Here's another interesting quote - bit of an eye-opener!:
www.fightforourhomes.com/index.php?component=ddb&operation=page&page=25"Statement of Case
Judy Yacoub, 18/01/02
My statement may be relevant to the Public Inquiry as I was employed by the Borough of Pendle from 01/04/99 to 31/12/00 as the Community Economic Development Worker for the priority wards of Whitefield and Bradley.
As of 09/00 I have been a part time student (Urban Regeneration MSc at Sheffield Hallam University).
My interest and experience in this work has arisen as a result of over 10 years of voluntary experience working with and leading on local, national and international campaigns, mostly on environmental and social welfare issues.
In addition to providing support services and information for the Whitefield and Bradley CED Partnership, my duties also involved supporting organizations wishing to develop projects eligible for Objective 2 Priority 4 funding, but also to develop the capacity of organizations, particularly local community groups who were not yet able to manage ERDF or ESF projects of their own. To this end I was responsible for establishing and operating a small capacity building grants budget.
The CED Partnership was already established when I came into post, as was the Local Action Plan. The Borough had employed a consultant from the Civic Trust Regeneration Unit (CTRU) to do the initial development work with the Partnership and to identify key projects to be implemented as part of the Local Action Plan. My first impression was that for a programme focusing on community economic development
My work brought me into daily contact with local groups, and my first impression was that for a programme meant to promote community economic development, there was little of the community actually involved. In Whitefield and Bradley the proposed lead bodies at that time were Groundwork East Lancashire, Nelson and Colne College, East Lancashire Careers Services Ltd. And the local authority itself. Of the eight or so projects under development when I took up post, three were led by the local authority itself. When I questioned Ian Campbell, the CTRU consultant, about the lack of genuine community involvement, I was told that local groups, particularly ethnic minority groups, were either “carpetbaggers” or not eligible to manage projects. There appeared to be an attitude of complacency in terms of funding and projects being dominated by the ‘usual suspects’, rather than any interest in developing the skills and confidence of community and voluntary groups.
By September 2000 the picture had changed: of the fourteen CED projects active in Whitefield and Bradley, the majority were led by local community groups, most of whom had little or no previous experience of external funding. All but one of the projects were successfully completed, and in many cases surpassed the expectations of even the lead bodies themselves. I am able to provide case studies to confirm this.
Daily contact with local groups inevitably led to learning more about their wider issues, and indeed about the individuals involved. Local residents voiced concern that their homes could be demolished as part of a Whitefield neighbourhood renewal scheme. Going back to my duties as CED worker, I have often reflected that for a deprived area, Whitefield actually has a far greater sense of community and ‘belonging’ than most other areas in Pendle. The area’s substantial Asian heritage population, coming as it does from mostly one area of Pakistan, is extremely close, with neighbours, friends and families all knit together. With the number of local shops and activities in the area, the deprivation in Whitefield is relatively easy to repair: the community cohesion already present could be impossible to restore if wholesale clearance and rebuilding were to take place. Indeed, it seems ridiculous to spend large sums of EU and SRB funds in the area, aimed at increasing the sense of community, when the borough’s intention is to rip the heart out of the community.
I have had a longstanding interest in planning issues, taking on a campaign against the M65 eastward extension (the now infamous “road to nowhere”), and campaigning to save a wetland habitat which is now Pendle’s only Local Nature Reserve (LNR). In discussing the planned demolition of some 400 house (approximately a quarter of Whitefield) I felt it was important to go along to the public consultation sessions. I attended one of the two public consultation meetings held in Whitefield in July 2000 and made notes of what was said. I recollect in particular Cllr. Waite’s references to generous resettlement offers to householders who agreed to CPOs, which could not possibly be met given the legal conditions attached to these offers. In addition of the 70 or so individuals present, only one spoke in favour of demolition. The majority of those present clearly had difficulty in understanding what was being said, yet no translator was provided. No maps and other material was available at the meeting for clarification. At one point one of the residents asked how they could be assisted to develop their organizational and negotiating capacity. I stood up and said that any individuals wishing to form a group, or needing help with funding advice, could contact me—that was after all a clear remit of my post. I have my notes of the meeting in a daily log and can make these available if required.
This was obviously anathema to councillors and senior officers occupying the stage, to such an extent that my line manager urged me some weeks later to telephone the Director of Development, Janet Bradbury, to ‘clear myself of any involvement’ (I was still very active in environmental campaigns, particularly transport, and had been approached by my Service Unit head, Dorothy Morris, about this—while she wouldn’t interfere with choices I made out of work time, she felt it important to tell me that my involvement as a local activist was damaging to me in terms of councillors’ opinions of me as an employee of the borough). I went to see Janet Bradbury, and was told that ‘members were concerned about my level of involvement’ in the Whitefield renewal area. I said that I was not planning to get involved with any campaign, but felt it was important to know what local residents felt and what messages they were getting from councillors and officers, since many of them came to me for advice.
The capacity building grants mentioned above enabled new and emerging groups to access small amounts of ERDF for their own activities. In September 2000 I was approached by a Whitefield resident who asked for assistance with arranging a public meeting for people affected by the proposed clearances (funding to cover costs of mail out/publicity, hire of premises, refreshments, etc.). He told me that he and others had been promised “every support” by the council at an earlier meeting. I told him I would need to refer the matter to Janet Bradbury and copied a detailed memo to John Kirk, outlining the case for a capacity building grant based on an earlier precedent, wherein the Nelson Mela committee had been given 250 pounds to cover a deficit in their budget (Janet Bradbury had argued that the involvement in organizing an event was itself capacity building for the group). I received a memo from Janet stating categorically that this situation was emphatically not eligible for CED funding, and that the matter would be dealt with by Trevor Mitton and his unit. I can provide copies of all correspondence.
I have records of two consultation sessions I organized for Whitefield and Bradley residents in the development of the SRB6 bid. Of the general themes and activities discussed, none involved large scale demolition of housing.
This is an outline of information—all supporting the claim that the council has continued to manipulate and marginalize individuals for its own benefit. The clearance scheme is far more about providing the private sector leverage for an SRB6 scheme than it is about meeting local needs and aspirations. I am happy to discuss this further if this is helpful."
Some of us know Judy!
