faith communities and regeneration in the thames · pdf filefaith communities and regeneration...

Thames Gateway Kent Partnership

Faith Communities and Regeneration in the Thames Gateway

Feasibility Study Report

June 2010

© The Grubb Institute 06/2010

The Grubb Institute Cloudesley Street London N1 0HU

Tel: 020 7278 8061 Fax: 020 7278 0728 Web: www.grubb.org.uk Email: [email protected]

The Grubb Institute of Behavioural Studies Ltd Reg. in England & Wales No. 890637 Reg. Charity No. 313460 Reg. Office: Cloudesley Street, London N1 0HU

Faith Communities and Regeneration

The Grubb Institute < i >

Feasibility Study of Faith Communities and Regeneration in the Thames Gateway

Executive Summary

1 This Report outlines the findings from a Feasibility Study carried out by the Grubb

Institute and Whole Community Works exploring the contribution of different faith

communities to social regeneration in the Thames Gateway. (§1 §8)

2 The Feasibility Study is based on 4 case studies of faith communities which were

generally seen within the regeneration networks as having made a significant

contribution to the regeneration and vitality of their communities. They were The Living Well (Temple Hill Dartford), Hope Street Community Centre (Sheerness), All Saints Community Centre (Chatham) and the Guru Nanak Football Club (Gravesend), which had responded to social issues and deprivation

impacting on their local communities. (§9 §10)

3 In addition the Project engaged with the Buddhist Community in North Kent and its wish to develop a new temple in the area, so as to understand and clarify

the issues involved in brokering interactions between a faith community, local

authorities and the private sector. (§11 §12)

4 We have identified 10 factors, which seem to have been significant in the development of these successful projects. (§13 §15)

4.1 There is an identifiable community with significant deprivation and/or social issues where existing provision is difficult or having too limited an impact. (§16 17)

4.2 The faith community is identified with and/or is itself experiencing the dilemmas of its local ‘community’. (§18)

4.3 There is a vision for the ‘faith communityincommunity’ which is both informed by the faith and bigger than maintaining the congregation and worship space. (§19)

4.4 There is a strategic level enabler from the faith community able to link local vision to strategic concerns about delivery and opportunities for funding. (§20)

4.5 There needs to be a ‘mobilising idea’ of the project around which support can be built and different pressures contained – either an identifiable community or a shared passion (eg football). (§21)


The Grubb Institute < ii >

4.6 The faith community is willing to make a significant investment in the regeneration over a period of time, in terms of people, buildings and finance. (§22)

4.7 A capacity to identify and get on board a sufficiently senior ‘champion’ in the relevant public sector bodies – local authority, primary care trust, etc. (§23)

4.8 The proposed project is an imaginative response of the right scale which is clearly relevant to local needs. (§24)

4.9 There needs to be credible local leaders who know (and are known in) the community, have their confidence and are felt to be able to speak for them. (§26)

4.10 If the faith community does not continue to renew its vision and involvement with the wider community, then changing secular agendas are likely to be the dominant influence on what develops. (§27)

5 The Findings of the Feasibility Study underline the potential difference which embedded faith communities can make in the social regeneration of disadvantaged communities which the statutory agencies find hard to reach or where issues such as racism are politically sensitive. A key element in realising

this potential has been the work of those we have described as strategic level

enablers from within the faith communities. (§28 §38)

6 The Report argues that what is needed is a Faiths and Regeneration Initiative, seeking to build on the learning to date and developing the capacity within the Thames Gateway to mobilise and facilitate faith communities’

contribution to regeneration. (§39 §40)

7 It proposes four parallel processes which would enable the Faiths and

Regeneration Initiative to be effective. (§41)

7.1 Disseminating the Findings, including guidelines for statutory agencies and faith communities. (§42)

7.2 Developing Networks and Capacity (§43 §46)

7.3 Developing the Institutional Base, with the Diocese of Rochester, Hope in the Community and Whole Community Works. (§47 §54)

7.4 Working towards a Faiths & Regeneration Conference (§55 §56)

8 We have developed Checklists for Statutory Agencies (Annex 2) and Faith Communities (Annex 3) to facilitate the development of effective collaborations in

the social regeneration of local communities.


The Grubb Institute < iii >

Contents

The Feasibility Study ......................................................................... 1

The Case Studies .............................................................................. 2

Emerging Factors .............................................................................. 4

Implications of these Findings ........................................................... 17

Developing the Faith Communities’ Contribution ................................. 17

A Faiths and Regeneration Initiative .................................................. 19

In conclusion .................................................................................. 24

Annex 1 Scope of Feasibility Study ................................................... 25

Project Interviews ................................................................ 25

Buddhist Community Intervention Workshop ............................. 26

General Interviews ............................................................... 26

Background Reading: ............................................................ 27

Annex 2: Checklist for Statutory Agencies ........................................... v

Annex 3: Checklist for Faith Communities .......................................... vii


The Grubb Institute < iv >


The Grubb Institute < 1 >

Faith Communities and Regeneration in the Thames Gateway

Report on a Feasibility Study

The Feasibility Study 1 This Report outlines the findings from a Feasibility Study carried out between

September 2009 and March 2010 by The Grubb Institute in association with Whole Community Works, an interfaith charity. The focus was on exploring the contribution of different faith communities to social regeneration in the Thames Gateway and to identify the next steps to mobilise the contribution of faith communities.

2 The project was designed to build on a previous study on FaithBased Regeneration in the Thames Gateway, published by Rochester Cathedral in summer 2008, which explored the potential for developing the contribution that faith communities make to regeneration. The working title for this project was the ‘Faith Observatory’. The broad objectives of the initiative explored in the report were identified as:

Establishing a faiths’ network for the Thames Gateway

Providing capacity building for Gateway faith groups and their leaders

Growing partnerships and networks at strategic and local levels

Enhancing the participation of faith groups in strategy and project delivery

Contributing the distinctive values system of faith communities to the regeneration agenda

Harnessing the volunteering potential of faith communities for regeneration

Informing action through reflection and learning

3 In practice, it has proved difficult to carry forward the business plan envisaged in the Report, which proposed a body with 5 staff members and annual running costs in the region of £400,000 per annum.

4 Yet the idea of exploring the relationship between faith issues and regeneration in the Thames Gateway resonates with some significant national objectives; most notably the importance of community cohesion for a multicultural society. It also addresses the growing emphasis on social regeneration as an integral strand within the broader regeneration agenda. Examples of faithbased regeneration projects feature heavily across the Gateway, but little has been done to build the capacity of the faith sector to deliver a greater impact than it currently does.



5 It was in this context that The Revd Martin Henwood, chair of Whole Community Works, saw the need to find a practical way to take forward this thinking in practice. Whole Community Works had itself become involved in social regeneration projects in Kent, particularly in seeking to develop a partnership between the different faith communities to lead the community use of a refurbished Gravesend Old Town Hall in collaboration with Kent County Council.

6 In discussion with The Grubb Institute, Whole Community Works developed a proposal for a modest Feasibility Study designed:

To set out and clarify the next steps for the more systematic development of a Faith and Regeneration Initiative in the Thames Gateway.

7 The Feasibility Study set out to identify and analyse:

7.1 What involving the faith based communities can add to regeneration

7.2 The conditions necessary and required for faith communities to add value to regeneration.

7.3 The strategic issues and challenges to make this happen

8 The Study has been carried out between September 2009 and March 2010 by Colin Quine of The Grubb Institute and The Revd Martin Henwood of Whole Community Works. It has worked closely with the Thames Gateway Kent Partnership, with funding from the Homes and Community Agency via the Medway Renaissance Partnership.

The Case Studies 9 Through wide consultations we identified four case studies of faith communities

which were generally seen within the regeneration networks as having made a significant contribution to the regeneration and vitality of their communities.

9.1 The Living Well, Temple Hill, Dartford, where St Edmunds Church has been rebuilt as The Living Well, serving both as a centre for delivering primary healthcare to Temple Hill and the base for a Healthy Living Centre serving the other deprived communities in Dartford.

9.2 Hope Street Community Centre, Sheerness, where the United Reformed Church congregation has developed its church premises to house the Citizens Advice Bureau, opened a community café (The Lighthouse), and provided meeting rooms and training for the unemployed including those with learning difficulties. This has made an important contribution in developing community health and morale, complementing that of more focussed initiatives such as Sea Shells (a Sure Start Centre).



9.3 All Saints Community Centre, Chatham, where All Saints Church has become a trusted link between a deprived marginalised community, distrustful of professionals, and Medway Council and other service providers, delivering a range of services from house improvements to wrap around childcare provision. Medway Council has used the lessons from this project to develop other church based projects in Strood and Twydall.

9.4 Guru Nanak Football Club, Gravesend, which responded to the experience of racism in the 1970s by building an inclusive football club under Sikh sponsorship. This has contributed greatly to social cohesion in Gravesend (which has beacon status for Promoting Racial Equality). It is seen as exemplary by the wider Football Association and has informed the FA’s development of its antiracism policies.

10 In these established projects we have interviewed those involved in initiating the projects, current staff, representatives of partner organisations and others who made them possible. We have also reviewed written accounts of these projects where they existed.

10.1 In the original design we had expected to carry out a number of interviews with representatives of the private sector. But what emerged was that there had been minimal involvement of the private sector in these four projects. (Where we might have expected private sector involvement through provision of capital resources, it became apparent that the capital resources had majorly been provided through the faith community itself.)

11 In addition to the case studies of 4 established projects, we planned to engage with an emerging project to understand and clarify the issues involved in brokering interactions between a faith community, local authorities and the private sector. We were aware that the Buddhist community in North Kent was seeking a way to relocate and develop a new temple in the area. On 1 March 2010 we brokered and facilitated a meeting between representatives of the Buddhist community, two local authorities and developers.

11.1 Buddhist Temple and Community Gravesend The Buddhist community in Kent is currently based in leased accommodation in Gravesend. It serves a mainly Thai community, with involvement of a smaller community of Cambodian Buddhists. Its membership is growing rapidly and exceeding the capacity of the current building. It is currently seeking larger premises in the general area of Kent, ideally in a setting which will support quiet and meditation. It has begun building up funds to finance this and has expectations of significant funding being made available from Thailand if it finds a suitable property.



12 We are aware of two limitations of the Feasibility Study

12.1 It remains an open question as to whether the development of a new Buddhist Temple will lead to ‘regeneration’, either in terms of the impact of up to 900 Buddhists becoming involved in a community or a contribution to the social regeneration of the host community.

12.2 Our analysis of the contribution to the social regeneration of existing communities does provide pointers as to the faith communities’ potential contribution to the development of new housing and communities in the Thames Gateway. The six month timescale of this Feasibility Study meant that it was not feasible to research in sufficient depth the issues involved in these developments. (Paradoxically the window of opportunity for faith communities to get involved early enough in the planning discussions to make a significant contribution is short – but the time required to develop a sense of community and build links between new and existing communities is considerably longer). For example, we are aware of initiatives such as that led by the Methodist Church on the Bridge Development, Dartford but it is still too early to assess its impact.

Emerging Factors 13 A key focus in analysing the case studies has been identifying the factors which

have made these particular projects successful, taking account also of additional evidence available from other faith and secular projects in the area. These indicate the conditions and potential interventions which have underpinned an effective contribution of the local faith community to social regeneration.

14 We have identified 10 factors, which seem to have been significant in the development of these successful projects. They have not necessarily all been present in each project, sometimes because other factors have made them less relevant. We nevertheless have some confidence that paying attention to these factors is likely to contribute to successful project development.

14.1 There is an identifiable community with significant deprivation and/or social issues where existing provision is difficult or having too limited an impact. (§16 17)

14.2 The faith community is identified with and/or is itself experiencing the dilemmas of its local ‘community’. (§18)

14.3 There is a vision for the ‘faith communityincommunity’ which is both informed by the faith and bigger than maintaining the congregation and worship space. (§19 19.5)

14.4 There is a strategic level enabler from the faith community able to link local vision to strategic concerns about delivery and opportunities for funding. (§20)



14.5 There needs to be a ‘mobilising idea’ of the project around which support can be built and different pressures contained – either an identifiable community or a shared passion (eg football). (§21)

14.6 The faith community is willing to make a significant investment in the regeneration over a period of time, in terms of people, buildings and finance. (§22)

14.7 A capacity to identify and get on board a sufficiently senior ‘champion’ in the relevant public sector bodies – local authority, primary care trust, etc. (§23)

14.8 The proposed project is an imaginative response of the right scale which is clearly relevant to local needs. (§24)

14.9 There needs to be credible local leaders who know (and are known in) the community, have their confidence and are felt to be able to speak for them. (§26)

14.10 If the faith community does not continue to renew its vision and involvement with the wider community, then changing secular agendas are likely to be the dominant influence on what develops. (§27)

15 We explore and exemplify each of these factors in the following paragraphs.

16 An identifiable community with significant deprivation and/or social issues What is striking in three community based projects were that they had been established in areas of significant deprivation on a number of standard social and economic measures. They were also areas where the issues were well known to the relevant statutory agencies, but they had found it difficult to improve existing provision or to increase its limited impact. These are the ‘hard to reach’ communities, whether through location, poor housing, distrust of the authorities or low levels of social confidence and competence. (Diagram 1)

Local Community Hard to Reach

Diagram 1



16.1 Temple Hill, Dartford is a physically bounded community, where the Primary Care Health Trust was aware of a significant level of health problems and that the local surgery was a sole practice, with the GP approaching retirement. Despite their best efforts they had not found it possible to develop a practical mechanism for addressing the health problems.

16.2 Sheerness is an island town, very much dependent on its road link to the rest of Kent. This potentially means a significant road journey to either deliver services locally or to access them on the ‘mainland’. Long term residents told us how until the building of the new road bridge a majority of residents had never left the Isle of Sheppey. Over the years there has been a continuing reduction of employment available locally, resulting in areas of significant social deprivation. Its location increases the costs and limits the possibilities of statutory bodies in delivering services.

16.3 The area in Chatham in which All Saints is based is one which has a high level of social deprivation, including poor housing, unemployment and health problems. But it is also a community which traditionally has a great deal of distrust of those ‘in authority’, making it difficult for the local authority and other agencies to deliver the additional support they see is needed to address the deprivation.

17 In the case of the Guru Nanak Football Club, the issue was not so much of social deprivation as that of racism. In the 1970s, the Sikh community was experiencing racism within Gravesend, as were less established newly arrived immigrant communities. The challenge for all concerned was that racism at that time was fairly pervasive, not always conscious and was also politically sensitive. The leadership which the Sikh community as a whole has provided, both in mobilising the local community against the National Front in the 1970s and in developing an inclusive football club, has supported the efforts of Gravesham Borough Council to promote racial equality.

18 Identified with the dilemmas of its local community In each of the four communities it was significant that members of the faith community had family roots in the locality, and as a result shared, personally and organisationally, the frustrations and deprivations of the wider community. This was particularly evident where the faith premises were as dilapidated or in need of rebuilding as local housing. (Diagram 2)

18.1 The membership of the Hope Street URC church in Sheerness consisted mainly of long term Sheerness residents. Its struggle to maintain numbers (it was down to only 10 worshippers) and to find a way to repair its church hall reflected the more general sense of diminishment in that part of Sheerness.



18.2 The congregation at All Saints, Chatham consisted mainly of those who lived in the area, or who had previously done so before ‘making good’ and being able to move to ‘better’ areas. This made it possible at an early stage of the development of its community project to visit local residents without the level of suspicion that would have greeted outsiders.

18.3 In Temple Hill, the St Edmunds congregation was largely local. As the church premises had been built at the same time as the estate, it was also becoming in need of refurbishment or replacement. At an early stage of the development of The Living Well, the Vicar began bringing together the different professionals working with people in Temple Hill, helping to build a shared picture of the community.

18.4 The members of the Sikh community had a strong wish to be a contributing part of the Gravesham community, whilst maintaining their Sikh identity. The wish was not to set up a separate Sikh football league, but to become an accepted part of the existing leagues.

19 Vision informed by faith It seems an important factor that the faith community has developed a vision for the future, which is both informed by the faith and is bigger than maintaining the congregation and worship space, which sees the faith community engaging with the wider community. The vision is of a transformed community, with the faith group contributing to that regeneration. This vision had emerged in different ways in the four projects. (Diagram 3)

19.1 At St Edmunds, Temple Hill the newly arrived vicar created an event for members of the congregation to develop a vision for the future. What emerged was a vision of a healing stream flowing down from the church bringing health to the community. The working out of this vision, for


Faith Community

Diagram 2



health throughout the community, informed the process which led to the creation of the Living Well.

19.2 At All Saints the vision was a more traditionally Christian desire to bring people “to know the love of Jesus”. However what was important was the recognition by the then leadership of the church that this would not happen through preaching, but because they had experienced that love in practice. This informed its engagement with the community and the development of the All Saints Community Centre.

19.3 In the case of the Guru Nanak Football Club, the response to the

experience of racism when they first joined the local league was to develop a vision of an inclusive team rather than retaliate or fight for acceptance of an all Sikh team. This is very much informed by the Sikh belief in the equality of all human beings and to seek justice (only resorting to conflict as a last resort). They sought to achieve this vision not only by inviting (and cajoling) nonSikhs to play for their team, but also by encouraging other teams to include Sikh players.

19.4 The Hope Street URC congregation were facilitated by Revd Peter Southcombe, Regeneration Director for the United Reformed Church Southern Synod, to envision a future for their church, even though closure seemed inevitable. The vision that emerged was that “God is not finished with us yet”. On the face of it, this seems very much focused on the congregation itself. But if you read it in the context of Sheerness – that “God is not finished with Sheerness yet” it represent a much wider vision. The way the vision has been taken forward supports the latter reading.


Faith Community

Diagram 3



19.5 It is important to underline that this is a key issue for potential partners. A concern that was reported to us was that there was a history of some faith communities behaving in a way which suggested that they were really only concerned with their own needs. They had secured funding, improved their premises but not delivered on the activities designed to support the local community.

19.6 We were conscious in the workshop with the Buddhist community that questions about the contribution to the community were answered in terms of helping people to understand the Buddhist faith and culture or the advantages of Thai cooking. In one sense this is understandable given that they do not know which community they will be based in. It also illustrates the dilemma for planning and regeneration officers who were looking for evidence of a wider contribution to a host community.

20 Strategic Level ‘enablers’ In each project there was a strategic level enabler from within the wider faith community who made a critical difference in the successful development of the Project. They were able to frame the local visions and link it to strategic concerns about delivery in the relevant statutory agencies, identify opportunities for funding, and provide project management skills in the critical start up skills. (Diagram 4)

20.1 As Director of Regeneration for Rochester Diocese, Matthew Girt made critical contributions to the development of both The Living Well and All Saints Community Centre. This was recognised both by the local leadership of the project and by the partner organisations. The people we interviewed expressed concern about the gap which had been left when he moved to London Diocese

Hard to Reach

Faith Community ‘enabler’

Local Community

Diagram 4



20.2 Similarly Revd Peter Southcombe as Regeneration Director for the United Reformed Church Southern Synod played a critical role in enabling Hope Street URC to envision a future, to secure support from the wider United Reformed Church, find funding and develop project management skills.

20.3 Part of the success of these two enablers, working very much in partnership, was that they were able to develop recognition at the strategic level of statutory agencies and regeneration partnerships. This progressively meant that faith communities were seen as potential partners. (For example, Peter Southcombe is a community member of the Thames Gateway Partnership Board.) They were clearly allies in maintaining the sense that faith communities had a potential contribution and ensuring this was not undermined by badly conceived and managed faith community projects.

20.4 In the case of Guru Nanak FC, one of its leading members played a similar role in enabling it to influence football more widely in Kent and nationally.

20.5 We note that enabling a half day meeting between representatives of the Buddhist Community and key local authority and private sector planning and regeneration experts, was experienced by the faith community as helping it to focus on what was realistic and possible and led to it seeking appropriate professional help in the next step.

21 Mobilising idea There needs to be a ‘mobilising idea’ of the project around which support can be built and different pressures contained – either an identifiable community or a shared passion such as football. (Diagram 5)

i Hard to Reach

Faith Community ‘enabler

Local Community mobilising idea

Diagram 5



21.1 The name ‘Living Well’ at Temple Hill names the emerging idea very powerfully. It links back to the vision as the source of a health giving stream, as well as meaning literally ‘living well’ (= healthily)

21.2 Similarly at Sheerness, in choosing the design for the redevelopment to provide a community cafe, those involved felt instinctively that the architect whose concept was of a ‘Lighthouse’ was right. As one put it, “It was a feeling of light from the outside coming in and the light from the inside going back out”. The Lighthouse Cafe is a symbol of finding the way to new hope.

21.3 In the case of Guru Nanak FC the mobilising idea was that of the passion for football. This was what was used to build an inclusive team, to persuade nonSikh’s to play for them.

21.4 We note the potential of other shared passions, such as the current interest in developing community choirs, as a way of mobilising people in the community to contribute to social regeneration and community building.

22 Investment in Regeneration A key factor for partner organisations and funders was that the faith community was willing to make a significant investment in the regeneration over a period of time. This has been in terms of land, buildings, funding, staff deployment, volunteers, advice and encouragement. The involvement of the locally based faith community as a partner has in some cases made it easier to leverage in additional grants and funding. (Diagram 6)

Hard to Reach


Local Community

Wider Faith Community

investment

Diagram 6

mobilising idea



22.1 At Hope Street URC, the church sold its hall to secure some initial capital and was able to secure a £500,000 grant from the wider United Reformed Church to enable the development to take place. The United Reformed Church has also provided support by making available an ordained community minister nearly full time to support the development of the work in the community.

22.2 At Temple Hill, the Diocese of Rochester was able to sell a part of the existing St Edmunds site to a housing association and use the capital released to make a significant contribution to the building costs of The Living Well.

22.3 The Diocese has also contributed to the costs of the development at All Saints.

22.4 In the case of Guru Nanak FC much of the costs of its development over 40 years has been self financed through members of the Sikh Community and through team members and their families. The Gurdwara itself has contributed organisationally when required.

23 Finding a ‘champion’ A capacity to identify and get on board a sufficiently senior ‘champion’ in the relevant public sector bodies (local authority, primary care trust, etc) was important in seeing the project was able to come to fruition. What was key was that the champion saw the potential of the project, knew who else needed to be convinced and the concerns that would need to be addressed to secure authorisation. Usually the champion was the person who held the relevant brief within their own organisation, but often they were able to mobilise others within their own agencies and other relevant agencies. (Diagram 7)

Hard to Reach


Local Community


investment

local champion

Diagram 7

mobilising idea



23.1 For example, the active support of Dartford Borough Council’s Deputy Chief Executive (who held a community development brief) and of the Health Improvement lead within the Dartford, Gravesham & Swanley Primary Care Trust was crucial in the development of The Living Well. It was probably also relevant that the Temple Hill Ward Councillor was Council Leader during the key period.

23.2 In relation to the All Saints Community Project the ‘champion’ was Medway Council’s Social Regeneration Officer. He saw the potential of this embedded church congregation providing an interface with this community which was likely to short circuit the alternative strategy of funding a community worker or workers over 3 – 5 years. What has happened has validated this judgement and resulted in Medway using local churches as bridges into two other ‘difficult to reach’ communities, with an input of advice and support from the All Saints Community Centre.

23.3 In relation to Hope Street URC, Swale Borough Council’s Regeneration Director was supportive of the developments. But both at Hope Street and for Guru Nanak FC the significance of the champion roles was less marked, in part because the activities and focus do not fit so clearly into the priorities of statutory agencies. The evidence we have suggests that leading members of the organisation have become the ‘champions’ when necessary. Both projects have also been effective in mobilising local Councillors when required.

24 Imaginative Response Those we have interviewed have stressed that each project was an imaginative, dynamic response of the right scale which is clearly relevant to, and engaged with, local needs. (Diagram 8)

Hard to Reach


Local Community


investment

Diagram 8

mobilising idea

right size, right place



24.1 The projects have mostly been built step by step, bringing together smaller initiatives focussed on the desires of the community and arriving at a point when the capacity and experience of the faith community has been established. As a result of these small first steps, the point has been reached where a major development (in terms of significant investment or employing a project manager) is clearly needed and the ‘right decision’.

24.2 Matthew Girt has described this process as a form of “junk modelling”. Peter Southcombe describes its in terms of a “sticky ball” process (a term coined by Andrew Mawson of One Church, 100 Uses), where the initial activities are the sticky balls to which other projects become attached and a shape emerges (cf §21).

24.3 In the All Saints Community Centre a key early step was in the church community acting as the vehicle through which a home improvement scheme could be publicised and residents helped to apply for it.

24.4 At Temple Hill, the rebuild of St Edmunds as the Living Well created a site for a new GP surgery and a local base for a Healthy Living Centre in the area where it was most needed.

25 It was a result of this approach and the resources mobilised both through the enabler and local champions that the projects became established as significant contributions to addressing the social needs and issues in the community in a way which was acceptable and embedded. (Diagram 9)


Local Community

mobilising idea


investment

local champion

Diagram 9

right size, right place



26 Credible local leadership Over time the evidence suggest there needs to be credible local leaders who know (and are known in) the community, have gained their confidence and who are felt to speak for them. There is a risk for such projects when founding figures (such as clergy), enablers and local champions (§23) move on. The evidence is that some of the projects have mobilised local leadership and developed their capacity, enabling the project to be sustained amidst the flux of changes in policy priorities and funding strategies. (Diagram 10)

26.1 At All Saints, one of the congregation members who was an experienced

manager in the civil service has become the manager of the Community Centre, bringing together ownership of the vision and the necessary project management skills. She has received mentoring and support from Hope in the Community. The evidence suggests that this will enable the work to continue through the transition from the original vicar to a new incumbent.

26.2 At Hope Street URC, the lead has been taken by a member of the congregation, a retired teacher, who, with initial support from Hope in the Community, has become expert at seeking funding and supporting the parttime employed project manager.

26.3 The Guru Nanak FC has been able to recruit a series of Sikh footballers as ‘chairs’ who have continued to seek to maintain and strengthen the club, maintaining its distinctive values.

26.4 There is no doubt that the current vicar who has provided leadership over the development of The Living Well is well regarded locally. He will move on over the next year. We were not clear from the study how well

Faith Community

Local Community


investment

local leadership

Diagram 10

mobilising idea



established the local lay leadership is in relation to The Living Well as a whole. (We are aware that the employed manager of the Healthy Living Centre is not a member of the congregation in this case and is therefore not able herself to root the work of the Centre in the life of the congregation.)

27 Renewed Vision and Involvement If the faith community does not continue to renew its vision and involvement with the wider community, then the changing secular agendas are likely to be the key influence on how the project develops, determining what is sustained. Such developments may bring into question both the mobilising idea (§21) and whether the project is the right size or in the right place (§24). This is a constant challenge to all third sector organisations which depend on funding streams and initiatives that are frequently time limited. There is a need to balance flexibility, changes in the community and its needs, funding possibilities and the underpinning faith imperatives (cf §19). (Diagram 11)

27.1 For these projects rooted in a faith community, there is likely to be less awareness and fleetness of foot in following the money, particularly where there are real questions about whether the priorities match the original vision or the way it is developing. (For example we are aware at The Living Well of a potential tension between the Healthy Living Centre’s remit to serve six disadvantaged areas in Dartford and the original Temple Hill focussed vision.)

27.2 We are aware of faith community projects outside the Kent area where the faith community has retreated to a position of treating the project as an income producing tenant, rather than an expression of what God is calling it to do in its community. This potentially diminishes the potential for the

Faith Community

Local Community


investment

local leadership

Diagram 11

renewed vision

right size? right place?

mobilising idea?



community, for partner organisations and for the faith community’s own understanding and expression of its faith.

27.3 Hence we would suggest that the sustainability of faith community projects will be linked to the faith community’s willingness to periodically review and renew its vision and its involvement in the wider community.

Implications of these Findings 28 The evidence from the case studies is that where there are established faith

groups in ‘hard to reach’ communities, they can be a key resource in enabling community health, wellbeing and cohesion to be improved.

29 The ten factors we have identified (§14) provide guiding principles for statutory agencies and faith communities in extending and enhancing the faith contribution to social regeneration. We have developed Checklists for both statutory agencies (Annex 2) and faith communities (Annex 3) based on these principles, which are included at the end of this Report.

30 The factors provide a basis for identifying equivalent principles in enabling the faith communities to share in the development of a sense of community and social cohesion in the new housing developments in the Thames Gateway.

Developing the Faith Communities’ Contribution 31 What the Feasibility Study has underlined is the potential difference which

embedded faith communities can make in the social regeneration of disadvantaged communities which the statutory agencies find hard to reach or where issues such as racism are politically sensitive.

31.1 In the current financial climate, the potential that a faith community can itself bring significant assets (whether a site, premises or funding) to the table may well be the decisive factor in enabling regeneration projects to be taken forward.

32 The focus of the Study was to identify how to facilitate the further release of faith communities’ resources in the regeneration of Kent Gateway specifically in:

the transformation of deprived neighbourhoods

the overcoming of social issues

investment in new communities

33 A starting point is to see the emerging factors identified from the case studies as principles around which future projects might be judged in terms of their potential viability and success.

34 It is also apparent that the critical factor in three of the projects was the contribution of those we have described as the strategic level enablers from the faith communities. They helped the local faith communities to focus and



input their vision, linked them to key players and their strategic concerns, identifying funding opportunities and being at the table for strategic level discussions. In each case they enabled local leaders to develop the skills and knowledge to take the projects forward and sustain them. Without their contribution the initiatives would not have progressed beyond the early stages.

34.1 In the Guru Nanak Football Club this role was in effect taken by a small number of the club’s leaders, who made the equivalent links and established a place in the strategic level discussions (within the Football Association) over a 30 year period.

34.2 The small scale intervention made with the Buddhist Community revealed the limits of the ‘common sense’ way in which they were approaching their search for a new temple site. The extent to which they did not understand the planners concerns and potential flexibility in the system surprised the planners present. It proved relatively easy to link them up to professionals (an architect and property agents) who could both speed up and increase the probability of a satisfactory outcome.

35 The conclusion of this Feasibility Study is that the continued availability of such enablers serves the interest not only of the faith community but of statutory agencies and the communities which they serve. They make links between organizations which see the world in very different terms and make it possible to both access resources and deploy expertise at the critical stages in the development and management of new regeneration projects.

36 The evidence is that the availability of such enablers cannot be taken for granted.

36.1 Matthew Girt’s departure and the fact that he has not been effectively replaced within the local Church of England structures (either Rochester Diocese or Church in Society) removed a key and respected resource.

36.2 The demands on Peter Southcombe’s time in the wider regional, national and European arenas have limited his availability to take further the crucial enabler role in the North Kent locality. He himself recognizes the need for ‘succession planning’.

This underlines the danger of depending on the skills and networks of one or two particular individuals or groups, who are able to operate at a number of levels. It is important that the learning can be articulated and shared widely among the faith communities (preferably on an interfaith basis). This argues for the need for some form of institutional base which can develop deep relationships and sustainable organisational collaborations.

37 The evidence of the Study is that one priority is recovery of the previous ground in terms of the capacity of the faith communities to provide people to take the enabler role.



37.1 The findings of this Feasibility Study potentially provide learning for both faith communities and statutory bodies, which can be presented in the form of principles and guidelines.

37.2 There is a wealth of experience in the local practitioners in the case study (and similar) projects who have learnt both from the advice of enablers and through doing. They are not necessarily linked up and the experience is easily lost if the key project workers (whether employed or volunteer faith community members) move on.

37.3 The use of the All Saints Community Centre experience to support two other church based projects in Medway is an example of what is possible. But it is also important to recognize that given the time required to run such projects and respond to shifting patterns of funding, there is limited time available to support others.

37.4 We are aware that Hope in the Community was established by the Southern Synod of the United Reformed Church “to provide an umbrella of support for faith and voluntary sector groups who are seeking to regenerate the communities within which they serve”. Whilst it has a particular brief in relation to URC churches, it works more widely with a current focus on developing social enterprises.

38 It is also clear that in the current economic climate, the scale of ‘Faith Observatory’ originally envisaged in the original study will not secure financial support. Any further initiatives will only be supported and funded if they can demonstrate the possibility of adding value at a modest cost.

A Faiths and Regeneration Initiative 39 We would therefore conclude that taking forward the proposal to establish a Faith

Observatory as a new institution is not the best way to increase the contribution of the faith communities to social regeneration (in its widest sense) at the present time.

40 Instead we would propose that what is needed is a Faiths and Regeneration Initiative, seeking to build on the learning to date and developing the capacity within the Thames Gateway to mobilise and facilitate faith communities’ contribution to regeneration. The key focus of such an Initiative is to find ways of enabling the necessary links and connections to be made which will support regeneration, growth and the development of social cohesion.

40.1 With the faith communities this involves developing their vision, helping them to relate this to the concerns of statutory agencies and funding bodies, to link them to available professional advice and potential ‘champions’ who can see the potential of what they offer.

40.2 In relation to the statutory agencies and funding bodies, it involves helping them see the potential and address the concerns about the motivation of the faith community, and to help them understand how to work effectively as partners with a faith community.



41 To make this possible we would propose the following stepping stones to establish such an Initiative with a capacity for long term and sustained release of the faith communities’ resources, working with what they have and develop existing resources.

Disseminating the Findings 42 If one of the principles around releasing the resources of faith communities is the

sharing of knowledge and learning, then a starting point is to disseminate the insights from the Feasibility Study amongst faith communities and statutory bodies.

42.1 An outline presentation was made to the Thames Gateway Kent Partnership Board on 11 February 2010.

42.2 A further presentation was made to the Kent Thameside Commissioning Forum on Thursday 11 March 2010.

Both these were well received. Whole Community Works will seek opportunities to provide wider dissemination of the findings, including seeking a web version. No further funding will be required to make this possible.

Developing Networks and Capacity 43 A second valuable stream of work would be around capturing this learning and

developing its relevance among local practitioners, in whom this experience is held, but who remain vulnerable, isolated and unsupported.

44 This could be achieved by holding half day workshops for three different groups:

44.1 Key local leaders from the case study and similar projects for mutual sharing and learning, so that they are in a position to share this with other emerging local leaders for projects being developed later.

44.2 Local agency ‘champions’ who have helped develop the case study projects for mutual sharing and learning so that they are in a position to share and identify learning with other leaders from public sector agencies.

44.3 Key strategic faith leaders from the case studies for mutual sharing and learning so that they are in a position to share this with other emerging faith leaders for other projects that have the potential for being developed.

45 The logic would be for these to be organised by Whole Community Works and The Grubb Institute to build on what has been learnt from the Feasibility Study. The workshops would require planning and organising, modest venue costs, facilitation and some gathering and dissemination of what emerged. We estimate that funding of up to £10,000 would be needed to make these feasible. (We have already received offers of support on a pro bono basis (equivalent to £2,500) which will allow Whole Community Works to run the workshop for local agency champions.)



46 This will begin the process both for securing and developing the learning and putting in place people with insights into what is required for the release and delivery of faith communities’ resources.

Developing the Institutional Base 47 For the proposed Faiths and Regeneration Initiative to be taken forward, there

needs to be a suitable institutional base. Rather than set up a new institution we would propose to seek to develop a collaboration between three existing institutions:

Diocese of Rochester

Hope in the Community/United Reformed Church

Whole Community Works

48 Diocese of Rochester To date the aspirations around the development of a ‘faith observatory’ and its potential have been held by the Diocese of Rochester, through Church in Society and the Dean of Rochester Cathedral. A variety of changes in the Diocese have limited its contribution to this agenda over the last two years, although it was active in supporting this Feasibility Study and securing funds for it. It is important to engage with the Diocese to see how it can take forward its commitment to the Thames Gateway as a new Bishop is appointed.

49 A key factor in this context is the appointment of one of the authors of this Report, the Revd Martin Henwood, as the Bishop’s Adviser for the Thames Gateway. Whilst this is a parttime appointment it does provide a position from which the first steps can be taken institutionally to move forward a Faiths and Regeneration Initiative.

49.1 A presentation of the key findings of the Feasibility Study was made to the Diocese’s key leaders on 3 March 2010, opening up the issues for further exploration.

49.2 As a result of the presentation to the Thames Gateway Kent Partnership Board there has already been a meeting on 30 March between representatives of Medway Council and the Diocese to explore where there might be a contribution from Anglican parishes to social regeneration in Medway.

50 We regard these as the first steps in recovering ground in terms of the Diocese’s potential leadership of the regeneration agenda amongst the Anglican faith community (as the ‘established church’) and more widely.

51 A key area for further exploration with the Diocese over the next year is whether it can fund a post to provide an enabler to work with parishes in the Diocese (and more widely) to support the development of regeneration projects:



51.1 We would suggest that the role is that of Strategic Business Development Director, bringing Diocesan resources into play for the mapping and reconfiguring of assets to facilitate development of projects such as The Living Well.

51.2 The brief for a Strategic Business Development Director should include the production of a map of properties and land, identifying those which can be made available and used as part of the income generation for projects. The challenge will be to balance the Diocese’s concern for regenerated buildings with the social issues that need to be addressed in local communities.

51.3 One of the key responsibilities for the Strategic Business Development Director is the production of a realistic timescale around when the faith communities could offer projects for suitable interventions and to which the statuary sector would make funding available for interventions to enable selected projects proceed to the next stage of their development.

51.4 The Strategic Business Development Director would work with the Bishop’s Advisor for Thames Gateway on how the Diocese can develop collaborations with other Christian denominations and other faith communities.

51.5 This would represent a significant investment from one faith community of up to £60,000 per annum.

52 Hope in the Community We believe that a Faiths and Regeneration Initiative will need to be developed in collaboration with the Hope in the Community charity. This organisation has provided a means for Peter Southcombe to enable others to build on what he has learnt, developing a network of support groups and services for both faith communities and the voluntary sector in the South East and beyond, particularly through its links with One Church 100 Uses. The Initiative needs to consider how it works with Hope in the Community to build on existing expertise and develop offers and services which complement each other rather than competing.

52.1 The Bishop’s Adviser to the Thames Gateway is already initiating a dialogue with Peter Southcombe, as chair of Hope in the Community, to explore how develop a mutually beneficial collaboration.

53 Whole Community Works This interfaith charity was key in sponsoring this Feasibility Study and brings experience of developing regeneration projects with different faith communities. We believe that this is potentially a key partner in developing a Faiths and Regeneration Initiative, because of its work with other faith communities. The natural focus of the Diocese of Rochester and Hope in the Community is always likely to be with Christian communities. What Whole Community Works can provide is links into other faith communities and their potential contribution to regeneration.



54 Links to Regeneration Agencies In seeking to develop the institutional base for facilitating the faith communities’ contribution to social regeneration, it is important to develop how these are linked into the various lead bodies on regeneration in the Thames Gateway. There are three relationships which have emerged and require further work:

54.1 The Thames Gateway Kent Partnership Board have made proposals following a presentation on Interim Findings. The Chief Executive and Chair of Whole Community Works will take these forward together with any further proposals forthcoming from additional reflections on this Final Report.

54.2 Medway Unitary Authority have also met with the Diocese of Rochester following circulation of the Interim Report on this Project and outlined areas in which there are opportunities to work together. These include social issues, delivery of services, and work with young people and this relationship will become strengthened with the appointment of a Strategic Business Development Director for the Diocese of Rochester.

54.3 Kent Thameside The Partnership Director has also affirmed the importance of connecting faith communities to opportunities in regeneration and new housing developments. A meeting with the Chair of Whole Community Works will take place as soon as possible to consider how best this may be taken forward.

Towards a Faiths & Regeneration Conference 55 If the initiatives identified above can be taken forward over the next 12 – 18

months, we believe that there will be a case for drawing together the streams of work in a one day Faiths and Regeneration Conference during 2011. This would provide an opportunity to identify what has been achieved and how it might be taken forward.

55.1 In preparation for the Conference it would be important to meet with and interview several of the key players in what has happened.

55.2 To secure attendance at senior level this will need to be a significant event, with the associated venue costs.

55.3 What emerges will need to be disseminated appropriately after the Conference.

55.4 It is likely to require funding of £6,000 to make this feasible.

56 The Conference both helps to build momentum in mobilising partnerships with faith communities around social regeneration and to test whether the Initiative can be sustained on a collaborative basis or whether there is a longer term need for a more formal organisational structure.



In conclusion 57 We wish to express our thanks to all those (See Annex 1) who have contributed

their time, experience and wisdom through taking part in this Feasibility Study.

58 We believe that the potential for mobilising faith communities to support social regeneration is demonstrated in the projects we have explored.

59 We have proposed a series of steps to release this potential. The process is designed to build on reflective action, evidencing the ways in which faith can contribute to sustainable human flourishing, and provide commercial opportunities for developers, property companies and local authorities for collaborative working with faith communities. It has enough flexibility in design to adapt to shifting perceptions and experiences and to begin to practice what it preaches.

Colin Quine Martin Henwood Senior Organisational Analyst Whole Community Works The Grubb Institute Grubb Institute Associate

31 March 2010 Revised 30 June 2010 Projects/AX667/Faith Observatory/Faith and Regeneration Project Final Report



Annex 1 Scope of Feasibility Study

Project Interviews

All Saints Community Project, Chatham

Linda Fiddyment (Community Project Manager)

Stuart Kay (Churchwarden and Vice Chair of All Saints PCC; previously Headteacher of All Saints CE Primary School)

Bryan Knapp (previously Vicar of All Saints, Chatham)

Jan Perry (Headteacher of New Road School)

Clem Smith (Head of Economic Development and Social Regeneration, Medway Council)

Guru Nanak Football Club

Gary Aldous (former occasional player for Guru Nanak FC)

John Newson (Kent FA Referees Development Officer)

Tony Rana (Chairman of Guru Nanak FC)

Brain Sangha (member Guru Nanak FC since its foundation, Board member Kent County Football Association, and ‘Football for All Ambassador’ for the Football Association)

Narinderjit Singh Thandi, Member of the Gurdwara Governing Body

Mike Snelling (Leader of Gravesham Borough Council)

Hope Street Centre, Sheerness,

Mike Brown (Centre Manager for Hope Street)

Kathy Gambell (Chairperson of the Project Management Committee, Hope Street United Reformed Church)

Steve Worrall (Councillor for Sheerness West)

Peter Welsh (United Reformed Church Minister)

The Living Well, Temple Hill, Dartford

Jay Edwins (Head of Health Promotion, West Kent PCT)

Sharon Phillips (Living Well coordinator)

Sue Free (previously Director of Community Services, Dartford Borough Council)

Matthew Girt (previously Director of Regeneration, Church in Society)



Bob Callaghan (Vicar of St Edmunds, Temple Hill)

Chris Blundell (previously Group Development & Regeneration Director. Amicus Group) telephone interview

Buddhist Community Intervention Workshop

Gravesham Buddhist Community

Harry Smith (Chair, Gravesham Buddhist Community)

Chris Pink, Orr, On, Dang, Tim (members of Gravesham Buddhist Community)

Other Participants and Advisers

Kevin Burbidge, (Director of Planning and Regeneration Services, Gravesham Borough Council)

Brian McCutcheon (Local and Regional Planning Officer, Medway Council)

Andy Martin (Master Planner, PPS Group for Land Securities)

Peter Price (Case Officer and Head of Planning and Regeneration Services, Gravesham Borough Council)

David Simms (Land and Planning Director, Lafarge)

Paul Sharrock (architect and Partner, Thomas Ford and Partners)

Clem Smith (Head of Economic Development and Social Regeneration, Medway Council)

Andrea Wright (Planner, Gravesham Borough Council)

General Interviews

John Britt (Public Health & Community Engagement Services Manager, Gravesham Borough Council)

John Fowler (Founder and Director of Seashells Children’s Centre, Sheerness and a Trustee of Hope Street Centre)

Donna Mills, (CVS Lead at the time of founding of Sunlight Centre, Gillingham)

Adrian Newman (Dean of Rochester Cathedral)

Tony Smith (former Bishop of Rochester’s Adviser on the Gateway) – telephone interview

Peter Southcombe (Director of Hope In the Community; Board member of Kent Gateway Thames Partnership)

Malcolm Torry (Founder of Greenwich Peninsula Chaplaincy)



Background Reading:

Real People Real Challenges (2002) The All Saints Neighbourhood Renewal Initiative.

Laurie Green & Chris Baker (eds) (2008) Building Utopia?: Seeking the Authentic Church for the New Communities, SPCK Publishing

Sarah Lewis (2004) Beyond Belief: Faith at work in the community. South East of England Faith Forum

Andrew Mawson, Peter Southcombe, Donald Findley (2006) One Church, 100 Uses. The National Agency for the Creative Transformation of Churches.

Ann Morisy (2004), Journeying Out: A New Approach to Christian Mission, Geoffrey Chapman

Valerie Nelson, Julian Quan and Pauline Forrester with Barry Pound (2005), Community Development Work in north Kent: an evaluation, University of Greenwich.

Seashells Annual Report. Making New Lives.

Samuel Wells (2003) CommunityLed Regeneration and the Local Church, Grove Books

A Ten Year Vision for the Voluntary and Community Sector in Medway 2005 2015 (2006) Voluntary Infrastructure Consortium Medway.

Mobilising Faith Communities for Social Regeneration

The Grubb Institute < v >

Annex 2: Checklist for Statutory Agencies

1 Is this a ‘hard to reach’ community in which it is proving difficult to deliver an acceptable level of the services for which we are statutorily responsible? Is it significantly more problematic than other communities we serve?

If Yes, how far is this due to?

Geographical factors which make access to services elsewhere difficult for residents and delivery of services in situ difficult for agencies.

Absence of suitable locations for delivery of services locally, either because they don’t exist or can only be developed at a cost which cannot be justified in cost benefit terms.

Lack of leadership and communication skills in the community.

Community distrust and suspicion of anyone from the ‘authorities’.

The reputation of the community and social issues involved make the situation politically sensitive (locally/regionally/nationally).

If 3 or more of these factors apply, you should consider whether faith community involvement might provide a way forward.

2 Is there a faith community which is based, or meets, within this local community?

If Yes:

How long has this faith group been active and/or had premises in this local community?

Are its members current or past residents in the community?

Is it a community which is already actively engaged with social issues and needs within the community?

Are its premises in use by local groups which are not part of the faith community itself?

Are statutory agencies already using the faith group’s premises or collaborating with it to respond to the social issues and needs within the locality?

Mobilising Faith Communities for Social Regeneration

The Grubb Institute < vi >

The longer the faith community has been established locally, and the more of the other factors which apply, the more potential there is for a collaboration to target and improve service delivery.

3 How do we build links with this faith community to explore and build an effective partnership for the good of the local community?

How far are local professionals already in contact with the local leadership of the faith community, either the designated faith leaders and/or the lay leadership within the faith community? Can they provide a link?

Are there members of the local faith community who are working for statutory agencies or active in local politics who might be a first point of contact?

Are there leaders or enablers in the wider faith community already active and known at a strategic level (eg a Diocese, Hope in the Community, Whole Community Works, etc) who could advise on and/or broker the approach to the local faith community?

4 What is the local faith community’s engagement with, and commitment to, this local community?

Does it have a vision of the future for the area, and of its own part in regeneration and development?

Is its interest in collaborating for the good of the wider community an expression of its faith values and beliefs, rather than a ‘survival strategy’?

What investment in the emerging project/mobilising idea is it willing to make or mobilise? Does it think it can offer premises, a site, volunteers, funded staff or other capital or revenue funding (including that from its wider faith community)?

How far will the faith community’s involvement and investment enable us to leverage in other sources of funding?

Building a Better Local Community Experience

The Grubb Institute < vii >

Annex 3: Checklist for Faith Communities

1 How important is the local community in which your faith group is based or meets to members of your faith community?

Do the members of your faith community live (or have family roots) in this particular local area?

Did your faith group decide it was important to be based in this particular community, rather than just taking advantage of an available site or premises?

Are members of the faith community aware of, and concerned about, the social issues and needs affecting local residents?

How far is the faith community itself (and its members) affected by those social issues – for example, by poor transport links or ageing buildings?

Are the faith group and its members already involved in action to improve the quality of life in the community?

Are your premises currently in use by local groups which are not part of the faith community itself?

How far do local residents feel positively about the faith community’s presence in the neighbourhood rather than seeing it as irrelevant to them?

The more of these factors which apply, the more credible you are likely to be to statutory agencies and other potential funders as a partner in developing new initiatives.

2 Has your faith community developed a vision for the future of the local area, and of its own contribution in bringing it about?

How far is this vision genuinely about the community as a whole, rather than about the faith community itself?

Is the vision informed by the beliefs, tenets and values of your faith about human beings and communities, whether they share your faith or have other faiths or none?

Building a Better Local Community Experience

The Grubb Institute < viii >

Does this emerging vision find support from, and energise, key leaders and members of your faith community?

Without these factors in place, any joint initiatives or projects are likely to be taken over by other agencies’ agendas.

3 Do you understand how the faith community’s vision for the future links to the current priorities and preoccupations of the different statutory agencies and local authorities with responsibilities for the health and wellbeing of the local area?

Are there agencies and local professionals already using your premises for activities, who could advise you and help you identify whom you need to contact?

Are members of your faith community already working in statutory agencies and authorities, or active in local politics, who can help express the vision in words which will link in to current concerns and priorities and open up conversations?

Are there leaders in your wider faith community who are already active and known at a strategic level? If so, are they willing to be enablers for your initiative, advising on who to contact and how to make a case for what you want to do? If not, could Whole Community Works, Hope in the Community or similar organisations advise you?

4 What resources can your faith community mobilise and contribute to the proposed project?

How far is your faith community willing to make parts of its premises available for the work, or consider a joint redevelopment of the building or site?

What voluntary effort and time can members of your faith community make available, both to get the project off the ground and longer term?

Are there financial resources available from your local faith group or your wider faith community which could fund the initial appointment of a project worker?

Within your wider faith community (regional, national and international) are there sources of significant funding which would support the type of project you wish to develop?

Whole Community Works Whole Community Works is a charity that brings people of faith and goodwill together to promote communityfocused regeneration in North Kent.

Decades of decline left our area struggling to cope with the economic, social and environmental legacies of its industrial past. But now, North Kent is undergoing rapid change on a huge scale. As part of Europe’s largest regeneration project, the Thames Gateway, vast areas of derelict industrial ‘brownfield’ land are being redeveloped, and a major new business location is planned around the international station at Ebbsfleet.

Our big concern is that, amidst all this physical renewal, much more needs to be done to help people feel a part of it all, and to prevent the disadvantaged being left behind. We believe that the various faith communities, by working together and with others, can be a powerful force in helping old and new communities to voice their stories, build understanding, forge common bonds, and embrace new arrivals.

Over the past decade, the charity has worked with various local groups to help turn their ideas into practical Projects. In 2008, we started on our biggest project to date – The Old Town Hall in Gravesend.

We are increasingly looking to engage with community groups and voluntary, public and private sector agencies to identify emerging issues and needs. We then look to respond by brokering partnerships and developing projects that allow communities to work together, foster learning and understanding, and promote inclusion.

For a more detailed account of our work and projects visit our website at http://www.wholecommunityworks.org.uk

The Grubb Institute The Grubb Institute is an applied research foundation working globally to mobilise values, faiths and beliefs as a resource for the transformation, healing and repair of organisations, people and society.

We were established as a Christian foundation in 1957. Our distinctiveness lies in our integrated approach which aligns expertise derived from human sciences with faith and belief, through applied research to generate a positive and transforming effect in society. The Institute works with organisations and agencies in all sectors of society. It has a track record of working with voluntary sector and volunteering organisations, including those which are faith based. It has collaborated with organisations to help them develop innovative responses to issues in the community, particularly those around young people.

(For further information see: www.grubb.org.uk)

faith communities and regeneration in the thames · pdf filefaith communities and regeneration...

Documents