Memorandum by the Black Training and Enterprise
Group (GF 21)
THE IMPLICATIONS
OF THE
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
RULING ON
GAP FUNDING
SCHEMES FOR
URBAN REGENERATION
IN ENGLAND
I am writing in response to the above inquiry.
Although BTEG are unable to put a full submission
in, we feel it may be of interest to highlight a few areas for
discussion.
The Inquiry into the EC Ruling highlights a
conflict between balancing social cohesion with economic growth
objectives. The Social Exclusion Unit's National Strategy for
Neighbourhood Renewal highlights how previous government regeneration
programmes have failed to raise the quality of life and overall
economic growth and prosperity in our cities and their neighbourhoods.
This is partly due to the market-driven nature of regeneration
programmes, which the EC Ruling and the SEU findings on Neighbourhood
Renewal seek to redress.
The idea of an "urban renaissance"
or top-down approaches to economic development hasn't delivered
economic prosperity and opportunities for local communities. For
example, flagship developments such as the Albert Dock in Liverpool
haven't had the desired impact on quality of life for its immediate
residents in the Liverpool 8 community (Granby/Toxteth). Similarly,
the economic growth created by firms along the "M4 corridor"
has had little impact on unemployment levels for black communities
living in Slough or Reading, with rates still two to three times
the region's average.
Any process towards urban renewal should identify
stakeholders and look to forge links from the bottom-up to the
top-down in an attempt to develop a shared strategic vision on
economic prosperity and opportunity. This will require improved
co-ordination in terms of strategies from agencies such as RDAs
and Planning Authorities to ensure their policies and programmes
have the desired impact upon those most in need.
Can the recommendations in the Urban Task Force
report really address the very real problems of poverty and economic
decay in urban areas? There seems to be an over-emphasis on planning
and development whilst overlooking the key architects to the whole
process: people, and in particular black communities. Indeed,
local dynamism as well as local opportunities are factors which
influence the effectiveness of urban policy.
The primary case should, therefore, be to look
to where significant impact can be made in areas that require
"regenerating" and how EU frameworks can run in parallel
for wider regeneration goals.[3]
Hence, the EC ruling should be seen in a wider context and not
as a vehicle for anti-competitive practices.
We hope these comments are a constructive contribution
to the on-going ETRACOM inquiry.
Sajid M. Butt
Policy and Information Officer
10 July 2000
3 The Social Economy Framework for London is a prime
example. Back
| 
