Decision-making in residential renewal.

Housing is a key element in welfare policy and in environmental planning in modern Britain and as a finite commodity it has only a limited life. To maximise this life potential the improvement and renewal of dwelling units is necessary, and is an important aspect of both national and local housing policies. Differences in attitude between these two tiers of government form a background to discussions on residential renewal; in particular disputes occur about the control of local aspects of policy which are also part of a wider national policy. This study examines the differences between local and central government approaches to renewal, and hypothesises that the structures, processes and policies utilised by the local district authorities do not conform to the directives, circulars and attitudes of the central government. Advice is given by the central authority as if it is applicable to all local district authorities. Instead the larger authorities with the greatest resources in capital and manpower capabilities often tend to ignore or adopt advice at a local level. Alternatively because of their limited capabilities the smaller authorities do follow the central government advice. However, the central advice, based on evidence from this study, is often inappropriate to their needs. This study examines three key areas of interaction between local and central government involved in their decision-making processes of residential renewal; administrative structures, policy choice and development, and public participation. These three concepts are drawn from central government legislation and policy, and provides a conceptual framework in which to study the data obtained from two intensive case studies of district authorities - one large and one small - and from the larger questionnaire survey. From the evidence collected three main conclusions are apparent. First that the assumption that lower tier subordinate administrative units of government conform to instructions from above cannot be taken for granted. All the local district authorities do not interpret central government advice in the same manner. Secondly, two distinct groups of districts can be recognised by their size.This is developed into a dual model typology of size based on characteristics of administrative structures, policy and participation. The third conclusion is that the advice given by the central authority is inappropriate to the problems of small local authorities.