La financiación de los servicios sociales

In order to consider if the case study region can be defined as an appropriate region from which to undertake a study of urban heritage regeneration, a definition of what constitutes a regeneration area is required. The indices of multiple deprivations (IMD), was developed in 1998 by the Labour government (Tallon, 2013). The English Indices of Deprivation assesses deprivation across seven distinct domains that are combined using appropriate weights to calculate the Index of Multiple Deprivation (DLCG, 2015). The indices continue to be updated by the Department for Communities and Local Government, produced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS); the Index was most recently updated in 2015.

The adopted method of statistical analysis contained in the IMD is considered to be an objective measurement method to determine if an area can be considered to be an area of deprivation. It also represents an opportunity for comparative analysis of apparent deprivation within the regions of England (DCLG, 2015). It is considered to be the most widely used measure to determine if levels of deprivation exist in England. Figure 21 displays a colour-coded map of the apparent areas of deprivation in the North West region in 2015. A number of urban areas within the North West region look to fall within the category of the most deprived areas of England based upon economic and social categories. The findings of the indices show that there are nine local authorities in the North West region listed in the top twenty most deprived areas of England.

Figure 21: Indices of Multiple Deprivations in the North West.

Source (DCLG, 2015).

Furthermore, information contained in Table 6 is extracted from the indices that contain key macro-economic information pertaining to the case study area.

Table 6: Extracts from North West Indices of Deprivation.

Region Indication of deprivation

Knowsley, Liverpool and Manchester Ranked in the top 5 most deprived local authorities in England since 2010

Knowsley, Liverpool and Manchester Ranked in the top 10 most deprived local authorities in England during the period 2007 - 2010

Knowsley, Liverpool, Manchester, Blackpool, Blackpool, Burnley, Blackburn with Darwen, Salford, Rochdale, Pendle and Halton

Rank in the top 20 most deprived local authorities in England since 2015

Liverpool City Region Greater Manchester

Regions in the top six of most highly deprived regions in England according to Local Area Partnership area designation Liverpool City Region

Greater Manchester Lancashire

Areas with the proportion of neighbourhoods in each Local Economic Partnership area that are in the top 10% most deprived areas in England

Knowsley, Blackpool, Liverpool, Manchester

Areas in the top 10 local authority districts in England with highest levels of income deprivation

Source. Information extracted from ONS, 2016

In relation to other macro-economic indices of deprivation the North West region looks to possess 20.5% of Lower Super Output areas that are in the most deprived areas of the country, compared to 8.3% nationally. The city of Liverpool, in 2015, appears to have had the lowest rate of employment in the United Kingdom. The proportion of children living in workless households, the life expectancy of male and

female residents, the median gross weekly earnings and the rate of population also looks to be lower than the national average of the United Kingdom (DCLG, 2015). 5.1.4 A Region of Urban Regeneration Opportunity for Private Sector Development Companies

Whilst the evidence suggests that there are economic challenges in the North West region; there also appears to be areas of opportunity for private sector development organisations in the region. The Gross Value Added indicator is a measurement of the contribution of each individual producer, industry or sector in the United Kingdom. There is evidence of diversity of economic output where in 2010 the region generated £120 billion of Gross Value Added where 40% of the output was generated in Greater Manchester, just one area within the North West region. In 2015 the Gross Value Added per head of population increased by 3%; the largest rate of increase in the United Kingdom (ONS, 2016). The population of the North West is also anticipated to increase to 7.4 million in 2021 representing an increase of 400,000 people from 2011 (ONS, 2013).

Economically the North West region is considered an important contributor to the United Kingdom where the region contributed approximately 10% of the United Kingdom gross value added. The major conurbations of Liverpool and Manchester look to be witnessing an increase of economic activity. The changes to the economy include an increase in international investment, an increase in leisure spending and the rise of city centre living and working. The population of Manchester city centre appears to have increased by 20% during the period 2001 to 2011 and is considered to be the most popular location for overseas investment outside the London region (McDermott, 2015). The City of Manchester is apparently home to the largest number of media companies outside of London (NAO, 2006).

The evidence suggests that the Liverpool city region has encountered an increase in tourism related activities. The region attracts 54 million visitors annually with the number of staying visitors having increased to 4.8 million visitors from 3.954 million in 2005 (North West Research, 2015). Empirical evidence has been provided that states 49,000 persons were employed in the visitor economy in 2014 in the Liverpool City Region (Mayor of Liverpool, 2016). Hotel room occupancy in Liverpool city

centre in 2016 also looks to have has increased to 77.2% (Mayor of Liverpool, 2017). The average rate of occupancy has been reported to be in excess of the United Kingdom national average. The main limitation of this evidence is that the information is produced by, or on behalf, of the local authority to promote the region. This may result in a lack of critical bias when reporting on opportunities in the region. 5.1.5 Governance affecting Urban Heritage Regeneration in the North West Region

The boundaries and parameters of the research have been established as analysis of urban heritage regeneration projects from the period from 2008 to the current day. It is considered important to understand the context affecting the governance of regeneration during this period. Key factors appear to affect current governance are a central government commitment to public sector deficit reduction, localism and devolution of power to local authorities and commitment to economic growth policies (Tallon, 2013, Jones and Evans, 2012).

The research time parameter boundary has captured significant changes to the United Kingdom and North West region, most notably the implications of the global economic crisis (Tallon, 2013) and a change in government. The emphasis of the Conservative led coalition and subsequent Conservative government has been a commitment to reduce the structural deficit (Tallon, 2013). Tallon (2013, p106) claims that an implication of the commitment a structural deficit policy has resulted in “there appearing to be no explicit urban policy as such, rather economic and competitiveness policies”.

The evidence appears to confirm that the current governance strategy is a decentralization of decision making away from central government to local decision- making bodies directly accountable to local business and the community. The regional decision making bodies of Association of Greater Manchester Authorities and the Liverpool City Region have taken on greater responsibility with regard to decision-making and allocation of funding. In addition the introduction of directly elected mayors in Liverpool and Manchester also looks to represent a step toward to local devolution and decision making.

A commitment by the central government to focus policy on enterprise and economic development (Tallon, 2013) has increased the role of the LEPs in urban regeneration policy. Their role has been described as to co-ordinate between the private sector community and local authorities to prioritise and deliver economic policy matters (Jones and Evans, 2012). Section 2.4.4.5 of this report has identified that the LEPs funding and role in economic development (NAO, 2016) has increased significantly. The National Audit Office (NAO 2016) review of the performance of LEPs highlights an apparent lack of measurement by LEPs of objectives in relation to outputs. It was stated that 5% of LEP members highlighted an inadequate level of resource to meet the requirements of central government. It has also been claimed that the financial level of resources is inadequate. It has been stated that funding available to LEPs will not be able to adequately fill the gap that has been created by the former North West Regional Development Agency (National Audit Office, 2016).

5.1.5.1 Local Authority – Role and Limitations

The role of local authority organisations in heritage regeneration projects appears to be significant. The 22 local authorities consisting of unitary, metropolitan borough councils and county councils can be land and building owners, promoter, initiator and controller of development (Havard, 2008). They can create and administer planning guidance documents such as heritage investment frameworks and asset strategies that can provide the basis for investment in urban heritage regeneration (Liverpool City Council, 2015, Pennine Lancashire, 2015, Fylde Borough Council, 2015).

However it is claimed that local authorities have been affected by a reduction in resources and lack the ability to engage effectively in regeneration projects due to the need to prioritise delivery of other statutory services (CLG, 2012). In addition it appears that seven local authorities within the case study have completed heritage investment frameworks or asset strategies. However three publications are listed as draft documents that appear not to have been adopted by local authorities; this indicates a potential lack of resources for local authorities to engage in urban heritage regeneration.

5.1.6 Urban Heritage Regeneration involving Private Sector Development