This article was downloaded by: [the Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford]On: 26 June 2013, At: 01:24Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Local Environment: The InternationalJournal of Justice and SustainabilityPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cloe20

Putting the ‘E’ into LSPs: Representingthe Environment within Local StrategicPartnerships (LSPs) in the UKKaren Lucas & Sara FullerPublished online: 19 Aug 2006.

To cite this article: Karen Lucas & Sara Fuller (2005): Putting the ‘E’ into LSPs: Representingthe Environment within Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) in the UK, Local Environment: TheInternational Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 10:5, 461-475

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549830500203071

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

ARTICLE

Putting the ‘E’ into LSPs: Representingthe Environment within LocalStrategic Partnerships (LSPs)

in the UK

KAREN LUCAS & SARA FULLER

ABSTRACT This article reports the findings of a qualitative study with residents livingin six deprived neighbourhoods in the UK and the front-line workers and localpolicymakers responsible for the renewal of these areas. The study was an attempt toraise awareness of local environmental concerns in the context of a national and localpolicy agenda, which has, until recently, largely overlooked the impacts of degradedenvironments on the lives and activities of the people who live in them. A key aimfor the study was to raise people’s concerns with local decision-makers and examinehow far these might be addressed through the existing financial, administrativeand legislative arrangements for neighbourhood renewal in the UK, namely LocalStrategic Partnerships. The research was designed to provide practical lessons andpolicy recommendations for others wishing to raise the profile of environmentaljustice in the context of neighbourhood level regeneration projects, in both the UKand elsewhere in the ‘developed’ world.

Introduction

There is growing body of research to suggest that people living in the mostdeprived neighbourhoods in the UK are also disproportionately affected bypoor environments (Environment Agency, 2003). There is also some evidenceto indicate that authorities with high levels of deprivation have poorer per-formance standards than average in relation to environmental issues suchas refuse collection, public parks and street cleaning (Duffy, 2000) and that

Local EnvironmentVol. 10, No. 5, 461–475, October 2005

Correspondence Address: Karen Lucas, Centre for Sustainable Development, University ofWestminster, 35 Marylebone Road, London NW1 5LS, UK. Email: lucask1@wmin.ac.uk

1354-9839 Print=1469-6711 Online=05=050461-15 # 2005 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080=13549830500203071

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 01:

24 2

6 Ju

ne 2

013

public services meet the needs of residents less well in such areas. This wouldsuggest that environmental policies and programmes would do well to targetdeprived areas, in the interests of both improving social equity and economicefficiency.

Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) were specifically set up to ‘spearhead’ aprocess of public service improvements in deprived areas by bringing togetherdelivery agencies and other key stakeholders to tackle the multiple problemsof these areas more effectively (DETR, 2001). LSPs have been establishedacross England, but only those in the 88 most deprived local authorityareas are central to the delivery of the UK National Strategy for Neighbour-hood Renewal (NRS) (SEU, 2001).

Our research hypothesised that the LSPs in these 88 authorities are not onlyideally placed to identify and address local environmental concerns indeprived areas, but also need to be doing so in the interests of both the econ-omic revitalisation of these areas and the social well-being of the citizensliving within them. However, early evaluations of their performancesuggest that, due to the strong social and economic focus of the NRS it is‘pot luck’ whether this is either recognised or happening in practice(ODPM & DfT, 2003).

Background and Policy Context

A recent synthesis review of the available evidence-base identifies that,although patterns of environmental injustice across the UK are varied andcomplex, it is a real and substantive problem for many deprived communitiesand excluded groups (Lucas et al., 2004). Research also suggests that poorenvironmental conditions can compound the social and economic problemsassociated with deprivation (Lucas et al., 2003). Conversely, numerous grass-roots initiatives in the UK have demonstrated that addressing the environ-mental concerns of people living in poor neighbourhoods is an integral partof the economic regeneration of such areas and can bring significantadditional benefits to both the lives of individuals and the local economy(Church & Elster, 2002).

Despite the incremental development of policies aimed at addressing globalenvironmental issues over the last ten years, until recently, the UK Govern-ment has tended to overlook the local environmental agenda in deprivedareas. In a report to the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit, the departmentresponsible for delivering the UK Government’s National Strategy for Neigh-bourhood Renewal (SEU, 2001), Barton (2001) noted that the strategy failsto adequately recognise the important environmental concerns of deprivedcommunities. He suggests that this failure may be partly due to a verynarrow interpretation of what constitutes the ‘environment’ by policymakers,which largely ignores the ‘front-door’ concerns, access to services andenvironmental information issues which tend to be raised in consultationwith residents in deprived areas (Burningham & Thrush, 2001).

Recently, a number of policy guidance documents, legislative changes andnew funding streams have been introduced to directly address the issue of

462 K. Lucas & S. Fuller

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 01:

24 2

6 Ju

ne 2

013

local environmental quality. In 2002, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister(ODPM) published a five-year ‘Living Spaces’ strategy, which set out anambitious agenda for improving public space and local environmentalquality (ODPM, 2002a, 2002b). The ODPM’s Sustainable CommunitiesPlan (2003) identified a £1 billion increase in local authority budgets tofund environmental improvements, whilst the new Sustainable DevelopmentStrategy ‘Securing the Future’ (HM Government, 2005) has re-branded‘Community Strategies’ as ‘Sustainable Community Strategies’, placinggreater emphasis on sustainable development objectives within local planningand regeneration.

Part 6 of the Anti Social Behaviour Act 2003 (Home Office, 2003) has alsointroduced new flexibilities for local authorities to take action on localenvironmental quality issues such as fly-tipping and graffiti, and the AuditCommission has developed a new Corporate Performance Assessment(CPA) to assist local authorities in monitoring their performance in themanagement of their public space (DTLR, 2001). However, past evidencesuggests that these new funding streams and indicators are unlikely to betargeted at the most deprived areas, unless there is an explicit requirementfor local authorities to do so.

There have also been further developments with regard to the provision ofenvironmental information. The Environmental Information Regulations(DEFRA, 2004) came into force on 1 January 2005, to coincide with theFreedom of Information Act, thus clarifying and extending previous rightsto environmental information. Furthermore, the UK government has nowratified the Aarhus Convention, which will strengthen public access toenvironmental information and public involvement in environmentaldecision-making.

Description of the Case Study Research

With this policy context in mind and in light of emerging UK Governmentinterests in achieving better integration between sustainable developmentand neighbourhood renewal, the key aims of the research were to:

. Examine the extent to which Local Strategic Partnerships recognise theenvironmental concerns of the different (and in particular disadvantaged)local neighbourhoods they represent.

. Develop recommendations for ensuring that local neighbourhood priori-ties are taken account of within Local Neighbourhood Renewal Strategiesand other local delivery mechanisms associated with the neighbourhoodrenewal agenda.

Tameside and Wolverhampton were selected as case studies from the 88LSPs representing the most deprived local authorities in the UK, as identifiedby the Government’s Index of Local Deprivation 2000. These authoritieshave a mandate to form LSPs and produce Local Neighbourhood RenewalStrategies (LNRS) in order to secure Neighbourhood Renewal Funding (NRF)

Local Strategic Partnerships 463

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 01:

24 2

6 Ju

ne 2

013

to regenerate targeted neighbourhoods falling within in their administrativeareas. The case studies were selected on the basis that:

1. The LSP covered an area with at least three neighbourhoods that are beingtargeted by NRF.

2. At least one neighbourhood had a neighbourhood management structurein place—these are set up to devolve power to a single person (a neigh-bourhood manager) or neighbourhood institution to improve localservice provision.

3. There was evidence from the available local policy documentation thatresidents had registered concern about the quality of their local environ-ment in consultation exercises undertaken as part of the neighbourhoodrenewal process in their areas.

4. The LSP had indicated a strong interest in addressing these concerns as anearly aspect of their delivery agenda in their LNRS.

Tameside is in the northwest of England, between Manchester city centre andthe Peak District, with a population of around 225,000 people. The TamesideStrategic Partnership involves over 25 key organisations from the voluntaryand community sector, local business and public bodies to implement theCommunity Strategy, which is broken down into eight priorities, of whichEnvironment is one.

Wolverhampton is one of the principal manufacturing centres of the WestMidlands, with a long history of partnership working. The WolverhamptonStrategic (Regeneration) Partnership was first launched in 1999. This hasbeen developed and adopted in order to meet government requirements foran LSP. Wolverhampton strategic partnership has a core membershipboard and a number of associated ‘thematic’ partnerships that reflect thekey areas of activity.

Three neighbourhood renewal areas in each LSP area (six in total) werethen identified for the fieldwork studies. These aimed to address the followingissues:

. How is the environment being represented within the local strategies andprogrammes of the two case study LSPs?

. Are the environmental concerns of local people and in particular disadvan-taged groups represented?

. What mechanisms and barriers exist for the representation of suchconcerns?

. If such concerns are recognised, how are they acted upon?

. What are residents’ views of LSPs? Are they aware of their existence? Dothey feel that their concerns are represented within them?

. Do residents see evidence on the ground of the benefits of such formalparticipatory processes?

. Do LSPs empower local people or increase their confidence in publicagencies?

. How might LSPs better represent and address local environmental concerns?

464 K. Lucas & S. Fuller

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 01:

24 2

6 Ju

ne 2

013

The fieldwork investigations were undertaken in four separate but iterativestages as detailed in Figure 1 below.

. Stage 1: approximately 8–10 participants from different ‘communities ofinterest’ (e.g. older people, young people, parents, people from minorityethnic backgrounds, etc.) were recruited on an ad hoc basis from each ofthe six neighbourhoods for a two-hour discussion group. A key aim ofthe first round of discussions was to expose and discuss the differingneeds, concerns, aspirations and priorities of different groups living inthe same neighbourhood. Participants were offered a financial incentivefor attending the groups.

. Stage 2: involved bringing together neighbourhood representatives (twofrom each neighbourhood) for a further discussion group to identify howLSPs could better access and represent their local concerns within thewider borough-wide programme for neighbourhood renewal. The groups

Figure 1. Diagram to illustrate the stages in fieldwork methodology

Local Strategic Partnerships 465

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 01:

24 2

6 Ju

ne 2

013

focused on strategic issues, such as the transport network or wastedisposal. The aim was to explore any barriers to delivering actions andto address the concerns and priorities of people living in different areasin the context of the national and local financial and bureaucratic arrange-ments for neighbourhood renewal. Again participants were paid an incen-tive for their time.

. Stage 3: was designed to allow participants to feed their concerns and inter-ests back to the two LSPs. Two resident representatives were elected fromeach of the Stage 2 groups to present the key ideas and concerns discussedby their group to officers at a sub-group meeting of the LSP Board.

. Stage 4: a further six-month follow-up allowed the neighbourhoodmanagers in each of the six neighbourhoods to report back on how theywere responding to the concerns and ideas of the participants.

Key Findings from Focus Groups with Residents

Using the broadest interpretation of ‘local environment’ in the focus groupexercises, seven key local environmental issues emerged, to a lesser orgreater extent, across all six of the Stage 1 discussions. These were:

1. A lack of facilities for children and young people, the latter being seen aspart of the reason why young people on the estates hang around causingtrouble and environmental damage. This was by far the highest priorityissue raised by participants in all six neighbourhoods.

2. Poor housing: long waiting times for repairs/improvements; poor qualityrepairs; empty, boarded-up properties often leading to vandalism; somesub-standard stock and concerns surrounding housing stock transfer toRegistered Social Landlords (RSLs).

3. Poor service delivery, with an emphasis on inadequate rubbish collection,street cleaning and litter and fly tipping. It was identified that residentshave to pay a charge, which they cannot afford, to get large items ofrubbish removed and that there were no regular collection days forrefuse collections in one neighbourhood.

4. A decline in local shopping facilities, with the remaining outlets charginghigh prices and insufficient healthcare facilities at a local level, with aparticular need for more dentists and GPs.

5. Longstanding environmental hazards and hazardous activities, such astyre burning, abandoned and burnt out cars, the smell from a localsewage farm, rats and fires in rubbish bins, busy and dangerous roads,and poorly maintained road and/or pavement surfaces (e.g. potholes).

6. Lack of community spirit enhanced by a lack of adequate and appropriatecommunity facilities.

7. A general lack of access to information about environmental rights andresponsibilities.

None of the issues raised by residents could be described as particularlystartling; they have been repeatedly identified in consultation exercises with

466 K. Lucas & S. Fuller

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 01:

24 2

6 Ju

ne 2

013

people living in deprived neighbourhoods over a number of studies (seeBurningham & Thrush, 2001). They may even appear trivial in comparisonto the problems of high unemployment, ill health, crime and poor educationalattainment that clearly also need to be addressed in these areas, but neverthe-less they do matter to neighbourhood renewal. As we have argued in previousresearch (Lucas et al., 2003), failure to address these ‘little things’ can under-mine local people’s confidence in the whole regeneration process. The follow-ing discussion within one of the focus groups suggests that, over a period oftime, the negative feelings that residents have towards their environmentaffects their ability to take control of their lives and adds to feelings of hope-lessness and stigmatisation:

If I felt important to the people that mattered, as important as people inother areas in Wolverhampton, then these things wouldn’t be a problem.. . . I don’t feel like I’m important to the government or to the council. Ifeel overlooked . . . there’s no sense of anything for the children here, youjust feel like you’re a nobody.

And we’re getting used to it, that’s why the community spirit is lacking,we’re getting used to suffering and having things difficult, it could beeasier so why not have it easier. Instead of speaking out we just sitback and take it, let them do what they’re going to do to us.

Yeah and it makes you feel like you’re nobody. . . . Unimportant andisolated.

Those who can get out of the area:

They’d rather leave, they’d rather go which they have, a lot of peoplehave gone.

People are reluctant to move into the area because of the stigma:

And nobody wants to come into the area do they? Nobody wants tocome into a bad area.

Adding to the general appearance of abandonment and neglect:

All boarded up, they’re a bloody eyesore aren’t they? . . . They wantflattening, I wouldn’t let me bloody dog live in there.

And this adds to feelings of frustration with the council because of a recog-nised need for more social housing:

I think that there’s too many properties going left to pot in the areaboarded up and derelict when there’s people desperately, desperatelyneeding housing.

Local Strategic Partnerships 467

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 01:

24 2

6 Ju

ne 2

013

Those who stay feel trapped:

Some people have bought their houses on this estate, they can’t sellthem . . .

And many longer-term residents see themselves as under siege: from‘outsiders’. . .

It’s what’s coming in from outside. . . coming in, and the council are notin any preference at all, checking them out, not a police check but areference you know a personal reference.

From ‘newcomers’:

They tend to be moving the rough people from the rough area, it’s liketurning round and saying well one bad apple be cured by the rest of thegood apples, but I think it’s turning the other way because one bad appleis starting to turn the other apples.

From ‘parents’:

Well I mean I mostly blame the families you see because they are notlooking after their own kids after a certain time

From ‘young people’:

Things have gone I think bad or even to the point where I can say it’sworse, there’s too many gangs of young people not going to schooland staying out all hours of the days and evening

From ‘immigrants’:

Yeah but I’m on about Kosovans just speeding on the car park weren’tthey?

From ‘Whites’:

Since these riots [the 2002 Oldham riots] I do feel that people . . . I seethem looking at you and they’re just like, ‘Oh move away from here,go back to your country’, and things like that you know.

Ultimately, it creates divides between different sectors of the population and a‘them and us’ mentality, which erodes community spirit:

So community is split then isn’t it? That means community is split.

On a more positive note, small and seemingly incidental improvements tothe local area can often serve as a catalyst for bigger changes. A participant

468 K. Lucas & S. Fuller

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 01:

24 2

6 Ju

ne 2

013

in one of the groups talked about the ‘domino’ effect of an improvedenvironment:

The whole area just wants a facelift doesn’t it? Change the environmentand therefore you’re bringing new blood in and when you start bringingin people, that’s when you start getting the interest to build things . . .and it really works as well.

Others suggested that the removal of litter and abandoned furniture fromtheir estates would feel like an achievement, would look like people caredand were willing to make the effort and that it would be a general boost topeople’s morale. This in turn might encourage them to get involved andtake an interest in other activities on the estate.

Responses from the LSPs

It is important to note from the outset that the two case study LSPs werespecifically selected to participate in the research because they were alreadystrongly committed to addressing local environmental concerns as an integralpart of the neighbourhood renewal process in their areas. This interest andcommitment has largely arisen from their own consultation exercises withlocal people, which made it clear that tackling local environmental issueswas a key priority for local people. It was not, therefore, surprising to hearofficer representatives at the feedback meetings report that the local environ-mental concerns raised by residents in the focus groups were not new to them,but rather:

‘Have opened a different window in the same room’

They felt that it is not difficult to come to some sort of ‘idealised shared vision’about what can be done to resolve the problems that had been identified.What is far harder for them, and in many instances can appear to be virtuallyimpossible, is to make the necessary step changes in policy delivery to bringabout visible and sustained environmental improvements in these areas.

Frontline workers and local authority officers in both case study LSPs saidthat they considered community involvement and engagement essential to theidentification and delivery of effective policies in neighbourhood renewalareas. However, both acknowledged the difficulties they have encounteredin fully involving local residents in the decision-making process. Theyascribed part of this as due to the unwillingness of residents to commit toregular attendance at meetings, combined with a discomfort about the for-mality of these. Part of the problem was also identified as long-standinginertia amongst the resident population, which means they don’t report inci-dents. An officer from the Wolverhampton LSP noted:

If there is a rubbish bag dumped in the western [more affluent] partof the city, then that is seen as almost a national crisis but in poor

Local Strategic Partnerships 469

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 01:

24 2

6 Ju

ne 2

013

neighbourhoods it is seen as such a common occurrence that it does notrank on people’s attention scale. The solution is, therefore, partly aboutraising people’s aspirations for their own neighbourhoods.

It was suggested that raising people’s aspirations would best be achievedthrough ‘ownership of the public realm by everybody’. Both LSPs said thatthey were moving towards the idea that formal mechanisms, such as commu-nity contracts, need to be in place to ensure that service providers are far moredirectly accountable to communities for the services that they are responsiblefor delivering. One suggestion from officers was that facilitated forums couldbe used to bring the providers of services together with local residents, so thatthey can be directly challenged about their delivery failures, and the conse-quences of these on people’s lives. This might serve to make them feelmore accountable.

Local officers stressed the importance of building environmental consider-ations into the mainstream delivery structures of the LSP and its partnerorganisations. The Tameside LSP already has a structure in place wherebyenvironmental concerns, monitored via a set of Quality of Life indicatorswithin the Community Strategy, are embedded within the Local Neighbour-hood Renewal Strategy. The latter acts as the overarching floor target againstwhich the authority measures its performance overtime. Together the twostrategies provide the borough with a common framework for environmentalperformance management.

In Wolverhampton, neighbourhood managers had the opportunity to influ-ence council policy at the highest possible level by giving presentations todirectors and senior politicians. One of the two key areas they chose tofocus on were ‘street scene’ and environmental concerns, because these hademerged as key areas of concern in consultation with local residents. Asone officer pointed out:

LSPs are supposed to be all about listening to the needs of local peopleand responding to these, involving local people in the decision-makingprocess. If you are truly committed to that, you can hardly ignore thelocal environment when people keep telling you it is what matters tothem. You have to find a way to do something.

Both LSPs reported that they have been able to introduce new delivery mech-anisms that include environmental considerations in their core criteria as aresult of these ‘mainstreaming’ activities. This, in turn, has lead to the intro-duction of a wide range of environmental improvement projects in all six ofthe neighbourhood areas.

Barriers to Delivery

Both LSPs felt that there are no real barriers to delivering environmentalimprovements as part of the neighbourhood renewal process areas if this iswhat is required by local people, and providing there is the political will to

470 K. Lucas & S. Fuller

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 01:

24 2

6 Ju

ne 2

013

respond to their needs. In government designated neighbourhood renewalareas at least, the money is also there to pay for the necessary improvements.New government legislation, such as the 2003 Anti-social Behaviour Act, alsogives local authorities the power to act, so providing the local policies andstructures are in place, they feel there is nothing to stop LSPs improvingservice delivery in these areas.

Nevertheless, both LSPs have encountered a number of difficulties in tryingto improve the physical environment in deprived neighbourhoods. Mostnotably these have been:

. Developing policies which can deliver a visible step-change in the physicalcondition of these neighbourhoods.

. Tackling inertia and suspicion amongst the resident population and ensur-ing widespread local accountability, which is not helped by long lead-intimes from consultation to delivery.

. Engaging the private sector, who can often be the most influential factor indelivering change.

. Insufficient information about environmental rights and responsibilities.

. How to mainstream and roll out good practices to other parts of theborough that do not have special renewal status.

Delivering a Visible Step-change in Conditions

Providing new play areas, youth facilities and even new health centres iswell within the policy remit of LSPs. Similarly, it has not been too difficultfor the two case study LSPs to respond to concerns about litter, waste collec-tion and street cleaning, particularly as these services are provided by thelocal authority which is the coordinating agency for the LSP. However,many deprived neighbourhoods experience longstanding and deep-seatedenvironmental problems, such as old and poorly maintained housing, sever-ance by transport infrastructure or proximity to polluting industries, whichare often the overriding reason why a neighbourhood has become unpopularand rundown in the first place. In these instances, making minor improve-ments to other aspects of the local environment can appear to local residentsas if they are being ‘sold short’, whilst their primary local environmentalconcern is being overlooked.

Tackling Inertia and Suspicion

Many of the people living in deprived neighbourhoods have been there for along time and are highly suspicious of any local authority generated activity,based on their past experiences of this. Over their lifetimes they have seennumerous attempts to ‘improve’ their areas, which have largely failed (other-wise they wouldn’t still be deprived and rundown neighbourhoods). Manyresidents have been involved in previous consultation exercises, have statedtheir views and have either witnessed nothing happening in response to these,or feel that what has been done is ineffective, misplaced or even contrary

Local Strategic Partnerships 471

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 01:

24 2

6 Ju

ne 2

013

to what they believe needs doing. Over time, they come to the opinion thatwhatever they say or do, nothing will change. The neighbourhood managersand other frontline workers involved in our research reported that the onlyway to deal with this inertia and suspicion is to deliver visible changes.Quite simply, ‘the proof is in the pudding’.

Engaging the Private Sector

Both LSPs reported that they find it most difficult to effect environmentalimprovements where the private sector is involved, for example wheretaxis are refusing to serve estates or local shops close down. Much of thepublic transport network is also commercially operated and operators arereluctant to provide service improvements in deprived areas because theyare seen as unprofitable and high risk. Similarly, smaller businesses willrarely take responsibility for less environmentally damaging, but moreexpensive, disposal of their waste by-products or better pollution controlunless required to do so by law. Often there is a difficult trade-off to bemade between the local employment that these local enterprises provideand a cleaner, healthier and/or safer local environment.

Information on Environmental Rights and Responsibilities

Residents, frontline workers and LSP officers all said that they find itextremely difficult, if not impossible, to find out precisely who is responsiblefor different areas of environmental service delivery and what the rules andregulations on environmental health, protection against environmentallyhazardous substances and pollution and environmental service deliveryactually are. They felt that more readily available and easy to understandinformation about people’s environmental rights and the responsibilities ofthe appropriate delivery agencies is needed. They see this as outside theirown area of responsibility and expertise to develop. Although the newEnvironmental Information Regulations (DEFRA, 2004) should go someway towards addressing this, there is till a long way to go in terms of provid-ing the information in a way that is easily accessible to lay-citizens. Localresidents expressed a need for a local ‘one-stop-shop service’ where inci-dences of environmental damage could be reported, followed-up andaddressed. They felt that communities should be supported to challenge the‘bigger issues’, which are mostly outside of the control of the local authority.

Mainstreaming Good Practices Outside Renewal Areas

Even if these difficulties are overcome, the bigger issue as far as our two casestudy LSPs were concerned was how to mainstream and roll-out their goodpractices in renewal areas to other parts of the borough experiencingsimilar environmental problems, but which do not have special renewalstatus and so do not qualify for extra funding. In both Tameside andWolverhampton, as in most other ex-industrial towns and cities in the UK,

472 K. Lucas & S. Fuller

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 01:

24 2

6 Ju

ne 2

013

degraded environments are a widespread problem and often need to beaddressed across the whole of the authority area.

Conclusions and Policy Recommendations

Both the Tameside and Wolverhampton LSPs are making good progress onbuilding better environmental service delivery into their core neighbourhoodrenewal delivery programmes. Clearly, a first step for both of them has beenensuring that transparent and locally accountable structures and processesare in place. Once local people are properly engaged and involved in thedecision-making process, it is hard to resist acting upon their concerns. Ifimprovement of the local environment is a priority for them, then it has tobe a priority for the LSP, simply because local accountability is a keyaspect of UK neighbourhood renewal evaluation criteria.

Inevitably, Tameside and Wolverhampton are not the only two LSPs in theUK engaging in environmental issues. There are important experiences andlessons which could be imparted to others who might also be interested indeveloping environmental actions as part of their local neighbourhoodrenewal strategies. Unfortunately, the evidence for, and dissemination of,good practices in this area of LSP activity is scarce in the UK and betternational guidance on the best way forward, together with a centrally collatedknowledge-pool of local experiences would be invaluable in this respect. Thisshould be supported by comprehensive government guidance how LSPs canbuild ‘environment’ into their existing delivery structures, with annual moni-toring of their progress on this.

The research has made clear that there will always be tensions betweenwhat local people want to see happen and what LSPs and other local agenciesare actually able to deliver. Appropriate and timely information about whatis planned, disseminated through a range of far-reaching formal and informalcommunication networks is needed in order to overcome such problems.However, some local environmental problems will be virtually impossiblefor local agencies to influence, such as pollution from industrial processesand the disposal of toxic and hazardous waste. There are a number ofnational agencies and organisations in the UK who are responsible for thecontrol of these, but is often difficult for LSPs and other local agencies andeven harder for lay-citizens, to know how, and with whom to engage.Targeted government guidance is needed to assist LSPs in this respect.

The research has also shown that both local people and policy practitionersare poorly informed on their environmental rights and responsibilities and donot necessarily know when they are entitled to complain or how to go aboutdoing this. Making environmental information publicly available in a formatthat is readily accessible and easy to understand is an important first step inenvironmental justice. In line with the 2004 Environmental InformationRegulations, it is recommended that better information is needed on whichareas and sectors of the population are disproportionately affected byenvironmental externalities and/or lack of access to environmental goods,together with national guidance and a national policy action framework on

Local Strategic Partnerships 473

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 01:

24 2

6 Ju

ne 2

013

how these issues should be addressed in the context of neighbourhoodrenewal. This should set out:

. What constitutes a local environmental problem, i.e. levels and limits, howthese can be measured and recorded and what agencies might be called into undertake these assessments.

. Which agency is responsible for addressing these problems and, their legaland statutory duties in this respect.

. How to approach the relevant agencies, what evidence is required, how thiscan be presented and who might be called upon to help prepare this evi-dence.

. What further actions local people can take where the designated agency isnot responding, the legal rights that they have and what agencies might bebrought in to help support them in promoting their case.

. Legal courses of redress and how to pursue these.

In the interim between the completion and publication of this research, theGovernment has published its new framework for the delivery of sustainabledevelopment in the UK (HM Government, 2005). This gives far greater rec-ognition to the problems of environmental justice and puts in place a revisedstrategy, which aims to better address many of the concerns raised by thisresearch. In particular, it identifies that significant step-changes will not berealised without the active participation of individuals and communities inthis agenda.

Unlike the US, environmental justice in the UK is generally not a ‘grass-roots’ movement and, as such, has tended to be located outside the commu-nities it aims to assist. This means that it lacks much of the power anddynamism of its American cousin. It is clear from the research that coordi-nated and targeted local awareness-raising will be needed within commu-nities together with the supporting legal and financial structures for themto challenge the environmental injustices they experience. However, thiswill need to be carefully managed and sensitively delivered, if it is to effec-tively engage and secure the active participation of the communities whoare affected, rather than make them feel that they are the problem.

References

Barton, P. (2001) Environmental exclusion and neighbourhood renewal. Paper presented to the

Neighbourhood Renewal Unit.

Burningham, K. & Thrush, D. (2001)Rainforests Are a LongWay FromHere: the environmental concerns

of disadvantaged groups (York, Joseph Rowntree Foundation).

Church, C. & Elster, J. (2002) Thinking Locally, Acting Nationally: lessons for policy from local action on

sustainable development (York, Joseph Rowntree Foundation).

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2004) Environmental Information

Regulations, <http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2004/20043391.htm> (Accessed 24 October 2004).

Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) (2001) Local Strategic Partnerships—

Government Guidance (London, The Stationery Office).

474 K. Lucas & S. Fuller

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 01:

24 2

6 Ju

ne 2

013

Department of Transport and Local Regions (DTLR) (2001) Stronger Local Leadership—Quality Public

Services (London, The Stationery Office).

Duffy, B. (2000) Satisfaction and Expectations: attitudes to public services in deprived areas, CASE Paper

45 (London, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics).

Environment Agency (2003) Deprived Communities Experience Disproportionate Levels of Environ-

mental Threat, R&D Technical Summary E2-064/1/TS (Bristol, Environment Agency).

HM Government (2005) Securing the Future: delivering UK sustainable development strategy (The

Stationery Office, London), <http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/documents/publications/

strategy/SecFut_complete.pdf> (Accessed 13 June 2005).

Home Office (2003) Anti-Social Behaviour Act, <www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime/antisocialbehaviour/

legislation/asbact.html> (Accessed 24 October 2004).

Lucas, K., Ross, A. & Fuller, S. (2003) What’s in a Name? Local Agenda 21, Community Planning and

Neighbourhood Renewal (York, Joseph Rowntree Foundation).

Lucas, K., Walker, G., Eames, M., Fay, H. & Poustie, M. (2004) Environment and Social Justice: rapid

research and evidence review (London, Sustainable Development Research Network, Policy Studies

Institute).

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2002a) Living Places: cleaner, safer, greener (London,

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister).

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2002b) Living Places: powers, rights, responsibilities

(London, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister).

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2003) Sustainable Communities: building for the future

(London, ODPM).

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister & Department of Transport (DfT) (2003) Evaluation of Local

Strategic Partnerships: report of a survey of all English LSPs (London, ODPM/DfT).

Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) (2001) National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal (London, Social

Exclusion Unit).

Local Strategic Partnerships 475

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

the

Bod

leia

n L

ibra

ries

of

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f O

xfor

d] a

t 01:

24 2

6 Ju

ne 2

013