NJR MSc Final Dissertation

8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation

1/113

1

THE ROLE OF THE LOCAL STATE IN URBAN REGENERATION IN

ENGLAND: FROM A PARTNERSHIP APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP OF

PLACE?

Nathan Jon Renison

This Dissertation is submitted in part fulfilment of the regulations

for the MSc in Spatial Planning

Oxford Brookes University September 2011


2/113

2

Declaration of Individual Authorship:

I affirm that this dissertation contains no unacknowledged work or

ideas from any publication or written work by another student or any

other person.

Statement of Ethics Review Approval:

This dissertation involved human participants. A Form E1BE for group

of participants, showing ethics review approval, has been attached to

this dissertation as an appendix.


3/113

3

Abstract

This dissertation explores the local states role within the contemporary

policy and practice arenas of the modern multi-sectoral Urban

Regeneration Partnership. It utilises the case study of the Castlefields

Regeneration Partnership, Runcorn established in the early 2000s to

regenerate a failing neighbourhood. It seeks to use the case study to

look beyond the modern orthodoxy of the partnership ideal by

proposing a concept of leadership of place, where local authorities can

have a confident local leadership role within urban regeneration.

WORD COUNT: 16239


4/113

4

Content

1.0: Introduction 8

1.1The Management of Regeneration 8

1.2Dynamics of Regeneration 10

1.3 Defining Leadership of Place 11

1.4 An emerging model for Regeneration Delivery? 12

2.0 The Dynamics of Urban Regeneration in England 14

2.1 Parameters of the literature review 14

2.2 Institutional history of urban regeneration in England 14

2.3 Deconstructing the dynamics of regeneration partnerships 27

2.4 Looking beyond the partnership 40

3.0 Methodology 42

3.1 General Hypothesis 42

3.2 Research Design 43

3.3 Reflection-in-action 46

3.4 Selection of Case Study: Castlefields Regeneration 48

3.5 Peeling back the layers of a Partnership 49

3.6 Limitations 50

3.7 Summary 52


5/113

5

4.0 Case Study: Castlefields, Runcorn 54

4.1 Castlefields, A new town neighbourhood 54

4.2 Background to RegenerationCourtship 55

4.3 Production of the Castlefields MasterplanEngagement 59

4.4 Partnership GovernanceMarriage 67

4.5 ImplementationFamily Life 74

4.6 Issues for Further Analysis 77

5.0 Castlefields RegenerationLeadership of Place in action? 81

5.1 Courtship Displaced power and influence 81

5.2 Engagement Convergence of power and influence 84

5.3 Marriage Establishment of hierarchy of power and influence 87

5.4 Family Life Consolidation of power and influence 92

5.5 Summary 97

6.0 Conclusion 98

Bibliography 100

Appendices 109

Appendix A: List of Interviewees 110

Appendix B:Ethical Review Form 113


6/113

6

List of Figures:

Fig. 4.1 Courtship 19982002 58

Fig. 4.2 Engagement 20022003 66

Fig. 4.3 Extract from Minutes of CRSG 24thJune 2005 69

Fig 4.4 Marriage 20032004 73

List of Tables:

Table 4.1 Overview of Masterplan Projects, Castlefields Programme 62

Table 4.2 Castlefields Regeneration Programme Key Life events 78


7/113

7

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge the help and support of my friends, family

and colleagues during the production of this Dissertation. In particular

the guidance of my supervisor, Sue Brownill has been invaluable in

turn a mountain into a molehill. I would also like to thank the support

of HBC for enabling me to undertake my MSc, particularly the patience

and support of my Line Manager, Sally McDonald. I would also like to

state my appreciation for all those (past and present) from The

Castlefields Partnership who took time out of their busy day for

interviews. Finally I would like to thank Timothy Oliver Ashworth, the

best friend and proof reader anyone could ask for.


8/113

8

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1The Management of Regeneration - Beyond a PartnershipApproach

A partnership approach has become the generic phrase, in both

academic literature and regeneration practice, to describe contemporary

best practice for the organisational structure in which urban

regeneration is managed. It is a Partnership which instigates designs

and implements regeneration within a defined geographical area,

typically at the sub-regional, town or neighbourhood level.

Since the mid 1970s the Urban Regeneration Partnership has emerged

to become the modern orthodoxy in urban regeneration policy which

through various mechanisms brings together central and local

government, the private and voluntary sectors and local communities

(Ball and Maginn, 2005). The prescribed assumption being that by

collaborating the sum achievements is greater than the individual

organisations could deliver independently, whilst both organisation and

the use of resources is more efficient.

This dissertation seeks to look beyond this generic partnership

terminology and explore whether a new discourse of leadership of place


9/113

9

has emerged from the contemporary policy arena within which

regeneration has operated over the last decade.

Within this new policy arena has the role of the local state actorThe

local authorityevolved within the partnership setting? Is its role, as a

leader within the management of regeneration and as shaper of place,

getting stronger?

The fundamental question to be addressed within this study is whether

the role of the local authority within the management of regeneration

through the partnership approach has evolved as a response to

conditions set by the contemporary regeneration policy and practice in

England?

In answering this central question the following supplementary

questions will be addressed:

i. What are the conditions set by contemporary regeneration policyand practice in England?

ii. How has the local authority role within the partnership dynamicevolved as a response to these conditions?


10/113

10

The general hypothesis of this study is that the local authority role

within the delivery and implementation (its management) of

regeneration has evolved in response to conditions set within

regeneration policy and practice. This new role is one of strength where

power and influence is exerted over other stakeholders within the

partnership milieu. This new role is defined as leadership of place

where partnership working has been evolved into leadership.

1.2Dynamics of Regeneration - Governance, Delivery andImplementation

Before one can seek to identify through empirical research whether the

role of the local state in the management of regeneration is evolving it is

first important to understand the context in which this trend couldoperate. This is achieved through a review of existing literature

(Chapter 2) and focuses on two key dimensions in the context of this

study.

The first is establishing the broad institutional history of urban

regeneration policy in England. A particular focus is the conditions set

by contemporary regeneration policy discourse that has emerged since

1991.


11/113

11

The second, and more important dimension, relates to the practicality of

the management of regeneration and in particular the development of

academic and practitioner understanding of governance models

including the partnership approach. These models seek to understand

the formal and informal networks and regimesthe organisational

spaces - where the business of regeneration operates. Finally an

understanding of the role of leadership within the management of

regeneration will be explored.

From the review of existing literature it should be possible to establish

whether the conditionsboth in terms of policy and governance

structuresexisted where local authorities could exert influence and

power and demonstrate leadership of place in the management of

regeneration.

1.3Defining Leadership of Place The family analogy

It is the authors original view that regeneration partnerships can be

seen to share many of the characteristics and dynamics of a family unit.

A natural order and hierarchy is established and day to day life is often

mundane. Individuals within the family operate alongside each other

relatively effectively based upon trust and family life moves along.

However, at key life events such as financial crises or the need to

compromise due to competing interests, the family unit is put under

stress and trust is tested.


12/113

12

In is within this analogy that a definition of leadership of place will be

sought.

Within the narrative of the life of a specific regeneration programme it

will be possible to identify the key life events and challenges faced by

the responsible partnership. These key events within the life of the

partnership will be the points were relationship, trust and individual

roles are tested and hierarchy, power and influence established. Onceidentified, these key life events within a programme can form the basis

for further empirical and observational research. This method is

adopted within the empirical research (Chapters 4 and 5) of this study,

and explained in more detail in Chapter 3.

1.4 Leadership of Place an emerging model for RegenerationDelivery?

At the heart of the general hypothesis is whether it is evident that the

local authority has taken the lead role in directing the resources and

coordinating the actions of the stakeholders throughout the life of a

regeneration programme. Critical to the validity of this study is the

extent to which the policy and organisational arenas places the local

authority within a leadership role within the regeneration partnership

or whether it is the individual actions and dynamics specific to

individual circumstances of characteristics of differing placed-based

regeneration programmes.


13/113

13

Crucial to answering this question will be whether or not a broader

evolution of the management and governance of regeneration is evident.

Is contemporary discourse of partnership being replaced by a discourse

leadership of place? If so, can particular conditions be identified and

replicated which enable the local authority to exert parental

responsibility within the partnership family and demonstrate

leadership of place? (These conclusions are drawn within chapter 6).


14/113

14

Chapter 2: The Dynamics of Urban Regeneration in England

2.1 Parameters of the literature review

The objective of this study is to test the general hypothesis that the

local authority role within the delivery and implementation (its

management) of regeneration has evolved in response to conditions set

within regeneration policy and practice. A review of existing literature

can inform research through firstly establishing the broad institutional

history of urban regeneration policy in England. Once established the

existing theory and models that seek to deconstruct and explain the

partnership dynamic will be assessed. It should then be possible to

provide a rationale for engaging in the empirical research of this study.

2.2 Institutional history of urban regeneration in England

The emergence of the Urban Regeneration Partnership (URP) in England

has been shaped by the interplay between two urban policy dimensions

the first relates to the relationships between central and local

government (the institutions); the second by the prevailing policy

response to urban failure. The interplay between these policies is best

understood in terms of the evolution of urban regeneration policy.


15/113

15

Early regeneration policy shows that social need provided the case for

intervention, issues such as poverty and urban deprivation (Lawless

1989; Robson 1988: cited in McCarthy, 2007). McCarthy (2007) sets out

the two main national government policy responsesthe Urban

Programme and Community Development Projects (CDPs). Mckay and

Cox (1979) add compensatory education through the creation of

Educational Priority Areas (EPAs). These initiatives allowed local

authorities to access part funding from central government and were

delivered by local authorities with light touch control from central

government (McCarthy 2007, p.28). Analysis by Edward and Batley

(1978, p.176) of the Urban Programme identified the commissioning

and delivery (Edward and Batley,p.176):

Was providing additional help for deprived areameeting special social

needproviding additional help to areas within authorities that lack

resources.

Suggests funding allocation was guided by broader central government

policy to target places of most need.

Three key characteristic of early urban regeneration policy are evident.

Intervention is focussed on social failure and needs; the relationship

between the central and local state is one of trust with the local

authority given responsibility to develop and deliver responses around

broader policy objectives defined by central government with little

accountability. Collaboration with actors outside of the state is neither

required nor evident. The interplay between these three characteristics


16/113

16

resulting in intervention being targeted to deprived areas at a local level

to supplement wider state policy.

The relationship between central and local government was recast in

the late 1970s and urban policy redefined. During the 1980s

regeneration policy in England shifted focus away from social failures

onto predominately economic failures with some attention to linked

physical failures (Atkinson and Moon, 1994: cited in McCarthy,

2007,p.29). As McCarthy (2007,p.30) identifies:

This was perhaps manifested most clearly by the introduction of Urban

Development Corporations (UDCs), which took over local authority

powers in several inner urban areas in order to promote property

development-led regeneration.

Whilst the Urban Programme demonstrated that central government

perceived that social failures could be tackled by existing mechanisms

through state actors; the central government ideology during the 1980s

saw tackling economic failures required a more laisez-faire private

sector response as opposed to existing state mechanisms. It can be

seen that places for intervention were determined by a central

government rationale of inner city opportunities rather than individual

need.


17/113


18/113

18

programme, though these were often regarded as inadequate (Deakin

and Edwards, 1993: cited in Ball and Maginn, 2005,p.13).

Further criticism relates to the separation of social policy from

mainstream regeneration interventions. This is evident in several

programmes from the 1980s such as Safer Cities, Garden festivals and

City action teams, whilst these embraced principles of earlier

programmes from the 70s of dealing with problems at source, they werenot integrated with private sector led economic property based

interventions resulting in dualism of policy interventions (Ball and

Maginn, 2005,p.13).

Urban regeneration policy from 1979 - 1990 is characterised by a focus

on economic and physical intervention; whilst still evident, socialprogrammes took a back seat and were not integrated with economic

programmes. Crucially economic programmes were delivered through

new governance agencies between central government and the private

sector, largely by-passing a perceived failing local state. Power and

influence of the local state was expressed through local conflict. The

interplay between these characteristics resulting in intervention being

targeted to central government determined local areas without localaccountability or flexibility.


19/113

19

Relations between central government and local authorities evolved

again through the regeneration programmes of the earlymid 1990s

City Challenge and the early phases of the Single Regeneration Budget

(SRB). A distinct difference between these flagship programmes and

their predecessors of the 1980s was the incorporation of local

partnerships arrangements within initiatives. McCarthy (2007) argued

that these arrangements came through recognition by central

government (via criticisms by the audit commission in 1989 of

regeneration initiatives of the 1980s) that better co-ordination of urban

interventions was required. It was evident that these programmes also

addressed separation of social policy by making addressing social

issues as a central component of policy (Ball and Maginn, 2005,p.14).

McCarthy, (2007,p.33) Identified that addressing need itself was

diluted within these regeneration initiatives towards broader economicdevelopment objectives as through the downgrading of need as a grant

criterion. This criticism recognises the introduction of a new tenet to

regeneration policycompetitive bidding between local areas seeking

funding from central government. The capacity of partnership boards

meeting bidding criteria was critical in determining which bids were

successful: central government retaining power and influence.

Central government criteria for these programmes allowed local

authorities within regeneration policy decision-making, although local

authorities were facilitators rather than developers and owners (Ball

and Maginn, 2005 p. 14). Funding criteria placed local authority

involvement within a broader local partnership governance structure


20/113

20

incorporating participation of community and voluntary groups, as well

as levering in private sector finance. The competitive process for

allocation of funding received a number of criticismsit was open to all

local authority areas, rather than focussed on areas of need; time

constraints limited effective partnership formation; focus was on bid

quality rather than need, and; lack of accountability due to reduced role

of local authority (McCarthy, 2007,p.33).

The establishment of English Partnership (EP) during this period is a

further expression of central government retaining control of

regeneration policy and implementation. EP was conceived as English

Development Agency directly accountable central government

(McCarthy, 2007,p.34). Whilst governmental aim was that it would work

in partnership with local authorities; delivery was envisaged to be via

the private sector and EP was granted powers such as CompulsoryPurchase which were removed from Local Authority (Blackman, 1995:

cited in McCarthy, 2007,p.34). This early period of EP reflects central

government policy: reducing the power and influence of the local

authorities within urban regeneration.

Urban regeneration policy during this 1990s period represents theconsolidation of previous phases of regeneration policy and the

emergence of the modern URP as the governance structure for

implementation of interventions, through broad local coalitions albeit

with limited power and influence of local authorities. Central

government control was retained through the competitive criteria based

bidding process and the establishment of EP. Also whilst the integration


21/113

21

of social need represents a move towards holistic regeneration; funding

arrangements diminished the broader focus of need of an area.

Within the context of this research, the final period of urban

regeneration policy relates to the change in central government from a

Conservative administration to that of New Labour. The starting point

was that previous policies had failed, and they established the Social

Exclusion Unit (SEU) in 1997 with a remit to address the causes of

exclusion and to develop integrated and sustainable approaches to the

problems of the worst housing estates (Oatley, 2000,p.86).

The initial outcomes of the SEU were expressed within the National

strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal published in 2000. The focus was

that over the last 20 years poverty had become more concentrated in

individual neighbourhoods, this notion was justified by significant

empirical data on spatial concentrations of poverty (SEU 2000,p.7: cited

in Oatley 2000,p.87). Imrie and Raco (2003,p.4) identified that the main

conclusions of this report was that previous initiatives had: too much

reliance on short term regeneration; suffered from a lack of leadership;

too little attention to the problems of worklessness, crime and poor

education, and; communities need to be fully integrated in shaping and

delivering regeneration.

New Labour policy responses can be seen to pre-empt the SEU report

with the publication of Index of Local Deprivation (ILD) in 1998 which in

itself was a significant step in legitimising area-based initiatives

demonstrating increasing concentrations of poverty in England. The ILD


22/113

22

led to 44 local authorities, which contained 85% of Englands most

deprived wards, being identified as most in need of intervention (Hill,

2000). Linked to the ILD and the outcomes of the SEU, a series of

holistic regeneration initiatives were targeted at most deprived areas.

Initiatives included the New Deal for Communities and the

Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (McCarthy, 2007,pp.3739). These

initiatives encompassed a more holistic approach tackling the multiple

causes of social and economic decline. These changes reflect the

broader poverty focus of earlier 1970s initiatives evident from the

analysis by Edward and Batley (1978).

The relationship between central and local government is arguably

guided by attempts to harmonise policy interventions. Whilst at the

local level governance structures continued a shift began in early 1990s

urban regeneration policy, towards community participation,partnerships and empowerment; it is at the central government level

where improvements to coordination of policy interventions were

focused. This was achieved through the bending of mainstream

government spending programmes in health, education and

housingtargeted at perceived problem communities (Imrie and Raco,

2003,pp.12-13). New Labours approach to urban regeneration policy

can be characterised as more strategic coherent multi-level governancetargeted through area based initiatives. One expression of coordinated

central government action towards local level need is the refocusing of

the work of EP towards areas of low housing demand and 20% most

deprived wards in England: a stronger emphasis on a working

partnership with local authorities and local and regional organisations

(McCarthy, 2007 pp.3435).


23/113

23

Another important aspect of the relationship between central and local

government was the attempt by New Labour to redefine the governance

culture of local authorities. New Labour sought to enable and promote a

role that (Filkin at el, 1999, cited in Hemphill et al, p.62):

Required local authorities to move beyond the management of in-

house services, taking on a new role of community leadership,

whilst outward-looking and open in style.

The implementation of the new broader leadership role for local

authorities is set out in Local Government Act 2000, and in particular

(DETR, 2000,p.1):

Part I of the Act gives local authorities powers to take any steps

which they consider are likely to promote the well-being of their

area or inhabitants. It places authorities under a duty to develop

community strategies, together with other local bodies, for this

purpose. These provisions are intended to give local authorities

increased opportunities to improve the quality of life of their

local communities.

The language of the Act take any steps is clearly one of autonomy and

leadership, and it captures some of the attributes of URP within a

broader urban governance context. The requirement to work with other

local bodies also indicates this was the aspiration. Enshrining and

promoting local autonomy creates fertile ground for the perpetuation of


24/113

24

the URP. Autonomy came with caveats including section 3 of the Act

(DETR, 2000) preventing local authorities using the power to raise

money, perhaps the ultimate power in urban governance.

The formation of Local Strategic Partnerships (LSP) through the Local

Government Act (DETR, 2000) instilled the approach of Hastings (1996:

cited in Hemphill et al 2006) policy synergy within urban governance.

This has been reinforced by other actions such by central governmentpersuading local authorities to separate its strategic housing function

from its housing management function through the decent homes

programme (ODPM, 2000). This has fostered a culture of collaboration

at the local authority level, bringing with it an alternative third sector

culture: innovation and area-based working such as from housing

associations (McArthur, 1995) into the heart of urban governance. New

Labour can be seen here to be redefining the governance culture of localgovernment to move away from day-to-day service delivery to a strategic

local leadership role. Within the context of this research this is a critical

concept, and the extent to which it has been embraced by different local

authorities and expressed in their actions requires further analysis.

This period of New Labour urban regeneration policy can be categorisedby a shift in emphasis to local need as the basis for intervention.

Central government attempted to coordinate mainstream policy and

local interventions targeting concentrations of poverty based on an

empirical rationalearea based initiatives came to fore. Renewed trust

was placed within local authorities with an emphasis on strategic local

leadership and partnership working. Although it can also be seen that


25/113

25

central government have retained control of many aspects of policy

direction: directing interventions to more discreet ward level as opposed

to local authority level, restricting flexibility.

Since the 1970s the evolution of urban regeneration policy can be

viewed from an institutional perspectivethe relationship between

central and local state, played out in tensions and a lack of trust in the

latter. Governance structures to implement regeneration policy evolved:

the 1970s categorised by local authority direct delivery the 1980s by

their bypassing through direct engagement between the central state

and private sectorcriticism of this approach led to the local state

being gradually brought back into governance arrangements during the

1990s within a wider multi-sectoral local partnership arrangementby

the final period central government trust in local authorities had been

restored: their local leadership role cemented within broader local

partnership arrangements.

By the early 2000s the modern orthodoxly of the multi-sector URP had

emerged. Alongside this move to the perceived partnership ideal central

governmental urban policy had moved between a focus on various

regeneration policy objectivessocial, economic and physical. By early

2000s this evolved to focus on areas of perceived need and a

multifaceted holistic response in the form of area-based initiatives.


26/113

26

In the context of this research it is evident from literature that by the

early 2000s fertile conditions had been set which could place the local

state in a position of leadership within urban regeneration partnerships.

Within this institutional perspective the extent that this has been

realised is not apparent, requiring further research. Additionally,

literature has touched upon a number of other aspects of urban

regeneration policy includingthe extent of a spatial dimension;

community and multi-sector representation. These aspects will be

explored in more detail within the context of theory and models that

seek to deconstruct and explain the partnership dynamic.


27/113


28/113

28

As Swyngedouw et al (2002. cited in Jones and Evans, 2006) state

cooperation between the different tiers of governments and external

agencies is now central to urban regeneration practice. Research and

literature tends to focus on explaining these mechanisms as alternative

local governance models (Stoker 1999; 2000: cited in Davies, 2001).

In his important text, Davies (2001) identified three distinct governance

typologies, reflecting different tiers of cooperation between variousactors but with particular focus on the relationship between the state

and private sector. These were summarised by Jones and Evans (2006,

pp.1492-1493):

Governance by governmentThe state as the primary agency for delivery of services with little

or no interaction between government and businesses

Governance by partnershipLocal partnerships forming between government and business,

but purely as mechanism for delivering government policy

Governance by RegimeGovernment and private sector work together in long-term,

synergistic networks that develop spontaneously, not in response

to policy initiatives


29/113

29

Whilst governance by government defines more historic approaches to

inter-organisational relationships within the delivery of regeneration;

governance by partnership or by regimes has provided a focus for

seeking to understand contemporary regeneration practice in England.

The tiers of governance broadly mirror the phases of regeneration set

out in section 2.2 above showing how governance structures have

evolved as an outcome of regeneration policy.

An alternative model of governance is urban regime theory: developed in

the USA to help explain the dynamics of local power structures; city

governance and how they influence political decision making

(Digaetano, 1997). The theory goes beyond traditional concepts of

ruling political elites and power as a coercive force; instead on the need

and desire of city governance to get things done (Stoker, 1995). Urban

regime theory seeks to interpret relations between the local state andbusiness community (Elkin 1987a; Stone, 1989. cited in Davies, 2001).

The model would suggest that decisions about regeneration are more

likely than not be stitched up by powerful unseen players (Manbiot

2001, cited in Imrie and Raco, 2003). Davies (2001,p. 49) critiqued the

application of regime theory to explain UK partnerships citing the work

of John and Cole (1998) in respect of the Leeds Initiative.

A more specific model is that of governance by network developed by

Rhodes and Marsh (1992). There has been much debate within

literature regarding similarities between regime theory and network

analysis (see Stoker and Mossberger, 1994 and Stoker, 1995: cited in


30/113

30

Davies, 2001). Rhodes proposed network analysis is that governance

refers to self-organising, inter-organisation networks

Central to understanding the distinction between partnerships,

regimes and networks is the concept of autonomy and distance from

state. A self-organising network suggests autonomy and distance from

the state. Regime theory and governance by partnership suggests a

stronger policy relationship between state and private sector (Davies,2001: cited in Jones and Evans, 2006). A further difference relates to

timescales: regimes and networks suggest longer term integrated

relationships; partnerships are more short term and focussed on a

specific output. Davies (2001,p.32) acknowledges a basic similarity

between these conceptual theories regime theory like policy network

analysis, is a theory on inter-organisational governance based on

resource interdependence.

Utilising the case study of Attwood Green, Jones and Evans (2006)

explored these theoretical debates concluding that to apply one theory

over another was oversimplification and the practices of governance are

evolving extremely quickly and there is an academic imperative to use

these experiences to refine our theoretical toolkits (2006,p.1506). Thecomparisons and application of this conceptual theory is a complex

debate within the discourse of urban governance, within the context of

this research they provide a useful frame for conceptualising URP,

particularly the notion of autonomy and distance from the state. But

their systematic application to further case study would contribute little

to furthering knowledge or practice.


31/113

31

Below this broader conceptual framework lies further literature dealing

more directly with URPs in England. This can be categorised by a focus

on the power and influence of those engaged (or not) within the URP. To

understand this research a general concept of the multi-sectoral

partnership model is utilised to capture actions and structures of

decentralised policy making and implementation and crucially focus on

the people involved with delivery (Hemphill et al, 2006).

How a partnership is instigated, who are involved, for what reason and

from what point is crucial to representation and its legitimacy (Smith

and Beazley, 2000). At its most simplistic the partnership model

facilitates budget enlargement for respective partners through enabling

access to additional funding (Mackintosh, 1992: cited in Smith and

Beazley, 2000,p.864). Hasting (1996: cited in Hemphill et al 2006)

identifies synergies for partnership working can be broken down intotwo distinct groups - resource synergy which adds value from

coordination of respective resources and skills in joint working (similar

to Mackintoshs view), and; policy synergy where innovations are

created through partner working.

A consistent criticism within literature is that local authorities tend todominate URPs at the expense of third sector and local community

interests; the partnership model itself facilitates this process (Geddes,

2000; Jones, 2003). The extent that this criticism holds credence within

a more contemporary context of a resurgent and collaborative local state

as defined by the Local Government Act 2000 could be questioned.


32/113

32

Another constant focus of literature concerns community involvement,

participation and empowerment within public policy decision making

and delivery. Seminal works include Arsteins (1969) ladder of

participation and subsequent expansions and critiques of her work

(Burns et al, 1994; Nicholson and schreiner, 1973: cited in Smith and

Beazey, 2000).

Contemporary policy in respect of community involvement in URPs has

been shaped by New Labour discourse, as advocated by the SEU,

community is fully integrated in the shaping and delivery of

regeneration (Imrie and Raco, 2003,p.4). Ball and Maggin (2005)

demonstrate that there is an increasing body of research that suggests

that community involvement is a way of channelling and smothering

local protest (2005,p.21). This is the notion that URP secure legitimacy

for the external intervention within a place through community

involvement at the lower rungs of Arsteins ladder. Bailey (2010)

suggests community empowerment is always likely to be partial.

Hemphill et al (2006) argued that community involvement within the

URP is more a reflection of the move towards local governance and a

focus on people as well as place within area-based URPs.

Regardless of the reason, the partnership ideal of community

involvement is so embedded within regeneration an egalitarian

partnership has become an end to itself and a measure of success


33/113

33

(Rhodes et al, 2002; Smith and Beazley, 2000). Although Ball and

Maginn (2005,p.17) argue:

The intrinsic value and potential costs of high levels of

community participation and the potential conflicts with other

policy aims still need to be evaluated and questioned.

This questioning of the egalitarian partnership is valid, particularly

when seen alongside the rejuvenation of strategic roles for local

government over the last decade, which in itself reaffirms, Broady and

Hedley (1989) position that community participation is viewed

sceptically by elected members.

Additionally an egalitarian partnership view assumes that the

community speaks with one voice, but as Atkinson (1999) and North

(2003) demonstrated there are often competing community interests

within an area. Therefore as Bailey (2010,pp.329330) suggested

understanding the rationality for community involvement is not clear

cut: empowerment is always constrained and contingent on the wider

distribution of power within local contexts. He goes on to argue that

(2010,p.330):

A further dimension of empowerment relates to perceptions that

change is possible at the local level, particularly amongst the

residents themselves but also for officers and members of the

local authority and other agencies.


34/113

34

The issue of local context including individual actors involvement is

significant in determining the role and involvement of the communities

within URP (Bailey, 2010). Ballard (1999: cited in Hemphill et al,

2006,p.62) argues local government works best when it is genuinely

local, looking to the community for guidance, not towards central

government. The role of autonomy within URPs is often over-simplified

as the conflict between central and local government. The broader role

of autonomy in stimulating leadership, innovation and change within

the URP context is often overlooked.

The underlying theme within much of the literature on community

participation within the URP context relates to defining the role of the

community from the outset, whatever that role maybe be. Current

literature and policy seems to shape the role of community involvement

within URP as being that of Participative citizenship withina frameworkof representative democracy (Prior et al 1995 cited in Smith and

Beazey, 2000 p.860).

Multi-sectoral representation within urban governance always raise

concerns regarding issues of power dynamic (particularly in the case of

community voices) and cynicism of why actors are involved(particularly in the case of private sector interests). The opportunity for

synergy from multi-sectoral representation outweighs these concerns.

Ball and Maginns (2005) review of literature on contemporary

regeneration policy and practice highlighted the inconclusive nature of


35/113

35

academic understanding of the effectiveness of partnerships. They state

literature has focussed on three prime issuesthe general role of

partnerships, the degree of community empowerment within them, and

evaluation of particular programmes (Ball and Maginn, 2005,p.16). This

has been, they argue, at the expense of detailed investigation of the

costs and benefits of the partnership approach and its broader

implications. The partnership as an effective and successful structure

for management of regeneration is central to their critique:

Successful outcomesdepend on the resolution of major

differences, which is influenced by the intensity conflict over

land and public sector resources and the ability of partnership

models to lead to productive compromise. (Ball and Maginn,

2005,p.23)

They identify three critical tasks multi-sectoral partnerships have to

juggle to deliver successful outcomes (Ball and Maginn, 2005,p.24):

Maximising the degree of co-operation and consensus betweenpartners;

Setting up systems that capitalise on synergies derived from thepartnership;

Managing a large building project, so that it comes in on time andcost, and possibly managing a series of sub-projects with distinct

characteristic.


36/113

36

In concluding, Ball and Maginn (2005) argue that partnership could add

value in respect of these three tasks, but the picture is unclear because

little research been undertaken. This provides a useful frame for

analysis of a partnership case study, to further knowledge and practice.

Leadership within the context of regeneration management is therefore

an important concept. Ball and Maginn (2005,p.20) suggest:

Strong leadership requires making decisions against some

participants wishes, so that executive decisions can be made,

imposing strategies that limit subsequent debate.

This exposes a contradiction at the heart of what constitutes the

partnership ideal.

Judd and Parkinson (1990,p.307) used city-level case studies from

around the world to demonstrate strong connections between

leadership and successful city-wide economic regeneration, arguing that

leadership creates the possibility for success. In the context of mutli-

sectoral partnership context Hempill et al (2006) suggests that

contemporary regeneration policy has switched emphasis towards

delivery based mechanisms that achieve synergistic benefits which go

beyond project delivery, citing a community leadership role as critical to

building confidence within communities. These pieces of research cite


37/113

37

the importance of the coming together of the right individuals and

partners for leadership to work.

Sweeting et al (2004,p.353: citing Hambleton and Stewart, 2000;

Stewart 2002) identify a number of leadership roles which might be

adopted within partnership:

Championtaking forward the goals of the partnership; Salespersonselling the partnership and its achievements to

others in order to generate more resources and support for

partners;

Interpretermoving between networks to carry the message ofone set of interests to another;

Brokermoving between networks as a negotiator, bringingtogether resources, putting together packages or multi-

organisational projects;

Coordinatormediating, bringing partners together, ensuringinformation is shared

Managerensuring the effective operation of the partnership,the delivery of output, and the fulfilment of contractual

obligations;

Visionaryinspiring the partnership to think long term;


38/113

38

Representativereflecting the feelings and wishes of particularinterests and ensuring that their voices are heard in the debatesof partnership;

Agent provocateurSeeking to provoke action where it is feltunlikely to happen, generating controversy and/or conflict.

These roles provide a credible framework for assessing leadership within

a partnership, having been established from a border body academic

work.

Diamond and Liddle (2005) highlight the complexity of working within a

mutli-secotoral partnership places on regeneration professionals,

working both within the boundaries of other organisations and with

communities. They go on to question the capacity of local authority

officers to show leadership and manage organisational relationships

within a partnership and stakeholder dynamic, beyond hierarchical and

traditional governance structures. Whilst recognising that best practice

and benching-marking being key to advancing practice.

The final aspect of urban regeneration partnership is the spatial

dimension to intervention. It has been argued the resilience of

neighbourhood problems led to the number of Area-based Initiatives

(ABIs) mushrooming in 1990s and the governance of neighbourhoods

regeneration being characterised by a kaleidoscope of interlinked,


39/113

39

spatially overlapping partnerships (Dean et al, 1999: cited in Imrie and

Raco, 2003,p.8586).

One criticism of ABIs is that by focusing on internal failure

characteristics contained within defined areas is to the detriment of

external processes (Hasting in Imrie and Raco, 2003,pp.85-100). This

inward-looking critique of area based initiatives can be seen to sit

within Diamonds (2010) discourse of failure.

Halls (1997) study of regeneration policies for peripheral housing

estates argued that approaches mostly focused on solving internal

problems, ignoring external problems. Hall is discussing a wider

critique of the limitations of urban regeneration policy: rather than

tackling the root causes of estate decline the policy merely treats thesymptoms of failure.

New Labours ABIs of the 1990s were seen as integrated multi-level

approachs with a central lead role occupied by local authorities (imrie

and Raco, 2003,p.8586). Criticism that has emerged is what Carley et

al (2000a) called partnership fatigue due to overlapping area-based

polices. This is worsened by a lack of clear frameworks governing

institutional arrangements within the partnership maelstrom,

restricting strong leadership and results (Carley et al 2000b). This

provides a useful approach to further analysis of the local authority role

within URPs due to their wider administrative and political remit.


40/113

40

The literature which focuses in more detail on the multi-sectoral

partnership in England, and the search for the partnership ideal

provides a much clearer focus for further researchthe management of

regeneration and the local states role within that dynamic.

2.4 Looking beyond the partnership

The review of literature provides a strong rational for engaging further

empirical research. The institutional perspective provides a useful

narrative of tension that has led to the modern multi-sectoral URP. The

conceptual frameworks of Rhodes and Marsh (1992) and Davies (2001)

attempt to express how urban governance structures respond to this

broader narrative. More focussed research is concentred on searching

for the partnership ideal Who should be involved, what power and

influence they should have and what actions it should take. These

dynamics of the relationships between partners and individuals (both

formal and informal) are the oil which lubricates the moderns URP and

the glue which ultimately binds actors within partnership

arrangements.

The role of management and leadership within URP dynamics is an

emerging research area, with recognition in literature that practice is

ever evolving and needs to be shared and understood. The work of

Sweeting et al (2004) in respect of leadership roles provide a credible


41/113

41

framework for assessing leadership within a partnership. The role and

capacity of local authorities within the partnership dynamic is clearly

contested; and must be viewed within the culture fostered by New

Labour of a local strategic leadership role for the local state.

The imperative for further research is that the search in literature for

the partnership ideal does not fully recognise the more confident and

resurgent local state. Local authorities strategic role and capacitywithin the URP should not be viewed sceptically but embraced and

understood. This is the concept of leadership of place and it is only

through case study analysis that this can be achieved.


42/113

42

Chapter 3: Methodology

3.1 General Hypothesis

The Review of existing research has established that the policy

conditions exist which are conducive to enable local authorities to exert

influence and power within a contemporary Urban Regeneration

Partnership (URP) in England.

At the heart of the general hypothesis is whether it is evident that the

local authority has taken the lead role in directing the resources and

coordinating the actions of the Partnership throughout the life of a

regeneration programme. Critical to the validity of this study is the

extent to which the policy and organisational arenas places the local

authority within a leadership role within the regeneration partnership

or whether it is the individual actions and dynamics specific to

individual circumstances of characteristics of differing placed-based

regeneration programmes.

Crucial to answering this question will be whether or not a broader

evolution of the management and governance of regeneration is evident.

Is the contemporary concept of partnership being replaced by a concept

of leadership of place? If so, can particular conditions can be identified

and replicated. What factors enable the local authority to exert power


43/113

43

and influence within the management of regeneration and demonstrate

leadership of place? (These conclusions are drawn within chapter 6).

3.2 Research Design

The stimulus of this research is through the authors personal

experience of the Partnership in action. This represents a legitimate

basis for social inquiry; as Lofland and Lofland (1995) identified

research can emerge out of researchers personal biography (cited in

Bryman, 2004, p 5). For this personal endeavour to carry significance it

must, however, be viewed in relation to theoretical concerns (2004, p 5).

It is the premise of this research that theory in respect of urban

governance, and particularly the URP, has been dominated and clouded

by a positivist epistemology which seek to simplify and explain the

Partnership as a series of conditions and models that can be tested

rather than understand its practical applications. A case in point is that

of debate between urban regime theory and partnership theory. These

abstract (what Merton, 1967, cited in Bryman, describes as mid-range)

theories compete to simplify the Partnership dynamic. As such the

author proposes that these mid-range theories in respect of the

partnership, whilst academically valid are abstract in their application

in practice.


44/113

44

Firstly to truly observe a Partnership it must not be seen a single static

entity but as moving constellation or family of interconnected

personalities. As identified in the review of existing research, whilst

some partnership theory seek to recognise competing interests and

values within the partnership dynamic it is a static model, which does

not attempt understand the fluidity of a partnership.

As such the research has been designed to firstly build a theory ratherthan propose and test it. An inductive approach is therefore adopted to

define the relationship between a regeneration programme and the

partnership dynamic which its manages implementation.

It is the authors proposition that URPs can be deconstructed as a

family and within the narrative of the life of specific regenerationprogramme it will be possible to identify key life events faced by the

responsible family. These key events within the life of the partnership

will be the points were relationship, trust and individual roles are tested

and hierarchy and influence established. Once identified, these key life

events within a programme can form the basis for further empirical and

observational research.

The empirical research to test the hypothesis has been designed in two

key stages: the first (chapter 4) seeks to utilise secondary data collection

and analysis such as core partnership documents, formal reports from

respective organisations and minutes from Partnership Steering Groups

and neighbourhood forums. Thorough secondary data analysis, this


45/113

45

diverse mix of data provides an overview and narrative for the

management of the Regeneration Programmethe narrative of family

life. From the Programmes inception, to its design, its funding and

financing structure, its engagement with private sector and the local

communityand more cruciallyits implementation.

The use of official documents derived from the state and private sources

is a valid approach for observing organisational case studies,particularly prior to interviews (Bryman, 2004,p.387); and as official

organisational records meet Scotts (1990: cited in Bryman, 2004,p.381)

four criteria of quality authenticity, credibility, representativeness

and meaning.

Once identified, these key life events within the Programme will formthe basis for further observational research (Chapter 5) through semi-

structured interviews with key individual actors representative of the

Partnership Stakeholders.

This two stage methodology should provide a systematic study of the

management of the implementation of neighbourhood regeneration.

With a focus on the leadership role (or otherwise) of the local authority,

it will also provide a robust testing of the whether leadership of place is

evident within the case study.


46/113

46

3.3 Reflection-in-action

Schon (1983 p26) identified the hierarchical separation of research and

practice as a limiting factor for advancement of knowledge. Reflection-

in-action, Schon argued represents an opportunity to bring some

meaning to abstract academic thinking and bridge this divide.

Reflection-in-action, Schon (1983, p 68) argues enables the professional

to become a researcher in the practice context and;

He is not dependent on the categories of established theory and

technique, but conducts a new theory of the unique case. His

inquiry is not limited to deliberation about means which

depends on a prior agreement about ends.

As a practising regeneration professional, the author has been

immersed in the implementation of the Castlefields Regeneration

Programme through the Castlefields Regeneration Partnership for a

period of 3 year (at time of writing). The authors role within the

Partnership is a Principal Programme Officer working in Castlefields

Regeneration Team, for Halton Borough Councilthe Local Authority. I

am responsible for managing the Councils interest within the

Partnership and wider regeneration Programme, including the

management of regeneration projects, liaising with Partner organisation,

wider stakeholders and the local community.


47/113

47

This provides a unique insight into one particular case study. The

author also lives above the shop having been a resident of Castlefields

for 6 years, providing an additional ethnographic dimension to

accumulation of knowledge and interpretation of data collection.

Whilst engaged in the regeneration of Castlefields, the author has been

enlightened by the scale and complexity of inter-organisational

cooperation and coordination (and the individual professionalsrepresentative of those organisations) involved in implementationthe

phenomena of the URP, and the local authorities role within that

phenomena. Castlefields presents the author with an opportunity to

bring together academic understanding with practice to undertake

applied research to an observed intuitive process.

Through reflection-in-action the author seeks to bring professional

knowledge from the implementation of the Castlefields Regeneration

Programme to propose a new concept of the partnership dynamic

leadership of place; rather than seek to test an existing theory. To

advance this the author also proposes a new way of deconstructing the

PartnershipThe family life analogy. Conforming to Schon assertion

that practitioners can recast fundamental methods of inquiry andoverarching theories (1983, p317).


48/113

48

3.4 Selection of Case StudyCastlefields Regeneration programme

The case study has been selected to add to the epistemology of

understanding of the contemporary English URP through the process of

practice-based research. As Hemphill et al (2006, p. 59) identified

urban governance has become the catchphrase of modern urban policy

despite lacking precise meaning and often being used in a variety of

different discourses.

In addition to the unique opportunity of drawing on the approach of

reflection-in-action, the case study represents a credible example of a

contemporary URP, it has multi-sector representation and is area

based. Additionally the case study has been been in a period of

innovation for approximately10 years (at time of writing) and is still livethis will provide the opportunity for a more valid Partnership dynamic

to be observed. Interestingly it sits outside of any single pot

programme, such as Housing Market Renewal Areas, so it is not

constrained by the regulations that come with such programmes,

offering the potential for uniqueness to be observed.

As such the single case study of the Castlefields Regeneration

Programme and the dynamics of the Castlefields Regeneration

partnership will be the sole focus for testing general hypothesis and the

analytical method employed to deconstruct the case. Whilst wider

application of both the methodology and testing of hypothesis would

enhance validity; as a minimum justification of the use of this single


49/113


50/113

50

the power and influence of respective partner organisations within that

process. The implicit interrogation being the role of the local authority.

Semi-structured qualitative interviewing with key informants of the

people involved in the delivery will enable the layers of the Partnership

to be peeled back, to reveal a truer picture of the partnership dynamic,

than analysis of secondary data alone could establish. Interview

structure will be guided by the stages of the life of the Programmeinception, design, implementation, which will then be conceptualised

within the family life analogy. Key informant will be identified through

secondary data analysis, in accordance with an inductive process.

Therefore each interview will have its own distinct interview guide. A

compendium of interview guides is provided as appendix # to give ameasure of credibility and internal validity and enable transferability to

be tested.

3.6 Limitations

As this study represents reflection-in-action, the interviewees, drawn

from the Partnership are known on a professional basis to the

researcher with on-going interaction. Whilst these pre-existing

relationships will enable focus on formal and informal roles within the

Partnership (as the researcher is already immersed within these


51/113

51

relationships with the interviewee), they may also limit responses due to

the partnership being live. For instance it may be perceived by that the

interviewer will utilise interviewee responses in on-going professional

interaction, making for a guarded response and the researchers

objectivity. As Bloor (1997) cited in Bryman (2004, p 274) observes;

Some approaches to enquiry may result in research participants

developing relationships with the researcher of fondness and mutual

regard there may be a reluctance to be critical.

Although it could equally be argued that interviewees will open up to a

familiar face and perceive the interview to be less formal and academic

in nature.

Prior to the formal research a pilot interview was conducted with two

regeneration practitioners at Liverpool City Council working on the

Housing Market Renewal Programme. This tested the approach to the

interview guide around the stage of the life of the programme and how

opened-end and controlled questions worked with the context of the

research area. Additionally the interviewees were known to the

researcher and it was clear that this approach did not appear to limit

candidness of responses. Nethertheless, for transparency potential

limits are identified.

Validity of a thick description requires 360 degree analysis of

Partnership perspectives. Due to the length of the Programme some of


52/113

52

the individual actors are likely to no longer be involved in the

Programme, and indeed a number will have retired from professional

working life altogether. As such whilst the two stage method employed

will firstly identify key Partners and individual actors, extent of validity

will dependent of securing partner representation.

Due to the scope of research and limitations on the author, full

transcription of interviews will not be published. As such only sectionsof interviews will be transcribed within the research. A degree of

dependability will be ensured through a complete record of audio

recordings and transcriptions for external validation.

Whilst it is important to acknowledge these limitations in advance of

analysis, an assessment of the research reliability and validity will formpart of the conclusion. As a predominately qualitative research strategy

is employed, Lincoln and Gubas (1985) trustworthiness and

authenticity criteria will be used (cited in Brymen 2004, pp. 273277).

3.7 Summary

Reflection-in-action presents the author with an opportunity to

contribute to the URP governance discourse. Within the scope of the

research a predominantly qualitative research strategy will enable

rigorous analysis of a single case study to provide a thick description

and ensure validity and reliability can be tested. An inductive inquiry

guided by a general concept will enable the general hypothesis of the


53/113

53

factor determining the whether the local authorities can exert influence

and power and demonstrate leadership of place in the management of

regeneration.


54/113

54

Chapter 4: Castlefields, RuncornRemaking an English New Town

Neighbourhood

This chapter utilises secondary data to provide an overview of the

Castlefields Regeneration Programme, Runcorn (from now on referred to

as the Programme). The chapter focuses on the establishment and role

of the Castlefields Regeneration Partnership (from now on referred to as

the Partnership), the inter-organisational governance structure which

coordinated regeneration actions.

It is proposed that the Partnership can be viewed as a family unit of

organisations that have come together. The periods of this union can be

viewed as the stages of a relationship of a familycourtship,

engagement, marriage and family life. This notion provides a useful

analogy for understanding the fluidity of the Partnership. It will also

help identify the key life events that have shaped and tested

relationships between family members; these provide the basis forengaging primary research.

4.1 Castlefields, A new town neighbourhood

Castlefields is a residential neighbourhood within the former New Town

of Runcorn (designated phase 3 in 1964), Cheshire. Built between 1968

and 1972, it had approximately 2400 homes, to accommodate a

population of approximately 8000 residents, all of which were socialhousing stock including 1400 deck access flats.

In 1989 Castlefields 2400 houses were transferred between two existing

housing associationsLiverpool Housing Trust (LHT) and CDS Housing

(now part of the Plus Dane Housing Group). Between them they are the

landlord for the majority of properties within Castlefields. Halton


55/113

55

Borough Council (HBC), a Unitary Authority formed in 1998, have

responsibility for social infrastructure such as schools and physical

infrastructure such as public highway. The local centre was acquired by

the private sector.

Despite a promising start, the 1980s saw a change in the fortunes for

Castlefields with the area developing wide reaching environmental,

economic and social problems leading to severe decline (Halton Borough

Council, 2009b,p.1).

4.2 Background to RegenerationCourtship

The origins of the regeneration of Castlefields represent the courtship

stage within the Partnership dynamic between 1998 and 2000. It is

evident in secondary data that a need for action formed the basis for

partners initially coming together.

Between 1998 - 2000 LHT and Plus Dane jointly undertook a series ofresident consultation exercises and viability assessments regarding

potential regeneration. The culmination of this work was securing the

future: A Regeneration Strategy for Castlefields (2000)Produced by

Brock Carmichael Associates on behalf of LHT and CDS Housing. The

study focussed on housing association property interests and the

shopping centre. It included extensive community consultation and

highlighted the residents likes and dislikes:

Redevelopment of the local centre Selective demolition of deck access flats Altering the basic mix on the estate


56/113

56

Open spaces and mature trees were liked Residents are loyal to Castlefields and has a strong community

(EP, 2000,p.78 and Appendix 1)

In 1998 HBC identified Castlefields as action area within its

Regeneration strategyfor Halton 1998 (HBC, 1998). This was

subsequently incorporated into the Halton Unitary Development Plan.

These documents recognise Castlefields as Corporate priority. A series

of further Castlefields specific studies and consultations identified the

following objectives:

Renewing deck access housing Improving vehicular access Sustaining the local population Replacing the local centre Improving security and safety Improving the established landscape quality Bring forward new quality housing development

(EP, 2000,p.8 and Appendix 1)

The Council had also begun initial interventions within Castlefields

notably via the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) rounds 2, 4 and 5.


57/113

57

Delivered by the HBC led Halton Partnership between 1998 and 2006

with Borough-wide interventions on social inclusion, economic and

health issues. Interventions have directly and indirectly affected

Castlefields, the direct intervention being the creation of new training

facility. During this period HBC took the corporate decision to close

three local facilities; bringing the estate into further focus for the

Council.

The review of literature identified that during this period central

government funding was being prioritised to areas of deprivation. In the

2000 IMD Halton was ranked as the 18thmost deprived local authority

out of 354 in England; Castlefields was ranked as the 145 most

deprived ward out of 8,414 wards in England (Taylor Young, 2002). This

provided a policy imperative for central government to target resources

within this locality. The key agents operating at the North West regional

level were English Partnerships (EP), the Housing Corporation (HC) and

the North West Development Agencies (NWDA).

Each organisation can be seen to have had an existing relationship with

Castlefields. EP as the successor organisation to the CNT had land

interests within the neighbourhood. The HC had responsibility for

distribution of grants for investment within social housing stock and

the NWDA had taken over responsibility for administering SRB funding.

The main organisational stakeholders of the neighbourhood and can be

divided into two distinct groups. The first are local agents: HBC, LHT

and Plus Dane. The second are Central Government agents operating


58/113

58

at the North West regional levelEnglish Partnerships (EP), Housing

Corporation (HC) and North West Development Agencies (NWDA),

although it must be acknowledged that the NWDA are a more

independent regional body. Four of the six organisations are drawn

from the public sector. Figure 4.1 expresses this initial courtship period

showing how the individual organisations came together around the

shared purpose of a need for action around a place - Castlefields; the

organisations are not yet formed into a formal partnership.

Figure 4.1: Courtship 1998 - 2002


59/113

59

It is not evident from secondary data, whether one particular

organisation instigated dialogue formally or informally between

respective organisations but it can be assumed that the various studies

and consultations would have brought organisations into conversation.

The first identified formal mutual working (prior to the establishment of

the Partnership) came via Joint Commission arrangements, the process

by which the HC worked with Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) to

administer affordable housing grants (HBC, 2001). These arrangements

required prioritising need at the local level with endorsement by the

Local Authority, primarily through a Local Housing Strategy. This led

to a first phase of HCe funding for the demolition of 600 deck access

flats and there replacement with 320 new build homes. It is not clear

from secondary data whether at this stage in the relationship the full

extent of resources to deliver holistic regeneration Castlefields was

established or desired by all organisations.

Within this period of courtship that two key life event are identified:

The extent any organisation instigated inter-organisationaldialogue, or showed leadership is this process; and

The appetite by respective organisations to deliver a morecomprehensive and holistic regeneration of Castlefields.

4.3 Production of the Castlefields MasterplanEngagement

This stage in the life of the family represents the engagement of

Partners, solidifying commitment and more importantly distributing

respective responsibilities for delivery. This is achieved through the

production of a Masterplan for Castlefields between 2002 and 2003.


60/113

60

In 2002 a brief for the invitation to tender for preparation of Masterplan

and Delivery Strategy to guide the regeneration of Castlefields was

presented by EP on behalf of the Castlefields Partnership (2002). This is

the first point the organisations are referred to as a partnership. This

Brief sought to commission independent consultants. A board was

established to prepare the Brief and included main Partnership

organisations (as identified at courtship stage); a single Tenants

representative and elected Members of HBC (Minutes of Joint

Commissioning Board, 27thMarch 2002).

Whilst no formal Partnership role for either private sector interests or

residents is identified within the brief, to some extent is pacified by the

stated aim of the commission to (2002,p.5):

Prepare a master plan and delivery strategy to guide the

sustainable regeneration of Castlefields, in partnership with

key stakeholders and the local community. (Authorsemphasis)

Suggesting that whilst a core formal Partnership has been identified to

deliver the regeneration, involvement of other actors shaping the

Masterplan is recognised as important. The Brief (2002,p.5) sets out the

strategic vision for Castlefields, which is:

To create a prosperous, integrated and vibrant community byimproving their environmental, economic and social well-being,

which achieves the highest possible standards in terms of design

and development.


61/113

61

In addition to the Vision, the Brief (2002,pp.5-6) identifies five guiding

principles and values that the Partnership is committed to,

summarised these are (Authors emphasis):

1. Partnership and Collaborative Working;2. Holistic Regeneration;3. Community Led Regeneration;4. Sustainability; and5. Make Effective use of Existing Resources.

The extent Partners respective aspirations area reflected within the Brief

is not evident from secondary data and worthy of further analysis.

The production of three distinct documents is identified within the

commission (2002,p.5):

A Baseline Report; A imaginative and sustainable Masterplan; and A Delivery strategy.

These Masterplan documents, along with the Vision and guiding

principles and values can be seen to form the basis for engagement of

Partner organisations and the vows for future Marriage.

The Castlefields Masterplan (Taylor Young, 2003a) was formally adopted

by Halton Borough Council in September 2003 (HBC, 2003). The Vision

and guiding principles are carried forward from the earlier brief.


62/113

62

The Masterplan sets out 51 regeneration projects. One of the

justifications being to give potential funding partners confidence in the

overall programme and a context in which individual projects and

initiatives can be progressed (2003a,p.16). These projects are shown in

Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Overview of Masterplan Projects

Programme

ThemeProject Overviews

Responsible

Organisation

Housing &

Development

(22 Projects)

HD1-7, 9-11, 13-17: Housing Renewal

projects, including demolition and

refurbishment of deck access blocks on

an incremental basis

LHT & CDS

HD8: Land deal to facilitate new build LHT & CDS

HD12: Land deal to facilitate new build HBC & CDS

HD18HD22: Reclamation of redundant

school and recreation centre for new

parkland, and provision of private sector

housing and a new retail centre.

HBC

People,P1-P2 & P6: Stimulating employment HBC


63/113

63

Community &

Employment

(6 Projects)

opportunities for Castlefields residents

primarily through the adjacent AstmoorIndustrial estate (outside of the

geographical scope of the Masterplan)

P3: Public realm improvements of

signage, rebranding to create a sense of

place.

HBC

P4: Review Castlefields four Primary

Schools

HBC

P5: Production of 10 year action looking

beyond the initial three year programme

All Partners

Infrastructure

(15 Projects)

I1-I8, I13-I15: Restructuring the

highway and footpath network to

redefine movement within the

Neighbourhood and connect it to

adjoining areas to improve accessibility

HBC

I9: Removal of existing shopping centre,

(use of Compulsory Purchase Powers)

HBC

I10: Review strategic land acquisitions All Partners

I11: New outdoor youth activity park on HBC


64/113

64

the site of former school and recreation

centre

I12: New youth and community facilities

Environment &

leisure

(7 Projects)

E1: Town Park improvements HBC

E2-E3: General Environmental

Improvements, including temporary

landscaping to vacant land

LHT, CDS &

HBC

E4: Canalside improvements HBC

E5-E6: new public space at former

shopping centre to provide enhanced

setting for retained community uses

HBC

E7: Programme of public realm lighting HBC

(Taylor Young, 2003,pp.16-27)

Analysis of projects identifies three points. Firstly is the majority of

projects are physical interventions, albeit with significant community

benefit such as project I11 providing a new park. Secondly, outside of

housing renewal delivery would largely sit with the local authority

creating substantial resource implications. The final point relates to the

incremental approach to housing renewal by starting on vacant land

and car parks followed by demolition and new build, the stated purpose


65/113

65

is all residents who wish to remain in Castlefields will have the right to

housing which meets their needs (Taylor Young, 2003,p.20).

Through the production of the Masterplan the need for action by

respective organisations is translated into a single coordinated

programme around a place Castlefields. Extent of respective Partner

power and influence within this process is not evident but through a

distribution of project delivery an emerging hierarchy of responsibility is

evident i.e. the use of HBC Compulsory purchased power rather than

EPs, and that the resources of HBC will be critical to delivery of the

programme. Figure 4.2 expresses the process of engagement of

Partners.


66/113

66

Figure 4.2: Engagement 2002 - 2003

Whilst the organisations are not yet formed into a formal partnership,

inter-organisational working and the language of the partnership is

evident in documentation. The Masterplan forms the basis for

engagement of Partner organisations and the vows for future

Marriage.

Within this period of Engagement that three key life event are

identified:

The extent Partners respective aspirations have competed and areexpressed within the Masterplan process?


67/113

67

The role of Masterplan as a binding agent between Partnersis ita shared vision?

Awareness and acceptance by respective Partners of the emerginghierarchy through distribution of responsibilities and resource

implications of Masterplan project delivery?

4.4 Partnership GovernanceMarriage

This stage in the life of the family represents the formal Marriage of

Partners, through the establishment of The Castlefields Partnership

the governance structure to manage and coordinate both delivery of

Masterplan projects and relationships between family members. The

establishment of the formal Partnership can be seen to have occurred

between 2003 and 2004.

The delivery strategy states that the Partnership (2003b,p.8);

will be the responsible for securing the necessary expertise and

funding both from the public and private sector to ensure

deliverysuccess of the Partnership will rest on continued

support, commitment and statutory powers of key partnersHBC

will have a key role to play as planning authority (2003,p.8).

This is clear statement of what partner organisations are signing up to

by entering into the Partnership, and represent further vows of

marriage before entering into family life together.

It also recognises the crucial role to implementation that HBC will have,

not only in delivering tasked projects but also in terms of facilitating


68/113

68

actions by other partners through its statutory functions such as

planning. HBC will therefore be wearing two distinct hatsdeliver and

regulator with significant resource implications and the potential for

internal conflict.

In response these resource demands, in 2003 HBC enacted a number of

formal corporate actions (HBC, 2003):

Taking formal ownership of the Masterplan through adopting is aCorporately;

Production of a Castlefields Supplementary Planning Guidancebased upon the Masterplan;

Disposal of Council land assets; Establishment of an Elected Member Board, the Castlefields

Implementation Group (CIG); and

Creation of Castlefields Programme Team within the CouncilsMajor Project Department.

By taking these corporate actions, is this the point that HBC moved

from equal family member to having parental responsibility within the

Partnership? Which is crucial to being answered within the primary

research.

The formal inter-organisational governance space in which the

Partnership operates is the Castlefields Regeneration Joint Steering

Group (CRJSG). The first formal minutes being from 2004 (HBC, 2004).

Analysis of CRJSG minutes suggest that its function was coordination

and cooperation, with formal decision-making falling back to respective


69/113

69

partner organisations internal decision-making processes. For instance,

HBC decision making and resource allocation rested with the

constituted Castlefields Implementation Group (for example see HBC,

2004b). The CRJSG is place were family members can come together

and family life discussed and agreements reach and trust is placed.

Figure 4.3 is an extract from minutes of CRJSG held on 24thJune 2005

and gives an indication of the staff resource respective family members

applied to the Programme.

Figure 4.3: Extract from minutes of CRJSG 24thJune 2005

CASTLEFIELDS REGENERATION

JOINT STEERING GROUP

Friday 24th June 2005, 10am Municipal Building, Kingsway, Widnes

Present:

Derek Sutton(Chair) (Operational director Major Projects), ChrisLeyshon (Castlefields Programme Manager), Sarah Lucas

(Castlefields Team), Garry Taylor (Castlefields Team), Arnis

Buklovskis (Development Control Team Leader), John Hatton

(Community & leisure Manager), Martin Kavanagh (Highways), Ian

Lifford (Landscape Operational Director)all Halton Borough Council

Helen Tudor (Investment Manager)Housing Corporation John Rockminster (English Partnership Commercial advisor)

Lambert Smith Hampton


70/113

70

Janitha Redmond (Regeneration Manager)English Partnerships Paul Sheppard (Masterplan consultant)Taylor Young Giles Brooke (English Partnership appointed construction consultant)

Tweeds

Paul Moscardini (Plus Housing and LHT appointed Architect)McCalls

Inger Leach (Development Manager) - Plus Housing [Formerly CDS]Apologies:

Phil Watts (Planning Operational Director), Jon Farmer (TransportPolicy), Mandy Jones (Asset Management), Jerry Goacher (Property

and Assets Operational Director), Steve Williams (Housing strategy)

Halton Borough Council

Claire Griffiths (Development Director)Plus Housing Group Liz Fudge (Development and Regeneration Supervisor) - LHT Neil Morrey (Regeneration Manager)NWDA

(HBC, 2005. Note: Author has annotated, shown in italics, known roles

of representatives, by using non-referenced staff directories.)

Analysis of this snapshot of the CJRSG meeting highlights two

important points. Firstly, the extent of ownership that HBC has of this

group in terms of number of representatives; individual staff being

drawn from across Council departments with senior rep

NJR MSc Final Dissertation

Documents