“…low life expectancy, unemployment, crime, housing conditions and affordability) rather than utilising the quantity/quality of local public services as an important factor in the conceptualisation of, and differentiation between, places. This omission is despite consistent official evidence of significant spatial variations across England in the relative performance of local councils (Audit Commission, 2009), and empirical evidence demonstrating that including the quality of public service provision in neighbourhood classifications shakes up conventional conceptions of 'poor' and 'thriving' localities (Hunter, 2010 (Davies and Herbert, 1993), common sense limits (Morris and Hess, 1975), symbolism (Keller, 1968), social relationships (Downs, 1981), shared public spaces (Schoenberg, 1979), or internally/externally recognised and enforced boundaries (Healey, 1998). Whilst contemporary evidence points to the importance of equality in achieving a more desirable society (e.g.…”