www.regenwales.org.uk

A Paper on ‘Regeneration

Targeting’ for the National

Regeneration Panel.

Andrew Dakin

Kyle Burgess

Dave Adamson

2

Contents

1. Introduction 3

2. Regeneration. What is it? 6

3. Targeting. Why? 8

4. Regeneration and Area-Based Initiatives (ABI) 11

5. How might targeting be undertaken? 13

6. How can areas be prioritised for intervention? 14

7. What has been the experience in Wales 17

8. Area/Spatial targeting in the UK and Europe 19

9. Conclusions 20

10. Recommendations. 22

Bibliography 25

Appendix A 26

Appendix B 27

Appendix C 28

Appendix D 29

3

1. Introduction:

This paper is designed to offer an introduction to the subject of targeting of

regeneration initiatives, and is intended to stimulate debate and encourage new

thinking. It is perhaps timely given the riot events of the 7th and 8th of August 2011

and the general view that it was previous incidents of this kind which triggered the

regeneration programmes of the 1980s and 1990s. Determining how scarce

regeneration resources are targeted is critical to how we recover our most

disadvantaged areas and create socially cohesive communities

The subject of targeting has been heavily debated over many years, particularly

given the political views as to how targeting has been undertaken. Michael

Heseltine’s words, ‘it took a riot’, with regard to the Toxteth riots in Liverpool in 1981

are well remembered. Heseltine was seeking to provide an explanation as to why the

problems of the inner city had risen up the then Conservative Government’s political

agenda. Subsequently, commentators have referred to government’s use of

‘territorial crisis management measures’ (Pickvance in Atkinson and Moon,1994,116)

to respond to local ‘events’, by instigating regeneration initiatives. Some

commentators have suggested that this response represents recognition by

government that there has been both market failure and failure in mainstream public

services.

A number of major regeneration initiatives within Wales have had their genesis in

sound political decisions made in response to linked environmental, social and

economic issues and events. For example, the removal and reclamation of coal tips

in discrete locations within Wales following the Aberfan disaster in the 1960’s, the

creation of the Cardiff Bay UDC in 1987 in response to the perceived comprehensive

problems of urban decline and de-industrialisation of the south Cardiff area, and the

creation of the URC in Newport in response to the Corus steel works closures and

the attendant job losses in Ebbw Vale and Newport of 2002.

Consequently, it is important to note that regeneration and area based initiatives

have over the last 25 years become inextricably linked in policy delivery terms. In

fact, one leading commentator (Garlick in The Planning Magazine, 12th August 2011)

has suggested that it was the riots in England in the early 1980’s that was the

genesis of the development of contemporary urban policy in the UK. Certainly, large

scale spatial (area) targeting was first introduced via the Urban Development

Corporations at that time. It should be noted that this linkage has been affirmed on a

number of occasions in government policy documents. For example:

‘Regeneration is here defined broadly as consisting of Area Based Initiatives

(ABI) mainly introduced by the Department of the Environment and /or DETR,

in England, largely since about 1990’ (DETR, 2001, 5).

And:

4

‘Although regeneration is inherently area-based.....’(Authors emphasis) and

’There are strong social and economic arguments for government investment

in targeted locations’ (authors emphasis)-(DCLG 2008, 98 and 12)

But it is important to note that whilst this ‘inextricable linkage’ of territorial i.e. area

targeting and regeneration has been a key facet of delivery, it is in fact possible to

undertake different kinds of targeting i.e. not spatially targeted, as will be

demonstrated later.

Conclusion One

Area-based regeneration has proved a consistent and reliable basis for

shaping regeneration programmes and for targeting their activities.

The Welsh examples highlighted above demonstrate the need for government

regeneration programmes to be responsive to environmental, social and economic

events, whose origin frequently began with deindustrialisation. In the absence of an

appropriate market or public sector response to deindustrialisation, it is somewhat

inevitable that a market imbalance occurs. This ultimately results in concentrated

pockets of economic decline and social disadvantage. The identification of this

process combined with assessments of future opportunity can help inform the

creation of a regeneration criterion. These may be used to effectively target areas in

priority order of need and opportunity. There is also a demonstrable need for

targeting practise to pre-empt future problems in response to spatially concentrated

socio-economic problems.

The above discussion highlights the presence of wider structural and economic

forces, which have the ability to instantly diminish the economic capacity of an area,

potentially creating severe socio-economic hardships in concentrated spatial areas.

These occurrences require immediate and pre-emptive interventions which may not

comply with previously set targeting criteria. In these situations, ethical and moral

political judgements are required, in order to direct targeting, and prevent an area

spiralling into decline, deprivation and poverty. With regard to sound political

decisions we should remind ourselves that regeneration is political in nature i.e. it

represents acts of intervention by the central and local state. As the then Labour

government noted in 2008 (DCLG 2008, P.6):

‘Regeneration is a set of activities that reverse economic, social and physical

decline in areas where market forces will not do this without support from

government’ (Authors emphasis)

Regeneration is a subset of economic development (DCLG 2008, Para 1.4). The

uniqueness of regeneration lies in the fact that not only does it promote economic

growth but it also seeks to achieve other economic, environmental and social

outcomes e.g. raising efficiency, improving equity, reducing cost to the tax payer etc

(DCLG 2008, appendix C, Para 1). Therefore, it is understandable that there will

always be a need for ethical and moral judgements to be made in how regeneration

targeting is undertaken. Hence its application cannot be just via an economic, social

and physical cost benefit analysis, no matter how objective or robust this may be.

5

However, judgements as to how and where to undertake regeneration initiatives have

not always been ethical or moral. Political judgements in the past have been made

for example to secure objectives such as:

Securing privatisation and de-regulation.

Reducing the power of local authorities.

Securing private sector interests.

Facilitating social re-structuring to secure electoral majorities.

Rationing financial resources

(Atkinson and Moon, 1994, 18,100-102,268 and Hambleton and Thomas, 1995, 32)

Whilst targeting requires some flexibility in order to be able to respond to economic

and social market failures as they occur, it is important for targeting to be both

transparent and justifiable. To this end, it is important that targeting be based on

criteria which are designed to allow for reactions to environmental, social and

economic issues as they arise, but equally to be flexible enough to respond to

democratically endorsed political prioritisation.

Conclusion Two

Targeting should be based on transparent, objective criteria but also provide

sufficient flexibility to react to crisis and unforeseen circumstances and be

informed by judgments made within the democratic political process

Regeneration and Opportunity

The rationale behind targeting based on opportunity, as well as need, has become

increasingly popular in recent literature. In its recent influential work the DCLG

(2009, P.6), explicitly highlighted the need for targeting to focus on both opportunity

and need;

‘Targeted – not trying to transform everywhere – but investing where it will

have most impact by supporting those communities where the most severe

poverty and worklessness persists and where there is the opportunity to

deliver long-term change’ (Authors emphasis)

In addition, DCLG (2008 P. 14) has also noted that:

‘Improving mainstream services will often be the right response to deprivation.

But sometimes mainstream services alone are insufficient to make

transformational change. Where there are particular place based barriers to

change, targeted investment can help to tackle poverty and multiple

disadvantage.’ (Authors emphasis)

However, the acknowledgment of the need to target place-based opportunity is not a

new concept. A report in 1990 (Pavitt / RTPI 1990), explained that targeting should

be focused on a combination of need and opportunity, with the key points of

opportunity targeting being:

6

The availability of derelict, vacant or under-used sites.

The presence of good transport infrastructure.

The potential to remove environmental blight.

The prospects of securing new industry or tourism.

These are robust criteria, which will be explored further in this document. To briefly

illustrate the importance of opportunity when targeting, let us examine one of the

points. The existence of good transport infrastructure is paramount when

considering which areas to target. The high cost of providing strategic infrastructure

would be prohibitive for most regeneration initiatives, given the limited resources

allocated for regeneration. However, if this infrastructure already exists then there is

an opportunity for regeneration monies to exploit the infrastructure and deliver long-

term positive change. Clearly, opportunities such as this can greatly increase an

initiative’s chances of success, and should be considered as an integral part of the

targeting process.

Conclusion Three

Whilst regeneration targeting is essentially based on recognised ‘need’, clear

attention should be paid to identifying how need can be linked to ‘opportunity’

which ensures effective delivery.

This introduction has indicated the complexities of developing transparent and pre-

determined criteria for the allocation of regeneration resources. The need to respond

to long-term de-industrialisation, crisis-led need and wider political objectives can

render the most rational criteria useless. A requirement to also recognise the

existence of ‘opportunities’ can risk diversion of resources from areas of greatest

need. These critical issues will be discussed in the remainder of this report.

2. Regeneration – What is it?

Regeneration is not a term that is easily described, as it means many things to many

different professional groupings. The term covers everything from finding new uses

for old industrial heartlands and redeveloping areas formerly engaged in heavy

industry, to neighbourhood interventions that improve quality of life. In a recent

article from building.co.uk1, Ray Mills, of the regional development group at

Pricewaterhouse Coopers, defined regeneration as:

‘Regeneration is about making tomorrow's world better. Delivering

sustainable communities in a fast-moving commercial environment demands

partnerships of commitment, trust and transparency. Partners must have

common purpose, a shared understanding of the pitfalls and opportunities,

appropriate governance and a lot of patience. There is no one-size fits all

approach. To deliver inspirational regeneration, on time and within budget,

1 Article available at http://www.building.co.uk/10-ways-to-define-regeneration/3062794.article

7

you need to be inclusive, responsive to local and market needs, adopt a

flexible approach and put in a lot of hard work up-front, particularly in ensuring

commercial and financial viability.’

Given the complexity of the task suggested by Mills it is important to remind

ourselves of the very real challenges involved. As an ex Regional Development

Agency Board member once commented (in Robson et al, 2000, 26):

‘Delivering urban renaissance is a bit like trying to end world poverty, isn’t it?’

In light of these complexities, it is important for all regeneration initiatives to share

common key features. The Department for Communities and Local government

(2008, Pp. 3-4) suggested that in reversing economic, social and physical decline,

regeneration should:

Secure long-term change, by tackling barriers to growth and reducing

worklessness – moving communities and individuals from dependence to

independence;

Improve places and make them more attractive to residents and investors,

enabling new and existing businesses to prosper;

Foster ambition and unlock potential in the most deprived areas by

breaking cycles of poverty;

Enabling everyone in society to gain more power in decisions made which

affect them, and to take advantage of the economic opportunities that

regeneration brings;

Supplement (not replace) and help to improve the flexibility and targeting of

mainstream government services in underperforming areas;

Deliver sustainable development which contributes to people’s satisfaction

with where they live as well as wider Government goals;

Open up opportunities to create more equal communities.

These objectives would be widely shared by regeneration practitioners and represent

a comprehensive set of objectives to inform targeting decisions. Appendix A

presents some of the learning derived from two past major regeneration policy

programmes.

8

3. Targeting- Why ? Regeneration initiatives are expected to reverse market failure, halt decline in

targeted areas, stimulate economic growth and where necessary challenge poverty

and social exclusion. However, the resources made available for this challenging set

of tasks have historically been modest. For example, (DETR, 41) in 2001 noted:

‘ABl cannot be, and never have been thought of as, substitutes for action by

mainstream Government departments in tackling the problems of deprived

neighbourhoods. The problems of deprived neighbourhoods have developed,

and become more serious and pervasive over many years, in spite of the best

endeavours of individual mainstream programmes operating in these areas.

The role of ABI has been to try and pull together mainstream Government

departments with the private and voluntary sectors, and local communities, in

order to develop strategic regeneration packages for deprived

neighbourhoods. The funding of area-based regeneration programmes has

remained modest and is broadly equivalent to 1% of the national social

security budget, or a quarter of 1% of aggregate public expenditure. Even in

targeted areas the additional funding provided amounts to no more than a few

percent of resources already provided through mainstream programmes’

We are now 10 years on from 2001, and given the current prevailing economic

conditions, there is an increasingly real possibility of a double-dip recession and

further cuts in public spending. As such it is clear that for at least the next decade,

the regeneration sector is going to have more to do, with fewer resources. This

presents a need for the sector to become more efficient, and target its resources

more effectively toward areas of need, combined with the opportunity of bringing

about positive transformative change.

Regeneration is a highly sophisticated, ‘art and science’ rooted in practice and

delivery as opposed to theory (Roberts and Sykes, 2000, pp, 298 and 22). It must be

understood that regeneration is a complex process which can potentially be

influenced by a multitude of external forces including, but not limited to; wider

structural events, the national economy, practitioner skills, social unrest and changes

in technology. Given these external forces there can be no guarantee that any

regeneration initiative will achieve value for money, or indeed success. What is

important is to ensure that the finite resources available to the regeneration sector

are initially targeted toward the areas of greatest need, and areas with the highest

potential for positive transformative change (DCLG 2008). These issues are likely

to become more prominent, and more challenging if current levels of economic

growth, employment and public sector spending result in the increasing prevalence of

decline, deprivation and poverty, as some commentators have suggested. To be

properly prepared to deal with these future regeneration challenges, it is important to

establish a comprehensive and transparent set of criteria that will most effectively

direct future regeneration investments.

9

The issue of targeting is further complicated by the nature of decline and deprivation.

Localised decline and deprivation frequently begin with unchecked deindustrialisation

which creates market disequilibrium, increasing unemployment of the traditional

workforce and eventually urban decay. This process is clearly illustrated by Pavitt’s

(The Planner, RTPI, 1990) cycle of urban decay and regeneration.

Figure 1: The Cycle of Urban Decay and Regeneration

It is important to establish where on the cycle an area is with regard to the type of

‘intervention’ required. Hence a full appraisal of the characteristics of an area is

required in order to effectively target the nature and scale of the regeneration task

(DCLG, 2008, P. 96). It should also be noted that, whilst the economic and physical

characteristics of decline appear inevitable, there is no degree of inevitability that this

process will lead to social degradation, social exclusion or other social problems.

10

Timely, well targeted interventions may prevent the onset of the social problems

associated with degradation.

Processes that lead to, and perpetuate, decline differ between areas and operate at

different spatial levels (McGregor and McConnachie (1995)). However, as the DCLG

(2008) noted, it is possible to identify three distinct phases in the process of decline:

Economic change – the underlying cause of decline in an area.

Response – how the market and the community responds to this change,

which is dependent upon the underlying strength of the economic base,

available skills and community cohesion.

Legacy – the longer-term consequences of the change and how the area

responds, which can lead to sustained deprivation, where failures in

economic, social and property markets interact to reinforce a cycle of decline.

Clearly, understanding the position of an area in this sequence, and identifying

appropriate opportunities for the area to respond to challenges, is essential to

designing appropriate regeneration programmes. Decline and deprivation are

caused by a wide range of interconnected forces. As a result of this it is imperative

that regeneration strategies are holistic, taking into consideration not just the causes

of the problems, but the wider structural forces that have worked to compound and

intensify decline, as well as the strengths and weaknesses present in the area.

Conclusion Four

Prior to investment and targeting of resources, comprehensive baseline

measures of decline and disadvantage should be taken to ensure resources

are directed to areas of need. Such measures can also be used to prioritise

between candidate areas.

A recent Guardian article by Lynsey Hanley entitled ‘An invisible forcefield’ (The

Guardian, 12.08.2011) explained that,

‘The reality of the last 40 years us that every government has attempted to

regenerate poor urban areas, with limited success. Such areas aren’t always

in the inner city, but inner estates and peripheral estates, in particular, have

shared a common factor; they have been cut off from the wider economic and

social structure, a situation exacerbated by poor design and bad

management.’

Hanley concludes that.

‘There’s been in many cases a cosmetic regeneration of estates without the

understanding of what prevents such areas from becoming integral parts of

the local economic and social fabric.

11

Clearly, the cause of these ‘cosmetic regeneration’ failures is a lack of understanding

of the root causes of decline, deprivation and social exclusion.

A solution to the ‘cosmetic regeneration’ failures would be to employ a process of

strong ex-ante evaluation leading to the development of strategic, targeted

regeneration solutions that could be implemented across all areas facing decline or

deprivation. But when confronted with limited resources, deep public spending cuts

and heterogeneous instances of decline and deprivation, there needs to be a strong

framework, on which to base the targeting of regeneration resources to ensure the

correct areas are being targeted in the correct manner.

4. Regeneration and area based initiatives (ABI). In the introduction it was explained that ‘Regeneration is here defined broadly as

consisting of Area Based Initiatives (ABI’, as the two have been inextricably linked

over the past 25 years. Presented below is a brief summary of the debate

surrounding using ABI as the main delivery vehicle for regeneration. There have

been many differing arguments regarding the rationale for area targeting. The main

arguments against were summarised in Gillian Smith’s (1999) paper, ‘Area Based

Initiatives: The rationale for and options for area targeting’. The main arguments

against area targeting have been that:

Most deprived people do not live in the most deprived areas and will be missed

by most of the targeted programmes – it has been argued that people rather than

areas should be targeted.

Area targeted policies are unfair on those areas which are not covered by these

programmes, despite sometimes having similar needs, and there are political

problems associated with targeting some areas and not others.

Area-based approaches may simply displace ‘the problem’ (e.g. unemployment,

crime), to somewhere else.

The problems are generated at the national level – therefore action needs to be

at this level. Following on from this, area programmes may detract from the need

to do more at a national level through mainstream policies.

Area interventions interfere with the market - areas should be left to decline or

recover since interfering with these processes may do more harm than good.

Despite these arguments, most academics and practitioners agree that ABI are a

crucial vehicle for delivering positive regenerative change. And indeed, Smith goes

on to conclude that area targeting/ ABI are usually the primary vehicle to effectively

tackle decline and deprivation. Smith’s arguments in favour of geographically

targeted policies are summarised below:

12

There are identifiable geographical areas that suffer disproportionately from

problems (because of the uneven nature of decline caused by market forces and

the ‘scatter gun’ approach of mainstream public service delivery). This places

mainstream programmes under pressure so that they operate less effectively

than in other, more affluent areas and something 'extra' is therefore needed.

Problems overlap in geographical areas and they are often made worse when

they all co-exist together; the sheer scale of the difficulties means that extra

action is needed.

An increased polarisation between deprived and more affluent areas means it is

important for social and political reasons to be seen to be doing something extra

for people living in deprived areas.

Because problems are concentrated, a greater number of deprived people are

captured if resources are geographically targeted than if they are spread more

evenly.

Focusing activity on small areas within tight boundaries can, potentially, make

more of an impact than if resources are dissipated.

Unlike national mainstream programmes, area targeted programmes are often

characterised by a 'bottom up' approach which is underpinned by partnership

working. This can result in more effective identification of problems and delivery

of solutions.

Local programmes may lead to increased confidence and capacity to participate

in the community.

Successful area-based programmes may act as pilots and ultimately lead to

changes in the delivery of mainstream policies.

More recently, the DCLG (2008 P.16) have re affirmed Smith’s (1999) conclusions

that there are a number of reasons for intervening through area-based initiatives,

which can be summarised as:

Area effects – concentrations of poverty tend to create further disadvantage such

as:

Low aspirations and cultural expectations;

Lack of knowledge of job opportunities;

Stigmatisation of residents from certain postcodes;

Burden on local service provision;

Low demand for private sector services.

Targeting – where deprivation is highly concentrated, it is possible to more efficiently

meet needs than it is for people who are geographically highly dispersed.

13

Effective delivery – Delivery at very local level enables better tailoring of services to

meet specific needs.

Co-ordination – Regeneration requires co-ordination across a range of policy areas

– joining up is easier at defined and small geographic levels.

The evidence suggests that ABI should remain the main vehicle through which to

bring about regenerative change, if mainstream programmes are unable to

holistically address decline and deprivation. The continued need for regeneration

indicates that mainstream policy and programmes are not able to prevent areas

slipping into long-term decline and deprivation; meaning that ABI are likely to remain

central to regeneration efforts. This discussion provides further reinforcement for

Conclusion One above.

5. How might targeting be undertaken? Whilst ABI are the primary vehicle through which regeneration is delivered, there are

at least three additional ways in which targeting decisions could be undertaken. This

section will further explore the rational behind area based targeting, and briefly

comment on the potential alternatives that exist.

Territorial/spatial/area targeting

The discussion above clearly points to the ‘pedigree’ of spatial targeting.

Geographical locations which are experiencing severe decline or deprivation can be

specifically targeted for intervention. However, ABI and more generalised spatial

targeting raises a number of key questions about the geographical scale and

boundaries of intervention. Key issues include:

Sub-regional spatial targeting should follow travel-to work areas.

Political commitment may be more important than spatial logic. So a local

political agreement, as to the most appropriate boundaries may be the

deciding factor. For example, the different aspirations of local authorities or

community groups may be critical. E.g. Communities First initial targeting by

Electoral Division (ward) ensured that in a number of Communities First

areas, streets of considerable affluence were included in the designated

areas.

Spatial boundaries are best where they are ‘permeable’.

There is no ‘blue print’. No ‘one geographical size’ as a potential solution to

decline fits all.

As a determining factor, geographical scale is one determining criterion,

population size may be another.

Targeted spatial boundaries may change over time. (For example the

targeted regeneration URC area in Newport has now been reduced to

concentrate just on the City Centre).

The spatial scale of the regeneration initiative may be critical to the securing

of new prosperity and an appropriate response to the management of decline.

14

The ‘neighbourhood’ (English policy terminology) or ‘community’ (Welsh

policy terminology) is the most manageable spatial scale to facilitate

regeneration.

A recent example of ABI in Wales would be Strategic Regenerations Areas (now

Regeneration Areas) in which certain key areas were targeted to receive special

assistance based on a varying combination of need, opportunity and political

decision. Appendix B demonstrates the past pattern of spatial targeting associated

with the Barry area now itself a Regeneration Area and demonstrates the linkages

required from the local to the national levels of delivery. Appendix C demonstrates

how boundaries around spatially targeted areas can be determined.

Sector – It is possible to target a specific sector of the economy in order to bring

about positive regenerative change. This is predominantly based on a perceived

need or market failure arising in that sector (e.g. manufacturing, health etc). A recent

example of sector targeting in Wales would be the Welsh Housing Quality Standard

(WHQS); whereby the social housing sector was targeted in order to create a

minimum standard of acceptable living conditions.

Thematic – It is also possible to target regeneration towards a certain theme. This

generally occurs when key economic and social themes are perceived to be

problematic, and when key themes are brought to the forefront of public and political

consciousness (E.g. business support, crime reduction etc). The ARBED scheme,

which was aimed at increasing energy efficiency, sustainable development and the

green agenda, provides a recent Welsh example.

Beneficiary / Deprived groups – regeneration resources are often targeted on the

basis of need, towards key groups in society. However it should be noted that in this

instance the resulting intervention usually take the form of multiple area based

initiatives aimed at bringing positive regenerative change to the identified

beneficiaries or deprived groups (e.g. drug users, single mothers etc). Again though,

targeting groups such as the most socially excluded is often diluted by political

influence; the ‘why them not us’ mentality can be a powerful driver in expanding

these types of policy beyond their original purpose.

Over the last 30 years in the UK, all these types of targeting have been attempted in

order to bring a more focused approach to servicing local needs and opportunities

where significant market failure has occurred and in some cases where mainstream

programme delivery has failed. However, as indicated above spatial targeting has

been the kind most prominently used in the UK. One possible explanation for this is

that the other kinds of targeting can of course also be employed within an area based

initiative. Consequentially, ABI have tended to dominate regeneration interventions.

6. How can areas be prioritised for intervention? It is important to understand the ways in which areas may be targeted and prioritised

to receive regeneration support. There are many systems which may be adopted to

prioritise certain areas. However, prioritisation is often ultimately determined by

15

political influence. Below are some examples of how regeneration initiatives and

their locations have been determined:

Via Competitive Application - In this instance selection is made on the basis of

competition between areas, and, as part of this process, areas are required to make

the case as to why their problems are sufficient to justify area targeted intervention,

or put another way, why existing resources and policies are not sufficient.

One of the first examples of competitive application for regeneration initiatives was

the City Challenge Initiative back in the early 1990s, which was the first real sign of a

departure from the traditional reactive, project driven, approach adopted hitherto in

most regeneration programmes (OPDM P.19). The basic aim underpinning City

Challenge was to encourage sustainable improvements in deprived areas through a

process of competitive bidding.

However, there are some major issues associated with prioritising via this method.

Firstly, we have already established that the finite resources available to regeneration

should be targeted towards areas with the greatest need and the greatest potential

opportunity to bring about regenerative change. However, when utilising competitive

applications to determine targeting priorities this outcome is not guaranteed. Areas,

or organisations, with greater resources, or greater experience of the bidding

processes have a significant comparative advantage when competing to secure

regeneration funding. Certain areas can begin to develop a specialised knowledge of

how to succeed at the bidding process, leaving less experienced and well resourced

areas with little hope of securing funding, despite the possibility that they represent a

greater need or opportunity. Secondly, there is an issue of continued funding and

support. Regeneration initiatives established via a competitive application process

are often not set up with the necessary strategic or academic rigour. There is often

little thought given to an exit strategy, or what should happen to the initiative following

its initial timescale. This often leaves funders and officials with an interesting

dilemma. If the initiative has been a success, the area clearly presents an

opportunity to be significantly improved via targeted regeneration initiatives, meaning

that another round of funding could further improve the area, but there may be areas

of greater need. However, if the initiative has failed, the initial problems of decline

and decay still need to be tackled. A second round of funding is required, but there

can be no guarantee of success. In this situation should success or failure be

prioritised? Finally this method can create a lack of transparency as to why areas

are chosen.

Via Boundaryless Application - This approach was first used as part of the Single

Regeneration Budget (SRB), in England from 1994. The SRB asked for competitive

local area regeneration bids from local partnerships, formed amongst the public,

private, community and voluntary sectors. There were no policy boundaries or

restrictions on what objectives or spatial areas could be covered in an SRB bid.

This 'boundary-less' approach represented a departure from local area based

initiatives of the previous twenty years, during which time regeneration assistance

mainly went to designated areas (ODPM, P. 20). The emphasis in SRB was on a

16

flexible response so that areas, some of which historically may not have had

regeneration problems, could make application for funds to do something early on to

tackle local difficulties. Multifaceted bids were encouraged, in line with the reasoning

that many different factors contribute to local regeneration problems. Regeneration

packages could be put together which unfolded over a period of up to seven years,

thus adding further flexibility (ODPM, P. 20).

The principle problem associated with boundaryless applications is the tendency for

policy makers to ‘spread the jam too thinly’, as a result of ignoring the spatial

concentrations, and area effects of poverty. It could be argued that boundaryless

applications were introduced because of their political popularity. With this style of

allocating resources, all groups of society appear to be able to access regeneration

resources. Whilst this undoubtedly fosters political popularity, it is not a focused

targeting strategy. It supports initiatives of all shapes and sizes, which can be

difficult to prioritise, often allowing the rationale for targeting to become very unclear.

Finally, due to the limited nature of regeneration resources, partnership working is

recognised as the best way of capturing the maximum benefit from available

resources. However, boundaryless application can blur defined local boundaries,

often circumventing established local partnerships. This requires the creation of

entirely new partnerships, including stakeholders with potentially very different goals

which can be difficult to align.

Via Deprivation and evidence based targeting – Another method which has

gained in popularity over the past ten years is evidence based targeting. Areas are

identified based on evidence of decline and deprivation, and prioritised in order of

most deprived.

Two recent examples of this are the New Deal for Community (NDC) initiative in

England, and the Communities First initiative in Wales. The emphasis of both

schemes was placed on tackling multiple deprivation in the most deprived areas

focusing particularly on poor job prospects, high levels of crime, educational

underachievement and poor health in deprived neighbourhoods. The targeted areas

received assistance for a set period of time, with the principal objective being to

make a real step change in the economic and social conditions in the areas

concerned by the end of that period (ODPM P.21).

Again here there is the issue of planned exit strategies. Whilst it is an admirable goal

to target a set number of the most deprived regions or communities in a defined

geographical location, there are potential issues for continuation funding. Following a

regeneration initiative, the recipient location may move out of the 10 most deprived

regions according to an Index of Multiple Deprivation, but that does not mean that it

no longer requires regeneration funding. Whilst there may now be areas of greater

need, there must also be a commitment to supporting the progress already achieved,

and recognising the opportunity to bring about further positive change.

To give an example, the targeting of regeneration support was a critical question in

the design and development of the Communities First programme in 2001. With

widespread poverty and social exclusion identified by the Welsh Office Index of

17

Deprivation the issue of focusing limited resources on the most critically

disadvantaged communities was seen as vital to the long-term success of the

programme. The parallel development of the new Welsh index of Multiple

Deprivation (WIMD) provided an opportunity to identify the most deprived wards in

Wales and to focus the programme on those areas. The selection of the 100 most

deprived wards gave a direct eligibility based on clear statistical evidence of need. In

addition it was recognised that areas of poverty in some wards were masked

statistically by more affluent elements of a community. Consequently, local

authorities were invited to submit ‘sub-ward’ applications for support if they could

demonstrate similar levels of poverty and disadvantage to those wards in the 100

most deprived wards of the WIMD. This exercise qualified a further 32 areas for

support. The programme also identified 10 ‘Communities of Interest’ or ‘Imaginative

Proposals’, including Black Minority Ethnic communities in Cardiff and Newport,

victims of domestic abuse in Neath Port Talbot, young people in Pembrokeshire, and

rural communities in Ceredigion, Powys, Gwynedd and Flintshire. These did not fit

well with the area-based character of the programme and several closed early in the

delivery of Communities First. Several however have been judged to be successful.

In 1995 following revision of the WIMD the development of analysis at the lower

spatial level of the Lower-Layer Super Output Area added a further 46 localities

qualified to join the programme. Not all of these areas became stand-alone

partnerships combining with existing partnerships where possible. The final number

of partnerships reached was 156.

7. What has been the experience in Wales? There have been varying approaches to targeting adopted in Wales both over time

and concurrently. This variability has sought to reflect local conditions and ensure

that delivered programmes meet the sometimes highly specific needs of particular

areas. For example, in the current Regeneration Areas the economic development

needs of Barry will differ considerably from those of the valleys areas designated as

the HOV and the Western Valleys RAs. This variability does present difficulties of

comparative evaluation and of learning from good practice. It can also cloud the

overall objectives of regeneration policy by rooting practice in entirely local conditions

rather than shared national targets.

Examples of recent area based targeting in Wales

Barry (2011):

Three specific themes and one overarching theme.

Specific:

Physical regeneration and tourism.

Health and wellbeing.

Housing and environment.

Overarching:

18

Skills and employment.

Pillgwnelly, Newport (2009):

Social enterprise.

Economic growth.

Physical improvement.

The Western Valleys (2009):

Child poverty.

Child care.

Community safety.

Health and wellbeing.

Education skills and training.

Environment and infrastructure.

Jobs, business and income generation.

North Wales Coastal Action Plan (2009):

Housing quality.

Poor Health.

Economic in activity and social inclusion.

Improving skills and sector targeting e.g. construction, retail, social

care, green jobs etc.

Structural changes in employment patterns.

Heads of the Valleys (2006):

Economic inactivity.

Education and skills.

The quality of jobs.

Health.

Image.

Settlements.

Connectivity.

The environment.

Population.

19

8. Area/spatial targeting in the UK mainland Europe. There has been a long history both within the UK and in mainland Europe of spatial

targeting. And whilst key differences exist in the individual politics, cultures, histories

etc, the one common theme arising, is the incidence of uneven development and

inequality. This point has been affirmed in the context of commentary on the recent

riots (The Guardian, 12th August 2011) where Hanley suggests:

‘Polarisation between rich and poor areas, as much as between rich and poor

people has been increasing since the 70’s’.

The UK was at the forefront in developing ‘regional policies’ back in the 1930s to

respond to this problem of uneven development, with South Wales being one of four

locations which was the recipient of positive discrimination of financial incentives and

assistance from central government. In 1977, the then Labour Government’s White

Paper (on ‘urban policy’) recognised the incidence of uneven development and

associated social exclusion within the UK’s towns and cities i.e. at a reduced spatial

scale than the region; in other words at city, town, district and neighbourhood spatial

scales. And it proposed area based targeting to address the problem. From the

early 1980’s onwards area-based initiatives (ABI) were deployed more extensively in

Britain’s towns and cities with initiatives such as the UDC’s, Enterprise Zones, City

Challenge, and latterly in the late 1990’s, via initiatives such as the URC programme,

New Deal for Communities, Education Action Zones, Home Zones and Housing

Renewal Areas.

In 1970 the need for an EU wide regional policy was foreseen by the Werner

Committee which argued that the attainment of economic and monetary union would

be impaired if the effects on regional economic disparities were ignored. This positive

discrimination by the EU via the provision of financial incentives has continued, with

the current designation of areas within the UK of Convergence and Competiveness.

So what can the spatially targeted economic and regeneration policies and

programmes operated in other countries in mainland Europe teach us?

Appendix D: presents some examples of targeted regeneration on the European

mainland drawing from experience in France, Denmark and Germany. From these

examples a number of conclusions emerge which have some value in guiding the

targeting of regeneration resources in Wales in the current context.

The value of decentralised governance and the value of the initiative as a

response to fragmentation in governance.

Problems cannot be solved without addressing issues in the wider urban

area in which the local area was based

Multiple types of targeting within a targeted geographical area may be

appropriate e.g. sector, thematic, beneficiary groups etc.

20

The importance of joint central government and local government funded

initiatives but with clarity required as to ‘who does what’.

Recognise the need for innovation and experimentation in planning and

development.

A key issue to address is social exclusion.

The challenge which exists in trying to transfer national theoretical policy to

individual localities.

Linkage of spatial planning to national investment frameworks.

Linkage of plans on a hierarchical basis i.e. starting with a Europe wide

perspective and then cascading down to country, city, town, district, and

neighbourhood.

The importance of the designation and targeting of major cities as ‘growth

poles’ to facilitate national economic development via strategic and

mainstream public sector investment and financially supported private sector

investment.

There is a need for comprehensive linkage between targeted locations at

different spatial scales via linked regional, city and local plans, particularly

with regard to land use, transport and housing. And there is need to recognise

the wider policy context at multiple spatial scales (see appendix B) prepared

by the WDA in respect of the regeneration of the greater Barry area in 2003).

Geographically targeted investment in transport infrastructure is a primary

catalyst to regeneration

There is a need for subsidised employment and potentially higher levels of

benefit to be provided and targeted at some geographical locations.

9. Conclusions

The importance of the effective targeting of regeneration initiatives cannot be

overemphasised. On the grounds of the required efficient use of scarce financial

resources it is particularly vital that ‘need’ should have an effective and targeted

response. Generally, public sector financial resources have been allocated as a

response to need, as distinct from a market response to demand and to ‘opportunity’.

However, regeneration should encapsulate both a response to need and to

opportunity. In Wales, regeneration targeting has been dominated by the importance

of employing socio-economic and environmental base line data which predominantly

represents the need side of the response. This has been necessitated by Welsh

Government having to concentrate its policy and programme delivery on core issues

of need, such as job creation, skills development, poverty alleviation, housing

improvement and health care etc. In its self this is a reflection of the scale of Wales’s

socio- economic problems and it’s financial under resourcing via the Barnet Formula.

Notwithstanding the position in Wales, there has also generally been less debate and

commentary about targeting based on the ability or not to exploit opportunity in the

broadest sense. If there had been more debate, it is possible that more attention

would have been paid to considering opportunity from both a process and product

perspective. Process involves evaluating the specific role and potential performance

required of local institutional or organisational structures, considering the financial

and human capacity available to deliver a regeneration initiative etc. Product requires

21

consideration of the opportunities of providing transport infrastructure to ‘hollow out’

uneven development, using the regeneration opportunity to maintain and create

local characterisation and sense of place by preserving historic buildings and

industrial archaeology, securing a ‘critical mass’ of energy efficiency measures in

respect of buildings, improving the health, education and skills outcomes of local

residents etc. A lack of these opportunities may suggest insuperable barriers to

delivering regeneration. Hence, these sorts of opportunity should be considered as

key criteria in making a decision as to how and where to target.

As a general rule, targeting based on need has tended to be more people focused,

whilst targeting based on opportunity has been more place focused. Significantly,

people based regeneration is a much longer process than place based regeneration.

The physical condition of a place can often be changed quite significantly within four

to eight years and within one or two electoral cycles (which is important having

regard to a required political mandate and the related commitment of financial

resources). Regenerative change of people’s skills, qualities, knowledge and

experience is more likely to take a generation or a couple of decades. It is argued

that whilst there is a good ‘fit’ between place based regeneration and traditional short

term regeneration initiatives this is not the case with regard to people based

regeneration. The latter kind of regeneration requires the employment of mainstream

policy and programme funding over 20 to 25 years.

This argument is not new but if true, it does have significant implications for how past

regeneration initiatives may be viewed and how regeneration targeting should be

undertaken in the future. For example, regeneration initiatives may have been

perceived to have failed in the past because they concentrated on place based

regeneration and didn’t secure people based regeneration. Whereas in reality,

people based regeneration was simply, not in the ‘gift’ of the initiative. As for the

future, the argument suggests that integrated people and place regeneration should

enjoy two targeted funding streams. One stream to undertake ‘place regeneration’,

employing short term finance. And the other stream to undertake ‘people

regeneration’, employing long term finance. If committed long term financial

resources are not available then an alternative approach in the future may be to

target a smaller number of regeneration locations but with enhanced funding (via

mainstream policy and programme bending) with the intention of speeding up the

required process of change via a more intensive approach to project delivery.

Conclusion Five

Targeting of regeneration resources should be based on a complete

integration of ‘people’ and ‘place’ based programmes. Any separation is

artificial and leads to likely failure of both when delivered separately.

This requires effective cross-departmental working in all public agencies in Wales

and notably within the Welsh Government itself.

It is clear that the spatial targeting of regeneration via the RA’s in Wales represents

good practice, as does the Communities First initiative. However, they have not

achieved a sufficient level of integration to date and considerable advantage can be

22

gained from ensuring that these programmes work in close relationship where their

locations coincide.

The conclusions above are ‘not new’. The arguments presented above have been

rehearsed in many academic papers and in numerous government reports and policy

documents. Hence, the following recommendations reflect this position and merely

propose further consideration and debate on the salient issues. Hence, these

recommendations, and not in any order of importance are:

10. Recommendations – Developing an approach to

targeting.

Regeneration problems often vary considerably between locations. In one location it

may be worn–out infrastructure, in another derelict land and buildings, and in another

poverty, crime, social disorder and ill health. In some locations all possible problems

exist and they are mutually reinforcing. This makes the case for the undertaking of

area/spatially based regeneration initiatives and can assist identification of key

regeneration objectives which can be applied to all areas.

The DCLG Report (2009) on the taking forward of the national regeneration

framework proposed that investment should be targeted as follows:

On achieving economic outcomes, with targeting worklessness and

increasing employment as being paramount.

At an appropriate spatial scale and as close to communities as possible, and

making the most of opportunity.

Where the most severe levels of poverty and worklessness exist, but also

where there is opportunity to deliver long-term change.

The current Framework for Regeneration Areas identifies three overall objectives for

the Welsh Government.

Increasing prosperity and wellbeing for the whole community

Moving towards low carbon communities

Improving life chances for children and young people.

The critical question is how these higher level aspirations can be achieved at the

appropriate scale and what is required at local level to make them relevant. DCLG,

(2008) provides some illustration:

Improving the physical environment of ‘the place’ so as to retain and attract

people and businesses e.g. reclaiming derelict and contaminated land,

rehabilitating housing and other run-down buildings, creating an attractive,

23

safe clean and vibrant public realm etc

Improving the prospects for the ‘local people’ by building the skills, capacities

and aspirations of residents e.g. via educational participation and attainment,

facilitating vocational skills and employability, improving family support,

healthcare and related services.

Improving the wider economy in order to boost local employment and

incomes e.g. via inward investment, facilitating retail, cultural sporting and

leisure developments etc.

There is nothing particularly ‘new’ in the above, and indeed the Welsh Regeneration

Area programmes are targeting along these lines.

This review has identified five key recommendations that merit consideration in

determining future targeting of regeneration resources in Wales. To summarise

these are:

Conclusion One

Area-based regeneration has proved a consistent and reliable basis for

shaping regeneration programmes and for targeting their activities.

Conclusion Two

Targeting should be based on transparent, objective criteria but also provide

sufficient flexibility to react to crisis and unforeseen circumstances and be

informed by judgments made within the democratic political process

Conclusion Three

Whilst regeneration targeting is essentially based on recognised ‘need’, clear

attention should be paid to identifying how need can be linked to ‘opportunity’

which ensures effective delivery.

Conclusion Four

Prior to investment and targeting of resources, comprehensive baseline

measures of decline and disadvantage should be taken to ensure resources

are directed to areas of need. Such measures can also be used to prioritise

between candidate areas.

Conclusion Five

Targeting of regeneration resources should be based on a complete

integration of ‘people’ and ‘place’ based programmes. Any separation is

artificial and leads to likely failure of both when delivered separately.

These conclusions are offered here as a basis for debate about the development of

transparent, objective and rigorous criteria for the future allocation of scarce

regeneration resources in Wales.

24

It is also worth repeating here the conclusions of our previous submission to the

National Regeneration Panel on the Regeneration Timeline in Wales that

regeneration works best when informed by a set of nationally agreed objectives

which can be interpreted and adjusted for local circumstances. We suggested

consideration of two sets of objectives:the five DOE/Rogers (DETR 1999) thematic

criteria or the four ODPM (2006) thematic criteria to facilitate regeneration in order to

standardize the targeted approach, but with the nomination of subsets of these

generic themes to reflect local needs and opportunities. The thematic DOE/Rogers

criteria are:

Creating economic strength.

Prioritising social well-being.

Taking environmental responsibility.

Investing in urban government.

Achieving design excellence.

The ODPM criteria are similar but with one exception, and aspire to achieve:

Economic competitiveness and performance

Social cohesion.

Liveability.

Good governance.

Taking this standardized approach (but with local customization) will facilitate a

greater consistency and clarity to what regeneration is seeking to achieve. This

should also ensure that targeted areas benefit from a consistency of approach from

the full range of partners.

25

Bibliography

Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (BERR), HM Treasury,

and Communities and Local Government, (July 2007) Review of sub-national

economic development and regeneration.

DETR 2001 P.41 – A review of the evidence based regeneration policy and practice)

DCLG (2008), Transforming places; changing lives: A framework for regeneration.

McGregor and McConnachie (1995) Social Exclusion, Urban Regeneration and

Economic Reintegration, Urban Studies, Vol. 32, No. 10, pp.1587-1600;

Buck, N. (2001) Identifying Neighbourhood Effects on Social Exclusion, Urban

Studies, Vol. 38, No. 12, pp.2251-2275;

Lupton, R. (2001) Places Apart? The Initial Report of CASE’s Areas Study, Centre for

Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics

Office for the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), 2001, A Review of the Evidence Base

for Regeneration Policy and Practice, Pp 18 - 21

Smith, G. (1999) ‘Area Based Initiatives: The rationale for and options for area

targeting.

26

Appendix A: What further advice two past influential UK Government Reports

can provide with regard to targeting

The Single Regeneration Budget initiative undertaken in England from 1994 to 2006

provided the ‘raison d’etre’ for the preparation of the most comprehensive longitudinal

evaluation of a regeneration initiative ever undertaken in the UK by any government.

Hence its findings (CCCLG/University of Cambridge, 2007) are particularly worthy of

study in support of the arguments proposed above. In addition the major DETR

Report of 2001(A Review of The Evidence Base for Regeneration Policy and

Practice) is also instructive. With regard to these two national Reports, the following

points are offered:

Bending of mainstream funding in favour of discrete areas and regeneration themes

is the ‘glittering prize’ for short term regeneration initiatives. But there has been very

little success in this regard.

Land and property-based initiatives are particularly significant because they enhance

quality of life, external image and visual appearance of a neighbourhood. Connecting

this physical and place regeneration to people related regeneration via specific

projects has a particular value e.g. providing community facilities (See Appendix D

regarding Aberdare Youth Club). And with regard to land and property based

initiatives, levering in private sector house building and RSL developments is also

very important.

A significant added value of any regeneration initiative will be in its strategic plan and

in its co-ordinating role to establish partnerships with multiple delivery agencies

tasked with responding to both need and opportunity.

The funding of area-based regeneration programmes is very modest e.g. 1% of the

national social security budget. Hence in financial terms mainstream funding is vastly

more significant with regard to responding to need.

People regeneration’ and securing sustainable economic opportunities in local areas

is difficult to achieve.

Facilitating transport improvements in order to connect ‘people’ living in

disadvantaged locations to opportunities in ‘places’ of employment is vital.

Targeting of specific service areas is required e.g. health, crime, education etc.

Targeting of regeneration opportunities with potential multiple outcomes is required

via identifying cross cutting issues.

Regular review of the agreed targeting is required, via undertaking evaluations and

re-calibration exercises.

Generally, it has been difficult to prove that locally targeted regeneration initiatives

have had a significant effect (NB and the comprehensive measurement of

regenerative change has been particularly difficult to achieve). And many

commentators have suggested that macro economic performance and associated

changes in employment have been the key determinants of whether areas decline or

recover.

27

Appendix B - Hierarchical and linked spatial connection with multiple public

policy endorsement. An example in respect of the regeneration of the greater

Barry area from 2003.

28

Appendix C – The Selection of Barry’s regeneration boundary

‘The reasons why a particular regeneration area boundary are nominated can vary

significantly from one location to another. By way of a Welsh example, the Greater

Barry area (what was Barry Action in the period from 1994- 2006) assumed the

boundaries indicated by green verge on the plan contained in appendix C for the

following reasons:

Followed principal highway routes.

Took account of the potential coherence (particularly to the private sector) of

related economic development and regeneration projects within a discrete

spatial location i.e., the land reclamation of the former ‘Blue Circle’ cement

works site at Rhoose and its re-use for housing, the potential expansion and

development of Cardiff Airport, the regeneration of Barry town centre, Barry

Island and the Waterfront, the rationalisation and redevelopment of Atlantic

Trading Estate and Hayes Wood.

Took account of the natural coastal location boundaries.

Was not contentious with regard to political attitudes and preferences.

Was manageable with regard to the financial resources available.

Facilitated multiple outputs and outcomes from within a discrete location,

capable of demonstrating successful regeneration and development.

Followed the preference of the Project Director who championed the overall

regeneration initiative who believed it was a best practice approach at the

time’

29

Appendix D –European examples of targeting

France:

The Contrat de Ville was a spatially based regeneration programme instigated by the

national French government in response to unemployment, social exclusion, and

attendant social unrest/riots (and therefore a response to ‘need’?) which was being

experienced on the peripheral housing estates and in the old urban areas of large

towns and cities in the late 1970’s/early 1980’s. The programme was based on

individual partnerships between both national and regional government with fixed 4/5

year durations and via specific location targeting. . Some key features and lessons

learnt were:

The value of decentralised governance and the value of the initiative as a

response to fragmentation in governance.

Problems could not be solved without addressing issues in the wider urban

area in which the local area was based

Multiple types of targeting within a targeted geographical area may be

appropriate e.g. sector, thematic, beneficiary groups etc. For example in Lille

in north France, the targeting ranged from the prevention of delinquency, to

handicapped people, to public transport provision, to health, to facilitating new

communication technologies, to responding to worklessness etc. In other

words very much a’ total solution’ was being sought.

The importance of Joint central government and local government funded

initiatives but with clarity required as to ‘who does what’.

Recognised the need for innovation and experimentation in planning and

development.

A key issue to address is social exclusion.

The challenge which exists in trying to transfer national theoretical policy to

individual localities.

Denmark/Copenhagen:

Copenhagen‘s contribution to this study on targeting is different from the French

example. Here the emphasis is on how a Municipal Plan, which is a model of vision

and integration, and how it provides the opportunity to use physical infrastructure to

deliver integrated development with accompanying social inclusion. Targeted themes

include, energy and water supply, waste and sewage treatment, combined heat and

power plants, pollution management including from road traffic etc. Rail public

transport infrastructure is perceived to be vital to the delivery of sustainable urban

growth and regeneration with a particular emphasis on securing urban development

around public transport nodes. All economic development is seen to have a social

inclusion component for example, the Plan states that urban renewal, ’should not

30

only create better housing, but reduce the distance between homes and places of

work’. To this end, ‘offices and industrial buildings can be reserved for companies

particularly likely to provide work places for people of the local neighbourhood’.

Specific lessons for Wales include the value of:

Linkage of spatial planning to national investment frameworks.

Linkage of plans on a hierarchical basis i.e. starting with a Europe wide

perspective and then cascading down to country, city, town, district, and

neighbourhood.

An appreciation of including a social inclusion component in all strategic planning

and investment decisions.

Germany.

In 2007 the City of Hamburg introduced a new kind of spatial targeting to facilitate

regeneration via business and neighbourhood improvement districts. Business

improvement districts (BIDs) based on the American model had existed for some

time in Germany, but the concept had not previously been employed to facilitate the

regeneration and improvement of residential locations.

The BID model to facilitate regeneration is based on a voluntary tax (via

election/democratic endorsement) that local businesses agree to pay in order to

deliver a strategy to facilitate, crime prevention measures, improvement of the built

environment, place marketing and promotion etc. The aim is to upgrade a designated

location at little expense to the public sector but via a public sector/local authority

sponsored initiative.

The extension of the BID system to encapsulate residential locations was due to the

sort of needs and opportunities being experienced across the EU e.g.

Increasing levels of local spatial inequality,

Declining levels of public sector funding,

Demographic change.

Sale and privatisation of public assets.

The sorts of theme measures established to facilitate local residential regeneration

and improvement were as follows:

Preparation of concept plans.

Improving services such as security and additional cleaning

Capital improvements such as landscaping, public realm improvements etc.

Organisation of public events and image campaigns.

Management of landlord’s interests.

31

Of particular significance is that all activities are designed to augment to existing

public services and in this respect it could be said that there is some parity with how

regeneration is seen in the UK, i.e. as a ‘top up’. And also of significance is that the

initiatives have a fixed life e.g. 3 to 5 years.

It is too early to say as to whether the success of the use of the BID model in

Germany (and indeed in other parts of the world) can be translated to residential

locations requiring regeneration and improvement. However, some of the generic

lessons to be learnt to area based regeneration and improvement initiatives may be:

The value of employing a strategic business plan approach.

The value of securing a local democratic endorsement.

The value of raising local finance to facilitate the initiative.

The opportunity to create new forms of public and private sector engagement.

The value of the ‘efficiency gains’ which be secured by local cooperation.

And on the ‘down side’, the dangers and weaknesses of pursuing this kind of

regeneration initiative can be:

The potential to create displacement and social exclusion.

The dilemmas associated with choosing which locations may or may not be

targeted.

The difficulties of achieving a ‘meeting of minds’ between the public and

private sectors.

The dangers afforded by the opportunity to privatise public sector services

(and the public realm) to the detriment of the wider public good.

(Hambleton and Thomas, 1995 and Scottish Executive Central Research Unit, 1999)

In conclusion to this section, it should be noted that the spatial targeting undertaken

has been a common response to uneven development and inequality. This has been

manifested to a greater or lesser extent, in similar problems across Europe e.g. civil

unrest, homelessness, drug abuse, physical dereliction, unemployment etc.

Unfortunately, and despite the multiplicity and variety of the initiatives and their

associated spatial targeting, many locations have remained remarkably resilient to

efforts to facilitate beneficial change. This is due to wider structural forces and,

despite the application of mainstream public funding programmes. However, without

these regeneration efforts, many commentators have suggested that the problems

would have been a lot worse.

From mainland Europe, key lesson have been learnt in the delivery of economic

development and regeneration, policies and programmes, such as:

The importance of the designation and targeting of major cities as ‘growth

poles’ to facilitate national economic development via strategic and

mainstream public sector investment and financially supported private sector

investment.

32

There is a need for comprehensive linkage between targeted locations at

different spatial scales via linked regional, city and local plans, particularly

with regard to land use, transport and housing. And there is need to recognise

the wider policy context at multiple spatial scales (see appendix B by way of

an example, prepared by the WDA in respect of the regeneration of the

greater Barry area in 2003).

Geographically targeted investment in transport infrastructure is a primary

catalyst to regeneration

There is a need for subsidised employment and potentially higher levels of

benefit to be provided and targeted at some geographical locations.

Like Copenhagen, the lessons to be learnt in respect of targeting have a strong

emphasis on re-urbanisation and achieving an efficient synergy between land use

and transport infrastructure and less on reducing social deprivation and polarisation.

Nevertheless, the targeting of potential efficiency gains through effective spatial

planning and development control is likely to secure significant social and community

benefits.

The subject location is of a small geographical size. The distance between towns and

cities is small e.g., Amsterdam is 35 miles from Rotterdam; The Hague is 15 miles

and Utrecht 25 miles. The area is very well connected with some key economic

drivers e.g. Schipol airport and the port of Rotterdam. However, de-industrialisation

and business dispersal has resulted in inner city and town centre decline.

This decline has been tackled by agreements between national, provincial and local

governments to deliver a ‘growth pole’ development strategy. This strategy

particularly targets a required regional transport and land use plan, and no central

funding is available to any level of government unless an integrated strategy is

agreed. Other targeted measures to facilitate sustainable development and

Regeneration include:

The delivery of high design quality in all housing developments.

Restriction of car parking spaces at commercial locations.

Fiscal and price measures to discourage car use.

Specific environmental targets e.g. vehicle emission reduction.

The lessons to be learnt for Wales include:

The achievement of a low correlation of unemployment and substandard

housing. This is due to strong government commitments to providing funding

for housing based urban regeneration.

The value of a robust and effective national spatial plan (linked to other

national plans) which links strategy across policy fields e.g. economic

33

development, transport, land use, tax policy etc.

The importance of having quantitative targets in respect of improving the

quality of life with ‘carrot and stick’ policies to achieve integrated objectives

Defined responsibilities and interrelationships between spatial levels and

between government, business and voluntary action( NB a vertical and

horizontal integration of governance)

‘Quality of life’ will be delivered via a high degree of public regulation.

Allowing key public –private partnership projects to deliver regeneration

projects to shape investment prioritisation by central government.

(Hambleton and Thomas, 1995 and Scottish Executive Central Research Unit, 1999)