Recent contributions to the policy implementation literature have applied Kingdon's model of ‘policy windows’ to the implementation of policy on health inequalities in the UK, and have identified the key role played by ‘policy entrepreneurs’ at local as well as national level. Despite this, the picture that emerges is of frustration of central policy intentions at the local level, alongside frustration of local aspirations by the centre. This article explores the relationship between central policy and local implementation in the context of a Lottery-funded initiative to develop community cancer care in the UK. We examine the relationships: between the BIG Lottery Fund and central government; between BIG and the cancer care projects it funded; and between the projects and their local economy of cancer care. We found evidence of success both in vertical cascading of policy and in local policy innovation; 83 per cent of projects succeeded in obtaining continuation funding at the end of their Lottery funding. We suggest that this was due, in part, to two features of Lottery funding and accountability that combined to differentiate it from the other policy initiatives studied. They meant that projects were ‘buffered’ not just from national policy churn, but also from competing local priorities. In the ‘protected space’ that was thus formed, ‘street-level policy entrepreneurs’ played a key role in developing cancer care innovations for adoption by mainstream funding agencies