Tag: Community

Missing places, reclaiming connection: what lockdown taught us about everyday spaces

Author Centre for Sustainable Planning and Environments | Posted on

By Sinead Ryan, Prof. Danielle Sinnett, Dr Isabelle Bray, and Dr Yarden Woolf

During the UK’s Covid‑19 lockdowns, many aspects of everyday life were suddenly out of reach. People were separated from family and friends, routines were suspended, and familiar settings like pubs, workplaces, coastlines and swimming pools, became inaccessible. In an earlier analysis of a survey carried out in the West of England, we explored what people said they missed most during this time. Here, we take a different perspective by considering the importance of place in both what people missed and what they planned to do first once restrictions were lifted.

This reveals something important: people did not just miss activities or individuals in isolation. They missed places, and the ways those places enable social connection, physical activity and contact with nature. Lockdown disrupted not only movement, but the spatial conditions that support wellbeing in everyday life.

Missing people meant missing places

Across responses, social connection dominated what people missed most. Many spoke simply of “people”, “friends” or “family”. Yet these answers were often rooted in specific settings where relationships normally unfold, like visiting parents, socialising at work, meeting friends, or spending time with grandchildren. When asked what they would do first once lockdown ended, these same themes reappeared but now grounded in action and place. For some, this meant returning to family homes or hosting friends again. Others imagined familiar social spaces reopening. Typical answers included “Invite friends round” and “Go to the pub and meet friends”.

The responses show that places matter not because of what they provide materially, but because they are where every day social life happens. Homes, pubs, cafés and workplaces all function as social infrastructure, spaces where connection is created, maintained and renewed. Their closure represented more than inconvenience  – a loss of social possibility. Physical distancing removed access not only to people, but to spaces where we can connect with others, whether planned or incidentally.

Access to green and blue spaces represented freedom, restoration and reconnection for many respondents.

Places that structure activity and routine

Many respondents spoke about missing activities that take place in specific settings: swimming pools, places of worship, volunteer venues, support groups, sports facilities or classes such as dance and yoga. These were rarely described as isolated pursuits. Instead, they represented routines, shared practices and forms of purpose. Respondents wrote that what they missed most was “choir singing”, “meeting with friends at church” or “the social aspects of the office”. Pubs were missed for “seeing live music”, “eating out” and the “beer garden”.

What connects these responses is the role of place in enabling regular, meaningful activity. Lockdown removed access not just to leisure, but to rhythms of life that support physical health, social contact and identity, particularly for older adults. Within this, utility places featured more than might be expected – “getting prescriptions, “browsing shops”, “going to the hairdressers”. While these spaces rarely attract attention in discussions of wellbeing, their absence affected people’s sense of dignity, independence and normality. These answers remind us that everyday services are part of the spatial fabric that allows people to function confidently and autonomously.

Nature, movement and freedom

Nature and travel formed a third, closely related thread. Some respondents said they missed countryside walks, the beach, or simply going “down town”. When restrictions lifted, these were often the first places people wanted to go: “A walk in the countryside”, “Go to the coast” and “Go camping”. This aligns with the activities mentioned as the first thing that some of the respondents hoped to return to, such as swimming or surfing. Here, place appears not just as a destination, but as a form of release and a way of escaping confinement and reconnecting with wider landscapes. It seems that for many, access to green and blue spaces represented mental restoration, physical movement and a renewed sense of freedom.

Travel, whether local or further afield often meant visiting family, reaching valued outdoor spaces or regaining choice over movement (e.g. using public transport). For others, they had particular holiday destinations in mind, either in the UK or abroad.

A cautious return

Not everyone anticipated reopening with enthusiasm. A small but notable group expressed anxiety about restrictions lifting, saying they would remain cautious or delay returning to shared spaces. They said things like: “We won’t change much except meet friends at a distance” and “Will be too worried to do anything in close proximity to others”. These responses remind us that recovery was uneven. For some, places that once offered opportunities for socialising or restoration now carried risk. The meaning of place had shifted, shaped by health concerns and uncertainty.

Why this matters

Taken together, these findings show that lockdown disrupted more than activities, it disrupted access to the places that make social life, movement and restoration possible. What people missed most, and what they sought out first, were closely aligned. Both point to the same conclusion: places enable wellbeing through what they allow people to do.

Understanding this matters for future responses to social restriction, urban planning and public health. Protecting access to places that support connection, routine and nature may be just as important as restoring services. Lockdown made visible something often taken for granted, that everyday places quietly underpin how we live, relate and recover.

This work forms part of a wider collaboration between centres, drawing on a shared survey dataset also analysed in a companion blog by the Centre for Public Health and Wellbeing:  What people missed most during the UK Covid pandemic: A survey in the West of England | Centre for Public Health and Wellbeing

Feature image caption: Everyday places such as homes, doorways and gardens became improvised social spaces during lockdown, highlighting how strongly social life is tied to place.

Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects – the value in understanding implementation

Author Centre for Sustainable Planning and Environments | Posted on

by Hannah Hickman

‘There is very little pre-existing research on project implementation and the impact that a planning consent has on this stage. Our research fills an important knowledge gap and is not only of significance to the planning profession, but to those in Government currently focused on the infrastructure planning reform process, and to project promoters and their consenting and delivery teams’.1

Described as ‘the most far-reaching legislation of its kind since 1947’2, the 2008 Planning Act in England introduced a new system for the consenting of infrastructure projects deemed in the national interest – nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPS). At the time of its inception, this legislation was seen as a ‘genuine revolution’3 in the handling of consents for large scale infrastructure developments.

The so called ‘revolutionary’ aspects of the new system included: the removal of infrastructure projects over a certain threshold from local authority decision making, with decisions taken following prescribed timescales by ministers of central government following the advice of independent inspectors; the combination of most – although not all – consents, including planning permission and compulsory purchase acquisition powers into one document to enable development to proceed, known as a Development Consent Order (DCO); and, critically, the expression of need for development in sector specific National Policy Statements, such that debate about the need for infrastructure takes place during parliamentary scrutiny of NPS preparation rather than on a project basis at examination.

Certainty and speed of decision were the defining logics of the new system and there is evidence to suggest that speed of decision making has been a positive outcome of the new system for many projects. However, speed and certainty of decision making, do not necessarily result in a faster or easier delivery process (presumably the ultimate intent of the new system …) or do they?

In 2023, the National Infrastructure Planning Association published research commissioned from UWE and the University of Sheffield to explore the relationship between consent and delivery – the journey from consent, construction and through to ongoing operation – framed by the question, ‘how can the Development Consent Order process be strengthened to better support the delivery of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects‘?

This research specifically focused on practitioner’s experiences of this post-consent delivery phase and involved detailed survey work, six in-depth case studies, and discussion with a wide range of bodies engaged in the NSIP process, including statutory environmental bodies and local authorities.

Hornsea II Wind Farm (Courtesy of Ørsted)

As a research team, it was fantastic to have the opportunity to talk to such a wide- range of professionals involved in the delivery of major infrastructure projects, from those in construction project management and contracting, to lawyers, environmental specialists, and of planners across both the public and private sectors. This experience left two lasting impressions on the team. Firstly, and maybe self-evident to those in the industry, the delivery of major infrastructure projects is a truly cross-sectoral endeavour. Those projects with a relatively smooth delivery phase demonstrated a clear commitment by all those involved, to understand the remit, constraints, and perspective of all the disciplines involved. Secondly, understanding the effectiveness of planning (a consent as granted) demands the insights derived from delivery: it materially effects not just the ultimate design of projects, but the delivery phase as well.

Key recommendations from the project included:

i. The importance of continuing to extend the opportunities for disseminating, sharing and reflecting on the experience of project delivery and implementation – this has been an overlooked area of practice;

ii. The need to ensure that any further reforms to the DCO process that focus on speed of decision making do not pass on problems to the delivery and implementation stage – speed of consent does not necessarily result in a smoother delivery phase;

iii. The need for a review of the further consents and licences required post consent – most infrastructure projects still require a number of additional consents before delivery can commence, causing uncertainty and delay;

iv. to consider a more supportive approach to post consent change management – the DCO post-consent change process is highly constrained and is both time-consuming and expensive;

v. The need for significant ongoing support for local authority and statutory body engagement in delivery and operation as well as examination – these organisations play significant roles at delivery yet face considerable resources constraints in doing so effectively;

vi. The need for greater consistency at project examination stage in how flexibility within consents can be justified and achieved – lack of flexibility to vary a scheme’s design, or deploy alternative construction methods, post-consent can cause delivery challenges; and

vii. The value in capacity building – across professions – to support delivery.

The project report, and detailed case studies, are available from:

https://nipa-uk.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/NIPA_Hindsights_Final_Report.05.07.2023.pdf

NIPA Insights III Supplementary Report (Case Studies) (05.07.23) (nipa-uk.org)

  1. https://www.rtpi.org.uk/policy-and-research/research/planning-research-matters/infrastructure-planning/practitioner-s-experiences-of-development-consent-order-implementation/ ↩︎
  2. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/jul/15/quango-fast-tracks-controversial-projects ↩︎
  3. https://www.jplc.org/files/pdf/attaining%20the%20age%20of%20consents.pdf ↩︎

Feature image: Tilbury2 in construction (Courtesy of Tilbury Port)

Designing for Health: Healthy Streetlife

Author Centre for Sustainable Planning and Environments | Posted on

by Mark Drane (LinkedIn; Instagram)

Reflections on a part-time PhD undertaken alongside healthy urbanism practice and during a global pandemic.

…the street remains a social space like no other.  Even in the context of divided and segregated cities, gated communities and ‘privatopias’, streets continue to provide spaces for public congregation, encounter and community making (Hubbard and Lyon, 2018).

Two things you should know about me when reading this are that since childhood I somehow knew that I wanted to be an architect and the second thing is that my parents told me I always told the truth even when it would get me into trouble as a child.

Twenty years after becoming an architect a difficult truth I have learned about architecture is that when it comes to health we are often causing harm and failing to create the conditions to support good health.

I didn’t get into architecture to contribute to such harm.  Yet, as I stood in front of the burned structure of Grenfell Tower I found myself reflecting on my role in a wider system where this tragedy could be a terrible but logical outcome.

It is sometimes claimed that designers and built environment practitioners are creating healthy places or that designers need a Hippocratic oath.  What I came to realise was that my own training and understanding of human health (intrinsically linked to planetary health) was severely lacking.  Despite two degrees, a professional diploma, and 20 years’ experience in professional practice I lacked the skills and knowledge to address this topic.  I don’t think I’m unusual: it’s a systemic problem.

This raised the question: if I couldn’t evidence I was contributing to health how could I know that the opposite – creating harm – wasn’t true?  Maybe it was jumping in at the deep end but in 2016 the answer seemed like a self-funded, part-time PhD, alongside practice was a way to address this question.

 Legall Street, Architectural drawings

So why streets?  Well streets are identified by UN Habitat as the most prevalent public space globally.  In many places they have become viewed as means to get from A to B, in fact they are vital social and public spaces right outside our front door and potentially – was my interest – a resource for health and wellbeing.

Nearly everyone in the world lives on a street.  People have always lived on streets.  They have been the places where children first learned about the world, where neighbors met, the social centers of towns and cities, the rallying points for revolts, the scenes of repression (Donald Appleyard, 1981).

Streets are designed and created by many different actors so are immediately interdisciplinary.  They are the smallest scale of public space outside of the more private space of the home.  They are arguably an easier scale for local authorities, designers, and others who control them to make changes.  What is less known is whether this is actually an effective scale at which to make changes and which ones we should be making.

Through undertaking a systematic review of the evidence I was able to demonstrate that yes the street scale does appear to have an impact on health independent of scales like the neighbourhood but the evidence base is quite small for example very focused on physical activity outcomes not things like mental health and social wellbeing.  First there was a need to know more about what matters to residents and how they use their streets so that’s where the study turned to next.

Within weeks of receiving my ethics approval in spring 2020 Welsh Government introduced national lockdowns in response to Covid-19 but a mixture timing and a flexible approach meant research was able to proceed.  I invested a lot of time in meeting people not like me – a white man with multifaceted privilege – and time spent doing this resulted in profoundly meaningful conversations with participants. 

Hester Street, Materiality photomontage

A key finding and argument of the research is that the street environment should be addressed as a health promoting setting.  I won’t recite the thesis findings here and it will be available online in due course.  Another key aspect is that what people do in their street – their health practices – really matter for health and wellbeing and unsurprisingly they are far more diverse (street bingo with prizes anyone?) than design guidance currently provides for.

“Lowly, unpurposeful, and random as they may appear, sidewalk contacts are the small change from which a city’s wealth of public life may grow” (Jane Jacobs, 1962).

Holford Street, Field sketch

A significant aim of undertaking a PhD was to influence policy, practice, and future research – not least the closer integration of these three.  Three headline recommendations are:

Closer integration of policy, practice, and research.

Policy, practice, and research should be integrated far more closely.  Yes they are different yet divisions between them these get in the way of actually shifting the dial on the problems we might hope to address.  The last eight years for me have been a test bed of precisely this: PhD research in the morning and working in my practice, Urban Habitats, in the afternoon.

Street smarts for practitioners.

Codes of practice and ethical codes for design practitioners increasingly incorporate duties for public benefit.  Engineers in the UK have one of the clearest: “Engineering professionals work to enhance the

wellbeing of society.”  What is needed is the guidance and definition that operationalises this intent.  Public health practitioners in the UK for example must work to reduce inequalities and also have a duty to “…protect and improve the health of populations… based on the best available evidence…”.  Crucially this includes a position toward evidence and its ethical use, something arguably lacking in design practice.

Inclusive streets:

Creating inclusive street environments is a priority for practice and policy.  My research identifies many groups who can be excluded from the street environment – and worryingly this is often just accepted as an immovable norm.  The street physical and social environment contributes to these norms.  Improving population health implicitly implies reducing health inequalities.  In this sense, streets either work for everyone or not at all.  A start would be to address inclusion, more meaningful would be supporting residents to create and change their streets, as they already do, through their everyday practices.

For me doing a PhD has enabled a change of career path and a way to address my personal and professional values in practice in a meaningful way.  The Centre for Sustainable Planning and Environments, my supervisory team, and UWE Bristol more widely has been an incredibly supportive and productive place for me to be based at for my PhD.

Clearly not every practitioner can have a PhD spanning health and urbanism.  There seems a need for integrative practice and practitioners which is where I see my own future.  I have ideas about new forms of practic/se that bring together research and practice in one dimension; different disciplines in another; and redefine the relationship between people with specific expertise and expert residents in local places.

What we must avoid the trap of making claims to create health and wellbeing without being able to reasonably justify such claims.  Supporting residents to create health in their streets is a good place to start.

References listed in this blog:

Appleyard, D. (1981) Livable Streets. Berkley: University of California Press. [Accessed 3 July 2018].

Hubbard, P. and Lyon, D. (2018) Introduction: Streetlife – the shifting sociologies of the street. The Sociological Review [online]. 66 (5), pp. 937–951. [Accessed 21 June 2022].

Jacobs, J. (1962) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Reprint. London: The Bodley Head, 2020.

CELEBRATING HABIBA EID (The Egyptian Jane Jacobs)

Author Centre for Sustainable Planning and Environments | Posted on

by Amir Gohar

Background

As a specialized urbanist, I have had a long career of working professionally in participatory design and planning. I directed projects scaled from detailed design interventions to master planning; these included coastal urban planning in the Red Sea; urban design in Senegal; design agro-farms with local community in arid areas in Saudi Arabia; work with community in cross-province river trail in Norway; oasis design for tribes in East Libya; urban guidelines for historic Cairo, the design for Cradle of Humankind National Park in South Africa; site planning for ecolodges in the Kalahari Desert; waterfront development in Doha, Qatar; and urban design in Portoviejo, Ecuador. Throughout my career, I have been fortunate to select working on projects that comply with the social values and even more fortunate to have most of them implemented and built with the local communities.

Placemaking in the Global South

This is not to undermine the wonderful efforts done by colleagues and friends in democratic countries in the North, but rather to shed the light on challenges of placemaking in the Global South. My projects have engaged a full range of interdisciplinary professional skills in highly diverse international settings, and always involved a complexity of constituents, ecologies, and cultures. In my professional career, I completed projects that required me to work closely with local residents within the parameters of government and private institutions to comply with social standards. Without much generalisation, In the Global South, the responsible practice of civic engagement and participatory design require extensive field-based investigations of cultural and social contexts. Little professional or scholarly literature engages these real-world practice scenarios in the these regions, and this motivates my interest to encourage young planners and designers to dig deeper to learn about their own community leaders and those who took the responsibility and cared about their people.

I write this today because I figured out if I didn’t do so, then who else will? I want to share it with a new generation of students and fresh graduates who are currently involved in projects or research that has to do with placemaking, tactical urbanism, civic engagement, participatory design, and all kinds of urban interventions. In several discussions and forums, I find a new generation who takes things for granted is celebrating Jan Jacobs without having full understanding of her challenges, the difficulties she has been through, the threats she encounters and the sacrifices she made to succeed.

Habiba Eid (26 April 1941 – 15 January 2015)

In Ismailia, a small city on the Suez Canal of Egypt, born woman who at a young age got involved in several community initiatives starting from witnessing major relocations because of the war around the Suez Canal cities and throughout the years of peace.

Habiba earned a BA in Arts from Cairo University, a diploma in regional planning from National planning Institute, a MSc in statistics from Cairo University and a diploma in political Science from Suez Canal University. While having all the right qualifications to have an ordinary desk job, she strived to change people’s lives in the field and venture in a world dominated by men in authority. 

During her career she worked closely with almost all governors, local teams, and international expats. Her compass was clear and cantered around serving her people. Throughout her journey she spent more time in the field, in the informal areas, engaging and negotiating and empowering the local people. This has put her in numerous confrontations with authority and higher powers. Her persistence, endurance and clear people-oriented agenda coupled with diplomacy and social intelligence allowed her to implement several projects and initiatives. She gained the respect and appreciation of her local people, the government, as well as the international community. Endless world experts have learned from her projects through their involvement in Hayy El-Salam, El-Bahtini, El-Hallous,… and many other development projects that are only implemented because of her persistence.

A poster I did with Habiba Eid about the mapping of Ismailia Slum Areas with UNDP and UN-Habitat.

Habiba played a vital role for the people of Ismailia. She even saved them of several involuntary relocations and demolitions that they are unaware of. Working closely with her, I witnessed her active engagement on all levels and across many scales. She managed to lead and guide international experts, gain confidence of international donors, convince government officials, and most importantly loved and appreciated by the informal settlement dwellers. I walked with her through alleys in extreme poverty to guide locally-installed water pipes, I observed her humble attitude with the needy and the unlimited support she offered to the local community even from her personal resources.

Women making fishing nets and men making fishing boats in Ismailia 

To celebrate her birthday on the 26th of April, I would encourage friends and colleagues to honour her contribution and also celebrate their own community leaders in the Global South who were influential and dedicated their life to serving the marginalized and under privileged.

Habiba had a purpose for her life till her last day. She was a dedicated woman to her cause to serve her people well.

Celebrate your Jane Jacobs – Celebrate your Habiba Eid

The challenge of delivering affordable housing in the South West

Author Centre for Sustainable Planning and Environments | Posted on

by Dannielle Sinnett, Hannah Hickman, Katie McClymont, Stephen Hall, Cat Loveday, Jessica Lamond and Rebecca Windemer

We were commissioned by Homes for the South West, a consortium of housing associations, to examine the factors affecting housing affordability in the region and provide an estimate of future housing needs. To do this, we drew on Government data, a survey of local authorities, interviews with housing associations, local authorities and private developers, and a review of planning policies in the region.

Mulberry Park, a new development by Curo in Bath (credit Andrew Sykes and Curo)

How affordable is housing in the South West?

The South West faces acute problems of housing affordability. The region is conspicuously less affordable than England as a whole, and the North and Midlands in particular. In 2021, median house prices were approximately ten times greater than the median earnings. These inter-regional disparities are also becoming progressively more pronounced; in 1997 house prices were around four times greater than earnings.

Three quarters of local authority areas have affordability ratios (the ratio between house price and individual earnings) higher than that for England as a whole, and all have affordability ratios higher than those for the North of England. There is also substantial diversity in affordability ratios within local authority areas in the South West. The ten least affordable neighbourhoods in the region have median house prices more than 28 times median earnings. Even in the most affordable neighbourhoods median house prices are still more than three times median earnings.

Which factors impact housing affordability?

Property prices in the South West are markedly higher than England as a whole, and have risen nearly fourfold – faster than the national average rate of increase – in the past 25 years. However, the region has lower than average earnings, which have failed to keep up with house price increases. This has significant implications for local people, especially younger households or first-time buyers.

House prices are often higher in places with a high environmental quality and good access to local amenities and services. We found that, within a local authority area, neighbourhoods closer to the coastline are less affordable, as are those in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In general, more rural places are less affordable than towns and cities, but within these rural areas, those with better transport and broadband connectivity were even less affordable. Stakeholder reported that the high land values in the region undermine the viability of affordable housing.

Furthermore, these locations are also popular retirement and tourist destinations. It appears that local authorities in the South West with a greater proportion of second homes are less affordable and in-migration is dominated by arrivals from elsewhere in the UK (as opposed to international migration). This suggests, perhaps, the existence of a distinctive residential ‘offer’ in the region, one that attracts retirees, people working from home and those commuting to London and the South East, further increasing demand for new homes.

Finally, we looked at the supply of new homes compared with projected household formation since 1997. Over this period, the supply of new homes in the South West has not kept pace with demand, with an estimated deficit of 99,978 homes. This shortfall does not account for holiday lets or second homes, so is likely to be much greater. Most local authorities’ assessments of housing need will not address this shortfall by 2032.

Planned affordable eco-homes by Bromford Housing Association in Moreton-in-Marsh

What is the impact of Right to Buy?

Housing providers in the South West report that Right to Buy has had a detrimental impact on housing affordability in the region, particularly in respect of its role in the depletion of the overall stock of affordable housing. Since 1997, some 33,220 local authority-owned homes were sold through Right to Buy, whereas local authorities in the South West delivered only 2,320 new homes. The impact of Right to Buy appears to be particularly acute in small rural communities where a handful of sales locally might equate to a high proportion of total stock and may be difficult to replace given the higher unit costs of construction on small rural sites. In addition, development viability and funding challenges make it difficult for local authorities to replace social housing on a one-to-one basis.

What is the impact of national and local policy?

Regional stakeholders were critical of the complexity created by multiple definitions of affordable housing observed in planning policies. More importantly, they argued that these definitions do not equate to genuinely affordable housing.

The under-resourcing of planning was identified as a significant impediment to timely decision-making and on-site delivery.

Assessing future affordable housing need

To assess future housing need we estimated the number of new homes needed for each local authority in the South West from 2022 to 2039, and the proportion of new households that would need to spend more than 40% of their monthly income on mortgage repayments (i.e. unaffordable housing).

We estimated that around 28,337 homes need to be delivered in the region each year between 2022 and 2039, of which 17,282 would need to be affordable for those on median incomes – around 60%. These proportions are far greater than the thresholds in many planning policies.

Despite these challenges, stakeholders detailed how collaboration and partnership working between housing associations, local authorities and SME housebuilders was able to deliver affordable homes. They also highlighted that the delivery of affordable homes was intrinsic to other priorities, including ensuring high quality homes and responding to climate and ecological emergencies. Such practices provide opportunities on which to build to ensure that housing is delivered in the region which is affordable and sustainable.

The full report can be found here: https://homesforthesouthwest.co.uk/home/affordability-report/

“The idea of citizen participation is a little like eating spinach…”

Author Centre for Sustainable Planning and Environments | Posted on

Katie McClymont, co-author of a recent comprehensive review of the evidence between community-led housing (CLH) and health, describes a stimulating stakeholder workshop session…

In her famous and oft-quoted article, Sherry Arnstein describes community involvement thus: ‘The idea of citizen participation is a little like eating spinach: no one is against it in principle because it is good for you’.

 A similar comment could be made about community-led housing (CLH).  Both its proponents, and government sources and commentators, view it as a solution to many of the problems associated with the contemporary UK housing market and unhealthy and unhappy urban lifestyles more widely.  However, there is surprisingly little robust evidence used to back up many of these claims. Little is known definitively about the benefits of community-led housing, despite the assertions made for it as a mode of development and living.  The review which we have just undertaken, and the seminar on which this blog reports, aims to take the first steps in remedying this lack of evidence, as well as outlining the directions in which we think future research agendas need to go.

Before proceeding, however, a few steps of clarification are needed. Most readers may well be familiar with what is meant by the term ‘community-led housing’ but for those who are not, a useful definition is provided in the CLH Toolkit.  It stresses three aspects which are necessary for any development to be defined as CLH: first – for there to be meaningful engagement throughout the process; second – for a local group to own/manage/steward the development; and third – that the benefits of development are asset-locked to that area.

We were commissioned by Power to Change to undertake a comprehensive review of CLH and Health;  to investigate what evidence there is that CLH influences both the health of those involved in it and people in the wider neighbourhood.  The idea of linking planning, development and built environment factors to health outcomes is not a new one. Substantial research has demonstrated that the built environment has an important effect on people’s wellbeing (see RTPI, 2014, PHE, 2017), and specifically that housing plays a major role in this, with poor quality housing being linked to both mental and physical health problems (Toms, 2019). The aim of our review, expressed in the seminar and report, was to explore the specific role that CLH does or could play in this agenda.

We outlined four key strands from the literature where a link between CLH and health outcomes can be found.  These are each addressed as statements: CLH supports healthy aging, CLH promotes social inclusion, CLH may lead to improved physical health and CLH can support people who are disadvantaged or in need of additional support.

During our seminar, each statement was discussed in a ‘world café’-style workshop, as described below. The aim of the event was to ensure that the review was open to scrutiny and feedback from other experts, but also to begin dialogue about the gaps in existing evidence and ways of improving communication to enhance both practice and understanding. The 22 participants divided into four small groups, and each group discussed the findings from a strand for ten minutes with the help of a facilitator.  The facilitators then rotated around the groups so that all participants had the opportunity to provide input on each statement.  The participants came from a wide range of backgrounds: academics, community activists, those involved already in CLH in various forms, planners and policy-makers. 

Participants took the debate further by raising the question of how to involve the widest range of people in CLH, but how also to make this equitable and inclusive, rather than intrusive or assuming that all have the same aspirations about where and how they live. They considered how the process of being involved in establishing, developing and building a CLH settlement could change the self-image of a community from being ‘vulnerable’ to ‘empowered’. However caution was raised that CLH may further segregate marginalised groups if the housing is not integrated within a wider neighbourhood too. Health was viewed as a useful lens by participants who were advocates for CLH – it was seen as offering the potential to quantify some of the positive outcomes of CLH in a way which would be understood in ‘cost-benefit’ analysis. The feeling was that this event marked the start of a conversation – a very lively and engaging one which as chair and timekeeper I had to work hard to keep under control!

The final report has now been published, and we hope it is useful to practitioners, funders and researchers.  We also hope it will be a first step in developing new research projects which begin to address the gaps which we have identified. Most of all, we hope that this work plays a small yet important part in changing policy and practice to bring about healthier, happy, more inclusive and more empowered communities through increased control of housing choices and benefits.

To access the published report please see https://www.powertochange.org.uk/research/community-led-housing-health-comprehensive-literature-review/

Back to top