When one talks of ‘City Deals’ today, most people immediately see red at the thought of huge payouts in the financial services sector. However, in this case at least, the term refers to the latest incarnation of the government’s continued drive for economic growth and regeneration in another engine room of Britain – the growth of cities outside of London.
This week, it was announced that starting this spring, the government will continue to expand upon its plans – initially announced last month in its paper ‘Unlocking Growth in Cities’ – to begin releasing centralised controls previously held in Whitehall to selected individual cities in England. This change will provide cities with more localised powers than before in an effort to attract private sector investment, aid job creation, and ultimately, stimulate economic growth.
By freeing up cities from some of the traditional constraints of governmental control, it is hoped that this adaptation of policy will provide the opportunity for fostering a bespoke arrangement between central government and city authorities, allowing the latter to have greater autonomy in decision-making and in doing so, act as a prime driving force for rebalancing the local economy and encouraging regeneration.
This latest move by the government states in its objectives that it hopes to effectively introduce a two-way dialogue between government and those cities currently selected under the proposal, but of course, this also has the double effect of reinforcing the coalition’s ambition for a localist approach to such matters and a shift of state responsibility to the lower tier.
These City Deals which initially lined up the eight largest urban conurbations outside of London as candidates, have now therefore been extended to other cities, and represent the next step in the government’s plans to grow local economies through the delegation of power.
The Department for Communities and Local Government state as a caveat to the proposals that “In return [for increased power], cities must guarantee that they can provide strong and accountable leadership, improve efficiency and outcomes, and be innovative in their approach.”
In addressing issues in some of the cities desperately in need of transformation, it will be interesting to see just how innovative they will be in rising to meet the challenge.
The Built Environment Review 