MEMORANDUM BY DANIEL DOBSON-MOUAWAD
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THAMES GATEWAY
REGENERATION
1. I am Daniel Dobson-Mouawad, Director
of the London Thames Gateway Forum[1],
an apolitical community and voluntary organisation serving a community
catchment area of approximately two million. The Forum currently
services a membership of over 550 community organisations through
Thames Gateway stretching from the City eastwards to beyond the
M25 encompassing boroughs north and south of the River Thames.
2. The Thames Gateway London Forum is a
strategic organisation that works in tandem with the Thames Gateway
London Partnership[2],
to support the development of inclusive and effective local partnerships
and of local people's capacity to participate in the regeneration
process both on area-based and sub-regional levels.
3. The Thames Gateway's Community Forum
vision for regenerating London over the coming years is to tackle
spatial, social and economic inequalities and get those excluded
into the mainstream. The Thames Gateway is one of London's major
zones of economic change and opportunity. The London Thames Gateway
Forum provides a valuable community framework for East London's
continuing regeneration.
4. The Forum is currently involved in a
host of wide ranging national and European regeneration programmes
including SRB, Assisted Areas, Objective 2, RECITE LOTUS +, LIFE,
Fourth/Fifth Framework etc. Although by no means exhaustive, the
following provides a brief resume of the parameters of Community
Consultation—as experienced—within the general context
of our strategic community regeneration activity. [Appendix 1
provides a short briefing on the community dimension within the
Single Regeneration Budget process].
Community Participation in the Regeneration Process
5. The importance of involving local communities
in regeneration has been recognised by government for some time[3].
Over recent years bidding guidance for regeneration initiatives
has increasingly emphasised the importance of ensuring that local
communities are fully involved in the preparation of the bids
and the delivery of the programme.
6. The commitment by the established public
and private sector to develop a strong local community and realise
the community's potential to contribute to the overall success
of the regeneration programme is one of the preconditions of effective
community partnership. Nevertheless, a number of other obstacles
need to be overcome if community participation is to be a reality,
rather than a mere aspiration. The following strategic obstacles
are commonly experienced by communities trying to engage in the
regeneration process:
— Much of current practice in regeneration
and bidding regimes reflects a political and administrative culture
which is alien to the community.
— Planning and implementation of regeneration
requires substantial resources in time, skill and money. While
established organisations are usually able to set aside such resources,
local communities tend to have a much weaker, often fully committed
resource base (more so the needier a community is).
— Regeneration is a strategic goal,
and local communities have traditionally been marginalised in
long-term decision making on their environmental and economic
future.
— Bidding for regeneration funding
involves meeting tight and demanding deadlines which tends to
exclude those not linked into the formal and informal information
networks.
Principles for Successful Community Participation
7. The prerequisites for successful community
participation are many and various. Amongst the more important
are:
— Time and money to implement a community
participation strategy and programme that contributes to a sustainable
produce and value for money.
— Regeneration is as much about people
as place; as much about process as product.
— Where appropriate, social regeneration
should be community-led, generally in partnership with public
and or private sector partners.
— Wherever possible, participation
rather than consultation.
8. Any genuine commitment on the part of
the public or private sectors to public participation in any process
presupposes that there is a partnership with the local community.
Participation Partnerships
9. Recently the term "partnership"
has become widely used and in some cases abused. Any initiative
which involves more than one sector (and most inner-city regeneration
initiatives have done so for a very long time) is being termed
a partnership, even if one sector is purely being consulted but
not participating. The Forum advocates that the use of the term
should suggest that all different sectors are engaged and that
they should hold an equitable stake from the community perspective,
successful participation partnerships require:
— Motivation (often a response to an
opportunity or a threat)
— Sharing of information and responsibility
— Knowlege and competence
— Accountability and democracy
— Learn to walk before you try to run.
Barriers to Consultation/Participation
10. Over its 25 year existence, the Forum
has witnessed a number of tangible participation barriers, some
still remain and are generically highlighted:
— Asking the right questions remains
easier than listening to the answer. It's remarkable how many
organisations still require to learn both skills.
— Communities are not interested in
participating in fruitless exercises—consultation must be
"genuine" ie it should influence the decision or planning
making process.
— If it's possible to plan ahead then
it's possible to provide realistic timescales for consultation
backed with adequate funding.
— Not all agendas can be pigeon-holed,
the consultation process must provide scope for community-led
agendas.
— Inappropriate language prevents and,
at best, deters communities from participating.
— Results of public consultation should
remain in the public domain. All too often results are "buried"
stimulating adverse suspicion.
— Public participation is still too
often viewed as a threat to the decision-making process and to
the electoral mandate.
— Participation is often stifled by
lack of objectivity. Clarity of process is paramount.
— An unrealistic expectation of the
community capacity to participate. Statutory agencies significantly
under-utilise the strengths of community and voluntary organisations
in building the capacity for communities to participate. (Ironically,
many community and voluntary groups are actually funded by the
very same agencies.)
— The advancement in IT is rapid and
should be utilised. However, it is not a panacea and it often
excludes those very communities who need consulting most.
— There is a lack of understanding
that participation can secure best value by guiding the targeting
of investment to meet areas of community need.
— Participation is at the heart of
democracy. The need to be in-touch with the community remains
critical. The electoral turnout however poor should not be viewed
as a disenfranchisement with local communities' willingness to
engage in the local or neighbourhood regeneration process.
— Too many consultation/participation
processes are purely chasing the next press-release/publication
headline. Quality of the engagement is not central and is often
not assessed.
— Communities, particularly those most
excluded, often have conflicting and more pressing demands and
never get consulted.
— Lack of a strategic coordination
between departments and agencies resulting in similar targeted
consultation exercises.
— The over reliance on non-local/national
organisations to deliver community capacity in areas that they
are unfamiliar with and their only understanding is purely in
terms of the areas statistical profile.
— Acting on a perception (albeit professionally
well founded) rather than from reality. Some professionals do
not accept that communities have a legitimate role in participating
in issues that are their "technical" preserve.
— Not understanding that consultation
purely provides a snap-shot of current views at any given moment.
It should not be used as a mandate for infinitum.
— A reluctance to accept the principal
of subsidiarity which would engage more communities at the neighbourhood
or ward level.
11. We do not accept that these barriers
are insurmountable. The need for greater government guidance and
assessment mechanisms would be welcome.
Participation—Practical Application
12. The Forum's community empowerment activities
over the years have encompassed many forms. It is not always possible,
nor practicable to adhere to traditional methods. Recent Forum
initiatives have included:
Strategic Example
13. The mobilisation of the Community Sector
to a point of critical mass in terms of participation in a major
£0.5 billion regeneration process. The new structured community
approach chosen was the creation of a Community Consortium, to
be inclusive, open and democratic which could support the full
participation of the community at every level of the Regeneration
Partnership including the Board. The structure geographically
encompasses a population of approximately 35,000 people and is
serviced by a dedicated team of professional community-based and
community-employed officers. The Consortium is being developed
to become self-sustaining within the first 18 month period of
the seven year regeneration initiative.
Neighbourhood Example
14. Requiring to undertake an environmental
consultation exercise recently with communities shown to have
a very poor capacity to be engaged in any traditional regeneration
process (as yet), the Forum chose to provide cameras to local
people to photograph "likes and dislikes in their neighbourhood".
Participants were asked to fill in a simple table highlighting
the location of the shot and the reason for taking it. The resulting
photographs and captions have portrayed the area in a unique fashion.
No traditional survey would have captured local understanding
to such a degree.
Planning For Real
15. The most exciting and engaging public
consultation is where local community interests and individuals
can put forward their own proposals for specific sites, buildings,
estates, pedestrian and cycle routes, traffic management etc.
There are many Community Planning techniques available for this,
from Planning for Real (where the emphasis is "for real")
to design exercises where cost factors can also be considered.
Some exercises of this nature can take as long as nine months,
while others can be completed in a matter of weeks.
Concluding Remarks
16. Public Consultation is normally exercised
as part of an agency's statutory function. It can range from genuine
incorporation of feedback into revised proposals, strategies,
plans, designs etc to little more than tokenistic "rearranging
of the flowerpots". Although the Forum advocates, wherever
possible, participation rather than consultation, both processes
should be genuine rather than presenting communities with a "fait
accompli". There are many ways in which public consultation
and participation can be made both informative and engaging. This
includes the principle of taking consultation to people rather
than requiring people to come to consultation.
17. It is critical for regeneration programmes
to have strong partnerships and involve interests in the public,
private and voluntary/community sectors. The London Thames Gateway
Forum and the Thames Gateway London Partnership are in a unique
position to provide assistance, support and experience in the
promotion of community involvement in such programmes. Both organisations
are committed to encourage further participation of communities
in the regeneration of Thames Gateway.
15 February 2000
1 The Forum has evolved from the 25 year-old Docklands
Forum when it was assimilated with the London Thames Gateway Community
Network in 1999. Back
2 The Thames Gateway London Partnership is an unincorporated organisation
which includes the Local Authorities of Tower Hamlets, Newham,
Waltham Forest, Barking & Dagenham, Havering, Redbridge, Greenwich,
Lewisham, Bexley, Dartford and Thurrock. Back
3 DETR Involving Communities in Urban and Rural Regeneration-A Guide
for Practitioners 1997. Back
| 
