An analysis of the impact of Community Ownership of Local Assets; case studies from Tewkesbury District, Gloucestershire.

Lynch, Kenneth and Hobson, Jonathan and Roberts, Hazel and Payne, Brian (2016) An analysis of the impact of Community Ownership of Local Assets; case studies from Tewkesbury District, Gloucestershire. Project Report. University of Gloucestershire, Cheltenham, UK.

[img]
Preview
Text (Report)
An analysis of the inpact of Community Ownership of Local Assets.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives 2.0.

Download (561kB) | Preview

Abstract

The transfer of ownership of community assets from local authority to community control has increased in recent years. Such transfers raise key questions in relation to the impact on local communities and how such transitions can be best managed. This research was commissioned by Tewkesbury Borough Council to better understand community assets and their management in light of transfers of ownership from local authority to community control. In particular, it focuses on two key case studies of transferred assets in Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire: Brockworth Community Centre, and GL3 Community hub in Churchdown. The first part of the project maps the local physical community assets for each parish using GIS mapping technology. These data are now part of a spatial database or GIS allowing interactive exploration of the locations of the assets and the production of a range of maps. This database is available for transfer to Tewkesbury Borough Council and to the local communities. The second part of the project analyses a range of interviews conducted with key-stakeholders from the two transferred assets. This produces seven key findings that are important considerations in the process of asset transfer and their ongoing management: Key finding 1: Community assets are broadly defined by community stakeholders as buildings, open spaces or amenities that can be accessed and are valued by the whole community. Key finding 2: The pace of asset transfer can be challenging for community groups, particularly around Legal issues. Key finding 3: Communities require enough individuals with the capacity, capability and leadership to make the management of assets in the community effective. Key finding 4: Insecure and short term funding threatens the success of community assets and the search for funding often uses up limited resources. Key finding 5: Asset transfers are likely to raise important questions about what agencies should be responsible for maintaining community assets, and these debates may be a source of resistance. Key finding 6: Assets transferred to the community provide the potential for more responsive use of local assets. Key finding 7: Transferring assets to communities can increase their use and the sense of local ownership.

Item Type: Monograph (Project Report)
Uncontrolled Keywords: community assets, community development,
Subjects: G Geography. Anthropology. Recreation > G Geography (General)
H Social Sciences > H Social Sciences (General)
H Social Sciences > HM Sociology
H Social Sciences > HT Communities. Classes. Races
H Social Sciences > HV Social pathology. Social and public welfare. Criminology.
Divisions: Schools and Research Institutes > School of Natural & Social Sciences
Research Priority Areas: Environmental Dynamics & Governance
Depositing User: Kenny Lynch
Date Deposited: 06 Dec 2016 15:30
Last Modified: 04 Aug 2017 13:16
URI: http://eprints.glos.ac.uk/id/eprint/4192

University Staff: Request a correction | Repository Editors: Update this record

University Of Gloucestershire

Bookmark and Share

Find Us On Social Media:

Social Media Icons Facebook Twitter Google+ YouTube Pinterest Linkedin

Other University Web Sites

University of Gloucestershire, The Park, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL50 2RH. Telephone +44 (0)844 8010001.