Although not one of the larger urban programmes of the time, the CDP was one of the first urban regeneration initiatives developed with a wider social policy remit. Funding was directed towards 12 pilot sites throughout England and Wales (Table 2.2). These were small areas, or neighbourhoods, with populations of 10-20 thousand people and
characterised by high levels of multiple deprivation as identified by a series of social indicators (CDPWG, 1974, Carley, 1990). Four primary programme objectives were established at the start of the project summarised by Greve (1973: 119) as:
improving the quality of individual, family and community life in areas with high levels of social need;
increasing the range of social and economic opportunities available to the residents of these communities;
increasing individual and communal capacity to create or take opportunities and to make effective and rewarding use of them; and
increasing individual and communal capacity to exercise self-determination of their own lives and control over the condition and use of the local environment.
These objectives were to be met through a variety of locally designed mechanisms geared toward improving service delivery and coordination in areas such as education, employment, income maintenance and housing, and by promoting local community development. Two key features of the CDPs were their action-research design and a focus on resident
participation in the renewal process. Activity at each of the CDP sites were coordinated by action teams comprising members of the local authority and independent researchers. Local programme development was guided by research into local conditions and needs, and further research was conducted throughout the process to evaluate the effectiveness of
Urban Regeneration and New Labour 23 Table 2.2: Community Development Project Areas
Local Authority Project Area
local programmes. Local residents were consulted throughout the process helping to identify local problems and areas for service improvement as well as proposing solutions to the issues. They were also encouraged to participate in the continuing management of their neighbourhoods as a means to sustaining local change.
The CDP was created to address what were, at the time, believed to be the source of urban deprivation—the individual pathologies of the residents in deprived neighbourhoods (CDPWG, 1974). As a result, much of the work carried out by the local action teams
involved improving social services delivery and promoting community self-help and mutual aid. Employment training programmes, tailored to the needs of local residents, were
established as were efforts to improve links between schools and local residents through the development of pre-school programmes and playgroups. Avenues for communicating relevant local information were enhanced through the creation of local newspapers and
Urban Regeneration and New Labour 24 community centres, both of which were thought to increase residents’ awareness of the issues affecting their areas and provide a means for galvanising collective action for
improvement. The formation of community groups was also encouraged as another way to secure local improvements as well as a means for fostering civic involvement. Other
initiatives aimed to: increase benefit take-up among members of the local community, educate residents about housing rights, encourage a more coordinated and sensitive approach to redevelopment by local authorities, improve services for young people and the elderly, and to meet the needs of local ethnic populations. Research associated with each CDP, however, suggested that a locality-specific approach to regeneration may not be enough to produce lasting change in the targeted neighbourhoods (CDPWG, 1974).
The CDP programme was designed to address locally specific needs surrounding employment, income, education and aspirational issues. But, while the programme often had significant short term impact within the target communities, CDP team researchers began to uncover evidence that the programme was not addressing the root cause of the urban poverty problem. Neighbourhood deprivation, it emerged, was not the result of individual failings but arose from urbanisation and industrialisation processes occurring in each of the twelve project areas (CDPWG, 1974). The growth of the manufacturing sector in Birmingham and Coventry during this period attracted large numbers of unskilled and semi-skilled workers who settled in to low-cost housing areas where they joined other
economically inactive groups (e.g., the unemployed, long-term ill or single mothers). Other CDP neighbourhoods were located in areas affected by large- scale declines in major
industry. As employment dwindled, individuals that had transferable work skills and could
Urban Regeneration and New Labour 25 afford to move away did so, leaving behind large concentrations of unskilled and
unemployed workers and members of economically dependent groups. Both scenarios led to increasing pressures on local housing, employment, schools and other community services that could not be met with existing resources. The factors involved in both
economic expansion and decline were not, however, locally based. Instead, they originated in the decisions and actions taken by private industry the headquarters of which were increasingly located in foreign countries. With no physical or emotional connection to the communities in which their production plants were located, corporations felt little need to take local concerns into account during their business planning processes. Changes in national policy also affected local communities, especially changes related to nationalized industries such as coal mining. Communities such as Glyncorrwg, which depended almost exclusively on the mining industry for employment, were left devastated after the closure of their local mining works. Small area-based policies and programmes such as the CDP did not address these external structural processes and could not, therefore, lead to sustainable change in the target communities.
S
TRUCTURAL VIEWS OF POVERTYWith increasing evidence that community intensive interventions were not solving the urban deprivation problem, the urban poverty discourse changed again.
Now, the discussion focused on the ways in which national and international economic structures created inequality at the local level. Writing about inner-city ghettos in the
Urban Regeneration and New Labour 26 US, Wilson (1985) discussed how deindustrialisation, urban disinvestment, racial
discrimination and the subsequent racial integration of middle-class neighbourhoods left concentrations of severely deprived households in many urban communities.
Although Wilson’s writings were heavily focused on the racial underpinnings of urban disadvantage, many of the same socioeconomic changes highlighted by Wilson were applicable in the UK as well. Deindustrialisation and a shift to a more servic e oriented economy throughout the 1970s and 1980s resulted in large sectors of the UK’s unskilled and semi-skilled populations facing long-term unemployment. Unable to financially compete in the housing market, families were forced to locate in poor quality
neighbourhoods (or remain in them) where housing was cheaper or to seek assistance from the public housing sector. Middle-class households, with the education and financial resources needed for success in the new economy, moved away from urban communities further exacerbating conditions in these areas.
Accompanying this change in the conceptualisation of poverty was a shift in urban policy from community development to a focus on urban economic regeneration.
As Hart and Johnston note (2005), the Thatcher administrations believed ‘labour market rigidities, and...a lack of enterprise’ were responsible for the rise in concentrations of poverty and unemployment. Several key characteristics defined urban policy
throughout Thatcher’s government. The first was an emphasis on private market investment in urban regeneration. Programmes such as Enterprise Zones and Urban Development Grants encouraged private investment through financial and planning incentives in designated areas. Other programmes sought to instil confidence in private
Urban Regeneration and New Labour 27 investors through government led redevelopment projects. The Inner City Enterprises (ICEs) played such a role. Established in 1982 as a property development company, the ICEs undertook high-risk development projects to attract private developers to invest in areas designated for redevelopment (Roberts, 2005). A second key characteristic of urban policy in the 1980s and early 1990s was a focus on efficiency in government and
‘value for money’ in local services. The Conservative government at that time believed overly bureaucratic and inefficient local authorities were limiting economic growth (Noon et al., 2005). As a result, public-private partnerships were encouraged as a means to achieve a more efficient approach to regeneration. Other programmes, like Enterprise Zones, were meant to increase private investment and speed up
redevelopment by creating a more effective local planning system.
The decentralisation of services was also an element of urban policy at this time with responsibility for many local services traditionally held by local authorities being privatised. This was especially true in the housing arena. In the period between 1979 and 1996, the council housing sector contracted by 38 percent through a serie s of initiatives promoting private ownership. The Housing Act 1980 introduced the Right to Buy enabling public sector tenants to buy their homes from the local authority. Tenants Choice was introduced under the Housing Act 1988. This legislation provide d groups of tenants within local authority housing the right to form co-operatives and take over estate management. Alternatively, tenants could opt to transfer the management of their homes to an alternative institution such as a Housing Action Trust (HAT). HATs, which will be discussed in more detail in Chapter Five, were non-governmental bodies
Urban Regeneration and New Labour 28 created to take over management of designated areas of local authority housing. The HAT’s were tasked with the responsibility to repair and improve housing, im prove estate management, diversify housing tenure and encourage local economic development.
Decentralisation was also sought by encouraging local authorities to voluntarily transfer large sectors of their housing stock to private housing associations, or registered social landlords, through programmes such as the Estates Renewal Challenge Fund (Malpass and Murie, 1999, Mullins et al., 2006). Finally, grant funding based on need was stressed as a way to increase efficiency as was the use of competitive bidding in the 1990s, ensuring that monies were spent wisely on the projects deemed most likely to succeed.
Recognition of the structural causes of urban poverty was an important shift in urban policy. The change in focus away from the social-pathological approach to urban deprivation provided government with the opportunity to create a more equitable urban societal structure. The policies and initiatives introduced during the 1980s to address these issues, however, more often than not supported and enhanced the prevailing economic structures creating greater inequality in the process. Efforts to increase efficiency and secure value for money left many local authorities without the power or economic resources necessary to address the issues affecting deprived
communities. Regeneration funding schemes characterised by a competitive bidding process have often created conflict (Taylor, 2003) and increased the marginalisation of deprived communities (Morrison, 2003). Competition also resulted in many communities losing funding to more high profile areas based on political manoeuvring as acknowledged in
Urban Regeneration and New Labour 29 a government regeneration consultation report that stated ‘... the worst areas and less glamorous but nonetheless essential projects will lose out; and that having a competition enables *Government+...and Ministers to pick winners according to their hidden agendas’
(DETR, 1997: paragraph 5.31). The privatisation of the council housing sector had
devastating effects on many estate communities. The Right to Buy programme resulted in the best properties on the most desirable estates being removed from the council sector leaving behind heavy concentrations of unfit housing for families in need. This programme, combined with deregulations in the private rented sector and changes in council allocation policies awarding housing based on need, resulted in the residualisation of the sector.