APPENDIX A

End of Project Report

The End of Project Report is to be completed by the Project Manager in order to evaluate your project, identify the benefits achieved and the lessons learned.

This document should be forwarded to the Health & Wellbeing Programme team HWB@lincolnshire.gov.uk who will submit it to the HWB Fund Board. Once the Fund Board have signed off the End Project Report the final payment will be made.

Project Title: Boston Placecheck Project Start Date: 01st July 2009 End date: 31st December 2011 Project Sponsor Project Manager: Andy Fisher Document Author Maddy Eyre/Mandy Exley/Andy Fisher/Rachel Lauberts (Resident) Distribution List: Boston Placecheck Partners Steering Group, Boston Stronger Communities (Former Community Cohesion) Delivery Group and Health and Well-Being Board

Version History Version No Date Change details Author V1 May Maddy Eyre 2011 V2 Dec 2011 Maddy Eyre V3 Dec 2011 SD

When completing this report please refer to your original planning documents, completed Highlight reports and data collected during the project.

Please do not write in any grey text box

Please expand boxes and add lines where necessary

Background A brief description of your project, why it was needed and what difference it was to have made; including who was supposed to benefit and where it was based

The Boston Placecheck Project was about targeted neighbourhood intervention.

The Placecheck model is a tool which has been used as a means of consulting with local people about issues which affect them in their daily lives and seeks to involve them in the decision making processes and aims to encourage local service providers and agencies to focus their work programmes at a neighbourhood level.

After a successful pilot project in the Daisy Dale area of Boston, which brought about £60,000 of improvements to the area, a meeting of key partners including Boston Borough Council, Boston Mayflower Housing Association and South Lincolnshire Community & Voluntary Service identified a strategic need to roll out the Placecheck model to 5 below ward level neighbourhoods, with similar characteristics to the Daisy Dale area and would benefit from a more holistic approach.

• The neighbourhoods are within close distance of the town centre and are within the 6 most deprived wards in the Borough. • The housing in these areas is predominantly privately owned and consists of both owner occupied and privately rented, of which many are Houses in Multiple Occupation. • The housing is mostly pre 1919 terraced properties, with this form of housing commonly suffering from poor levels of home insulation and energy efficiency. • The neighbourhoods have witnessed a rapid demographic change in recent years with many migrant workers of differing nationalities living alongside a more stable indigenous population. • Whilst there will be specific issues unique to each neighbourhood, desktop research and anecdotal evidence suggests litter, poor street environment, traffic congestion, parking and management of private rented housing are priorities for local residents.

The Placecheck Project sought to use funds to:

• Build social capital within each of the 5 identified neighbourhoods to allow long term sustainability. • Work directly with residents to identify and prioritise issues. • Deliver neighbourhood improvements as directed by local residents via a dedicated neighbourhood budget. • Work with partner agencies to bring in additional funding and services to address issues highlighted in a completed report and action plan. • Monitor and evaluate the project.

Objectives and Deliverables State the objectives, goods and services to be produced by your project and if they were achieved or not and if not, why not? Objectives (Taken from Boston Placecheck Project Business Case) The project will undertake community development and community capacity building in 5 identified neighbourhoods. The intention will be to enhance the quality of life and capacity of local people and their communities by involving them in the decision making processes to make improvements in their area through the bottom up Placecheck approach. This will lead to improved overall health and well-being of these communities, improving housing, reducing health inequalities and tackling social exclusion. Specifically they will involve:

• Invite partner agencies from the statutory, private and community and voluntary sectors to formally launch the Placecheck project. • Organise meetings with local residents and local businesses and form resident steering groups in each of the 5 neighbourhoods. • As part of the Placecheck process within each neighbourhood, undertake a walking street audit, with local residents recording their information on paper, photographs and film. • Together with the local residents, produce a written report, which will be delivered to every household within each neighbourhood. • To include in the written report, an associated action plan, with a list of priorities as agreed by partner agencies and resident steering group. • Assist residents in producing and distributing 4 neighbourhood newsletters annually, together with leaflets and posters as required for the Placecheck project. • In partnership with the local residents, allocate the neighbourhood budget to those priorities. • Record number of volunteer opportunities for residents. • Work in partnership with the NHS funded Health Trainers. They will be working with individuals to enable and empower them to make life changes that impact on their health and well-being by one to one motivational interviewing and support. This may be healthy eating, giving up smoking etc. Their target areas dovetail with all 5 of the identified Placecheck neighbourhoods. • Work with Children’s Services via Sure Start and youth outreach workers. • Work with the Learning Community Project to identify learning and employment opportunities for individuals. • Agree and produce an exit strategy for each neighbourhood. • Bring forward the project for inclusion in the Take Part initiative. This is being co-ordinated by Lincolnshire County Council and the University of Lincoln. The project aims to gather, evaluate and share best practice around community empowerment and active citizenship.

Through a multi-agency approach the core Placecheck team made up of officers from both Boston Borough Council and South Lincolnshire Community

and Voluntary Service has engaged with local residents in the 5 identified below ward level neighbourhoods and prioritised key issues of concern. Key stakeholders in the Boston Placecheck Project over its lifetime have been; Lincolnshire Police, Lincolnshire Probation Trust, Children’s Service through the detached youth team, Boston Mayflower Housing Association, Business Link, NHS Health Trainers managed by South Lincolnshire Community and Voluntary Service, and Lincolnshire County Council Highways.

All 5 identified Placecheck Neighbourhoods have carried out a Placecheck walking audit, produced and distributed a report to all households within each of the 5 Placecheck area boundaries which has then been used as a basis for drawing up a community action plan to negotiate improvements with the relevant service providers/agencies. Copies of all 5 Placecheck reports are available on request.

Deliverables (products, goods and services) The process will be to use the Placecheck model, a simple but effective process that aims to bring everyone together to identify and address the issues raised and prioritised by local residents. Placecheck has been successfully delivered in Lincoln and was introduced to Boston through the pilot Daisy Dale project.

Working in partnership with South Lincolnshire Community & Voluntary Service, Boston Borough Council endeavours to set up a team of professionals from both organisations alongside key partner agencies to manage, monitor and deliver the Boston Placecheck Project.

Benefits Benefits that have been achieved during the lifetime of your project and if these were expected or unexpected, also include benefits that should be realised in the longer term. Please state numerical outputs from your performance template (e.g. participants, throughput, sessions delivered and amount of weight lost) and life-enhancing outcomes (e.g. improved mental and physical health and quality of life). Please attach anonymised case studies in Appendix 1 and results of user feedback in Appendix 2

Outputs:

2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 Performance indicators Total RAG (as stated on original business case) Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4

Target 4 6 6 6 9 10 12 15

No. of resident meetings held (per neighbourhood Actual 8 7 6 6 5 8 15 22

Target Measurement of progress amongst 70% of residents involved feel that they can influence decisions in their local community residents as to their ability to influence decisions in their community. Actual

Target 10 10 20 20 20 30 40 50 No. of residents taking a role/responsibility within their As Yr 1 Qtr neighbourhood Actual 15 As Qtr 1 As Qtr 1 23 64 69 76 4

Target 1 1 2 2 3 4 5 6

No. of community activities 7 Udecide 1 Udecide undertaken to promote community Actual 2 1 5 5 15 29 projects project involvement

Target 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 No. of Placechecks undertaken All Placechecks Actual 2 1 1 0 1 0 2 carried out

Target 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1

No. of Placecheck reports written and distributed ongoing ongoing ongoing Actual 1 1 1 1 1 action plan action plan action plan

Target No of actions resolved as identified in each neighbourhood Placecheck Across 3 of the 5 Placecheck areas there has been a total of 20 projects awarded Actual report funding through UDecide totalling £29,682.76

Neighbourhood Profiling to establish target areas Target

Take up of decent homes grants & energy efficiency improvements within each neighbourhood Actual 0 0 0 0 0 3 64 Discontinued

Neighbourhood Profiling to establish target areas Target

Number of private rented properties improved Actual 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Discontinued

Target 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Record the levels of activity and outcomes of the Health Trainers & other health initiatives within each 2 new 3 new Actual 5 clients 0 110* 138** 26 48 neighbourhood clients clients

* This figure shows the number of Client Initial Assessments carried out by all Health Trainers across 4 placehceck areas but not limited to the boundaries as set by Placecheck project ** This figure shows the number of Client Initial Assessments carried out by all Health Trainers across 5 Placecheck areas but not limited to the boundaries as set by Placecheck project

Benefits Benefits that have been achieved during the lifetime of your project and if these were expected or unexpected, also include benefits that should be realised in the longer term. Please state numerical outputs from your performance template (e.g. participants, throughput, sessions delivered and amount of weight lost) and life-enhancing outcomes (e.g. improved mental and physical health and quality of life). Please attach anonymised case studies in Appendix 1 and results of user feedback in Appendix 2

Outcomes Includes unplanned outcomes.

• 5 fully constituted neighbourhood action groups set up across Boston with their own autonomy. • £50,000 transferred to the five local communities with a Service Level Agreement between BBC, SLCVS and each respective neighbourhood action group, to carry out participatory budgeting, known locally as ‘UDecide.’ This was a decision taken following consultation with our funders that the benefits of local ownership would be realised by devolving all of the neighbourhood budgets to each community action group to manage. This decision was taken half way through the first area group work therefore this area did not get the full benefit until after their UDecide Event. Giving the control to the groups over how their projects and finances were managed led to them taking complete ownership of these projects and ensured that monies were kept within the neighbourhood for the benefit of the neighbourhood. To date £40,000 has been allocated to 28 community projects across 4 Placecheck areas to date with a further £10,000 to be allocated in the remaining 1 Placecheck area, pending a decision by the HWB Fund Board. • At the time of writing this report 17 projects have been completed Appendix 1.2 • Multi-Agency approach with projects set up and delivered by key stakeholders to the Placecheck project for example Lincolnshire Police, Lincolnshire probation Trust-Community Payback Unit, Boston Borough Council’s cleansing and parks and grounds departments. • Economic growth and prosperity encouraged through working closely with Business Link who have, throughout the lifetime of the Placecheck project, engaged with over 60 businesses across the 5 Placecheck areas. • Lincolnshire Probation Trust Community Payback Unit – Service Level Agreement and UDecide Projects. • 76 volunteers involved across the 5 Placecheck areas. • Crime reduction in problem areas within the boundaries of some of the Placecheck areas – see testimony from Lincolnshire Police and Burgess Pit case study – Appendix 1.1 and Appendix 1.1f • £200,000 spent on highways improvements across the 5 Placecheck areas. • The Placecheck Team delivered 2 Placecheck conferences; the first to engage with potential partner agencies, the second to share learning, experience and achievements of the Placecheck Project to date with encouraging feedback from those attended – see appendix 2

• Placecheck has helped to support the continuing development of known heritage sites in the Placecheck areas e.g. Heritage Trust of Lincolnshire redevelopment of 116 High Street, a grade II listed building that was known to be the first bank in Boston. • Through the Placecheck project in the High Street South area, an opportunity presented itself to Taylor Itex CIC to put in a tender to redevelop the old lock cottages, London Road as a community hub and resource centre. The tender was accepted in December 2009 and the Lock Cottages is now completed and open for business. • In excess of 80 community events taken place throughout the lifetime of the project including report launches UDecide Events, community litter picks, UDecide project delivery etc. • Engaging with young people in local decision making and community action – BYC (Carlton Road Neighbourhood) Youth Detached Team focusing service delivery in problem areas across the Placecheck project neighbourhoods • In excess of 75 residents meetings have been held throughout the lifetime of this project. • Learning hubs established in Placecheck areas through Taylor Itex CIC • 7 volunteers joined the BBC Litter Champion Scheme for their neighbourhoods. • Recruitment of the Bi-Lingual Community Development Worker through the Migration Impact Fund to help encourage our migrant population to get more involved in their community. The positive impact has been the set up of locally grown Chatterbox sessions which are informal groups of people from different backgrounds chatting and learning conversational English. • Neighbourhood Action Groups involved in the wider Boston Community Showcase Event which is held to celebrate the achievements of the community and voluntary sector and to help promote and encourage volunteer action across Boston. • A greater understanding of the demographics and make up of our town centre through community profiling and engagement with the people who live in the neighbourhoods in which we are working. • Service providers working at a neighbourhood level using the Placecheck project as a tool for consultation and enabling them to focus their programmes of works to the needs of the communities they serve – • A clearer public presence of ward councillors in the areas they serve through regular attendance at neighbourhood action group meetings across the 5 Placecheck areas. • 1 member of a neighbourhood action group taking up an employment opportunity as a direct result of being involved in the Boston Placecheck Project. • Residents now feeling they have the power to discuss issues of concern directly with the service providers, knowing who to contact and identifying those best placed to assist. Instead of producing leaflets of information the Placecheck Team has introduced residents to the faces that can help most. • In line with the exit strategy partnerships between all 5 neighbourhood

action groups have been established to work collaboratively in addressing the wider issues across Boston. On the 27th October 2011 the Chairs and Secretaries of all 5 Placecheck areas came together to form an umbrella executive committee to tackle wider issues for Boston. The first meeting has been set for Thursday 12th January 2012. • The Placecheck Team has been approached by residents, who have heard of Placecheck but who are not currently part of an existing neighbourhood action group, who are looking to carry out their own Placecheck for their own neighbourhood. Support has been offered and advice given to this independent group. • The Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI) 2006/2007 performance score around cohesion placed Boston at the bottom of the whole country. Boston Placecheck Project’s commitment to its communities is making a real difference to the people of Boston evident in the increase in the community cohesion indicator (2008/2009 Place Survey) by 17 percentage points to 55%, one of the best improvements in the country. • 3 members from across the 5 Placecheck neighbourhood action groups stood for election at the May elections 2011. Despite them not being elected it has not deterred their enthusiasm for community involvement. • After revisiting the question of people feeling that they can influence decisions in their local neighbourhood and whether people from different backgrounds get on well together from an initial negative response the feedback received the second time was extremely positive and set a milestone in improved community cohesion.

Please also see personal testimony (Appendix 2.3) submitted by the Chairman of the Main Ridge East Neighbourhood Action Group and report from Business Link as to how Placecheck has enabled their service in the town centre of Boston. (Appendix 2.4).

Plan Did the project stay on plan and if not why not? Consider cost, time quality, scope, risk and benefits. This project has been live for 2 years and during this time there have been occasions when deadlines and targets have not been met, due to people in the various community groups wanting to work to a different timetable from the one devised at the beginning of the project.

Utilising the multi-agency approach has been very successful, but attendance at regular meetings has been difficult to sustain, however, key stakeholders in the project have been brought into it when the need has arisen. All stakeholders have been aware of the Placecheck project and endeavoured to support it when they can. It is this flexibility which has contributed to the success of the project.

As a Placecheck Team we are mindful of our obligations in terms of service delivery, but cannot be seen to push people in a direction in which they are

not comfortable or indeed at a speed at which they cannot keep up. Therefore delivery of events such as UDecide has to be at a pace that each of the neighbourhood groups can manage. The fund board accepted that the times changed and allocated additional funds and extended the deadline to accommodate this.

Ensuring that each neighbourhood action group managed their own budgets and project delivery as a result of the participatory budgeting has meant that the Placecheck Team were not in control of how and when projects were delivered, therefore most projects which have been awarded funding through the UDecide will be completed at a time and pace to suit the Placecheck area and the Placecheck team has supported them when the need arises. This indeed is our exit strategy in so much as we are not driving this project, the communities are.

When the initial project bid was submitted it was suggested that insufficient funds were being applied for. However, the fund of £100,000 was agreed. As the project progressed it became apparent that this had been a fair assessment, due to the need for the continuation of the Assistant Community Development Officer post beyond the agreed 1 year contract. Additional funds were then requested and agreed to extend the post for a further 1 year with Boston Borough Council offering a match fund.

As previously stated the Placecheck Team were aware that they could only work at a pace which the community felt comfortable with and as a result acknowledged that an extension of the project end date was necessary in order to ensure the development of the final Placecheck neighbourhood action group and the distribution of their community budget. The final end date was agreed as 31st December 2011.

Accepted Changes If your plan changed please explain the effect that this had on your original Business Case and on the Project Plan. When the initial project bid was submitted it was suggested at the time that insufficient funds were being applied for. However, the fund of £100,000 was agreed. As the project progressed it became apparent that this was a fair assessment, due to the need for the continuation of the Assistant Community Development Officer post beyond the agreed 1 year contract. Additional funds were then requested and agreed to extend the post for a further 1 year with Boston Borough Council offering a match fund.

As previously stated the Placecheck Team were aware that they could only work at a pace which the community felt comfortable with and as a result acknowledged that an extension of the project end date was necessary in order to ensure the development of the final Placecheck neighbourhood action group and the distribution of their community budget. The final end date was agreed as 31st December 2011.

The Health Trainer programme has remained, throughout the lifetime of this project, a separate entity, the ways in which they are governed and managed and the locations in which they have been working have remained wider

reaching than in just the boundaries of the Placecheck areas. Health Trainers have contributed in so much as they have utilised the Placecheck resident action groups as a mechanism for raising awareness of their service and to try and encourage people within those neighbourhoods to help promote the service on their behalf as well as take up opportunities for changing lifestyles. Placecheck has to all intents and purposes become a sign posting mechanism to the service as opposed to anything else.

Due to the apparent lack of clarity with the Take Part Initiative through Lincolnshire County Council and University of Lincoln, the Placecheck Team has not taken forward its involvement with it during the lifetime of the project in Boston. The focus has remained on delivering the project on the ground and ensuring that residents, businesses and other stakeholders have remained supported in their role within the project. Opportunities may present themselves in the future in ensuring that the outcomes and achievements of the Placecheck Project 2009/2011 are fed into the research strand of this initiative.

Lessons Learned Summarise the lessons learned during your project; what went well and what you would do differently next time. Think about your project’s successes and areas which need to be improved and explain any recommendations you would have for future projects. • £50,000 was transferred to the 5 local neighbourhoods with a Service Level Agreement between BBC, SLCVS and each respective neighbourhood action group, to carry out participatory budgeting, known locally as ‘UDecide.’ This was a decision taken following consultation with our funders that the benefits of local ownership would be realised by devolving all of the neighbourhood budgets to each community action group to manage. This decision was taken half way through Area 1 (High Street South) development, meaning they did not get the full benefit of this until after their UDecide Event, however by devolving greater responsibility and ownership to the Neighbourhood Action Groups has enabled the Placecheck Project Team to be more focussed in their support to build community capacity within each of the neighbourhoods. • Utilising the multi-agency approach has been very successful, but attendance at regular meetings has been difficult to sustain, however, key stakeholders in the project were brought into it when the need arose. All stakeholders were aware of the Placecheck project and endeavoured to support it when they can. It is this flexibility which has contributed to the success of the project. • The Placecheck Project Team presented at the Boston Area Partnership Full Assembly – Robin Holmes Locality and Business Manager for Northamptonshire and Lincolnshire Government Office said “Boston Placecheck Project is a great example of localism and is very much in tune with the Big Society agenda, by giving individuals and communities more control over their destinies.” This acknowledgement has demonstrated to the Placecheck Project Team the importance of taking every opportunity to publicise and promote the project and has also helped to identify the links between

the project and the new coalition government’s Big Society Agenda. • The Boston Placecheck Team has recognised that whilst the Placecheck process follows the same pattern and community issues are the same, the dynamics of each individual action group may vary depending on the numbers of people involved and the skills that they bring to the project. Therefore the Placecheck Team has had to be flexible where practicable in the approach taken for each element of the project process. • More community events are being held since the recruitment of a multi- lingual community development worker who has encouraged residents whose first language is not English to attend and engage in ‘chatterbox’ sessions along side volunteers from our Placecheck neighbourhood groups in conversational English. This has helped to develop relationships and to assist integration. • Ongoing Action plans for each area means that the level of issues needing to be tackled fluctuate depending on the needs of a particular group at any one time, which then means establishing the links between the group and the relevant service providers/agencies to report to each group. Time for those representatives to attend evening meetings is often limited and restricted and needs careful management therefore issues/actions tend to be delayed in resolution dependant on availability of staff of the relevant service providers involved. • The Placecheck Team were constantly aware of the timescales they had to deliver this project and were therefore conscious that they have triple-tracked the final 3 areas; the level of support required to manage each of these neighbourhoods varied depending on each individual stage each area was at within the confines of the Placecheck process. This being the case it became increasingly obvious that members of the team could not be at the same meetings and a fair distribution of the workload needed to be maintained. Therefore all members of the team agreed which meetings they would attend depending on which skills were required and at what point. • The Placecheck Team has witnessed the coming together of all the neighbourhood action groups working together and supporting each other at various stages within the process and to look at the wider issues across Boston, not just in their individual areas. This has always been the aim of the Placecheck project as a means of creating sustainable community action across Boston. • The Participatory Budgeting aspect to the Boston Placecheck Project has come under some criticism towards the end of the project in terms of value for money and the overall benefits of the projects submitted for this funding. The Placecheck Team has become increasingly aware that due to the time constraints of the delivery of the Placecheck Project as a whole, that it focussed on PB rather than Placecheck and its ethos of bringing communities and service providers together to

ensure that service delivery is to the needs of the residents. As a principle PB was a fantastic tool for community engagement but it needed managing in order that it did not overshadow the rest of the Placecheck project. Going forward the Team needs to consider the value of using such a mechanism in other areas. Especially in the current economic climate where financial resources are limited. • As a result of each of the 5 neighbourhood action groups producing and adopting their own constitutions it only reinforced that setting the ground rules for conduct and working together enabled the community to define itself and to deal with, on occasions, people’s behaviour which was not considered acceptable or within the boundaries set for mutual respect.

Risks Were there any risks which you could have identified earlier on in your project? What do you feel prevented you from identifying them, or were they unavoidable and unpredictable? • Time to deliver the project • Enough money to deliver the project • Placecheck Team being required to pilot the monitoring format on behalf of the Health and Well-Being Board and team which took us, at times, away from the community development grass roots delivery of the project. • A key risk to the success of the Boston Placecheck Project has been mainly one of leadership and project management. This risk has stayed with us throughout the lifetime of this project as the implication of working in a changing local authority and a developing voluntary and community sector will always have an impact on service/project delivery.

As the project evolved it was only then that it became apparent that the risks listed above had not been identified earlier on in the project planning and delivery. Therefore these risks became issues which were addressed at the time they arose.

Issues Did any unexpected issues arise that you could have predicted? What do you feel prevented you from identifying them, or were they unavoidable and unpredictable? • Time to deliver the project • Enough money do deliver the project • Placecheck Team being required to pilot the monitoring format on behalf of the Health and Well-Being Board and team which took us, at times, away from the community development grass roots delivery of

the project. • A key risk to the success of the Boston Placecheck Project has been mainly one of leadership and project management. This risk has stayed with us throughout the lifetime of this project as the implication of working in a changing local authority and a developing voluntary and community sector will always have an impact on service/project delivery.

Future actions Summarise any actions/recommendations which you are aware of, who is responsible for them and when they should be completed. E.g. embed project into core business or roll out pilot to other areas. Following on from Boston Borough Council’s Performance and Review Board it has been recommended that ‘Placecheck’ in some form exists as the community development tool for any future neighbourhood engagement. How it will be managed and resourced is still under negotiation between Boston Borough Council and key partner South Lincolnshire Community and Voluntary Service. A new Service Level Agreement has recently been drawn up between Boston Borough Council and South Lincolnshire Community and Voluntary Service highlighting the continued support of South Lincolnshire Community and Voluntary Service in the delivery of the Placecheck process. £25,000 has been ring-fenced by Boston Borough Council to support the future delivery of Placecheck with a further £25,000 secured through the Migration Impact Fund to carry out participatory budgeting in any future Placecheck areas.

The Placecheck Team has produced a ‘Placecheck Toolkit’ which seeks to advise local authorities and local community groups about how to use Placecheck as a consultation tool to address issues of concern and to link with other agencies and service providers to ensure a more joined up and cohesive approach to neighbourhood engagement. It is hoped that at some stage in the future we will run a regional event to promote the work carried out in Boston and to encourage the use of Placecheck as the model for consultation across the region.

Project Management Support Did the HWB Programme team help you to manage your project? If so how? Could they have done it better; would you have preferred any other support or to have received any other information? The Boston Placecheck Project is primarily about people and as such the principles of project management do not always translate to this kind of community development work. The monitoring of this project has at times been complicated and recording mechanisms have not always been flexible enough to record outcomes and achievements, especially those outcomes relating to personal development and people’s health and well-being and how that has developed as a result of being involved in the project.

With regards to the final Placecheck area, the Placecheck Team feel that minimum support has been afforded in relation to this area’s UDecide and the

resulting low numbers for participation. It is fair to say that we have required minimal support from the Health and Well-Being Team throughout the duration of our project and our work has been rewarded by a fantastic response by our communities to get involved. However, it is also fair to say that at a time when support and guidance was sought the Health and Well- Being Team has offered a very negative view of our achievements. It is understood that not everything within a project of this scope and size will succeed on all counts, however, what the Placecheck Team has tried to do is to encourage positive outcomes under adversity.

Any other comments

None.

Financial Breakdown Detailed financial income and expenditure.

South Lincolnshire Community & Voluntary Service Profit and Loss by Class Boston Placecheck Project - health and well-being July 2009 to October 2011

Health and Well-Being TOTAL Ordinary Income/Expense Income Grant Income £98,222.00 £98,222.00

Total Income £98,222.00 £98,222.00 Gross Profit £98,222.00 £98,222.00

Expense Translation £24.00 £24.00 Mang Fee - O/heads Recharge Meeting room Refresh SLCVS £6.95 £6.95 Mang Fee - O/heads Recharge - Other £1,665.99 £1,665.99

Total Mang Fee - O/heads Recharge £1,672.94 £1,672.94

Grants Payable £63,525.00 £63,525.00 Salaries £22,540.31 £22,540.31 Employer's NI £1,196.94 £1,196.94 Employer's Pensions Exp £1,001.62 £1,001.62 Room Hire - non SLCVS for proj £2,704.43 £2,704.43 Printing and Photocopying £493.04 £493.04 Telephone/Faxes £34.35 £34.35 Stationery £76.68 £76.68 Office Equipment (Small) Exp £251.33 £251.33 IT £371.71 £371.71 Staff Training £23.33 £23.33 Recruitment/Start-up costs £387.36 £387.36 Marketing/Publicity/Promo/Print 7,080.88 £7,080.88 CVS Management Exp £1,703.47 £1,703.47 Miscellaneous Exp £250.00 £250.00

Total Expense £103,337.39 103,337.39 Net Ordinary Income -£5,115.39 -£5,115.39 Profit for the Year -£5,115.39 -£5,115.39

Appendix 1.1 Case studies

Please attach your anonymised case studies here

Burgess Pitt Case Study The Main Ridge East Neighbourhood Steering Group was formed on 28th October 2009; the group consisted of 12 residents, 2 Councillors and was supported by the Placecheck team from the South Lincolnshire CVS and Boston Borough Council. The area covered by the Steering Group is shown in the map below, highlighted in orange.

During our initial profiling of the area it became apparent that the Burgess Pitt recreation area was of great concern to residents, and after further research also of concern to the Police, Fire Service and local Council. The land of the Burgess Pitt recreation area was purchased in two parts by Boston Borough Council, one part in 1937 and one in 1958, it is believed that the land was originally a brick pit and then in filled with domestic waste prior to becoming a park. The Borough Council holds no information confirming the date on which it became a recreation area. A local resident can confirm however that in 1953 Burgess Pitt was used as a venue for residents to celebrate the Queen's Coronation.

A strip of land adjacent to the park at the rear of Freiston Road was acquired by Mayflower Housing Association consisting of an unmade road and several disused garages. The final garage was demolished in 2008 after local residents complained about rough sleepers, antisocial behaviour and arson

attempts, it is believed that about this time a ground survey was conducted on behalf of Mayflower this included core samples being taken the results of which are unknown to the writer. Further to this the ground has been left in its original state.

Burgess Pitt is an enclosed area of 3.76 acres mainly laid to grass with approximately thirty deciduous trees, a partially fenced children's play area with a combined slide and climbing frame, 3 swings, 1 elephant rockerplay, 1 horse rockerplay, a youth shelter and a steel mesh goal/basketball play wall. The park has 4 egress points, a tarmac path which cuts diagonally across the playing field and 3 standard lamps.

The park is not particularly well situated from a security point of view, being placed in the centre of a mixed residential area with only the rear of the homes overlooking the park, there is a lack of natural surveillance and until the installation of the standard lamps in 2008/2009 inadequate lighting.

According to the Borough Council antisocial behaviour and vandalism had been an issue certainly for the past 13 years, and it is believed by residents that these issues have gone on for a significantly longer time. The park had a reputation for drinking, drug abuse, arson, fly tipping and violence with no respectable people allowing their children to go into the area.

The Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue Service reported that they were called out to Burgess Pitt 10 times between 2005 and 2010 at a cost of £307.12 (2008/09 data) per incident. Between February 2008 and 31 July 2008 the estimated cost of vandalism to the council at Burgess Pitt was £3762 see Appendix 1.1a. During the period Jan 2006 to Jan 2010 the police attended 78 incidents on and around Burgess Pitt for arson, burglary, criminal damage, drunken behaviour, firearms offenses, littering, inconsiderate behaviour, theft, vehicle nuisance and violence to name but a few. See Appendix 1.1b for full brake down. Appendix 1.1c and 1.1d are reports to the Boston Town Area Committee (BTAC) on the options put before them regarding Burgess Pitt in 2008 and 2009. In summary in 2008 the costs to the council due to vandalism had risen so high that the closure of the play ground and removal of equipment was a real possibility, a proposal to install lighting and a CCTV camera where put forward at a cost of £27,000 with an extra £1,300 per year being needed for maintenance, connection and service costs. BTAC agreed to the installation of the standard lamps, and a review of the situation at a later date.

The 2009 BTAC report (Appendix 1.1d) shows that the installation of the lighting, an increased Police presence and replacement of some of the equipment saw a fall in reported crime, to an extent that BTAC stated " The risk assessment of the park has now reduced as a result of the decline in issues. Therefore keeping the park open and operational with the current equipment is sustainable. However, these issues should be monitored over the next 12 months to ensure this reduction continues long term."

However if one refers back to appendix 1b it is evident that there was not a decline in issues as the crime figures reported for 2007 -2008 were 17 incidents, compared to 18 incidents in 2008 to 2009 which was then followed by the greatest increase to 23 incidents reported in 2009 to 2010, the highest figure for 5 years.

The initial Placecheck report on Burgess Pitt focused on littering, fly tipping, dog fouling,

Target Action Person/Agency Responsible Upgrade or replace Play equipment to Play Equipment be repainted by Payback Replace damaged Seating

Rubbish - increase number of rubbish bins, and dog litter bins, install fireproof

fire lighting, graffiti, damaged and dated equipment and flooding problems. It soon became apparent that we did not have the resources to deal with flooding problems and we therefore concentrated on those issues we could afford to address. We therefore drew up an action plan for Burgess Pitt as follows.

bins.

CCTV- lobby to BTAC - funding install camera Peter Hunn ASAP Fire Brigade report Police report

Police to provide a Police quarterly crime report for the area

Following the delivery of our Placecheck report to all the residents in our area our launch took place on March 3rd 2010 and was attended by over 110 people, 77 of which were residents from the Main Ridge Area. Our report had included a list of useful telephone numbers including the police, borough council cleansing, highways and parks departments. At that event it was stressed to the residents that if they observed a crime in progress they should report it to the police immediately and obtain a crime reference number therefore ensuring it would go on the Police statistics.

With the cooperation of our partners improvements started to occur almost immediately, Payback were enlisted to cut back and remove trees and shrubs at the rear of Freiston Road enabling a clear line of sight along the back of the gardens. Mayflower arranged to have an abandoned vehicle removed from their land adjacent to Burgess Pitt, the Borough Council removed rubble, graffiti and fly-tipped rubbish from Burgess Pitt. The Steering Group also started to carry out regular community litter picks, which lead to 8 of our members becoming Litter Champions, 2 of those carrying out weekly litter picks on Burgess Pitt. The Parks department agreed to relocate a park bench away from under a lamp post as this had become a regular night time congregation point for drinkers and drug takers. The Police increased their presence and responded quickly to any incidents relating to Burgess Pitt.

In the course of carrying out litter picks residents began to talk to our members and it became apparent that a household on Freiston Road was dealing in drugs, and their customers were enjoying their purchases in the park. Intelligence gathered by our membership was passed on to the Police who subsequently carried out 2 raids on the premises with arrests being made. Following these raids the dealers vacated the premises.

Reports of antisocial behaviour, crime, arson have fallen dramatically with only 1 reported incident between 1/1/2010 to 1/1/2011. The general tidiness and appearance of the Pitt has improved considerably with local residents, dog walkers and parents who use the play area with their children commenting on the reduction in litter, fewer cans and broken bottles, and

fewer incidents of drinking and drug taking. Usage of the Park has increased considerably with more parents and young children now using the playground area, and increased numbers of young children being allowed to use the park unaccompanied.

In the autumn of 2010 the Steering group with the Parks Departments permission planted in excess of 1000 daffodil bulbs around the base of the trees in Burgess Pitt the vast majority of which came into flower and were not damaged as would have been previously assumed. Projects from the UDecide are still awaiting completion, in May of this year a five-a-side football pitch was installed on Burgess Pitt much to the delight of the local children, and the Council has provided paint to the Steering group so that we can clean up and repaint the playground equipment. New litter bins, dog litter bins and multi-lingual signage are to be installed at Burgess Pitt and we are planning a picnic in the park to reopen Burgess Pitt when all the work has been completed.

In February 2011 the efforts of the Main Ridge East Placecheck group were acknowledged in a front page article in the Boston Target and the February edition of the Boston Bulletin. (see appendix 1.1e.) As a consequence of the Placecheck groups involvement in Burgess Pit one of the welcome consequences is that other residents and users of the park are now starting to take on ownership and responsibility for it and because there are now greater numbers of people using the area for its proper purpose the undesirable elements of society are now going elsewhere.

We still believe however that a CCTV camera is paramount before any major expenditure on playground equipment is made. This is because even though the Pitt has improved, constant vigilance is necessary to maintain its present condition.

It is though working in partnership with the local service providers and having an open and honest relationship with them that has enabled the Main Ridge East Steering Group to bring about these changes, as our local beat officer says in Appendix 1f: "Placecheck helps to build a stronger community, one with a sense of ownership, pride, and confidence in the future".

Compiled by Rachel Lauberts (Secretary) on behalf of the Main Ridge East Neighbourhood Steering Group 2011.

Appendix 1.1a.

Boston Borough Council report on Vandalism Burgess Pit Vandalism (Estimate)

Period 01 February 2008 to 31 July 2008

Date Vandalism Estimate (£)

Feb Weekly glass smashed 288 weekly glass smashed, 2 gates smashed off hinges, pedestrian gate smashed, roundabout vandalised, safer surfacing set on fire several locations Mar 2188 rough sleepers reported, collection of Apr waste/litter 108 trees vandalised, axed, litter bins vandalised, dog bin burnt out May 540 Pedestrian gate further vandalised, destroying framework June 350 July significant quantities of glass, litter 288

TOTAL (ESTIMATE) 3762

Previously reported that maintenance costs for 2007/08 were £3,892 (estimate) Repairs due to vandalism to the play area for 2007/08 were £3,338 (estimate)

Appendix 1.1b. Incidents in Burgess Pit/ Freiston Road area 01/01/2006 onwards – for information. (Taken from the system which records incidents reported to the Police) 01/01/06 – 01/01/07 10 reported incidents 3 vehicle nuisance 2 inconsiderate behaviour 1 theft 1 criminal damage 1 arson 1 suspicious circumstances 1 traffic

01/01/07 – 01/01/08 17 reported incidents 4 inconsiderate behaviour 3 drunken behaviour 3 arsons 2 vehicle nuisance 1 violence 1 theft of motor vehicle 1 shouting and swearing 1 inappropriate gathering 1 abandoned vehicle

01/01/08 – 01/01/09 18 reported incidents 5 suspicious circumstances 3 inconsiderate behaviour 3 drunken behaviour 2 firearms 2 vehicle nuisance 1 burglary other 1 criminal damage 1 littering

01/01/09 – 01/01/10 23 incidents 1 arson 8 inconsiderate behaviour 3 vehicle nuisance 5 suspicious circumstances 1 collapse 1 violence 1 street drinking 1 drunken behaviour 1 concern for safety 1 traffic offence

In the 2009 – 2010 period the highest concentration of incidents was on a Friday – 9 of the 23 occurring then, the remainder spread evenly thru-out the week. There were NO incidents giving Burgess Pit as a location between 28/11/09 and 05/06/10, and there is currently only 1 for 2010:- 01/01/10 – 01/01/11 1 incident 1 violence

Appendix 1.1c. Agenda Item No: 2

BOSTON BOROUGH COUNCIL

REPORT TO BTAC

09 JANUARY 2008

SUBJECT: CRIME REDUCTION AT BURGESS PITT

PORTFOLIO HOLDER: COUNCILLOR RAY NEWELL

REPORT BY: HEAD OF COMMUNITY SERVICES

Reason for Report: • To give Members details of crime reduction initiatives necessary at Burgess Pitt to prevent further problems and to request financial backing to the scheme.

Recommendation(s): • That Members consider the information contained within this report and agree on a level of funding for initiatives at Burgess Pitt.

Reason for Recommendation: • The risks involved in not taking action are quite high with it likely that the park equipment would be permanently removed due to rising maintenance costs.

Alternative options: • To not accept the recommendations and move towards closing the play area.

Implications:

Where the implications of any of the below mentioned matters are discussed in the report the relevant paragraph number of the report is shown

Personnel ...... NONE Environmental ...... ALL Community Safety and Cohesion ……… ALL

1 Introduction

1.1 Burgess Pitt is one of the Borough Council’s open green space areas situated in the Skirbeck Ward off Freiston Road in Boston (see attached map). It has suffered greatly with criminal damage, arson, graffiti and littering, which has increased over the last 6 months. The extent of the damage is now putting at risk the future of the park as the council has to consider whether the costs to maintain the play equipment and park can be maintained.

1.2 The issues within the park have become focus of the Borough’s Multi- agency Anti-social Behaviour Action Group (ASBAG) but a full solution using current resources has not been found. Although the youth service, fire service, police and ‘Drug and Alcohol Action Team’ (DAAT) have all spent time in the area, the damage has continued. Due to the issues of damage and anti-social behaviour, both the DAAT team and the youth service have stated that the Burgess Pitt is too much of a health and safety risk to attend during the hours of darkness.

1.3 Although Burgess Pitt is not the only open green space to encounter problems, there are certain differences in this area which make the issues more difficult to solve. The lack of any natural surveillance or adequate lighting makes it almost impossible to see any offenders committing crime. Unlike Burgess Pitt, most public spaces have well used paths or roads next to the area which increase the chances of offenders being caught committing crime and assist in identification.

1.4 Therefore, using crime reduction principles, the park has been assessed and this report contains details of how changes could be made to the park to improve the situation. It also discusses the estimated costs and the funding issues of this work.

2 Crime Reduction Principles

2.1 The main toolkit used to reduce crime in geographical areas as recommended by the Home Office is the “Ten Principles of Prevention”.

2.2 The Ten Principles uses the following headings to examine an area:

• Target Hardening • Target removal • Removing the means • Reducing payoff • Access Control • Surveillance – Natural and Formal • Environmental design • Rule Setting • Increasing the chances of being caught • Deflecting offenders.

2.3 These principles have been applied to the area of Burgess Pitt (see appendix A) and it is clear that there are only two main options available, to increase lighting and put CCTV into the area or to remove the play equipment and effectively close the play area. The attached report gives all the full details, but it is clear that as all other avenues have been exhausted and have not made significant reductions, these are the only effective alternatives left.

2.4 This recommendation has then been discussed with all other agencies who have worked in the area and has been agreed by the DAAT, police and youth service that the most effective response would be to install lighting and CCTV. During an event with young people concentrating on the problems at Burgess Pitt, CCTV also came high on their agenda alongside improved lighting. However, it must be understood as with all crime issues, 100% guarantees can never be given.

2.5 The option to remove the play equipment is viable, but would be severely detrimental to the area and to the community. There is evidence to suggest the park has in the past been well used, with a request by the young people in the area for extra sport equipment in the summer. There are limited amounts of open green space in the area for young people to use and to remove the equipment would not solve the issues of people still drinking in the area and the anti-social behaviour relating to that. It would also mean that the local people were suffering due to the criminal actions of a few.

3. Funding and Financial issues.

3.1 The costings for installing extra lighting and CCTV is not cheap. However, it is hoped that there will be support financially from Mayflower Housing and we have already allocated the scheme £6000 to £7000 from the Boston Community Safety Partnership. Lincolnshire Police have also agreed to contribute £2000 towards the scheme.

3.2 This report has been put in while the investigation into the proposal is at very early stages. However, as many of the funding streams we are looking at have a spending deadline of 31st March 2008 we are prioritising this work and wanted to bring a report to BTAC at the earliest opportunity to find out whether the Committee would be able to support the initiative financially. This report cannot guarantee costings or funding but is intended to advise the Committee of the possibilities. Obviously full costings and quotes would be produced before any confirmation of funding would be required.

3.3 Current maximum costs are estimated as follows

Installation of two standard lighting columns - £2000 or Installation of two Eco-lighting columns - £5000. Installation of one Pan / Tilt / Zoom CCTV camera with all power and connections - £22,000

Therefore the total cost of this initiative is estimated at between £24,000 and £27,000

3.4 This report is to request that if BTAC support this initiative and are able to financially assist the plans, they decide a level of funding they feel is appropriate. The Community Safety Department will then endeavour to gain

other fund through the bidding processes to ensure this project is carried out. If the project was successful, there would also need to be a commitment of £1300 per year for service costs, connection costs and maintenance for the CCTV camera and lighting.

4. Risk Management

4.1.1 As identified in paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2 there are specific risks involved with this area, especially if no further action is taken. These risks have been assessed and placed on the council risk register for regular monitoring.

4.1.2 It is apparent from these assessments that without further action, the damage and issues are almost certain to continue and likely to increase as no action is taken on offenders. The committee must consider this risk when deciding whether to make the investment in the area, which although does not give guarantees, is the only likely way to reduce the current problems and risks.

Consultations CMB/SMF Head of Legal and Democratic Services and Monitoring Officer

Appendix 1.1d.

Reference: BTAC 9/1/08/Burgess Pitt /LML No background papers under Section 100D of the Local Government Act, 1972, were used in the preparation of this report

AGENDA ITEM NO: 9

BOSTON BOROUGH COUNCIL

REPORT TO BTAC 29th January 2009

SUBJECT: CRIME REDUCTION AT BURGESS PIT

PORTFOLIO HOLDER: COUNCILLOR RAY NEWELL – COMMUNITY SAFETY

REPORT BY: ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES

Reason for Report: To update members on the progress at Burgess Pitt.

Recommendation(s): • That Members consider the information contained within this report and agree to monitor the play area over the next 12 months.

Reason for Recommendation: To assess the success of initiatives in the area over the previous 12 months.

Alternative options: • To remove play equipment or invest heavily in further security for the play area.

Implications: Where the implications of any of the below mentioned matters are discussed in the report the relevant paragraph number of the report is shown

Personnel ...... NONE Environmental ...... ALL Community Safety and Cohesion ……… ALL 1. Introduction 1.1 In January 2008, a report was brought to BTAC to advise members of the reoccurring problems at Burgess Pit play area of damage, anti- social behaviour and littering. The extent of the damage was putting at risk the future of the park as the council had to consider whether the costs to maintain the play equipment and park could be sustained. A report was submitted looking at the various options to reduce the problems, highlighting CCTV and extra lighting as the most effective options.

1.2 It was decided at that meeting that funds would be made available for extra lighting but at that time there would not be any funding made available for CCTV. It was requested that the Community Safety Manager should look at working with the community to encourage better community spirit and involvement in the area by local residents.

1.3 Another report was then brought to BTAC in September 2008 outlining a plan to continue to try to develop a community group in the area to improve the community spirit and look at other mechanisms to reduce the damage. It was intended that a report would be brought back to BTAC in December but due to resource issues, this report is now put before members.

2. Update of issues 2.1 Consultation leaflets were sent out to the residents in October 2008 to try to find out not just what the real issues were, but who were responsible for causing the problems. Within this leaflet was also an area where members of the public could agree to become part of Key Individual Network for the area, a group of people who liase regualrly with the police to ensure an effective flow of information. From this 11 people stated they would like to be involved and five asked for more information. These details have been given to the police for them to progress this issue.

2.2 From the consultation, anti-social behaviour was still seen as the main issue, with the majority of people claiming young people between 10 – 18years were the main offenders. However there had been only six

incidents of anti-social behaviour reported to the police over the last six months.

2.3 There has been minimal damage to council equipment reported by our Parks and Grounds section during the last few months, which is probably linked to some degree with the season and therefore should be monitored over the next six months. There has also been some issues regarding damage to the fences surrounding the park.

2.4 Bins have been provided and replacement bins have now been ordered to replace the bins which have been damage around the youth shelter. The new goal posts will be installed in February / March when weather is improved.

3. Conclusions 3.1 Overall there has been some reduction in the level of the issues at the park – especially damages to the council play equipment and proves the extra work put in by the organisations has been effective and beneficial.

3.2 The police now have a full strength Neighbourhood beat team in this area who are well aware of the issues and are aiming to build up a solid network of contacts within the area to provide details of any offenders or issues.

3.3 The upgrade of Wellington Road Park is nearly complete which with its enhanced facilities and CCTV, may draw people away from the area, therefore reducing the problems further.

3.4 Burgess Pit is on the Joint Agency Group agenda and if the issues in the park deteriorate further, further action will be planned by the group.

4. Risk Assessment 4.1 The risk assessment of the park has now reduced as a result of the decline in issues. Therefore keeping the park open and operational with the current equipment is sustainable. However, these issues should be monitored over the next 12 months to ensure this reduction continues long term.

5. Financial Implications 5.1 There are no financial implications at this time

Consultations CMB/SMF Monitoring officer

Appendix 1.1e.

Appendix 1.1f. Placecheck – A Policing Point of View.

When I became a Community Beat Manager in the East Urban Area of Boston some time in 2009 I was first introduced to the concept of Placecheck by my colleague, PCSO Adrian Smith.

He did his best to explain it to me, but it was only when I attended my first meeting proper, the launch of the Main Ridge East Placecheck group, that I became aware of exactly what I was involved in. That evening saw a huge gathering of residents that live within an area I have been policing since 2005, along with people – myself included – who were there to offer support and services to that community.

Whilst on patrol I often heard comments from well meaning members of the public experiencing problems that ‘someone should do something about’. Well, thanks to Placecheck, that someone is put right in front of you, and all you need do is ask (and believe me, people did!). As people started to take personal responsibility for sorting out the things they wanted to change – for example, anti-social behaviour, parking problems, the environment of the area – the area started to change too.

This is not just words – statistics reflect it. I recently looked through Police incidents reported in the area of Burgess Pit. There were around seventeen incidents reported every year from 2006 to 2008, peaking in 2009 with twenty three incidents. In 2010, up to February of 2011 (the advent of Place Check) there was one incident. Yes. ONE.

Placecheck does not have the ability to make life perfect, and there will always be problems to sort out and issues to address. But to me, what it does illustrate quite clearly is that Placecheck helps to build a stronger community, one with a sense of ownership, pride, and confidence in the future.

PC123 Fran Harrod – 24/05/2011

Appendix 1.2 Case studies

The process of participatory budgeting as part of the Boston Placecheck Project has played a key role in enabling residents to take ownership of their neighbourhoods and to influence decisions as to how money can be spent in their areas for the benefit of the area and those that live and work within it.

As a team we have become increasingly aware that whilst £10,000 to a community, may seem like a huge amount it cannot always deliver the kinds of outcomes demanded by the residents, what we have seen, however, is the level of support afforded by partner agencies through changes in the way they deliver services and focusing their service delivery in the Placecheck neighbourhoods specifically as a result of consulting with the residents within those neighbourhoods.

The projects which you will read about are just some of the smaller ways in which the community can contribute to their own neighbourhoods and allow them to take ownership of the way their neighbourhood looks and feels.

Where a community has felt that they cannot deliver on the kinds of wishes of residents they have been able to access service providers to encourage them to deliver services on their behalf. Please see attached document – Participatory Budgeting – The Community in Charge

The information to follow relates to all of the projects which have been funded as a direct result of participatory budgeting within the Boston Placecheck Project to date.

The projects which have been awarded funding are a testament to the level of support the Boston Placecheck Project has been given, not only by the community but also our partner agencies who have been involved in the project since its beginnings in Dasiy Dale during 2007/2008.

Some of the projects have a more practical, tangible outcome, whilst others help to support the community in coming together and trying to break down barriers which exist between neighbours and between residents and service providers.

High Street South Neighbourhood (Area 1)

Project Delivering Total Cost Progress to date Organisation/s Equipment to Lincolnshire £1,911.82 All equipment carry out general Probation Trust – purchased and clean ups and Community utilised in maintenance Payback Team carrying out work to enhance duties in the the street scene neighbourhood. of the High Street South Placecheck Area Purchase and Lincolnshire £1,376.50 Security fencing install security Police and and gates gates for St Boston Mayflower purchased and Aidens Church Housing installed Yard Association Landscaping and JFS Diggers – £630.00 Work completed. creation of a through John garden to the Fielding School, front of the Boston disused toilet block on London Road Refurbishment of Boston Baptist £2,000 Painting has downstairs Church commenced. community Committee meeting room at Boston Baptist Church Community Skip High Street South £650.00 Project Hire Neighbourhood completed. Steering Group 3 community Heritage Trust of £2,000 All 3 events have events to Lincolnshire taken place and encourage work to restore residents of the this building are High Street South underway Area to be involved in the planning of the redevelopment of 116 High Street, Grade II Listed Building Local history High Street South £1,431,68 Information Information Neighbourhood Boards have Boards Steering Group been designed

and are with signmakers

Main Ridge East Neighbourhood (Area 2)

Project Delivering Total Cost Progress to date Organisation/s Recruitment of a Lincolnshire £1,916.34 Supervisor paid supervisor to Probation Trust – recruited and work with a team Community team of offenders of offenders on Payback Team carrying out work the Community in the Payback Scheme neighbourhood 1 to carry out day a week for 19 general tidy ups weeks. and maintenance to enhance the street scene of the Main Ridge East Area Provide, install Boston Borough £1,926.16 Litter bins and service Council purchased additional litter Cleansing installed in all bins for the Main Department locations agreed Ridge East with the MRE Placecheck Area Neighbourhood Action Group Provide and Boston Borough £2,000 6 Dog waste bins install 6 dog Council purchased 4 have waste bins for Cleansing been installed in Burgess Pit and Department Burgess Pit with Main Ridge East 2 in storage Placecheck Area awaiting locations. To purchase and Main Ridge East £300.00 All bulbs plant bulbs along Neighbourhood purchased and the river bank, Steering Group planted. Burgess Pit and Church Road To purchase and Boston Borough £757.65 Five-a-side pitch install five-a-side Council Parks marked out and goal posts and and Grounds goal posts nets and mark Department installed. out five-a-side pitch at Burgess Pit To provide Boston Borough £1,979.00 Signs designed additional no Council Parks and on order with littering/dog and Grounds the sign maker fouling Department enforcement

signs in different languages for Burgess Pit To run a Main Ridge East £1,120.85 Community Choir community choir Neighbourhood commenced Steering Group Tuesday 13th September with a choir master being employed at £40.00 per fortnightly session. MRE Group has arranged for first session to be free and continuing sessions to be charged at £1 per person per session to encourage sustainability of project.

Carlton Road Neighbourhood (Area 3)

Project Delivering Total Cost Progress to date Organisation/s Recruitment of a Lincolnshire £1916.34 Supervisor paid supervisor to Probation Trust Recruited. work with a team Community of offenders on Payback Team the Community Payback Scheme to carry out general tidy ups and maintenance to enhance the street scene of the Carlton Road Placecheck Area Contribution to Zion Methodist £2,000 Heaters the cost of Church purchased and purchasing 2 installed heaters for the community hall at Zion Methodist Church Brothertoft Road Purchase, install Boston Borough £2,000 Equipment on and maintain Council Parks order and

basket ball hoop and Grounds awaiting goal and safety Department installation surface 6 dual purpose Boston Borough £1,566.42 Bins on order dog waste and Council locations to be rubbish bins for Cleansing agreed with the the Carlton Road Department Carlton Road neighbourhood Neighbourhood Action Group Promotional Boston Youth £1,000 This project has event for Boston Council been cancelled. Youth Council CRNAG to and WAM Project contribute this towards additional costs to basket ball hoop project. To purchase Lincolnshire £1,200 Ground prepared bulbs for planting Probation Trust for planting and in untidy area Community plants put in. Payback Team

Witham East Neighbourhood (Area 4)

The Witham East Neighbourhood Action Group organised their public vote for 19th July 2011 with the following results:

Project Proposal Delivering Total Cost Progress to date Organisation/s Promotional Age UK £250 Did not receive event of the First an award. Contact Scheme for the residents aged 60 and over of the Witham East Placecheck Area Educational School if £2,000 Contribution to workshops for Inspiration costs of this young people project awarded around inspiring through the public young people to vote play an active role in their community and to offer life skills learning and resources School Council to Park Primary £1,000 Awarded total redevelop an School , School project costs of area of land at Council £1,000. School

entrance to to work in school to make it partnership with more attractive WENAG and discourage members and its use as a walk Boston Borough way, preferably Council with raised planters and grass Purchase and Park Primary £2,000 Awarded total install a parents School project costs shelter inside the through the public school grounds to vote. encourage more people to walk to school to collect their children Installation of a Witham East £1,200 Awarded total bike track at Neighbourhood project costs Sheltons Field Action Group through the public Play Area, Sheriff vote. Way To remove Boston Borough £692.60 Awarded total existing goal post Council – Parks project costs and install a Five- and Grounds through public A-side pitch with vote. goals and nets at Shelton’s Field Play Area, Sheriff Way Boston Supply, fit and Boston Borough £1,680.00 Awarded total service 8 Council – project costs additional Topsy Cleansing through public Litter Bins within vote. the Witham East Placecheck Area To put on a Witham East £2,000 Awarded total community party Neighbourhood project costs in the park like Action Group through public event at Shelton’ vote. Field Play Area, Sheriff Way, Boston during the Summer of 2012

The Witham Central Neighbourhood Action Group have carried out their UDecide, with the decision day event taking place on Thursday 29th September 2011. The following projects have been put forward for the public vote, however, consideration needs to be given in terms of the way forward as there was an unusually low turn out for votes for this neighbourhood. Communication between Placecheck Team and Health and Well-Being as to possible options and we are waiting for a response from Health and Well- Being at this time (10th October 2011)

Project Proposal Delivering Total Cost Progress to date Organisation/s To provide and Boston Borough £1,600 Awaiting plant in the area Council Parks response from leading towards and Grounds in Health and Well- Lincoln Lane and partnership with Being as to the around the bus the Lincolnshire way forward station Probation Trust Community Payback Team and WCNAG Recruit a paid Lincolnshire £1,916.34 Awaiting supervisor to Probation Trust response from supervise up to community Health and Well- 10 offenders to Payback Team Being as to the carry out general way forward. clear ups of grots spots in the Witham Central Neighbourhood for 1 day a month for 19 months Recruit a paid Lincolnshire £504.05 Awaiting supervisor to Probation Trust response from supervise up to Community Health and Well- 10 offenders to Payback Team Being as to the carry out bulb way forward. planting project for BBC Parks and Grounds for 5 days at optimum season To purchase a full Boston Borough £222.25 Awaiting graffiti removal kit Council – response from as part of Street Community Health and Well- Smart Project to Safety Team Being as to the encourage those way forward. that carry out anti-social behaviour to pay something back to the community

To purchase Witham Central £1,200.00 Awaiting equipment to Neighbourhood response from carry out Action Group Health and Well- community clean Being as to the ups – Road way forward. Sweepers barrow, litter pickers, high vis vests and a lawn mower To design, Witham Central £2,000.00 Awaiting purchase and Neighbourhood response from erect 2 tourist Action Group Health and Well- information Being as to the boards to be sited way forward at Bus Station and on approach to bus station from Tower Street To purchase, Boston Borough £2,000.00 Awaiting install and service Council – response from 4 additional Cleansing Health and Well- glasdon jubilee Being as to the litter bins way forward. complete with stubber plate and advertisement panel. To purchase South £800.00 Awaiting plants and Lincolnshire response from equipment to Community and Health and Well- create an Voluntary Service Being as to the attractive flower – volunteer way forward bed outside Len bureau Medlock Centre as part of the Volunteer Bureau volunteer ‘make a difference’ inititative

As you will see from the organisations delivering projects, there are quite a few from statutory organisations including Boston Borough Council. We have been very keen to ensure that any project funding for litter bins, signage etc. are above and beyond what the Borough Council has a statutory duty to provide and are placed in locations in full consultation with the respective Placecheck area neighbourhood group.

Witham Central Neighbourhood Action Group (Area 5) is currently in the process of looking at potential projects for the UDecide process and this is looking to be completed by December 2011.

Participatory Budgeting has been a valuable tool within the Placecheck project as a means of encouraging residents to consider how money is spent in their area, however, as a team we have noticed that some of the areas in which we have been working are ‘better’ than others in the way of street scene, anti- social behaviour, litter/fly-tipping and highways issues and that projects have been difficult to come by and it has led to the belief that the £10,000 neighbourhood budget distributed has been tokenistic in its nature as oppose to being an incentive for people to be involved in the project especially towards the end of the project when, as a team we have had to push UDecide forward in line with our project plan.

Having said this, the money has been distributed, the democratic process has been seen to work and projects have been funded and whether they are still in the development stage or completed, they have gone some way to improving the way a community is seen by its residents and those visiting the area.

The future of Participatory Budgeting as part of the Boston Placecheck Project

The Participatory Budgeting aspect to the Boston Placecheck Project has come under criticism towards the end of the project in terms of value for money and the overall benefits of the projects submitted for this funding. The Placecheck Team has become increasingly aware that due to the time constraints of the delivery of the Placecheck Project as a whole, that it has been all about PB and a little less to do with Placecheck and the ethos behind bringing communities and service providers together to ensure that service delivery is to the needs of the residents. As a principle PB is a fantastic tool for community engagement but it shouldn’t over shadow the rest of the Placecheck project. Going forward the Team needs to consider the value of using such a mechanism in other areas.

Appendix 2.1

Placecheck Project

Report from Lincolnshire Probation Trust.

Our relationship with the Placecheck project started within the Daisy Dale area. Once we had built a relationship through this work we then became involved more fully in the Placecheck Project in the High Street South area. This involvement became more involved due to the formulation of a Service Level Agreement and due to the fact the Lincolnshire Probation Trust Community Payback team was asked to sit on the Placecheck steering group.

The main interest in the project for us was the fact it was a local project where we could get local offenders making direct reparation to the communities they had offended against.

Part of the Project involved delivering a questionnaire in which the returns showed us that 71% of those completing the questionnaire were aware of Community Payback and 68% had seen the team working in their area. 84% were happy with the work completed and 93% thought offenders should undertake this kind of work.

The evidence provided by the above feedback fits into the Unpaid Work (UPW) visibility agenda by raising the profile of UPW and increasing the public perception of Justice.

The fact that the projects progress was kept up to date on the Boston Borough Councils website also raised the awareness of the work undertaken by the Community Payback team in the local area.

Taking part in the Participatory Budgeting exercise gave the public a chance to decide how the money allocated to the project was spent. This process also allowed the public to give the UPW staff direct feedback on the work completed by Community Payback team and also gave the public the opportunity to ask questions at the main voting event before the voting

deadline was up. These voting days were a very positive experience for the Probation staff that attended them as it enabled them to get positive feedback directly from residents and also about their general thoughts on the scheme. This was highlighted by being the top most voted for project at the three events held so far.

Our experience of being involved in the Placecheck Project has been extremely positive and offenders have also found it a very positive experience as local people have been openly appreciative of the work done. This has enabled positive changes of both the offenders and community’s perceptions.

Appendix 2.2 Feedback

Health and Wellbeing Boston Placecheck Project Conference 2010 Evaluation Report.

This year Placecheck Conference one year on November 2nd 2010 has proved very successful. The venue for the Conference was the Pilgrim Lounge at Boston United Football Ground located in the Main Ridge Area and hot lunch provided by their kitchen. The day was facilitated by Debbie Belton former Chief Executive Officer of South Lincolnshire Community and Voluntary Service. Debbie had been involved with Placecheck Project from the beginning and we were very pleased that she agreed to be involved in this event. The conference had invited 53 delegates and 48 attended on the day including 2 extra. The delegates were from difference service providers, elected members and residents from Placecheck areas.

Presentations were given by the following: • Head of Housing Property and Communities Andy Fisher • Councillor Mike Gilbert a representative of High Street South Neighbourhood Steering Group. • Hamish McConchie (LCC Highways) • PC Martyn Chambers (Lincolnshire Police • Dawn Crossingham (Business Link) • Mick Taylor (TaylorITEX CIC) • Kristy Temperton and Nigel Harris (Lincolnshire Probation Service/ Community Payback. • Rob Lauberts Chairman of the Main Ridge East Neighbourhood Steering Group.

Then a set of questions were asked of each table to answer from the view of service providers and residents about how Placecheck has affected them. Please see appendix 1 attached to this report.

The following results are from the questions asked on the evaluations forms.

People

The above table were the results of the questions in the form of a tick boxes asked on the evaluations forms, scored (1) poor, (2) Below average, (3) Average, (4) Good and (5) Excellent. I have colour coded the key at side to represent the scoring. The graph shows the amount of people on the left who scored one to five. The following questions were asked and are direct quotes from the evaluation forms.

What are your overall comments about the conference? “Needed to focus more on the sustainability “ “Better time management would be more appropriate”. “Excellent”. “Interesting to be comparing to last year’s conference. Placecheck and its partners have grown in confidence and have clearly demonstrated that it can work”. “Great opportunity to meet with folk who are trying to make an effort”. “Particularly useful to hear the resident’s views”. “Really worthwhile and a great turn out of the relevant people”. “An excellent introduction for someone new for Placecheck, will enable me to ensure our organisation can contribute effectively”. “Steering group members were the best part”. “Well conducted, relaxed and enjoyable”. “Excellent well organised and delivered”.

“Good to see the big picture of the Placecheck rather than just the area”. “Well planned, questions good at starting a discussion”. “Good range of views from different agencies and communities”. “Excellent sharing of good practice and meeting new people”.

Feed back about the content of the conference. “Debbie Belton did a great job.” “More time could have been given to, what has Placecheck achieved so far?” “Perhaps eight speakers were a bit too ambitious as this did impact on timing. Otherwise really good to hear so many positive outcomes to date.” “Well presented, informative and thought provoking.” “Excellent recap, review and future projects, commitments and aims. Good positive recognition of success.” “Perhaps more focus on the successes and achievements! Really good to hear that Boston Placecheck is being recognised at a regional level.” “Really worthwhile a great turn out of relevant people and further improved my knowledge of the whole process and food for though.” “An excellent introduction to Placecheck.”

The following results are from the questions asked on the evaluation forms.

People

The above table were the results of the questions in the form of a tick boxes asked on the evaluations forms, scored (1) poor, (2) Below average, (3) Average, (4) Good and (5) Excellent. I have colour coded the key at side to represent the scoring. The graph shows the amount of people on the left who scored one to five. Question Qualitative feedback.

What actions will you take from this conference? “Meet with a number of individuals as to how my work can impact on Placecheck.” “Talk about the positive aspects of the project and look at models for sustainability of the Placecheck project.” “An acceptance that regardless of nationality some people genuinely do not want to be involved, there has been a line drawn on engaging with these people and focus on those that do.” “Refresh current High Street South project.” “Will attend future Placecheck meetings to see if I can help.” “Look for ways to engage with young people, migrant community in Placecheck.”

“To carry on the good work and partnerships.” “Establish greater role for Boston College.” “Concentrate on local important issues.” “Attend more Placecheck meetings.” “Ensure grow to eat and greener Boston are integrated and brought to the attention of the Placecheck areas.”

What might you do differently with respect to working at the neighbourhood level. “Be more productive.” “Nothing, I will keep on trying.” “Get out more.” “Carry on.” “Do more.” “More networking.” “Not sure what needs to be done differently.” “More public interaction.” “Concentrate on local important issues.” “Try to develop closer links with Placecheck areas.”

What support could you use to increase your effectiveness at a neighbourhood level. “Keep Placecheck.” “Fund Placecheck.” “It has had such a positive impact within Boston.” “More input from residents.” “Work with service providers.” “Get more support from council.” “More communication with others.” “Establish links with Main Ridge Group.” “Join steering group to look at sustainability of the project.” “Work at local people to achieve common goals.” “Use Placecheck teams to deliver information.” “Introductions to Placecheck areas steering groups to highlight above opportunities.” “Maintain status.”

Appendix 2.3 Feedback

Personal Testimony

Well what can I say, three years ago I lived in a area that wasn't very clean, I hardly knew anybody other than my next door neighbour and now I know most of the people around Burgess Pitt the local councillors for the ward, many of the County Councillors and even met the local Mp . I've stood as a candidate in the local election I've got married, and I'm a happy Individual.

The Place Check scheme has opened my eyes to the problems in my own local area and given me the tools to make a real difference to my life and so many others. The scheme just goes to show that with the right support and encouragement a small group of willing and keen people can change an area for the better and give back to a community a sense of pride.

So when somebody asks was the scheme value for money I think the answer is a resounding yes. For an area that had been written off by so many for so many years it just goes to show that by enabling the local community and the support of all the local agencies the problem can be solved.

My life has been enriched by the people I have come into contact with and if only the scheme could be carried out with the enthusiasm we have seen here in other areas I think this could be a valuable scheme to build bridges and to improve community cohesion. Rob Lauberts – Chairman of Main Ridge East Neighbourhood Action Group

Appendix 2.4 Feedback

FINAL PLACECHECK REPORT JUNE 2011 – Business Link

HIGH STREET south, London road, Liquorpond street, Haven village…….. Since we began with Placecheck we have made contact with 14 businesses in this area whom we are now supporting along with offering Business start up support through the training events at Lock Cottages, for those considering setting up a business. It is encouraging that new businesses are still considering this area as an area to begin trading, such as Boston IT. There have been those who have found it difficult and have ceased trading or moved to other areas but generally, those we have been helping have found the support invaluable, although throughout the areas to the south of John Adams way some of the smaller businesses are struggling due to the lack of passing trade. I am unsure of the developments at Fisherman’s Wharf after the meeting held with Hilary Lockhurst from the Environment agency, Alan Watts from Planning, Barrie Beagles, myself and the Fishermen in Fishermen’s Wharf to discuss the improvements of the area where I was able to offer grant suggestions for them to consider in order to develop the project further.

MAIN RIDGE- Frieston rd, Artillery row, Manor Gardens, Spayne rd …. 22 Businesses are now being supported in this area by the team. Many of these were being supported prior to the project however 8 have been since the project began and a direct result of PLACECHECK introductions. Some smaller businesses still require more in depth support due to the nature of their location and how long the business has been operating, or indeed the fact that they have recently set up from home. Grants have been awarded to several of these home style businesses which should make their future more stable and indeed provide future prospects. Kidz Directory in Manor Gardens have agreed that I can quote them in saying I have found the support and help invaluable and would never have identified the various support Dawn introduced me to, to make my business viable. Thankyou

CARLTON Rd - Witham Bank west, Orchard street, Sleaford rd…. We had already had contact with several businesses in this area prior to Placecheck but have now started supporting 11 new businesses in this area again 4 of these working from home offering professional services such as website design, book keeping and small scale manufacturing .

AREA 4 – Norfolk street, Robin Hood’s walk, Witham Bank East, Tattershall rd ….. Again we had already had contact with many businesses in this area prior to Placecheck due to it’s through traffic, industrial estate and retail presence but several new businesses have sprung up both in retail and professional services and I have now started supporting 6 new businesses in this area

AREA 5 – West Street, High street, Liquorpond street, Fydell crescent …………..

This has been our most successful area of support. Clearly as a main retail thoroughfare we were already supporting more than 20 businesses in West street, high street, fydell street etc but due to the Placecheck project I have visited 15 new businesses who had never had business support and my colleague Viv is visiting a further 8. Totalling 23 New businesses. many of these have either been so long in existence thy have never considered support or are foreign Nationals who have set up business in these areas. Kamilla has helped with translation with one of these clients which has proved invaluable. But it has been interesting to note that despite public perception these business owners speak good levels of English, although may be lacking in confidence regarding their ability, and have a great contribution to make to the local economy.

To conclude: Placecheck has been invaluable in introducing me to clients who would never have known about the services available and in the case of those home run businesses, would have been hard to source. Placecheck clients make up 50% of my caseload. I believe this speaks for itself. My thanks goes to the team for all their hard work and especially to Barrie who has doggedly been an advocate for business support, and who through his amiable style has encouraged clients to consider a business review and the support that goes hand in hand with that.

Appendix 3 External Evaluation

No external evaluation has been sought.