‘targeted’ resources, with investment programmes in regional development through the regional development agency (One North East) and coordinated through the Northumberland Strategic Partnership, as well as regeneration funds for rural areas, market town improvements, playgrounds, community enterprises and national park initiatives. Many of these programmes provided resources for which civil society initiatives could bid and from which the GGT benefitted. However, this flow came to an end with the financial collapse of 2007/08 and the change of government in 2010. It has been replaced by the North East Local Enterprise Partnership, which focuses primarily on the industrial parts of the region and has a much smaller budget than One North East. At the national level, the Department of Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs had a small rural development programme, the Rural Growth Network, from which the GGT benefitted during 2012–14. Community enterprises could also bid for funding for social housing for rent from the national Homes and Communities Agency, so long as they were set up as registered social providers.3 Even this opportunity was much reduced after 2015 as national policy swung against building more social housing for rent. The GGT has also had access to the EU LEADER programme over the years, a source that will presumably disappear after Brexit.
Along with many other small trusts and charities in Northumberland that had grown up in the 2000s providing local services, the GGT was catapulted into a much harsher funding environment. Yet, during the 2010s, the challenges for a rural area such as Glendale increased: the farming economy has contracted and is even more mechanised, along with forestry, and farming activity may contract further as a result of Brexit; the retail sector has been transformed by Internet trading, with shops closing in Wooler High Street, along with banks; public services have been further cut and centralised, being subject to funding regimes that have little recognition of the challenges of dispersed populations in rural areas; and the uncertain economic climate generated by Brexit has held back investment in potential projects. This has increased people’s sense of being abandoned, both economically and politically, which, in turn, increases the potential for angry hostilities to break out, threatening the sense of a cohesive community.
Yet, there are opportunities to be grasped too: the Internet enables people to live in Wooler but work across the world; firms can similarly develop trading links in a wide geography; the beautiful landscape and the feeling of community attracts not only older people from further afield, but also those seeking to raise families in such an environment; and tourism continues to expand, offering attractive options for those interested in encountering the natural environment through walking and cycling. It is in this shifting context of the past 20 years or so that the GGT has evolved into a significant local development organisation.
Case study: creating a community hub4
The GGT was formed in 1996, following discussions about how to improve Wooler’s future facilitated by the then Rural Community Council. These had identified the need for a better community centre, which could combine meeting places for community groups, business spaces for start-ups and a base for key local services, as well as improved services for young people. It is run by a small employed staff and trustees from the locality. A drop-in facility for young people was created in a vacant building on the high street, while the neglected former offices of the Glendale Rural District Council, formerly a workhouse, provided an opportunity to create a community centre, now the Cheviot Centre. The building was transferred to the GGT by the then owner, Berwick Borough Council. The case study focuses on how the Cheviot Centre was transformed into a joint community–small business hub that not only helped save and enhance local services, but also, in time, came to be financially sustainable, largely by clustering services together. In parallel, while created to manage the development and operation of the community centre, the GGT grew into a multifaceted community development organisation with an entrepreneurial and proactive culture. In its early days, the GGT’s activities were backed by funding from the Rural Community Council (now Community Action Northumberland) and the Northumberland Strategic Partnership.
For the first few years of its existence (1996–2000), the primary focus of the GGT’s work was on converting the building. The challenge involved taking on ownership of the building, raising funds and organising the conversion process. To guide this work, as well as the creation of the drop-in centre, the GGT was created as a charitable trust, with a board combining local people and representatives of local government. This time is remembered as a risky, nail-biting experience as trustees embarked on ambitious projects, taking on grants and loans against uncertain achievement. However, this was the era of relatively accessible grants from government and other institutions.
By 2001, the job was done (see Figure 4.1) – a couple of community rooms were available for hire and there was a kitchen, office space for GGT staff and a few rooms left over that were rented to local businesses. The local Tourist Information Centre took one of the upstairs rooms, and there was initial talk of Wooler Library moving in, though Northumberland County Council procrastinated for many years over this idea. A key tenant of the community rooms was the local University of the Third Age (U3A),5 which helped generate income. The Cheviot Centre slowly evolved as a base for delivering services, such as the Citizens Advice Service, the local credit union, a day centre run by the Royal Voluntary Service (RVS) and the Wooler Work Web. It also provided local offices for several voluntary sector services, which provided useful rental income.
Figure 4.1: The Cheviot Centre from outside
Source: Rachel Sinton
The building was old, so it was not cheap to run; in addition, a full-time manager was needed. Fortunately, this early period coincided with generous national government funding for local initiatives of various kinds. This meant that, after the first couple of years, the Cheviot Centre operated at a reasonable surplus, based on a number of tenants who were themselves the recipients of public or charitable funding. Meanwhile, the GGT expanded its activities by investing in high-street improvements, funded by the national Market Towns Initiative, creating affordable housing for rent and taking over the local youth hostel. These initiatives helped to expand the revenue-earning asset base of the GGT, though public funding was still an important contribution. The financial basis of the GGT was therefore significantly affected by public sector budget cuts and the reduction of charitable funding opportunities in the 2010s. The revenues for the Cheviot Centre itself no longer covered running costs.
So, what to do about this? The GGT was aware of potential demand for more office space from the increasing numbers of microbusinesses in the area. The national charity RVS also located its regional office in the building, where they had begun to run a day event for older people. In 2012, the GGT saw an opportunity to do three positive things in an interrelated way. First, the trust applied for, and got, £212,000 in grants from the Rural Growth Network and the National Lottery for a major refurbishment of the building. It was pretty much gutted inside, providing extra office space without losing community facilities (the GGT made sure that local groups, especially Wooler U3A, the biggest customer of the Cheviot Centre, were kept onside during what was potentially a worrying time for them). Three ‘pods’ were also put in the garden – attractive one- or two-person units designed for start-up businesses. These have proved very popular (see Figure 4.2). Some small businesses have indeed moved on to larger premises and the GGT has never had any problems letting them. One early tenant who had been commuting to a job in Newcastle started their own business in the one-person pod, switched to a two-person pod within a year and then moved into
