Building Strong Places  
a new, impactful role for 
financial institutions

About the project
Metro Dynamics and the Impact Investing Institute were commissioned by Lloyds Banking Group to deliver this project 
exploring financial institutions’ role in place-based impact investing (PBII). The partnership is a unique one, bringing 
together a retail and commercial bank with respected thought leaders in finance and place. The project has also drawn on 
expert advice from RW Ventures, LLC on the role of private sector financial institutions in promoting placemaking in the 
United States. 
The research has explored the potential for mainstream financial institutions to activate a new approach to supporting 
regional regeneration and working in places to improve people’s lives. Based on extensive engagement with the bank 
and with local government representatives in three pathfinder cities—Birmingham, Leeds and Liverpool—this paper sets 
out early learning and expected success criteria for financial institutions to engage in PBII. The paper concludes with 
recommendations for Government, financial institutions, and places to take PBII forward in practice. 
About the authors
Metro Dynamics is a leading economic consultancy dedicated to helping places by advising those who lead, invest, and do 
business in local economies. Founded in 2015, Metro Dynamics has established itself as a trusted advisor working with 
public, private, and third sector clients. Based in London and Manchester, Metro Dynamics combines a deep knowledge of 
policy, economics, communication, and strategy to support places. 
The Impact Investing Institute’s mission is to change capital markets so that they are fairer and work better for people and 
the planet. It is an independent, non-profit organisation working to mobilise more private sector capital, at scale, to address 
social and environmental challenges. The Impact Investing Institute does this by raising awareness of, addressing barriers 
to, and increasing confidence in investing with impact. The Institute is part of a global network of National Advisory Boards, 
which together form the Global Steering Group for Impact Investment. 
Lloyds Banking Group is a leading UK-based financial services group providing a wide range of banking and financial 
services, focused on personal and commercial customers. Across its many household names, including Lloyds Bank, 
Halifax, Bank of Scotland and Scottish Widows, the Group has millions of customers across the UK. Its aim and purpose is 
to Help Britain Prosper, through operating as a sustainable, responsible, and inclusive organisation.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all the individuals and organisations in the three pathfinder cities who have supported this project by 
participating in interviews and roundtables, as well as providing considerable thought and data. 
With thanks to RW Ventures, LLC for their supplementary report on the role of financial institutions in economic place-
making in the United States. The Chicago-based economic development firm specialises in market-based inclusive growth 
for urban and regional economies; for this project, they assembled leading national experts and practitioners to highlight 
lessons from the US experience. 
We very much appreciate the input of all of those individuals who gave up their time to speak to the project team about 
their various areas of specialism, including Community Development Finance Institutions, impact management and 
reporting experts as well as finance and regeneration specialists. Finally, with thanks to The Good Economy, whose 
publication Scaling Up Institutional Investment for Place-Based Impact has been instructive and formative in this research. 
2
Building Strong Places: a new, impactful role for financial institutions

Contents
1	
Introduction	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
4
2	
Regeneration and placemaking: the opportunity for a new approach	
	
	
5
	
Regeneration policy in the UK	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
5
	
Economic placemaking: lessons on the role of the financial services sector from the United States	
10
3	
Activating place-based impact investing in the UK	
	
	
	
	
14
	
Place-based impact investment: an approach to regional development	
	
	
	
14
	
Exploratory efforts in place-based impact investing	
	
	
	
	
	
17
4	
Recommendations: establishing a role for financial institutions in regeneration	
	
22
	
Recommendations for Government and policymakers	 	
	
	
	
	
22
	
Recommendations for financial institutions	
	
	
	
	
	
	
23
	
Recommendations for places	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
23
	
Conclusion	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
24
References	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
25
This report is also supplemented by two appendices: 
A. 	
The Role of Financial Institutions in Economic Place-making: Lessons from the United States
	
Supplementary report by RW Ventures
B. 	
Place-Based Impact Investing: Toolkit and implementation guide
3
Building Strong Places: a new, impactful role for financial institutions
Contents

1. Introduction
The UK has some of the highest levels of sustained inequality in Europe, and a productivity gap between and within places 
that will take significant intervention to address. In response, Government has set out an ambition to ‘level up’ the UK’s 
towns and places. 
Levelling up means delivering place-based inclusive growth, addressing inequalities in access to opportunities between 
different parts of the country and within them.1 It is the latest of decades of policies and approaches that have set out to 
improve interpersonal and interregional opportunity and outcomes. Meanwhile, structural economic changes and market 
failures have continued to perpetuate inequality and regional disparities across the UK. 
The cumulative effects of inequalities between and within places reflect not only capital and productivity flows, but also 
unequal outcomes based on other factors such as gender, race and ethnicity.2 The pandemic has had a disproportionate 
effect on poorer communities, those in lower-quality housing, as well as on communities with low and unstable incomes. 
Climate change and the cost of transition to net zero further exacerbate the need for transformational investment which 
futureproofs both the UK economy as a whole, as well as local economies across the country. 
There is no set blueprint to helping economies grow, nor to overcoming inequalities within places. Government, 
communities and markets all have a role to play. One-off Government spending and injections of funding have a part to 
play going forward, as they have in the past. But more is needed; a risk of relying on government intervention alone is that 
previous shortcomings are replicated. 
This investigation starts with two core assumptions:
	
ā
Too many towns, cities and communities in the UK have received inadequate investment over time, with their assets 
undervalued by traditional markets. 
	
ā
While some policy and financial intervention should and must come from Government, financial institutions can play a 
bigger role by working with communities. 
Place-based impact investing (PBII) creates meaningful opportunity for private sector financial institutions to join public 
bodies, regional leaders and local communities in promoting regeneration and sustainable growth, doing so in a way which 
creates viable financial returns alongside environmental and social benefit. 
The prize of this new approach is clear: increased investment that drives growth and regeneration, creating thriving, 
sustainable local economies as well as attracting future investment in communities.
This report examines the case for a meaningful new approach to regeneration, one empowered by long-term and holistic 
relationships between financial institutions and places. It particularly explores the role for high street banks. Three 
pathfinder cities—Birmingham, Leeds and Liverpool—have worked with Lloyds Banking Group to explore how this approach 
may work in practice, leading to a number of recommendations for Government, financial institutions and places.
Place-based impact investing is an emerging practice of lending and investing with the 
intention to yield financial returns as well as positive local social, and environmental impact, 
with a focus on addressing the specific needs of places and populations to enhance local 
economic prosperity and support sustainable development.
4
Building Strong Places: a new, impactful role for financial institutions
1. Introduction

2.	 Regeneration and placemaking: 
	
the opportunity for a new approach
The regeneration of the UK’s towns and cities has been the focus of successive government policies and 
initiatives throughout the post-war era. The current Government’s levelling up agenda is the latest in a series 
of models for improving outcomes in places. Approaches have oscillated between physical, economic, and 
social, but have typically failed to bring these together into a holistic understanding of place. 
This section provides an overview of Government approaches to regeneration in the UK, as well as lessons 
from the US experience which inform consideration of the role for financial institutions in regeneration. The 
US faces its own challenges in promoting place-based economic development, but has a more embedded 
capability for private sector involvement in development. 
Regeneration policy in the UK
The scope and targets of UK Government regeneration policy have shifted over time. Physical, social, and economic 
regeneration have each been a primary focus at various points, with scale ranging from the neighbourhood to the regional 
level, but consistently driven largely by central government. 
The evolution of regeneration policy over time provides us with important lessons that inform any new approach to place-
based regeneration: 
	
ā
Regional development is best served by holistic, co-ordinated intervention that empowers local solutions, driven by 
place leaders (supported by devolved fiscal and political purview) and informed by local communities and needs. 
	
ā
Government has a central role in place-based development and regeneration by allocating capital directly to policy 
priorities, but this funding is most effective where it is coordinated with local community stakeholders and private 
sector participants. 
	
ā
Local assets and market opportunities exist in UK’s towns and places that can form the basis for private sector 
investment that introduces additional sources of capital, market discipline and private sector awareness that 
support the ongoing financial self-sustainability of the local economy well beyond the impact of Government grants.
Structural economic and social challenges cannot be turned around overnight with one short project. The history of the 
UK’s attempts to drive regional development has often been characterised by short-term, single-aim interventions, with 
discrete grant funding or investment with traditional private finance routes, determined nationally and driven by shifting 
understandings of what causes disparity and how to change it. 
5
Building Strong Places: a new, impactful role for financial institutions
2. Regeneration and placemaking: the opportunity for a new approach

Evolution of regeneration policy over time
As Table 1 shows, the UK has not landed on any one model for regeneration that sustains itself through changes of 
government. Regeneration interventions tend to oscillate between place, business and people-based policy. 
Table 1. Demonstrative UK Government regeneration policies over time
Initiative
Focus
Government
Identified Problem
Policy
Urban Clearance
Poverty, poor living 
standards and inner-
city congestion
Interwar and post-
war governments
Inner urban 
deprivation
Physical 
regeneration - mass 
urban clearance and 
reconstruction
Urban Aid 
Programme
Deprivation and 
related social issues
Wilson Government
(1967-1970)
Inner urban 
deprivation
People-based 
- grants to local 
authorities and 
community groups
Urban Areas Act
Deprivation, as a 
result of structural 
economic challenges
Callaghan 
Government
(1978-1979)
Inner urban 
deprivation
Holistic place-based 
support for local 
authorities
Enterprise Zones
Accelerating private 
sector job creation 
Thatcher/Major 
Governments
(1980-97)
Concentrated 
joblessness
Business-based 
capital subsidy within 
place
Urban Development 
Corporations (UDCs)
Laying the ground 
for private sector 
property investment
Thatcher/Major 
Governments
(1981-97)
Commercial property 
market failure
Property led - UDC’s 
given land assembly 
and financing powers
Single Regeneration 
Budget
Consolidated 
finance supporting 
community driven 
anti-deprivation work
Major Government
(1993-1997)
Overlapping funding 
streams caused 
inefficiencies
People-based 
employment and 
business support 
with focus on 
community groups
New Deal for 
Communities
Community led 
approaches to 
improving the lives 
of people living in 
deprivation
Blair/Brown 
Governments
(1998-2010)
Places with 
concentrated 
multiple deprivation
People and place-
based community 
funding and capacity 
building
Housing Market 
Renewal
Physical housing 
regeneration 
supporting failing 
housing markets
Blair/Brown 
Governments
(2002-2011)
Domestic property 
market failure holding 
back deprived 
economies
Physical 
regeneration - 
demolishing poor 
quality housing and 
replacing with higher-
quality
City region devolution
Support economic 
agglomeration in 
pursuit of growth
Coalition Government
(2014-2016)
UK cities’ relatively 
poor economic 
performance
Place-based - new 
Mayoral authorities 
to control and 
attract investment in 
functional economic 
areas
Towns Fund/Levelling 
Up Fund
Emphasis on funding 
for towns and 
places to level up 
with economically 
successful places
Johnson Government
(2019-ongoing)
Exclusion of left 
behind places from 
proceeds of growth
Place-based 
and physical 
regeneration grants
6
Building Strong Places: a new, impactful role for financial institutions
2. Regeneration and placemaking: the opportunity for a new approach

Urban poverty
Interwar and post-war regeneration policy focused on tackling urban poverty and improving people’s living conditions. The 
impact of regeneration programmes was combined with the development of the welfare state, universal healthcare, and 
access to education for all. 
The initial targets of regeneration policy were the industrial and slum areas of inner cities. From the 1930s onward, slum 
clearance programmes moved hundreds of thousands of people from overcrowded and unsanitary inner-city terraces and 
tenements to newly built council homes, estates, New Towns and suburbs, which offered outdoor space and improved 
sanitation facilities. Developments accelerated after the second world war, when large areas of major cities in the UK 
needed rebuilding following wartime bombing, and the health and welfare of the nation took centre stage for the post-war 
government. 
By the 1960s, social issues in pockets of deprivation became a high priority. Attention was turned to avoiding urban 
breakdown by addressing root social causes and redistributing resources to deprived communities. In 1967, Harold Wilson’s 
Government established the first national Urban Aid Programme, in which central government distributed the equivalent of 
£500m (a substantially higher relative sum in the context of the far smaller national economy) in the form of grants to local 
authorities and community groups to foster a culture of “self-help”.3 
From 1969, Community Development Projects were formed to develop individual solutions to social problems in particular 
communities. However, central government often disagreed with the solutions different groups proposed, and the 
programme ended in 1978. The projects did, however, highlight community issues and changing attitudes around the ‘social 
pathology’ view of poverty (in which assumptions were made that certain people would live in deprivation), moving to a 
focus on economic forces as a cause of inequality.4
In the midst of structural shifts in the global economy that would spark the process of deindustrialisation in the UK, as 
well as a series of economic crises, the Callaghan Government introduced the Inner Urban Areas Act, which was the first 
to take a place-based approach to regeneration, with 42 urban local authorities designated as partners and recipients of 
substantial government financial support. 
After the UK’s entry into the European Communities (which later became the EU) in 1973, regional funding was allocated 
according to need from the European Commission to economically underperforming regions. The funding was for economic 
development and to support people into training and work; it also included specific support for rural communities in addition 
to farming support through the Common Agricultural Policy. Following the UK’s exit from the EU, this funding will end in the 
UK in 2023. Government has signalled that it will be replaced in some form by the forthcoming UK Shared Prosperity Fund. 
Private sector led physical regeneration
Economic and physical regeneration shifted to a private sector led model with the Thatcher Government, marking a 
turning point in regeneration and the role of the state. Policy focused on property and development, driving incentives for 
businesses and private investment, and worked around, rather than with local authorities.4
Despite mixed evaluations – which recognise gentrification as a double-edged sword for some neighbourhoods, as well 
as early tensions with local communities – the physical transformation of places like the London Docklands would be 
hailed as a breakthrough in urban regeneration. This was underpinned by the assumption that property-led regeneration 
would instigate economic growth and deliver social benefits through trickle-down effects. However, these flagship 
capital investments often failed to provide new jobs at the scale required to drive sustainable economic growth. In some 
development areas, this approach excluded local communities from decision-making about their place, and contributed to 
growing inequality, as disadvantaged neighbouring communities were unable to benefit from the new opportunities. 
7
Building Strong Places: a new, impactful role for financial institutions
2. Regeneration and placemaking: the opportunity for a new approach

Boosting declining cities
In addition to physical development-led approaches, in the 1990s, Michael Heseltine, Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary 
of State for Trade and Industry, and the Major Government introduced streamlined funding via the Single Regeneration 
Budget (SRB), and an approach targeted at declining cities in the City Challenge programme.3 
City Challenge and the SRB were more integrated regeneration approaches to place than the previous property led 
approaches, based on competitive bidding and informed by local challenges and opportunities. The programme brought 
local authorities and communities together into partnership more than previous regeneration schemes had and 
encouraged a range of locally-driven solutions. SRB brought together integration of funding and approaches through 
partnership working. Targeting a number of interventions, projects supported people into work, and regional growth, with 
regional labour markets strengthened over this period. 
Economic and jobs growth and neighbourhood renewal
The limitations of property-led regeneration models led to a new approach under the Blair and Brown administrations, one 
that attempted to put communities at the centre of regeneration and economic development. With the establishment 
of Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), regional development policy prioritised job creation, with entrepreneurship 
and small and medium enterprises (SME) support as the focus for intervention. Funds were established for investment in 
physical regeneration, housing, infrastructure, small businesses, and social infrastructure. 
This regional approach was combined with place and neighbourhood interventions such as the New Deal for Communities, 
a people-based programme that aimed to support community growth and capacity building to address multiple deprivation. 
Physical regeneration in city and town centres was pursued through public-private partnerships (PPPs). PPPs were 
expanded during and after the 1990s, with public investment aiming to de-risk private sector investment in physical 
development. In the form of Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contracts, partnerships were also used to improve the 
public sector estate across the UK and build new hospitals and schools. Due to high costs in early projects and political 
resistance, use of PFIs was tapered down and eventually discontinued. 
Public-Private Partnership Case Study: Liverpool One5
Liverpool One was one of the largest contemporary regeneration efforts, a £1bn 42-acre development 
aiming to reconnect the city with the harbourside, delivered as a PPP between Liverpool City Council 
(LCC) and Grosvenor, a leading developer and hereditary estate. In 2000, the Liverpool Vision Urban 
Regeneration Company was established between Liverpool City Council, English Partnerships and the 
North West RDA. LCC used compulsory purchase agreements to assemble the land from fragmented 
land ownership which reduced the risk associated with developing on the site, signing a 250-year 
lease with the estate. In return, Grosvenor assembled £255m in private equity and £400m in debt 
finance from four major banks, completing the project in four years. The project has delivered 3300 
construction jobs and 5000 permanent jobs, regenerated 42 hectares of land, and contributed to 
growth in the visitor and retail economy that sets Liverpool apart from the North of England as a whole. 
8
Building Strong Places: a new, impactful role for financial institutions
2. Regeneration and placemaking: the opportunity for a new approach

City region devolution and localism
Following the financial crisis and election of the new Coalition Government, the regional approach to economic 
development was superseded by the pursuit of city-region devolution and Mayors as drivers of investment outside of 
London, alongside a business-led model of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) across England. 
Agglomeration, the understanding that physical co-location inherent in cities produces productivity gains benefiting a 
broader region, had significant influence on the city-devolution process. The creation of Mayoral Combined Authorities 
created visible local leadership and aimed to maximise investment and job creation in functional economic areas.6 
Devolution deals between city regions and Government included some devolved budgets and some control over funding 
for infrastructure and skills investment. However, economic development spending remained curtailed by falling council 
budgets and a resultant focus of spending on statutory needs-based services such as social care.
Levelling up and left behind places
While post-financial crisis economic policy achieved record employment levels by the mid-2010s, the last decade has been 
characterised by increasing economic output but falling wage levels and low productivity. Following the EU referendum, the 
May Government introduced an Industrial Strategy that emphasised infrastructure, people, business and innovation, with 
locally led strategies developed to grow local economies.
The May Government turned towards the economies and life chances of residents of towns and coastal and rural 
communities. Regeneration has historically concentrated on cities and urban neighbourhoods, but during this period, 
attention was turned to the complex issues facing, for example, seaside towns, with poorer education and health 
outcomes, declining high streets and ageing populations. Funding programmes included the Coastal Communities Fund and 
Future High Streets Fund. 
Recent funding programmes associated with the levelling up agenda have included the Towns Fund and Levelling Up Fund 
for infrastructure. To make good on the promise of levelling up, policy will need to contend with the climate emergency and 
recovery from Covid-19 in addition to addressing economic disparities between people and places. 
Public grant funding programmes, provision of finance and service delivery are aligning to promote well-being and 
economic growth. The new UK Infrastructure Bank has said that it intends to provide patient capitali, and pension schemes 
are exploring their ability to do the same.7 Such changes have immense potential to change investment approaches to 
deliver intentional positive outcomes and could address disparities in investment that have become so apparent. 
i Patient capital refers to equity or debt whose providers aim to capture long-term benefits, and who maintain their investment even in the face of 
adverse short-term conditions.  
Deeg and Hardi, “What is Patient Capital and Who Supplies It?” Socio-Economic Review 14(4), Oct
9
Building Strong Places: a new, impactful role for financial institutions
2. Regeneration and placemaking: the opportunity for a new approach

Economic placemaking: lessons on the role of the financial services sector from the 
United States
The US context for private sector involvement in regeneration and placemaking is instructive for the UKii; while a vastly 
different system, with its own challenges and setbacks, it demonstrates that there is a role for the financial services 
sector in promoting place-based development. In the US, private sector capital is much more active in driving inclusive 
growth and building prosperity in underserved and marginalised areas. This is driven both by major legislation and 
regulatory requirements – such as the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) – and by increased knowledge and therefore 
use of blended finance models within a market-based development framework. These models use public subsidy, whether 
that is direct investment or tax incentives, to effectively catalyse private investment in projects aligned with community 
need.
The appetite for place-based impact investing (PBII) in the US has developed over decades. The maturity of this market 
demonstrates that there is an enormous amount to be gained from closer partnership between mainstream financial 
institutions and places, both in terms of outcomes for those places and financial return. Major player ShoreBank, 
established as a community lender in 1973 with a few hundred thousand dollars, have made $4.1bn in mission investments 
and financed more than 59,000 affordable homes over 37 years.8 
A particular strength of the approach to place by banks in the US is through Community Development Financial Institutions 
(CDFIs). CDFIs include development banks, community loan funds, credit unions and venture funds and they vary by target 
markets. CDFIs assemble deals, develop early-stage assets and create customer pipelines. The work they do, providing 
debt and equity to small businesses alongside business support services, is specialised and usually requires subsidy. Public 
policy support and subsidy, trade associations and rating systems have been critical to the success of CDFIs in the US, and 
CDFIs now operate at the leading edge of “market development”, the US take on financial markets-informed regeneration. 
In the US, CDFIs and mainstream banks have developed partnerships. Banks not only invest in CDFIs themselves but also 
act as co-investors. 
The US also has a set of tax incentives and regulations that have enabled PBII, particularly as regards to blended finance 
vehicles. Figure 1 outlines how various kinds of public subsidy can be present and play different roles in a capital stack, 
illustrating how blended vehicles work in practice across three different sectors and asset classes. 
In each case, the finance is structured differently, with varying proportions of the project or programme funding covered 
by different kinds of investment (senior or junior debt and equity). The public subsidy (through direct grants, deferred or no-
interest loans, tax credits and/or guarantees) also plays a different role in each example, including for example in the case 
of low income housing as both equity and mezzanine debt. Importantly, this image demonstrates that the role of the public 
subsidy is tailored to the nature of the investment.
ii This project is supported by a supplementary report by RW Ventures, LLC, a US-based economic development firm who specialise in market-based 
inclusive growth. The full RW Ventures report and selected case studies (Appendix A) add to the discourse on PBII and regional regeneration. 
2016. 10.1093/ser/mww025
“
The best government programs are tailored to leverage the market, not supplant it.
Karl Seidman for RW Ventures 
10
Building Strong Places: a new, impactful role for financial institutions
2. Regeneration and placemaking: the opportunity for a new approach

Market-Based Development Case Study: JP Morgan Chase in Detroit, Michigan
In Detroit, JP Morgan Chase has been a key partner in revitalisation efforts. Starting from an initial focus on 
bringing businesses back into the downtown corridor, their involvement has been influenced by community 
need and expanded over time to include neighbourhood and community development. Their investments 
included capitalisation for the Housing for the Future Fund, which provides a range of financial products to 
help developers bridge the gap between redevelopment costs and rental income in affordable housing. They 
have also supported a $30m initiative called the Detroit Neighbourhoods Fund and a $6.5m Entrepreneurs of 
Colour Fund.
11
Building Strong Places: a new, impactful role for financial institutions
2. Regeneration and placemaking: the opportunity for a new approach

Senior Debt
Senior Debt
Senior Debt
Soft/
Deferred 
Debt
Soft/
Deferred 
Debt
Equity/
Subsidy
Equity/
Subsidy
Equity
Junior Debt
Junior Debt
•	Banks
•	HFAs
•	CDFIs
•	State programs
•	City funds 
(CDBG, HOME, 
Trusts)
•	LIHTC
•	HTC
•	FHLB AHP
•	City/state 
grants
•	Foundations
•	Banks
•	State Auth.
•	CDFIs
•	City HUD 108
•	Foundations
•	CDFIs
•	City HUD 108 
or loan fund
•	NMTC
•	HTC
•	City/state/
foundation 
grants
•	City CDBG 
funds
•	Banks
•	CDFIs
•	CDFIs
•	State and city 
loan funds
•	Federal SBA
•	Business 
owner
•	Banks
•	State and city 
Authorities
•	CDFIs
Low Income Housing
Commercial
Small Business
SBA/State 
Guarantee
Figure 1. Sample blended finance structures in the US
Source: Karl Seidman for RW Venturesiii
iii HFAs – Housing Finance Agencies (state agencies that deliver financing to support the purchase, development, and rehabilitation of affordable 
housing) 
CDFIs – Community Development Finance Institutions (mission-driven credit unions, banks, loan funds, and venture capital funds) 
CDBG – Community Development Block Grant (federal program that provides grants to states, cities, and counties for economic and community 
development)
HOME – HOME Investment Partnerships Program (federal program that provides grants to states and localities to support building, buying, and/or 
rehabilitating affordable housing or provide rental assistance)
LIHTC – Low Income Housing Tax Credit (a federal tax credit for affordable housing investments)
HTC – Historic Tax Credits (federal and/or state tax credits for historic buildings that are rehabilitated into income-producing uses)
FHLB AHP – Federal Home Loan Bank Affordable Housing Program (a program that finances the purchase, construction, or rehabilitation of affordable 
housing through regional cooperative banks)
City HUD 108 – Section 108 Loan Guarantee (the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUB) provides cities with low-cost, long-term 
financing for economic and community development projects)
NMTC – New Markets Tax Credit (federal tax credits to support development projects in low-income communities)
Federal SBA  - Federal Small Business Administration (the SBA has lending and investment capital programs to invest in small businesses)
12
Building Strong Places: a new, impactful role for financial institutions
2. Regeneration and placemaking: the opportunity for a new approach

In short, the US has a mature and extensive system of private sector involvement in local development. The exact 
mechanisms at play within the US are either absent or markedly different in the UK, of course, but the essential dynamics 
of a market-based economy that has developed unequally and resulted in significant place-based disparities are 
comparable. With some creative thought and concerted stewardship, the UK could also become a leader in leveraging 
private finance to address local challenges. It could also learn from the shortcomings of the US’s experience activating 
private partners to improve local outcomes, which has in some cases led to instability, gentrification and imperfect 
incentives for overcoming market failures.9 
In order to recreate the positive relationships that US banks and financial institutions have with places within the UK 
context, a UK bank would need to meaningfully and considerably reshape and restructure its own approach. The key 
attributes of the US system include: 
	
ā
A market-based development model: The kind of approach to local economic growth that has been led by financial 
institutions in the US has been rooted in a community and its existing assets, rather than built from a transaction.
	
ā
Well-rounded and embedded priorities: US financial institutions are often highly specific in terms of geographic 
targeting and intended outcomes. They then bring the weight of their whole organisation to bear on these priorities, 
mobilising corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives and philanthropic spending alongside new and existing 
business activities to achieve them.
	
ā
Collaborative working: mainstream financial institutions work extensively with and through delivery intermediaries 
such as CDFIs and social enterprises, recognising that in some circumstances and/or localities, they do not have 
the required expertise or reach. Successful place-based interventions in the US bring together a broad coalition of 
voices and actors, beyond just bilateral relationships between financial institution and local government. 
	
ā
Public sector capacity and capability: local government is more accustomed to attracting private capital to their 
projects. There are experienced public sector practitioners working on commercially viable business plans, which 
results in increased flow of viable, investable deals.
	
ā
Use of public subsidy: US financial institutions rely heavily on public subsidy in various forms to deliver their place-
based impact investments.
US legislation has been specific about focusing the resources of US financial institutions on historically underserved 
areas. While this was initially seen by many as a regulatory ‘must-do’, it uncovered profit-making opportunities for banks in 
areas in which they were not previously active. The approach has not been without challenges – finding the right incentive 
structures and protections for places are real concerns. But while the policy and regulatory context is different, the US 
experience reveals real potential for financial institutions to take a role in placemaking and regeneration.
13
Building Strong Places: a new, impactful role for financial institutions
2. Regeneration and placemaking: the opportunity for a new approach

3.	 Activating place-based impact 
	
investing in the UK
Place-based impact investing (PBII) is a promising approach with potential to address interregional inequalities and 
systemic challenges, for instance the climate crisis, in the UK. This section sets out success factors identified through the 
course of exploring three pathfinder examples (Birmingham, Leeds and Liverpool) with Lloyds Banking Group. 
The success factors primarily inform the ‘deciding’ and ‘design’ stages of a PBII relationship, as none of the pathfinders 
reached full ‘delivery’ during the course of this study. They include points around the building of trust and long-term 
relationships; establishing momentum and a shared mission; understanding place; and leveraging cross-sector skills and 
expertise. 
Place-based impact investment: an approach to regional development
A defining characteristic of low income communities and regions is historic under-investment. The reasons for this under-
investment are complex, including skills shortages, the absence of business and industrial clusters, and low regional 
incomes, resulting in an apparent shortage of investable opportunities. Among many interventions, redressing inequality 
between regions requires creating the conditions for increased investment. The experience from the United States points 
to the opportunity for a more active role for financial services in achieving this.
Key lessons from the UK’s history of seeking to secure regional development are that these efforts do not lead to 
enduring success where they rely on short term public grant programmes, nor where they focus only on one element of 
what creates a successful region, demonstrated, for instance, by the limitations of property-based investment in driving 
real social change. Addressing previous shortcomings therefore requires crafting an approach that increases sustained 
investment across the various needs of regions.
The role of the public sector in regeneration appeared to shift around the early 2000s from “principal financier to...
facilitator, creating the conditions necessary to attract enhanced levels of private sector investment”.10 Private finance 
has therefore had a significant and direct role in regeneration for some time. However, mainstream UK financial institutions 
have typically funded regeneration on a transactional basis without participating actively in shaping solutions, with the 
performance of investments overwhelmingly measured by financial return alone.
In the case of most UK national banks, geography is used as a method of corporate organisation, but place itself is not 
generally a consideration when it comes to investment capacity and allocation decisions. However, while banks may not 
yet be explicit or intentional about delivering positive impact in a place, they are active in delivering major investment to 
communities around the UK. For example, since 2018, Lloyds Banking Group has helped over 265,000 business start-ups, 
funded energy efficiency improvements on 19.1m sq. ft. of commercial real estate and delivered close to £9bn of finance 
for the social housing sector.11 
14
Building Strong Places: a new, impactful role for financial institutions
3. Activating place-based impact investing in the UK

So, while most financial institutions are already invested in regions across the UK, that investment is typically the result 
of standard and relatively place-agnostic transactions rather than a holistic and place-specific approach. There have been 
some selective examples of UK financial institutions focussing on places, for instance the English Cities Fundiv, which 
focuses on regeneration in specific cities via large-scale urban regeneration projects. However, intentionally targeting 
specific UK towns, cities and regions for investment would represent a change in how financial transactions are sourced 
and prioritised for most mainstream UK financial institutions, especially high street banks. 
In approaching place-based financing, there are important strands that can be drawn from the emerging field of impact 
investment. Where traditional finance’s primary purpose is to maximise financial return, impact investing seeks to achieve 
both financial and social and environmental outcomes. Impact investing is differentiated as an investment practice by: 
intentionality (actively seeking an identified societal and/or environmental outcome); measurement (in a transparent 
manner); and additionality (unlocking investment beyond a business as usual approach). 
We define place-based impact investing as lending and investment with the intention to yield financial returns as well as 
positive local social, and environmental impact, with a focus on addressing the specific needs of places and populations to 
enhance local economic prosperity and support sustainable development. It is differentiated not only by intentionality and 
additionality, but also by the emphasis on place-specific opportunities. Table 2 describes features of the PBII approach, but 
it is neither a prescriptive nor an exhaustive list. In practice, PBII will look different in different places, and various financial 
institutions will activate different tools and methods to embed the approach.
Table 2. Possible features of the PBII approach
Intentional investment in the needs 
of a place
Local partnership and engagement
Additionality, beyond business-as-
usual
	
ā
Intention to create positive 
impact in a particular place 
alongside financial return.
	
ā
Portfolio investment that 
links the inter-dependent and 
mutually reinforcing set of 
priorities and transactions 
that make successful places 
and improve outcomes for 
low income, disadvantaged or 
excluded groups. 
	
ā
Impact measurement, 
transparency, and information 
sharing linked to impact as 
well as financial goals.
	
ā
A clearly defined place and 
objective (or set of objectives), 
based on understanding of 
local economic character and 
need. 
	
ā
Leadership and buy-in from 
the place being targeted; 
including local representation 
and stakeholder and/or 
community engagement. 
	
ā
Collaboration that emphasises 
long-term impact, bringing 
together the right institutional 
as well as place-based 
partners.
	
ā
Financial institutions working 
alongside local partners 
as a problem solver and 
innovator, with impact goals or 
objectives informed by local 
needs as well as institutional 
appetite. 
	
ā
Crowding in other funders, 
projects, and transactions 
into local priorities as the 
relationship matures; perhaps 
aligning with complementary 
Government funds, financial 
products, and initiatives.
At the core of the PBII approach is a relationship between a financial institution and place. That partnership could take 
a number of forms, from informal knowledge exchange to formalised organisational commitments, and in practice could 
also call on other experts and partners. Done right, the PBII relationship in effect becomes a ‘shared space’ which brings 
together relevant partners with the language, tools and access to progress the approach and create real impact in places. 
iv English Cities Fund is a joint venture between Homes England, Legal & General, and Muse Developments, founded with an initial investment of £100 
million and a mission to form long-term relationships with places to deliver complex and successful urban regeneration projects. 
15
Building Strong Places: a new, impactful role for financial institutions
3. Activating place-based impact investing in the UK

Opportunities to invest in places can be found across sectors and asset classes, with key sectors standing out as capable 
of delivering risk-adjusted market returns while addressing the needs of places across the UK (figure 2).v 
Figure 2. Key sectors for PBII activity
v These categories build on the PBII conceptual model developed by The Good Economy by including social infrastructure as a key sector for 
transformative investment by private sector partners. This reflects further development by The Good Economy as well as pathfinder engagement with 
places.
Having ‘place’ as an organising principle for investment activity, rather than sector or product lines, challenges traditional 
ways of working in mainstream lending. But most UK banks are already actively participating in these sectors, and 
therefore the characteristics of most prospective investments will be familiar. Generally, the relevant sectors have real, 
income-generating assets providing stable returns. 
A key element of success will be attracting the right combination of capital to places, including the right combination of 
equity, long-term patient capital and appropriate SME financing. 
The UK’s high street banks are underutilised but natural partners for this agenda. They are spread across the UK, with 
locally rooted and knowledgeable staff with the experience and connections to invest more effectively in local areas. The 
range of financing tools and products they offer make them well situated to use PBII to enhance the impact delivered by 
their core business. 
By engaging in PBII, financial institutions could benefit from future-proofed investments, opportunities to build stronger 
and more enduring client relationships, and investment opportunities that have been specifically shaped to maximise 
their potential. Places will benefit from increased investment and agency, and the creation of more environmentally and 
financially sustainable communities. The opportunity of PBII is mutually reinforcing: financial institutions can create new 
markets for commercially viable investment that generate social benefits, while places gain access to previously untapped 
capital to fund transformational regeneration without over-reliance on grants.
Housing: social and affordable housing as well as quality rental accomodation across the 
range of tenures.
Business finance: including start-ups, SMEs, manufacturing and high-growth businesses.
Clean energy: large schemes and community-based energy.
Infrastructure: covering transport and digital infrastructure and connectivity as well as 
enabling schemes.
Physical regeneration: mixed use and community regeneration and high street renewal.
Social infrastructure: including health, community facilities and social enterprises.
16
Building Strong Places: a new, impactful role for financial institutions
3. Activating place-based impact investing in the UK

Exploratory efforts in place-based impact investing
PBII is not yet a mainstream approach in the UK, making it difficult to evidence and explore within existing corporate, 
legal and regulatory, and financial structures. It is clear, however, that it will require a new approach to collaboration, risk, 
services and products. This research has explored PBII via a practical case study with Lloyds Banking Group and three 
pathfinder places—Birmingham, Leeds, and Liverpool—over the course of six months from May to October 2021. 
Figure 3. Three pathfinder cities and their relative deprivation by IMD decile scores
Source: Metro Dynamics analysis of ONS English Index of Multiple Deprivation (2019)
In each place, the project team (Lloyds Bank, the Impact Investing Institute, and Metro Dynamics) has been working side-
by-side with the city’s staff, led by City Council Chief Executives, to identify demonstrator projects: those that either 
are not currently being funded, or where an impact investing approach could create enhanced social and environmental 
benefits. On the basis of existing relationships and networks, each city’s engagement during this project was focused, at 
this stage, at the city council level.
An initial scoping period in each place explored their appetite to engage, with high interest demonstrated by each. The 
places identified priority areas where a new approach could unlock significant local benefit; the partners then explored 
further to see whether these specific opportunities could be activated. All pathfinders revealed that enhanced interactions 
with the banking sector, matched with product and service innovation, could drive great local social value as well as 
financial return. A clear theme running through all of the pathfinders was an emphasis on unlocking capital to address local 
social and economic needs while at the same time environmentally sustainable solutons – creating futureproofed and 
resilient places that boost future inclusive economic growth.
17
Building Strong Places: a new, impactful role for financial institutions
3. Activating place-based impact investing in the UK

In Birmingham, the partnership has been working with the City Council’s new Chief Executive and Rapid Policy Unit 
to assess and engage with a diverse portfolio of projects based in East Birmingham. The East Birmingham approach 
contains a range of projects comprising capital projects in physical development and transport, as well as people-focused 
interventions in health, skills, and education. The linked projects aim to reconnect this deprived part of the city with the 
growth and opportunity that the city region is experiencing overall.
Early discussions explored how a PBII partnership could activate people-focused interventions, for instance community 
health facilities. These are still possibilities. But early engagement has demonstrated that capital projects tend to be easier 
to engage with. Banks are generally more experienced in this area and have pre-existing financing models that are more 
easily transferable to capital projects which incorporate enhanced ESG aims.
“
This project has come at a great time as we are strongly promoting the levelling up agenda 
and exploring new avenues to generate impact in deprived parts of the City. The East 
Birmingham approach specifically is primed for co-development and investment, with 
potential to unlock meaningful benefits for residents now and long into the future. Our hope 
is that through further engagement with Lloyds, we can activate a portfolio of projects that 
will together catalyse regeneration through the whole of the area.
Deborah Cadman, Chief Executive, Birmingham City Council
18
Building Strong Places: a new, impactful role for financial institutions
3. Activating place-based impact investing in the UK

In Leeds, the partnership has been exploring new ways to finance housing and related infrastructure in the city centre. 
The benefits being pursued in Leeds include: accelerated delivery, cohesion between an otherwise disparate group of 
developers, connection with regional funds, and greater diversity of type and tenure of homes in order to better address 
local needs. The partnership is considering: incentives for developers to commit to delivering to higher impact outcomes, 
a blended finance model, ways to measure the impacts of social infrastructure that would enable the partnership to 
articulate the resultant savings to the public pursevi, and accelerating the typical housing delivery cycle by providing 
projects with financial consistency. 
vi One methodology for the consistent measurement, management and reporting of social value, for example, is the National Social Value Measurement 
Framework by the Social Value Portal. (Link)
“
We see great potential for working with financial institution partners to activate 
regeneration projects in Leeds given that the sustainable funding of projects with social as 
well as economic value is critical to their success. There’s more to be done to advance the 
operational specifics of the relationship, but we’ve already learned from Lloyds and working 
across our team, and as a result can see how we will be better positioned to articulate the 
social impacts we are prioritising to a private sector partner in the future.
Tom Riordan, Chief Executive, Leeds City Council
19
Building Strong Places: a new, impactful role for financial institutions
3. Activating place-based impact investing in the UK

In Liverpool, the partnership has been working to co-develop a number of opportunities. While exploring the potential for 
a new approach to domestic retrofit, the partnership is also looking at how to accelerate a stalled physical regeneration 
scheme, as well as learning more about the local business ecosystem. 
The retrofit programme would incentivise private owners to carry out housing retrofit through a neighbourhood approach 
that would be scalable throughout the city and the UK – this would require complementary Government policy and 
regulatory support. The pilot being explored would be replicable throughout the UK, but is well-placed to begin in Liverpool 
by building on their new City Plan.12 The scale of ambition and acceptance of risk that Lloyds Bank, Liverpool City Council, 
and partners are demonstrating—even in the exploratory exercise—is demonstrative of the types of opportunities and 
approaches that a PBII partnership could reveal in practice. 
“
Liverpool’s post-pandemic recovery is rooted in our communities, led by a deeper 
understanding of the varying needs and challenges that we face across this dynamic city 
of ours. Our recent engagement with Lloyds has helped us model this approach on housing 
stock and community energy, testing us on viability and deliverability in a constructive way. 
We hope the challenge will result in a transformational neighbourhood approach that reflects 
sound economic development and commercial principles. This is exciting partnership working.
Tony Reeves, Chief Executive, Liverpool City Council
20
Building Strong Places: a new, impactful role for financial institutions
3. Activating place-based impact investing in the UK

PBII success factors 
On the basis of the early experience, the partnership has begun to identify success factors that will influence further 
exploration and embedding of the PBII approach.
	
ā
The quality of the relationship, defined by trust, honesty and a long-term commitment.  
Activating a new approach is labour-intensive, requiring top-down will and direction, plus bottom-up buy-in 
and capacity. This is true on a system-wide level as well as within organisations. This will involve multi-lateral, 
collaborative project co-design and implementation, a way of working which will require supportive internal 
processes in partner organisations. The balance of early wins (establishing momentum) with long-term commitment 
(ensuring follow-through) is an important one which should be actively managed throughout the relationship. 
	
ā
A clear and shared understanding of place, including local challenges and priorities.  
Understanding local stakeholders, governance arrangements, operational structures and political cycles will provide 
insight as to the institutions with which to partner, the teams and individuals with which to work within those, and 
any limitations to decision-making and autonomy that may affect the relationship. The ecosystem of local economic 
development is complex and organic, so there is benefit to focusing on outcomes while adapting to local needs that 
change over time. Priorities should be shaped around local need, and the stronger the place’s pre-existing vision, the 
more mature the partnership with and impact of the financial institution’s involvement is likely to be.
	
ā
The right capabilities and capacity in both places and financial institutions.  
The need for all partners to have the capacity to engage in sustained and creative problem-solving throughout 
the relationship, demonstrated through time from leaders as well as across teams. Developing this approach is 
labour-intensive for both financial institutions and local partners, and the commitment should not be made lightly. 
Structuring the relationship around a clear vision or objectives can help inform the types of time and resource that 
should be allocated. The capacity and resource to better assess certain investment risks, combined with an appetite 
to test and learn, will be essential to the banking sector accessing and providing finance to riskier (but viable) 
transactions. 
	
ā
Innovation to unlock new financing opportunities by pushing beyond business as usual.   
The value of the PBII approach is in bringing forward transactions that may not have been viable within a business-
as-usual approach. Not every project or opportunity explored will be viable, but an important trait of the PBII 
approach is a mutual willingness to push the boundaries of what is feasible, drawing on the experience and expertise 
of wider teams to create unique solutions. Many of the investments identified in the pilot regions, in particular in low-
income communities, were outside the immediate risk and return constraints of financial institutions. Addressing this 
challenge will be key to unlocking new investment to support regional regeneration. 
During the course of the study, none of the pathfinders reached delivery. The pathfinder projects will continue to progress, 
revealing additional and rich insights for the delivery of a PBII relationship. However, some early indicators highlight 
that there will be important considerations that will test the viability of the approach in practice. These include matters 
such as local authority procurement requirements (necessary for one-off projects, but less so for long-term strategic 
relationships), the financial burden of regulator approval for new financial vehicles, and how non-financial returns can 
be monitored and internalised in an organisation that has no established facility for doing so. The challenge of risk and 
return thresholds indicates a potential role for blended financevii models; the banking sector could also learn from the US 
experience, and collaborate with other, more specialist finance providers.
None of these challenges appear insurmountable, confirming a viable role for mainstream financial institutions in promoting 
place-based regeneration. Government and financial institutions could work together to drive private sector capital to 
places in the UK struggling with historic underinvestment – unlocking tens and even hundreds of billions. 
vii Blended finance relies on use of subsidy, primarily from Government, to reduce the risk a financial institution takes on an investment. Reducing 
the risk of a transaction enables private sector investment to flow more freely to innovative projects or those which are otherwise marginally viable. 
Blended finance models are fairly common in the UK Government’s development finance institutions, targeting positive outcomes alongside financial 
return in developing and emerging markets across the world.
21
Building Strong Places: a new, impactful role for financial institutions
3. Activating place-based impact investing in the UK

4.	 Recommendations: establishing a role 
	
for financial institutions in regeneration
There is a viable role for financial institutions in activating place-based impact investing (PBII) to deliver transformational 
regeneration in places. The report concludes with recommendations for each of these bodies to further develop the 
approach, create evidence of its efficacy and potential, and take pilots through delivery. 
A review of regeneration approaches reveals an opportunity for a more holistic and sustainable approach to deliver finance 
and unlock development in places. The approach has not been taken through to full delivery in any of the pathfinders 
explored, but valuable insights have emerged for Government, financial institutions, and places. Developing a new approach 
for financing regeneration is labour intensive. Activating the potential of PBII to generate social impact in places will require 
leadership, collaboration, and risk-taking. Changing institutional behaviour for any of the entities involved is a challenge, 
and there is a role for all parties. 
Recommendations for Government and policymakers
There is a clear role for Government in facilitating policy change, introducing regulatory encouragement, and funding to de-
risk and incentivise PBII. To advance the PBII agenda, national decision-makers should: 
	
ā
Catalyse private sector capital more actively.  
Deploying tools and incentives to mitigate risk and crowd-in private sector capital. A range of blended finance 
approaches are available including loan guarantees, tax credits, credit enhancements or technical assistance. 
Government should engage with financial institutions and other thought leaders to develop the appropriate tools and 
incentives. 
	
ā
Increase capacity to engage with private investors.  
Supporting the creation of sufficient capacity for places to engage with potential private sector investors, backed 
by a view on the best local organisational structures to enable agile interactions with financing partners. Local 
institutions will need the mandate and resources to co-develop collaborative models of investment and facilitate 
decision-making between Government, communities, and financial institutions.
	
ā
Identify and showcase pioneering PBII pilots.  
Exploring opportunities and challenges for delivery through an initial number of pilots, with evaluation leading to fine-
tuning of the approach. Those pilots could bring together institutions with a known interest and scope for delivering 
the approach with places that have the knowhow and creativity to demonstrate the potential. There may be the 
opportunity to test new local institutional models to facilitate public-private co-operation.
22
Building Strong Places: a new, impactful role for financial institutions
4. Recommendations: establishing a role for financial institutions in regeneration

Recommendations for financial institutions
Financial institutions will need to embark upon a programme of culture change to embed both place and impact in their 
operations. To realise PBII’s potential, financial institutions should: 
	
ā
Commit financial and human resource to the approach.  
Engaging active and visible senior-level support as well as the right specialist resources to develop new funding 
opportunities beyond business as usual. Financial, intellectual and relationship capital will all be necessary to engage 
with regional and local priorities to develop the approach and create new offerings. This is probably not best done by 
creating siloed teams for delivering PBII, instead calling on PBII specialists to work closely with coverage and product 
teams. The approach calls for new products, structures and the capability and capacity for integrated and cross-
institutional collaboration.
	
ā
Focus on a select number of PBII relationships.  
Creating replicable models that can be scaled up as well as transferred to other places. The institution can build 
momentum and a track record that will enable depth (further engagement and place-specific portfolio) then breadth 
(new interactions with more places).
	
ā
Create products and approaches which explicitly enable place partnerships.  
Designing financing models that can overcome barriers and promote enhanced positive impact in places, particularly 
low income and deprived communities. PBII requires new ways of approaching and assessing risk, as well as 
consideration of not only financial returns but also social returns. Moreover, the size of investments can vary from 
traditional thresholds – factors which warrant and reward creative and collective consideration.
Recommendations for places
Places can be represented by a range of actors, with local and regional authorities a good place to start building 
relationships; to do so, places need the capacity and knowhow to meaningfully engage. It would be a mistake to see PBII as 
a solely private sector-led approach with places as reactive. Places can participate fully if they: 
	
ā
Articulate clear development priorities and goals.  
Setting the context for new PBII relationships and engagement, building on existing development strategies. 
Engaging with private sector partners on the basis of place-wide strategy that looks beyond one-off interventions 
and projects. 
	
ā
Focus and commit resource for engagement with private sector partners.  
Building on strategic commitments with appropriate technical and delivery capacity. This capacity and resource are 
necessary to co-develop a shared mission, specific projects and investment models, and then to deliver a long-term 
partnership. 
	
ā
Connect investment with community needs.  
Representing local engagement and requirements while working with new partners. PBII should not result in new 
organisations parachuting into communities to make promises or confuse existing lines of communication. Instead, 
place partners should act as responsible representatives and conduits for local engagement in an emerging PBII 
relationship.
23
Building Strong Places: a new, impactful role for financial institutions
4. Recommendations: establishing a role for financial institutions in regeneration

Conclusion
There is a role for mainstream financial institutions, including our high street banks, in place-based growth and 
regeneration in the UK. This report has set out policy and practical proposals which, if implemented, could deliver more and 
better projects in cities and other areas by creating new forms of investment. 
PBII relationships listen and respond thoughtfully to the needs of places and prioritise positive local social and 
environmental impact alongside appropriate financial return. This report is not a detailed blueprint, but it sets out a way 
forward to achieving these objectives. It is now up to places, financial institutions and the Government to take up the 
challenge.
24
Building Strong Places: a new, impactful role for financial institutions
4. Recommendations: establishing a role for financial institutions in regeneration

References
1.	 RSA. Final Report of the Inclusive Growth Commission. (2017): Link.
2.	 Responsible Finance. CIC Blog: Ethnicity and Financial Exclusion. Link.
3.	 Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research. Regeneration and Poverty: Policy and Practice Review. (2014): 
Link.
4.	 Tallon, Andrew, Urban Regeneration in the UK (2013).
5.	 Heurkens, E., Adams, D. and Hobma, F. (2015) Planners as market actors: The role of local planning authorities in UK’s 
urban regeneration practice. Link. 
Grovesnor. Liverpool One: Ten Years On (2018): Link. 
Nurse. A. City Centre Regeneration to Drive Economic Competitiveness. (2017) 
J. Adjodha (2020). Liverpool One: Megaproject: Link. 
6.	 City Growth Commission. Unleashing Metro Growth: The Final Report of the City Growth Commission. (2012): Link.
7.	 The Good Economy, Pensions for Purpose, and Impact Investing Institute (2021). Scaling Up Institutional Investment 
for Place-Based Impact. Link.
8.	 Stanford Social Innovation Review. Too Good to Fail. (2011): Link.
9.	 Harvey, David (1989). From Managerialism to Entrepreneurialism: The transformation in urban governance in late 
capitalism. Link.
10.	IPF Research Programme (2009). Urban Regeneration: Opportunities for property investment. Link. 
11.	 Lloyds Banking Group. ESG Report. (2020): Link.
12.	Liverpool City Council (2021). City Plan Liverpool: A thriving, sustainable, fair city for everyone. Link.
25
Building Strong Places: a new, impactful role for financial institutions
References

www.impactinvest.org.uk
      
www.metrodynamics.co.uk
      
www.lloydsbankinggroup.com   
   