Towednack beats.
10
Data is collected for Crime Reduction Partnership areas which are generally linked to Local Authority areas, although
some may be larger and some smaller. The data cannot be compared directly to data from previous years which
used Basic Command Units (BCU) to report since BCU boundaries do not all coincide with Local Authority ones.
33
Table 2.2: Recorded Offences per 1,000 population, year to March 2001
Source: Countryside Agency (2001b) and Home Office, 2001
To conclude, crime in the rural South West in general and in Kerrier and Penwith in particular is
much less of a problem than in other parts of England and Wales. Crime rates in west Cornwall are
some of the lowest in the UK.
ILD 2000 DEPRIVATION IN KERRIER AND PENWITH
As the 2000 DETR report suggests, deprivation is made up of separate dimensions, (or ‘domains’) of
deprivation (DETR, 2000a). The extent and distribution of these different forms of deprivation
varies between places at both local and regional levels. Table 2.3 summarises the pattern of
deprivation at ward level across the six main domains of the 2000 ILD for West Cornwall.
Table 2.3: ILD Deprived Wards in Kerrier and Penwith, by Deprivation Domain, 2000
Kerrier Penwith
English Ward Ranking No % No %
Most deprived 10% 4 18 5 19
Income
Most deprived 20% 6 27 12 75
Most deprived 10% 3 14 8 50
Employment
Most deprived 20% 10 46 13 81
Most deprived 10% 2 5 1 6
Housing
Most deprived 20% 3 14 3 19
Most deprived 10% 3 14 4 25
Health
Most deprived 20% 6 27 13 81
Most deprived 10% 5 23 1 6
Education
Most deprived 20% 7 32 2 13
Most deprived 10% 3 14 1 6
Services
Most deprived 20% 9 41 4 25
As Table 2.3 shows, income and employment deprivation are widespread in West Cornwall, with the
great majority of wards in Penwith falling within the most deprived 20% of English wards for both
income and employment. Health deprivation is also a significant problem in West Cornwall -
especially in Penwith - with four fifths (81%) of the wards within the 20% most health deprived
34
English wards. Comparison with the other four Cornish Local Authorities again reveals the extent of
deprivation in West Cornwall (see Appendix II).
Effective targeting of regeneration spending involves first identifying those areas experiencing the
worst deprivation. A full listing of all the wards in Kerrier and Penwith experiencing deprivation, as
measured by the DETR’s Domains of Deprivation is given in Appendix II. Those wards ranked
within the most deprived 20% of English wards on the DETR’s Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD)
are illustrated in Figure 2.17:
Figure 2.17: IMD Deprived Wards in West Cornwall, 2000
In mid-1998, those wards falling within the 10% most IMD deprived English wards contained a
resident population of 40,400 people and those within the most IMD deprived 20% contained 85,500
people. These figures represent 26.9% and 57.0%, respectively, of the resident population of Kerrier
and Penwith according to 1998 mid-year population estimates. All seven of the west Cornish wards
classified within the 10% most IMD deprived English wards have been identified by central
Government as eligible for Neighbourhood Renewal funding.
35
SMALL AREA MEASURES OF DEPRIVATION
A primary task of this research was to identify the poorest neighbourhoods in West Cornwall at small
area level e.g. using areas that are smaller than electoral wards. This required a considerable amount
of new research work as no predominantly rural area in the country has yet successfully managed to
do this within the neighbourhood renewal framework.
Methodology
The measurement of deprivation at the sub-ward level is constrained both by data limitations and by
the appropriateness of deprivation indicators in a rural context. The 1991 Census provides the only
reliable data at the sub-ward level for the whole of the UK. One of the main uses of Census statistics
is in the construction of deprivation indices, since they form a key element in the allocation of local
government and health resources. However, none of the 1991 Census questions was specifically
designed to measure deprivation so any Census-based index will be comprised of variables which are
at best proxy measures of deprivation (Payne et al, 1996). Moreover, since such indices need to be
nationally representative, their construction tends to under-emphasise the distinctive needs of people
living in remoter rural areas.
Seven indicators derived from the 1991 Census of Population were finally selected. Their
appropriateness in the Cornish context is discussed in more detail below under Findings. These
measures approximate to the six ‘domains’ of deprivation (plus the supplementary child poverty
index) identified by the DETR and included within the ward level 2000 Index of Local Deprivation:
qq Poverty rate (Income)
11
qq Child poverty rate (Supplementary)
qq Unemployment rate (Employment)
qq Percent of people aged 18 and over with no post school qualifications (Education)
qq Limiting Long Term Illness/Disability rate (Health)
qq Percent of households with no central heating (Housing)
qq Percent of households with no car (Access to services)
Finally, on the basis of these measures, it was possible to construct a scale of multiple deprivation.
First, the scores for each Enumeration District were ranked for each measure. Secondly and
following the approach adopted by the DETR in the construction of the Index of Multiple
Deprivation (IMD) at a ward level, the different ‘domains’ were weighted to broadly reflect the
weightings used in the construction of the DETR’s 2000 Index of Multiple Deprivation. This
ensured that the final multiple deprivation index was constructed in a similar way to the 2000 IMD
used to identify priority districts eligible for Neighbourhood Renewal funding. The following
weighting was used:
11
The poverty and child poverty measures are derived from the 1990 Breadline Britain survey (Gordon and Pantazis,
1997) and applied to 1991 Census data (Gordon, 1995; Gordon and Loughran, 1997). These measures are
considered to be amongst the most accurate available by many authors (eg Lee et al, 1995; Burrows and Rhodes,
1998; Saunders, 1998).
36
(1)
qq Poverty 20%
qq Child poverty 20%
qq Unemployment 20%
qq Standardised Illness Ratio 12%
qq Post-school educational qualifications 12%
qq Central heating 8%
qq Access to a car 8%
Enumeration Districts were then ranked according to their score on this cumulative index and a
cumulative population variable constructed. On this basis, it was possible to identify the most
deprived Enumeration Districts for any population threshold (in this case the 33% level). It was
decided by the steering committee that the research team should identify the poorest areas in West
Cornwall in which a third of the population lived. These would represent the primary target areas for
receiving Neighbourhood Renewal funding.
Mapping Deprivation at the Sub-ward Level
For each of the individual indicators described below, an interpolation procedure known as Inverse
Distance Weighting (IDW) has been used to map the distribution of deprivation in West Cornwall.
There are many advantages to taking spatial data beyond a purely descriptive display method, such
as the thematic mapping of points using colours (ie a choropleth map). Deprivation is not
constrained by Census boundaries, that is, deprivation usually does not dramatically fall from high
levels on one side of an Enumeration District boundary to low levels on the other. IDW interpolation
‘smoothes’ the gradations in levels of deprivation across Enumeration Districts to generate a more
realistic model of deprivation. It also enables a spatial analysis of change over time in socio-
economic data.
Interpolation is a mathematical process used to estimate values between known point observations.
The IDW procedure converts point data into continuous grid layers ( a trend surface) by calculating a
value for each grid node by examining surrounding data points lying within a defined search radius.
The node value is calculated by averaging the weighted sum of all the points, the weight being a
function of inverse distance. Thus, data points that lie progressively farther from the node influence
the computed value far less than those lying closer to the node. A technical account of IDW
interpolation is given in Appendix II.
(1) (2) (3)
©Northwood Geoscience
In illustration (1) above, 24 points are arranged regularly with attribute values ranging from 0 to 2.
Any numeric attribute can be represented in 3D form, as depicted in the second illustration. This
image is actually a rendered grid generated using IDW interpolation by sampling only one data point
37
and using a very small display radius equal to the width of a single column. However, grids are
usually used to build a continuous surface that connects data points in space, effectively removing
gaps in the representation of data. IDW achieves this by generating a moving average or
‘smoothing’ of the data, as shown in illustration (3).
This kind of trend surface methodology is made necessary because of Spatial Autocorrelation.
Areas next to each other are likely to be more similar than areas further away. Spatial
autocorrelation can be defined as the clustering pattern in the spatial distribution of a variable which
is due to the very fact that the occurrences are physically close together, that is, that they are in
geographical proximity. They are not independent of each other, but are linked. The data are
spatially dependent.
Spatial autocorrelation is widespread: rich people move to areas where other rich people live; disease
can spread from one neighbour to another, etc. If the values in a poverty or health cluster are more
alike than would be due to random processes, there exists a positive autocorrelation; if they are less
alike than would occur through random processes, there exists a negative autocorrelation.
Findings
Poverty
As the 2000 Indices of Local Deprivation suggest high levels of poverty are endemic across much of
west Cornwall. Figure 2.18 (below) shows the distribution of scores for each Enumeration District in
west Cornwall for the poverty index. For each Enumeration District the score represents the
percentage of households living in poverty as defined by the Breadline Britain in the 1990s Survey
12
(Gordon and Pantazis, 1997) and applied to the 1991 Census data (see Gordon, 1995). The areas
highlighted in Figures 2.18 to 2.24 represent the upper quartile of scores for each of the deprivation
indicators selected.
As Figure 2.18 shows poverty in west Cornwall is concentrated in much of west Penwith (especially
the coastal towns of Penzance and Newlyn, St. Ives, St. Just, and Hayle), as well as in the Camborne,
Pool and Redruth area, and the Lizard peninsula.
12
In the Breadline Britain in the 1990s survey poverty was defined scientifically using the consensual method e.g. in
order to be poor a household had to have both a low income and a standard of living that was below the minimum
acceptable to the majority of the British population.
38
Figure 2.18: Poverty rate (%) in Kerrier and Penwith by ED (most deprived quartile)
Source: 1991 Census of Population
The child poverty index measures the percentage of poor households with children based on the
poverty index derived from the Breadline Britain in the 1990s Survey and applied to the 1991 Census
data. As such the pattern is slightly different to the overall poverty index described in Figure 2.18
(above). As Figure 2.19 shows, the distribution of child poverty in west Cornwall is slightly more
spatially concentrated than for poverty amongst the adult population, with significant clusters of
child poverty in some of the more remote rural settlements such as the St. Buryan area, and in St.
Keverne and the Lizard peninsula. However, the larger towns (Penzance and Newlyn, Camborne,
Pool and Redruth, Hayle, and St. Just) are also characterised by high rates of child poverty.
Figure 2.19: Child Poverty Rate (%) in Kerrier and Penwith by ED (most deprived quartile)
Source: 1991 Census of Population
39
Health
The Standardised Illness Ratio (SIR) measures the incidence of illness (morbidity) standardised by
age and sex, where a score of 100 represents the average health of the population of England and
Wales. Thus a score of 167 across an Enumeration District means that residents are 67% more likely
to experience a “long term illness, health problem or handicap which limits their daily activities or
the work they can do” compared with the average for England & Wales. Conversely, a score of 50
means that residents are less likely to experience illness compared with the average for England &
Wales.
As Figure 2.20 (below) shows, ill health in west Cornwall is concentrated mainly in north Kerrier.
The Enumeration Districts in west Cornwall with the highest scores (ie. within the upper quartile of
the distribution) are predominantly in the Camborne, Pool, Redruth area. Smaller pockets of ill
health are also evident in the large coastal towns of Penzance and Newlyn, St. Ives, and Hayle, as
well as in the Pendeen area, and the Lizard peninsula.
Figure 2.20: Standardised Illness Ratio in Kerrier and Penwith by ED (most deprived quartile)
Source: 1991 Census of Population
Unemployment
The Census indicator of unemployment is a more accurate measure of worklessness than Claimant
Count estimates since the latter only includes economically active individuals in receipt of
unemployment-related benefits. According to this measure the most substantial areas of
worklessness are in north Penwith and north Kerrier as a whole, as well as in Penzance and southern
Lizard, as Figure 2.21 (below) shows. Unemployment is a particular problem in the larger towns (St.
Ives, Hayle, Camborne, Pool and Redruth).
40
Figure 2.21: Unemployment Rate (%) in Kerrier and Penwith by ED (most deprived quartile)
Source: 1991 Census of Population
Education
The distribution of educational disadvantage, as measured by the percentage of individuals without
post-school qualifications (degrees, professional and vocational qualifications), is very different than
for poverty, child poverty, and unemployment. The distribution of individuals with no post-school
educational qualifications is much more dispersed, with significant clusters in many of the smaller
and more remote rural settlements across Penwith and especially Kerrier, as Figure 2.22 (below)
indicates.
This pattern partly reflects the different age profile of rural areas in comparison with the larger
towns. Demographic change means that rural communities are increasingly characterised by greater
concentrations of older residents compared with larger towns. Since educational attainment also
reflects patterns of generational change it is to be expected that educational attainment would be
relatively low in many isolated rural communities with ageing populations. However many of the
Enumeration Districts in west Cornwall with the highest scores for educational under-achievement
are also concentrated in the larger coastal towns of St. Ives, St. Just, and Hayle, as well as across the
Camborne, Pool and Redruth area.
41
Figure 2.22: Individuals with No Post-School Qualifications (%) in Kerrier and Penwith by
ED, (most deprived quartile)
Source: 1991 Census of Population
Housing
The distribution of households lacking central heating in west Cornwall again differs significantly
from the key indicators described above - namely poverty, child poverty, and unemployment. The
Enumeration Districts with the greatest proportion of households lacking this basic amenity are
concentrated predominantly in west Penwith and especially in the Penzance and Newlyn area, as well
as in St. Ives, and St.Buryan.
42
Figure 2.23: Households with No Central Heating (%) in Kerrier and Penwith by ED (most
deprived quartile)
Source: 1991 Census of Population
Access to Services
Access to a car is a key dimension of access to community services in rural areas, especially since
historical and new data reveal an overall trend of declining geographical availability for some
essential services in many rural areas (Countryside Agency, 2001 – see Chapter 4). Strikingly, the
percentage of households in west Cornwall without access to a car closely reflects the distribution of
poverty amongst the adult population (see Figure 2.18). As Figure 2.24 (below) shows, levels of
access to a car are lowest in the larger towns (St. Ives, St. Just, Penzance and Newlyn, Hayle, and
Camborne, Pool, and Redruth). However, there are also substantial rural areas (eg. west Penwith, the
Lizard peninsula) where lack of access to a car is also a significant problem, especially given the
remote rural location of these settlements.
43
Figure 2.24: Households with No Access to a Car (%) in Kerrier and Penwith by ED (most
deprived quartile)
Source: 1991 Census of Population
IDENTIFYING PRIORITY AREAS
Using the methodology described above it was then possible to map deprivation at a small area level
using a cumulative index of deprivation which combines the Census indicators described above, as
illustrated in Figure 2.25 (below). The most significant concentrations of deprivation produced by
this procedure are in the larger settlements – chiefly Camborne, Pool, Redruth, St. Ives, Penzance,
and St. Just. However, mapping deprivation at Enumeration District level also reveals smaller
pockets of deprivation in rural settlements such as the Lizard area
13
, Pendeen, and the Land’s End
area
13
It should be noted that the Lizard area may well contain a greater numbers of areas of need than these statistics reveal.
The highly seasonal nature of work on the Lizard (particularly flower picking and tourism) combined with the influence
of the nearby large RAF base and the high number of second homes may obscure the ‘true’ extent of need in statistical
analysis.
44
Figure 2.25: Cumulative index of deprivation in west Cornwall (IDW method), 1991 Census
Source: 1991 Census of Population
Ranking Enumeration Districts according to their score on this cumulative index meant it was then
possible to identify the most deprived Enumeration Districts for any population threshold (in this
case the 33% level as determined by the West Cornwall LSP). The priority areas for NRF funding as
determined by this procedure are shown in Figure 2.26, below. A larger scale map of the priority
areas with area labels is included in Appendix II. The priority areas are mainly concentrated in the
Camborne, Pool, Redruth area, Penzance area, St Ives area, Hayle area, Newlyn area, Helston area,
St Just area, Porthleven area, Hayle & Towans, Troon area and Pendeen areas (see Appendix II for
details). However, there is also some evidence of priority need in the Lizard area.
Figure 2.26: Priority Areas at 33% Population Threshold, 1991 Census
45
POOR CONSUMERS AND SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURS
Market research companies have created a multi-million (billion?) pound geo-demographics industry
in Britain which attempts to classify small areas on the basis of the consumer behaviour of the people
who live there. This kind of commercial information can be useful to a scientific study in two
respects:
1. Geo-demographics data can be used to help validate the measures of deprivation used in this
study by examining the ‘fit’ between this index and the market research data.
2. Market researchers tend to be much more interested in identifying “rich” and “middle-class”
areas than most academics (for the obvious commercial reasons) so these data may be useful
in identifying where the highest concentrations of potential “social entrepreneurs” live.
One such data source is the Experian database of household and neighbourhood types developed as
part of the Great Britain MOSAIC project. GB MOSAIC classifies all Great Britain households into
52 distinct ‘lifestyle types’ which comprehensively describe their socio-economic and socio-cultural
behaviour. A MOSAIC type is assigned to each of the 1.6 million postcodes in Great Britain. The
type assigned is the one that most closely describes the characteristics of those households and the
individuals living there.
Methodology
A GB MOSAIC type is assigned to each household based upon a large number of statistical
measures, originating from different sources and relating either to the individual person, their
household, postcode, or other geographic unit such as Census Enumeration Districts or postal
sectors. Each year, the data is refreshed (except Census data, which was gathered in 1991) and the
GB MOSAIC type assigned to each postcode or household is re-evaluated and, in some instances,
changed where the statistical characteristics have altered (for example, due to movements of people
or new buildings). A detailed description of the clustering technique used to generate these
household types is given in Appendix II.
Using the GB MOSAIC profiles, it was possible to construct variables which broadly correspond to
indicators of rural poverty, as well the identification of ‘key stakeholders’ in terms of civic
involvement and community regeneration. The following clusters (or household types) were
identified as pertinent to the investigation of rural poverty in the West Cornish context:
q Low rise pensioners (D15)
q Low rise subsistence (D16)
q Peripheral poverty (D17)
q Rural disadvantage (K48)
The following clusters (or household types) were identified as pertinent to the identification of
potential ‘social entrepreneurs’ in the west Cornish context:
q Clever capitalists (A4)
q Ageing professionals (A5)
q Small town business (A6)
q Chattering classes (H36)
q High spending greys (I48)
46
Findings
The areas highlighted in Figures 2.26 and 2.27 represent the upper quartile of the distribution
measuring the concentration of “social entrepreneurs” and “rural poor” respectively within each
postal sector (ie. as a percentage of the total population). As Figure 2.26 shows, households defined
as potential “social entrepreneurs” using the GB MOSAIC classification are concentrated in the
coastal areas of Kerrier and Penwith – principally around St. Ives, in the south of the Land’s End
peninsula, and in the west of the Lizard peninsula. Interestingly, comparing the distribution of these
community “animateurs” with the geographical distribution of community organisation (see Figure
4.16) reveals an essentially inverse relationship – namely, those areas characterised by high levels of
community organisation contain few households defined here as “social entrepreneurs”.
This pattern may reflect the low population densities of the areas containing high concentrations of
“social entrepreneurs”. Community organisation tends to occur in populous areas – chiefly major
towns – which act as nodes in the development of community networks due to their accessibility and
physical infrastructure such as meeting halls and other venues. It is likely therefore that “social
entrepreneurs” live outside these areas in more remote settlements and travel in to the main
population centres. Alternatively the real “social entrepreneurs” in west Cornwall may not belong to
any of these ‘middle-class’ professional groups, but may be largely composed of ‘poorer’ and/or
younger social groups.
Figure 2.26: ‘Social Entrepreneurs’ in West Cornwall by Postcode Sector, 2000
Source: GB MOSAIC © Experian
Households defined as “poor consumers” using the GB MOSAIC classification are concentrated
largely in west Penwith (especially in the St. Just area), as well as in north Kerrier (principally in
Camborne and Redruth), as Figure 2.27 (below) shows. Comparing the distribution of “poor
consumers” with “social entrepreneurs” (Figure 2.26, above) again shows an inverse relationship
such that in those areas with high concentrations of poverty as identified by GB MOSAIC “social
entrepreneurs” are relatively scarce. This demonstrates the internal consistency of the GB MOSAIC
classification.
47
However comparing the distribution of “poor consumers” with the geographical distribution of
poverty using 1991 Census data (Figure 2.18) reveals the limitations of market research approach to
social classification. There is some degree of consistency between the two approaches in the areas
identified as containing large proportions of “poor” households. As Figure 2.27 reveals, in both
approaches west Penwith figures prominently, as well as north Kerrier (especially Camborne and
Redruth).
Figure 2.27: ‘Poor Consumers’ in West Cornwall by Postcode Sector, 2000
Source: GB MOSAIC © Experian
However, in contrast with the 1999 Census analyses, smaller predominantly rural settlements (eg. in
the Lizard peninsula and in the Marazion area) are overlooked using a classification based upon GB
MOSAIC. This inconsistency between Census based and GB MOSAIC based approaches is partly a
result of the larger spatial scale of UK postal sectors in comparison with Enumeration Districts,
which means that smaller pockets of deprivation within otherwise relatively affluent are often
missed. However, it also reflects the different priorities of market research, which focus upon
predicting consumer behaviour rather than upon the scientific measurement of poverty and social
exclusion. These findings emphasise the fact that geo-demographic market researchers are primarily
interested in the location of middle income and richer social groups, whereas social scientific
research has often concentrated on mapping the distribution of poorer social groups.
48
49
CHAPTER THREE:
CONSULTATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS
METHODOLOGY
Scope of the Research
This phase of the research focused on the experience of stakeholders in relation to deprived
neighbourhoods. It was intended as a preliminary exercise to explore:
qq stakeholders’ perceptions of the location and boundaries of priority neighbourhoods and the
extent to which these correlated with statistical mapping
qq their view of the issues facing these neighbourhoods and similarities and differences in the
issues faced
qq their understanding of the causes of the problems
qq their perspective on possible solutions
These questions relate to Stage Three of the research specification. However, the data gathered also
threw light on some of the questions in Stage Four, particularly the interaction between one
neighbourhood and another and the leverage of stakeholders over the challenges faced.
Interview Sample
The primary instrument for the research was semi-structured interviews with a range of stakeholders.
Thirty-one face to face interviews, involving 37 people, were conducted by the research team. These
interviews took place during three visits by the researchers in October and November. The sample
was developed with the aim of including a range of perspectives. The following criteria were
important in the selection of research participants:
qq A fairly even spread across the two local authority districts of Kerrier and Penwith
qq The inclusion of town and rural areas
qq Representation from statutory, voluntary and community agencies
qq The inclusion of different levels of agency or group, eg overview or umbrella body; area
based agency; neighbourhood level agency, worker or activist
qq Inclusion of the various levels of local government, ie county, district, town and parish
councils
qq A reasonable spread of types of organisation in terms of the focus of the agency or group, eg
regeneration and community development or a more specialised focus, eg housing, health,
employment, crime, education, community arts
Participants were recruited partly by drawing on other information sources and databases to locate
particular agencies and partly by the ‘snowball sampling’ technique (Arber, 1996). In this case,
‘snowball sampling’ meant starting with suggestions made by the Research Steering Group and
including some members of the Steering Group themselves in the sample. During the first round of
50
interviews, ideas were actively sought from interviewees for extending the sample in particular
directions which were not yet well represented.
Of the interviewees, all were white, 18 were women and 19 were men. There was no specific
question about Cornish identity but the majority indicated long-standing or lifelong connections with
Cornwall. A full list of participating organisations is given in Appendix III.
Community and Voluntary Sector Conference
A significant bonus for this stage of the research was the timing of the community and voluntary
sector conference ‘Making it Happen’ on 19 November 2001 to explore the involvement of the
sector in neighbourhood renewal and the use of the Community Empowerment Fund and the
Community Chest. By the time of the conference, the researchers had had the opportunity to
interview most of the key players who had planned the conference and a few of the participants.
This had provided them with sufficient understanding of the area and the issues in order to build on
this knowledge by attendance at the conference. It was also possible to make connections with other
people whom it was hoped to interview and fill some of the gaps in terms of geographical areas and
specialist issues.
Interview Instrument
Semi-structured interviews were used in the research to ensure consistency across the topics
discussed (which related to the research specification), while allowing flexibility in exploring
particular perspectives and issues.
The topic guide was discussed at the Research Steering Group meeting on 10 October and is
reproduced in Appendix III. There were two slightly differing versions of the guide, one geared
towards development, umbrella or specialist organisations, the other towards neighbourhood groups.
The topic guide proved a useful tool in a number of ways. Firstly, it ensured consistency of approach
between the two researchers. Consistency was also assisted by sharing some interviews and then
reviewing them to identify similar and dissimilar factors of approach and style. Secondly, in the
earlier interviews, the flexibility of the topic guide enabled the researchers themselves to gain an
understanding of the areas, issues, organisations and structures, as experienced by workers and
residents. This was important in identifying emerging themes and clarifying issues in greater depth
in subsequent interviews.
The guide covered the various topics comprehensively but also facilitated a focus upon specific
questions where appropriate. The later questions had sometimes been covered in earlier answers but
the guide could be used to check on any omissions. Some interviewees were more interested in
seeing the guide themselves than others. It was always introduced to interviewees and available if
they wished but the majority of interviews were conducted flexibly by the interviewer referring as
needed to the guide.
Notes were taken during interviews and tape recordings made. Because of the timescale, the notes
have been the major source of analysis. An additional source of analysis, reflecting the timescale
and logistics of the research, was regular exchange between the researchers about emerging findings
which has assisted the identification of common and divergent themes and issues which need further
exploration.
51
Telephone Interviews
The face-to-face interviews were supplemented by 14 telephone interviews between late November
2001 and early January 2002, undertaken by one of the researchers. The topic guide provided a basis
for the telephone interviews in most cases and notes were taken. Ten women and four men were
interviewed by telephone. This enabled some gaps to be addressed and the range of perspectives to
be extended and strengthened, including:
q Additional representation from very local groups in both Penwith and Kerrier
q Disability and access
q Women’s issues especially in relation to domestic abuse
q Health, especially the relationship between health and community development
q Faith groups
q Cornish cultural work
q Trade Unions
Limitations
The research findings are subject to a number of limitations relating primarily to the timescale of the
fieldwork. The scope of the consultation was defined in the research specification as “a preliminary
exercise to gather data about the identification of issues at local neighbourhood level, and local
views about possible causes and solutions”.
The short timescale of the research had implications for the planning and development of the sample.
However, despite the time pressures, the cooperation and support which the researchers received
from Steering Group members and many other research participants enabled a diverse sample to be
put together which included some representation across a number of key dimensions sought.
Inevitably, representation of some groups and concerns will be stronger than others.
A related issue was the contemporaneous running of different stages of the research. The statistical
mapping of deprivation in order to identify priority neighbourhoods was continuing throughout most
of the interview phase and decisions about population thresholds and the most appropriate
measurement tools were evolving rather than finalised. This meant that the exploration of research
participants’ perceptions of priority neighbourhoods ran in parallel with the quantitative analyses and
helped inform the selection of deprivation indicators. On the whole, there has been a very strong
connection between the final priority areas as identified by the project Steering Group and the
perspectives of respondents.
However, the timescale for the fieldwork did inhibit the inclusion of some individuals in the sample
simply because mutual availability could not be arranged in the time. At the interim stage in
December 2001, this resulted in some imbalance, for instance, in the representation of regeneration
and community development officers in Kerrier and Penwith. Telephone interviewing partially
redressed this imbalance. It should also be noted that other interviewees from other levels and types
of organisation provided complementary sources of data which also helped to create balance. By the
second round of interviews, some consistency was emerging in the data from a range of sources
which was reassuring in terms of seeking to include a diversity of perspectives in the research. The
attendance of the researchers at the ‘Making it Happen’ conference gave access to a cross section of
perspectives across the community and voluntary sector which also helped to place other findings in
context. Finally, the telephone interviews were specifically focused towards identified gaps or
under-representation as far as possible.
52
More fundamentally, any project of this speed and scope will tend to gain access to more powerful
voices at the expense of less powerful groups and interests. A range of socially marginal groups
were referred to by interviewees (eg young people, minority ethnic groups such as Gypsies and
Travellers, homeless people, asylum seekers). Some of these groups had strong advocates among
interviewees but direct access was not possible given the timescale and nature of the research. Some
compensation is sought for this by use of research literature. More generally, the processes of
exclusion and division within the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods and communities need to be
recognised (Brent, 1997) as a tension within this research and within the process of neighbourhood
renewal (JRF, 2000a).
RESEARCH FINDINGS
Perspectives on Identifying Deprived Neighbourhoods
Many respondents were ready to identify particular estates, villages or other local areas where their
experience indicated the greatest levels of disadvantage. However, other respondents raised a
number of issues about identifying neighbourhoods in this way. These will be discussed as a context
for the findings about specific neighbourhoods.
Firstly, some participants were concerned that defining and labelling particular areas as ‘deprived’
feeds into a process of labelling, stigmatisation and lowered expectations which can have a further
negative effect on the prospects of an area and undermine other benefits of regeneration (ACU, 1999;
JRF, 2000b). In the West Cornish context, this has particular reverberations because of some of the
factors underpinning the current levels of economic and social deprivation: the way the industrial
history of the area has shaped social and cultural patterns and attitudes; the decline in traditional
industries of mining, fishing and agriculture; and geographical peripherality.
Secondly, some participants considered it unhelpful to identify some neighbourhoods rather than
others as deprived because they saw the whole area as deprived and in need of renewal.
A third issue raised by some participants was that some areas - which were viewed as experiencing
particular problems - were very small and isolated and might not therefore come under the definition
of a ‘neighbourhood’.
A related issue, which was raised in one form or another by a majority of respondents, was the
proximity of poorer areas to more affluent areas and the consequent masking in statistical terms of
these smaller pockets of deprivation.
A fifth issue identified by participants was a difference in perception of size of neighbourhood. This
finding is presented tentatively because of the limitations of the research discussed above. Some of
the overview bodies and regeneration teams tended to present neighbourhoods in terms of whole
estates, wards or villages, while some community volunteers and activists at grassroots level tended
to define neighbourhoods more narrowly in terms of a particular estate or part of an estate or a
settlement which might be adjacent to another village. The closer to neighbourhood level, the
smaller the conception of neighbourhood with which people might identify. This was not a uniform
difference between residents’ activists and agency workers. Some of the latter also identified the
issue and, indeed, advocated for support to very small and local projects. However, agency workers
were likely also to focus on the resource implications of providing multiple local facilities. They
tended to seek solutions such as local provision which could nonetheless provide some
53
complementarity between neighbourhoods and to promote means of increasing cooperation between
areas.
Identification of Priority Neighbourhoods
This section lists the neighbourhoods identified in North Kerrier, South Kerrier and Penwith. Many
of these were referred to by more than one interviewee. The problems and issues which they were
considered to face are discussed in subsequent sections. This stage of the research was not designed
to produce a profile of each neighbourhood but to explore interviewee perceptions of such
neighbourhoods.
North Kerrier
All three wards of Camborne were referred to and the following more specific neighbourhoods:
Pengegon; Parc an Tanyses; Trevu; Rectory Road/Crane Road; Troon, especially Grenville Gardens
Beacon; Tolvaddon; East Pool Park; Central Pool; Guinness Trust estate; Illogan, especially the
Churchtown area; St Day, Caharrick in Redruth; North Redruth – North Close, Murdoch Close,
Montague Avenue; North Country
South Kerrier
St Keverne; Ruan Minor; Helston – Naval estate; St Johns; Bulwark Road; Coronation Park/ Jubilee
Terrace; Porthleven; Lizard village; Manaccan; Helford; More tentatively – Mullion; Constantine; St
Day; Stithians
Penwith
The East, West and Central wards of Penzance were referred to and the following more specific
neighbourhoods: Treneere estate; Lescudjack; Eastern Green; Newlyn – especially Gwavas estate
Pendeen; Areas of St Just; Heamor; Higher Faughan; Marazion; St Ives; Hayle – Queensway area
With a very few exceptions, these neighbourhoods are included in the clusters defined by the
mapping exercise and so there is convergence between these stages of the research.
Problems Faced by Deprived Neighbourhoods
This discussion of issues, problems and solutions is primarily illustrative rather than focused on
particular neighbourhoods since similarities and differences were found on a wider scale than local
neighbourhoods. A majority of these problems are structural in that they stem from the underlying
economic problems of the area and its relationship with the wider national and global economy. The
specific Cornish manifestations of some of these problems have been linked in wider debates with a
specific form of oppression affecting Cornish people in terms of inequalities between Cornwall and
the national economy and within Cornwall between Cornish people and in-migrants (Payton, 1992).
For example, inequality within Cornwall - related to a Cornish ethnicity - can be seen as particularly
manifest in the housing market (Williams, 1993). On the other hand, the relationship between labour
market inequalities and in-migration is more ambiguous (Williams and Champion, 1998).
The major common structural problems which were identified by interviewees were as follows:
1 Employment and skills
q Lack of permanent jobs, seasonality and insecurity of employment
q Low wages
54
q Falling real income for the most disadvantage groups
q Skills mismatch in relation to new jobs emerging such as IT
2 Housing and the environment
q Lack of affordable private housing
q Impact of incomers and second home owners on house prices
q Shortage of social housing
q Adverse impact of tourism on the environment
q Contamination of some former industrial land
3 Education and training
q Lack of opportunities for higher education and training
q Lack of opportunities for young people and associated lack of hope
q An outflow of young people from the area arising from the dearth of jobs and higher
education opportunities
4 Services and facilities
q Poor public transport, particularly between rural centres
q Difficulties of access for disabled people
q Lack of flexible, accessible transport for disabled people in many areas, and of a central
booking system for such transport
q Lack of available, flexible and affordable childcare, including a shortage of child minders,
and a process of small providers being squeezed out of the market
q Insufficient facilities for play, leisure and cultural activities
q Shortage of youth workers and youth facilities
q In-migration, particularly of retired people and resulting pressure on services
5 Health
q Isolation, especially for older widowed and single people and disabled people
q Mental health issues especially in relation to isolation, to stigmatisation, and to the
concentration of mental health resources in Camborne
q Postnatal depression
q Long term ill health and shortage of provision for people with long term health problems and
impairments
q Difficulties of access to local primary health services in some areas both rural and urban (eg
North Redruth)
q Difficulties of access to emergency and specialist health services (major hospital in Truro)
q Drug problems, particularly on some estates in Penwith
q Alcohol problems
q Teenage pregnancies
q Lack of accessible and confidential sexual health services
55
6 Crime and anti-social behaviour
q Problems of vandalism and anti-social behaviour experienced by older residents on some
estates
q A fear of crime which is not in proportion to the incidence of crime
q Racism experienced by asylum seekers and by Gypsies and Travellers
Other issues identified by participants, although structural in origin, were also viewed as attitudinal,
cultural or behavioural. There is also some overlap with the above list. For instance, drug problems
and anti-social behaviour, noted above, have behavioural elements, while most cultural or
community issues are strongly related to the socio-economic context. There is also a complex link
with issues of Cornish identity, culture and historical experience. Deacon (1993:205) discusses how
a declining industrial base and economic insecurity from the late nineteenth century onwards “led to
a culture of ‘making-do’ as heroism in the face of grinding day to day hardship became a social
virtue”.
The issues most commonly identified relating to community attitudes and behaviour were:
qq Low aspirations or ‘poverty of ambition
qq Lack of awareness of diverse opportunities including job opportunities and apprenticeships
qq Limited horizons and experience in terms of learning from elsewhere within and outside
Cornwall
qq Pride of place and pride in Cornish identity given little recognition and limited overt
expression
qq Lack of parenting skills
qq Insularity between different villages, estates and neighbourhoods, and lack of willingness to
cooperate on larger schemes
qq Decline in community networks and support for some residents
qq Difficulties of involving a wide range of participants in community activity – most projects
and groups are sustained by a small group of activists
qq Difficulties recruiting volunteers, exacerbated by the lengthy process of police checks
qq Disproportionate middle class involvement in some activities and groups, eg parent-teacher
groups, youth forums
qq Mistrust of authorities and feelings of abandonment by services in deprived neighbourhoods
qq Sense of hopelessness felt by front line agency staff as well as residents
qq Limited electoral support for and involvement in town councils
These problems are reflected at an institutional level in the response of agencies and services and in
relation to the solution-oriented processes of regeneration and renewal. The West Cornwall area has
received funding under a variety of national and European regeneration budgets (see Chapter 1).
Clearly this is a major asset, however, this research, which was particularly focused on the renewal
of local neighbourhoods, found or confirmed some problems in the way these processes develop and
the conditions under which Local Authorities and communities have to respond to them. The issues
most commonly identified relating to institutional rules, attitudes and behaviour were:
56
qq The imbalance in the capital as against the revenue budgets
qq The focus on large scale projects which can leave the more disadvantaged neighbourhoods
and groups even further behind
qq Difficulties of obtaining matched funding
qq The complexity, bureaucracy, and lack of transparency of the bidding process, which required
time and skills often not available in deprived neighbourhoods, and could divert attention
from longer term development
qq Dangers of fragmentation because of the multiplicity of new initiatives and policies
qq Dangers of disillusion and initiative fatigue when consultation and new initiatives do not lead
to tangible results for disadvantaged neighbourhoods
qq Insufficient proactivity, cooperation and flexibility on the part of statutory agencies in
response to community initiatives
qq The lack of accessible information about new programmes and projects, especially for people
who may not take newspapers or listen to local radio news
qq The focus on ‘hard’ targets, for instance national tests and exams in education, compared to
softer targets
qq The lack of, or withdrawal of, community development work focused on long term support to
deprived neighbourhoods
qq The lack of focused, sometimes individual support to learn about and access new
opportunities
qq Very scarce youth work resources to support young people’s personal and social development
and their involvement in community activity and decision-making
There was considerable convergence about many of the issues identified by respondents. The great
majority of the socio-economic problems listed above were discussed by a majority or all
respondents but above all low wages, insecure employment, lack of affordable housing and
inadequate transport. There was great consistency in the identification of the structural basis of
problems, suggesting a common if often unstated view of the centrality of structural causes related to
West Cornwall’s economic trajectory and geographical peripherality.
However, some differences of perspective were evident in relation both to structural issues and
institutional responses. Rural areas were identified as particularly disadvantaged in terms of lack of
facilities and transport and social isolation. Several respondents also spoke of a divide between
North and South Kerrier, with North Kerrier being perceived as having gained the greatest share of
resources over recent years. Community activity in South Kerrier, although vibrant and resourceful,
was seen as insufficiently supported, both in terms of direct funding resources and in terms of other
council decisions such as planning permission.
However, the perceived shortcomings of Local Authority support for neighbourhood groups were
also a linking theme between North and South Kerrier and Penwith. For example, a residents’ group
on an estate in Penzance had experienced considerable hurdles in its long-running campaign to create
a safer and better resourced environment on the estate. A residents’ group in North Redruth was
critical of the lack of police response in the area and of the District Council’s expectation that estate
residents would feel able to use a community centre in another area of the town.
57
There was also variation in the experience of transport services within the more urban areas.
Although some areas felt well served by buses, eg North Redruth, some anomalies were evident, eg
on the Guinness Estate in Pool, the outgoing bus did not return to the estate, causing problems for
residents. There also variability in the extent to which buses provided disabled access and there was
no unified contact point to book accessible transport.
Other differences emerged in relation to attitudinal, psychological and behavioural factors which
reflected different perspectives on neighbourhoods and regeneration. There was a strong consistency
from many agency interviewees in identifying low aspirations, limited ambition and, to a lesser
extent, lack of parenting skills, as important issues. However, there were also challenges to this
dominant view. Thus, some respondents referred to the damaging impact of a culture of blame
which implies that local people could have made improvements if they chose. It was argued that the
most alienated and marginalised communities may need to be facilitated to express their anger about
longstanding experiences of neglect before they can engage more positively with development
processes. A more inclusive vision was needed to support development.
Another challenge in this context concerns the very high aspirations which were found among the
neighbourhood and residents groups interviewed, who had great ambitions for their neighbourhood
in terms of developing community spirit and community facilities. However, these aspirations did
not always mesh with the perspectives of agencies and Local Authorities who were encouraging
greater networking and cooperation between villages and neighbourhoods. This was partly to widen
experience and horizons and partly because of the necessity to rationalise resources and to
demonstrate partnership in order to attract further resources.
Similarly, divergences from the prevalent view of low parental aspirations and lack of parenting
skills were also evident. The experience of one project coordinator was that ‘hard to reach’ parents
were in fact accessing support on a regular basis, interacting well with other parents and participating
in the project’s services. The coordinator’s experience of one estate, identified as problematic by
many participants, was that residents were well focused on the needs of their children and active in
trying to improve the neighbourhood and facilities for children. A major problem for them was the
stigmatisation of the area (JRF, 2000b).
The problem of low levels of involvement in community activity was expressed by a number of
respondents. The Report of the Policy Action Team on Community Self-Help (ACU, 1999)
identified five types of barriers to community and voluntary activity: motivational, organisational,
institutional, political and cultural and economic and all of these are relevant in the West Cornish
context. For instance, shortages of childcare and the necessity of juggling multiple jobs, were cited
as inhibiting voluntary activity. However, the interview findings, particularly from the agencies and
associations working most closely with small localities and groups, indicate that ways of overcoming
these barriers are being demonstrated. Several participants commented on the increase in
involvement once much needed facilities were provided, for instance, play facilities on an estate
which provide a focus for parents and children to come together.
Similarly, a number of local projects, particularly in Penwith, had put on Planning for Real events
(Neighbourhood Initiatives, 2001) combined with Fun Days to involve the local community and
generate participation in planning future changes in the neighbourhood. These events had attracted a
good turnout and an enthusiastic response from local people. It should also be noted that other
respondents voiced some criticisms of the Planning for Real approach for failing to provide a
58
sufficient context for the exercise, for potentially holding down expectations by not providing
broader choices and for insufficiently publicising the policy outcomes of these consultations.
Interviewees suggested that the voluntary and community sectors were insufficiently valued in a
number of ways. Some respondents indicated that voluntary services, especially in rural areas, could
be relied on inappropriately as substitutes for statutory services. Others considered that the
contribution of volunteering to personal and social development, supported by appropriate volunteer
training programmes, was not adequately recognised. The value of volunteers’ time, especially in
consultation forums, was not always acknowledged and recompensed. It has been argued elsewhere
that volunteers need financial support for their involvement (JRF, 2000c). The research provided
evidence that some volunteers and community activists were indeed broadening horizons and
drawing on ideas from a wide range of sources, such as Planning for Real, earlier cultural traditions,
networks inside and outside Cornwall and academic literature to apply to work in local
neighbourhoods.
The research did not specifically ask people about their view of Cornish identity and cultural activity
and, in many cases, interviewees did not raise these issues spontaneously. This is perhaps not
surprising given that the researchers came from outside Cornwall. However, there was some
discussion of these issues in face-to-face interviews and the topic was pursued by telephone
interview. There was a clear view that Cornish identity is understated and it was suggested that this
relates to the historical oppression of the Cornish and continuing disadvantages associated with
peripherality, economic decline, inequalities between incomers and local people in the housing
market and resultant lowering of self-esteem.
However, organisations involved in promoting social and community development through Cornish
cultural activities discussed marked increases in confidence, enthusiasm and commitment of the
groups they worked with arising from such activities. These involved reclaiming, regenerating or
sustaining different cultural customs associated with Cornish identity, including older Celtic
traditions of feast days, music, dancing and language and newer cultural activities of brass bands and
rugby football arising from working class industrial traditions (Burton, 1997). Combined with
approaches of outreach, oral history, youth and community work and community festivals and
events, there was evidence that they have a significant contribution to make to community
regeneration, releasing creativity and imagination and enabling expression of pride of place.
More generally, issues of low aspirations and associated lack of skills in communities tended to be
discussed in the context of areas which were experiencing considerable problems in terms of lack of
jobs and low wages. There are various possible interpretations of these parallel - and sometimes
contradictory - perspectives. One is that there may be something of a mismatch between the
enthusiasm and expectations of statutory and voluntary agencies and regeneration workers who are
aware of the potential growth of opportunities and the difficulties of local people in gaining a clear
view of these opportunities. It seemed that low aspirations had probably been a realistic response to
the declining opportunities available in recent decades and, for many, may still be a realistic
response. A second possibility is that the strengths and enthusiasm of local people are not perceived
by agency workers because of differing agendas about where attention should be focused. A third
possibility is that the pride, enthusiasm and energy of local people remains untapped because they
have not been sufficiently encouraged by authorities and services.
As noted earlier, there were also a number of community views about lack of responsiveness,
flexibility and imagination on the part of statutory services. While interviews were held with some
mainstream agencies, the research with agencies was primarily focused on development or specialist
59
agencies with a particular interest in neighbourhood renewal. Within these organisations, a number
of actual or potential resources for renewal were evident, including community development
experience, new approaches to partnership working, action zone initiatives and a commitment to
changing conditions for the most deprived communities. These strengths are summarised below.
There was a particular contribution from a health perspective in terms of the potential for health
visitors to engage with very alienated communities which have effectively been abandoned by other
agencies or are considered to be ‘no-go’ areas. Because of their role with all families, health
professionals were seen as having credibility with marginalised and excluded communities where
other agencies, including community workers in the first instance, may have difficulties operating.
This trust can be used to engage with residents’ feelings of abandonment and anger, promote
renewed confidence and mobilise local people to take the lead in working with their own
communities. The process also involves raising awareness among other local agencies to develop
more productive partnerships on an equal basis with residents. While some of this experience
derives from another part of Cornwall (Thomsett, 2001), it has wider implications and reverberates
with some of the issues expressed in Kerrier and Penwith. Similar problems were currently seen as
operating on a Gypsy site just across the Kerrier border. In this situation, health workers and
workers from a children’s charity were still able to access the site and engage effectively with
residents.
Strengths and Resources
The previous discussion has highlighted a range of strengths at neighbourhood level which are
summarised here. The potential supports available for the regeneration of communities from outside
the neighbourhood are also summarised here for ease of reference, although discussion of some of
these issues follows in the succeeding section.
Strengths of neighbourhoods and communities:
q Resilience and self-sufficiency
q Established family and community networks
q Pride in very local areas
q High ambitions for local neighbourhoods
q Commitment and vision of core activists
q Potential for personal and social development of volunteering
q Demonstration of potential for wider involvement through Fun Days, response to small
neighbourhood improvements, participation in new projects through outreach
q Potential for outreach and capacity building once communities and individuals are engaged at
a personal level
q Renewal and development of Cornish cultural activities
Other resources available to neighbourhoods and communities include:
q Developing commitment of local authorities, health trusts and voluntary agencies
q Development of voluntary sector infrastructure through forums, networks and umbrella
bodies
q Development of regeneration infrastructure which is beginning to reach out into more
deprived neighbourhoods
60
q Growth of proactive inter-agency working to promote improved services through a variety of
nationally sponsored action zone initiatives
q Increase in partnership working across agency and sector boundaries and of associated skills
and understanding
q Ongoing improvements in the provision of disabled access to buildings, services, transport
and community involvement
q Initiatives to consult and involve young people
q The growth of formal and informal training courses available to local residents to promote
skills in community work
q New ideas and perspectives from networking within and outside Cornwall
q Skills, knowledge and time of some incomers, eg retired professional in-migrants
Possible Solutions and Ways Forward
Resources and solutions are linked by a number of issues. One key issue in reducing neighbourhood
disadvantage is how poor people and people in poor neighbourhoods can increase their access to
resources and generate further resources. A second key issue is how the involvement of
communities in neighbourhood renewal can be promoted. This section focuses on these issues and
seeks to identify the types and levels of resources available for promoting community involvement in
neighbourhood renewal and for assisting community members as key stakeholders to increase their
leverage over the challenges they face.
There are a number of theoretical and empirical considerations in relation to community involvement
which provide a context for this research. One of these is a range of approaches to understanding the
complexity of the term ‘community’ (Mayo, 1994) and the diversity of groups and interests included
in any one ‘community’ (Hoggett, 1997). Many writers discuss the tendency for more powerful
interests to dominate at neighbourhood level as well as other levels of interaction and for this to be
reflected in consultation and participation mechanisms (eg Burns and Taylor, 2000; Chanan et al,
1999). For more disadvantaged people, the obstacles to inclusive participation and involvement are
greater (ACU, 1999; Burns and Taylor, 2000).
Chanan et al (1999) identify a variety of roles which are relevant to the community in renewal and
regeneration programmes: beneficiaries of programmes and services; consultees and representatives;
a source of community activity; deliverers of parts of the programme; and long-term partners. This
research has touched on all these roles but the analysis here is primarily of community activity, the
community as consultees and representatives and as long-term partners, rather than on the receipt of
or provision of services.
There are different levels of organisation and development available to promote community
involvement, including involvement in neighbourhood renewal. Firstly, there is the level of
coordination, support and advocacy for the sector as a whole. Community groups and small
voluntary organisations require the support of a network or of umbrella organisations to promote the
exchange of information, provide training and support in relation to funding, facilitate the formation
of new links and projects and advocate on behalf of the sector (Burton and Taylor, 1991; Chanan et
al, 1999). There were a number of important resources of this type in both Penwith and Kerrier
although they were at different stages of development.
In Penwith, Interlink provides many of the liaison, information and support functions for 300 groups.
It is not a decision-making group and, therefore, does not seek to represent the sector. However, the
61
Penwith Community Development Trust promotes and supports new developments, for instance,
through a new training project Instep and seems to provide informal representation for the sector.
The Kerrier Information Exchange which is part of Kerrier Healthy Towns Project fulfils a similar
function for North Kerrier. However, this does not currently extend to South Kerrier.
Other bodies are also involved in providing a common forum and a more general voice for the sector.
The Cornwall Voluntary Sector Forum (CVSF) was inaugurated in 1993. A wide spectrum of
interests is involved, which is a strength as well as creating challenges. It involves 154 groups and
has taken an active role in raising awareness and promoting the interests of the sector generally. The
Forum has established an accountable and transparent system for selecting representatives of the
sector on a variety of partnership bodies.
In terms of development work, the role of Cornwall Neighbourhoods for Change (CNC) is also
significant. As a resident-led organisation, building on a community consultation exercise, it has
adopted a community development approach in social housing estates across a wide geographical
area. CNC has clearly identified the need for increased community development support with and
for local residents. It has established a training programme involving an NVQ in Sustainable
Communities to assist local residents to expand existing roles or take on new ones.
Probably the most important development - in terms of coordination and representation for the sector
- is the consortium which was formed specifically to engage with neighbourhood renewal and
promote the involvement of the sector in its decision making mechanisms and processes. The
Making it Happen conference in November 2001 was a milestone in this journey. The
recommendations from it included:
q Mechanisms for representation on the Local Strategic Partnership which reflected the strength
and the diversity of the sector
q The importance of decision-making timescales accommodating the development processes
involved in community representation, rather than seeing these as an add-on function
q The need to strengthen and finance existing networks and infrastructures which can support
these processes
By the time of the Local Strategic Partnership conference in January 2002, these broad
recommendations had been firmed up into concrete proposals building on existing structures.
Interviewees also referred to a range of other networks and forums of a more specialist nature linking
interest communities, such as the Cornwall Disability Forum, developing youth forums, the
Domestic Violence Forum and Churches Together in Cornwall. It was not possible to explore the
work of these groups and their interconnections in depth, however, their existence suggested that if
they can be linked in to the overall consultation mechanisms, they would increase the potential to
promote more inclusive involvement of minority and marginalised interests.
At an intermediate geographical level, especially in towns, a different set of linking mechanisms
have developed, partly around regeneration and Objective 1 programmes. The work of town forums
has been considered in this research but not explored in depth. The development of the Community
Forum Network, with an advice and support function for groups seeking funding, has potential for
meeting some of the problems experienced at local level in relation to the complexity and
inaccessibility of funding.
62
The fieldwork interviews suggested the existence of an active community and voluntary sector across
the area but some limits in relation to overall co-ordination. Paradoxically, this also reflects a
strength of the sector, namely the independence and resourcefulness of community groups building
on a very local sense of neighbourhood. Additionally, there is also an element of competitiveness
which can be a motivational strength but may also damage some groups at the expense of others,
limit mutual learning from different experiences and make the generation of shared resources more
difficult. Addressing perceptions of neglect of the voluntary and community sector by local
authorities will be important in demonstrating the value attached to communities’ achievements and
in encouraging increased confidence in entering partnerships with other groups and with the
authorities. As a result, greater sharing and coordination may become possible. Managing these
creative tensions is an important challenge for neighbourhood renewal.
At local level, despite the various problems which have been identified as facing disadvantaged
neighbourhoods, there was evidence of considerable community activity. During the (short) period
of fieldwork the researchers learnt about a number of very local groups and were able to make
contact with some of these. The ‘snowball’ method of making contact and developing a sample was
particularly important here, since these are not groups with a high profile or a significant success
record in the competition for funds. Some were residents’ groups but there were also cultural
groups, health groups, faith based groups and planning groups.
Those groups who were contacted during the research or which were discussed by other respondents,
indicated a remarkable level of resourcefulness, resilience and perseverance, sometimes over many
years. They may well be an insufficiently tapped resource but one which could be actively promoted
in the process of neighbourhood renewal. In order to increase their contribution, they will need
increased support in terms of information, access to decision-making and practical acknowledgement
of their concerns in the form of shifts in agency policies and practices and funding of local projects
and facilities. In turn, they may be able to facilitate a much higher level of involvement in their
neighbourhoods and in wider programmes. The process of recognition and provision of support
could help to overcome some of the barriers to participation identified in the PAT report on self-help,
for instance, the motivational barriers of lack of hope and confidence and the political barrier of
adverse labelling of communities (ACU, 1999). In some neighbourhoods, faith-based groups were
the foremost community support and the only ones providing facilities but considered the inclusive
nature of their work was insufficiently recognised by Local Authorities.
A powerful and consistent case was made by many agencies and groups for community-led
development that would respond to community definitions of need, build on and develop residents’
own aspirations, skills and knowledge and provide a channel for local views to make themselves
heard at strategic level. Such development was seen as being able to provide the driving force in
promoting change and fostering community and inter-agency partnerships. This was a major theme
of all of the umbrella and development agencies and of a number of other more specialised statutory
and voluntary agencies. The slow pace of such community development in many cases needed to be
recognised.
Several respondents identified a decline in community development support in recent years, as
regeneration activity was focused away from local development onto funding of large scale,
economically orientated projects and wealthier areas. Moreover, both development agencies and
more specialised projects all emphasised that community development needed to work with people at
a very personal level. This included one-to-one working to engage with people’s own agendas, listen
to their concerns, provide support and assist them to access a wider range of opportunities.
Leafleting and newspaper and radio advertisements would often not reach people in the most
63
deprived communities, whereas personal contact and word of mouth were more effective.
Counteracting decline, neglect and a culture of hopelessness and blame required forms of
engagement which could connect with and build on people’s own experiences, needs and strengths.
The development agencies in the community and voluntary sector were also concerned that the
understanding of community development needed to be reclaimed. The use of the term was seen as
having been distorted, partly by the increasing emphasis on economic regeneration at the cost of
social regeneration and partly by the shift of focus away from grass roots groups. Community
development workers needed to be supported by an organisation which is able to commit itself to this
approach and, in turn, to provide a vehicle for community issues to be expressed and responded to at
strategic level. Investment in development work of this nature emerged as a significant area where
neighbourhood renewal could both promote a more sustained and community based vision and
momentum and help fill in the gaps left by other regeneration programmes at the very local level.
As well as greater support for the least resourced community groups, an increase in community
development support at local level was seen as addressing the issue of lack of any organisation in
neighbourhoods. Assisting local activists to come together to develop groups and activities on the
issues they identify is a key skill in community development (Mayo, 1994; Popple, 1995; Taylor,
1994). Although there are active groups in some neighbourhoods in both Penwith and Kerrier, others
currently lack any kind of residents’ association. Also, where there are groups, they are seeking to
be more widely supported.
If community involvement is to progress, therefore, resources need to be applied to the various levels
of community organisation to assist capacity building. The Community Empowerment Fund will be
an important resource to assist representation and involvement by the community and voluntary
sector, while the Community Chest will assist some local groups. However, neither of these will
obviate the need for more sustained support for development, which facilitates the slow and complex
processes involved.
However, it is not just the ‘community’ which needs to change and develop. Statutory partners also
need to change attitudes and give up some of their power (Chanan et al, 1999). Different agencies
will have different contributions to make depending on the area but all statutory agencies need to
embrace change on a par with the change expected in communities. The importance of training for
statutory as well as community partners in any process of community or service user involvement
has been highlighted in various research studies (JRF, 1999).
The statutory sector does embrace a number of inter-agency mechanisms, such as the Area Child
Protection Committee and the Special Needs Accommodation Panel. However, these are not widely
inclusive of the voluntary and community sectors. Moreover, the research found that some of the
services responding most frequently to disadvantage, such as health and social services, find any
diversion of staff resources from front line services towards wider partnership bodies to be almost
impossible to manage. One possibility discussed in this connection was a form of outreach - not just
to communities but also to these hard pressed services - so that they might at least participate via an
intermediary in the development of partnership mechanisms which can more effectively link
statutory, voluntary and community effort. However, active involvement in neighbourhood renewal
will require management commitment from these services.
A way forward which was discussed by a number of respondents (although disputed by others) was
the development of a process of neighbourhood management whereby all services for a particular
neighbourhood would be linked and the coordination of change in mainstream services promoted.
64
This was suggested in various forms, from ‘one stop shops’ to outreach services which facilitate a
more integrated access. Both Government guidance (DETR, 2000) and research studies (JRF,
2000d) point to a range of possible models which could be adapted to local circumstances.
Inclusive Approaches to Involving the Community
All communities are diverse and all will have complex dynamics (Anastacio et al, 2000; Burns and
Taylor, 2000). Some elements of this diversity in West Cornwall have been referred to in this report
as the research sought perspectives on issues of inclusion or exclusion at regional and local levels.
This section aims to highlight some particular aspects, none of which could be adequately explored
during the period of fieldwork but which are offered here as pointers for future planning.
Housing Tenure
Social housing predominates in many deprived areas but some interviewees commented that the
residents of privately rented accommodation could be even more disadvantaged for a variety of
reasons, including the greater age and poorer repair of the properties and the increased isolation of
the tenants. The Kerrier Housing Needs Survey found that, of the accommodation considered
‘unsatisfactory’ by respondents for the needs of everyone living there, 33% in urban sub-areas and
15% in rural sub-areas was privately rented. Figures for ‘unsatisfactory’ owner-occupied property in
rural sub-areas were even higher (John Herington Associates, 2001). A number of interviewees and
participants in the two conferences attended during the research period, stressed the importance of
including both private tenants and owner-occupiers in residents’ associations and other community
development activities.
Disability and Access
Disabled people, as elsewhere, face great obstacles to participation, in the form of non-inclusive
attitudes, lack of access to buildings, transport and communication within meetings. Some
authorities were seen as needing to make considerable improvement in this area and make progress
in implementing the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 but others and the community and voluntary
sector were seen as making progress on access issues.
Gender
Poor women face multiple disadvantages and women subject to violence are likely to experience
further deprivations of income, housing and self-esteem. Refuges and support organisations can
provide opportunities to rebuild confidence and skills through mutual support with other women
(Hague and Malos, 1993). In turn, this can enable women to become involved in and contribute to
their communities. However, such services are under-resourced in Kerrier and Penwith and there is
no generally accessible women’s centre.
Cornish Identity
In the view of some interviewees, Cornish people are themselves an oppressed minority ethnic
group. This report has considered some of the specifically Cornish dimensions of poverty and
deprivation and inequalities experienced by Cornish people. The activities of some community and
cultural groups are underpinned by an aim of restoring pride in Cornwall and creatively exploring the
various dimensions of Cornish identity and culture. The groups of this kind which were interviewed
for this research adopted an inclusive approach to working with the whole community regardless of
origin and made an important contribution to renewal.
Minority Ethnic Groups
Other minority ethnic groups within Cornwall also received attention from interviewees. One such
group was Gypsies and Travellers, both on site and in housing in estates or villages. In both
65
situations, they experience hostility and discrimination and are often actively excluded from local
communities. This reflects their experience throughout the UK (Kenrick and Clark, 1999; Morris
and Clements, 1999). Gypsy/Traveller children are settled in various schools in the area, although
one such school is under threat of closure. Gypsies who have moved into housing often find that
their cultural needs are ignored, as if their ethnicity and culture were only associated with travelling
(Cemlyn, 2000; Thomas and Campbell, 1992). Because of the hostility, the Traveller Education
Service reported that many Gypsies seek to hide their identity and refrain from any overt activities to
celebrate and develop their culture. Contradictions abound in the legal and administrative treatment
of Gypsy and Traveller ethnicity, for instance, both Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers are covered
as ethnic groups by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. However, they are often invisible in
ethnic monitoring and in the Census (Morris, 1999) and in studies of minority ethnic groups (eg
SEU, 2000).
There was also some discussion of the needs of black, mixed parentage and other minority ethnic
children in predominantly white areas and the importance of supportive work to promote inclusion.
National research shows that dual heritage children are disproportionately represented amongst
vulnerable children and more likely to receive state care than other children, including black children
(Boushel, 1996). Children (and adults) need community protection from racism as from other forms
of abuse. Self-protection is promoted by the development of a positive identity which, for mixed
parentage or dual heritage children, can be complex and is a dynamic and changing process (Katz,
1996). A research study for the Commission for Racial Equality in 1993 found that minority ethnic
groups in the South West experienced marked levels of racism and isolation but that their presence
and experiences were often ignored by authorities and little support was offered (Jay, 1992). There
were also references in the research to asylum seekers who have been dispersed to the South West
(Audit Commission, 2000; Garvie, 2001) whose needs may be hidden or ignored.
Incomers
From a different perspective, a community strength which may perhaps be overlooked is the
potential contribution of incomers to voluntary and community activity. Overwhelmingly, incomers
were presented as part of a problem during this research but it is not a development over which
control can easily be exercised and it may be helpful to identify more of the resources which they
also represent. One interview clearly demonstrated the skills knowledge and enthusiasm which
retired incomers may have to assist the promotion of community groups and developments. Another
unexplored area may be the fundraising contribution represented by incomers either through activity
or donation.
Young People
The potential contribution of young people also needs to be further considered. This was a section of
the population which many respondents referred to as marginalised within communities. In work
with young people, despite a generalised lack of youth work resources, there are developing
initiatives in Kerrier and Penwith to promote involvement, including the promotion of youth forums,
the beginning of work to link community based youth forums and school councils and the planning
of a young people’s regeneration conference. A wide range of mechanisms to promote involvement
has been found to be valuable elsewhere (JRF, 1998; SEU, 2000).
Other research has found positive benefits in youth forums but also some difficulties and highlighted
the need for a clear sense of purpose, engagement with adult decision-makers and wider decision-
making structures and the development of democratic structures of accountability (JRF, 1998; Doy et
al, 2001). Considerable support is needed to promote youth involvement, which needs greater
resources than for equivalent adult processes and structures (JRF, 1998), may take some years to bear
66
results and needs community development as well as youth work input (Doy et al, 2001). The
provision of mobile facilities has been found advantageous in rural areas and there may be a need to
combine referral with self-referral if ‘harder to reach’ young people are to be included (Doy et al,
2001). Young people from minority ethnic groups are additionally disadvantaged in terms of
involvement and further measures are needed (SEU, 2000). Some of the community activities in
Kerrier and Penwith, discussed during fieldwork for this research, focused on children’s involvement
as well as that of young people and the importance of this area of work is also highlighted in the
literature (Henderson, 1995; Speak, 2000).
CONCLUSION
This was a preliminary community consultation. Its speed and scope have limited its extent and
depth, however, with the assistance of the Research Steering Group and research participants, it has
been possible to include a range of perspectives across various dimensions: geographical; rural -
urban; statutory - voluntary and community; neighbourhood, district or county level; and focus of
activity or service, eg health, housing, arts, education. The research was contemporaneous with
developments within the Local Strategic Partnership and particularly in relation to the participation
of the voluntary and community sector, as expressed in the community conference in November
2001 and the LSP conference in January 2002. Findings from interviews about ideas and strategies
for development were therefore tested and taken further by developments in practice.
This preliminary consultation found, with one exception, that the neighbourhoods identified by
respondents as deprived matched those which the statistical analyses have also identified. In terms
of the problems faced by priority neighbourhoods, the research found a significant degree of
consensus on major issues relating to the Neighbourhood Renewal themes of employment, housing,
health, education and crime, and about their underlying socio-economic causes.
There were divergent views on some other issues arising from different experiences. Some of these
were substantive issues, such as greater transport problems and fewer funding resources in rural as
against urban areas. Others related to more to perceptual issues and could be broadly divided into
views of community attitudes and behaviour and views of authority/agency attitudes and behaviour.
Interestingly, some of the negative views of both ‘parties’ were similar, for instance, focusing too
narrowly, having low aspirations and insufficient imagination and a lack of willingness to change
and experiment with new opportunities and ways of doing things. These negative views were not a
uniform picture and there was also plenty of evidence of residents and agency workers reaching out
to each other, bridging gaps and being willing to learn and develop in partnership. The research
findings themselves have reflected a number of challenges and critiques to any culture of blame,
while clearly identifying the need for change. Remedies to the mismatch of expectations between
agencies and communities have suggested themselves in the form of enhanced communication with
local communities and increased development support.
There were varying views of the advantages and disadvantages of other regeneration programmes.
The various initiatives represent both opportunities and potential dangers of further fragmenting and
dividing communities. Clearly, the programmes are having a positive impact in many ways but the
focus of this research on the most disadvantaged and often very small neighbourhoods highlighted a
number of ways in which some programmes can increase inequalities for the most deprived
neighbourhoods. These were identified by officials as well as residents and concern the focus on
large capital projects involving complex applications and matched funding; the potential for
67
fragmentation because of a multiplicity of initiatives; and possible disillusion if tangible results are
not seen following consultations. Anastacio et al (2000:41-42) refer to a form of:
“‘social Darwinism’…as those who are able [to] develop knowledge and skills to
negotiate the guidelines and procedures of regeneration funding ‘win out’ over smaller
or less experienced groups (particularly unfunded groups with no paid staff or
professional support workers)”
Such considerations apply even more to neighbourhoods without any form of organised community
group.
There was considerable convergence about ways forward for involving local people in
neighbourhood renewal and ensuring that resources are focused on the most deprived
neighbourhoods. Enthusiasm, commitment and energy for these tasks were very much in evidence.
There was also a rich though patchy foundation in terms of the diversity of community and
consultation activities across the area which need to be validated and built upon.
There was a resounding emphasis on the need for more resources to be focused on local and
sustained community development, including youth work. These need to be supported by committed
organisational structures which recognise the need for a sustained pace and can assist in providing a
vehicle for community views to be heard and responded to at strategic level.
The role of health in providing the initial liaison and springboard for development in some of the
most disadvantaged communities - because of the trust and access to all families which their role
involves - was an important addition to this debate.
In the most disadvantaged communities, a very local and personal level of liaison and
communication is also needed. This message from the research applied both to capacity building in
communities and to the promotion of access to existing services and employment and training
opportunities.
Community development can provide support to neighbourhoods which are currently lacking formal
local organisation in order to assist local networks and groups to develop in response to local needs.
It can also assist the smallest and least resourced groups to begin to access information, funding and
wider networks and opportunities.
As a complement to the larger funding programmes, accessible funding schemes need to be
developed which do not require complex procedures and matched funding. This can assist small
projects which, in turn, can begin to make tangible improvements in communities and promote
further engagement.
Community involvement in neighbourhood renewal needs to aim towards equal partnerships at all
levels. Both statutory and community partners need opportunities for training and skill development
for this partnership work. High levels of commitment and imagination were being demonstrated in
the pursuit of this task during the research period. However, the timescales imposed by Government
deadlines may conflict with the requirements for sustained locally-led development and partners will
need to be alert to these potential tensions. Research elsewhere has shown that community
representatives can become the focus of conflicting pressures “being squeezed between community
expectations, on the one hand, and, in practice, not being listened to on the board, on the other”
(Anastacio et al, 2000:23). There can be tensions between “a first generation of community leaders,
68
recruited at speed to legitimate a regeneration bid, and a second generation, who emerge as a result
of local capacity building” (JRF, 2000c:1). Short cuts to identifying community ‘representatives’
can lead to disregard of a diversity of views and experiences within communities and further
stigmatisation of disadvantaged neighbourhoods (Mayo, 1997.) Representation needs to be a
dynamic process responsive to changing needs and developments.
Some elements of the diversity present within West Cornish communities have been discussed
earlier. Development support and consultation mechanisms will need to pay particular heed to these
issues and specific support put in place to promote the involvement of the most marginalised groups.
Some attention is already being given to increasing the participation of young people in regeneration
but other marginalised or minority groups may become further excluded if the process of
neighbourhood renewal does not specifically address their needs. The positive contribution of some
groups and agencies may also be overlooked if not specifically included, for example, Cornish
cultural groups, faith groups and trades unions.
This stage of the research has not focused in detail on the relationship of mainstream services to
neighbourhood renewal but the process will be jeopardised without their active commitment. Some
difficulties were found on the part of some key agencies to undertake further involvement in
partnerships in the face of pressing day-to-day demands. This will need to be addressed at the
highest level in these agencies.
While this research involved a preliminary community consultation, a full community consultation or
community profile would involve a very different exercise. Hawtin et al (1994) distinguish between
needs assessments, community consultations, social audits and community profiles. They suggest
that a community profile involves three elements of being more comprehensive of community life
than an agency based needs assessment; of covering needs and resources, being similar in this to a
social audit; and of involving the community. They present community consultations as being more
usually related to proposals for action which have already been developed. In practice, terminology
varies and elements of the different models indicated here are likely to be drawn on in any one
exercise.
A model which is helpful in linking community profiling with community development strategies is
outlined by Burton (1993) in which a community profile is characterised by being based in the local
community and by the active participation of the community in planning and developing the profile,
setting aims and objectives for action and evaluating the outcome. It is argued that this approach to
community profiling can be geared to identifying needs, allocating resources, encouraging
participation, achieving greater collaboration between the community and agencies and promoting
personal and professional development. This study showed that a number of approaches to
community consultation have been undertaken in Kerrier and Penwith, variously prioritising needs
assessment, consultation, community involvement and capacity building. These include the Fun
Day approaches to consultation and surveys by Penwith Community Development Trust (2001) and
Penwith Housing Association (1999). Any future community-based profiling exercise needs to build
on such initiatives.
An overall conclusion from this stage of the research is that neighbourhood renewal could have a key
role to play - in the context of other funding programmes and services, in providing development
work and promoting linking mechanisms which are based at a very local level. These could build
towards strategic perspectives from the bottom up, drawing on the insights of the community and
voluntary sector and reaching out to the diversity of communities, to promote sustainable
partnerships with the statutory sector.
69
CHAPTER FOUR:
COMMUNITY AUDIT
INTRODUCTION
Levels of service provision in rural areas vary considerably across England, as indicated by the 2000
ILD (see Figure 2.6). Historical and new data reveal an overall trend of declining geographical
availability for some essential services. In some areas, increased mobility and affluence of some
rural residents is impacting on local service provision (Countryside Agency, 2001). Those with
greater mobility have more choice and are not reliant on most local services. As indicated in Chapter
Two, lack of access to a car is an important dimension of deprivation in rural communities (see
Figure 2.24).
Increased mobility for some can adversely affect the viability of some local services which, in turn,
disadvantages a proportion of the rural elderly, the young and similar groups without transport
choice. For those without access to a car, the proximity of essential services is of considerable
importance. Despite increasing innovation through ‘outreach’ techniques to deliver services to rural
communities, the geographical location of service outlets continues to have a considerable impact on
quality of life in rural areas.
Most people regard easy access to essential services as important. The 1999 British Social Attitudes
Survey, for example, revealed that a majority of both rural residents and urban dwellers agree that it
is important to have a doctor’s surgery within a 15-minute walk of home (Stratford, 2000). Amongst
the 6,000 people surveyed, there was also a high level of agreement between urban and rural
residents that primary schools and small shops selling basic essentials should be within a 15-minute
walk of home.
Similarly, a majority of respondents to the 1999 Poverty and Social Exclusion Survey of Britain
considered a wide range of public and private services to be essential (rather than just desirable).
Table 4.1 below shows the percentage of people who considered various services to be necessities of
life that should be available.
70
Table 4.1: Percent of the population that think public and private services are essential and
should be available in the Poverty and Social Exclusion Survey of Britain (1999)
Essential
%
Doctor 99
Hospital with an Accident and Emergency Department 95
Chemists 94
Dentist 93
Post Office 93
Bus services 93
Facilities for children to play safely nearby 88
Special transport for those with mobility problems 87
Optician 86
Nurseries, playgroups, mother and toddler groups 86
Public transport to school 84
Petrol stations 79
Availability of home help 77
Access to banks and building societies 76
Availability of Meals on Wheels 74
School meals 72
Libraries 71
Public sports facilities (e.g. swimming pools) 68
A train/tube station 67
A corner shop 62
Youth clubs 61
Access to medium to large supermarkets 61
Public/Community/Village Hall 59
Evening classes 51
Places of worship 46
After School clubs 44
A pub 30
Museums and galleries 28
A cinema or theatre 21
The importance of equitable geographical access to key local services has been emphasised within
the 2000 Rural White Paper, Our Countryside: The future. Widening access to key services in rural
areas (food shops, Post Offices, cash points, children’s nurseries, primary schools and GP’s
surgeries) is defined within the Rural White Paper as a key policy goal (Objective 1A) (DETR,
2000). Similarly, access to services has been identified by the DETR as a key dimension of
deprivation in the development of the 2000 Index of Local Deprivation (see Chapter Two). Access
to a Post Office, a large food store, a GP’s surgery and a primary school are all included within the
Access to Services domain.
71
Services and Poverty
The idea of the Welfare State is one of the greatest British Social Policy inventions of the 20
th
Century. It has been exported around the world and has arguably done more to alleviate human
suffering and improve health than any other single invention, including that of antibiotics
14
. The
services provided through local government are a keystone of the Welfare State in the UK. They not
only provide efficient and effective social care and public protection for the whole population but
also provides a major contribution of income ‘in kind’ to the poorest groups in society.
Most ‘economic’ studies of income and wealth tend to ignore the importance of services in raising
the standard of living of households. This failure often makes international comparisons, based on
cash incomes alone, of only limited value. The services (in-kind benefits) provided by the Welfare
State eg NHS, education and other local government services, have a greater effect on increasing the
standard of living of the lowest income households than do the combined values of wages and
salaries, Income Support and retirement pensions available to these households. Table 4.2 shows the
contribution that earnings, cash benefits and in-kind services had on the poorest and richest 10% of
all UK households in 1996-97.
Table 4.2: Income, taxes and benefit contribution to the average incomes of the poorest and
richest 10% of households in the UK in 1996-97 (£)
Income Poorest 10% of
Households
(N=2,245,000)
Richest 10% of
Households
(N=2,245,000)
Wages and Salaries 1,026 36,599
Other Income 822 18,762
Total Income 1,848 55,361
Retirement Pension 1,227 506
Income Support 1,205 6
Child Benefit 434 141
Housing Benefit 536 8
Other Cash Benefits 766 245
Total Cash Benefits 4,168 906
Direct Taxes (Income, Council, etc) 719 13,166
Total Disposable Income 5,297 43,101
Indirect Taxes (VAT, etc) 1,926 5,916
Post Tax Income 3,371 37,184
Benefits in Kind
National Health Service 1,894 1,240
Education 1,959 385
Other Benefits in Kind 210 165
Total Benefits in Kind 4,063 1,790
Final Income 7,433 38,974
Source: recalculated from data in Economic Trends and Social Trends (see Gordon and Townsend, 2000)
Table 4.2 shows that the richest 10% of households in the UK have an average final income of
£38,974 (after accounting for the contribution of benefits and the effects of taxation). This is more
than five times larger than the average final income of the poorest 10% of households (ie £7,433). It
also illustrates the huge importance of services to the poorest households. Over half of the income
14
This claim has been made on a numerous occasions by Dom Mintoff (the ex-Prime Minister of Malta) and others.
72
(£4,063) that the poorest 10% of households receive is in the form of ‘benefits-in-kind’. For
example, the poorest households received £1,894 worth of services from the NHS, representing over
a quarter of their final income. If the NHS was not a free service, the poorest households would be
25% poorer. The contribution of NHS services to the final income of the poorest 10% of retired
households (629,000 households) is even greater. They received £2,639 worth of NHS services in
1996-97, representing almost half of their final incomes of £5,475 per year.
Table 4.2 (above) illustrates the effectiveness of the Welfare State system in alleviating poverty.
Cash and in-kind benefits raise the incomes of the poorest households from £1,848 to a final income
of £7,433 - a four-fold increase. This was not, however, sufficient to raise the poorest 10% of
households out of poverty, which would have required (approximately) a five to six-fold increase in
original income in 1996-97. However, the Welfare State prevented the poorest households from
sinking into a state of absolute destitution.
SERVICES IN CORNWALL
In their 1991 Survey of Rural Services, Lievesley and Maynard (1992) concluded that Cornwall was
among the better served counties, with a better than average distribution and range of services. The
Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Rural Strategy Document (Cornwall County Council, 1988) mapped a
healthy scattering of village halls and primary schools at that time but there were few areas where the
bus service was described as frequent. In terms of training and job centres, the people in sparsely
populated North Cornwall are rather less well-served than those in the West Cornwall Districts.
The 1994 Survey of Rural Services also showed Cornwall as being relatively well-served across a
range of services (Rural Development Commission, 1995). However, the 1994 Rural Facilities
Survey, carried out jointly by Cornwall County Planning (CCP) and the Cornwall Rural Community
Council (CRCC), was a more detailed study than the national one of which it was a part. The CCP
and CRCC chose, in the case of almost all services covered by the survey, to study provision in
settlements (excluding major towns and parishes located adjacent to them) rather than parishes
because “the fact that one settlement has a full range of facilities may be of little relevance to other
settlements in the parish” (CCP/CRCC, 1995). Whilst warning of the problems associated with
looking at Cornwall’s facilities on a parish basis, the 1994 Survey concluded that:
“even when looked at on a settlement basis there is a good distribution of facilities.
Although here has been widespread historical decline in shops and churches, the trends
of decline seem to be slowing.”
The Rural Services Survey for 2000 has recently been released and again confirms the relatively high
levels of service provision that exist in Cornwall compared with many other rural areas of England.
However, as Chapter Three illustrated, whilst Cornwall performs well in comparison with other rural
areas, this does not imply that the quality of local services is always adequate in meeting local needs.
Significant gaps remain in access to local services for rural residents, and the serviceability of many
community facilities is also open to question.
Methodology
The 2000 Rural Services Survey (RSS), commissioned by the Countryside Commission, provides up-
to-date and robust data on the pattern of rural services across England. The 2000 RSS incorporates
extensive information from postcoded data, allowing almost 100% accurate data coverage for the
following services:
73
(1)
qq Cash points
qq Banks and building societies
qq Post offices
qq Primary schools
qq Secondary schools
Where such data are available, the analyses presented below illustrate the geographic availability of
services to households using sets of distance bandings. These household data are on a postcoded
basis and are thus based on detailed information at a very local level. Distances are calculated as
straight lines. Whilst these cannot reflect real road or footpath distances, they are a relatively
consistent indication of service availability in relation to where people live. The application of GIS
technology to these data provides an assessment of the geographic availability of services to
individual settlements and households.
This approach represents a major step forward from simply reporting on the presence of services
within administrative units such as parishes or wards where boundaries owe more to tradition than
the needs of local communities. Consider the illustration below.
Illustration (1) illustrates the location of a local service (denoted by the red cross) on a ward map
together with a radius of access at a specified distance (eg 4km). In this case, although people living
in adjacent wards are clearly very close to the service, they will not figure in any map computed on
the basis of ward boundaries. In Illustration (2) however, where mapping is computed on the basis of
an access radius, it is possible to compute and map the proportion of ward populations within any
predefined radius of a local service. This approach is applied to the analysis of key local services as
described above, and the results are presented below.
(1) (2)
74
Key Indicators
Cash Points
Over 65% of rural households in the South West live within 4km of a cash point (compared with
72% in Kerrier and Penwith and 79.3% nationally). The distribution of cash points is closely related
to the distribution of banks and building societies. However, there is some evidence that the spread
of cash points into alternative premises is beginning to benefit rural households. In virtually all
regions, the proportion of households within 2km of a service is slightly higher for cash points than
for banks and building societies, implying a broader dispersion across the rural parts of each region.
Cash is also increasingly available through ‘cashback’ facilities in local food stores and similar
outlets.
Figure 4.1 : Percent of Households more than 4km from a Cash Point, 2000
Source: 2000 Rural Services Survey
Banks and Building Societies
Over 81% of rural households in the South West live within 4km of a bank or building society,
compared with 82.4% in Kerrier and Penwith. Banks and building societies are strongly
concentrated in market towns within rural areas and very few parishes with small populations contain
any of these facilities. It is only in the largest parishes, with populations above 3,000, that a
significant proportion contain any banks or building society branches (Countryside Agency, 2001).
75
Figure 4.2: Percent of Households more than 4km from a Bank or Building Society, 2000
Source: 2000 Rural Services Survey
Many poorer households have restricted access to these and similar financial services, including
some of the most basic financial services such as a current bank account and home contents
insurance. Analysis of the 1995/6 Family Resources Survey shows that around 20% of UK
households do not have a current bank or building society account (Kempson, 1994), and a similar
proportion do not have home contents insurance (Whyley et al, 1998). Around three out of 10 UK
households have no savings at all (Kempson and Whyley, 1999).
Unfortunately, since such questions are not contained within the Census, there is no nationwide
evidence based upon 100% population coverage. However, the consequences of exclusion from
financial services for households’ day-to-day money management, for example, in relation to bill
payment, are more amenable to analysis. Payment of household bills now relies heavily upon access
to a bank or building society account. People without these facilities settle bills in cash at Post
Offices and time-consuming, pay-as-you-go methods such as pre-payment meters – in the process
incurring higher fuel tariffs and additional transaction charges (Whyley and Kempson, 1998).
Figure 4.3 (below) illustrates the ward-level distribution of households with pre-payment electricity
meters in west Cornwall. As this map shows, pre-payment customers are mainly concentrated in the
Camborne, Pool and Redruth area, as well as around Penzance. North Kerrier as a whole and the St
Just area also contain above average concentrations of pre-payment customers. Comparing this
distribution with the cumulative index of deprivation derived from the 1991 Census (Figure 2.25),
shows a reasonably close ‘fit’ with the pattern of deprivation in West Cornwall - again confirming
that most pre-payment customers pay bills in this way due to lack of money rather than through
choice.
76
Figure 4.3: Households in Kerrier and Penwith with Pre-payment
Electricity Meters (%), 1998
Post Offices
Nearly 94% of rural households in the South West live within 2km of a Post Office compared with
96.4% in Kerrier and Penwith as a whole. Nationally, numbers of these outlets in rural areas
continue to decline - 58% of parishes had a Post Office in 1991 compared to 54% in 2000
(Countryside Agency, 2001). In Kerrier and Penwith, 83.8% of rural parishes had a Post Office in
2000.
Figure 4.3: Percent of Households more than 2km from a Post Office, 2000
Source: 2000 Rural Services Survey
77
Primary Schools
Over 91% of rural households in the South West live within 2km of a primary school compared with
95.4% in Kerrier and Penwith as a whole. Although some schools in remoter areas have closed, the
total number of schools shows a slight increase for 2000. Nationally, 52% of parishes have a
primary school in 2001 (compared with 47% in 1991) and, in Kerrier in Penwith, 78.4% of rural
parishes had a primary school in 2000. This is probably the result of more comprehensive data
sourced from DfEE (Countryside Agency, 2001).
Figure 4.4: Percent of Households more than 2km from a Primary School, 2000
Source: 2000 Rural Services Survey
Secondary Schools
In the South West, 78.2% of households live within 4km of a secondary school compared with
77.8% in Kerrier and Penwith as a whole. Secondary schools are a strategic service and are centrally
sited in relation to the catchment area at the time they were built. Of the rural parishes in Kerrier and
Penwith, 16.2% had a secondary school in 2000.
78
Figure 4.5: Percent of Households more than 4km from a Secondary School, 2000
Source: 2000 Rural Services Survey
GP’s Surgeries
In the South West, 67.5% of households lived within 2km of a GP’s surgery in 2001 compared with
88.9% in Kerrier and Penwith as a whole. Doctors’ branch surgeries were held in 37.8% of the rural
parishes in Kerrier and Penwith. As Figure 4.6 shows, most residents in rural areas depend on
primary health care located in predominantly urban service centres and very few settlements with
less than 1,000 residents contain branch surgeries.
Figure 4.6: Percent of Households more than 2km from a GP’s Surgery, 2000
Source: 2000 Rural Services Survey
79
The 2000 Parish Survey
Introduction
The 2000 RSS also used a rural parish questionnaire to record data on services where information is
not currently available on a postcoded basis
15
. This helped us to establish broad trends but the
degree of error from this process must be acknowledged. For a variety of reasons, the response rate
in the 2000 RSS (67%) was less than ideal and varied considerably by region with a response rate of
75% in Cornwall as a whole. Moreover, since these data are not based upon distance bandings in
some areas of a parish access may remain a problem even where community services and facilites
exist.
Using this approach, it was possible to map the provision of the following services at a parish level
in Kerrier and Penwith:
qq General stores
qq Petrol filling stations
qq Public houses
qq Public transport provision
qq Village halls and community centres
qq Community internet
qq Youth clubs
The results of these analyses are presented below. Appendix IV outlines the key services that people
need to access regularly for each of the Priority Areas within Kerrier and Penwith (see Chapter Two).
Figure 4.7 illustrates the broad distribution of a range of other community services across the rural
parishes of Kerrier and Penwith. A majority of rural parishes in the region responding to the Parish
Survey contained at least one pub (92%), Post Office (84%), village hall (76%) and general store
(59%). Daily bus services operated in most (70%) of the rural parishes of Kerrier and Penwith
responding to the Parish Survey and, in most of the others, services ran Monday to Saturday.
15
Rural parishes are defined by the Countryside Agency as parishes with populations of less than 10,000. On the basis of
1991 Census population estimates, the parishes of Carn Braa, Penzance, Helston, Camborne and Redruth are thus
excluded from the 2000 RSS parish data set.
80
Figure 4.7: Absence of Local Services in Kerrier and Penwith
by Parish, 2000 (%)
76
62
54
49
41
30
24
16
8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
no internet facility
no GP's surgery
no village shop
no community
transport
no general store
no daily bus
service
no village hall
no post office
no pub
Source: 2000 Parish Survey (2000 RSS)
However, as Figure 4.7 shows, in only about half (51%) of parishes responding to the Parish Survey
was a community transport scheme available (including dial-a-ride, a community minibus or taxi, or
other community transport facility). Similarly, less than half the rural parishes in Kerrier and
Penwith responding to the Parish Survey had a village shop (46%) or doctor’s surgery (38%). Less
than a quarter (24%) had any kind of community Internet facility.
General Stores
Nationally, 71% of rural parishes have no village shop compared with 54% of the rural parishes
responding to the Parish Survey in Kerrier and Penwith. Figure 4.8 illustrates their distribution
across the region.
81
Figure 4.8: Number of General Stores in Kerrier and Penwith by Parish,
2000 (excluding village shops)
Source: 2000 Parish Survey (2000 RSS)
Petrol Filling Stations
In the South West as a whole, 71.2% of rural households live within 2km of a petrol station and
89.3% within 4km. However, petrol stations are not only a local service so location on main
transport routes or the proximity of larger population bases is generally more important than
proximity to smaller rural settlements or parishes. Nationally, 81% of rural parishes have no filling
stations and, in Kerrier and Penwith, 67% of rural parishes, especially the less populous ones, have
no filling station.
Public Houses
For many small rural communities, pubs often provide an important place to meet, especially where
there is no village hall. Nationally, 75% of rural parishes responding to the Parish Survey have at
least one pub, compared with 92% in Kerrier and Penwith. Their distribution within the region is
illustrated in Figure 4.9.
The difference between West Cornwall and national estimates may partly be explained by the
income generated by tourism for pubs and inns in Cornwall. However, most Rural Community
Councils report a continuing decline in numbers of rural pubs. Smaller villages and more remote or
isolated settlements are reported as more likely to experience pub closures than those attractive to
tourists, larger village centres and pubs on main roads (Moseley and Chater, 2000).
82
Figure 4.9: Number of Public Houses in Kerrier and Penwith by Parish, 2000
Source: 2000 Parish Survey (2000 RSS)
Public Transport Provision
Both public and ‘community’ transport services are important for increasing people’s mobility to
access services and facilities in other locations. Nationally, only 35% of rural parishes responding to
the Parish Survey reported the existence of a daily bus service (including Sundays) compared with
70% in Kerrier and Penwith. The distribution of public bus services is illustrated below.
Figure 4.10: Frequency of Public Bus Services in Kerrier and Penwith
by Parish, 2000
Source: 2000 Parish Survey (2000 RSS)
83
In addition to scheduled bus routes, community-level provision is now a key contributor to people’s
mobility for residents in Kerrier and Penwith. Over half (51%) the rural parishes in the region
responding to the Parish Survey benefit from access to a community-run vehicle for a wide range of
journey purposes – an almost identical figure to national estimates (48%) (Countryside Agency,
2001).
Village Halls and Community Centres
A key part of the infrastructure for much local voluntary activity is an adequate community centre –
both as a place for meeting and to host activities. Rural communities will generally not have the
access to the range of public buildings which voluntary groups in some urban areas have but depend
rather upon the existence of a village or church hall or other community centre.
There has been an increase in the availability of village halls since 1991 when only 70% of rural
parishes nationally had one, partly as a result of Millennium funding. In Kerrier and Penwith, 76%
of rural parishes responding to the Parish Survey have a village hall compared with 85% nationally.
Their distribution is illustrated below.
Figure 4.11: Number of Village Halls in Kerrier and Penwith by Parish, 2000
Source: 2000 Parish Survey (2000 RSS)
Community Internet
In Kerrier and Penwith, 24% of rural parishes responding to the Parish Survey had a community
Internet facility in 2000 compared with just 9% of rural parishes nationally, as Figure 4.12, below,
shows.
84
Figure 4.12: Community Internet Facilities in Kerrier and Penwith by Parish, 2000
Source: 2000 Parish Survey (2000 RSS)
Youth Clubs
Twenty-four percent of rural parishes in Kerrier and Penwith responding to the Parish Survey had no
youth clubs in 2000 compared with 49% nationally, as Figure 4.13, below, shows
16
.
Figure 4.13: Number of Youth Clubs in Kerrier and Penwith by Parish, 2000
Source: 2000 Parish Survey (2000 RSS)
16
This includes Beavers, Cubs, Scouts, Rainbows, Brownies, Girl Guides, Youth Social Clubs, Youth Parish Councils
and Young Farmers as well as statutory provision.
85
Conclusion
It must be acknowledged that, whilst Cornwall performs well in comparison with other rural areas,
this does not imply that the quality of local services is always adequate in meeting local needs. The
consultation exercise outlined above (Chapter Three) identified significant gaps in local service
provision (eg in relation to local public transport provision), as well as a need for the modernisation
of many community facilities (eg village and community halls). Moreover, not only is the provision
of local services in West Cornwall insufficient in meeting the perceived needs of local people - and
especially of disadvantaged groups - but the accessibility of services is an especially salient issue for
those without access to a car – especially when compared to urban areas. The analyses presented
above illustrate patterns of access at a specified radius (usually 2 or 4km). Whilst the presence of
local services within these radii is often adequate for many people in urban areas (though not for the
most income deprived) due to the availability of public transport, in more remote areas even at such
distances access remains problematic for many people (eg. children, older people, disabled people).
REGENERATION AND COMMUNITY FUNDING
In addition to surveying the level and distribution of community services in West Cornwall it is also
important to consider the flow of grant aid in West Cornwall since these constitute a key resource for
local communities and a significant lever in neighbourhood regeneration. The following section
outlines the various area based regeneration initiatives and other sources of community funding
currently available in the UK, and their allocation in West Cornwall.
Area-Based Regeneration Initiatives
Objective One
Objective One is one of three programmes set up to help reduce differences in social and economic
conditions within the European Union. Objective One is the highest priority designation for
European aid and is targeted at areas where prosperity, as measured by GDP per capita, is 75% or
less than the European average. In July 1999, Cornwall and Scilly were designated as an Objective
One area under the new Structural Fund Regulations covering the period 2000-2006. In total, £314m
will be available between the years 2000 and 2006 from all four structural funds (ERDF, EAGGF,
ESF and FIFG).
http://www.objectiveone.com
Objective Two
Objective Two is an EU-funded support measure under the European Regional Development Fund
and the European Social Fund. The new Objective Two combines the previous Two and Five(b)
programmes and is designed for areas of urban, industrial, fishing and rural decline. Because the
Objective Two area now includes much of the previous rural Objective Five(b) areas, there is scope
for rural (not agricultural) projects to receive funding from Objective Two. Plymouth, South Hams,
West Devon, Torridge, North Devon, West Somerset, part of Torbay and part of Bristol have been
successful in obtaining Objective Two status. A population coverage of 585,000 has been achieved
with £108m being available over the programme period. Transitional funding will also be available
for those areas previously in receipt of structural funds but outside the new programme. Parts of
Plymouth, Torbay, West Somerset and Mid-Devon - a population of 130,000 - will qualify and £10m
86
will be available in these areas. Monies for Objective Two and Transitional areas will be available
from ERDF and ESF.
LEADER+
LEADER+ is a six year European Community initiative for assisting rural communities in improving
the quality of life and economic prosperity in their local area. Partnerships of local organisations and
people receive funds to identify development needs within their rural communities which they set out
in a development plan and to develop and test small-scale, innovative pilot projects to meet these
development needs in a sustainable way.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/leader/leaderhome.htm
INTERREG III
INTERREG III is a Community Initiative designed to promote trans-national co-operation in spatial
planning, in order to create balanced development and integration of the European territory, focusing
especially on border areas within Europe. The South West falls within the Atlantic Arc and North
West Metropolitan areas. There is the potential for significant complementarity between the
schemes in terms of networking and information dissemination, with INTERREG bringing forward
potential projects which could be pursued with LEADER+ funding.
EQUAL
EQUAL is a European Social Fund initiative that aims to combat all forms of discrimination and
inequality in the labour market. The aims of EQUAL are complementary to LEADER+, particularly
in promoting access to opportunities for the regional target groups of women, young people and the
older working population.
England Rural Development Plan
The England Rural Development Plan encompasses schemes funded under the Common Agricultural
Policy. It aims to refocus agricultural support to wider rural development. Several of the measures
are extensions of existing funding programmes such as Countryside Stewardship, Environmentally
Sensitive Areas, Organic Farming Scheme, Woodland Grant Schemes, Farm Woodland Premium
Scheme and Hill Farm Allowance Scheme. The Plan also includes project-based rural development
measures including the Rural Enterprise Scheme, Processing and Marketing Grant Scheme and
Vocational Training Scheme.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/docs/erdpdocsindex.htm
County Rural Development Programme
County Rural Development Programmes are integrated programmes of social and economic projects
developed by local cross sector partnerships to address the priorities identified in the Rural
Development Programme Strategies. There is a partnership in each of the six Shire Counties in the
South West region with strategic direction given to the process by elected member-led committees.
http://www.cornwallenterprise.co.uk/
87
Single Regeneration Budget
The Single Regeneration Budget aims to support area-based regeneration initiatives driven by local
partnerships. Throughout the South West Region, £31 million has been won from the Government’s
Single Regeneration Budget. This aims to safeguard or create 2000 jobs and provide training and
development opportunities for 37,000 people. A Single Regeneration Budget round six has been
announced for the coming year. However, it is likely that this will be the last round of funding.
Coastal and Market Towns Initiative
This is a new joint initiative launched by the Countryside Agency and South West Regional
Development Agency to provide funding to aid capacity building in and around market and coastal
towns in the South West region. The scheme is currently under discussion and is being developed.
A national pilot has been undertaken in another region of the UK and nine towns in the South West,
including Helston, are currently participating in the scheme. In Helston, a Community Strategic Plan
is being developed to include the list of priority projects highlighted at the Community Event held at
RNAS Culdrose in summer 2001. A proposal bid totalling £200,000 over 3 years is currently under
consideration.
http://www.southwestrda.org.uk/development/market_towns.shtml
Countryside Agency’s Land Management Initiative
This initiative aims to demonstrate how managing land to achieve a healthy and attractive economy
can be achieved, while maintaining or improving the viability of farming businesses and enhancing
the economic and social prospects of rural areas through practical solutions to local issues.
Potentially, the South West has two of the initial 12 schemes; the South West Forest on the
Cornwall/Devon border, and the Severn Vale on the Gloucestershire/Herefordshire/Worcestershire
border (shared with Government Office for the West Midlands). The South West Forest is already
operating, however, the Severn Vale has yet to start.
Existing funding streams are used to implement ideas where they exist, including Structural Funds
and project-based schemes under England Rural Development Plan, Regional Development Agency
funding streams, etc. Countryside Agency experimental funding will be required for novel, untested
solutions. LEADER+ could therefore complement by concentrating on rural development which is
not land-based within Land Management Initiative’s remit or by supporting solutions beyond the
funding capacity of the Land Management Initiative.
Health Action Zones
Health Action Zones (HAZs) are a new way of tackling health inequalities which link health with
regeneration, employment, education, housing and anti-poverty initiatives in order to respond to the
needs of vulnerable groups and deprived communities. The HAZ initiative brings together
organisations within and beyond the NHS (eg Local Authorities, the voluntary and private sectors,
local communities) to develop and implement locally agreed strategies for improving the health of
local people. A central aim for HAZs is integrating the services and approaches they are developing
into mainstream activity.
Altogether, more than £274 million has been made available to assist HAZs in the three years from
April 1999. The 26 HAZs are located in some of the most deprived areas in England, including inner
88
cities, rural areas and ex-coalfield communities. Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly were awarded HAZ
status in May 1999. The HAZ has set out a seven year programme of change with funding totalling
£3.6 million. This enables services to be reshaped in order to better address the problems caused by
rural deprivation and isolation.
http://www.doh.gov.uk/pricare/haz.htm
Employment Action Zones
Employment Action Zones are designed to help long term unemployed in areas of concentrated or
multiple deprivation to improve their employability with a view to obtaining sustained employment
or self employment and began operating from April 2000.
Education Action Zones
Education Action Zones (EAZs) allow local partnerships to develop new and imaginative approaches
to raising standards in disadvantaged urban and rural areas. Each EAZ includes a cluster of two to
three secondary schools with their supporting primaries and special schools working in partnership
with LEAs, parents, business and other representatives from the local community. There are now 73
large EAZs throughout the country. Each EAZ receives up to £750,000 funding per year from the
DfES and in return they are required to raise £250,000 per year from the private sector.
The Cornwall EAZ, CPR Success Zone, was established in May 2000 and covers three secondary
schools and 27 primary schools in the North Kerrier area. CPR Success Zone receives £500,000 per
annum for the next three years with an additional £250,000 per annum dependant upon private sector
support.
http://www.standards.dfee.gov.uk/eaz/
Sports Action Zones
Sport Action Zones, initiated under the direction of Sports England, aim at encouraging co-operation
between schools, sports clubs and other voluntary groups in deprived areas in order to improve
sporting and recreational opportunities. Funding is mainly revenue-based, focusing around sports
and community development officers, coaches and sports leaders and other outreach workers.
Cornwall was among the first 12 Sports Action Zones to be announced.
http://www.sportactionzone.org.uk/
89
Sources of Community Funding
The Community Fund
Since its launch in 1995, the National Lottery (now The Community Fund) has become a principal
focus for community grant support to charitable, benevolent and philanthropic organisations in
England and Wales, granting more than £1.5 billion to over 30,000 groups (NLCB Annual Report,
1999-2000). Community groups in Kerrier and Penwith have received more than £8.6 million in
National Lottery funding between 1995 and 2001. During this period, 82,400 funding applications
were received by the NLCB, of which 30,023 (ie 36%) were successful. More than 650 applications
for National Lottery funding have been submitted by local groups in Kerrier and Penwith alone -
with a success rate of 39%.
http://www.community-fund.org.uk
New Opportunities Fund
The New Opportunities Fund is National Lottery funding awarding grants to health, education and
environment projects throughout the UK. Grant programmes focus particularly on the most
disadvantaged sections of society. In total, the constituencies of St Ives and Camborne and Falmouth
received over £3 million from the New Opportunities Fund to January 2002.
http://www.nof.org.uk
Sport England
Provides financial support to local sporting organisations through Lottery-funded programmes,
primarily for capital schemes over £5,000. There are additional Lottery funding streams due to come
on line during 2001 which will include funding for green spaces, informal recreation areas and
school playgrounds. In the 1999-2000 funding round, Cornwall secured £3.5 million from Sports
England, of which Kerrier and Penwith received over £2.9 million (ie 83% of Cornwall’s grant
allocation).
Since 1995, ‘Priority Areas’ have increase the level of Sports Lottery funding going to rural and
inner city areas. Over 180 Local Authorities are defined as Priority Areas, along with all authorities
in Rural Development Areas (including Kerrier and Penwith). Applicants from these areas benefit as
they can apply for up to 90% of the total capital cost of any project. As a result, while 25% of the
population live in Sport England’s ‘Priority Areas’, both urban and rural, they have received 57% by
value of the local grants (National Lottery Yearbook, 1999).
http://www.nof.org.uk
Community Fund Spending in the South West
In the past, a range of problems have frustrated attempts to reliably map funding flows at a Local
Authority level - not least an absence of consistent and standardised information from Local
Authorities and, to a lesser extent, central Government. The most recent study by Coombes et al
(2000), commissioned by The Community Fund, investigates the spatial distribution of funding
90
directed at combating deprivation from the available, nationally comparable sources
17
. In these
terms, the South West as a whole is the third best funded region (per claimant) as Table 4.3 (below)
shows:
Table 4.3: Community Funding in the UK by Region, 1998
Source: Coombes et al (2000)
However, whilst there is some relationship between per capita funding and regions’ relative level of
need at more local levels, the link between the degree of need and of funding is much less evident, as
Figure 4.14 (below) shows.
Figure 4.14: Community Funding from Different Sources in the Southwest by
County, 1998
Source: Coombes et al., 2000
Many areas of high deprivation are especially dependent upon public sector funding. However, as
Coombes et al (2000) reveals, this is less likely to be the case in rural areas. Nationally, the funding
17
These were: charitable trusts and foundations; the European Social Fund; the Single Regeneration Budget; selected
central government schemes and the Community Fund.
91
source whose distribution most closely matches the pattern of need (as measured by the Claimant
Count) is The Community Fund.
One consequence is thus that The Community Fund is the most important source for parts of the
country which tend to be over-looked by other funders, especially rural areas and the more southern
regions including West Cornwall, as Figure 4.14 (above shows). Coombes et al (2000) shows that
over half (55%) of all Community Fund spending was directed at combating deprivation in 1998 and
this represented over one third (36%) of all funding for voluntary groups across England.
Community Fund grants are particularly important to rural areas, not least because other funders tend
to focus on cities. The distribution of Community Fund spending in West Cornwall is illustrated in
Figure 4.15 which shows that Community Fund spending is concentrated in the Penzance area,
around Camborne and Pool and in the Lizard peninsula.
Figure 4.15: Community Fund spending in West Cornwall since 1995 by postal area
Source: The Community Fund
However, given the Community Fund’s stated focus on grant support to deprived areas, the ‘fit’
between Community Fund spending and deprivation in West Cornwall is not close. Many of the
most deprived areas as identified at a sub-ward level using 1991 Census data (see Figure 2.25) have
not benefited substantially from Community Fund spending. These areas include Redruth, Hayle and
St Ives, St Just and Pendeen, Newlyn, Marazion, and parts of Helston.
92
COMMUNITY ORGANISATION
Introduction
Increasing participation in volunteering and community activity in poor neighbourhoods has been
acknowledged as a key policy objective within the Government’s Active Communities Unit. Their
report outlines a range of targets both for fostering community development generally and
specifically in relation to widening community involvement in the voluntary and community sectors
(ACU, 1999).
Encouraging the development of more active rural communities is also central to rural strategy
envisioned within the Government’s rural white paper, Our Countryside: The future (DETR, 2000).
Our Countryside emphasises the importance of sustained support for community initiatives in terms
of community infrastructure (eg village halls), project funding and community development work.
Underlying all these initiatives is an increased emphasis upon the vitality and cohesiveness of rural
communities. One important indicator of community vibrancy in each of these policy documents is
the extent of community involvement in voluntary sector organisations. The remainder of this
chapter explores the level and distribution of voluntary sector organisation in Kerrier and Penwith.
Methodology
The relatively transient and unstructured nature of much voluntary community action poses a range
of methodological challenges. Local groups frequently lie dormant, disestablish or change their form
over time, in the process undermining the reliability of estimates of local community activity.
Moreover, differences in the geographical coverage of voluntary groups make direct comparisons
difficult – some groups cover vary small areas whilst others operate at a larger spatial scales such as
Local Authorities or even counties.
For the above reasons, no listing of voluntary organisations will ever be entirely reliable. The
findings presented in the following sections should therefore be treated as illustrative rather than
presenting a definitive guide to voluntary organisation in West Cornwall and the conclusions
presented here are therefore tentative.
Cornwall County Council’s CWIC database has been used as the main source of data on community
organisation. All the records contained in the CWIC database are no more than 14 months out of
date at the time of writing. There is no scientific way of reliably establishing the coverage of the
CWIC database, although it is anticipated that this source will be validated by cross-reference to
other existing sources of information.
In collaboration with colleagues at Camborne College, the research team classified all references in
the database for Kerrier and Penwith Local Authority areas within the following typology of
community organisation:
q Hobbies and crafts
q Environment and rural issues
q Sports and leisure
q Education, employment and skills
q Health and para-health
q Community advice and empowerment
q Youth, the aged, and ‘minority’ groups
q Faith-based organisations
q Other
93
In total, the CWIC database listed 1,185 voluntary and community organisations in Kerrier and
Penwith – 562 in Kerrier and 623 in Penwith. Of these, 1,056 (89%) contained a postcode reference.
It was thus possible to map the distribution of these community organisations in west Cornwall
against postcode boundaries. Detailed below are the frequency and distribution of voluntary
organisations in West Cornwall – as derived from this database.
Findings
Figure 4.16 below illustrates the distribution of voluntary organisations in West Cornwall across the
categories listed above. Within this categorisation ‘Youth, the aged and other ‘minority’ groups’
accounts for the greatest proportion (19.5%) of total levels of voluntary organisation – though not
necessarily the greatest total membership. This is a very diverse category including youth groups,
mother and toddler groups, The Women’s Institute, British Legion groups and a host of other
‘demographically-based’ interest groups. ‘Hobby and craft’ pursuits are the second largest category,
accounting for 17.6% of organisations within the sector.
Figure 4.16: Distribution of Voluntary and Community Organisations in Kerrier and Penwith,
2001 (%)
17.6
4.3
12.2
14.1
5.9
6.3
19.5
11
9.1
0
4
8
12
16
20
hobbies
environ
sport/leis.
ed/emp
health
community
yth etc.
faith
other
Source: Cornwall County Council CWIC database
In the absence of external validation and given the scale of measurement (postcode district) dictated
by the data source, any conclusions about the geographical pattern of voluntary activity are
necessarily tentative. However, overall, the spatial distribution of voluntary organisation in West
Cornwall broadly reflects patterns of settlement, with voluntary groups being concentrated in the
more populous areas, as Figure 4.17 below shows:
94
Figure 4.17: Voluntary and Community Organisations in Kerrier and Penwith, by Postcode
Area, 2000
Source: Cornwall County Council CWIC database
Nonetheless, there are some interesting variations from this general pattern. In particular, the Lizard
area appears to support a higher level of voluntary and community organisation than might be
expected given its very low population density. Conversely, both St Ives and especially Newlyn
show lower levels of community organisation than might be expected given their population
densities. However, as was noted above, the geographical coverage of sampled organisations varies
so low levels of community organisation in these areas are not necessarily indicative of low levels of
community participation since residents may simply be travelling to surrounding neighbourhoods.
95
CHAPTER FIVE:
CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY OPTIONS
The purpose of this section is to illustrate some of the major conclusions and potential broad policy
options that the LSP may wish to consider. This report is designed to help the LSP develop an
evidence based strategy for neighbourhood renewal, within the framework prescribed by the
Government. It is not appropriate to provide detailed anti-poverty advice in this report, however
readers with an interest in these matters should refer to the University of Bristol’s previous report on
Poverty and Deprivation in West Cornwall in the 1990s which contains extensive anti-poverty advice
specific to the west Cornwall context (Payne et al, 1996).
The primary purpose of this report is to provide the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) with the best
scientific advice on the location of the poorest areas in west Cornwall at small area level e.g. using
areas that are smaller than electoral wards. This required a considerable amount of new research
work as no predominantly rural area in the country had previously successfully managed to do this
within the neighbourhood renewal framework. Chapter two describes the statistical and geographical
Information System (GIS) methods used to achieve the identification of priority areas and chapter
three provides details of the consultations undertaken by the research team to validate and expand on
the statistical analyses. An index of multiple deprivation was constructed at 1991 Census
Enumeration District level using 7 indicators which both reflect the Government’s priorities for
neighbourhood renewal and the situation in west Cornwall. The indicators used were;
qq Poverty rate (Income)
qq Child poverty rate (Supplementary)
qq Unemployment rate (Employment)
qq Percent of people aged 18 and over with no post school qualifications (Education)
qq Limiting Long Term Illness/Disability rate (Health)
qq Percent of households with no central heating (Housing)
qq Percent of households with no car (Access to services)
A statistical GIS technique (Inverse Distance Weighting) was then applied to these data to identify
priority areas with high concentrations of need. These priority areas are mainly concentrated in the
Camborne, Pool, Redruth area, Penzance area, St Ives area, Hayle area, Newlyn area, Helston area,
St Just area, Porthleven area, Hayle & Towans, Troon area and Pendeen areas (see Appendix II for
details). However, there is also some evidence of priority need in the Lizard area
The stakeholder consultation found, with the exception of the Lizard area, that the neighbourhoods
identified by respondents as deprived matched those which the statistical analyses also identified.
There was widespread agreement on the need to involving local people in neighbourhood renewal
and ensuring that resources are focused on the most deprived neighbourhoods. Enthusiasm,
commitment and energy for these tasks were very much in evidence. There was a resounding
emphasis on the need for more resources to be focused on local and sustained community
development, including youth work. Which should be supported by committed organisational
structures which recognise the need for continued work over a period of years and can help the local
community get its views heard and responded to at strategic level.
96
Chapter three and four also looked at the important issue of access to services particularly in the
more rural areas. Although Cornwall has slightly greater service provision than other rural areas in
England, this does not imply that the quality of local services is always adequate to meet local needs.
The consultation exercise (Chapter Three) identified significant gaps in local service provision (eg in
relation to local public transport provision), as well as a need for the modernisation of many
community facilities (eg village and community halls).
Policy Options
Strong local communities have long been recognised as pivotal in defending the population against
the effects of poverty. In the 1930s, Winifred Holtby identified local government as “in essence the
first line of defense thrown up by the community against our common enemies - poverty, sickness,
ignorance, isolation, mental derangement and social maladjustment.” It is a fundamental duty of
policy makers, according to Professor Julian Le Grand, to “be more aware of the distributional
consequences of all forms of public policy”.
The primary challenge for the LSP is to integrate the neighbourhood renewal strategy into a broader-
based West Cornish anti-poverty strategy otherwise all that will be achieved is a disjointed set of
specific initiatives. The Local Government Anti Poverty Unit argued in the 1990s that:
“The real challenge is to look at, and change as necessary, the whole of local authority activity, in
direct relation to the needs of the community it is there to serve. With a focus on the community -
both the individual and collective needs - it is logical to respond in an integrated (corporate) way
and even more logical to, draw up strategies for action rather than responding in a piecemeal way.”
In 21
st
Century jargon, what is needed is a ‘joined-up’ strategy not ‘initative-itis’.
In order to have long term success, neighbourhood renewal must result in an improvement and
increase in mainstream services to the priority areas. The NRF strategy must tackle the difficult
problem of refocusing and changing mainstream services which are currently being delivered by a
wide range of organisations. Neighbourhood renewal action should be integral to mainstream
programmes. Many initiatives have been marginalised in the past and have therefore had only a
limited success. Although this research did not focused in detail on the relationship of mainstream
services to neighbourhood renewal, the consultation identified some difficulties on the part of some
key mainstream services to undertake further involvement in partnerships in the face of pressing day-
to-day demands. These will need to be addressed at the highest level in these agencies.
Two fundamentals are necessary as foundations for a successful strategy. Firstly, the budget process
must be comprehensible to all stakeholders and the general public, to the extent that LSP members
are able to evaluate actual and projected spending against community needs. Funding mechanisms
need to be understandable if they are to be accessible. Secondly, sound research is essential to
inform the targeting and resourcing process, starting with a deprivation profile of the local authority
areas (Wheeler 1995). This report and the Poverty and Deprivation in West Cornwall in the 1990s
(Payne et al, 1996) provide the LSP with the necessary deprivation profile of priority areas.
One option the LSP may wish to consider is to use NRF monies to mainly fund revenue expenditure
in deprived neighbourhoods. Many of the other area-based anti-poverty funds available in West
Cornwall are often mainly for capital projects. However, the effectiveness of a capital project can
often be limited if revenue monies are not also available. It might be possible to produce an
97
integrated anti-poverty neighbourhood strategy if NRF funds are spent primarily on people not
buildings and money from other sources is used to fund necessary infrastructure work.
In the past, a lot of neighbourhood funding has been concentrated on large scale projects to the
detriment of some of the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods which lacked strong community
leadership. The LSP may wish to consider using some NRF funds specifically for smaller scale
projects – not all communities want to try to manage a £250,000 project in the first instance.
The key challenge for the LSP is how to provide support for local people and groups so that they can
become fully involved in neighbourhood renewal. In particular the neighbourhood renewal strategy
will need to address how to support priority neighbourhoods which lack organised groups, how to
support small neighbourhood groups and how to promote the involvement of the most marginalised
and discriminated groups within communities. Community involvement in neighbourhood renewal
needs to aim towards equal partnerships at all levels.
98
99
REFERENCES
Active Community Unit (1999) Report of the Policy Action Team on Community Self-Help. London: Social
Exclusion Unit.
Alcock, P., Craig, C., Lawless, P., Pearson, S. and Robinson, D. (1998) Inclusive Regeneration: Local
Authorities Corporate Strategies for Tackling Disadvantage. Sheffield Hallam University: CRESR.
Anastacio, J., Gidely, B., Hart, L., Keith, M., Mayo, M. and Kowarzik, U. (2000) Reflecting realities.
Participants’ perspectives on integrated communities and sustainable development. Bristol: The Policy
Press.
Arber, S. (1996) ‘Designing samples’ In: N. Gilbert (Ed) Researching Social Life. London: Sage Publications.
Audit Commission (2000) Another Country. Implementing dispersal under the Immigration and Asylum Act
1999. Abingdon: Audit Commission.
Baldwin, J. (1979) ‘Ecological and Areal Studies in Great Britain and the United States’ In: N. Morris and M.
Tonry (Eds) Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research. Vol 1, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Baldwin, J. and Bottoms, A. (1976) The urban criminal : a study in Sheffield. London: Tavistock.
Barnes, J. and Lucas, H. (1975) Educational Priority. London: HMSO.
Bottoms, S. (1994) ‘Environmental Criminology’ In: M. Maguire, R. Morgan and R. Reiner (Eds) The Oxford
Handbook of Criminology. London: Clarendon Press.
Boushel, M. (1996) Vulnerable Multiracial Families and Early Years Services: Concerns, Challenges and
Opportunties, Children and Society 10: 305-316.
Boushel, M. (2000) What Kind of People are WE? ‘Race’, Anti-Racism and Social Welfare Research, British
Journal of Social Work 30(1): 71-89.
Brent, J. (1997) ‘Community Without Unity’ In: P. Hoggett (Ed) Contested Communities. Experiences,
struggles and policies. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Bruce, A., Gordon, D. and Kessell, J. (1995) Analysing Rural Poverty, Local Government Policy Making
22(1): 16-23.
Burns, D. and Taylor, M. (2000) Auditing Community Participation. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Burrows, R. and Rhodes, D. (1998) Unpopular places? Area disadvantage and the geography of misery in
England. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Burton, P. (1993) Community Profiling. A guide to identifying local needs. Bristol: SAUS Publications.
Burton, P. and Taylor, M. (1991) The role and scope of the voluntary sector in Avon. Bristol: SAUS
Publications.
Burton, R. (1997) ‘A passion to exist: cultural hegemony and the roots of Cornish identity’ In: P. Payton (Ed)
Cornish Studies 5. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.
Cemlyn, S. (2000) Assimilation, control, mediation or advocacy? Social work dilemmas in providing anti-
oppressive services for Traveller children and families, Child and Family Social Work 5: 327-341.
Chanan, G., Gilchrist, A. and West, A. (1999) Involving the Community. Single Regeneration Budget.
London: Community Development Foundation.
Chandola, T., Lloyd, M., Noble, M., Wright, G. and Wigglesworth, R. (2000) Rural Deprivation: An analysis
of the indices of deprivation 2000 for rural areas. Report to the Countryside Agency. Oxford:
University of Oxford.
Coombes, M., Raybould, S. and Wong, C. (1992) Developing indicators to assess the potential for urban
regeneration. London: HMSO.
100
Coombes, M., Alderman, N. and Raybould, S. (2000) Mapping Grants to Deprived Areas in England.
Unpublished report for The Community Fund (University of Newcastle, Centre for Urban and Regional
Studies).
Cornwall County Council & Cornwall Rural Community Council (1995) Rural Facilities Survey. CCP/CRCC:
Truro.
Countryside Agency (2000a) The State of the Countryside, 2000. Wetherby: Countryside Agency.
Countryside Agency (2000b) The State of the Countryside, 2000 – Southwest Region. Wetherby: Countryside
Agency.
Deacon, B. (1993) ‘And shall Trelawney die? The Cornish identity’ In: P. Payton (Ed) Cornwall Since The
War. Redruth: Institute of Cornish Studies.
DETR (1998) Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies. London: DETR.
DETR (2000a) Indices of Deprivation 2000: Regeneration Research Summary 31. London: DETR.
DETR (2000b) National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal. Report of Policy Action Team 4:
Neighbourhood Management London: The Stationery Office.
DoE (1994) Assessing the Impact of Urban Policy. Inner Cities Research Programme. London: HMSO.
Doy, E., Gilbert, D. and Maitland, L. (2001) Empowering young people in rural Suffolk. Home Office
Findings 156. www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/r156.pdf
Everitt, B. (1980) Cluster Analysis. London: Gower.
Ford, R., Mernagh, M. and Adamau, M. (1995) 1994 Survey of Rural Services. Salisbury: Rural Development
Commission.
Garvie, D. (2001) Far from home. The housing of asylum seekers in private rented accommodation. London:
Shelter.
Glennester, H., Lupton, R., Noden, P. and Power, A. (1999) Poverty, Social Exclusion and Neighbourhood:
Studying the area bases of social exclusion. Centre for Analysis of Socia l Exclusion Occasional Paper
22, London: LSE.
Gordon, D. (1995) Census Based Deprivation Indices: Their Weighting and Validation, Journal of
Epidemiology and Community Health 49 (Suppl 2): 39-44.
Gordon, D. and Forrest, R. (1995) People and Places Volume II: Social and Economic Distinctions in
England - A 1991 Census Atlas. Bristol: SAUS and the Statistical Monitoring Unit.
Gordon, D. and Loughran, F. (1997) Child Poverty and Needs Based Budget Allocation, Research, Policy and
Planning 15(3): 28-38.
Hague, G. and Malos, E. (1993) Domestic Violence. Action for Change. Cheltenham: New Clarion Press.
Henderson, P. (1995) Children and Communities. London: Pluto.
Hirshfield, A. and Bowers, K. (1996) The Geography of Crime and Disadvantage: An English Case Study,
Paper presented at the 5
th
International Seminar on Environmental Criminology and Crime Analysis,
Tokyo, Japan, 1st-3
rd
July.
Hoggett, P. (Ed) (1997) Contested communities. Experiences, struggles, policies. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Home Office (1994) Housing, Community and Crime: The impact of the priority estates project. Home Office
Research Study 131.
Home Office (2000) Recorded Crime Statistics: England and Wales. London: Home Office.
Hope, T. (1986) Council Tenants and Crime. Home Office Research Bulletin (21): 46-51.
101
Hope, T. and Hough, M. (1998) ‘Area, crime and incivility: a profile from the British Crime Survey’ In: T.
Hope and M. Shaw (Eds) Communities and Crime Reduction, Home Office Research and Planning
Unit, London: The Stationery Office.
Hough, M. and Mayhew, P. (1983) The British Crime Survey, First Report, London: Home Office Research
and Planning Unit.
Jay, E. (1992) ‘Keep them in Birmingham’. Challenging racism in south-west England. London: Commission
for Racial Equality.
John Herington Associates (2001) Kerrier District Council Housing Needs Survey Final Report.
Loughborough: John Herington Associates.
JRF (1998) Including young people in urban renegeration. JRF: York
(www.jrf.orf.uk/knowledge/findings/housing/hr918.asp)
Joseph Rowntree Foundation (1999) Evaluation of the National User Involvement Project. JRF: York
(www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/socialcare/scr129.htm)
JRF (Joseph Rowntree Foundation) (2000a) Community participants’ perspectives on involvement in area
regeneration programmes. JRF: York (www.jrf.orf.uk/knowledge/findings/housing/770.asp)
JRF (2000b) Challenging images: housing estates, stigma and regeneration. JRF: York
(www.jrf.orf.uk/knowledge/findings/housing/020.asp)
JRF (2000c) Strengthening community leaders in area regeneration. JRF: York
(www.jrf.orf.uk/knowledge/findings/housing/720.asp)
JRF (2000d) Tackling social exclusion at local level. JRF: York
(www.jrf.orf.uk/knowledge/findings/foundations/310.asp)
Kain, R. and Ravenhill, W. (Eds) (1999) A Historical Atlas of South-west England. Exeter: University of
Exeter Press.
Katz, I. (1996) The Construction of Racial Identity in Children of Mixed Parentage. Mixed Metaphors.
London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Kempson, E. (1994) Outside the Banking System: A review of households without a current account. London:
HMSO.
Kempson, E., and Whyley, C. (1999) The Extent and Nature of Financial Exclusion. Working Paper 1,
Bristol: Personal Finance Research Centre, University of Bristol.
Kenrick, D. and Clark, C. (1999) Moving On. The Gypsies and Travellers of Britain. Hatfield: University of
Hertfordshire Press.
Kinsey, R. and Young Lea (1986) Losing the fight against crime. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kleinman, M. (1998) Include Me Out? The New Politics of Poverty and Place. Centre for Analysis of Social
Exclusion Occasional Paper 11. London: LSE.
Lee, P., Murie, A. and Gordon, D. (1995) Area Measures of Deprivation. A study of Current Methods and
Best Practices in Identification of Poor Areas in Great Britain. University of Birmingham:
Birmingham.
Lievesley, R. and Maynard (1992) Survey of Rural Services, Rural Development Commission, London.
Mayhew, P. and Maung, N. (1992) Surveying Crime: Findings from the 1992 British Crime Survey, Home
Office Research and Statistics Department, Research Findings No.2. London: HMSO.
Mayo, M. (1994) Communities and Caring: the mixed economy of welfare. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Mayo, M. (1994) ‘Community Work’ In: C. Hanvey and T. Philpot (Eds) Practising Social Work. London:
Routledge.
102
Mayo, M. (1997) Partnerships for regeneration and community development, Critical Social Policy 17(3): 3-
26.
McLaughlin, B. (1986) The Rhetoric and the Reality of Rural Disadvantage. Journal of Rural Studies 2: 291-
307.
Mirrlees-Black, C., Budd, T., Partridge, S. and Mayhew, P. (1998) The 1998 British Crime Survey, Issue
21/98, London: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.
Morris, R. (1999) The invisibility of Gypsies and other Travellers, Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law
21(4): 397-404.
Morris, R. and Clements, L.(Eds) (1999) Gaining Ground: Law Reform for Gypsies and Travellers. Hatfield:
University of Hertfordshire Press.
Morris, T (1958) The criminal area : a study in social ecology. London : Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Moseley, M. and Chater, C. (2000) Rural services and social housing 1999-2000: The evidence of the Rural
Community Councils. London: Countryside Agency.
Neighbourhood Initiatives (2001) Practical tools for community action (www.nif.co.uk)
Payton, P. (1993) ‘Contemporary Cornwall: A Suitable Case for Treatment?’ In: P. Payton (Ed) Cornwall
Since The War. Redruth: Institute of Cornish Studies.
Penwith Community Development Trust (2001) Research Project for the Disadvantaged Groups within the
Penwith Community. Penzanze: Penwith Community Development Trust.
Penwith Housing Association (1999) ESF Capacity Building Project.Action Research Phase. Research
Report. September 1999. Torquay: New Directions.
Piachaud, D. (1998) The Prospects for Poverty. New Economy, March 1998.
Pantazis, C. and Gordon, D. (1997) ‘Poverty and Crime’ In: D. Gordon and C. Pantazis (Eds) Breadline
Britain in the 1990s. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Payne, S., Henson, B., Gordon, D. and Forrest, R. (1996) Poverty and Deprivation in West Cornwall in the
1990s. A Report to the West Cornwall Initiative. Bristol: Statistical Monitoring Unit.
Polk, K. (1957) Juvenile Delinquency and Social Areas, Social Problems 5: 214-17.
Popple, K. (1995) Analysing Community Work: its theory and practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Robinson, W. (1950) Ecological Correlations and the Behaviour of Individuals, American Sociological
Review 15: 351-7.
Robson, B., Bradford, M. and Tye, R. (1995) 1991 Deprivation Index: A review of approaches and a matrix of
results. London: HMSO.
Robson, B., Bradford, M. and Tomlinson, R. (1998) Updating and Revising the Index of Local Deprivation.
DETR Regeneration Research Series. London: HMSO.
Saunders, J. (1998) Weighted Census-based deprivation indices: their use in small areas. Journal of Public
Health Medicine 20(3): 253-260.
SEU (1998) Bringing Britain Together: A national strategy for neighbourhood renewal. London: The
Stationery Office.
SEU (2000a) National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal: A framework for Consultation. London: The
Stationery Office.
SEU (2000b) Report of Policy Action Team 12: Young People London: The Stationery Office (www.cabinet-
office.gov.uk/seu/2000/pat12/contents.htm)
SEU (2000c) Minority Ethnic Issues in Neighbourhood Renewal London: Social Exclusion Unit.
SEU (2001a) A New Commitment to Neighbourhood Renewal. London: The Stationery Office.
103
SEU (2001b) National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal: Policy Action Team audit. London: The
Stationery Office.
Shucksmith, M., Roberts, D., Scott, D., Chapman, P. and Conway, E. (1996) Disadvantage in Rural Areas.
Research Report 29. London: RDC.
Simpson, L. (1995) The Department of the Environment’s Index of Local Conditions: Don’t Touch It. Radical
Statistics 61: 13-25.
Simpson, L. (1996) Resource Allocation Using Measures of Relative Social Need in Geographic Areas: The
Relevance of the Signed Chi-Squared, the Percentage, and the Raw Counts. Environment and Planning
A, 29.
Speak, S. (2000) Children in urban regeneration: foundations for sustainable participation. Community
Development Journal 35(1): 31-40.
Taylor, M. (1994) Signposts to Community Development. London: Community Development Foundation.
Thompsett, C. (2001) The Rebirth of a Community. Unpublished research report available via email from:
Thomas, P. and Campbell, S. (1992) Housing Gypsies. Cardiff: University of Wales.
Townsend, P. (1979) Poverty in the United Kingdom. London: Penguin.
Wallis, C, and Maliphant, R. (1967), Delinquent Areas in the County of London: Ecological Factors, British
Journal of Criminology 7: 250-284.
Wheeler, R. (1995) Implementing Local Government Strategies, LGAPU, London.
Whyley, C. and Kempson, E. (1998) Frequent Payers and Pre-payment Meter Customers in a Competitive
Gas Market. London: Gas Consumers Council.
Whyley, C., McCormick, J. and Kempson, E. (1998) Paying for Peace of Mind: Access to home contents
insurance for low-income households. London: Policy Studies Institute.
Williams, M. (1993) ‘Housing the Cornish’ In: P. Payton (Ed) Cornwall Since The War. Redruth: Institute of
Cornish Studies, 157-180.
Williams, M. and Champion, T. (1998) ‘Cornwall, poverty and in-migration’ In: P. Payton (Ed) Cornish
Studies 6. Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 118-126.
Willie, C.V. (1967) The Relative Contribution of Family Status and Economic Status to Juvenile Delinquency,
Social Problems 14: 326-35.
104
105
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I
I.1: THE REMIT OF THE POLICY ACTION TEAMS
Theme Policy Action Team Lead Dept.
1: Jobs DfEE
2: Skills DfEE
GETTING PEOPLE TO
WORK
3: Business HMT
4: Neighbourhood Management SEU
5: Housing Management DETR
6: Neighbourhood Wardens HO
7: Unpopular Housing SEU
8: Anti-social Behaviour HO
9: Community Self-help HO
GETTING THE PLACE TO
WORK
10: Arts and Sports DCMS
11: Schools Plus DfEE A FUTURE FOR YOUNG
PEOPLE 12: Young People SEU
13: Shops DH
14: Financial Services HMT
ACCESS TO SERVICES
15: Information Technology DTI
16: Learning Lessons SEU
17: Joining It Up Locally DETR
MAKING GOVERNMENT
WORK BETTER
18: Better Information SEU
Source: SEU, 1998: 58-59
106
I.2: PUBLIC SERVICE AGREEMENT TARGETS
Issue Govt. lead Local lead Target
DfEE/DSS
Employment Service,
New Deal Partnership,
Action Teams for jobs
Increase the employment rates of disabled people, lone
parents, ethnic minorities and over-55s, and narrow the
gap between these rates and the overall rate
DTI Small Business Service
More sustainable enterprise in disadvantaged
communities
DfEE/DSS
Employment Service,
New Deal Partnership,
Action Teams for jobs
Increase the employment rates of disabled people, lone
parents, ethnic minorities and over-55s, and narrow the
gap between these rates and the overall rate
JOBS
DTI/DETR
Regional Development
Agencies
Improve the economic performance of all regions,
measured by the trend growth in each region’s GDP per
capita
CRIME
Home Office
Crime and Disorder
Reduction Partnerships
Reduce domestic burglary by 25 per cent, with no Local
Authority district having a rate more than three times the
national average (by 2005)
DfEE
Schools and Local
Education Authorities
(LEAs)
Reduce to zero the number of LEAs where fewer than x
per cent of pupils achieve the expected standards of
literacy and numeracy (x to be set in 2001)
EDUCATION
DfEE
Schools and Local
Education Authorities
Increase the percentage of pupils obtaining five or more
GCSEs at A*–C, with at least 38 per cent to achieve this
standard in every LEA, and at least 25 per cent in every
school
HEALTH
DH
Health Authorities,
Primary Care Trusts,
Primary Care Groups
To develop targets in 2001 to narrow the health gap in
childhood and throughout life between socio-economic
groups and between the most deprived areas and the rest
of the country. Targets will be developed in consultation
with external stakeholders and experts early in 2001
HOUSING
DETR
Local Authorities and
Registered Social
Landlords
Reduce by 33% the number of households living in non-
decent social housing, with most improvement in the
most deprived local authority areas, as part of a
comprehensive regeneration strategy, by 2004
DETR Local Authorities
Improve air quality in the most deprived areas so that it
meets the objectives and targets prescribed in the
Government’s Air Quality Strategy in line with the dates
set out in the Strategy
ENVIRONMENT
DETR Local Authorities
Increase by 2003 the recycling and composting of
household waste as set out in the Government’s Waste
Strategy
Source: SEU, 2001a: 30
107
APPENDIX II
II.1: PRIORITY AREAS
Priority Area Pov Cpov
Unemp
Ed Ltil Ch Car Pop Hse
(%) No
Madron 33.2 63.3 15.1 97.2 17.8 48.4 47.8 460 186
Marazion east 33.0 70.9 13.6 97.5 16.9 46.2 48.4 516 221
St Keverne south 29.1 60.7 6.9 90.9 14.1 60.0 27.6 284 105
Newlyn 29.1 46.8 6.0 92.7 14.6 64.8 46.8 1580 647
Helston south area 28.7 30.9 3.7 91.8 16.5 38.6 41.2 1421 609
Penzance area 28.6 39.5 6.6 92.7 18.0 52.7 51.1 9152 4082
St Ives area 28.1 44.5 7.5 92.6 17.2 53.5 46.2 3616 1517
Troon area 26.8 76.7 8.3 94.0 13.6 27.6 35.7 1056 304
Porthleven area 26.3 40.2 7.3 92.7 19.2 33.3 30.8 1178 501
Camborne/Redruth 25.9 39.9 4.4 92.5 17.9 42.4 41.4 17361 7334
Eastern Green 24.5 40.4 22.3 90.0 20.6 56.2 51.3 442 226
St Just area 24.3 46.3 4.4 92.3 16.7 32.8 45.4 1368 613
Mullion north 24.3 33.5 14.7 88.5 14.2 37.0 33.3 365 162
Land's End 23.7 24.4 12.8 91.7 17.1 39.3 34.0 346 150
Pendeen area 23.1 55.9 5.8 93.1 15.7 44.9 29.8 1023 403
Hayle area 22.3 54.4 7.4 92.6 12.9 37.3 32.2 3621 1426
Phillack & Towans 21.8 52.3 7.3 92.7 19.2 33.3 30.8 1175 504
St Buryan, rural 21.6 68.0 14.4 83.3 15.7 58.2 17.3 248 98
Nancegollan 20.9 24.9 13.4 100.0 13.1 39.7 18.1 327 116
Ruan Minor 18.6 39.1 22.3 85.2 17.4 35.1 22.7 334 154
Gwithian 17.2 56.0 14.6 100.0 14.1 46.4 13.4 205 97
Pov - Poverty rate (Income)
Cpov - Child poverty rate (Supplementary)
Unemp - Unemployment rate (Employment)
Ed - Percent of people 18 and over with no post school qualifications (Education)
Ltil - Limiting Long Term Illness/Disability rate (Health)
Ch - Percent of households with no central heating (Housing)
Car - Percent of households with no car (Access to services)
Pop - Population resident in households
Hse - Number of households
Pov Cpov Unemp
Ed Ltil Ch Car
Camborne, Pool, Redruth area 1901 758 1309 1284 3099 3108 3035
Penzance area 1166 461 600 667 1648 2150 2087
St Ives area 427 190 273 266 622 812 701
Hayle area 318 173 269 269 466 532 459
Newlyn area 188 88 95 115 231 419 303
Helston area 175 54 53 117 243 235 251
St Just area 149 69 60 106 228 201 278
Porthleven area 132 53 62 93 225 243 190
Hayle & Towans 110 58 86 89 226 168 155
Troon area 103 79 88 64 144 106 137
Pendeen area 93 52 71 72 161 181 120
108
II.2: ILD INDICATORS
2000 ILD INDICATORS
Adults in Income Support households (DSS) for 1998
Children in Income Support households (DSS) for 1998
Adults in Income Based Job Seekers Allowance households (DSS) for
1998
Children in Income Based Job Seekers Allowance households (DSS) for
1998
Adults in Family Credit households (DSS) for 1999
Children in Family Credit households (DSS) for 1999
Adults in Disability Working Allowance households (DSS) for 1999
Children in Disability Working Allowance households (DSS) for 1999
INCOME
Non-earning, non-IS pensioner and disabled Council Tax Benefit
recipients (DSS) for 1998 apportioned to wards
Average unemployment claimant counts (JUVOS, ONS) May 1998 to
February 1999
People out of work but in TEC delivered Government supported training
(DfEE)
People aged 18-24 on New Deal options (ES)
Incapacity Benefit recipients aged 16-59 (DSS) for 1998
EMPLOYMENT
Severe Disablement Allowance claimants aged 16-59 (DSS) for 1999
Comparative Mortality Ratios for men and women at ages under 65.
District level figures for 1997 and 1998 applied to constituent wards
(ONS)
People receiving Attendance Allowance or Disability Living Allowance
(DSS) in 1998 as a proportion of all people
Proportion of people of working age (16-59) receiving Incapacity
Benefit or Severe Disablement Allowance (DSS) for 1998 and 1999
respectively
Age and sex standardized ratio of limiting long-term illness (1991
Census)
HEALTH
DEPRIVATION
AND DISABILITY
Proportion of births of low birth weight (<2,500g) for 1993-97 (ONS)
Working age adults with no qualifications (3 years aggregated LFS data
at district level, modelled to ward level) for 1995-1998
Children aged 16+ not in full-time education (Child Benefit data – DSS)
for 1999
Proportions of 17-19 year old population who have not successfully
applied for HE (UCAS data) for 1997 and 1998
KS2 primary school performance data (ward level estimates) for 1998
Primary school children with English as an additional language (DfEE)
for 1998
EDUCATION,
SKILLS AND
TRAINING
Absenteeism at primary level (all absences, not just unauthorised)
(DfEE) for 1998
Homeless households in temporary accommodation (Local Authority
HIP Returns) for 1997-
Household overcrowding (1991 Census)
HOUSING
Poor private sector housing (modelled from 1996 EHCS and
RESIDATA)
Post Office (General Post Office Counters) for April 1998
Food shops (Data Consultancy) 1998
GP (NHS, BMA, Scottish Health Service) for October 1997
GEOGRAPHICAL
ACCESS TO
SERVICES
Primary School (DfEE) for 1999
109
II.3: 2000 ILD DEPRIVED WARDS IN CORNWALL, BY DOMAIN
Percentage of wards within most deprived 10% and 20% of English Ranking
Caradon
Carrick
Kerrier
N. Cornwall
Penwith
Restormel
England
Most deprived 10% 0 5 18 0 19 0 10
INCOME
Most deprived 20% 3 20 27 15 75 17 20
Most deprived 10% 0 5 14 0 50 0 10
EMPLOYMENT
Most deprived 20% 7 40 46 19 81 11 20
Most deprived 10% 0 0 5 0 6 0 10
HOUSING
Most deprived 20% 0 10 14 0 19 22 20
Most deprived 10% 0 5 14 0 25 0 10
HEALTH
Most deprived 20% 3 15 27 15 81 6 20
Most deprived 10% 0 0 23 0 6 0 10
EDUCATION
Most deprived 20% 0 0 32 7 13 17 20
Most deprived 10% 33 5 14 52 6 6 10 ACCESS TO
SERVICES
Most deprived 20% 57 35 41 63 25 22 20
Most deprived 10% 0 5 9 0 38 0 10 CHILD
POVERTY
Most deprived 20% 0 10 23 11 75 11 20
Most deprived 10% 0 5 18 0 19 0 10
IMD
Most deprived 20% 3 10 32 11 75 17 20
110
II.4: WARDS IN KERRIER AND PENWITH WITHIN ILD 2000 MOST DEPRIVED 20% OF ENGLISH WARDS, BY
DOMAIN
Income Employment Housing Health Education Access to services
Camborne North Camborne North Camborne South Camborne North Breage and Germoe Breage and Germoe
Camborne South Camborne South Illogan South Camborne South Camborne North Constantine and Gweek
Camborne West Camborne West Penzance East Camborne West Camborne South Crowan
Hayle-Gwinear Hayle-Gwinear Redruth North Hayle-Gwinear Hayle-Gwinear Grade-Ruan and Landewednack
Hayle-Gwithian Hayle-Gwithian St Ives North Hayle-Gwithian Hayle-Gwithian Ludgvan
Illogan South Helston South St Ives South Illogan South Illogan South Meneage
Ludgvan Illogan South
Ludgvan Mullion Mullion
Marazion Ludgvan
Marazion Porthleven Perranuthnoe
Penzance Central Marazion
Penzance Central St Day and Lanner St Buryan
Penzance East Penzance Central
Penzance East
St Erth and St Hilary
Penzance North Penzance East
Penzance North
St Keverne
Penzance South Penzance North
Penzance South
Stithians
Penzance West Penzance South
Penzance West
Wendron and Sithney
Porthleven Penzance West
Redruth North
Redruth North Porthleven
Redruth South
St Ives North Redruth North
St Erth and St Hilary
St Ives South Redruth South
St Ives North
St Just St Erth and St Hilary
St Ives South
St Ives North
St Just
St Ives South
St Just
St Keverne
Stithians
111
II.5: WARDS IN KERRIER AND PENWITH WITHIN ILD 2000 MOST DEPRIVED 10% OF ENGLISH WARDS, BY
DOMAIN
Income Employment Housing Health Education Access to service
Camborne North Camborne North Camborne South Camborne North Breage and Germoe Breage and Germoe
Camborne West Camborne West Illogan South Camborne West Camborne North Meneage
Illogan South Hayle-Gwithian Penzance East Marazion Camborne South St Buryan
Marazion Illogan South
Penzance Central Hayle-Gwithian Wendron and Sithney
Penzance East Marazion
Penzance East Illogan South
Penzance West Penzance Central
Penzance West Porthleven
Redruth North Penzance East
Redruth North
St Ives North Penzance West
St Just St Erth and St Hilary
St Ives South
St Just
112
Figure A1: Priority Neighbourhoods at 33% Population Threshold, 1991 Census
113
114
II.6: INVERSE DISTANCE WEIGHTING (IDW)
115
II.7: GB MOSAIC: NEIGHBOURHOOD CLASSIFICATIONS
Methodology
The cluster algorithm used to build GB MOSAIC is known as ‘iterative relocation’ and is based on
‘minimum sum of squares’ as a similarity measure. Prior to clustering, the variables used to build
GB MOSAIC are standardised based on (population-weighted) means and standard deviations.
Based on random start points (proportional to population), the algorithm assigns each household to
the best-fit cluster. It recalculates the average score of each cluster on each input variable and
reassigns postcodes to new clusters whenever better fit could, consequently, be achieved. When
complete, the solution produces a set of clusters which are as different from each other as possible
across the input variables and, within each cluster, sets of households which are as similar as possible
across the input variables.
This class of cluster analysis techniques are known as K-means clustering. Academic research has
shown that they can produce robust results however, it has also shown that sub-optimal results can
occur with K-means clustering if random start points are used (as was done with GB MOSAIC).
Better results are often achieved if start points are first generated using a hierarchical clustering
algorithm, such as Ward’s method (Everitt, 1980)
The characteristics of the area types used in this analyses are listed below:
Type A1 - Clever Capitalists
Clever Capitalists describes neighbourhoods of extremely expensive housing where people in the
upper ranks of business and government live and media celebrities can be found. Many of the people
in this type are involved in high finance, particularly in the setting up and financial management of
companies, in broking and commercial trading.
Type A4 - Ageing Professionals
Ageing Professionals is a type of area with large inter-war and early post-war houses, typically with
large mature gardens in the more desirable suburbs of the larger regional centres. Hospital
Consultants, senior academics, top civil servants and senior managers in local government have now
paid off their mortgages on houses, which were absurdly cheap - by today's prices - when they were
first bought.
Type A5 - Small Town Business
Small Town Business are neighbourhoods of well built detached houses, often with extensive
gardens, forming the better residential areas of small country towns. People who choose to live in
these areas include local business proprietors and professional people, shop owners, bank managers,
estate agents, accountants and solicitors. By contrast with upmarket areas in bigger cities, here you
will find many more residents who have achieved success without the benefit of higher education,
formal professional qualifications or company directorships. Many more people are self-employed
and many fewer will be working for large corporations.
Small Town Business tend to place more emphasis on local and provincial loyalties than national or
an international outlook. This is a world of relatively self-reliant, practical and financially astute
small-town-business people, often approaching retirement, operating in a conservative but
community-oriented culture.
116
Type H36 - Chattering Classes
Chattering Classes is conspicuous for its outstandingly high proportion of graduates, most of whom
work in highly paid service jobs associated with the media, the arts, politics or education. These are
neighbourhoods of highly articulate but sceptical influencers and opinion formers who direct the
cultural and political agenda of the nation.
Type I38 - High Spending Greys
High Spending Greys are the neighbourhoods to which senior civil servants, successful business
people and the upper echelons of the armed forces typically retire. By contrast to the 1960s and
1970s, when large south coast resorts were the typical destinations for the still active and
continuingly high income retired, the 1980s saw retired people switch to less urbanised and often
more environmentally attractive coastal areas.
Type D15 - Low Rise Pensioners
Low Rise Pensioners neighbourhoods are characterised by public housing for the elderly, typically
taking the form of bungalows, sheltered accommodation and small terraced houses often provided by
both Local Authorities and Housing Associations. Low Rise Pensioners occurs throughout Great
Britain mostly in small pockets rather than in the form of large scale developments of similar
housing.
Type D16 - Low Rise Subsistence
Low Rise Subsistence consists of council estates of low rise semi-detached and terraced housing
suffering very high levels of sickness and unemployment. Typically built during the 1930s and
1950s, these estates are often located in towns with limited employment opportunities and low wage
rates. These neighbourhoods are characterised by a quiet apathy; they lack the aggressive vitality of
the inner city melting pot, the economic optimism of better off council housing and the naked
aggression of the inner and outer city ghettos. Low incomes and opportunities of Low Rise
Subsistence have created a passive lifestyle of low expectations and limited ambitions, significantly
dependent on the welfare state for income support, social services and public transport.
Type D17 - Peripheral Poverty
Peripheral Poverty neighbourhoods comprise low density, mostly two-storey council housing where
low incomes, unemployment, sickness and the difficulties of bringing up children within one parent
families are common social problems. Whereas other deprived areas occur in older inner areas of
large cities, where there are now comparatively few children, Peripheral Poverty is typically located
on the outskirts of larger towns. The families, many of whom were homeless, have been re-housed
in large, modern estates, often with poor access to shops, jobs and social facilities.
Unless carefully managed, these can become ‘sink’ estates where people live out of necessity rather
than choice and where they no longer feel in control of their destinies. Debt and petty crime are
persistent problems, many local shops lie vacant and, where they are in use, they are boarded up at
night. With low car ownership and high reliance on limited public transport, residents feel isolated
from the benefits of the consumer society they witness on the television for so many hours a day.
Type K48 - Rural Disadvantage
Rural Disadvantage, by contrast with our idyllic picture of Merrie England, is not an area of large
estates, of wealthy landowners or of pretty cottages set in attractive gardens. It is a rural existence
found beyond the commuting distance of large cities where poverty, isolation and hardship persist.
117
In Wales and the South West in particular, wage levels in such villages are especially low, there are
few jobs for women and the small upland farmers can seldom afford to hire paid labour. The low
incomes of Rural Disadvantage are further compounded by the deteriorating provision of local
services. Buses no longer provide access to local market towns, further increasing the necessity to
buy and run a car. Village Post Offices, butchers and bakers are no longer economically viable and
the quality, range and value for money associated with urban supermarkets contrasts with the high
prices and limited variety of the remaining local shops.
118
APPENDIX III
III.1 INTERVIEW SAMPLE
III.1a Face to face interviews
qq The social inclusion officer and lead officer for Neighbourhood Renewal for Penwith
qq The lead officer for Neighbourhood Renewal and housing manager for Kerrier
qq The community economic development manager for North Kerrier
qq The Integrated Area Plan coordinator for South Kerrier
qq 3 members of the North Kerrier regeneration team
qq The research officer for the North Kerrier regeneration team
qq Clerks of three town councils, one in North Kerrier (Camborne), one in South Kerrier (Helston)
and one in Penwith (Penzance)
qq The chairperson of one parish council in South Kerrier (St Keverne)
qq The director of Penwith Community Development Trust
qq The development officer of Kerrier Healthy Towns Project
qq The development officer of the Cornwall Voluntary Sector Forum
qq The coordinator of Pendeen Community Project
qq The coordinator of Cornwall Community Volunteer Service
qq Two development workers at Cornwall Neighbourhoods for Change
qq The chairperson of Cornwall Neighbourhoods for Change, chairperson of Penwith
Tenants Association, and founder member of Treneere Residents Association
qq The chairperson of the Cornwall Forum Network and deputy chairperson of Crofty Town Forum
qq The facilitator of Engage West Cornwall
qq Social Services General Manager for Adult Care in Kerrier
qq A member of the Employment Service Action Team in South Kerrier
qq The director of the North Kerrier Education Action Zone
qq The chairperson of Lescudjack Sure Start and founder member of Treneere Residents
Association
qq The director of Trevu Sure Start
qq Two police crime prevention officers in Camborne
qq The coordinator of CHILD in South Kerrier
qq A development worker for the Guinness Trust and former housing officer for the Guiness Trust
and senior housing needs officer for Kerrier
qq The chairperson of Helping Hands, a residents association in the Close Hill estate, Redruth
qq The coordinator of Kerrier Youth Service
qq The director and two other workers from Galowan, a community arts and development
organisation in West Cornwall, working primarily in Penzance and Newlyn
qq The coordinator of the Drug and Alcohol Reference Group based in Truro and working across
Penwith and Kerrier
119
III.1b Telephone interviews
q Community Development Adviser, Department of Health
q The projects and partnerships Manager for Employment Service in Cornwall
q A support teacher at Cornwall Traveler Education Service
q The project leader of West Cornwall Children’s Project, Children’s Society
q The manager of Penzance Women’s Aid
q The chairperson of PANIC –Proper Access Now in Cornwall
q The minister of religion, Elim Pentecostal Church, Pengegon and chair of Crossover Community
Project Evaluation Committee
q The community worker, Crossover Community Project, Pengegon
q The Methodist minister on the Gwavas Estate in Newlyn
q The chairperson of St Ives Town Regeneration Forum and vice-chair of St Ives District
Community Association
q A resident of Hayle, involved in various voluntary and community projects
q The secretary of Wheal Rose and Matela Close Residents Association, Porthleven and member of
Planning for Porthleven
q A worker with Cumpas, an organisation promoting Cornish cultural activities and events
q Representatives of the South West Trades Union Congress and of TUC Learning Services in
Cornwall
120
III.2 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW TOPIC GUIDE
The topic guides were discussed at the Research Steering Group meeting on 10
th
October, and are
reproduced below
III.2a Interview topic guide for umbrella organisations
1. What is your organisation’s main focus of work?
2. Which neighbourhoods do you think are the most deprived?
3. What do you see as their similarities and differences?
4. What role does your organisation have in the identified neighbourhood(s)?
5. What do you see as the main resources and strengths of this neighbourhood?
6. If not already covered, and as relevant to each organisation:
What do you see as the main resources in terms of:
i. People
ii. Groups
iii. Networks
iv. Culture/way of life
v. Agencies and organisations
vi. Political processes
vii. Services
viii. Environment
7. What do you see as the main problems of this neighbourhood?
8. If not already covered: What do you see as the problems in terms of:
i. Income
ii. Employment
iii. Education
iv. Health
v. Housing
vi. Physical Environment
vii. Play and leisure facilities
viii. Childcare
ix. Transport
x. Crime
xi. Community involvement
xii. Conflicts of interest
9. What general improvements do you think are most needed in the neighbourhood(s)?
10. If not already covered: What do you think might most improve the situation for poorer people in
the neighbourhood(s)?
11. Do you think there are other people/ groups whose needs might be overlooked?
121
12. If not already covered by the answers to previous questions: How do you think the problems you
have discussed can best be addressed?
(Consider the problem areas holistically or in turn as appropriate)
13. What support/resources could assist the neighbourhood to address these problems?
14. How do you think local involvement in neighbourhood renewal can best be encouraged?
15. What needs to change outside the neighbourhood to assist neighbourhood renewal?
16. What do you see as the role of your organisation in bringing about change at neighbourhood
level?
17. What other organisations do you think should be involved?
18. What do you see as the benefits of existing liaison/networking/partnership mechanisms?
19. How do you think these should these be developed to facilitate change and promote local
involvement?
20. Do you have suggestions as to contacts it would be useful to interview?
21. Are there any other ideas or issues you would like to share?
122
III.2b Interview Topic Guide for neighbourhood residents only
1. What area do you see as your/the group’s/agency’s neighbourhood?
2. If not already covered: What helps you to define this neighbourhood?
3. What do you like most about this neighbourhood? What do you see as its main resources and
strengths?
4. If not already covered: What do you see as the main resources in terms of:
i. People
ii. Groups
iii. Networks
iv. Culture/way of life
v. Agencies and organisations
vi. Political processes
vii. Services
viii. Environment
5. What do you see as the main problems of this neighbourhood?
6. If not already covered: What do you see as the problems in terms of:
i. Income
ii. Employment
iii. Education
iv. Health
v. Housing
vi. Physical Environment
vii. Play and leisure facilities
viii. Childcare
ix. Transport
x. Crime
xi. Community involvement
xii. Conflicts of interest
7. What improvements would you like to see in the neighbourhood?
8. What do you think might most improve the situation for poorer people in the neighbourhood?
9. Do you think there are other people/ groups whose needs might be overlooked?
10. If not already covered by the answer to the previous question: How do you think the problems
you have discussed can best be addressed?
(Consider the problem areas holistically or in turn as appropriate)
11. What support/resources could assist the neighbourhood to address these problems?
12. What needs to change outside the neighbourhood to assist this process?
123
13. What involvement would you like to have in a renewal strategy for this neighbourhood?
14. Who else/ which other organisations do you think could be involved?
15. What training or other support could assist you or others to be more actively involved?
16. Is there anyone else whose views you think we should seek?
17. Are there any other ideas or issues you would like to share?
124
APPENDIX IV
AUDIT OF LOCAL SERVICES
LANDS END PENINSULA
Bus Regular daily services to Penzance & St Ives. Community Bus (Lands End)
Rail Penzance Station, main line (6 miles)
Jobs PTT (Training), Unit 5b, Old Dairy Business Park, Sancreed, Newbridge
Benefits Branwell House, Clarence St., Penzance, TR18 2NP (6 miles)
Hospitals Royal Cornwall Hospitals Trust, Treliske Hospital, Truro (30 miles)
West Cornwall Hospital, St. Clare St., Penzance (6 miles)
GPs/Clinics The Health Centre, St Just
Dentists J D Hargreaves, 4 Bank Square, St Just
Social Services Penzance Social Services, Roscadgill Parc, Heamoor, Penzance (6 miles)
Post Offices Pendeen P O, 11 The Square, Pendeen
St Buryan Sub P O, St Buryan
St Ives Sub P O, Market St, St Just
Sennen P O, Sennen
Banks
/Building Societies Lloyds TSB Bank PLC, 1 Bank Square, St Just
Credit Union Penwith Credit Union Ltd., St. Johns Hall, Alverton St., Penzance,
TR18 2QR (6 miles)
Library St Just Library, Market Street, St Just. Mobile facilities
PENZANCE
Bus Regular daily services to St Ives, Hayle, Helston & West Penwith.
Voluntary Car Scheme
Rail Penzance Station, main line
Jobs Grafters employment agency, 28 Polweath Rd., Penzance
Breadline Employment Training, Breadline Centre, Bread St., Penzance
Rose English Consultancy (Training), Ayr Cottage, Ayr, Penzance
Ultra Training Ltd., Champions Yard, Causewayhead, Penzance
Benefits Branwell House, Clarence St., Penzance, TR18 2NP
Hospitals Bolitho House, Laregan Hill, Penzance
Poltair Hospital, Madron, Penzance
Royal Cornwall Hospitals Trust, Treliske Hospital, Truro (25 miles)
West Cornwall Hospital, St. Clare St., Penzance
GPs/Clinics Sunnyside Surgery, Hawkins Road, Penzance TR18 4LT
The Surgery, The Old Bridge, Newlyn, Penzance
Morrab Surgery, 2 Morrab Road, Penzance TR18 4EL
The Surgery, 7 Alverton Terrace, Penzance
The Surgery, 9 Fore St, Penzance
Penalverne Surgery, Bosowan, Penalverne Drive, Penzance
Dentist M G Harper, 5 Alverton Terrace, Penzance
Hobson & Hirst Dental Surgery, 45 Morrab Rd., Penzance
Julian A Keen, 60 Morrab Rd., Penzance
Dr L B Lewis, 12 Alverton Terrace, Penzance
M Nellist, 3 Morrab Rd., Penzance
R Thomas, 18 Morrab Rd., Penzance
W G Upton, 11 Chapel St., Penzance
C P G Ziar & Associates, 67 Chapel St., Penzance
Social Services John Daniel Centre, Penzance
125
Richmond House Day Centre, Penzance
St Mary’s Day Centre, Penzance
Penwith Respite Care Hostel, Penzance
Penzance Social Services, Roscadgill Parc, Heamoor, Penzance
Post Offices Alverton P.O. 5 Lansdowne Place, Alverton
Godolphin P O & Stores, Godolphin Cross, Penzance
Gulval P O, 4 Trevarrack Noweth, Gulval, Penzance
Heamoor P O, Heamoor, Penzance
Long Rock P O, 4a Godolphin Rd., Long Rock, Penzance
The Madron P O Stores, Church Rd., Madron
Newlyn P O, The Strand, Newlyn
St Clare St P O, St Clare St., Penzance
Banks/
Building Societies Abbey National PLC, 37 Market Place, Penzance, TR18
Alliance & Leicester PLC, 111 Market Jew St., Penzance
Barclays Bank PLC, 8-9 Market Jew St., Penzance
Bristol & West PLC, 30 Market Place, Penzance
Halifax PLC, 13 Market Jew St., Penzance, TR18
HSBC Bank PLC, 1 Green Market, Penzance
Lloyds TSB Bank PLC, Market House, Market Place, Penzance
Lloyds TSB Bank PLC, 23-24 Market Place, Penzance
NatWest Bank, Penzance
Credit Union Penwith Credit Union Ltd., St. Johns Hall, Alverton St., Penzance,
TR18 2QR
Library Morrab Library, Morrab Gardens, Penzance
Penzance Public Library, 62 Morrab Rd., Penzance
MARAZION
Bus Regular daily services to Penzance & Helston
Rail Penzance Station, main line
Jobs See Penzance (3 miles)
Benefits Branwell House, Clarence St., Penzance, TR18 2NP (3 miles)
Hospitals Royal Cornwall Hospitals Trust, Treliske Hospital, Truro (23 miles)
West Cornwall Hospital, St. Clare St., Penzance (3 miles)
GPs/Clinics Marazion Health Centre, Gwallon Lane, Marazion TR17 0HW
Dentist See Penzance (3 miles)
Social Services Penzance Social Services, Roscadgill Parc, Heamoor, Penzance (3 miles)
Post Offices Goldsithney P O, 1 Primrose Hill, Goldsithney
Marazion P O, Market Place, Marazion
Banks/Building
Societies See Penzance (3 miles)
Credit Union Penwith Credit Union Ltd., St. Johns Hall, Alverton St., Penzance,
TR18 2QR (3 miles)
Library Mobile facilities
ST IVES
Bus Regular daily services to Hayle, Penzance & West Penwith
Rail Carbis Bay and St Ives Stations, branch line from St Erth (main line)
Jobs See Hayle (3 miles)
Benefits Branwell House, Clarence St., Penzance, TR18 2NP (7 miles)
Hospitals Royal Cornwall Hospitals Trust, Treliske Hospital, Truro (20 miles)
West Cornwall Hospital, St. Clare St., Penzance (7 miles)
126
GPs/Clinics Stennack Surgery, Stennack, St Ives, TR26 1RU
Dentist Burgess, Adams & Priest, St Ives Rd., Carbis Bay
Poznansky & Franklin, Tregenna Hill Surgery, St Ives
Social Services Penzance Social Services, Roscadgill Parc, Heamoor, Penzance (7 miles)
Post Offices Carbis Bay P O, St Ives Rd., Carbis Bay
Halsetown P O, Halsetown, St Ives
St Ives P O, Tregenna Place, St Ives
Wharf P O, 4 Chy An Chy, St Ives
Banks/
Building Societies HSBC Bank PLC, 5 High St., St Ives
HSBC Bank PLC, Longstone Cross, Carbis Bay, St Ives
Lloyds TSB Bank PLC, 13 High St., St. Ives
NatWest Bank, St Ives
Credit Union Penwith Credit Union Ltd., St Johns Hall, Alverton St., Penzance,
TR18 2QR (7 miles)
Library St Ives Library, Gabriel Street, St Ives
HAYLE
Bus Regular daily services to St Ives, Penzance & Camborne,
Voluntary Car Scheme
Rail Hayle Station, main line, St Erth Station, main line
Jobs Workmates, construction labour specialist, 12d Chappel Terrace, Foundry
Hill, Hayle, Cornwall, TR27 4H
Benefits Branwell House, Clarence St., Penzance, TR18 2NP (8 miles)
Hospitals Royal Cornwall Hospitals Trust, Treliske Hospital, Truro (18 miles)
St Michaels Hospital, Trelissick Rd., Hayle
West Cornwall Hospital, St Clare St, Penzance (8 miles)
GPs/Clinics Bodriggy Health Centre, Bodriggy, Hayle TR27 4NB
Dentist Budden & Geffrey, 66 Hayle Terrace, Hayle
Copperhouse Dental Surgery, 29 Fore St., Copperhouse, Hayle
Social Services Frank Johns Care Centre, Hayle
Post Offices Copperhouse P O, 45 Fore St., Hayle
Hayle Sub P O, 13 Penpol Terrace, Hayle
St Erth P O, 1 School Lane, St Erth
Banks/Building
Societies Barclays Bank PLC, 23 Foundry Square, Hayle
Lloyds TSB Bank PLC, 3 Foundry Square, Hayle
Credit Union Penwith Credit Union Ltd., St. Johns Hall, Alverton St., Penzance,
TR18 2QR (8 miles)
Library Hayle Library, Commercial Rd., Hayle
HELSTON
Bus Regular daily services to Redruth, Camborne, Falmouth, Truro &
Lizard Peninsula
Rail Redruth & Camborne Station, main line (8 miles)
Jobs Cornwall & Devon Careers Service, Helston School, Church Hill
Helston Jobclub, Coinagehall St., Helston
Benefits Branwell House, Clarence St., Penzance, TR18 2NP (12 miles)
Hospitals Royal Cornwall Hospitals Trust, Treliske Hospital, Truro (13 miles)
GPs/Clinics Meneage Street Surgery, 100 Meneage St., Helston, TR13 8RF
Helston Medical Centre, Trengrouse Way, Helston TR13 8AE
Dentist Anderson, Cope & Holloway, 2 Meneage St, Helston
127
Bradburn Carrie, also Dr P Hodgkinson, 41A Meneage St,
Helston, TR13 8RB
Social Services Camborne Social Services, The White House, 24 Bassett Rd.,
Camborne (7 miles)
Post Offices Helston P O, 28 Coinagehall St., Helston
Nancegollan P O, Nancegollan
Banks/Building
Societies Abbey National PLC, 11 Meneage St., Helston, TR13
Bristol & West PLC, 5 Meneage St, Helston
HSBC Bank PLC, 2 Coinagehall St., Helston
Lloyds TSB Bank PLC, 1 Market Place, Helston
Lloyds TSB Bank PLC, 28 Meneage St., Helston
NatWest Bank, Helston
Credit Union Kerrier/Fal Credit Union (proposed) c/o Link into Learning,
23 Broad Street, Penryn TR10 8JL
Library Helston Library, Trengrouse Way, Helston
LIZARD PENINSULA
Bus A choice of 4-6 buses daily to Helston or Falmouth depending on
school term, etc. Community Buses & Voluntary Car Schemes
Rail Redruth or Camborne Stations, main line (15 miles)
Jobs See Helston (8 miles)
Benefits Branwell House, Clarence St., Penzance, TR18 2NP (18 miles)
Hospitals Royal Cornwall Hospitals Trust, Treliske Hospital, Truro (18 miles)
GPs/Clinics The Health Centre, St Keverne, Helston TR12 (8 miles)
Mullion Health Centre, Nansmellyon Rd., Mullion
Dentists See Helston (8 miles)
Post Offices Mullion PO, Nansmellyon Rd., Mullion
Ruan Minor PO, Ruan Minor
St Keverne PO, The Square, St Keverne
Banks/Building
Societies See Helston (8 miles)
Credit Union Kerrier/Falmouth Credit Union (proposed) c/o Link into Learning,
23 Broad Street, Penryn TR10 8JL
Library Mobile Facilities
CAMBORNE & TROON
Bus Regular daily services to Hayle, Redruth & Helston.
Voluntary Car Schemes
Rail Camborne Station, main line
Jobs DMT Business Services Ltd., 28 Commercial St., Camborne
The Camborne Centre, 1 Wesley St., Camborne
Benefits Lemon Quay House, Lemon Quay, Truro, TR1 2PU (10 miles)
Hospitals Camborne Redruth Community Hospital, Barncoose, Redruth (3 miles)
Royal Cornwall Hospitals Trust, Treliske Hospital, Truro (10 miles)
GPs/Clinics Veor Surgery, South Terrace, Camborne TR14 8SS
Andrew House Surgery, 2 South Terrace, Camborne, TR14 8ST
Trevithick Surgery, Basset Road, Camborne TR14 8SG
Dentists C Ettling, 22 Chapel St., Camborne TR14 8ED
Green & Plaice, 5 Chapel St., Camborne
Killivose Dental Practice, The Barns, Killivose, Camborne
S D Smith, 15 Commercial St., Camborne
128
Social Services Boundervean Day Centre, Camborne
Kehelland Day Centre, Camborne
Camborne Resource Centre
Penelvan Residential Centre, 22 Roskear, Camborne
Camborne Social Services, The White House, 24 Bassett Rd., Camborne
Post Offices Beacon P O, 2 Pendarves St., Beacon
Tehidy Road P O, Tehidy Rd., Camborne
Troon P O, 3 New Rd., Troon, Camborne
Tuckingmill P O, 44 Pendarves St., Tuckingmill, Camborne
Banks/Building
Societies Abbey National PLC, 6 Trelowarren St., Camborne, TR14
Barclays Bank PLC, 28 Chapel St., Camborne
Halifax PLC, 31 Trelowarren St., Camborne, TR14
HSBC Bank PLC, 45 Commercial St., Camborne
Lloyds TSB Bank PLC, Commercial St., Camborne
Woolwich PLC, 42-44 Commercial St, Camborne
Credit Union Kerrier/Fal Credit Union (proposed) c/o Link into Learning,
23 Broad Street, Penryn TR10 8JL
Library Camborne Library, The Cross, Camborne
POOL & ILLOGAN
Bus Regular daily services to Redruth & Camborne. Services to and from
Cornwall College in termtime. Voluntary Car Schemes
Rail Redruth or Camborne Stations, main line (2 miles)
Jobs Cornwall & Devon Careers Ltd., Wilson Way Pool
College Training, Cornwall College, Trevenson Rd., Pool, TR15 3
RD
Joblink Training, Trevenson Rd., Pool
Benefits Lemon Quay House, Lemon Quay, Truro, TR1 2PU (10 miles)
Hospitals Camborne Redruth Community Hospital, Barncoose, Redruth (2 miles)
Royal Cornwall Hospitals Trust, Treliske Hospital, Truro (10 miles)
GPs/Clinics Harris Memorial Surgery, Illogan, Redruth, TR16 4RX
Homecroft Surgery, Voguebeloth, Illogan
Pool Health Centre, Station Rd., Pool
Dentists Dr G L Parle, Mayfield Dental Practice, 117 Agar Rd.,
Illogan Highway, Redruth
Social Services Camborne Social Services, The White House, 24 Bassett Rd.,
Camborne (2 miles)
Post Offices Illogan Highway P O, Chariot Way, Illogan Highway, Redruth
Paynters Lane End P O, Robartes Terrace, Illogan
Pool P O, 42 Fore St., Pool
Banks/Building
Societies Barclays Bank PLC, Agar Rd., Illogan Highway
Lloyds TSB Bank PLC, 126-128 Agar Rd., Illogan Highway
Lloyds TSB Bank PLC, 5 Fore St., Pool
Credit Union Kerrier/Fal Credit Union (proposed) c/o Link into Learning,
23 Broad Street, Penryn TR10 8JL
Library Camborne Library, The Cross, Camborne (2 miles)
REDRUTH
Bus Regular daily services to Camborne & Truro
Rail Redruth Station, main line
Jobs Cornwall & Devon Careers Ltd., 2 Alverton St., Reduth
129
Royal Navy & Royal Marines Career Office, Oak House, Chapel St,
Redruth
Ultra Recruitment Agency, 57a Fore St., Redruth
Access Training (South West) Ltd, Trevenner House, Nettles Hill, Redruth
Cornwall Training Centres, 15-16 Cardrew Way, Cardrew Ind. Estate,
Redruth
Media Action for Training and Employment, Unit 12a, West Cornwall
Enterprise Centre, Cardrew Ind Est, Redruth
Rite Associates (Training), Highburrow, Wilson Way, Redruth
DGSA/TFTL/ADR – Training for Transport, Redruth
Benefits Lemon Quay House, Lemon Quay, Truro, TR1 2PU (8 miles)
Hospitals Camborne Redruth Community Hospital, Barncoose, Redruth
Cornwall Healthcare Trust, Charles Andrew Clinic, West End, Redruth
Lower Cardrew House, North St, Redruth
Royal Cornwall Hospitals Trust, Treliske Hospital, Truro (8 miles)
Trenqweath, Penryn St, Redruth
GPs/Clinics Lanner Moor Surgery, Lanner Moor, Redruth, TR16 6HZ
Manor Surgery, Forthnoweth, Chapel St., Redruth, TR15 2BY
The Surgery, 19 Clinton Rd., Redruth
Dentists Bateson & French, 28 Green Lane, Redruth
J.C. Duncan, 1 Trewirgie Rd, Redruth
Dr J Pearson, 24 Clinton Rd., Redruth
M G Sheppard., 24 Clinton Rd., Redruth
Social Services Murdoch & Trevithick Centre, Redruth
St Christopher’s Hostel, Redruth
Thornton House Residential Centre, Redruth
Post Offices Carnkie P O, Carnkie
Close Hill P O, Close Hill, Redruth
Mount Ambrose P O, 101 Mount Ambrose, Redruth
Banks/Building
Societies Barclays Bank PLC, Penryn St, Redruth
Halifax PLC, 20 Fore St., Redruth, TR15
HSBC Bank PLC, 81 Fore St., Redruth
Lloyds TSB Bank PLC, 27 Fore St., Redruth
Lloyds TSB Bank PLC, Market Square, Redruth
NatWest Bank, Redruth
Credit Union Kerrier/Fal Credit Union (proposed) c/o Link into Learning,
23 Broad Street, Penryn TR10 8JL
Library Cornish Studies Library, Clinton Rd., Redruth
Redruth Library, Clinton Rd., Redruth
PORTHLEVEN
Bus Regular daily services to Helston and Penzance
Rail Redruth or Camborne Stations, main line (8 miles)
Jobs See Helston (2 miles)
Benefits Branwell House, Clarence St., Penzance, TR18 2NP (9 miles)
Hospitals Royal Cornwall Hospitals Trust, Treliske Hospital, Truro (15 miles)
GPs/Clinics The Surgery, Sunset Gardens, Porthleven, Helston TR13 9BT
Dentist See Helston (2 miles)
Social Services Camborne Social Services, The White House, 24 Bassett Rd.,
Camborne (8 miles)
130
Post Office Porthleven Post Office & Stores, Chapel View, Fore St., Porthleven,
TR13 9HQ
Banks/
Building Societies Lloyds Bank PLC, Commercial Rd, Inner Harbour, Porthleven
Credit Union Kerrier/Fal Credit Union (proposed) c/o Link into Learning,
23 Broad Street, Penryn TR10 8JL
Library Mobile facilities
