Author: LPL

Given To The People’ is a film telling the story of the Pollok Free State. The Free State was initiated by the actions of local resident, Colin Macleod, who began a tree top protest against the building of the M77 motorway through Pollok Park in the early 1990s. Over several years this grew into a series of camps across Pollok. It sought not only to block an unwanted motorway cutting through one of Europe’s largest inner city public commons, land that had been gifted to the people of Glasgow, but also raised issues over the rights of local people to determine the use and development of public space – rights that many felt were being denied.

Whilst the Free State was unable to stop the motorway it nevertheless succeeded in giving the people of Glasgow something far more powerful: demonstrating the ability of ordinary individuals to come together in common cause, take responsibility for their surroundings, and realise their own initiatives for transforming them. One of these was the creation of the GalGael, a locally run boatyard in Govan which has been widely recognised as one of the most successful community projects in Scotland.

Out of the chaos of the scheme an order was born – in the housing schemes people were disempowered, there was no responsibility … in the Free State people re-learned how to take responsibility and re-learned how to articulate issues that mattered to them.
– Colin Macleod

The story of the Free State is presented through a film combining original video footage from the camps, interviews with some of the many people involved, and specially composed music by the Glasgow band Foxface. The film will be presented in a free public screening at the GalGael with the music performed live by Foxface on Friday 18th April at 7pm.

On Sunday 20th April there will be a special discussion following the film, looking at the legacy of the Free State and how that relates to issues of public space and the environment in Glasgow today.

Now that public space in Glasgow is once again under threat the story of the Pollok Free State is as important today as it was ten years ago.

Author: Regeneration and Renewal

From the start, the eco-towns should create opportunities for new residents to build their communities, and create development trusts to deliver local public services. These are the key messages of new guidance on eco-towns by the Department for Communities and Local Government and campaigners the Town and Country Planning Association (R&R, 28 March, p2).

These aspirations cannot be faulted: early investment and an upfront community development process – including mapping existing services, building resource centres to provide space for activities, organisations and small firms, and recruiting community workers – are sensible moves. Crucially, the simultaneous planning and implementation of physical, environmental and community development are integral to achieving cohesive and sustainable communities. Timely advice, but does it go far enough?

Planners and developers often talk about community, but it usually comes a poor second to hard infrastructure projects, with such facilities being provided long after residents arrive. Fantastic community capital projects may emerge, but often with limited revenue attached or little thought given to financial sustainability. The last generations of new towns are littered with crumbling, cash-starved community centres desperately turning too late to the development trust model to inject entrepreneurialism.

The guidance pinpoints the key factors in creating sustainable community infrastructure: early planning and investment coupled with a key delivery vehicle – namely a community trust with an endowment released over time – to manage public services. However, the guidance fails to explore the true potential of trusts.
Trusts can provide a community’s glue, manage facilities and create income. But such activity also needs ongoing funding through local taxation or grants. The alternative is building enterprise into the endowment, using freehold property and land to attract community projects such as rented business space and energy projects.
Community investment, ownership and management through a trust can deliver long-term benefits to residents and happy places to attract potential purchasers of new developments.

Author: The Guardian

Unhappy days are here again. This is the season of a ghoul-on-every-page. Each February Britain opens Pandora’s box and out leap a hundred serial killers, multiple rapists, child molesters, “scumbags”, stabbers and feral bingers. The BBC adores them – it even sexed-up Monday’s news with footsteps of a stalking killer – and so does the press. “Collapse of society as we know it” is the nation’s annual X rated movie. As for Pandora’s last gift, hope, we wait in vain.

Reaction comes from the familiar army of moaners, platitudinisers and retributionists. To the tabloids, the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah is too good for modern Britain. Where are the parents, the teachers, the moral leaders? Apparently they should all be lined up and shot for dereliction of duty. Ten years ago, I bet a Labour government would be so terrified of the far right as one day to bring back internment, torture and hanging. I already win on the first two.

The bromides are always delivered in the passive voice. Yesterday the nation’s supposed moral leader, the Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote on these pages about what “ought to be done” about young people in public. They should be made welcome. Others suggest something should be done about parents, the police, teachers, social workers and the latest guardians of the social contract, alcohol salesmen. Something should always be done by the government. Responsibility is never active and first person singular.

Something is missing from this cacophony and I know exactly what it is. A tier of social control has been lobotomised from British public life. There is nothing between the individual or family unit on one hand and the central state on the other. Britain has fallen into De Tocqueville’s trap of an atomised society, where “every man is a stranger to the destiny of others. He is beside his fellow citizens but does not see them … while above them rises an immense and tutelary power, that of the state”. We have lost the habit of association.
The nearest any British community has to local government these days is the police force. Local leadership is a 999 call. Whether it is a rape epidemic, an unruly school, trouble with immigrants, a released paedophile or bingeing teenagers, the community appears before the world as a police officer. There may be walk-on parts for a firefighter, a priest and, bringing up the rear, a national MP. But the figure of reassurance and authority in any British town nowadays is in uniform (which is why Muslims turn to their mullahs).

Go to any community abroad, whether in America or France or Germany or the Netherlands, and that figure will be a locally elected official, normally a mayor. He or she may represent a city, a village, a neighbourhood or just a block association, but they will be known by their people and trusted. Mayoral name recognition in France and Germany is 80%-90%. Legitimacy rests not on a uniform but on a vote.

The renaissance in US cities over the past quarter-century has depended on civic leadership supplied through election. The same applies to the newly confident cities of Spain and eastern Europe. It is to mayors and councillors that parents, businessmen, farmers and teachers naturally turn in time of trouble. It is they who barter local power, cut deals, express civic pride, reward and punish, as they have done through history.
The still stumbling urban revival in Britain requires anonymous party-based councils to plead with regional offices of central government. Local elections no longer make an appreciable impact on policing, health, education or economic development. Councils retain no fiscal discretion to aid communities with social clubs, sports halls, libraries, parks or playgrounds. In my London borough, not only have we no neighbourhood council but we are not allowed to elect our own councillor lest he or she “represents” us alone. We are merged with neighbourhoods elsewhere. This is no incentive for civic leadership.

In France there is an elected official for every 120 people, which is why French micro-democracy is alive and kicking. In Germany the ratio is 1:250; in Britain it is 1:2,600. In France the smallest unit of discretionary local government (raising some money and running some services) is the commune, with an average population of 1,500. In Germany that size is 5,000 people. In Britain the average district population is 120,000, and even that body can pass the blame for any service deficiency to central government.

Cynics sneer at the “calibre” of local councillors. Yet nobody will exercise leadership in a community if denied the power to make it effective. I do not believe that British citizens are unique in Europe in being incapable of taking responsibility for their communities. They may prefer to sit at home and blame others but if you reduce local institutions to consultative status, consultation is all you get, not leadership.

Of all nationalisations in British history, none has been so corrosive of the public good as the nationalisation of social responsibility. I am not starry eyed about the vigour of local democracy abroad. It is messy, bureaucratic and often corrupt. But it appears to yield communities more able to discipline themselves and their young, and more satisfied at the delivery of their public services. They do not throw nearly so many people in jail. Local newspapers are not, as in Britain, filled with impotent whinges against central government. Local leadership is considered a duty by citizens permitted to exercise it.

Britons have come to regard democracy as they do weddings and funerals, a ritual to be endured as briefly as possible. In every other part of the world, however poor, community coheres round some forum of elected, appointed or anointed body, where grievances are aired and redress is sought by people living and working together and, to an extent, governing each other. In Britain this is found in some rural parishes but is virtually unknown in urban and suburban areas.

In recent years, a phoney mantra about civil society has been preached by Gordon Brown, David Miliband and Hazel Blears, usually presaging an expensive and meaningless “conversation with stakeholders”. Such top-down paternalism is not self-government and never will be. Democracy bites only when it votes, taxes and delivers. Only then do its participants have the legitimacy to enforce social responsibility and communal discipline. We can moan as much as we like, but all else is for the birds.

Author: LPL

Scotland’s first large-scale tidal energy project is to be installed on the island of Islay. Members of the community-owned Islay Energy Trust have backed creation of the commercial-sized project, which is to be built in collaboration with Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen.

Scotland’s fifth-largest island will become home to between four and six turbines with a total capacity of around 2 megawatts. Developing the turbines is expected to cost up to £750,000 and should take around three years to complete. Once in operation, revenue would be generated from the sale of electricity.

‘It’s a very innovative business model,’ said Philip Maxwell, chairman of the Islay Energy Trust. ‘Instead of the conventional route of involving a large energy company or turbine manufacturer, the community is taking the initiative.

‘We aim to ensure that any exploitation of the considerable tidal energy resources in the seas around the Isle of Islay yields substantial and sustainable benefits to the community, as well as providing greater energy security.’

Scientists have estimated that marine power could generate one third of Scotland’s renewable energy needs, with the seas around Islay holding particularly rich potential.
Islay, famed for its malt whisky, is already home to the world’s first commercial wave power station – Wavegen’s Limpet at Portnahaven. Waves are driven by winds; by contrast, tidal power taps the energy of the Moon as it raises tides around the Earth.

The new proposal for Islay is a major step forward in the commercialisation of tidal energy exploitation which could ultimately generate enough energy to supply about 5 per cent of total demand for the UK. It will also make a contribution to meeting Scotland’s target of 50 per cent of electricity coming from renewable energy resources by 2020, and could reduce carbon dioxide emissions by around 4,000 tonnes a year.

‘Tidal streams offer a substantial and predictable source of renewable energy and this is an area where RGU has specific expertise,’ said Dr Alan Owen, of Robert Gordon University’s School of Engineering.
It is hoped that the pre-feasibility study, which will evaluate potential tidal resources, locate possible sites for the underwater turbines and prepare for the environmental impact assessment, will be completed by the end of the summer.

Author: New Start Magazine

It’s sometimes hard to understand why, when you know that something works and the evidence shows it can really make a difference, it is not more universally retained and delivered in a form that maintains the features that make it work. For me, neighbourhood management (NM) is one of those things.
The neighbourhood management pathfinder (NMP) programme was announced in 2001 by the former ODPM. Pathfinders were funded through government offices and launched in 2002 primarily by local authorities in 35 deprived neighbourhoods.
New Labour’s policy action team four wanted to test the idea that neighbourhood management might be an effective tool to ‘enable deprived communities and local services to improve local outcomes, by improving and joining up local services, and making them more responsive to local needs’.
I was lucky enough to get a pathfinder job as a neighbourhood manager and was responsible for establishing the Changes in Common NM programme in the London borough of Greenwich. It seemed the perfect opportunity. After years of working in disadvantaged neighbourhoods, here was a programme that made sense. Bottom-up would meet top-down. The effective involvement of a community in expressing its priorities would be combined with service improving, problem solving and joining up at a neighbourhood level. It was the first proper experiment since the costly attempts at devolution by Tower Hamlets and Islington in the 1980s.
Could better intelligence, an agile team, a community development process, and emphasis on delivery (rather than delivering) make the difference? Could real change in outcomes be delivered in disadvantaged communities for less than 10% of the cost of previous regeneration programmes with a new focus on ‘bending the mainstream’?
Many of us running the round one pathfinders felt instinctively that this approach would make a difference. Not only would services be better joined up and more relevant and accessible to local communities, but communities themselves would be engaged in their delivery. Step change might really be possible. When we began there was continuous support from the ODPM with special events and training for the neighbourhood managers, and ongoing supervision of the programme by the government offices. Crucially, if your local authority was not ‘playing ball’ the mere mention of involving central government would get things back on track.

Getting results

So, six years on, what have we learned? We are awaiting the next review from the national evaluation team led by 5QW, but the 2006/07 review was impressive. Average awareness of the programmes by communities was 67%; satisfaction in street cleansing had improved by 8% in pathfinder areas over three years compared to a drop of 2% in control areas; satisfaction with police services was up; and contrary to popular belief, two- thirds of reported changes to mainstream services had gone beyond ‘crime and grime’ issues and were focusing on housing, health, education, children’s and youth services, NM was enabling better ‘joining up’, better
use of local knowledge, and improved access and take-up of services. NM was already showing its ability to contribute to the worklessness agenda by improving access to jobs and adding value to the mainstream providers in promoting enterprise and inward investment, The pathfinders were also demonstrating that they could promote greater citizen engagement, more voluntary activity and increased social capital.

The report concluded by saying ‘the 2006 local government white paper set out a series of ambitions for local government -more responsive services, empowered and cohesive communities and strong local leadership which is”, focused on improving whole areas rather than just individual services. From our review of the nature and benefits of the pathfinders we believe that neighbourhood management initiatives can make an important contribution to this vision’.

All this from a team that had been initially sceptical of the approach! So what has become of neighbourhood management in the age of ‘double devolution’, or ‘devolution to the doorstep’ as Hazel Blears likes to call it? With top-down targets reducing, a new national indicator set, local area agreements (LAAs), and the impending corporate area assessment (CAA) due from April 2009, will NM survive this changing landscape? The answer is not simple and in some ways is quite perplexing.

An expanding approach

On the one hand, the future looks bright. Every govemment paper and review from Lyons to Flanaghan advocates the approach. The National Neighbourhood Management Network, from a base of 35 projects, knew of 250 by 2006 and is now in touch with 360 partnerships (SQW undertook a recent piece of work for DCLG and is aware of 500).

As it prepares for its metamorphosis into an independent member-supported body at some future date, the network is quite satisfied with progress, Fiona Sutherland, who co-runs the network, explains: ‘Central government funding which is specifically ring-fenced for the purpose of supporting neighbourhood management met its demise some time ago, but we have not seen any corresponding decline in network membership. Many of our members are already supported by mainstream funding from local authorities, the police, housing organisations and other local agencies who have been convinced of the benefits of neighbourhood-level working.’

On the other hand, a plethora of approaches to local working are being attempted, but some are not quite as comprehensive and lack the evidence base that NM has. Many local authorities are nobly and ably working to implement their own versions of ward or sub-ward level working to address local priorities and better engage communities. Wolverhampton has expanded its original six pilot NM areas to cover the whole city with its local area and neighbourhood arrangements -11 areas have local NM teams and four have area coordination from the centre. Newcastle has developed a long- standing Ward committee approach to deliver a series of local process called ward coordination, and are now planning to implement city-wide ward plans. Lewisham, in addition to existing NM programmes in its most disadvantaged areas is in the process of rolling out local assemblies to all its wards, as is Westminster. I was personally involved in the roll out of NM in Barking and Dagenham where the seven most disadvantaged wards now have a ‘pathfinder light’ three-staff model with a small budget and neighbourhood partnership, while the rest of the borough gets a ‘lighter touch’ approach working closely with the safer neighbourhoods police teams in each ward.

Uncertain future

These are just a few of the many varied and excellent examples of how approaches to devolution and localism are developing. There are clearly risks with this roll out. The NM model that is nationally evidenced has seven essential elements to it (as defined by the national evaluation team in the Rough guide to neighbourhood management that was produced in 2006). Often, elements are missing when NM is scaled up, most notably adequate and real levels of community involvement, a neighbourhood manager with clout, a team, and a neighbourhood premises. There is no evidence to suggest that the many hybrid versions of NM being developed are going to be as successful as the pathfinder model has been.

With NM, the evidence is growing that this approach to disadvantaged neighbourhoods has been proven to improve services, deliver on many key local outcomes, and improve community
cohesion, civic engagement, and voluntary activity. Yet DCLG still suffers from the need to make ‘the next big announcement’. So we’ve recently had new pilots in participatory budgeting and neighbourhood charters, a replacement for the neighbourhood renewal fund focused on worklessness -the working neighbourhoods fund -and more and more papers such as last month’s consultation paper from the DCLG, Unlocking the talents of OUT communities.

We are about to get a new white paper on community empowerment that asks such questions as how can we tackle worklessness and promote enterprise in the most deprived areas, what steps are needed to revive involvement in local civic roles, and how can we best increase opportunities for communities to hold local public officials to account?

With the NMP programme and the work that has gone on across local authority areas up and down the country, I thought we were much further along in finding more holistic answers to these questions. As for using this and translating it into current policy, either the DCLG is failing to learn from the past or else it has simply got stuck in a never-ending quest for ‘the next big thing’.

It is also hard to understand why some local politicians understand and nurture local approaches, yet others seem to actively shun the national body of evidence and momentum towards localism. Perhaps they find devolution too threatening, or maybe it’s a matter of ideology (though every political party engages in local working somewhere in the country).

Interestingly, perhaps the single biggest problem of this relatively laissez-faire approach is the message that with central government no longer driving the agenda it will be down to councils and their local partners to decide whether or not to ‘do’ NM.

Previously, the simple fact of central government’s commitment to the pathfinder programme was a useful lever to people at grass roots level who could use it to force the hand of local government agencies. Now that’s all changed and communities do not have any kind of ‘call in’ to central government -certainly not through the community call for action. So if you live in a disadvantaged area within an authority that is developing strong local approaches you may well begin to see the seeds of improvement and better opportunities. But if you live in an authority area that is not developing in this way, or is actively blocking local initiatives that do, tough luck. Is this a new postcode lottery? As a devolutionist, I can’t help thinking the government moved away from its top-down approach just as it might have been able to achieve its objectives with some of the bottom-up answers it was developing (confusing, I know.) My hope is that the CAA will be able to ‘out’ the poorer performers and the democratic process will then deliver the change.

Take the case of my old programme, Changes in Common, in Greenwich. This NM partnership tackled one of the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods of any of the pathfinders. Satisfaction levels were some of the lowest. Over the six years it has been in operation, it has massively increased the number of residents aware of the programme and involved in it, and who feel they are able to influence local services. It has achieved or over-achieved on the targets that were set out in 2001- from hugely reducing the percentage of council tenants seeking transfer, to reducing the gap in recorded crime. It has even managed to impact on the more elusive measures – the gap in rates of unemployment with the borough average has reduced; key stage two and GCSE results are markedly improved, and even teenage pregnancy has halved. Under the strong influence of local residents it developed a nationally acclaimed neighbourhood ‘one stop shop’ where residents could get joined-up support on most local issues and services -housing services, children’s services, a Jobcentre Plus, Citizens Advice Bureau money advice -with the NM team and neighbourhood police team located upstairs.

Despite its success, there is no borough-wide approach to NM in development nor support to sustain the new ways of working that have proven so effective. As the NM programme reaches its conclusion there is confusion in the community. It has won the support of local residents and traders in the effort to transform Woolwich Common -a job that was always destined to take longer than six years -and this support will now be much harder to regain in the future.

Changes in Common isn’t alone. Blacon NMP in Chester has delivered a hugely successful resident- led programme that has seen crime fall, fear of crime reduce, educational attainment increase, unplanned teenage pregnancy go down and overall significant increases in resident confidence in local services. A good example of its success was with the abandoned/arsoned car scheme Car Clear Plus which reduced arsoned cars from 80 plus per year in 2003 to just three last year. This scheme alone made net savings in excess of £308,000 last financial year.

The pathfinder will leave a strong legacy through an independent community trust which is now the biggest Blacon-based employer (40 people) with a turnover next year in excess of £1.7m of which the majority is earned income. Yet the approach is now at risk. The strength of their NM lies in its holistic, bottom-up approach that is facilitated by a core team. The core NM team have had redundancies hanging over them since December 2006 when the Government started devolving the NM budgets through the LAA, giving the local authority more power.

The new executive at Chester Council has embarked on a major programme of cuts across the whole council which has left the NMP budget exposed. As a result, NM posts that should have been secure to 2009 are now at risk.

With Cheshire County Council also under review, and despite Chester and Cheshire’s commitments in their sustainable community strategies and LAAs, the future of NM in Blacon is back in the hands of the two authorities that arguably brought about the failing services and neighbourhood in the first place. One Blacon resident recently commented that observing the councils on this issue was like watching two fleas on the back of a dog arguing over which one owns the dog!

I’ll give another Blacon resident the last word: ‘As a community we aren’t going away! We have had a taste of neighbourhood management. If you don’t support it now you will only have to reinvent it in the future. Top-down does not work.’

Author: New Start Magazine

Dead-end jobs in poor workplaces are contributing to a sickness culture costing Britain £100bn a year, an independent review has warned.

The review by national director for health and work, Dame Carol Black, said employers and trade unions should work together to ensure employment offers ‘a degree of responsibility and a sense of self worth’ as well as a regular income.

For someone who is sick, ‘good work’, which is healthy, safe and offers the individual some influence over how work is done, is better for a person’s physical and mental health than taking long periods of time off and potentially sliding into incapacity benefit. Such work would also minimise the likelihood of people being made ill by their jobs in the first place.

The proposal is part of a more general challenge to the assumption that recovery from illness is best aided by taking time off work. In support of the new approach, a fit for work service, supported by the NHS, would provide treatment, advice and guidance on a range on medical and non-medical issues including debt, housing and physiotherapy.

Pilots of the service would support those with mental health problems also work with those on incapacity benefit as well as people in the early stages of illness.

The electronic ‘fit note’ would replace the sick note, emphasising what a patient was able to do and when he or she might be expected to return to work.

Dame Carol’s report was published as the government’s scientific reference group on health inequalities announced that the health gap between rich and poor had barely budged since the mid-1990s, despite overall improvements in health across all social groups.

Latest figures revealed a slight narrowing in the infant mortality gap, virtually no change in the adult male mortality gap and a widening of gap in women’s life expectancy between 2003-5.

Deaths from cancer and heart disease, child road accident casualties and teenage pregnancies showed a narrowing of inequalities in absolute terms but not in relative terms.

In other areas, for example smoking, there was no narrowing of the gap between social groups.

Inequalities expert Sir Michael Marmot, reference group chair, said it was ‘simply too early to say if too little has been done or the right actions were not taken’.

Author: LPL

LEADER is divided into two main allocations – £38.5 million for the whole of rural Scotland and an additional £19.2m for the Highlands and Islands.

The £57.7 million, a joint allocation by the Scottish Government and European Union, will be matched at a local level by public and private funds – potentially doubling the figure.

Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the EnvironmentRichard Lochhead said:

“This is a massive investment in rural Scotland which will see decisions taken in local areas on how best to support a wide range of grass-roots community projects.

“The fact that all funding decisions are to be taken locally will greatly empower community decision-making and ensure only those projects which will make a real difference to rural Scotland will be selected.

“I would like to encourage rural communities to now seize the opportunities presented by this funding and take control of their own future development.”

Sixteen Local Action Groups (LAGs) across rural Scotland will administer the funds. Each has successfully applied for funding to be used to implement high-quality local development strategies for their respective areas.

It is anticipated that a further four LAGs will be formed in the second round which opens today.

The £19.2 million convergence fund for the Highland and Islands, which replaces the Highlands and Islands Special Transition Area scheme, will be administered through the Argyll and Islands, Highland, Orkney, Shetland, Outer Hebrides, Cairngorm Local Action Groups. Moray is expected to join in the second round announced today.

LEADER (Liaison Entre Actions de Développement Économique Rurale or links between activities developing rural communities) is a mainstream part of the Scotland Rural Development Programme (SRDP) 2007-2013. It is a bottom up form of local governance aimed at empowering communities to develop their own area using innovative approaches and cooperation. Funding is awarded to Local Action Groups (LAGs) to take decisions on projects which are community driven and have a wide community benefit.

The SRDP is a major programme of support for rural Scotland worth about £1.6 billion over the programme period. The objectives are set out in three themes; to increase competitiveness in agriculture and forestry, improve the environment and the countryside, and enhance the quality of life in rural areas.

Approval of SRDP, following the recommendations of an independent assessment panel, and using a scoring matrix based on population, area and overall quality of bid, means the LAGs can now open for business, and seek applications from potential beneficiaries to implement their local development strategies.

A total of 16 areas applied under the first funding round with proposals to form LAGs. Applications to bid for the second round or LEADER funding were issued today and it is anticipated that a further four areas will be approved. £6.7 million has been held back to fund the second round of applications.

Local Action Groups receiving LEADER funding under part one are:

Aberdeenshire, £3.24m
Argyll & Islands, £2.33m
Scottish Borders, £2.33m
Cairngorms, £0.92m
Dumfries & Galloway, £2.75m
Fife, £1.33
Forth & Lomond, £2.63m
Highland, £6m
Kelvin Valley, £0.53m
Orkney, £0.51m
Outer Hebrides, £0.94m
South Lanarkshire, £1.39m
Shetland, £0.63m
Tyne-Esk, £2.23m
West Lothian, £0.98m

Author: LPL

DETAILED plans for what could be Scotland’s first eco-town were unveiled yesterday.

Planners hope to regenerate four former mining villages on a 1,200-acre site at Cardenden in Fife – using it as a blueprint for future sustainable communities.

The proposed scheme of 5,000 wooden eco-homes, of which 1,000 would be affordable housing, will be built over the next 20 years.

They will incorporate a range of innovative renewable energy features and recycling systems aimed at creating a zero-carbon community.

Planners say the eco-town would not just be a “stand-alone structure” but would also involve eco-town residents and those living alongside it, being involved in community and recycling projects and adopting a greener, healthier lifestyle.

However critics say it is an example of “greenwashing” in which large-scale housing programmes are pushed through despite local opposition because they include green features.

But Colin Anderson, managing director of Banks Property Development Limited, the company behind the plan, said the proposals were not merely about providing housing but about helping to “breath new life” into Scotland’s neglected communities.

“Scotland has so many old industrial villages, fragmented communities stripped of ambition which are crying out for redevelopment.

“The Scottish Government says about 10,000 new houses are needed a year so why not build these houses where people want them and which could lead to long-term regeneration. People in Cardenden don’t want another anodyne housing development and I think many have been pleasantly surprised at what we have come up with.

“When eco-towns were first proposed in England the vision was that they would be single entity settlements on greenfield sites including abandoned air fields. There was such a public outcry the focus turned to brownfield sites such as Cardenden which can be tied in with the infrastructure.”

Mr Anderson added that his company has submitted bids for four out of the ten eco-towns in England

Søren Madsen, an architect at Arkitema, one of Denmark’s leading building firms, which is masterminding the development, said: “This is an amazing opportunity for Scotland though some aspects of what is being proposed such as turbine technology is already part of everyday life in Denmark.

“With Cardenden I like the fact that we are building on an existing identity, but the big challenge will be weaving the old and new, locally and socially.

“People have been very curious. Their population has fallen from 20,000 to 5,000 and they want it to come up to a critical mass – the eco-town could be a way to do this.”

Andrew Saunders, director of Ore Valley housing association in Cardenden, said: “The proposals are very interesting in eco terms and because of the demand for affordable housing across all tenures in this area.

“As a registered social landlord we cannot compete with this, but it has a synergy with what we have been doing in terms of energy saving. If the local community want it, itwill go ahead.”

The proposals do not fit in with Fife Council’s structure plan and the company is now hoping it can influence the Scottish Government to look positively on the idea.

CAUTIOUS WELCOME FOR ECO-TOWN PLANS

PLANS for the eco-town received a mixed response yesterday.

• David Taylor, secretary of Cardenden and Kinglassie Community Council, said: “We are taking a cautious approach to this. We want the village to grow, but people are nervous of change.

“You also have to think about the mentality of people in the four villages – it can be difficult getting them to integrate at present, never mind bringing in a new town.”

• Robin Harper, Green Party MSP, said: “This project can be an icon for all new developments, small and large, and I find it genuinely exciting. Hopefully, Cardenden will set the pace for all future development.”

Author: LPL

Background
The Swedish Village Movement has grown out of difficulties being experienced in many rural areas of the country especially in the sparsely populated areas in the northern region. Lack of jobs and service facilities, outmigration especially of young people was a fact. Village people felt abandoned by the authorities and began to see that they had to rely on their own initiatives and efforts. No one else would take action for them.

Local mobilisation
Today there are 4200 village action groups in Sweden spread all over our country operating under the municipal level (there are nearly 300 municipalities). We estimate that about 100 000 persons are directly engaged in these village groups and about 3 million Swedes are affected, which is a third of the Swedish population.
Many citizens participate in community work in a new (or rather traditional) way. Local people invest their time and money. We underline that our Village Movement vitalizes our Swedish democracy and strengthen the economy all over Sweden – not just in Stockholm.

Rural Parliament
Every second year people gather in a “Rural Parliament” to discuss and put focus on rural matters. The “Parliament” gives guidelines for the Councils work. One important aim is to rouse opinion for rural Sweden. The big event is open to all and there are always foreign guests.
Over one thousand delegates, out of whom around sixty come from abroad, usually attend the Rural Parliament. The main themes in 2008 are Climate, Environment and Energy. Many seminars will be held during the Rural Parliament. One of the main issues of this year’s Rural Parliament will be to discuss and contribute to the Government’s strategy plan regarding Rural Development

Maturing
Our Swedish Village Action Movement is maturing. From rather simple to advanced tasks, from leisure to jobs, from specific actions to a holistic view on local development and from “want-lists” to elaborated local action plans. At the beginning the leadership could be more or less self-appointed, but nowadays local elections are made in good democratic order. From just a few examples of active villages there now is a strong popular movement and from a rather neglected phenomenon it has gained respect from many parties, including the government and the EU-commission.

Author: LPL

The roots of the Leith Festival go back 100 years – in 1907, the ‘Leith Pageant’ parade was held to raise funds for a new hospital in Leith. But it took until 1970s before the parade became a festival. Since the millennium, Leith Festival has grown spectacularly, now boasting 150 events operating out of 60 venues across the community and drawing in an audience of over 30,000. The Gala Day and Pageant remain the traditional heart of the Festival but in recent years the programme has developed and diversified to the point where it now includes separate strands for comedy , music, film, photography, visual arts, literature and drama, dance.
Leith Festival is an independent registered charity. It takes the form of a Company limited by guarantee and has a board of directors that are drawn from the local community. The Festival engages on a freelance basis an Artictic Director and a Festival Manager and offers internships to students from the city’s universities who assist on areas of marketing, programming and event management.

The main Festival programme runs over a 10 day period in June but also manages to coordinate community celebrations at other times of the year such as St Andrews Day, Christmas Celebrations and a Burns Supper.
The strategic objectives of Leith Festival are :

• As an organisation, to be the lead catalyst and pace-setter for festival, arts and celebration activities in Leith with a strong reputation in Edinburgh, Scotland and beyond
• To have a permanent all year round professional presence in our own premises in the heart of Leith
• To establish the Leith Festival in June as a major arts and celebration event in the Scottish calendar with a growing international reputation – progressing in 2009 to a full fortnight in June
• To progressively organise festival, celebration and arts events at many other holiday and celebration times throughout the year
• To establish a Leith presence in the Edinburgh Festival and Fringe in collaboration with other partner organisations and businesses in Leith and beyond
• To develop street and open air art and celebration events in Leith and build the Gala Day and Pageant into a major street carnival event
• To develop the activities of the organisation into work experience, training and volunteering opportunities for the residents of Leith of all generations and backgrounds
• To actively develop and seek funding for our own arts and festival projects that will nurture, develop and encourage Leith talent and expression
• To support the development of original arts in Leith and make Leith into a renowned centre for original arts
• To build strong relationships with the Leith business community and promote the activities of the festival as a strong brand to commerce and business well beyond the Port
• To establish the Association as a financial secure organisation with an asset base and a variety of entrepreneurial income generating activities
• To champion the identity of Leith and build on our multi-cultural and international identities in the tradition of the Port