Finance Assignment Mushall Khan
The funding requirements for Hallamore
Report for Steelville City Council
1. Abstract
Setting the context
This report has been out together for Steelville City Council it is intended to provide information on funding available for Hallamore and the process required to obtain the funding.
The information provided is based on the baseline information provided to the consultant. In accordance it is not possible to provide specific figures due to limitations of the information.
The report is set out into five main sections as follows:_
Introduction – Outlining the problem’s
Method – Mapping & commonalities
Results/findings – What funding in place and what’s required
Discussion – process
Conclusions – Recommendations
2. Introduction
The problems being experienced by the area are typical of those experienced by many other areas, which have benefited from regeneration funding.
The area itself is diverse, in terms of its housing, its population and their social needs. The population is made up of a younger mobile population, established older residents and a small but prominent and closely-knit ethnic minority group (mainly Somali).
The demolition and construction of new housing has reduced the housing stock from 4445 to 3608 over a period of roughly ten years. The areas has benefited from one of the earlier SRB schemes that funded the demolition of a number of dwellings as well as the remodelling of flats.
There are a number of key problems with the area identified as requiring regeneration investment which are outlined as follows:-
- Crime – this featured as the highest priority for residents with 75% of residents giving it priority. A further survey found a fifth of respondents had been victims of crime in the last 12 months (four times greater than the national average). Many felt unhappy walking alone after dark, a smaller proportion than the national average.
- Poor Health – the area has a much higher rate of limiting long-standing illness than the national average for almost all age groups except the youngest. This goes some way to explaining the high rates of economic inactivity in the area.
- Poor transportation linkages -
- High levels of unemployment – Unemployment in the area in three times the national average. Of a total working population of 4200 only 990 were in full employment. This is due to a mix of ill health, childcare at home and a significant number being in full time education (possible local student population).
- State benefit dependency – The claimant average for the city is placed at 35%, Hall mores has 50% dependency. This alone paints a very bleak picture, however as with any other area those entitled to but not claiming benefit should be taken into account. This would increase the figure by a further 10% to 25%.
- Inadequate local public & private facilities – Centralisation of services has had a significant impact on provision of local services. There is a lack of local business in the form of shops and amenities as well as lack of recreational facilities & entertainment for young people. Due to geographic divisions in the area the community divided, coupled with the lack of community facilities this contributes to a low level of interaction and in turn a low community ‘spirit’.
3. Method
Lessons learnt from previous regeneration initiatives have taught us not to repeat what is already in place. In order to do this I recommend that a full audit of provision be completed before any of the recommendations of this report are taken no board.
An audit of the number of organisations and their roles will inform who is best placed to put together bids as in many cases a voluntary sector lead is required. Whereas in other cases clear partnership structures are required.
The area has benefited from previous regeneration funding and hence one would expect a number of organisations to have been established who now deliver a range of services.
The partnership that brought in the previous funding could be used as the structure to pull together an area wide plan and identify lead partners for each of the funders identified in table 1.1
