BRISTOL URBAN II Draft Community Initiative Programme (CIP)
1.1 Vision, Objectives and Principles
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT SITUATION
2.2 Regional Context
2.3 Local Situation
2.4 Eligibility of the Target Area for URBAN II
2.5 Equal Opportunities, Sustainable Development and
Information and Communications Technologies
2.6 What’s Happened Already
2.7 Lessons from Previous Programmes
2.8 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)
2.9 Policy Context
3.0 STRATEGY AND PRIORITIES
3.2 Strategy Rationale
3.4 Programme Outline
3.5 Involving Young People
3.6 Adherence to URBAN II, Structural Fund Guidelines and
European Commission Policy
4.0 OUTLINE OF MEASURES
4.1 Priority 1: Our Work
4.2 Priority 2: Our Place
4.3 Priority 3: Our Future
4.4 Priority 4: Technical Assistance
6.2 Programme Development Process
6.3 Implementing the Programme
Appendix 1 : Multiple Deprivation by Enumeration District
Appendix 2 : Key Statistics Table
Appendix 3 :
This draft Community Initiative Programme (CIP) sets out the strategy of the South Bristol
URBAN Partnership Group in creating an innovative approach to the economic, social and
environmental regeneration of a deprived area within south Bristol. It has been developed in
accordance with European Commission guidance1 as part of the European Commission’s
URBAN II Community Initiative.
The primary focus for this programme is young people between the ages of 10 and 30. Whilst
many young people in the UK are experiencing unprecedented opportunities in terms of
education and employment, a growing number are suffering from ‘status zero’ - out of
school, out of work and out of the social mainstream. This is illustrated in the recent National
Statistics Publication ‘Social Focus on Young People’ (ONS, 2000) which shows young
people as a key manifestation of the polarisation experienced throughout UK society.
Whilst the primary focus for the programme is young people, it will be necessary to involve a
range of individuals, organisations and networks impacting on the lives of young people. In
doing this it will act outside of mainstream programmes such as education in piloting
innovative ways to tackle problems faced by young people.
The target area has been determined in consultation with local people and is shown in
Appendix 1. It represents a set of communities defined by local people, rather than
administrative boundaries. For this reason, the area comprises parts of the wards of
Bishopsworth, Filwood, Hartcliffe, Hengrove, Knowle and Whitchurch Park. The common
link between the communities in this area is the multiple deprivation impacting on young
URBAN II offers the opportunity to tackle multiple deprivation in this area through an
innovative programme whereby young people are seen as and see themselves as part of the
solution and not the problems of the area. URBAN II will enable new approaches to be
pioneered which respond to local need as well as emerging policy priorities at a national and
European level. Particular links will be made to innovative growth sectors such as new
media building on growing interest of young people in the target area.
The URBAN II area suffers from high levels of long term unemployment, poverty, social
exclusion and crime, exacerbated by low levels of economic activity, education and skills and
a particularly run down environment. Growing in absolute and relative numbers in the area,
young people are set to increasingly suffer from these aspects of multiple deprivation unless
the cycle of educational underachievement and unemployment is broken.
Deprivation in the target area is exacerbated by the relative affluence of other parts of Bristol.
As a peripheral area, the connections between the URBAN II area and the rest of the city are
poor and opportunities to benefit from growing sectors such as broadcast media and financial
The CIP has been developed with reference to principles for the use of Structural Funds and the
specific guidelines for the URBAN II Community Initiative.
services are limited. The danger is that young people become adults then parents and social
exclusion becomes imbedded in generations.
This programme has the advantage of being able to build on positive steps which have
already been taken in the area as part of SRB and other regeneration programmes, as well as
learning lessons from the URBAN I programme in central Bristol and elsewhere. It will take
forward the key recommendations of the Social Exclusion Unit’s Policy Action Team 12
(Young People) in piloting new approaches to involving young people and the EC resolution
on ‘promoting young people’s initiative, enterprise and creativity: from exclusion to
empowerment’. This will build on ‘what works’ through an exchange of knowledge and
experience with European partners involved in related initiatives such as YouthStart, other
URBAN II programmes and the focus on young people promoted by Bristol’s twin city of
The purpose of this URBAN II programme is to empower young people to address local
issues. The approach will be developed and implemented by local communities, targeting
young people beyond the estimated 6%2 who are currently reached by community
development activities on an on-going basis. The catalyst for this programme comes from a
number of significant development sites within the URBAN II area, to which the future of the
area is closely tied. This programme will pioneer an innovative approach to community
involvement in influencing the development process and the wider sustainable urban
regeneration of the area.
1.1 Vision, Objectives and Principles
The vision for this URBAN II programme is to assist in creating an area where:
‘No matter who they are, each young person has the best possible start in life and the
opportunity to develop and achieve their full potential’
Rt. Hon Paul Boateng (Report of the Policy Action Team 12, Young People, 2000)
The objectives of the programme to achieve this vision have been used to determine three
priorities with the themes of ‘our work’, ‘our place’ and ‘our future’ in consultation with
local communities. The overall objectives of this programme are:
• To break down barriers to employment and social inclusion
• To raise skill levels and increase access to job opportunities for young people
• To improve the local environment and facilities for young people
• To promote active involvement of young people in their communities
• To give young people the chance to influence and direct the programme and its projects
Hoggett et al SRB 4 Interim Report, March 2000
Within these priorities and objectives, it is possible to highlight three cross-cutting themes of
equal opportunities, sustainable development and information communication technologies
which will be of special importance.
Finally, these are the principles which will underpin the programme as it is delivered:
• Listen and act upon the views of young people
• Respect and provide for the differing needs of each young person across age, gender,
disability, ethnic background and area or neighbourhood
• Ensure sustainability and take the opportunity to make a longer-term difference
• Innovate and ‘build-in’ the flexibility to try things out
Structure of this Document
The remainder of this CIP consists of an analysis of the current economic, environmental and
social situation together with the regional context and lessons from previous interventions.
There is then an outline of current and emerging UK and EU policy in respect of the range of
factors which may influence sustainable regeneration. This is followed by a SWOT analysis
before an outline of the strategy, priorities and measures is given to provide the framework
for ensuring that the objectives of this programme are achieved. The final section details the
partnership arrangements for the delivery of this programme.
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT SITUATION
The URBAN II area has been determined in consultation with local people and represents a
set of geographical communities identified with above and beyond administrative boundaries.
What unifies the area is the experience of significant social, economic and environmental
decline over a long period following the loss of manufacturing employment in tobacco, print
and engineering industries from the area in the 1970s. The target area has a population of
37,041 (April 2000). According to the national Indices of Deprivation (DETR, 2000), the five
main wards included in the target area are all within the 25% most deprived wards in Bristol,
and amongst the 12% most deprived wards in England.
This section starts with an overview of the regional and city-wide contexts and more detailed
information at a local level. The wider context is important in understanding the contrasts and
interrelationships with the URBAN II area, as well as indicating some of the areas of future
opportunity. Information at a more local level is then given in terms of overall multiple
deprivation, followed by a description of the current situation in terms of the world of work,
place and prospects for the future. This covers a comprehensive range of information beyond
the scope of the programme and includes local labour market information, business structure
by size and sector, education, skills, training, an environmental position, crime rates and drug
use, with a particular focus on young people. A SWOT analysis follows this section and the
chapter ends with an overview of the policy context for this programme.
The selection process for the target area was undertaken in phases. Initially, three areas of the
city were selected as potentially viable for the URBAN II Community Initiative. Each of
these areas were considered against the EC eligibility criteria and evaluations of existing
regeneration programmes in the area and an area. An area within South Bristol including
the wards of Filwood, Hartcliffe, Hengrove, Knowle and Whitchurch Park was selected.
These identified the on-going social exclusion of young people as a key factor in the
entrenched deprivation which was apparent in published statistics.
A process of consultation with local stakeholders was then undertaken in recognition of the
limitations of administrative (ward) boundaries in defining issues of deprivation. The first
step as part of this was to highlight the 25% (203) most deprived enumeration districts (EDs)
within the five target wards, compared to Bristol as a whole. Consultation on this list led to
53 of these 25% most deprived EDs being selected, with an additional 12 added as being
adjacent or containing pockets of deprivation, masked by official statistics. The result was for
the target area to make sense from the perspective of local people as being as close as
possible to identified communities as well as containing, on average, the worst 15% of
enumeration districts in Bristol.
2.2 Regional Context
Whilst 75% of the former Avon region is classified as rural, nearly 80% of the population,
some 650,000, live in urban areas. The region’s identified strengths include a modern
industrial and commercial base, four universities, good transport links to the rest of the UK,
a high quality of life and good physical environment. Weaknesses include worsening traffic
congestion, especially around recent developments to the north of the city centre, and pockets
of multiple deprivation. The City of Bristol is nationally ranked in the top 20% in terms of
local concentration of multiple deprivation (DETR Indicies of Deprivation, 2000). Whilst
parts of the region are experiencing rapid growth, other areas, as exemplified by the URBAN
II target area, are becoming increasingly isolated from the opportunities of the region.
Bristol is the largest city in the South West of England with a population of around 405,200
(mid 1999). The city is perceived as prosperous and successful, physically attractive and
economically robust as demonstrated by recent population growth in the City. This City
Council’s vision for the regeneration for the City reflects this optimism in aiming to
‘develop Bristol as one of Europe’s most prosperous and technically advanced cities with a
diverse and sustainable economy, providing the highest quality of life and physical
environment for all its residents and communities’
Bristol City Council, 2000
Growth sectors include financial services as well as innovative high technology and new
media industries which have led to employment growth of around 4.7% during the 1990s. As
part of this, there has been a re-location to the city of companies such as Orange and a
growing national reputation for innovation by multi media companies such as Aardman
Animation. In parallel, the city has seen increases in part-time and female employment; GDP
per head has increased recently and now exceeds the UK and EU averages. The
unemployment rate for the City was 2.7% in March 2001, compared to a national average of
A threat to future growth comes in the form of labour and skills shortages, with over 5,000
unfilled vacancies in Bristol and South Gloucestershire in July 2000, particularly in
distribution, hotels and restaurants, financial and business services sectors. A survey of firms
for WESTEC4 found that 56% of firms experience recruitment difficulties and that the region
relies on attracting skilled workers from other areas to meet demand. The major concern of
employers is with general as opposed to occupation-specific skills, with key shortages
identified in basic ICT (Information and Communications Technologies), software
programming, people management, marketing, communication and team working skills.
Within this, employers specifically expressed continuing dissatisfaction with the basic skills
of young people across the region. In the future, the biggest skill shortage for the region is
consistently predicted by employers to be computer-related.
Aside from the constraints to further growth represented by skill shortages, the region is
further characterised by areas of multiple deprivation. This has led to the recent designation
of parts of the region under Objective 2 of the EU Structural Funds. This URBAN II
programme has taken steps to ensure complementarity with the regional Objective 2 and
Objective 3 programmes. Whilst it should be noted that the main Objective 2 programme area
is some 80 miles away in Devon, there is a small area of physical overlap with the URBAN II
area in the Filwood ward (see Appendix 5). It is felt that this offers opportunities for the
URBAN II area to link to larger programmes whilst also offering lessons in innovative
approaches, especially in relation to young people. Similarly for ESF and Objective 3, steps
will be taken to ensure synergies and added value where appropriate as part of improved
connections to opportunities at the regional level.
2.3 Local Situation
2.3.1 Overview of Multiple Deprivation in the Target Area
Claimant Count Series, July 2000, NOMIS
Prism Research Limited, Training Needs in the WESTEC, December 1998
The relative prosperity of other parts of Bristol and the South West offer a stark contrast to
the multiple deprivation experienced in the URBAN II area. Communities have become
increasingly isolated from growth opportunities elsewhere in the city, with a concentration of
issues impacting on young people. A range of barriers are experienced, from accessibility and
health factors to attitudes and expectations of people within and outside of the area. The area
suffers from very poor educational attainment which, combined with the loss of low skilled
manufacturing jobs in the area, means that young people are far more likely to enter a cycle
of multiple deprivation than elsewhere in the City.
The characteristics of this multiple deprivation are quantified where possible in the following
section. In order to give a qualitative dimension to information outlined, a series of quotes
collected as part of a large-scale video diary exercise undertaken by young people in the
target area are interspersed in the text.
Rankings from the recently published Indicies of Deprivation for England (DETR, 2000) for
wards covered by the target area are shown in figure 1 below. Although not exactly
conterminous with the target area, these ward rankings give an indication of the combined
extent of multiple deprivation across a number of domains from income and employment to
health, education, housing and child poverty. As well as ranking highly in terms of overall
multiple derivation against 8414 wards in the UK, the figures in brackets give the ranking
against the other 34 wards in the City of Bristol. It should be noted that Hengrove Park is
included in the target area but excluded from this table as it represents only one enumeration
district, for which ward based figures are not representative.
Figure 1: Rankings for Index of Multiple Deprivation (DETR 2000)
Ward Index Score Ranking in England (&
Bishopsworth 42.9 935 (7)
Filwood 62.5 221 (2)
Hartcliffe 41.23 1036 (8)
Knowle 46.45 733 (4)
Whitchurch Park 43.22 921 (6)
Filwood clearly suffers from the most acute multiple deprivation within the target area and
has experienced a worsening of its relative position since the 1998 Index of Local
Deprivation was produced, when it was ranked 263. Similarly Bishopsworth, Hartcliffe,
Knowle and Whitchurch Park are within the worst 1050 (12%) of wards nationally and the
worst 8 (25%) ward areas within Bristol. Key statistics from the 1998 Index of Deprivation
are attached as Appendix 2.
A breakdown is given in Annex 1 of the 69 enumeration districts which make up the target
area based on the 1998 Index of Local Deprivation and Census statistics. This shows that
compared to England, the South West and Bristol, enumeration districts in the target area are
consistently amongst the worst in terms of the overall Index of Local Deprivation. The
Knowle Enumeration District (DDFY15) in particular ranks 554th, 9th and 1st in terms of
deprivation against national, regional and city-wide comparators respectively. For the
indicators of unemployment, overcrowded household, children in low earning households
and households with no car (as an income proxy), enumeration districts in the target area, on
average, rank amongst the worst 15% in Bristol. The exception is for the indicator of housing
lacking amenities as the majority of housing is post-war local authority stock.
Indicators of multiple deprivation are part of the wider social exclusion experienced by the
URBAN II area, which is also physically isolated from the employment opportunities and
urban fabric of the rest of Bristol. Expensive and inadequate public transport connections to
other parts of the city compound negative perceptions of local people and employers in
Bristol. For example, young people cite postcode discrimination when applying for jobs and
local firms attempt to hide their postcode in marketing material for fear of negative reactions
Isolation also occurs between neighbourhoods, with local people associating themselves with
areas such as Knowle West, Filwood and Inns Court with little interaction or relationship
with neighbouring and wider areas. Finally, intergenerational conflict is a key source of
barriers within local communities with distrust and blame inhibiting positive measures to
build sustainable communities.
Community Demographic Profile
The area has a very stable population, with an average of only 5% of the population moving
into the ward the year before the 91 census. This makes the wards in the area amongst the
lowest 25% in Bristol in terms of population turnover. The area also has very low levels of
ethnic minorities, with Hartcliffe having the lowest proportion of ethnic minorities of all
wards in Bristol (91 census) and the area comprising 1.7% ethnic minorities, compared with
5.1% for the city overall. An above average proportion of local people have a long-term illnes
or disability (14.4%) and the proportion of households with older people in the area follows
the city average .
2.3.2 The World of Work
Economic Activity, Employment and Income
In terms of labour market information, figure 2 below shows that the target area ranks poorly
against both Bristol and the rest of England. All the main wards are within the worst 12
wards within Bristol and the worst 25% nationally in both domains which indicate the sheer
numbers of people experiencing employment and income deprivation at a local level.
Figure 2: Income and Employment Deprivation from the Indicies of Deprivation (DETR
Income Deprivation Ranking Employment Deprivation
in England (& Bristol) Ranking in England (&
Bishopsworth 1328 (10) 30% 1917 (11) 14%
Filwood 258 (2) 46% 673 (3) 21%
Hartcliffe 1808 (12) 27% 1705 (8) 15%
Knowle 1006 (7) 34% 1584 (7) 15%
Whitchurch Park 1059 (9) 33% 1226 (5) 17%
Please note % figures are the actual % of the population who are suffering from income or
A more detailed examination, illustrated by figure x below, reveals that the target area is
characterised by low levels of economic activity with 194 people unemployed for over 1 year
(July 2000, ONS / NOMIS Claimant Count). Figure 3 shows that In terms of the gender
profile for those in employment, the target area has more women than men in employment, a
reversal of the city wide pattern. This pattern is caused by the loss of jobs in traditionally
male-dominated sectors such as manufacturing in the target area offset by the recent growth
of jobs in service sectors offering more opportunities for women.
Figure 3: Profile of Employment within the Target Area
Male Female All
employee employee employee
jobs, jobs, jobs,
September September September
1999 (nos / 1999 (nos / 1998 (nos)
% all) % all)
Target Area 3700 4300 8000
% 46.7% 53.3% -
Bristol 114,700 115,900 230,600
% 49.7% 50.3% -
Source: 1999 Annual Business Inquiry, ONS
Other figures based on the 1991 Census for the target area estimate an economically inactive
population of 41% against a national average of 39% and a city-wide rate of 38.3%. It should
be noted that it is widely acknowledged that official statistics for unemployed claimants
significantly underestimate the numbers of people actually looking for work and this holds
true for the target area.
According to the 1999 Business Inquiry there were around 8000 jobs available locally, with
Bishopsworth ward having the lowest number of local jobs available in the whole city. The
jobs ratio for the area, where a value over 1 means that the number of jobs in an area exceeds
the resident labour force stands at 0.29, compared to the city wide ration of 1.13. Fewer
residents in the area work outside of Bristol than for the City as a whole, with 12.3%
commuting beyond the city, compared with 19% of the total population of Bristol.
For those in work, the profile of type of job is broadly comparable to Bristol overall with
80.5% in service jobs and 29.6% part time (1999 ABI). However, a higher than average (for
the city overall) number of families estimate that their income has dropped over the past 12
months at 26% (ALSPAC, 1996). There also continues to be a number of worrying trends in
the local labour market.
Unemployment in the URBAN area fell by less than the corresponding city-wide figure
between 1996 and 1999. For instance, unemployment in the area remained constant between
1998 and 1999 in contrast to a 7% fall in unemployment rates across the city as a whole. The
unemployment rate for the area is now 6.4% for the key wards, both in excess of the city
wide average of 4.7% (Claimant Count Feb 2000).
Figure 4 summarises unemployment for the target area according to the number of claimants
and, specifically, Job Seekers Allowance. The figures show the relatively high number of
claimants for employment related benefits at 5.4%, compared to 4% for the rest of Bristol. Of
those claiming job seekers allowance, a relatively high proportion (37.3%) are under 30,
almost 10% higher than for the rest of Bristol. More strikingly, claimants with child
dependants represent over 38% of the total, compared with 20% for Bristol as a whole.
Figure 4: Unemployment Claimants
Claimant JSA claimants Income based JSA
count, < 29, Aug with child
February 1999 1998 (no / % dependants, Aug
(no / % all JSA 1998 (nos / % all)
working age claimants)
Target Area 1565 615 630
5.4% 37.3% 38.2%
Bristol 9920 3775 2230
4.0% 35.1% 20.7%
For young people, the loss of large-scale manufacturing industries from the area such as the
Wills Tobacco Company has meant that ‘traditional’ routes into local employment for young
people with low skills via apprenticeships have been lost. Structural changes have also left
the target area with high numbers of ‘no work’ families. Where families do have workers as
head of the family, they are predominantly poorly paid unskilled or manual workers. This
leads to both a lack of role models and work-based networks linked to growing economic
sectors in Bristol.
A more detailed, ward-based breakdown for unemployment is given in figure 5 below. This
also details unemployment by duration within each ward. Whilst small absolute numbers are
involved, a clear pattern of relatively high unemployment amongst men is apparent across the
target area, as well as 284 unemployed people between the ages of 17 and 24.
Figure 5: Unemployment by Age and Duration (June 2001)
Age Bishopsworth Filwood Hartcliffe Knowle Whitchurch Park Total
Total M F Total M F Total M F Total M F Total M F
<17 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
17-24 35 29 6 64 46 18 43 28 15 52 35 17 90 58 32 284
25-49 83 67 16 119 108 11 80 61 19 88 75 13 126 101 25 496
50+ 14 11 3 39 28 11 18 13 5 10 7 3 17 11 6 98
< 3 62 48 14 113 91 22 70 45 25 73 54 19 120 83 37 438
3 - 6 28 21 7 41 34 7 31 25 6 26 21 5 54 45 9 180
6 – 12 20 18 2 32 25 7 26 20 6 28 26 2 33 24 9 139
1 year+ 22 20 2 36 32 4 15 12 3 23 16 7 26 18 8 122
Total 132 107 25 222 182 40 142 102 40 150 117 33 233 170 63 879
The isolation of the area is illustrated by travel to work patterns for the area showing
relatively low levels of interaction with the city centre. On average, 33% of the residents of
Filwood, Hartcliffe, Bishopsworth and Knowle frequently drive to the city centre for work,
against an average of 49% for the rest of the city (BCC Citizen’s Panel, 1999). Combining
these factors with inter-generational unemployment, the target area has become a self-
contained area of limited opportunity within new economic prosperity of the wider city.
Young people often have large but ‘shallow’ networks; they may know lots of people, but no
one in their network has the power to help them break out of cycles or access opportunity
elsewhere in the city.
Business Structure by Size and Sector
The local labour market analysis can be summarised in terms of supply and demand for
labour. The supply side is characterised by high levels of unemployment and economic
inactivity in an isolated area as described above. Local demand for labour, on the other hand,
has collapsed with relatively few employers remaining in the target area, with only 8,000
people employed within the target area ( this includes residents and other people who travel
to work). Many (47%) local jobs, are with larger employers with over 50 employees (ONS,
1998), including Somerfields, Mathew Clark and First Bus. The sectoral breakdown of
companies is given in figure 6 below:
Figure 6: Sectoral Distribution of Industrial Companies within Target Area (March 2000):
Total no. firms
Construction and other enterprises 678
Figure 6 above shows that the target area contains 722 industrial enterprises, with the
majority engaged in the ‘construction and other enterprises’ sector. Although figures are not
broken down for the target area in more detail, it is known that a large number of companies
overall are involved in service and retail functions, which is predominated by part time,
female workers. If these enterprises are then broken down by size, nearly all can be seen to
have under 50 employees.
Figure 7: Distribution of Local Companies by Size
No. employees 1-49 50+
No. firms No. firms
Target Area 679 25
Figure 8: (Annual Business Inquiry 1999)
Total no. firms Total no. employed
Manufacturing 44 900
Construction 143 700
Distribution, hotels and restaurants 220 1500
Transport and communications 49 200
Banking, finance and insurance etc 111 500
Public administration, education and health 106 3900
Other services 49 500
Total 722 8000
Demand from growth sectors across Bristol is mainly for high skilled and service-based
professions, especially in relation to ICT (Labour Force Survey, 1999 & WESTEC, 2000).
Therefore, even if people in the target area were more prepared to travel to other parts of the
city for work, skills levels would first have to be addressed. Currently, the education, skills
and training of local people is characterised by chronic underachievement and high levels of
absenteeism, especially at the secondary (11-16) level. There is a particular problem in the
transition from primary (where achievement is nearer to the UK average) to secondary
(where performance drops away markedly).
Education, Skills and Training
Figure 9 below gives the index score and ranking against the rest of England and Bristol for a
composite indicator of education skills and training levels in the URBAN II area. This shows
that Filwood in particular suffers from poor educational achievement, ranking the 7th worst in
the country and the worst in Bristol. Similarly, Bishopsworth, Hartcliffe and Knowle are
amongst the worst 100 wards in England and worst 5 in Bristol. Filwood also experiences
especially low levels of basic numeracy and literacy with 24% and 26% of the local
population respectively suffering from low or very low levels against Bristol and UK
averages of around 15% and 12% (Basic Skills Agency, 1998).
Figure 9: Education Skills and Training Domain / Indicies of Deprivation (DETR 2000)
Ward Index Score Ranking in England (&
Bishopsworth 2.91 51 (2)
Filwood 2.81 7 (1)
Hartcliffe 2.17 56 (3)
Knowle 2.04 83 (4)
Whitchurch Park 1.49 378 (8)
Figure 10 highlights poor GCSE results in the URBAN II area, suggesting educational under
performance relative to Bristol and the rest of the country. The numbers of pupils attaining
over 5 GCSE passes at grades A* to C stands at around 30% of the UK average and UK
Government target. Of great significance to the area was the recent closure of Merrywood
Secondary School, which during 1997/98 had permanently excluded 19 pupils, or 5.2% of the
school population. This compares to an average of 0.4% for state schools nationally. The
closure of this school has meant the dispersal of pupils to other schools on the fringes of the
target area, which has increased the rates of exclusion and absenteeism, especially amongst
young males. It has also led to an important loss of community focus for the area.
Figure 10: GCSE Attainment (DfEE Performance Tables, 1998/99)
5 + GCSE’s A* - C 1 + GCSE A* - G
URBAN II Area 15.5 % 82 %
Bristol Average 32 % 92 %
UK Average 48 % 94 %
UK Government Target 50 % 95 %
Source: Bristol City Council 1999 Public Examination Results
Other issues related to educational underachievement at secondary level were found by
qualitative surveys to be bullying, poor attendance records and a lack of self-confidence
amongst young people. These issues were also highlighted in the January 1999 OFSTED
report for Withywood Community School.
'Five onto two people - it's not nice.
If the bullies thought about what it was like they wouldn't do it '
Educational achievement within the primary school sector is more encouraging, as
demonstrated by results at key stage 2 (11 years) in figure 11 below, more in line with
national averages than for GCSE results. However, the loss of young people and
underachievement at the secondary stage undermines these achievements.
Figure 11: Educational Attainment at Key Stage 2
Name of Primary School English, % Mathematics, % Science, % level
achieving level 4 + level 4 + 4+
Average for schools in target 50 49 72
Average for schools in Bristol 66 63 78
Average for schools in 75 72 85
Source: Bristol City Council 2000 Key Stage 2 Results
The target area also has above average numbers of pupils claiming free school meals (37%,
10 % above the city wide average) and an above average number of unauthorised absences
(1.9% against 1.4% for Bristol). The area has a significantly lower average number of pupils
with English as an additional language (0.5% against 4.5% for Bristol).
In terms of progression after secondary level, for further education, the City of Bristol
College has a campus in the target area, but the transfer rates from local schools is well
below national averages. Furthermore, the number of young people who complete their
compulsory full time education with no qualifications exceeds the national average and only
1.5% of the local population have a higher education qualification against 15.6% for the
whole of Bristol. These statistics are confirmed by more recent results of citizen’s panels
held in wards which highlighted 32% of local people as having no qualifications, above the
city wide average, and only 23% of people using Adult Education services (below average).
2.3.3 People and Place
The target area is located in the outskirts of Bristol City and is characterised by low-density
housing and access to more rural areas, including a local Wildlife Site at Dundry. In terms of
environmental conditions, the area contains a concentration of public housing in the form of
estates built during the inter-war and immediate post-war period. A relatively high proportion
of families are dissatisfied with their neighbourhood, a higher than average 18% for the target
The profile of housing stock in the area is 49.8% owner occupied (below average), 44.4%
council owned (above average), 2.6% housing association owned (below average) with 3%
privately rented (below average). There are an above average number of houses in multiple
occupation at 10%, with especially high figures for Filwood and Knowle wards.
Around 1800 of households in the area are classified as ‘unimproved’ by the City Council
with poor insulation and high heating costs, consequently rating poorly in terms of energy
efficiency. Council houses in the target area have below average technical (SAP and NHER)
ratings when compared to the rest of Bristol (Quality of Life Indicators, BCC 1999). This is
due in part to 32% of homes having roof insulation (82% in Bishopsworth) and 24% with
According to BCC Housing Services figures (1999), nearly 13% of homes (all tenures) were
unfit in the target area, with figures nearer 19% for Filwood and Knowle. Sixteen empty
houses were brought back into use in the area in 1999 136 applications to be housed were
received from homeless people. 68% of tenants claimed housing benefit in 1998 and there
were over 2000 applications for re-housing in the area.
Figure 12 below, derived from the ALSPAC (1996) survey shows that housing conditions
overall vary, with ventilation appearing to be the most pressing concern. However, there are
problems of overcrowding in the area with above average numbers of households with more
than six people and also numbers of people made homeless in the past year.
Average Ward Compared to
% Other Wards in
Homes with damp and 51.3 Below average
Homes with poor ventilation 17.2 Above average
Homes with badly fitted doors / 32.2 Average
Homes with six or more in the 13.8 Above average
Families made homeless in past 1.43 Above average
Local Amenities, Services and Civic Life
According to the Citizen’s Panels carried out in each of the wards in 1999, a higher than
average proportion of people in the target area (40%) felt that the Council had made Bristol a
better place to live in the past 12 months. However, a lower than average proportion (50.3%)
were satisfied with local services. This mirrors national findings from the Social Exclusion
Unit, which highlighted a close correlation between areas of social exclusion and mainstream
public service failure. This is currently being addressed in the target area through the
Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy and associated funding. Encouragingly however, numbers
of library users are in line with city-wide averages (68%).There are also 8 allotment sites in
the target and 30 shops selling fresh fruit and vegetables (BCC 1999), both below city-wide
indices for similar provision.
There are 14 recorded active community groups in the target area (BCC Health and
Environmental Services, 1997/8) but local knowledge suggests there are many, many more.
All wards have IT provision in a community building, this is largely due to a recent capital
bid supported by the National Lotteries Fund which has provided increased IT access for all
sections of the population -URBAN will be able to make links to this provision.
In terms of local democracy, the turn out in both the most recent local and general elections
was below City wide and national averages, at 31.8% and 42.6% respectively.
Low densities on the housing estates means that the target area contains expanses of public
open space, which have deteriorated over time and are now of poor quality. There are 10 sites
of nature conservation in the area, 5.6 hectares of woodland, 9 streets with more than one tree
and 481 hectares of park land over 2 hectares, all figures which are below city wide averages
according to BCC Leisure Services (1997). Specific concerns of local people include 65%
concerned about dog fouling and 39% more generally about rubbish in the neighbourhood.
'The reason I got involved was I was fed up with the state of it –
before we cleaned the brook there were at least 31 shopping trolleys,
2 burnt out cars and 12 washing machines and motor bikes'
Local Youth Forum Environmental Project
There is a lack of safe play provision and areas of wasteland are used by young people as
meeting places and for off-road motorcycle activities. Environmental quality is an issue for
young and old alike and a source of tension between these groups. Old people feel threatened
by young people hanging around and young people feel stigmatised, though they often lack
any alternatives. Young people have become associated with the poor environmental
condition of the open spaces as well as vandalism and crime in the area. . A study by Bristol
University shows the link between dissatisfaction with the area and the blame put upon
young people. This ranked Filwood and Whitchurch Park first and second for reporting
disturbances by youths, with 59% and 54% of families reporting problems respectively
against a Bristol average of 31%.
'We sit on street corners all the time, people tell us to move on
but there is nowhere else to go'
Qualitative indications of poor environmental quality are supported by quantitative
information available for the area as outlined in the summary of the environmental situation
given below. This highlights a number of areas of specific concern including air and water
quality, which have potential to be the focus for community-based activity in the local area.
Water quality in particular is seen as an issue linked to wider regeneration objectives with
high levels of sewage contamination and poor dilation and filtration compounded by more
general problems of litter and landscaping which detract from the amenity value of
Figure 13: Summary Environmental Situation
• Air Quality: Carbon Dioxide Emissions
9.8 tonnes per annum recorded in Knowle City average of 8.4 tonnes p.a. – Knowle has
the second highest level in the City
• Water Quality
Watercourses in the target area ranked as ‘Moderate’ used as universal indicator of
poor or very poor using the Lincoln Index acceptable water quality
42% of households in Filwood regularly use City average of 80%5 - Filwood has the
recycling facilities lowest level of recycling in the City
• Derelict Land
400 acres of derelict sites and buildings in Biggest concentration of development sites in
the URBAN II area the city
Bristol City Quality of Life Indicators (2000)
The URBAN area in South Bristol is rich in wildlife, although there are no sites with
statutory nature conservation designations, such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest. The
10 sites, which have instead been designated as Sites of Nature Conservation Interest
(SNCIs) in the Bristol Local Plan play an important strategic function as buffer sites or as
part of a wildlife corridor together with other sites . which are of lower intrinsic wildlife
value ,and these are designated in the Bristol Local Plan as Wildlife Network Sites (WNS).
Within the URBAN area this includes school grounds, landscaping around public housing,
allotments and public open space.
The SNCIs tend to follow the stream valleys and the ridges that run up through South Bristol;
for example Novers Common SNCI lies on a prominent ridge with views over central Bristol,
and Crox Bottom SNCI and Pigeonhouse Stream and adjacent Meadows SNCI follow
Pigeonhouse Stream. Some other SNCIs are located on post-industrial sites; Airport Road
SNCI is on the site of a demolished aircraft hanger and Hengrove Park SNCI covers part of
the old airfield - the SNCI includes both an area of tipped material that has regenerated with a
diverse flora and an area of herb-rich grassland that probably pre-dates the airfield and is
therefore a remnant of the earlier open countryside. East Dundry Slopes SNCI and
Strawberry Lane and Malago Fields SNCI in the south of the URBAN area form a greenfield
matrix of fields and hedgerows that are contiguous with the surrounding countryside.
The majority of the SNCIs in the URBAN area are in City Council ownership and many are
managed as Public Open Space, for instance Wedmore Vale SNCI and Crox Bottom SNCI.
The full potential of many of these sites, both for wildlife and for local communities has not
been realised and as a result a number of community initiatives to encourage involvement in
wildlife sites have been set up. The Knowle Northern Slopes Initiative is based around a
number of SNCIs in Filwood and Knowle with the aim of improving the local environment
and increasing community involvement.
Sites of Nature Conservation Interest within the URBAN area are listed below:
• Airport Road SNCI
• East Dundry Slopes SNCI
• Glyn Vale SNCI
• Hawkfield Meadows SNCI
• Hengrove Park SNCI
• Novers Common SNCI
• Pigeonhouse Stream and adjacent fields SNCI
• Strawberrry Land and Malago Fields SNCI
• Wedmore Vale SNCI
In spite of the relative abundance of sites of natural interest in the target area, Citizen’s
Panels carried out in each of the wards in 1999 showed that a below average proportion of
Indicators of Quality of Life in Bristol, Bristol City Council , 2000
people take an interest in environmental matters by using recycling facilities and parks for
example (67% and 83% respectively).
Whilst the large amount of derelict land in the target area detracts from the environmental
quality, it also provides the potential basis for social and economic regeneration of the area.
In particular this programme will aim to harness the employment opportunities for young
people arising from any development in the area. A number of key development sites have
been identified and are listed in figure 14 below, with approximate sizes given in brackets.
The map of external funding in Appendix 5 shows the location of key renewal areas, as part
of this, sites marked with an asterisk below are being progressed as a priority as part of
SWRDA’s Investment Programme.
Figure 14: Potential Development Sites in the URBAN II Area
• Wills Factory Site* (56 acres), former tobacco factory with a listed office building
remaining. Currently being prepared for first phase of development (bulky goods retail).
Site redevelopment likely to include a mix of uses including employment.
• Hengrove Park* (225 acres) and site of former airfield, comprising mainly open space,
although some industrial and commercial leisure development has taken place. Proposals
for the site include improving open space, leisure, employment and residential
development. Bristol City Council currently preparing urban framework plan to include
Hartcliffe Community Campus.
• Hartcliffe Community Campus* (60 acres), large area of school and college playing
fields. Potential investment to improve education and low quality leisure facilities.
• Symes Avenue* (11 acre), existing run-down district shopping centre with only 11 out of
34 units occupied and empty accommodation above shops on west side. City Council
currently exploring potential for re-development through a feasibility study.
• Filwood Broadway* (8 acre site), uneconomic district shopping centre with no
occupancy of older residential units above shops. City Council is currently promoting
development of a discount supermarket and facilities for delivering council services.
• Former Merrywood School site (15 acres), early stages of development as a community
• Cater Road Industrial Estate (40 acres), existing industrial estate with a few vacant sites
with potential SRB funding for environmental and security improvements (SRB5
* Sites prioritised in SW RDA Investment Strategy
Car ownership per 1000 adults for the area stands at 431, below the Bristol average of 478
(91 Census), with Filwood in particular having very low car ownership at 340. When car
dependency is then looked at in terms of households using a car (and no other means of
transport) for journeys to work, the figure for the area is 45%, compared to 46% for Bristol
overall. This suggests that a higher proportion of people in the area own cars because they
have to, i.e. there is a lack of public transport alternatives. This is confirmed by the LAPT
(Local Accessibility to Public Transport) Index contained in the Bristol Transport Plan
2001/02-05/06, which ranks the area high in relation to the rest of the city, meaning that
accessibility to public transport is relatively poor
Results from the City Council’s Citizen’s Panel (1999) confirms that a below average
proportion (38%) of local people regularly drive and a higher than average proportion (32%)
of local people don’t drive at all. Unsurprisingly therefore, a higher than average number of
people (87%) use local buses. In addition, a relatively low proportion (21.5%) use cycle
facilities. There is a lower than average number of road traffic accidents in the area, around
30 per year, reflecting relatively low levels of traffic in the area. Although the ALSPAC
survey shows that a higher than average proportion of people (35%) are concerned about
traffic in the area more generally.
Crime Rates and Drug Use
Crime is a key concern for local people with 69% of local people citing a lack of safety and
fear of crime as uppermost in a recent survey (Hartcliffe and Withywood Community
Partnership, February 1999). Between 1994 and 1998, whilst crime rates fell in Bristol and
England overall, they increased in the URBAN II area, with Filwood remaining in the upper
quintile for recorded crime. Figure 15 below gives the breakdown of recorded crime for the
area for 1998.
Average Ward Compared to
Rate Other Wards in
Theft from motor vehicles 1.48 Average
Theft of motor vehicles 0.51 Below average
Domestic burglaries 1.97 Above average
Commercial burglaries 0.82 Above average
Theft from shops 0.11 Below average
Assault 0.53 Average
Theft 0.56 Below average
Robbery 0.1 Below average
Drug abuse (seizures) 0 Below average
Criminal damage 1.12 Average
Racial harassment (incidents) 25 Average
Domestic violence (incidents) 535 Above average
General disturbance (complaints) 56 Average
Disturbance by youths 53% Above average
Truancy 1.85% Above average
Avon Constabulary, Recorded Crimes 1998
The target area has above average rates for burglaries, with Filwood having the highest rate
of domestic burglaries in Bristol. Rates for reported disturbances by youths are also relatively
high together with rates for truancy and domestic violence. Additional figures from the
Accident and Emergency admission rate for domestic violence (Avon HA, 1997) stands at
8.75, below the city wide average.
The following table relates to local people’s fear of crime as expressed as part of the Avon
Longitudinal Study of Pregnancy and Childhood (Bristol University, 1995). It shows that
families in the target area are more concerned about crime than people in other areas of the
Figure 16: Fear of Crime
% Compared to Other
Wards in Bristol
Families worried about attacks 43.3 Above average
Families worried about burglaries 74.3 Above average
Families worried about vandalism 53.5 Above average
Crime in the area, in particular burglary and vehicle crime, are perceived as being perpetrated
by young males. A survey by Crime Concern (May 2000) shows that this is true, but that
offenders are relatively small in number and that the majority of young people share the
concerns of older generations about crime, seeing themselves as victims and vulnerable to
crime. Crime is shown in a number of local surveys to have a very negative effect on the
image of the area and a deterrent to inward investment. There is a recognised need to reduce
the acceptance of crime as an inherent feature of the area as a key to restoring self-
'Old people wouldn't walk down it.
The few who did were really scared and brought their torches'
The Community Safety Partnership Audit points to the existence of an established network of
heroin dealers. The South Bristol Drug Problem database (1998) identified Knowle West as
one of the highest wards in the city for notifications and Filwood, Hartcliffe and Withywood
account for 18% of all registered drug users under 30 in Bristol (Bradley & Barker, 1999).
The Bristol Community Safety Report (1999) shows a continued increase in police seizures
in the local area. Drugs are considered a major problem in the area, with 50% describing it as
a ‘very big’ problem in the Crime Concern survey.
Drug and alcohol abuse are also key health issues for the area, which, together with other
issues such as those linked to the legacy of a major tobacco factory, make a significant
contribution to the levels of social exclusion experienced. The ALSPAC survey estimates
that over half of all families in the URBAN II area have at least one parent that smokes and
the Citizen’s Panel (BCC, 1999) found that Knowle had the highest percentage of citizens
that currently smoke (35%) in Bristol, double the city average. The contribution of
respiratory illnesses and other health issues to multiple deprivation is illustrated by the health
domain rankings for the index of multiple deprivation in figure 8 below. More specifically,
Avon Health Authority reports the area as having ‘significantly high’ standard mortality rates
for all cancers 15-64 years.
Figure 17: Health Deprivation and Disability within the Indicies of Deprivation (DETR
Index Score Ranking in England (&
Bishopsworth 0.8 1635 (11)
Filwood 1.44 521 (2)
Hartcliffe 0.87 1500 (9)
Knowle 0.91 1393 (8)
Whitchurch Park 0.95 1329 (6)
The area has exceptionally high levels of demand for primary health care, with particular
problems amongst isolated single mothers suffering from depression. Demand in Filwood and
Knowle wards is especially acute, although they share problems of health and social need
with the whole URBAN II area. According to the Citizens Panel (BCC,1999), an above
average proportion of people (83%) overall visited their doctor regularly in the past 12
14.4 % of people in the area suffer from a long term limiting illness. This is 10% higher than
the Bristol and Great Britain average (1991 census). When the figure is adjusted to
compensate for the distorting effects of age structure and communal establishments, the area
has an index score of 113 (with Filwood scoring 138) against the city wide baseline of 100.
A health visitor assessment carried out in 1996 estimated that an above average 22% of
families in the area had health needs, with an above average GP consultation rate of 3.3 (GP
practice data 1996) . An above average 54% of families contain at least one smoker and a
lower than average 22% of families buy organic fruit and vegetables (ALSPAC). The target
area also has a higher than average rate of new babies with low birth weights, on average 104
births below 2.5kg per 1000 births and 11.8 infant deaths below one year per 1000 births.
In terms of the overall Standard Mortality Ratio (death rates for the population, adjusted for
the population age profile) the area has the following (average) rates as shown in figure 18
Figure 18: Standard Mortality Rates for the Target Area
Area Comparison to
Average HA Average
SMR all causes 129 Higher
SMR lung cancer 160 Significantly
SMR all cancer 112 Significantly
SMR heart disease 194 Significantly
An alternative source of information regarding the health of residents from ALSPAC shows
that the target area is worse off in health terms in all fields except children with coughs.
Area Compared to other
% families with wheezing child 17.8 Above average
% families coughing child 86.8 Below average
% families visit GP more than once in the last 6 68.5 Above average
% mothers depressed 33.5 Above average
% mothers unwell 7.75 Above average
The following table shows the referral rates to social services by age, reason and ethnicity.
Figure 19 : Social Service Referrals from the Target Area
Number / Percentage Compared to Other Wards
Children < 18 1381 921
Adults 2065 934
Reasons for Referral:
Children & Families 43.3% Above average
Physical Disability 27.3% Above average
Learning difficulty 0.5% Below average
Mental Health 8% Below average
Older People 20% Below average
Other 3.5% Below average
White 96.5% Above average
Black 1.75% Below Average
Asian 0% Below average
Mixed / Other 1.5% Below average
BCC Social Services, 1999
In addition to the relatively high referral rates for children and families, the target area has a
higher than average number of children being looked after (27) and number of children on the
Child protection register (23).
2.3.4 The Future
The basis for this programme is that young people hold the key to the future regeneration of
the target area. Currently, young people up to the age of 30 suffer the most acute impacts of
the high levels of multiple deprivation and social exclusion as outlined in the sections above.
The target area has a high and growing proportion of young people aged 16-24 relative both
to the rest of Bristol and nationally. This trend is set to continue, as demonstrated by
projections for the change in the under 16 population in key areas as shown in figure 20
below. This highlights that whilst nationally the under 16 population is set to decline, in the
target area the rate of growth for this group will far outstrip the overall population, in the case
of Hartcliffe by a factor of 10.
Figure 20: Projected Change in Under 16 Population for URBAN II area ONS, Social
Trends Vol. 29, 1999)
Area Estimated Number of Change in the Change in Total
Under 16 in Number of Under 16 Population 1998-
Population in 2005 between 1998-2005 2005
Filwood 3270 6% 3.7%
Hartcliffe 2555 3% 0.3%
Whitchurch Park 3235 4% 1.1%
Bristol 88794 5% 2.4%
UK n/a -1.5% 2.4%
Currently, a number of issues are faced by people under 16 who will be the future 16-24 year
olds in the area. The number of children in lone parent households is 17.3% for all 5 wards
but 20.5% for the three key wards of Filwood, Hartcliffe and Whitchurch Park, with the
majority of the population, well above the city wide average of 17%. In addition, 28% of
dependent children live in households with no earner, compared to a city average of 21% and
with a particularly high level for Filwood at 41%. This figures are confirmed by the overall
Index of Child Poverty set out below which shows Filwood, Knowle and Whitchurch Park as
having relatively high index scores nationally and within Bristol.
Figure 21: Child Poverty within the Indicies of Deprivation (DETR 2000)
% of children in families Ranking in England (&
claiming means tested Bristol)
Bishopsworth 45.42 1349 (10)
Filwood 62.17 352 (2)
Hartcliffe 42.7 1593 (12)
Knowle 47.23 1189 (8)
Whitchurch Park 52.24 820 (6)
Figure 21 below sets out the relatively high proportion of lone parents in the URBAN II area,
notably within the 16-24 age group with dependent children. The relatively high proportions
of lone parents is compounded by a lack of appropriate and affordable childcare facilities in
the target area as highlighted in the Bristol Early Years and Childcare Strategy. The
inappropriate nature of facilities for working parents particularly relates to age of children
accepted and hours of care available. This issue is being addressed, in part at a national level
through the Neighbourhood Nurseries Initiative..
Figure 21: Proportion of Lone Parents in the URBAN II Area
URBAN II Bristol South West GB
Lone parents 16-24 as % of all 6.0 2.7 1.5 2.3
households with dependent
Lone parents all ages as % of all 23.7 15.8 10.4 12.6
households with dependent
The characteristics of young people (16-24) as a group within the URBAN II area are of
particular concern, with low levels of economic activity, education, skills, training and high
levels of teenage pregnancies (1 in 10) and one parent households. Figures based on the 1991
Census show 46.2% of young people of working age are economically inactive, against
26.7% for the whole of Bristol. One quarter of all lone parents aged 16-24 in Bristol live in
the URBAN II area. Recent work in the city by Youth Workers and Barnardo’s highlighted
young people’s caring responsibilities as a particular barrier to social inclusion. Negative
perceptions by employers of the area means that young people are in effect discriminated
against when applying for jobs.
The target area is characterised by above average unemployment amongst young people (16-
24) against both national and Bristol averages (ONS, July 2000). The average of 29% for
men 16-24 as a proportion of all unemployed compares to Bristol and national proportions of
21% and 23% respectively, whilst for women, the 44% made up by the 16-24 group is
markedly higher than the Bristol (32%) and national (33%) averages. Within this, Filwood
and Whitchurch Park experience the highest rates of unemployment amongst young people.
Local research undertaken as part of SRB programmes show that young men in particular feel
unprepared for the world of work, with a lack of role models and self-confidence acting as
barriers. A survey by Learning Partnership West recently found that no student in the area
currently gets officially accredited work experience, further isolating the area from work
opportunities in the rest of the city.
One of the key areas for this programme is to address disaffection amongst young people, in
the past poorly served in terms of local facilities and targeted activities. Future aspirations of
the group as a whole are low, with only 7% of young people on New Deal expressing a
preference for a professional or technical occupation (Employment Service, 1999). Other,
more qualitative studies in the target area, such as that undertaken by Hoggett et al (UWE,
2000) point to young people as a diverse and disenfranchised group lacking the tradition of
political representation and self-organisation found elsewhere in Europe.
Hoggett et al also highlight that whilst facilities such as youth clubs do exist in the area,
provision for 10-14 year olds is poor and facilities suffer from problems of reputation, poor
attendance and participation, fuelled by bullying and low self-esteem. As a result, many
young people prefer to stay at home, perhaps performing caring responsibilities, but
effectively withdrawn from public life. They go on to conclude that community based
initiatives are predominantly led by older people and adult women, leaving a gap amongst
young people, who are instead blamed for many of the problems experienced in areas such as
2.5 Cross Cutting Themes
The three cross-cutting themes of equal opportunities, sustainable development and
information and communications technologies are important both in terms of the policy
context outlined previously and the current situation in the target area. The three themes are
outlined here, in some cases highlighting the thematic dimensions of information contained in
the above description of the current situation.
Figure22: Thematic Priorities, Baseline Data
URBAN II Bristol England
Economic activity rate of males (%) 74.4 73.4 73.7
Economic activity rates of females (%) 44.9 51.2 50.2
Economic activity rate for non-white population (%) 68.4 66.1 64.7
Economic activity rate for disabled people (%) 17.6 17.5 16.4
Number of social firms operational
Carbon Dioxide emissions (tonnes pa) 9.8 8.4 Tbc
Quality of water courses (Lincoln Index) poor moderate Tbc
% households regularly using recycling facilities 42% 80% Tbc
% households participating in env. initiatives Tbc
% citizens who frequently drive to the city centre 37% 49% Tbc
Traffic pollution (NO2 per bn) 17 16.7 Tbc
Information and Communications Technology
No. of Internet Point of Presence per local call area Tbc Tbc Tbc
% people with access to Internet Tbc Tbc Tbc
% people regularly using Internet ( >1 per week) Tbc Tbc Tbc
% local businesses using Internet (at least daily) Tbc Tbc Tbc
No. of new companies in ICT sector Tbc Tbc Tbc
No of jobs created / safeguarded with ICT element Tbc Tbc Tbc
2.5.1 Equal Opportunities
The principle of equal opportunities for all groups underpins this programme. The Disability
Discrimination Act (1995) provides an important point of reference for this programme, as
does the Human Rights Act (1998). These are being acted on by agencies including Bristol
City Council’s integrated Equalities Unit and SARI (Support Against Racist Incidents). This
programme will provide a new focus for their activities through its engagement with young
Adding to the emphasis on issues of equality is the pioneering declaration on racial equality
to fight discrimination signed recently in Bristol. Eight agencies, jointly led by Bristol City
Council and Avon and Somerset Police signed a joint declaration on Racism in March 2000
containing a commitment to deliver the action set out in the MacPherson Report. This
declaration will underpin this URBAN II programme, together with practical measures being
progressed by the South Bristol District Anti-Racial Harassment Forum as part of SARI.
The URBAN II area has a predominantly white population which means that equality issues
relating to race and ethnicity are not perhaps as high profile as in other deprived urban areas.
3% of people in Hartcliffe and Withywood describe themselves as coming from an ethnic
minority background compared to 6.4% for the United Kingdom (1997 Labour Force
Survey). This does not mean that they do not exist. Out of 1,198 black households seeking
re-housing across the city, only 14 expressed a preference for Hartcliffe and Withywood
(BCC Housing Services, 1999), which may indicate a negative perception of the target area
for black and ethnic minorities.
The Crime Concern survey carried out with young people in Knowle West in May 2000
revealed that over a third of respondents said they were ‘very concerned’ about abuse or
assault as a result of their colour, race or religion. This is backed up by evidence from SARI
which reported ‘significant numbers’ of racist incidents in Knowle, with over 6% of all
incidents recorded for Bristol in 1998/99.
In recognition of the fact that black and other minority ethnic groups and disabled young
people can be amongst the most excluded and disadvantaged in this area, this programme will
aim to take positive action in its projects to address the issues of equal participation and
benefit of outcome. It will continue to closely consult with groups such as the Youth
Disability Forum and the Black Development Agency through the development of the
programme complement and in the delivery of the programme.
Of concern for the URBAN II area are issues relating to equality of opportunity for young
women, excluded males and disabled people. There are a large number of predominantly
female lone parents with child care responsibilities who find it difficult to compete in the
workforce as shown in figure 22 above. This highlights proportions of female 14-24
unemployed far in excess of Bristol and national averages. This issue is compounded by a
lack of childcare facilities in the target area as previously outlined.
In light of the description of the current situation above, a number of fields can be
highlighted which have potential for impact in terms of equal opportunities:
• Increased Economic Activity Rates for Disadvantaged Groups
• Reduced Unemployment Rates for Disadvantaged Groups
• Increased Access to Higher Level Skills for Disadvantaged Groups
• Increased Representation in Higher Paid Occupations from Disadvantaged Sectors
• Improvements in Disabled Access
• Reduction in Racial Harassment
• Greater Awareness and Understanding of Equal Opportunities amongst Local
Companies and Beneficiaries
2.5.2 Sustainable Development
The policy context for sustainable development is outlined in section 2.9 below and has
already been set out for the current situation above. This highlights 162 hectares of derelict
land in the target area, with seven specific development sites identified in figure 14. The
urban setting means that specific environmental indicators for example regarding air and
water quality are difficult to desegregate for the target area.
This programme will build on environmental awareness of local people in the local area,
stimulated by concerns regarding the quality of open spaces and a number of existing
community and voluntary sector projects aimed at environmental improvements. It will also
use the opportunity to influence the development of identified sites according to sustainable
development principles. In addition, links will be made with the Local Agenda 21 programme
for the City and the initiative to establish Quality of Life indicators. The following list
highlights areas in which this programme can have a positive environmental impact in light
of the description of the current situation
• Landscaping and Habitat Enhancement
• Redevelopment of Brownfield / Derelict Land
• Re-Use of Redundant Buildings
• Public Space Reclamation / Regeneration
• Environmental Education
• Recycling and Waste Minimisation
• Increased Volunteering to Support Environmental Projects
• Image Enhancement and Profile Raising
• Local Supply Chains
• Increase Use of Energy Efficient Transport Methods
In addition, all projects funded through URBAN will be encouraged to adhere to the South
West Regional Development Agency ‘Sustainable Buildings Checklist’.
2.5.3 Information and Communication Technologies
In terms of information and communications technology (ICT), there are already examples of
projects and proposals in the area which indicate a good level of awareness of local people as
to the opportunities offered by ICT. Community-based initiatives are being developed in the
area include a South Bristol ICT Learning Centre based on a partnership between local
voluntary and community sector groups. There is also a successful ICT project based in local
schools in Withywood.
This programme will build on these local initiatives in the broader context of European and
UK initiatives such as eEurope - An Information Society for All and UK Government’s
initiatives to close the ‘digital divide’ outlined under 2.2.2 above. The eEurope initiative is of
particular relevance due to its priority focus on ‘European youth in the digital age’.
ICT is a accessible tool to engage young people and enable them to build links between each
other, employers (where young people are often more adaptable to new technologies) and
other generations within the community (eg. ‘surfing grannies’).
2.6 Eligibility of the Target Area for URBAN II
In summarising section 2.3 above, the characteristics of the target area can be seen to directly
meet all but one of the criteria as laid down for the URBAN II Community Initiative6, as
summarised in figure 23 below:
Figure 23: URBAN II Eligibility Criteria
URBAN II Eligibility Criteria Evidence
A high level of long-term • Within worst 25% of areas nationally in terms of
unemployment employment deprivation
• Nearly 200 local people registered unemployed for
more than one year
A low level of economic activity • 41% of local population economically inactive
(national average 39%)
• 22% of young people economically inactive (city
A high level of poverty and • Within worst 12% of areas nationally in terms of the
exclusion Index of Deprivation (2000)
• 49% of children eligible for free school meals
(national average 17.5%)
A specific need for conversion, • Structural economic changes has led to decline in
due to local economic and social local manufacturing industries
difficulties • Around 415 acres of potential redevelopment sites
A low level of education, • 15.5% attainment of GCSE A-G grades (national
significant skills deficiencies and average 48%)
high drop-out rates from school • Local school with number of exclusions at 13 times
• Only 1.5% of local people go on to achieve higher
education qualifications (city average 15.6%)
A high level of criminality and • Increase in crime rates locally against declining
delinquency national trends
• 69% of local people cite fear of crime as main
• area contains 18% of all registered drug users under
30 in the city
Precarious demographic trends • Number of young people set to increase by 4% to
2005 in danger of entrenched social exclusion
• Single parent families 2 times city average
Guidelines for URBAN II Community Initiative C(2000) 1100 - EN
A particularly run down • Air and water quality below city and national
• Large amounts of derelict open space
2.7 What’s Happened Already
This URBAN programme has the advantage of being able to build on a number of initiatives
which have either impacted on the target area directly, or made an indirect contribution
through a sharing of good practice from other parts of Bristol. In a number of instances these
initiatives are either on-going or planned for the near future. A map of the main external
funding initiatives in Bristol 2000 is included in Appendix 5.
EU Structural Fund Interventions
The recent Objective 2 designation for the South West, with a structural funds allocation of
£108 million for 2000-2006, offers synergies with the URBAN II area. Much of the Objective
2 programme will be focussed on rural parts of Devon and Somerset, Torbay and Plymouth.
However, some parts of Bristol including Filwood will be eligible for Objective 2 funding
and so steps have been taken as part of this CIP to ensure complementarity. The Objective 2
programme is currently structured around three priorities as listed below:
Priority 1 - Neighbourhood Renewal
Priority 2 – SME Development, Technology and Innovation
Priority 3 - A Better Future for Traditional Economies
The URBAN II CIP is seen as complementary to the much wider Objective 2 programme due
to its focus on developing innovative ways to specifically involve young people in the
comprehensive regeneration of the target area. The Objective 2 programme will then offer
longer-term progression routes and integration with the city and wider region through its
focus on sectoral growth, enterprise and innovation development.
Similarly, the European Social Fund (ESF) Objective 3 programme for 2000-2006 in the
South West will enhance human resource measures throughout the region and provide a
complementary programme to the innovative actions developed in the URBAN II
programme. The URBAN II CIP will offer the opportunity to link capacity building,
employment and training actions closely with regeneration processes through the
involvement of young people.
The South West Objective 3 regional development plan highlights young people and 13 -17
year olds who have opted out of the educational system within the target groups for support –
facing disadvantage both through their geography and employment group. Other categories
of beneficiaries including ex-offenders, lone parents and low earners will also include young
people. Urban II will provide additional support particularly targeted at the needs of young
people in the target area., whilst ensuring complementarity with Objective 3 and avoiding the
displacement of ESF funding to other areas.
A good illustration of the complementarity between URBAN II and ESF is given by one of
the community-based organisations which will be involved in the implementation of this
URBAN II programme, NET-WORK South Bristol. This organisation recently successfully
completed a two-year ESF Capacity Building Project and is now in a position to play a key
role in the delivery of this CIP. The capacity building project was aimed at building
organisational strength as an umbrella group of development trusts as well as building
networks between voluntary and community groups across the whole of south Bristol,
including the URBAN II area.
In addition, the URBAN I Community Initiative has been operational since 1997 in the City
Centre with an allocation of £3.6 million. This has been able to offer direct advice and
guidance in relation to the innovative approaches and mechanisms for delivery appropriate to
URBAN II. The scheme places a particular emphasis on the active involvement of local
people in the decision making process and this will be built upon by this URBAN II CIP.
These local lessons complement broader lessons arising from the Interim Evaluation of the
URBAN I programme and Urban Pilot Projects overall as described below.
Summary of Bristol URBAN I Outputs
• Since the launch of the Bristol URBAN Programme in 1998, over 37 local projects have
received funding support in the inner city. These include IT facilities, enterprise support
programmes, business units, training projects, a furniture recycling project and a key
• This has led to over 370 jobs being created and safeguarded, more than 1,400 local
residents receiving vocational training support and advice, 96 businesses supported, 23
new enterprise workspaces built, 54 business premises improved, improvements to green
space in the area and significant capacity building of local communities.
• DETR identified the Bristol URBAN Programme as delivering 'best practice' nationally
in three areas :
- application procedure
- capacity building
- funding,/ bankrolling
• In addition, the new URBAN programme will benefit from the following lessons:
- match-funding at source wherever possible
- capacity building for partners required
- management of programme needs to be well resourced from outset
- 2 stage application procedure
- clear, accessible and consistent technical guidance required
- community involvement needs time and resources to accommodate additional
co-ordination and management
- output targets need flexibility to pilot innovative actions
The 2000-2006 round of other Community Initiatives; INTERREG, EQUAL and LEADER+
are also currently underway and this programme will take steps to ensure that any
programmes are complementary. Whilst Bristol is eligible under INTERREG IIIB and
EQUAL, it will not be eligible under LEADER +. Through the co-ordination mechanisms
proposed as part of this URBAN II programme, synergies and good practice will be shared
between any projects which are developed with an impact or direct relevance to the URBAN
UK Government Initiatives
Funded by the UK Government, a number of regeneration initiatives have pioneered
community-based approaches to regeneration in Bristol which have informed the approach
adopted as part of this programme. These include Barton Hill New Deal for Communities:
Communities at Heart and Hartcliffe and Withywood Community Partnership. Both of
these are comprehensive regeneration schemes managed by partnerships of local residents
and local organisations. Similar approaches are also being progressed as part of Estate
Action in Stowick Crescent and Gatehouse, Renewal Areas in Easton, St Agnes and St
Werburgh and a number of Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund (SRB)
The SRB 1 programme, Bristol 20/20 has an allocation of £7.8 million and has been
operational since 1995. Now entering its final year, the scheme has targeted deprived areas
across the city with the aim of regenerating communities by improving local shopping and
housing facilities, complemented by city-wide projects such as childcare training and support
for the development of small and community businesses.
With a more direct impact on the URBAN II area, the SRB 2 scheme, Filwood and Inns
Court Revitalisation, with an allocation of £7.6 million, has been operational since 1996.
The scheme has four main themes; the development of a new Health Park offering a range of
community and health services; the re-development of Inns Court including new housing and
a community centre; a community safety programme aimed at tackling crime, bullying and
exclusion; and, support for the development and growth of the Knowle West Development
Trust. This scheme has laid important foundations for this URBAN II programme which will
take forward specific issues relating to young people.
With a less direct impact, but important in terms of learning about good practice have been
the SRB 2 scheme Inner City Lifeline and SRB 3 Northern Arc. On the former, over
three-quarters of the 45 projects currently in operation have some form of involvement and
input from community organisations. The latter has been operational since 1997 and aims to
link local people to new employment opportunities. Projects include a major environmental
improvement programme involving the reclamation of derelict land and a capacity building
project to support community groups and enable them to be involved in the scheme.
Similarly, the SRB 3 demonstration project Bridging the Gap (SRB 3) has pioneered new
ways of enabling long term unemployed people to access employment opportunities through
a range of training and support initiatives which will inform activities aimed at young people
under URBAN II.
Of key importance in informing the development of this URBAN II programme has been the
experience gained in delivering the SRB 4 scheme, Youth Owning Urban Regeneration
(YOUR), with an allocation of £1.4 million between 1998 and 2002. The scheme is targeted
at young people between the age of 10 and 18 in the existing SRB areas (above) and
Hartcliffe and Withywood. The scheme seeks to prepare people for work, develop their skills
base and actively involve young people in the process of regeneration. The URBAN II
programme will broaden the remit of the SRB scheme and empower young people across a
wider area to become involved in the process of development and regeneration across south
Equally, the SRB 5 scheme, ‘Working Together for Change’ offers the key building blocks
for the URBAN II programme. It covers approximately two thirds of the URBAN II area and
has an allocation of £12.15 million SRB over seven years to March 2006. Taking an
innovative approach, it is being managed by a locally based, community-led partnership - the
Hartcliffe and Withywood Community Partnership. This is a cross-sector partnership with
local residents having the majority of places on the steering group. There is also a specific
place for a youth representative.
Finally, the recently successful SRB 6 bid, Bringing Bristol Together aims to work with
local people across the city, building on existing good practice in service delivery and adding
value to main programmes in developing connections between neighbourhoods, regeneration
good practice and main programmes. It will have a strong education and learning theme and
is envisaged that it will provide a reference point for the URBAN II programme linked to the
redevelopment opportunities in the target area.
Other non-SRB initiatives of relevance here include Sure Start, aiming to improve the health
and well-being of children under 4 and provide support for their families. A trailblazer
project is underway in Hartcliffe and Withywood with an allocation of £3.16 million over 3
years, administered by Barnardos, with a further programme being developed for Knowle
West with £2.2 million over 2 years.
In addition, Excellence in Cities will provide £22 million to improve education across the
whole City, with significant investment in local schools in Hartcliffe, Withywood and
Hengrove, including the appointment of mentors and outreach workers. This is in addition to
an Education Action Zone operational in the central part of the city. Of special interest in
relation to vocational training is the £1.5 million Gatehouse Training and Enterprise
Centre, which was a runner-up in the BURA (British Urban Regeneration Association)
In relation to health and the inter-relationship with multiple deprivation, the development of
Knowle West Health Park by Bristol City Council and Avon Health Authority represents a
positive step in tackling the health problems of the area in partnership with local people. The
intention is to improve service delivery to local people over a seven year period, linked to a
programme of community development activities involving the Knowle West Development
Trust and Knowle West Against Drugs (KWADS), a local programme which has achieved
national recognition and the Mede Community Centre. The Health Park includes a £1.2
million Healthy Living Centre as an important focus for this URBAN II programme.
In addressing equal opportunities, a number of projects have been pioneered in Bristol which
can be built on in this programme, for example, the Brave New World Digital Arts Project
for young disabled people and the West of England’s Centre for Integrated Living’s
(WECIL) youth inclusion project. However, provision outside of school hours is generally
very poor in the target area for disabled people. In addition, Support Against Racial
Harassment (SARI) monitors and campaigns against racial harassment across the city.
Of importance at the local level is the Neighbourhood Support Fund which will distribute
up to £300,000 in 2000 to voluntary and community groups via the Black Development
Agency and VOSCUR. It aims to fund projects involving young people (13 to 19 years),
particularly to vulnerable groups such as truants and school excludees. The aim is to
re-engage disaffected and disengaged young people living on the poorest estates back into
education, training and employment. The fund is aimed at those young people who currently
want nothing to do with 'the system' and lack the motivation to engage in any way with
education and training or advisory services.
As previously noted, the South West of England Regional Development Agency’s (SWRDA)
Investment Programme will have an important impact in the area through significant
investment in five of the development sites identified in figure 7 above. This URBAN II
programme will develop processes which empower young people to become part of the
process of positive change which large-scale developments can bring about and take up the
employment opportunities they may offer.
2.7 Lessons from Previous Programmes
It is clear that there are a large number of regeneration programmes active in Bristol and the
URBAN II area. In developing this programme it has been possible to review the critical
success factors at work in order to build on progress made to date in identifying Priorities and
Measures. Existing activities have highlighted a number of key factors about the target area
including the extent of ‘social capital’ and the need to continue to support a wide range of
small scale projects which have been successful in meeting the needs of the area. They also
highlight the critical importance of community participation and the limitations of traditional
approaches for young people.
The URBAN II area is home to a range of locally-based, often embryonic organisations and
networks, such as the Knowle West Development Trust and Youth Forum, Hartcliffe and
Withywood Young Peoples Action Team, which is a multi-agency network addressing a wide
range of transport and environmental issues. A number of these groups have successfully
taken positive steps, supported by SRB and other initiatives and now require further support
to develop new roles in the regeneration of the area. There are also gaps in provision; for
example, Hoggett et al (UWE, 2000) note that as part of the existing SRB programme
impacting on the target area, there was a lack of small voluntary and community groups and
at risk groups such as drug users and offenders coming forward with projects.
A number of evaluations provide pointers in the development of this URBAN II programme.
For example, Hoggett at al (UWE, 2000) highlight that some programmes in the past failed to
undertake genuine consultation with young people, relying instead on advocacy through
adults. This is especially true for physical developments which have already taken place in
the area such as a cinema multiplex, perceived as being primarily for the benefit of outsiders.
Some of the problems of the area such as gang conflicts and its reputation from the outside
are not highlighted by traditional surveys and demand more qualitative approaches that are
based on ‘action research’. Similarly, diversity amongst groups of young people demands that
trust and understanding must be built up over a long period. These factors lead to a need for a
long developmental stage in projects in order to access disenfranchised groups and to achieve
‘quick wins’ once project ideas are developed.
‘If the school closes, there will need to be an enormous effort to retain community
OFSTED Report on Merrywood School, 1998
SRB programmes in the area have started to address these issues and have pioneered methods
of involvement. Media and performance projects have been established linking to Bristol’s
growing reputation in this area and a well-established television company has a base in the
area for a new production. Knowle West Development Trust has pioneered the involvement
of young people in debates over management issues on estates and the distribution of youth
grants. This has shown the importance of quick wins in building self-confidence and esteem
and has contributed to the involvement of young people in development trust elections. The
focus that schools can play as a focus for community development and regeneration has also
been demonstrated in a number of projects and this will be built on in this programme.
Young people have also been involved in research and consultation activities. This provides a
very good base to build on, whether video, survey, quantitative or qualitative. By remaining
focused on identified needs, the URBAN II programme is already based on genuine
involvement of young people, as opposed to shallow consultation undertaken just to put a
'They always put publicity in the papers about everything that has gone bad,
but not the good things'
However, the URBAN II programme needs to be wary of placing overly high expectations
and responsibilities on young people in the target area. Young people in more affluent parts
of Bristol, for example, by and large get the chance to ‘be young’, i.e. feel safe, go to a good
school, do interesting and exciting things in the evenings and at weekends. This programme
will work towards this quality of life for young people in the URBAN II area, but this does
not necessarily mean they should be expected to attend meetings, debate spending priorities
and appraise projects in the evenings. There have to be real, innovative and fun things in it
for young people and real, tangible outcomes such as jobs, training and improvements in the
local environment in order to maintain their interest.
It must also be remembered that the URBAN II area is not a single area. There are many sub-
areas, they are all different, and have different profiles and issues. Blanket solutions will not
work, they need to grow out of local needs. Similarly, ‘young people’ covers many different
categories, and they are also highly territorial. Again, sensitivity and responsiveness to local
needs is required.
Results of programmes to date have demonstrated that an increased sense of ownership of
projects amongst young people can be attained, but that tailored approaches need to be
developed. They also show that there is scope to go further and explore innovative ways to
involve a wider selection of young people in a broader range of longer term local issues
linked to the regeneration of the target area. This is the challenge addressed by this URBAN
In building on the lessons of existing activity, the next step is to innovate within the delivery
process for the URBAN II programme. For example, through introducing regeneration
traineeships, involving young people in funding decisions, fact-finding visits, evaluation and
appraisal, publicity and marketing. This will be challenging and will take time to develop, but
the foundations exist.
2.7.1 Lessons from URBAN I and the Urban Pilot Programme
The URBAN Community Initiative has provided financial support to regeneration
programmes in a total of 118 urban areas in all 15 Member States since its launch in 1994.
This built on the Urban Pilot Programme (UPP), which initiated a total of 33 first phase
projects between 1990 and 1993 and provided funding, from 1997 onwards, to 26 second
phase projects. Whilst UPPs mainly concern single projects instead of the more strategic
programmes implemented under URBAN I, both provide a number of key lessons and
examples of approaches for the second round of URBAN, as highlighted below.
Overall, both programmes have seen innovative strategies adopted which do not treat urban
issues such as employment, culture, social inclusion and the environment separately. Instead,
integrated approaches have been developed, addressing several urban challenges in a
combined and interdisciplinary way, thus ensuring that, for example, measures in the
economic and employment sphere are complemented those tackling problems of physical and
environmental degradation. Thus, synergies can be achieved and this approach has been fed
through in the development of the URBAN II programme in Bristol.
Tackling Economic Decline
Where businesses find it hard to remain competitive in deprived local economies, URBAN I
and UPP have piloted a number of approaches which help to address a lack of confidence in a
• Grants and legal/ financial advice for entrepreneurs, to stimulate new commercial
activities and boost survival rates
• Better matching local skills with the needs of the local labour market
• Promoting high-profile projects to increase confidence in an area by the private sector
and improving participation of local businesses through the formation of local
• Training women and ethnic minorities to become self-employed
• Encouraging small-scale enterprise in new and growing sectors, e.g. Information
Technologies, culture, ecological construction or environmental technologies
Promoting Social Inclusion
A second set of issues addressed involves the link between unemployment and lack of
employment prospects and social exclusion. This was found to be a particular concern for
young people and those at risk of discrimination, compounded by a lack of social and cultural
activities. In response to this, a number of approaches have been piloted which can be built
• Better, integrated, information regarding training and employment opportunities
• Organising activities and space for and designed by young people
• Setting up activities and projects for school-age children to increase school attendance
and reduce dropout rates. For example, by providing after-school clubs and facilities and
providing language training for children of ethnic minority backgrounds
• Developing a programme of cultural and social activities to engage young people in
community life. Implementing projects aimed at marginalised young people,
corresponding to their interests and needs, i.e. sport facilities that are open late, a music
centre with rehearsal rooms or a centre for artistic expression
• Using cultural and artistic expression courses to make unemployed people aware of their
skills, capacities and ‘hidden talents’ to increase self-confidence.
Improving the Urban Environment
A third main area is in respect of the environment which is of particular importance in
relation to the amount of open space in the URBAN II area in Bristol. A number of
approaches have been tried as follows which have informed the programme proposed for
• Implementing physical improvements with a high level of involvement of local people
through training programmes, thereby encouraging private sector investment and
promoting ownership of the physical regeneration of the area amongst local people.
• Enabling the local community to define plans for neglected or derelict urban spaces,
transforming these into recreation areas and increasing the safety of parks and public
spaces. Converting brownfield into leisure areas or cultural venues.
• Improving pedestrian facilities and public transport provision and introducing ICT into
the local transport system to increase its efficiency
Design, Implementation and Management of Programmes
The final area offering lessons for the URBAN II programme relates to the need for
community involvement in the urban regeneration processes. Insufficient understanding of
the grass-root concerns in a neighbourhood and the needs and expectations of the local
community has been seen to render newly created facilities and services unattractive and
under-utilised. Past approaches have included:
• Involving local people in the proposal phase of a programme / project through the
organisation of focus groups, workshops and joint planning, enabling them to actively
participate in the definition and elaboration of the proposal.
• Empowering local people through training to participate in the regeneration process.
• Including local people in the definition and selection of projects that they consider
important to the community. Bringing the management of local regeneration programmes
closer to citizens by involving them in decision-making processes.
• Developing methods to facilitate communication with the residents and other actors in
the urban area, i.e. consultation meetings, surveys, the creation of information offices.
• Providing local actors with the opportunity to be part of and to assist URBAN’s formal
partnerships and / or Monitoring Committee.
• Establishing an independent management unit, with preferably a strong physical presence
in the target area to ensure accessibility and visibility and enabling in-depth knowledge of
• Integrating NGOs into the programme management structure, to ensure understanding of
A number of the issues and approaches outlined above are of particular relevance to the
URBAN II programme in Bristol. Specifically, the exclusion of young people as experienced
by other URBAN programmes offers important pointers, as does the need for involvement of
local people in the design, implementation and management of programmes. Overall, the
need for an integrated approach has been noted and has been key in developing this
programme around priorities defined from the ‘bottom-up’
2.8 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)
The following summary SWOT analysis for the target area was developed through a process
of consultation described in Chapter 6. The summary table is followed by a narrative which
expands on the points made. The SWOT is based on a summary of the socio-economic
analysis and local people’s perceptions of the area. The identified weaknesses and threats can
be seen to outweigh in number the strengths and opportunities, which is indicative in itself of
the poor perception and lack of self-confidence in the area.
• A number of large employers in the area (eg. • Young people suffering from layers of
Somerfields Supermarkets, Matthew Clark deprivation
and First Bus) • No place for young people from target area in
• Wider prosperous sub-region with restructured urban economy
employment opportunities • Youth self-exclusion and low expectations
• Residents view as area of change with • Generation unemployment
positive improvements • Poor mainstream services for young people
• Attractive surrounding environment (Dundry • Large number of young people are employed
slopes classified as Wildlife Network Site) in either part-time or low paid employment
• Significant green and open space within the • High unemployment levels particularly young
area males and young parents
• Existing crime prevention and diversionary • No accredited work experience opportunities
• High numbers of young people within the • Low educational achievement (particularly
area transition to secondary)
• Loyalty of local people to the local area and • Non-integration of education into community
reluctance to leave area life and onward career development
• Network of successful initiatives and • Lack of basic skills levels (numeracy, literacy
projects to build upon etc)
• Experience of successful partnership • Low accessibility levels
working on the ground, including between • Lack of facilities – shopping, leisure with
public, private and voluntary sectors existing provision seen as more available to
• Tribalism, between areas
• Crime and fear of crime & anti-social
• Drug and alcohol abuse
• Barriers between young and old (based on
• Poor perception and image of area, illustrated
by postcode discrimination in recruitment and
• Poor health
• Short travel to work areas with limited
employment interaction with city centre
• Poor quality open space
• Making connections to city centre, and the • Conflict with and poor perception of young
rest of the sub-region people (with other residents, employers etc)
• Links and connections to airport • Capacity of existing organisations to fully
• Major development sites and employment partake in programme
opportunities arising for local people from • Investment not linked to local area
site redevelopment • Image and external perception of area
• Structures to ensure developments bring • Apathy and disinterest
opportunities for local people • Difficult and expensive to fully involve young
• Build on interests in arts, media, culture, people
sport, construction and mechanics • Unstable demographic pattern
• Interest in and potential for community- • Sustainability of measures after funding ends
based environmental projects • Young people with very different needs across
• Involvement in regeneration programmes, age range, gender, disability and background –
financial and programme management need to ensure these are fully reflected
• Programme apprenticeships • Crime displacement
• Increasing young people’s networks • Out migration of educated/ skilled and
(including overseas) enterprising young people
• Demonstrating examples of positive • Generations of dependency culture creating a
achievements amongst peers difficult to break cycle
• Recognition and valuing of volunteering • Timescales for projects / programmes may
• Enable young peoples input across cause young people to ‘switch-off’ at an early
regeneration project or programmes stage
• Area of significant activity (eg. sites • Distrust of authorities
development, transport and access projects, • Constrained career / educational aspirations
local shopping area redevelopment etc) • Low levels of higher and further education
• Service sector (often low paid and part-time)
The World of Work
One of the key sets of strengths for the target area relates to the formal economy and existing
jobs offered by employers in the area and region. There are a small number of large
employers in the target area, primarily in the service sector, giving the area an existing, albeit
limited, employment base of around 8000 jobs.
In addition, the wider region continues to experience economic growth rates in excess of UK
averages and unemployment for Bristol stands at 3.1%, below the national average of 3.7%
(July 2000). Unfilled vacancy figures from the Labour Force Survey (1999) show that across
all service industries, employers are finding it difficult to recruit workers, with skills
shortages in particular relating to ICT (WESTEC, 2000). This is especially true for high
technology and new media industries which have experienced growth rates of around 5%
during the 1990s. The challenge for this programme is to make the connection between
disadvantaged local young people and existing skills shortages through their involvement in
conjunction with employers.
In addition to surrounding countryside potentially accessible from the target area, such as at
Dundry, the amount of green and open space within the area is seen to be a key asset created
by the relatively low housing densities and cleared development sites. The total area
potentially available for redevelopment amounts to around 415 acres. The issue for this
programme is to ensure that the quality of these spaces is enhanced through any
redevelopment that may take place and that the wishes of local people are incorporated into
the development process. Furthermore, that employment opportunities arising from these
developments are made available to local young people as a priority. The level of existing
activity in the area is seen as a key strength, in particular in relation to crime prevention and
A number of community-led initiatives, cross-sectoral partnerships and networks are
embryonic and are starting to involve young people in innovative ways. Good examples of
successful initiatives are the Youth Forum and media projects which gave rise to the video
diary quotes given in this CIP. There is also a film currently being produced in order to
promote the Merrywood area. As one of the inspirations for this URBAN II programme,
these initiatives will be built on and linked to the wider regeneration of the area.
These foundations are strengthened by the loyalty that young people display for the area in
spite of some of the problems faced. The high numbers of young people in the area are the
key asset for this programme, with growth rates for under 16 year olds projected in excess of
4% to 2005, against a national rate of -1.5% for the same period. This strength is added to by
the range of positive ideas demonstrated by young people through a number of qualitative
surveys undertaken in the area.
The World of Work
The Index for Income and Employment in the area showed that overall, the area fares badly
in comparison to national and city wide comparators. Many jobs are poorly paid and part-
time with few prospects for progression and few links between the labour market and the
community. This is compounded for young people by existing weaknesses in terms of
educational underachievement in the area with only 15.5% achieving five or more GCSEs
against a UK average of 48% and no opportunities for accredited work experience. In
addition, a number of specific barriers to employment are pointed to as weaknesses including
perceptions of opportunities, health, drug and alcohol abuse and poor access and transport.
These are seen to prohibit labour market mobility as demonstrated by limited travel to work
Within the target area, a lack of facilities applies to the whole population but impacts
particularly on young people in terms of things to do outside of school or work. Linked to
this, young people ‘hanging around’ is often cited as an issue related to fear of crime or anti-
social behaviour in local surveys, such as the one carried out by Crime Concern (2000).
Crime also acts as a major deterrent to local investment and businesses. It is also linked to
‘tribalism’ within the area which is a divisive manifestation of the area’s strong sense of
Perceptions of poor service delivery have been supported by OFSTED inspections of schools
in the area. The City Council’s Citizen’s Panel showed that only 44% - 55% of local people
were satisfied with local services in the area. In addition, it is felt that recent developments in
the area were for the benefit of ‘outsiders’. Other weaknesses relate to perceptions from
outside the area and are manifest through postcode discrimination in recruitment and
The key issue for the future is that the identified weaknesses can be seen to currently impact
disproportionately on young people. This leads to inter-generational conflict, high levels of
exclusion amongst young people, with low self-esteem and expectations in relation to
employment and other life chances. Existing regeneration programmes are beginning to
tackle some of the area wide issues but this is not impacting upon young people. In
particular, the lessons of previous physical developments in the area show that young people
need to be involved throughout the development process in order to help to dictate and derive
the long-term benefits.
The World of Work
The location of the target area in a relatively prosperous sub region affords opportunities for
local young people to meet skills shortages which builds on existing interest in media
projects in the area and the growing creative industry sector in Bristol. Continued growth is
likely to increase the 56% of companies which currently experience recruitment difficulties
in the region (WESTEC, 2000). There are major opportunities to improve links between
service deliverers such as Connexions and education and training providers in the target area
to employers in growth sectors across the sub-region. By developing a better understanding
of employer’s needs as well as an appreciation of the potential contribution of young people
from the target area, negative perceptions can be tackled from both ‘sides’.
Better integration of the target area with the rest of Bristol is seen as a key area of
opportunity. This can be achieved both by improving connections to the city centre and sub
region through improved accessibility as well as employment-based links described above. In
addition, new opportunities will be brought directly into the target area through the
redevelopment of key sites as part of the SWRDA’s Investment Programme. These
developments will be able to take advantage of opportunities offered by the relative
proximity of a regional airport. Directly linked to the potential physical developments is the
major opportunity to involve local people in the development process to ensure that the
benefits from new employment are realised locally.
In addition, within the area there are already a number of community-based environmental
projects, for example in Hartcliffe and Withywood, which could build on the high levels of
interest of young people expressed in environmental issues. There are specific needs in the
local area in relation to water and air quality which have the potential to be addressed as part
of wider regeneration projects. Central to the success of these would be the involvement from
an early stage of young people.
Young people in the target area have already demonstrated interest in arts, media, culture,
sport, construction and mechanics. There is an opportunity for this programme to build on
existing activities in these area and take them through to vocational opportunities wherever
possible. There are also specific opportunities in relation to delivering the URBAN II
programme whereby young people can become involved in financial and programme
management and that organisations which represent them could fully partake in regeneration
programmes. This makes the implementation of the programme an end and an outcome in its
own right. Aligned to this, increasing young people’s networks (including overseas) is seen to
be important, as was recognising examples of positive achievements amongst peers and
taking the opportunity to promote and value volunteering. These are all seen as positive
opportunities to raise expectations and self-confidence in the area.
The World of Work
The main threat to the area is a continuation of current trends which will result in the
entrenchment of polarisation and physical, social and economic isolation of the area,
particularly for young people. Underpinning this is the lack of employment opportunities for
young people which would be exacerbated if links to growth sectors and developments in the
area are not proactively made. If local people are not empowered to take advantage of
opportunities, there is a very real threat that the ‘leaking bucket’ syndrome would mean that
investment is lost from the area. Similarly, without an integrated approach to regeneration
there is a threat of out-migration of educated, skilled and enterprising young people or the
generation will find they have no place in the changing urban economy.
The process of involving local people in future development processes will serve to
overcome feelings that current (leisure and employment) opportunities are primarily available
to outsiders. Threats specific to young people include conflict with and poor perception of
young people amongst other residents and employers. This is backed up by anecdotal
evidence and reflects the need to recognise the different needs of young people across age
ranges, gender, ethnicity, disability and background. The continued wider poor perception of
the area is also a threat which needs to be addressed as a key to attracting investment and
employment opportunities for local people. Another threat in relation to ‘place’ relates to
potential displacement of crime within the area in response to specific crime prevention
measures. In order to improve investor confidence and attract employment opportunities to
the area it is important that the causes of crime are solved rather than a shifting of the
symptoms between areas. Only if a wholesale change is seen to have been achieved through
the regeneration of the area will long term benefits be made available to local people.
As with identified weaknesses, a number of the threats to the target area relate to attitudinal
factors such as the image and external perception of the area, but also apathy and disinterest
from within and a distrust of authorities. These mean that the approaches developed in this
programme will need to be developed sensitively to build on existing trust, with a number of
demonstrable ‘quick wins’. It is recognised that building self-confidence is a long-term
process and individuals’ career and educational aspirations can not be expected to change
immediately, but rather seen as part of the overall regeneration process in the area.
Overall, it was felt that an inter-generational dependency culture represented a difficult to
break cycle and that the timescales for regeneration projects and programmes may cause
young people to ‘switch-off’ at an early stage. A parallel threat was the capacity of existing
organisations to fully partake in the programme. Because young people and the organisations
that represent them have often been left out of power structures and regeneration programmes
in the past, they have relatively low capacity to get involved now. This programme will need
to take steps to address this ‘capacity gap’ whilst offering tangible results at an early stage to
help build confidence.
Finally, sustainability of measures after funding ends is seen as a threat to the long-term
regeneration of the area. It is intended that by pioneering a more integrated approach to
regeneration through co-ordination with other initiatives that more sustainable and effective
approaches will be established.
2.9 Policy Context
The specific relationships between this programme and a range of ERDF and other initiatives
was outlined previously in section 2.5 and 2.6. This section outlines the broader policy
context at a European, national and regional level. This programme has been developed to
involve young people and at the same time complement a range of local policies and
strategies. It is firmly set within the framework of Structural Funds Policy Guidance,
• Create the basic conditions for regional competitiveness
• Support competitive enterprises for employment creation
• Support for the European Employment Strategy
Within this guidance, the URBAN II Programme will focus specifically on issues of urban
deprivation in line with the EU’s 1998 Communication ‘Sustainable Urban Development in
the EU: A Framework for Action’, which sets out 24 actions which can support sustainable
urban development in the following areas:
• Strengthening economic prosperity and employment in towns and cities
• Promoting equality, social inclusion and regeneration in urban areas
• Promoting and improving the urban environment
• Contributing to good urban governance and local empowerment
This programme will contribute towards these broad objectives. In particular, the programme
acknowledges the importance of promoting the development of integrated urban development
measures, as set out within structural fund guidance. The programme also respects the
indicative guidelines set out in the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP),
particularly in relation to supporting balanced and polycentric urban development.
This programme will also work towards delivering the EC resolution on ‘promoting young
people’s initiative, enterprise and creativity: from exclusion to empowerment’ by
implementing activity in the majority of key areas. Of particular importance are the areas of
training, participation, activities around labour market policy.
At a national level, the programme has been developed in line with the recommendations
from the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal: a framework for consultation
(Social Exclusion Unit, April 2000). It is anticipated that many of these recommendations
will shape the UK Government’s forthcoming Urban White Paper, along with the findings of
the results of Lord Rogers Urban Task Force report ‘Urban Renaissance: Sharing the
Of particular importance for this URBAN II programme is the work of Policy Action Team
12 (Young People), which fed into the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal. PAT
12 reflected the experience of south Bristol in highlighting a significant minority of young
people suffering severe disadvantage with problems getting worse over time and compared to
the rest of the EU. The PAT showed that a clear relationship existed between poor
neighbourhoods and underachievement in education, teenage pregnancy, a range of health
issues and experience of crime both as victims and perpetrators.
Recommendations of PAT 12 to tackle the problems facing young people in deprived
• an integrated approach to youth at risk and structures to deliver it
• a shift in emphasis from intervention to prevention
• steps to improve individual services and fill service gaps
• a new approach to designing and delivering services based on consultation and
involvement of young people
• more use of evidence of ‘what works’
This URBAN II programme has been directly developed in response to these
recommendations and will pilot new approaches to involving young people based on
experience of what has worked in Bristol and elsewhere in the EU.
In addition, a number of policy-level changes in service delivery will have a direct impact on
this programme. For example, changes in the delivery of public services brought about by the
Government’s Modernising Agenda, through Community Strategies, Best Value and Local
Public Service Agreements will also have a direct bearing on how the innovative approaches
to community involvement are developed. This programme will pioneer ways in which
Young People can feed into new mechanisms.
The following section describes the more specific relationships between the policy context
and the priority themes proposed in this URBAN II programme. In all cases, careful
consideration has been given to maximising the complementary benefits available.
2.9.2 Our Work
The European Employment Strategy in particular promotes an integrated strategic approach
to tackling unemployment across the 15 Member States. The four pillars of increasing
employability, developing entrepreneurship, encouraging adaptability and strengthening
equal opportunities have been reoriented following the Lisbon Summit in March 2000 to
place more emphasis on social inclusion and the use of information and communications
technologies to improve global competitiveness.
In the UK, this European Strategy has been translated to the national level by the
Employment Action Plan 2000. This takes the four pillars outlined above and applies them
in the national context of initiatives to improve education and promote lifelong learning, tax
and benefit reform as well as the New Deal programme. In implementation, the Plan pays
special attention to the role of social partners and this is reflected in the approach taken in
As the EU’s main employment instrument, the ESF supports the European Employment
Strategy and the annual National Action Plan. The UK’s policy frame of reference for the
ESF sets out the UK’s strategic framework for human resource development and
employability, highlighting the importance of developing a society based upon people
valuing learning and continuously developing the skills they need. Activities in this field will
play an important role in promoting the economic and social prosperity for young people
within the URBAN II area in promoting social inclusion. The URBAN II programme will
contribute to the UK Government’s three main objectives in these areas:
• To ensure that all young people reach 16 with the skills, attitudes and personal qualities
that will give them a secure foundation for their future in a rapidly changing world
• To develop in everyone a commitment to lifelong learning
• To help people without a job into work through programmes of help in finding jobs or
through occupational training
The UK Government’s mainstream programme of Welfare to Work and specifically New
Deal for Young People and associated measures such as the Working Families Tax Credit
and ONE will be enhanced through added value by this URBAN II programme. It will
similarly build on the UK Government’s White Paper ‘Learning to Succeed’, which sets out
a commitment to raising standards in schools. This programme supports that commitment
and builds upon some of the initiatives announced in the White Paper, including Connexions,
which aims to make sure that more young people continue in education and training until
they are at least 19. In addition it will complement New Start for disaffected 16 and 17 year
olds and the establishment of Lifelong Learning Partnerships, the University for Industry/
learndirect, Learning and Skills Councils and the Small Business Service.
The Government has also approved an Education Action Zone (EAZ) in central Bristol
which covers 22 schools (nursery, primary and secondary), providing a model in terms of
partnership working between local parents, businesses, the LEA, TECs and others to help to
improve educational attainment. Other initiatives related to the development of young people
within the URBAN II area include the National Childcare Strategy, Family Learning and
the National Grid for Learning.
It is recognised that community-based learning is essential if the goal of achieving lasting
economic and social prosperity within the Bristol URBAN II. This programme therefore
acknowledges the importance of community-based learning in this process and notes the
existence of national initiatives such as UK Online Centres, the Community Learning Fund,
IT for All and other schemes intended to increase the use of ICT in disadvantaged areas. It
will be well placed to take advantage of the research programme to be progressed by the
Minister for Learning and Technology as part of the new research centre to be established
later this year as part of the UK Government’s desire to close the ‘digital divide’. In line with
this, Bristol already supports the concept of Learning Cities and has used the definition of a
Learning City to guide the actions which this programme plan supports.
At a regional level, this URBAN II programme takes into account regional strategies such as
Regional Planning Guidance and Regional Economic Strategy for the South West. The
South West RDA highlights young people as a group experiencing acute poverty and
disadvantage as part of their Regeneration Framework for Action and this will provide a basis
2.9.3 Our Place
The URBAN II programme reflects the principles of sustainable development in response to
the stated concerns of local people regarding open space and poor indicators for the area for
recycling and air quality. The UK’s Sustainable Development Strategy is set out in ‘A Better
Quality of Life: A Strategy for Sustainable Development for the United Kingdom’. This
has four main objectives:
• Social progress which recognises the needs of everyone
• Effective protection of the environment
• Prudent use of natural resources
• Maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment
These objectives have been taken into consideration in developing Priority 2 in this
programme. Moreover, the programme has also taken into account the recent UK
consultation papers Opportunities for Change, particularly promoting social progress
through sustainable communities, and Sustainability Counts, in relation to the development
of appropriate indicators and measures of progress which culminated in the publication of
Quality Counts in December 1999.
In terms of transport, the Government’s recent White Paper ‘New Deal for Transport: Better
for Everyone’ sets out a strategy emphasising integrated and community-based public
transport. These aspects will be important in addressing one of the key barriers to wider
opportunities for local people in the target area. Allocations as part of the Government’s 10-
year Transport Investment Plan, which includes provision for local transport will provide
resources at a local level to complement initiatives developed as part of this programme.
In addition, this URBAN II programme respects the Local Agenda 21 Strategy developed for
the whole of Bristol and the recent initiative to develop Quality of Life Indicators. The LA21
Strategy highlights issues such as transportation and access, community safety, waste
management, sustainable business and the social economy.
The experience of existing mechanisms such as the Western Partnership for Sustainable
Development and the Community Safety Partnership have also been used to inform the
development of this programme, together with existing work by Crime Concern and the
Avon and Somerset Constabulary in the target area. Similarly for health, the Health
Improvement Plan (HImP) provides a three year rolling programme to improve health and
health services for the Avon Health Authority area.
2.9.4 Our Future
In addition to building on good practice from existing initiatives in Bristol, this programme
has drawn upon more generic lessons in developing a community led and owned approach
from a number of on-going policy initiatives in the UK. These include the Local Government
Association’s New Commitment to Regeneration, the overall evaluation of Single
Regeneration Budget schemes undertaken by Cambridge University and the Audit
Commission’s review of local economic development (A Life’s Work, 1999). It has also
considered the strengths and weaknesses pioneered by more integrated approaches such as
Employment and Health Action Zones.
Of special interest to this programme will be the opportunity to both complement and provide
pilot approaches for the UK Government’s new £450 million Children’s Fund, overseen by
the newly appointed Minister for Young People. Within Bristol, the experience of the
existing City Wide Youth Forum and other regeneration initiatives provide the start point for
involving and empowering young people as part of this programme. This, combined with the
changing policy context outlined above, make this programme opportune and timely in
establishing new approaches which will both address local need and provide a model for
dissemination to policy makers and practitioners.
3.0 STRATEGY AND PRIORITIES
In developing the Bristol URBAN II Programme, the local partnership has followed a process
designed to ensure that it has clear strategic direction and is strongly linked to regional,
national and European policies. It has also drawn extensively on the experience of existing
programmes and activities in the target area. In tandem, the need for involvement and
empowerment of young people embodied in the process of change in the area is a
fundamental principle underpinning this programme. The programme preparation process has
involved a series of community forums and consultation will continue in the development of
the Programme Complement in the coming months.
3.2 Strategy Rationale
Young people have been chosen as the focus for this URBAN II programme. This is because
of the demographics of the area which predict an increasing number and proportion of young
people and the acute multiple deprivation experienced by this group. It is also because young
people are often blamed for many of the problems of the area, but it is believed that they must
be the source of the solutions. Existing regeneration activity in the target area shows that
there is more common ground and possibilities for ‘win-win’ situations than is currently
apparent. However, innovative approaches are required to encourage meaningful and
Development sites in the area will provide the catalyst for tangible change in the area. In
parallel, there are a number of developments at the policy level which mean that there are
opportunities to both add value to and influence service delivery for the better in the long-
term. These include, for example, the Connexions service and changes to public service
delivery brought about by the Government’s Modernising Agenda. There are also a number
of developments in terms of the cross cutting themes of equal opportunities, sustainable
development and Information and Communications Technology which make this programme
Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (Involving Young People in Regeneration, JRF
1998) has examined the degree to which young people are able to set appropriate priorities,
given that they have limited life experience and often little knowledge about other
possibilities and options when they make their choices. JRF found that on average, adults will
identify training, education and employment as the key issues facing young people and
therefore needing to be addressed by regeneration programmes. In contrast, young people
will tend to focus on what might be seen as ‘softer’ issues such as perceptions and the
environment. Reconciling these differences is one of the central challenges of this
programme and has dictated the approach by which priorities and measures have been
developed in consultation. In a sense, both groups are right and it is important to steer clear
of easy answers in the programme.
The current situation and SWOT focus on the priorities of work, place and the future in order
to break down traditional categories used in urban regeneration programmes. Measures have
then been developed in response to local need and evaluation of existing activity rather than
pre-conceived notions of what will work. Throughout the delivery of the programme, young
people will be involved through a number of mechanisms and initiatives detailed below.
Using young people’s involvement as the foundations for this programme, links can then be
made to the range of relevant policy initiatives, as outlined in the previous section.
The objectives of this programme have been established through a consultation process
which builds on a range of sources of information, including action research carried out by
young people in the area. The overall objectives have determined the priorities and measures
included in this programme and are as follows:
• To break down barriers to employment and social inclusion
• To raise skill levels and increase access to job opportunities for young people
• To improve the local environment and facilities for young people
• To promote active involvement of young people in their communities
• To give young people the chance to influence and direct the programme and its projects
3.4 Programme Outline
In order to achieve these objectives, the following priorities have been identified in
consultation with local people. Indicators and targets for these priorities are given in Chapter
4, which also includes a description of indicative measures to be carried out as part of the
programme. Priorities and Measures have all been developed to fall within the scope of the
Structural Funds as required by the General Regulations.
PRIORITY 1: OUR WORK
TO IMPROVE ACCESS TO EMPLOYMENT
This priority will seek to break the cycle of educational underachievement and
unemployment which characterises the target area. Specific barriers identified, such as
isolation from the opportunities in the rest of Bristol and low aspirations and lack of role
models for young people will be addressed. Tailored approaches to enable local people to
access new employment opportunities need to be developed. Mainstream programmes are
clearly failing in a number of areas and this programme will innovate outside of the
mainstream to provide new solutions to employment related issues in the target area.
Whilst falling within the objectives of the 4 pillars of the UK’s Employment Action Plan
2000, this priority will pilot new approaches to achieving employment outcomes. One of the
key opportunities to build on will be new employment for local young people brought about
by the development sites in the area and the prosperous regional context. Central to this will
be the involvement of young people in developing these solutions to ensure that they are
relevant and achievable. In parallel, employers will be involved in creating a more
constructive dialogue to help meet skills shortages. This relationship is currently blighted by
negative perceptions on both sides.
PRIORITY 2: OUR PLACE
TO CREATE A SAFE, ATTRACTIVE AND HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT TO LIVE IN
The quality of open space in the area is a key concern for local people, linked to
intergenerational conflict and poor perceptions of the area. Much of this open space also
provides the key to the comprehensive regeneration of the target area through a number of
development sites. This priority will ensure that the physical regeneration of the area is linked
to the social and economic regeneration through enabling young people in particular to be
involved in the process of change brought about by redevelopment.
A number of specific barriers to the comprehensive regeneration of the area will also be
addressed under this priority. Access and transport are key issues to be addressed which have
contributed to the physical, economic and social isolation of the area and a significant
disincentive to finding employment in growth sectors in other parts of the city. Similarly, this
priority will also tackle issues relating to crime and health which contribute to the multiple
deprivation in the area by acting as actual barriers to employment and social inclusion as well
as contributing to a lack of self confidence and negative perceptions of the area.
PRIORITY 3: OUR FUTURE
TO ENSURE THAT YOUNG PEOPLE SEE THEMSELVES AND ARE SEEN BY
OTHERS AS PART OF THE SOLUTION NOT THE PROBLEM.
Building on experience from within the target area and of the URBAN I programme overall,
this priority provides a specific focus for the innovative approach being developed
throughout this programme. It will pioneer integrated approaches to enable young people to
develop solutions to issues, rather than being further excluded by change in the area. This
will provide a key mechanism for challenging and changing negative perceptions held by
local people which results in low employment aspirations and poor educational achievement.
There are a number of regeneration programmes impacting on the target area and this priority
will ensure that added value is maximised across the board. It will invest in young people and
build their capacity as an outcome in itself and set in train a legacy of new mechanisms and
attitudes to ensure longer term and sustainable regeneration.
This priority will include those tasks required to specifically administer and deliver the
project according to European Commission guidelines. In the spirit of the programme overall,
where appropriate, opportunities will be taken to involve young people in the technical
assistance function as part of the complementary measure.
3.5 Involving Young People in the URBAN II Programme
Genuine innovation in this programme will come from the process of delivery. One of the
key strengths of the areas covered by URBAN is the work already happening on the ground
with young people. For example, the grant-making and accreditation work of the Knowle
West Youth Forum, the multi-agency partnership approach of the Hartcliffe and Withywood
Young People’s Action Team; and the innovative, multi-media approach of the Knowle West
The programme started by identifying some core principles that, both from experience on the
ground and from existing research (e.g. Joseph Rowntree Foundation) should be used to
underpin its development. It was important that individuals and partners taking part in
URBAN II could sign up to an agreed set of common values and aims as described below:
• The need to recognise that it takes considerable time, resources and effort to engage with
and involve young people. There are no quick fixes, easy answers or shortcuts.
• Young people must be involved in the programme from the very beginning.
• Agencies and organisations will have to change the ways they work to make the
involvement process work. It is not simply a question of expecting young people to fit
into structures. Real responsibility will be devolved to young people and changes made
in practices, language and behavior.
• Expectations must be realistic, about what will engage young people and what will not.
There is no point making grand statements about young people handling the appraisal
process in the first month. It will not happen and will only lead to disillusionment,
change happens incrementally.
• It is necessary to be pragmatic about ‘representativeness’ and not impose overly high
standards on young people’s participation. One local young person involved in this
programme is better than none, even if not considered representative.
• The aim is not to hand over all power and responsibility to young people. The
programme wants something more complex than this: a better dialogue between young
people, other sections of the community, agencies and organisations.
• Young people should not be positioned as ‘the problem’ to be dealt with by this
programme. They are most likely to suffer from violent crime, they are more likely to be
bullied, they experience a poor quality environment more directly than anyone else.
• It is necessary to build on and around what is on the ground already, there is already
innovative work happening in this area.
• Young people should be rewarded in some way for their involvement and gain from
being part of the process.
• Underpinning all these principles, equalities issues are vital. It is necessary to recognise
difference amongst young people, they are not a homogenous block, equalities issues
demand a meaningful response in all elements and aspects of the programme.
A recent audit of current activity within the target area and good practice from elsewhere has
been undertaken to inform the work of the programme. This will be presented to the first
UPG meeting and a wider conference in Autumn 2001 to ensure these principles are included
within programme delivery.
3.6 Adherence to URBAN II, Structural Fund Guidelines and European Commission
Policy, including State Aid
In so far as the present programme involves State aids, such aids will be exclusively granted
in accordance with the Commission Regulation No 69/2001 on the application of Articles 87
and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid of 6 December 2000 (OJ L10 of 13.1.2001) or with
Commission Regulation No 70/2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC
Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ L10 of 13.1.2001) or with
Commission Regulation No 68/2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC
Treaty to training aid (OJ L10 of 13.1.2001). In accordance with Article 34(1)(g) of Council
Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, the body responsible for ensuring the compliance with State
aid rules of the implementation of the present programme is [the Department of Local
Government, Transport and the Regions].
4.0 OUTLINE OF MEASURES
This chapter outlines an integrated set of measures proposed as part of this CIP under four
priorities. These have been developed in response to specific needs identified through an
analysis of the current situation and the consultation exercise which informed the SWOT.
Measures have been developed to promote equality of opportunity, sustainable development
and the use of ICTs by young people wherever possible. Careful regard has also been given
to the policy context in developing these measures as well as current initiatives with an
impact on the target area so that good practice lessons for mainstream services and other
urban areas are maximised.
4.1 PRIORITY 1: OUR WORK
Aims and Rationale
The overall aim of this priority is to improve access to employment. This will contribute to
programme objectives to break down barriers to employment and social inclusion and to raise
skill levels and increase access to job opportunities for young people.
Under this priority, one measure has been developed in direct response to problems identified
in the analysis of the current situation and SWOT by young people in the target area in
accessing employment. The measure will be developed to take advantage of new employment
opportunities offered by development sites as well as existing growth sectors in the wider
region with an emphasis on ICT. The high number of ‘no work’ and lone parent families
require tailored support and guidance in order to break cycles of inter-generational
unemployment. Other contributory factors such as disadvantage and discrimination for those
most excluded will also be addressed.
Table 1 included under section 5 below shows that measures under this priority will be
allocated around 24% of the financial resources in this programme. This reflects the
importance of addressing employment-related issues as the key to achieving wider social
inclusion and the comprehensive regeneration of the area. Matched funding will be sought in
particular from the Employment Service, the Department of Employment and Education,
Single Regeneration Budget Round 5 as well as from Bristol City Council.
Indicative Indicators Indicative Targets
• Economic activity rate for young people • Reduction by 50% of the difference
between the area and the city average
(i.e. to 18.5% by 2006)
• Number of young people provided with • 110 young people pa receiving support,
employment support and percentage 30% to find a permanent job
gaining positive outcome
• Number of young people securing • 15 people pa to secure employment with
employment with a local employers local employer
• Number of young people in employment • 110 young people progressing in full
or education two years after URBAN time employment or education in 2008
support has ended
• Public Transport Accessibility Level • Improvement in the local index of public
Index transport services in the local area by
• Improved attitudes from employers • Reduction of postcode discrimination as
towards local people measured by local surveys
• Number of people holding higher level • 15% of local people undertaking FE or
qualifications HE-based qualification by 2006
• Number of accredited work experience • 30 accredited work experience
placements placements completed by young people
p.a. (currently zero)
• Aspirations as expressed through young • Higher levels of work-related aspiration
people’s stated choices as part of New expressed
Deal or Connexions
The primary focus for activities under this measure will be young people under 30. However,
in order to achieve the desired results and impacts, it may be necessary to involve a range of
actors (of all ages) in activities undertaken in the local area. These will include friends,
families and social networks, local employers and a range of other agencies having roles as
‘agents of change’ for young people. Whilst beneficiaries may not be restricted to young
people, the global objective of the programme, and therefore individual measures is aimed at
young people, and so the measures will be expected to impact primarily on this age group.
Measure 1.1: Jobs
Economic inactivity and unemployment are at the heart of the economic and social exclusion
which characterise the target area. This measure will reduce exclusion by addressing some of
the specific employment-related barriers that prevent young people getting a job. The needs
analysis portrayed a cycle of intergenerational unemployment, poor health and accessibility
which mean that opportunities in growth sectors within the wider region are not currently
accessed in spite of skills shortages.
Future employment opportunities will also arise within the target area as a result of the
redevelopment of a number of sites. Past evidence suggests that merely providing new job
opportunities is not sufficient to bring about sustained employment. The fundamental barriers
which stop local people accessing these opportunities need also to be addressed if sustainable
solutions to the problems of the area are to be developed. This programme is based on the
premise that local people are best placed to understand how specific barriers to employment
can be addressed. This measure will involve young people in developing actions which are
tailored to the needs of local people.
Improvements to health and transport will form elements in a broader approach to addressing
barriers to employment form the perspective of young people. By putting young people at the
centre of this programme, it is anticipated that new, integrated approaches to addressing
health and transport needs will be developed. This may include bringing together existing
programmes in new ways, ensuring young people’s issues are understood and provided for or
providing additional interventions where there are gaps in service delivery - these are likely
to be of a small scale (eg. signing cycle networks, encouragement of the use of public
transport, community transport initiatives etc). This area of work will be particularly
important in highlighting the access needs of young people in relation to the employment and
leisure opportunities within the development sites. -
Life skills coaching, for example in financial planning will also be important in breaking
entrenched cycles of social exclusion exacerbated by a lack of role models and work-based
networks which have led to low levels of expectations. As well as raising awareness and
aspirations regarding wider opportunities, this priority will also address the physical isolation
of the target area brought about by poor access and transport links through community-based
All these issues have been raised as particular barriers to employment in the consultation
undertaken as part of the development of this programme, and will be further explored in the
development of the Programme Complement. In this way, the URBAN II programme will
enable mainstream initiatives such as ESF Objective 3, to be complemented by pioneering
new approaches which are more responsive to young people’s needs and make direct links to
other aspects of this comprehensive and integrated regeneration programme.
The final measure under this priority relates to the interface between local people and
employers. This relationship is currently blighted by low aspirations and awareness by local
people and negative perceptions of local businesses of the attributes of people in the target
area. This programme will implement an integrated approach which enables specific barriers
and skills levels addressed under measures 1.1 and 1.2 to be complemented by actions
relating to the process of actually getting jobs under this measure.
In tandem with the need to address specific barriers to work, this measure will focus on
empowering young people with the skills required to find employment or improve their job
prospects. Currently, education and training attainment in the area is very poor with
particular problems arising within the 11-16 age group. This means that many young people
enter the labour market at 16 without qualifications and with very poor prospects in a market
which is increasingly demanding skilled workers. This measure will aim to redefine learning
as a lifelong opportunity for young people to improve skills levels and job prospects outside
of mainstream provision, which may have negative associations for young people.
Young people in the target area have already demonstrated an aptitude for arts and cultural
initiatives, including new media. Projects have been delivered outside of mainstream
education and this programme will build on this in by providing learning and skills
development opportunities responsive to the specific needs of local people. This will include
a particular emphasis on ensuring young people have the opportunities to take advantage of
development in information and communication technologies.
The type of activities supported under this measure will include :
a) removing barriers to work
Examples of areas of actions include support for young parents, such as healthcare, childcare,
and integrated advice on the impact of employment on benefits. The improvement of health
services, in particular in relation to drug and alcohol rehabilitation is seen as an important
factor in increasing the economic activity rate of young people in the area. This will be
complemented by guidance and counselling which address low levels of self confidence and
awareness about new employment opportunities, both in the local area and wider region.
Educational achievement is a significant barrier to many young people when seeking
employment, this measure also includes ‘non-traditional’ employer-led learning approaches
incorporating peer or family support to take the learning experience out of formal
environments. This may include informal and supported access to training and education,
including ‘taster ‘vocational training as route into local colleges and basic skills provision
integrated with recreational programmes. There will be an emphasis on the provision of ICT,
Internet and new media training and access.
b) getting work
Activities will focus on brokerage and intermediate labour market activity involving
businesses in response to young people’s needs. This may include the encouragement of new
business start-ups by local people, but also the development of job search skills and activities
to improve access to growth sectors and opportunities arising from redevelopment sites in the
target area. Raising of awareness of new opportunities will be a key element in improving the
aspirations and horizons of young people. The use of ICT throughout this measure will be
promoted wherever possible, together with actions to address any specific instances of
discrimination which are found to exist.
In order to effectively tackle fundamental barriers to employment, intensive activity will be
required in order to develop tailored solutions. Similarly, in order to develop and implement
effective new approaches to learning for disaffected young people, it is envisaged that
significant resources will be required.
4.2 PRIORITY 2: OUR PLACE
Aim and Rationale
The overall aim of this priority is to create a safe, attractive and healthy environment to
live in. This priority will contribute to the programme’s overall objective to improve the local
environment and facilities for young people. This priority will thereby make a central
contribution to the comprehensive regeneration of the target area by focusing on the physical
and environmental attributes of the target area.
The poor quality environment in the target area is both an issue in itself and a source of
conflict between young people and adults. It also contributes to a lack of self-confidence in
the area and to fears regarding crime and safety. This has a knock-on effect the low levels of
investor confidence and economic activity in the area and exclusion for particular groups
such as young males, single mothers and disabled people.
This priority will promote the local area as a resource and focus for community-based
economic development activities in this programme. Young people will be involved in the
development of sites throughout the target area, ensuring that innovative and genuine
consultation takes place so that the needs of local people are incorporated into the
development process. In particular, issues of disadvantage and discrimination will be taken
on board in the way that consultation is undertaken and the target groups identified.
Relating this priority back to the summary environmental situation included as part of the
description of the current situation, this priority is intended to have positive impact on
environmental quality across all parameters. Major redevelopment will be required to
undertake separate environmental impact assessments at a greater level of detail, but the
overall effect of these developments will be to enhance the aesthetic quality of the
environment through a reduction in the amount of derelict land. Possible increases in the
amount of traffic will be addressed by individual planning applications and also local
initiatives to improve public transport and access to opportunities for local people, often
within walking distance.
Table 1 included under section 5 below shows that measures under this priority will be
allocated around 43% of the financial resources in this programme. The relatively large
allocation is due to the likely inclusion of capital projects under this measure and the scale of
redevelopment anticipated in the target area. Matched funding will be sought in particular,
from the South West Regional Development Agency, Avon Health Authority, Single
Regeneration Budget Round 5 as well as Bristol City Council. The following table outlines
the type of indicators and targets we would expect to employ within the programme. Further
details will be provided in the Programme Complement. In addition, a qualitative baseline
will be undertaken at the start of the URBAN II programme to provide monitoring
information under this priority.
Indicative Indicators Indicative Targets
• Number of local health, sports and • Increase in number of facilities in the
cultural facilities and usage by local target area used by young people by 2006
• Development of one initiative to secure
• Number of local young people employed local employment through the
within new developments development process
• Improved perception and usage by local
• Improvement in the quality of open space people of open space by 2006
as measured by qualitative surveys
• All new developments to be positively
• Number of new developments with influenced by young people
significant input by local people
• Reduction in total number reported
• Levels of reported crime crimes and the number of people citing
fear of crime as their main concern by
• Reduction in the number of reported
racially motivated incidents relative to
city-wide average year-on-year
• 4 per year
• Number of environmental improvement
• 2 per year
• Number of diversionary projects
Measure 2.1: Improving the Area
Poor environmental quality is a fundamental issue for the target area, with large amounts of neglected
open space and lack of facilities a key source of intergenerational conflict and negative perceptions
both within and from outside of the area. Specific issues in relation to poor water and air quality
added to by problems of litter and graffiti. However, environmental issues have also been identified as
key areas of opportunity as part of this programme and the aim of this measure is to improve the
overall quality of the local area, and the facilities provided, as part of the integrated and
comprehensive regeneration of the area.
The measure will focus in particular on amenity and facilities for young people, who will become
agents for change under this measure. The involvement of young people in the redevelopment process
will be facilitated for sites in the target area. This will involve the design of an innovative mechanism
linked to the planning process and provide an important focus and dynamic for the overall
programme. It will ensure some tangible and long-tem benefits for local young people and provide the
catalyst for other actions under the measure. In addition to influencing and in some cases directly
implementing new facilities, this measure will also promote the use of existing facilities by young
people as a way to tackle social exclusion and isolation experienced by some young people in the
It is intended that the use of open spaces in the area for leisure, cultural and sporting activities will
make them a focus for community cohesion rather than conflict. This measure will also implement
young people’s space and facilities which are affordable, safe, flexible and responsive to change. A
range of environmental improvements will also be initiated by young people themselves, building on
formative work in the area funded through SRB programmes. This will help to address issues of
disaffection and form part of a longer-term progression through learning and employment
opportunities. The outcome of this measure will be to improve the overall image of the area and help
to attract new inward investment as well as increasing the self-confidence of local people.
Measure 2.2: Preventing Crime
The aim of this measure is to reduce levels of crime and acceptance of crime. The emphasis of
actions under this measure will be on preventative work with young people to avoid any drift
into crime, linked to disaffection with education and training opportunities. It will
complement existing mainstream actions through taking a bottom-up approach which involves
young people as the victims as well as the perpetrators of crime. By tackling crime through
diversionary activities in tandem with the promotion of innovative training and employment
initiatives under priority 1, this measure will be able to make new linkages in breaking cycles
of deprivation for young people in the target area.
Increasing crime levels and fear of crime are key concerns for the local area. Crime to be
addressed under this measure includes hate crime and domestic violence. Actions will involve
both preventative work direct with offenders as well as facilitating community based anti-
crime initiatives to empower local people. This could involve the prevention of bullying as
well as neighbourhood care-taking for example, which would have wider environmental
benefits. Links will also be made through diversionary activities to cultural, sporting and
environmental initiatives. The overall effect of preventing crime in the target area will be to
enhance self-confidence of local people, investor confidence and well being of the local area.
The levels of funding allocated to each measure have not yet been determined but it is
anticipated they will be in the following broad ranges:
2.1 65 – 75 %
2.2 25 – 35 %
The first measure is likely to involve capital expenditure on improved facilities and
environmental improvements, hence a relatively large allocation. The allocation also reflects
the scale of the redevelopments likely in the target area and the resources needed to facilitate
a meaningful involvement of young people in the processes. Measure 2.2 in relation to crime
prevention will involve a degree of direct provision of preventive and diversionary activity
and therefore warrants a smaller allocation in keeping with the more indirect contribution to
the programme’s overall objectives.
4.3 PRIORITY 3: OUR FUTURE
Aim and Rationale
The aim of this measure is to ensure that young people see themselves and are seen by
others as part of the solution not the problem. It invests in young people as the key asset
for the local area and will provide the focus for much of the innovation within this CIP aimed
at empowering and engaging young people more effectively. For this reason, there will be
strong linkages with the other priorities and synergies and good practice for parallel
mainstream programmes. The objectives of the programme which will be achieved by this
priority to promote active involvement of young people in their communities and to give
young people the chance to influence and direct the programme and its projects.
This priority therefore underpins the approach taken in all other priorities as it involves the
practical ways in which young people will engage in this programme, including those most
excluded through discrimination and disadvantage. Some illustrative examples of the ways in
which young people will be involved have started to be developed as part of the Programme
Complement and include URBAN Apprenticeships and Traineeships. The indicators and
targets given here are indicative and subject to change as part of this process. These will be
added to by the qualitative baseline to be undertaken at the start of the programme to enhance
the overall monitoring of progress.
Table 1 included under section 5 below shows the measure under this priority will be
allocated around 25% of the financial resources in this programme. This allocation reflects
the nature of the measure proposed under this priority in terms of engagement and
involvement activities using a wide range of innovative techniques which will require
investment in the development stage and more importantly investment in the capacity of
Indicative Indicators Indicative Targets
• Increase in numbers of young people • Doubling in rate of young people
actively engaging on an on-going basis involved by 2006
with community activities
• Number of young people participating in • Significant increase in the numbers of
decision making forums and community young people participating in decision-
activity making forums.
• Number of ‘good news’ stories about the • Increased number of ‘good news’ stories
target area in the local media appearing each year in the local media
• Efficiency and effectiveness of the • Increase in the number of people of
delivery of regeneration schemes residents who believe their area has
benefited from regeneration schemes
Measure 3.1: Getting Together
This measure will build young people’s connections between differing areas and between
generations in order to break down inter-generational conflict and create the preconditions for
more ‘win-win’ social and economic situations. Some of the emphasis of this measure will be
on addressing negative perceptions, a process which will be reinforced by real change in the
area included under priority 2. Positive perceptions will be partly achieved through
demonstration, for example by exchange of experience with European partners, but also by
direct capacity building for those involved in the delivery of the programme.
This measure will aim to empower young people to become active citizens and to have a
valued involvement in the wider community. This will both complement and build on the
activities implemented under other priorities, but will have the ultimate outcome of sustained
involvement in the process of regeneration in the target area. In this sense it represents the
programme’s exit strategy. More immediately, it will provide a mechanism for improved self-
confidence and raised expectations in relation to employment. Actions will aim to raise young
peoples’ aspirations through positive images of peers, their achievements and wider
opportunities. This will act to positively promote the area and the good things that happen.
This measure will also ensure complementarity between the range of initiatives impacting on
the target area through the development of a ‘one stop shop’ approach. This will address
potential confusion amongst local people as to the purpose of differing initiatives, but also
provide a mechanism to ensure that the URBAN II programme continues to innovate and add
value to mainstream programmes and other initiatives. In this sense, initiatives as well as local
people will be seen to be getting together for the benefit of the area, providing an innovation
in the delivery of regeneration programmes.
PRIORITY 4: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
This priority will deliver the technical assistance necessary for the successful implementation
of this programme. It is sub-divided into two measures, in line with Rule 11.1 and 11.3 of the
Eligibility Regulations (Commission Regulation (EC) No 1685/2000, OJ L193/39 of
29.7.2000). In the spirit of the overall programme, opportunities will be taken wherever
possible to involve young people in technical assistance functions. Table 1 included under
section 5 below shows that this priority will be allocated around 8% of the financial
resources in this programme.
Innovative models will be developed which will involve young people in tasks listed below
which will provide a vehicle for actions implemented under Priority 3 by involving young
people in the programme implementation process as an outcome in itself. In other words, the
distinction with priority 3 is that this priority is concerned solely with the technical aspects of
the delivery of the programme, whereas priority 3 is concerned with wider capacity building.
This may contribute to the effectiveness of the technical assistance function, but is more
concerned with wider outcomes relating to the longer-term empowerment of young people to
contribute to community life. This priority has the objective of ensuring the effective
implementation of the programme through the following measures:
Measure 4.1 Basic Administrative and Financial Technical Assistance Activities
In line with Rule No. 11.2 of the Commission’s eligibility criteria, this measure will include:
• Expenditure related to the preparation, selection, appraisal and monitoring of the
assistance and of operations
• Expenditure on meetings of the monitoring committee related to the implementation of
the assistance, including attendance of experts and other
• Expenditure related to audits and on-the pot checks
ERDF resources allocated to this measure will not exceed 5 per cent of the total ERDF
Measure 4.2 Complementary Technical Assistance Activities
In line with Rule No. 11.3 of the Commission’s Technical Assistance eligibility criteria, this
measure will include:
Other technical assistance activities eligible for ERDF support includes actions such as
studies, qualitative baseline research and on-going monitoring activity, seminars, information
actions, dissemination (beyond EU requirements), leaflets and marketing of the programme
and good practice, project appraisals, evaluation and the acquisition and installation of
computerised systems for management, monitoring and evaluation.
As part of the activities under measure 4.2, opportunities will be taken to involve young
people in monitoring, evaluation and publicity actions. An independent evaluation will be
commissioned at the outset of the programme and the involvement of young people will be a
contractual condition. Some of the mechanism and capacity building for this task will be
developed under Priority 3. An early and parallel evaluation can shape the programme as it
develops, and young people can gain skills and rewards from being involved. The evaluation
will focus on both the process of involvement and development, and the actual outcomes of
the programme’s constituent projects.
It is also intended that young people will be involved in the appraisal process at a realistic
level. Young people have already shown themselves to be very able in this area given proper
time and support though SRB projects. An appropriate appraisal process will be designed that
will satisfy structural fund regulations and allow young people a full say in the work
subsequently carried out. For example, young trainees and apprentices could produce a report
or dossier on project at outline stage, and this would then need to be taken into full account in
any approval decision. The young people would need training and support through this
process. Like anyone, their decisions will be better if they have more information on which
to base their views.
Finally, there is felt to be a significant opportunity to involve young people in publicity and
dissemination activities for the project. This task lends itself to the involvement of young
people, given the potential use of new media and enthusiasm of young people. Methods will
include web-sites, newsletters and videos, for example. In this way, and as outlined in the
implementing provisions, publicity will both meet the European Commission’s requirements
for publicising the support of URBAN II and also contribute to the programme directly
through addressing the negative image of the area.
The indicative financial split between the two measures is :
4.1 62.5% (maximum of 5% programme)
Table 1: Financial Table for Community Initiative Programme by Priority and Year
Commission reference no. I.C,: Title: South Bristol URBAN II Programme
Priority Total Cost Public Private Other EIB loans
Year Total Comm National public participation financial instruments
ERDF Total Central Regional Local Other (specified)
Priority 1 (work)
2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2001 764798 764798 382398 382400 250000 132400 0 0 0 0
2002 867699 867669 433794 433794 0 250000 183875 0 70000 0 0
2003 937699 867669 433794 433794 0 250000 183875 0 70000 0 0
2004 937669 867669 433794 433794 0 250000 183875 0 70000 0 0
2005 941740 871740 435851 435871 0 250000 185869 0 70000 0 0
2006 941740 871740 435851 435871 0 250000 185869 0 70000 0 0
Priority 2 (Place)
2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2001 1370231 1370231 685131 685100 50000 250000 385100 0 100000 0 0
2002 1654431 1554431 777216 777215 190000 450000 137215 0 100000 0 0
2003 1654431 1554431 777216 777215 190000 450000 137215 0 100000 0 0
2004 1654431 1554431 777216 777215 190000 450000 137215 0 100000 0 0
2005 1661778 1561778 780878 780900 190000 450000 140900 0 100000 0 0
2006 1661778 1561778 780878 780900 190000 450000 140900 0 100000 0 0
Priority 3 (Future)
2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2001 826732 796732 398332 398400 0 0 398400 0 30000 0 0
2002 933869 903869 451869 452000 0 0 452000 0 30000 0 0
2003 933869 903869 451869 452000 0 0 452000 0 30000 0 0
2004 933869 903869 451869 452000 0 0 452000 0 30000 0 0
2005 938011 908011 454011 454000 0 0 454000 0 30000 0 0
2006 938011 908011 454011 454000 0 0 454000 0 30000 0 0
2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2001 255266 255266 127466 127800 0 0 127800 0 0 0 0
2002 289323 289323 144598 144725 0 0 144725 0 0 0 0
2003 289323 289323 144598 144725 0 0 144725 0 0 0 0
2004 289323 289323 144598 144725 0 0 144725 0 0 0 0
2005 290765 290765 145284 145481 0 0 145481 0 0 0 0
2006 290765 290765 145284 145481 0 0 145481 0 0 0 0
Total 24100312 22970312 10647846 10649645 1000000 4000000 7322466 0 1130000 0 0
The levels of public and private sector contributions to the programme can only be indicative at this stage, based on previous programme experience. This
financial table is subject to amendment following consultation with the Programme Management Committee and agreement by the European Commission.
The implementation speed of the community led initiative will also alter the indicative financial allocations.
The process of programme development has involved a wide range of partners which has
built on the partnerships formed as part of other regeneration initiatives in the area. This
programme will now take this partnership approach one step further in engaging young
people in the process of change. This section outlines the process of programme development
and key partners involved, followed by an outline of the partnership mechanism developed
for programme delivery
6.2 Programme Development Process
The schedule for consulting with partners was designed to reach as many organisations and
individuals working in the target area as possible in the timescale. The process included:
• regular meetings of the Partners Group
• establishment of four work groups to carry forward work around priorities and
• separate meetings with specific interest groups
• drawing on the results of previous consultation and community involvement work in
• a widely distributed newsletter
In addition, a number of other consultation sources have been used reflecting the nature of
• Our Say, A Youth Consultation for Knowle West (May 2000), produced by Crime
Concern, Knowle Safe and Knowle West Youth Forum, involving young people as
researchers and interviewees.
• Your Shout: a video produced by over 120 young people in Filwood during the
development phase of the SRB 4 scheme for the area, with the support of the Knowle
West Health Association's Media Project. This video was a piece of action research to
enable young people to express their views about the area and regeneration priorities,
positives and negatives etc.
• Hartcliffe and Withywood Young People's Action Team Project Appraisal document for
SRB 4, which outlines some of the issues current in the area in relation to young people
• Video work carried out by young people at HHEAG (Hartcliffe Health and Environment
Action Group) about play spaces and the quality of environment in their area
6.2.1 Partners Group
The Partners Group started with a core membership of 19 including the statutory and
voluntary organisations that supported the original bid for URBAN II. It has since expanded
to include more that 30 groups based in or with a significant interest in the target area. The
Group met four times to consider the developing programme and to discuss further
consultation and ways to increase impact on the area. A list of Partner Group members is
• Avon Health Authority (South Bristol Primary Care Trust)
• Avon & Somerset Constabulary
• Black Development Agency
• Bristol City Council
• Bristol Chamber of Commerce & Initiative
• Community Safety Partnership
• Bristol Regeneration Partnership
• Bristol South Crossroads
• Bristol University
• Business Link West
• Cater Road (Industrial Estate) Action Group
• City of Bristol College
• Eagle House Youth Centre
• Early Years and Childcare Partnership
• Employment Service
• Government Office for the South West
• Greater Bristol Foundation
• Hartcliffe Community Campus
• Hartcliffe Community Park Farm
• Hartcliffe Health & Environmental Action Group
• Hartcliffe & Withywood Community Partnership
• Hartcliffe & Withywood Teenage Parents Project
• Hartcliffe & Withywood Ventures
• Hartcliffe Youth Project
• Knowle West Against Drugs (KWADs)
• Knowle West Development Trust
• Knowle West Youth Forum
• Knowle West Youth Media Project
• Learning Partnership West
• Mede Centre
• NET-WORK South Bristol
• Novers Park Community Group
• South Bristol Advice Centre
• South Bristol Church and Community Trust
• South West Regional Development Agency
• Trade Union Congress
• University of the West of England
• Withywood School
• Withywood Church and Community Project
It is intended that this group will evolve to form the Urban Partnership Group (UPG)
6.2.2 Work Groups
Drawn primarily from the Partners Group, four work groups were then established to work on
the following themes:
• Youth involvement in the community
• Youth involvement in planning the future of the area
• Business and employment for young people
• Barriers to employment for young people
Membership was open to representatives of any resident or organisation working in the area.
Each group met on two occasions, firstly, to work on a SWOT analysis for their theme and
secondly to identify key actions to address issues raised in the SWOT and in response to data
6.2.3 Additional Consultation
Consultation meetings were also held with particular interest groups where appropriate (eg.
Avon and Somerset Constabulary).
While direct consultation with young people was discussed by the Urban Partner Group, it
was not considered appropriate mainly because key groups of young people are thought to be
suffering from a degree of consultation fatigue. Over the past two years a number of in-depth
consultation and action research exercises involving young people have been held in the area
and it was agreed that the results of these exercises should be brought forward.
Too often regeneration programmes are built on a quick and shallow consultation process in a
local area. This programme responds to the detailed and in-depth issues already raised
directly by young people living in the area and allow them the time to build trust in the
process. The URBAN II programme is fortunate that a number of innovative pieces of
research and consultation work have been carried out and it will seek to build on them.
Monthly newsletters giving details of the programme and timescales for developing the
programme are widely circulated throughout the area. An invitation to meet or discuss ideas
with any group was included in the first newsletter.
6.3 Implementing the programme
6.3.1 Partnership and programme involvement
The Partnership recognises that the successful delivery of the Urban ll Programme in South
Bristol depends on fully involving the communities, bodies and organisations within the area,
the residents and young people in particular in implementation of programme. This requires
an innovative and responsive infrastructure.
The infrastructure is currently being planned to include a number of proposals and actions
that have been identified from the partners experiences, consultation, research and lessons
learned from a variety of past and current programmes and initiatives drawn from the EU and
in particular the UK.
The infrastructure proposals can be summarised as:
• Transparent management
• Addressing programme delivery barriers
• Addressing social inclusion
• Providing support and advice
• Communication and information
• Complementing other initiatives and actions and avoiding duplication
• Innovative engagement
• Independent evaluation and feedback
• Learning from others and applying the lessons
• Minimising the risk of project failure
6.3.2 Transparent management
The PMC will comprise of 18 representatives of statutory, community, voluntary and local
organisations. The proposed composition of the PMC will ensure that at least 6 seats are
reserved for members of the local Business, Community and Voluntary sectors. Government
Office for the South West will make every effort to ensure the full participation of young
people in the strategic decision making process.
Urban Partnership Group arrangements will ensure openness and transparency. Members
will be drawn from NET-WORK South Bristol, other voluntary sector organisations, Bristol
City Council and local business. At least 50% should have a direct link to the area (eg. either
live or work), membership will actively reflect the needs of excluded communities and aim to
ensure that as many as possible are young people.
6.3.3 Addressing programme delivery barriers
The experience of NET-WORK South Bristol and others has provided evidence that many
organisations which could deliver successfully employment and sustainable regeneration
outcomes and are in contact with those who most need access to such programmes are
prevented from doing so by the complexity and financing of EU and UK programmes.
A number of obstacles prevent the participation of much of the social economy sector, and
smaller community and voluntary groups in particular, to access appropriate EU and UK
funds. These include:
• Difficulties in getting matching funding
• Payment in arrears and resulting cash flow problems
• Final payment is often greatly in arrears
• Loss of income (eg interest) and/or costs (eg overdraft costs) to community organisations
• Lengthy and complicated administration procedures
• Language, terminology and definitions
• Often lack of support and accessible help
• The importance of developing performance indicators, which are meaningful and make
sense to the partners, the programme delivery organisations and, above all, to local
6.3.4 Addressing social inclusion
All the Partners are committed to resident involvement, equal opportunities and addressing
social inclusion throughout the programme and at all levels. This will be partly addressed, if
NET-WORK South Bristol is successful in removing the barriers to engage organisations,
working with excluded groups, in programme delivery. Planning is in process on other
consultation and actions to enable excluded individuals and groups to benefit and/or
participate, for example:
• It is important to continue to change the perceptions held by employers of the
employability of residents and young people in particular, and to use a range of
incentives and encouragement to private employers to recruit from the Urban area.
• Recognising that investment in environmental programmes and community facilities,
can stimulate change.
• Financial, and other forms of support and encouragement, for residents’ social,
cultural and leisure interests can be a catalyst for establishing self help groups,
strengthening existing networks and lead to participation in community, training and
Intensive support by Development Workers in the early stages, the training of residents, and
the learning from others experiences are seen as important ingredients for success.
6.3.5 Providing support and advice
This is to be addressed by setting up a Support and Development Network, employing
development workers, (shadowed and supported by young people aged 18 to 25 employed
under a apprenticeship) collaborating with other relevant staff .
6.3.6 Communication and information
This important element of the infrastructure will be delivered in a number of ways including:
• Using existing effective networks
• Commissioning young peoples organisations (eg The Media Project)
• A young peoples organisation maintaining and developing the Urban website
• Youth produced media including local newspapers, newsletters, CDs and
• Press releases and media spots
• Practical events, learning and sharing opportunities
Further detail will be provided within the communications plan submitted with the
6.3.7 Complementing other initiatives and actions and avoiding duplication
The UPG is facilitating networking and information sharing with other EU programmes, (eg
Objective 2) and UK programmes, (eg SRB 5) to achieve added value and avoid any
possibility of duplication and confusion. It is also hoped there will be a number of joint
members on both URBAN and Obj 2 / 3 steering groups to ensure this happens effectively.
6.3.8 Innovative engagement
A number of proposals are in the early stages of consultation, an example of engaging
children is detailed below to demonstrate the Partners planning and approach:
Engaging young people and children in particular
A process to improve the quality of service provision to children and families and which, at
the same time, helps to implement the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child,
by enabling young peoples views to be taken into account in decisions that directly affect
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
Article 31 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child sets out every child's
right to participate fully in leisure, recreation, cultural life and the arts. The proposal is
intended to provide practical ways to underpin principles of the UN Convention, in particular
Article 12.1, which states:
"Every child who is capable of forming his or her own views has the right to express those
views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight
in accordance with the age and maturity of the child."
To encourage organisations, institutions and facilities to become even more young
By applying the rights set out in Article 31, to implement a successful involvement approach.
The best experts on young people-friendly provision are young people themselves. They
will be given the opportunity to be fully consulted and involved in the life of Urban area of
South Bristol and in improving its services and provision.
Young people undertake the work with the Urban II programme working with them as
citizens in their own right, without the constraints of an imposed agenda. The Urban II
projects and services need to ensure a positive action approach to include those in the local
community that for a variety of reasons may be excluded, that there is a balance of boys and
girls, that minority ethnic communities and young people with disabilities, for example, are
invited to participate in every team. The young peoples' teams are facilitated and undertake
training and preparation for the 'job', and produce a 'presentation report' at the end of every
1. Team building and learning about Article 31 and their 'job'.
2. Reflecting on previous experiences.
3. Identifying key issues and questions the young people want to find out about.
4. Investigating organisations, institutions, services and facilities.
5. Evaluating the organisations, institutions, services and facilities visited.
6. Identifying recommendations for the future.
7. Reporting directly to the UPG to help guide their decision-making.
Through this process the young people will be able to express their authentic perceptions of
facilities, services and programmes, from their own perspective.
1.3.9 Independent evaluation and feedback
An on-going independent evaluation of the infrastructure, implementation process and the
effectiveness of the Support and Development Network, communication and UPG in reaching
the people not usually reached.
6.3.10 Learning from others and applying the lessons
The Partnership recognises the importance of sharing experiences with other Urban and
similar initiatives in the UK and throughout the rest of EU, and learning from them. The
partnership intends to participate in setting up a UK wide Urban ll Network and engaging in
European working and exchange with the help of the South West Region European Office.
6.3.11 Minimising the risk of project failure
The infrastructure and the resulting inclusive approach intends to enable the UPG, their staff,
the Accountable Body and the PMC to manage more easily the programme delivery and to
intervene to support delivery organisations that are looking to fail to deliver on particular
targets. Reducing greatly the risk of failure of the programme and any individual programme
Appendix 1: Enumeration District Data
1998 Index of Local Deprivation - enumeration index (using 1991 Census data)
Analysed by Strategic and Citywide Policy, PTDS, Bristol City Council
For each of the five indcators which make up the overall index, the national average score is zero
Worst enumeration district score in 12.85 3.01 3.31 4.67 3.00 2.77
For each of the five indcators which make up the overall index, the national average score is zero
1998 Subward ED Pop Index index - index - index - Unemplo bristol Overcrow bristol Housing bristol Children bristol Househol bristol
Ward April 'Score' england sw rank bristol yment rank ded rank lacking rank in low rank ds with rank
2000 rank out of rank househol amenities earning no car
out of 10,685 out of ds househol (income
approx eds 814 eds ds proxy)
Bishops Highrid DDFE08 377 3.82 20,083 853 161 0.53 224 0.75 101 -0.83 676 1.51 116 1.03 209
Bishops Highrid DDFE10 410 3.13 24,532 1,231 201 -0.17 460 0.43 145 -0.82 660 1.37 144 1.33 134
Bishops Highrid DDFE11 572 0.43 53,965 4,671 512 0.15 301 -0.06 361 -0.85 715 0.27 310 -0.41 517
Bishops Withywo DDFE12 681 1.43 39,425 2,815 380 0.15 304 0.52 135 0.11 240 0.66 255 -0.50 537
Bishops Withywo DDFE13 588 4.17 17,976 716 145 1.03 144 1.61 8 -0.93 803 1.53 113 -0.57 548
Bishops Withywo DDFE14 613 4.47 16,266 615 127 1.34 99 0.30 173 -0.89 768 1.55 110 1.28 146
Bishops Withywo DDFE15 526 4.29 17,298 672 140 1.44 83 -0.07 368 -0.86 727 1.50 117 1.34 127
Bishops Withywo DDFE16 438 7.48 2,775 54 11 1.78 45 1.29 34 -0.82 654 2.33 9 2.08 22
Bishops Withywo DDFE17 721 4.65 15,284 558 119 0.77 185 1.04 59 0.57 177 1.52 114 0.74 271
Bishops Withywo DDFE18 641 4.32 17,137 664 136 1.44 81 1.24 38 -0.94 804 1.64 94 -0.73 588
Filwood Novers DDFN01 450 4.26 17,500 684 142 1.18 120 0.36 160 -0.76 556 1.59 106 1.12 189
Filwood Novers DDFN02 379 6.03 8,154 234 56 1.66 55 0.70 109 -0.78 578 2.09 27 1.58 81
Filwood Knowle DDFN03 618 4.77 14,591 518 112 0.83 178 1.25 37 0.00 278 1.77 79 0.92 233
Filwood Novers DDFN04 459 3.93 19,444 803 156 1.24 112 0.05 249 0.01 262 1.25 158 1.38 119
Filwood Knowle DDFN05 145 0.00 66,716 6,470 621 -0.71 648 -0.38 555 -0.47 409 -1.00 681 -0.65 568
Filwood Knowle DDFN06 844 4.96 13,573 458 101 1.18 122 1.16 47 -0.62 474 1.78 71 0.83 256
Filwood Knowle DDFN07 752 6.53 5,930 164 41 1.80 41 1.16 46 -0.95 807 2.22 18 1.34 126
Filwood Knowle DDFN08 604 4.23 17,642 695 143 1.05 142 0.93 75 -0.83 680 1.66 88 0.59 300
Filwood Knowle DDFN09 592 2.21 31,538 1,955 289 -0.01 385 0.41 151 -0.37 374 1.21 173 0.59 299
Filwood Inns DDFN10 579 5.09 12,875 419 94 1.32 102 0.67 114 -0.47 407 1.86 59 1.25 155
Filwood Filwood DDFN11 613 5.69 9,762 293 66 1.67 53 1.30 33 -0.92 798 1.95 44 0.77 266
Filwood Inns DDFN12 522 5.37 11,408 359 81 1.00 151 0.52 132 -0.85 714 1.81 66 2.04 27
Filwood Inns DDFN13 486 6.40 6,490 182 45 1.89 31 1.13 48 -0.83 672 1.58 108 1.79 49
Filwood Filwood DDFN14 220 5.96 8,441 248 59 1.63 58 1.11 52 -0.54 441 1.91 53 1.31 141
Filwood Filwood DDFN15 402 4.14 18,177 731 146 1.64 56 0.07 239 -0.62 472 1.25 159 1.18 172
Filwood Filwood DDFN16 514 5.98 8,335 244 58 1.57 68 1.40 27 -0.10 305 1.77 78 1.24 157
Filwood Filwood DDFN17 458 5.17 12,505 400 91 1.93 27 0.57 126 -0.53 431 1.76 81 0.91 237
Filwood Filwood DDFN18 718 7.33 3,177 66 15 2.19 9 1.44 21 -0.56 446 2.24 16 1.46 105
Filwood Filwood DDFN19 532 6.41 6,454 177 44 1.82 38 1.44 22 -0.87 748 1.65 90 1.50 95
Filwood Inns DDFN20 686 5.30 11,808 372 86 1.78 44 0.98 69 -0.65 492 0.90 214 1.63 70
Hartcli Headley DDFQ04 544 0.00 66,716 6,470 621 -1.07 767 -0.65 723 -0.91 792 -1.29 773 -1.64 771
Hartcli Withywo DDFQ08 674 5.04 13,163 433 98 1.38 93 0.25 190 -0.89 762 1.98 40 1.43 109
Hartcli Withywo DDFQ09 253 5.65 9,968 300 68 1.60 64 0.49 138 -0.87 741 1.99 38 1.57 84
Hartcli Withywo DDFQ10 479 2.13 32,123 2,015 298 0.85 175 -0.38 550 -0.79 606 -0.08 414 1.28 145
Hartcli Withywo DDFQ11 391 1.85 34,628 2,280 327 0.49 235 -0.15 429 -0.80 619 0.38 293 0.99 218
Hartcli Fulford DDFQ12 969 3.54 21,869 999 171 1.09 133 0.71 108 -0.89 771 1.62 100 0.12 378
Hartcli Withywo DDFQ13 560 3.13 24,558 1,236 203 0.98 154 -0.38 549 -0.81 632 1.30 153 0.85 251
Hartcli Withywo DDFQ14 516 5.61 10,165 307 70 0.51 229 1.43 23 -0.84 698 2.06 30 1.61 76
Hartcli Withywo DDFQ15 4 7.20 3,575 80 18 1.81 40 1.49 15 -0.53 433 2.16 21 1.73 54
Hartcli Withywo DDFQ16 467 1.55 37,887 2,637 360 -0.08 428 -0.56 669 -0.81 635 1.41 134 0.14 375
Hartcli Withywo DDFQ17 598 0.79 48,244 3,903 473 0.12 309 -0.07 372 -0.87 736 0.66 253 -0.33 500
Hartcli Fulford DDFQ18 510 4.10 18,424 748 148 1.01 146 0.04 251 -0.83 669 2.02 32 1.03 212
Hartcli Fulford DDFQ19 491 6.83 4,785 121 30 1.88 33 1.01 66 -0.35 367 2.31 12 1.63 72
Hartcli Fulford DDFQ20 496 3.50 22,147 1,027 174 1.18 119 -0.35 526 -0.30 353 1.42 133 0.90 239
Hartcli Fulford DDFQ21 520 2.64 28,029 1,571 240 1.06 140 0.38 157 -0.88 753 0.92 211 0.29 350
Hengrov Hengrov DDFS02 742 0.00 66,716 6,470 621 -1.15 784 -0.32 503 -0.90 784 -1.28 769 -1.77 792
e e Park
Knowle Knowle DDFY05 423 3.23 23,872 1,179 196 0.38 255 0.28 178 -0.47 411 1.10 187 1.47 100
Knowle Knowle DDFY07 723 4.80 14,412 507 111 1.04 143 1.02 64 -0.87 746 1.65 91 1.10 194
Knowle Knowle DDFY08 546 4.81 14,368 504 109 0.94 163 0.97 71 -0.85 711 1.90 54 1.00 216
Knowle Knowle DDFY14 762 7.99 1,677 41 7 2.39 2 1.40 28 -0.64 487 2.51 2 1.70 58
Knowle Knowle DDFY15 656 8.90 554 9 1 2.26 5 2.10 1 -0.91 789 2.48 4 2.07 23
Knowle Knowle DDFY17 588 6.87 4,630 116 28 2.16 11 1.42 25 -0.95 808 1.80 67 1.49 98
Knowle Knowle DDFY18 780 6.99 4,239 102 24 1.76 46 1.71 6 -0.95 810 2.10 24 1.41 111
Whitchu Hartcli DDGK01 629 6.35 6,723 190 46 1.88 32 0.79 96 -0.85 716 2.36 6 1.31 139
Whitchu Hartcli DDGK02 585 5.13 12,693 407 92 1.35 97 0.76 100 -0.86 722 1.99 37 1.03 205
Whitchu Hartcli DDGK03 487 7.15 3,715 86 21 1.79 42 1.13 51 0.31 208 1.93 48 1.99 33
Whitchu Hartcli DDGK04 435 7.41 2,957 63 14 1.73 50 1.11 54 -0.81 633 2.51 1 2.05 25
Whitchu Hartcli DDGK05 550 6.80 4,883 125 32 1.75 48 1.27 36 -0.86 728 2.16 22 1.63 73
Whitchu Hartcli DDGK06 328 5.17 12,456 397 89 1.63 59 -0.01 320 -0.46 403 1.74 84 1.80 47
Whitchu Hartcli DDGK07 506 5.31 11,755 368 84 1.18 124 0.55 129 -0.17 315 1.80 68 1.78 51
Whitchu Hartcli DDGK08 686 7.12 3,815 89 22 2.03 18 1.53 12 -0.92 799 2.35 7 1.20 167
Whitchu Hartcli DDGK09 517 5.84 9,020 267 64 1.59 65 0.94 73 -0.88 749 1.79 69 1.52 90
Whitchu Hartcli DDGK10 454 5.44 11,051 343 79 1.57 70 0.33 166 -0.08 303 1.96 42 1.58 82
Whitchu Hartcli DDGK11 637 2.79 26,958 1,473 231 0.43 244 0.58 124 -0.88 754 1.32 150 0.45 322
Whitchu Hartcli DDGK12 406 7.29 3,299 71 16 1.99 21 1.16 45 -0.59 457 2.07 29 2.06 24
Whitchu Hartcli DDGK13 307 7.18 3,622 82 19 1.85 35 1.34 30 -0.77 571 2.25 15 1.75 52
Whitchu Hartcli DDGK14 643 0.65 50,377 4,181 487 0.59 214 -0.10 397 -0.91 791 0.06 343 -1.00 647
Whitchu Hartcli DDGK15 474 2.08 32,596 2,062 306 0.55 221 -0.18 443 -0.20 321 1.13 180 0.39 332
Windmill Malago DDGL22 565 5.23 12,155 385 87 1.29 106 0.72 103.00 -0.27 348.00 1.85 63.00 1.37 121
Appendix 2: Key Statistics Table
Data Bulletin for URBAN II BID AREA
URBAN Bid 2000- Bristol GB
Area (hectares) n/a 10,959 22,835,587
Estimated resident population 2000: 37,041 - -
1991 Census data no. % % %
Residents by age:
Total 38,481 100.0 100.0 100.0
0 to 15 9,918 25.8 19.4 20.1
16 to 24 5,152 13.4 13.1 12.7
25 to pensionable age 17,451 45.3 47.9 48.5
Pensioners 5,928 15.4 19.6 18.7
Residents with long-term illness:
All ages 5,559 14.4 13.1 13.1
Under pensionable age (as a % of residents under pens age) 3,041 9.4 6.9 7.1
Ethnic group of residents:
White 37,823 98.3 94.9 94.5
Black: African, Caribbean and other 359 0.9 2.4 1.6
Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi 111 0.3 1.6 2.7
Chinese and other 190 0.5 1.2 1.2
Economically active persons aged 16+:
Total economically active 16,779 100.0 100.0 100.0
Full time employees 9,244 55.1 61.8 61.8
Part time employees 3,086 18.4 16.7 16.1
Self employed 1,110 6.6 9.8 11.5
On a Government scheme 288 1.7 1.3 1.3
Unemployed 3,051 18.2 10.3 9.3
Economically inactive aged 16+ (as % of residents 16+):
Total 11,686 41.0 38.3 39.0
Students 516 1.8 3.7 3.8
Permanently sick 1,610 5.6 3.5 4.1
Retired 4,651 16.3 19.5 19.0
Other inactive 4,909 17.2 11.5 12.1
Residents with higher education qualifications:
Qualified males 18+ 150 1.2 17.3 15.5
Qualified females 18+ 250 1.8 14.0 11.6
Total households 14,244 100.0 100.0 100.0
Owned outright or buying 5,347 37.5 63.6 66.0
Rented privately or with a job 333 2.3 10.5 9.0
Rented from housing association 433 3.0 3.7 3.1
Rented from local authority 8,130 57.1 22.1 21.4
Non-permanent (no tenure data) 1 0.0 0.1 0.4
Amenities and car availability:
Lacking exclusive use bath & wc 37 0.3 1.7 1.3
No central heating 4,703 33.0 19.9 18.9
One or more persons per room 633 4.4 2.0 2.2
No car available 6,358 44.6 34.2 33.4
2 or more cars available 1,894 13.3 20.3 23.1
Total number of cars per 1,000 residents 10,137 263 373 374
Average household size 2.69 2.36 2.47
1 adult pensionable age with no dependent children 1,798 12.6 15.6 15.1
1 adult under pensionable age with no dependent children 1,214 8.5 14.7 11.7
1 adult any age with 1 or more dependent children 1,334 9.4 4.6 4.2
2 adults with no dependent children 4,104 28.8 31.9 31.7
2 adults with one or more dependent children 3,024 21.2 17.5 20.3
3 or more adults with no dependent children 1,881 13.2 11.1 11.5
3 or more adults with 1 or more dependent children 884 6.2 4.6 5.5
Lone 'parent' households with child(ren) aged 0-15
As % of total households with dependent children 1,246 23.7 15.8 12.6
Households with dependent children as % total households 5,247 36.8 26.7 30.0
Household space type:
Total household spaces 14,673 100.0 100.0 100.0
Detached house 233 1.6 5.1 19.9
Semi-detached house 5,188 35.4 25.8 28.8
Terraced house 5,505 37.5 40.3 28.8
Purpose built self-contained flat 3,617 24.7 16.5 17.0
Converted self-contained flat 133 0.9 9.4 3.9
Non self-contained accommodation 5 0.0 2.9 1.1
Socio-economic group of persons economically active:
Total economically active (10% sample) 16,790 100.0 100.0 100.0
Professional (SEG 3,4) 120 0.7 5.8 4.5
Employers and managers (SEG 1,2,13) 920 5.5 12.2 14.7
Intermediate and junior non manual (SEG 5,6) 3,740 22.3 36.2 32.6
Skilled manual (SEG 8,9,12,14) 4,660 27.8 20.3 21.2
Semi skilled manual (SEG 7,10,15) 3,660 21.8 14.7 15.8
Unskilled manual (SEG 11) 1,950 11.6 5.7 5.5
Industry (employees and self employed aged 16+):
Agriculture, forestry and fishing 160 1.2 0.3 1.9
Energy and water 240 1.8 1.4 1.9
Manufacturing: mining, metal and other 2,320 17.5 16.7 20.6
Construction 1,490 11.3 7.3 7.4
Transport, distribution and catering 4,600 34.8 27.7 26.9
Other services 4,270 32.3 45.6 40.4
Means of travel to work (employees & self employed):
Rail or bus 3,010 22.8 14.7 15.6
Car driver/passenger 7,620 57.6 58.6 60.8
Motor cycle 350 2.6 2.8 1.5
Pedal cycle 240 1.8 3.3 3.0
On foot 1,510 11.4 14.7 11.8
Working at home 140 1.1 3.7 5.0
Appendix 3: Integrated Ex Ante Assessment including Compliance Table
1 INTEGRATED EX-ANTE EVALUATION
An independent, arms length assessment of the URBAN II Programme has been
carried out in accordance with the European Commission Guidance on the
Programmes, termed the ex-ante evaluation. This has entailed a dialogue between
the partnership responsible for Plan Development and the ex-ante assessors with
drafts of the plan being made available to the ex-ante appraisers for comment as they
have been produced by the Plan Team.
The ex-ante has been carried out in line with the URBAN II Community Initiative
Vademecum which states that:
“The Regulation provides for ex-ante evaluation to be carried out under the
responsibility of the authorities responsible for preparing the draft CIP and
Programme Complement. Equally, the Regulation defines the aim of the ex-ante
evaluation as providing a basis for preparing and assessing the above-mentioned
documents of which it shall form part.”
The regulations make provision for the integrated ex-ante to form part of the final document,
describing both the principle comments and assessments of the ex-ante evaluators and the
response to those comments by the partnership during the Plan development process. This
Chapter therefore describes that process and is structured as follows:
! The initial assessment
! First draft submitted
! Response to the first draft
! Second draft submitted
! Response to the second draft
! Final Draft
! Response to the Final Draft
! The Ex-Ante Final Evaluation Report
The purpose of this Chapter is to present a summary of these elements. The full Ex-Ante
evaluation is available as a separate, stand-alone document. In particular, the full ex-ante
report entails a far more detailed exposition of the assessors’ initial assessment of the strengths
and weaknesses of the URBAN II area, and presents the assessors’ initial baseline review.
The Table overleaf presents a summary of the Vademecum for URBAN II, and details how the
Partnership and ex-ante assessors have responded to the requirements of the checklist.
COMPLIANCE WITH URBAN II VADEMECUM
Quantified description of the current situation with Presented in Chapter 2. Initial draft weak on trends
regard to disparities in terms of income and and some baseline data. Subsequently improved.
employment, infrastructure gaps etc. and potential for Presents SWOT based on the analysis.
economic and social regeneration;
A description of an appropriate strategy and the Strategy and priorities presented in Chapter 3 and
priorities selected to attain the objectives concerned, measures in Chapter 4. Re-organised in this more
including appropriate indicators and targets, and a logical fashion following ex-ante comments.
description of the measures; Programme objectives reduced from 10 to 5. Focus of
Measures tightened, with long lists of eligible actions
reduced and better described indicative action
Account taken of the content of the Communication Communication taken into consideration, including
from the Commission concerning the URBAN II emphasis on CI on exchange of good practice and on a
guidelines; CI with an innovative strategy with a distinct theme (in
this case young people).
An integrated ex-ante evaluation, including an ex- Integrated ex-ante incorporated in this Annex. Full
ante evaluation of the local labour market situation, ex-ante, including findings from the initial assessment,
an assessment of the urban environmental situation, produced in a stand-alone document.
as well as an assessment of the position concerning
equal opportunities between men and women;
Consistency demonstrated with other Community Addressed in various places in the document, e.g.
policies (environment, competition, public Environmental impact assessment summary included
procurement, etc.); in main body text, compliance with State Aids and
other EU guidance as an Annex.
An indicative financial table (see table 1) with the Financial table and rationale for financial allocation
financial contribution from the European Regional included in Chapter 5. Rationale for allocations
Development Fund (ERDF), the European Investment strengthened, and TA budget increased, as a result of
Bank (EIB) and the other financial instruments; ex-ante comments.
A description of the management and control This is incorporated as Chapter 6 of the CIP, and
arrangements that have been set up for the through text on the implementing provisions.
implementation of the CIP;
An account of the steps taken to consult the partners Partnership consultees and participants given in
and the arrangements and provisions for their Chapter 6, along with a description of process of
involvement in the Monitoring Committee; engaging people in Plan development e.g. events. The
extent to which work with the community is building
on existing consultation was emphasised following ex-
An outline of the arrangements for monitoring and Included as part of Chapter 4. The importance of the
evaluation; baseline study at the start of the Programme to add
detail and fill information gaps further emphasised
following ex-ante assessment.
Publicity actions for the CIP. Incorporated in Chapter 4, with arrangements
including the appointment of a publicity officer.
1.2 The Initial Assessment
At the outset of the process, before the production of the first drafts of the URBAN II CIP, an
initial review of the Programme area was undertaken in order to assist in the early Plan
development and to provide an independent check on the early orientation of the Plan. The
assessment confirmed that the approach to the URBAN II CIP was valid, in particular the high
numbers and poor performance of the young people in the area.
The initial assessment was based on an imprecise URBAN II area, with the boundaries not
finalised at that stage. The review therefore initially concentrated on the wards of Hartcliffe,
Whitchurch Park and Filwood.
The early assessment also involved a desk-based review of the previous regeneration activity
in the area, and in other parts of Bristol. This quick review of documentation also confirmed
to the ex-ante assessors that the initial orientation of the Plan was broadly sound.
The initial assessment is summarised as follows.
• More young people aged 16-24 • High numbers of young unemployed claimants
• More lone parents • Slower than average falls in unemployed
• Employment decline in the 1990’s and over the • 3 in 10 businesses in distribution, hotels and
longer term at a time of city growth catering
• High level of public services employment • Vast majority are small businesses
• Low levels of private sector employment • Largest employers are public ‘businesses’
Deprivation Education, Skills and Training
• High levels of multiple deprivation based on • Poor educational attainment at Key Stage 2
IMD 2000 and 1998 ILD • Low levels of participation in FE/HE
• Low qualifications in adults
• Two large sites awaiting development • High mortality rates
• Poor quality open space • Low birth weight
Community, Social and Leisure
• High crime
• High rates of teenage pregnancy
1.3 The First Draft (5th October)
The first draft of the CIP set out the socio-economic context, contained text on lessons from
previous regeneration activity, a summary of complementary initiatives operating in the area,
an initial SWOT and a strategy outline. The first draft built upon the expression of interest,
and a process of consultation prior to the first SWOT. The consultative process involved
discussions around a number of broad themes. Although not integrated into the first draft
document, initial Priorities and measures were also detailed.
1.4 Response to the First Draft
The ex-ante evaluators responded with a brief 3-page paper outlining their initial thoughts.
These thoughts centred around a desire to see greater baseline data incorporated into the socio-
economic review, including ‘best estimates’ if required by data availability, including those
relating to key employment and resident-related data.
The ex-ante evaluators also sought greater clarity from the sections on ‘what has already
happened’ and ‘lessons from previous programmes’, in particular to focus on lessons which
could be incorporated from the first URBAN CI, such as practical points to achieve effective
With regards to the SWOT, the assessment wished to see increased emphasis on the strengths,
whilst noting the difficulty of achieving this, but also wished to see a greater cross referencing
of the SWOT with the earlier socio-economic review. The strategy was considered to be well-
presented with a logical rationale. However, there was a degree of dislocation between the
strategies and the Priorities (essentially through presentation), and a lack of clarity over the
measure demarcations within the three Priorities.
The evaluation also highlighted the need for more explicit description of the consultation
process, more details on delivery agents such as NET-WORK South Bristol and greater detail
on monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. The ex-ante assessors also pointed out the need to
ensure the CIP was compliant with Commission requirements in aspects such as State Aids and
was explicit about the complementarity with other European supported programmes notably
Objectives 2 and 3.
1.5 Second Draft (18th October)
The second draft of the CIP incorporated a number of the improvements suggested by the first
set of comments. More baseline data was contained in the socio-economic review, in
particular in relation to the residents, employment and strategic sites. The second draft also
contained greater clarity in the lessons learnt and what has already happened sections, and the
review of the policy context was appropriately moved in order to follow these sections.
The second draft also appropriately re-ordered the strategy so that the Programme outline
Priorities logically followed the strategy rationale.
The draft was more comprehensive, and the Priority and Measure chapters contained
considerably more detail. Each Priority contained initial indicators and indicative targets,
although there was little quantification at this stage. The measures were more refined, with a
series of indicative actions listed for each measure.
The second draft detailed financial allocations, both between Priorities and within them
between the measures. The Plan also incorporated references to other areas required by the
Commission, such as publicity.
1.6 Response to the Second Draft
Although the second draft represented a considerable improvement upon the previous draft in
a short period of time, the ex-ante evaluators undertook a far more rigorous investigation of the
draft paying particular reference to receivability issues. The assessment quoted parts of the
Vademecum as part of the critique.
The ex-ante assessment recognised the considerable volume of work undertaken in moving to
this stage, but focused on areas where further improvement could be made. In particular, the
assessment sought greater emphasis on trend analysis in the socio-economic review, especially
those related to employment and unemployment. Indeed, the assessment sought greater use of
labour market information in the context of the policy influences of the National Action Plan
for Employment and the South West Regional Development Strategy.
The ex-ante assessment paid heed to the data contained in respect to the environment whilst
recognising the fundamental differences between a small geographically targeted Programme
such as URBAN and larger spatial ones such as Objectives 1 and 2. Nonetheless the
assessment wished to see an identification of the impact of URBAN activity in relation to the
environment, however minimal.
Similarly with regards to Equal Opportunities, the ex-ante wished to see greater baseline
information presented to support the text contained in the document. On the whole, the
treatment of Equal Opportunities at this stage was regarded as under-developed.
For lessons from previous regeneration activity, the assessors wished to see summary points on
those projects which had worked well, or not so well, from previous Programmes, especially
Under strategy, Priorities and measures, the assessors wished to see a rationalisation of the
number of objectives, suggesting 10 be collapsed to 4. Under the Priority, ‘Our Work’, the
assessors wished to see more focus in the indicative actions, in particular in attempting to tease
out the differences between URBAN and Objective 3 activity.
A similar desire to see a tightening of definitions among the indicative actions was contained
under Priority 2 ‘Our Place’, in particular the uncertainty as to whether property related
projects are included. Under Priority 3 ‘Our Future’, the assessors wished to see a broadening
of the capacity building element in its widest sense to broaden skills in young people,
restricting young peoples involvement in the running of the CI to the Technical Assistance
In this draft, the assessors highlighted the general lack of quantified targets, and the unclear
definition of a number of the indicators. The assessors also wished to see an explanation of the
rationale for the financial allocations. At 2%, the Technical Assistance allocation was
considered to be too small.
Finally, the assessors wished to see a number of areas noted more explicitly, such as the
commitment to a baseline study early in the process, as well as drawing out some of the
sections implied by the text, such as compliance with EU guidance.
1.7 The Final Draft (2nd November)
The third draft of the document provided to the ex-ante evaluators contained a number of
further improvements, with many of the amendments directly addressing the issues raised in
the review of the previous draft.
In particular, the Final Draft incorporated amendments to Chapter 2 - The Description of the
Current Situation – to more fully capture labour market and unemployment trends, a point
raised in the previous review. The Chapter also strengthened the links between the South West
Objective 2 and 3 Programmes, again in response to earlier comments. Chapter 2 of the Final
Draft also made a far better attempt to quantify the scale of activity undertaken in the various
initiatives described in the review of the policy context.
In relation to the environment, the Final Draft presents a useful summary of data relating to air
and water quality, and of the recycling of derelict land. The Draft also contained an
Environmental Impact Assessment in response to comments made previously by the ex ante
assessors. Similarly, the previous review recommended that an Equal Opportunities Impact
Assessment was produced, and an early version of this appeared in the Final Draft.
The Draft also made an attempt to draw out the key features from the plethora of previous
regeneration activity noted and to strengthen the SWOT analysis. In relation to the SWOT, the
CIP identified each of the elements under the three Priorities Our Work, Our Place and Our
Future, as well as strengthening the links between the SWOT and the analysis.
The Final Draft reduced the number of objectives from 10 to 5, better capturing the “essence”
of the Programme without detracting from the approach. The focus of the Priorities and
measures was further enhanced by shortening the length of the eligible activities, and by
presenting a fuller description of the activities proposed.
The Final Draft included a number of quantified indicators, responding to the comments on the
previous Draft. The more robust indicators were included for Priority 1 Our Work, relating to
training and guidance support. The quantification was provided for outputs, results and
impacts, but not in a discrete hierarchy.
There was also a strengthening of the rationale of the financial allocations, and an increased
allocation to Technical Assistance, in response to the comments made previously and to more
accurately reflect the costs involved in engaging young people in the running of the
1.8 Response to the Final Draft
The Final Draft represented a document that was close to being complete, although further
“fine tuning” and some additional clarification was recommended by the ex ante assessors.
The comments related to the desire to see more quantified gender baselines and a summary
table, and to see more quantified targets in relation to Priority 2 and 3 in particular. The ex
ante assessors felt that the lack of quantified baselines in these Priorities prevented greater
quantification. The Assessors recognised that a number of baselines were not available for the
Programme Area, but even where this is the case, the assessors emphasised that the
Programme Complement would still be required to present baselines or to develop proxy
indicators e.g. for crimes committed.
The ex ante assessors also wished to see a single Measure objective in order to encapsulate the
intended aim and actions for each. The document contained detailed and clearly justified
measures and so it was considered that this would be further enhanced by a single and
measurable objective for each measure (further, this was a recommendation in the
Finally, the Assessors wished to see sources of co-financing detailed to provide support for the
financial allocation rationale presented, and to see a clear statement of how the CIP had
addressed all the EU guidance points, preferably in tabular form.
1.9 Assessors Report
The process described above forms the integrated ex-ante, and is essentially a short summary
‘telling the story’ of the dialogue between the Plan Developers and the ex-ante assessors. The
full ex-ante, including the more detailed initial assessment, is contained in the full ex-ante
evaluation, available under separate cover.
1.10 Concluding Remark
The process of ex-ante assessment has worked well in the production of the CIP. The
Assessment has strengthened the document, and the Partnership has responded to the ex-ante
assessment positively, addressing each of the points raised in turn.
Appendix 4: DLTR Implementing Provisions
In accordance with the requirements of paragraph 18 of the Communication from the
Commission to the Member States of 28 April 2000 laying down Guidelines for the
URBAN II Community Initiative, this chapter sets out the implementation provisions
for the South Bristol URBAN II Community Initiative Programme.
These have been developed taking into account the requirements of the Guidelines
referred to above, those of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 and of those of the
enabling Commission regulations on the Euro (643/2000), information and publicity
(1159/2000), eligibility of expenditure (1685/2000), management and control systems
(438/2001) and financial corrections (448/2001)7.
These programmes will be subject to any further regulations adopted under Article
1.1.2 The Programme Complement
Within three months of the Commission decision approving this Community Initiative
Programme, the UK government will send the programme complement to the
Commission as a single document.
As defined in Art. 9(m), the programme complement is the document implementing
the programme strategy and priorities and containing detailed elements at measure
level. It is drawn up by the Managing Authority (as defined in Section 2.2.) after the
agreement of the Monitoring Committee (as defined in Section 3.2.) and contains the
information requested by Art. 18.3. These are the following:
– Measures implementing the corresponding priorities;
− Ex-ante evaluation, in accordance with Art 41.3, of quantified measures where
they lend themselves to quantification in order to demonstrate consistency with the
aims of the corresponding priorities, quantifying their specific targets where the
priorities lend themselves thereto and subsequently verifying the relevance of the
selection criteria, which have to be approved within six months of the
− Relevant monitoring indicators in accordance with Article 36.
− Definition of the types of final beneficiary of measures;
All articles quoted in the text are those of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/99 of 21 June 1999,
except where otherwise stated. In terms of legal basis, this text does not substitute the above regulation..
− The financing plan at measure level. The financing plan will be accompanied by a
description of the arrangements for providing the co-financing for measures taking
account of the UK institutional, legal and financial systems;
− Measures intended to publicise the CIP and in particular the communication plan
required by the enabling Commission Regulation on information and publicity;
− Description of arrangements agreed between the Commission and the UK for the
computerised exchange, where possible, of the data required to fulfil the
management, monitoring and evaluation requirements of the regulation.
The programme complement is sent to the Commission for information.
The presentation to the Commission of the programme complement containing the
required information is one of the conditions subject to which interim payments will
be made by the Commission.
This section deals with the arrangements for managing the CIP and details the role of
the different institutional and financial partners of the managing authority involved in
the management and implementation of the CIP.
1.2.2 Managing authority
The Managing Authority in accordance with Article 34 is responsible for the
efficiency and correctness of management and implementation.
The Managing Authority for the South Bristol URBAN II programme will be the
Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions. The address is Eland
House, Bressenden Place, London SW1E 5DU. The Department takes the general
policy lead in the co-ordination of the English Objective 1 and 2 Structural Fund
programmes and, in particular, in European Regional Development Fund matters.
The Managing Authority will delegate the day-to-day administration of the South
Bristol URBAN II programme to the Government Office for South West (Address:
4th Floor, The Pithay, Bristol, BS1 2PB ) under Article 34.
1.2.3 Paying authority
According to Art. 9(o), the Paying Authority is responsible for drawing up and
submitting certified payment applications and receiving payments from the
For the South Bristol URBAN II programme, the Paying Authority will be the
Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions.
1.2.4 Delegation of powers
The Paying Authority for ERDF will delegate these functions to the Government
Office for South West.
1.2.5 Management of the programme
The involvement of the partnership in the definition of the programme will extend to
The Managing Authority shall be assisted by a Secretariat. The Secretariat for the
programme will be provided by Government Office for South West and will be
resourced by civil servants and may include secondees from the partnership. The
Secretariat will be located in The Pithay, Bristol, BS1 2PB.
188.8.131.52 Tasks and responsibilities of the Secretariat
The detail of its tasks and responsibilities for the day to day administration of the
programme will be agreed at the first programme Monitoring Committee meeting.
However, key secretarial responsibilities will include:
• Assisting the Managing Authority in ensuring the efficient and correct management
and implementation of the programme;
• Drawing up a work programme to present to the first meeting of the programme
Monitoring Committee for consideration;
• Advising on the regulations and on drawing up applications;
• Drafting guidance on implementation;
• Receiving applications, other than any which go through an action plan approach;
• Assessing applications, other than any which are the responsibility of an action plan
• Contributing towards publicity material;
• Drawing up framework and co-ordinating work on drafting annual reports;
• Gathering financial and monitoring information.
And in support of the Programme Monitoring Committee:
• Preparing and circulating invitations, agendas and papers;
• Drafting the minutes of meetings.
184.108.40.206 Management Arrangements
The Government Office, on behalf of the Managing Authority, will seek the advice of
the Programme Monitoring Committee on what sort of management arrangements
should be used to assist the Managing Authority in managing and implementing the
programme. The Government Office will also consult the Programme Monitoring
Committee on changes to those arrangements which become necessary during the
course of the programme. The role of the Programme Monitoring Committee is set
out in Section 11.3.2
It is the Government Office, on behalf of the Managing Authority, which will agree
the management arrangements for the programme taking into account the advice of
the Programme Monitoring Committee. The Government Office will ensure that such
arrangements are recorded. The Government Office (acting on behalf of the Managing
Authority) remains responsible at all times for the management of the programme.
In managing the programmes, the Managing Authority, in consultation with the
Programme Monitoring Committee, will seek inter alia to ensure the following,
putting in place monitoring, and adapting arrangements as necessary to achieve:
• The effective delivery of priorities and measures, and their outputs and targets
• Encouragement to and support for the development of projects, particularly
amongst those who have little experience of obtaining assistance from the
Structural Funds. Capacity building where necessary
• The effective implementation of cross-cutting themes
• Conversion of the strategic focus into good quality projects
• Effective, fair and timely appraisal of project proposals
• The effective dissemination of good practice.
Details of the management arrangements in place at any one time will be held by the
programme secretariat and be available on request.
In respect of management arrangements, the Programme Monitoring Committee
(whose composition and duties are detailed in section 3.2.1) also:
• advises the Government Office on whether any part of the programme should be
delivered through Action Plans (see below);
• advises the Government Office on whether there is any need for any working
groups (see below).
To encourage the full participation of partnerships in the decision making process for
the programme, the Managing Authority, in consultation with the Programme
Monitoring Committee will set up project working groups to consider and appraise
projects (except those falling within the delegation to Accountable Bodies). The
approval of projects by the Government Office shall take full account of the
recommendations of the working group. Offer letters will be sent out by the
Government Office on behalf of the Managing Authority (with the exception of
The Managing Authority, in consultation with the Programme Monitoring Committee
may decide to establish other working groups. The membership and remit of these
groups will be proposed by the Programme Monitoring Committee. They report
through the Programme Monitoring Committee to the Government Office. They may
operate on a limited or long term basis.
Working groups may for example be set up on the basis of priority, measure, theme,
geographical area, particular expertise or cross cutting issues (such as publicity or
evaluation). The membership of the groups will depend on the remit of the working
group. Working groups may also report to the Programme Monitoring Committee on
matters such as best practice and progress. They may carry out other functions agreed
by the Programme Monitoring Committee and by the Government Office
Two forms of delivery mechanisms are envisaged: 1) project selection organised
through competitive bidding rounds and 2) Action Plans. If any further delivery
mechanisms are considered necessary, the PMC will advise the Government Office,
which on behalf of the Managing Authority will take the decision.
220.127.116.11.2 Project selection
The programme will be implemented through the support of operations as defined in
Art 9(m). Partners proposing to submit projects for appraisal will be encouraged,
where appropriate, to group these as a coherent and integrated response to an
identified need or opportunity as defined in the Community Initiative Programme.
Normally, individual applications for support from the programme, will be sent to the
Secretariat in response to the publication of a call for applications on either a priority,
thematic or rolling basis. Applicants submit their applications to the Government
Office by the announced date, detailing the project proposed and its contribution to the
The Secretariat on behalf of the Managing Authority, appraises the application against
project selection criteria agreed by the Programme Monitoring Committee. Those
which meet an agreed standard, are then referred to a selection working group for
qualitative analysis. Where any member of the group has an interest in the project
being assessed, this must be declared and they will normally take no further part in the
proceedings that relate to that project. If they do so, this fact should be recorded, along
with the outcome of the decision reached on that project.
The Working Group then gives its opinion on which of the projects presented to it
should receive support.
The Government Office, on behalf of the Managing Authority, issues grant offer
letters accordingly. This should specify the outputs and financial performance
expected of the project.
Project applicants must keep full records of their activities, expenditure and outputs in
a form agreed with the Government Office, to provide the audit trails required under
Regulation 438:2001. They must also report the progress of their projects when
presenting grant claims to the Government Office.
The Government Office must monitor the progress of projects regularly and record on
a computer system, financial and statistical information on the projects and carry out
physical checks on project expenditure as well as on progress towards the
achievement of targets as agreed in the offer letter.
The arrangements are illustrated in the following flow chart.
GOVERNMENT OFFICE WORKING
(Programme Secretariat) GROUPS
on behalf of Managing Authority COMMITTEE
Call for applications on
and or Rolling basis
Prepare project applications Receives and Appraises projects
Refers outcome to
selection working group (s) Gives
Issues Offer letters
Reports outcome to PMC
18.104.22.168.3 Action Plans
There is an option to implement the whole or part of the programme through ‘Action Plans’.
Action Plans are drawn up by partnerships who will be representative of all those with a key
interest in the proposed activities to be carried out in the Action Plan. They will reflect the
content of the Action Plan proposal and the characteristics of the area or socio-economic
group at which it is aimed. The Managing Authority will ensure that the partnerships are
genuine, with the active involvement of the relevant players and interests for the duration of
the Action Plan.
Action Plans will bring together a number of related projects so as to maximise co-ordination
between structural funds and domestic regeneration and economic development. They may
target small geographical areas to provide focussed support for areas in need or to cover
larger geographical areas; or to target specific themes such as business support or tourism.
They can combine both geographical and thematic objectives.
Responsibility for delivering an Action Plan will be delegated to an ‘Accountable
Body’ nominated by the partnership and agreed by the Managing Authority. The
Accountable Body is responsible to the managing authority for meeting all the
obligations which arise from the conditions laid in the approval of the Action Plan.
This is without prejudice to the final responsibility of the managing authority. Where
Action Plans are to be used to help deliver the programme the following minimum
provisions will apply:
• In deciding whether priorities can be implemented in whole or in part through an Action Plan
and in considering individual applications for Action Plans the managing authority will take
into account the nature of the priorities concerned. An Action Plan may contribute to the
implementation of one or more priorities The Managing Authority will ensure that the Action
Plans conform to the overall strategy, including the geographic and thematic targeting of the
• The managing authority will establish a financial limit (a maximum amount of structural
funds grant applied for) above which it will have responsibility for project appraisal and
approval. Responsibility for the appraisal and approval of projects below this ‘delegation
limit’ will be delegated to the Action Plan Accountable Body.
• In approving the appointment of an Accountable Body the managing authority must ensure
that the Accountable Body is solvent and has proven competence and experience in
administration and financial management and capacity to fulfil the tasks and in
particular has effective systems of management in place to appraise and approve
projects (below their agreed delegation limit) and to monitor their subsequent
• The managing authority will also ensure that the Accountable Body has sound financial
systems in place which provide for the proper disbursement of structural funds and
compliance with all relevant regulations and conditions. In particular it will be for the
managing authority to ensure the Accountable Body can maintain a sufficient audit trail in
line with Annex I of Regulation 438/2001 and can provide for a proper separation of the
functions of grant claims checking, authorisation and payment.
• Where the final beneficiary is also the Accountable Body under the action plan, there must be
a functional separation between those responsible for the project implementation and those
responsible for fulfilling the tasks and obligations delegated under the Action Plan.
• In approving an application for an Action Plan the managing authority must set out clearly all
the tasks and responsibilities of the Accountable Body and specify all the targets to be
achieved by the Action Plan. The approval process must include a formal, legally binding
declaration of acceptance of these terms by the Accountable Body.
To safeguard against conflicts of interest in handling project appraisal and approval the
Accountable Body must show that it has formal written procedures for projects below the
delegation limit which include the following:
- Project appraisal is carried out by a panel made up of representatives of the Action
- As a general rule, members of the appraising panel must be independent of and have
no interest in the project being appraised.
- Arrangements to ensure that those who develop a project or will be responsible for its
implementation should not normally be involved in its appraisal.
- The approval of projects will be carried out by the appraisal panel using criteria
determined by the PMC and a project appraisal checklist.
- Clear instructions that in the event members of the appraisal panel do find that they
have an interest in a project that they declare that interest and normally take no
further part in the proceedings that relate to that project. If they do, this fact should
be recorded, along with the outcome of the decision reached on the project.
- Three groups are responsible for monitoring the progress of Action Plans; project
applicants; the Action Plan Accountable Body and the managing Authority. The
following safeguards must be in place to ensure Action Plan monitoring is
• Must keep full records of their activities, expenditure and outputs in a form agreed with
the Action Plan Accountable Body;
• Must report the progress of their projects to the Accountable Body accurately and on
Action Plan Accountable Body
• Must monitor the progress of projects regularly and report in accordance with the
requirements of the managing authority;
• Must maintain records of each project within the Action Plan to provide an audit trail to
comply with regulation 438/2001 (Annex I).
• Must carry out physical checks on project expenditure.
Managing Authority (Programme Secretariat)
• Specify the outputs and financial performance expected of the Action Plan in its letter of
• Carry out the controls required in Regulation 438/2001 and include physical checks of a
sample of Action Plan projects.
• Carry out checks on the implementation of the management and financial control systems
(including the operation of the appraisal and approval mechanisms).
• Require Accountable Bodies to provide annual, externally audited statements of grant
1.2.6 Management of the operations
This section deals with management at the level of the operation, defined in
accordance with Art 9 (k) as any project or action carried out by the final beneficiaries
In accordance with Art. 30, expenditure in respect of operations is eligible for a
contribution from the Structural Funds only if these operations form part of the
The starting date for the eligibility of expenditure for the South Bristol URBAN II
Programme is (date passes EC's receivability test). Expenditure may not be considered
eligible for a contribution from the Funds if it has actually been paid by the
beneficiary before this date.
The final date for the eligibility of expenditures relates to payments made by the final
beneficiaries. For this programme, the final date for eligibility, as laid down in the
decision is 31 December 2008. This date is extended to 30 April 2009 for expenditure
incurred by bodies granting aid in the case of aid schemes. The final date for eligibility
of expenditure may be extended by the Commission at the duly justified request of the
The relevant national rules shall apply to eligible expenditure except where, as
necessary, the Commission lays down common rules on the eligibility of expenditure.
Common rules of eligibility are contained in the Commission Regulation (EC) No
1685/2000, laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation
(EC) No 1260/99 as regards eligibility of expenditure of operations co-financed by the
The United Kingdom will ensure that an operation retains the contribution from the
Funds only if that operation does not, within five years of the date of the decision on
the contribution of the Funds, undergo a substantial modification:
(a) affecting its nature or its implementation conditions or giving to a firm or a
public body an undue advantage; and
(b) resulting either from a change in the nature of ownership in an item of
infrastructure or a cessation or change of location in a productive activity.
The United Kingdom will inform the Commission of any such modification. Where
such a modification occurs, provisions in terms of financial corrections, as defined in
Section 6, will apply.
22.214.171.124 Eligibility criteria
Before operations can be considered for funding under the Programme they must:
− As a general rule, operations must be located in the programme eligible area.
According to Rule 12 of the Commission regulation on the eligibility of
expenditure, provided certain conditions are satisfied, the managing authority may
accept for co-financing operations located outside in those cases where the
programme area will benefit wholly or partly from them.
− Contribute to one or more of the Programme objectives.
− Correspond to one or more of the activities defined in the programming
− Quantify outputs and provide details of clear and attainable targets.
− Demonstrate an additional and sustainable benefit to the socio-economic
development of the area.
− Be eligible for Structural Funds assistance.
− Have a sound funding package in place, identifying the recipient of the funds and
the sources of match funding.
− Not duplicate existing activity.
− Not substitute for existing or planned expenditure.
Eligible operations will be processed, with a view to the selection of those for which
assistance will be granted.
126.96.36.199.1 Selection Criteria
The Monitoring Committee will consider and approve the criteria for selecting the
operations financed under each measure within six months of approval of the CIP.
Priority considerations which will help to measure the desirability of the operation
• Job creation, or attainment of other specified relevant outputs
• Value for money
• Leverage of extra investment, especially from the private sector
• The strategic nature of the scheme in its regional context
• Synergy with other schemes and measures, including linkage between different
Structural Funds programmes
• Demonstration of a positive environmental impact where possible or minimisation
of any negative impacts.
1.2.7 Compliance with community policies
According to Art. 12, operations financed by the Structural Funds must be in
conformity with the provisions of the Treaty, with the instruments adopted under it
and with Community policies and actions, including the rules on competition, on the
award of public contracts, on environmental protection and improvements and on the
elimination of inequalities and the promotion of equality between men and women.
This compliance is verified in the appraisal of the operations as well as during their
implementation through monitoring.
188.8.131.52 Competition policy
If the Community is to part-finance State aid schemes, the Commission must approve
such aid in accordance with Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty. Under Article 88 (3),
Member States must notify the Commission of any measure granting, altering or
extending State aids to firms.
184.108.40.206.2 Treatment of aid schemes in the CIP
In accordance with Articles 9(m), 18.2(b) and 19.3(b) the Single Programming
Document contains a summary description of the measures planned to implement the
priorities, including the information needed to check compliance with state aid
pursuant to Article 87 of the Treaty.
In so far as the present programme involves State aids, such aids will be exclusively
granted in accordance with the Commission Regulation No 69/2001 on the application
of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid of 6 December 2000 (OJ L10
of 13.1.2001) or with Commission Regulation No 70/2001 on the application of
Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises
(OJ L10 of 13.1.2001) or with Commission Regulation No 68/2001 on the application
of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to training aid (OJ L10 of 13.1.2001). In
accordance with Article 34(1)(g) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, the body
responsible for ensuring the compliance with State aid rules of the implementation of
the present programme is the Department of Local Government, Transport and the
220.127.116.11.3 Award of contracts
Implementation of measures part-financed by the Structural Funds must comply with
Community requirements as set out in as set out in the EC Treaty (Art. 12, 28, 43 and
49) and in the Public Procurement Directives (Directives 92/50 - services, 93/36
public supplies, 93/37 - public works as modified by Directive 97/52 implementing
the WTO agreement on public procurement within EC law; Directive 93/38 - public
procurement contracts in the telecommunications, water, energy and transport sector
as modified by Directive 98/4, implementing the WTO public procurement agreement.
In accordance with Art. 34.1 (g), notices sent for publications in the Official Journal
of the European Communities will specify those projects in respect of which a
contribution from the Structural Funds has been applied for or granted.
18.104.22.168.4 Protection of the environment
In the interests of proper programming of structural spending and, at a later stage,
proper implementation of programmes, Member States must have fulfilled their
obligations under the Community policies and schemes for protecting and improving
the environment, in particular the "2000" network.
In line with its commitments, the United Kingdom gives a formal guarantee that it will
not allow sites protected under Natura 2000 to deteriorate during operations part-
financed by the Structural Funds. It also commits itself to providing the Commission,
when presenting the programming complement for this programme, with information
about the steps they have taken to prevent the deterioration of sites protected under
As regards actual operations, it is important to note that the Commission will apply
Article 12 of the General Regulation on the Structural Funds or Article 8(1) of the
Cohesion Fund Regulation on the compatibility of operations with the provisions of
the EC Treaty and with Community schemes and the policies.
Infringements of Community legislation will be acted upon under Article 226 of the
EC Treaty. The fact that a Member State has committed itself to submitting a list
within a stated deadline will have no effect on current infringement proceedings.
Finally, the Commission may introduce individual monitoring of measures taken or
envisaged by Member States which are likely to affect sites protected under
Natura 2000. The Commission may in particular, in co-operation with the
Member State concerned, have recourse to Article 38(2) of the General Regulation on
the Structural Funds or Article 12 of the Cohesion Fund Regulation (as amended by
Regulation (EC) No 1264/1999) concerning controls on the ground. At meetings of
the Monitoring Committee responsible for an assistance package, the Commission
representative will pay close attention to any measure or project likely to affect sites
protected under Natura 2000 and will make any necessary recommendations to the
management authority concerned. The Commission will also consider carefully all
complaints that may be notified to it.
22.214.171.124.5 Polluter Pays Principle
The application of the Polluter Pays Principle will have regard to the Commission
Technical Paper 1 on the same subject. In relation to the disposal of waste, waste
charges will apply in accordance with the polluter pays principle as set out in Art. 15
of the Waste Framework Directive 75/442/EEC).
126.96.36.199.6 Environmental Impact Assessment
All projects enjoying co-financing from the Structural Funds will be in compliance
with Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by 97/11/EEC. As a result of this
consideration, it should either be stated that they do not have any significant, negative
environmental impact, or a description of a possible, negative impact as well as of the
mitigating measures should be presented.
In relation to waste project Community funding may be used to finance waste infrastructure
which is in conformity with up-to-date waste plans prepared for the regions and local
authorities concerned in accordance with the requirements of these directives.
188.8.131.52.8 Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive
In proposing Community funded interventions in urban wastewater treatment, project
promoters should make provision for the probability that additional water bodies will
be designated as sensitive areas under Article 5 and Annex IIA of Directive
91/271/EEC on Urban waste Water Treatment.
184.108.40.206.9 Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises
The provisions of Commission Recommendation of 3 April 1996 (OJ L 107 of
30.04.1996) concerning the definition of an SME shall apply to the SMEs which
benefit from Structural Fund assistance under this programme, without affecting the
continuation of aid schemes approved by the Commission before entry into force of
For the purpose of this programme, SMEs are defined as enterprises which:
− Have fewer than 250 employees,
− Have either an annual turnover not exceeding 40 Million Euro, or an annual
balance-sheet not exceeding 27 million Euro,
− Conform to the criterion of independence (as defined in paragraph 3 of OJ L 107
of 30.04.1996, page 8). Independent enterprises are those, which are not owned as
to 25% or more of the capital or the voting rights by one enterprises, or jointly by
several enterprises, falling outside the definition of an SME or a small enterprise,
whichever may apply. This threshold may be exceeded in the following two cases:
If the enterprise is held by public investment corporations, venture capital
companies or institutional investors, provided no control is exercised either
individually or jointly;
If the capital is spread in such a way that it is not possible to determine by whom
it is held and if the enterprise declares that it can legitimately presume that it is
not owned as to 25% or more by one enterprise, or jointly by several enterprises,
falling outside the definition of an SME or a small enterprise, whichever may
Where it is necessary to distinguish between small and medium-sized enterprises, the
"small enterprise" is defined as an enterprise which:
− Has fewer than 50 employees,
− Has either an annual turnover not exceeding 7 million Euro, or an annual balance-
sheet not exceeding 5 million Euro,
− Conform to the criterion of independence as defined above.
220.127.116.11.10 Equal opportunities for men and women
Operations part-financed by the Structural Funds must comply with, and where
appropriate contribute to, Community policy and legislation on equal opportunities for
men and women. In particular, consideration should be given to opportunities
concerning investments and training which facilitate the return to the labour market of
people with children.
The appraisal of operations seeking co-financing from Structural Funds and which are
not specifically oriented towards the improvements of equal opportunities, should
include an assessment as regards their impact of equal opportunities. This should be
taken into account for the purposes of modulating the grant rate in accordance with
The Managing Authority will produce disaggregated statistics by gender on the basis
of available data. It will also ensure that evaluations measure the extent to which the
principle of promoting equal opportunities has been taken into account in the
implementation of this programme, with particular regard to the involvement of
women in general measures and to the implementation, the relevance and the outcome
of such measures. It intends to develop, where appropriate, adequate evaluation
procedures, tools and indicators to this end. Technical assistance will be made
available to support the mainstreaming of equal opportunities between men and
The annual and final implementation reports referred to in Section 2.9.1 will contain a
specific chapter describing the actions taken in the framework of the programme in
order to ensure the implementation of equal opportunities objectives of the
Programme, and to state to which extent the targets set out in the Programme have
1.2.8 Information and publicity
Information and publicity measures to be carried out by the Member States concerning
assistance from the Structural Funds shall conform to the provisions of Art. 46 and the
enabling Commission Regulation No. 1159/2000 on information and publicity.
The enabling Commission Regulation puts forward a common methodology and
approach for persons responsible for carrying out information and publicity measures
which takes account of the specific situation of each Member State. The Managing
Authority responsible for implementing the programme will be responsible for
publicity on the spot. Publicity will be carried out in co-operation with the European
Commission, which will be informed of measures taken for this purpose.
The information and publicity measures put in place will be presented in a structured
form ("communication plan"), clearly setting out the aims and target groups, the
content and strategy of the measures and an indicative budget. The communication
plan will be set out in the programming complement in accordance with Art. 18.3(d).
The Government Office will designate one or more persons to be responsible for
information and publicity and will inform the Commission of those designated.
1.2.10 Implementation Reports
In accordance with art. 37, the managing authority submits to the Commission within
six months of the end of each full calendar year of implementation an annual
implementation report. The first report will be due by 30 June 2002.
The report must be examined and approved by the Monitoring Committee before it is
sent to the Commission.
Once the Commission has received the report, it shall indicate within a period of two
months if the report is considered unsatisfactory, giving its reasons; otherwise, the
report shall be deemed to be accepted.
The annual report shall include the following information:
− Any change in general conditions which is of relevance to the implementation of
the programme, in particular the main socio-economic trends, changes in national,
regional or sectoral policies or in the frame of reference (i.e. the document which
sets the context for assistance concerning employment and human resource
development throughout the UK territory, and which identifies the relationship
with the priorities set out in the National Action Plan for Employment), and,
where applicable, their implications for the mutual consistency of assistance from
the different Funds and consistency between Fund assistance and that from other
− The progress in implementation of priorities and measures in relation to their
specific targets, with a quantification, wherever and whenever they lend
themselves to quantification, of the physical indicators and indicators of results
and of impact referred to in Article 36 at the appropriate level (priority or
− The financial implementation of the programme summarising for each measure the
total expenditure actually paid out by the paying authority and a record of the total
payments received from the Commission and quantifying the financial indicators
referred to in Article 36.2.c.
− The steps taken by the managing authority and the Monitoring Committee to
ensure the quality and effectiveness of implementation, in particular:
" Monitoring, financial control and evaluation measures, including data
" A summary of any significant problems encountered in managing the
programme and any measures taken, including action on recommendations
for adjustments made following the review between the Commission and
the Member State or requests for corrective measures;
" The use made of Technical Assistance;
" The measures taken to ensure publicity for the programme.
The steps taken to ensure compatibility with Community policies and to ensure co-
ordination of all the Community Structural Assistance, having regard to the frame of
reference and rural development and fishery structures
A final report will be submitted to the Commission at the latest six months after the
final date of eligibility of expenditure.
The same content and procedure (submission to the Commission by the managing
authority after examination and approval by the Monitoring Committee) for annual
reports apply to the final report.
In the case of a final report, the Commission will indicate if the report is considered
acceptable within a period of five months from receipt of the report.
1.2.11 Annual implementation review
In accordance with Art. 34.2, every year, when the annual implementation report is
submitted, the Commission and the Managing Authority shall review the main outcomes of
the previous year, in accordance with the following arrangements agreed between the
Commission and the UK within six months of the approval of the programme:
After this review, the Commission may make comments to the UK Government and the
managing authority. The UK shall inform the Commission of the action taken on these
comments. Where in duly substantiated cases the Commission considers that the measures
taken are inadequate, it may make recommendations to the UK Government and the
managing authority for adjustments aimed at improving the effectiveness of the monitoring or
management arrangements for the programme, together with the reasons for any such
recommendations. If it receives any such recommendations, the managing authority shall
subsequently demonstrate the steps taken to improve the monitoring or management
arrangements or it shall explain why such steps have not been taken.
According to Art.32.3, one of the conditions, subject to which interim payments shall be
made by the Commission, is acting upon the Commission recommendations within the
specified time period (or the communication by the United Kingdom of the reasons why no
measures have been taken). This applies where those recommendations are intended to
remedy serious shortcomings in the monitoring or management system, which undermine
proper financial management of the programme.
1.2.12 Complementarity with other programmes supported by the EU
This text includes measures to be taken to avoid duplication or overlap between the
URBAN II programme and other structural fund programmes.
18.104.22.168 Objective 3
This CIP identifies priorities for support and explains the links between URBAN II,
Objective 2 and Objective 3 ESF support. The CIP seeks to ensure that URBAN II
provides coherent and strategic support linked to the overall needs of the region,
avoiding overlap and duplication of funding with Objectives 2 and 3. The Managing
Authorities for the Objective 2 and Objective 3 programmes have an important role in
ensuring this. The Programme Monitoring Committee and the relevant Objective 2 and
3 committees will agree the necessary mechanisms and links. There will be a series of
measures to avoid overlap.
Monitoring will be carried out by the Managing Authority assisted by the Programme
Monitoring Committee. This monitoring will ensure the quality and effectiveness of
implementation through assessment of progress towards achievement of the financial,
physical and impact indicators defined in the CIP. It will involve the organisation and
co-ordination of the data relating to the financial, physical and impact indicators and
those concerning qualitative aspects of implementation.
1.3.11 The Programme Monitoring Committee
22.214.171.124 General provisions
In accordance with Art. 35, the programme will be supervised by a programme
Monitoring Committee which will be set up no more than three months after the
programme has been approved.
The membership of the Monitoring Committee will include the principal regional and
local partners including the Government, the private sector, the voluntary sector, and
economic and social partners, members of local authorities, representatives of the
local community and those representing the environment and equal opportunities, the
latter particularly taking account of the need to promote equality between men and
A balanced participation of men and women will be a consideration in representation
on this Committee.
The Commission and, where appropriate, the EIB shall participate in an advisory
The Monitoring Committee will be chaired by a representative of the managing
126.96.36.199 Duties of the Monitoring Committee
The Programme Monitoring Committee will be chaired by the Government Office
Regional Director or his/her nominee. The Committee will draw up its own rules of
procedure and agree them with the Government Office secretariat acting on behalf of
the Management Authority. The Committees duties are defined in Article 35 and 36.
At its first meeting the Committee shall approve detailed provision for the proper and
efficient discharge of the duties assigned to it, including, the frequency of its
meetings. These provisions shall include particularly:
The procedures and arrangements for selecting individual projects and actions,
including the selection methodology and the operational selection criteria:
The arrangements for informing it about the fate of individual projects submitted for
Arrangements to review progress towards achieving the specific objectives of the
The Programme Monitoring Committee shall satisfy itself as to the effectiveness and
the quality of the implementation of the CIP. To this end:
• It shall confirm the programme complement, including the physical and financial
indicators to be used to monitor the assistance. Its approval must be obtained
before any further adjustments are made;
• Within six months of approval of CIP, it shall consider and approve the criteria for
selecting the operations financed under each measure;
• It shall periodically review progress made towards achieving the specific objectives
of the programme;
• It shall examine the results of implementation, particularly the achievement of the
targets set for the different measures and the mid-term evaluation referred to in
• It shall consider and approve the annual and final implementation reports before
they are sent to the Commission;
• It shall consider and approve any proposals to amend the contents of the approved
• It may propose to the managing authority any adjustments or review of the
programme and programme complement in order to help attain the CIP objectives,
or to improve the management of the programme, including financial management.
Computer systems will be set up to gather reliable financial and statistical information
on implementation. They will keep records and provide common information for all
188.8.131.52 Monitoring indicators
According to Art. 36, the managing authority and the Monitoring Committee will
carry out the monitoring by reference to the physical and financial indicators specified
in the CIP and in the programme complement. These are developed taking into
account the indicative methodology and the list of examples of indicators published by
the Commission in its Working Paper 3 "Indicators for monitoring and evaluation: an
indicative methodology" sent to the UK on 29 July 1999.
− The indicators relate to the specific character of the programme, its objectives and
the socio-economic, structural and environmental situation of the UK and its
regions as appropriate.
− The indicators will show the specific targets, quantified where they lend
themselves to quantification, for the measures and priorities and their mutual
− The stage reached in the programme in terms of physical implementation, results
and, as soon as practicable, its impact at the appropriate level (priority or measure)
The progress of the financing plan
Where the nature of the programme permits, the statistics will be broken down by sex
and by the size of the recipient undertakings.
184.108.40.206 Categorisation of fields of intervention
In accordance with Art. 36, the Commission has drawn up a proposed list of
categories of fields of intervention of the Structural Funds in order to assist with the
tasks relating to the reporting on the activities of the Structural Funds.
The list will also facilitate follow-up and monitoring and provide solid foundations on
which to base the evaluations. The programme complement will show the link
between each measure in the programme and the corresponding category in the list.
The annual implementation reports should also show the link.
220.127.116.11 Annual Monitoring Business Plan
As well as the review mechanism to be operated under Article 37, it is agreed that
there will be supplementary arrangements made to enable the Programme Monitoring
Committee to satisfy itself that projects are coming forward as quickly as anticipated;
and if they are actually producing the projected outputs.
The supplementary review will therefore be based upon estimates of commitment and
payment each year against each measure, and subsequent reporting of actual out-turn
in terms of commitments, payments and outputs against targets.
At its first meeting, the Programme Monitoring Committee will receive a report from
the secretariat which will set out their best estimate of anticipated operations for the
calendar year 2001. The report will include a list of the expected and identified
operations, where these are possible to be identified, and the expected outputs to be
achieved by the end of the calendar year. This will be viewed as the first step toward
attaining the goals set out in the programme document.
Within three months of the end of 2001, the Programme Monitoring Committee will
receive and consider a report on actual progress during the first period of
implementation. This will be accompanied by a list of the estimated
operations/targets for the year 2002
The process will be repeated at the end of each calendar year of the programme’s
In this way, the programme partnership will be able to assess the extent to which
operations coming forward to the programme as expected, and if they are on course to
achieve the programme objectives.
1.4.10 General provisions
In order to gauge its effectiveness, Community Structural Assistance will be subject of
an ex-ante, mid-term and ex-post evaluation.
1.4.11 Mid-term evaluation
In accordance with Article 42, the mid-term evaluation will be carried out under
responsibility of the Managing Authority in co-operation with the Commission and
the UK government.
This mid-term evaluation will examine, in the light of the ex-ante evaluation, the
initial results of the programme.
It will be carried out by an independent assessor, be submitted to the Programme
Monitoring Committee and sent to the Commission no later than 31 December 2003,
with a view to re-examining the programme and if necessary to adapting it at the
initiative of the UK or the Commission. The Commission will examine the relevance
and quality of the evaluation on the basis of criteria established beforehand by the
Commission and the UK in partnership.
Independent assessors will be required to observe confidentiality when dealing with
the Monitoring Committee’s data to which they have access.
1.4.12 Ex-post evaluation
In accordance with Art. 43, the ex-post evaluation will be the responsibility of the
European Commission, in collaboration with the UK and the managing authority. It
will cover the utilisation of resources and the effectiveness and efficiency of the
programme and its impact and it will draw conclusions regarding policy on economic
and social cohesion. It will cover the factors contributing to the success or failure of
implementation and the achievements and results, including their sustainability.
It will be carried out by independent assessors and be completed not later than three
years after the end of the programming period.
1.5 FINANCIAL IMPLEMENTATION
1.5.10 Financial contributions by the Funds
In accordance with Article 28(1), any operation within the programme may benefit from a
contribution from a single Structural Fund only. An operation may not be financed
simultaneously by more than one programme (e.g. Objective 1, 2, 3) or Community Initiative.
An operation financed by a Fund under Objective 1, 2, 3 or a Community initiative may not
be simultaneously financed under the EAGGF Guarantee Section.
In accordance with Article 28(2), the contribution of the Funds must be consistent with the
financial plan laid down in the decision approving the CIP.
In accordance with Article 28(2), the contribution of the Funds shall principally take the form
of non–repayable direct assistance (hereafter referred to as ‘direct assistance’), as well as
other forms, such as repayable assistance, an interest-rate subsidy, a guarantee, an equity
holding, a venture capital holding or another form of finance.
Assistance repaid to the managing authority shall be reallocated to the same purpose.
1.5.2 Differentiation of rates of contribution
In accordance with Article 29. the contribution of the Funds shall be subject to the
– a maximum of 50% of the total eligible cost, and at least 25% of the eligible
– in the case of investments in infrastructure generating substantial net revenue,
25% of the total eligible cost.
– in the case of investments in firms, 15% of the total eligible cost. This rate may
be increased, in the case of investments in small and medium-sized undertakings
for forms of finance other than direct assistance, provided that this increase does
not exceed 10% of the total eligible cost.
In the case of investments in firms, the contribution of the Funds shall comply with
the ceilings on the rate of aid and on combinations of aid set in the field of State aids.
1.5.3 Community budget commitments
In accordance with Article 31(1) and 31(2), Community budget commitments are
made on the basis of the decision approving the CIP. The first commitment is made
when the Commission adopts this decision and subsequent commitments will be
effected as a general rule by 30 April each year.
In accordance with Article 31(3), the Commission will automatically decommit on a
Fund basis any part of a commitment (other than any part which has be settled by the
payment on account) for which it has not received an acceptable payment application
by the end of the second year following the year of commitment. The contribution
from that Fund will be reduced by that amount.
In other terms, at the end of 2003 the Commission will decommit (and automatically
reduce on a Fund basis the amount of contribution of the Funds allocated to the
programme) any part of the first commitment, less the 7% payment on account, for
which an acceptable payment claim has not been received. Similarly, at the end of
2004, the Commission will decommit any part of the second year commitment, less
any payment on account if this is split over two years, for which it has not received an
acceptable payment application. For subsequent years there can be no payment on
account, and therefore the Commission will decommit any part of a commitment
which has not been the subject of an acceptable payment claim. Finally the
Commission will decommit any part of the total commitment to the programme for
which an acceptable payment application has not been received by the deadline for the
transmission of the final report referred to in section 2.9.(end of June 2009).
The period for automatic decommitment shall cease to run for that part of the
commitment corresponding to operations which, at the specified date of
decommitment, are the subject of a judicial procedure, or an administrative appeal
having suspensory effects, subject to the Commission receiving prior information
giving reasons from the UK government and to information being issued by the
In any case, the Commission shall in good time inform the UK government and the
paying authority whenever there is a risk of application of an automatic
decommitment as referred to above.
a. Payments at Community level
Following provisions of Article 32, payments by the Commission of the contribution
from the Funds shall be made, in accordance with the corresponding budget
commitments, to the paying authority (defined in section 2.3.).
Payment may take the form of: payments on account; interim payments; payments of
the final balance.
Payments on account
In accordance with Article 32(2), the Commission will pay to the paying authority 7%
of the total contribution from the Funds to the present programme. In principle, the
payment on account may be subdivided over two budget years at most, depending on
the availability of budget funds.
In accordance with Article 32(2), all or part of the payment on account depending on
progress towards implementation of the programme will be repaid to the Commission
if no payment application has been received within 18 months of the decision
approving the CIP.
In accordance with Article 32(2) and 32(3), the payments on account are used to pay
end beneficiaries. The Commission will make further payments (interim payments)
based on declarations of expenditure certified by the Paying Authority, to reimburse
expenditure paid to end beneficiaries. These further payments, are subject to the
– programme complement, containing the information specified in section 2;3. ,
submitted on time to the Commission;
– latest annual implementation report, containing the information specified in
section 2.9, forwarded to the Commission;
– mid-term evaluation of the programme, as referred to in section 4.2, when due,
submitted to the Commission.
The Member State will, as far as possible, present applications for interim payments to
the Commission in batches three times a year. The last application should be
presented no later than 31 October.
As required by Article 32(7), the Member State shall send the Commission their
updated forecasts of applications for payment for the current year and the forecast for
the following year, by 30 April each year.
Payments of the final balance
The final balance of the assistance will be paid if:
– within six months of the deadline laid down by the decision approving the CIP,
the paying authority submits to the Commission a certified statement of
expenditure actually paid out.
– the final report, containing the information specified in section 2.9.2., has been
forwarded to and approved by the Commission.
– in accordance with Article 38(1)f, the Member State has presented to the
Commission a declaration drawn up by an independent person or department,
the content of which is specified in Regulation 438/2001.
As set out in Article 32(5), the final payment may no longer be corrected at the request
of the Member State if the paying authority has not forwarded an application to the
Commission within nine months from the date of transfer of the final balance.
b. Payments by the Member State
In accordance with Article 32(1), the paying authority shall ensure that final
beneficiaries receive payment in full and as quickly as possible. No deduction,
retention or further specific charge which would reduce these amounts shall be made.
Payments on account
In accordance with Article 32(2), throughout the lifetime of assistance, the paying
authority shall use the payment on account to pay the Community contribution to
expenditure relating to the assistance. Any interest earned on the payment on account
will be allocated by the paying authority to the CIP.
1.5.5 Declaration of expenditure
In accordance with Article 32(2 and 32(a)), interim payments and payment of the final
balance must correspond to expenditure actually paid out as certified by the paying
authority, which must correspond to payments effected by the final beneficiaries,
supported by receipted invoices or accounting documents of equivalent probative
value. This constitutes the declaration of expenditure.
Payments will be calculated at the level of measures contained in the financing plan of
the programme complement. In order to demonstrate the link between the financing
plan and expenditure actually paid out, the declaration of expenditure should present
financial information in the following manner:
i. broken down by year
ii. broken down by priority and measure
1.5.6 Transparency of financial flows
In the UK, the treatment of Structural Funds expenditure is based on the principle that
receipts from the Commission should be managed, disbursed and monitored in exactly the
same way and using the same systems as the UK’s own public expenditure. The basic
principles of the UK Government Accounting apply to these receipts, the most important
• Parliamentary scrutiny and accountability;
• The identification of an Accounting Officer responsible for the funds under his or her
• A statutory basis for all expenditure, whether from National or EC source.
Detailed provisions for handling transactions are contained in the Treasury’s
procedural guide “Government Accounting”.
A feature of the UK public sector financial management and control is the obligatory
requirement to submit all public expenditure operations to periodic audits. This
covers both the financial systems in operation and an annual audit of specific
payments made by the Member State. Financial control is further maintained through
the separation of duties between those responsible for the certifying and authorising of
payment claims, to safeguard against the possibility of personal involvement in a
project, or of fraud.
Payments from the Commission in respect of operations part-financed by the
Structural Funds will be received in a Treasury Account at the Bank of England,
where they be converted into sterling.
For the ERDF, each sterling amount will then be transferred immediately to the
Government Office. It will hold the amount in a specifically identified account. This is
consistent with the standards of financial control applied to national expenditure.
In accordance with Article 32(1), the paying authority shall ensure that final
beneficiaries receive payment in full and as quickly as possible. No deduction,
retention or further specific charge which would reduce these amounts shall be made.
In order to facilitate the verification of expenditure by Community and National
control authorities, the Member State will ensure that all bodies involved in the
management and implementation of Structural Fund operations shall maintain either a
separate accounting system or an adequate accounting codification capable of
providing detailed and complete summaries of all transactions involving Community
1.5.7 Financial management and control arrangements for ERDF Funds
The Government Office for the South West Region is authorised by the Managing Authority
to undertake financial management and control arrangements for all Funds on behalf of the
Member State. The Court of Auditors and the European Commission undertake audits on
their own behalf. The Government Office also acts as the Paying Authority for the ERDF.
All monies from the European Union are treated in the same way as domestic funding for the
purposes of financial management and control, as well as being subject to EU Regulations. It
is subject to Treasury Handbook on Government Accounting and there is a Structural Funds
Manual which sets out many aspects of UK Structural Funds administration so there is a
consistency of treatment both within and between secretariats.
The Government Office receives and holds ERDF monies which have been sent from the
Commission in the form of advances, and interim and final payments. They issue offers of
ERDF grant, other than in the case of agreed Action Plans, where some offers may be made
by the relevant Accountable Body. The Government Office, and if applicable the
Accountable Body, receive payment claims from the final beneficiaries to which they have
issued offers. All payment claims are backed up by invoices or other accounting documents.
The Government Office or Accountable Body checks the payment claims against the offer of
grant and the project papers, and ensure consistency with the performance targets set and
eligibility. If acceptable they authorise and pay out grants on the basis of eligible expenditure
incurred. The functions of checking, authorisation and payments are separated within the
Government Office or Accountable Body.
The Government Office draw up and certify the payment applications for ERDF to the
Commission based on the payment claims received from the final beneficiaries or
Accountable Bodies. These payment applications will be in Euro, the conversion from
sterling being in accordance with the regulatory requirement
The Government Office is responsible for carrying out the majority of the 5% verification
checks on total eligible expenditure across the programme. They are also responsible for
working with HQ Departments to investigate and draw up reports on any alleged
irregularities. These are then forwarded to the Department of Trade and Industry which
submits the quarterly returns to the Commission together with details of follow-up actions.
Where Action Plan arrangements operate the Government Office will, during the course of their
5% checks, pay particular attention to projects where the Accountable Body is also the end beneficiary.
Where Action Plan arrangements are in place (see paragraph .18.104.22.168 of this chapter), the
Government Office, acting on behalf of the Managing Authority, will issue an approval letter
to the partnership concerned, authorising the relevant body to issue offers of grant for
activities under that Action Plan, within the agreed delegations. Each Accountable Body will
have sound financial systems in place to ensure compliance with all relevant Regulations and
conditions and, in particular, to provide audit trails in line with Annex 1 of Regulation
438/2001. To this end, they will maintain records to provide proper audit trails; carry out
physical checks on project expenditure; and provide actual, externally audited, statements of
grant expenditure to the Government Office.
The Internal Audit Units of the Departments which have responsibility for the ERDF, mainly,
DETR and DTI, undertake audits of the management and control systems implemented by the
Government Office and provide the declaration to accompany the final payment application.
The various Internal Audit Units act in a joint way to maximise effectiveness and
consistency, and eliminate duplication. This declaration will relate to the extent to which the
Government Office has provided for and implemented the regulatory financial management
and control requirements determined during the audit visits.
1.5.8 Use of Euro and conversion rates
In accordance with Article 33, all commitments and payments are made in Euro.
Statements of expenditure have also to be made in Euro. Since the United Kingdom
does not have the Euro as its national currency, amounts of expenditure incurred in
sterling will be converted into Euro by applying the rate in force on the last but one
working day at the Commission in the month preceding the month during which the
expenditure was recorded in the accounts of the Paying Authority.
1.6 CONTROL AND FINANCIAL CORRECTIONS
1.6.6 General provisions
In accordance with Article 38(1), primary responsibility for the financial control of
assistance lies with the UK.
In accordance with Article 38(2), officials of the Commission may carry out checks
without prejudice to checks carried out by the UK, in accordance with national laws,
regulations and administrative provisions.
In accordance with Article 38(3), the Commission and the UK shall on the basis of
bilateral administrative arrangements co-operate to co-ordinate plans, methods and
implementation checks so as to maximise the usefulness of those carried out. The UK
and the Commission will immediately exchange the results of checks carried out.
In accordance with Article 38(3), at least once a year the Commission and the UK
shall jointly examine and evaluate the results of checks carried out by the UK and the
Commission, any comments made by other national or Community control bodies or
institutions and the financial impact of irregularities noted (including steps taken or
required to correct them and, where necessary, adjustments to the management and
control systems). This evaluation should in any case take place before the annual
implementation review detailed in paragraph 2.10 of this chapter.
In addition to the requirements made in the Council regulation 1260/1999, the
arrangements for control and financial corrections shall comply with Commission
regulations 438/2001 and 448:2001, establishing detailed arrangements for financial
control by the Member States of operations co-financed by the Structural Funds.
1.6.7 Financial control by the Member State
In accordance with Article 38(1a) and 38(1c), the UK will establish financial
management and control arrangements in such a way as to ensure that Community
funds are used efficiently and correctly and that assistance is managed in accordance
with all the applicable Community rules and in accordance with the principles of
sound financial management. The detailed requirements set out in Commission
Regulation 438/2001 shall apply throughout.
In accordance with Article 38(1d) and Article 38(1f), and in the first instance, in
accordance with Commission Regulation 438/2001, Article 4, the UK is responsible
for certifying the accuracy of declarations of expenditure presented to the
Commission, the specific procedures for which are detailed at paragraph 6.5.
In accordance with Article 38(1e), the UK is responsible in the first instance, for
preventing, detecting and correcting irregularities and for notifying these to the
Commission and keeping the Commission informed of the progress of administrative
and legal proceedings. In accordance with Commission Regulation 438/2001, Article
5, the controls shall establish whether any problems encountered are of a systematic
character. The arrangements for handling irregularities and financial corrections are
given at paragraph 6.4 of this chapter.
In accordance with Article 38(6), the UK shall keep available for the Commission all
supporting documents regarding expenditure and checks on the assistance for a period
of three years following the payment by the Commission of the final balance. This
period may be interrupted in the case of legal proceedings or at the duly motivated
request of the Commission. The UK shall keep a clear audit trail in compliance with
the definition set out in Commission Regulation 438/2001 and annex.
1.6.8 Financial control by the Commission
In accordance with Article 38(2), the Commission may carry out on the spot checks,
including sample checks, on the operations financed by the Funds and on management
control systems with a minimum of one day’s notice. The Commission will give
notice to the UK with a view to obtaining all the assistance necessary and UK officials
may take part in such checks.
In accordance with Article 38(2), the Commission may require the UK to carry out an
on the spot check to verify the correctness of one or more transactions and
Commission officials may take part in such checks.
Also under Regulation 438/2001, there is required to be regular reviews of financial
control arrangements at the level of the United Kingdom.
1.6.9 Irregularities and financial corrections
a. Role of the Member State
In accordance with Article 39(1), the UK has in the first instance, responsibility for
investigating irregularities, acting upon evidence of any major change affecting the
nature or conditions for the implementation or supervision of assistance and for
making the financial corrections required.
Financial corrections shall be made in connection with the individual or systematic
irregularity and shall consist of the cancelling of all or part of the Community
contribution. Community Funds released in this way may be re-used by the UK for
the assistance concerned.
In accordance with article 39(4), any sum found to have been received unduly and to
be recovered shall be repaid to the Commission together with the interest.
b. Role of the Commission
In accordance with Article 38(4), the Commission may make observations following
examinations and evaluations, particularly regarding the financial impact of any
irregularities detected. These observations shall be addressed to the UK and the
managing authority and shall be accompanied, where necessary, by requests for
corrective measures to remedy the management shortcomings found and correct those
irregularities which have not already been corrected. The UK shall have the
opportunity to comment on these observations. Where the Commission adopts
conclusions, the UK will take the necessary steps within the deadline set by the
Commission and will inform the Commission of its actions.
In accordance with Article 38(5), the Commission may suspend all or part of an
interim payment linked to a serious and uncorrected irregularity. The Commission
shall inform the UK of the action taken and the reasons for it.
If, in accordance with Article 39(2), after completing the necessary verifications, the
Commission finds that the UK has not complied with its obligations as agreed in
paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2, or finds that all or part of the operation does not justify either
part or whole of the contribution from the Funds, or finds that there are serious
failings in the management or control systems which could lead to systematic
irregularities, then again, the Commission may suspend the interim payment in
question and, stating its reasons, request that the UK submit its comments and, where
appropriate, carry out any corrections within a specified time period.
In accordance with Article 39(2), if the UK objects to the Commission’s observations
it shall be invited to a hearing by the Commission, in which both sides in co-operation
based on the partnership make efforts to reach an agreement.
In accordance with Articles 38(5) and 39(3), if five months after the Commission
requested corrective measures to remedy a financial irregularity the reasons for the
suspension remain or the UK has not notified the Commission of the measures taken
to correct the serious irregularity, or if at the end of the set period no agreement has
been reached and the UK has not taken account of the comments made, the
Commission may, within three months, decide to:
i. reduce the payment on account referred to in paragraph 5.4(a)
ii. make the financial corrections required by cancelling all or part of the contribution
from the Funds to the assistance concerned.
Corrections of this type will have regard to proportionality, the type of irregularity or
change and the extent of the financial implications.
In the absence of a decision to do either i or ii, the suspension of interim payments
1.7 PROCEDURES FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE PROGRAMME
1.7.6 Amendments of the CIP
As a general rule, modifications of the CIP approved by the Monitoring Committee, have to
be made following the procedures applied for its adoption. These include consultation of the
Committees referred to in Articles 48, 49, 50 and 51.
However, any amendments to the decision approving the CIP, which do not alter the total
Community contribution, can be approved by the Commission in agreement with the UK
Government, if the modification of the total cost or Community financing to any priority is
up to a maximum of 25% of the total Community Contribution to the CIP throughout the
Any modification is subject to the availability of funds and must remain compatible with the
Commission’s budgetary rules. It may entail transfers of resources between the Community
Structural Funds and a change in the rate of assistance.
Whenever the amounts of finance are altered, the notification shall be accompanied by the
revised financing plan of the CIP.
The Monitoring Committee may in any event propose to the management authority any
adjustment or review of the programme likely to make possible the attainment of the
Objective set out in Art. 1, or to improve the management of programme, including financial
Any financial adjustment shall be accompanied by the revised financing plan.
Any amendment of the CIP shall be decided by the Commission, in agreement with the UK
Government, within four months of delivery of the Monitoring Committee’s approval.
1.7.7 Amendments of the programme complement
According to Article. 34.3, the management authority may, at the request of the Monitoring
Committee or on its own initiative, adjust the programme complement, without changing the
total amount of the contribution from the Funds granted to the priority concerned nor its
After approval of this adjustment by the Monitoring Committee, the management authority
shall inform the Commission of the adjustment within one month.
1.8 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
An enabling Commission regulation lays down detailed rules for the implementation of
Council Regulation 1260/1999 as regards eligibility of expenditure of operations co-financed
by the Structural Funds.
According to Rule 11 on "Costs incurred in managing and implementing the Structural
Funds", Technical Assistance can be used under point 2 of this Rule to co-finance
expenditure incurred for management, implementation and control expenditure under certain
conditions. The implementation of this point has to be agreed between the Commission and
the Government and is laid down in the Chapter on Technical Assistance. For the purposes of
monitoring, the costs made available under point 2 are the subject of a specific measure
within Technical Assistance.
Technical Assistance can also be used to co-finance other actions under this programme, for
example studies, seminars, information and evaluation.
The programme is not expected to provide support for projects involving the processing and
marketing of products defined in Annex I of the EU Treaty. In the case of other projects in
the agricultural sector, they should be compatible with the Common Agricultural Policy and,
in particular, with Regulation 1257/1999. The Community guidelines concerning state aids
in the agricultural sector (2000/C/02 – OJ C28 of 1.2.2000) will also apply. This means that
relevant projects may only be supported within the framework of previously approved
agricultural state aids. Any new aid scheme should be notified and approved by the
The Guidelines specified above do not apply to diversification projects as defined in Article
33 of Regulation 1257/1999 and which do not involve Annex I products, such as
diversification projects involving tourism or crafts. Such projects may be supported in
accordance with the de minimis rule.
Appendix 6: Vademecum Checklist
Requirement Section (s)
Quantified description of the current situation with regard to disparities Section 2.3, pp
in terms of income and employment, infrastructure gaps etc. and potential 7-15
for economic and social regeneration
A description of an appropriate strategy and the priorities selected to Sections 3 & 4
attain the objectives concerned, including appropriate indicators and pp 35-46
targets, and a description of the measures
Account taken of the content of the Communication from the Commission Sections 2.4, p
concerning the URBAN II guidelines 16 & Section
3.6 p 38
An integrated ex-ante evaluation, including an ex-ante evaluation of the Appendix 3
local labour market situation, an assessment of the urban environmental
situation, as well as an assessment of the position concerning equal
opportunities between men and women
Consistency demonstrated with other Community policies (environment, Section 2.9 p
competition, public procurement, etc.) 30 & Section
3.6 p 38
An indicative financial table (see table 1) with the financial contribution Section 5 p 49
from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European
Investment Bank (EIB) and the other financial instruments
A description of the management and control arrangements that have Section 6, p 51
been set up for the implementation of the CIP & Appendix 4
An account of he steps taken to consult the partners and the arrangements Section 6, p 51
and provisions for their involvement in the Monitoring Committee & Appendix 2
An outline of the arrangements for monitoring and evaluation Sections 4.4, p
46 & Appendix
Publicity actions for the CIP Section 4.4 &
Annex 7: Indicators
1 Number of inhabitants in the programme area (thousands) 37.041
2 Surface covered (km2) Not available *
- total unemployment rate 6.4%
- (Claimant Count, 2000)
- share of long-term unemployment as per cent of total 13.8%
- (over 1 year)
4 Number of enterprises (per 1000 inhabitants) 20
5 Percentage of the population dependent on social transfers tbc
(depending upon UK definition of social transfers ie. which benefits ?)
6 Percentage of immigrants/ethnic minorities/refugees in the total 1.7%
- school drop-out quota (as a percentage of all school tbc
(depending on UK definition eg. exclusions or those not taking GCSE’s ?)
number of places in childcare facilities (per 1.000 inhabitants) 12
(Bristol Early Years and Childcare Audit – South Bristol 2001)
8 Criminality/security (offences per 10.000 inhabitants) Not available *
(Crime recorded by rate rather than number of incidences)
9 Demographic situation
- share of the population under 16years 25.8%
- share of the population over 60 years 15.4%
10 Average living space (m2 per inhabitant) 38.5
(Figure – Pop per hectare at ward level )
11 Environment / public transport
- share of green areas as percentage of the entire surface Not available *
- network length Not available*
* These figures are unable at present but will form part of baseline data collection at the
beginning of the programme.
The Bristol URBAN II Partnership will also include a number of the optional indicators from
the European Commission. These will be included in the Programme Complement along
with other indicative programme specific indicators developed as more young people become
involved in the design and management of the programme.
Core indicators for the monitoring of URBAN (to be completed)
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total
1. Number of jobs created (women/men)
Number of jobs existing in 2000 :
2. Number of business start-ups
Number of enterprises existing in
3 Number of assisted SME
4. Number of participants on training /
Number of participants in 2000 :
5. Green areas created or improved (in
Surface in 2000:
6. Other public areas created or improved
Surface in 2000 :
7. Surface of public buildings created or
Surface in 2000 :
8 New places in childcare facilities
Number of places in 2000 :
9 Extension of public transport network 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Network length in 2000 :
10 new cycle tracks (km) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Network length in 2000 :