Upload
grahammb
View
223
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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.
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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.
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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?
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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.
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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.
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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.
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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).
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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.
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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.
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
17/113
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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.
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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).
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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.
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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.
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
27/113
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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.
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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.
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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.
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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.
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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;
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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,
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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.
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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.
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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.
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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.
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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.
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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).
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
49/113
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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.
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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.
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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.
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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.
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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.
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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.
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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?
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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
8/12/2019 NJR MSc Final Dissertation
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