sustainable backcourts study

Glasgow & Clyde Valley Sustainable Backcourts Study

Glasgow & Clyde Valley Sustainable Backcourts Study 08

1

Published by

Glasgow Clyde Valley Green Network Partnership

October 2008

Lower Ground Floor

125 West Regent Street

Glasgow, G2 2SA

[email protected]

0141 229 7749

Prepared by

Greig Robertson and Sandy Neil

Re:Solution

5 Rose Street

Edinburgh

[email protected]

0131 243 2696


2

mailto:[email protected]




Table of Contents

Introduction to the Study 5

Part 1a - Survey of Local Authorities 9

.....................................................................................................Survey of Local Authorities 10

...........................................................................................................................Key Findings 16

Part 1b - Survey of Sample Sites 18

.....................................................................................................Glasgow West Sample Site 19

....................................................................................................Glasgow North Sample Site 24

......................................................................................................Glasgow East Sample Site 29

...........................................................................................Glasgow South West Sample Site 34

............................................................................................Glasgow South East Sample Site 39

...........................................................................................West Dunbartonshire Sample Site 44

................................................................................................North Lanarkshire Sample Site 49

...............................................................................................South Lanarkshire Sample Site 54

............................................................................................East Dunbartonshire Sample Site 59

.......................................................................................................Renfrewshire Sample Site 63

...............................................................................................East Renfrewshire Sample Site 68

............................................................................................................Inverclyde Sample Site 73

...........................................................................................................................Key Findings 78

Part 1c - Findings of the Household Survey 81

...........................................................................................................................Key Findings 90

Part 1d - Findings of the Greenspace Quality Survey 91

.........................................................................................................................Key Findings 104

Part 1e - The Fitness For Purpose of Backcourts 105

Part 2a - Survey of Best Practice Projects 111

.............................................................................................................Clapton Park Estate* 112

..............................................................................................Community Greens, Baltimore 115

...................................................................................Community Backyards, Copenhagen* 116

.......................................................................................................................Edible Estates 120

...................................................................Edinburgh Community Backgreens Association* 121

.......................................................................................................Peabody Trust*, London 128

............................................................................................Permablitz, Melbourne Australia 130

...........................................................................................Urban Farming, Middlesborough 131

..........................................................................................................Other London Projects 132

......................................................................................Other Scottish Backcourts Projects 134

....................................................................................................................................Ideas 138


3

Part 2b - Solutions for Sustainable Backcourts 141

.......................................................................................Solution 1 - Community Enterprise 142

.......................................................................................Solution 2 - Promote Best Practice 146

.......................................................................................Solution 3 - Inspirational Campaign 150

................................................................Solution 4 - Establish & Support Resident Groups 151

...............................................Solution 5 - Promote Best Practice In Community Gardening 154

Key Findings of the Study 156

Appendix 160

...................................................................................Sample Backcourt Regeneration Plan 161


4

Introduction to the StudyThe Glasgow & Clyde Valley Sustainable Backcourts Study has been prepared to assess the potential to improve people’s immediate living conditions by increasing the benefits provided by backcourts, and to identify sustainable models for realising that potential. The target area for the study is the tenemental greenspace of the Glasgow Clyde Valley, which comprises the eight member local authorities of the GCV Green Network Partnership.

We interviewed officers of the local authorities and a selection of housing associations across the Glasgow Clyde Valley to collate information they hold on the condition of backcourts, and policies they have for their management. We surveyed twelve tenemental sites around the Glasgow Clyde Valley area to measure the quality of the greenspace and the attitudes of the households around the sites to their backcourts. We carried out research of projects which provide best practice in the management of tenement backcourts, and have used this information to make recommendations for solutions which can be undertaken in the Glasgow Clyde Valley area to provide for the sustainable regeneration and management of backcourts.

Plan showing the Eight Local Authorities within the Study Area.


5

BACKGROUND

Glasgow Clyde Valley Green Network Partnership’s (GCV Green Network Partnership) have commissioned Re:Solution consultants to deliver an investigation into Sustainable Backcourts. The dual aims of the study are to:

− assess the potential to improve people’s immediate living conditions by

increasing the benefits provided by tenement backcourts in Glasgow, and to identify barriers to realising that potential.

− through research, identify sustainable models for backcourt management, including opportunities for training, employment and social enterprise, which could be applied and evaluated throughout the Glasgow and Clyde Valley

area.

The Sustainable Backcourts Initiative is being developed through GCV Green Network Partnership’s Stronger Communities theme in response to an acknowledged problem with the maintenance and management of communal space associated, in the main, with tenemental properties.

Tenemental Greenspace

A considerable proportion of the population within the Glasgow Clyde Valley live in properties with shared backcourts (70% of the city of Glasgow’s population live in tenement flats). A range of mechanisms are employed for the maintenance of these spaces including maintenance by social landlords and commercial factors, and maintenance by residents.

However, anecdotal evidence suggests, that a significant proportion of backcourts are subject to little or no management and as a result residents are missing out on opportunities for play, socialising, passive recreation or other traditional uses such as drying washing and gardening.

Background To The Study

In 2004, Kelvin Clyde Greenspace commissioned a feasibility study. The purpose of the study was to identify possible regeneration models for Glasgow tenement backcourts. Specifically the study looked at how local recycling, enhanced amenities and biodiversity could be integrated into coherent landscape designs, specific to each pilot area.

Designs and costings were prepared for pilot four sites. Paths and landscape were upgraded and a shared recycling station was installed at each site, but the layouts of the sites were left largely unchanged. The regeneration of the sites was largely funded by a grant from the Strategic Waste Fund.

The study estimated the costs of maintaining the recycling facilities and the landscape. The design layouts of the four pilot sites were developed with easy and inexpensive maintenance in mind. However the study did not investigate who would pay these costs or who would carry out the works. This was perhaps not a significant issue to the study as three of the sites were largely owned and managed by housing associations, and at the fourth there was an active residents group.

The current study will investigate a wider range of tenure types and layouts, and suggest models for regeneration and continued management.


6

Definition of Sustainable Backcourts

For the purpose of this study a sustainable backcourt can be defined as communal open space enclosed by residential buildings accessible only to residents, which increases the social and environmental sustainability of the adjoining households, this may be thought of in terms of:-

− access to greenspace for recreation and play;

− positive interaction between neighbours which engenders a sense of community;

− opportunities for gardening including growing vegetables;

− biodiversity;

− facilities which support sustainable lifestyles such as recycling and cycling.

GLASGOW CLYDE VALLEY GREEN NETWORK PARTNERSHIP

GCV Green Network Partnership brings together the eight local authorities which comprise the Glasgow metropolitan region with five major government agencies that promote and deliver on the environmental, social, health and economic agendas throughout the Glasgow Clyde Valley area, namely Scottish Government Housing & Regeneration Directorate, Scottish Enterprise, Glasgow Centre for Population Health, Forestry Commission Scotland and Scottish Natural Heritage.

The partnership works to develop and sustain a high quality Green Network Partnership across the Glasgow and Clyde Valley metropolitan region, transforming the environment to improve the region’s competitiveness for investment, enhance quality of life, promote biodiversity and the sustainable use of natural resources, and encourage more healthy lifestyles.

REPORT STRUCTURE

The study has been presented in two sections which respond to the aims of the study.

Section 1 - Potential For Improvement of Tenemental Greenspace

1a Findings of The Survey of Local Authorities

We have reported the findings of the interviews with the eight local authorities and several housing associations in the target area. The interviews were carried out to gather information about Council policies and qualitative survey data about tenement backcourts. The interviews also resulted in the recommendations for potential sample sites.

1b Survey of Sample SitesWe have presented the findings of the survey of the twelve sample tenemental sites. The survey was carried out in June 2008.

The sample sites were chosen to represent the different types of tenement backcourt sites across the Glasgow Clyde Valley area. They are not intended to be representative of the tenemental stock of the local authority area in which they are located.

The twelve sample sites were surveyed to map the features of the backcourts and to measure the ‘greenspace quality’. The households around the


7

backcourts were also surveyed to record their opinions with regards to the quality and purpose of tenement backcourts.

1c Findings of Household Survey

A freepost questionnaire form was delivered to all of the households around the sample sites. The findings have been used to determine the purpose of backcourts in the minds of those that live around them.

1d Findings of the Greenspace Quality Survey

A qualitative survey of the backcourts at the sample sites was undertaken using the Greenspace Scotland/GCV Green Network Partnership Greenspace Quality Guide.

1e The Fitness For Purpose of Backcourts

The study team have compiled findings of the report to define the key purposes of backcourts, and identify the fitness for purpose of the sample sites against these criteria.

Section 2 - Models For Sustainable Backcourt Management

Section 2 of the report seeks to identify models for sustainable backcourt management.

2a Survey of Best Practice ProjectsThe study team have prepared case studies of projects which provide best practice in tenement greenspace management from Britain, Europe and further afield.

2b - Solutions for Sustainable Backcourts

The study team have sought to recommend solutions for the sustainable improvement and management of tenement backcourts.


8

Potential For Improvement of Tenemental Greenspace

Part 1a - Survey of Local AuthoritiesINTRODUCTION

Part 1a of the report presents the findings of the meetings with officers of the 8 local authorities within the Glasgow Clyde Valley.

The information sought from the local authorities included:-

− The identification of 2-3 potential survey sites, which were representative of

the tenement backcourt sites in their area.

− The collation of the local authorities’ knowledge of the condition of

backcourts in their area, how this information was gathered and the resource implications of gathering the information,

− Information regarding the local authorities experience in the regeneration and

maintenance of tenement backcourts.

METHODOLOGY

The meetings with the local authority officers were held between the 14th and 24th of April 2008. Wherever possible an officer was sought from the housing department, GIS department, landscape design and maintenance, and other officers the local authority recommended. The interviews were conducted by following a set of questions agreed with the study steering group. As would be expected, it was not always possible to get a clear answer to all questions, but the interviews did result in a lot of relevant information.

The study brief was to gather 2-3 potential sites from each local authority area, except in Glasgow where 10-15 sites were required. The total number therefore requested lay in the region of 24 to 36 potential sites across the Glasgow Clyde Valley area. Once all of the recommended sites from local authorities and housing associations were collated, the actual total came to 65 potential sites.

Following confirmation from GCV Green Network Partnership, the study team decided to cut the list down to 40 by removing sites which were very similar, (in terms of size, form, tenure or problems of the backcourts), to the other potential sites in each local authority area. The list was further culled where either scant information existed, or where details were unlikely to arrive in time.


9

Survey of Local Authorities

CITY OF GLASGOW

Within the City of Glasgow, the Study Steering Group requested that a sample site be identified in each of the five NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde Community Health & Care Partnership areas.

1. West Glasgow CHCP

2. North Glasgow CHCP

3. East Glasgow CHCP

4. South West Glasgow CHCP

5. South East Glasgow CHCP

Plan showing the Five Community Health & Care Partnership Areas in Glasgow.

Information About Condition of Backcourts

Council staff are present in backcourts on daily basis, but the condition is not recorded as routine, and therefore any information is anecdotal. The Council emphasise their priority is to improve the condition of the buildings, they won’t improve backcourts if the buildings are collapsing.

Local Authority Backcourt Management Policies

Backcourt maintenance is the responsibility of the owners. There is no backcourt service provided by the Council unless owners pay for it via a ‘maintenance account’, which the resident opens and pays into. At mixed tenure stairs maintained by the Council, the Council meets the cost of its tenants.

Residents transgressing their responsibilities are identified by the enforcement department, and then served notices. In the worst cases, Glasgow Council reserves powers to serve maintenance orders, in virtue of provisions contained in the 2006 Housing Act. If there is evidence of a lack of maintenance, Glasgow Council can impose a 5 year plan, where residents are forced to pay for maintenance over the next five years.

The Council is currently creating a ‘Household Information Pack’, which aims to make buyers aware of their rights and responsibilities when buying into tenements.

Information On the Types of Tenement Backcourts In Local Authority Area

There are a wide range of problems facing backcourts in the City of Glasgow, and the Council emphasised it is better able to report these problems than their solutions.


10

The communal garden in Fotheringay Road in Pollockshields was an example of an immaculate backcourt, but it only took one rogue family to start its deterioration.

In the Council’s experience, if a regeneration project is to avoid collapse, there needs to be persistent involvement from an outside agency. The Association of Property Managers recommended promoting the American system, whereby Residents Associations are made compulsory, and allocated certain powers: if the buyers do not contribute to the property, then the property can be taken over. In the Council’s view there has to be sanction, otherwise negligent landlords will not contribute to sustainability.

The Council faces a recurring difficulty making owners pay for factoring services. In general, the greatest problem facing backcourt sustainability is not design, but finance.

The Council highlighted a problem some Govanhill residents have in simply accessing backcourts that are in otherwise good condition. Residents aren’t prepared to use the “dark, tortuous and horrible” accesses, however attractive the backcourt might be. There is therefore a “tragic” waste of clean, unused backcourts in the Govanhill area.

A further problem Glasgow Council highlighted as typical of Govanhill is the immigrant Slovakian population’s accepted practice of heaving rubbish over walls - even where bins are present. The problem is compounded by the practice of hanging thrown-out clothes to air in backcourts before being resold. The Council has introduced a special arrangement whereby rubbish and clothes are uplifted daily, and this has been achieved with no extra funding.

WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE

A meeting wasn’t held with officers from West Dunbartonshire Council. Following several attempts to identify officers who would meet with the study team, a telephone interview was carried out.


The Council holds very little information regarding backcourts.


The Council has no policies regarding the management of backcourts. The backcourts in which West Dunbartonshire Council has an interest are maintained by land services on a rota. Enforcement officers are sent to properties to solve the problems that arise.

Identification of Best Practice Models

In order to improve council properties, West Dunbartonshire Council are working on a new programme, to replace the Community Ownership Programme. There is no active programme of environmental improvement in privately owned areas.


11

EAST DUNBARTONSHIRE


There are few designated backcourts in East Dunbartonshire Council’s stock; most are open, and not for the exclusive use of residents. As such backcourts are not an issue for the Council, and very little information is held by them.


Maintenance is recorded as written information, but the Council is adopting a new management system called ‘Servitor’. The few backcourts that exist are maintained as open space by Greenspace, a Council team. There is no separate cost for backcourt maintenance charged to tenants.


There are no specific policies or projects committed to backcourts.


The prevalent building form in the Council housing stock is the terraced semi, with open instead of communal gardens. There are also high levels of owner occupation, with owned front and back gardens.

NORTH LANARKSHIRE


North Lanarkshire Council have contracted out a stock condition survey to a firm of consultants was published in the summer of 2008. The Council’s stock was broken down into two areas:

− common repairs, i.e. condition and life-span of drying areas, recycling bins, stairs etc;

− an environmental assessment based on the visual quality of the area.

The survey was conducted using a method called ‘cloning’. Data was collected on 6,000 of the 144,000 households in their area. The information was then ‘cloned’ to all properties with similar characteristics.


The Council have compiled a 300 page Maintenance Programme: ‘Housing Services Procedure,’ which outlines how estates are managed and maintained.

The Council is working to install factoring arrangements in a number of flatted blocks that are wholly owner-occupied/private rented. Woodville Rise is a prime example of this, where historic factoring arrangements have failed to be sustainable. The Council has successfully introduced factoring to one part of this estate and are in the early stages of consultation with owners in the remaining section. Much of this is dependent on the willingness of owners and the ability to trace ownership as often Sasines and Land Register info is not up to date. This project involves Alex Miller from the Housing Private Sector Team and the Environmental Services Landlord Registration Team.

The Council currently spends approximately £1m per annum on improving backcourts/ environmental works. 25 locations are currently on the list of works


12

to be progressed, though additional areas have been identified for which committee approval has not yet been sought.

SOUTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL

General Notes

South Lanarkshire Council have sold the vast majority of their housing stock, with 70%-80% of some estates now privately owned under ‘right to buy’. It is these areas of mixed tenure, where the Council owns less than 25%, that South Lanarkshire Council highlight as the biggest problem facing its backcourt maintenance.


No information exists specific to backcourts. The Council’s backcourts form part of an estate inspection (or “journey cycle”) taking place two or three times a year, of which there are physical records, but not in one central place. South Lanarkshire Council are making an on-line spreadsheet to record these estate inspections, and any issues they uncover, but it is not readily available at this time. At this stage, information regarding backcourts is reliant on officer knowledge.


There is no dedicated policy on the management of the Council’s backcourts, and the Council is not notified about private backcourts unless there is anti-social behaviour.

RENFREWSHIRE COUNCIL


The housing department can identify council and private owned housing stock, while the planning and environmental departments possess information regarding condition.


Works are carried out by Environmental Services and include 8 grass cuts per year and 2 hedge cuts where appropriate during the growing season - i.e. April to October.

Renfrewshire Council manages its own backcourts, using the Performance Management Guide ‘Estate Management’ to determine how often their team of housing officers inspect their housing stock, and how the properties should be graded. The Council now uses hand-held computers, showing a photograph of what the garden should look like. The aim here is to catch things at an early stage.

The Council also has a Commons Maintenance Programme, which is only for the use of council tenants living around the backcourt. There are minimal charges, and subsidies for those on housing benefit.


The Council runs a Garden Assistance Scheme, which receives a £380,000 annual subsidy for tenant led projects. Garden Assistance is available to Council


13

tenants where: every adult in the household is 60 years of age or over; every adult in the household aged between 18 and 59 are disabled and unable to look after the garden. Applicants must provide supporting medical information from a medical practitioner.

EAST RENFREWSHIRE COUNCIL


In 2003, East Renfrewshire Council conducted a stock condition survey of all Council owned housing costing £60,000, including open spaces like backcourts. Housing Services also hold current and historical information in ‘house files’ and ‘block files’ – a file for each house and block, showing what work has been carried out, and what needs doing. In addition to this, the Council records the interests people have expressed at public meetings with regard to open spaces and their development. The Council also possesses up to date GIS maps and aerial photography of its housing stock. There is an ongoing large-scale greenspace audit.


On the 1st of April this year the Council began a ‘Common Area Maintenance Pilot’, a maintenance scheme for common and garden areas. It provides a year long maintenance scheme for communal backcourts free of charge for all residents - both council tenants and owner occupiers. The Council has ongoing maintenance contracts with cleansing companies, and there is a longer term aspiration towards formalised estate management plans.


For general environment improvements, the Council asks residents to plot where they live on a map, and then to highlight what they like, what they don’t like, and what they hadn’t thought about using red, amber or green pens. The Council employs this system to improve environment, access, and safety in its housing stock, in the hope of making their properties enjoyable places to live.


In East Renfrewshire’s view, the most important issue regarding their backcourts is the problem of mixed tenure, because titles are broken up – e.g. titles for bin store, washing line space, etc.

INVERCLYDE COUNCIL

Inverclyde Council transferred its entire stock to a newly created housing association River Clyde Homes, RCH. RCH holds 5,000 properties in communal properties, and within that there are 2,000 owners.


Local Authority does not hold information on tenement backcourts. Riverclyde Homes holds anecdotal information which has not been categorised.


No money was included in the transfer for ‘environmentals’, and therefore environmental improvements are a low priority. Some funds for small-scale


14

environmental improvements to backcourts are available from the Value Added Tax Saving Agreement, due to River Clyde Home’s charitable status.

RCH have a landscape maintenance contract, e.g. for grass cutting at their sites. The contracts do not cover the maintenance of hard landscape. RCH do not have Estate Management Policies in place but are progressing towards them – they will put the responsibility on residents to look after backcourts.


The type of buildings in the area vary from ‘traditional tenements’ to ‘high rise’ to ‘4 in a block’ to non-traditional concrete clad residencies built in the 1960s and 1970s. Within RCH stock, there are very few backcourt areas, and therefore little information is held. The majority of the backcourts are hard landscaped, and of a poor standard; the traditional drying areas, open bin areas have remained the same since they were built.


15

Key Findings

IDENTIFICATION OF SAMPLE SITES

The plan below shows the location of the twelve sample sites. Five sites were chosen in the City of Glasgow, and one in each of the seven other local authorities which make up the Glasgow Clyde Valley area.

The samples sites were chosen from over 60 sites proposed by local authorities and housing associations in the Glasgow Clyde Valley area.

The twelve sites were selected by the study steering group to represent all the types of tenemental housing across the area, i.e. the variety of building form, layout, socio-economic and tenure. They are not intended to be representative of the tenemental stock in each local authority area.

Plan showing the 12 Sample Sites chosen for the Study.

SUMMARY OF RESPONSE FROM LOCAL AUTHORITIES & HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS

The eight local authorities in the study area have different approaches to the backcourts. Some councils give higher priority to backcourt improvements than others - notably North Lanarkshire Council, which is spending £I million per year on backcourt and environmental improvements.

The interviews found that some local authorities West Dunbartonshire, East Dunbartonshire, South Lanarkshire possess very little information about backcourts in their area. Others such as City of Glasgow have a wealth of anecdotal information, but this has not been collated in any referenceable database. Inverclyde have transferred all of their stock to Riverclyde Homes which again holds anecdotal information. North Lanarkshire, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire were the only local authorities to possess significant information on backcourts in their area, however this tended to be Council owned backcourts. Only North Lanarkshire have sought to gather information in a systematic way about the condition of backcourts across all ownership types.

All the local authorities aspire to backcourt improvement, recognizing their value to residents, but scarce funds have driven regeneration on to different levels of


16

priority. In fact, when the local authorities did reveal a motive for taking part in our survey, it was invariably in hope of increasing funds for regeneration.

While each backcourt recommended by the local authority has its own particular quantity and quality of problems, a recurrent complaint arises: namely residents not taking responsibility for their communal areas. This lack of ownership causes a variety of issues, ranging from misuse of bin stores (e.g. the widespread practice of dumping bulk items) to the problems of making private tenants pay for maintenance and improvements. The local authorities are divided by their solutions to these difficulties, if indeed they have any answers, or any funding.


17

Part 1b - Survey of Sample Sites INTRODUCTION

In Part 1b we have presented the findings of the survey of the twelve sample sites chosen by the study steering group to be representative of the different site types and tenures found across the Glasgow Clyde Valley area. The sites are not intended to be representative of the local authority areas in which they are located.

The site surveys were carried out in June 2008. Features included in the survey plans include condition of the greens, litter, location of bin stores, access, dog fouling, trees and shrubs.

For each site we have provided a description of the site, a survey plan showing the key features of the site, and representative photographs.

We have also provided a summary of the greenspace quality survey, and some key findings of the survey of households around each site. These are discussed in further detail in Parts 1c and 1d following this section.

Please Note:The sample sites were chosen to be representative of the diversity of site types across the Glasgow & Clyde Valley. They are not intended to be representative of the local authority area in which they are located.


18

Glasgow West Sample Site

Description

This site of 18 privately owned, 4 storey, pre-war tenements is located in the West end of Glasgow, 10 minutes walk from the Botanic Gardens and Victoria Park. A children’s playground is situated across the road.

The backcourts are almost completely enclosed by the tenements, except for one small break in the perimeter, which is sealed from the street by a high brick wall. Access is therefore granted only through the tenements themselves, via locked passageways.

A line of closed, brick bin stores sits in the centre of the complex, but the lack of a large entrance to the backcourts, and the two flights of stairs necessary to gain access through each tenement, make refuse difficult to collect by the Council. Individual backcourts are divided by waist height iron fences, with no adjoining gates.

Large and abundant trees make the backcourts a sheltered and attractive place to use, and added to that every backcourt has cut grass and is free of litter. There are few signs of neglect (rubbish has been piled outside the bin store in one backcourt), but equally few signs of overt use: some possess drying poles, a few contain flower beds, and one has a seating area. There is scarcely any attractive planting, and little biodiversity; two backcourts have been completely gravelled over, perhaps because they receive little sunshine. The adjoining tenements to these gravelled backcourts also contain businesses on the ground floor.

Site Info

Tenements: 18

Households: 130

Tenure: Owner occupied/private rented

Site Code: GCW3

Address/s Airlie St, Turnberry Rd, Dudley Dr, Clarence Dr, Glasgow.


19

Site Plan

The plan shows the condition and features of the Glasgow West sample site. The plan can be viewed in greater detail by opening the original file which is in the ‘Site Plans’ folder of the CD which accompanies this report. The file name is ‘GCW’.


20

Site Images

These and other site images can be found in the CD which accompanies the report - CD Images, Photos, GCW.

Gravelled backcourt.

Biodiversity allowing birdlife, but minimal plantings.

Secluded, attractive backcourt.


21

Greenspace Quality Survey

The chart below shows how the sample site scored in terms of Greenspace Quality across all sub categories. The categories were scored from 0 to 5, with a 0 score meaning very poor or non-existent facilities, a score of 5 represents very good facilities. A full explanation of the categories is provided in Section 3 - Findings of Greenspace Survey.

Access to backcourt

Quality of paths

Disabled access

Connectivity btn backcourts

Landscape quality

Respite from Noise

Solar aspect

Maintenance

Biodiversity

Recycling

Recreation

Social

Bicycle storage

Food growing

Secure

Surveillance

Anti-social

Lighting

0 1 2 3 4 5

1.0

4.9

4.8

5.0

2.7

1.0

2.7

2.6

1.9

2.8

3.6

3.2

3.7

2.8

1.0

1.0

5.0

4.0

GC W


22

Household Survey

The tables below give selected findings from the questionnaire survey of households around the site.

The site had a relatively good response rate of 8%. Bucking the trend across the other sites GC W had a strong representation from the 36-45 and 66-over age ranges. No families or shared flats responded.

8 households indicated that they might be interested in food growing in the backcourts. A similar number might be willing to volunteer in a backcourt regeneration project.

It appears that a large number of the backcourts around this site may be privately factored, and that residents are relatively happy with the service.

Response

Respondents 11

Total 130

% 8%

Age Range

21-36 0

36-45 5

46-66 1

66-over 4

Household

Single person 4

Couple 7

Family 0

Shared flat 0

Food Growing

Yes and I've got exp 2

Yes but no exp. 1

Maybe 5

No 2

Who Maintains

I do 0

One of residents 0

Group 1

Factor 9

Council 1

HA 0

Nobody 1

Quality of Service

Very poor 1

Poor 1

No opinion 1

Good 3

Very good 0

Volunteer

Yes 5

No 1

Maybe 4


23

Glasgow North Sample Site

Description

This site of sixteen, pre-war, 4 storey tenements is located in the north west of Glasgow - five minutes walk away from the Botanic Gardens, and playing fields in Ruchill Park. The bottom of every backcourt leads onto a central, cobbled road running nearly the length of the site, and from here refuse is collected from the open bin stores.

Some backcourts have lockable gates onto this central lane, but most do not, and litter has been blown the length of it. There is a large bin store at the road end for the use of the tenements, and it is in this area that litter and neglect are at their worst.

The shelter and privacy afforded by the trees, the hedges dividing most of the backcourts, and the lack of traffic noise make this site a pleasant place for those residents who wish to positively use their gardens. Many have incorporated seating areas.

Two backcourts are overgrown ‘meadows’, with uneven, mossy slab paths and grimy bin stores, but even these possess potential for improvement. The backcourts at the messy end of the lane are drab and functional, consisting of cut grass, drying poles and the ubiquitous uncared for shrubbery. Nos. 4,6 and 8 Mingarry Street have created positive spaces, planting flower beds, a fruit tree and compost heaps.

Site Info

Tenements: 18

Households: 140

Tenure: Owner occupied/private rented

Site Code: GCN2

Address/s Queen Margeret Dr, Kelbourne St, Mingarry St & Clouston St, Glasgow.


24

Site Plan

The plan below shows the condition and features of the Glasgow North sample site. The plan can be viewed in greater detail by opening the original file which is in the ‘Site Plans’ folder of the CD which accompanies this report. The file name is ‘GCN’.

See North arrow for orientation of site.


25

Site Images

These and other site images can be found in the CD which accompanies the report - CD Images, Photos, GCN.

Littered central lane, with bulk dumping.

A secluded, untended backcourt.

Pleasant, secluded seating area with good biodiversity.

Overgrown lane, with littered bin stores.

Badly maintained, badly littered.


26



Access to backcourt

Quality of paths

Disabled access


Landscape quality

Respite from Noise

Solar aspect

Maintenance

Biodiversity

Recycling

Recreation

Social

Bicycle storage

Food growing

Secure

Surveillance

Anti-social

Lighting

0 1 2 3 4 5

1.0

4.5

4.9

2.3

1.9

1.0

2.1

2.4

2.9

2.5

1.9

3.4

3.9

2.5

1.0

1.0

2.6

4.0

GC N


27

Household Survey


The site had a relatively good response rate of 8%. Bucking the trend across the other sites (and like GC W), GC N had a strong representation from the 36-45.

6 households indicated that they might be interested in food growing in the backcourts, and there was some interest in volunteering.

There was a mix of Council and private factoring, but half of the respondents maintain their own backcourt.

Response

Respondents 6

Total 140

% 4.3%

Age Range

21-36 0

36-45 5

46-66 1

66-over 0

Household

Single person 0

Couple 5

Family 0

Shared flat 1

Food Growing


Yes but no exp. 1

Maybe 1

Both Yes's 5

Both Yes's & Maybe 6

No 0

Who Maintains

I do 4

One of residents 0

Group 0

Factor 2

Council 1

HA 0

Nobody 0

Quality of Service

Very poor 1

Poor 1

No opinion 0

Good 1

Very good 0

Volunteer

Yes 2

No 0

Maybe 3


28

Glasgow East Sample Site

Description

This site was recommended by Shettleston Housing Association,and it is composed of ten post war tenements. Tollcross Park and playing fields are located five minutes’ walk away. Almost all the residents are housing association tenants, with the exception of two owner occupiers in no. 43 and 73.

There is a central sculpted greenspace of mounded cut grass with small trees. This space is for the exclusive use of the residents, and can only be accessed via a low iron gate (when not missing) at the end of each backcourt. The backcourts can only be accessed through the tenements, and all possess lockable doors.

At the end of each backcourt are the open, brick bin stores, and consequently the wind has blown litter across the complex. Rubbish is often piled on top of the bin stores, and there are areas of bulk dumping. The combined effect of strewn litter, visible refuse and lurking dog excrement spoils what should be a pleasant and useful living environment.

Every backcourt contains drying greens, but save two trampolines in one example, the residents show little sign of using their cut grass backcourt. There is little biodiversity.

Site Info

Tenements: 10

Households: 60

Tenure: Shettleston Housing Association

Site Code: SHHA1

Address/s Old Shettleston Rd, Darleith St & Denbeck St Glasgow.


29

Site Plan

The plan below shows the condition and features of the Glasgow East sample site. The plan can be viewed in greater detail by opening the original file which is in the ‘Site Plans’ folder of the CD which accompanies this report. The file name is ‘GCE’.

See North arrow for orientation of site.


30

Site Images

These and other site images can be found in the CD which accompanies the report - CD Images, Photos, GCE.

Functional drying areas.

Open bin store - littered.

Wind blown litter.

Cut grass, showing dividing fences and evidence of play.

Littered garden caused by open, dirty bin stores.

Sculpted central wooded area and green.


31



Access to backcourt

Quality of paths

Disabled access


Landscape quality

Respite from Noise

Solar aspect

Maintenance

Biodiversity

Recycling

Recreation

Social

Bicycle storage

Food growing

Secure

Surveillance

Anti-social

Lighting

0 1 2 3 4 5

3.0

3.2

5.0

2.0

1.9

1.0

1.1

1.4

2.0

1.6

1.8

3.3

3.0

2.0

4.0

1.0

2.2

3.6

GC E


32

Household Survey


The site had a low response rate, 2 of the 60 residents, both of which were over 66. Their backcourts are maintained by a housing association, a service they are happy with. They weren’t interested in food growing, though one said they would be willing to volunteer.

Response

Respondents 2

Total 60

% 3.3%

Age Range

21-36 0

36-45 0

46-66 0

66-over 2

Household

Single person 0

Couple 1

Family 1

Shared flat 0

Food Growing


Yes but no exp. 0

Maybe 0

Both Yes's 0


No 2

Volunteer

Yes 1

No 1

Maybe 0

Who Maintains

I do 0

One of residents 0

Group 0

Factor 0

Council 0

HA 2

Nobody 0

Children Yes No

0-5 years 2 0

6-12 years 1 0

13-16 years 0 1

All children 0 0

Quality of Service

Very poor 0

Poor 0

No opinion 0

Good 2

Very good 0


33

Glasgow South West Sample Site

Description

This site of twenty eight, mixed tenure, 3 storey, pre-war tenements is located in Glasgow’s Cessnock area, sandwiched between the M8 and Paisley Road West. There are approximately 200 households, and Kinning Park and Festival Park are less than five minutes’ walk away.

The site is divided into four separate groups of backcourts, bisected by a gravel/tarmac road. Two large, open backcourts belong to the tenements on Clifford Street/Clifford Lane, and two belong to the long row of tenements on Paisley Road West. These latter tenements have businesses on the ground floor, and there are also businesses on the central lane.

Access to the backcourts can only be gained through the tenements, and most possess lockable back doors. Access is obstructed in one or two examples by piled rubbish. Refuse is collected from the two large backcourts on Clifford Street from the bin stores backing onto the central lane. The remaining two backcourt clusters on Paisley Road West are enclosed by buildings, or other backcourts, meaning refuse must be collected from the street at the front of the tenements.

The two Clifford Street backcourts function, it seems, exclusively as drying greens, because there are no signs of recreation or interaction and little biodiversity. The grass is either cut short, or left as a meadow, which suggests that some residents have taken responsibility for ‘their bit’.

The two Paisley Road West backcourt clusters are a mixed bag, ranging from littered weedy meadows dumped with bulk, to the highest standard of garden. One backcourt in particular had been sculpted to best utilise the available space: a vegetable patch, flower bed, attractive bushes, a lawn and sheltered seating area. On the other end of the scale, one backcourt exhibited perhaps the worst example: overgrown weeds, litter, broken glass and towering piles of bulk. The backcourts are separated by waist height iron fences, and there are no trees, making the poor conditions of the backcourts particularly visible.

Site Info

Tenements: 28

Households: 200

Tenure: Glasgow Council/Owner occupied/Private rented

Site Code: GCSW1

Address/s Paisley Road West, Percy St, Clifford St, Clifford Pl & Clifford Lane, Glasgow.


34

Site Plan

The plan below shows the condition and features of the Glasgow South West sample site. The plan can be viewed in greater detail by opening the original file which is in the ‘Site Plans’ folder of the CD which accompanies this report. The file name is ‘GCSW’.

See North arrow for orientation.


35

Site Images

These and other site images can be found in the CD which accompanies the report - CD Images, Photos, GCSW.

Shared backcourt, used for drying.

Unkempt backcourt, with bulk dumping.

Weeds and vegetable patch, looking through to excellently tended and used backcourt.

Overgrown, bulk dumping - worst example.

Overgrown grass; extreme bulk dumping.

Secluded garden, with bin store and drying poles.


36

Greenspace Survey


Access to backcourt

Quality of paths

Disabled access


Landscape quality

Respite from Noise

Solar aspect

Maintenance

Biodiversity

Recycling

Recreation

Social

Bicycle storage

Food growing

Secure

Surveillance

Anti-social

Lighting

0 1 2 3 4 5

1.0

3.8

4.7

3.5

2.0

1.0

1.7

1.5

1.0

1.6

1.7

2.8

2.3

1.4

2.3

1.6

1.4

3.7

GC SW


37

Household Survey


The response from this site was a little under the average at 6.0%. Like Glasgow West most respondents are aged between 21-36 and over 66. Most are single households.

The majority of respondents are interested in food growing and volunteering. Amoungst respondents, here is an even split between backcourts maintained by residents and those maintained by a factor.

Response

Respondents 12

Total 200

% 6.0%

Age Range

21-36 1

36-45 5

46-66 1

66-over 4

Household

Single person 8

Couple 3

Family 0

Shared flat 0

Food Growing


Yes but no exp. 2

Maybe 4

Both Yes's 6


No 2

Who Maintains

I do 1

One of residents 4

Group 3

Factor 4

Council 1

HA 0

Nobody 4

Quality of Service

Very poor 0

Poor 0

No opinion 1

Good 1

Very good 0

Children Yes No

0-5 years 8 1

6-12 years 6 2

13-16 years 4 3

All children 4 3

Volunteer

Yes 9

No 0

Maybe 2


38

Glasgow South East Sample Site

Description

This site of seventeen, mixed tenure, pre-war, 4 storey tenements is located in the Govanhill area of Glasgow, less than two minutes walk from the extensive Queen’s Park, which contains football pitches, bowling greens, a loch and a golf course. The site contains approximately 140 households, and there are businesses on the ground floors of half of the tenements.

The backcourts are accessible through the tenements themselves, of which some possess lockable doors, some unlockable doors, and some have no back doors at all. Some passageways are also completely blocked by refuse and furniture. The second access route into the backcourts is via a padlocked, tall, galvanised metal gate at the north end, which the Council unlock to collect rubbish. The gate leads onto a central tarmac road connecting all the backcourts, and it is badly strewn with litter, bulk and dog fouling.

Brick bin stores (not big enough to house blue recycling bins) are located at the ends of each backcourt, and the bins can be wheeled through a gap in the brick/iron fence walls onto the central road to be collected by the Council. The impression gained on this road is one of neglect, anti-social behaviour and being rundown. Clearing the backcourts of litter must be a constant occupation.

The condition of the backcourts ranges from dereliction (meadows, overgrown weeds etc.), to monoculture cut grass, to positive cultivation. A third have flower beds (some neglected), and two backcourts (nos. 405 and 90) are using the land positively as attractive gardens, whether by planting diverse plants, or by building a vegetable patch and compost heap.

All the backcourts possess drying greens. One elderly resident hanging out her washing explained how unsatisfactory the backcourts were to her: “They’re a M.E.S.S. - mess! S.O.S.”

Site Info

Tenements: 17

Households: 140

Tenure: Govanhill HA/Owner occupied/Private rented

Site Code: GOVHA 3

Address/s Victoria Rd, Allison St, Westmoreland St & Dixon Ave, Glasgow


39

Site Plan

The plan below shows the condition and features of the Glasgow South East sample site. The plan can be viewed in greater detail by opening the original file which is in the ‘Site Plans’ folder of the CD which accompanies this report. The file name is ‘GCSE’.

See North arrow for orientation.


40

Site Images

These and other site images can be found in the CD which accompanies the report - CD Images, Photos, GCSE.

Connecting road, unpleasantly littered with refuse, dog mess and bulk dumping.

Overgrown grass next to well maintained, cultivated backcourt.

Bin stores spilling litter and bulk into lane.

Open bin stores, with gate access to central lane.

Littered grass with toys.


41

Greenspace Survey


Access to backcourt

Quality of paths

Disabled access


Landscape quality

Respite from Noise

Solar aspect

Maintenance

Biodiversity

Recycling

Recreation

Social

Bicycle storage

Food growing

Secure

Surveillance

Anti-social

Lighting

0 1 2 3 4 5

1.0

3.6

5.0

2.1

2.5

1.0

2.1

1.9

2.8

1.9

2.2

2.4

5.0

2.3

2.0

1.0

2.3

3.4

GC SE


42

Household Survey


The Glasgow SE site got a very good response from residents, half of which were between 36-45, the remainder 46 and over. Most of the respondents maintain their own own backcourts.

A dozen or so residents were interested in food growing and volunteering in the backcourts.

Response

Respondents 19

Total 140

% 13.6%

Age Range

21-36 0

36-45 8

46-66 3

66-over 4

Household

Single person 8

Couple 6

Family 4

Shared flat 1

Food Growing


Yes but no exp. 6

Maybe 3

Both Yes's 9


No 7

Children Yes No

0-5 years 13 4

6-12 years 13 4

13-16 years 8 8

All children 11 4

Who Maintains

I do 0

One of residents 11

Group 3

Factor 2

Council 0

HA 0

Nobody 3

Quality of Service

Very poor 1

Poor 0

No opinion 1

Good 0

Very good 0

Volunteer

Yes 11

No 3

Maybe 3


43

West Dunbartonshire Sample Site

Description

This site of 60 households in 2/3 storey post-war tenements is located in the Drumry area of Clydebank, across the road from a large greenspace and playground, and within 5 minutes walk of playing fields.

The site can be divided into three backcourt clusters.

Nos. 200, 202 and 204 Montrose street - the tenements recommended by West Dunbartonshire Council - represent the site’s worst backcourts. The flats on each stair share the backcourt. The backcourts are overgrown and weedy. Each backcourt is divided by hedges, there is little evidence of use by the residents. Two backcourts do contain drying poles, but none are free of litter or dog mess. There are also issues of bulk dumping. Access to the backcourts is gained through the tenements.

The backcourts on 90-93 Onslow Road are shared between the flats at each stair, but each flat has its own drying green divided by slab paths. The backcourts are in the main neatly cut and uniform in design: i.e. open brick bin stores on either side of the back doors, drying greens and regular slab paths. The backcourt attached to each tenement is divided by waist high iron fences. Some backcourts are used for play, as shown by the trampolines. In fact, the only observed use was a dog out to do its business. Again access is only gained through the tenements, which have lockable doors.

Nos. 170, 172 and 174 Montrose Street have backcourts divided by hedges into separate gardens for each flat, which are sometimes guarded by gates or wooden fences. Running parallel to the tenement is a grass alley from which each separate garden can be accessed. These gardens show a great degree of personalisation; some are used for recreation, showing trampolines, swings, benches and slides - but equally some are completely neglected, weedy, overgrown and piled with litter and bulk. Roughly half of these backcourts are purely functional, with drying poles and cut grass only. Access can only be gained through the tenements.

Site Info

Tenements: 10

Households: 60

Tenure: Council tenants (majority)/Private owned

Site Code: WDUN1

Address/s Montrose St & Onslow Rd, Clydebank


44

Site Plan

The plan below shows the condition and features of the West Dunbartonshire sample site. The plan can be viewed in greater detail by opening the original file which is in the ‘Site Plans’ folder of the CD which accompanies this report. The file name is ‘WDUN’.


45

Site Images

These and other site images can be found in the CD which accompanies the report - CD Images, Photos, WDUN.

Neglected grassed area, used for drying.

Drying greens.

Drying greens, well to badly maintained.

Bulk dumping; unmaintained grass/patio.

Secluded gardens, used for play.

Play and social interaction.


46

Greenspace Survey


Access to backcourt

Quality of paths

Disabled access


Landscape quality

Respite from Noise

Solar aspect

Maintenance

Biodiversity

Recycling

Recreation

Social

Bicycle storage

Food growing

Secure

Surveillance

Anti-social

Lighting

0 1 2 3 4 5

3.0

3.2

5.0

1.7

2.0

1.0

2.1

2.4

1.7

1.6

1.9

4.1

4.0

1.9

1.0

1.0

1.4

4.0

W DUN


47

Household Survey


There was a good response rate from this site (10%). This is the first site to have a majority of families responding. It appears that the respondents share the responsibility of maintaining the backcourt, though a local housing association and the Council have a role at some backcourts, one of which was apparently doing a poor job!

There was relatively less interest in volunteering and food growing at this site.

Response

Respondents 6

Total 60

% 10.0%

Age Range

21-36 0

36-45 4

46-66 0

66-over 2

Household

Single person 0

Couple 1

Family 5

Shared flat 0

Food Growing


Yes but no exp. 1

Maybe 1

Both Yes's 1


No 4

Children Yes No

0-5 years 5 0

6-12 years 3 1

13-16 years 1 4

All children 2 0

Who Maintains

I do 1

One of residents 1

Group 4

Factor 0

Council 1

HA 1

Nobody 2

Quality of Service

Very poor 1

Poor 0

No opinion 0

Good 0

Very good 0

Volunteer

Yes 2

No 0

Maybe 4


48

North Lanarkshire Sample Site

Description

136-139 Sunnyside Road, a row of four, 3 storey, post-war tenements in the centre of Coatbridge, is within a short walk of two parks and playing fields. Each tenement block has 6 households, making 24 households in total. All are council owned, except one flat in each of the nos. 137 and 139. Sunnyside Road is a busy route in and out of Coatbridge, and there is little respite from the traffic noise in the backcourts.

Each backcourt is accessed through a lockable door in the tenements, but once in the complex any backcourt can be entered via a back path. This slab path is mossy, weedy and badly littered at one end, but the tidier end holds one tenement’s black and blue wheelie bins.

Steps then lead up to each backcourt, which are divided into two - one half for three households. These halves are either divided by low iron fences/concrete walls and open gates , or by nothing at all. Half of the backcourts possess a small patio area, which serves as an area for seating or a shed, and three contain cut grass and drying greens.

The backcourt at no. 136 is the least tidy and maintained, with overgrown weeds and flower bed. No. 137 displays an impressive ability to pack multiple features into a small space: flower beds, vegetable patch, seating area, BBQ, tool storage, drying greens and a lawn to stretch out. In addition to these features, there are trees in this backcourt to afford greater privacy.

Site Info

Tenements: 4

Households: 24

Tenure: Council tenants/2 owner occupiers

Site Code: NLAN5

Address/s Sunnyside Rd, Coatbridge.


49

Site Plan

The plan below shows the condition and features of the North Lanarkshire sample site. The plan can be viewed in greater detail by opening the original file which is in the ‘Site Plans’ folder of the CD which accompanies this report. The file name is ‘NLAN’.


50

Site Images

These and other site images can be found in the CD which accompanies the report - CD Images, Photos, NLAN.

Compact garden with patio, seating, flower bed and drying poles, also showing connecting gate.

Neglected bed; long grass.

Long grass, neglected beds but signs of use.

Littered path connecting backcourts and tenement back doors..

An excellent backcourt: tended, cultivated and designed to be maximally useful in a small space.


51

Greenspace Survey


Access to backcourt

Quality of paths

Disabled access


Landscape quality

Respite from Noise

Solar aspect

Maintenance

Biodiversity

Recycling

Recreation

Social

Bicycle storage

Food growing

Secure

Surveillance

Anti-social

Lighting

0 1 2 3 4 5

2.0

3.8

5.0

3.0

3.0

1.0

3.0

2.5

0.8

2.8

2.8

5.0

2.0

2.8

4.0

1.0

2.5

4.0

N LAN


52

Household Survey

There was only one respondent from this site, a low turn out. He/she maintained their own green, wasn’t interested in food growing or volunteering.

Response

Respondents 1

Total 24

% 4.2%

Age Range

21-36 0

36-45 0

46-66 0

66-over 0

Household

Single person 1

Couple 0

Family 0

Shared flat 0

Food Growing


Yes but no exp. 0

Maybe 0

Both Yes's 0


No 1

Children Yes No

0-5 years 1 0

6-12 years 1 0

13-16 years 1 0

All children 1 0

Who Maintains

I do 1

One of residents 0

Group 0

Factor 0

Council 0

HA 0

Nobody 0

Quality of Service

Very poor 0

Poor 0

No opinion 0

Good 0

Very good 0

Volunteer

Yes 0

No 1

Maybe 0


53

South Lanarkshire Sample Site

Description

The site is located in the centre of Rutherglen, sandwiched between the main street and extensive railway lines. Beyond a neighbouring graveyard, there is open greenspace (with playing fields) 1 km to the west.

The backcourts are surrounding by two 3 storey tenement blocks, one long 4 storey block, and a row of 6 attached houses. All 60 households were built in the last 10 years. In the centre lies a sculpted landscape of paths, lawns and shrubbery, and a car park accessed via a security gate through one of the tenements. Pedestrians can enter freely, and a children’s playground is located within the complex.

A path runs around the central features, onto which each backcourt opens, via low, unlockable iron gates. Every backcourt is of a uniform design, divided by low iron railings, and composed of a concrete slab path, cut grass, drying poles and a brick bin store.

While every backcourt showed evidence of being cared for (i.e. neat and tidy, with the odd item of wind-blown litter), none showed any signs of individuality or being “lived in”. There was no biodiversity (one had a shed, but no plants), virtually no indications of social interaction (one had a bench facing the car park), and no traces of recreation.

Site Info

Tenements: 8

Households: 62

Tenure: Rutherglen and Cambuslang HA tenants

Site Code: R&CHA2

Address/s Moray Ct, Queen St & King St, Rutherglen.


54

Site Plan

The plan below shows the condition and features of the South Lanarkshire sample site. The plan can be viewed in greater detail by opening the original file which is in the ‘Site Plans’ folder of the CD which accompanies this report. The file name is ‘SLAN’.


55

Site Images

These and other site images can be found in the CD which accompanies the report - CD Images, Photos, SLAN.

Neat, uniform, featureless backcourts.

Private gardens.

Central car park and gated entrance.

Bin store, with unhoused wheelie bins.

Drying poles, bin stores, cut grass areas.

Play park, showing low dividing fences.


56

Greenspace Survey


Access to backcourt

Quality of paths

Disabled access


Landscape quality

Respite from Noise

Solar aspect

Maintenance

Biodiversity

Recycling

Recreation

Social

Bicycle storage

Food growing

Secure

Surveillance

Anti-social

Lighting

0 1 2 3 4 5

3.0

5.0

5.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

4.0

3.8

4.0

2.0

4.0

1.0

5.0

5.0

S LAN


57

Household Survey

A good turnout of 6 respondents for a small site (9.7%), halfo fo which were interested in food growing and volunteering. All of the backcourts are maintained by the housing association, which provide a good service.

Response

Respondents 6

Total 62

% 9.7%

Age Range

21-36 0

36-45 2

46-66 1

66-over 2

Household

Single person 2

Couple 2

Family 2

Shared flat 0

Food Growing


Yes but no exp. 2

Maybe 0

Both Yes's 3


No 3

Children Yes No

0-5 years 6 0

6-12 years 2 0

13-16 years 0 2

All children 0 0

Who Maintains

I do 0

One of residents 0

Group 0

Factor 0

Council 0

HA 6

Nobody 0

Quality of Service

Very poor 0

Poor 0

No opinion 0

Good 2

Very good 1

Volunteer

Yes 1

No 1

Maybe 3


58

East Dunbartonshire Sample Site

Description

This site lies in a housing estate 5 mins walk from the centre of Kirkintilloch, various parks, the River Kelvin, and two playing fields. The site itself - comprised of 11 post-war tenements - is not short of greenspace either, with a large areas of cut grass and scrub in the centre, and a sculpted garden and seating area opposite the site.

37-95 Ivanhoe Drive maintained by Antonine Housing Association are in better condition than 1-23 and 97-133, in which Hillhead Housing Association tenants reside. Some of the households in 1-23 Border Way are derelict.

The backcourts for 1-23 and 97-133 can be accessed via a concrete path in their north west and north east corners. Joining these two access points, a paved path runs between high galvanised fences and brick walls (both broken in places). The foot of each backcourt joins on to this path by means of an unlockable iron gate (broken, or missing, in places), and by this route refuse can be removed for collection. There were open brick bin stores, all badly littering the paved backcourts, and sometimes overflowing with bulk dumping (e.g. burnt mattresses).

Drying poles were in evident use, but aside from long ago planted trees and shrubs, any biodiversity owes its existence only to weeds growing through the concrete. Every backcourt showed abundant signs of disrepair, not places for recreation or social interaction. However, there are signs of use in the large central greenspace of cut grass, onto which all the backcourts lead. There are bushes, hedges and trees here, and goal posts.

Households nos. 37-95 are a different picture. Access to the backcourts can be gained only through the tenements, via lockable doors. Paths were reasonably maintained, the grass cut, and there was no obvious littering or bulk dumping (with one exception).

There were even a few signs of play and recreation (a trampoline, children’s toys, and table and chairs). However, no attractive plants - or indeed any biodiversity at all - gave the impression these backcourts afforded the residents little pleasure or affection.

Site Info

Tenements: 11

Households: 110

Tenure: Housing association tenants (majority) /owner occupiers

Site Code: ANTHA2

Address/s Border Way & Ivanhoe Dr, Kirkintilloch.


59

Site Plan

The plan below shows the condition and features of the East Dunbartonshire sample site. The plan can be viewed in greater detail by opening the original file which is in the ‘Site Plans’ folder of the CD which accompanies this report. The file name is ‘EDUN’.


60

Site Images

These and other site images can be found in the CD which accompanies the report - CD Images, Photos, EDUN.

Badly littered, and bulk dumping.

Neglected, very badly weeded garden.

Toys, litter and seating area or bulk dumping

Maintained path to drying poles/bin store.

Neat, maintained grass and drying area.

Well tended, pleasant communal drying green.


61

Greenspace Survey


Access to backcourt

Quality of paths

Disabled access


Landscape quality

Respite from Noise

Solar aspect

Maintenance

Biodiversity

Recycling

Recreation

Social

Bicycle storage

Food growing

Secure

Surveillance

Anti-social

Lighting

0 1 2 3 4 5

2.6

2.2

5.0

2.5

1.5

1.0

1.7

1.6

1.1

1.7

3.5

4.0

1.0

3.0

3.0

1.9

3.6

E DUN

Household Survey

No residents at this site responded to the survey.


62

Renfrewshire Sample Site

Description

The Todholm Terrace site in Paisley is composed of 9 Renfrewshire Council tenanted tenements, adding up to 54 households in all. The row backs onto a 300 by 50 metre greenspace of cut/rough grass spanning the crest of a hill, which holds a commanding view over Paisley and Clydebank.

On the north side of this open greenspace lies a row of 6 tenements on Todholm Road (two have been destroyed, two are derelict, and two now possess only one inhabited household each). Beyond these there is a substantial park further north, including football pitches and woodland, and Todholm School sits to the south across the adjacent busy (and noisy) A726.

Access to the backcourts can only be gained through lockable back doors within the tenements, and each is separated by waist-height wire net fences. Since both rows on the north and south side run along the slope of a hill, each backcourt was constructed into two tiers, slanting downwards towards steps leading down to the tenement. The lower tier is fitted with drying poles, and the upper tier is left open grass for recreation, but marks of usage were found in only two backcourts: a sheltered seating area (bench upturned), children’s toys and a vegetable patch.

Where there is habitation, condition ranges from mediocre to good; in all cases grass was cut, and each cleared of litter. However the impression remains, with a couple of exceptions, of backcourts unused and neglected by the tenants for whom they are maintained by the Council.

Site Info

Tenements: 11

Households: 54

Tenure: Council tenants

Site Code: REN4

Address/s Todholm Tr & Todholm Rd, Paisley


63

Site Plan

The plan below shows the condition and features of the Renfrewshire sample site. The plan can be viewed in greater detail by opening the original file which is in the ‘Site Plans’ folder of the CD which accompanies this report. The file name is ‘REN’.


64

Site Images

These and other site images can be found in the CD which accompanies the report - CD Images, Photos, REN.

Uniform, featureless grassed backcourt.

Iron fences separating backourts/central green.

Rough bordering backcourts and green.

Extensive central cut grass green.

Sloped gardens, with seating area/drying poles.

Wooded backcourt with play area.


65

Greenspace Survey


Access to backcourt

Quality of paths

Disabled access


Landscape quality

Respite from Noise

Solar aspect

Maintenance

Biodiversity

Recycling

Recreation

Social

Bicycle storage

Food growing

Secure

Surveillance

Anti-social

Lighting

0 1 2 3 4 5

2.0

3.6

4.0

3.5

3.2

1.0

3.0

2.4

1.7

3.1

3.3

2.9

1.7

1.0

1.0

1.1

3.6

REN


66

Household Survey

There was a very low turnout at this site, just one of 54 tenement households. However this one person was keen to grow veg and volunteer to improve the backcourts.

Response

Respondents 1

Total 54

% 1.9%

Age Range

21-36 0

36-45 1

46-66 0

66-over 0

Household

Single person 0

Couple 0

Family 1

Shared flat 0

Food Growing


Yes but no exp. 1

Maybe 0

Both Yes's 1


No 0

Children Yes No

0-5 years 1 0

6-12 years 1 0

13-16 years 1 0

All children 1 0

Who Maintains

I do 0

One of residents 0

Group 0

Factor 0

Council 1

HA 0

Nobody 0

Quality of Service

Very poor 0

Poor 0

No opinion 1

Good 0

Very good 0

Volunteer

Yes 1

No 0

Maybe 0


67

East Renfrewshire Sample Site

Description

This row of four Victorian mixed tenure tenements, each comprising four households (making 16 in total), is situated 5 minutes walk from the centre of Barrhead, and less than a minute away from a vast greenspace of fields, woodland and derelict industrial buildings.

The four backcourts are accessible in two ways: firstly via lockable rear doors within each tenement, and secondly by a single securable gate leading into an orchard running along the bottom of the backcourts at nos. 10 & 12. The orchard turns into another garden at the foot of the backcourt at no. 8. This gate leads on to an adjacent road to allow refuse to be collected from the bin stores, which are also located at the foot of each backcourt.

Every backcourt is connected to the orchard by small knee-height painted iron gates (some are missing), and the dividing fences are of an identical form. The backcourts at nos. 10 & 12 are further subdivided, with one quarter of the area partitioned by picket fences to afford a private garden to one bottom floor flat, with its own door leading on to it. The separate garden at the foot of no. 8 contains two sheds, and is, therefore, possibly shared by more than one household, although it is perhaps the least well tended.

No. 10 & 12 backcourts were of the highest condition, with cut grass and lawns, trimmed paths and no litter. There was also abundant evidence of use: benches and a BBQ for social interaction, a trampoline and toys for play, and a modest introduction of attractive plants. The backcourts at nos. 8 & 6, while less attended to, were nonetheless tidy and affording pleasant places for interaction and recreation. No. 8 had the longest grass, but the most positive biodiversity.

Site Info

Tenements: 4

Households: 16

Tenure: HA tenants/private ownership

Site Code: BARHA1

Address/s Barnes St, Barrhead.


68

Site Plan

The plan below shows the condition and features of the East Renfrewshire sample site. The plan can be viewed in greater detail by opening the original file which is in the ‘Site Plans’ folder of the CD which accompanies this report. The file name is ‘EREN’.


69

Site Images

These and other site images can be found in the CD which accompanies the report - CD Images, Photos, EREN.

Orchard connecting lane access to backcourts.

A neat, cut grass backcourt, but plain.

An overgrown bed, but tended grass.

Secluded garden with sheds and overgrown bed.

Vegetable/plant cultivation, play, drying, seating.

Low dividing fences enhancing interaction.


70

Greenspace Survey


Access to backcourt

Quality of paths

Disabled access


Landscape quality

Respite from Noise

Solar aspect

Maintenance

Biodiversity

Recycling

Recreation

Social

Bicycle storage

Food growing

Secure

Surveillance

Anti-social

Lighting

0 1 2 3 4 5

4.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

3.3

1.0

3.5

2.8

2.5

4.3

4.0

5.0

3.8

5.0

1.0

3.8

5.0

E REN


71

Household Survey

Perhaps because this site is so small the residents take a greater interest, in any case it gave the best response with 1 in 4

Response

Respondents 4

Total 16

% 25.0%

Age Range

21-36 0

36-45 2

46-66 1

66-over 1

Household

Single person 2

Couple 1

Family 1

Shared flat 0

Food Growing


Yes but no exp. 2

Maybe 0

Both Yes's 2


No 2

Children Yes No

0-5 years 3 1

6-12 years 2 2

13-16 years 2 2

All children 2 1

Who Maintains

I do 0

One of residents 1

Group 0

Factor 0

Council 0

HA 4

Nobody 0

Quality of Service

Very poor 1

Poor 0

No opinion 0

Good 2

Very good 1

Volunteer

Yes 3

No 0

Maybe 1


72

Inverclyde Sample Site

Description

The Inverclyde site, located in the centre of Greenock, has a perimeter of 9 mixed tenure, post-war, 3 storey tenements. Out of the 54 households, 38 are owner occupiers and 16 are Inverclyde Housing Association tenants. The site is located in the city centre, confined by the busy A8, shops and offices. However there is a recreational greenspace under 5 mins walking distance away.

There are two public access points on the south side, each fortified by broken iron gates and stone/iron fences, which then lead through small grassed areas to the tarmac backcourt. Access to the backcourts from within the tenements themselves is secured by lockable doors, but high steps make wheelchair access improbable.

The twelve individual backcourts are mostly divided by 3 ft high iron fences, which are either broken or missing in places to allow connectivity. All but two of the backcourts have been tarmac’d. Other dominant features are the 1280 litre bins (including recycling), and the drying poles (more than half without line).

Despite its barren and rundown appearance, the whole backcourt is nonetheless tidy, and householders at two of the tenements have attempted a positive use of space. One garden, bordered by a trimmed hedge, has been laid over with paving stones, tinted gravel and a flowerbed - albeit empty. The other garden is the complex’s only oasis of colour: straw fencing, yellow patio stones, an immaculate lawn and a tended flowerbed.

The owners visibly used this space for recreation (smoking, sitting, chatting), while the rest of the backcourt was observed only useful for drying washing.

Site Info

Tenements: 9

Households: 54

Tenure: HA tenants/owner occupiers

Site Code: INV2

Address/s Crown St, King St, High St, Greenock.

f


73

Site Plan

The plan below shows the condition and features of the Inverclyde sample site. The plan can be viewed in greater detail by opening the original file which is in the ‘Site Plans’ folder of the CD which accompanies this report. The file name is ‘INV’.


74

Site Images

These and other site images can be found in the CD which accompanies the report - CD Images, Photos, INV.

Grass growing through barren tarmac.

Broken iron fences, increasing connectivity.

Exit onto King St through walled grass area.

The site’s one tended garden.

Bulk dumping; 1280 litre bins

Exit onto King St through walled grass area.


75

Greenspace Survey


Access to backcourt

Quality of paths

Disabled access


Landscape quality

Respite from Noise

Solar aspect

Maintenance

Biodiversity

Recycling

Recreation

Social

Bicycle storage

Food growing

Secure

Surveillance

Anti-social

Lighting

0 1 2 3 4 5

1.0

4.0

5.0

1.0

1.2

1.0

1.0

3.0

2.2

3.1

3.0

1.0

4.0

1.0

2.0

4.0

INV


76

Household Survey


The Inverclyde site gave a good response rate at 11%. There was an even mix of responses from all age groups except the over 66’s. It appears that the backcourts are maintained by a combination of a local housing association and local authority. There was not a great enthusiasm for volunteering to improve the backcourts or grow food.

Response

Respondents 6

Total 54

% 11.1%

Age Range

21-36 0

36-45 0

46-66 0

66-over 2

Household

Single person 2

Couple 2

Family 2

Shared flat 0

Food Growing


Yes but no exp. 1

Maybe 2

Both Yes's 1


No 3

Children Yes No

0-5 years 4 2

6-12 years 3 2

13-16 years 2 3

All children 2 2

Who Maintains

I do 0

One of residents 0

Group 0

Factor 0

Council 3

HA 2

Nobody 1

Quality of Service

Very poor 0

Poor 0

No opinion 1

Good 0

Very good 1

Volunteer

Yes 0

No 1

Maybe 4


77

Key FindingsWe have presented a summary of the key features of each of the sample sites. Please not that the sample sites are not intended to representative of backcourts in each local authority area.

SITE SUMMARIES

Glasgow West Sample Site

A site completely enclosed by tenements, access is only through the tenement stairs. The tenure is owner occupier and private rented. The backcourts are all well maintained, (it appears by factoring companies). All of the backcourts are separated by railings.

There was a relatively high response from residents (8%), 8 residents expressed and interest in food growing and 9 in volunteering to enrich the site.

Glasgow North Sample Site

This site is owner-occupied , private rented. The majority of the backcourts are well maintained. However the bin stores and access lane running down the centre of the site were littered from overflowing bins on the day of the survey.

The site would benefit from a reassessment of the number/size of bins or number of collections. The lane perhaps provides a shared resource which could be improved by resident volunteer events.

Six folk were interested in food growing and 5 in volunteering.

Glasgow East Sample Site

Whilst the backcourts at this site are maintained by Shettleston housing association, on the day of the survey there was extensive litter blown across the site from the bin stores which used the old tin bins. There was also a lot of dog fouling throughout the site.

Only 2 residents responded to the survey and neither showed and interest in growing veggies or volunteering in the backcourts.

Glasgow South West Sample Site

This site is mixed Council tenants, owner occupiers and private renters. The site is broken up into four groups of tenements by a two lanes which bisect the site. There is a real mix in the condition of the backcourts from derelict to well maintained. One resident has established a vegetable patch in the his/her backcourt.

10 residents indicated that they would be interested in food growing and 11 that they might volunteer in the backcourts.


78

Glasgow South East Sample Site

A mix of Govanhill housing association, owner occupiers and renters. There is a mix of weedy and well maintained backcourts, and a lot of litter along the lane and in the bin stores.

12 residents were interested in food growing and 14 in volunteering.

West Dunbartonshire Sample Site

The majority of the households are tenants of the Council with some owner occupiers. This site is long and thin, with a mix of well cared for and weedy backcourts. Some backcourts appear to have been partitioned between flats.

2 households were interested in food growing and 6 might be willing to volunteer.

North Lanarkshire Sample Site

The site is majority Council tenanted with a few owner occupiers. There is a mix of well and poorly maintained backcourts.

There was no interest in food growing or volunteering.

South Lanarkshire Sample Site

A Rutherglen and Cambuslang Housing Association site. The site has an open layout with parking in the centre. The site is very well maintained but has little evidence of resident involvement in the space.

3 residents showed an interest in food growing and 4 indicated that they might be willing to volunteer.

East Dunbartonshire Sample Site

All the households are housing association tenants. The backcourts are of mixed quality.

There was no response from residents around this site.

Renfrewshire Sample Site

All of the tenements are owned by Renfrewshire Council. The backcourts are well maintained but have little landscape value. Some backcourts are completely derelict but it appears that these tenements may be earmarked for renovation or demolition.

1 resident indicated that they would be interested in food growing and volunteering.

East Renfrewshire Sample Site

All of the backcourts at this small site are well maintained. The flats are housing association with some owner occupier.

2 of the 16 households indicated that they would be interested in food growing and 4 in volunteering to enrich the site.


79

Inverclyde Sample Site

The majority Inverclyde Housing Association with some private ownership. This site has been almost completely tarmac’d over. There is one green which has been improved.

3 residents indicated that they would be interested in food growing and 4 in volunteering.


80

Part 1c - Findings of the Household Survey

INTRODUCTION

The goals of the household survey were to gather information about, condition and use of the backcourts at the twelve survey sites, and to find out what the purpose of the backcourts are in the minds of the people who use them. This information would help us in determining whether backcourts are fit for purpose in greenspace quality terms.

A questionnaire form was delivered through the letterbox of every tenemental household around each site, (non-tenemental households around the perimeter of each site did not receive a questionnaire). A freepost envelope was included to return the questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed to be easy to fill in, and a prize draw for 12 ipods was offered as an added incentive for residents to return their forms.

The returned forms were processed in a spreadsheet. The findings are reported below. A blank copy of the survey form has been included in the CD attached to this report.

A summary of the household survey findings has been provided at the end of this chapter.


81

RESPONSE RATES

It is fair to assume that the response rates at each site are an indication of the interest that residents around each site have in their backcourts.

Of the 1,000 questionnaires delivered, 74 were returned before the cut off point (Monday 14th July) for carrying out the analysis. At the time of revising this report (6th August), a further 12 questionnaires were received, a response rate of 8.6% as an average across all sites. The table below shows the response rates broken down by site.

Respondents GC W

GC N

GC E

GC SW

GC SE

W Dun

E Dun

N Lan

S Lan

E Ren

Ren Inv

Returned Ques. 11 6 2 12 19 6 0 1 6 4 1 6

Total Households 130 140 60 200 140 60 60 24 62 16 54 54

% 8% 4% 3% 6% 14% 10% 0% 4% 10% 25% 2% 11%

There were comparatively higher response rates (>10%) at the following sample sites:-

− Glasgow City South East− West Dunbarton− South Lanarkshire− Inverclyde− and the East Renfrewshire sample site returned 25% (this is a very small site).

There were comparatively low response rates (<5%) at the following sample sites:-

− Glasgow City North− Glasgow City East− North Lanarkshire− Renfrewshire− East Dunbartonshire returned no questionnaires.

INFORMATION ABOUT RESPONDENTS

Age Range

We asked the age range of the respondents and whether they were single, a couple, living in a shared flat or part of a family.

Age Range No % % Weighted

Under 20 1 1% 1%

21-36 (15 yrs) 32 43% 46%

36-45 (10 yrs) 8 11% 17%

46-66 (20 yrs) 21 28% 23%

66-over 12 16% 13%

100% 100%

It is perhaps no surprise that we received very few responses from Under 20’s. There was a strong representation of people between the ages of 21-36 years.


82

There was a curious dip in interest from respondents between 36-45 years, even when we corrected the percentages to give equal weighting to the age bands (see second % column). The weighting was required as not all age bands were the same length.

Type of Household

Taken as an average across all sites, we received a similar response from single person households and couples, with a slightly smaller response from family households. It is perhaps not surprising that there was a low response from shared flats, as individuals in there households will tend to be younger and more transient.

Household Type

Single person 36%

Couple 37%

Family 21%

Shared flat 3%

USE OF THE BACKCOURTS

Access to Backcourts

We asked whether residents could access their backcourt, and if not why not. The majority responded that they had good access.

Access to Backgreens

Cant access 3%

Access wt difficulty 7%

Good access 89%

Remarks from households which had difficulty accessing the backcourts were mostly related to issues with the door to the backcourt, being stiff or locked.

Use of the Backcourts

We asked how often respondents used their backcourts. The overwhelming majority of respondents reported that they were in the backcourt once or more times a week.

How Often in Backcourt

never 1%

couple/year 4%

once/month 4%

once/fortnight 12%

once/week 78%

Problems in the Backcourt

We asked residents what caused problems in the backcourt. This was scored on an aggregate:-

Opinion Weighting

never a problem (0)

very rarely a problem (1)


83

occasional problem (2)

regular problem (3)

constant problem (4)

Anti-socialMaintenance

Bin storesFurniture

LitterDog fouling

Noise

0 50 100 150 200

The largest grouping of problems in the backcourts are related to waste issues - bins, bulky items and litter. However noise and anti-social neighbours are a significant factor along with dog fouling.

THE PURPOSE OF BACKCOURTS

What should a backcourt be used for?

We asked residents what they thought the backcourts should be used for. This included conventional uses such as bin storage and drying clothes, but also other possible uses such as growing vegetables or barbeques.

The possible opinions and weighting given to each are shown below.

Opinion Weighting

not appropriate to a backcourt (-2)

a bad idea (-1)

no opinion (0)

good idea (1)

or essential in a backcourt (2)

The table below shows an aggregate score across all twelve sites.

Purpose of Backcourt Score

Drying clothes 95

Bin storage 104

Bicycle storage -10

Storing tools -23

Place to relax 88

Car parking -57

Growing veg 22

BBQs 37

Meet the neighbours 59

Place for children 60

As would be expected, the drying of clothes and bin storage were viewed as important roles of the backcourts.


84

The social function of backcourts also scored highly as places to relax, meet the neighbours and perhaps have a BBQ.

A large number of respondents thought of backcourts as an appropriate place for children to play, this finding is discussed further below.

A significant number of respondents indicated that the growing of vegetables in the backcourts would be a positive use of the space.

What respondents liked about their backcourt

We asked respondents what they like about their backcourts. We have listed all issues provided by two or more respondents. The number of respondents is shown in brackets.

I like my backcourt because it:-

− is tidy and clean (24)

− has trees, grass, plants and flowers (16)

− is fully enclosed and secluded (12)

− is a large open space (10)

− is a good place to dry washing (9)

− has potential for vegetable growing (2)

− is quiet (5)

− is a suntrap (4)

− has hidden wheelie bins (4)

− place to relax (3)

− is secure with locked access (3)

What respondents do not like about their backcourt

We asked respondents what they don’t like about their backcourts. We have listed all issues provided by two or more respondents and in some cases grouped similar responses. The number of respondents is shown in brackets.

I don’t like my backcourt because:-

− it has dirty bin stores (18)

− it is not maintained (18)

− it is used for bulk dumping (10)

− the neighbours aren’t interested (9)

− of noise/anti-social behaviour (8)

− it is fouled by dogs (7)

− it has no privacy (3)

− the gate is broken and it is insecure (3)

− it is just a patch of grass (2)

− it is shaded (2)

− it doesn’t have disabled access (2)

− it has slippy mossy steps (2)


85

− it is used only for bins (2)

− it has vermin (2)

− the neighbours are too controlling (2)

− kids loiter in the playpark (2)

What changes would improve the backcourts?

The same aggregate scoring system used to measure the purpose of backcourts, was used again to measure what changes would respondents would most like to see to their backcourt.

Not surprisingly, many residents would like better maintenance, or would want litter cleared. When asked whether more flowers and plants, or laying slabs or gravel, were a good idea, it was clear that respondents felt that backcourts should be a green place.

Preferred Changes

Better maintenance 87

Clear litter and rubbish 86

More flowers and plants 70

Slabs or gravel -18

We asked respondents what other changes they would like. We have listed all changes suggested by two or more respondents. The number of respondents is shown in brackets.

I would like to see:-

− more seating (3)

− more lighting (2)

− more security (3)

Allotments & Food Growing

There was a very positive response to food growing, 64% of respondents said that they would or might like to have an opportunity to grow food in the backcourt.

Allotments

Yes and I've got exp 19%

Yes but no exp. 23%

Maybe 22%

No 35%

Both Yes's 42%

Both Yes's & Maybe 64%


86

Children

We asked residents whether they thought that backcourts were appropriate places for children to play.

Children in Backcourts Yes No

0-5 years 73% 11%

6-12 years 55% 15%

13-16 years 35% 35%

All children 41% 14%

A large majority, 73%, were in support of children between the ages 0-5 years playing in the backcourts. The support dwindled for older children, with only 35% of respondents thinking that backcourts were an appropriate place for children between the ages 13-16 years to play. There was a similar inverse trend in residents responding no.

We asked respondents what facilities should be put in the backcourts for children. We have listed all changes suggested by two or more respondents. The number of respondents is shown in brackets.

There should be:-

− swings (10)

− climbing frames (3)

− roundabout or trampoline (2)

− a grassed area (5)

− football goals (2)

− safe backyards with gates (2)

− communal play area (4)

− soft ground (3)

− sand pits (4)

Additionally some respondents said:-

− it should be made safe (litter, needles or dog fouling) (4)

− children don’t need facilities to play (4)

also asked if there were play facilities nearby? The responses included:-

− yes (21)

− no (15)


87

MAINTENANCE OF THE BACKCOURTS

Condition of the Backcourt

Across all twelve sites, a majority of respondents thought that their backcourts were in a good or very good condition (58%), however a significant proportion reported that their backcourts were in a bad or very bad condition (38%).

Condition of Backcourt

Very bad 11%

Bad 27%

Good 43%

Very good 15%

I don't know 5%

Very bad & bad 38%

Good & very good 58%

Who Maintains The Backcourt

Across all of the respondents to the survey there was no clear trend in terms of who maintained the backcourts. This question would be more relevant when analysing individual sites.

Who Maintains

I do 9%

One of residents 23%

Group 15%

Factor 23%

Council 11%

HA 20%

Nobody 15%

Please note: some respondents ticked more than one box so the percentages above add up to over 100%.

Support from other residents on the Stair

If a respondent took responsibility for the maintenance of their own backcourt, we asked whether they received any support from their neighbours.

Maintenance Services

We asked respondents what company/housing association/council provided their backcourt maintenance service, how much it costs, and whether they felt that they received a good service.

We have not reported here the names of the maintenance contractors.

Although we asked for the monthly cost for maintenance, it appears that some respondents may have entered the annual cost as figures varied from £3.50 to £50. This uncertainty and the low number of responses makes an average value difficult to calculate.

The table below reports the quality of maintenance. Not all respondents completed this part of the form so the percentages do not add up to 100%.


88

Quality of Maintenance

Very poor 7%

Poor 3%

No opinion 7%

Good 15%

Very good 4%

Very poor & poor 9%

Good & very good 19%

INCREASING RESIDENT INVOLVEMENT IN THE BACKCOURTS

We asked residents about their involvement in the backcourts.

Why Don’t Residents Maintain Backcourts

We asked those residents which did not maintain their backcourts why they did not do so, almost 1 in 5 said that the lack of support from neighbours was a factor.

Why don’t you Maintain?

Not interested 1%

Poor health 7%

No support from neighbours 18%

No tools 8%

Volunteering

80% of the respondents to the survey suggested that they may be willing to participate in a group volunteer project to improve their backcourts.

Volunteering

Yes 47%

Maybe 32%

No 11%

Yes & maybe 80%


89

Key FindingsThe findings below are drawn from the 74 (7.4%) questionnaires from residents who responded to the household questionnaire (prior to 14th July). A total of 86 residents responded to the survey.

Use of Backcourts

89% of respondents can access their backcourt with no difficulty.

78% of respondents use their backcourt one or more times a week.

The most common problems in the backcourts related to refuse (bin stores, litter and bulky items) and lack of maintenance.

Anti-social behaviour and dog fouling were a significant problem in particular sites.

Purpose of Backcourts

The drying of clothes and bin storage were identified as important roles for backcourts.

The social function of backcourts was confirmed, as a place to relax, and a place to meet the neighbours

Backcourts should be places where children can play, in particular younger children (0-12 years).

Providing local greenspace is an important function of backcourts and they should not be covered in concrete/gravel etc.

Backcourts should facilitate local food growing where possible.

Maintenance of Backcourts

Respondents have confirmed that to be fit for purpose the backcourts must be well maintained.

Respondents reported that most backcourts are in good or very good condition (58%), but a significant proportion are in bad or very bad condition (38%). (please see findings of greenspace survey).

Resident Involvement

80% of respondents indicted that they might be willing to participate in a volunteer project to regenerate their green.

64% of respondents indicated that they might be interested in food growing.


90

Part 1d - Findings of the Greenspace Quality SurveyINTRODUCTION

In Part 1d we have presented the findings of the survey of greenspace quality of the twelve sample sites. We have provided a summary of each sample sites scores across all categories in Part 1c, in this section we have grouped the scores of all sites into each of the quality categories such that they can be compared across all sites.

The qualitative greenspace survey was carried out using a scoring table based on the methodology developed in the Greenspace Quality report devised by Greenspace Scotland and Glasgow Clyde Valley Green Network Partnership.

A summary of the key findings of the greenspace quality survey has been provided at the end of this section.


91

MEASURING TENEMENTAL GREENSPACE QUALITY

This study sets out to measure the quality of tenemental greenspace at twelve sample sites across the Glasgow Clyde Valley. In order to survey the condition of backcourts we must set quantifiable factors, which we can use to differentiate between backcourts in ‘good’ or ‘bad’ condition. The report Greenspace Quality - A Guide to Assessment, Planning and Strategic Development1, provides a definition for ‘quality greenspace’.

“Quality greenspace is defined as greenspace which is ‘fit for purpose’. Meaning it is in the right place, readily accessible, safe, inclusive, welcoming, well maintained and managed and performing an identified function. Fitness of purpose by its definition requires the assessment of greenspace quality to reflect the intended purpose or need.”

Furthermore

“Quality can be defined in terms of the extent to which a greenspace product or service meets the specifications of the customer, where the customer is either a stakeholder or end user. The ‘customer’ has requirements that become the specifications for the greenspace product and if the outcome reliably matches these requirements then quality is secured. A quality product by definition is one that conforms to customer determined specifications.“

Whilst the Greenspace Quality report was prepared with open greenspace in mind, it is a useful starting point with which to develop a framework for judging the quality of tenemental greenspace. But we must first ask what is the intended purpose of tenement backcourts.

If the expectations and aspirations of the communities which live around backcourts have changed over the years, we need to ascertain what they are now if we are to be confident in defining the purpose or role for the backcourts, for example:-

− should children be encouraged or discouraged from playing in backcourts;

− should facilities which encourage social interaction, such as benchs or BBQs

be installed in backcourts;

− should interaction between households in neighbouring tenements be

facilitated or should security be maximised by maintaining or erecting high walls between backcourts.

Additionally, the changing needs of households and society now mean that tenement backcourts can have new roles and purposes:-

− as identified in the earlier Sustainable Backcourts Initiative feasibility study, backcourts can respond to the changing needs in waste management by

providing facilities for recycling and composting;

− backcourts may also provide opportunities for food growing/gardening which can improve well-being;

− backcourts may provide facilities for bicycle storage to encourage more healthy lifestyles.


92

1 GCV Green Network Partnership and Greenspace Scotland (2008).

Greenspace Quality Survey Categories

The main and sub-categories of the Greenspace Quality survey are:

Accessible & Connected

Easy access to the backcourt

Good quality well maintained paths

Disabled access

Connectivity with other backcourts

Attractive and Appealing Places

Landscape quality

Noise

Sun/shade

Maintenance

Biodiverse Supporting Ecological Networks

Contribute positively to biodiversity

Support recycling and composting

Promoting Activity, Health and Well-being

Provide play and recreation opportunities

Provide places for social interaction

Greenspace Quality Scoring

A score of 1 to 5 was given in each sub-category for each backcourt. A score of 1 represents very poor conditions or facilities, a score of 5 represents very good conditions of facilities. Backcourts between these two extremes were given scores of 2, 3, or 4 as judged by the reviewer.

We have also provided (in the right most column), an average score across all sites for each sub-category.


93

GREENSPACE QUALITY OVERVIEW

The table below shows the overall greenspace quality scores for the twelve sample sites, and the average across all of the sample sites in the Glasgow & Clyde Valley area. It should be noted that two of the highest scoring sites, (East Renfrewshire and North Lanarkshire) are both small sites, and perhaps pull up the average score across all sites disproportionately.

0

1

2

3

4

5

GC W GC N GC E GC SW GC SE W Dun E Dun N Lan S Lan E Ren Ren Inv Ave

2.42.02.2

3.42.72.7

2.22.32.32.12.32.42.8

Greenspace Quality Score Across 12 Sample Sites

The breakdown of Greenspace Quality Scores across the main and sub categories have been reported in the following pages.

Please be advised, that both the main and sub category scores for each sample site are aggregates of the scores of each tenement backcourt within that sample site. In an extreme example, should half of the backcourts at a sample site be in very poor condition, and the other half in a very good condition, the sample site as a whole will receive an average score. It is worthwhile to cross reference the scores with a review of the greenspace survey reports for each site in the next section.


94

ACCESSIBLE & CONNECTED

The chart below shows the scores for the category Accessible and Connected, the sub-categories are reported below.

0

1

2

3

4

5

GC W GC N GC E GC SW GC SE W Dun E Dun N Lan S Lan E Ren Ren Inv

2.5

1.7

3.73.8

2.92.9

1.92.22.32.7

2.22.8

Accessible and Connected

Easy Access From The Tenement

Where possible we sought to identify whether residents have easy access to their backcourts. A score of 1 would indicate that there is no access, in that the door is nailed shut or corridor is blocked, a score of 5 would indicate that there is clear level access to the backcourts. Happily all sites scored over 3 which indicates that there is good access perhaps in some cases with a step.

0

1

2

3

4

5

GC W GC N GC E GC SW GC SE W Dun E Dun N Lan S Lan E Ren Ren Inv Average

4.04.03.6

5.05.0

4.03.6

4.03.43.73.6

4.04.0

Access

It is known that in some cases (cite Edinburgh Community Backgreen Initiative), some residents don’t have access because they do not have (and in some cases can’t obtain) the key to the backcourt. At this level of survey it is difficult to measure this.

We did ask this question in the household survey and 89% of respondents said that they could access their backcourt. However, the majority of respondents were people who regularly used their backcourt (78%), it may be that was a factor in them responding to the survey, and that others that did not fill in the form partly because they didn’t have access to the backcourt, and therefore had no relationship with it.

The surveyor therefore returned a score of 4 for a majority of backcourts, unless there was a good reason for assuming 100% access, this was given in the example of South Lanarkshire as all the tenements were managed by a housing association and there was level access.


95

Good Quality and Well Maintained Paths

There was huge variety in the quality of paths between sites, but in a good many it was reported as being poor. Low scores at different sites were caused by overgrowth, moss, litter, broken slabs, cracked tarmac, dog fouling or a complete absence of paths.

0

1

2

3

4

5


2.62.0

1.1

3.8

5.0

2.51.9

1.4

2.3

1.4

2.22.6

5.0

Paths

Notes: The low score for Inverclyde is perhaps confusing in that there are no paths as the whole site is tarmac. The Renfrewshire site has no paths just grass. The Glasgow South West site had weedy and uneven paths. The West Dunbartonshire score was low as two thirds of the site’s backcourts had no paths at all.

Disabled Access

Most sites were reported as having poor disabled access, caused by steps downor up to the backcourts. The exception was the East Dunbartonshire site.

0

1

2

3

4

5


1.21.01.01.01.01.0

3.0

1.01.01.6

1.01.01.0

Disabled

Good Connectivity With Other Backcourts

Connectivity measured the ability to access other backcourts from each backcourt - a measure of the opportunity for social contact and shared resources across the a site. A low connectivity would be found at sites where walls or fences did not allow any movement whatsoever. A high connectivity would be found at sites which were completely open. Sites with gates on to a common path or lane scored in between.

012345


2.7

4.0

1.0

5.04.04.0

3.0

1.02.02.3

4.0

1.01.0

Connectivity


96

ATTRACTIVE AND APPEALING PLACES

The chart below shows how the sites scored in terms of Attractive and Appealing places, the sub-categories are reported below.

0

1

2

3

4

5


1.62.2

3.32.62.5

2.02.52.4

1.62.42.32.5

Attractive & Appealing Places

Attractive Plants And Landscape Elements

The measurement of the attractiveness of a landscape can be very subjective, one persons wildlife haven is another’s derelict overgrown mess, just as ones tidy ordered green is another’s green desert. The reviewer was asked to score backcourts on the basis on the ratings below:-

1. a backcourt with no attractive plants or landscape which is poorly maintained, with evidence of littering and/or dog fouling.

2. a backcourt with no attractive plants or landscape which is maintained.

3. a plain but well tended backcourt with no mature trees or shrubs.

4. an attractive well tended backcourt with mature trees and shrubs, but with no facilities and no evidence of ‘added value’ by the residents.

5. a backcourt which has a beautiful well tended greenspace with mature trees and shrubs, with evidence of gardening activities by the residents such as pot plants etc. The backcourt will have facilities which will be made of quality materials and be well maintained.

Note: the Glasgow West site would have scored better but two of its backcourts had been gravelled over as they received very little sun.

0

1

2

3

4

5


2.1

1.01.7

3.8

2.02.8

1.0

1.92.3

1.42.0

2.52.8

Landscape


97

Respite From Street Noise

All sites benefited from the reduction of noise. The North Lanarkshire and Glasgow South West sites were both right next to busy roads.

0

1

2

3

4

5


3.63.02.9

5.0

4.0

2.0

4.04.0

5.0

2.33.0

3.93.7

Quietness

Amount Of Sun Received

The enclosed nature of most of the sites inevitably resulted in a reduction of sunshine reaching some of the backcourts.

0

1

2

3

4

5


3.53.13.3

4.03.8

5.0

3.54.1

2.42.8

3.33.43.2

Sunny

Well Maintained

There was a wide variety in the quality of maintenance within sites, the aggregating of scores across a site can give a misleading score, a site where half of the backcourts are in very good condition and half very bad, would get a middling score. It is worthwhile to check the scores against the site plans in the nest section. The reviewer was asked to score backcourts on the basis on the ratings below:-

1. no or very bad maintenance

2. poor maintenance

3. good maintenance

4-5. very good maintenance

012345


2.62.0

3.1

4.34.0

2.8

1.71.92.21.71.81.9

3.6

Well maintained


98

BIODIVERSE SUPPORTING ECOLOGICAL NETWORKS

The chart below shows the findings of the survey of the third category - ‘Biodiverse Supporting Ecological Networks’, the sub-categories are reported below.

012345


1.50.9

1.30.5

1.8

0.5

1.72.3

1.31.8

2.72.4

Biodiverse Supporting Ecological Network

Contribute Positively To Biodiversity

There was not scope in this survey to carry out a species analysis. The approach to scoring by the reviewer was:-

1. a backcourt with regularly mown grass,

2. a backcourt with long ‘meadow’ grass,

3. a backcourt with mature shrubs and trees

4. a backcourt with shrubs, trees and features to encourage wildlife e.g bird boxes.

5. we did not score any site a five

The Inverclyde site was the only one to score a 0 in the survey.

012345


1.81.72.5

1.0

2.8

1.11.61.91.61.6

2.52.8

Biodiversity

Support Recycling And Composting

The scoring system for recycling and composting was as follows:-

0. a backcourt with no recycling facilities

1-2.a backcourt with with insufficient bins

3. a backcourt either a blue dry recycling bin or a compost bin

4. a backcourt both a blue and composting bin

5. a backcourt with with both recycling bins housed in a clean environment

012345


1.3

3.0

0.81.7

2.8

1.0

2.02.9

1.9

Recycling


99

PROMOTING ACTIVITY, HEALTH AND WELL-BEING

The chart for the fourth category is ‘Promoting Activity, Health and Well-Being’, is shown below with the the sub-categories are following.

0

1

2

3

4

5

GC W GC N GC E GC SW GC SE W Dun E Dun N Lan S Lan E Ren Ren Inv0.8

2.42.62.0

2.4

1.51.91.91.61.4

1.92.3

Promote Activity, Health & Wellbeing

Provide Play And Recreation Opportunities

Scoring system:-

1-2. a weedy or derelict backcourt

3. a grass backcourt which was well maintained was scored a 3 as it provided a play or recreation space

4. some facilities for play or recreation

5. excellent facilities

Inverclyde which had no facilities and a tarmac courts received a 1.

0

1

2

3

4

5


2.0

1.0

2.42.8

2.02.5

1.62.4

1.91.51.4

2.42.6

Recreation

Provide Places For Social Interaction

Scoring system same as Recreation.

0

1

2

3

4

5


2.3

1.0

3.03.5

3.03.0

1.72.12.1

1.71.1

2.12.7

Social


100

Provide Storage For Bicycles

None of the backcourts had bicycle storage facilities. We awarded a 1 to them all as it would still be possible to lock a bike up in one and there would normally be something to which it could be locked to. However we did not see much evidence of the backcourts being used for this purpose, the preferred location being the stairs or the flats themselves.

0

1

2

3

4

5


1.01.01.01.01.01.01.01.01.01.01.01.01.0

Bikes

Provide Opportunities For Food Growing

Being as it is just a matter of removing the turf, any grass backcourt provides an opportunity for food growing. The scoring system was:-

0. tarmac or concrete backcourts

1. heavily overgrown backcourts

2. weedy grass backcourts

3. maintained grass backcourts

4. backcourts with an existing vegetable patch

5. an exceptional example of food growing

We also took the available space into consideration, as some backcourts were much larger than others.

0

1

2

3

4

5


2.2

3.23.3

2.0

3.0

1.52.0

2.52.01.91.9

2.7

Growing


101

COMMUNITY BENEFITS

The chart for the fifth category ‘Community Benefits’ is shown below, with the charts for the sub-categories following.

0

1

2

3

4

5


2.83.3

4.8

3.53.43.13.22.9

3.33.03.23.9

Community Benefits

Access To Backcourt Can Be Secured

If a backcourt could be completely secured in terms of locking the tenement stair door, and if one exists, the gate from the backcourt, a site would receive a 5. Backcourts which were completely open and accessible by the public received a 1. Backcourts which had doors or gates which could not be locked were awarded a 3. Those in between, received intermediate scores.

0

1

2

3

4

5


2.7

1.0

3.5

5.0

1.0

3.02.5

1.72.1

3.5

2.02.3

5.0

Secure

Allow Good Levels Of Natural Surveillance

Not surprisingly, all sites scored well for natural surveillance as almost all backcourts were overlooked by multiple flats.

0

1

2

3

4

5


4.95.0

4.0

5.05.05.05.05.05.04.7

5.04.94.8

Surveillance


102

No Evidence Of Anti-Social Behaviour

There was almost no evidence of vandalism or spray painting. The most common offences were littering, bulk dumping, and dog fouling which was a particular problem at the Glasgow East site. The scoring system used was:-

1-2. extensive evidence of anti-social behaviour

3. some evidence of antisocial behaviour

4. little evidence of anti-social behaviour

5. no evidence of anti-social behaviour

0

1

2

3

4

5


3.84.03.6

5.05.0

3.8

2.2

3.23.63.8

2.0

4.54.9

Anti-social

Appropriate Lighting Levels

The scoring system used was:-

1-2. backcourts with no additional lighting were given a score of 1 as they would receive some light form the tenement windows

3 - 4. a tenement which had an external light for the backcourt

5. no backcourts had lighting which full lit the area.

0

1

2

3

4

5


2.1

1.0

2.0

4.0

3.0

2.02.6

3.0

1.01.0

3.0

1.01.0

Lighting


103

Key Findings

Accessible & Connected

Most households have good access to their backcourt.

There is a wide variety in the quality of paths across the sample sites from poor to very good.

Disable access is very poor across almost all sample sites.

Connectivity between backcourts at each site varies widely from very good to poor.

Attractive and Appealing Places

The quality of plants and landscape element was ‘good’ on average, although some sites were very poor and some were judged very attractive.

All backcourts offered good respite from the noise of the street outside.

Most sites received good sun through some part of the day though some backcourts to the South of each site were in shadow for a significant part of the year.

Five sites were well to very well maintained, the other seven were judged as poorly maintained.

Biodiverse Supporting Ecological Networks

Four sites achieved a “good” score through having mature trees and shrubs throughout the site. Seven sites scored poorly, whilst one site scored a zero score for having no biodiversity value.

Three sites had a good score by providing paper and packaging waste recycling bins. Four sites scored poorly as they had recycling bins but they were judged as being insufficient for the number of households. Four sites had no recycling facilities.

Promoting Health and Well-Being

Seven sites were scored as having good recreation facilities and opportunities for social interaction, resulting from having well-maintained greens. Five scored poorly as they did not have grassed areas or they were overgrown, littered or fouled by dogs.

None of the sites had purpose built facilities for bicycle storage.

All but one of the sites had potential for food growing. One site was completely tarmaced. A handful of vegetable patches had been established at some sites.

Community Benefits

There was a wide variety across the sites in capacity to secure a tenement backcourt.

All sites scored very well to excellent in terms of levels of natural surveillance.


104

Part 1e - The Fitness For Purpose of BackcourtsINTRODUCTION

We have sought to bring together the findings of the study to define the purpose of the backcourt, discuss the fitness for purpose of the backcourts at the sample sites, and identify the key issues that solutions for the sustainable management of backcourts would need to address.

We sought to identify the purpose of backcourts by asking the residents that live around them. We asked households around the sample sites what backcourts should be used for.

The Table 1 on the right shows the responses. Purposes supported by a majority of respondents received a high positive score, purposes considered a bad idea received a high negative score. The residents indicated that backcourts should have the following key roles:-

− Waste Management and Clothes Drying;− Recreation and Social Interaction;− Access to Greenspace.

Purpose of Backcourt Score

Bin storage 104

Drying clothes 95

Place to relax 88

Place for children 60

Meet the neighbours 59

BBQs 37

Growing veg 22

Bicycle storage -10

Storing tools -23

Car parking -57

Attitudes Table


105

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Perhaps not surprisingly, traditional uses of the backcourts for bin storage and clothes drying scored highly as key purposes of backcourts. In the Glasgow Clyde Valley, tenement waste is collected from the backcourts. This is an important role and potential opportunity with regards to the reduction of waste to landfill through separation and recycling. Unfortunately, the facilities available and their use does not often meet these aspirations.

Adequate Sized and Well Maintained Bin Stores

The most common problem reported by survey respondents related to waste management - dirty and littered bin stores. At some sites, insufficient capacity of bin stores, either due to the type/size/number of bins, or the rate at which they are collected, resulted in overflowing bins. Waste from the bins is then blown around the site causing a litter problem in the backcourts and access lanes.

Provision of adequate waste collection facilities is the responsibility of the appropriate local authority, solutions for this, and for increasing waste reduction through recycling were addressed in the previous GSBI pilot project2, and good examples of renovated waste collection facilities do exist in the Glasgow Clyde Valley.

The greenspace quality survey of the backcourts did not include a category for the condition of bin stores/waste management, this was an oversight and should be a included in any future surveys of backcourts. The physical site surveys found that the majority of bin stores were dismal brick structures strewn with litter.

Waste Separation - Recycling & Composting

Waste should be avoided through reduction and reuse initiatives, the remaining fraction should be recycled or composted wherever possible.

It is understood that the local authorities in the Glasgow Clyde Valley area do not provide a collection service for biodegradable kitchen or garden waste. In any case it would be preferable to see biodegradable waste composted in the backcourts and used to enrich the soil, this would be a true zero waste solution. Unfortunately, there were only a handful of composting bins between all twelve sites. Effective composting of biodegradable kitchen waste in the backcourts would have the additional advantage of reducing any smell and vermin problems in the bin stores, as it is the biodegradable fraction which attract causes these problems. WRAP has been working with local authorities to provide subsidised composting bins to households for a couple of years, a new pilot initiative for 2008 will seek to encourage tenement households to set up compost bins in backcourts which can be shared by multiple households.

Whilst blue bins for the separation of dry recyclable waste are evident at some sites, the bin stores in which they are located were often dirty smelly places which do not promote this new positive view of refuse and encourage residents to take time to sort the recyclate out. It was outwith the remit of the study to measure recycling rates, but anecdotal evidence would suggest that there are insufficient bins for recyclate at the majority of sites. Three of the twelve sites scored close to 3 out of 5 in the Support Recycling and Composting greenspace quality criteria (signifying the presence of a blue packaging waste bin). Five scored between 1 and 2 out of 5, as there were some blue bins but

Overflowing bins, a common sight.

New bin stores at a site in Govan

Bin stores spilling litter and bulk items into lane at the Glasgow South East site

Blue packaging recycling bins in the backcourts


106

2 Glasgow Sustainable Backcourts Initiative, Kelvin Clyde Greenspace 2004-6

they were judged insufficient for the size of the sites. Four sites scored 0 out of 5.

Dumping Of Bulky Items

The dumping of bulky items in the backcourts quickly transforms the appearance of a site and has a corresponding impact upon attitudes about the space and how it can be used. Unfortunately, some of the sample sites suffered from dumping.

DRYING GREENS

The drying of clothes is still an important role of backcourts. Air drying is the environmentally sustainable option over tumble dryers. The drying of clothes in the backcourt may also play a social function in it creates opportunities for neighbours to meet who may not otherwise. Respondents to the household survey did not comment directly about the use of the backcourts as drying greens, but 58% indicated that their backcourts were well maintained, this was borne out by the site surveys which found that approximately 75% of backcourts were well maintained. The study therefore finds that 3/4s of backcourts are fit for purpose for clothes drying, but this leaves 1/4 of households which cannot access this basic facility.

RECREATION & SOCIAL INTERACTION

The backcourts role as a place for recreation and social interaction scored highly amongst respondents to the household survey. Elsewhere in the household survey, residents confirmed that backcourts should be places where children can play, in particular younger children (0-12 years). There was less support for older children playing in the backcourts, probably as it was thought this could cause a nuisance or that the children would not be interested in playing in the backcourts.

Recreation and Play Spaces

All of the sample sites had access to public recreational greenspaces within a 5 to 10 minute walk, this is comfortably inside recommended maximum walking times to amenity greenspaces 3. However, most greenspace studies have “found a positive association between the proximity and accessibility of greenspace and amounts of physical activity”4. It is preferable if residents (children in particular), need not cross busy roads or use transport to reach recreational facilities. Tenement backcourts are literally the greenspace on the doorstep.

The greenspace quality survey measured opportunities for play and recreation provided by backcourts. A score of 3 was given to backcourts with a well maintained lawn, as was said by some residents in the households survey, a lawn offers a space for recreation and play. Backcourts with weedy lawns scored 1. The average score for recreation and play opportunities across all twelve sites in the greenspace quality survey was 2 out of 5.

Half of the sites scored between 1 and 2 out of 5 as some or most of the backcourts were of poor landscape quality, with weedy lawns or tarmac. The remaining six sites

Clothes drying in backcourts

Play park at South Lanarkshire site

Swing and bench at West Dunbartonshire site

Trampoline in East Dunbartonshire backcourt


107

3 15 minutes, European Environment Agency

4 Greenspace and Quality of Life, Greenspace Scotland, 2008.

scored between 2.4 and 2.8 out of 5, as these backcourts were in the main well maintained. Beyond this, a few backcourts had a swing, trampoline or seating installed by a resident but this was rare. Only the South Lanarkshire site, managed by Rutherglen and Cambuslang Housing Association has purpose built play facilities.

It was outwith the scope of the study to measure the residents use of the backcourts as recreational spaces. But when the sample sites are compared to those of the Copenhagen case study, it appears that backcourts could provide much better recreational facilities.

Social Interaction

It was not possible to measure the degree of social interaction between residents facilitated by the backcourts. But, almost half of the respondents said that they would be willing to participate in a volunteer project to improve the amenity and facilities of their backcourts. A further third said they might participate. As there was an average response rate of 8.6% across all the sites, this does not represent an army of volunteers, but experience of other tenement backcourt projects have shown that a handful of volunteers can make a big difference to a site, and that once started other folk come down to help out.

GREENSPACE

A majority of respondents to the households survey indicated that they valued their backcourts as greenspaces, they appreciated the trees, plants and flowers and the birds and other wildlife they would attract. A significant number of residents were interested in growing vegetables in the backcourts and other respondents did not indicate that this would be a purpose that they would disagree with.

Respondents to the household survey clearly indicated that they prefer their backcourts to be greenspaces, rather than covered by hardstanding. When asked what they like most about their backcourts, residents chose more flowers and plants rather than slabs or gravel.

Of the 8.6% of residents which responded to the survey, 58% reported that their backcourts are in good or very good condition, 38% reported their backcourts to be in a bad or very bad condition. Whilst the survey of the sample sites concurred with this assessment, (approximately 75% of the lawns of the backcourts were maintained), the greenspace quality survey did not score the sample sites so well.

Fitness for purpose in terms of waste management and drying greens requires only that a backcourt be maintained. However, the value of a backcourt as a recreational and play space is increased if it is a rich and beautiful environment.

Quality of Greenspace

The greenspace quality survey measured a wide range of aspects of the backcourts, the category of particular importance in indicating an attractive greenspace was Attractive and Appealing Places, which was itself made up of several sub-categories,

− Attractive Plants and Landscape Elements− Quietness− Amount of Sun

− Maintenance

A well maintained backcourt at Glasgow North

Maintained but littered backcourts at the Glasgow East site

A tarmac backcourts at the Inverclyde site

Well maintained backcourts at South Lanarkshire site

Weedy backcourt at Glasgow South West


108

The majority of the sites scored well in providing respite from the noise of the street and most backcourts received sunshine for good part of the day.

The average scores across all sites for Attractive Plants and Landscape Elements was 2.1 out of 5, indicating maintained backcourts but with no attractive plants or landscape elements.

The measurement of the attractiveness of a landscape can be very subjective, one persons wildlife haven is another’s derelict overgrown mess, just as ones tidy ordered green is another’s green desert.

The reviewer was asked to score between 2 and 3 backcourts which were maintained but which had no attractive plants or landscape elements. Backcourts which have trees and shrubs, herbaecous borders, flowers, were scored between 3 and 5.

The tables on the right provide some more detail from the greenspace survey by disregarding the backcourts which scored 2. It is clear that the average scores across backcourts at each site hide the true nature of some of the sites, in particular the sites with a mix of high and poor quality backcourts. Table A. ranks the sites based upon the number of backcourts at each that scored 3 or more in the category, Attractive Plants and Landscape Elements. Table B. ranks the sites upon the number of backcourts at each site which scored 1.

We have used the scores in Tables A & B. to group the sites as shown in Table C. into sites with backcourts of different scores in the Attractive Plants and Landscape Elements category.

Site Type Site High 1 High 2 High 3+

Majority good quality backcourts

East Renfrewshire x

Glasgow West x

Majority middle quality backcourts

South Lanarkshire x

West Dunbartonshire x

Glasgow East x

Mixed high & low quality backcourts

Glasgow South East x x

North Lanarkshire x x

Glasgow North x x

Renfrewshire x x

Majority poor quality backcourts

Glasgow South West x

East Dunbartonshire x

Inverclyde x

Table C. Grouping of sites with similar backcourt characteristics

It appears that the greenspace quality review had higher expectations in terms of greenspace quality than the residents which live around them, and that many backcourts are not fit for purpose with regards to providing high quality greenspaces.

Site Total 3+ %

Glasgow East 10 0 0%

West Dunbarton. 10 0 0%

South Lanarkshire 8 0 0%

East Dunbarton. 11 0 0%

Inverclyde 9 0 0%

Glasgow SW 18 2 11%

Renfrewshire 11 3 27%

Glasgow SE 16 6 38%

North Lanarkshire 4 2 50%

Glasgow North 15 10 67%

Glasgow West 14 11 79%

East Renfrewshire 4 4 100%

Total 130 38 29%

Table A. Number of backcourts scoring over 3 and above.

Site Total 1 %

Glasgow East 10 0 0%

South Lanarkshire 8 0 0%

East Renfrewshire 4 0 0%

West Dunbarton. 10 1 10%

Glasgow West 14 2 14%

Glasgow SE 16 3 19%

North Lanarkshire 4 1 25%

Glasgow North 15 4 27%

Renfrewshire 11 6 55%

Glasgow SW 18 15 83%

East Dunbarton 11 11 100%

Inverclyde 9 9 100%

Total 130 52 40%

Table B. Number of backcourts scoring 1


109

Growing in the Backcourts

64% of survey respondents indicated that they might be interested in food growing in the backcourts. When asked whether backcourts were an appropriate place for growing food, the survey returned a positive score (though not as high as other uses), however there was variation between sites. The residents at sites managed by social landlords tended to have a negative attitude to food growing whilst those at the mixed tenure sites were more positive.

Any bit of ground which receives some sun and which hasn’t been slabbed, concreted or gravelled can be turned over for food growing. Even a hardstanding backcourt can have raised beds installed on top. The best fertiliser is ‘the gardeners shadow’, in this respect the backcourts provide a huge potential for urban food growing.

Vegetable patch at the Glasgow South West site

A small raised bed at the East Renfrewshire site

Large backcourts at the Renfrewshire site could provide ample space for food growing


110

Models for Sustainable Backcourt Management

Part 2a - Survey of Best Practice ProjectsINTRODUCTION

In this chapter we have sought to review projects that demonstrate best practice in the management of tenemental greenspace. We have carried out a desktop review of projects in North America, Australia, Scotland and England. We have also carried out study visits to sites in London, Copenhagen, Edinburgh and Glasgow.

We have reported the projects, and at the end of the chapter, reviewed the aspects of each which we think are relevant to the development of sustainable models for backcourt management in the Glasgow Clyde Valley area. Not all of the case studies provided are of physical projects, we have also reported on ‘ideas’ which we think are of relevance.

Image Library * Images of the case studies marked with an asterisk have been included in the CD-ROM provided with this report © Greig Robertson.


111

Clapton Park Estate*

Wildflower herbaecous borders around a tenement backcourt in Clapton

INTRODUCTION

The Clapton Park Estate provides a good demonstration of how lifeless grassed areas of a Council estate can be rejuventated into colourful, diverse habitats, and how residents can be encouraged and supported to have a greater involvement in their landscape. This has been brought about by the landscape contractor, John Little, who has an equal enthusiasm for plants and people.

A valuable lesson from Clapton Park Estate has been that it requires a client who is open to new methods and ways of measuring a quality landscape, and a landscaper who has a enthusiasm for wildlife gardening and for working with residents. It’s also true that John’s skill set may not be common amongst the majority of landscapers who take on estate contracts.

Background

Clapton Park in North East London is a former Council estate in the borough of Hackney. The management of the estate was given over to a Tenants Management Organisation (TMO). The TMO have contracted the management of the estate to Pinnacle, a large private company which manages several housing estates in London. The majority of the 1,500 households on the estate are social rented, very few tenants have taken advantage of the right to buy. The estate is in an area of significant social deprivation and has its fair share of anti-social behavior, a nearby street is called the ‘murder mile’.

Clapton Park is typical of council built housing of the 1970s, it is a mix of three storey maisonettes and five storey desk access flats. The maisonette flats tend to have gardens area to the rear apportioned to each flat. Whilst some ground floor flats in the larger blocks may have a small greenspace at their back door, the majority can only access the communal greenspaces within the squares.


112

COMMUNITY GARDENING FOR SOCIAL LANDLORDS

Contract Landscape Maintenance

In 2002, Pinnacle tendered the contract for the maintenance of the greenspace around the estate. The contract included the maintenance of the:-

− gardens of the maisonettes,

− communal areas and other strips of greenspaces around the site,

− pavements and hardstanding throughout the site.

The cost of maintenance is included in a monthly service charge included in the rent. Leaseholders (owners) who have exercised their right to buy are charged a monthly service charge. These charges are collected by Pinnacle.

The Green Roof Company won the contract. Their tender stood out from other larger landscaping contractors as they proposed to minimise the use of herbicides, to introduce wildflower and other native species to the site, seek to involve residents in greenspace activities, and to support residents who are interested in local food growing.

John Little and his brother Robert, run the Green Roof Company. They are involved in a wide range of activities linked by a passion for green design, this includes eco-building, installation of green roofs and landscape design and management.

The combination of estate grounds maintenance and involvement of the residents in management of greenspace is unusual and was not included in the contract brief.

It is likely that most procurement managers working with large TMOs/housing associations would be put off by a quote which suggested that wildflowers should be encouraged to grow rather than maintaining the grass to a specific height throughout the year. At Clapton Park, it seems that several members of the TMO, were persuaded by John Little’s enthusiasm for bio-diverse gardening and involvement of the residents.

Wildflower/Native Gardening

John’s goal is to create attractive and diverse landscapes by introducing native species, including trees, shrubs, herbaceous and self-seeding annuals (wildflowers). Sites of new annual planting are sprayed with Glyphosate herbicide. In 3-4 weeks John returns to spray again to remove any remaining weeds. He then adds a thick (2-3inches) of composted green waste and sows wildflower annuals into the compost. Once installed, little herbicide is used to maintain the sites. Weeds are suppressed with wood chip and composted green waste which is in plentiful free supply from the local authority.

Besides the regular maintenance, John’s approach has been to progressively over the years identify areas within the estate for improvement. John prepares designs for the regeneration of the sites and proposes them to the committee of the TMO for approval. These projects will normally incur an additional capital cost for hard and soft landscaping elements over and beyond the normal maintenance contract which are met by an annual budget set by the TMO.

Tenement backcourts

Wildflower verge


113

Resident Involvement

An important component of Johns work is communication with the residents around the estate so that they can appreciate the approach he is taking in regenerating the landscape. He leaflets households around the sites, and installs interpretation boards and posters within the beds.

Text from interpretation board “New Herbaceous and Wild Flower Areas For Clapton Park Estate. During February 2004 we sowed a mixture of 30 different colourful prarie plants, grasses and native wild flowers. Here are a few examples Red Hot Poker, Echinacea, Rubeckia, We have replaced ‘dull’ pieces of cut grass with a dynamic and bio-diverse mix. Hope you enjoy the show!”

John has planted herb beds throughout the estate. The species list is based on a questionnaire sent to residents. They are now harvested on a regular basis by residents, especially the mint which is in great demand by the West Indian residents which use it to make tea.

Food Growing

Where residents have shown an interest in growing food in their gardens John has encouraged and supported this with advice and equipment. One example of local food growing is the kitchen garden of Zanat a Turkish resident who grows a wide range of vegetables (including a grape vine for its leaves). They are now looking at planting a mini-orchard and creating more food growing plots and raised beds.

www.grassroofcompany.co.uk

Wildflower interpretation sign

Allotment in backcourt


114

http://www.grassroofcompany.co.uk

http://www.grassroofcompany.co.uk

Community Greens, BaltimoreSince 2003, Community Greens along with the help of a whole host of partners including local government, and community groups have been working to create a community-friendly alley gating and greening ordinance.

The ordinance is a historic step for Baltimore, which now becomes one of the first cities in the country to allow the creation of new “commons” via citizen action. The newly shared alley greens are more than just new green spaces. They are places where people are reclaiming their right to create shared spaces that reflect their values and interests. They are ways to ensure that citizens stay engaged in their communities and work together to share and manage an increasingly scarce resource: land. They are the means to create a more civil outlook; to move from “you vs. me” to “you & me”.

These new commons make an anonymous city warmer as block residents become friends. They create a cosy sense of place, give children safe areas in which to play, and offer adults much needed respite. They also help stabilise blocks by reducing crime, increasing home values, and are the vehicle for more civic engagement. They reduce storm water runoff and the urban heat island effect. In sum, they transform cities.

The project has learned, environmental sustainability is maximised along with social and economic benefits when the majority is allowed to determine how to share and use scarce resources in a multiplicity of ways and create the proper legal mechanisms to establish and protect them.

Prior to the start of the project, surrounding residents were frustrated by the crime and dumping that were on-going problems. They banded together and envisioned what they wanted, which was a shared secret park. They then began with the help of Ashoka (an sustainability NGO) and other partners what would turn out to be a very long process of creating a legal mechanism which would give them and others throughout the city, the option to gate and green alleyways.

That legal mechanism took two forms: getting a bill passed through the state legislature and a local ordinance. The state bill changed Baltimore’s city charter, giving it the legal authority to close (i.e., gate) an alley without vacating its actual legal status as a right of way. Once that was accomplished (April of 2004) we then had to draft and get passed a local ordinance that would outline the requirements residents would have to follow in order to be able to gate and green their alleyways. That ordinance became effective on May 9th 2007. The city is now drafting regulations and once those are complete, the Department of Public Works will be accepting alley gating and greening applications.

Edited from report prepared by Kate Herrod of the Community Greens project.

© Kate Herrod

Prior to regeneration

Bright community spaces


115

Community Backyards, Copenhagen*

Playpark in Community Backyard

INTRODUCTION

The community backyards project of Copenhagen was the inspiration behind the set-up of the Edinburgh Community Backgreens Initiative, following a research trip carried out by Greig Robertson the study author in 2001.

The Copenhagen community backyards are shared community greenspaces within tenement squares. Each site is owned and managed by a Yard Association which is made up of the owners around the site. All of the owners pay a monthly fee for the sites management. The spaces are managed by a Green Caretaker who maintains the landscape and recycling stations.

The Yard Associations:-

− give residents a say in the planning of their local greenspace

− gives residents a vehicle to manage and improve their local greenspace;

− builds social cohesion.

Creation of Community Backyards

The community backyards are sited in the area of Norrebrø in the centre of Copenhagen. Norrebrø is a densely populated community, tenements of up to six storeys are common. Norrebrø has traditionally been the area in which lower income workers lived, but it now attracts a mix of students, immigrants, workers, and the ‘upwardly mobile’ - the regeneration of the backyards has played a significant role in the regeneration of the area.

In the 1980-90’s the Danish Government and the Kommune of Copenhagen (local authority), were very progressive. During this period many best practice urban sustainability projects were established. The Kommune proposed a scheme which sought to upgrade the tenements around tenement squares, and to demolish many of the buildings within the squares (workshops, storehouses, etc) to create landscaped gardens for the use of the residents around the sites.

Grants were made available to regenerate a square, but the grants were dependent upon the owners giving up tenure of the parcels of land within the square. The land is then held in common by a Gård Lau (Yard Association). Regeneration work was carried out by private contractors under the


116

management of the Kommune, following a design exercise involving local residents.

One Site Approach

The ‘community backyards’ were landscaped as pocket parks open to all residents living around each square. The community backyards are not however public space, most sites are accessed by residents through the stair door, whilst there is street access through a vennel this is gated. The sites are broken up into smaller spaces, landscaped trees and bushes but the whole site is linked by a network of paths around and through the site.

Whilst this type of design is attractive and defines a sense of community and connectivity around the square, such layouts aren’t unique to Copenhagen and can be found at many sites in Britain, (for example the recent Crown Street development in the Gorbals, Glasgow) - what is particularly interesting is how the community backyards are created, managed and maintained.

The community backyards are different shapes and sizes, but they share common features:-

− common ownership and management by a community backyard association;− play facilities for children, (sandpits, climbing frames, ball courts);

− ‘outdoor rooms’ defined by planting or fences which provide semi-private spaces for BBQs, relaxation etc. They are often equipped with benches and tables.

− larger open greenspaces;− paths around the whole site linking the tenements;

− A community recycling facility.

Management of Community Backyards

Each tenement around a square appoints a representative to the Gard Låu (pronounced yard lhow), and makes monthly payments towards the maintenance of the community backyard. How each resident pays their fee will depend upon the tenure of their flat. Private owners pay directly to the Gard Låu, private renters through their landlord, and co-operatively owned flats, through their tenement committee. In the case of rented and co-operative apartments, as non-payment can mean eviction there is usually prompt payment.

The management committee of the Gård Lau decides how the maintenance funds are spent at their site, contracts the ‘Green Caretakers’ (see below), and decides proposals for the installation of new features in the site or replacement of broken equipment. Gård Lau’s can also raise loans from a bank to install new features. At one site visited, the Gård Lau are currently planning the renovation of the play facilities around their sites at a cost of 2 million Krone (£200k), they have received a 50% grant from the Kommune, and raised the remainder from a bank loan. Because the site is so large (700 households) the loan can be maintained with only a small increase in the monthly fee.

Shared greenspace

Network of paths

Children in backyard


117

Green Caretakers

The maintenance of the community backyards is contracted out by each Gård Lau to a Grøn Gårdmand (Green Caretaker). One Grøn Gårdmand will normally maintain several sites. The Grøn Gårdmand’s (pronounced Groin Goarman) role was developed by a local NGO - The Agenda 21 Centre during the 1990’s as part of a European LIFE funded project.

In the first couple of years, the primary role of the Grøn Gårdmand was the management of community recycling stations (see below) in the community backyards, however the Green Caretakers now also carry out maintenance throughout the community backyards, this includes:- landscape maintenance; sweeping; emptying litters bins throughout the sites; and repairs to facilities.

The Green Caretakers are employed by a local NGO which charges the Gard Låu for services. Most Green Caretakers are part-time typically they would work 10-20 hours a week.

The Green Caretakers are currently in discussion with the representatives of the Gard Låus towards setting up a new body owned by the Gard Låus which contracts the Green Caretakers directly.

Living Spaces

The most striking thing about the Copenhagen community backyards is how well the spaces are used by the residents which live around them. The study visit was carried out in May, as the photographs show it was a period of sunny weather, but it appeared from conversations with residents that it was not at all unusual for residents to step out and spend some recreational time in the backyards.

In the evening and weekends it is common to see several family groups and friends in the community backyards sharing a meal or a picnic. The creation of living spaces is an important goal of the design and management of the community backyards. Whilst the sites are open access for all residents, smaller spaces are created within them as outdoor rooms which offered some semi-private social space. Picnic tables, benches, chairs are provided around the sites.

Most sites also have an extensive path network with a paved area around the perimeter of the site which provides access around the site, to the bike sheds, community recycling station and other features.

Living spaces

Picnic tables


118

Play Spaces

Each community backyard has a play area for children. The facilities differ from site to site, in a small courtyard there may only be a small sand box, in a large community backyard of 700 households there will be the type of playground that one would expect in a public park in Scotland.

The play facilities are normally funded by a mix of local authority grants and private finance raised by the Gard Låu on behalf of the households around the site. The facilities are maintained by the Green Caretakers.

Community Backyards are the natural place for children from the surrounding tenements to play. Children do not need to cross roads to reach the playspaces, the backgreens are overlooked by many flats providing high levels of surveillance. As the playspaces are on the doorstep, it is reasonable to assume that the children and parents will be able to visit use the play facilities much more often than a park which may require a walk or a trip in the car.

Community backyards reinforce a sense of neighbourhood for the children as they can play with neighbouring children and neighbouring parents can share childcare, socialising children in a much more healthy social environment than children that are shuttled to a play park and back to the safety of the home.

Recycling Stations

Community recycling stations are located within the community backyards, they house bins for the separation of waste into recyclable fractions, and bins for conventional waste bound for incineration. All bins are 1280 ltrs. Posters around the stations inform residents where to put recyclate. There are also compost bins for household biodegradable waste. The Green Caretakers visit each site on a weekly basis to maintain the stations which includes cleaning up any litter, and rotating the bins. It has been found that if the bins aren’t rotated some lazy residents will throw potential recyclate in a waste bin.

The recycling bins are collected by a NGO called R98 that processes the recyclate and sells it on. The remaining waste is collected by the Kommune for incineration. The Kommune charges each Gård Lau for the number of land-fill bins it uses. Therefore by increasing reuse and recycling the residents can reduce their maintenance payments, or spend the saving on other facilities.

The current diversion rate is 50% at most sites. The Green Caretakers argue that an increase of the cost for collection of incineration waste would motivate higher levels of recycling.

Play park in the backyard

Sand pit

A place to play

Compost Bins

Recycling Station


119

Edible Estates

Front Lawn, Maplewood, New Jersey Brookfield Edible Garden, London

EDIBLE ESTATES

The Edible Estates project was conceived by Fritz Haeg, an American architect. Fritz is very interested in sustainability and local food in particular. Edible Estates was developed from the start as an art project to rethink attitudes to greenspace. He worked with nine families across America, and a community group in London to redefine their lawns as ‘edible landscapes’.

Fritz Haeg’s Edible Estates project began in 2005 as a scheme to replace American front lawns with edible landscapes. Haeg’s work has relevance to Glasgow in the inspiration it gives to people to reconfigure their greenspaces to the new circumstances of the present day, and to elevate the cultural significance and recognition of gardening and food growing.

The Edible Estates projects like other community garden projects provide ample evidence of the role greenspace projects can play in bringing neighbours together.

BROOKWOOD EDIBLE GARDEN

In 2007, Fritz Haeg adapted this approach to a greenspace in inner city London. As part of an art project commissioned by the Tate Modern.

The Brookwood Edible Garden transformed an underused area of grass on a council-owned site into a completely edible garden for residents to enjoy. Haeg and his volunteers worked in collaboration with Bankside Open Spaces Trust (BOST) and the residents of Brookfield House over a long weekend to design and plant a garden composed of only edible plants. Vines and beans give height to the garden, while mounded beds separate the plants from the contaminated soil.

BOST are a local NGO with a good and well-established working relationship with both the parks and housing departments at Southwark Council based on a good track record of running projects. The good relationship with the Council officers allowed the project to use a lock-up for tools and to install compost bins for residents.


120

Edinburgh Community Backgreens Association*

Community Green in the centre of the Orwell Community Backgreen Edinburgh

INTRODUCTION

Edinburgh Community Backgreens Association (ECBA) is a community organisation created to inspire and support residents to regenerate tenement backgreens into community greenspaces which build a sense of neighbourhood, and to improve the facilities and amenities available to households.

Almost all of the tenements in Edinburgh have a backgreen which is communally owned by the flats on the stair. In some cases these backgreens are well used and cared for, and in others neglected and of little amenity to the residents. A community backgreen is a group of backgreens which are defined by a perimeter of tenements.

A detailed case study has been provided as the development of the initiative has explored several techniques to working with tenement households to regenerate tenement backgreens, the experience of which is very relevant to the Glasgow situation.

2004 INCEPTION OF THE INITIATIVE

The Edinburgh Community Backgreens Initiative was conceived and developed by Greig Robertson an Edinburgh based social entrepreneur, following a research trip to visit the Community Backyards initiative in Copenhagen, Denmark.

In 2004, Greig promoted the Community Backgreens Initiative to housing associations around Scotland as a model for the regeneration of tenement backgreens. A feasibility study was prepared in partnership with Canmore Housing Association. The study developed a community backgreens model adapted to the Scottish context and sought to identify the potential need and support for such a model. The study target area was the Gorgie and Dalry area of Edinburgh, Canmore housing associations traditional area of operation. The study found that 20% of backgreens were practically derelict and a further 30% were not meeting their potential.

A survey of households found that residents were unhappy about the condition of the backgreens, that they would like to see them improved. A significant


121

number of residents indicated that they would be willing to participate in a volunteer project to regenerate their backgreens. The barriers to regeneration and maintenance of backgreens was identified to be a lack of access to tools, a task too big for one person, and an unwillingness to maintain the backgreen without the support of neighbours.

2005-6 ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT

Pilot Projects

The study recommended the development of pilot projects to test the model. Residents from two of the sites identified in the feasibility study were invited to public meetings. It was proposed that a Community Backgreen Associations be established for each site to provide vehicles for their regeneration. Funding applications were made by the associations to support the costs of a community gardener, tools and materials.

Residents around each site were invited to participate in volunteer workshops to regenerate the backgreens. Small sheds were installed and equipped with tools and equipment. Approximately 45 households participated at both sites out of a total of 310 households. The clearance of the sites was complete by October 2005. Approximately 5 tonnes of rubbish and 3 tonnes of green waste were removed.

Design workshops were held over the Winter. Agreement was reached on the types of features that would be put in place at each site, this together with the research carried out during the feasibility study and the earlier research in Denmark formed the basis of the community backgreens model.

Later in 2005, an umbrella body - Edinburgh Green Caretakers Action Group (EGCAG), was established to represent the two associations.

The workshops restarted at Wheatfield and Cherrytree in April 2006 and ran till October. The workshops implemented the community backgreen designs prepared over the Winter. Participation dropped through 2006 to approximately 23 households at both sites. By the end of October 2006, the forest garden areas had been mulched and the fruit trees and fruit bushes had been planted throughout the entire Cherrytree site and 3/5 of Wheatfield site.

Above all, the pilot projects proved that with a little encouragement and support, there was a significant number of folk around the tenemental sites who were willing to volunteer their time to regenerate the backgreens, and that these groups could clear these derelict sites into beautiful urban greenspaces. The residents benefited from the improved spaces but also from the opportunity to work together with their neighbours towards a common goal. This has built ‘social capital’ around the sites which has sustained the projects.

Community Backgreens Model

The community backgreens model implemented at the pilot sites was based upon the Copenhagen community backyards model but revised to fit the Scottish context and the resources of the project. The premise of the model is that tenement backgreens should provide a focus for a sense of neighbourhood

Wheatfield site

Cherrytree site


122

within the tenement squares, facilitate the environmental sustainability of the adjoining tenements and provide a quality greenspace for the enjoyment of the residents. The model is an evolving group of ideas, which ECBA seeks to apply to a site when it creates a new community backgreen. Each year new ideas are added to the model and review the existing ideas to improve the model.

Community Backgreen - One Site Approach

All of the tenement backgreens within the tenement squares were to be regenerated as a shared community garden with the original ownership lines ignored in favour of a design which made best use of the space available.

Unlike Copenhagen, it was not suggested that the ownership of the backgreens would be changed. This was not considered as it was much too large a legal issue for a small project to take on, and the two pilot sites chosen for the action research project did not have any railings or boundary walls which would impede the design. The ownership lines were ignored but not changed.

Community Backgreen Associations

As described above, a Community Backgreen Association (CBA) was set up at each site. A CBA is a residents group constituted as an unincorporated association. If there is sufficient interest in a community backgreen project from the residents around a tenement square, ECBA invites all of the residents to a public meeting to describe what is involved in setting up a community backgreen project, and give residents an opportunity to ask questions. If there is continued support for the project, It is proposed that the group of residents form themselves into a CBA for the site.

The CBA provides a focus for discussion about the management of the site - a written constitution sets down rules as to how the group can work together, hold meetings, raise funds, make decisions. ECBA can provide a draft constitution which can be adopted by the group.

Membership of the community backgreen group is open to all residents which live around the site and/or who own a flat around the site. The members appoint a management committee which meets regularly (perhaps once every three months), to discuss the project and make decisions.

Unlike the Danish Gard Lau (see Copenhagen Community Backyards case study), the Community Backgreen Associations set up for each site have no legal basis for taking on the management of the sites. Their mandate to do so came from the existing neglected state of backgreens, i.e. no one was managing the sites, and the open invitation to all residents and owners to join and participate in the Associations, Since the start of the initiative in 2005 to 2008, there has been no challenge to the role of the Associations in managing the sites.

Volunteer Workshops

The regeneration work was carried out by volunteer teams made up of residents from each site supported by a workshop leader who would provide guidance and ensure folk worked safely. Two workshops a week were held at each site, one during weekday evenings and another on weekend afternoons. The workshops ran from July until October. Volunteer attendance was documented at each workshop.

Cherrytree volunteer group

Wheatfield volunteers

Wheatfield tool-shed


123

Each site was provided with a tool shed and gardening equipment which was paid for by grants. The first sheds were small (6ft by 4ft) and could do no more than store tools.

Approximately 5-10% of residents will volunteer their time to work in the backgreens. Some residents come down once and are never seen again, others will come out once a week. Some folk will go out on their own though most like working as a team.

From experience, we have found that in the early months a wide range of folk will come down, but once the site is cleared and under management, a smaller group of folk will continue to participate, this tends to be the folk interested in setting up small allotments, and who particularly enjoy the contact with other folk around the site.

Forest Gardens

The sites were landscaped using an approach called forest gardening. The lawns were bordered by mulch beds which were planted with herbaeceous perennials, fruit bushes and fruit trees in a layout which drew its inspiration from a woodland edge. The intention is to create over several years a low maintenance fruit bearing area which also provides habitat for wildlife. No herbicides are used in the creation and maintenance of forest gardens. The occasional weed species provides diversity and colour and is not out of place in the natural planting scheme.

Incorporation of ECBA

In May 2006, Edinburgh Green Caretakers Action Group, became the Edinburgh Community Backgreens Association (ECBA), an unincorporated association, and in August 2006, ECBA was incorporated as a company limited by guarantee. The move to incorporation was necessitated by the growth of the initiative and the requirements of large scale funders for the organisation to be incorporated.

The ECBA is jointly owned by the Community Backgreen Associations (CBA) that are established around the tenement sites ECBA works at. There are currently seven member groups. Each CBA appoints one or two directors (depending upon the number of households around the site), to the Board which is responsible for the governance of the company.

In 2006, ECBA contracted Greig Robertson as Initiative Director to deliver the project.

2007 GROWTH OF ECBI

Five New Community Backgreen Sites

In 2007, ECBA started working at five new community backgreen sites in Gorgie Dalry and work continued at the two pilot sites. The initiative was largely funded during 2007 by a grant received from the INCREASE fund to install in-vessel community composting facilities at six sites of the seven sites. The fund paid for the creation of community greens at each site, installation of 'co-sheds' and the purchase of eight A500 Rocket in-vessel composters.

Volunteer tending ‘fruiting hedge’


124

Revision of the Community Backgreens Model

Community Green

At the two pilot sites, ECBA found that the regeneration of the whole site was a very large undertaking in time and resources, especially at the larger Wheatfield site. It also created a large burden of maintaining the sites which fell on the volunteer teams at each site. When ECBA came to start work at the five new sites of the second group in 2007 it was decided to revise the model to create a small ‘community green’ in the centre of each site.

This community green would provide the ‘service core’ for the site providing the site for the ‘co-shed’ (see below) and other shared facilities such as a jungle gym play area for young children, a community composting facility, bike sheds or whatever the residents decide. The community green would be formed out of one or more backgreens in the centre of a site, or by taking a small portion of a group of backgreens. The remaining tenement backgreens around the site would be left untouched.

Monthly Volunteer Workshops

The increase in the number of sites in 2007 from two to seven, and the installation of the full-featured ‘co-sheds’ at six of the sites in April-June, stretched the resources of the ECBA development team. The task of co-ordinating and facilitating a team of workshop leaders to lead six workshops a week was particularly difficult. Whilst the workshop leaders had experience of leading groups, they all had different knowledge and skills, this was difficult to plan for.

In July 2007, after trying several different systems, it was decided to move from weekly to monthly site workshops. Whilst, this resulted in a dramatic reduction in the number of workshops, ECBA were better able to plan and resource these remaining workshops. Alongside this policy, the decision was taken to give out to tool-shed keys to registered volunteers so that they could organise themselves to carry out work between the monthly workshops.

Installation of Co-Sheds

The co-sheds (community-sheds) were a development of the shared tool sheds in the centre of the pilot sites. The co-sheds were considerably bigger (10ft by 20ft) allowing for a 10ft by 10ft workshop which would store tools but could be used for other purposes, and a second compartment for community composting (see below). Access to the co-shed is made to the volunteers that participate in the management of the site.

The co-sheds were substantial structures requiring hardstanding and the laying of electrical connections to provide power for the composting equipment. The ownership of the co-sheds has been retained by ECBA, so that should a co-shed fall into misuse, the shed may be dismantled and used at another site.

Tenemental Community Composting

In Edinburgh waste is collected from the front of the tenements in large 1280 ltr bins. The Council introduced kerbside collection points for paper and packaging waste, but there was no facilities for the composting of biodegradable kitchen waste. ECBA proposed the installation of kitchen waste in community composting facilities in the centre of the community backgreens. In 2006, ECBA received funding to install facilities in six sites.

Community green at the Caleys community backgreen site

Plan showing Community Green at the Caleys site


125

It was decided to go for a composting system which was built around Rocket In-Vessel compostors. The A500 Rockets which were used are about the size of a chest freezer and run on 60W of electricity. They cost approximately £8,500 each, and its estimated that they can compost the waste of 100 households (depending upon maintenance regime.

The Rocket allows for all kitchen waste to be composted in a safe enclosed environment resulting in compost which can be used within the community backgreen. Residents collect biodegradable kitchen waste in a ‘kitchen caddy’ with a biodegradable liner. When full, the liner is tied up and taken down to the Co-shed where it is deposited through a hatch in the wall into a hopper. The Rockets are operated by ECBA maintenance staff.

The Rocket system was chosen as they are BRE approved to be able to safely compost meat-included catering waste. ECBA decided that if we were to provide a solution to tenemental biodegradable waste going to land fill, it would be wrong minded to exclude the most hazardous part.

Green Caretakers Service

In 2007 ECBA went into partnership with Dunedin Canmore Housing Association (DCHA) to provide tenement factoring services. In 2006, DCHA had established New Horizons, a tenement property management service. It was agreed that should New Horizons provide a property management service to a tenement around a community backgreen site, the backgreen maintenance would be provided by ECBA branded as the Green Caretakers service. The service would also include the community composting service.

ECBA did not directly market the tenement factoring service other than word-of-mouth through the volunteer workshops. Promotion was the responsibility of New Horizons. In September 2007, the first tenement signed up to the full New Horizons/Green Caretakers service. It was hoped that many more tenements would have signed up to the tenement factoring arrangement, but New Horizons has found it difficult to get a majority of owners on each stair to agree to a contract. ECBA hope that over several years interest will pick up and further tenements will be signed.

Growing Food In The Backgreens

In 2007, ECBA started to promote the growing of vegetables in the backgreens. Demonstration raised beds were installed in the community backgreens, and the workshop leaders provided training in growing vegetables. This has proved popular with many of the volunteers.

2008 - AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE STOCK

ECBA was unable to raise funds to start working at new sites in 2008. The development team shrank back to Greig Robertson with the support of one workshop leader who has continued . After a very busy 2007, the pause in the development of new sites has allowed some time to consider the strengths and weaknesses of the community backgreen model, develop a website which will be an invaluable tool for promotion and development and propose a new approach for 2009.

Composting shed

Raised beds at the Wheatfield site


126

Backgreen Blitz Workshops

ECBA's approach to supporting community backgreen groups will change in 2009. Whilst previously workshop leaders would attend monthly site workshops at each community backgreen site, this support will now switch to neighbourhood Backgreen Blitz teams. ECBA intends to establish three teams to cover the main areas of tenemental housing in Edinburgh. The Blitz workshops will be held fortnightly on weekend afternoons between March and October. The Backgreen Blitz teams will establish the community greens at new community backgreen sites then move on to a different site.

After the initial enthusiasm for clearing a site, some community backgreen workshops have been poorly attended. At sites which had a dozen or so volunteers during the clearance, workshop leaders have led workshops with one or two folk. These folk are often quite capable and don't need much direction training or support.

A workshop leader working with a Backgreen Blitz group once a fortnight between March and October will be able to start off up to 10 new sites. Using the old method, the same number of workshops that would support 2 community backgreen groups.

At new sites, the Backgreen Blitz team will over the course of a day work with the residents to create a community green and install a co-shed, and compost bays. After the Blitz it will be up to the residents around the site to keep the project going.

Grow Your Own Course

Starting in 2009, ECBA hopes to start a new course for Edinburgh households which will give practical training in growing fruit and vegetables. ECBA does not expect tenemental households to become self-sufficient in food, but hope it will encourage folk to think about where their food comes from and perhaps source food from one of Edinburgh's local growers.

The course will of comprise of monthly weekend workshops providing practical instruction in the growing of fruit and vegetables in gardens. It will be devised to be useful to growers of all levels but particularly for beginners. The course will also be provide ideas of the things which can be cooked with the produce.

See www.ecba.org.uk


127

Peabody Trust*, London

Play park sited in tenement backcourts in Westminster, London

The Peabody Trust is a charitable housing trust and registered housing association. They are one of the largest providers of social housing in London and are responsible for the development of several best practice housing projects including the Beddington Zero Energy Development. They have regenerated several tenement perimeter blocks to integrate and social and play facilities in the backcourts.

Management Of Greenspace at Peabody Trust

The Peabody Trust recognises the value of the landscape around its sites, whilst the sites are fragmented and of widely differing sizes, they represent a significant proportion of the greenspace in the boroughs in which they are located. The trust are developing a Good Practice Guide which will provide descriptions and images of the landscape types which they would expect.

Most of the trusts housing stock is mixed tenure, this create difficulties in management. Permission must be sought the leaseholders (owners), for any capital cost spending over £100/ leaseholder.

Grounds maintenance is a responsibility of the contracts manager. Contracts are monitored by key performance indicators such as height of grass/frequency of visits. Matthew Frith, the Landscape Regeneration Manager at the Trust has had difficulties in persuading contract managers to introduce local food growing, resident involvement, and habitat landscaping in to maintenance contracts.

Similarly, there is mixed aspirations amongst residents. The Kensington and Chelsea Tenants Management Organisation wants small contractors for different sites not large ones with a one size fits all approach. However, the Trust attempted a relaxed mowing policy at an estate in Sheppards Bush which drew a negative reaction. The senior residents expectations were for landscape to be ‘smart and tidy’, this generation could remember a time when gardening was more intensive, however this was at a time when wage bills were a lot lower.

Natural Estates

Natural Estates is a partnership project led by Notting Hill Housing Group and the Peabody Trust, and supported by Natural England, Groundwork London and CABE Space. It aims to raise the profile of the greenspaces in and around


128

housing estates and improve them for the benefit of the residents and to ensure they play a role in improving the ‘green infrastructure’ of towns and cities.

Housing estate landscapes are not known for their environmental or ecological value; they are often considered some of the poorest quality greenspaces within the urban environment. The report ‘A Natural Estate’ provides guidance for social landlords on how to enhance their landscapes for biodiversity.

Natural England has advocated Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards (ANGSt), which defines the level of natural greenspace provision considered necessary to provide people with adequate contact with the natural environment. ANGSt recommends that - “no person should live more than 300m from their nearest area of natural greenspace”.

The Natural Estates project has been proposed by the Peabody Trust to test whether the enhancement of greenspace in and around a small number of housing estates can result in areas meeting the ANGSt guidelines, and whether this provided demonstrable benefits for people and wildlife.

Active 8 Project

In 2007, the Peabody Trust, in partnership with local charitable organisations, was awarded almost £4.7m from the Big Lottery’s Well-Being programme for Active 8, a portfolio of 84 projects to improve the health of 43,000 people in social housing communities across all London boroughs.

The projects, many of which focus on food, will fan out across the city from 300 local hubs in all 33 boroughs with activities including inter-cultural food days that will broaden people’s understanding of nutrition, and a week of events and workshops that will address common mental health problems. Of particular interest are five projects that aim to get Peabody residents involved in food growing. These include:

− Gardening School, a project based at a school near to a Peabody estate in East London where residents will be involved in cultivating the land and

planting vegetables and fruit helped by a community gardener. There will also be sessions on how best to prepare what is harvested and on the health benefits of consuming the produce. This will be linked into a second project,

− Fisher Foods,8 a weekly market selling fruit and vegetables harvested from the garden at affordable prices, the income being used to purchase new

seeds, plants, compost etc. for Gardening School.

Other projects involve:

− teaching people to grow their own herbs and spices to use to moderate

dietary levels of fats, sugar and sodium in the meals;

− building compost boxes and a greenhouse to grow exotic fruit and vegetables for ethnic minority groups who are unable to buy local produce

from their homelands;

− turning land over to residents who will create a market garden; and

− showing residents how to use bags, containers, and hanging baskets to grow a wide variety of vegetables and fruit on balconies and walkways in multi storey flats.

Info about Active 8 extracted from theGrowing Round Houses Leaflet with kind permission of Christine Haigh, Womens Environmental Network. © Christine Haigh.


129

Permablitz, Melbourne Australia

Permablitz picks up on permaculture, an idea dating back to the 1970s that revolves around the creation of perennial agricultural systems whose design mimics ecologies found in nature.

Aiming to implement the notion throughout the Melbourne area, Permablitz holds weekend "blitzes" in which groups of volunteers come together to transform a suburban yard into a food-producing organic garden. Before each blitz, Permablitz coordinates pre-blitz design visits and organises the materials that will need to be donated; post-blitz, it also conducts follow-up visits to check on the results. Along the way, the group hopes to share knowledge and skills about organic food production in urban gardens while building community and having fun.

The idea is that by converting their lawns into organic food producing gardens, people will be able to back away from a dependence on industrial agriculture and the shipping of food back and forth across the world. At the same time, it makes organic eating accessible to more than just the middle class.

Permablitz started with a group called Codemo (Community Development and Multicultural Organisation) a local community group composed primarily of South American immigrants. After hearing about permaculture and the potential of having a backyard full of practically free organic veggies, some members expressed interest in growing food in their own backyards. The first permaculture backyard makeover was held in Dandenong at the home of Vilma from El Salvador. And permablitzes have been spreading all around Melbourne since. More than 40 permablitzes have now been held since the group began.

Permablitzes involve a combination of learning, practicing and socialising. The social community-building aspect is just as important, or even more so, than the garden makeover itself. In our socially atomised suburbs, with our tall fences separating our yards from our neighbours', its rare to get to know those living closest to us. “The permablitz I had at my place last Sunday gave me an opportunity to introduce myself to the old Greek couple next door and invite them round to share some of their gardening skills. On the day itself, I met quite a few local people for the first time who had heard about the blitz through the grapevine. On top of this, because it was Codemo who seeded off the permablitz concept, they have also offered opportunities to meet and spend time with a fun and diverse bunch of people – 76 year old Willie from Chile, for example, has been one most regular blitzers. He's also one of the hottest dancers of the 'permasalsa', most of the Codemo permablitzes end with drink and a dance.”

www.permablitz.net

Edited from an interview between Asha Bee of Permablitz and Lou Smith in a Breakdown Press article, and other sources. © Trav et all at Permablitz

Blitzers get started

Often too many volunteers

Children are encouraged


130

http://permablitz.net/codemo/




Urban Farming, Middlesborough

People visiting Middlesbrough in 2007 may have wondered why there were radishes and pumpkins being grown where they might have expected to see carnations and dahlias. All over the town, disused urban spaces were turned into fertile corners bursting with freshly grown fruit and vegetables as more than 1,000 residents took part in a project aimed at changing the way they think about food.

Design of the Times (DOTT) is a bi-annual initiative from the Design Council. In 2007, Middlesbrough was identified to host a ‘food’ themed project, and Groundwork South Tees were asked to deliver the ‘Grow Zones’ element of this. The Urban Agriculture project consisted of working with local communities to grow fruit and vegetables. Local people and organisations were asked to pledge to participate, eventually growing food in 27 large (2m2) containers, 85 medium (1m2) and 150 small containers. Throughout the project events were held in local venues, giving growers the opportunity to learn how to cook their produce. Growers included schools, community groups and individual residents. As the project was initiated late in the growing season the majority of plants were sourced as seedlings, augmented by some seeds, again from local nurseries.

The idea of the urban farming project was to make people more aware of food miles, improve health and aid regeneration of the borough, which contains the ninth most deprived area in the UK. Groundwork South Tees advised schools, mental health hospitals, residential care homes and retailers on planting and growing many varieties of herbs, vegetables and fruit. Middlesbrough borough council turned over parkland, town-centre planters and other landholdings for fruit and vegetable growing. The eight-month project culminated in a town meal outside the Middlesbrough Institute of Modern Art, where up to 8,000 people shared meals from the food that had been grown.

Middlesbrough Council and Groundwork Tees intend to continue the project in following years by supplying seeds and containers to anyone interested, and already has 2,000 individuals and groups lined up, including 31 out of 51 schools, with 280 growing sites. Noreen Hart, a parent support adviser at Park End primary school, which took part in the project and will again this year, says: "Some kids are not aware of where supermarket food comes from. There was a real sense of satisfaction when they saw food they'd grown being served on the canteen salad bar and other kids eating it.” Last year's project has kickstarted a local food revolution. Plans are now being developed by the council to open a restaurant run along the lines of Jamie Oliver's Fifteen. Community run food co-ops will supply the restaurant with fresh, organic produce.

Groundwork South Tees 01642 815 663

Middlesborough Council, Ian Collingwood, 01642 729083

www.dott07.com/go/food/urban-farming

Edited from Design Council website, The Guardian (

© Catherine Early and other sources. © DOTT07

Community event

Children stocking the 1m2 planters


131

Other London Projects The London case studies reported below were extracted from the ‘Growing Round Houses’ leaflet with kind permission of Christine Haigh, Womens Environmental Network. © Christine Haigh and Ben Reynolds.

WAPPING WOMEN’S CENTRE COMMUNITY GARDEN

In 1999, the chair of a group based at the Wapping Women’s Centre (WWC) on a local authority-owned estate in East London contacted Tower Hamlets Council in response to a demand from residents using the center who were interested in gardening but had no space to grow anything. Through contact with the appropriate housing office, WWC negotiated use of land on the estate for the gardens. Growing space was established, but various problems arose initially including concerns about land contamination and the accumulation of rubbish from the estate in the gardens.

In 2005, the local authority proposed to refurbish the estate, which would destroy the gardens. This turned out to be a blessing in disguise: WWC agreed on condition that gardens would be restored, and the council put aside a budget of £3000 a year for gardens. The residents took charge of planning and it was agreed that the local authority would be responsible for maintaining grass areas, flower perimeter and hedges surrounding gardens.

This arrangement reduces the burden of litter clean-up for residents and the WWC, while the residents tending the garden translates into less maintenance of the whole area for the local authority.

The refurbished gardens now have 30 plots, each allocated to a member of the project, with the membership rotating on a two year basis. Monthly meetings for the plot-holders are held at the WWC to share seeds, information and compost, but each plot holder is responsible for providing for their own plots as they are weaned from depending on the centre for materials.

There have been many benefits from the project:

− the garden engages previously isolated women, and helps them to interact with neighbours, the wider community and local authority, at meetings and in the garden;

− residents have learned to voice concerns and figure out what they need and want, and to organise and petition rather than remaining passive; and

− the local authority saves money on maintaining land.

There is plenty of vision from the centre for how things could be developed. Proposals include: increased garden space and greenhouses on site; a project worker who could provide training; attracting visitors and media attention; and liasing with the Map Squad to welcome disabled people (including residents) to the garden.

Securing a fixed lease for the gardens from the local authority, and long-term funding would also support these developments.


132

SPITALFIELDS ESTATE GARDENING CLUB

The Spitalfields Estate Gardening Club (SEGC) has recently been set up after a resident, who is a part-time GP, noticed symptoms of depression and isolation in women living in estates. She approached the housing association, Tower Hamlets Community Housing (THCH), in response to a poster offering the opportunity to set up a garden on the estate. The housing association had been involved in a successful grow-your-own food project on one of their other estates, and wanted to start a similar project in Spitalfields, where residents were not involved in many community activities.

THCH offered £1,500 towards the set-up (installation of raised beds, the purchase of a few tools, etc.), land and tool storage for the project, and provided a meeting space for the group to come together. THCH also provided advice on setting up the group, and seeking future funding. Initially two consultation meetings were held with residents on the estate to spread awareness of and support for the project, and to plan the first stages. After the meetings raised beds were made from railway sleepers and installed. The housing association plans to pave the area around the beds and install a water supply for irrigation.

The garden is located in a previously underused green space on the estate, which is gated, limiting access to the area to avoid antisocial behaviour and requiring the group to sign for the keys and be inducted into security protocol. The fifteen members of the club pay a small annual fee (currently £10) to cover seeds, tool maintenance, etc., and there are two people on a waiting list for when more space becomes available. In the first year, the women decided to have collective garden and share the produce rather than have individual gardens, though these may be developed in future.

The project has had wide ranging benefits including:

− combating isolation and depression in residents by getting people outside to grow their own food,

− encouraging multigenerational family involvement where, for example, parents or grandparents are able to tend the garden while children play nearby and another family member provides snacks.

− increasing community participation, which is particularly positive from THCH’s perspective, and they hope to hold an opening party for the summer harvest.

The community development manager at THCH says the project has run smoothly but stresses that the housing association intends to have minimal input: the project is about community empowerment, people talking to their neighbours, taking charge of their own space and taking pride in it – an investment in their own community.


133

Other Scottish Backcourts Projects

GOW, GLASGOW

GOW is the collective acronym for the Gibson Street, Otago Street and Westbank Quadrant 'triangle community', so called, because the streets join to form a triangular backcourt. The group provides a fantastic example of what can be achieved when Glasgow West End residents put their heads together to transform an ugly and neglected backcourt into an attractive area they can be proud of.

GOW is one of the four sites regenerated by the Sustainable Backcourt Initiative The pilot ran for the 2005-6 financial year and in addition to physical renovation and improvements there was a community approach to encourage residents to recycle a range of items so diverting them from landfill. Delays in planning permission until late 2005 caused some problem for researchers but all the demolition, reconstruction, landscaping and clean-up work was completed by March 2006 and the scheme proved to be viable.

GOW is an amazing example of what can be created through community involvement, dedication and hard work.

A Brief History of GOW

Inspired by a one off clean up organised by students the GOW community group formed in 2001 as a response to local residents' wishes to tackle a host of problems. The main area they wanted to tackle was the backcourt, which like many other backcourts in Glasgow was very neglected.

The bin sheds were dilapidated and unsuited to modern levels of waste generation and chronic fly-tipping had resulted an accumulation of mounds of discarded rubbish. Overspill from the bin sheds attracted rats. Another hazard was discarded needles from drug users who bedded down in basement areas alongside dumped household appliances, baths and mattresses. All in all, the GOW triangle was a forbidding and ugly area.

Community Regeneration

In 2000, a group of students from 97 Otago Street decided to have a clean up and posted around notes inviting residents to come along and help. Armed with heavy-duty black bags donated by Glasgow City Council, they and other residents made some inroads into the dreadful mess, filling a huge number of bags.

GOW community group tentatively formed in late 2001 and in February 2002 had their first public meeting held in an empty local shop. The aim was to find out what the residents wanted from the backcourt and to find out what was possible.

With the assistance of Kelvin Clyde Greenspace, both in terms of practical help (cutting back of overgrown trees and bushes) and advice (how to obtain funding, a bank account and organise GOW etc.), the group gained confidence in realising a backcourt intended to be used by all, not just abused by a few.

A survey and consultation report was produced identifying and prioritising the problems faced and the desires of the residents for improvement of the communal space.

Site prior to community workshops

Open shared site

Covered bin stores


134

Some of the main items on the GOW residents' wish list included :

− A solution to the overflowing bin sheds

− Some landscaping of the existing 'flowerbeds' and a 'green space' to enjoy

− A more secure and better lit area to prevent bin raking and non-residents using the area

− The opportunity to recycle

Improvements

Instead of dilapidated binsheds with overflowing bins and an accumulation of discarded rubbish, the residents now feel that, the GOW backcourt is now a pleasure to spend time in. New roofed, security lit bin shelters have been installed. Blue recycling bins accompany the household green ones and composting bins have been introduced. The paths have been repaved, and seating and relaxation areas created. The flower beds have been done up and the old metal ash-bins are now planters for shrubs and vegetables. The entrances to the backcourt have smart high railings with gates improving security and privacy.

Those who have been involved in the project have made friends, gained confidence and new interests and have worked up an appetite to continue to support GOW and keep everyone feeling good about their communal space.

Edited from an article published in www.glasgowwestend.co.uk.

© unknown.

GOVANHILL REACTION TEAM, GLASGOW

The Govanhill ReAction Project is a community re-generation project managed by Govalhill Housing Association in the Southside of Glasgow. The team provides training to young people in horticultural skills while at the same time promoting the benefits of an environmental and healthy lifestyle. From day one of the project there has been a strong ethos of working with and for the community.

The ReAction Team have been working with 16 – 25 year olds on a Training for Work scheme and have witnessed young people who have never gardened before evolve into composting, garden design and fence building enthusiasts.

The Team works directly with schools to encourage pupils and teachers to participate in wide ranging aspects of gardening and environmental issues and have created a fruit orchard, flower displays and composting areas within school grounds.

The Team also works with residents groups to regenerate tenement backcourts (90% of households in Govanhill live in tenement flats). The workshops help them take a pride in the area whilst passing on new gardening skills.

Text edited from information provided by Govanhill Housing Association. Images

© GHA.

Seating areas

Backcourt clearout

Music workshop


135

http://www.glasgowwestend.co.uk

http://www.glasgowwestend.co.uk

ROYSTON BACKCOURTS, GLASGOW

The Royston Backcourts project resulted in the regeneration of three backcourts owned by Copperworks Housing Co-operative (Royston) to provide an attractive greenspace usable by the residents of each backcourt.

When the Co-op's flats were modernsied in the 1990s the backcourt areas were finished only with areas of slabbing and uncultivated beds containing no plants. Tenants never regarded these as garden areas for their use and there has been no reason to use them constructively. The backcourts had no soft landscaping and consisted of bare earth, slabbed areas, drying areas and bins. They were all very unattractive and of very little greenspace value. There was very little use of these areas except to access the bin areas and hang out washing.

Copperworks Housing Co-operative contacted Kelvin Clyde Greenspace for advice and assistance in enhancing three backcourts. A workshop was arranged by Copperworks Housing Association with the residents of three closes. Kelvin Clyde Greenspace, gave a presentation on how the the backcourts could be improved. The residents then split into 3 groups (one for each backcourt). They decided what they wanted and put their ideas onto maps of each backcourt. The information was then assessed and detailed plant species lists, hard landscaping requirements and costings were then drawn up.

The Co-op was unable to secure finance to upgrade the backcourts using contractors. A small budget was identified to cover materials, plants, etc, and residents were invited to volunteer to participate in a scheme where they carried out works in conjunction with Co-op staff. A competitive element was introduced to encourage a sense of community and purpose.

BTCV were contracted for two days to assist Copperworks Housing Co-operative in carrying out some of the very hard work required to get the backcourts up to standard prior to planting. The project generated a high level of resident participation in improving the greenspace on their doorstep. The final designs were chosen by residents in each individual close and they were involved at all stages of the planning process and in undertaking the work.

The project has resulted in the creation of 3 attractive communal gardens which are now valued by the residents. Residents have developed a true sense of ownership and pride in their gardens; each garden area is seen as belonging to the residents of the respective close, with each space unique to them and created to meet their needs. Residents have continued to use the new gardens and have expressed interest in learning about their future maintenance. Kelvin Clyde Greenspace staff are committed to giving ongoing assistance to residents regarding maintenance & upkeep.

Edited From Greenspace Scotland Website. © Kelvin Clyde Greenspace

Renovated backcourts

Families participating in project


136

HUTCHISON ALLOTMENTS, EDINBURGH

© Microsoft Virtual Earth

The Hutchison allotments are a small Council owned allotment site within a tenement perimeter block in West Edinburgh. It is a small site of only six allotments although two are shared so eight households benefit from it. Four of the households live around the site whilst the others come from other parts of the city. The site has always been owned by the Council. It is understood that the site was converted into allotments during the War.

GREEN FINGERS GARDENING CLUB, ARDLER, DUNDEE

The Green Fingers Club is a group of approximately 20 residents who meet once a week to carry out garden maintenance in their own gardens on a rotational basis, and gardens of old folk who can’t do it for themselves. The club was started out of a healthy living initiative but is now self-managed with its own tools and equipment, with access to tool storage provided by the local regeneration initiative. The members propogate their own plants with support of local allotments, which they bring along to the workshops, there is a lot of swapping of resources between members.


137

Ideas

DIG FOR VICTORY

Dig for Victory was a campaign used in Britain during the Second World War. At the start of the war, Britain was importing about 55 million tons of food a year. But in the war years, merchant shipping became extremely vulnerable to German battleship and submarine attacks, so consequently the availability of imported food was in decline.

The British government introduced several policies to ensure that the British population was being adequately fed. One of these was a Dig for Victory campaign that called for every man and woman in Britain to keep an allotment. Lawns and flower-beds were turned into vegetable gardens. Over ten million instructional leaflets were distributed to the British people.

The propaganda campaign was successful and Britain saw its green and pleasant land transformed with gardens, flower beds and parkland dug up for the planting of vegetables. It was estimated that at its peak over 1,400,000 people had allotments. By 1943, over a million tons of vegetables were being grown in gardens and allotments, it was said that the British people's diet during the war years was the most healthy ever.

During the course of the war, many propagandist moves were made to promote the importance of 'growing your own'. In addition to the circulation of familiar Ministry of Agriculture 'food flashes', literature and poster displays, anthems were also introduced.

Fresh eggs were also produced as people realised the value of keeping chickens in their backyards. The importance of retaining edible scraps of food for pigs was also encouraged. The pigs, some of which were purchased with monies collected from organised neighbourhood schemes, once fattened with the scraps, yielded good food too.

Edited from the www.homesweethomefront.co.uk

LOCAL FOOD

Tim Lang, professor of food policy at City University, says the era of cheap food in the UK is over, and that the nation is "sleepwalking into a crisis". He points out that the UK has an especially poor record on producing its own fruit and vegetables. "Ninety-five per cent of fresh fruit is imported. This is ludicrous in a country with 2,000 varieties of apples," he says.

Lang believes that with rising oil and food prices, "there is huge potential for urban farming in the UK. The fundamental problem that is blocking its take-up is land ownership. Too much is in the hands of private developers," he says.

The food and farming alliance Sustain says there needs to be a change in the way urban land is perceived. "There's a lot of space in towns and cities that is just green desert. It's there just to look at," says Ben Reynolds, London food links officer at Sustain. He has just returned from the US where he was learning about successful urban farming projects. He thinks there is plenty of potential for similar schemes in the UK. As a starting point, he believes that planners, architects and developers have a central role in incorporating food-growing areas into new developments.

Posters from the campaign


138

http://www.homesweethomefront.co.uk

http://www.homesweethomefront.co.uk

Meanwhile, derelict land, public parks and green areas among social housing could be set aside for small-scale agriculture. Even in big cities, where building tends to be high-density, green roofs could support types of food that require little water or nutrients.

© Catherine Early, Guardian.

www.sustainweb.org

OLYMPIC FARMING

Fritz Haig’s tongue in cheek but visionary manifesto for ‘Olympic Farming’ (see Edible Estates), has a serious message with regards to how we source our food.. The regeneration of Glasgow’s backcourts would require a social movement, perhaps the Glaswegians would warm to a similar manifesto with a touch of humour.

An edited version of the manifesto by Fritz Haeg presented at Debate London on Saturday, June 23rd 2007 in the Turbine Hall at Tate Modern in London, UK.

Olympic Farming 2012 Manifesto

“Every night our London dinner plate becomes the venue for a sort of global Olympic event, representing:

Proposal for Olympic gardening uniform

China: Sweet Potatoes / 5000 miles,

Egypt: Grapes / at 2200 miles,

Ghana: Pinapples / 3,100 miles,

India: Bananas / 5,100 miles,

Mexico: Avocadoes / 5,500 miles,

Peru: Asparagus / 6,300 miles,

Saudi Arabia: Tomatoes / 3,100 miles,

South Africa: Carrots / 6,000 miles,

Thailand: Corn / 5900 miles,

United States: Apples / 3,700 miles.

Over four-fifths of London's food supply is imported from abroad, this supply is entirely dependent on the oil market. Agriculture accounts for 30% of products transported on British roads. Over the last 10 years, the distance food travels from farm to plate increased by 15%, and 43% of all fruits and vegetables contain detectable levels of pesticides.

More than 600,000 Olympic related guests each day are expected in London for the 2012 summer games. What will they eat? Food that has been grown, sprayed, packaged and shipped from each of their home countries?

I propose a new extreme summer event: Olympic Farming.

Visitors will be served fruits, vegetables and herbs grown exclusively in the host city. Residents will grow organic food without pesticides or genetic modifications for their guests in every neighborhood across London. Any resident will be able to nominate their front garden, or plots of unused public or private land on their street as the site of an official Olympic Farm.

To feed everyone for the Olympic Games will require over 6000 acres of densely planted gardens. The soil on each site will be tested for contaminants, cleaned and prepared as necessary. This might be a good opportunity to come to terms with our toxic industrial past and the state of the land we live upon. A city wide Olympic composting system will be established. Four years of London kitchen scraps will be transformed into the most fertile soil that the city has ever seen.


139

http://www.sustainweb.org

http://www.sustainweb.org

http://debatelondon.net/debates.php?id=5&action=showTopics

http://debatelondon.net/debates.php?id=5&action=showTopics

An Olympic Farming team will be recruited to represent each neighborhood. Each team will be specially trained to tend one of the thousands of farming venues across the city. They will wear beautiful Olympic Farming uniforms that will be visible from great distances. Everyone will want to be an Olympic Farmer so they can wear the fabulous outfits that are locally customized.

The entire city of London will be radically transformed as empty bits of land, neglected interstitial spaces, rooftops and even parts of Royal Parks are turned into abundant productive green spaces. All residents of London will watch as agriculture is woven back into the city and public food production becomes a dazzling spectacle. During the games, each Olympic Farm will be open for viewing, tours and evaluation. Specially designed carts will make visible the movement of the fruits and vegetables the short distance between the host garden and the guest's table.

Neighbourhood farming teams will be awarded gold, silver and bronze medals for the quality of their produce and the excellence of their gardens. They will go on to become urban farming super-stars with offers for product endorsements and their faces splashed across the covers of all of the tabloids.

After the summer of 2012, London residents will inherit a spectacular network of urban pleasure gardens that will feed them with the seasons, instead of empty monumental shells erected for a moment of global vanity. Every evening, the children of London (some of whom may not have even known that a tomato comes from a plant) will look at their plate of food that they watched grow down the street and even know the name of the famous Olympic Farmer that planted it.”

© Fritz Haeg, 2007 (Edited from Edible Estates website, and other sources).


140

Part 2b - Solutions for Sustainable BackcourtsINTRODUCTION

In Part 2b we will present solutions for the regeneration and sustainable management of backcourts taking best practice from the case studies to present a series of solutions for the sustainable management of backcourts. In summary the suggested actions are to:-

− Create a network of community enterprises across the Glasgow Clyde Valley area which will work promote the regeneration of backcourts, and will develop a business model based upon providing maintenance services to

private and social landlord backcourts;

− Raise householders and institutions expectations of backcourts by promoting

best practice and launching a multi-media campaign;

− Provide encouragement and support to residents to establish backcourt groups to take responsibility through community action for the regeneration

and management of backcourts;

− Promote best practice in community and biodiversity gardening to social

landlords and landscape contractors.

The solutions have been presented in such a way that they could implemented as a suite of measures or individually, by Glasgow Clyde Valley Green Network, by one of its member bodies, or perhaps by new community enterprises established to improve tenement backcourts.


141

Solution 1 - Community EnterpriseAcross the Glasgow Clyde Valley, tenement backcourts represent a significant proportion of the total urban greenspace. Furthermore this greenspace is on the doorstep of over 70% 5 of households making it a particularly valuable and important resource.

Whilst local authorities have management policies and staff responsible for the maintenance and development of public greenspace, and social landlords take a similar role in the management of the backcourts under their ownership, the quality of greenspace in the backcourts of mixed tenure blocks is the responsibility of the residents on the stairs. In some cases these backcourts are well maintained, in others not.

With this in mind, it is suggested that GCV Green Network Partnership promote and support the development of a network of community enterprises with the specific purpose of promoting the regeneration and sustainable management of tenement backcourts in the Glasgow Clyde Valley area.

The initiative should seek to develop resilience from the possible withdrawal of top down political and/or financial support. It is suggested that a community enterprise model would provide opportunities for income generation by offering backcourt maintenance and other services, and a management structure which would put the target communities at the heart of decision making.

NETWORK OF NEIGHBOURHOOD COMMUNITY ENTERPRISES

If a community enterprise model was taken, rather than create a single community enterprise for the Glasgow Clyde Valley area, it would be better to identify tenement neighbourhoods throughout area which can be the zones of operation for a network of community enterprises. It would advantageous for the community enterprises to be associated with particular geographic/social communities with a shared identity. Further research would be required to identify appropriately sized neighbourhoods which were not too large to lose a sense of common identity, but which would provide a large enough potential customer base to develop a viable business operation. The voluntary management committees of the enterprises would be drawn from the service users and local community, too large an area of operation would weaken their role/contribution.

A further advantage of a network approach is that the initiative can start with one or more pilot projects which would be evaluated prior to further development of the model. The character and funding base of each enterprise would also be molded to fit the characteristics of the community it served.

The community enterprises would lead the implementation of the other ‘Solutions’ proposed in this report.

See Case StudyEdinburgh Community Backgreens Association, pg 123.


142

5 Figure quoted is for % tenemental stock in the City of Glasgow

CREATION OF NEIGHBOURHOOD ENTERPRISES

Feasibility Study

The creation of the neighbourhood enterprises would be sponsored by GCV Green Network Partnership in partnership with other key bodies. It would require the provision of development support to commission feasibility studies and to set-up the community enterprises. The manner in which they would be set up would depend to some extent upon their proposed organisational structure. They would also require grant funding for several years until they become established.

A feasibility study would be required to measure need and demand for the potential services of the enterprise in the target area and prepare a business plan. The business plan would layout the services the enterprise would provide, resources required, costs of the enterprise, potential income and the grant and/or loan funding which would be required to sustain the enterprise until it achieved financial self-sufficiency.

Organisational Structure

The initiative would need to carry out further research to identify the best approach to take for incorporation of the community enterprises. The Community Interest Company (CIC) model would be a likely structure.

CIC’s are limited companies, with special additional features, created for the use of people who want to conduct a business or other activity for community benefit, and not purely for private advantage. This is achieved by a "community interest test" and "asset lock", which ensure that the CIC is established for community purposes and the assets and profits are dedicated to these purposes 6.

The approach taken by the Edinburgh Community Backgreens Association Ltd. was to incorporate as a Company Limited by Guarantee. It is a not-for-profit owned by its ‘Members’ which are the residents associations established around the community backgreen sites the community enterprise has established (currently there are seven members), any new residents association is eligible to join the company and take a share in the company.

COMMUNITY ENTERPRISE SERVICES

The possible services of the community enterprises would could be divided into two groups, income generating services, and those which don’t provide an income but which forward the goals of the enterprise.

Non Income Generating Services

The key non-income generating services would include:-

− Raising awareness and promoting best practice

− Initiate & support community action to improve backcourts

These services are described in more detail the ‘Solutions’ in this report. In the context of community enterprise, these services provide the added benefit in building a strong positive brand identity for the enterprise in their local community which will support the marketing of income generating services.

See Case StudyCommunity Backyards, Copenhagen, pg 118.


143

6 Source - www.cicregulator.gov.uk

http://www.cicregulator.gov.uk

http://www.cicregulator.gov.uk

Factoring of Backcourts

The majority of tenements in the Glasgow Clyde Valley area are managed by private factoring services (social landlords are discussed below). These services generally undertake the maintenance of common areas such as stair cleaning and repairs to common parts as and when required.

There has been comment in the media over the past years about the quality of service of some of these factors, but equally there have been suggestions that some of these problems arise from non-payment of factoring fees by owners. It was outwith the scope of this study to research the economics of tenement factoring, but we suggest that there may be opportunities for a community enterprise to provide backcourt factoring services. Such a service could be sub-contracted by existing factors, or the enterprise could work in partnership with another community enterprise which would provide the other tenement factoring services - common repairs and stair cleaning.

The Edinburgh Community Backgreens Association has this type of relationship with the New Horizons property management service established by Dunedin Canmore Housing Association.

Greenspace Management Services for Social Landlords

The community enterprises could provide contract greenspace management services for social landlords in their local area. The enterprise would work with the social landlords to survey their properties and tenants before making recommendations for added value actions they could take. These actions have been described in some detail in Solution 5 - Promote Best Practice in Community Gardening.

Whilst many social landlords have their own in-house maintenance teams they may see the business sense and advantages to their service users in working with a not-for-profit community enterprise which has resources and expertise in community gardening.

Sustainability Services

The advantage of a community enterprise undertaking the factoring of backcourts is that over and above grass cutting and litter collection, it could offer additional services which would increase the sustainability of the backcourts, such as:-

− maintenance of a community composting and recycling facility;

− support for residents participating in gardening and growing fruit and

vegetables (see Solution 4 - Best Practice in Community Gardening below);

− community development support for a residents group for the tenement square;

− renovation of common facilities such as drying frames.

TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES

The community enterprises will investigate training and employment opportunities within their business model. If demand for their services increase they will be in a position to take on new staff for the maintenance of backcourts and social housing sites. By creating new services and bringing existing services(backcourt factoring), into the not-for-profit sector the community enterprises

See Case StudyClapton Park Estate, pg 114.


144

would create opportunities for high quality employment for its staff in terms of the breadth and value of their work.

Development Team

Each community enterprise would employ a development team responsible for the implementation of its aims and objectives. The size of the team would depend upon the enterprises target area and the goals set for its development. This would be assessed during the feasibility study. The team would require a:-

− Director with responsibility for operating the company, managing the development team, reviewing strategy and preparing policies and reporting to

the voluntary management committee;

− Market Development Officer responsible for setting up maintenance contracts

with social landlords, property factors, and directly with resident stair associations.

− Community Development Officer responsible for supporting the development

of backcourt residents associations (see Solution 4 - Establish & Support Resident Groups below)

Community Gardeners

The backcourts would be maintained by community gardeners who would be responsible for the mowing the lawn, pruning shrubs and removing litter. Depending upon the type of service chosen by the households, the community gardener could also maintain the composting facility and recycling station. The community gardener would also seek to work with the residents to enrich the backcourts and increase social capital (see Solution 5 - Promote Best Practice in Community Gardening below).


145

Solution 2 - Promote Best PracticeWe have sought to take ideas from the best practice case studies and apply them to the local context in the Glasgow Clyde Valley. Most of these ideas should be applicable to both single backcourts, and to groups of backcourts configured as one space.

MOVE FROM BIN STORES TO RECYCLING STATIONS

Old brick bin stores should be replaced with new covered structures which are aesthetically pleasing, easily maintained and reconfigureable to suit changing needs. Litter arising from the old stores should be curtailed by ensuring that the new facilities are adequate to the number of households around the site, collections frequent, and the contract/work practices for the collection of waste/recyclate from the site stipulates a responsibility and standard for the maintenance of the cleanliness of the site. But, the new facilities should not be attractive new stores for the old bins and the old methods.

Through improved facilities and education, the bin stores should be converted into recycling stations, with only a small fraction of domestic refuse going to waste. This transformation would be dependent upon a concerted campaign to educate households about why and how to separate waste at source. This would be supported by clear signage and instructions in the recycling stations as to where recyclate should be placed.

Equipment such as kitchen caddies (for biodegradable kitchen waste) and kitchen separating bins for dry recyclable waste streams (depending upon the collection policy of the local authority) should be made available to participating households at an affordable cost.

Biodegradable waste makes up one third of household refuse. It is also the fraction which attracts vermin and causes unpleasant smells. An appropriate composting solution should be provided in the backcourts. This will reduce the waste to landfill, reduce smells in the recycling stations, and potentially provide a valuable compost for use in the backcourts. The composting solution appropriate for each site will depend upon the waste reduction policies of the local authority, the arrangements for the maintenance of the recycling station and factoring of the backcourts, and the aspirations of the households. It may be possible to include management of a composting solution within the factoring service provided to backcourts by the social landlord, or private factor.

Scottish Environmental Protection Agency policies now allow for the sharing of compost bin/s by multiple households. An appropriately sized compost bin/s could be provided in the backcourt of each tenement that could be shared by all the participating households in the stair. If it is not possible to arrange for a resident or maintenance contractor to maintain the compost bin, a bio-digester system (such as a Green Cone) can be used instead as they do not require regular maintenance. At this time, it is not possible to compost meat include biodegradable waste in backcourts without the need for an expensive SEPA licence.

Feedback about the effectiveness of the recycling station should be communicated to the residents with a simple ‘Recycl-o-meter’ depicting currently level of recycling at the site.

New bin stores at Govanhill HA site

Copenhagen recycling stations

Compost bins in backcourt in Copenhagen


146

OPTIMISE THE UTILITY AND VALUE OF BACKCOURTS TO HOUSEHOLDS

Clothes Drying

A potential improvement on the humble backcourt clothes line would be the installation of drying frames in the backcourts. Their advantage is that many more clothes lines can be strung across the same space. This allows the remaining parts of the backcourts to be put to other purposes, such as recreation, vegetable patch or composting. The drying frames can be constructed from timber or tubular steel. The advantage of timber, is that it could be easily and cheaply erected by the residents group.

Recreational and Community Spaces

Some backcourts provide immediate access to an attractive outdoor environment for recreation, however, most of the backcourts at the sample sites do not. Tenemental communities are amongst Scotland’s most densely populated, yet changing patterns of ownership and transient communities can lead to isolation between neighbours. The backcourts are a common space shared by neighbours on the stair and on the street. Efforts should be made to ensure that backcourts fulfil their potential to bring people together.

Elsewhere in the report we have described actions which can be taken to encourage community action in the backcourts (see Solution 4 - Establish & Support Resident Groups). But what physical features in backcourts could increase their recreational amenity to households?

Outdoor Rooms

The backcourts should be landscaped to provide outdoor rooms to encourage folk to venture into them, like rooms, they should have furniture (benches and picnic tables), and walls (formed by hedges, borders or fences) to provide semi-private spaces. Where possible, the landscape of the backcourts should be improved to encourage residents to spend time in them.

Increase Connectivity

The backcourts could be connected by a network of paths and gates to encourage residents around the site to share them. Where appropriate and with the permission of all involved, gates could be installed to facilitate this connectivity. If possible site plans should be developed for the optimum use of each site, choosing the best locations for recreational and play areas taking into account solar aspect and landscape features.

Community Green

At larger sites where it is possible to define a central community area which is accessible to all of the tenements it may be possible to establish a ‘community green’. This approach has been taken by the Edinburgh Community Backgreens Association (ECBA), where a community green is created at the start of each new project. The community green provides a location for a tool shed which stores equipment used by the residents to maintain and enrich the site. The community green is installed by a volunteer team of residents facilitated by a community gardener. The community green can be used to demonstrate ideas which residents can incorporate into their own backcourts such as a raised bed for growing vegetables, or forest gardens. ECBA intends to install small play frames in community greens in 2009.

Clothes drying frame in backcourt in Copenhagen

Outdoor room in Copenhagen community backyard

Picnic in the Copenhagen backyards

Community Green in Edinburgh


147

Play Spaces

Where possible playspaces should be incorporated into backcourts. The type of facility which can be installed will depend upon the layout of the site. At sites which have been modelled into one large shared space, it may be possible to install a play park on a similar scale to the Danish community backyards or the ball courts at Peabody Trust properties (see case studies).

Beautiful Rich Greenspaces

Whilst approximately three quarters of the backcourts around the sample sites are maintained, most of the greenspaces were scored as low quality in terms of providing an attractive landscape. Opportunities for improving the quality of tenemental greenspace should be supported, this will depend upon engaging the residents to improve their own local environment.

Ideas that could be implemented include vegetable patches, and wildflower gardening, they each have their own function but they all contribute to enriching the greenspace and bringing residents down into the backcourt. This will have benefits in terms of health and well-being as it increases opportunities for exercise and meeting the neighbours.

Residents who garden, are likely to be interested in composting, they may be willing to manage a compost bin which would compost the biodegradable waste of the tenement, this is a goal of WRAP’s new composting project. These actions would be best implemented through the joint action of residents on the stair or around the tenement square, or at least with the support of the neighbours.

Vegetable Patch

The popularity of growing vegetables is increasing, and backcourts can be an good place for residents to plant out a small vegetable patch. A handful of residents across the sample sites are already cultivating in the backcourts, and these was interest from 80% of the respondents to the household survey.

It is not supposed that tenement residents might become self-sufficient in food from a small vegetable patch, but that they will find the growing of vegetables a positive experience which will enrich their lives.

The size of vegetable patchs will depend upon the available ground and the number of interested households. If there is interest from just a few residents we may see some small raised beds in one or two backcourts. It may be possible to group the vegetable patches of several households together to add to the community benefits. If there is considerable amount of ground available a more established community allotment could be established.

The material requirements for growing vegetables are land, sun, water, seeds and tools. Residents can be supported to grow their own by providing access to tools and a shed for storage, a water butt, a course in growing, membership of a local group. An ‘official’ campaign which acknowledges backcourts as an appropriate place to grow will also lend folk moral support against naysayers who would say you can’t grow vegetables in the backcourt.

BBQ in the backyard

Play park in a Copenhagen community backyard

Raised beds in backcourts of a Community Backgreen site in Edinburgh

See Case Study

Edible Estates, pg 122.ECBA, pg 123.Permablitz, pg 132.Urban Farming, pg 133.Hutchinson Allotments, pg 139


148

Wildflower Gardening and Edible Landscaping

The lawns around backcourts could be fringed with low maintenance edible landscaping and wildflower herbaceous borders, fruit bushes and fruit trees could be planted around the sites to grow into a community orchards. These actions would result in increased biodiversity and beauty.

The Clapton Park case study provides a good demonstration that low maintenance landscapes do not need to be drab monocultures of grass. John Little has created attractive and diverse landscapes by introducing native species, including trees, shrubs, herbaceous and self-seeding annuals (wildflowers). Little herbicide is used to maintain the sites. Weeds are suppressed with wood chip and composted green waste which is in plentiful free supply from the local authority.

Additional value can be found by planting species which are food bearing, this is sometimes described nowadays as edible landscaping7, but has been around for centuries in the form of kitchen or potager gardens. Forest gardening8 is another system for creating low maintenance edible landscapes appropriate for backcourts.

See Case StudyClapton Park Estate, pg 114.Edible Estates, pg 122.Permablitz, pg 132.Urban Farming, pg 133.

Wildflower verge in Clapton


149

7 www.ediblelandscaping.co.uk

8 www.spiralseed.co.uk/forestgarden

Solution 3 - Inspirational Campaign

ASPIRATION GAP

Greenspace Scotland has made the case that quality greenspace within communities has a measurable impact on the health and well-being of inhabitants. This study has shown that local authorities in the Glasgow Clyde Valley area (and across Scotland), tend not to have policies which recognise the potential of tenement backcourts. Most local authorities in the study area tend not to become involved in the management of tenement backcourts unless they are the landlord, or there is an environmental health issue.

It is not proposed that local authorities should take responsibility for the backcourts of privately owned or mixed tenure tenements, but that they recognise the potential role backcourts could have in pursuing other policy goals which are within their remit e.g. health, community regeneration, waste and transport, the case for which has been made by organisations like Greenspace Scotland.

It is clear from the the survey of the twelve sample sites that some backcourts are under performing, and whilst a small number of households aspire for more from their backcourts, and are willing to contribute their time, the majority do not take a great interest. There is an aspiration gap.

The tenement residents of the Glasgow Clyde Valley, and the bodies which can support them require inspiration as to what tenement backcourts and the communities around them are capable of and to be given a route towards achieving it by working together. It is recognised that a very good start has been made along this path by the Sustainable Backcourts Initiative (www.backcourt.org.uk), but that it needs appropriate resourcing to make a significant impact. Aspirations and awareness should be raised through a campaign containing the following elements.

Network Of Demonstration Sites

Best practice sites should be identified across the Glasgow Clyde Valley and the work of these residents celebrated and supported. Information about the location of sites and how to access them could be provided on an initiative website. Regular guided visits could be organised through the Spring, Summer and Autumn. A regular blog and photographic gallery on the website would show the transition to rich community environments.

Promotional Campaign

The initiative should undertake a promotional campaign to raise awareness and provide inspiration to households. The campaign should be thought of in the terms of the ‘Glasgow Smiles Better’, or the war time ‘Dig For Victory’, as it calls for a change of attitude, a social movement. The campaign should be supported by a website, poster campaign and a framework which will support residents to make positive changes in their own backcourts.

The campaign should develop a common brand identify which can be used by bodies across the Glasgow Clyde Valley area which are promoting the agenda. This brand would be particularly useful for the network of community enterprises recommended in Solution 1.

See Case StudyCommunity Backyards, Copenhagen, pg 118.

See Case StudyDig For Victory and Olympic Farming, pg 133/4.


150

Solution 4 - Establish & Support Resident GroupsThere are far too many backcourts in need of regeneration and improved management to expect a publicly funded initiative to carry out the work. At mixed tenure sites, the maintenance is the responsibility of owners and residents. Furthermore, the opportunities for building the social capital between neighbours, and developing new confidence and skills of individuals, would be wasted if such projects weren’t taken on by the residents themselves.

Several organisations in the Glasgow Clyde Valley, in particular, the greenspace projects - Kelvin Clyde Greenspace and Carts Greenspace, have provided positive demonstrations of how residents with a little support and resources can lead and carry out backcourt regeneration projects. It is proposed that this work be developed and expanded, perhaps by establishing a network of community enterprises as proposed in Solution 1.

ESTABLISH RESIDENT GROUPS TO IMPROVE BACKCOURTS

The campaign to promote positive use of backcourts (Solution 3), would invite interested residents to establish residents groups to provide a focus for discussion about, and implementation of, positive community action for the improvement of their backcourts.

The ‘unit’ for a residents group could be a single tenement, a row of tenements, a perimeter block of tenements, or several blocks. However, we would recommend that residents should be encouraged to establish residents groups for the perimeter tenement block as it would provide a larger potential resource of supportive residents, whilst still having a common agenda and opportunities for co-operation due to the proximity of their backcourts.

Each residents group would be bound together by a written constitution which would set down rules as to how the group can work together, hold meetings, raise funds, make decisions. Draft constitutions could be downloaded from a website.

Each residents groups mandate to develop and improve the site would come from its membership, which would be open to all residents which live around the site and/or who own a flat around the site. The members would appoint a management committee that would meet to discuss the site and make decisions. Groups would be encouraged to open a treasurers account, which could be used to keep a money raised for the regeneration of the site through community activities.

SUPPORT FOR RESIDENT GROUPS

There are a range of services that could be provided to support resident groups to organise and establish themselves. Again the services could be provided by the existing greenspace projects or the community enterprises suggested in Solution 1.

Participative Design and Implementation Workshops

With a wide diversity of sites and differing aspirations of residents between sites, it would be necessary to carry out participative design workshops to identify the key actions which residents would like to see at each site.

See Case StudyECBA, pg 123.GOW & Govanhill Reation Team pg 136/7.

Residents sit on a bench they have just made at a community backgreen in Edinburgh

Father and daughters at backgreen workshop in Edinburgh


151

The workshops would be held at a local meeting hall and on-site, and be led by a trained facilitator. A plan of the site would be prepared by the residents to raise awareness of site issues, the good and bad aspects of the site would be annotated on the map.

The workshop/s would result in a list of possible actions which would be prioritised by the group for example:-

− organise a community clear up of the back lane clearing litter and plant bulbs;

− remove old bin stores and replace with recycling station/s;

− install shed in centre of the site for storage of shared tools and materials;

− establish raised beds in backcourts for vegetable growing and organise

training in gardening;

− plant fruit trees and bushes in the backcourts which receive more sun

− raise awareness and organise training for residents in composting

The facilitator would then support the group to prepare an implementation plan, which would consider how and when the actions can be achieved. The group would be asked to consider for each action:-

− What can we do for ourselves?

− What can we do with a little outside help?

− What do we need others to do for us?

The resulting implementation plan could look like the example in the Appendix.

Sustainable Backcourt Start-Up Kit

Access to tools and equipment and a place to store them can be a problem for tenement households. If capital funding could be raised, it would be positive intervention to provide each residents group with a start-up kit including, a tool shed, and a set of tools and equipment. The kit could be given free of charge or at a subsidised rate which would require the residents group to raise perhaps 50% of the cost.

Tool sheds could be sized to the number of tenements around the site, but should be ample enough to allow for its use as a potting shed to support any gardening activities. Wherever possible, sheds should be located in a central location which can accessed by all residents. The start up kit could also include compost bins for each participating tenement.

Backcourt Workshops, Advice and Support

New residents groups would benefit from help in getting started on-site. There can be inertia in starting up such groups, and some folk are hesitant to be the first to participate, it has been found at several of the case studies that once a group is out on-site that other residents come out and join them. A community gardener could help organise and facilitate the first workshops of each group. The community gardener can give starter groups training in the safe use of tools and equipment and in how to propogate plants.

Residents groups can become dependent upon a community gardener, it is important that he/she does not stifle the initiative of the residents groups, but rather build their capacity to provide their own direction and management. Following from such schemes as the Master Composter programme, it may be possible to establish a local network of backcourt champions from existing

Resident volunteers enjoy homemade scones at community backgreen workshop in Edinburgh

See Case StudyECBA, pg 123.


152

projects which can visit new sites to provide a community gardener role, these residents should be supported with training and resources (see Solution 5).

Courses in Gardening/Food Growing

The initiative should investigate the demand for a ‘Grow Your Own’ course which would teach tenement residents how to grow fruit and vegetables in their backcourts. The course could operate through the year, perhaps once a month to give support in what residents should be doing through the seasons. The course could be supported by web resources for those who couldn’t make the meetings. The course could be part of a community enterprise, participants could be charged for attendance, with low income households receiving concessions.

Website

The existing website of the Sustainable Backcourts Initiative should be developed into a geographic ‘facebook’ of sustainable backcourt projects. It should provide a homepage for each participating backcourt, or group of backcourts. The homepage would show their location on a Google Map, provide a site blog, allow residents to upload photos of the improvements to the site, and facilitate communication between residents.

See Case StudyEdinburgh Community Backgreens Association, www.ecba.org.uk


153

http://www.ecba.org.uk

http://www.ecba.org.uk

Solution 5 - Promote Best Practice In Community Gardening

INTRODUCTION

The study found that whilst the backcourts managed by social landlords are maintained, the quality of greenspace and level of tenant involvement in the backcourts left room for improvement.

In this day and age, the maintenance of large swathes of urban greenspace as turf and the spraying of herbicide to clear weeds is a labour and energy intensive, and biodiversity destructive, anachronism. Whilst there is a clear need for lawns for recreation and play, there are many spaces which could be used more to better purpose in terms of urban sustainability.

We suggest that a change should be made to greenspace strategies to promote community gardening and a greater emphasis on low maintenance natural landscapes and biodiversity.

Social landlords use in-house maintenance teams or contract landscaping firms. In Solution 1, we have suggested that GCV Green Network Partnership consider sponosoring a network of community enterprises which would compete for these services by bringing the added value of community and biodiversity gardening.

Whether this solution is adopted or not, GCV Green Network Partnership should seek to promote best practice in community gardening to social landlords and private contractors to raise the bar of the management of urban greenspace.

CONTRACTING FOR COMMUNITY AND BIODIVERSITY GARDENING

The work of John Little at Clapton Park Estate, provides a great example of what a community gardener can achieve working with rather than against nature, facilitating the involvement of tenants in their local greenspace - in an area where one of the streets is called the “murder mile”. John was lucky to have the support of a progressive management committee in the Tenants Management Organisation for the Clapton Estate. However, this model is now recognised as best practice and is being promoted around London social landlords by the Neighbourhoods Green initiative.

The Neighbourhoods Green (see Natural Estates in the Clapton Estate case study)9 initiative sponsored by the Peabody Trust in London aims to highlight the importance of green spaces for the residents of social housing, and to raise the quality of their design, management and safe use within social housing providers. It is a 3-year partnership project which provides guidance, support and tools for housing associations, local authority housing departments, ALMOs, tenants associations, and their partners. They produce a best practice guidance for social landlords on how to enhance their landscapes for biodiversity.

A similar initiative should be promoted by GSV Green Network Partnership to encourage social landlords to adopt community and biodiversity gardening into

See Case StudyClapton Park Estate, pg 114,Peabody Trust, pg 130.

Wildflower border at Clapton Estate


154

9 www.neighbourhoodsgreen.org.uk

http://www.neighbourhoodsgreen.org.uk

http://www.neighbourhoodsgreen.org.uk

their maintenance contracts. It is recognised that it may be difficult for contract managers to switch from 8-10 cuts a year, to a regime which actively encourages the growth of wildflowers (weeds!). The Clapton Estate contract focuses on customer satisfaction, if the local tenants think that the wildflower verges and poppies growing out of tarmac are beautiful then the management committee are happy.

IDENTIFY & TRAIN COMMUNITY GARDENERS

Gardeners of community greenspaces must have skills in working with people as well as propogating and maintaining plants. They must have a positive attitude to involving residents in the management of greenspaces, whether that may be deciding how their greenspace should be used, or participating directly in the maintenance of the spaces. If there is a lack of gardeners with sufficient skills and experience (as has been suggested by the Peabody Trust in London), an initiative to improve the quality of greenspace will fall at this first hurdle.

Survey of Community Gardeners

The GCV Green Network Partnership should carry out a survey of in-house maintenance teams and landscape contractors registered to social landlords to ascertain their awareness and competence in community and biodiversity gardening. The survey could also be used to compile a register of gardeners/landscape contractors who have skills in this area, which can be made available to social landlords.

Training in Community Gardening

If there is a knowledge gap, this should be plugged with training and learning resources. Glasgow Clyde Valley Green Network Partnership could work in partnership with other NGO’s towards this goal such as, Greenspace Scotland, the Federation of Community Gardens and City Farms, Edinburgh Community Backgreens Association, and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, to propose and implement a course for community gardeners.

Poppies growing out of tarmac at Clapton


155

Key Findings of the StudyThe Glasgow & Clyde Valley Sustainable Backcourts Study was commissioned to assess the potential to improve people’s immediate living conditions by increasing the benefits provided by tenement backcourts, and to identify sustainable models for realising that potential.

During the study we have surveyed twelve tenement sites across the Glasgow & Clyde Valley, we have surveyed households around these sites to ask their attitudes towards their backcourts, and we have researched projects in Britain and further afield which offer examples of best practice in the management of greenspace.

We have used this information to report upon the fitness for purpose of the backcourts at the sample sites in respect to the expectations of the communities which live around them, and to recommend solutions for working with these communities to support them to make the most of the greenspace on their doorstep.

We have sought to present the key findings of the study below, and to signpost you to further reading within the report.

POTENTIAL FOR IMPROVEMENT OF TENEMENTAL GREENSPACE

Our first goal was to investigate the potential for the improvement of tenemental greenspace. We interviewed representatives of the eight local authorities, and several housing associations in the Glasgow & Clyde Valley area. The interviews resulted in the identification of over fifty potential sample sites from which the study steering group chose twelve sites judged to be representative of the variety of backcourt sites across the Glasgow & Clyde Valley. The study team surveyed each site, measured ‘greenspace quality’ and surveyed the surrounding households with freepost questionnaires. It was found that:-

Local authorities are not in a position to prioritise the regeneration and management of backcourts, in particular at privately owned and mixed tenure sites

It was found that few local authorities have comprehensive information about the condition of tenement backcourts in their area, and that their policies and services for the management of backcourts are in the main for backcourts where the local authority is the landlord. Normally, local authorities will only become involved in the backcourts of privately owned and mixed tenure tenements, if they create a public health nuisance. (pg 16)


156

Residents consider their backcourts to be more than just drying greens

Respondents to the resident survey confirmed that waste management and clothes drying were key purposes of tenement backcourts, but that backcourts were also an important resource for relaxation, recreation and social interaction with neighbours. Backcourts are also regarded as an appropriate place for young children to play, and that they should be enriched as greenspaces rather than put under hardstanding for lower maintenance. (pg 84)

The management of the bin stores is the number one concern of the residents

The waste management facilities of some backcourts left much room for improvement, in particular to reduce litter and increase recycling and composting. Several sites were blighted by litter blown across the site and along back lanes from overflowing bins. (see pg 83)

Significant number of residents are interested in working together to improve their backcourts

80% of respondents to the household survey indicated that they would be interested in participating in a volunteer project to regenerate their backcourts. 60% of respondents indicated an interest in growing food in the backcourts. The majority of backcourts would be easily converted to vegetable growing. (see pg 86)

Three quarters of backcourts are maintained but not necessarily to a high quality

The study found that three quarters of the backcourts at the sample sites met a minimum standard of maintenance which allowed them to fulfil their function as drying greens and bin stores. The remaining quarter were found to be weedy and overgrown to such a degree that it negatively affected these basic functions.

However, it was found that there is a need to raise the standard of the backcourts to support their role in providing quality greenspace in particular for relaxation, recreation and social interaction. The quality of the greenspace at the maintained backcourts in terms of attractive plants and landscape elements varied across sites from poor to good, few were ranked high quality. (see pg 91 and pgs 107-9)

We also found a great deal of variety in the quality of greenspace between sites and within sites. Whilst greenspace quality in open greenspaces may tend to be similar across a site, within the compartmentalised tenemental sites there was often high and low quality backcourts next door to each other. This detail was lost in the site wide greenspace scores, but can be seen in the individual site survey plans. (see pgs 19 - 77)

Opportunities for backcourts to support environmental sustainability

Whilst the majority of the sites have access to blue (dry recyclable) bins, at some sites they were judged to be insufficient. No sites had compost bins for biodegradable kitchen waste. Four sites had no recycling facilities whatsoever (pg 106).

Similarly, backcourts provide an opportunity for the growing of local food by residents. (see pg 110)


157

LESSONS FROM RESEARCH OF BEST PRACTICE PROJECTS

The study team identified projects which would provide best practice examples of methods of working with communities to regenerate and maintain backcourts. Wherever possible, the team visited the projects and met with the people involved in their delivery - amongst others, the team visited the community backyards project in Copenhagen, Denmark, the Clapton Park estate in London, and the Community Backgreens project in Edinburgh.

Residents are willing to volunteer in tenemental community greenspace projects

There is an untapped resource within tenemental communities of residents who are willing to volunteer their time to work together to improve and maintain their local greenspace. (See Baltimore, Edible Estates, ECBA, Permablitz, GOW and GREAT.)

Residents tend to depend or benefit from the intervention and support from third party organisations

The residents at the case study projects were brought together by third party organisations which organised meetings, provided tools and community gardeners. However once started some projects have sought to build the capacity of the residents to organise themselves. (See Edible Estates, ECBA, Permablitz, GOW, Middlesbourgh, Wapping, Spitalfields. )

Social landlords have recognised the multiple benefits of integrating community development goals with landscape regeneration and maintenance

The social landlords involved in the best practice projects have sought to introduce policies and hire landscape contractors which facilitate the involvement of residents in their greenspaces, in particular the growing of vegetables. They have found that this has resulted in richer landscapes and increased opportunities for their tenants (See Clapton, Peabody Trust and GREAT.)

The residents who are interested in participating in greenspace projects are often interested in food growing

Across most of the best practice projects there was an interest in small-scale food growing within tenement backcourts, or their equivalent. This ties in with a increasing interest in grow your own across society. (See Clapton, Edible Estates, ECBA, Permablitz, Middlesborough, Hutchinson Allotments, Local Food, Olympic Farming)

Tenement backcourts can be diverse multifunctional greenspaces

Several of the projects evidenced that backcourts can broaden their role as drying greens and bin storage, to recreational space, food growing, recycling etc. The Danish community backyards project in particular showed how backcourts can provide high quality urban recreational greenspace.

(See Clapton, Community Backyards, ECBA, Permablitz, GOW and Hutchinson Allotments)

See Case StudiesClapton, 112Baltimore, 115Community Backyards, 116Edible Estates, 120ECBA, 121Peabody Trust, 128Permablitz, 130Middlesborough, 131Wapping, 132Spitalfields, 133GOW, 134GREAT, 135Royston Backcourts, 137Hutchinson Allotments, 137Green Fingers, 137Dig for Victory, 138Local Food, 138Olympic Farming, 139


158

Community enterprise can have a role in the management of backcourts

Two projects have developed as community enterprises that manage and maintain tenement backcourts on behalf of the residents. This model will be relevant to many of the private and mixed tenure sites in Glasgow & Clyde Valley as it is unlikely that local authorities will be in a position to take a lead in their regeneration, and ongoing maintenance will need to be paid for by the residents.

(See Community Backyards and ECBA)

MODELS FOR SUSTAINABLE BACKCOURT MANAGEMENT

The study team have recommended a series of solutions for the sustainable management of backcourts. These solutions could be implemented by existing greenspace projects, or by a network of new community enterprises.

Establish a network of community enterprises which promote the regeneration and maintenance of backcourts

Create a network of community enterprises across the Glasgow & Clyde Valley area which will promote the regeneration of backcourts, and will develop a trading income to support their activities by providing maintenance services to backcourts of privately owned and social landlord tenements. (see pg 142)

Inspire residents to expect more of their backcourts

Raise householders and social landlords expectations of the potential of backcourts by promoting a best practice model and launching a media campaign.

Residents should be encouraged to visit sites within the Glasgow Clyde Valley area which demonstrate best practice in sustainable backcourts. Sites which exhibit best practice should be identified and site tours organised. (see pg 150)

Support residents to establish community groups for the management of their backcourts

Provide encouragement and support to backcourt residents groups to take responsibility through community action for the regeneration of backcourts. Residents around tenement squares should be supported to form residents associations, which can provide a forum for joint decision making and organising workshops. (see pg 151)

Promote best practice in community gardening

Promote best practice in community and biodiversity gardening to social landlords and landscape contractors. This initiative would include building a database of qualified community gardeners and facilitating access to training in community gardening to in-house maintenance teams. (see pg 154).


159

Appendix


160

Sample Backcourt Regeneration PlanThe table below is an example of a potential Site Implementation Plan prepared with a residents group during a Participative Design Workshop led by a facilitator. The plan would provide a framework for the resident volunteer group to follow through the year.

When

What

Who Resources

Spring ‘09

Install community tool shed in the backgreen of 36. Open up gate in to the lane so other tenements can access shed.

Residents Group

Community Gardener (provided by support organisation).

Tool shed and equipment provided to residents group by support organisation at no or subsidised cost.

Training in safe use of tools and equipment.

Residents Group

Community Gardener

Organise community clear up of the back lane clearing litter and plant bulbs

Residents Group Gloves, refuse sacks, trowels, bulbs.

Clear weeds from backcourts of 36, 23, and 96 to install raised beds and start growing vegetables.

Residents Group

Participating households start attendance at food growing course.

Gloves, tools, timber.

Grow your Own course provided by support organisation

Summer ‘09

Hold residents meeting to discuss renovation of bin stores into Recycling Stations

Residents Group

Development Officer (Support Organisation)

Local Authority Waste Minimisation Officer

n/a

Hold community party in the back lane. Opportunity for fundraising activities and increasing membership

Residents Group Tables, chairs, bunting, music & entertainment, food & drink provided by residents.

Clear backcourts of 36, 23, 44, 12 and 96 and plant up forest garden borders around the lawns

Residents Group

Community Gardener (provided by support organisation).


161

When

What

Who Resources

Install community compost bins in the backcourts of 36, 23, 44, 12 and 96. Arrange training session for participating households

Participating households

Compost trainer (provided by WRAP or similar organisation)

5 Compost bins, 40 kitchen caddies and rolls of biodegradable liners

Construct children's Jungle Gym (play frame) in the backcourt of 36. Do up gate to the back lane so children from other tenements can access it.

Residents Group

Supported by carpenter provided by the support organisation

Design & build instructions, timber, paint, fittings, hardcore.

Autumn ‘09

Plant fruit trees and bushes in backcourts of participating stairs 36, 23, 44, 12 and 96

Residents Group

Community Gardener

Fruit trees and bushes

Harvest festival’ event to show off vegetables and carry out a community clean-up of the site prior to onset of Winter

Residents Group

Spring ‘10

Demolish old bin stores (re-use bricks for creating paths) erect new timber recycling station

Residents Group

Development Officer (Support Organisation)

Local Authority Waste Minimisation Officer

Contractors

Timber, hardcore etc.


162

sustainable backcourts study

Documents

dunbartonshire sample

lanarkshire sample site

north sample site

renfrewshire sample

south west sample site

south east sample site

sample sites

d findings