Independent Community Liaison Officer Sligo East City ......The Sligo East City : Cranmore and Environs Regeneration Masterplanning process set out to put in place a 10 year Regeneration

Independent Community Liaison Officer : Sligo East City: Cranmore and Environs Regeneration Consultation 1 | P a g e

Independent Community Liaison Officer

Sligo East City : Cranmore and Environs and Regeneration Masterplanning

Process

Report

2012 – 2016

Report for HOUSING AGENCY

53 Mount Street Upper

Dublin 2

September 2016

Maeve McCormack

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The role of the Independent Community Liaison Officer (ICLO) for Sligo East City :

Cranmore and Environs Regeneration Masterplan, was to facilitate interaction and

communication between the local community and the Regeneration Office and

Design Team, for the Masterplanning process between 2011 and 2016. The ICLO

worked independently and confidentially to support, facilitate and empower the local

community throughout each Stage of the Masterplanning process, in the housing

estates of Cranmore, Garavogue Villas, Doorly Park, Martin Savage Terrace,

Riverview, Hazelview; and communities in the town lands of Tonaphubble,

Commons and Cleveragh.

Prior to the appointment of the Regeneration Masterplan Design Team (2013), the

ICLO undertook a series of independent community consultations. The purpose was

to work with the local community (individuals, residents’ groups, community groups

and communities of interest) to support them to articulate their needs and

expectations, in a clear and realistic way, to the Design Team, rather than feel they

were having their needs articulated to them. In this way, whatever vision was

agreed, could be confidently owned and built upon by those who live and work in the

regeneration areas. Ownership of the final plan would be key to its success.

Information gathered at independent consultations were also very useful to the ICLO

when reviewing each draft Stage Report, both with the community and the

Regeneration Office. She was uniquely placed to look at the process impartially,

asking questions about issues, language and processes of all stakeholders, to help

ensure that reports were clear and unambiguous, representing all voices.

Each Masterplan Stage consultation (there were a total of five stages) gathered

momentum. The figures outlined in each stage report show how, as each stage

progressed, the community, in most cases, interacted more and more with the

process. This was the community telling the Design Team what their issues were

and what their vision is for future generations. People turned up to agree, to

disagree, to change their minds or to find out more and make an informed decision.

It was an honest engagement, with consultations reaching a more mature level of

discussion at each progressive Stage.

Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the process was approved by the Stakeholder Leadership

Group. By Stage 3, this was restructured to formal Steering Group, which will

oversee the rollout of this plan over the next 10 years. Four voluntary community

representatives sit on this Steering Group and they have a clearly outlined mandate

from their community. This is supported by a system of accountability to their

residents that allows them to speak on residents’ behalf at these meetings. This

community framework evolved through the Masterplanning process and has a

structured communication and feedback system in the community. Evidence of how


well this system works, is seen in the concerns raised at Steering Group review of

Stage 3, leading to further refinement of Ideas in Stage 4.

The community had to address a number of issues during this five stage process.

These included consultation fatigue, frustration at delays between Stages and delays

in small works programmes all contributing to delay in putting a final Masterplan in

place. The adjacent communities made it clear that they were unhappy with the

timeline of the Regeneration Plan proposals. The gap between stages was

challenging, as residents waited a long time after consultations to receive summary

and recommendations and to have their feedback heard. With the support of the

ICLO they lobbied for small works projects, estate maintenance programmes and

amendment and refinement of proposals of concern. Structured communication

systems are now agreed and in place to monitor these issues. Communities

benefiting from longer term physical plans are still frustrated at the timescales

outlined. It is noted that while the Eastern Garvogue Bridge and Approach Roads

Project is rolled out separately from the Regeneration Masterplan, it will have

significant impact on the community.

So, what of the roll out of this Regeneration Masterplan? The commitment of the

community to this process and the challenges faced and met, should be

acknowledged. Analysis of the feedback in Stages 3 and 4 indicated high levels of

support for the Regeneration Projects. It is noted that some ideas, in particular the

proposals for a new community services centre, will need further negotiation

agreement on the final detail, requiring a well-planned and partnership based

approach by all stakeholders. In addition, further work needs to be done to ensure

active engagement with the areas to the south of the regeneration area.

Ongoing review and evaluation must form part of the rollout of this plan. Structures

are in place for this and the community have seen feedback mechanisms work. It

cannot be stressed how important ongoing communications between the

Regeneration Office and the community will be at this stage. Open dialogue is

important. Each time the consultation process encountered difficulties, when space

was created for honest discussion and expression, satisfactory solutions were found.

It will be important to maintain the structures, procedures and protocols to continue

this successfully.

In order to make the most of current funding opportunities and plan for future

opportunities, ongoing stakeholder discussions to further refine the ideas outlined in

this document are necessary. The local community, stakeholders and the

Regeneration Executive must continue this work without pause to access funding

efficiently and speedily. Some challenging final decisions will need to be made, but

the process to date clearly demonstrates that the skills, the commitment and vision

needed to make this happen are all there, both on the part of the residents of the

regeneration area and those supporting the delivery of the Regeneration Masterplan.


2. OVERVIEW OF REGENERATION AND ROLE OF ICLO:

The Sligo East City : Cranmore and Environs Regeneration Masterplanning process

set out to put in place a 10 year Regeneration Master to achieve the following vision:

To make the East City area and Cranmore a more attractive place to live with

better, more convenient connections to existing and new facilities, locally and

in the rest of Sligo.

To enable individuals and the communities of the area to avail of

opportunities, with good access to employment, education, health and family

support services.

To see the East City area become a location of choice for future generations,

to live, to work and to visit.

The Design Team was appointed in January 2013 to undertake a 5 stage

Masterplanning process to put in place a 10 year regeneration masterplan for the

Regeneration area. The Masterplanning consultation process is fully documented in

each stage report available on www.sligococo.ie/Services/CranmoreRegeneration.

In 2011, The Minister for Housing requested that the Housing Agency put in place a

Regeneration Community Liaison service to work closely with local residents,

community representatives and stakeholders in progressing the planning and

implementation of the physical, economic and social regeneration of the Eastern

Quadrant of Sligo, including Cranmore Estate. An Independent Community Liaison

Officer to support the planning stage of the regeneration was put in place on a part-

time basis in September 2011, to provide the following services:

Facilitate community involvement in the development of the Masterplan and

regeneration process and encourage active participation of the public.

Effective communication regarding the planning and implementation of the

regeneration programme. Consult and give feedback on issues regarding the

regeneration.

Develop links and effective working relationships with relevant stakeholders:

the local authority, other statutory bodies and the local community regarding

the regeneration programme.

Develop initiatives designed to inform and create awareness of the work of

the regeneration programme.

Report on progress to the Minister for Housing and Planning through the

Housing Agency.

The tender brief for the Regeneration Masterplan, funded under the Department of

the Environment, Community and Local Government’s national regeneration

programme, and framed in the context of the East City of Sligo stated: In advance of

the Consultations by the Masterplanning team, the Independent Community Liaison


Officer will have worked closely with community groups and representatives to

undertake a detailed consultation within the target communities. It is expected that at

the initial Masterplan consultation meetings, community representatives will be in a

position to present for further exploration a detailed summary of the local needs,

issues and concerns that they have identified. It also stated that a successful

realisation will depend on the engagement and ‘buy-in’ of the stakeholders in

developing the Project. The purpose of this report is to document and evaluate the

work of the ICLO.

3. TIMING:

The Masterplanning process had 5 stages:

Stage 1: Socio Economic Review and Appraisal

Stage 2: Review and Appraisal the Physical, Social and Economic Contexts for

Regeneration

Stage 3: Development of Preliminary Masterplan Proposals and Actions

Stage 4: Masterplan Detailed Design Refinement

Stage 5: Compilation of Final Integrated Masterplan Proposals

The Design Team was appointed in January 2013 and the Masterplan was expected

to be completed by March 2014. Details of planned and actual schedule of work are

outlined below

Scheduled start Date/

length of time

Actual Start

Date

Finish Date (presentation

to Stakeholder

Leadership

Group/Steering Group

Stage 1 January 2013 – 8 weeks January 2013 March 2013

Stage 2 March 2013 – 12 weeks April 2013 September 2013

Stage 3 May 2013 – 12 weeks March 2014 April 2015

Stage 4 September 2013 – 14

weeks

July 2015 February 2016

Stage 5 January 2014- 10 weeks April 2016 Presented to Steering

Group July 2016, Adopted

by Sligo County Council

September 2016

The Regeneration Masterplan reports fully document the Masterplan Design

process, including community consultation. Section 5 of this report outlines a

summary of the work the ICLO at each Stage. A more detailed timeline, including

key events and the work schedule of the ICLO is outlined in Appendix A.


4. REGENERATION AREA

The terms of reference for the Sligo Regeneration Masterplan listed four specific

target areas in the Eastern Quadrant of Sligo City.

1. Cranmore Estate (where most of the physical Masterplanning would take

place)

2. Areas to the South of Cranmore Estate (Doorly Park, Martin Savage Terrace

and Garavogue Villas (including Hazelview and Riverview)

3. Areas adjacent to Cranmore (Tonaphubble and surrounds)

4. Communities of Interest

The level of community engagement and the identified needs (social, economic,

physical) varied in each area.

5. SUMMARY OF WORK STAGE BY STAGE WORK OF ICLO

5.1 PREPARATION FOR MASTERPLAN CONSULTATIONS

Prior to the appointment of the Masterplan Design Team the ICLO researched the

local community and independently assessed a baseline network of residents’

associations and community groups in the proposed Regeneration Area and made

contact with these groups. The ICLO then undertook a series of Independent

Community Consultations in the areas between October 2012 and January 2013.

The purpose of the consultations was to provide an independent community forum

where an internal community based independent discussion on the ‘lived experience’

of residents of the area could take place. It set out to facilitate the expression of the

issues, problems and positive or negative changes in each street required to improve

this ‘lived experience’ for all members of each community. This discussion among

residents was intended to prepare them for formal consultation with the

Masterplanners. Up to 170 residents attended these consultations which where

were run in group and one to one formats. The method used was Participatory

Learning and Action (PLA), where participants control the process and record the

comments and feedback. Information was collated at workshops and a feedback

mechanism agreed. This involved each group nominating two people from the

group to read over the final notes, correct any inaccuracies and approve them for

circulating to each house on their particular street. Information was collated,

approved by participants and circulated to residents. Participants raised issues on

which people expressed a range of opinions, as well as issues that had general or

unanimous agreement. This information was then used by residents to inform their

formal consultation with the Regeneration Masterplanners in 2013.

5.2 STAGE 1: January 2013

Social and Economic Appraisal: This set the baseline for the masterplan and

included consultation with community groups and agencies and analysis of census

results. A social and economic profile outlining disadvantage and need in the

regeneration area was published: ‘Building on our past…. Looking to our future –


Socio Economic Profile of East Sligo City : Cranmore and Environs Regeneration

Masterplan’.

The ICLO reviewed the draft before issue to check if all issues raised at independent

consultations were included and to give independent feedback before issue. Through

these exchanges a further 'watchdog' role evolved for the ICLO. During Stage 1 the

Stakeholder Leadership Group was set up, whose role it would be to review each

Draft Stage of the masterplan. See Section 6 for more details. The ICLO provided

support to residents who volunteered or were targeted as potential community

representatives. With them, she negotiated an increase in the number of community

representatives and substitutes on the basis that volunteers members needed this

support to sit on a committee on equal terms with paid professionals.

5.3 STAGE 2 : April 2013

This undertook a Review and Appraisal the Physical, Social and Economic contexts

for Regeneration. It included consultations with residents, community groups,

agencies and business in the regeneration area identifying areas of need and

opportunity (physical, social, economic).

The ICLO gave an independent briefing to Design Team prior to Stage 2, alerting

them lack of engagement by hard to reach groups, from her experience of

independent community consultations (it should be noted that many of these were

also identified in Stage 1 report). She worked closely with residents associations,

local community groups and the regeneration office to maximise attendance at public

consultation, ensuring that the promotion was well co-ordinated using local on the

ground communication networks. Key to the success of this was ongoing

communication with both parties to ensure that both were well prepared for

engagement. Preparation included monitoring and discussions to ensure venues

were accessible and neutral, information was accessible, publicity was extensive,

resident friendly and welcoming and ensuring residents had the confidence to lead

discussions at workshops.

The ICLO observed/attended/interacted in all community consultation workshops

and workshops for the social plan and a roundtable discussion for the economic

plan, organised by the Regeneration Team. Working with residents who attended

the workshops, she supported them to ensure their input was outlined and recorded.

She also outlined issues on behalf of residents who were not in attendance. It is

noted that in the later stages of the Masterplanning consultation process, the

community representatives took over this role. She was satisfied that all

stakeholders were represented and their input recorded. ICLO reviewed draft reports

of workshops giving a commentary where she felt appropriate regarding ranking of

issues and, cross -referencing of workshop and omission of issues with the original

Independent Consultations to ensure that all issues actions had been brought up by


participants. The ICLO also organised a fact-finding trip for residents and community

workers to Ballymun and Fatima regeneration projects in Dublin.

5.4 STAGE 3: March 2014

This was about the Development of Preliminary Masterplan Proposals and Actions

with extensive public and stakeholder consultations around social, economic and

physical issues and ideas. It included a public display of regeneration ideas with

questionnaires to gather feedback. The feedback was analysed and results

published in Stage 3 Report. Considerable time was spent doing this, with input

from the ICLO, as the Regeneration Office wished to ensure the process was clear

and transparent and each comment traceable.

The Exhibition of Ideas took place in summer 2014, a full year after the previous

public consultation in summer 2013. It was difficult to keep momentum going in

second half of 2013 and early 2014 as process was between stages. The ICLO

created opportunities to continue interaction with resident and increase their skills

and confidence by providing community skills training e.g. planning support, social

media, communications, setting up a residents group, strategic planning support.

She also ran drop-in information clinics, and regeneration awareness exercises such

as newsletters and acknowledgement of sundry works.

In preparation for the Exhibition of Ideas, the ICLO worked closely with the

Regeneration Office to ensure the exhibition was accessible and easy to understand

and give feedback. She liaised with Cranmore Regeneration and Design Team

regarding community involvement in Stage 3 workshops and how best to approach

this creatively and flexibly to ensure maximum engagement at all levels. This

included looking in detail at consultation presentation format, feedback mechanisms,

location and timing. Using informal local networks, she was in a position to start the

dialogue around the regeneration ideas in advance of the exhibition, so people were

prepared when they saw exhibition of ideas. She also organised a community trip to

give residents and community workers an opportunity to see how similar ideas had

worked in projects in Galway (Ballybane and Tuam).

The consultation in Stage 3 had the largest attendances up to that to date, indicating

increasing engagement with the Regeneration Masterplanning Process. The high

attendance rate indicated a deepening engagement of the community with the

process and the successful on the ground promotion by residents’ groups and the

Regeneration Office, supported by the ICLO. On the recommendation of the ICLO, it

ran for a week, allowing residents to visit and revisit ideas, ask questions and then

asking more questions after discussing issues among themselves. It also provided

an opportunity for further relationship building between Regeneration staff, the

community and agencies; and an opportunity to discuss local issues informally. This

engagement allowed the ICLO to start to take a step back for her facilitative role and

the community took further control of the process.


Following the issue of Stage 3 Draft Report, residents raised concerns around some

of the findings and recommendations based on these. The ICLO attended a

number of residents’ meetings to support chairpersons in disseminating information

to residents about Stage 3 of the Masterplan and to provide independent

clarification/explanation of queries where required. As residents were getting to

understand the process better, they were engaging more with consultations and

discussions. At a heated public meeting, it was requested that the feedback

questionnaire in Stage 3 be re-issued to all households in Cranmore. After

negotiation with community representatives, the ICLO and Regeneration staff, it was

agreed to revise Stage 4 to include further public consultation around the more

controversial ideas.

The ICLO supported the community representatives to disseminate feedback from

their areas and present it at the Steering Committee meeting. It was a challenge for

representatives to feedback a range of conflicting views and concerns from their

residents. She worked with them to put a clear feedback system in place for

residents, based on the experiences of Stage 1 and Stage 2 feedback.

There was difficulty in getting a representative from adjacent areas to attend the

Steering Committee for stage 3. Residents did not meet formally to give feedback to

their representatives. Subsequent to a number of communications with residents,

ICLO raised her concerns with the Regeneration Office who successfully

approached residents directly to sit on the Steering Committee.

During Stage 3, the Stakeholder Leadership Group was reviewed and expanded to a

Steering Group. This is detailed in section 7.

During Stages 3 and 4 the ICLO met with the board of the Cranmore Abbeyquarter

community Centre regarding their vision for the centre in the context of Regeneration

plans for a new community services centre. There was agreement that that while all

were in favour of a new centre, there were different opinions on what to do with the

Abbeyquarter Centre. There are also issues to be addressed regarding the running

of the proposed new centre. The ICLO played a role in opening this dialogue, but at

this point it needs to be led out by senior management and include the three

community centres in the regeneration area (Cranmore Community Co-Operative

Ltd, Cranmore Abbeyquarter Centre Ltd. and Resource House).

5.5 STAGE 4: July 2015

Refining the Regeneration Masterplan and building on feedback from Stage 3:

This stage focused on ideas that raised concerns with residents and discussed

which options were seen as best for the regeneration area and residents. The

feedback was analysed and published in Stage 4 report. The ICLO worked closely

with the Regeneration Office, Design Team and Community representatives to


ensure all information was presented in a clear accessible manner at the Stage 4

exhibition of refined ideas in September. At this point, there was an extensive

communications system set up by Cranmore Co-Operative Society Ltd. Each

household was contacted face to face by a resident (often accompanied by the

ICLO) to explain the importance of attending Stage 4 Exhibition and giving feedback.

A target of a minimum of 50 % of households to attend was set and reached.

When draft Stage 4 report was issued for review, the same system of review that

had been used by community representatives in Cranmore for Stage 3 was

successfully implemented again. It was more difficult to get the other regeneration

areas to engage, as much of the content of Stage 4 looked development of physical

ideas around the Cranmore area. It is should be noted that all the ideas from Stage

3 were included.

5.6 STAGE 5 – March 2016

Publication of final Regeneration masterplan. The final Regeneration Masterplan

is made up of a series of projects: physical, social and economic. Funding has been

secured for a number of the projects. The plan has been reviewed and approved by

the steering Committee in July 2016 and adopted by Sligo County Council in

September 2016.

The same review process was used by Cranmore community representatives as

used in Stages 3 and 4. The ICLO contacted each community representative to offer

her support, but left it to the Regeneration Office to follow up on the invitation to

Steering Group meeting. At this point the Regeneration Office continued to

communicate directly with each representative on a range of issues. Support from

the ICLO at this point was minimal, the main task being helping community

representatives to prepare agreed text for Steering Group briefing on behalf of their

residents.

6. KEY STAKEHOLDER LEADERSHIP GROUP

The Masterplan Design brief required that a Key Stakeholder Leadership Group

(SLG) review each Draft Stage Report. It was also agreed that a separate briefing

would be held for elected representatives. The brief for SLG (overviewed in

Appendix B) stated: This is a short-term working group which will exist for the life-

span of the Masterplan Development process with anticipated 5 no briefing and

consultation meetings with the Masterplan consultants over a twelve-month period.

The ICLO worked the community and regeneration community wardens and

regeneration office to recruit nominees to the SLG. A number of prospective

candidates were identified from independent consultations too. While the role only

required attending 5 meetings, it had considerable responsibility and each

community nominee was expected to be able to represent the views of their

communities and interact with paid professional representatives from agencies also

on the SLG. Due to the amount of work and the responsibility involved in being the


community representatives, it was agreed to expand the number community

representatives being put on the group.

The ICLO reviewed the Stage 1 draft report prior to it being viewed by the

Stakeholder Leadership Group. The purpose of this was to ensure that all

stakeholders/voices were represented in the report. She prepared a simple briefing

document on the report, to help community representatives report back to their

communities in clear and simple terms.

She attended stakeholder and elected representatives briefing meetings as an

observer to ensure that all community perspectives that she has been made aware

of during consultations were represented. The ICLO worked with residents to

identify issues around the workings of the SLG after the first meeting. These related

to timeframe of issue of report, timing of meeting, support for dissemination of report

by community representatives to their communities, and timing of public

communications from regeneration office to support the work of community

representatives on the SLG. All issues were resolved and details are in Appendix C.

Between Stages 2 and 3 issues were raised regarding the final masterplan report

and accountability on this. These were related to stage briefings, sign off and

governance of each stage of the Masterplan and the final implementation of the

Masterplan. To address this the Regeneration office reviewed the structure of the

SLG and the ICLO reviewed similar structures in Limerick, Tralee and Derry

regeneration projects. It became clear that there was an issue around accountability

and a need to make decisions and choices around each Stage clearly accountable.

The ICLO identified the following issues:

Lack of a formal system to ensure transparency/accountability on the decision

making process within Cranmore Regeneration Office

Lack of structure on formal system of endorsement for each stage of

Masterplan

Lack of structure to formally include Public Representatives at any level in the

decision making process

The issues were also raised at Sligo County Council Level and the SLG was

replaced by a reconvening and restructuring a previous Cranmore Regeneration

Steering Group.

The ICLO played a key role in supporting the community representatives in

dissemination, analysing and feeding back information of each Stage to their local

community. She furnished a simplified summary of the report in bullet point format,

to assist Community Representatives report back to their residents Associations for

Stages 1 and 2. In Stages 3 and 4, a member of the Regeneration office staff

briefed the community representatives and chairpersons. The ICLO was available


to attend Resident Committee Meetings to help the Community Representative relay

the findings to local residents in their area and agree the text of their responses.

7. EASTERN GARVOGUE BRIDGE AND APPROACH ROADS PROJECT -

The role of the ICLO included supporting the public consultation process on the

Eastern Garvogue Bridge and Approach Roads Project (EGB). She worked with the

design team to support promotion and facilitation of two public consultations a

number of resident meetings. This section looks at how this influenced the

regeneration consultation process.

The EGB is a separate project, but because it is inextricably linked to the

Regeneration Masterplan, some residents saw the two projects as one. This was

possibly further confused by the fact that the ICLO was identified with both projects.

Some residents are vehemently opposed to the EGB project and subsequently to

Regeneration too, without realising that that the former is a one off physical project

plan and the latter, a longer term physical, social and economic plan.

Communication for all parties involved, needed to continue the repetition of this

message to support residents in understanding both processes. The lack of clarity

over approach roads to the EGB is still confusing and contentious. While the

Exhibition of Regeneration Ideas included ideas for traffic

management/roads/pathways in the Regeneration linking to existing roads, it is still

unclear how and in what direction the traffic from the new bridge disperse into the

Regeneration Area. Residents are understandably concerned about the lack of

clarity.

Issues around the Eastern Bridge Route in some instances, prompted a very

emotional response and there a considerable about of upset among some residents

of all areas as a result of issues around the Eastern Bridge route. It is an issue that

for some people in the Adjacent Areas led them to opposing any new developments

or refusing to become in involved in any Masterplan development or planning

process.

Each query was systematically answered and at different times, the staking out of

proposed approach roads on the actual land and the display of a three-dimensional

model of the bridge and approach roads proved extremely helpful to residents

physically identify location of proposed roads in relation to their street/house and to

discuss and understand fully the proposals. These physical presentations were a key

turning point in moving forward discussion with the community. The ICLO supported

two public consultation and information days around the detailed design of the

project.

8. LEVELS OF ENGAGEMENT VIA THE ICLO


8.1 Overview

This section looks at multi-directional levels of engagement with the ICLO as a

conduit to engaging in the Masterplanning process. The ICLO continually built up a

network of community contacts (face to face, phone, email, text, social media) during

the consultation process. By Stage 2, the role of the ICLO was firmly established as

an independent conduit of communication between the Regeneration Office /Design

Team and the Community stakeholders. At the same time, it was important to take

the long term view that while this role was important, ultimately the communication

wold best be undertaken directly between parties, without the need for the presence

of the ICLO.

8.2 CRANMORE

Of all the estates in the regeneration area, Cranmore was the most advanced in

terms of community structures when the ICLO commenced work (2011). Most

streets had a residents’ association which worked closely with Cranmore Co-

Operative Society Ltd., a local based community development centre. Outside of

this the two other community centres, Cranmore Abbeyquarter Community Centre

and Resource House (Springboard) Centre used their networks and influence to

support residents and communities of interest to engage.

As each stage progressed, the residents associations became more structured,

working more closely with each other, the community groups in the area and the

regeneration office. The ICLO had a key role in this process. Regular face to face

contact was important to build up trust and exchange information and to build up the

skills and confidence in the community to support their engagement with the

process. Learning was mostly informal through meetings and workshops,

community trips and continually issuing challenges to achieve more and ask more

questions. A clearly accountable system, supported by Cranmore Co-Operative

Society Limited was set up for residents to feedback their comments on each Stage

of the plan as follows:

1. Briefing meeting of chairpersons of each resident’s association in Cranmore

attended by the Cranmore community representatives and the ICLO.

2. Each resident’s association then met themselves to discuss the Draft Stage

Report and agreed what feedback the chairpersons would bring to the next

chairpersons meeting. ICLO attended these meetings as requested to give

support to the chairperson in taking notes and to have a neutral party present

to help deal with contentious issues.

3. Chairpersons met again to bring feedback to the Community Representatives.

A document of all the feedback, question by question was compiled and

circulated to each chairperson. This was then read out by community

representative at the Draft Stage Briefing Meeting.

Current Status: There is a high level of awareness of the Regeneration Plan in the

area, with residents views well represented and documented. Cranmore Co-Op has


a clear communications structure in place with residents and the Regeneration

Office. It is important that these structures are fully maintained and nurtured from

grassroots to management level by all stakeholders.

8.3 ADJACENT AREAS:

Overall in this area there was no structured residents’ association / co-operative

system in place which made it more difficult to put a consultation process in place

when the ICLO commenced work in 2011. In these Adjacent Areas, residents’

associations structures were less advanced and there is no community building for

meetings in the immediate area. Doorly Park and Martin Savage Terrace

Associations were active and Garavogue Villas was looking to form a new

committee. There was less interest and some antagonism in these areas towards

regeneration due to a history of opposition to the Eastern Garvogue Bridge and

approach roads scheme, which had ultimately led to the inclusion of this area in the

Regeneration masterplan. The issue of the Bridge was divisive, and there may have

been a hesitancy to become involved in a residents association as result. Liaison

with the Community Wardens was a key element here in building relationships

between the local community and the regeneration office, as they addressed

maintenance issues raised at consultation. In addition, it was clear from the outset,

that most of the physical regeneration would take place in Cranmore and residents of

adjacent areas felt this was unfair.

The community wardens were a very important resource here to get word out on

consultations and to make introductions on behalf of the ICLO. Throughout each

stage, engagement and attitudes varied. It became clear that the highest level of

engagement happened when it related to an idea specifically located in an Adjacent

Area. There is considerable disappointment and some anger at the fact that many of

the physical projects outlined in the masterplan for the area have not yet been

funded.

The ICLO instigated many initiatives to support the residents associations in these

areas, to enable them to have a well supported residents association structure.

Residents have resisted this, preferring to come together as the need arises due to

organise community event or address a controversial issue. The community is more

likely to engage with physical projects that are located in their area. Ongoing social

and economic project such as Community Warden Scheme, Cranmore Community

Sports Hub and a community calendar have also seen engagement as they are non-

controversial. Other regular engagement with the community happened when the

ICLO worked with them to bring local maintenance and anti-social behaviour issues

to the attention of the regeneration office.

Current Status: Communities in Adjacent Areas are accepting of Regeneration but

somewhat disinterested in the overall plan, particularly as the physical ideas related

to their areas are seen as long term (6 years or more). The Residents Associations

are not very active in these areas and the most successful engagements have been


project based. An example is a Community Calendar Project and the East City

Sports Hub.

8.4 AREAS TO THE SOUTH

The main concerns from these areas was traffic management around the Eastern

Garvogue Bridge and approach roads project, and how the regeneration plan would

affect this. The representative residents’ association was well able to articulate their

issues from the outset and raised a number of queries via the ICLO. As time went

on and relationships development, they addressed queries directly to the

Regeneration Office which is what they are doing now.

Current Status: The Residents Association here has a good working relationship

with the Regeneration Office and their main interest in Regeneration continues to be

traffic management plans, particularly in the context of the Eastern Garvogue Bridge

and Approach Roads Project.

9. HOW ICLO OBJECTIVES WERE MET AND THE LEARNING AROUND THIS.

9.1. Overview

This section analyses the role of the ICLO in the Regeneration Masterplanning process and what was learned. It looks at what learning can be transferred to the rollout of this Regeneration Masterplan and to other Regeneration Projects. Issues such as consultation fatigue, frustration at delays between Stages and delays

in small works programmes all contributed to delay in getting a final Masterplan in

place. The gap between stages was challenging, as residents waited a long time

after consultations to receive summary and recommendations and to have their

feedback heard. With the support of the ICLO they lobbied for small works projects,

estate maintenance programmes and amendment and refinement of proposals of

concern. Structured communication systems are now agreed and in place to monitor

these issues. Communities benefiting from longer term physical plans are still

unhappy at the timescales outlined. It is noted that while the Eastern Garvogue

Bridge and Approach Roads Project is rolled out separately from the Regeneration

Masterplan, it will have significant impact on the community.

There can be a risk of stakeholders disengaging from the project due to

to delays in the Masterplanning process - consultation fatigue and frustration

at not seeing any work being carried out

a fear that projects will not be funded

negative feeling about the Eastern Garvogue Bridge Project

other personal social, economic or physical circumstances

Not all of these are within the control of the community or the regeneration office, however, good relations and communication between parties can lessen the risks of


the threats listed above. This applies equally to community residents, community leaders, community development workers and the Regeneration Team. 9.2.1 Role: Facilitate community involvement in the development of the Masterplan and regeneration process and encourage active participation of the public. 9.2.2 Style of consultation- varied: While PLA workshops facilitate people of all

abilities, not all had the resources to attend. This could be because of immobility due

to age or disability, needing a baby sitter, lacking confidence to attend a workshop,

lacking the confidence to speak at a workshop, or being afraid to raise some issues

publicly at a workshop (e.g. illegal money lending or anti-social behaviour). To

address this, one to one confidential clinics were held, communication was made by

phone and email, house calls were made and the network of community wardens

and community workers gained informal feedback and relayed this to the ICLO

confidentially. It is noted that these issues were also raised in social plan workshops

by agencies and outside workers.

9.2.3 Types of Display

A range of public consultations took place with information presented in a community

friendly way. Displays ranges from posters, 3D models, photographs and computer

generated 3D imaging. Workers and community leaders were well briefed before

each display. Presentations and questionnaires were ‘query- proofed’ by local focus

groups in advance of being publicly available.

9.2.4 Barrier: Lack of development community network: Differing needs in

differing areas: There was a clear gap between different areas of the regeneration

areas. Cranmore had a system of residents associations, while in the other areas

this is less formal or structured. Work was needed to support the community

development work in Adjacent Areas with the long term aim of upskilling local

residents’ community development skills to develop a network of community activists

that will positively encourage more community involvement.

9.2.5 Community Trips

During the Masterplanning, the ICLO organised a number of community trips so that

residents and community workers in the regeneration areas could see and learn from

other regeneration projects. Participants were asked to evaluate, discuss and share

their experiences, observations and learning with residents and at public

consultations and meetings. Participants were asked to fill in an evaluation form

after each trip. Their learning was summarised and circulated. As far as possible,

there was a representative from each street on each trip, to allow for dissemination

of information. Residents found it very useful to see physical examples of some of

the proposed ideas for Sligo. These included streetscapes, roads housing stock

improvements. It also got them thinking about practicalities - such as how


Regeneration will be funded, and what the priorities are and how communities can

negotiate with a Regeneration Team and a Local Authority. Appendix D lists these

trips.

9.2.6 Branding of Individual Community Identities: The first project was called

Cranmore Regeneration and targeted at the Cranmore area only. When the

regeneration area expanded, a more inclusive name would have been helpful, to

send out a clear message to the wider regeneration area that all were included. The

name and the location of the office in Cranmore, was at times a divisive factor.

While the work of the community wardens considerably alleviates this, an official

presence in the adjacent areas would have been positive both as a point of contact

and as a potential place for residents to meet and participate further in the process.

9.2.7 Delays, challenges and early wins: Momentum of the Process: Delivery

time of each Stage:

At the outset of the Masterplanning process a schedule of work was agreed. For

various reasons this was not adhered to. It was important to keep momentum going

within the community, as people buy into the process. Changing or delayed dates

was a challenge to this positive energy. It is useful to note the following:

Small works: short - term ‘distractions’ to engagement with the Masterplan

process. The ability of residents to think in visionary terms was impaired by

smaller physical every day issues in their area that they had been seeking to have

addressed1 for a number of years. Issues around day to day maintenance were

being at regeneration consultation meetings, (they ranged from grass cutting, to

repairing broken steps and pathways (some dating back to 2009). Concern and

anger over this hindered residents in being able to look at longer term

Regeneration plans. It was also eroding their trust in Sligo Regeneration Office as

they were requesting minor works to be done and were not seeing any results.

Re-allocation of 2013 Regeneration budget to these works had a positive effect on

this.

To support the ongoing engagement of the community, the ICLO recommended a

further series of early wins, physical and social for the whole Regeneration Area after

Stage 3. People needed to see something happening in return for their involvement

in an extensive consultation process that was now running 12 months behind. An

'early win' minor programme of physical and social work would be a very positive

way to address the nervousness and lack of engagement resulting in delays in the

process. In October 2014, the ICLO worked with Cranmore Regeneration Office to

look at a programme of stand-alone sundry works and projects, that would provide

this 'early win', similar to the programme undertaken between Stages 2 and 3.

However it was Spring 2016 before any work commenced. This meant that in

1 See letter of 5/9/13 from ICLO to Siofra Kilcullen, Regeneration Office, ref. SMALLER REMEDIAL JOBS TO BE DONE IN REGENERATION AREA


addition to long delays between stages 2 and 3 and 3 and 4, there were no early

win/small sundry works programme to be see physically on the ground for over a

year. These regular early wins/small works were imperative to maintain community

engagement and will also be required during the rollout of the plan as residents wait

for larger projects to become a reality.

9.2.8 Importance of ongoing social plan initiatives to positively influence

engagement with Masterplanning process.

Prior to the Regeneration Masterplanning Consultation process and all during each

state, the Regeneration Office continued to work with stakeholders in delivering

elements of the regeneration project. In addition to the small works already

mentioned, which gave physical evidence of work, longer term social and economic

projects, were and still are, being undertaken. Socially base projects do excellent on

the ground work from within the community in building confidence and

communication among residents as well as achieving other specific social and

economic aims.

9.2.9 Oversight role of ICLO: The ICLO provided ongoing feedback on the

planning of the Masterplanners Community Consultations and on each Stage draft

report prior to publication. Through these exchanges a further 'watchdog' role

evolved for the ICLO. She was in the unique position of engaging with the

community at a range of levels, which gave her an overview of the consultation

elements of the process that were usefully shared with the Regeneration Team when

planning public consultations.

9.3.1 Role: Effective communication regarding the planning and

implementation of the regeneration programme. Consult and give feedback on

issues regarding the regeneration. It cannot be stressed how important ongoing

communications between the Regeneration Office and the community. Open

dialogue is important. Each time the consultation process encountered difficulties,

when space was created for honest discussion and expression, satisfactory solutions

were found.

9.3.2 Communications: Continued communication from Regeneration Office

to the community - It is important that the community and stakeholders are kept

informed of the status of the Masterplanning process, to help them understand

reasons for delays and keep their confidence in the process long term. Of use here

were the following:

Ongoing advice to Regeneration office on how to disseminate information

Use local communication networks e.g. newsletter and church notes and local

newspaper notes.

Building up database of text messaging and email


Pre-agreeing the process for review, dissemination and timing of circulation of

draft stage reports

Specific support for community representatives on the Steering Group, giving

them the language, confidence and understanding to relay the regeneration

messages their communities.

The importance of accurate information and a clear communications system must be

emphasised. Exchange of information was an issue at times. There is a need for a

high level of communication between stakeholders bodies such as Regeneration

Office, Masterplanners and local authority planners and to ensure that accurate and

timely information is disseminated to the community at all levels and to keep the

Community Liaison up to date to on developments. Regular communications from

the Regeneration Office/Masterplanners will also help keep the positive elements of

momentum going in the community, built up during the consultation period.

Production of regular newsletter for the whole of the East Quadrant to keep residents

updated on Masterplan Developments related issues and begin to outline issues

common to all communities is recommended.

9.3.3 Putting in the groundwork: Advance knowledge of issues coming up –

briefing before public meetings:

Researching and anticipating potential controversial issues in advance of public

consultations was invaluable at these events to help listen to and understand the

range of feedback, positive and negative. The process of running the Independent

Community Consultation was valuable for gauging the level of community

development skills, identifying outside issues or consultation process issues that

could affect the Masterplanning Process. Information gathered was useful for

gauging the level of knowledge of, interested in, and issues of concern, for residents

around the Masterplan. This research gave the Masterplanners an opportunity to

take these into account before they started work. The independent community

consultation was useful for exploring and building community based networks at a

range of levels. Each street had a comprehensive document of issues and

questions that was used for briefing documents for the Masterplanning Consultation

Process.

9.4.1 Role: Develop links and effective working relationships with relevant

stakeholders: the local authority, other statutory bodies and the local

community regarding the regeneration programme.

9.4.2 Managing Change Sensitively : Regeneration is about people, and making

changes in these peoples’ communities. This change needs to be managed openly

and sensitively2, as change can be upsetting for communities. An open door policy

to the community, welcoming feedback and comment in any format, confidentially

2 The process... creates turmoil in residents lives - quote from Introduction to Stage 2 Residents Consultation report


and publicly is vital. Open communication and transparency was very important as

relationships were tested Regeneration Masterplanning process, when discussions

looked to reach consensus at each stage.

9.4.3 Regular dissemination of information: Lack of information led to knowledge

gaps and speculation and in the community, many of which were addressed during

the consultation process. People ask questions ranging from ‘Is there going to be

Masterplan?’ to ‘Is the bridge going ahead?’ The workshops marked a starting point

for engagement with the new Masterplan for the wider area.

9.4.4 Relationship between ICLO and Regeneration Office It was important that

the Regeneration office kept the ICLO has been kept informed of their work allowing

her to give feedback on community aspects. This included

discussion on how best to promote consultations and exhibitions

how to present exhibition of ideas

extensive discussion on the most user friendly format reports

raising issues around Stakeholder Leadership Group

raising issues around the oversight of the Masterplanning process and the

final Masterplan

9.4.5 Contentious Issues: In larger groups sensitive/controversial issues that

affect the community, may not be raised, and it was important that these issues were

kept on the agenda both by the Regeneration Office and the ICLO. In seeking to

ensure to listen to all voices and perspectives from the community, a number of

dissenting voices were heard. In situations where the parties did not to wish to deal

directly with the Regeneration Office, the ICLO operated as an intermediary.

9.4.6 Feedback Mechanisms: A feedback mechanism is in place between

Regeneration Office and all residents associations. They have worked closely with

residents and ICLO and set up and agreed clear and accountable lines of

communications for their office with Residents Associations(two-way), between

residents, Residents Associations and Regeneration Office staff (three-way). This

needed to be continually reviewed.

9.4.7 Changing job descriptions and staff: Key to successful engagement with

any community groups, is good professional working relationships with local

agencies. During the period 2012 – 2016, due to retirement and other outside

factors, a number of key roles and staff were changed. While work continued,

community groups had to get used to new faces and new roles. A more structured

communications and reporting system would have eased the way. By Stage 5

however, there is a clear line of communication.


9.5.1 Role: Develop initiatives designed to inform and create awareness of the

work of the regeneration programme.

9.5.2 Alerts and updates: The ICLO set up a blog, Facebook page and email and

text alerts, with contacts continually updated.

9.5.3 Capacity building: This had a direct effect on engagement. For example,

where a group got involved with a capacity building programme they engaged more

fully with the Regeneration Consultation. An example this is the TAPPED

programme for unemployed young men.

9.5.4 Community Development Training: In order to empower residents to fully

engage with the regeneration Masterplanning process, they needed to have a

specific skillset, at a range of levels. Community stakeholders and representatives

needed to develop their skills further to empower them to fully engage with the

regeneration process. While some offers of formal training were taken up (for

example, Social Media Training with the Abbeyquarter Mens’ Group) the most

popular form of delivery was informal. Many opportunities arose for the ICLO to

give formal workshop or just a supportive meeting to help guide a group through a

particular issue. ICLO provided guidance in the following areas:

Using Social Media (Facebook, twitter, blog, linked google calendars)

Preparing for a meeting (agreeing agenda, taking minutes, agreeing follow

ups)

Setting up a residents association

Strategic planning

Problem solving – identifying solutions as well as problems

How to write a press release

Communication structures – internal and external

How to collate feedback and present it to a group

Importance of communication regular and clearly with your community /

community group

This skill sets gained strengthened the ability of the community to further engage

with the regeneration process. The ICLO undertook regular informal review of

learning with residents to remind them of the skills they had acquired and to

encourage them to build on these. This gave them confidence to take engage

further with regeneration consultations.

9.5.5 Community Trips: During the Masterplan regeneration process the ICLO

organised 4 community trips, open to all residents of Sligo: East City and Environs

Regeneration Area and community development workers. Between 15 and 30

residents went and community workers went on each trip to Fatima United and

Ballymun Regeneration Limited, Ballybane and Tuam Co Galway and to Mitchells


Boherbree Regeneration Tralee Regeneration in Co Kerry. The purpose of the trips

was to go to visit Community venues and groups in other areas and bring home

ideas around developments and projects residents felt would be good for

Regeneration in Sligo and to use this information to help inform engagement with the

masterplan. It was also an opportunity to encourage residents from different parts of

the Sligo regeneration areas to spend time together and build relationships and

hopefully realising the benefits of areas working closely together on the

Regeneration Masterplan. More details are outlined in Appendix D. The timing of

the trips coincided with public consultations in Stage 2, Stage 3 and Stage 4 and

were useful for maximising engagement.

9.5.6 Community venues: There is a gap in facilities between Cranmore and

Adjacent Areas, with the latter having no community venue and there was no central

spot to hold meetings for residents. This lack of a free accessible space, was a

barrier to the natural development of a community momentum.

9.6 Role: Report on progress to the Minister for Housing and Planning

through the Housing Agency.

The ICLO reported on a monthly basis to Minister for Housing and Planning through

the Housing Agency. In this way the work of the ICLO was regularly reviewed and

evaluated. As an independent officer, the ICLO made recommendations at key

times regarding early wins and community trips which complemented the

Regeneration Office Plans and applications to the DoE.

10. RECOMMENDATIONS:

10.1 Overview

The position of ICLO was put in place for the duration of the Masterplanning process,

with the view that once the plan was complete, there would be structures built into

the delivery of these to ensure ongoing review, consultation and engagement with

the community. The launch of the 10 year Masterplan saw the conclusion of the work

of the ICLO. A steering committee is in place, as part of the delivery structure (see

Appendix B for objectives) making the oversight of the rollout of the plan fully

accountable to the community. The commitment of the community to this process

and the challenges faced and met, should be acknowledged. Analysis of the

feedback in Stages 3 and 4 indicated high levels of support for the Regeneration

Projects. It is noted that some ideas, in particular the proposals for a new

community services centre, will need further negotiation agreement on the final

detail, requiring a well-planned and partnership approach by all stakeholders. In

addition, further work needs to be done to ensure active engagement with the areas

to the south of the regeneration area. Eleven recommendations, each applicable to

some or all stakeholders are made.


10.2 Recommendations

1. Regular early wins/small works to maintain community engagement.

Significant capital projects are part of the plan, but these will take a number of

years to complete. The rollout of the plan is over a 10 year period, and to

keep them engaged, residents need to see some immediate smaller projects

on the ground, as they wait for larger projects to become a reality.

2. Ensure a strong communication structure is in place and constantly

reviewed independently by all parties. Keep communicating with other

parties, no matter where you are in the plan. It cannot be stressed how

important ongoing communications between the Regeneration Office and the

community will be at this stage. Open dialogue is important. Each time the

consultation process encountered difficulties, when space was created for

honest discussion and expression, satisfactory solutions were found.

Communication should be open, flexible and moving from being process

based, to outcome based. This Regeneration Masterplan, led by Sligo

Council and other partners with an extensive level of community

engagement , needs to continually clarify a clear understanding of roles

and mutual respect and trust.

3. Ongoing review and evaluation will be part of the rollout of this plan. The

Cranmore Regeneration Project Office will coordinate, manage and report to

the Regeneration Steering Group on the implementing the various elements

of the Masterplan, including setting up Oversight Groups for various elements.

The terms of reference of the Steering Group should examined and

adequate mentoring and administrative support put in place to allow this

to happen.

4. In the delivery of this Plan, ensure that the structures, procedures and

protocols are clearly established in order to maximise the strengths of

stakeholders and agents, and address issues as they arise, giving maximum

benefit to all involved

5. Put in place independent support for community representatives on the

Steering Group (current terms of reference state that ‘A minimum of 3 no.

ordinary meeting will be held each year for the duration of the project’). To

date the role has been to review the plan and this is now changing to delivery

of the plan, so further support may be needed.

6. Continue to support the empowerment and upskilling of community groups.

Be sure that expectations around what community groups can deliver

are properly supported.


7. Code of Conduct for Consultations and meetings: Ensure that all

stakeholders take responsibility to be properly prepared when taking part in

consultation meetings. This includes being properly briefed, ready to ask and

answer questions, read to listen to others viewpoints and discuss these, seek

clarifications and faithfully feed information back to communities and

organisation they represent.

8. Leadership – the need for a champion. While the resident community of

the regeneration area have shown a clear commitment to engaging with the

process, some of the larger ideas proposed need clear leadership. In

particular, the flagship, (potentially a significant capital development), Idea

A1 (Provide quality spaces for delivery of services and community activities)

needs a ‘champion’ to lead out on this project and work with the three existing

centres as well as the wider community in agreeing a brief for this and how

existing centres are part of this brief. Strong leadership is needed to move

this idea forward at management level, particularly from the perspective of

dialogue and exploration of options between Cranmore Co-Operative Ltd,

Cranmore Abbeyquarter Centre Ltd and Resource House.

9. Further consultation is planned for Idea E1 (Joe McDonnell Pedestrian /

Bicycle Link to Chapel Hill). Residents have indicated that they would like

independent support for this process and such system needs to be put

place.

10. Information dissemination: Provide regular updates (via newsletter, local

media, social media) on the progress of the Regeneration plan, including an

acknowledgment of achievements to date, challenges being met and the

overall workplan. ‘Query proof’ all documentation and presentations before

issue. Issue information in a regular structured manner, including

newsletters and using community networks. Remember the importance of

regular reminders of the work to date and work planned in the

Regeneration Area.

11. Expand the working brief of Community Wardens to Adjacent Areas to

continue to develop and maintain community relations and build up

representative residents associations.


Appendix A : Timeline /Key Events of 5 Stages and work of ICLO:

September 2011

ICLO appointed. Establishes baseline of community networks. Agrees independent community consultation workshops (PLA) format (124 individuals attend). October 2012: Replacement ICLO is briefed and commences work.

October 2012 - February 2013

Independent Community Consultations undertaken by ICLO (25 consultations attended by 160 people). Separate one to one clinics also take place.

January 2013

Design Team Appointed. Stage 1 commences: Socio Economic Review and Appraisal

March 2013

Stakeholder Leadership Group established

March 2013

Stage 1 complete. Issue of Stage 1 report ‘Building on our past…. Looking to our future’ – Socio Economic Profile of East Sligo City : Cranmore and Environs Regeneration Masterplan Sets social and economic baseline for Masterplan Stage 2:

April 2013 Stage 2 commences

May 2013 ICLO hosts Community trip to Fatima and Ballymun Regeneration projects in Dublin

June 2013 Stage 2 Public consultation – First public consultation between Design Team and residents (182 individuals attend) ICLO recommends programme of sundry works/early wins to Regeneration Office after high level of resident dissatisfaction expressed by residents at pace of physical work

August 2013

Public Meeting to discuss design of Eastern Garvogue Bridge and approach roads project

September 2013

Draft Stage 2 Report presented to Stakeholder Leadership Group

October 2013

Cranmore Regeneration apply for funding or sundry works/early wins. Application includes report and recommendations from ICLO on benefits and necessity for these. Application is successful

March 2014

Stage 3 starts Masterplan presentation of ideas for consultation and report on same

May 2014 New Project Leader appointed to Cranmore Regeneration

May 2014 Community Trip to Ballybane community centre in Galway and Parkmore Estate, community crèche and community allotments in Tuam, Co Galway.

July 2014 Stage 3 Exhibition of ideas (social, economic and physical) runs for 1 week (335 individuals attend).


October 2014

ICLO reports on need for further set of sundry works/early wins following Stage 3 report

Nov 2014 Stakeholder leadership group / Steering group for Regeneration discussed at Sligo County Council Meeting.

March 2015

Steering Committee established and replaces Stakeholder Leadership Group

March 2015

Issue Draft Stage 3 Report. Public meeting of Cranmore residents regarding concerns around Draft Stage 3 report. Concerns raised about some of the ideas and the feedback recorded on same. After discussions and consultations with community representatives and ICLO, the Regeneration revised Stage 4 consultation process to address this, by including a further Exhibition of Ideas.

April 2015 EGB information meeting – discussion around detailed design of bridge using a 3D model.

April 2015 Presentation of Draft Stage 3 Report to newly established Steering Committee

May 2015 Community trip to Tralee Regeneration

July 2015 Issue of directory of community groups by ICLO

July 2015 Stage 4 commences: Masterplan presentation of selection of revised ideas from Stage 3

September 2015

Exhibition of physical, social, economic ideas (including revised physical ideas (3 days)). 409 individuals attend , 70% are from Cranmore and represent 55% of households in Cranmore.

March 2016

Report presented on Masterplanning stages to date to Sligo County Council. Public Information day requested.

June 2016 Public Information days on Stage 4 (2 days)

June 2016 New Project Leader appointed to Cranmore Regeneration

July 2016 Draft Stage 4 presented to Steering Committee

September 2016

Stage 5: Final Masterplan blueprint with timeline and costings presented to Sligo County Council and adopted unanimously

Appendix B: Purpose of Key Stakeholder Leadership group/Steering Group

The purpose of the Key Stakeholder Leadership Group is to enable senior

representatives of stakeholder agencies and community representatives to:

Share high level information about participating agencies potential to

contribute to an effective regeneration process, within the realistic context of

existing resource and policy constraints


Be briefed on the socio-economic and physical context and on the

regeneration community’s lived experience of action areas that fall within the

remit of agencies

Contribute to the emerging vision for an effective regeneration process and be

briefed on the ongoing progress of the Masterplanning process

Direct the active participation of relevant agency staff in the ongoing

consultation, problem posing and action planning process

Promote and encourage effective interagency co-operation and co-ordination

in the development of sustainable regeneration proposals

Agree priority action areas that emerge from the Masterplanning process, to

enable their agency to contribute to an effective and collaborative

regeneration process

Sign off on their agency’s commitment to the regeneration process and to the

dedication for resources for agreed priority Masterplan actions

This is a short-term working group which will exist for the life-span of the Masterplan

Development process with anticipated 5 no briefing and consultation meetings with

the Masterplan consultants over a twelve-month period.

The objectives of the Steering Group are as follows (adopted March 2015):

Share high level information about participating agencies potential to

contribute to an effective regeneration process, within the realistic context of

existing resource and policy constraints

Be briefed on the socio-economic and physical context and on the regeneration community’s lived experience of action areas that fall within the remit of agencies

Contribute to the emerging vision for an effective regeneration process and be briefed on the ongoing progress of the Master-planning process

Direct the active participation of relevant agency staff in the ongoing consultation, problem posing, and action planning process

Promote and encourage effective interagency co-operation and co-ordination in the development of sustainable regeneration proposals

Agree priority action areas that emerge from the Master-planning process, to enable their agency to contribute to an effective and collaborative regeneration process

Sign off on their agency’s commitment to the regeneration process and to the dedication of resources for agreed priority Masterplan actions


Appendix C: Issues that arose after first meeting of Stakeholder Leadership

group and solution agreed.

ISSUE SOLUTION AGREED

Timeframe of putting out information

- all residents have requested more

time

Draft Stage Reports would be circulated 3 -

4 weeks in advance of Stakeholder briefing.

Agreed.

Timing. Feedback indicated that

Friday afternoon at 4pm did not suit

many members

Day changed [ICLO notes that 4pm was

previously agreed in recognition of

representatives work and other

commitments] . Agreed

Groups looking for individual briefing

from Design Team: The rationale

behind the Stakeholder Leadership

Group was that all the stakeholders

meet together for joint discussion

and feedback overall Draft Stage of

Masterplan. Individual meetings

would not facilitate this.

An extra briefing session for all residents

representatives and chairpersons of

residents association by ICLO and

Regeneration Office staff, in advance of

community representatives attending the

Stakeholder Leadership Group Meeting,

would be helpful to keep residents informed

and provide an opportunity for residents to

read and discuss the Draft Report. The

ICLO would be attend residents association

meetings. Agreed.

Regeneration Newsletter outlining

Stage 2 Stakeholder Leadership

Group Briefing Process was sent out

a few days before the Briefing

meeting. It needed to go at the

same time as the draft report, so

that all residents were informed of

the process.

Issue Regeneration Newsletter at same

time as Draft reports. Agreed.


Appendix D – List of Community trips

1. Ballymun Regeneration

2. Fatima Regeneration

3. Parkmore, Galway

4. Ballybane Community Centre, Galway

5. Tralee Regeneration

Trips included opportunities to see:

Ideas on the development of smaller community centres /meeting rooms in

the community

How small outdoor spaces have been used

Community enterprise projects

Community education projects

Community projects targeted at specific groups e.g. older people

Community based primary health care centre

How changing infrastructure ( e.g. new road) affects a Regeneration area

leisure facilities, community centres, sports facilities for themselves and

others (children, older people). +

Community venues and groups in other areas and bring home ideas around

developments and projects

Community resource centres.

New housing development ( family, sheltered, single tenant)

At each centre a briefing was given by regeneration/community staff who gave an

overview of all aspects of the work the group This ranged from physical, social and

economic development, to consultation processes at all levels. There was good

dialogue with many questions from both sides. who then tour each are and got an

opportunity to interact with workers and residents to hear about their experiences

and learning from physical, social and economic generation initiatives in their areas.

Participants were asked to fill in an evaluation form after each trip. Their learning

was summarised and circulated. As far as possible, there was a representative from

each street on each trip, to allow for dissemination of information. Residents found it

very useful to see physical examples of some of the proposed ideas for Sligo. These

included streetscapes, roads housing stock improvements. It also got them thinking

about practicalities - such as how Regeneration will be funded, and what the

priorities are and how communities can negotiate with a Regeneration Team and a


Local Authority. The trips broadened the regeneration horizons of all who attended,

and the report was issued to each residents association to facilitate further dialogue

around the ideas seen. The timing of the trips coincided with public consultations in

Stage 2, Stage 3 and Stage 4 and were useful for maximising engagement.

Appendix E:

Further information on the work of the ICLO 2012- 2016 is available at

https://sligoregeneration.wordpress.com/

Appendix F:

The ICLO would like to thank every single resident of the Regeneration Area who

took time to come to workshops, meetings and consultations; who took time to stop

to talk on the street to raise issues, agree and disagree with ideas; who gave their

time to talk, listen and discuss issues and ideas within and outside their community,

prior to and during the Regeneration Masterplan Consultation process. Thanks too,

to the volunteers and staff of all the local groups who took part in this process.

Documents

Independent Community Liaison Officer Sligo East City ......The Sligo East City : Cranmore and Environs Regeneration Masterplanning process set out to put in place a 10 year Regeneration