好色先生TV

Sitting in his office at Haymarket Publishing, Heseltine admits that he is unaware of several recent changes in regeneration policy, such as the proposed statutory enlargement of Urban Development Corporation boards from 13 members to 17. Rather, he enjoys recounting stories of the political battles he endured in the 1980s and early 1990s to lay the foundations of what he describes as the 鈥渞evolution鈥� in regeneration.

A quarter of a century since Heseltine entered Thatcher鈥檚 first cabinet in 1979 as secretary of state at the Department of the Environment, it is timely to reassess the impact of his regeneration work. That same year he drove through legislation setting up Urban Development Corporations in two key areas: London Docklands and Liverpool. Despite objections from cabinet colleagues, Heseltine felt that it was the only way to resuscitate two historic but dying areas, and his revolution was born.

Today the revolution鈥檚 influence lives on 鈥� the Labour government has decided to revive the UDCs to fulfil its own regeneration ambitions. But although Heseltine鈥檚 policies marked a turning point, can they be described a complete success? Indeed, rather than regarding Heseltine鈥檚 UDCs as a blueprint for the next generation of schemes, should policymakers be casting a critical eye over past projects to avoid repeating his mistakes?

Doing Docklands

In 1981 Heseltine set up the London Docklands Development focusing on a neglected area, 8.5 square miles in size, in east London. He bats away suggestions that pockets of Docklands remain deprived, despite the advances made by his UDC: 鈥淚 haven鈥檛 made a detailed study of every last part of it. I do know that the process of unlocking the land of east London has been an extraordinary achievement and that it鈥檚 still happening on a very large scale.鈥�

This response in unlikely to satisfy residents of areas such as Poplar. Despite the work of the London Docklands Development Corporation in the 1980s and 1990s, Poplar remains squalid, and envious about the shiny offices and the rich kids of neighbouring Canary Wharf. In 1991, Heseltine attended a 拢100,000 champagne party to celebrate the 10-year anniversary of the LDDC. Nearby, a less glamorous reception was staged, protesting at how a decade of grants had built new office blocks but failed to improve the lot of local people.

Heseltine is unrepentant: 鈥淭hat was the sort of thing one was up against. Whatever we did, all the changes we made were resisted by the left of politics. There was root-and-branch opposition to what we were doing, from the local authorities 鈥� all of which were Labour controlled 鈥� and from many of the organised tenants groups that were also of the left.鈥�

The rival party was attended by Sister Christine Frost, the leader of tenants group South Poplar & Limehouse Action for Secure Housing (SPLASH). She is disdainful of Heseltine for allegedly dismissing these areas as 鈥渢he last layer of dust鈥� on east London.

Heseltine counters that while people like Frost may feel aggrieved, enough people did benefit to justify the LDDC: 鈥淲hat was the alternative? Well, one alternative was to let it fester, in which case, the largely publicly housed communities died, their children left, employers left. Anybody who had ambitions to move on in life left and that perpetuated, accelerated, accentuated the problems these areas had in the first place.鈥�

Rather hopelessly and blankly, I said: 鈥楢ll right, we鈥檒l leave out the other two sites.鈥� It was wrong

In a moment of candour, Heseltine admits that he did have it within his power to reinvigorate two other communities in the Docklands area, but declined to do so. The effects of that split-second decision can still be felt today. He took five parcels of land on the north bank of the Thames as the regeneration area, and was set to include Lewisham and Greenwich to the south. But he was persuaded otherwise, and the two areas still suffer from urban decay to this day 鈥� although the Millennium Dome development has boosted Greenwich to an extent, with 10,000 new homes earmarked for the site.

鈥淚 don鈥檛 come out of this story very well,鈥� says Heseltine, sounding for the first time less fluent, 鈥渁nd it was the wrong decision, but it was such a battle to get this through. My department at official level was totally opposed to what I was doing. Somebody came to me one day and said: 鈥楽ecretary of state, isn鈥檛 the north [side of the Thames] big enough? You鈥檝e got 6000 acres.鈥� And

rather hopelessly and blankly, I said: 鈥楢ll right, we鈥檒l leave out the other two sites.鈥� It was wrong.鈥�

A boost to Liverpool

Heseltine鈥檚 other vision in the early 1980s was the regeneration of Liverpool. He could not believe that the dereliction in Merseyside docks could exist just a stone鈥檚 throw away from a major city centre. In his mind regeneration was the only way to stimulate the economy, and so he set up the Merseyside Development Corporation.

Today, the city outwardly is doing well, with a recent Office for National Statistics survey showing its economy has outgrown those of Leeds and Birmingham. But the the Liverpool UDC did not address some underlying problems. In fact, in 1993 the situation was bad enough for the European Union to step in and make Liverpool the first city in mainland Britain to receive Objective 1 regeneration funding.

In a strange twist of logic, Heseltine argues that the Objective 1 funding was a sign of the UDC鈥檚 success: 鈥淭hat indicated there was a new sense of confidence, a generation of people who had leadership capacity and opportunity, and were fighting back by getting that status. Liverpool was on its way by the early 1990s, the turnaround started in the very early 1980s,鈥� he says.

Heseltine also claims success for his Garden Festival scheme, which attracted 3 million visitors in 1984. Borrowing an idea from the Continent, Heseltine鈥檚 plan was to hold a festival on 600 acres of polluted land on the banks of the Mersey. Following large-scale decontamination and a festival encouraging civic pride, the area would be regenerated, with housing and industry attracted to the area. Two decades after the festival, the site still lies derelict 鈥� several schemes having fallen through, due to planning problems or poor business cases. The area has been nominated by CABE in a contest to find the UK鈥檚 most wasted spaces.

While it would seem that Liverpool鈥檚 UDC failed to come up with an after-use for the site, Heseltine defends the scheme. He claims that the event was so successful that nobody wanted to replace the Garden Festival: 鈥淭he initial hostility towards the Garden Festival gave way to such a feeling of pride and affection for it and what it stood for, that there was no will to go ahead with the second stage, which was its development.鈥�

The government has copied, in the urban development and regeneration field, what they previously resisted so bitterly

The return of UDCs

Heseltine sounds bitter when he argues the Labour government simply stole his ideas for regeneration and claimed them as its own: 鈥淭he government has copied, in the urban development and regeneration field, what they previously resisted so bitterly. Practically every scheme we introduced they resisted, changed the name and got on with it,鈥� he says. Repeating himself, Heseltine begins to sound like a child who has had his toys confiscated: 鈥淥f course, they would argue that it is different, because they had to rename them in order to give the impression they were their ideas; but they were all

my ideas.鈥�

The government has reintroduced UDCs as part of its drive to regenerate the Thames Gateway to the east of London 鈥� the largest brownfield site in Europe. It is, indeed, a notion that Labour previously rejected. But deputy prime minister John Prescott has modified the idea to avoid the problems associated with the Heseltine version.

Heseltine鈥檚 UDCs were accused of creating a democratic deficit, as they not only took planning powers away from local councils but also limited the councils鈥� representation on the UDC boards. This angered community leaders and led to many to protest against the UDCs. The Prescott version will see expanded boards, with greater local

authority representation. These UDCs will refer many of the planning decisions back to the councils. It is hoped that the creation of a broader partnership will prevent confrontation.

Heseltine denies there was such a deficit, as councils had some representation on the boards, yet he freely admits his major aim was to sideline what he saw as socialist local authorities in east London. 鈥淚 had no worries at all [about a democratic deficit], because I鈥檇 seen what those political regimes had done, which was to create some of the greatest areas of desperation in a capital anywhere in the world,鈥� he says.

The man once dubbed 鈥淭arzan鈥� may have aged, but he is still as aggressive as ever, and eagerly seizes the opportunity to make a dig at his successor. Asked if he has any advice for Prescott to help him convince Tony Blair to put regeneration at the heart of government policy 鈥� as Heseltine succeeded in doing with Thatcher 鈥� his eyes gleam.

鈥淚鈥檓 not sure how John Prescott could persuade Tony Blair, and I鈥檇 be rather frightened if he could, because his views would take us back to the dark ages,鈥� he

says.