Dissertation 2015

The role of public participation in urban regeneration

with emphasis on the case study of Ballymun between

1997 and 2007

Gary Farrelly H00183215

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

MSc Urban and Regional Planning

Dissertation supervisor: Ryan Woolrych

Heriot-Watt University

School of the Built Environment

10th August 2015

Declaration:

I hereby confirm that this dissertation is my own work.

___________________________ ________________

Signature Date

ii

Statement of Authorship

I, Gary Farrelly, confirm that this work submitted for assessment is my own and expressed in my own

words. Any uses made within it of the works of other authors in any form (e.g. ideas, equations,

figures, text, tables, programmes) are properly acknowledged at the point of their use. A full list of

the references employed has been included.

Signed: …………………………..

Date: …………………………..

iii

Table of Contents

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP _________________________________ I

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES ______________________________ VI

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ____________________________________ VII

ABSTRACT _________________________________________________ VIII

1 INTRODUCTION AND CONTENTS ___________________________ 1

1.1 RATIONALE ____________________________________________________________ 1

1.2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ____________________________________________________ 2

1.3 DISSERTATION STRUCTURE ________________________________________________ 3

1.4 RTPI SPECIALISM _______________________________________________________ 3

2 LITERATURE REVIEW _____________________________________ 4

2.1 CHAPTER OVERVIEW _____________________________________________________ 4

2.2 NEOLIBERALISM AND URBAN REGENERATION _________________________________ 4

2.2.1 IRISH PLANNING SYSTEM ____________________________________________ 4

2.2.2 URBAN REGENERATION POLICY AND CONTEXT ___________________________ 5

2.2.3 NEO-LIBERALISM AND THE IMPACT ON PARTICIPATION _____________________ 5

2.3 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION: DEFINITIONS AND UNDERSTANDINGS ________________ 10

2.4 URBAN REGENERATION AND COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION _______________________ 13

2.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY ____________________________________________________ 16

3 METHODOLOGY __________________________________________ 17

3.1 CHAPTER OVERVIEW ____________________________________________________ 17

3.2 IMPORTANCE OF CASE STUDIES ____________________________________________ 17

3.3 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH _________________________________________________ 17

3.4 OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONNAIRES/EMAIL INTERVIEWS ____________________________ 18

iv

3.4.1 COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVE __________________________________________ 18

3.4.2 PROFESSIONAL PERSPECTIVE ________________________________________ 19

3.5 RECRUITMENT SAMPLE __________________________________________________ 19

3.6 LIMITATIONS OF METHODOLOGY ___________________________________________ 20

3.7 CHAPTER SUMMARY ____________________________________________________ 21

4 CASE STUDY: BALLYMUN _________________________________ 22


4.2 OVERVIEW OF BALLYMUN ________________________________________________ 22

4.2.1 HISTORY OF BALLYMUN ___________________________________________ 23

4.2.2 BALLYMUN 1500S-1900S __________________________________________ 23

4.2.3 BALLYMUN DEVELOPMENT (1960S-1990S) _____________________________ 24

4.2.4 BALLYMUN HOUSING SCHEME ______________________________________ 24

4.2.5 SURRENDER GRANT SCHEME ________________________________________ 27

4.2.6 BALLYMUN TASK FORCE ___________________________________________ 27

4.2.7 CRAIG GARDNER / PRICE WATERHOUSE REPORT ________________________ 28

4.3 URBAN REGENERATION OF BALLYMUN (1997-2007) ___________________________ 29

4.3.1 BALLYMUN REGENERATION LIMITED _________________________________ 31

4.3.2 NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUMS _________________________________________ 32

4.3.3 REGENERATION HIGHLIGHTS ________________________________________ 32

4.3.4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ____________________________________________ 36

4.4 POST 2007 ____________________________________________________________ 39

4.4.1 ECONOMIC CRISIS ________________________________________________ 39

4.4.2 POST 2007 TRIUMPHS ______________________________________________ 39

4.5 CRITICISMS ___________________________________________________________ 41

4.6 CHAPTER SUMMARY ____________________________________________________ 43

5 RESEARCH FINDINGS _____________________________________ 45


5.2 RESIDENT’S PERSPECTIVES _______________________________________________ 45

5.3 PROFESSIONAL’S PERSPECTIVES ___________________________________________ 50

5.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY ____________________________________________________ 54

v

6 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ____ 55


6.2 COMMENTS ON RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ______________________________________ 55

6.3 CONCLUSIONS _________________________________________________________ 57

6.4 AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ____________________________________________ 58

REFERENCES _______________________________________________ 59

APPENDICES ________________________________________________ 64

vi

List of Figures and Tables Figure 2.1 Liffey Quays in 1991 6

Figure 2.2 Arnstein’s ladder of participation 12

Figure 2.3 Davidson’s wheel of participation 13

Figure 4.1 Map of Ballymun 22

Figure 4.2 Boundary of Ballymun 23

Figure 4.3 1960s Ballymun flats development 24

Figure 4.4 Ballymun flats in 1970s 25

Figure 4.5 District heating system used from 1960s 26

Figure 4.6 Hallway in 1960s flats 27

Figure 4.7 Boundary of Ballymun area 29

Figure 4.8 Shopping Centre in Ballymun in 1999 30

Figure 4.9 Aerial photo of Ballymun in 1997 30

Figure 4.10 New hotel on Main Street 32

Figure 4.11 New civic centre 33

Figure 4.12 New Garda station 34

Figure 4.13 New leisure centre 34

Figure 4.14 Ballymun Housing estate 35

Figure 4.15 BRL official logo 36

Figure 4.16 Participation structure in regeneration project 37

Figure 4.17 Arts and Community Resource Centre 40

Figure 4.18 IKEA store 41

Figure 4.19 Shopping Centre in 2015 42

Figure 4.20 Old Ballymun flats in 2015 42

Figure 4.21 Ballymun today 43

Figure 4.22 Dublin skyline in 2005 43

Figure 4.23 Tower blocks in 1999 from Ballymun Road 44

Figure 4.24 View from Ballymun Road in 2015 44

Table 3.1 Professional Responses 20

Table 3.2 Resident Responses 20

Table 4.1 1999 profile of Ballymun 31

Table 4.2 Government investment in national regeneration projects 39

vii

Acknowledgements

I would like to take this opportunity to thank a number of people since I began the Urban and

Regeneration course at Heriot Watt University. First of all I would like to thank my family

for all their support throughout the year and when writing this dissertation.

I would also like to thank my dissertation supervisor, Ryan Woolrych for his advice and help

throughout the writing of this dissertation. It was his module, Social Sustainability that really

got me interested in urban regeneration and public participation.

Finally I would like to extend my thanks and gratitude to Mr. Ronan King who was very

helpful in contributing to my research undertaken. I would also like to thank Mr. Ciaran

Murray and all the residents who engaged in the email interviews and questionnaires.

viii

Abstract

The topic of public participation made its first appearance in the planning world in the 1960s

through Arnstein’s Ladder and the Skeffington report.

The purpose of this research dissertation was to critically analyse the extent to which the role

of public participation plays in urban regeneration. Firstly a literature review was undertaken

to see how participation progressed from the 1960s.

Furthermore, the case study of Ballymun in Dublin looked at a particular urban regeneration

programme and gathered the thoughts and issues of both regeneration professionals and

residents to see if participation was in fact seen as important in the process. The community

felt that there were many successes and flaws with the process and that they did participate at

the start but as soon as development occurred their views were dismissed. The regeneration

professionals agreed that there was participation and that participation is vital in order to

achieve a successful outcome.

The research concluded that in order for to be effective participation in urban regeneration

there needs to be trust with the local community. As the regeneration usually occurs

following years of neglect residents have often become disillusioned with the regeneration

process, and it can then be very difficult to rebuild trust with the local community.

Participation should take place throughout the development phase and not just at the start and

the meetings and workshops need to be easy to access and easy to understand.

Key words: public participation, urban regeneration, community, planning

Glossary of Abbreviations

ix

DoEHLG Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government

CSF Community Support Framework

OPLURD Operation Local Urban and Regional Development Programme

UDCs Urban Development Corporation

DC/DCC Dublin Corporation/Dublin City Council

CHDDA Customs House Dock Development Authority

HARP Historic Area Rejuvenation Project

IAP Integrated Area Plan

DDDA Dublin Docklands Development Authority

IFSC International Financial Services Centre

CAA Community Action Agencies

IAP2 International Association for Public Participation

1

1. Introduction and Contents

1.1 Rationale Urban regeneration programmes have attempted to alleviate multiple deprivation in inner city

areas in the UK and Ireland. Since the late 1990’s (under New Labour) the focus of urban

regeneration has been on area based initiatives (ABIs) which have adopted a holistic

approach to addressing urban regeneration in deprived areas focussed on key thematic areas:

health and well-being, employment, education, arts and culture, transport, housing and sports

and leisure. Despite this, research has been critical of urban regeneration practice and the way

in which communities have been involved in the regeneration process (Diamond, 2004).

Indeed, the Department of the Environment (Irish department) has stated that the regeneration

of disadvantaged communities has been driven by the economic and physical transformation

of deprived areas, rather than the development of strong, cohesive and sustainable

communities (Houses of the Oireachtas, 2011).

The lack of community-building is perhaps surprising giving that these aspects have been a

fundamental part of regeneration policy in the UK and Ireland. There has been a focus on

partnership working (between regeneration companies and local authorities etc.) and a

political drive to ensure that local residents are involved actively in the regeneration process

e.g. through meetings with developers, representation on regeneration boards etc. (Craig,

2007). The rationale that underpinned these regeneration programmes, such as the New Deal

for Communities (NDC), was the perception that including local residents in the process

would allow for more sympathetic forms of urban planning and design to emerge, and this

would benefit developments themselves as they would be more directly supporting the needs

of residents.

Public Participation debut in the professional planning literature came in the mid-1960s as the

planning system was becoming frequently challenged due to the physical bias of the system

that had failed to address social and economic problems (Cullingworth & Nadin, 2006).

There was a drive to include local people, reinforced through various national reports and

models of participation e.g. through Arnstein’s ladder and the Skeffington Report. More

recently, in November 2011 the Localism Act (2011) was introduced to devolve more

decision making powers from the central government back into the hands of communities and

councils (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2011). The government

2

called for citizens and communities to have a voice in their local area and called for an

effective, accountable and responsive local government with greater resident participation in

decisions and an enhanced role for community groups. The government’s aim was that every

community should enjoy a better quality of life with employment and education opportunities

for all (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2006).

Whilst there has been a policy drive towards greater public participation, the literature

evaluating public participation within the context of regeneration has been more critical. Both

the quantity and quality of public participation has been criticised for not engaging residents

in the design, implementation and evaluation of regeneration schemes (Woolrych and

Sixsmith, 2012). Whilst a significant body of research has been undertaken in urban

regeneration areas, there has been little attempt to understand the experiences of regeneration

professionals and local residents with regards to the participation agenda. Moreover, there has

been a lack of empirical research identifying how participation has been articulated in

regeneration programmes and to identify barriers and facilitators to delivering public

participation. This is important if we are to learn the lessons from previous urban

regeneration programmes and engage local residents more effectively in the future.

1.2 Aims and objectives To address this gap the aim of this research is to develop an understanding of how public

participation has been articulated within the regeneration case study area of Ballymun,

drawing upon the experiences of both regeneration professionals and local residents.

The aim is underpinned by the following objectives:

To understand how community participation is understood and articulated within

regeneration practice. To address this email interviews were undertaken with

regeneration professionals.

To investigate how urban regeneration practice has facilitated the participation and

engagement of the local community. To address this objective open ended

questionnaires were undertaken with residents of the Ballymun regeneration area.

To make recommendations for how regeneration practice can better support

participation within regeneration practice. This will draw together the key findings of

the research to make recommendations for urban regeneration practice going forward.

3

1.3 Dissertation structure Chapter 2 will provide the results of the literature review through a brief overview to the key

political, theoretical and historical context of participation in Ireland and the UK, drawing

upon theories of neoliberalism and typologies of community participation.

Chapter 3 will provide a strong justification of the methodology that will be used in carrying

out the necessary research and also the recruitment, sample and analysis.

Chapter 4 will provide an overview of the history of Ballymun, with particular focus from

the beginning of the regeneration in 1997 up to 2007 before the financial crisis. This chapter

will examine the achievements and controversies that have surrounded the project.

Chapter 5 will present the findings from the research explained in Chapter 3 supported by

quotations from residents and regeneration professionals as participants in the research.

Finally, Chapter 6 will provide conclusions and recommendations for regeneration practice,

as well as provide recommendations for further study.

1.4 RTPI Specialism Research on the role of public participation in urban regeneration falls under regeneration

which fits within the Environmental Policy and Management specialism which satisfies the

course’s RTPI accreditation requirements. It covers topics such as community involvement,

participation and engagement and physical regeneration. The decision to undertake a study on

public participation in urban regeneration is developed from interests in the Governance,

Participation and Community Planning, Social Sustainability and Planning Theories modules.

Concepts from these three modules such as urban regeneration, governance, neoliberalism

and participation will be combined to develop a critical analysis of current literature with key

research undertaken in Ballymun.

4

2 Literature Review

2.1 Chapter overview The aim of this chapter is to provide a key overview of the notions and concepts that will be

used in the research as a well as provide a policy and practice background to urban

regeneration. To this end, this chapter will outline the urban regeneration context in the UK

and Ireland, identify how community participation and engagement is defined and

understood, explain why these concepts are important within the context of urban

regeneration and identify existing approaches or models to undertaking community

participation and engagement.

2.2 Neoliberalism and Urban Regeneration This section will discuss the role of neoliberalism and how it influenced the UK and Irish

planning system. The second part of this chapter will discuss how community participation is

understood and the role it plays in urban regeneration.

2.2.1 Irish Planning System

To place this study in context, it is firstly important to recognise the Irish planning system

(Republic of Ireland) as it differs from the UK. Ireland’s planning system is regulated by the

Planning and Development Act, 2000 which consolidates all previous planning legislation

and the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations (Bartley et all, 2007). This legislation

incorporates new ideas on governance and is more ambitious and demanding than previous

legislation due to requirements for broader involvement through public-decision making and

more inclusive public participation in the planning process through enhanced public

consultation (Bartley et all, 2007).

The academic debate regarding public participation in urban regeneration is not as well as

developed in Ireland than in the United Kingdom, where there has been more research carried

out on it. However British policy debates and practice have greatly influenced Ireland. Like

Britain, there was a real power imbalance between community and statutory interests within

partnerships (Muir, 2004). The closeness of the two systems can be seen because of the

growth of Neo-Liberalism in the UK and resultantly in Ireland. Neo-Liberalism is “a theory

of political economic practices that propose that human well-being can best be advanced by

5

liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institution framework

characterized by strong private property rights, free markets and free trade” (Harvey, 2005,

p.2).

2.2.2 Urban Regeneration Policy and context

In recent years (1986-present), Irish and UK urban planning has undergone major

transformation. Ireland witnessed the introduction of central government urban renewal

initiatives, the formation of urban regeneration authorities and the increasing use of public-

private partnerships in social-housing regeneration. Many of these developments have offered

new opportunities for disadvantaged urban communities to participate in the regeneration of

their areas and influence planning decisions. However, the extent to which successful

community participation has been achieved is highly questionable (MacLaran et. all, 2007).

In 1986, the Irish government introduced its first major piece of urban regeneration policy in

the form of the 1986 Urban Renewal Act (Brudell & Attuyer, 2014). The main objective of

this was to promote urban redevelopment by providing generous tax incentives to stimulate

private investment in areas that would remain undeveloped if it was not for public-sector

intervention. During the first decade of renewal, emphasis was placed on the physical

element of regeneration, while a broader approach that would have incorporated a range of

socio-economic factors such as job creation and public investment was rejected because of

the poor state of the public’s finances at the time (Brudell & Attuyer, 2014). This tax-led

approach was unlikely to address the problems of local communities as many of the

developers main desire would be to maximise profits.

In the UK, in 1998, Tony Blair’s Labour Government launched an ambitious Area Based

Initiative (ABI) called New Deal for Communities (Lawless, 2007) which aimed to tackle

social exclusion and promote sustainable and cohesive communities (Woolrych & Sixsmith,

2012). Area based urban regeneration programmes also received significant investment in

Ireland in the 1990s. By 2007, there were 23 separate national programmes. In the early

1990s, the EU funded the Community Support Framework (CSF) which had 9 operational

frameworks including the Local Urban and Rural Development (OPLURD) programme

which aimed to tackle disadvantage by providing community support. OPLURD set up

partnership companies to co-ordinate the delivery of local action plans (Houses of the

Oireachtas, 2011).

6

2.2.3 Neo-Liberalism and the impact on participation

For almost thirty years, design and planning has been seduced by an agenda which has aimed

to put the market at the heart of economic life (MacLaran & Kelly, 2014). Neoliberalism is a

set of ideas and a theory of economic practices which state that human well-being is best

advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedom and skills in an institutional

framework characterised by strong property rights, free markets and free trade (Harvey,

2005). The term “liberating” here does not mean freedom but removing investment barriers to

allow the conditions where profits can be maximised (MacLaran & Kelly, 2014).

The 1970s and 1980s in Ireland, and in particular in Dublin, was a pessimistic time for the

economy. Unemployment in the capital more than doubled from 36,500 in 1981 to 82,000 by

1987 (MacLaran & Kelly, 2014). By the middle of the decade over 45% of the construction

industry were unemployed. There were derelict sites emerging in the city including the Liffey

Quays (as shown in figure 2.1), dilapidated buildings, boarded up properties and an

atmosphere of political apathy (McDonald, 2015).

Figure 2.1: Liffey Quays in 1991. Source: http://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-photographs-1515545-

Jun2014/

Whilst the population was actually continuing to grow, the residential population of the inner

city was being reduced dramatically as a result of slum clearance programmes accompanied

with suburban housing developments constructed by local authorities and private-sector

developers. By 1985 the social housing areas of Dublin, including Ballymun, had rates of

over 80% unemployment (MacLaran & Kelly, 2014).

http://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-photographs-1515545-Jun2014/

http://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-photographs-1515545-Jun2014/

7

The neo-liberal politics being pursued in the UK and the US at the time influenced the

political agenda in the 1980’s in Ireland. The adoption of neoliberal ideals initially happened

at a national-government scale through the relaxation of state controls and the privatisation of

key public sector companies (Hearne, 2011). As a result of this ’neoliberal turn’ in Ireland,

the State turned away from a highly bureaucratic to a more entrepreneurial system and this

was evident in the government’s urban regeneration policy (MacLaran and Kelly, 2014).

From the mid-1980s property based tax incentives for renewal were introduced in certain

areas in Dublin and in rural areas across Ireland. The main aim was to boost employment and

profits through the construction sector. The legislation provided for;

• 50% capital allowances for investors in the construction or reconstruction of

commercial buildings

• An annual tax allowance amounting to two times the value of rent paid by the new

occupiers of new or refurbished properties

• A remission of property tax for a ten year period

• Tax allowances for landlord investors in privately rented properties allowing them to

offset construction costs against rental income (MacLaran & Kelly, 2014)

These incentives were very generous and inevitably created a boom in office property

development in the city, which in just two years increased the stock of office space by 20%

(MacLaran & Kelly, 2014). During the late 1990’s public-private sector partnerships for

social housing renewal became an important element of the national government and local

government policy (Hearne, 2011).

The Irish government adopted the concept of the ‘Urban Development Corporations’ (UDCs)

which were used in UK cities and were created to facilitate and hasten urban regeneration in

the country. The first major regeneration programme was of the Docklands. Planning powers

were seized from Dublin Corporation (now Dublin City Council or DCC) and given to the

Custom House Dock Development Authority (CHDDA), who were given the responsibility

of overseeing the redevelopment of the docklands (MacLaran & Kelly, 2014). The CHDAA

received generous incentives such as 100% capital allowances for business premises and

regarding residential properties, landlords could off-set the cost of new premises against

rental income from all sources. For new social housing developments, reliance was placed on

the private sector and indirectly on the buyers of newly constructed housing. According to the

8

Planning Act (2000) it made all private-sector residential developments of more than four

units have an allocation of at least 20% of the site for social housing. As a result of these

initiatives the regeneration moved at a fast pace yet with little public involvement (MacLaran

& Kelly, 2014).

The effective influence of the public in urban planning was diminished with the creation of

‘special-purpose agencies’ which fast tracked development planning, bypassing public

consultation (MacLaran & Kelly, 2014). From the mid-1990s, initial changes towards greater

public consultation marked the first phase of the Historic Area Rejuvenation Project (HARP),

located west of O’Connell Street in the Smithfield area. DCC prepared a framework plan,

with most funds coming from the EU but also limited funds from the local authority (DCC)

itself. The regeneration project involved participation from the local community, the City

Enterprise Board, An Taisce (the Irish National Trust) and other agencies (MacLaran &

Kelly, 2014). A Steering Committee was created to oversee the project, but it became an

arena for growing conflict between the local residents and the neo-liberal DCC regarding the

intensity of the scale of redevelopment in the Smithfield area and characterised the fractious

relationships between local residents and urban regeneration professionals (MacLaran &

Kelly, 2014).

The economic boom of the 1990s created a strong demand for land, creating a property-

development boom that would transform Dublin’s inner city. Furthermore, the 1990s

witnessed the development of numerous residential schemes to house the ever growing

workforce. A 1996 KPMG study found that this tax led property-led approach to renewal had

been a success in stimulating private investment and in the physical renewal of inner city

areas of Irish cities and towns by focussing on dereliction and dilapidation (Brudell &

Attuyer, 2014). However the study criticised its lack of social concern direction and the

absence of local input from residents. It was concluded that the state’s urban renewal

programmes failed to establish democratic legitimacy among the local communities living in

those designated areas (Brudell & Attuyer, 2014). With regards to the Dockland’s

regeneration, it criticised it because of the exclusion of the local government from the project

and the lack of regeneration benefits accruing to local residents.

“As far as Dublin City Council are concerned, it’s easier to ask forgiveness than

request permission” (Smith, 2004 [taken from MacLaran, 2008]).

9

After this report the Department of the Environment and Local Government published

guidelines for a new urban-renewal scheme moving away from a reliance on property related

tax incentives to solving the problems of declining areas through an Integrated Area Plan

(IAP) (as recommended by the consultants) (Brudell & Attuyer, 2014). The objective was to

bring the economic, social and environmental regeneration the same importance as physical

renewal, whilst supposedly emphasising the importance of partnership-working with local

residents (Brudell & Attuyer, 2014)).

The emergence of Dublin as one of the most entrepreneurial cities in Europe by the mid-

2000s can be seen as a result of Dockland’s change to the IAP. The Dublin Docklands

Development Authority (DDDA) embraced the new partnership model in 1997. The new

masterplan of the docklands included proposals for the social, economic and holistic

regeneration of the docklands area. This demonstrated a shift in thinking to a more mixed and

adaptive entrepreneurial approach to city development. The approach is a mixture of neo-

liberal economic policies and EU social partnership policies designed to promote social

inclusion (Moulaert et.all. 2003).

However, in 2007 the financial crisis caused the loss of jobs from the construction sector and

associated professional activities which was caused by a combination of overdevelopment of

housing and an unregulated banking sector. The peak output of housing occurred in 2006

with the number of houses completed totalling over 90,000 units (Williams & Redmond,

2014). According to the central statistics office, housing vacancies in 2006 totalled 266,331

units (15% of total stock). As the economy and the banking sector were so closely linked to

the construction industry, the impact of the virtual termination of construction services in

2009 was severe. (Williams & Redmond, 2014).

Today the economy is more buoyant and the city is on its way back to becoming one of the

most entrepreneurial cities in Europe again. The docklands is home to the International

Financial Services Centre (IFSC) which has over 500 firms situated there and contributes

7.4% of total Irish GDP (IFSC, 2015). The centre contributes almost €2.1bn to the Irish

Exchequer and, according to a 2010 report, comprises 5% of all EU 27 cross-border financial

services activity. The Irish government sees the IFSC as the driving force behind the physical

renewal of the north inner city (IFSC, 2015).

10

2.3 Community Participation: Definitions and Understandings

“Citizen Participation is like eating spinach, no one is against it in principle

because it is good for you” (Arnstein, p. 216, 1969).

The involvement and participation of the public in the planning system dates back to the

late 1960s with the publication of two influential documents, the Skeffington Report and

Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation (Cullingworth & Nadin, 2006). At this time,

many believed the planning system was failing to address economic and social problems

and as a result changes were made in the statutory planning procedures alongside the

publication of the Skeffington Report in 1969 (Cullingworth & Nadin, 2006). One of the

key assumptions of the Skeffington Report was that if there was meaningful and effective,

proper public participation then public resentment to planning would go away. Back then

this was at a time when planning was very unpopular with many members of the public

as many believed there was a “we” and “they” attitude where the members of the public

would be at the “mercy” of the planners (Damer & Hague, 1971, p.221) (it could be

argued that this has not changed).

The Skeffington Report “concentrated on the cumbersome and inefficient nature of the

pre-1963 planning machinery at the expense of a movement from a representative

democracy towards a more participatory political system” (Damer & Hague, 1971, p.

230). The report identified evidence that shows increasing numbers among the public

demanding more power to make contributions to planning but where the public were not

making any meaningful contribution to policy formation (Damer & Hague, 1971).

Cullingworth and Nadin (2006) were critical of the Skeffington report stating that the

report made some clear and ‘rather obvious’ recommendations regarding involving the

public but did not go far enough in terms of making radical policy changes. Cullingworth

and Nadin (2006) further explain how Skeffington’s proposals to appoint “community

development officers to secure the involvement of those people who do not join

organisations” and for “community forums” had very little impact at the time

(Cullingworth & Nadin, 2006, p.432). At around the same time in the United States,

efforts were also being made to address public participation within the context of urban

development.

11

Sherry Arnstein stated that public participation (“citizen involvement”) was a categorical

term for citizen power (Arnstein, 1969). She describes it as the redistribution of power

which enables the “have not citizens”, that are excluded or disenfranchised from the

political and economic environment, to have the opportunity to be engaged moving

forward (Arnstein, 1969). However, in 1969 Arnstein found that successful public

participation was not straightforward. Arnstein explained that there was participation but

without redistribution of power and decision-making responsibilities there was little

opportunity for actual change. Arnstein supported this assertion by identifying the lack of

effective participation “in most of the thousands” of Community Action Plans in the US

at the time (Arnstein, 1969, p. 217). Thus, effective participation goes beyond more

information sharing or consultation events, and must include opportunities for influencing

change.

As a result Arnstein created eight levels of public participation to analyse this issue (as

shown in figure 2.2), which highlights the fundamental differences between the power

holders and citizens. The bottom two rungs of the ladder highlight non-participation. The

objectives of (1) Manipulation and (2) Therapy are not to enable people to participate in

planning or conducting programs but to allow power holders to “educate” or “cure” the

participants. An example of manipulation were the Community Action Agencies (CAAs)

which were created structures called “neighbourhood councils” or “neighbourhood

advisory groups” which actually had no legitimate function or power (Arnstein, 1969).

The CAAs were only in existence to show that people were involved in the process and

were therefore a tokenistic form of participation (Arnstein, 1969).

Next on the ladder is (3) Informing and (4) Consultation. Here citizens are being heard

but under these conditions they lack the power to ensure that their views will be acted

upon by decision-makers. Rung (5) Placation is a high level form of tokenism. It allows

the “have-nots” (people excluded from the political and economic processes) to have an

advisory role but the power holders still have the final say when it comes to decision

making. After placation are levels of citizen power with increasing degrees of decision

making influence. (6) Partnership allows citizens to engage in negotiations and enables

them to trade-off with the power holders. (7) Delegated Power and (8) Citizen Control

allow the ‘have-not’ citizens obtain the majority of decision making seats or even have

total power (Arnstein, 1969).

12

Figure 2.2: the eight rings on Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation (Arnstein, 1969).

Since Arnstein’s ladder of participation, a number of guidelines have been developed to

further develop the participation agenda. In 1990, an international organisation for public

participation, IAP2 (International Association for Public Participation), was set up to

improve the practice of public participation in relation to individuals, governments,

institutions, and other entities that effect the public’s interest in nations throughout the

world. IAP2’s membership is worldwide and offers a number of diverse training courses

for public participation practitioners. IAP2 have a set of core values which include (IAP2,

2012):

Public participation includes the promise that the public’s contribution will

influence the decision

It promotes sustainable decisions recognising and communicating the needs and

interests of all participants, including the decision makers

Those who are affected by the decision have a right to be involved in the decision

making process

Participants will be communicated with on how their input effected the decision

13

In Scotland, the ‘Wheel of Participation’ (as shown in figure 2.3) was developed by South

Lanarkshire Council in 1998 to encourage effective participation techniques (Davidson,

1998). This recognised a key limitation of the Arnstein ladder; the assumption that

residents needed to reach the top rung of the ladder before genuine participation could be

achieved. Unlike Arnstein’s ladder which aims for necessary levels of community

empowerment, the wheel promotes the appropriate level of community involvement to

achieve clear objectives, without suggesting that the objective is always to climb the

ladder (Davidson, 1998).

Figure 2.3: Davidson’s wheel of participation (Davidson, 1998)

2.4 Urban regeneration and community participation

“If there is a collective effort between the regeneration company, public sector

agencies and the local community, with the local authority as drivers of change, there

can be successful sustainable regeneration” (Woolrych & Sixsmith, 2012).

Research has shown that if the public are given a voice and an enhanced role in decision

making it can lead to an increased sense of autonomy and togetherness among residents.

14

Woolrych and Sixsmith (2012) stated that involving the public in the design of regeneration

programmes can have a significant influence in the achievement of its long term goals. It

would increase the likelihood of initiatives being adopted and sustained by local residents as

there would be an increase sense of community and ownership (Woolrych and Sixsmith,

2012).

In the UK, much research on participation in urban regeneration programmes have been

critical. Woolrych and Sixsmith (2012) explain that many local residents experience feelings

of apathy, disillusionment and disengagement as a result of their views and perspectives not

being heard by the professional community (Woolrych & Sixsmith, 2012).

For participation to be effective it is dependent upon the extent to which the local community

are engaged with to shape their own urban environment. Consultation is not in itself enough

as it does not provide the mechanisms through which meaningful change can be facilitated.

There needs to be co-operation as well, as it means that communities are listened to and are

working at the heart of the regeneration programme.

One important facilitator for effective engagement is the willingness from both regeneration

professionals and local residents to be engaged in the decision-making process. Woolrych

and Sixsmith’s (2012) paper involves interviews with regeneration professionals in the

Northwest of England and their view regarding delivering community involvement in their

jobs. One interesting point raised was that some professionals believed that there was an

absence of a culture of engagement and participation which impacted on the enthusiasm of

regeneration professionals to create partnerships with communities. Some professionals

believed that there was a “lack of enthusiasm” among local residents making successful

participation “impossible” (Woolrych and Sixsmith, 2012). One professional also explained

that they did try and engage with people by inviting the community to meetings but “the

problem is that no one shows up, then when they build something people do show up and

complain about it” (Woolrych and Sixsmith, 2012). However the reason residents might not

engage might not be down to enthusiasm but perhaps a reaction to the negative participation

that has been undertaken in the past.

Another important factor for participation to be effective is that the regeneration professionals

need to be properly trained to acquire the skills necessary to engage with the local residents

effectively. Budgets are often not spend on professionals (for example, training programmes)

to acquire the skills necessary to engage with the public as they were not seen as a priority

15

which as a result undermined the importance of participation and engagement in the

regeneration agenda (Woolrych and Sixsmith, 2012).

An example of effective participation is taken from work by IAP2 in Edmonton Canada

(IAP2, 2012). In Canada, through IAP2, the City of Edmonton conducted three location-

based community workshops focused on the Chinese and surrounding communities. The

focus was on gaining the involvements of local residents affected by proposals to route an

LRT line through Edmonton’s China Gate and through the Chinese and surrounding

communities. However the Chinese and surrounding communities felt that they had not been

sufficiently involved and consulted in the development of the proposals of the LRT line

which raised concerns about impacts on the surrounding communities and community

facilities. The city of Edmonton workshops were transparent, encouraging community

members to work in groups to identify the issues and important facilities within the

community. This gave residents involvement on the different design options for the LRT

throughout the area (IAP2, 2012).

The programme was extremely successful and as a result the proposed LRT alignment was

redesigned based on community designs developed at the second workshop. As a result the

majority of the concerns and impacts the residents raised where mitigated (IAP2, 2012). This

successful programme highlights the fundamental reason why consultation with the local

residents should take place before any development occurs.

In contrast, there are many real and lived tensions and conflicts inherent in the promotion of

partnership working and community-led regeneration. For example, a capacity building

initiative in North West England was based around a recently renovated community centre in

an area of high deprivation (Diamond, 2004). Key partners to the initiative were the local

school, a local voluntary group, the regeneration agency (Single Regeneration Budget

imitative), the local further education college and the local social housing company. These

partners had a number of important political tensions between them such as having no shared

view of the ‘capacity building’ model (for community development) being developed with

the local residents. As the local college saw the site as one of its local sites, it took the view

that its outreach programme took importance over other potential users of the community

centre. Also, the SRB wanted the site to be successful, seeing the college’s needs as

secondary (Diamond, 2004).

16

Also, many local residents who sat on the management committee as local representatives felt

that decisions being made were not inclusive of local groups, or they were not addressing

their specific needs. There was also a potential for conflict if the management committee

and/or local groups articulated a different role for the centre. The role of the FE College was

seen as less important to the role of local managers. It was line managed at a distance and as a

result the centre staff did not feel like employees of the college. On the other hand, local

members of the management committee did not feel they could direct the project or assert

their authority (Diamond, 2004).

In conclusion, there does seem to be a real flaw in a process that brings together large and

complex organizations and highly skilled outsiders to manage a local project that is aimed at

developing and supporting local groups whose needs and/or existence may not even be

known or understood by the outsiders brought in to give legitimacy to an initiative. In the

case of the community centre, it is worth noting that all the objectives were met in meeting

the needs of the external funder. However, the local resident’s needs were only partially met

(Diamond, 2004).

2.5 Chapter summary Urban regeneration in Ireland and the UK has been characterised by area-based regeneration

schemes that were introduced during the neoliberal era. Urban regeneration policy and

practice has identified the importance of participation and engagement and partnership-

working in achieving a successful and sustainable end result. However, undertaking effective

participation is fraught with issues and challenges particularly in bringing together local

residents, regeneration professionals and other community partners. The issue of community

participation is further clouded by the lack of understanding about what constitutes effective

participation and engagement and the different ways in which the community wish to be

involved in the regeneration.

17

3 Methodology

3.1 Chapter overview In order to achieve the aim and objectives, this research will adopt a qualitative case study

approach involving open ended questionnaires with community residents and email

interviews with regeneration professionals. This chapter will provide a justification for the

research approach, outline the recruitment strategy and sampling framework and present the

analytical approach to the data analysis. Finally, the limitations of the research will be

clearly outlined.

3.2 Importance of case studies Case study research is a common research method, particularly in the area of urban studies

and community planning. Case studies allow research investigations to focus on a single or

multiple cases. They also retain a holistic and real world perspective (Yin, 2003), allowing

for in-depth and multiple perspectives to be gathered on a single research problem.

Berg (2001) describes case study methods as systemically collecting enough information

about a particular person, event, social setting or group to permit the researcher to effectively

understand how it operates.

The rationale for using case studies in this research is that the approach allows me to examine

the issue of participation and engagement within the context of regeneration, using the

Ballymun regeneration area of Ireland as a case study example. A case study approach will

provide an opportunity to bring in multiple and different perspectives of the research

problem, will provide a specific focus to the study and will allow in-depth understanding of

the research problem to emerge. However there are limitations with using a single case study

approach (these are discussed in section 3.4).

3.3 Qualitative research Qualitative techniques involve capturing insights amongst groups, organisations or

individuals based on real world experiences. Qualitative approaches allow interpretive,

experiential accounts to emerge, providing multiple perspectives on the research area. There

are two broad techniques applied when collecting qualitative research (Creswell, 1994);

18

a) Attitudinal techniques where data is gathered by answering a particular set of

questions based on the individual’s perception and experience.

b) Exploratory techniques is where data is collected verbally through interviews.

There are five features of qualitative research. The first is studying the meaning of people’s

lives under real world conditions. Second, is allowing individuals to express their opinions in

an open-ended format that captures people’s perceptions, attitudes and experiences around

specific events (Yin, 2011). Third, is covering the contextual conditions within which people

live such as social, institutional and environmental conditions. Fourth, is contributing the

insights into current or emerging concepts that may help explain human social behaviour.

Finally, using multiple sources of evidence rather than relying on a single source alone. With

any qualitative research the diversity of the participants and complexity of the field setting

are likely to permit the use of interviews and observations, questionnaires and surveys and

even the inspection of documents and articles with the results based on triangulating the data

from these sources (Yin, 2011).

Qualitative research is being used in this research as it will allow the researcher get an open

and transparent opinion of how and if the public were involved in the regeneration process in

Ballymun. Crucially, qualitative research will give the research an in-depth view of the

process and see what things worked and what things did not. It will also provide the thoughts

of the regeneration professionals in the process.

3.4 Open-ended questionnaires/Email interviews Open-ended questionnaires are one of the most frequent used methods in collecting data in

research studies. They comprise a mixture of open and closed questions. This research chose

to focus on open-ended questionnaires because it encourages participants to explain the

reasons for their responses. They can reveal underlying views and conflicts because of the

open questioning. Email interviews were used with the regeneration professionals.

3.4.1 Community perspective

Open-ended questionnaires were undertaken with local residents in Ballymun in order to

capture the perspectives of those local residents with lived experience of the regeneration

area and who were impacted by the regeneration. Open-ended questionnaires were

undertaken with local residents to identify how/if the regeneration programme involved them

19

in the regeneration effort, identifying how they conceptualise participation and engagement

and to identify how engagement and participation could be improved further (see appendix

for open-ended questionnaire template).

3.4.2 Professional perspective

It was also deemed important to capture the professional’s perspective in order to understand

how participation and engagement has been articulated within regeneration practice. This

may include barriers and facilitators to delivering participation and engagement, to highlight

gaps, to identify best practice, existing tools and frameworks for engagement etc. (see

appendix for open-ended questionnaire template). The regeneration professional’s view is

equally as important as the residents in order to understand if, for example, they tried to

engage with the community but the community didn’t engage back (i.e. showed little

enthusiasm).

3.5 Recruitment sample In order to get the community’s perspective on the regeneration of Ballymun, an invitation

was sent out to members of the Ballymun community to engage in a questionnaire. Members

of the local community were contacted through the social networking community page

‘Ballymun Says No’ (anti-austerity page). The questionnaire was designed on Survey

Monkey and an attached link was distributed allowing direct access into the questionnaire.

Survey monkey was used as it is faster, preventing having to wait for the return of paper

questionnaires. It is also cheaper as it does not require postage processed automatically. Also,

as many people have access to a computer and the internet today, participants can complete

the survey at a time that suits them. Also, if participants find questions that are not relevant to

them, they can skip them. As a researcher, the online questionnaire’s main benefit is that they

save time as the data is instantly available.

Recruiting the professional’s perspective was more time consuming. After many emails and

phone calls communication was made with Anne Curley, the senior staff officer of the North

West Area of Dublin City Council via telephone who put me in contact with Ronan Glynn,

the Executive Architect of Ballymun Regeneration Limited. Unfortunately there was no reply

from Mr. Glynn. However, correspondence was made with Ronan King in July 2015 via

LinkedIn. He provided one of the professional perspectives of the regeneration of Ballymun.

20

Mr. King also provided contact details for Mr. Ciaran Murray and correspondence was made

with Mr. Murray on 26th July, 2015, via telephone.

Table 3.1: Professional responses

Name Job Title Company Years

Ronan King Chairman Ballymun

Regeneration

Limited (BRL)

2008-2014

Ciaran Murray Managing Director Ballymun

Regeneration

Limited

1997-2010 (retired)

Table 3.2 Resident Reponses

Male Female

4 3

3.6 Limitations of methodology There are some limitations and weaknesses to the methodology undertaken in this research.

These include:

Unfortunately, only a small number of the regeneration professional’s views were

obtained which meant no diverse opinion.

Case studies cannot be generalised. They can only speak for the case study area where

the data was collected.

Other stakeholders could have been spoken to such as community groups and

voluntary organisations.

The trouble with any questionnaire done online is that it cannot be 100% certain that

the participant is actually from Ballymun.

21

3.7 Chapter summary This chapter has explained the rationale for why the research methods were chosen to achieve

the aim and objectives of this research. The open ended questionnaires with community

residents and email interviews with regeneration professionals were undertaken to achieve a

better understanding of the extent of community participation in urban regeneration

programmes. The next chapter will outline in more detail the case study area of Ballymun

chosen for the research.

22

4 Case Study: Ballymun

4.1 Chapter Overview Ballymun is an interesting case study to understand the relationship between public

participation and urban regeneration as it was an ambitious regeneration programme, bringing

about significant transformational change and underpinned by an ethos of community

participation. Over the course of the property boom in Ireland (1997-2007) land values in

Dublin rose significantly. As part of a general shift in urban policy toward more neo-liberal

approaches, the government regenerated a number of inner city areas such as Ballymun. The

focus of this research will be on the period between 1997 and 2007 as this was when the bulk

of the urban regeneration was undertaken.

4.2 Overview of Ballymun Figure 4.1: Map of Ballymun with main street (Source: Ordnance Survey Ireland)

23

The regeneration of Ballymun is an example of an area-based urban regeneration programme

(1997-present) which has had many benefits and flaws. The programme was carried out

through public and private sector partnerships and community involvement (Muir, 2004).

Ballymun Regeneration Limited (BRL), which is wholly owned by Dublin City Council

(DCC), was given responsibility to deliver the programme.

Figure 4.2: Boundary of Ballymun, located south of Dublin Airport (Source: google maps)

4.2.1 History of Ballymun

Ballymun is situated to the north of Dublin City Centre in close proximity to Dublin Airport.

The term ‘Ballymun’ refers to one of the most northerly townlands in the parish of Santry. In

order to understand how the regeneration of Ballymun came about it is essential to know the

history of the area.

4.2.2 Ballymun 1500s-1900s

The first time Ballymun is mentioned in historical sources was in 1537 and was known as

“Ballymon” with only one house sited there, known as the ‘villa of Ballymon’. Over three

hundred years later in 1837, only two houses occupied the townland. 365 acres consisted of

land used for growing oats, wheat, turnips and potatoes (Sommerville-Woodward, 2002). By

24

1900 this had grown to eight housing a population of just 34 people. The population would

have been bigger if it wasn’t for the Famine and cholera outbreak that devastated Ireland in

the 1800s (Bolger, 2008). Dublin and the Santry area were witness to the Easter rising in

1916 which fuelled the war of independence and resultant civil war (1922-23) (McGarry,

2010).

4.2.3 Ballymun Development (1960s-1990s)

In 1947 the government estimated that the country would need 100,000 new houses by the

beginning of the 1960s to replace unsafe and insecure homes, many of which were in Dublin.

Dublin Corporation undertook emergency measures, including evacuating families, following

four deaths from tenement housing collapses on Bolton Street (Sommerville-Woodward,

2002). Within a week Dublin Corporation inspectors had moved more than 1000 people from

their homes with the housing waiting lists doubling in a few months. As a result, Neil Blaney,

the Minister for Local Government at the time, promised that more houses would be built in

Dublin and in May 1964 the Department for Local Government recommended the Ballymun

Housing Scheme to the City Council. This scheme would see Ireland’s first out-of-town high

rise housing project consisting of over 3,000 dwellings (Sommerville-Woodward, 2002).

Figure 4.3: Ballymun flat development 1960s. Source:

http://brandnewretro.ie/2014/04/08/irelands-first-new-town-life-in-the-ballymun-housing-

scheme-1968/

4.2.4 Ballymun Housing Scheme

The decision to undertake the Ballymun Housing Scheme was seen by some as “high rise

folly” and for others it was seen as the sign of the times, a social and political imperative, an

http://brandnewretro.ie/2014/04/08/irelands-first-new-town-life-in-the-ballymun-housing-scheme-1968/

http://brandnewretro.ie/2014/04/08/irelands-first-new-town-life-in-the-ballymun-housing-scheme-1968/

25

image that Ireland had entered the 'brave new world' of public housing (Sommerville-

Woodward, 2002). Ballymun became the symbol of a new modern Ireland (Sommerville-

Woodward, 2002). The belief at the time was that this system of high rise building was the

solution to the housing crisis in Dublin.

Figure 4.4 Ballymun flats in 1970s (Source: http://politico.ie/archive/ballymun-making-

transit-camp)

The plans for the Ballymun Housing Scheme promised much, such as a state-of-the-art

shopping centre, a swimming pool and health clinic. In 1965 the Cubitt Haden Sisk building

consortium were awarded the contract for the development of what was considered the

biggest and boldest housing project in Europe.

When tenants started to arrive in the high-rise flats in late 1966, they regarded the central

heating system as one of the positive aspects of the development, as central heating was not

common in 1960s Ireland. The central heating system was considered the major selling factor

of the dwellings but it became one of the first conflicts between the residents and the estate

managers because the residents were not able to regulate the heat in their flats (Sommerville-

Woodward, 2002).

http://politico.ie/archive/ballymun-making-transit-camp


26

Figure 4.5: district heating system used in Ballymun from 1960s (Source: BRL, 1999)

The government promised that the town centre would be built as the first tenants arrived into

Ballymun so that the residents had shopping facilities. However this did not occur due to

delays in planning and development. By mid-1969 an entire community was created miles

from the city centre without access to everyday services and amenities. This lack of a vibrant

town centre would lead to severe social problems as plans for the town centre had associated

failing to deliver planned health and social facilities such as a swimming pool, gym, library

and health centre (Sommerville-Woodward, 2002).

Furthermore, from the beginning of the development, it was anticipated that public open

spaces, such as public parks and playgrounds would be an important part of the estate with no

dwelling situated more than a quarter of a mile away. However, delays in planning,

developing and building social and recreational facilities including landscaping prevented this

from happening.

In 1969, the government handed over responsibility of the 3000 dwellings in Ballymun to

Dublin Corporation, with the government stating that the scheme was an overwhelming

success, due to the speed and cost of its construction. However in truth Dublin Corporation

were handed a half finished project with little experience of managing such a housing

scheme.

27

4.2.5 Surrender Grant Scheme

The inevitable occurred in 1980 with Dublin Corporation having a surplus of housing units

precipitated by the national economic decline in the 1970s. But the worst came in 1985 when

the government introduced the £5000 ‘Surrender Grant’ scheme which brought about a mass

exodus from Ballymun by those who could afford to take it up. This scheme allocated £5000

to local authority tenants to surrender their dwelling and to buy a home in the private sector

with the hope that this would free up dwellings for lettings without the need for new

development (Norris & Redmond, 2005). However, some of the most influential and active

members of the local community relocated and Ballymun became known as a ‘dumping

ground’ for people with all types of social problems with demand for housing and flats

declining. Only the most vulnerable sought homes in Ballymun such as single parents, the

unemployed and those with alcohol and drug problems (Sommerville-Woodward, 2002).

Figure 4.6: Poorly maintained hallway in Ballymun flats in 1980s (Source:

http://politico.ie/archive/ballymun-making-transit-camp)

4.2.6 Ballymun Task Force

In 1987 a task force was established consisting of public representatives, statutory authorities

and representatives of the community with the purpose of developing and implementing a

housing policy for the area. The task force consisted of local Teachtaí Dála (MPs), one Health

Board representative and four representatives from the Dublin Corporation Housing

Department along with eight community delegates (Martin, 2005).


28

The task force selected an area of Ballymun for a phase one refurbishment programme. They

selected an area (Joseph Plunkett Tower & Balbutcher Lane flats) that was highly visible.

They selected this area because everyone would see the upgrading of the flats in the hope to

raise spirits in the community and give hope to a community of mainly despair. During phase

one, the architects started a process of in-depth consultation with the tenants of the phase one

flats which was crucial in establishing and resolving some of the environmental barriers in

the local community. For example some tenants pointed out that the railings around the

neighbourhood park were too low and this was rectified (Martin, 2005).

4.2.7 Craig Gardner / Price Waterhouse Report

As the work on phase one came to an end the Department of the Environment declared that

there had to be an evaluation of it before making a decision regarding further phases. This

responsibility was given to a team of Irish and British Consultants, Craig Gardner/Price

Waterhouse. In August 1993, Craig Gardner / Price Waterhouse issued a report outlining five

options relating to the flats. They were; minimal works to be carried out on the flats, continue

refurbishment on a much reduced time scale, a balance of full refurbishment and

demolition/new build, full refurbishment of the flats to a new standard or clearance and

redevelopment of the whole estate (Martin, 2005).

All the recommendations suggested that local residents of Ballymun should form a central

part of the regeneration process. Here, there had been recognition that the Ballymun Housing

Scheme had failed to involve residents in the regeneration process. This recommendation was

supported by policy and practice emerging from regional and central government in the UK

and Ireland which positioned community engagement as central to achieving sustainable

regeneration.

29

4.3 Urban Regeneration of Ballymun (1997-2007)

Figure 4.7 Boundary of Ballymun regeneration area. (Source: Department of the Environment,

Heritage and Local Government, 2007)

Moreover, there was recognition that the regeneration in Ballymun pre-1997 was focused on

economic development and job creation at the expense of social and community factors.

Dublin Corporation, now Dublin City Council, gained government support for the large scale

regeneration of Ballymun in 1997 and a regeneration master plan was launched in 1998, with

some local resentment as some believed that the BRL rushed it without the support of

existing community groups. At this time there were approximately 18,000 people living in

Ballymun and social, economic and environmental deprivation was deep seated (Kintrea &

Muir, 2009).

30

Figure 4.8: Shopping Centre in Ballymun in 1999 (Source: BRL, 1999)

The regeneration was to be funded by direct state investment and the use of tax reliefs to

attract private investment, but in 2001, national urban regeneration policy encouraged the use

of Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) as the principal mechanism to deliver regeneration

(Redmond and Hearne, 2013). With PPPs, a private company (usually a consortium

comprising of a financial institution, a building and operating company formed for the

purpose of bidding on a project) is contracted by the State for approximately twenty five

years to design, build, and finance and operate new public services or infrastructure projects

(Hearne, 2014).

Figure 4.9: Aerial photo of Ballymun in 1997. (Source: Ballymun Regeneration Limited)

31

4.3.1 Ballymun Regeneration Limited

In April 1997, Brendan Howlin, Minister for the Environment, requested that Dublin

Corporation set up a new company to oversee the regeneration of Ballymun (Sommerville-

Woodward, 2002). This new company was Ballymun Regeneration Limited and was separate

from Dublin Corporation, but because DC would remain the landlord of the area it was

accepted that there had to be close links between both organisations. The aim was to

demolish all the flats, a decision that was welcomed by the community at the time

(Sommerville-Woodward, 2002). At the time there were 36 high-rise blocks comprising of

2,820 flats including 7 fifteen-storey, 19 eighteen-storey and 10 four-storey blocks making

Ballymun one of the largest public housing estates in Europe (Murray, 2008).

Ciarán Murry was chosen as the managing director and a voluntary board of directors were

appointed, comprising of local councillors, tenants and representatives from the Housing

Task Force and Ballymun Partnership, community representatives, Gardaí, private sector,

health board and the local authority. It was chaired by Daniel O’Hare, the former president of

Dublin City University (DCU) (Sommerville-Woodward, 2002).

On 31st March 1998, the masterplan, accompanied with the Integrated Area Plan, was

prepared and presented to the government (with the aim of the programme to be completed

by the end of 2006). In the late 1990s Ballymun remained one of the most socially-

economically disadvantaged areas in the country. The profile of Ballymun in 1999 is shown

in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: 1999 profile of Ballymun (Central Statistics Office)

Total Population 16,556

Unemployment level 54% (6.7% was the national average)

Lone parent households 37%

Tenants on Social welfare income 71%

Children achieving Leaving Certificate

(GCSE)

7% (21% was the national average)

32

4.3.2 Neighbourhood Forums

The Ballymun Housing Task Force was reorganised and renamed the Ballymun

Neighbourhood Council and the new task force and Dublin Corporation agreed to create local

democratically elected area Forums in 1998 (Martin, 2005).

The Forums were set up to deal with regeneration issues but they also had to deal with estate

management issues such as housing allocations, maintenance and anti-social behaviour. An

example of how the Forums cooperated on Ballymun-wide issues was the Health Centre

campaign. At first the Health Board agreed to move into the Ballymun Civic offices to

replace the outdated health centre but for unknown reasons, they dithered on their

commitment (Martin, 2005). However when the Forums were notified about this

backtracking they set about a campaign to ensure the civic offices would be utilised by the

health board (Martin, 2005). Today the civic centre is home to the Dublin North Central

Local Health Office.

4.3.3 Regeneration highlights

There were many achievements of the regeneration of Ballymun. The BRL’s approach to

economic regeneration was mainly about property development along Main Street and on

vacant land next to the M50 (Kintrea & Muir, 2009). The development of a new Main Street

attracted both private and public sector investment including two hotels (one shown in figure

4.10), hundreds of private apartments and an art centre.

Figure 4.10: New Hotel on Main Street. Photo taken by Gary Farrelly 29/07/15

33

There were a range of civic and community projects completed. A civic centre (as seen in

figure 4.11), originally planned for completion in 2001, was completed by a private developer

in 2003. It is located on Main Street and provided office accommodation for the BRL, the

Health Services Executive and the motor tax office. A new Garda station was also delivered

(figure 4.12). However there was no replacement of the run down shopping centre (figure

4.18) adjacent to Main Street (as the research will reveal in chapter five).

Figure 4.11: Civic centre on Main Street. Photos taken by Gary Farrelly on 29/07/15

34

Figure 4.12: New Garda Station on Main Street. Photo taken by Gary Farrelly 29/07/15

Another success story was the development of a leisure centre (see figure 4.13) on Ballymun

Main Street. It was completed in the summer of 2005 and is fully operational under the

management of Dublin City Council. The leisure centre comprises of a total of 3,426 sq. m.

of gym and pool uses (BRL, 2009).

These developments have only created 315 private sector jobs between 1998 and 2006 and

465 public sector jobs, mainly in the new civic centre, but the majority of these were due to

relocations from other areas (Kintrea and Muir, 2009).

Figure 4.13: New Leisure Centre on Main Street. (Photo taken by Gary Farrelly on 29/07/15)

35

Residents were also very happy with the quality of new homes with only 5% in one estate

survey saying they were dissatisfied (Kintrea & Muir, 2009). Figure 4.14 shows a housing

estate and new apartments that replaced the old Ballymun flats. Dublin City Council remains

the landlord for the majority of the new homes, but there are concerns that it is not up to the

task of managing the estate well in the long term because many people believe that the gains

made in the quality of the flats will be undercut. However, they will be easier to manage in

some ways with the absence of problems such as lifts (break downs), dampness and

communal heating systems that the original Ballymun flats had.

Figure 4.14: New housing estate and new apartments. Photo taken by Gary Farrelly on

29/07/15.

As a success indicator, unemployment fell by almost 30% in Ballymun, since 1997. In 1997

Ballymun had 2,173 people unemployed, compared to 254,379 nationally. However in 2005

Ballymun had 1,431 unemployed, a decrease of 34%, compared to a national decrease of

38% (DoEHLG, 2007).However at the time it still remained between three and four times

higher than the national average. Education standards were low. A survey conducted in 2004

revealed that only 26% of pupils passed the Leaving Certificate, compared to 74% nationally

(DoEHLG, 2007).

36

Ballymun has been transformed since 1997 with a range of quality new community facilities

provided throughout the five neighbourhoods in Ballymun. Perhaps the best measure of the

progress that has been made can be gleaned from the community’s own responses which have

seen Ballymun win close to thirty separate environmental awards and eleven Tidy Towns

awards in recent years. Furthermore in 2008 Ballymun won a Taoiseach’s (prime minister)

Award for Excellence for its Community Safety Strategy, and also won the national title of

Fairtrade Town of Ireland 2008, showing how far the community has come since the

regeneration began (Murray, 2008)

4.3.4 Public Participation

Figure 4.15: Ballymun Regeneration official logo. Source:

http://www.codema.ie/images/uploads/logos/brl_colour_logo.jpg

Perhaps the importance of public participation in the Ballymun regeneration project can be

seen in the official logo. It depicts the hand of the community reaching for a bright new

future, a future that is now in sight (Murray, 2008).

http://www.codema.ie/images/uploads/logos/brl_colour_logo.jpg

37

Figure 4.16: Structure for community participation in the Ballymun Regeneration project

(Source: Norris, 2001)

Sillogue & Sandyhill

Estate Forum Coultry

Estate Forum

Shangan

Estate ForumBalcurris

Estate Forum

Popintree

Estate Forum

Focus Groups

Children & Youth

Leisure, Sport & Recreation

Environment & Health

Advice, Support & Community

Development

Education & Training

Employment/ Economic

Development

Ballymun Job Centre Co-op

Ballymun Drugs Task Force

Community Action

Programme

Dept. of Social Welfare

Cospoir

Ballymun Library

Round

Churches, Religious

Schools

Women's Resource Centre

Youth Services

Ballymun Partnership

CAFTA

Ballymun Youth Reach

Housing Working Group

Education & Training Working Group

Economic Development Working Group

Coultry Estate

Fourm

Once off consultation - eg,

planning for real, surveys ,

meetings etc.

Ballymun Housing Task Force

Ballymun Regeneration Ltd

At the time of establishing Ballymun Regeneration Limited, the Government appointed the

Ballymun Housing Task Force as the official liaison group between the residents and the

BRL. The task force carries out this liaison function primarily through the mechanism of the

area forums, as previously mentioned in section 4.3.2.

In each of the area forums, a design sub-committee existed and the BRL assigned an architect

to consult with these about the development of a masterplan and the redesign of the

individual areas of the estate (Norris, 2001).

Two members of the Housing Task Force sit on the Board of Directors of the BRL and the

Task Force held weekly meetings with the BRL to monitor and direct the consultation. In

November 1997 it made a submission to the BRL entitled “Building a Strategy: Shaping a

Town” which set out their own views on the priorities for the regeneration of the estate

(Norris, 2001).

In November 1997 a ‘Planning for real’ day took place in Ballymun Shopping Centre in

which 2000 people attended (Norris, 2001). At this event a model of the proposed estate was

made available giving the chance for the community to propose their own design ideas for the

estate. Furthermore, exhibitions were also held of the draft Masterplan for the redevelopment

38

of Ballymun and on Phase 1 plans for the housing development. Open public meetings were

also held between the BRL and residents and a range of questionnaires were carried out over

time. Some surveys targeted specific groups such as the play survey for children and

members of voluntary and community groups who were surveyed outlining their

accommodation needs (Norris, 2001).

Figure 4.16 describes the ongoing structures for community participation. They revolve

around seven focus groups and in mid-1998 these were wound down and amalgamated into

three working groups which focussed on education and training, housing and economic

development (Norris, 2001).

Another highlight of public participation was an initiative called Safer Ballymun that was

established (BRL, 2011). ‘Safer Ballymun’ is a partnership involving An Garda Síochána

(police), Dublin City Council, Ballymun Regeneration Ltd and local residents who meet on a

monthly basis, and have an action based, problem solving focus in tackling anti-social

behaviour in the area. ‘Safer Ballymun’ has contributed to the introduction of street lighting

in the area, upgrading of CCTV cameras, removal of graffiti and more focussed Garda

patrolling of areas where residents have concerns. As a result Ballymun has become a clean,

green environment where the residents are involved in keeping the area clean.

There is also a local drugs task force that implement the National Substance Misuse Strategy

and a Community Alcohol Strategy for Ballymun (BRL, 2011). This has resulted in a very

close relationship between the police force and the local residents (BRL, 2005). Therefore it

is more likely that residents would report crime to the police if there is a trust and

understanding between them. As a result the number of drug users presenting for treatment

has diminished and a report in 2006 stated that drug abuse has stabilised and drug dealing

was no longer prevalent in Ballymun (Cuffe, 2008). The BRL say that there has been a

reduction in anti-social behaviour and because of the zero tolerance of graffiti there is now a

sense of place amongst local people (BRL, 2011).

39

4.4 Post 2007

4.4.1 Economic Crisis

With the collapse of the property market and the attendant economic crisis, capital funding

for local authorities and housing associations has been drastically reduced and there is limited

funding for regeneration programmes. The PPP programme collapsed. Private developers

withdrew from social housing projects as they were no longer deemed profitable. There were

thousands of local authority tenants left living in substandard conditions. Based on analysis of

six of the planned PPP regeneration projects the State transferred public land worth in excess

of €545m to the developer who returned social housing and community facilities worth

€214m (Hearne & Redmond, 2014). Developers were making massive profits which stopped

in 2008.

The recession has impacted on Ballymun in terms of the high vacancy rates of enterprise

units. In the centre of Ballymun, sites owned by private developers, remain derelict, with

little prospect of development in the short-to medium term. The state investment aspects of

regeneration were drastically reduced from 2008 onwards by the imposition of a series of

austerity budgets (seen in table 4.2) (Redmond and Hearne, 2013).

Table 4.2: Government investment in national regeneration projects. (Source: Redmond and

Hearne, 2013)

Total (m€) 2008 09’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’

Ballymun 65 - - 53 25 16

Limerick 13 11.25 25 35 27.5 28

4.4.2 Post 2007 triumphs

Beside the civic centre, a community development project was completed in 2011 called the

Ballymun Arts and Community Resource Centre (as shown in figure 4.17). The facility

includes a 211 seat theatre, dance and recording studio, meeting and training rooms, a

conference centre, a café bar and a crèche. In 2008 the centre staged 183 separate events and

performances and attracted forty thousand new visitors to shows in Ballymun.

40

Figure 4.17: Ballymun Arts and Community Resource Centre. Photos taken by Gary Farrelly

29/07/15.

41

Alongside these community facilities, the long-delayed arrival of IKEA (figure 4.18) to

Ballymun happened in July 2009 bringing 500 jobs to an area that has always suffered from

unemployment issues.

Figure 4.18: IKEA. Photo taken by Gary Farrelly on 29/07/15

4.5 Criticisms The regeneration process raised questions about the quality and effectiveness of community

engagement in Ballymun. A vast majority (82%) of Ballymun residents surveyed in 2006 did

not feel they had a say when it came to matters concerning the Ballymun area, and a similar

figure (80.5%) said they did not receive enough information (Redmond and Hearne, 2013).

As well as that, the results from the 2011 Census revealed the failure to address historically

high unemployment levels in parts of Ballymun, as they recorded some of the highest

unemployment rates in the country, with unemployment in Ballymun Ward B at a very high

level of 44 per cent, in comparison to the 15.1% national rate (Central Statistics Office,

2011).

Furthermore there was the failure to deliver a new shopping centre to the Main Street and the

research findings, which will be explained in Chapter 5, shows this delay as one of the major

42

disappointments in the regeneration process. Figure 4.19 shows the shopping centre in 2015

(similar to figure 4.8).

Figure 4.19: Ballymun Shopping Centre. Photo taken by Gary Farrelly 29/07/15

Also, not all the towerblocks have been demolished which was the target in the original

masterplan. As figure 4.20 reveals, some remain in the Balcurris neighbourhood in the area.

Figure 4.20: Old Ballymun flats still standing. Photo taken by Gary Farrelly 29/07/15

43

Figure 4.21: Ballymun today. Source: http://www.mjparchitects.co.uk/projects/ballymun-

masterplan/

4.6 Chapter summary Ballymun is an area of Dublin that has overseen development since the 1960s. The

regeneration project from 1997 to 2007 had a strategy of creating new job opportunities,

providing new housing and creating a new town centre, amongst others. This chapter has

outlined the programmes achievements and touched on the flaws. There is no doubt that there

has been a massive transformation of Ballymun since 1997, all you need to do is look at

figure 4.23 and 4.24. The next chapter will investigate these criticisms in more detail, by

investigating the findings of the research outlined in Chapter 3.

Figure 4.22: Dublin Skyline 2005. (Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/eoinoc/9008106/)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/eoinoc/9008106/

44

Figure 4.23: Ballymun road from M50 junction, view of towerblocks in 1999 (Source: BRL,

1999)

Figure 4.24: View from Ballymun Road today showing the transformation in the 16 years.

Photo taken by Gary Farrelly 29/07/15

45

5 Research findings

5.1 Chapter overview This chapter will analyses the findings from the questionnaire undertaken with two

regeneration professionals that were involved in the Ballymun programme and the

questionnaire that the seven residents undertook. This research will get the views on the

extent of participation in the Ballymun regeneration programme and identify the successes

and failures of the programme.

5.2 Resident’s perspectives 23 questionnaires were sent out to members of the Ballymun community via social

networking sites, including to community pages. A total of 7 people responded. The

questionnaire was created through survey monkey with a total of ten questions.

Profile of participants

It is important to know at what time were the participants present in Ballymun at the time of

the regeneration programme. Of the 7 participants three lived in Ballymun before the

masterplan was created (since before 1997), two lived in the area since between 1997 and

2003, one since 2003 and 2007 and one since 2008.

46

Of the 7 participants four were male and three were female. The greatest response came from

people aged between 30 and 45 years (3 participants). Two participants were aged between

18 and 24 and two between 46 and 55. One participant was aged between 25 and 29.

Participation before development

The majority of the participants recognised that the BRL did work with the community before

the regeneration began. One participant stated “they did work with the community prior,

however it was felt that our opinions fell on deaf ears and weren't taking serious. Seemed

more procedure rather than interest in the community”. Another participant stated “Yes but

residents would feel a lot of promises are broken”. The other five participants stated whether

47

they were there at the time or not believed that there was community involvement with the

BRL before regeneration. One participant that was living there before 1997 stated “Yes, I

remember a public exhibition was held in the shopping centre - to get our thought on the

regeneration”.

Advertisement and community events

It is clear from the participants surveyed that the regeneration programme was advertised by

the BRL. The two participants that skipped the question on advertisement did so because they

were not around at this time.

Furthermore, the findings shows that the BRL did organise events to get the community

involved. One respondent said “Yeah there were a number of meeting organised where the

community could get involved and understand what was being suggested and performed. A

number of these meetings invoked workshops to allow people to try and get their point

across”. Another said that there were meetings and exhibitions in the shopping and almost all

participants said that there were design type workshops.

48

Community’s main issues

As the bar chart below indicates, the three main issues that the community identified were

about jobs, housing and a new shopping centre. However one respondent further said that

“nothing was resolved. No new shopping centre which lost a lot of business and jobs through

the regeneration”.

Type of role public should have

All the seven respondents said that the public should have a role in the urban regeneration

process. One person said “a supportive role” while another said “Definitely. It's their lives,

only they know what their most important problems are”. One participant highlighted that

49

they should have a vital role and that they did in the Ballymun regeneration but once the

regeneration commenced “they were dismissed”.

Results of the regeneration programme

The research has shown that the regeneration programme has been both a success and a

failure according to the participants surveyed (3 people saying success, 3 people saying

failure and 1 skipped the question). One participant that selected failure said “I put failure but

its somewhere in the middle. Some very good things were done but the economic activity

side of things have let it down”. In a rather humorous response one participant put failure as

“It's still a s**t hole. Where apartments are badly designed and thrown together, more leaks

than hot dinners”. A participant that selected the programme as a success did so as “Ballymun

is a much nicer place to live in now than it was 20 years ago”. Another said “Personally

Ballymun looks very nice today so I would say a success but if I was there from the start I

could have a different idea”. Some respondents outlined successes and failures. As one

participant stated; “Well in one hand it was a success compared to the 1980s however it was

far from perfect as there were a number of issues unsolved and opinions of locals not taken

on board. Therefore I'm on the fence”. The majority of respondents (4) said that the shopping

centre needed to be developed first as one said that “it is now derelict” and another said

“there is no point in having nice homes if you have no shops in the area”. Another participant

said that they would of made better designs for the homes because the house are not insulated

properly now.

50

5.3 Professional’s perspectives Questionnaires were sent out to 7 regeneration professionals who were involved in the

programme. A total number of 2 people responded.

Participant’s role in the regeneration programme

The first response was from Ronan King. Communication was made with Mr. King via

LinkedIn. Ronan was the chairman of the Ballymun Regeneration Limited (BRL) from 2008

to 2014, a total of six years. Communication was also made with Mr. Ciaran Murray who was

Managing Director of the BRL from its incorporation in 1997 up until September 2010 when

he retired.

51

Events organised to involve community

Mr. King was not directly involved at the beginning of the project. However he believes there

was “substantial” collaboration and consultation with the local community at the time of

drafting the initial regeneration. Mr. Murray said people were engaged with, for example,

2000 people attended the Ballymun Planning Day in 1997.

Ciaran Murray stated that four work groups were set up to get the community involved. The

four areas that the work groups would cover were:

A New image for Ballymun, to change the negative image of Ballymun and promote a

sense of pride.

Training and Employment issues, this was used to empower people so they can take

advantage of employment opportunities.

Estate management and home ownership matters: this was used to aspire people to

own their own homes

Tax incentives to promote economic development:

These work groups were made up of representatives of the local community and people with

specialist skills in each of the four areas.

Ciaran said that there were also design groups that met weekly, a weekly information desk in

the shopping centre every Thursday and meetings between the architects and the Forums.

Mr King and Mr Murray stated there were numerous issues raised and covered the spectrum

of physical (houses to replace high-rise flats, gardens etc.), social and economic issues

(access to jobs).

Priorities in regeneration of Ballymun

Ronan King explained that he did not join the Board as Chairman until January 2008 when

the project was quite advanced in terms of physical regeneration and social programmes.

When he joined he felt that the economic dimension was in need of prioritisation, as there

was relatively little activity of real significance in terms of job creation. He explains that he

also needed to put in place a “wind-down plan” as the regeneration project was already ten

years in existence. A number of key sub-groups were established to tackle these issues. Mr

Murray said that housing jobs and community facilities were the main priorities in the

52

regeneration and he also said that the failure to deliver a new shopping centre was a major

disappointment.

The public’s role in urban regeneration

Mr King said that it is critical that there is buy-in and ultimate ownership by the majority of

local residents if the regeneration is to achieve sustainable improvement. At the same time, it

has to be recognised that it is not possible to “satisfy all of the people all of the time” –

compromises are inevitable.

Mr Murray said the Ballymun project was unique in terms of urban regeneration in that the

entire local community were rehoused in the area unlike other regeneration projects

throughout Britain and Europe where many residents were moved out and cleared sites were

then sold off to the private sector for redevelopment. In Ballymun the community through

their democratically elected representative structures had a major say in all aspects of the

redevelopment including the design and location of all new housing, community facilities,

local parks, playgrounds etc.

Top-down/Bottom-up approach in urban regeneration

Mr. King thinks that it is essential to balance the bottom-up approach of comprehensive

consultation and trust-building with the need for pro-active decision-making and a focus on

progressive actions. Plans should be based on facilitated discussions with the stakeholders

outlined above, but implementation then requires real management, free from political

interference, while building in frequent, honest reviews and regular progress reports.

Mr. Murray said that there are many differing views on this question. He stated “My own

opinion is that both have an equal and essential role in reaching decisions. However it is

critical that there is an integrity in the process to ensure that all views are respected. While

the ideal is that a consensus is reached it is never possible to please everyone particularly

where there are conflicting interests. The important thing to ensure is that there is a

transparent decision making process that has regard for all legitimate views but which

facilitates timely decisions once all issues are considered”.

53

Economic crisis impact

Mr. King believes that the Ballymun Regeneration project was fortunate in that the major

expenditure occurred in tandem with years of significant Exchequer surpluses – 2002-2007.

Unfortunately, by 2008, there was a severe downturn which meant that some aspirational

projects could not be financed as anticipated. The priority had to be placed on ensuring that

all residents could be re-housed.

Mr. Murray also said that most of the redevelopment including community facilities were

delivered before the crisis hit however the failure to secure the redevelopment of the Town

Centre Shopping Centre, “which was always going to be a follower rather than a leader of

Regeneration”, was disappointing. Likewise the Government’s decision to postpone the

Metro line from the City to the Airport through Ballymun will delay the achievement of all

the ambitions of the Masterplan (this was a plan that was scrapped after the recession hit).

Difficulties when working with the community

Mr. King believes that the big issue is trust. By their nature, regeneration projects occur after

decades of neglect, and local communities understandably are wary of hollow promises, and

fearful of being short-changed. They are understandably seeking a better quality of life –

which can mean different things to different people. Achieving consensus for how resources

should be prioritised will always be a challenge, while the team implementing the project are

caught between meeting the needs/demands of the community, and the Departments who

control the purse-strings. In Ballymun, there was active participation by the community, and

the Board included many community reps as well as elected councillors.

Furthermore, Mr. Murray says there are many difficulties involved in working with local

communities such as:

1. Building capacity in the community to ensure meaningful participation.

2. Conflict resolution to deal with competing interests.

3. Child supports to ensure regular attendances at meetings.

4. Vested interests and intimidation which can prevent authentic views being articulated.

5. Designing mechanisms for reaching decisions. He states that it is very easy to get

agreement in principle to proceed with a development proposal and then find huge

54

resistance to the development after the scheme is designed and considerable costs

incurred. People often will refuse to participate in the planning process but suddenly

become very engaged once the Planning Permission is lodged.

6. There are always very legitimate concerns amongst community groups and community

activists that there will be no further need for them if the regeneration is successful and

this can lead to tension.

7. Community groups generally have a very specific focus and deal with many sensitive

issues and accordingly the concept of sharing quality community facilities rather than

having a multitude of individual buildings, which would not be economical to sustain is

difficult to reach agreement on.

5.4 Chapter Summary This chapter has presented the findings of the questionnaires and email interviews that were

sent out to the local residents in Ballymun and the regeneration professionals that were

involved in the programme. Interestingly everyone agrees that the community should have a

vital role in any regeneration programme. The resident participants said that they did have a

say in the process but their role was dismissed when the regeneration began. This chapter has

also revealed the difficulties with participation on behalf of both sides. Finally, the research

shows that participation was present in the early stages of regeneration, but participation after

this is highly questionable.

55

6 Discussion, conclusions and recommendations

6.1 Chapter overview This chapter will summarise the key findings of the research undertaken and the next chapter

will provide options for future research. The section will include an overview of each

objective and how it was addressed, reveal any limitations with it and propose

recommendations for future regeneration practice.

6.2 Comments on research objectives

6.2.1 Understand how community participation is understood and articulated within

regeneration practice

Chapter 2 discussed the move towards a more participatory planning system since the 1960s

through reports such as Arnstein’s ladder, the Skeffington Report and the Localism Act and

regeneration policy that has focussed on more inclusive forms of resident involvement in the

regeneration process. Chapter 5 examined this in more detail through discussion with

regeneration professionals to understand if planning practice in urban regeneration was

present by looking at the case study in Ballymun. The regeneration professionals all agreed

that participation is vital but also agreed that it is difficult to satisfy all sides, particularly

given the diversity of stakeholders involved in the regeneration. Regeneration professionals

felt that they and the community had an equal role in reaching decisions, as it is decisions that

affect their lives, but recognised that it is never possible to satisfy everyone particularly when

there are conflicting interests in the process. Nevertheless, all views should be respected and

accommodated within the dialogue process.

Furthermore, regeneration professionals did identify difficulties when working with the local

community. The literature in chapter 2.4 discussed barriers to residents participating, and

included resident apathy and lack of enthusiasm. Regeneration professionals noted that often

residents refused to participate in the planning process but suddenly become very engaged

once the Planning Permission is lodged. An inter-connected issues is the one of trust with the

local community. As the regeneration usually occurs following years of neglect residents

have often become disillusioned with the regeneration process, and it can then be very

difficult to rebuild trust with the local community.

56

6.2.2 To investigate how urban regeneration practice has facilitated the participation

of the local community

As discussed in chapter 2, participation made its debut in the planning process in the 1960s

through reports such as the Skeffington Report, Arnstein’s Ladder and the Localism Act. The

work of the IAP2 in Edmonton Canada was an example of a successful public participation

programme with the residents actually redesigning the LRT alignment. Chapter 5 analysed

the views of the public in Ballymun involved in the regeneration process and how the

programme addressed the issues that they raised.

The research concluded that many residents did participate at the start of the regeneration

process but many believed that once the regeneration started their views were dismissed. This

shows that it is vital that residents play a role throughout the process and not just at the start.

However the process seems to be in between a success and a failure with one of the

participants stating it a success as it is a far nicer place than it was twenty years ago.

6.2.3 To make recommendations for how regeneration practice can better support

participation within regeneration practice

This research seeks to recommend how regeneration can involve the community with the

process. A number of recommendations for how urban regeneration can better support

participation include:

Participation before development: If we look at Ballymun (which has had many

successes) and the IAP2 example in Chapter 2, it is vital that participation begins

before development occurs instead of mid-way through the process as a last resort.

The development in 1960s Ballymun was a failure for a number of reasons but the

fact there was no participation before development did not help

A strong economy. In the case of Ballymun Ciaran Murray revealed that the

government’s decision to postpone the metro line from the airport to the city centre

(because of the economic recession) will prevent the programme from meeting its

own targets. Chapter 5 revealed that the BRL did a good job with engaging with the

residents and majority of the residents surveyed identified one failure, the shopping

centre. One failure does not make the whole process a failure and Therefore one can

only imagine what the responses of the residents would have been if the downturn of

the economy never occurred.

57

In order for the programme to work with the community effectively the process needs

to be short and information needs to be easy to access and understand. It is important

that residents are not going to meetings with regeneration professionals feeling that

decisions have already taken place with the planners not taking heed of the residents’

views and opinions.

6.3 Conclusions Urban regeneration is important to attempt to reverse the decline of many of the inner city

urban neighbourhoods by improving the physical structure but more importantly improving

the economic and social factors. However that is not the final straw. It is important to involve

residents in the urban regeneration process as they are the people that are living there and the

changes will affect their everyday lives. Therefore they can provide a positive input into

decisions. The participation agenda has a come a very long way since the 1960s. This can be

seen as a result of the political ideologies such as neo-liberalism, the Skeffington Report and

Arnstein’s ladder that has shaped the planning environment today.

To examine public participation within the context of urban regeneration this research

explored the case study of Ballymun in Ireland. This case study brought together the

professional and resident side and investigated how each other played a part in the process

that began in 1997. The case study identified how the regeneration professionals worked with

the community through design workshops, exhibitions and meetings.

Furthermore, this research has shown that understanding public participation is not just a

community understanding but a professional one too. Chapter 2.4 revealed that it can be

difficult if regeneration professionals are not trained properly on how to engage and consult

with the public. However, it is important for the public to be proactive and get involved in the

process but most importantly get involved from the beginning rather that engage when

planning permission is already lodged and complain after. If planners and the community

form relationships this would create trust and transparency in the process. Communities

would feel that they had more power and influence as their contributions and views are being

represented and heard, which would encourage people to get more involved. This is vital for

the future of public participation in urban regeneration.

58

6.4 Areas for future research

This research has identified future areas for research. The case study approach adopted in this

research has been useful for investigating the extent of public participation in a regeneration

programme. However, recognising the limitations of a case study approach, further research

is needed to compare the case study findings from Ballymun with other case study areas to

identify areas of commonality and difference in the experiences of regeneration professionals

and local residents.

In chapter 5, one resident participant identified that the houses are poorly insulated. It would

be beneficial if this research got a perspective from an architect that was involved in

developing these new homes.

Finally, it would be beneficial if a study researching participation in urban regeneration

involved a case study at a time of a sound economy. One can only imagine if the recession in

Ireland had not occurred, would there be a new shopping centre and as a result many of the

resident’s views on the regeneration process might have been different.

Word Count: 14,064

59

References

1. Arnstein, S. (1969). "A Ladder of Citizen Participation". JAIP, Vol. 35, No. 4, July

1969, pp. 216-224.

2. Bartley, B., Meldon, J., & Creamer, C. (2007). “Planning and Participation in the

Republic of Ireland”. SPAN Research Publications.

3. Berg, B. (2001). “Qualitative research methods for the social sciences”(4th edition).

Pearson. Needham Heights, USA.

4. Bolger, D. (2008). Chapter – Heights and Consequences. From “Memories,

milestones and new horizons. Reflections on the regeneration of Ballymun”. Edited by

Aibhlin McCrann.

5. BRL, (2011). “Sustaining Regeneration, a Social Plan for Ballymun”. Available at:

http://www.brl.ie/pdf/SRBallymunLowRes_FA.pdf

6. BRL, (2009). “Environmental Appraisal of the Ballymun Masterplan”. Ballymun

Regeneration Limited.

7. BRL, (2005). “Safer Ballymun Newsletter: Issue 1”. Available at:

http://www.brl.ie/Safer_Ballymun/Safer_Ballymun_News_1_web.pdf

8. Brudell, P. and Attuyer, K. (2014). “Neoliberal ‘Regeneration’ and the Myth of

Community Participation”. In MacLaran & Kelly’s: Neoliberal Urban Policy and the

transformation of the city: Reshaping Dublin.

9. Craig, G. (2007). Community capacity-building: Something old, something new...?.

Critical Social Policy, 27(3), 335-359.

10. Creswell, J, W. (1994). “Research methods”. Sage publications. Lincoln, USA

11. Cuffe, C. (2008) Chapter – Ballymun: A new town once again. From “Memories,

milestones and new horizons. Reflections on the regeneration of Ballymun”. Edited by

Aibhlin McCrann.

12. Cullingworth, B. & Nadin, V. (2006). “Town and Country Planning in the UK: 14th

Edition”. Routledge. Abingdon, Oxon

http://www.brl.ie/Safer_Ballymun/Safer_Ballymun_News_1_web.pdf

60

13. Damer, S. & Hague C. (1971). “Public Participation in Planning: A Review”. The

Town Planning Review (July 1971): Vol 42 No. 3, pp. 217-232

14. Davidson, S. (1998). “Community Planning, spinning the wheel of empowerment”.

Planning, April 1998.

15. Department for Communities and Local Government. (2011). “A plain English guide

to the Localism Act”. November 2011

16. Department for Communities and Local Government (2006). “Strong and prosperous

communities, the Local Government white paper”. Available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/272357

/6939.pdf

17. Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, (2007).

“Comptroller and Auditor General on Ballymun Regeneration”. Government of

Ireland.

18. Diamond, J. (2004). Local regeneration initiatives and capacity building: Whose

'capacity' and 'building' for what? Community Development Journal, 39(2), 177-189.

19. Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

20. Hamel, J. (1993). Case Study methods. Qualitative Research Methods. Vol. 32.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

21. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.

22. Hearne, R. (2011) “Public Private Partnerships in Ireland: Failed Experiment or the

Way

23. Forward for the State?. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

24. Hearne, R. (2014). “Actual existing neoliberalism: PPPs in public service and

infrastructure provision in Ireland”. From MacLaran & Kelly’s: Neoliberal Urban

Policy and the transformation of the city (Chapter 10): Reshaping Dublin.

25. Hearne, D. and Redmond D. (2014). “The collapse of PPPs: prospects for social

housing regeneration after the crash”. From MacLaran & Kelly’s: Neoliberal Urban

Policy and the transformation of the city (Chapter 14): Reshaping Dublin.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/272357/6939.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/272357/6939.pdf

61

26. Houses of the Oireachtas, (2011). “Social regeneration: beyond bricks and mortar”.

Available at:

http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/housesoftheoireachtas/libraryresearch/spot

lights/SocialRegeneration.pdf

27. IAP2. (2012). “State of the Practice Report, 2012”. Michigan State University, E.

Lansing, MI 48824. October 2012.

28. IFSC. (2015), “About the IFSC”. IFSC.ie. Available at:

http://www.ifsc.ie/page.aspx?idpage=6

29. Kintrea, K. & Muir, J. (2009). “Integrating Ballymun? Flawed progress in Ireland’s

largest estate regeneration scheme”. Town Planning Review 80(1): 83-108

30. Lawless, P. (2007). “Continuing dilemmas for area based area based urban

regeneration: evidence from the New Deal for Communities Programme in England”.

People, Place & Policy Online (2007): 1/1, pp. 14-21

31. MacLaran, A. & Kelly, S. (2014). “Neoliberal Urban Policy and the Transformation

of the city: Reshaping Dublin”. August 2014. Available at:

http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/10.1057/9781137377050.0022

32. MacLaran, A., Clayton, V. & Brudell, P. (2007). “Empowering Communities in

disadvantaged urban areas: towards greater community participation in Irish urban

planning”. Combat Poverty Agency.

33. Martin, N. (2005). “From Ballymun Community Coalition to Ballymun

Neighbourhood Council 1985 to 2005 -21 Years of Change. (How volunteers are

changing the face of Ballymun)”. Ballymun concrete news, Vol. 7, Issue 1

34. McDonald, F (2015). “From derelict to boom: Dublin through the years”. The Irish

Times (January 31st). Available at: http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-

and-property/from-dereliction-to-boom-dublin-through-the-years-1.2084090

35. McGarry, F. (2010). “The Rising: Easter 1916”. Oxford University Press.

36. Moulaert, F., Rodriquez, A. & Swyngedouw, E. (2003). “The globalized city:

economic restructuring and social polarization in European cities”. Oxford

University Press.

http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/10.1057/9781137377050.0022

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/from-dereliction-to-boom-dublin-through-the-years-1.2084090

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/from-dereliction-to-boom-dublin-through-the-years-1.2084090

62

37. Muir, J. (2004). “Public Participation in Area-based Urban Regeneration

Programmes' Housing Studies”, vol 19(6), no. 6, pp. 947-966

38. Murray, C. (2008). Foreword. From “Memories, milestones and new horizons.

Reflections on the regeneration of Ballymun”. Edited by Aibhlin McCrann.

39. Norris, M. (2001). “Privatising Public Housing Estate Regeneration: A Case Study of

Ballymun Regeneration Ltd, Dublin”. Trinity College Dublin

40. Norris, M. & Redmond, D. (2005). “Housing Contemporary Ireland: Policy, Society

and Shelter”. Springer, Netherlands.

41. O’Hare, P. (2010). “Capacity building for community-led regeneration Facilitating or

frustrating public engagement?” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy

Vol. 30 Nos. 1/2, pp. 32-47

42. Redmond, D & Hearne, R. (2013) “Starting Afresh Housing Associations, Stock

Transfer and Regeneration”. Available at:

https://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/StartingAfreshReport.pdf

43. Saad Filho, A., & Johnston, D. (2004). Neoliberalism: A critical reader. Pluto Press.

44. Smith, A (2004). Balbutcher-Balcurris Forum, directions for Social housing in Dublin

City. Taken from MacLaran 2008: www.combatpoverty.ie/research/.../2008-11-

04_AndrewMacLaran.pdf

45. Sommerville-Woodward, R. (2002). “Ballymun, a history. Volumes 1&2, circa 1600-

1997”. BRL 2002.

46. Williams, B. & Redmond, D. (2014). “Ready Money: residential over-development

and its consequences”. In MacLaran & Kelly’s: Neoliberal Urban Policy and the

transformation of the city: Reshaping Dublin.

47. Woolrych, R., & Sixsmith, J. (2012). “Mobilising community participation and

engagement: The perspective of regeneration professionals”. Journal of Urban

Regeneration and Renewal 6(3), 309-321.

48. Yin, R. (2011). “Qualitative Research from start to finish”. The Guildford Press, New

York, USA.

https://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/StartingAfreshReport.pdf

http://www.combatpoverty.ie/research/.../2008-11-04_AndrewMacLaran.pdf

http://www.combatpoverty.ie/research/.../2008-11-04_AndrewMacLaran.pdf

63

49. Yin, R. (2003). “Case study research: design and methods” (3rd edition). Sage

Publications. Thousand Oaks.

64

Appendices Appendix 1: Professional Questionnaire for Email Interview

• What is/was your role in the regeneration of Ballymun?

• Did the BRL work with the community initially through a community action plan, to identify

priorities in the area?

• How was the regeneration programme advertised?

• Who was notified (stakeholders, landowners, Residents, NGOs such as cultural/historic

bodies)?

• How often was the advertising done?

• Were there any events like design workshops to get the community involved?

• Was feedback positive or negative from the workshops?

• What were the major issues raised by the community and what was done to tackle them?

• What were your main priorities in the regeneration of Ballymun?

• Do you believe that the public should have a big role in urban regeneration?

• Finally, do you believe in a top-down or bottom-up approach in regeneration (what weight

does each have in the process?)

• Did the economic crisis prevent the BRL of meeting the community’s needs?

• What are some of the difficulties when working with the local community (not attending

meetings etc.)?

65

Appendix 2: Resident Questionnaire

66

67

Dissertation 2015

Documents