What do these three things have in common?Well, we've just been watching a programme on Channel 4 about the regeneration of Castleford, where there are apparently streets of houses sitting empty amongst other symptoms of urban decay. This appears to have been largely brought about by the demise of the mining and other industries in the area.
It was a good example of why this kind of area deserves more than its fair share of Government funding.
However, it made me ask the question why the Government is forcing us to concrete over huge areas of the Green Belt around Bournemouth and Poole while there are clearly areas of housing standing empty in the north.
This Government's prioritisation of funding for the north has resulted in superior infrastructure for those areas receiving it. Greater funding for local authorities has also resulted in much lower rates of council tax for residents. This has, it would appear, lead to complacency over issues such as recylcing (see here).
Proper regeneration of deprived areas of the country should be lead by private investment. In the 1980's the government encouraged new businesses by offering tax breaks, incentives, pump prime funding and practical assistance to start up businesses prepared to relocate to those areas.
They also prioritized those areas requiring regeneration when they decided where to relocate those government departments and agencies being moved from Central London.
That kind of practical intervention and assistance would begin to bring true regeneration through opportunity to deprived areas, partculalry those in the North. Maybe then there wouldn't be the need for the Government to propose such enormous housing growth here in South East Dorset.
