Policy paper

Towns Fund monitoring and evaluation strategy

Published 2 December 2021

Applies to England

Cities and Local Growth Unit, DLUHC and BEIS

Executive summary

A £3.6 billion fund to regenerate towns and high streets

The Towns Fund was announced by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) in July 2019, with total funding of £3.6 billion. The Towns Fund comprises of two funds:

• Town Deals – aiming to drive the economic regeneration of towns to deliver long term economic and productivity growth. In September 2019, 101 towns in England were selected to develop Town Deals.

• Future High Streets Fund – aiming to renew and reshape town centres and high streets. In December 2020, 72 places in England had been successful in funding applications.

Struggling places face a range of problems

There are over 1,000 towns and over 6,000 high streets in England – some are prospering whilst others struggle. The Covid-19 pandemic is likely to have exacerbated this situation. Evidence suggests that struggling places face persistent challenges that make it difficult for them to change, including:

• Disconnection – transport and digital connectivity infrastructure are out of date, insufficient or not suited to local needs.
• Land use and buildings are not suited to modern demands – specific physical assets require rehabilitation/remediation; many places are not designed for mixed use, leading to vacant properties, unused spaces and low density/isolated housing; properties are often unsuited to the post-industrial economy.
• Low skills and business support – residents do not consistently have the relevant skills and knowledge required for higher-skilled, higher-paying roles – this can sometimes be explained by the decline of particular industries in places (particularly relevant for post-industrial places); also, potential entrepreneurs do not have the relevant resources or support to start businesses locally, restricting the number and quality of jobs available.
• Limited strategic, local economic management – some local authorities have lacked the specific funding and capacity to develop and implement economic development plans in response to the long-term economic challenges in their local areas.
• These problems contribute to other issues in these places, including poor health, low social mobility, inequality, depopulation, crime, and low levels of pride.

The Towns Fund promotes a range of different interventions to address these problems

The problem analysis highlights the role that ‘place’ plays in explaining fortunes of struggling towns and high streets, and the Towns Fund seeks to address these by focusing primarily on capital investment to deliver the physical infrastructure, and changes to land and building use, that many of these struggling places need.

The Town Deals interventions are focused specifically on urban regeneration, planning and land use, skills and enterprise infrastructure, transport and digital connectivity.

The Future High Streets Fund interventions are focused on urban regeneration, planning and land use and transport.

The Fund’s monitoring and evaluation provides an opportunity to learn about what works for the benefit of future local growth programmes

The evaluation of the Towns Fund comprises 4 key components.

Monitoring: used to ensure financial and output targets and milestones are achieved, ensuring funding meets agreed terms, and understanding how project delivery is working.  Local authorities will be providing monitoring data on a 6 monthly and annual basis for the duration of their projects to enable learning and to help manage risk and uncertainty.

Process evaluation: aims to understand how the two different application and funding processes have worked, learning lessons for future local growth funding programmes; and how the different types of projects were delivered by different areas, sharing lessons to enable changes to be implemented through the lifecycle of projects.

Impact evaluation and supporting research: aims to use counterfactuals (a method of evaluation to determine impact of an intervention) to estimate the extent to which economic, social and environmental outcomes have changed as a result of the Towns Fund – for the fund as a whole, as well as looking at the impact of specific interventions. It will explore specified outcomes: whether local economies have improved; quality of life and well-being, resident incomes, business profitability, employment, visitors/footfall and perceptions of place. It will explore success factors in places, local decision making, and how this contributes to Levelling-up.

Value for money evaluation: aims to assess the impact of expenditure on economic regeneration – following Green Book principles. This will indicate whether inputs were economic (least cost for relevant level of quality/success), efficient (value of outputs or outcomes in relation to total cost of inputs), and effective (outcomes achieved in relation to total cost of inputs).

Section 1 – Monitoring and evaluation framework

Monitoring and evaluation are key activities at the centre of understanding what works and why. Whilst monitoring can demonstrate progress on meeting certain goals, and can guide necessary adjustments in response, evaluation establishes whether overall objectives have been met and the extent to which change has occurred as a direct response to an intervention.

This strategy sets out the department’s approach in the monitoring and evaluation of the Towns Fund (this encompasses both the Town Deals and the Future High Streets Fund) and is intended to inform the public and stakeholders of the rationale behind the evaluation and the eventual outputs it will produce. The aim of this document is to set out a strategy that provides a set of activities, methodologies and evaluation approaches that can help support the implementation and evaluation of future local growth and regeneration interventions. It is a multi-method approach, designed to be flexible and allows for the evolution of the framework so that this and future funds can support places and deliver change in proven ways. It will also mean evaluations are better able to examine the impacts and theories of change behind these local growth interventions.

1.1 Introduction to Towns Fund

The Towns Fund was announced by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities in July 2019 with total funding of £3.6 billion. This funding is composed of two separate strands:

• Town Deals – The objective is to drive the economic regeneration of towns to deliver long term economic and productivity growth. This will be achieved through funding interventions focused on urban regeneration, planning and land use; skills and enterprise infrastructure; and transport and digital connectivity. In September 2019, 101 towns in England were selected to develop “Town Deals” and bid for up to £25 million (or up to £50 million in exceptional circumstances).
• Future High Streets Fund – The objective is to renew and reshape town centres and high streets in a way that drives growth, improves experience and ensures future sustainability. This will be achieved primarily through funding interventions focused on urban regeneration, planning and land use, and transport. On 26 December 2020, the Communities Secretary announced that 72 places had been successful in their applications for funding.

Monitoring and Evaluation Vision for the Towns Fund

The Towns Fund represents multi-billion pound, geographically-targeted, spending – at a spatial level rarely utilised by UK governments before. The fund provides a rare opportunity to learn about what works – and what doesn’t – for driving local economic growth, improving experience and ensuring sustainability at town and high street levels. A good quality monitoring and evaluation programme will provide evidence of the real-world efficacy, efficiency and cost effectiveness of the Towns Fund:

• Monitoring seeks to check progress against planned targets and can be defined as the formal reporting and evidencing that spend and outputs are successfully delivered, and milestones met (also providing a valuable source of evidence for evaluations).
• Evaluation is the assessment of the initiative’s effectiveness and efficiency during and after implementation. It seeks to measure the causal effect of the scheme on planned outcomes and impacts and assess whether the anticipated benefits have been realised, how this was achieved, or if not, why not. There are different types of evaluation e.g. process and impact, each with their own specific uses within the evaluation of the Towns Fund as a whole. Impact evaluation, for example, allows causal effects to be examined while other forms of evaluation, e.g. process, do not.

The Towns Fund monitoring and evaluation strategy has been developed through consultation with a range of monitoring and evaluation experts from inside and outside government to ensure that the relevant evidence is gathered, and the right lessons are learnt.

The approach to developing the monitoring and evaluation strategy, and the structure of this document, is summarised as:

Section 1 – Monitoring & evaluation framework

• Problem analysis: the analysis undertaken to identify the challenges facing towns and high streets to enable an effective policy response to be developed.
• Policy response: using evidence of what has worked previously to identify policy interventions that are most likely to achieve the objectives of the two programmes.
• Theory of Change: a theory of change was developed through collaboration between MCHLG and a specialist contractor1 that links the problems, to the interventions, to the desired impacts – which provides a set of hypotheses that can be tested through monitoring and evaluation.

Section 2 – Approach to evaluation

• Evaluation aims: these were developed by identifying the Fund’s stakeholders and their needs – which resulted in a set of questions that the Fund’s monitoring and evaluation would need to answer.
• Evaluation methods: a range of evaluation methods were identified that should enable the evaluation questions to be answered. Data requirements: based on the agreed aims and methods, appropriate sources of data were identified, including both primary and secondary sources.

1.2 Towns and high streets – problem analysis

There are over 1,000 towns and over 6,000 high streets in England and some of these places are prospering whilst others struggle (ONS, 2019). Towns and high streets are different types of places and so the challenges facing each are slightly different; however, evidence from the English Indices of Deprivation (2015, 2019) suggests that struggling places remain struggling and so it is important to consider what problems are holding these places back. It is important to recognise that, while many places are experiencing the problems identified below, there is also a more nuanced local context, meaning localised challenges and solutions rather than a one size fits all. For this reason, it is important that local expertise and knowledge, leadership and engagement all form part of the response. Figure 1 outlines the problem analysis for the Towns Fund and includes examples of consequences and solutions. As aforementioned, however, these will be strongly tied to the local picture and, therefore, do not represent a comprehensive overview.

In various ways, Covid-19 has compounded many of the pre-existing challenges facing towns and high streets across the country. Changes in behaviour, such as online shopping, the temporary closure of non-essential retail and the speculative move to remote working will have both short- and long-term impacts that are yet to be fully realised. Further, it is clear that the most deprived communities have been disproportionately impacted by both the health and economic fallout from the pandemic. It is important to note, however, that while HMG has other Covid-19 specific funds directed towards towns and high streets, e.g. Reopening High Streets Safely Fund, the Towns Fund does not aim to directly address the impacts of Covid-19, though it does address many of the problems exacerbated by Covid-19.

Towns – there are places across England that are struggling and haven’t shared in the proceeds of growth to the extent that the rest of the country has (Local Trust, 2019). There are several possible reasons for this:

• Disconnection – transport and digital connectivity infrastructure are out of date, insufficient or not suited to local needs.
• Land use and buildings are not suited to modern demands – specific physical assets require rehabilitation/remediation; many places are not designed for mixed use, leading to vacant properties, unused spaces and low density/isolated housing; properties are often unsuited to the post-industrial economy.
• Low skills and business support – residents do not consistently have the relevant skills and knowledge required for higher-skilled, higher-paying roles – this can sometimes be explained by the decline of particular industries in places; also, potential entrepreneurs do not have the relevant resources or support to start businesses locally, restricting the number and quality of jobs available.
• Limited strategic, local economic management – some local authorities have lacked the specific funding and capacity to develop and implement economic development plans in response to the long-term economic challenges in their local areas.

High Streets – high streets are a crucial part of England’s communities and local economies but changing consumer behaviour, out of town retailing and an exceptional number of well-established retail formats reaching the end of their commercial life cycle (The High Streets Report, 2018) presents a significant challenge for retailers within town centres. Reviews of the literature (Appendix III) suggests that three of the four problems affecting towns are similarly relevant to high streets:

• Disconnection
• Land use and buildings suited for previous era and
• Limited strategic, local economic management.

The four problems identified across towns and high streets contribute to other issues in these struggling places, including poor health, low social mobility, inequality, depopulation, crime and low levels of pride.

Figure 1. Summary of Problem Analysis for towns and high streets in England

Source: based on analysis undertaken by Integrity, DLUHC and BEIS

Alt text version of Figure 1. Summary of Problem Analysis for towns and high streets in England

Problem	Summary	Consequences	Solutions
1. Disconnection (physical/spatial)	Places remain physically disconnected internally and to nearby, larger cities or market centres. Existing infrastructure for transport and digital connectivity is out of date, insufficient or not suited to local needs.	• Isolation: employment, digital, community, access to goods and services • Business growth is restricted	• Funding to improve transport links and connectivity • Support the expansion of digital connectivity
2. Land use and built environment	Towns and high streets are not suited to post-industrial use. Many towns or high streets are not designed for mixed use, leading to vacant properties, unused spaces and low density/isolated housing.	• Stagnation • Poor community engagement • Cyclical lack of investment • Social division	• Invest to repurpose spaces • Remediate brownfield sites • Develop mixed-use space to drive footfall
3. Limited strategic, local economic management	Local authorities lack the capacity and/or capability to consistent play an active role in responding and adapting to changing economic circumstances	• Lack of longer-term strategy • Reactive funding decisions	• Align funding to local priorities • Support to address capacity gaps
4. Low skills and business support	Low skills that are not suited to high-paying roles. Skills are out of date or suited to previous industrial jobs. Entrepreneurs and businesses may not start or grow locally due to insufficient resources or support.	• High-paid roles filled by commuters or outsources • Outward migration • Poor business growth	• Create opportunity for businesses to invest and grow • Provide skills development opportunities • Reduce motivation to leave
5. Non-economic factors	Problems 1 through 4 contribute to other issues around crime, health, social mobility, geographic inequality, depopulation, and poor local pride	• Geographic inequality • Higher crime • Poorer health outcomes • Depopulation	• Investment to address the issues above, in concert with improvement in wider public sector service delivery

1.3 Policy response: Towns Fund

The analysis in the previous section highlights the role that ‘place’ has in explaining the problems faced by England’s struggling towns and high streets – noticeably through the disconnection caused by inadequate transport and digital infrastructure and the inefficient employment of land and buildings. The Towns Fund seeks to address this by focusing primarily on capital investment to deliver the physical infrastructure and changes to land and building use that many of these struggling places need. The two components of the Towns Fund share many similarities but there are also several differences to reflect the fact that towns and high streets represent different geographies.

Town Deals - Key features

Objective

• To drive the economic regeneration of towns to deliver long-term economic and productivity growth.

Capital vs. revenue funding

• The Town Deals budget consists primarily of capital funding but there is also a small revenue component to support the running of projects. This is different to the Future High Streets Fund where the budget consists entirely of capital funding.

Allocation approach

• Formula allocation based on level of need. In September 2019, 101 towns in England were selected to develop “Town Deals” and bid for up to £25 million (or up to £50 million in exceptional circumstances). Final awards of funding are yet to be agreed.

Intervention themes

• Urban regeneration, planning and land use: ensuring towns are thriving places for people to live and work, including by: increasing density in town centres, strengthening local economic assets including local cultural assets, site acquisition, remediation, preparation, regeneration and making full use of planning tools to bring strategic direction and change.
• Connectivity: developing local transport schemes that complement regional and national networks, as well as supporting the delivery of improved digital connectivity
• Skills and enterprise infrastructure: driving private sector investment and ensuring towns have the space to support skills and small business development.
• The first two themes map across relatively well to the Future High Streets Fund; however, the last one is unique to the Town Deals and represents one of the main differences between the two programmes.

Future High Streets Fund - Key features

Objective

• To renew and reshape town centres and high streets in a way that drives growth, improves experience and ensures future sustainability.

Capital vs. revenue funding

• The FHSF is a capital investment fund and so focuses on the problems highlighted around physical and spatial disconnection and land use and built environment; however, it does seek to address the low levels of strategic, local economic management through the separate revenue support given for business case development (which will be addressed within the Process Evaluation, see below).

Allocation approach

• Open competition with certain eligibility criteria set out in the prospectus – following Expressions of Interest, shortlisting and a Business Case submission (with each of the 101 shortlisted places able to receive up to £150,000 revenue funding) 72 places in England have been successful in demonstrating their projects align with the FHSF objectives.
• Of the 72 successful bids, 15 will receive 100% of their capital ask outlined in their business case, while the remaining 57 will receive 69% and have revised their projects accordingly.

Intervention Themes

• Investment in physical infrastructure
• Acquisition and assembly of land including to support new housing, workspaces and public realm
• Improvements to transport access, traffic flow and circulation in the area
• Supporting change of use including (where appropriate) housing delivery and densification
• Supporting adaptation of the high street in response to changing technology

1.4 Theory of Change

A review of various local growth resources (see Appendix III) by the specialist contractor resulted in a preliminary Theory of Change that the evaluation will seek to test. Figure 2 sets out this high-level Theory of Change for the Towns Fund, following through from activities, outputs, short term outcomes, and medium- and longer-term impacts – as listed below:

Activities

• Capacity building support
• Funding from programme and other sources
• Delivery model and processes

Outputs

• Stronger capacity & capability to deliver
• Improved transport &digital connectivity
• Restored sites and mixed-use development
• Improved infrastructure for skills and enterprise support

Outcomes

• More adaptable & strategic leadership
• Better access to local places, markets and information
• Better land use, access to quality space and public realm
• Upgraded skills and stronger businesses

Medium-term impacts

• Strategic management and governance
• Employment
• Business growth
• Investment
• Visitors and footfall
• Improved perception of place

Long-term impacts

• Equitable improvements in income and wellbeing for residents
• Sustainable, local economic growth

The focus of the different funds and aims of each project dictates the outcomes and medium-term impacts. All the projects are driving towards the same long-term impacts in terms of sustainable local economic growth and equitable improvements in income and wellbeing for residents.

Figure 2. High level Theory of Change for Towns Fund with associated key hypotheses

Source: based on Theory of Change developed by Integrity, DLUHC and BEIS

Key hypotheses

The high-level theory of change is underpinned by hypotheses which were developed using the existing evidence and tested out through peer review. These hypotheses include:

• If places engage with the local community throughout project design and development, then interventions are more likely to receive local support and therefore achieve higher impact.
• If support is provided to address capacity and capability gaps and build partnerships, then capital investments are more likely to be more successful in creating sustainable growth locally.
• If places improve the built environment, skills and business opportunities, and connectivity, these changes will improve the image and sense of place among residents as well as among potential visitors and investors.
• If the image and sense of place among residents, potential visitors and investors improves, then in the longer term this should pull in demand and supply, enhancing economic growth.
• If places have sufficient transport (both to and within place), connectivity, skills and business development and remediation/restoration, then businesses, employment, investment and footfall should improve.
• If places increase mixed-use space and high streets address any over-supply of retail space, businesses will be able to better capitalise on latent demand for more diverse services, where it exists, resulting in more diverse services and businesses and increased business revenue.
• If places are supported to address the economic factors (e.g. disconnection), then the non-economic factors (e.g. social mobility) that contribute to growth challenges will not act as an impediment and/or will be improved in the process.
• If places are provided with strategic and future-oriented support to make improvements and develop strategies, relatively limited capital investment can contribute to transformational change in the longer term.
• If places are supported to be more sustainable and thrive, this support could contribute to equitable improvements in residents’ lives, a reduction of local inequalities and, potentially, a wider ‘Levelling Up’ nationally.

The Cities and Local Growth Unit will be providing support to places to help them develop individual theories of change for their projects. These project-based theories of change will be the basis behind project monitoring and evaluation.

Section 2 - Approach to evaluation

The following section outlines the four key components of our evaluation framework. For associated work packages linked to each identified component, see Appendix I Workplan. This section draws on guidance and information included within the Magenta Book.

2.1 Monitoring

Aim

Monitoring will be used to ensure financial and output targets and milestones are achieved, ensuring funding is spent according to agreed terms and indicating where additional support may be necessary throughout the lifetime of the programme.  These data will also feature in the process evaluation, see section 2.2 below.

Key questions:

1. Does the place in question satisfy assurance requirements to enable next payments to be issued?
2. If not, why not, what steps are needed to get back on track?
3. How are places performing in terms of:
   a. Time / progress
   b. Cost
   c. Delivering according to agreed scope
   d. Quality
   e. Mitigating risks
   f. Enhancing opportunities
   g. Resources available to places
   h. Productivity
4. What support do places need while in the delivery phase?
5. What is and isn’t working well in delivery?
6. What lessons on delivery can be shared within the duration of the programme?

Method

Local Authorities will be responsible for providing monitoring data on a six monthly and annual basis. Guidance on how this should be completed, alongside a monitoring template, have been published2, with a webinar taking place to explain processes and reporting requirements.

The monitoring data is in five categories, these categories link the themes of both funds with each problem identified in the problem analysis (section 1.2), for details on how local authorities should choose which indicators they report on see the published guidance:

• Mandatory – these indicators must be reported by all local authorities in receipt of funding and range from inputs and activities through to outcomes. These indicators cover financial reporting, progress of individual projects and employment data. Six-monthly and annual reporting.
• Transport – these indicators are relevant only to those local authorities undertaking transport related interventions, such as creating active travel routes, and include both outputs and outcomes. Annual reporting only.
• Digital Connectivity – these indicators are relevant only to those local authorities undertaking interventions looking to improve coverage of, or access to improved digital infrastructure, such as increasing the percentage cover of high-speed mobile data, and include only outputs. Annual reporting only.
• Urban Regeneration – these indicators are relevant only to those local authorities undertaking urban regeneration interventions, such as creating new office spaces or residential units from existing retail units and include mostly outputs and only one outcome. Annual reporting only.
• Skills and Enterprise Infrastructure – these indicators are relevant only to those local authorities undertaking interventions looking to support skills and enterprise infrastructure and include only outputs. Annual reporting only.

Data sources

Sources for these data will vary, with most mandatory indicators being collected directly by local authorities through primary data collection. For the category-based indicators, local authorities may collect this data themselves, but they may also choose to contract this out to a third-party organisation. In these instances, it is still the responsibility of the local authority to report the data through the agreed reporting processes. Reporting will be via an online platform owned by the department called DELTA. To ensure learning is as open as possible the Cities and Local Growth Unit will produce dashboards, using the data collected via DELTA, which clearly visualises the monitoring data so that both local and central government can access, learn from and respond to any issues the data raises.

Key data themes align with the structure of the theory of change and, therefore, include:

• Inputs & Activities (e.g. £ spent on project delivery)
• Outputs (e.g. number of temporary FT jobs supported during project implementation)
• Intermediate Outcomes (e.g. town self-assessment questions)
• Outcomes (e.g. number of permanent FT jobs created/safeguarded through projects) -We will also collect data for the purposes of monitoring on project specific indicators. These will be broken down by intervention type (transport; urban regeneration; digital connectivity; arts, culture & heritage; enterprise infrastructure; skills infrastructure)

2.2 Process evaluation

Aim

The process evaluation aims to understand:

1. How the two different application and funding processes have worked, from the initial selection process through to delivery of final payments, learning lessons for DLUHC/BEIS for future local growth funding programmes
2. How the different types of projects were delivered by different areas, sharing lessons and best practice across projects and areas to enable changes to be implemented through the lifecycle of projects, and learning lessons for building the most efficient and effective processes into future local growth projects.  

Key questions:

How did places engage stakeholders in project/business case development?

1. How did stakeholder engagement underpin decision making and the priorities that were put forward in a Town Investment Plan? How well evidenced are the links between community feedback and the final submissions that were put to Government? 2. Did places engage beyond traditional and well-established stakeholder groups, with underrepresented and seldom heard groups?
3. What was the balance of local leadership between the private sector, voluntary and community sector or from political leadership of the lead local authority? Was one group more dominant?

Lessons learnt from the two programme models

4. Were there advantages/disadvantages in the deal based, pre-selected Towns Fund approach vs a competitive, bid led approach adopted with FHSF?
5. How effective were Town Deal Boards at shaping good, high quality bids? Is there evidence that board members provided a good level of challenge and were engaged and involved outside of formal meetings?

Lessons learnt from DLUHC’s activities

6. What was the experience of places navigating the TIP / business case development and assessment process? Were they clear on government’s expectations and was information provided to places in a timely way?

Places’ capacity

7. Was there any association between a place’s final offer and the size/breadth/depth of its board membership (i.e. did towns that drew from a broader and more diverse pool fare better in terms of bid outcome)
8. How did places utilise DLUHC capacity funding in developing their TIP? Did towns that kept TIP authorship and development ‘in house’ fare better or worse than those that relied on consultancy support? Has lack of capacity led to poorer outcomes at any stage to date? Was there an association between offer/outcome and the size and capability of the lead local authority?
9. Did places tap into any pro bono support from local partners in developing their TIP e.g. LEPs, combined authorities or universities

Method

The process evaluation will comprise two components:

Application and funding: This will involve qualitative examination of the application and funding processes for a sample of areas. This will comprise in-depth interviews with project leads and those responsible for developing business cases within a sample of projects, spread equally across the Towns Fund and the Future High Streets Fund and stratified by types of areas and projects.

Project delivery: Input and delivery data will be collected as part of the six-monthly monitoring data which will identify areas / projects which are under and over delivering. Qualitative interviews will be undertaken with all project managers to understand particular delivery issues, and to enable work to be done to address these issues at the point in time, ensuring that places are supported throughout delivery.

In depth case studies (see section 2.3) will be undertaken in a sample of places (spread equally across the Towns and the Future High Streets Funds, stratified by types of areas and projects) to understand how processes are working and make recommendations for process improvements. These case studies will involve in-depth interviews with project managers and senior stakeholders, interviews / focus groups with those responsible for delivery, and focus groups with a sample of recipients / beneficiaries (e.g. local business owners). The scale and scope of these process case studies will vary by place.

Regular workshops will take place for all areas to feedback on best practice and to highlight areas which have undertaken process improvements. This continuous learning design should help areas to improve processes and learn from one another on a regular basis. An interim evaluation report will also enable a more formal review of progress and changes occurring across the fund recipients.

Data sources

The process evaluation will draw on the regular monitoring information provided by places, interviews with project managers for all projects, and data collected through local case studies.  

2.3 Impact evaluation and supporting research

Aim

The impact evaluation and supporting research will estimate the extent to which chosen economic, social and environmental outcomes have changed as a result of the intervention and will test the hypotheses set out in the Theory of Change (Section 1.4). This will be undertaken both for the fund as a whole and for specific types of interventions (e.g. urban regeneration) in a particular place.

Key questions:

A. Impact evaluation

1. Assessing effects of Towns Fund investment on key outcomes – such as, but not limited to:
   a. Employment
   b. Land values
   c. Resident incomes
   d. Business turnover and profits
   e. Investment
   f. Well-being and perception of place
   g. Productivity
2. Assessing effects of different investment themes (e.g. transport) on key outcomes. 
3. Assessing whether effects are different for different groups (e.g. different types of places, different capital investment)

B. Supporting research

1. How has the Towns Fund addressed the problems identified in the framework?
2. What are the factors in the success of a place? Why are some places more successful than others?
3. What types of intervention make the most difference to a place?
4. What is good local decision-making? Where and at what level does it work best? Does local decision-making result in better outcomes?

5. What lessons about the funds and interventions can be used to inform the Levelling Up agenda?

Method

The evaluation and learning questions can be grouped into: the overall impact of the fund(s); and the specific impacts of different intervention types – and how these differ in different types of places. This prompts a two-tiered framework for the impact evaluation with the supporting research adding additional context and learning to Tier II:

• Tier I – National Impact Evaluation: this will be focused on determining the causal impact of the Fund as a whole. This will use primary and secondary data sources to compare the changes in “treated” towns versus the changes in “non-treated” towns (counterfactuals).
• Tier II – Thematic Impact & Case Study Evaluation: this will utilise a mixed methods approach, using much of the same primary and secondary data sources and impact evaluation methods used for Tier I to attempt to determine the impact of different interventions (e.g. transport) and place (e.g. coastal) types but will also include case studies that that examine both qualitative and quantitative data in particular places of interest, building up a more comprehensive picture of the changes occurring as a result of the Towns Fund.

This framework will ensure we learn about the funds as a whole (e.g. were the funds successful in achieving their aims?) but also allows for learning about more specific issues, such as the success of different strategies and interventions in different types of places.

The following outlines which methods will be used within the impact evaluation and the supporting research to quantify and understand the causal links of any identified impacts. These methods include quasi-experimental and non-experimental designs:

A. Impact evaluation

Matched Difference in Difference: Using propensity score matching (PSM) we plan to identify a set of counterfactual places to our Towns Fund recipients. We will then carry out a difference-in-difference approach between the two groups. This approach relies on the ‘common-trends assumption’ – that is, in the absence of the treatment, the units in the treatment and control groups would have followed the same paths on outcomes of interest.

B. Supporting research

In-depth case studies: Case studies will look to determine the impact at a place-based level for a select number of places and will utilise quantitative and qualitative data to better understand the processes, causal links and impacts of particular interventions. Work is ongoing to determine the potential for using either matched difference-in-difference (as above) or synthetic control groups to determine the impact of particular interventions.

Contribution analysis: A contribution analysis will look to assess the causal questions associated with the Towns Fund, reducing the uncertainty around the Fund’s contribution to observed changes. The contribution analysis will be used to either confirm or develop the theory of change for the Towns Fund, this learning will be used for future funds looking to implement similar interventions or achieve similar outcomes.

Data sources and collection

The impact evaluation will collect data from a range of sources, through primary and secondary data collection, with the outcomes of interest covering economic, social and environmental metrics. The outcomes relevant to the Fund’s objectives and their sources have been determined through collaboration with internal and external partners and remains work in progress. Currently the impact evaluation is looking to use the following sources for outcome data, though this may evolve over the course of the evaluation:

Administrative datasets: The primary source of administrative data is the ONS and other Government departments. The ONS’ ambition to develop an Integrated Data Platform is expected to increase the ease with which we can access data that is of interest to our evaluation. We are in regular contact with the ONS to determine the feasibility of accessing this data at spatial scales that align with the intervention areas, as such the data listed below may change if feasibility studies suggest a dataset is unsuitable or unable to demonstrate the outcomes of interest.

Key administrative data includes:

• Household income
• Employment
• Crime rates
• Land values
• Gross Value Added (GVA) and GVA per hour (available for a selection of places)
• Tax income from business rates and council tax
• Resident demography
• Business demography
• Broadband coverage
• Patronage of public transport
• Travel times

Commercial Datasets: We are looking to obtain the following commercial data to add value to the evaluation:

• Land values
• Vacancy rates (by different premises type)
• Mobility (movement or ‘flow’ of people between/within areas)
• Consumer spending
• Business diversity

Social survey: While improvements in social measures are a key objective of the Towns Fund, this data is not currently available at the correct spatial scales or locations, and so the Department is planning to commission a social survey. The survey will look to address questions concerned with wellbeing, social cohesion, community engagement, functional transformation and perceptions of place. To measure change this survey will need to run on a few occasions during the lifecycle of the Towns Fund. But also, harmonised questions will be used where possible to assess change against other surveys.

2.4 Value for money evaluation

Aim

The Value for Money evaluation will use Green Book principles to assess whether the scale of the programmes’ impacts, relative to their economic costs, represents good value for taxpayer’s money. This will indicate whether the Towns Fund’s inputs were economic (least cost for relevant level of quality/success), efficient (the value of outputs or outcomes in relation to the total cost of inputs), and effective (outcomes achieved in relation to total cost of inputs).

Key questions:

1. Was the Towns Fund value for money?
2. How successful was the Towns Fund in addressing:
   i. Economy
  ii. Efficiency
   iii. Effectiveness
   iv. Equity.

Method

Work will be carried out to determine the most appropriate method to determine value for money based on the key questions. Potential methods include:

• Cost Effectiveness Analysis
• Cost Utility analysis -Cost Benefit Analysis
• Social return in investment
• Rank Correlation of cost vs impact
• Basic Efficiency Resource Analysis

Data sources

Data collected from the monitoring, process evaluation and impact evaluation will be used to determine the value for money of the Towns Fund. Some primary data collection may be required.

Appendix 1 - Workplan

The table below sets out a high-level workplan for the monitoring and evaluation of the Towns Fund. Key deliverables are highlighted.

Table 1: Monitoring and evaluation workplan

Evaluation:

Monitoring

Illustrative policy questions to be answered

1. Does the place in question satisfy assurance requirements to enable next payments to be issued?
2. If not, why not, what steps are needed to get back on track?
3. How are places performing in terms of:
   a. Time / progress
   b. Cost
   c. Delivering according to agreed scope
   d. Quality
   e. Mitigating risks
   f. Enhancing opportunities
   g. Resources available to places
   h. Productivity
4. What support do places need while in the delivery phase?
5. What is and isn’t working well in delivery?
6. What lessons on delivery can be shared within the duration of the programme?

Work packages/Activities

• Monitoring guidance for places. Activity: Guidance to local authorities on what data to collect, when and how to report it.
• Form for local authority data reporting. Activity: Create forms on DLUHC’s DELTA system and run teach-ins with local authorities.
• Data dashboard. Activitiy: Create data dashboard to visualise monitoring data to increase accessibility and ease of sharing.
• Places’ capacity baseline. Activity: Undertake exercise to establish baseline for places’ capability and capacity.
• Payments and assurance processes. Activity: Agree framework / criteria to identify areas of risk. Utilise monitoring data to provide necessary assurances and release funding.
• Action learning activities. Activity: Utilise monitoring data, data dashboard and information from area teams to:
  • Identify best practice learning which can be shared between places.
  • Identify areas of risk/underperformance which require capabilities/delivery support.

Evaluation:

Process & Interim Evaluation

Policy questions being answered:

How did places engage stakeholders in project/business case development?

1. How did stakeholder engagement underpin decision making and the priorities that were put forward in a Town Investment Plan? How well evidenced are the links between community feedback and the final submissions that were put to government?
2. Did places engage beyond traditional and well-established stakeholder groups, with underrepresented and seldom heard groups?
3. What was the balance of local leadership between the private sector, voluntary and community sector or from political leadership of the lead local authority? Was one group more dominant?

Lessons learnt from the two programme models.
4. Were there advantages/disadvantages in the deal based, pre-selected Towns Fund approach vs a competitive, bid led approach adopted with FHSF?
5. How effective were Town Deal Boards at shaping good, high quality bids? Is there evidence that board members provided a good level of challenge and were engaged and involved outside of formal meetings?

Lessons learnt from DLUHC’s activities.

6. What was the experience of places navigating the TIP / business case development and assessment process? Were they clear on government’s expectations and was information provided to places in a timely way?

Places’ capacity

7. Was there any association between a place’s final offer and the size/breadth/depth of its board membership (i.e. did towns that drew from a broader and more diverse pool fare better in terms of bid outcome)
8. How did places utilise DLUHC capacity funding in developing their TIP? Did towns that kept TIP authorship and development ‘in house’ fare better or worse than those that relied on consultancy support? Has lack of capacity led to poorer outcomes at any stage to date? Was there an association between offer/outcome and the size and capability of the lead local authority?
9. Did places tap into any pro bono support from local partners in developing their TIP e.g. LEPs, combined authorities or universities

Work packages/Activities:

• Case studies. Activity: Case study activities (interviews, focus groups) identified in the impact evaluation (see below) will also generate information required to answer process evaluation questions.
• Interim evaluation reports. Activity: Reports to be developed at various points in the programme. Key deliverable
  
• Process evaluation reports. Activity: Reports to be developed at various points in the programme. Key deliverable

Evaluation:

Impact Evaluation and Supporting Research

Policy questions being answered:

A. Impact Evaluation

4. Assessing effects of Towns Fund investment on key outcomes – such as, but not limited to:
   a. Employment
   b. Land values
   c. Resident incomes
   d. Business turnover and profits
   e. Investment
   f. Well-being and perception of place
   g. Productivity
5. Assessing effects of different investment themes (e.g. transport) on key outcomes. 
6. Assessing whether effects are different for different groups (e.g. different types of places, different capital investment)

B. Supporting Research

6. How has the Towns Fund addressed the problems identified in the framework?
7. What are the factors in the success of a place? Why are some places more successful than others? 8. What types of intervention make the most difference to a place?
9. What is good local decision-making? Where and at what level does it work best? Does local decision-making result in better outcomes?
10. What lessons about the funds and interventions can be used to inform the Levelling Up agenda?
11. What are the factors by which we judge success and are they the right ones? e.g. are traditional productivity measures the right ones, or is wellbeing more important?

Work packages/Activities:

• Identification of metrics and data. Activity: Establish what data is needed to realise the aims of the impact evaluation and identify potential sources that could fulfil the requirement.
• Baseline surveys. Activity: Agree the specification for the surveys of places (primary data) and undertake competitive procurement process.
• Counterfactuals. Activity: Establish appropriate methodology for identifying and/or constructing counterfactuals and generate lists using agreed methodology.
• Data collection and linking. Activity: Collect the secondary data that has been identified and undertake any data linking that is necessary (e.g. linking incomes to locations).
• Survey of places. Activity: Conduct a repeat of the surveys of places (possibly an interim and final) to establish the impact of the funds.
• Case studies. Activity: Agree the specification for the case studies and undertake a competitive procurement process.
• Impact evaluation reports. Activity: Report to be produced at the end of the programme answering the policy questions identified. Key deliverable
  
• Post-delivery Impact Evaluation report (< 3 years post programme close). Activity: Report to be produced following the end of the programme to explore how impacts have – and continue – to change over time. Key deliverable
  
• Supporting research. Activity: Agree the research questions and specification and undertake a competitive procurement process. Key deliverable

Evaluation:

Value for Money Evaluation

Policy questions being answered:

Was the TF good value for money? Economy, Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Equity?

Work packages/Activities:

Value for Money Evaluation Reports. Activity: Determine which methods are most appropriate and relevant and undertake the evaluation by analysing the data collected through the monitoring, process evaluation and impact evaluation. Key deliverable

Appendix 2 - Timeline and key milestones

The chart below provides an indication of the timings for the Towns Fund’s monitoring and evaluation and sets out some of the key milestones.

Figure 3: M&E timeline and key milestones. Orange block indicates Future High Street Fund completion, blue block indicates Town Deal completion. Monitoring will be covered by 6-monthly and annual reporting. There will be an interim report for the process and impact evaluation in 2022/23 and 2023/24, respectively. Followed by a final report for the Future High Street programme in 24/25, one year after completion, an update report in 25/26, and a final evaluation report for the Town Deal programme in 26/27, one year after completion. A further post-programme evaluation report is scheduled for up to 3 years post the close of the Town Deal programme.

Figure 3: Monitoring and evaluation timeline and key milestones

Alt text version of Figure 3: Monitoring and evaluation timeline and key milestones

Year/Quarter	Monitoring	Process	Impact Evaluation	Value for Money Evaluation
2021/22: Q1
Q2	6-monthly reporting
Q3
Q4	Annual reporting
2022/23: Q1
Q2	6-monthly reporting
Q3
Q4	Annual reporting	Interim Process Evaluation Report
2023/24: Q1
Q2	6-monthly reporting
Q3
Q4	Annual reporting		Interim Impact Evaluation
2024/25: Q1
Q2	6-monthly reporting
Q3
Q4		Final Report (FHSF)	Final Report (FHSF)	Final Report (FHSF)
2025/26: Q1
Q2	6-monthly reporting
Q3
Q4	Annual reporting	Update Report (FHSF & TD)	Update Report (FHSF)	Update Report (FHSF)
2026/27: Q1
Q2	6-monthly reporting
Q3
Q4	Annual reporting	Final Report (FHSF & TD)	Final Report (FHSF)	Final Report (FHSF)
2027 - 2029			> Post-programme report (FHSF & TD)	> Post-programme report (FHSF & TD)

Appendix 3 – Theory of Change bibliography

Note: this list is also available as a separate PDF download.

Title	Author	Document type	Date
Aligning TF and FHSF M&E	TF	TF	2020
Business case (including management case)	TF	TF	2020
Business case Annex A	TF	TF	2020
Delivery Partner ToC	TF	TF	2020
Learning Report	TF	TF	2020
TIP Evaluation Manual Final	TF	TF	2020
Town Fund Deal Lifecycle	TF	TF	2020
Towns Fund accelerated funding grants	TF	TF	2020
Towns Fund further guidance	TF	TF	2020
Towns Fund prospectus	TF	TF	2019
Towns Self-assessment questionnaire findings v1	TF	TF	2020
Barrow TIP	Town	TIP	2020
Blackpool TIP	Town	TIP	2020
Crawley TIP	Town	TIP	2020
Darlington TIP	Town	TIP	2020
Middlesbrough TIP	Town	TIP	2020
Newark TIP	Town	TIP	2020
Norwich TIP	Town	TIP	2020
Peterborough TIP	Town	TIP	2020
Preston TIP	Town	TIP	2020
Swindon TIP	Town	TIP	2020
Torquay TIP	Town	TIP	2020
Warrington TIP	Town	TIP	2020
Future High Streets Fund application form	FHSF	FHSF	2018
Future High Streets Fund Evaluation Plan	FHSF	FHSF	2019
Future High Streets Fund prospectus	FHSF	FHSF	2018
Summary of proposed FHSF Evaluation	FSHF	FHSF	2020
High Street Report	HMG	FSHF	2018
Building Local Economy through Asset-Based Economic Development	Williams et al	External	2015
Eddington Transport Study	DfT	External	2006
ERDF National Evaluation Phase 1 Report - Process Review	EU	External	2019
ERDF&ESF Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy for the 2014-2020 Scottish Operational Programmes	EU	External	2020
Evaluating regeneration projects and programmes	CLES	External	2010
Growth Deal Assurance Framework for the Liverpool region	Liverpool	External	2016
Growth Deal Monitoring & Evaluation framework	Town	External	2016
High streets for all report web	Mayor of London	External	2017
High Streets in Great Britain	ONS	External	2020
Impact of Historic Environment Regeneration - Executive Summary	AMION consulting	External	2010
LEP M&E Framework for Worcestershire	Town	External	2016
London - good growth fund evaluation and impact handbook	Mayor of London	External	2018
Monitoring and evaluating national urban policy: a guide	UN HABITAT	External	2020
Open Doors Pilot Programme Evaluation Report, November 2020	DLUHC	External 2020
Output and Result Indicator Definitions Guidance for the European Social Fund	EU	External	2019
Output Indicator Definitions Guidance for the European Regional Development Fund for England	EU	External	2019
Re-imagining the High Street: Escape from Clone Town Britain	NEF	External	2010
Roman Road Trust Theory of Change	Roman Road Trust	External	Accessed 2020
Successful Town Centres	Association of Town and City Management	External	2013
Sustainable urban regeneration and its assessment handbook	EU	External	2005
The future of seaside towns - Select Committee on Regenerating Seaside Towns and Communities (parliament.uk)	House of Lords	External	2019
ToC: Supporting communities to build successful neighbourhoods	Anon	External	2015
Urban renewal evaluation project	CityFUTUREs	External	2006
Assessing the Impacts of Spatial Interventions- Regeneration, Renewal and Regional Development ‘The 3Rs guidance’	HMG	Government report	2004
BEIS small and medium enterprises (SME) action plan 2019	BEIS	Government report	2019
Evaluation of the Business Support Helpline and gov.uk, 2014	BIS Government report	2014
Government response to the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly report on The Revitalisation of the High Street HMG	Government report	2020
Linking Opportunity and Need: Maximising the Regeneration Benefits from Physical Investment	Andrea Glass, Alexander McTier and Alan McGregor	Government report	2018
Literature Review: Policies Adopted to Support A Healthy Retail Sector and Retail-Led Regeneration and the Impact of Retail on the Regeneration of Town Centres and Local High Streets	Anne Findlay, Leigh Sparks	Government report	2009
Growth deals initial guidance for local enterprise partnerships	HMG	Government report	2013
Growth Hubs Monitoring and Evaluation Framework ‘16 to ‘18	BIS	Government report	2018
LEP Assurance Framework	HMG	Government report	2016
Local Growth Deals briefing paper	HMG	Government report	2020
M&E Framework for Growth Hubs 2020 to 2021	BEIS	Government report	2020
Magenta Book	HMG	Government report	2020
National Local Growth Assurance Framework	HMG	Government report	2019
Our plan for the High Street	HMT	Government report	2018
Local Enterprise Partnerships: an update on progress	National Audit Office	Government report	2019
Progress of Devolving responsibilities to cities in England	National Audit Office	Government report	2015
Progress report on the regional growth fund	National Audit Office	Government report	2014
Disappearing Traffic? An Evaluation of Pedestrianisation in Taunton Town Centre	Dr Steve Melia, Dr Tom Calvert	Literature	2020
Impact of RDA spending – National report	PWC	Literature	2009
The value of new transport in deprived areas: Who benefits, how and why? JRF, 2008	Lucas, Karen, Sophie Tyler and Georgina Christodoulou T	Literature	2008
Transport deserts: The absence of transport choice in England’s small towns, 2020	Campaign for Better Transport,	Literature	2020
An evaluation of the economic and business investment impact of an integrated package of public transport improvements, Funded by a Workplace Parking Levy	Simon Dale, Matthew Frost, Stephen Ison, Ken Nettleship, Peter Warren	Literature	2017
An evaluation of urban regeneration: effectiveness of a retail-led project	Guimarães	Literature	2017
An Indicator-based Approach to Measuring Sustainable Urban Regeneration Performance	Hemphill et al	Literature	2004
Analysis of the impact of street-scale built environment design near metro stations on pedestrian and cyclist road segment choice: A stated choice experiment	Yanan Liu, Dujuan Yang, Harry J.P. Timmermans, Bauke de Vries	Literature	2019
Approaches to Evaluation in Community Regeneration	Communities Scotland	Literature	2006
British High Streets Crisis to Recovery	Wrigley et al	Literature	2015
Broadband Infrastructure and Income Inequality	Georges V. Houngbonon, Julienne Liang	Literature	2019
Bullring: A case study of retail-led urban renewal and its contribution to city centre regeneration	John Emery	Literature	2006
Challenges for the evaluation of local enterprise partnerships and the regional growth fund	Chadwick et al	Literature	2018
Comparative Analysis of the Impact of the Business Incubator Center on the Economic Sustainable Development of Regions in USA and Poland	Marcin Olkiewicz, Radosław Wolniak, Michaline Eva-Grebski and Anna Olkiewicz	Literature	2018
Creative Industries, Inequality and Social Development: Developments, Impacts and Challenges in Cape Town	Irma Booyens	Literature	2012
Cultural investment, local development and instantaneous social capital: A case study of a gathering festival in the South of Italy	Giuseppe Attanasi, Fortuna Casoria, Samuele Centorrino, Giulia Urso	Literature	2013
Does rural broadband impact jobs and income? Evidence from spatial and first-differenced regressions, 2014	Whitacre, Brian, Roberto Gallardo, Sharon Strover	Literature	2014
Econometric analysis of the link between public transport accessibility and employment	Daniel Johnson, Marco Ercolani and Peter Mackie	Literature	2017
Economic impact of entrepreneurial universities’ activities: An exploratory study of the United Kingdom	Guerrero, Maribel, Cunningham, James and Urbano, David	Literature	2015
Effects of Job Accessibility Improved by Public Transport System: Natural Experimental Evidence from the Copenhagen Metro	Gabriel Pons Rotger, Thomas Sick Nielsen	Literature	2015
Estimating the agglomeration benefits of transport investments: some tests for stability	Daniel J. Graham, Kurt Van Dender	Literature	2009
Evaluating the impact of the 2012 Olympic Games policy on the regeneration of East London using spatio-temporal big data	Xiao Zhou, Desislava Hristova, Anastasios Noulas, Cecilia Mascolo	Literature	2018
Evaluating Urban Regeneration Programmes in Britain: Exploring the potential of the Realist Approach	Suet Ying Ho	Literature	1999
Evaluating urban regeneration – How to measure relevance of a new urban structure?	Takala	Literature	2017
Impact of bicycle highways on commuter mode choice: A scenario analysis	Hema S Rayaprolu, Carlos Llorca, Rolf Moekcel	Literature	2018
Impact of Business Incubators on Economic Growth and Entrepreneurship Development	Ogutu, V. O., Kihonge E.	Literature	2016
Impact of Business Incubators on Sustainable Entrepreneurship Growth with Mediation Effect	Naveed Ahmed, Cai Li, Sikandar Ali Qalati,	Mr. Habib ur Rehman, Asadullah Khan and Faisal Rana	Literature 2019
Interventions to tackle the economic needs of deprived areas: Analysis of six policy case studies, Josef Rowntree Foundation	North, David, Stephen Syrett and David Etherington	Literature	2007
Is empowerment a route to improving mental health and wellbeing in an urban regeneration (UR) context?	Baba, C., Kearns, A., McIntosh, E., Tannahill, C., and Lewsey, J.	Literature	2016
M&E for regeneration: A meta-evaluation of assessment and monitoring tools	Pediatditi et al	Literature	2010
Mapping investment in adult skills – which individuals, in what learning and with what returns?	Rosie Gloster, Rosa Marvell, Jonathan Buzzeo, Kari Hadjivassiliou, Joy Williams and Clare Huxley	Literature	2016
New trajectories in urban regeneration processes: Cultural capital as source of human and social capital accumulation – Evidence from the case of Tohu in Montreal	Giorgio Tavano Blessi, Diane-Gabrielle Tremblay, Marco Sandri, Thomas Pilati	Literature	2012
Places With Purpose, The Future of Industrial Cities, Towns and Communities	Centres for Towns	Literature	2018
Public transport investment and local regeneration: A comparison of London’s Jubilee Line Extension and the Madrid Metrosur	Mejia-Dorantes, L., and Lucas, K.	Literature	2014
Retail-led regeneration: why it matters to our communities	Ruth Claxton and Georgia Siora	Literature 2009
Review of basic theory and evaluation methods of sustainable urban renewal	Zijun	Literature	2019
Revitalizing inner city retail? The impact of the West Quay development on Southampton	Michelle Lowe	Literature	2005
Social Exclusion, Urban Regeneration and Economic Reintegration	Alan McGregor, Margaret McConnachie	Literature	2017
Socio-economic impact of renovation and energy retrofitting of the Gothenburg building stock	Mikael	Mangolda, Magnus Österbringa, Holger Wallbauma, Liane Thuvanderb, Paula Femeniasb	Literature	2016
The actor-based change framework	Koleros et al	Literature	2020
The economic impact of universities: Evidence from across the globe	Anna Valeroa, John Van Reenen	Literature	2019
The impact of broadband and other infrastructure on the location of new business establishments	Daire McCoy, Sean Lyons, Edgar Morgenroth, Donal Palcic, Leonie Allen	Literature	2017
The Impact of High-Speed Broadband for Communities	Regeneris Consulting and BT Openreach	Literature	2018
The London 2012 cultural programme: a consideration of Olympic impacts and legacies for small creative organisations in east London	Ilaria Pappalepore, Michael B.Duignan	Literature	2016
Town Centre Regeneration: How Does it Work & What can be Achieved?	Douglas Wheeler Associates Ltd Slims Consulting, Ryden, Avril Blamey & Associates	Literature	2011
Transport’s role in sustaining the UK’s productivity and competitiveness	Sir Rod Eddington	Literature	2006
Understanding success in the context of brownfield greening projects: the requirement for outcome evaluation in urban greenspace success assessment	Doick et al	Literature	2009
Urban regeneration and more opportunities for artistic expression and cultural consumption	Maria Moldoveanua, Valeriu-Ioan Franca	Literature	2014
Urban regeneration and sustainable development in Britain: The example of the Liverpool Ropewalks Partnership	Chris Couch, Annekatrin Dennemann	Literature	2000
Urban regeneration: from the arts ‘feel good’ factor to the cultural economy. A case study of Hoxton, London.	Pratt, A.C.	Literature 2009
Using green infrastructure to add value and assist place-making in public realm developments	Gary H. Donaldson, Elsa M. João	Literature	2019
Valuing the benefits of Urban Regeneration	Tyler et al	Literature	2013
Evaluating the socio-economic impacts of selected regenerated heritage sites in Europe	Sophia Labadi	Literature	2011
Improving the vitality and viability of the UK High Street by 2020	Parker C. et al	Literature	2017
www.gov.uk/government/collections/future-high-streets-Fund	HMG	Website	Accessed 2020
www.gov.uk/government/publications/permitted-development-rights-and-changes-to-the-use-classes-order/fast-track-planning-for-brownfield-regeneration-key-facts-brief	HMG	Website	Accessed 2020
www.gov.uk/guidance/business-improvement-districts#what-is-a-business-improvement-district	HMG	Website	Accessed 2020
www.gov.uk/government/publications/apply-for-the-transforming-cities-Fund	HMG	Website	Accessed 2020
www.gov.uk/government/publications/social-mobility-and-opportunity-areas	HMG	Website	Accessed 2020
www.gov.uk/guidance/business-improvement-districts#what-is-a-business-improvement-district	HMG	Website	Accessed 2020