Hamp SRB Evaluation

Hamp SRB6
Programme End
of Scheme
Evaluation
306227
Final Report
Sedgemoor DC
and Hamp
Community
Association
September 2007
Hamp SRB6 Programme End of Scheme Evaluation
Contents
Page
1 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................4

1.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................................4
1.2 Financial and Output Performance...............................................................................................................4
1.3 Thematic and Project Achievements............................................................................................................6
1.4 Partnership and Management ......................................................................................................................7
1.5 How Has Hamp Changed?...........................................................................................................................7
1.6 Conclusions and Recommendations............................................................................................................8
2 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................11
2.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................................................11
2.2 Approach to the Study................................................................................................................................12
2.3 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................13
3 Strategy and Context ...............................................................................................................................14

3.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................14
3.2 Programme Overview.................................................................................................................................14
3.3 Changes in Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................................15
3.4 Conclusions................................................................................................................................................24
4 Financial and Output Performance.........................................................................................................26

4.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................26
4.2 Financial Performance ...............................................................................................................................26
4.3 Achievement of Outputs .............................................................................................................................30
4.4 Conclusions................................................................................................................................................32
5 Thematic and Project Achievements......................................................................................................33

5.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................33
5.2 Overview and Contribution to Strategic Objectives ....................................................................................33
5.3 Key Projects ...............................................................................................................................................37
5.4 Activity by Theme .......................................................................................................................................41
5.5 Added Value and Good Practice ................................................................................................................50
5.6 Conclusions................................................................................................................................................51
EKOS Consulting 2
306227/INV103078
6 Management and Partnership .................................................................................................................53

6.1 Partnership Structures and Functioning .....................................................................................................53
6.2 Community Involvement and the Hamp Community Association...............................................................57
6.3 Management and Delivery .........................................................................................................................58
6.4 Application, Appraisal and Monitoring ........................................................................................................59
6.5 Forward Strategy........................................................................................................................................61
7 Conclusions and Recommendations .....................................................................................................62

7.1 Conclusions................................................................................................................................................62
7.2 Recommendations .....................................................................................................................................64
8 Appendix I – Community Consultation Questionnaire .........................................................................65
9 Appendix II – IMD – detailed calculations ..............................................................................................67
10 Appendix III – Projects - Expenditure.....................................................................................................74
11 Appendix IV – Programme Level Lifetime Outputs...............................................................................76
12 Appendix V – Partnership Members.......................................................................................................80
EKOS Consulting 3
306227/INV103078
1 Executive Summary
1.1 Introduction
This is the Final Report for the End of Scheme Evaluation of the Hamp Single Regeneration Budget
(SRB) Round 6 Programme in Bridgwater, Somerset. The area was selected for an SRB6 bid on the
basis of the high levels of deprivation on the Hamp estate and the long standing desire of both residents,
the Hamp Community Association (HCA) and the other agencies represented in the Hamp SRB6
Partnership to achieve major improvements in quality of life. Originally due to operate over a 6 year period
from August 2000 to March 2006, the Programme was extended in 2005 by a year, to 31st March 2007, to
enable the completion of key investments and development of a forward strategy.
The overall aim of the Programme was to:
“Raise the self-esteem of the community and promote ownership of the Hamp neighbourhood by
improving employment and recreational opportunities, supporting self help initiatives by the community,
improving educational achievement and health, and reducing poverty and crime”.
The vision was to be delivered through a number of activities under five strategic objectives, as follows:
• SO1 - Improving the employment prospects, education and skills of local people;
• SO2 - Addressing social exclusion and improving opportunities for the disadvantaged;
• So3 - Promoting sustainable regeneration, improving and protecting the environment and
infrastructure, including housing;
• SO4 - Supporting and promoting growth in local economies and businesses; and
• SO5 - Reducing crime and drug abuse and improving community safety.
A clear focus was evident on enhancing the uptake of employment and other opportunities for local
people in addition to improving quality of life for all. In an area where there was no case for significant
physical change, these objectives were generally valid and appropriate.
The evaluation has been undertaken by EKOS between March and September 2007, overseen by the
Hamp SRB Management and Administration Group. It has comprised a mix of desk-based analysis of
programme management information and socio-economic indicators, interviews with stakeholders and
project managers, and consultation with local residents.
1.2 Financial and Output Performance

The Programme has performed well in financial terms, with monies spent largely in line with the objectives
set out in the original approval. The SRB allocation of £1.68m was fully spent by the end of the
Programme period, albeit a one year extension was required to enable resources to be fully deployed.
Whilst the extension was sensible, some of the delays relating to the scoping and costing of key projects
EKOS Consulting 4
306227/INV103078
such as ReCreation could have been avoided. However, the experience gained by the team mean that
they are able to apply these lessons to future investments.
Year Profile (£) Actual (£) Actual Against Profile Actual as a % of Total
%
2000/01 168,000 36,264 21.6 2.1

2001/02 736,020 121,596 16.5 7.2
2002/03 382,570 151,328 39.6 9.0
2003/04 139,670 581,913 416.6 34.5
2004/05 137,720 241,628 175.4 14.3
2005/06 124,860 324,465 259.9 19.2
2006/07 0 231,648 - 13.7
Total 1,688,840 1,688,842 100.0 100.0
Reasonable levels of leverage have been achieved, on a par with similar sized programmes. The mix of
public sector contributions was, however, narrower than might have been expected, reflecting the reliance
on the District Council and HCA to drive the Programme.
The Programme has exceeded the bulk of its quantified output targets, with some of the most significant
achievements relating to qualifications attainment, participation in activities and community capacity
building. In hindsight, some of the other targets were over-ambitious and would have merited revision. In
other areas, under-performance against targets reflects largely the limited resources available.
Performance against SWRDA core outputs Target Actual % Success/
Achieved Failure
Number of jobs – created 2 13.9 695% 9
Number of jobs - safeguarded 0 7.6 - 9
Number of people trained obtaining qualifications 200 204 102% 9
Number of trained people obtaining jobs 0 5 - 9
Number of these surviving for 52 weeks 4 5 125% 9

Number of businesses receiving advice as a 5 9 180% 9
result of SRB-assisted activities
Number of community enterprise start ups 2 4 200 9
Total other public spend (£000) 1,141 904.1 79% 8
Total private sector leverage (£000) 236.5 177.4 75% 8
Number of new child-care places provided 0 211 9

0 8 9
Number of social enterprises supported
As well as the main SWRDA outputs, the Programme has also delivered a number of other activities and
outcomes, including:
• 194 pupils benefiting from support to enhance or improve their attainment;
• 815 people gaining access to ICT;
• 285 individuals involved in voluntary work;
EKOS Consulting 5
306227/INV103078
• More than 2,000 people gaining access to new cultural opportunities or facilities; and
• 1,400 young people benefiting from projects to boost their self esteem.
Overall, the mix of achievements is substantial and provides a platform for the future regeneration of the
estate.
1.3 Thematic and Project Achievements

A total of 42 projects were approved over the 7 years of the Programme, with the average project size
being approximately £62,000. In spite of a number of setbacks, the SRB Programme has successfully
delivered two high profile capital projects – ReCreation and 1 Edinburgh Road - and supported the
operation of these facilities after they were built. This is a notable achievement and enables the
Programme to leave a substantial legacy. In addition, the Programme has delivered a large number of
smaller projects to improve community facilities and services and quality of life for residents of the estate.
Stakeholders report that these projects have inspired other non SRB funded projects in the area.
The bulk of projects have been well executed and successful in achieving both their quantitative output
targets and a range of qualitative benefits. Only a small minority of schemes have not quite met
expectations or been less strategic. A number of very valuable lessons have been learnt with regard to
project development and design, and community consultation. Whilst some of the original aims were
perhaps over-ambitious, the key expectations of the Programme have been delivered.
A number of common themes have emerged from the review. Firstly, the additionality of SRB resources is
generally high, with the bulk of projects unlikely to have happened in the absence of the Programme.
Secondly, linkages and synergies between projects and with other programmes. Two key features are
evident – mixing of capital and revenue resources in key projects such as 1 Edinburgh Road, and where
projects have complemented other investments e.g. the ICT schools projects. This said, there is a sense
that potential synergies and alignment were not fully exploited - improving communication channels and
continued engagement of some partners could have generated even greater benefits.
The bottom up characteristic of the SRB6 programme has also been a key feature, with significant HCA
involvement in a number of schemes and extensive resident consultation and engagement in the vast
majority of projects. There is a very strong relationship between the needs and priorities of residents and
the package of activity that has been supported. At the same time, this has meant that the involvement of
other agencies has been variable.
The broad range of activities and expenditures supported by the Programme, in spite of its modest
allocation is a notable characteristic. The flexibility of SRB resources has been ideal for the Partnership
and the Programme has funded a number of activities such as subsidised attendance at arts events which
have helped to boost aspirations. This said, it is apparent that the investment in community capacity
building has perhaps not been effective as it might have been in supporting new groups and other activity.
There are a number of examples of good practice evident from the Programme, including:
• The development of 1 Edinburgh Road as a multi purpose community facility;
• The consultation and development process on ReCreation which enabled a successful centre to be
achieved; and
EKOS Consulting 6
306227/INV103078
• The Furniture Store which combines a social and training enterprise with a valued service for local
residents.
As exit strategies are developed and agreed on a project by project basis it is essential that both delivery
and impact lessons are recognised by the Partnership.
1.4 Partnership and Management

At the beginning of the Programme, the full Partnership comprised 21 representatives, which by 2003/4
had expanded to 33 organisations. Whilst not all organisations and representatives were likely to
demonstrate the same degree of involvement, the Programme has been characterised by highly variable
levels of commitment and involvement, particularly in the latter period. Actual participation in partnership
meetings was much lower. In hindsight, the original structures were overly complex and unwieldy,
although latterly arrangements were streamlined. Ideally, a broader partnership input would have been
retained, albeit the consensus amongst stakeholders was that the arrangements generally worked well.
Whilst the original aim of creating a community trust to act as the accountable body did not come to
fruition, the HCA have played a leading role in the delivery of the Programme. In some respects, the
separation of roles and functions between SDC and the HCA was not sufficiently distinct, although the
application and approval processes generally appear to have worked flexibly.
The decision to combine responsibility, however, for both project development and programme
management and administration within the Programme Manager role was not wholly successful and the
workload for the role was over-ambitious. Whilst many aspects of the PM role have been performed very
well, insufficient emphasis has been given to effective administration and record keeping. Greater clarity
of line management responsibilities and SDC’s accountable body role was also required.
As is often the case in small regeneration programmes, a small group of highly committed individuals,
primarily from SDC and the HCA, were responsible for managing and delivering the bulk of the
programme. Without their sustained efforts, much less would have been achieved. On the other hand,
there was perhaps too much reliance was on a small number of representatives to take forward the
regeneration of the estate. Re-engaging a broader partnership of agencies remains a key priority.
1.5 How Has Hamp Changed?

The key socio-economic indicators suggest that Hamp has changed for the better in many ways over the
programme period, although it remains relatively disadvantaged. Some of the positive trends include:
• A reduction in the number of Job Seekers Allowance claimants;
• Fewer families eligible for free school meals;
• An overall reduction in crime rates, albeit crime and anti-social behaviour remain high; and
• An improvement in the estate’s ranking on the Index of Multiple Deprivation.

The changes in the key indicators are echoed in the views of residents we consulted as part of the
evaluation – more than 80% of our sample agreed or strongly agreed that the estate has a more
EKOS Consulting 7
306227/INV103078
positive image and quality of life has improved. A total of 75% of residents feel safer in their homes and
on the streets of Hamp.
Young people now have more to do
The environment - both open spaces and your

street - has got better on the estate
There are more ways to get help and advice Strongly disagree
on the estate Disagree
There are more opportunities to participate in Agree
community/social activities Strongly Agree
The image of Hamp has become more positive
Overall Quality of Life has improved on Hamp
0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10
% % % % % % % % % 0%
Given the levels of worklessness and disparities in education, crime and other key indicators which are
evident, there is a long way to go to achieve a sustainable community in Hamp. The programme has
contributed to reversing a long term period of decline, although, given its size, its direct impact was
always going to be limited. The challenge now is how the positive momentum is built upon to further the
estate’s regeneration.
1.6 Conclusions and Recommendations

In spite of the constraints and difficulties, the Hamp SRB Programme has been a success overall. The
two key projects desired by residents have been successfully delivered and the long term decline of the
estate has been reversed. Our summary assessment against the original strategic objectives is:
Strategic Objective Programme Contribution (Ranked 1-5, where 1-low and

5-very high)
1 Improving the employment prospects, Rank – 4. The contribution to this objective is multi-faceted:
education and skills of local people. increasing provision of advisory and other services e.g. at 1
Edinburgh Road, enhancing uptake of learning through
improved ICT provision and boosting support to young people
through activities in schools and the new ReCreation centre.
Almost 4 in 5 residents agreed that there are now more
opportunities for them to learn and improve their skills.
2 Address social exclusion and enhance Rank - 5. S02 is where we believe the Programme’s
opportunities for the disadvantaged. contribution has been greatest. Social inclusion has been at
the heart of the majority of SRB projects, with a clear focus on
raising aspirations and enhancing the capacity of individuals
and groups to improve their prospects. Engaging with a broad
cross section of residents has been a key feature of the
Programme.
EKOS Consulting 8
306227/INV103078
3 Promote sustainable regeneration, Rank – 4 . In spite of limited SRB resources, the Programme
improving and protecting the had delivered a number of physical enhancements to the
environmental and infrastructure estate and complemented other investment e.g. in housing.
including housing. Three quarters of residents agree that the estate’s
environment has got better.
4 Support and promote growth in local Rank – 1. In hindsight, this objective was over-ambitious given
economies and businesses the largely residential nature of Hamp. This said, the
Programme has indirectly assisted a number of individuals to
set up in business as well as provide support for social
enterprises such as the Furniture Store.
5 Tackle crime and drug abuse and Rank – 4. The Programme has supported both diversionary
improve community safety. activities for young people and crime prevention measures.
Overall levels of crime and nuisance have fallen, albeit they
remain too high. The majority of residents now feel safer in
their home and on the estate.
The legacy of the SRB programme is considerable in terms of improved facilities and services and for
some individuals who benefited directly from projects. It is important now that the lessons and
achievements are taken forward by the Partnership and the sustainability of key assets and the HCA are
secured.
As SRB resources ended on March 31st 2007, the focus of our recommendations is on looking forward.
Our recommendations are:
Community Lead
Work is already underway to enable the HCA to play a leading role in the regeneration of the estate
including responsibility for key assets such as 1 Edinburgh Road through the formation of a new
company. It is essential that the momentum of the SRB Programme is not lost and the new organisation
is fully established before the end of this financial year. A key criterion should be that the new company
reduces its dependency on Sedgemoor District Council. Key to its success will be ensuring it has robust
and transparent processes and clearly defined roles and responsibilities. Its social enterprise potential
should be explored.
SRB Legacy
A number of activities funded by the SRB programme are unlikely to be prioritised for Single Programme
or other discretionary resources. There is a need for the Partnership to consider how best to support ICT,
community regeneration and similar activities in the medium term, where a forward strategy has not
already been agreed – in some cases, projects have come to a natural end.
Capturing Lessons
This evaluation has identified a number of examples of good practice and lessons in relation to project
delivery, partnership working and processes. There is merit in hosting an event or workshop to share
experiences and expertise, and re-engage other partners.
The Next Chapter
EKOS Consulting 9
306227/INV103078
It is essential that the positive improvements on the estate as a result of the SRB programme are
sustained and built upon. There is a need to develop a medium term strategy and plan for the estate in
conjunction with the HCA, linked to the overall economic framework for Bridgwater.
Exploiting Key Investments and Assets
There are a number of opportunities to secure additional facilities and activities for the residents of Hamp,
including through the Building Schools for the Future programme and new housing development. The
opportunity to achieve enhanced community activities, particularly for older children, should be
maximised. In the short term, a preferred option for Mansfield Park should be developed and
implemented, ideally within the next 2 years.
Partnership and Governance
Latterly, the SRB Partnership has suffered from limited input and representation from key agencies
outside of Sedgemoor District Council and the HCA. As part of the development of a strategy for the
estate, there is a requirement for mainstream agencies and other partners to be part of a restructured
partnership body which can achieve a clear focus on the needs of the estate and its residents.
EKOS Consulting 10
306227/INV103078
2 Introduction
2.1 Overview
This is the Final Report for the End of Scheme Evaluation of the Hamp SRB6 Programme in Bridgwater,
Somerset. Originally due to operate over a 6 year period from August 2000 to March 2006, the scheme
was extended in 2005 by another year, to 31st March 2007. The programme was allocated £1,688,841.18
of SRB resources.
The SRB target area comprises the Hamp ward within Bridgwater, plus a small area of housing
development which crosses into the North Petherton ward and fringe areas of importance to local
residents including a proposed site for additional playing fields and the retail area including Safeways
(now Morrisons), YMCA and B&Q. Largely residential in nature, the estimated population of the estate
was 6,000 at the outset of the programme.
Figure 1: Aerial View of Hamp
The area was selected for an SRB6 bid on the basis of the high levels of deprivation on the estate and the
long standing desire of both the residents, and the agencies represented in the Hamp SRB6 Partnership,
to achieve major improvements of the quality of life on the estate. The desire to attract SRB funding to
the area stemmed from eight years previously when the possibility of a joint SRB1 bid with Sydenham
EKOS Consulting 11
306227/INV103078
ward had been identified but ultimately discounted Since that time, residents of the Hamp estate had felt
very much left behind as the regeneration of Sydenham had been progressed.
The Hamp Community Association was formed in 1996 to represent all residents. It undertook a major
consultation exercise ‘Hamp on Hamp’ in which a total of 1,029 residents took part. This consultation
formed the basis of the SRB bid and helped the programme target activity towards community needs.
The SRB funding was an opportunity to develop a targeted regeneration plan for the estate, over and
above mainstream resources and to build the capacity of the estate to move forward in future years.
Overall, the purpose of the Hamp SRB6 scheme was to:
“Raise the self-esteem of the community and promote ownership of the Hamp neighbourhood by
improving employment and recreational opportunities, supporting self help initiatives by the community,
improving educational achievement and health, and reducing poverty and crime”.
2.2 Approach to the Study

EKOS Consulting (UK) Ltd was commissioned by the Hamp SRB Management and Admin Group in
March 2007 to undertake an end of scheme evaluation. The purpose of the evaluation was not only to
look back, identifying strengths and weaknesses in the programme but also to identify lessons and
recommendations for the future sustainability of the programme.
Our approach to the evaluation has sought to combine desk-based analysis and primary research.
Specifically, this has involved:
• Analysis of local socio-economic indicators – an analysis of how key socio-economic indicators for
each strategic objective have changed over the life of the programme.
• Analysis of programme information such as outputs and financial indicators – this section reviews
spending against profile, spending by theme and output achievement.
• Consultation with programme stakeholders – A range of programme stakeholders were interviewed

either in person or over the telephone. Key topics were: Programme achievements, lessons learnt,
programme management, partnership functioning and exit strategy.
• Consultation with projects – EKOS Consulting attempted to gain feedback about the success or
otherwise of all the projects. It was not always possible to talk to the project manager as many
projects had finished, therefore representatives from the partnership were selected and asked to
provide feedback. Where feedback was significant, short case studies were developed. Two
projects were the subject of a more in depth evaluation, ReCreation and 1 Edinburgh Rd and
detailed case studies are presented. These were the two main capital build projects of the
programme.
The remainder of this evaluation is set out as follows:
• Introduction and Overview;
• Strategy and Context – Reviews how the socio-economic indicators have changed;
• Financial and Output Review – Reviews progress towards output and expenditure targets;
• Project Achievement – Reviews the project achievements by theme; and
EKOS Consulting 12
306227/INV103078
• Management and Partnership – review the functioning of the partnership and management of the
programme.
2.3 Acknowledgements
EKOS Consulting would like to thank the individuals and organisations who have contributed to this
evaluation exercise. In particular:
• The staff and volunteers at 1 Edinburgh Rd • ReCreation
• Sedgemoor District Council • Connexions
• Hamp Community Association • Somerset Youth Service
• Councillors Pat Parker and Dawn Hill • Citizens Advice Bureau
• South West of England Regional Development Agency • Somerset Police
EKOS Consulting 13
306227/INV103078
3 Strategy and Context
3.1 Introduction
This chapter reviews the SRB6 programme and strategy and the current baseline position. Findings are
presented in the following sub-sections:
• Programme Overview;
• Assessment of Changes in Baseline Conditions; and
• Key Conclusions.
3.2 Programme Overview

The Hamp Community Association and Sedgemoor District Council Housing Department undertook
extensive consultation exercises with the local community over several years prior to applying for SRB6
funding. Through the consultation exercise they identified a number of initiatives to improve the Hamp
area, including improvements to Mansfield Park, improved youth provision and a community centre. In
developing their SRB6 bid the Hamp Community Association and Sedgemoor District Council reviewed
the findings from the community consultations and developed a series of initiatives under five strategic
objectives. Central to their strategy was the need to create the necessary community-led infrastructure to
bring cohesion and add value to both existing and new initiatives.1
The main objectives of the programme were:
• To support the regeneration of the Hamp neighbourhood, an area of multiple deprivation.
• To build on the successful local partnership which has evolved to support the Sydenham SRB
project.
• To act as a catalyst in attracting further funding to directly address social exclusion and promote
equality of opportunity for Hamp residents.
• To ensure that the benefits of other government initiatives such as Sure-Start and the Bridgwater
Education Action Zone are made accessible to all age groups.
• To initiate projects which improve the quality of life in the Hamp neighbourhood and encourage
greater community ownership and social responsibility for challenging disadvantage.
• To create a sustainable vision of a better and more fulfilling way of life for the people of Hamp.
1 Hamp for Hamp – a bid for SRB6 funding to regenerate the Hamp Estate, Bridgwater, p.1
EKOS Consulting 14
306227/INV103078
The programme objectives were to be delivered through a number of activities under five strategic
objectives, as follows:
• SO1 - Improving the employment prospects, education and skills of local people;
• SO2 – Addressing social exclusion and improving opportunities for the disadvantaged;
• SO3 – Promoting sustainable regeneration, improving and protecting the environment and
infrastructure, including housing;
• SO4 – Supporting and promoting growth in local economies and businesses; and
• SO5 – Reducing crime and drug abuse and improving community safety.
A clear focus was evident on enhancing the uptake of employment and other opportunities for local
people in addition to improving quality of life overall. In an area where there was no case for significant
physical change these objectives were generally valid and appropriate.
Most stakeholders felt that this broad approach was correct given the inter-related nature of these
objectives and activities, with perhaps the exception of SO4, supporting and promoting growth in local
economies and businesses. It was originally envisaged that this could be delivered through projects
based around an industrial area adjacent to Hamp. However, this area of land was subsequently
designated for housing, making support for this objective through this area impossible. Given this change
in circumstances, revision of this strategic objective would have been appropriate.
It is the view of the evaluators that the Programme’s aims and objectives have remained appropriate
throughout its duration. Whilst one option would have been to focus solely on one theme or objective e.g.
young people, this would have meant other important resident priorities would not have been progressed.
One of the most positive features of the Hamp programme has been the extent to which it has been
rooted in the aspirations of local residents and the outcomes of consultation exercises on the estate.
3.3 Changes in Baseline Conditions

This section presents an overview of socio-economic conditions in Hamp over the programme period.
Although we have tried to present findings in relation to the start of the Programme and again at the end,
it has not always been possible due to the limited amount of data available for the 2000 – 2007 timeframe
and at ward level.
Where the information has been available, it is presented against a number of key indicators for each of
the five strategic objectives. Data has been sourced through a number of sources including NOMIS,
Neighbourhood Statistics, Health and Social Needs in Somerset 2004, DfES and Avon and Somerset
Constabulary, in addition a number of key personnel within Sedgemoor District Council and Somerset
County Council have assisted in providing up to date facts and figures. It should be noted that the
changes in the socio-economic data, reflect all the factors that influence conditions in the local area,
including changes to Government Policy, changes within the economy and more local changes in
services and provision. The Hamp SRB programme will have influenced some of these performance
statistics either directly or indirectly. It is not possible to disaggregate the impact of the Hamp SRB from
these other factors.
EKOS Consulting 15
306227/INV103078
This data has been supplemented with findings from the community consultation event held in Mansfield
Park on Saturday 1st September. The staff at 1 Edinburgh Rd successfully organised this event in order
to consult on the future of Mansfield Park. Residents were also asked if they would complete an SRB
evaluation questionnaire at the same time. A total of 113 SRB evaluation forms were completed in total.
A copy of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix 1.
The survey sample appears to be reasonably representative in terms of age, with a good mix of people of
all ages. The event was very successful in securing the engagement of the under 16s - 25% of the
survey responses were from under 16s compared to a population of 25% on the estate. The survey was
also successful in reaching both longstanding residents of Hamp and more recent arrivals.
Table 1: Survey response – Time lived on Hamp
Time lived on Hamp % of respondents
Less than 1 year 1%
1-5 years 12%
6-10 years 19%
11-20years 36%
>20years 32%
The findings of the survey are used in this chapter and throughout the report as appropriate to support
other findings.
Employment prospects, education and skills of local people

In order to produce data over the period of the SRB scheme, the 1991 ward boundary was used. Figure 1
shows that the total number of JSA claimants almost halved between 2000 and 2005, but rose again
between 2005 and 2007. In Somerset and the South West, there was also a steady decline in the
claimant count between 2000 and 2005, levelling off between 2005 and 2007.
Hamp still has a significantly higher proportion of people claiming Jobseekers Allowance than that seen in
Somerset and the South West. In July 2007, 3% of people were claiming job seekers in Hamp, compared
to 1.4% in the South West and 1.1% in Somerset.
EKOS Consulting 16
306227/INV103078
Figure 2: Total number of people claiming JobSeekers Allowance in Hamp (1991 frozen ward)
Claimant Count - Hamp ward
160
140
120
Total number of claimants
100
80
60
40
20
0
July 2000 July 2001 July 2002 July 2003 July 2004 July 2005 July 2006 July 2007
The table below shows DfES2 records for the percentage of pupils gaining GCSE and equivalent
qualifications in 1997 and 2006.
Table 2: The percentage of pupils gaining GCSE and equivalent qualifications

achieving 5+ A*-C achieving 5+ A*-G any passes
% points % points % points
1997 2006 1997 2006 1997 2006
diff diff diff
Robert Blake Science
na 35.0 na 82.0 na 97.0
College
Bridgwater Hamp Ward 31 30.2 -0.8 75.2 69.8 -5.4 .. 96.6 N/A
Bridgwater Constituency 41.8 50.7 8.9 90.3 87.3 -3.0 .. 97.4 ..
Sedgemoor District 44.8 51.5 6.7 91.5 90.9 -0.6 95.8 97.4 1.6
Somerset LA 48.9 56.6 7.7 92.5 91.1 -1.4 .. 97.8 ..
South West Region 47.1 58.2 11.1 90.1 91.4 1.3 .. 97.7 ..
England 45.1 59.2 14.1 86.4 90.5 4.1 .. 97.8
Source: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/inyourarea/statics/ward_40UCGQ_4.shtml
The figures for the Hamp area show that between 1997 and 2006 there has been a very minimal
decrease in the number of students achieving 5+ A* - C. For those students achieving 5+ A* - G for the
same period the decrease is greater. In comparison to Bridgwater, Sedgemoor and Somerset, the results
achieved in the Hamp ward are considerably lower in both 1997 and 2006. In 2006 there were 20% less
students achieving 5+ A* - C in Hamp compared to Bridgwater and 17.5% less students achieving 5+ A* -
2Source: www.dfes.gov.uk From 2005 includes GCSEs and other equivalent qualifications approved for use pre-16. 1997 figures
are for pupils aged 15. From 2006 figures are for pupils at the end of Key Stage 4.
EKOS Consulting 17
306227/INV103078
G. The scheme made a modest contribution towards the educational achievement of young people as
follows:
• Indirectly through the purchase of a replacement minibus for Blake School, allowing school
fundraising to be better focused on achieving Science college status;
• Directly through projects to improve ICT provision within local schools; and
• Indirectly through supporting young people outside of school hours to stay focused e.g. through
ReCreation, Summer Challenge and the Breakfast Club.
However, it has not been possible through this evaluation to measure the impact that these interventions
have had on educational achievement in the area. Despite these interventions, performance in Hamp is
still behind that of the surrounding area and improving educational attainment of young people in Hamp
remains a major challenge.
The community consultation (Figure 3) showed that almost 80% agreed that there were more
opportunities to learn and improve skills. But more people (55%) disagreed with the statement ‘There are
more job opportunities available for local people’. However, some individuals have reported that the SRB
has helped their employment prospects as the comments below indicate:
• ‘Yes, they gave me a job and helped me develop my own skills by gaining an A level when
they funded a city and guilds course I did. This also helped me become more confident and
better person’;
• ‘Yes, community chest grant which funded me to nail technician course’.
Figure 3: Community Consultation - jobs and skills and learning statements
There are more

opportunities to learn
and improve my skills
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
There are more job
opportunities available
for local people
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
EKOS Consulting 18
306227/INV103078
Social exclusion and improving opportunities for the disadvantaged

It is not possible to make a direct comparison on the levels of deprivation according to the Index of
Multiple Deprivation3 (IMD) for the periods 2000 and 2004 as the method of calculation has changed over
this time. The most significant change in the methodology between 2000 and 2004 has been the use of
smaller reporting units. This means that in 2004 the Hamp ward was split into 5 super output areas and a
result produced for each of these, compared to the 1 ward level result in 2000. It is not possible to
produce an average figure for these, however, it is possible to calculate a percentile figure for the one
2000 result and the five 2004 results. This allows us to make some approximate comparisons of their
respective ranked positions. The detailed analysis is presented in an Appendix 2. The analysis suggests
the following findings:
• Overall IMD – Hamp was relatively less deprived in 2004 than in 2000 – but still within the 30%
most deprived wards in England;
• Income – Less deprived in 2004 than in 2000 – but still within the 20% most deprived in England;
• Employment – no discernable change – but still within the 30% most deprived in England;
• Health – Slightly less deprived in 2004 than 2000 – still within the 40% most deprived;
• Education – Slightly less deprived, but considerable variation in performance across the estate;
and
• Housing and Access to services4 – This domain has changed significantly to include access to
services, which shows Hamp to be not deprived in this respect.
3The Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004 (IMD 2004) is a measure of multiple deprivation at the small area level. This is based on a
series of domains which can be measured separately such as employment, income, health etc. These are then aggregated to
produce an overall measure of deprivation, which takes all these factors into account.
4 This domain measures two key themes – 1) access to services such as post office, GP, supermarket, primary school etc. 2)
Housing including levels of overcrowding, homelessness and owner occupation.
EKOS Consulting 19
306227/INV103078
The table below shows statistics, from Nomis, for the total number of DWP claimants for the periods
February 2004 and May 2006. The total number of claimants is broken down further into seven specific
claim fields.
Table 3: Number of benefit claimants for the period February 2004 and May 2006
Hamp Ward Bridgwater
May May
Feb 2004 Feb 2004
2006 +/- 2006 +/-
Number Number Number Number
Total number of claimants 860 875 +15 3,735 3,805 +70
Job seekers 135 120 -15 630 555 -75
Incapacity benefits 390 425 +35 1,795 1,955 +160
Lone parents 195 165 -30 680 595 -85
Carers 65 70 +5 215 245 +30
Others on income related benefits 20 35 +15 115 130 +15
Disabled 40 45 +5 205 245 +40
No
Bereaved 15 15 95 80 -15
change
Source: Nomis: benefit claimants - working age clients for small areas
In 2006, there was an increase in the number of people claiming DWP benefits in four fields for the Hamp
area:
• incapacity benefits
• carers
• others on income related benefit
• disabled
In contrast, there has been a decrease in ‘job seekers’ and ‘lone parents’ DWP benefit claimants whilst
those claiming ‘bereavement’ benefit remained the same. Where Hamp has seen an increase or decrease
between 2004 and 2006 this is reflected in the figures presented for Bridgwater.
Overall, the benefit claimant data confirms the scale of worklessness on the estate. Whilst the number of
JSA claimants is now relatively small, the number of incapacity benefit claimants has continued to grow.
This reinforces the need for a wide range of engagement and soft interventions to assist individuals back
into productive activity.
EKOS Consulting 20
306227/INV103078
More positively, the number of children eligible/taking up free school meals at the four schools serving
Hamp has declined, albeit the latest data is 2004. With between 1 in 4 and 1 in 3 children eligible for free
school meals, the data reinforces the number of low income families on the estate.
Table 4: Free School Meals
Jan 2002 Jan 2004
School % of pupils % of pupils % of pupils % of pupils
taking free known to be taking free known to be
school eligible for school eligible for
meals free school meals free school
meals meals
Hamp Community Junior School 32.2 32.2 29.6 31.6
Hamp Community Nursery & Infants School 26.5 27.0 24.5 25.0
Elmwood School 34.2 38.0 27.9 33.8
Robert Blake Science College 23.5 23.7 20.1 20.4
Statistics provided by Sedgemoor District Council would suggest the number of people wanting to move in
to the Hamp area is now inline with other areas of Bridgwater. At 31st July 20075, there were 223 (non
council) people on the housing register, selecting Hamp as their 1st choice and a further 52 council
tenants wishing to transfer into the Hamp area, in Newtown the figure was at 202 and in Sydenham 244.
This position is in contrast to that at the outset of the Programme where Hamp was characterised by
much lower levels of demand than elsewhere. This local indicator provides a useful measure of the
perception and reputation of the estate and how it has changed in recent years. Many of the schemes
projects will have contributed to this improvement, but again, it is not possible to disaggregate the impact
of the scheme from other local and wider factors.
The community consultation results show that in excess of 80% of residents feel the quality of life and
image of Hamp has improved, and a further 80% feel there are more opportunities to participate in
community and social activities. Importantly in excess of 90% agree that there are more ways to get help
and advice. Interestingly, there are more mixed views about the provision of activities for young people
and the environment. In terms of provision for young people, the consultation showed a strong
recognition of the value of ReCreation, with many qualitative comments praising the centre. However, it
was also felt that this did not provide sufficient provision for older teenagers.
5 Comparison figures for previous years were not available
EKOS Consulting 21
306227/INV103078
Figure 4: Community Consultation response – General statements
The environment - both open spaces and your

street - has got better on the estate
There are more ways to get help and advice Strongly disagree
on the estate Disagree
There are more opportunities to participate in Agree
community/social activities Strongly Agree
The image of Hamp has become more positive
Overall Quality of Life has improved on Hamp
0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10
% % % % % % % % % 0%
These quantitative findings are echoed in the qualitative response:
• I remember when the Hamp estate was a no go area for the Police, cars were regularly burnt out in
Mansfeild Park and King George St; and
• Because everything has improved.
Crime and Community Safety

The table below present crime statistics for the Hamp ward area for the period 2006/07 to 2007/08 -
unfortunately due to ‘beat’ area changes within Avon and Somerset Constabulary figures prior to this
period are not available.
Table 5: Crime Figures 2006/07 to 2007/08
Number of
Number Change on
Change on crimes for
Crime category of crimes Crime category same period last
2006/2007 financial year
2007/08 year 2006/2007
2007/2008
Domestic
Homicide 0 0 9 +1
Burglary
Grievous Bodily Non-domestic
0 0 18 +12
Harm Burglary
Theft of Motor
Actual Bodily Harm 12 -4 5 -4
Vehicles
Theft from
Common Assault 10 +4 5 -14
Motor Vehicles
Criminal
Harassment 3 +1 52 +4
Damage
Other Violence
2 -1 Fraud / Forgery 5 0
against the Person
Robbery 1 +1 Other Crimes 30 -10
Sexual Offences 2 -1 Total Crime 154 -11
Source: www.avonandsomerset.police.uk
EKOS Consulting 22
306227/INV103078
The data presents a mixed picture, with on the one hand a significant reduction in vehicle related crime,
counterbalanced by increases in burglary and criminal damage. In the longer term, the trend is key crimes
downward, supported by some of the crime reduction measures funded by the SRB programme.
The community consultation results show 75% of residents feel safer in their homes and on the streets of
Hamp. The comments show that residents generally feel there have been better policing on the estate,
although some report that there are still significant anti-social behaviour issues as the following comment
illustrates:
“On a personal level, I do not feel that anything has been done to improve my life. People who do not live
on the estate have commented about the reputation and stigma it has. Obviously you do not live in the
area and go home to your safe houses. The open spaces are misused on most occasions’ and therefore
developing will only encourage the younger element into an area especially unsupervised”.
Youth nuisance and youth related crime remains a significant challenge. The number of youth justice
referrals has trebled, for example, between 1999 and 2004, although anecdotally the trend has improved
subsequently. The investment in youth activities by the SRB programme has been an important factor in
reducing the propensity for youth related nuisance and crime, although there are clearly still challenges
ahead.
EKOS Consulting 23
306227/INV103078
3.4 Conclusions
The key socio-economic indicators suggest that Hamp has changed for the better in many ways over the
programme period, although it remains relatively disadvantaged.
Table 6: Changes in key socio-economic indicators
Key Indicator Finding Positive/
Negative
No. of JSA claimants Fallen over the life of programme, but still higher than 9
Somerset and SW.
Pupils gaining 5 A*-C GCSEs Decrease between 1997 and 2007. Results poor relative 8
to wider area.
Index of Multiple Deprivation Overall deprivation appears to have fallen 9
IMD – Income Income deprivation appears to have fallen 9
IMD – Employment No real change in employment deprivation 8
IMD – Health Health deprivation has fallen slightly 9
IMD – Education Education deprivation appears to have a fallen 9
No. claiming incapacity benefit Risen between 2004 and 2006 8
Free school meals No. of pupils eligible has fallen between 2002 and 2004 9
No. of workplaces Stayed the same -
Crime Has started to rise from 2006/07 8
Youth Justice Referrals Risen between 1999 and 2004 8
The available data suggests that the Programme, whilst not securing the transformation of the estate, has
assisted in reversing or slowing a number of negative trends and improving access to opportunities and
quality of life. Stakeholder and community consultation suggest that the work undertaken in ReCreation
has been important in addressing youth crime and the life chances for young people. Likewise for adults,
the provision of information and advice services at 1 Edinburgh Rd have made a difference to a large
number of people.
In terms of perceptions, there is a consensus amongst stakeholders and the community that the image
and atmosphere of the estate has improved markedly over the period.
Given the levels of worklessness and disparities in education, crime and other key indicators which are
evident, there is a long way to go to achieve a sustainable community in Hamp. The programme has
contributed to reversing a long term period of decline, although given its size its direct impact was always
EKOS Consulting 24
306227/INV103078
going to be limited. The challenge now is how the positive momentum is built upon to further the estate’s
regeneration.
EKOS Consulting 25
306227/INV103078
4 Financial and Output Performance
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents an overview of the financial and output performance of the Hamp SRB scheme and
provides a picture of the overall effectiveness of the scheme. The information presented in this chapters
draws on the Hamp SRB Delivery Plans, their spend spreadsheet and original SRB application.
4.2 Financial Performance

The Hamp SRB scheme was awarded £1,688,842 of SRB resources, 100% of which has now been spent
and accounted for. The annual profile of expenditure is shown below. Given the length of the programme
and the time required to agree a strategy and approve projects it would be expected that expenditure
would be quite slow at the beginning. This has been borne out in practice, with the bulk of expenditure
coming in the second half of the period.
Figure 5: Total Expenditure By Year
700,000
581,913
600,000
500,000
400,000 324,465
300,000 241,628 231,648
200,000 151,328
121,596
100,000 36,264
0
2000/01 2001/2002 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07
When compared to the original profile, the actual amount spent on an annual basis differed considerably.
For example, in years one and two only 21.6% and 16.5% (respectively) of the budget was spent, with
monies rolled forward into future years. A number of factors led to this re-profiling, including:
• Delays in approval of the year 1 delivery plan;
• Delays in implementing projects, notably ReCreation where the design and costs were altered
significantly; and
• The pursuit of the proposal to build a community centre, which ultimately did not come to
fruition.
EKOS Consulting 26
306227/INV103078
Table 7: Financial performance compared to predicted performance

Year Profile Actual Actual against profile Actual as a % of total
%
2000/01 168,000 36,264 21.6 2.1

2001/02 736,020 121,596 16.5 7.2
2002/03 382,570 151,328 39.6 9.0
2003/04 139,670 581,913 416.6 34.5
2004/05 137,720 241,628 175.4 14.3
2005/06 124,860 324,465 259.9 19.2
2006/07 0 231,648 - 13.7
Total 1,688,840 1,688,842 100.0 100.0
During 2005, it became evident that some resources and activity would be lost without an extension to the
Programme. Following agreement of SWRDA, the Programme period was extended by a year in order
principally:
• To provide support to the 1 Edinburgh Rd project, where the extension was due to be complete
by the end of March 2006. The contract extension would allow the partnership to sign off the
new build and provide some support for its operation;
• To provide continued support to ReCreation to assist it to become financially independent; and
• To develop an Action plan for the ongoing regeneration of Hamp.

Whilst this extension perhaps could have been avoided, it represented a pragmatic response to the
financial position of the Programme and enabled the key commitments and objectives of the Partnership
to be delivered.
In total, the Hamp SRB scheme supported 42 projects which read across the five strategic objectives as
identified in the delivery plans. Financial expenditure for each project has been provided by the
Sedgemoor DC, however, due to the projects crossing over a number of strategic objectives it is not
possible to present a detailed financial breakdown against each objective. In order to present the
schemes financial expenditure in this section the projects have therefore been re-categorised as follows:
• Environment;
• Community facilities / services;
• ICT;
• Young People;
• Crime; and
• Community Capacity Building.
EKOS Consulting 27
306227/INV103078
The table below shows how the original strategic objectives map onto the revised categories. A full list of
projects is presented in an appendix.
Table 8: Strategic Objectives mapped against themes
Environme Community ICT Young Crime Community
nt Facilities / People Capacity
Services Building
SO1 Employment, 9 9 9 9 9
education and skills
SO2 Social exclusion 9 9 9 9
SO3 Environment and 9

infrastructure
SO4 Economy and 9 9
business
SO5 Crime, drugs and 9 9 9
safety
Capacity Building 9 9
Total number of projects 8 7 5 9 2 11
Expenditure was greatest for categories young people (30.8%), community facilities/services (29.2%) and
community capacity building (17%). A much smaller amount of the budget was spent on Crime (0.8%)
and Environment (6.5%). Total expenditure across all categories accounted for 94.2% of the total budget,
with remaining resources allocated to management and administration costs in line with the SRB
regulations. A full breakdown of total expenditure by theme is detailed in the table below:
Table 9: Total Expenditure by Theme

Category Total (£) % of Total
Environment 110,443.57 6.5
Community Facilities / Services 493,493.23 29.2
ICT 165,000.62 9.8
Young People 520,582.26 30.8
Crime 13,789.00 0.8
Community Capacity Building 287,270.63 17.0
TOTAL projects 1,590,579.31 94.2
Management & Admin 92,232.87 5.5%
Pre Approval 6029.00 0.3%
TOTAL SRB 1,688,841.18 100
Whilst the original SRB bid did not allocate resources by strategic objective, the actual breakdown of
resources provides a useful impression of the Programme. Specifically, the focus on boosting the number
of facilities and services on the estate is evident through ReCreation, 1 Edinburgh Road and others. The
scale of actual resource deployed in these areas also reflects, in part, cost increases which were not
envisaged. In contrast, the level of resources devoted to crime and community safety projects was
perhaps lower than might have been envisaged, although there is clear overlap with activities for young
people. Looked at in the round, the balance of resources reflects broadly the Partnership’s vision and
objectives for the Programme.
EKOS Consulting 28
306227/INV103078
For every £1 of SRB funding spent, an additional 55p of public and private sector funding has been
secured as leverage. These contributions are set out below.
Table 10: Leverage
£
Funding (cash or in kind) from Private Sector and Non Public Sector
Blues.st 4,000
Revenue generate 42,094
Volunteer time 33,642
4Wards2Work (SCCC) 3,500
CAB 6,748
SIGNS 2,600
RSL/SHAL Housing 8,308
Total private sector/non public sector 100,892
Funding from other Public Sector Contributors (including non-Exchequer
Somerset County Council 120,019
SDC – inc Local Authority Housing 572,479
People Places 5,000
Environment Agency 30,000
British Waterways 60,000
JobCentre Plus 5,000
Health Authority 9,000
Avon & Somerset Constabulary 250
Other public 30,100
Total public sector 831,848
Grand Total private & public sector 932,740
The actual level of leverage falls short of what was expected in the original delivery plan – £242,900 of
private and £1.424m of public resources. This partially reflects the partnership’s poor understanding of
the types of funding sources that could be counted as match at the time of developing the bid. There
were a number of projects that the partnership had planned to fund through SRB and match funding, but
for various reasons were not able to fund through SRB. These projects were funded through
alternatives, and the partnership were advised to describe these as complementary funding. The level of
complementary funding was estimated to be over £700,0006.
Whilst it was unlikely that significant private resources would be secured, a greater level of public sector
leverage could have been expected. The bulk of public contributions have been secured via the District
and County Councils, with only modest resources from elsewhere. This suggests that the Partnership has
only been partially successful in getting other mainstream agencies to focus on the regeneration of the
estate, albeit funding constraints have had a key part to play.
6 Estimated by Sedgemoor DC from projects proposed in original bid, but which were not eligible for SRB funding.
EKOS Consulting 29
306227/INV103078
4.3 Achievement of Outputs

Full Partnership Outputs
A full set of quantified output achievements is presented in Appendix IV. This has been analysed with
respect to the programme themes below:
Employment, Training and Business
Of the 13 targets under this theme, all except 4 have been exceeded, some by a significant margin. The
programme has performed well in terms of creating and safeguarding jobs, with the exception of the
creation of construction jobs, of which none have been created against an expectation of 500weeks (5
jobs). Partners believe that construction jobs were created, but that the scheme was not successful in
capturing these outputs.
The programme also under-achieved in relation to its training targets, achieving only 17% (333) of the
targeted 2000 training weeks. Again, we would question here the realism associated with this target
given the typical costs associated with delivering training. Assuming that 30 guided learning hours costs
as little as £360 to deliver7, over £700,000 would have been required to achieve this target. Likewise, the
programme did not achieve its target for residents accessing employment through training and advice,
albeit 54 people did access employment as a result of SRB support. In contrast, the Programme over
achieved in relation to the number of people obtaining qualifications and its targets to promote personal
and social development for young people, through ReCreation and other diversionary activities.
The programme had a target to assist 5 new businesses to start-up and survive. In total, nine new
businesses received advice through the SRB Programme which has made a modest but important boost
to levels of enterprise on the estate.
Housing and Environment
A set of targets were established relating to housing improvements on the estate, albeit the Programme’s
resources in this area were very limited. Whilst the targets have been exceeded, the SRB activity relates
primarily to small home security and energy efficiency measures which added value to more significant
improvements being delivered by Sedgemoor District Council, SHAL and other partners, particularly
investments to meet the Decent Homes Standard.
With regard to the physical environment, the Programme had three targets - improving land for open
space, kilometres of foot/cycle track and traffic calming. Despite several projects to improve the amenity
of parks and other open spaces (see section 5.4.1), the target of 2.5 hectares was not achieved - the lack
of activity on Mansfield Park8 is most likely to be the reason why this target was not achieved. The Canal
towpath investments contributed to the successful achievement of the kilometres of path/cyclepath
improved.
7 Basic Skills – LSC funding Methodology, Structuring Provision and Recording Achievement. Workplace Basic Skills in the South
East/ 19th Oct 2005. Tribal Education.

8 Mansfield Park is a large area of open Green space on the estate. The need to improve this site is widely recognised amongst
partners and to date, series of consultation events have been undertaken, but as yet, a decision regarding how the park should be
developed has not been taken.
EKOS Consulting 30
306227/INV103078
The Programme had mixed success in this area, exceeding targets for the number of both community
safety initiatives and youth crime prevention initiatives. However, the number of people benefiting fell
below target, with 792 people directly benefiting against a target of 5,430. The original target was based
on an assumption that SRB would fund a CCTV project on the estate. However, this project was
delivered without SRB funding because the council had alternative funding and did not wish to wait for the
SRB approval process. The programme fell marginally short of its target to achieve 310 buildings
upgraded in terms of security, achieving 259, a good result nonetheless.
Attendance of young people at crime diversionary initiatives was good, with 192 young people attending,
just short of the target of 200. The programme addressed community safety through a number of routes,
practical measures such as improved lighting and housing security and through working with young
people to prevent crime.
Community Facilities and Services, and ICT
The Programme has successfully exceeded its targets for improving access to health, social and cultural
facilities through the development of 1 Edinburgh Rd9, ReCreation10, ICT infrastructure11 and play areas12.
In terms of participation, only very modest targets were set for expanding levels of volunteering and
involvement in activities, both of which have been exceeded. Given the social problems and lack of
community activity on the estate, the hosting of events, shows and activities has been very valuable in
fostering engagement and boosting participation. Whilst the target was achieved, the regeneration work
in Hamp is still overly reliant on a small number of individuals and further efforts are needed to engage the
community and additional volunteers.
The Programme was also successful in achieving a number of other partnership outputs such as people
gaining access to ICT (815), access to business start-up training and action plans (21).
SWRDA CORE outputs

Table 11 below sets out performance against the SWRDA core outputs. Whilst the absolute numbers are
modest, this shows that the programme has exceeded all of its targets, with the exception of other public
sector spend and private sector leverage (discussed earlier). The key achievements include:
• A total of 21 jobs created;
• More than 200 people obtaining qualifications which will assist those individuals to access
employment and/or in obtain better paid employment;
• Four community enterprise start ups created including the successful Furniture Store; and
• Substantial numbers (211) of new childcare places provided, albeit the SRB contribution to this
new Sure Start provision was indirect.
9 1 Edinburgh Rd is a facility that can be used by a number of agencies to provide health, cultural and social support.
10 Providing cultural and social opportunities through discos and hire by community groups such as Dream-makers.
11 Enabling people to access the internet and participate in social and cultural opportunities through this medium.
12 Social opportunties for children and their carers.
EKOS Consulting 31
306227/INV103078
Table 11: Performance against SWRDA core outputs

Target Actual Percentage Achieved
Achieved (9/8)
CODE OUTPUT DESCRIPTION
1A (i) Number of jobs – created 2 13.9 695% 9
(ii) Number of jobs - safeguarded 0 7.6 9

Number of people trained obtaining 200 204 102% 9
1C
qualifications
1F (i) Number of trained people obtaining jobs. 0 5 9
2C (ii) Number of these surviving for 52 weeks 4 5 125% 9
Number of businesses receiving advice as 5 9 180% 9

2D
a result of SRB-assisted activities
8E Number of community enterprise start ups 2 4 200 9
9A (ii) Total other public spend (£000) 1,141 904.1 79% 8
(iii) Total private sector leverage (£000) 236.5 177.4 75% 8
10A Number of new child-care places provided 0 211 9
10B 0 8 9
4.4 Conclusions
The Programme has performed well in financial terms, with monies spent largely in line with the objectives
set out in the original approval. The SRB allocation of £1.68m was fully spent by the end of the
Programme period, albeit a one year extension was required to enable resources to be fully deployed.
Whilst the extension was sensible, some of the delays relating to the scoping and costing of key projects
such as ReCreation could have been avoided. However, the experience gained by the team mean that
they are able to apply these lessons to future investments. Reasonable levels of leverage have been
achieved, on a par with similar sized programmes. The mix of public sector contributions was, however,
narrower than might have been expected, reflecting the reliance on the District Council and HCA to drive
the Programme.
The Programme has exceeded the bulk of its quantified output targets, with some of the most significant
achievements relating to qualifications attainment, participation in activities and community capacity
building. In hindsight, some of the other targets were over-ambitious and would have merited revision. In
other areas, under-performance against targets reflects largely the limited resources available. Overall,
the mix of achievements is substantial and provides a platform for the future regeneration of the estate.
This is now considered more fully in the detailed project review.
EKOS Consulting 32
306227/INV103078
5 Thematic and Project Achievements
5.1 Introduction
This chapter examines the achievements of the projects funded under the SRB scheme with a view to
understanding:
• The breadth of activities funded and alignment with the scheme objectives;
• Key projects that have made a major impact on Hamp;
• The effectiveness of the project delivery process;
• Lasting legacies of the projects; and
• Any lessons learnt.

The chapter is structured as follows:
• Overview and contribution to Strategic Objectives;
• Key Projects; and
• Activity by Theme.
5.2 Overview and Contribution to Strategic Objectives

A total of 42 projects were approved over the 7 years of the programme, with the average project size
being approximately £62,000. This section examines the different types of activities funded and their
alignment with the Programme’s strategic objectives.
The project are grouped according the the themes identified in Chapter 4. The reason for this re-
grouping, rather than grouping with the strategic objectives was several fold:
• Many projects had been assigned more than 1 strategic objective;
• A large number of projects in the community capacity building theme, did not have 1 obvious
strategic objective; and
• The projects had a better natural grouping with the themes selected.
EKOS Consulting 33
306227/INV103078
The projects can be grouped as follows:
Table 12: Projects grouped by theme

Group Key activities Strategic
Objectives
Environment Canal Access improvements. 3

Gloucester Rd - Clearance of wasteland and conversion into 3
children’s play area.
Fencing at Wolmer Rd.
3
Improvements in lighting at Quantock View.
3
The Green Cockadoodle Doo - Development of a further play area.
3
Consultation on Mansfield Park.
3
Community Purchase and redevelopment of 1 Edinburgh Rd for information, 1, 2, 4, 5

Facilities/ advice and guidance centre.
Services Construction of a Neighbourhood Nursery.
1,2
Exploring feasibility of community centre.
2,3
Furniture Store - Establishment of a social enterprise undertaking
1,2,4,5
furniture recycling.
Hamp Minibus - Purchase of a minibus for use by community
groups and school. 1,2,3
ICT ICT Champ – ICT suite in school. 1

Junior ICT – Computer in each classroom in junior school. 1
Hamp Web Initiative – SRB and HCA website. 1,2
Hamp Wireless – Wireless dome over part of the estate. 1,2
HITEX – Increase useage of champ ICT suite. 1
Young People Hamp Youth Project – Youth Development Activities 2,5

ReCreation – Construction of new youth building for estate. Plus 1,2,4,5
landscaping, new kitchen and revenue support.
Breakfast Club- revenue support.
1,2
Sportee – Development of holiday playscheme.
1,2,5
Summer Challenge – Diversionary activities for young people.
2,5
EKOS Consulting 34
306227/INV103078
Activity Leaders.
Crime Safe as Houses – replacement locks and security measures for 5

victims of crime.
Police Bicycle – Provision of a bicycle for beat officers.
5
Community Community Development Worker – Revenue support for worker to All

Capacity develop projects with the community. indirectly
Building
Community Chest – Small grant scheme for individuals and
community groups to access.
Community Capacity Build – training and support for groups and
members.
Information and Publicity Officer.
Administration and Grants Officer.
IT and Technical Support.
Community Pantomime.
Hamp Strategy and Funding project.
The Programme has been successful in promoting projects across the range of strategic objectives, with
the exception of S04 (Support and promote growth in local economies and businesses), where few
projects were developed. The changing planning status of an area of land adjacent to the Hamp estate
(from industrial to residential) in the early days of the programme was partially responsible for this. This
would always have been a challenging objective in a largely deprived residential area. There are the
following opportunities to further this objective in the future:
• Delivery of start-up and self-employment advice services through 1 Edinburgh Rd;
• Development of the HCA as a social enterprise/charity as per the exit strategy;
• Encouraging the development of additional social enterprises to meet the needs of the
community and provide opportunities for people to develop their skills.
EKOS Consulting 35
306227/INV103078
Table 13: Contribution to Strategic Objectives
Strategic Objective Programme Contribution (Ranked 1-5, where 1-low and 5-

very high)
1 Improving the employment Rank – 4. The contribution to this objective is multi-faceted:

prospects, education and skills of increasing provision of advisory and other services e.g. at 1
local people. Edinburgh Road, enhancing uptake of learning through improved
ICT provision and boosting support to young people through
activities in schools and the new ReCreation centre. Almost 4 in 5
residents agreed that there are now more opportunities for them
to learn and improve their skills.
2 Address social exclusion and Rank - 5. S02 is where we believe the Programme’s contribution
enhance opportunities for the has been greatest. Social inclusion has been at the heart of the
disadvantaged. majority of SRB projects, with a clear focus on raising aspirations
and enhancing the capacity of individuals and groups to improve
their prospects. Engaging with a broad cross section of residents
has been a key feature of the Programme.
3 Promote sustainable regeneration, Rank – 4 . In spite of limited SRB resources, the Programme had
improving and protecting the delivered a number of physical enhancements to the estate and
environmental and infrastructure complemented other investment e.g. in housing. Three quarters
including housing. of residents agree that the estate’s environment has got better.
4 Support and promote growth in Rank – 1. In hindsight, this objective was over-ambitious given
local economies and businesses the largely residential nature of Hamp. This said, the Programme
has indirectly assisted a number of individuals to set up in
business as well as provide support for social enterprises such as
the Furniture Store.
5 Tackle crime and drug abuse and Rank – 4. The Programme has supported both diversionary
improve community safety. activities for young people and crime prevention measures.
Overall levels of crime and nuisance have fallen, albeit they
remain too high. The majority of residents now feel safer in their
home and on the estate.
EKOS Consulting 36
306227/INV103078
5.3 Key Projects

In this section we look in more detail at the two projects identified by stakeholders as critical to the
success of the SRB scheme in Hamp, namely ReCreation and 1 Edinburgh Rd. These projects were of
strategic importance as they provided the infrastructure to allow other activities, projects and services to
be delivered.
ReCreation – A New Kind of Youth Buidling

The development of ReCreation was identified from
the outset as a crucial element in the regeneration of
Hamp. Consultation showed this was high on the
community agenda. The picture to the left shows the
old building which had fallen into disrepair and had to
be demolished. 25% of the population are under 16
compared with 20% regionally13. Lack of facilities for
young people was leading to anti-social behaviour
and crime. The community was in talks with the
SWRDA about funding the development of a youth
centre through non SRB funds, but when this did not develop, it became a high priority for SRB funding.
The solution was to build a £641,501 new youth
centre, funded with £403,33914 from SRB plus an
additional £47,245 of revenue support. This was
higher than originally planned and resulted in the
project exceeding the partnerships delegated
funding threshold and therefore needing to be
approved by the SWRDA. The biggest issue in
development was the need to re-orientate the
building to satisfy police concerns which ultimately
pushed the project over the Partnership’s
delegated threshold.
The building was fully equipped to include ICT
suites, a café area, and a hall plus chill-out rooms.
The building now opens before and after school as a
youth centre and is also used by other groups such
as a drama group later in the evening. Since the
building opened, the need for the provision has been
highlighted further. The centre has provided a safety
net for many children, ensuring they have a safe
place to go, fulfilling activities and something to eat
13 Census 2001
14 Match funding from Sedgemoor District Counci and Sure Start.
EKOS Consulting 37
306227/INV103078
before and after school. For many young people it has provided a chance to volunteer and gain skills and
qualifications such as basic food hygiene. People involved in the project feel it has changed the lives of
many young people and will continue to do so. The police report that it has had a significant impact on
crime levels on the estate. Currently 30-60 children use the centre each night. Older children volunteer
at the centre and on a typical week 3-4 do so. Since it opened, 100 young people have volunteered.
The centre is used by a variety of organisations such as Dream makers (singing and dancing), a craft
group, Somerset County Youth Service and a vegetable box scheme. In most instances, this pattern of
shared use has worked well. The only relationship to prove challenging was that with the Youth Service,
where the ReCreation Management team and the Youth Service had differing standards of acceptable
behaviour from young people. The result was a short spell (3 months) with no provision from the Youth
Service at the centre. The two organisations have now come to a working arrangement that the Youth
Service uses the building 1 night a week to provide a service to 16-19 year olds and this appears to be
working well. The community consultation showed considerable demand for increased provision for
teenagers. The ReCreation Management team need to consider how best to meet this demand, either
through in house provision or through greater use by the Youth Service.
Case Study (name changed)

When Jonathan first came to Recreation he was frequently in trouble at school and was involved in
nuisance on the estate.
At ReCreation, he took the opportunity to learn some new skills, including food hygiene, which he passed
with flying colours. He now runs the café in ReCreation including preparing for parties and group events.
He is respected by both staff, volunteers and users of the site.
The community consultation showed that ReCreation is highly valued as the following comments
illustrate:
• ‘Thanks to ReCreation I have got more self esteem’;
• ‘ReCreation has saved me going bad – kids play up there’;
• ‘Keep ReCreation going’.

The project has also attempted to work with young parents by providing a buggy club where parents can
come in with babies and toddlers and have some breakfast (children eat free), but there was little interest.
The project was set up so that it was owned and
run by the community, initially with support from
Sedgemoor District Council. Management of such
a building is a challenge for the community, but it
has necessitated the development of new skills
amongst the individuals involved. Staff and
volunteers have achieved childcare and playwork
qualifications and it is Ofsted registered.
EKOS Consulting 38
306227/INV103078
The project received some revenue support from the SRB, but it has since obtained money from Children
in Need and the Safer Sedgemoor Partnership. In addition, it raises some funds through sale of goods in
the café, other paid trips and room hire and functions. Funding has been secured for the next three
years, but there is an ongoing need to ensure future funding is in place.
The key issues for the project going forward are:
• Obtaining funding to continue activities;
• Obtaining funding for additional activities – additional opening hours, more trips etc;
• Extending the work to support parenting skills;
• Extending the work to support older children and teenagers; and
• Capacity of the community to manage the operation.
Overall, the building is a tremendous asset to the estate, especially in the absence of a community centre.
Other community groups do use the building during the day and after the youth club session in the
evening. Currently, this additional use is limited. It will be important for the centre to expand its use to
other groups to provide an additional source of revenue and ensure the community achieves the
maximum benefit from the SRB expenditure.
Community involvement was seen as a critical success factor in the project to date in two ways:
• At the building stage, where ownership by the young people15 and community resulted in no
vandalism; and
• Since completion of the build, through a core staff team made up of local people and volunteers
that ensure the centre opened and remains open.
The project has proved to be an immense learning opportunity for all involved. Key learning areas were:
Table 13: Lessons Learnt from ReCreation
Area Lessons Learnt
Commissioning Employing an independent Quantity Surveyor to provide an estimate of costs

large capital rather than relying on an architect;
builds
It is necessary for staff to be employed to undertake administrative tasks.
Community Confirmed the importance of the need for ongoing support from a wide cross
Involvement section of the local population.
Running a The need for a sound business plan to generate income.

Business
Partners need to provide more support/scrutiny in early years.
15 Through the involvement of young people in the design and the communities expressed need for the facility.
EKOS Consulting 39
306227/INV103078
Working with That it is possible to open to all ages.

Young People
There is a need for strict working protocols in order to adhere to standards.
That providing the young people with clear boundaries regarding acceptable
behaviour which are strictly enforced.
The young people of Hamp have tremendous enthusiasm and potential to
engage constructively with society. ReCreation provides a channel for them to
do this.
1 Edinburgh Rd
The property at 1 Edinburgh Rd was purchased at the beginning of the SRB Programme as a temporary
operating base for the SRB team. The original intention was that when a community resource centre was
established it would be resold and money used for other projects. The building was purchased and made
fit for purpose at a cost of £80,586.
In 2002, a project was approved to provide information and advice at 1 Edinburgh Rd. Total project costs
of £74,096 paid for:
• a paid part time manager to run the centre and provide some admin support to HCA and SRB,
• an operating base for HCA;
• a base for organisations such as Citizen’s advice, JobCentre plus, Bridgwater Credit Union to
operate from (see below);
• a venue for working together to further projects in Hamp; and
• allow access to ICT, provide training and volunteering opportunities.

Table 14: Services Provided Through 1 Edinburgh Rd
Services Provided Through 1 Edinburgh Rd
Citizen’s Advice Bureau National Children’s Home – Hamp Family centre;
Forwards to Work Garden Gym
Credit Union New Deal placements
Sedgemoor personal Counselling service; SDC Dog wardens – dog tagging
Community ICT access point Community newsletter
8-11 admin base Community web project
Community coach trips Sportee – holiday play-scheme admin base
EKOS Consulting 40
306227/INV103078
Over time, it became clear that that a stand alone community centre was not affordable via the SRB6
Programme but an extension of 1 Edinburgh Road could deliver significant added value. In 2006, the
building was extended at a total project cost of £176,250, to be able to expand the services available and
for continued funding for a paid manager. The benefit of this extension has yet to be realised. This is
because the project suffered considerably with a flood in December 2005, which delayed the building
works on the extension and meant that the Information and Advice team could not use the building.
Delays on processing the insurance claim and dealing with the damage meant that the team could not
access the centre again until July 2006. This set back plans and activities of the team both in terms of
activity, but also in terms of strategic planning. The team are starting to look forward again now and work
with a number of agencies to provide outreach provision at the centre including the health service, Avon
and Somerset Police and the Somerset Racial Equality Council.
To date 17,422 visits have been made to the building, with a range of associated benefits including:
• Residents to access a range of services not previously available in Hamp;
• Better communication between residents and agencies working on the ground, such as the police;
• People to work together to provide activities and projects to improve Hamp.
The presence of Citizen’s Advice, for example, has enabled 407 people (7% of the resident population) to
receive advice and 23 people provided with debt and financial mentoring support. Given the insular nature
of the estate, increasing the local delivery of services has been a very valuable component of the SRB6
programme. The centre has also provided a home for the Healthy FM radio project - a net based radio
project funded by the Sedgemoor Health and Wellbeing Partnership.
The combination of facilities at 1 Edinburgh Rd and ReCreation goes along way to addressing the need
for a community centre within the estate. Going forward, it is important that the plans to provide a multi-
million pound community building in the Victoria ward (Bridgwater) include a mechanism to ensure that
the people of Hamp (and the rest of Bridgwater) are also able to access this facility.
Work over the final year of the SRB Programme has focused on ensuring that the 1 Edinburgh Rd facility
is financially sustainable in the medium and longer term. The SRB scheme has been successful in
securing Big Lottery funding for the centre, however, it is essential that all agencies, not just Sedgemoor
DC, utilise the facility on a regular basis and pay full cost recovery.
5.4 Activity by Theme

Environment
The environmental sub-group were very active at the beginning of the SRB Programme and quickly put
forward project ideas. As the Table below sets out, most of the environmental projects have been
completed successfully and provide an improved infrastructure for the Hamp area. A common theme of
these projects is the involvement of statutory agencies in the delivery and maintenance of the facilities.
The people of Hamp have been the main beneficiaries with additional play facilities, safer paths and an
improved visual environment. The projects have enabled other non SRB projects to take place, resulting
in further improvements such as Hamp Ponds.
EKOS Consulting 41
306227/INV103078
Table 15: Success of Environment Theme projects

Project Outcome
Canal Access improvements Completed successfully – Maintained path for Hamp.
Gloucester Rd (1&2) – Clearance of Play area developed initially without full consultation of
wasteland and conversion into community, required additional funding to address complaints.
children’s play area
Fencing at Wolmer Rd Completed successfully resulting in less anti-social behaviour
Improvements in lighting at Completed successfully.

Quantock View
The Green Cockadoodle Doo – Completed successfully.

Development of a further play area
Consultation on Mansfield Park. On-going consultation to decide the future of Mansfield Park.
Canal Access Improvements – Case Study

The purpose of this project was to improve the footpath along the canal to encourage cycling, walking
and angling. The project was run by British Waterways and completed quickly. The resulting path is
considered to be high quality by stakeholders. It is now jointly maintained by British Waterways and
Sedgemoor District council and is an important walking route.
This project has helped catalyse a number of other projects in the area including the development of
the Taunton Rd Pond by the Environment Agency and the Meads Biodiversity Action Plan. The original
plan was to undertake the project in 2 phases to complete the whole length of the towpath in Hamp.
However, after phase 1 the Environment sub-group decided that the funding would be better spent in
other parts of the programme.
Gloucester Rd Play Area– Case Study

The Gloucester Rd play area proved to be an important learning project for the partnership. The
project was instigated by Sure Start whose consultation showed the need for a toddler play area on the
estate. The resulting play area included a DDA compliant slide which was used by older children to
hurl missiles and abuse into neighbouring gardens, causing large volumes of complaints.
HCA then undertook a thorough consultation exercise with residents including:
• Residents meetings;
• Timed visits to witness the problem;
• Discussions with police and neighbours;
• Photographs.
EKOS Consulting 42
306227/INV103078
The conclusion was to improve the fencing around the houses to prevent unwanted access and provide
a basketball hoop for the young people. The resulting play area is used without problem. The key
lessons learnt for the partnership were:
• The benefit of wide ranging consultation;
• Ensuring there is provision for all age groups;
• Prioritise provision for older children then they are more likely to respect the equipment for
younger children.
Activities under this theme clearly contribute to SO3, promoting sustainable regeneration, improving and
protecting the environment and infrastructure, including housing.
Community Facilities and Services
Improving the facilities and services available to the people of Hamp was a core element of improving
social inclusion and a number of projects were successfully developed including the Information and
Advice Centre at 1 Edinburgh Rd described previously.
One area of disappointment for the partnership was the failure to be able to develop a community centre.
As a partnership, considerable time and energy was put into developing meetings and plans for such a
centre over the course of 2-3 years. Discussions were held with a number of partners over this time
covering:
• Availability of sites and access;
• Partnership arrangements;
• Management arrangements; and
• Sources of funding.
One option was to develop the centre in partnership with the junior school as a shared facility through the
lottery funded Spaces for Sports and Arts initiative - however, the need for the hall to be used as teaching
space eventually prevented the scheme going ahead as a community centre, although the school did go
on to improve its hall and the community is able to use this facility.
The table below sets out the projects supported by the SRB6 programme under this theme:
Table 16: Success of Community Facility theme projects
Project Outcome
Purchase 1 Edinburgh Rd Completed successfully.
IAC at 1 Edinburgh Rd Delivered successfully and 1 Edinburgh Rd continues to

provide advice to the residents of Hamp.
Extension of 1 Edinburgh Rd Completed successfully.
Neighbourhood Nursery Completed successfully.
EKOS Consulting 43
306227/INV103078
Community centre Unsuccessful.
Furniture Store Delivered successfully.
Hamp Minibus Delivered successfully.
Furniture Store – Case Study

Hamp Furniture Store provides low cost furniture to people on benefits through re-using unwanted
furniture. This has the additional benefit of reducing waste going to landfill. The Hamp SRB
programme provided funding at the start of the project to fund the purchase of a van and equipment
such as signage - without this funding the Furniture Store would not have been able to open.
The furniture store provides opportunities for people with little or no work experience, often young
people with social problems. Usually people work at the furniture store on a placement of between 3
and 6 months. Since it was set up the furniture store has supported 37 young people in this way.
During this time they are able to gain NVQs in warehousing, and experience a range of roles
including customer facing situations. For many people working at the furniture store helps them get
used to a working routine and enables them to secure permanent employment either in warehousing
or the waste management industry.
The store also provides a significant benefit to low income families in Hamp and the wider area.
Proof of benefit eligibility is needed to purchase furniture.
Hamp Minibus – Case Study

The Hamp Minibus project was a joint project between the HCA and Blake School. Local groups
such as the junior football team, elderly residents and youth groups all required the use of a minibus
to enable transport for shopping trips, sports competitions and small group events away from Hamp.
The school had also identified the need for a new bus, but was also trying to raise funds to support
their application for special science status.
The decision was taken that by supporting the funding of a jointly managed community minibus, the
PTA (Parent Teacher Association) would be able to focus on achieving science status.
The project worked reasonably well. The school were responsible for maintaining the minibus and
the HCA for organising bookings. Both parties benefited. The school tended to use more during
term time and the community during holidays. For the school, the minibus was a replacement,
therefore staff were used to driving a bus and had the necessary training. The community on the
other hand did not have this existing pool of drivers and sometimes struggled to find volunteers.
The school found that generally the partnership worked well, however, not all groups returned the
bus in the state they found it. The school would have liked a better system for ensuring standards
were maintained regardless of the user group. Whilst the bus is operational, its legacy will continue,
however, there are currently no plans to replace the bus.
EKOS Consulting 44
306227/INV103078
Activities under this theme contribute to a number of strategic objectives. Most importantly these projects
addressed SO2, Addressing social exclusion, and improving opportunities for the disadvantaged through
the services provided at 1 Edinburgh Rd, childcare places, low cost furniture and the use of the minibus to
provide opportunities for people on the estate. Likewise, the Furniture Store is an excellent example of a
project that indirectly (through New Deal placements) addresses employment prospects.
Information and Communication Technologies

The Programme delivered a series of projects to improve ICT provision on the estate. In many respects,
this part of the Programme was an innovative attempt to address issues of social inclusion covering both
young people and the population as a whole. As the summary below shows, however, some of the
projects have not been as successful or beneficial as they could have been. In addition, securing ongoing
revenue support for projects such as the Hamp Web Initiative to enable content to be updated and usage
expanded has been a key constraint.
Table 17: Success of ICT theme projects
Project Outcome
ICT Champ – ICT suite in school Suite installed, but Adult Learning and Leisure provision
and Adult Learning and Leisure unsuccessful i.e. lack of take up and delivery problems.
delivering courses.
Junior ICT – Computer in each Completed successfully, brought school provision up to

classroom in junior school standard.
Hamp Web Initiative – SRB and Delivered website and training successfully. www.hamp.org.uk.
HCA website The two way communication element was not successful due to
lack of engagement.
Hamp Wireless – Wireless dome Partial success. Flood damaged equipment, but small area of
over part of the estate estate now covered.
HITEX – Increase usage of Hamp Project delivered successfully.

ICT suite
Hamp Wireless – Case Study

The Hamp estate has a high incidence of mobile phone usage either because people cannot afford the
line rental on a land line, or a previous tenant has left without paying the bill. Lack of a landline means
that people cannot access the internet at home through computers or other devices. The Hamp
Wireless project was designed to be used in conjunction with the HITEX scheme which included PC
loans for people who had undertaken training. As a result, it allowed people to access the internet
through a free broadband connection.
The pilot was to use high powered non domestic transmitters to form a wireless dome over the upper
EKOS Consulting 45
306227/INV103078
quadrant of the estate. Unfortunately, key parts of the equipment were damaged in the flood in
December 2005 and took 1 year to replace. To date, 1 bridge has been set up but more are needed to
complete the dome. This is expected to be done over the next 6 months as and when time is available.
The ICT themed projects were an innovative attempt to address SO 1 improving employment prospect,
education and skills of local people and SO2, addressing social exclusion and improving opportunities for
the disadvantaged. These projects have clearly made some contribution to these objectives; however,
unsuccessful delivery of some aspects of these projects has limited the impact on these strategic
objectives.
Young People
A key priority for the programme was to provide facilities and activities for young people living on the
estate. At the heart of this was the development of ReCreation reported previously. In addition to this,
the programme worked in partnership with various different agencies to undertake revenue projects to
improve life chances of children in the area such as the Summer Challenge (case study below). This
includes activities such as the Breakfast club where young people could come into ReCreation or later the
School to receive Breakfast. Provision of breakfast and a caring environment has significantly improved
the educational attainment of some of the young people involved.
Table 18: Success of Young people themed projects
Project Outcome
Hamp Youth Project – Youth Development Activities Completed successfully
ReCreation – Construction of new youth building for Completed successfully

estate. Plus landscaping, new kitchen and revenue
support.
Breakfast Club - revenue support. Completed successfully. The project sponsor

reports increasing educational attainment for
many young people.
Activity Leaders – Funding for staff at ReCreation. Completed successfully
Sportee – Development of holiday playscheme. Completed successfully
Summer Challenge – Diversionary activities for young Completed successfully

people.
Summer Challenge – Case Study

Summer Challenge was a partnership project led by the Safer Sedgemoor Partnership. The
partnership involved agencies such as the police, schools, youth service, neighbourhood watch and
ReCreation. In deprived estates like Hamp, there is little to do over the summer holidays. The
EKOS Consulting 46
306227/INV103078
summer challenge project takes a group of children

every Wednesday through August on a series of
activities around team building, self confidence etc.
Children are invited onto the scheme for a number

of reasons:
• Achievement;
• Young carers needing respite
• Young people on the cusp of crime, but without a criminal record.

Over the life of the project over 400 children in Sedgemoor have benefited with approximately 100 from
Hamp. In addition young people from communities can volunteer to work on the scheme, therefore
creating links between communities and reducing isolation.
These projects have very successfully contributed to SO1 – improving the employment prospects,
education and skills of local people and SO2 – addressing social inclusion and improving opportunities for
the disadvantaged. The projects for young people have in some cases directly targeted disadvantaged
young people or those at risk from exclusion and clearly helped avoid exclusion in many instances. They
have contributed to SO5 to reduce crime and drug abuse and improve community safety, although there
is still much work to be done, there is evidence that the diversionary activities have made an impact.
Only two projects have been directly allocated within this category, but nearly all the other projects
contribute to this objective through either providing a better environment, support to people to grow and
develop and diversionary activities for young people.
Table 19: Success of Crime and Community Safety themed projects
Project Outcome
Safe as Houses – replacement locks and security Completed successfully

measures for victims of crime.
Police Bicycle – Provision of a bicycle for beat officers. Completed successfully
EKOS Consulting 47
306227/INV103078
Safe as Houses – Case Study

Safe as houses was a project to increase security to residential properties. The project was
undertaken in partnership between the SRB office and SHAL Housing, with SHAL Housing able to
draw on funds for improving security to properties owned by SHAL and council houses situated on
the Hamp estate. The project team worked with the Police to identify properties where improved
locks could be fitted and the work was done through SHAL’s normal contractors.
As a result tenants have improved security. Prior to the work many properties had rim locks or night
latches only and key combinations were few and far between houses, so a key for one house, may
open two or three others in the road. Each property now has 5 lever mortice locks. Resident
beneficiaries have reported that they feel safer and more secure in their own home as a result.
These two projects were aimed at SO5 – reducing crime and drug abuse and improving community.
Whilst there is little beneficiary data, it is expected that these projects, combined with the young people’s
projects, will have contributed to this objective.
Community Capacity Building
Capacity building has been a key feature of the SRB6 Programme, with the aim of empowering residents
to:
• Develop projects;
• Set up organisations/groups;
• Attract and manage funding; and
• Manage organisations/buildings.
This strand has been pursued through a number of projects as set out below, an important element of
which has been to support the development of the HCA itself. This strand has also supported the wider
delivery of the SRB Programme including the newsletter and other promotional activity which has been
valuable in raising awareness and opportunity for engagement.
Table 20: Success of Community Capacity Building Themed projects
Project Outcome
Community Development Worker – Revenue This project proved useful in stimulating new
support for worker to develop projects with the projects and supporting them bid into the SRB.
community.
Community Chest – Small grant scheme for Completed successfully, see case study.
individuals and community groups to access.
Community Capacity Build – training and support Provided training for HCA members in a critical
for groups and members. year of development.
EKOS Consulting 48
306227/INV103078
Information and Publicity Officer Enabled the newsletter to be produced

regularly and delivered to each household.
Administration and Grants Officer Allowed for someone to administer and monitor
external funding grants.
IT and technical Support Successfully completed networking of buildings

and set up of user email accounts etc.
Community Pantomine Completed successfully.
Hamp Strategy and Funding project Funding secured for 1 Edinburgh Rd and
ReCreation for next 2 years. Work still ongoing
to finalise transfer of ownership to the new
company and an exit strategy.
More widely, success in stimulating projects and activity amongst other groups has been more varied,
albeit much of this activity was starting from a very low basis. Finding a way to support capacity building
activity going forward in conjunction with the HCA remains a key challenge - it is recognised by most
partners that this capacity building work and development of the exit strategy should have been much
higher up the agenda in the second half of the programme.
Community Pantomine – Case Study

This project worked in partnership with Bridgwater Arts Centre to bring the first ever Pantomine to
Hamp. Bridgwater Arts Centre delivered a matinee and evening performance over the Christmas
period in 2005. The project provided an opportunity for residents to experience a new activity - as
getting into the Arts Centre in Bridgwater can prove difficult for some people.
Feedback was very positive on the night and people are still asking when the next one will be. The
pantomime has inspired some young people to get involved in drama and a local community group
(Dream makers) has been established to run drama/singing and dancing workshops. The SRB
team helped them to secure £25k (non SRB) to set up and dream maker put on a show in the Arts
Centre in 2006.
A good relationship has been established with the Arts Centre, who provide free tickets for events
they feel might be of interest to Hamp people. As a result, attendance at the Arts Centre and other
activities is now significantly higher than prior to the project.
Community Chest – Case Study

Community Chest was designed to provide accessible small scale grants to individuals and
community groups within Hamp. A total of 21 individuals and 28 community groups benefited from
EKOS Consulting 49
306227/INV103078
the scheme in one form or another. This including training, childcare, activity days, a new book club
and equipment for the local football and rugby clubs.
Christmas boxes were delivered to 15 needy people in 2004 and 22 in 2005. These were gratefully
received by all recipients. Recipients were nominated by friends/neighbours who felt that they
needed cheering up due to hardship, bereavement or illness.
Some aspects of the project that did not go to plan were:
• A condition of the grant was that recipients should provide volunteer time at the HCA. Whilst
some did become involved, not all recipients were followed up due to the workload of the
Information and Advice Centre Manager.
• The administration of scheme was more time consuming than expected and therefore a
decision was taken to employ a part time grants officer to administer it.
• Despite repeated adverts in the newsletter, the applications were slow coming in.
These projects have contributed to all the strategic objectives indirectly through improving the
communities ability to develop and run projects per se. The projects have probably had the most impact
on SO2 – addressing social inclusion and improving opportunities for the disadvantaged through projects
to involve people in community activities such as the Community Pantomime. Likewise the community
chest project has directly supported individuals into employment and other activities.
5.5 Added Value and Good Practice

Whilst we have not undertaken a comprehensive assessment of each project supported by the SRB6
Programme, a number of common themes have emerged from the review. Firstly, the additionality of SRB
resources is generally high, with the bulk of projects unlikely to have happened in the absence of the
Programme – additionality in relation to ReCreation and 1 Edinburgh Road, in particular, is clear. The lack
of other regeneration monies for Hamp meant that there were few alternative sources of discretionary
funding. For a minority of projects, however ,e.g. some of the security and crime initiatives, there was
some overlap with mainstream resources so the additional impact of SRB funding was lessened. This
said, only a small percentage of the overall Programme would have happened anyway in the absence of
SRB funding.
The second area of added value relates to linkages and synergies between projects and with other
programmes. Two key features are evident – mixing of capital and revenue resources in key projects such
as 1 Edinburgh Road, and where projects have complemented other investments e.g. the ICT schools
projects. This said, there is a sense that potential synergies and alignment were not fully exploited -
improving communication channels and continued engagement of some partners could have generated
even greater benefits.
The bottom up characteristic of the SRB6 programme has been a key feature, with significant HCA
involvement in a number of schemes and extensive resident consultation and engagement in the vast
majority of projects. There is a very strong relationship between the needs and priorities of residents and
the package of activity that has been supported. At the same time, this has meant that the involvement of
other agencies has been variable, an issue we look at in more detail in the next chapter.
EKOS Consulting 50
306227/INV103078
The broad range of activities and expenditures supported by the Programme, in spite of its modest
allocation is a notable characteristic. The flexibility of SRB resources has been ideal for the Partnership,
rather than having to adopt a narrower focus on Tasking Framework and other economic based outputs.
Nonetheless, the Programme has funded a number of activities such as subsidised attendance at arts
events where the contribution to key outcomes is difficult to demonstrate. In addition, it is apparent that
the investment in community capacity building has perhaps not been effective as it might have been in
supporting new groups and other activity as few new groups have been formed or applied for SRB
funding.
There are a number of examples of good practice evident from the Programme, including:
• The development of 1 Edinburgh Road as a multi purpose community facility;
• The consultation and development process on ReCreation which enabled a successful centre to be
achieved; and
• The Furniture Store which combines a social and training enterprise with a valued service for local
residents.
As exit strategies are developed and agreed on a project by project basis it is essential that both delivery
and impact lessons are recognised by the Partnership.
5.6 Conclusions
In spite of a number of setbacks, the SRB Programme has successfully delivered two high profile capital
projects and supported the operation of these facilities after they were built. This is a notable achievement
and enables the Programme to leave a substantial legacy. In addition, the Programme has delivered a
large number of smaller projects to improve community facilities and services and quality of life for
residents of the estate. Stakeholders report that these projects have inspired other non SRB funded
projects in the area including:
• Somerset County Council Highways department utilised consultation work coming out of SRB to
successfully apply for Department of Transport Funding for road safety works outside of Blake
School. It is believed that this traffic calming has saved the life of 1 child hit by a car since the
scheme was put in place;
• As a result of environmental improvements, there have been improvements to Taunton Rd Pond

and Spillers Pond through the Environment Agency and BTCV; and
The bulk of projects have been well executed and successful in achieving both their quantitative output
targets and a range of qualitative benefits. Only a small minority of schemes have not quite met
expectations or been less strategic. A number of very valuable lessons have been learnt with regard to
project development and design, and community consultation. Whilst some of the original aims were
perhaps over-ambitious, the key expectations of the Programme have been delivered.
Ultimately, the Programme did not achieve one of its key aims to build a community centre for Hamp,
despite considerable hard work in this respect. The community should continue to look at options for
providing this facility, perhaps in the new development between Hamp and North Petherton, but also
considering how the community can access the new multi-million pound facility being provided in Victoria.
EKOS Consulting 51
306227/INV103078
Boosting the capacity of the community to progress the estate’s regeneration has been a cross cutting
theme of the Programme. To date, the evidence is mixed with the 1 year extension of the Programme and
other activity designed to boost the sustainability and role of the HCA. Ideally, a much broader base of
community involvement in the regeneration of Hamp would have been secured as a result of the
Programme.
EKOS Consulting 52
306227/INV103078
6 Management and Partnership
6.1 Partnership Structures and Functioning

The original structure comprised a partnership body (list of members in Appendix V) with responsibility for
the strategic direction of the programme, review of strategy, overall monitoring of performance and policy
decisions. This was supported by a steering group elected from the partnership which had delegated
authority for day-to-day decision making and monitoring. Six sub-groups were set up to develop activity
at theme and project level. Two further groups were set up to deal with the appraisal of projects and
arrangements for setting up a charitable trust as detailed in the diagram below.
Full Partnership
Steering group
Charitable Appraisal Sub- Project Subgroups:

Trust Sub- Group • Education, Training and Employment Sub-
Group group (SO1, SO4)
• Social Inclusion Sub-Group (SO2)
• Environment Sub-group (SO3)
• Housing Sub-Groups (SO3)
• Crime and Disorder Reduction sub-group
(SO5)
• Buildings sub-group (SO1, SO2, SO4)
Projects
In 2004, changes to the sub-group structure were agreed by the partnership as follows:
• A management and administration sub-group was formed to formalise an informal arrangement

where the chair, vice chair, representative of the accountable body and programme manager met;
• The housing sub-group was disbanded due to lack of activity; and
• The social inclusion group took on the appraisal of projects under £25,000 and regular monitoring
of projects and report to the steering group.
Further to this, at the end of 2004, the structure was amended again. The structure retained the
partnership and steering group formation, but altered internal structures and roles principally:
EKOS Consulting 53
306227/INV103078
• The partnership was to include champions on eight themes:
• At steering group level, chairs of sub-groups would be represented in order to support and as
necessary identify projects to deliver SRB objectives, with the social inclusion sub-group appraisal
all applications under £25,000.
In 2004/05, the steering group was subsequently disbanded as its role was effectively being fulfilled by
the Management and Admin group. The intention was to reform this group on completion of a review of
strategy and the re-engagement of partner agencies, although in practice the lack of engagement by
partners meant that this was not achieved. As a result, partnership structures at the end of the
programme were as follows:
Full Partnership
Chair
Vice Chair
• Social Inclusion Champion
• Education, Training and Employment champion
• Environment Champion
• Crime and Disorder Reduction Champion
• Healthy Lives Champion
• Housing Champion
• ReCreation Champion
Management and Administration

Group
Social Inclusion Sub Group Project Subgroups:

(Approve projects up to £25k • Education, Training and Employment Sub-
group (SO1, SO4)
• Social Inclusion Sub-Group (SO2)
• Environment Sub-Group (SO3)
• Healthy Lives Sub Group
• ReCreation Sub Group
• Community Building sub Group
• Crime and Disorder Reduction sub-group
(SO5)
Projects
It is evident that the original partnership arrangements, whilst sound in theory, were overly cumbersome
for a Programme of this size. Inevitably, the structures have evolved as the Programme has been
delivered and relationships have changed.
Stakeholders had mixed views on the effectiveness of this structure. Some felt that the sub-groups
provided an excellent opportunity for people to concentrate effort on the theme in question; others felt that
EKOS Consulting 54
306227/INV103078
the structure was over-complicated, given the size of the partnership and resources available to
members.
Many stakeholders felt that the decision to make the social inclusion group responsible for appraisal of all
projects up to £25,000 was a good decision, as it ensured social inclusion was at the heart of all projects.
There was some concern that prior to this change; partners were putting forward ‘pet’ projects for
approval, and that this change helped prevent this self interest attitude.
Learning Point
The partnership structure was developed with the aim of being sufficiently inclusive, but was overly
complex. The RDA should look at the different models of partnership within the SRBs in the region to
identify the critical success factors for partnership working.
At the beginning of the Programme, the full Partnership comprised of 21 representatives, which by 2003/4
had expanded to 33 organisations. Whilst not all organisations and representatives were likely to
demonstrate the same degree of involvement, the Programme has been characterised by highly variable
levels of commitment and involvement, particularly in the latter period. Whilst no organisations formally
withdrew (except for those which ceased to exist), actual participation in partnership meetings was much
lower. SDC and the HCA tried on numerous occasions throughout the scheme to re-engage disengaged
partners but with little effect. Stakeholders suggested the following reasons for this lack of commitment:
• Individuals showed considerable commitment, but when they changed posts they were not
replaced;
• A lack of buy-in at organisational level;
• As the problems in Hamp became less acute the need to become involved became less;
• Over time organisational strategies changed and emphasis was placed elsewhere;
• Once organisations had received funding from the scheme, commitment levels reduced;
• The partnership was principally made up of individuals with considerable commitment, therefore
individual politics also existed making the partnership challenging at times;
• The partnership structure resulted in an excessive number of meetings as it was necessary for
people to sit on more than one sub-group in order to sustain the structure.
As a result, the responsibility and ownership for the delivery of the SRB Programme has been
concentrated more fully within Sedgemoor DC and the HCA than was ideal. Some representatives were
singled out for their commitment to the scheme, in particular, the SWRDA, Sedgemoor District Council,
local councillors, the Hamp Community Association (staff and volunteers at 1 Edinburgh Rd), the Youth
Service and SHAL Housing. The adverse impacts of this position were:
• A reduction in potential additional funding levered into Hamp;
• Fewer people to fulfil the functions of the partnership, placing more strain on the remaining
committed individuals; and
EKOS Consulting 55
306227/INV103078
• Fewer organisations well placed to support the community following the end of the SRB
Programme.
Learning Point
Hamp Community Association sees the re-engagement of agencies and partners as key to the further
regeneration of Hamp. This has been a broad aim of the partnership over the last seven years, with
variable success. We would suggest that they might be better to focus their efforts on building projects
around partners who have shown commitment over the last 7 years and targeting new partners where
there is a specific role for them to fulfill.
In spite of the difficulties, the consensus amongst stakeholder consultees was that the partnership
arrangements had generally worked well. A number of the subgroups achieved initially a very positive
momentum with regard to project development and implementation, whilst the establishment of individual
sub-groups for key projects such as ReCreation meant that issues such as funding were resolved in a
collaborative way.
The development of linkages and joint projects has been a key benefit of the partnership arrangements,
with a number of positive examples particularly in the first part of the Programme, such as the SRB
funded play areas in association with Sure Start and the collaboration with The Somerset Council for
Christian Care (through ESF) in seeking to address worklessness on the estate through the Four Wards 2
Work project. At a strategic level, there was significant cross over in representation with other thematic or
area based partnerships such as the Education Action Zone which assisted in ensuring that the SRB
programme complemented other activity on the estate and Bridgwater as a whole and multi-agency
responses could be secured to address short term problems e.g. vandalism on buses.
In addition, there are a number of examples were SRB funded activities have acted as a platform or
catalyst of other mainstream activity, including:
• Somerset County Council Highways department utilised consultation work stemming from coming
out of SRB to successfully apply for Department of Transport Funding for road safety works outside
of Blake School. It is believed that this traffic calming has saved the life of 1 child hit by a car since
the scheme was put in place;
• As a result of environmental improvements, there have been improvements to Taunton Rd Pond

and Spillers Pond through the Environment Agency and BTCV; and
• The early introduction of Police Community Support Officers on the estate by Avon and Somerset
Constabulary.
Despite these successes, the partnership has been less successful in securing a long term focus on the
Hamp estate from the key agencies (e.g. those representing health, education, employment, children and
social work) and this remains a key challenge going forward.
EKOS Consulting 56
306227/INV103078
6.2 Community Involvement and the Hamp Community Association

At the outset of the SRB Programme, the HCA was already in place undertaking a range of activities
across the estate. As the main umbrella organisation for residents on the estate, it was appropriate and
sensible that the HCA should play a leading role in the SRB partnership. Allied to this was the desire to
boost community capacity and pride and potentially create a self sustaining community organisation which
could take ownership of a range of regeneration activities.
This was a fine vision, but in reality this was difficult to achieve. The HCA was a relatively young
organisation and lacked experience of administering funding, employing staff and managing assets. Its
membership has varied considerably over the years and as so often is the case in community politics, has
been parochial at times. The lack of a formal constitution and clear lines of accountability have made the
transfer of SRB management to this organisation difficult. Likewise, this lack of experience and
understanding of Government funding regimes often caused frustration within the partnership. The
SWRDA should consider:
• If it is fair to expect community organisations (often made up of volunteers) to take on such weighty
responsibilities;
• And if so, how best it can support community organisations to ensure they understand the
responsibilities and restrictions of delegated funding;
Throughout the Programme, the Partnership has struggled to get community members to become
involved in the running of the Programme or projects. A range of activities have been undertaken
including open days, consultation events and newsletters. Whilst the level of volunteering has increased,
the work in Hamp was and remains overly reliant on a very small number of highly committed individuals
and staff based in 1 Edinburgh Rd and ReCreation. This small close knit team worked exceptionally hard
to deliver the programme with both staff and volunteers putting in additional hours and volunteer time.
Without this effort, the Programme would not have been the success it has been.
A number of projects were also designed to increase community capacity. Whilst these projects have
supported some worthwhile activities, the impact on capacity amongst the wider community is not as
strong as it might have been.
Overall, the involvement of the staff and volunteers at 1 Edinburgh Rd and other residents in the delivery
of projects has been a very positive feature of the Programme. Elected members have also played a very
positive role as champions for the Programme and the estate in a variety of arenas.
EKOS Consulting 57
306227/INV103078
6.3 Management and Delivery

The Partnership had originally intended to deliver the SRB Programme through a charitable trust, but this
was re-considered following the experience gained at the end of the SRB1 scheme, where the charitable
trust disbanded when the scheme closed, and advice from the SWRDA. Instead, Sedgemoor District
Council took on the role of accountable body, with the intention that it should eventually pass from the
District Council to a new charitable trust set up by the partnership, once the partnership had gained
sufficient confidence and experience to undertake the role. Whilst considerable efforts were put into
developing the charitable trust, it was slow to get off the ground and lacked capacity to deliver. Therefore
in 2004, with advice from the SWRDA, Sedgemoor District Council agreed to remain the accountable
body for the remainder of the scheme. Whilst this was an appropriate decision in order to ensure that SRB
funds could be administered appropriately, it has had a significant impact on the proposed exit strategy
which relied on there being a charitable trust in place to take over assets and continue regeneration
activity in Hamp.
In line with the SRB regulations, 5% of the SRB allocation was made available for programme
management and administration costs, in this instance, £84,442. This was clearly insufficient to employ a
programme manager over seven years. The solution was two fold:
• Employing a full time programme manager who also worked on projects, allowing her time to be
charged out;
• Match funding from Sedgemoor District Council and Sedgemoor in Somerset partnership.
The programme achieved reasonable continuity with only one change in the Programme Manager
position over the life of the programme in October 2002, although the transition did cause some
disruption. Stakeholders have commented that both programme managers played a valued role in terms
of delivering key projects in Hamp, supporting the work of the Hamp Community Association and steering
the Programme. However, partly as a result of these responsibilities there was insufficient emphasis on
programme administration and record keeping and this latter element has been problematic. Specifically:
• Confusion as to which organisation was responsible for keeping records and where they were
stored;
• Inconsistency in updating relevant spreadsheets with the latest information; and
• An inability to ensure that following the closure of the programme, the relevant programme
information was accessible.
There were several contributing factors, including:
1. The flood of 1 Edinburgh Rd in early 2006, which destroyed some records and set back the
progress of the Programme;
2. Lack of support from programme partners in addressing SRB reporting requirements; and
3. An over ambitious workload for a programme manager.
EKOS Consulting 58
306227/INV103078
Learning Point
Ensuring that records are kept and are accessible is an important element of receiving funding from
any source. If the HCA intends to access other sources of funding it will need to be able to
demonstrate its competence in this area and improve its processes for collecting, storing and retrieving
information.
Likewise, Sedgemoor District Council in its role as accountable body should also have also ensured
that the necessary records (including outputs and monitoring reports) were kept and were accessible.
Learning Point
For small programmes, a 5% allocation is not sufficient to cover the management and administration.
Charging out time to projects, whilst benefiting Hamp, creates a number of problems:
• Does not allow the programme manager time to manage the programme;
• Creates a culture of dependence on the programme manager, rather than broader capacity; and
• Does not provide a sufficient separation of functions between projects and programme
management.
The programme manager was employed by Sedgemoor District Council as the accountable body.
However, the line management responsibility lay with the Chairman of the partnership for programme
delivery matters and through a nominated officer of the council for administrative, system and personnel
issues. This caused considerable confusion and the lack of clarity caused unnecessary difficulties in the
running of the Programme. This ended in mediation between the SRB staff, the chair of the Hamp
Community Association (and Partnership) and the Sedgemoor DC team.
Learning Point
Partnerships should think carefully before separating line management from the accountable body, as
ultimately the accountable body has the legal responsibility for employing staff. If the decision is taken to
separate these functions clear roles, responsibilities and processes should be in place to protect staff
and prevent confusion.
Overall, the consensus amongst stakeholders was that the Sedgemoor DC regeneration team had
generally managed the Programme well, with considerable efforts made by a number of key individuals.
6.4 Application, Appraisal and Monitoring

The partnership developed their application and appraisal process in accordance with DETR guidelines
as follows:
1. Project development by project managers;
2. Appraisal by appraisal sub-group;
EKOS Consulting 59
306227/INV103078
3. Circulation of appraisal incorporating sub-group comments to all partners within 2 weeks for
written comments;
4. Approval/rejection of appraisal by Steering Group; and
5. Approval /rejection of appraisal by SWRDA (1st 3 projects and projects over £250k).
This changed with the programme structure in 2004 where the Social Inclusion group took on the role of
appraisal of all projects under £25,000 and the Management and Administration Group took on the role of
approval/rejection of projects following the disbandment of the steering group.
Most projects came forward through the sub-groups to be delivered either by the Hamp Community
Association or Sedgemoor District Council. In practice, few projects came forward outside this route and
the programme manager became responsible for preparing most applications. The programme manager
did not sit on the Project Validation Group or Social Inclusion Group, however, she was part of the
Management and Administration Group. When appraisals were put forward for rejection/approval she did
not take part in this process.
The Project Verification Group/Social Inclusion group did not receive a large volume of applications16, in
total, only 2 projects were rejected17, although a number were deferred for additional information to be
provided. The group had all received appraisal training from the SWRDA and conducted a proper
examination of the applications, identifying points for further clarification and suggestions for
improvements. From the minutes of the meetings it is clear that there were the following problems with
the process:
• The appraisal checklist did not align with the application forms;
• Applications came in late, not giving the group enough time to read and digest;
• The group provided comments and sought clarification on points, but did not have a process for
ensuring that these comments had been dealt with.
The programme set out with intentions to achieve clear separation of functions however, several factors
contributed to the functions becoming blurred:
• A small partnership with a small number of active individuals;
• The need for the programme manager to prepare applications; and
• Lack of a clear process between the appraisal and approval stage.
Learning Points
Separation of functions is vital to ensuring funding is distributed in a fair and transparent manner. The
SWRDA and other agencies needs to consider how best this is achieved in very small partnership
situations where key partners are also the key delivery organisations.
The practice of HCA/Sedgemoor District Council developing and running most projects was a missed
opportunity to involve other partners in the scheme and develop capacity outside these organisations.
16 46 in total.
17 Based on a spreadsheet from Sedgemoor District Council.
EKOS Consulting 60
306227/INV103078
Projects were required to submit quarterly progress reports to the full partnership including outputs. The
programme manager requested output information by phoning round project managers. The programme
manager often experienced difficulties getting this information with many projects not having a full
understanding of the output reporting requirements. Again, greater upfront investment in training and
guidance materials could have ameliorated some of these problems.
Only a minority of projects have undertaken a formal evaluation or review, although some have sought to
collect additional monitoring/impact data, including:
• The Quantock view lighting project distributed questionnaires to 250 homes nearby.
• A number of projects have utilised technology to count the number of users including ReCreation, 1
Edinburgh Rd and the minibus.
• The Wolmer Close Fencing project was deemed to have been successful through the drop in the
number of complaints.
On reflection, a more robust approach to project monitoring and evaluation would have been appropriate
with greater clarity of roles, responsibilities and resources, notwithstanding the commissioning of this
external evaluation. The lack of resources for management and administration was a contributory factor.
Nonetheless, the key SWRDA requirements have been met, with progress reports submitted on a
quarterly basis.
6.5 Forward Strategy

An important part of the programme was to ensure that the regeneration process continues beyond the
life of the SRB funding. The partnership’s vision for this was originally that a charitable trust would be
formed during the life of the SRB to run the SRB programme and ultimately continue regeneration efforts
post SRB. The decision for Sedgemoor District Council to continue as accountable body to the end of the
programme meant that this strategy required revision.
The partnership have been keen to ensure that the lessons of Sydenham SRB were learnt. The partners
believed that a lack of community ownership of the programme and facilities built during the programme
contributed to the lack of regeneration activity since. Therefore partners wanted an exit strategy that
involved community ownership of 1 Edinburgh Rd and ReCreation.
To this end, a key project for the additional year of the programme was to develop a strategy and action
plan for Hamp. This involved a series of Thinking out of the Box sessions with consultants to develop a
vision and plan of action. The work to progress the exit strategy is ongoing. At the time of writing, HCA
was to become incorporated and 1 Edinburgh Rd and ReCreation are to be transferred into the new
organisation’s ownership. There are mixed feelings amongst stakeholders about this strategy. Some fear
that despite the training and capacity building, the community still lacks capacity to take on the ownership
and management of large and complex projects. There is a view that the new organisation will continue
to need support from Sedgemoor DC and other partners as it grows and develops. More broadly, there is
a need to ensure that the lessons and experiences of the SRB Programme support the development of an
area based plan for the estate and the work of the Sedgemoor in Somerset Local Strategic Partnership
and Somerset LAA programme.
EKOS Consulting 61
306227/INV103078
7 Conclusions and Recommendations
7.1 Conclusions
The Hamp SRB6 Programme was developed in recognition of the need to develop a comprehensive
approach to the regeneration of the estate. The original strategy was clearly rooted in the needs and
priorities of local residents, with objectives focused on improving local facilities and services, access to
opportunity for young people, and quality of life. The strong emphasis on social inclusion and community
involvement was one of the key strengths of the SRB Programme.
With a modest £1.68m to spend over 6 years, a number of choices would have to be made, the most
difficult of which was ultimately not to pursue the creation of a new community centre. The chosen option
to convert and extend the property at 1 Edinburgh Road as a multi purpose community facility is allowing
for a significant expansion in services and support to residents on the estate, and is a key part of the
legacy of the SRB Programme. It is essential that a wide range of agencies make extensive use of this
facility to meet the needs of Hamp’s residents. The other major capital build project, ReCreation, has also
been a success ultimately, providing a much needed resource for young people on the estate. Further
efforts are needed to ensure that the potential of ReCreation is maximised and sustainability is achieved
in the long term.
In addition to the two priority capital projects, the Programme has supported a wide range of smaller
schemes to improve the environment, reduce crime, boost community capacity and support learning and
education. The bulk of projects had a clear rationale and were delivered successfully, with SRB resources
being essential to the project going ahead. Overall, the added value of SRB resources was high.
Given the challenges experienced with ReCreation and other constraints, the Programme has performed
well in financial terms with SRB resources fully deployed by the end of financial year 2006/7 following the
1 year extension. The bulk of public leverage was drawn from the District and County Councils, with much
lower contributions from other agencies – this was disappointing and reinforced the limited ownership of
the Programme amongst the wider partnership.
The vast majority of the quantified output targets have been exceeded, with in many cases the reasons
for under-achievement relating to over-ambitious targets rather than poor project performance - a
minority, however, delivered moderate or limited outputs. Important achievements include more than 200
people trained and 192 young people benefiting from diversionary activities. In addition, substantial
qualitative benefits have been achieved including improved self esteem and confidence for many young
people.
The programme has had a significant emphasis on young people and children with the building of
ReCreation, improvements of parks and provision of activities. This has reduced anti-social behaviour
problems on the estate. The opening of ReCreation served to illustrate to all involved how much it was
needed, providing not only somewhere for young people to go to have fun, but also to be safe, warm and
fed.
EKOS Consulting 62
306227/INV103078
The socio-economic indicators do not provide a clear picture of the estate before and after the SRB
Programme due to the absence of relevant data at ward level over this timeframe. The available data
suggests that the Programme has made an important contribution to addressing socio-economic
disparities on the estate. This is supported by the community consultation data, that broadly shows in
excess of 80% of residents agree that the quality of life and image of the estate has improved.
Whilst many trends are positive, the current position on indicators such as worklessness and educational
attainment suggests that the estate is only a small part of the way on the road to becoming a sustainable
and prosperous community.
The formal SRB partnership was large, but did not achieve the consistent commitment and involvement of
partners. In hindsight, the structures were overly complex and unwieldy, although latterly arrangements
were streamlined. Ideally, a broader partnership input would have been retained, albeit the consenus
amongst stakeholders was that the arrangements generally worked well.
As is often the case in small regeneration programmes, a small group of highly committed individuals,
primarily from SDC and the HCA, were responsible for managing and delivering the bulk of the
programme. Without their sustained efforts, much less would have been achieved. On the other hand,
there was perhaps too much reliance was on a small number of representatives to take forward the
regeneration of the estate.
Whilst the original aim of creating a community trust to act as the accountable body did not come to
fruition, the HCA have played a leading role in the delivery of the Programme. In some respects, the
separation of roles and functions between SDC and the HCA was not sufficiently distinct, although the
application and approval processes generally appear to have worked flexibly. The decision to combine
responsibility, however, for both project development and programme management and administration
within the Programme Manager role was not successful. Whilst many aspects of the PM role have been
performed very well, insufficient emphasis has been given to effective administration and record keeping.
Greater clarity of line management responsibilities and SDC’s accountable body role was also required.
The legacy of the SRB programme is considerable in terms of improved facilities and services and for
some individuals who benefited directly from projects. However, this legacy needs to be maintained, both
in terms of the management of the buildings, but also in terms of securing the long term development of
Hamp. The exit strategy is currently being implemented and includes the formation of a new company
from the HCA to own ReCreation and 1 Edinburgh Rd. This is a big step up for the HCA and partners
need to step forward and offer help. Likewise, the HCA need to accept the advice and support offered.
Overall, in spite of the constraints and difficulties, the Programme has been a success. The two key
projects have been successfully delivered and the long term decline of the estate has been reversed. It is
important now that the lessons and achievements are taken forward by the Partnership and the
sustainability of key assets and the HCA are secured.
EKOS Consulting 63
306227/INV103078
7.2 Recommendations
As SRB resources ended on March 31st 2007, the focus of our recommendations is on looking forward.
Our recommendations are:
Community Lead
Work is already underway to enable the HCA to play a leading role in the regeneration of the estate
including responsibility for key assets such as 1 Edinburgh Road through the formation of a new
company. It is essential that the momentum of the SRB Programme is not lost and the new organisation
is fully established before the end of this financial year. A key criterion should be that the new company
reduces its dependency on Sedgemoor District Council. Key to its success will be ensuring it has robust
and transparent processes and clearly defined roles and responsibilities. Its social enterprise potential
should be explored.
SRB Legacy
A number of activities funded by the SRB programme are unlikely to be prioritised for Single Programme
or other discretionary resources. There is a need for the Partnership to consider how best to support ICT,
community regeneration and similar activities in the medium term, where a forward strategy has not
already been agreed – in some cases, projects have come to a natural end.
Capturing Lessons
This evaluation has identified a number of examples of good practice and lessons in relation to project
delivery, partnership working and processes. There is merit in hosting an event or workshop to share
experiences and expertise, and re-engage other partners.
The Next Chapter
It is essential that the positive improvements on the estate as a result of the SRB programme are
sustained and built upon. There is a need to develop a medium term strategy and plan for the estate in
conjunction with the HCA, linked to the overall economic framework for Bridgwater.
Exploiting Key Investments and Assets
There are a number of opportunities to secure additional facilities and activities for the residents of Hamp,
including through the Building Schools for the Future programme and new housing development. The
opportunity to achieve enhanced community activities, particularly for older children, should be
maximised. In the short term, a preferred option for Mansfield Park should be developed and
implemented, ideally within the next 2 years.
Partnership and Governance
Latterly, the SRB Partnership has suffered from limited input and representation from key agencies
outside of Sedgemoor District Council and the HCA. As part of the development of a strategy for the
estate, there is a requirement for mainstream agencies and other partners to be part of a restructured
partnership body which can achieve a clear focus on the needs of the estate and its residents.
EKOS Consulting 64
306227/INV103078
8 Appendix I – Community Consultation

Questionnaire
Have your say and win £30 worth of Argos Vouchers
Over the last 7 years, the area of Hamp has received £1.7m from the single
regeneration budget (SRB) to kick start imaginative local plans to improve the
estate. Now that the programme has finished, we are looking back to:
• See where the money has been spent and who has benefited;
• See if there are things we would do differently;
• See what else still needs to be done and how this might be done
As a member of the community, we would like to hear what you think about the
work that has been going on. All responses will be added together to provide an
overall view of whether the SRB programme has been successful – please be as
honest as you can. So, please could you answer the following questions:
1. What age group are you in:
Under 16 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-59 60+
2. How long have you lived in Hamp?
Less than 1 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-20 More than

year years 20 years.
3. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following
statement(s):
Over the last 7 years… Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly

disagree Agree
Overall quality of life has improved on
Hamp.
The image of Hamp has become more
EKOS Consulting 65
306227/INV103078
positive.
I feel safer in my home and on the streets
of Hamp.
There are more job opportunities available
for local people.
There are more opportunities to
participate in community/social activities.
There are more ways to get help and
advice on the estate
The environment – both open spaces and
your street – has got better on the estate
There are more opportunities to learn and
improve my skills
4. Why do you say this? Please set out any specific reasons for your answers
5. What is the one most important change which you have seen on the estate ?
6. Have you been helped by the SRB scheme/Hamp Community Association?

If so how?
7. Is there anything else you would like to say? Feel free to add any more
comments?
Prize draw entry!
Would you like to be entered into the prize draw?

Yes/No
If you win we will need to contact you so please

enter your name and phone number below. These
details will be used for entry into the prize draw
only.
Name:
Phone number or address:
EKOS Consulting 66
306227/INV103078
9 Appendix II – IMD – detailed calculations
The figures presented in the table below for 2000 show IMD scores for the Ward area of Hamp, and have
been calculated using seven18 specific domain indices. Whereas the figures presented for 2004 show
IMD scores for the five super output areas which collectively make up the Hamp Ward and have been
calculated using seven specific domain indices, five of which are the same as in 2000, with two replaced.
The figures in the table below are listed in two columns ‘score’ and ‘rank’, a full explanation of both is
provided below.
2000 2004 – Hamp Ward by Super Output Area
Hamp Ward E01029097 E01029098 E01029099 E01029100 E01029101
Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank
IMD TOTAL 37.46 1301 27.89 9086 30.48 7947 28.98 8588 40.87 4344 19.77 14036
Income 34.45 916 0.23 6121 0.19 8448 0.22 6678 0.36 1918 0.15 11130
Employment 12.41 2301 0.12 10346 0.16 5858 0.14 7581 0.17 5396 0.10 13430
Health .43 2666 0.32 11665 0.45 10058 0.45 10018 0.58 8484 0.03 15644
Education 1.63 260 50.96 2989 21.78 12290 55.92 2276 58.20 1974 24.64 10686
Housing .44 2600 6.77 30472 9.85 27992 9.40 28422 6.14 30860 12.23 25589
Access -.57 6227
Child Poverty 57.93 527
Crime 0.37 10950 0.91 4661 -0.23 19380 0.48 9471 0.48 9570
Living
14.33 18305 43.79 3948 12.72 19849 35.78 6397 14.52 18142
Environment
Source: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Indices of Deprivation
18
Income Employment Health Education Housing Access Child Poverty
2000
2004 Income Employment Health Education Housing Crime Living Environment
EKOS Consulting 67
306227/INV103078
2000
The Score column of the Index of Multiple Deprivation Score – the IMD 2000 was constructed by
combining the six transformed domain scores, using the following weights:
* Income (25%)
* Employment (25%)
* Health Deprivation and Disability (15%)
* Education, Skills and Training (15%)
* Housing (10%)
* Geographical Access to Services (10%)
The Rank column of the Index of Multiple Deprivation - the ward with a rank of 1 is the most deprived, and
8414 the least deprived, on this overall measure.
2004
The Score column of the Index of Multiple Deprivation - the IMD 2004 was constructed by combining the
seven transformed domain scores, using the following weights:
* Income (22.5%)
* Employment (22.5%)
* Health Deprivation and Disability (13.5%)
* Education, Skills and Training (13.5%)
* Barriers to Housing and Services (9.3%)
* Crime (9.3%)
* Living Environment (9.3%)
The Rank column of the Index of Multiple Deprivation - the SOA with a rank of 1 is the most deprived, and
32482 the least deprived, on this overall measure.
Calculation of Percentiles
Although a direct comparison cannot be made due to the figures presented for 2000 relating to ward level
and for 2004 relating to super output area level, it is possible to calculate a percentile based on their
individual ranked position. However, as well as the changes in geographical units, there have also been
considerable changes in the component indicators used to calculate the deprivation scores. Therefore
the analysis should be viewed with considerable caution.
EKOS Consulting 68
306227/INV103078
Year Rank %
With 1 being most deprived and

2000 1301 15.4
8414 being least deprived
9086 29.0
7947 24.4
IMD Total
2004 8588 26.4
4344 13.3
14036 43.2
Year Rank %

2000 916 10.8
6121 18.8
IMD 8448 26.0

Income With 1 being most deprived and
2004 6678 20.5
1918 5.9
11130 34.2
Year Rank %

2000 2301 27.3
10346 31.8
IMD 5858 18.0

Employment
2004 7581 23.3
5396 22.9
13430 41.3
Year Rank %
EKOS Consulting 69
306227/INV103078

2000 2666 31.6
11665 35.9
10058 30.9
IMD Health
2004 10018 30.8
8484 26.1
15644 48.1
Year Rank %

2000 260 3.0
2989 9.2
IMD 12290 37.8

Employment
2004 2276 7.0
1974 6.0
10686 32.8
Year Rank %

2000 2600 30.9
30472 93.8
IMD Housing
27992 86.1
and Access to
services With 1 being most deprived and
2004 28422 87.5
30860 95.0
25589 78.7
Income Deprivation Domain

The purpose of this Domain is to capture the proportion of the population experiencing income deprivation
in an area.
EKOS Consulting 70
306227/INV103078
• Adults and children in Income Support households (2001).
• Adults and children in Income Based Job Seekers Allowance households (2001).
• Adults and children in Working Families Tax Credit households whose equivalised income
(excluding housing benefits) is below 60% of median before housing costs (2001).
• Adults and children in Disabled Person's Tax Credit households whose equivalised income
(excluding housing benefits) is below 60% of median before housing costs (2001).
• National Asylum Support Service supported asylum seekers in England in receipt of subsistence
only and accommodation support (2002).
• In addition, an Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index and an Income Deprivation Affecting
Older People Index were created.
Employment Deprivation Domain

This domain measures employment deprivation conceptualised as involuntary exclusion of the working
age population from the world of work.
• Unemployment claimant count (JUVOS) of women aged 18-59 and men aged 18-64 averaged over
4 quarters (2001).
• Incapacity Benefit claimants women aged 18-59 and men aged 18-64 (2001).
• Severe Disablement Allowance claimants women aged 18-59 and men aged 18-64 (2001).
• Participants in New Deal for the 18-24s who are not included in the claimant count (2001).
• Participants in New Deal for 25+ who are not included in the claimant count (2001).
• Participants in New Deal for Lone Parents aged 18 and over (2001).
Health Deprivation and Disability Domain

This domain identifies areas with relatively high rates of people who die prematurely or whose quality of
life is impaired by poor health or who are disabled, across the whole population.
• Years of Potential Life Lost (1997-2001).
• Comparative Illness and Disability Ratio (2001).
• Measures of emergency admissions to hospital (1999-2002).
• Adults under 60 suffering from mood or anxiety disorders (1997-2002).
Education, Skills and Training Deprivation Domain

This Domain captures the extent of deprivation in terms of education, skills and training in a local area.
The indicators fall into two sub domains: one relating to education deprivation for children/young people in
the area and one relating to lack of skills and qualifications among the working age adult population.
EKOS Consulting 71
306227/INV103078
Sub Domain: Children/young people
• Average points score of children at Key Stage 2 (2002).
• Proportion of young people not staying on in school or school level education above 16 (2001).
• Proportion of those aged under 21 not entering Higher Education (1999-2002).
• Secondary school absence rate (2001-2002).
Sub Domain: Skills
• Proportions of working age adults (aged 25-54) in the area with no or low qualifications (2001).
Barriers to Housing and Services Domain

The purpose of this Domain is to measure barriers to housing and key local services. The indicators fall
into two sub-domains: 'geographical barriers' and 'wider barriers' which also includes issues relating to
access to housing, such as affordability.
Sub Domain: Wider Barriers
• Household overcrowding (2001).
• LA level percentage of households for whom a decision on their application for assistance under
the homeless provisions of housing legislation has been made, assigned to SOAs (2002).
• Difficulty of Access to owner-occupation (2002).

Sub Domain: Geographical Barriers
• Road distance to GP premises (2003).
• Road distance to a supermarket or convenience store (2002).
• Road distance to a primary school (2001-2002).
• Road distance to a Post Office (2003).
Crime Domain
This Domain measures the incidence of recorded crime for four major crime themes, representing the
occurrence of personal and material victimisation at a small area level.
• Burglary (4 recorded crime offence types, April 2002-March 2003).
• Theft (5 recorded crime offence types, April 2002-March 2003, constrained to CDRP level).
• Criminal damage (10 recorded crime offence types, April 2002-March 2003).
EKOS Consulting 72
306227/INV103078
• Violence (14 recorded crime offence types, April 2002-March 2003).
The Living Environment Deprivation Domain

This Domain focuses on deprivation with respect to the characteristics of the living environment. It
comprises two sub-domains: the 'indoors' living environment which measures the quality of housing and
the 'outdoors' living environment which contains two measures about air quality and road traffic accidents.
Sub-Domain: The 'indoors' living environment
• Social and private housing in poor condition (2001).
• Houses without central heating (2001).
Sub-Domain: The 'outdoors' living environment
• • Air quality (2001).
• Road traffic accidents involving injury to pedestrians and cyclists (2000-2002).
EKOS Consulting 73
306227/INV103078
10 Appendix III – Projects - Expenditure
Canal Access Improvements 30000.00

Gloucester Road 3763.50
Gloucester Road phase 2 16000.00
Gloucester Road phase 2 10200.00
Mansfield Park 15000.00
Quantock View Lighting 27396.07
The Green Cockadoodle Doo 2532.00
Wolmer Close 5552.00
110443.57
1 Edinburgh Road 89750.17
1 Edinburgh Road Information & Advice 147269.52
Community Centre 31474.60
Extension to 1 Edinburgh Road 124870.53
Furniture Store 47484.40
Hamp Minibus 31644.01
Neighbourhood Nursery 21000.00
493493.23
Hamp Web Initiative 30550.00
Hamp Wireless 29508.98
HITEX 25962.05
ICT Champ 54118.59
Junior ICT 24861.00
165000.62
Breakfast Club 8000.00
Hamp Youth Project 5610.96
Re Creation - building 439133.10
Re Creation Kitchen improvements 2000.00
Re Creation Landscape Project 10280.62
Re Creation revenue support 30000.00
Re Creation Youth Centre 18557.58
Sportee 4000.00
Summer Challenge 3000.00
520582.26
Police Bicycle 460.00
Safe as Houses 13329.00
13789.00
Activity Leaders 36919.84
Admin & Grants officer 14500.00
Community Capacity Build 21250.09
Community Chest 42600.00
Community Development Worker 78063.30
Community Panto 5100.00
EKOS Consulting 74
306227/INV103078
Community Project Worker 10000.00

Evaluation Project 17625.00
Hamp Strategy & Funding Project 25212.40
Info & Publicity Officer 17000.00
IT and Tech Officer 19000.00
287270.63
Redundancy Payments 7791.72
Management & Admin 84441.15
Pre Approval 6029.00
EKOS Consulting 75
306227/INV103078
11 Appendix IV – Programme Level Lifetime Outputs
CODE OUTPUT DESCRIPTION LIFETIME TOTALS

* - Cumulative actual from scheme start to 31 March 2007
TOTAL OUTPUTS ETHNIC MINORITY OUTPUTS
Actual % %
Forecast Forecast Actual *
* Achieved Achieved
1A (i) Number of jobs - created 2.0 13.9 695% 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
(ii) Number of jobs - safeguarded 0.0 7.6 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
(iii) Number of construction jobs 500.0 0.0 0% 5.0 0.0 0%
Number of pupils benefiting from projects

1B 0.0 194.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
designed to enhance/improve attainment
Number of people trained obtaining

1C 200.0 204.0 102% 1.0 1.0 100%
qualifications
No. of residents of target areas accessing
1D employment. through training, advice, 100.0 54.0 54% 1.0 2.0 200%
targeted assistance
1E Number of training weeks. 2000.0 333.2 17% 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
1F (i) Number of trained people obtaining jobs. 0.0 5.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 2.0 #DIV/0!
Number of these who were formerly

(ii) 0.0 4.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 1.0 #DIV/0!
unemployed
Number of unemployed people entering

1G (i) 5.0 8.0 160% 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
self employment.
Number of these who were previously

(ii) 5.0 8.0 160% 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
unemployed.
Number of Ethnic pupils improving ESOL

1H 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
attainment
Number from disadvantaged groups
1I being targeted who obtain a job e.g. 80.0 53.0 66% 1.0 1.0 100%
disabled people
No. of young people benefiting from
1J projects to promote personal & social 250.0 1,399.0 560% 3.0 14.0 467%
development
No. of employers involved in collaborative
1K (i) 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
projects with educational institutions
(ii) Number of students involved 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
EKOS Consulting 76
306227/INV103078
Number of teachers who have had a

1L (i) placement into business during the last 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
period
(ii) Total number of teachers in target area 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
2A Number of new business start ups 5.0 8.0 160% 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
Area (m2) of new business/commercial

2B (i) 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
floorspace
Area (m2) of improved

(ii) 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
business/commercial floorspace
2C Survival rate of new business
(i) Number of new businesses supported 5.0 9.0 180% 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
(ii) Number of these surviving for 52 weeks 4.0 5.0 125% 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
(iii) Number of these surviving for 78 weeks 3.0 5.0 167% 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
Number of businesses receiving advice

2D 5.0 9.0 180% 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
as a result of SRB-assisted activities
Number of private sector dwellings

3A (i) 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
completed
Number of private sector dwellings

(ii) 100.0 54.0 54% 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
improved
Number of Local Authority dwellings

(iii) 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
completed
Number of Local Authority dwellings

(iv) 50.0 231.0 462% 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
improved
Number of Housing Association dwellings

(v) 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
completed
Number of Housing Association dwellings

(vi) 50.0 207.0 414% 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
improved
Number of dwellings included in newly-

3B 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
formed tenant management organisations
No. of dwellings benefiting from
3C (i) measures intended to reduce 40.0 57.0 143% 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
maintenance/running costs
No. of dwellings subject to energy
(ii) 40.0 42.0 105% 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
efficiency initiatives
Number of empty dwellings brought back

3D 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
into use
Reduction in number of difficult to let

3E 22.0 0.0 0% 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
dwellings
Beneficiaries of Community Safety

5A (i) 5,430.0 792.0 15% 29.0 10.0 34%
Initiatives : - Total number of persons
(ii) Number of these aged over 60 850.0 95.0 11% 2.0 0.0 0%
EKOS Consulting 77
306227/INV103078
(iii) Number of these who are females 2,715.0 343.0 13% 14.0 0.0 0%
Number of dwellings where security is

5B (i) 310.0 259.0 84% 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
upgraded
Number of commercial buildings where

(ii) 3.0 0.0 0% 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
security is upgraded
5C Number of community safety initiatives 11.0 15.0 136% 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
Number of youth crime prevention

5D (i) 2.0 9.0 450% 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
initiatives implemented
Total numbers attending youth crime

(ii) 200.0 192.0 96% 2.0 0.0 0%
prevention initiatives
Area of land, in hectares,

6A 2.5 0.7 28% 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
improved/reclaimed for open space
Area of land, in hectares,
6B improved/reclaimed/serviced for 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
development
Number of buildings improved or brought
6C 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
back into use
6D (i) Kilometres of roads built 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
(ii) Kilometres of roads improved 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
6E Number of traffic calming schemes 1.0 0.0 0% 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
Number of waste management/recycling

6F 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
schemes
Number of local people given access to

7A (i) 200.0 917.0 459% 2.0 7.0 350%
new health opportunities/facilities

(ii) 100.0 1,117.0 1117% 1.0 3.0 300%
new sport opportunities/facilities

(iii) 6000.0 2,806.0 47% 30.0 26.0 87%
new cultural opportunities/facilities
(iv) Number of new health facilities 0.0 5.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
(v) Number of new sports facilities 2.0 5.0 250% 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
(vi) Number of new cultural facilities 1.0 6.0 600% 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
7B (i) Numbers using improved health facilities 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
(ii) Numbers using improved sports facilities 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
(iii) Numbers using improved cultural facilities 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
Number of community health facilities

(iv) 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
improved
EKOS Consulting 78
306227/INV103078
Number of community sports facilities

(v) 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
improved
Number of community cultural facilities

(vi) 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
improved
Number of voluntary organisations

8A
supported
Number of voluntary organisations
(i) supported, in part or wholly, from the 6.0 38.0 633% 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
SRB
Number of community organisations
(ii) supported, in part or wholly, from the 11.0 33.0 300% 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
SRB
Number of individuals involved in
8C 50.0 285.0 570% 1.0 2.0 200%
voluntary work
Number of local employers with

8D 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
employee volunteering schemes
Number of community enterprise start

8E 2.0 4.0 200% 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
ups
Number of capacity building initiatives

8F 4.0 17.0 425% 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
carried out
Value of other public and private sector

9A
funding:-
(i) Total SRB spend (£000) 1,688.8 1,031.9 61%
(ii) Total other public spend (£000) 1,141.0 904.1 79%
(iii) Total private sector leverage (£000) 236.5 177.4 75%
Number of new child-care places

10A 0.0 211.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
provided
10B 0.0 8.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!

10C Number of people obtaining level 3 & 4 0.0 18.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
NVQ or equivalent qualification
Number of businesses given access to 0.0 6.0 #DIV/0! 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
10D finance
OTHER
PARTNERSHIP
OUTPUTS
Number of Residents accessing
11 (i) 3,000.0 175.0 6% 7.0 0.0 0%
Employment Advice
11 (ii) Number of People gaining access to ICT 500.0 815.0 163% 5.0 0.0 0%
Number of People accessing Business

11 (iii) 20.0 21.0 105% 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
Start-up Training
Kilometres of Footpath/Cycle Route

11 (iv) 1.5 1.9 127% 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
Improved
11 (vi) Action plans produced 2.0 12.0 600% 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!
EKOS Consulting 79
306227/INV103078
12 Appendix V – Partnership Members
Expanded Partnership (at its largest in

Original Partnership Members 2003/04)
2000/01 2003/04
Sedgemoor District Council Sedgemoor District Council
Hamp Community Association Hamp Community Association
Somerset County Council Somerset County Council
Avon and Somerset Constabulary Avon and Somerset Constabulary
Employment Service Employment Service
Business Link Somerset Ltd Business Link Somerset Ltd
Bridgwater College Bridgwater College
Cannington College Cannington College
SHAL Housing Ltd SHAL Housing Ltd
Signpost Housing Association Signpost Housing Association
Somerset Health Authority Somerset Health Authority
Somerset Careers Lt Somerset Careers Lt
Probation Service Probation Service
Sedgemoor action Group for our Environment Sedgemoor action Group for our Environment
Sedgemoor Partnership against Racial Sedgemoor Partnership against Racial
Harassment Harassment
Sure Start Partnership Sure Start Partnership
Home-start Sedgemoor Home-start Sedgemoor
Bridgwater Education Action Zone Partnership Bridgwater Education Action Zone Partnership
Holy Trinity Church Holy Trinity Church
Sedgemoor Citizens Advice Bureau Sedgemoor Citizens Advice Bureau
Bridgwater YMCA Bridgwater YMCA
somerset fire and rescue
Sedgemoor Nieghbourhood Watch Association
Safeway (Bridgwater)
Bridgwater Credit Union
Bridgwater Charter Trustees
Assocation of Bridgwater Industrialists
Sydenham SRB Trust
British Waterways
Somerset Fire and Rescue Service
Harris and Collard Ltd
Age Concern Somerset
Hamp Family Centre
EKOS Consulting 80
306227/INV103078

Hamp SRB Evaluation

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Hamp SRB Evaluation

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Hamp SRB6

1 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................4

3 Strategy and Context ...............................................................................................................................14

4 Financial and Output Performance.........................................................................................................26

5 Thematic and Project Achievements......................................................................................................33

6 Management and Partnership .................................................................................................................53

7 Conclusions and Recommendations .....................................................................................................62

8 Appendix I – Community Consultation Questionnaire .........................................................................65

9 Appendix II – IMD – detailed calculations ..............................................................................................67

10 Appendix III – Projects - Expenditure.....................................................................................................74

11 Appendix IV – Programme Level Lifetime Outputs...............................................................................76

12 Appendix V – Partnership Members.......................................................................................................80

1.2 Financial and Output Performance

2000/01 168,000 36,264 21.6 2.1

Number of jobs – created 2 13.9 695% 9

Number of jobs - safeguarded 0 7.6 - 9

Number of people trained obtaining qualifications 200 204 102% 9

Number of trained people obtaining jobs 0 5 - 9

Number of these surviving for 52 weeks 4 5 125% 9

Total other public spend (£000) 1,141 904.1 79% 8

Total private sector leverage (£000) 236.5 177.4 75% 8

Number of new child-care places provided 0 211 9

• 194 pupils benefiting from support to enhance or improve their attainment;

• 815 people gaining access to ICT;

• 285 individuals involved in voluntary work;

1.3 Thematic and Project Achievements

• The development of 1 Edinburgh Road as a multi purpose community facility;

1.4 Partnership and Management

1.5 How Has Hamp Changed?

• A reduction in the number of Job Seekers Allowance claimants;

• Fewer families eligible for free school meals;

• An improvement in the estate’s ranking on the Index of Multiple Deprivation.

Young people now have more to do

The environment - both open spaces and your

The image of Hamp has become more positive

Overall Quality of Life has improved on Hamp

1.6 Conclusions and Recommendations

Strategic Objective Programme Contribution (Ranked 1-5, where 1-low and

2.2 Approach to the Study

• Consultation with programme stakeholders – A range of programme stakeholders were interviewed

• Introduction and Overview;

• Project Achievement – Reviews the project achievements by theme; and

• The staff and volunteers at 1 Edinburgh Rd • ReCreation

• Sedgemoor District Council • Connexions

• Hamp Community Association • Somerset Youth Service

• Councillors Pat Parker and Dawn Hill • Citizens Advice Bureau

• South West of England Regional Development Agency • Somerset Police

3 Strategy and Context

• Assessment of Changes in Baseline Conditions; and

3.2 Programme Overview

• To support the regeneration of the Hamp neighbourhood, an area of multiple deprivation.

3.3 Changes in Baseline Conditions

Less than 1 year 1%

1-5 years 12%

6-10 years 19%

Employment prospects, education and skills of local people

Table 2: The percentage of pupils gaining GCSE and equivalent qualifications

• ‘Yes, community chest grant which funded me to nail technician course’.

Figure 3: Community Consultation - jobs and skills and learning statements

There are more

Social exclusion and improving opportunities for the disadvantaged

Housing including levels of overcrowding, homelessness and owner occupation.

• others on income related benefit