Get documents about "BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL
Document Sample
BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL
REPORT OF THE SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (REGULATORY SERVICES)
TO THE PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE
16TH APRIL 2004
ALL WARDS
A ‘LIVEABILITY’ INDICATOR
1. Summary
1.1 This report seeks to inform the Committee of work being carried out by your Officers
to develop a Liveability Indicator for Birmingham. The work, being undertaken in
partnership with the West Midlands Police, EnCams (EnCams is the specific name of
the organisation formerly known as the Keep Britain Tidy Group) and other
organisations has both National and International significance.
2. Recommendations
2.1 That the report be noted.
2.2 That the Public Protection Committee is invited to consider participating in the
development of the project through a future workshop that would enable Councillors
views to be captured and assimilated into the initiative.
Contact Officer: Kevin Mitchell
Head of Strategy and Special Projects
Telephone: 0121 303 6107
Facsimile: 0121 303 6994
Email: kevin.mitchell@birmingham.gov.uk
Ref: PPC/949/S: 1
11/03/2004
3. Background
3.1 Through the Response Support Theme Group of the Birmingham Community Safety
Partnership, a robust relationship has developed between officers of Birmingham City
Council and the West Midlands Police. A cornerstone of this partnership is the shared
desire to make the City a ‘safer’ place.
3.2 To inform progress towards this objective, the City in common with all Community
Safety Partnerships, determines ‘safety’ in terms of both levels of actual recorded
crime and through residents’ perceptions of safety, or ‘fear of crime’.
3.3 Historically, these two measures were believed to be directly related – i.e. that by
reducing actual levels of crime there would be a corresponding decrease in the fear of
crime. However, objective evidence from Birmingham and other urban areas is now
beginning to show us that whilst there have been real impacts in reducing actual levels
of total recorded crime, the fear of crime is rising. See Appendix.
3.4 From this and similar fact evidence, Local Authorities, Central Government, Police
and other professionals increasingly believe that the fear of crime is not directly
related to the crime rate itself; but is in part determined by the physical characteristics
of the area in which people live. Significant in this respect are the impacts of litter on
the streets, dumped rubbish, fly-posting, graffiti, abandoned vehicles and anti-social
behaviour.
3.5 There is also evidence that where districts or neighbourhoods are seriously degraded
the general social, physical and mental well-being may be lower than in areas where
there is individual and collective community and civic pride. Collectively, these
issues have been referred to as ‘Quality of Life’ issues, or more recently,
‘Liveability’.
3.6 Put simply, people want to live in neighbourhoods that are free of visually intrusive
and environmentally degrading material. Any combination of these factors can give a
message to residents and potential investors that the area is not cared for, and that it is
a dirty, unsafe, undesirable place to be.
3.7 These concerns place Liveability as a key indicator and target for reducing the fear of
crime in Birmingham and are rightly brought out as a key strand within the City’s
Flourishing Neighbourhoods policy priority. However, locally, nationally or
Internationally, no common methodology currently exists to determine the
‘Liveability’ of an area or neighbourhood. It is important that there should be, not
least to assist agencies in managing appropriate interventions according to priority,
but also to enable progress to be objectively evidenced and compared. This would be
a powerful mechanism for focussing all City Departments, Agencies, Voluntary
Organisations and others to the areas of greatest need with a shared vision of making
a real and sustained difference.
Ref: PPC/949/S: 2
11/03/2004
4. The National and International Context
4.1 As stated above, many urban areas share the issues around fear of crime. Many also
want to develop a robust indicator and management tool. Birmingham is leading on
this work both nationally and internationally in conjunction with a wide range of other
Agencies and through a number of partnership projects. These are summarised below:
4.1.1 The Central Local Partnership Shared Priorities Programme, led by the Office of
the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) and bringing together Central Government
Departments, the Audit Commission, the Local Government Association, EnCams
and ‘pathfinder’ Local Authorities to explore innovative solutions and share good
practice on issues that will assist in transforming local environments.
4.1.2 The National Reassurance Project, led by the Home Office. The objective is to
determine and implement a methodology aimed at dealing with ‘Signal Crimes’ -
those that send a ‘message’ to the local community about the perceived safety of the
area in which they live. By dealing with signal crimes, and by increasing the presence
of reassurance factors, the fear of crime is positively addressed. The West Midlands
Police, in partnership with the City Council are piloting this work in the Aston ward
of Birmingham.
4.1.3 SECURCITY is a project funded through the European Regional Development Fund
and involving 10 City Partners – Birmingham, Leeds, Glasgow, Rotterdam, The
Hague, Amsterdam, Heerlen, Gera, Bari and Helsinki. A specific theme of the project,
led by Birmingham, is to develop a Liveability indicator backed by GIS mapping
technology that will enable the establishment of a baseline from which management
interventions may be planned and subsequent improvements may be ascertained.
5. Development Work To Date
5.1 In developing a preliminary overview of the work, it is clear from previous and often
voluminous works that liveability is a broad concept that by definition could include
issues such as:
Local environmental cleanliness
Vandalism, graffiti, other criminal damage
Air, river, water quality
Satisfaction with and availability of local services – Council, Health, Police,
Voluntary Organisations
Residents perceptions
Crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour
Road safety, traffic volumes, cycle lanes, pedestrian facilities, public transport
Street lighting
Housing design, security, quality and availability
Car parking facilities
Quality of green and open spaces
Sites of scientific interest
Noise pollution
Ref: PPC/949/S: 3
11/03/2004
Employment opportunities
Schools and colleges
Shopping and commercial facilities
Cultural and related services
Community identity / cohesion
Social capital / well-being
Engagement with / by community organisations
Governance
Inclusiveness / equality
Economic activity
Recycling / energy efficiency / efficient land use
Biodiversity
5.2 However, a composite measure that dealt with all the above indicators could very
easily be uneconomical and unmanageable, thus of no or little value. Consequently,
the Birmingham partners are minded to pursue a ‘tight’ measure that focuses on
environmental and anti-social behaviour issues; that takes into consideration both
negative factors (e.g. the presence of graffiti) and positive factors (e.g. the presence of
a uniformed patrol in the area); that includes objective and subjective measures; and
which responds to residents priorities for action.
5.3 To assist in ascertaining residents’ priorities, in February 2004 some 15,000
questionnaires were sent to residents in two pilot Wards of the City, Aston and
Bartley Green. The questionnaires seek to determine resident’s priorities for action
and their perceptions of how safe they believe their neighbourhood to be.
5.4 Further exercises will be carried out with other stakeholder groups, including
Councillors, the Statutory Agencies and Voluntary Organisations to determine
whether there are shared priorities and perceptions, and thus common objectives. At
this time, it is anticipated that there will be some divergence between the stakeholder
groups and this will need to be taken into account through an approach that will
apportion overall priority and expectation in consideration of a wide range of
conflicting wants, needs, statutory responsibilities and resources.
5.5 In parallel with this work there will be a need to agree standardised, economic and
statistically significant data collection techniques for each of the indicators used.
5.6 In terms of ‘mapping’, the information will be used to develop, at one level, a simple
‘traffic light’ system, on a ward basis, across the City. This will be informed by
detailed information on each of the indicators available to Councillors, managers and
practitioners to inform the further allocation of available resources to appropriate
interventions.
5.7 Clearly, there is much work to be done, although the Birmingham partners would
hope to complete this work in the current calendar year. The development of a
Liveability indicator will be a fundamental step forward in Neighbourhood
Management methodology and will provide real, public information about the City’s
progress to make Birmingham a Clean and Safe City.
Ref: PPC/949/S: 4
11/03/2004
6. Implications For Resources
6.1 The costs associated with the work are part funded by the European
SECURCITY Project and the Police National Reassurance Project.
7. Implications For Policy Priorities
7.1 The work has National and Local significance. In a local context, the Cabinet and
Corporate Plan 2004/05 identifies a ‘City of Flourishing Neighbourhoods’ as one of
the Council's two overriding priorities. This theme is also a key focus for the work of
the City Strategic Partnership (CSP), as set out in its "Towards a Community
Strategy" document, building on the outcomes of Highbury 3.
7.2 Devolution and Localisation provides a new environment for cross-service working
and a new focus on local areas in the City. The "You are Your City: Clean and Safe"
initiative has also brought a new focus on the issues that matter most to local
communities.
7.3 In order to plan all our efforts in local areas it is essential that reliable data is available
to assess local issues and our progress in addressing them. There are literally
hundreds of potential indicators in use, but what is needed is a tighter set of agreed
statistics that can be used to compare areas and measure progress in each. The City
Council and the CSP will also want to ensure that progress on their strategic
objectives is monitored consistently across the City. At the same time it is essential
that local neighbourhoods can develop their own indicators, based on local priorities
and that the CSP supports a diversity of research and analysis which will uncover new
issues or address the concerns of particular local areas or community interests.
IAN COGHILL
SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (REGULATORY SERVICES)
Ref: PPC/949/S: 5
11/03/2004
APPENDIX
Figure 1 – Total numbers of recorded crime by month,
Birmingham, January 2002 – December 2003.
14500
14000
13500
13000
12500
12000
11500
11000
Nov-02
Nov-03
Jan-02
Jun-02
Jan-03
Jun-03
Feb-02
Apr-02
Feb-03
Apr-03
Mar-02
Jul-02
Dec-02
Jul-03
Dec-03
May-02
Oct-02
Mar-03
May-03
Oct-03
Aug-02
Sep-02
Aug-03
Sep-03
Figure 2 – Birmingham MORI surveys
Percentage of residents who believe Birmingham is unsafe, by year
74%
72%
70%
68%
66%
64%
62%
2001 2002 2003
Ref: PPC/949/S: 6
11/03/2004
