Dissertation 2015

The role of public participation in urban regeneration
with emphasis on the case study of Ballymun between
1997 and 2007
Gary Farrelly
H00183215
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
MSc Urban and Regional Planning
Dissertation supervisor: Ryan Woolrych
Heriot-Watt University
School of the Built Environment
10th
August 2015
Declaration:
I hereby confirm that this dissertation is my own work.
___________________________ ________________
Signature Date

ii
Statement of Authorship
I, Gary Farrelly, confirm that this work submitted for assessment is my own and expressed in my own
words. Any uses made within it of the works of other authors in any form (e.g. ideas, equations,
figures, text, tables, programmes) are properly acknowledged at the point of their use. A full list of
the references employed has been included.
Signed: …………………………..
Date: …………………………..

iii
Table of Contents
STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP _________________________________I
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES ______________________________ VI
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ____________________________________ VII
ABSTRACT_________________________________________________VIII
1 INTRODUCTION AND CONTENTS ___________________________ 1
1.1 RATIONALE ____________________________________________________________1
1.2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES____________________________________________________2
1.3 DISSERTATION STRUCTURE ________________________________________________3
1.4 RTPI SPECIALISM _______________________________________________________3
2 LITERATURE REVIEW _____________________________________ 4
2.1 CHAPTER OVERVIEW _____________________________________________________4
2.2 NEOLIBERALISM AND URBAN REGENERATION _________________________________4
2.2.1 IRISH PLANNING SYSTEM____________________________________________4
2.2.2 URBAN REGENERATION POLICY AND CONTEXT ___________________________5
2.2.3 NEO-LIBERALISM AND THE IMPACT ON PARTICIPATION _____________________5
2.3 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION: DEFINITIONS AND UNDERSTANDINGS________________10
2.4 URBAN REGENERATION AND COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION _______________________13
2.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY ____________________________________________________16
3 METHODOLOGY__________________________________________ 17
3.1 CHAPTER OVERVIEW ____________________________________________________17
3.2 IMPORTANCE OF CASE STUDIES ____________________________________________17
3.3 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH _________________________________________________17
3.4 OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONNAIRES/EMAIL INTERVIEWS ____________________________18

iv
3.4.1 COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVE__________________________________________18
3.4.2 PROFESSIONAL PERSPECTIVE ________________________________________19
3.5 RECRUITMENT SAMPLE __________________________________________________19
3.6 LIMITATIONS OF METHODOLOGY ___________________________________________20
3.7 CHAPTER SUMMARY ____________________________________________________21
4 CASE STUDY: BALLYMUN _________________________________ 22
4.2 OVERVIEW OF BALLYMUN________________________________________________22
4.2.1 HISTORY OF BALLYMUN ___________________________________________23
4.2.2 BALLYMUN 1500S-1900S __________________________________________23
4.2.3 BALLYMUN DEVELOPMENT (1960S-1990S)_____________________________24
4.2.4 BALLYMUN HOUSING SCHEME ______________________________________24
4.2.5 SURRENDER GRANT SCHEME________________________________________27
4.2.6 BALLYMUN TASK FORCE ___________________________________________27
4.2.7 CRAIG GARDNER / PRICE WATERHOUSE REPORT ________________________28
4.3 URBAN REGENERATION OF BALLYMUN (1997-2007) ___________________________29
4.3.1 BALLYMUN REGENERATION LIMITED _________________________________31
4.3.2 NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUMS _________________________________________32
4.3.3 REGENERATION HIGHLIGHTS ________________________________________32
4.3.4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ____________________________________________36
4.4 POST 2007 ____________________________________________________________39
4.4.1 ECONOMIC CRISIS ________________________________________________39
4.4.2 POST 2007 TRIUMPHS______________________________________________39
4.5 CRITICISMS ___________________________________________________________41
4.6 CHAPTER SUMMARY ____________________________________________________43
5 RESEARCH FINDINGS _____________________________________ 45
5.2 RESIDENT’S PERSPECTIVES _______________________________________________45
5.3 PROFESSIONAL’S PERSPECTIVES ___________________________________________50
5.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY ____________________________________________________54

v
6 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ____ 55
6.2 COMMENTS ON RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ______________________________________55
6.3 CONCLUSIONS _________________________________________________________57
6.4 AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ____________________________________________58
REFERENCES _______________________________________________ 59
APPENDICES________________________________________________ 64

vi
List of Figures and Tables
Figure 2.1 Liffey Quays in 1991 6
Figure 2.2 Arnstein’s ladder of participation 12
Figure 2.3 Davidson’s wheel of participation 13
Figure 4.1 Map of Ballymun 22
Figure 4.2 Boundary of Ballymun 23
Figure 4.3 1960s Ballymun flats development 24
Figure 4.4 Ballymun flats in 1970s 25
Figure 4.5 District heating system used from 1960s 26
Figure 4.6 Hallway in 1960s flats 27
Figure 4.7 Boundary of Ballymun area 29
Figure 4.8 Shopping Centre in Ballymun in 1999 30
Figure 4.9 Aerial photo of Ballymun in 1997 30
Figure 4.10 New hotel on Main Street 32
Figure 4.11 New civic centre 33
Figure 4.12 New Garda station 34
Figure 4.13 New leisure centre 34
Figure 4.14 Ballymun Housing estate 35
Figure 4.15 BRL official logo 36
Figure 4.16 Participation structure in regeneration project 37
Figure 4.17 Arts and Community Resource Centre 40
Figure 4.18 IKEA store 41
Figure 4.19 Shopping Centre in 2015 42
Figure 4.20 Old Ballymun flats in 2015 42
Figure 4.21 Ballymun today 43
Figure 4.22 Dublin skyline in 2005 43
Figure 4.23 Tower blocks in 1999 from Ballymun Road 44
Figure 4.24 View from Ballymun Road in 2015 44
Table 3.1 Professional Responses 20
Table 3.2 Resident Responses 20
Table 4.1 1999 profile of Ballymun 31
Table 4.2 Government investment in national regeneration projects 39

vii
Acknowledgements
I would like to take this opportunity to thank a number of people since I began the Urban and
Regeneration course at Heriot Watt University. First of all I would like to thank my family
for all their support throughout the year and when writing this dissertation.
I would also like to thank my dissertation supervisor, Ryan Woolrych for his advice and help
throughout the writing of this dissertation. It was his module, Social Sustainability that really
got me interested in urban regeneration and public participation.
Finally I would like to extend my thanks and gratitude to Mr. Ronan King who was very
helpful in contributing to my research undertaken. I would also like to thank Mr. Ciaran
Murray and all the residents who engaged in the email interviews and questionnaires.

viii
Abstract
The topic of public participation made its first appearance in the planning world in the 1960s
through Arnstein’s Ladder and the Skeffington report.
The purpose of this research dissertation was to critically analyse the extent to which the role
of public participation plays in urban regeneration. Firstly a literature review was undertaken
to see how participation progressed from the 1960s.
Furthermore, the case study of Ballymun in Dublin looked at a particular urban regeneration
programme and gathered the thoughts and issues of both regeneration professionals and
residents to see if participation was in fact seen as important in the process. The community
felt that there were many successes and flaws with the process and that they did participate at
the start but as soon as development occurred their views were dismissed. The regeneration
professionals agreed that there was participation and that participation is vital in order to
achieve a successful outcome.
The research concluded that in order for to be effective participation in urban regeneration
there needs to be trust with the local community. As the regeneration usually occurs
following years of neglect residents have often become disillusioned with the regeneration
process, and it can then be very difficult to rebuild trust with the local community.
Participation should take place throughout the development phase and not just at the start and
the meetings and workshops need to be easy to access and easy to understand.
Key words: public participation, urban regeneration, community, planning
Glossary of Abbreviations

ix
DoEHLG Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government
CSF Community Support Framework
OPLURD Operation Local Urban and Regional Development Programme
UDCs Urban Development Corporation
DC/DCC Dublin Corporation/Dublin City Council
CHDDA Customs House Dock Development Authority
HARP Historic Area Rejuvenation Project
IAP Integrated Area Plan
DDDA Dublin Docklands Development Authority
IFSC International Financial Services Centre
CAA Community Action Agencies
IAP2 International Association for Public Participation

1
1. Introduction and Contents
1.1 Rationale
Urban regeneration programmes have attempted to alleviate multiple deprivation in inner city
areas in the UK and Ireland. Since the late 1990’s (under New Labour) the focus of urban
regeneration has been on area based initiatives (ABIs) which have adopted a holistic
approach to addressing urban regeneration in deprived areas focussed on key thematic areas:
health and well-being, employment, education, arts and culture, transport, housing and sports
and leisure. Despite this, research has been critical of urban regeneration practice and the way
in which communities have been involved in the regeneration process (Diamond, 2004).
Indeed, the Department of the Environment (Irish department) has stated that the regeneration
of disadvantaged communities has been driven by the economic and physical transformation
of deprived areas, rather than the development of strong, cohesive and sustainable
communities (Houses of the Oireachtas, 2011).
The lack of community-building is perhaps surprising giving that these aspects have been a
fundamental part of regeneration policy in the UK and Ireland. There has been a focus on
partnership working (between regeneration companies and local authorities etc.) and a
political drive to ensure that local residents are involved actively in the regeneration process
e.g. through meetings with developers, representation on regeneration boards etc. (Craig,
2007). The rationale that underpinned these regeneration programmes, such as the New Deal
for Communities (NDC), was the perception that including local residents in the process
would allow for more sympathetic forms of urban planning and design to emerge, and this
would benefit developments themselves as they would be more directly supporting the needs
of residents.
Public Participation debut in the professional planning literature came in the mid-1960s as the
planning system was becoming frequently challenged due to the physical bias of the system
that had failed to address social and economic problems (Cullingworth & Nadin, 2006).
There was a drive to include local people, reinforced through various national reports and
models of participation e.g. through Arnstein’s ladder and the Skeffington Report. More
recently, in November 2011 the Localism Act (2011) was introduced to devolve more
decision making powers from the central government back into the hands of communities and
councils (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2011). The government

2
called for citizens and communities to have a voice in their local area and called for an
effective, accountable and responsive local government with greater resident participation in
decisions and an enhanced role for community groups. The government’s aim was that every
community should enjoy a better quality of life with employment and education opportunities
for all (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2006).
Whilst there has been a policy drive towards greater public participation, the literature
evaluating public participation within the context of regeneration has been more critical. Both
the quantity and quality of public participation has been criticised for not engaging residents
in the design, implementation and evaluation of regeneration schemes (Woolrych and
Sixsmith, 2012). Whilst a significant body of research has been undertaken in urban
regeneration areas, there has been little attempt to understand the experiences of regeneration
professionals and local residents with regards to the participation agenda. Moreover, there has
been a lack of empirical research identifying how participation has been articulated in
regeneration programmes and to identify barriers and facilitators to delivering public
participation. This is important if we are to learn the lessons from previous urban
regeneration programmes and engage local residents more effectively in the future.
1.2 Aims and objectives
To address this gap the aim of this research is to develop an understanding of how public
participation has been articulated within the regeneration case study area of Ballymun,
drawing upon the experiences of both regeneration professionals and local residents.
The aim is underpinned by the following objectives:
 To understand how community participation is understood and articulated within
regeneration practice. To address this email interviews were undertaken with
regeneration professionals.
 To investigate how urban regeneration practice has facilitated the participation and
engagement of the local community. To address this objective open ended
questionnaires were undertaken with residents of the Ballymun regeneration area.
 To make recommendations for how regeneration practice can better support
participation within regeneration practice. This will draw together the key findings of
the research to make recommendations for urban regeneration practice going forward.

3
1.3 Dissertation structure
Chapter 2 will provide the results of the literature review through a brief overview to the key
political, theoretical and historical context of participation in Ireland and the UK, drawing
upon theories of neoliberalism and typologies of community participation.
Chapter 3 will provide a strong justification of the methodology that will be used in carrying
out the necessary research and also the recruitment, sample and analysis.
Chapter 4 will provide an overview of the history of Ballymun, with particular focus from
the beginning of the regeneration in 1997 up to 2007 before the financial crisis. This chapter
will examine the achievements and controversies that have surrounded the project.
Chapter 5 will present the findings from the research explained in Chapter 3 supported by
quotations from residents and regeneration professionals as participants in the research.
Finally, Chapter 6 will provide conclusions and recommendations for regeneration practice,
as well as provide recommendations for further study.
1.4 RTPI Specialism
Research on the role of public participation in urban regeneration falls under regeneration
which fits within the Environmental Policy and Management specialism which satisfies the
course’s RTPI accreditation requirements. It covers topics such as community involvement,
participation and engagement and physical regeneration. The decision to undertake a study on
public participation in urban regeneration is developed from interests in the Governance,
Participation and Community Planning, Social Sustainability and Planning Theories modules.
Concepts from these three modules such as urban regeneration, governance, neoliberalism
and participation will be combined to develop a critical analysis of current literature with key
research undertaken in Ballymun.

4
2 Literature Review
2.1 Chapter overview
The aim of this chapter is to provide a key overview of the notions and concepts that will be
used in the research as a well as provide a policy and practice background to urban
regeneration. To this end, this chapter will outline the urban regeneration context in the UK
and Ireland, identify how community participation and engagement is defined and
understood, explain why these concepts are important within the context of urban
regeneration and identify existing approaches or models to undertaking community
participation and engagement.
2.2 Neoliberalism and Urban Regeneration
This section will discuss the role of neoliberalism and how it influenced the UK and Irish
planning system. The second part of this chapter will discuss how community participation is
understood and the role it plays in urban regeneration.
2.2.1 Irish Planning System
To place this study in context, it is firstly important to recognise the Irish planning system
(Republic of Ireland) as it differs from the UK. Ireland’s planning system is regulated by the
Planning and Development Act, 2000 which consolidates all previous planning legislation
and the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations (Bartley et all, 2007). This legislation
incorporates new ideas on governance and is more ambitious and demanding than previous
legislation due to requirements for broader involvement through public-decision making and
more inclusive public participation in the planning process through enhanced public
consultation (Bartley et all, 2007).
The academic debate regarding public participation in urban regeneration is not as well as
developed in Ireland than in the United Kingdom, where there has been more research carried
out on it. However British policy debates and practice have greatly influenced Ireland. Like
Britain, there was a real power imbalance between community and statutory interests within
partnerships (Muir, 2004). The closeness of the two systems can be seen because of the
growth of Neo-Liberalism in the UK and resultantly in Ireland. Neo-Liberalism is “a theory
of political economic practices that propose that human well-being can best be advanced by

5
liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institution framework
characterized by strong private property rights, free markets and free trade” (Harvey, 2005,
p.2).
2.2.2 Urban Regeneration Policy and context
In recent years (1986-present), Irish and UK urban planning has undergone major
transformation. Ireland witnessed the introduction of central government urban renewal
initiatives, the formation of urban regeneration authorities and the increasing use of public-
private partnerships in social-housing regeneration. Many of these developments have offered
new opportunities for disadvantaged urban communities to participate in the regeneration of
their areas and influence planning decisions. However, the extent to which successful
community participation has been achieved is highly questionable (MacLaran et. all, 2007).
In 1986, the Irish government introduced its first major piece of urban regeneration policy in
the form of the 1986 Urban Renewal Act (Brudell & Attuyer, 2014). The main objective of
this was to promote urban redevelopment by providing generous tax incentives to stimulate
private investment in areas that would remain undeveloped if it was not for public-sector
intervention. During the first decade of renewal, emphasis was placed on the physical
element of regeneration, while a broader approach that would have incorporated a range of
socio-economic factors such as job creation and public investment was rejected because of
the poor state of the public’s finances at the time (Brudell & Attuyer, 2014). This tax-led
approach was unlikely to address the problems of local communities as many of the
developers main desire would be to maximise profits.
In the UK, in 1998, Tony Blair’s Labour Government launched an ambitious Area Based
Initiative (ABI) called New Deal for Communities (Lawless, 2007) which aimed to tackle
social exclusion and promote sustainable and cohesive communities (Woolrych & Sixsmith,
2012). Area based urban regeneration programmes also received significant investment in
Ireland in the 1990s. By 2007, there were 23 separate national programmes. In the early
1990s, the EU funded the Community Support Framework (CSF) which had 9 operational
frameworks including the Local Urban and Rural Development (OPLURD) programme
which aimed to tackle disadvantage by providing community support. OPLURD set up
partnership companies to co-ordinate the delivery of local action plans (Houses of the
Oireachtas, 2011).

6
2.2.3 Neo-Liberalism and the impact on participation
For almost thirty years, design and planning has been seduced by an agenda which has aimed
to put the market at the heart of economic life (MacLaran & Kelly, 2014). Neoliberalism is a
set of ideas and a theory of economic practices which state that human well-being is best
advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedom and skills in an institutional
framework characterised by strong property rights, free markets and free trade (Harvey,
2005). The term “liberating” here does not mean freedom but removing investment barriers to
allow the conditions where profits can be maximised (MacLaran & Kelly, 2014).
The 1970s and 1980s in Ireland, and in particular in Dublin, was a pessimistic time for the
economy. Unemployment in the capital more than doubled from 36,500 in 1981 to 82,000 by
1987 (MacLaran & Kelly, 2014). By the middle of the decade over 45% of the construction
industry were unemployed. There were derelict sites emerging in the city including the Liffey
Quays (as shown in figure 2.1), dilapidated buildings, boarded up properties and an
atmosphere of political apathy (McDonald, 2015).
Figure 2.1: Liffey Quays in 1991. Source: http://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-photographs-1515545-
Jun2014/
Whilst the population was actually continuing to grow, the residential population of the inner
city was being reduced dramatically as a result of slum clearance programmes accompanied
with suburban housing developments constructed by local authorities and private-sector
developers. By 1985 the social housing areas of Dublin, including Ballymun, had rates of
over 80% unemployment (MacLaran & Kelly, 2014).

7
The neo-liberal politics being pursued in the UK and the US at the time influenced the
political agenda in the 1980’s in Ireland. The adoption of neoliberal ideals initially happened
at a national-government scale through the relaxation of state controls and the privatisation of
key public sector companies (Hearne, 2011). As a result of this ’neoliberal turn’ in Ireland,
the State turned away from a highly bureaucratic to a more entrepreneurial system and this
was evident in the government’s urban regeneration policy (MacLaran and Kelly, 2014).
From the mid-1980s property based tax incentives for renewal were introduced in certain
areas in Dublin and in rural areas across Ireland. The main aim was to boost employment and
profits through the construction sector. The legislation provided for;
• 50% capital allowances for investors in the construction or reconstruction of
commercial buildings
• An annual tax allowance amounting to two times the value of rent paid by the new
occupiers of new or refurbished properties
• A remission of property tax for a ten year period
• Tax allowances for landlord investors in privately rented properties allowing them to
offset construction costs against rental income (MacLaran & Kelly, 2014)
These incentives were very generous and inevitably created a boom in office property
development in the city, which in just two years increased the stock of office space by 20%
(MacLaran & Kelly, 2014). During the late 1990’s public-private sector partnerships for
social housing renewal became an important element of the national government and local
government policy (Hearne, 2011).
The Irish government adopted the concept of the ‘Urban Development Corporations’ (UDCs)
which were used in UK cities and were created to facilitate and hasten urban regeneration in
the country. The first major regeneration programme was of the Docklands. Planning powers
were seized from Dublin Corporation (now Dublin City Council or DCC) and given to the
Custom House Dock Development Authority (CHDDA), who were given the responsibility
of overseeing the redevelopment of the docklands (MacLaran & Kelly, 2014). The CHDAA
received generous incentives such as 100% capital allowances for business premises and
regarding residential properties, landlords could off-set the cost of new premises against
rental income from all sources. For new social housing developments, reliance was placed on
the private sector and indirectly on the buyers of newly constructed housing. According to the

8
Planning Act (2000) it made all private-sector residential developments of more than four
units have an allocation of at least 20% of the site for social housing. As a result of these
initiatives the regeneration moved at a fast pace yet with little public involvement (MacLaran
& Kelly, 2014).
The effective influence of the public in urban planning was diminished with the creation of
‘special-purpose agencies’ which fast tracked development planning, bypassing public
consultation (MacLaran & Kelly, 2014). From the mid-1990s, initial changes towards greater
public consultation marked the first phase of the Historic Area Rejuvenation Project (HARP),
located west of O’Connell Street in the Smithfield area. DCC prepared a framework plan,
with most funds coming from the EU but also limited funds from the local authority (DCC)
itself. The regeneration project involved participation from the local community, the City
Enterprise Board, An Taisce (the Irish National Trust) and other agencies (MacLaran &
Kelly, 2014). A Steering Committee was created to oversee the project, but it became an
arena for growing conflict between the local residents and the neo-liberal DCC regarding the
intensity of the scale of redevelopment in the Smithfield area and characterised the fractious
relationships between local residents and urban regeneration professionals (MacLaran &
Kelly, 2014).
The economic boom of the 1990s created a strong demand for land, creating a property-
development boom that would transform Dublin’s inner city. Furthermore, the 1990s
witnessed the development of numerous residential schemes to house the ever growing
workforce. A 1996 KPMG study found that this tax led property-led approach to renewal had
been a success in stimulating private investment and in the physical renewal of inner city
areas of Irish cities and towns by focussing on dereliction and dilapidation (Brudell &
Attuyer, 2014). However the study criticised its lack of social concern direction and the
absence of local input from residents. It was concluded that the state’s urban renewal
programmes failed to establish democratic legitimacy among the local communities living in
those designated areas (Brudell & Attuyer, 2014). With regards to the Dockland’s
regeneration, it criticised it because of the exclusion of the local government from the project
and the lack of regeneration benefits accruing to local residents.
“As far as Dublin City Council are concerned, it’s easier to ask forgiveness than
request permission” (Smith, 2004 [taken from MacLaran, 2008]).

9
After this report the Department of the Environment and Local Government published
guidelines for a new urban-renewal scheme moving away from a reliance on property related
tax incentives to solving the problems of declining areas through an Integrated Area Plan
(IAP) (as recommended by the consultants) (Brudell & Attuyer, 2014). The objective was to
bring the economic, social and environmental regeneration the same importance as physical
renewal, whilst supposedly emphasising the importance of partnership-working with local
residents (Brudell & Attuyer, 2014)).
The emergence of Dublin as one of the most entrepreneurial cities in Europe by the mid-
2000s can be seen as a result of Dockland’s change to the IAP. The Dublin Docklands
Development Authority (DDDA) embraced the new partnership model in 1997. The new
masterplan of the docklands included proposals for the social, economic and holistic
regeneration of the docklands area. This demonstrated a shift in thinking to a more mixed and
adaptive entrepreneurial approach to city development. The approach is a mixture of neo-
liberal economic policies and EU social partnership policies designed to promote social
inclusion (Moulaert et.all. 2003).
However, in 2007 the financial crisis caused the loss of jobs from the construction sector and
associated professional activities which was caused by a combination of overdevelopment of
housing and an unregulated banking sector. The peak output of housing occurred in 2006
with the number of houses completed totalling over 90,000 units (Williams & Redmond,
2014). According to the central statistics office, housing vacancies in 2006 totalled 266,331
units (15% of total stock). As the economy and the banking sector were so closely linked to
the construction industry, the impact of the virtual termination of construction services in
2009 was severe. (Williams & Redmond, 2014).
Today the economy is more buoyant and the city is on its way back to becoming one of the
most entrepreneurial cities in Europe again. The docklands is home to the International
Financial Services Centre (IFSC) which has over 500 firms situated there and contributes
7.4% of total Irish GDP (IFSC, 2015). The centre contributes almost €2.1bn to the Irish
Exchequer and, according to a 2010 report, comprises 5% of all EU 27 cross-border financial
services activity. The Irish government sees the IFSC as the driving force behind the physical
renewal of the north inner city (IFSC, 2015).

10
2.3 Community Participation: Definitions and Understandings
“Citizen Participation is like eating spinach, no one is against it in principle
because it is good for you” (Arnstein, p. 216, 1969).
The involvement and participation of the public in the planning system dates back to the
late 1960s with the publication of two influential documents, the Skeffington Report and
Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation (Cullingworth & Nadin, 2006). At this time,
many believed the planning system was failing to address economic and social problems
and as a result changes were made in the statutory planning procedures alongside the
publication of the Skeffington Report in 1969 (Cullingworth & Nadin, 2006). One of the
key assumptions of the Skeffington Report was that if there was meaningful and effective,
proper public participation then public resentment to planning would go away. Back then
this was at a time when planning was very unpopular with many members of the public
as many believed there was a “we” and “they” attitude where the members of the public
would be at the “mercy” of the planners (Damer & Hague, 1971, p.221) (it could be
argued that this has not changed).
The Skeffington Report “concentrated on the cumbersome and inefficient nature of the
pre-1963 planning machinery at the expense of a movement from a representative
democracy towards a more participatory political system” (Damer & Hague, 1971, p.
230). The report identified evidence that shows increasing numbers among the public
demanding more power to make contributions to planning but where the public were not
making any meaningful contribution to policy formation (Damer & Hague, 1971).
Cullingworth and Nadin (2006) were critical of the Skeffington report stating that the
report made some clear and ‘rather obvious’ recommendations regarding involving the
public but did not go far enough in terms of making radical policy changes. Cullingworth
and Nadin (2006) further explain how Skeffington’s proposals to appoint “community
development officers to secure the involvement of those people who do not join
organisations” and for “community forums” had very little impact at the time
(Cullingworth & Nadin, 2006, p.432). At around the same time in the United States,
efforts were also being made to address public participation within the context of urban
development.

11
Sherry Arnstein stated that public participation (“citizen involvement”) was a categorical
term for citizen power (Arnstein, 1969). She describes it as the redistribution of power
which enables the “have not citizens”, that are excluded or disenfranchised from the
political and economic environment, to have the opportunity to be engaged moving
forward (Arnstein, 1969). However, in 1969 Arnstein found that successful public
participation was not straightforward. Arnstein explained that there was participation but
without redistribution of power and decision-making responsibilities there was little
opportunity for actual change. Arnstein supported this assertion by identifying the lack of
effective participation “in most of the thousands” of Community Action Plans in the US
at the time (Arnstein, 1969, p. 217). Thus, effective participation goes beyond more
information sharing or consultation events, and must include opportunities for influencing
change.
As a result Arnstein created eight levels of public participation to analyse this issue (as
shown in figure 2.2), which highlights the fundamental differences between the power
holders and citizens. The bottom two rungs of the ladder highlight non-participation. The
objectives of (1) Manipulation and (2) Therapy are not to enable people to participate in
planning or conducting programs but to allow power holders to “educate” or “cure” the
participants. An example of manipulation were the Community Action Agencies (CAAs)
which were created structures called “neighbourhood councils” or “neighbourhood
advisory groups” which actually had no legitimate function or power (Arnstein, 1969).
The CAAs were only in existence to show that people were involved in the process and
were therefore a tokenistic form of participation (Arnstein, 1969).
Next on the ladder is (3) Informing and (4) Consultation. Here citizens are being heard
but under these conditions they lack the power to ensure that their views will be acted
upon by decision-makers. Rung (5) Placation is a high level form of tokenism. It allows
the “have-nots” (people excluded from the political and economic processes) to have an
advisory role but the power holders still have the final say when it comes to decision
making. After placation are levels of citizen power with increasing degrees of decision
making influence. (6) Partnership allows citizens to engage in negotiations and enables
them to trade-off with the power holders. (7) Delegated Power and (8) Citizen Control
allow the ‘have-not’ citizens obtain the majority of decision making seats or even have
total power (Arnstein, 1969).

12
Figure 2.2: the eight rings on Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation (Arnstein, 1969).
Since Arnstein’s ladder of participation, a number of guidelines have been developed to
further develop the participation agenda. In 1990, an international organisation for public
participation, IAP2 (International Association for Public Participation), was set up to
improve the practice of public participation in relation to individuals, governments,
institutions, and other entities that effect the public’s interest in nations throughout the
world. IAP2’s membership is worldwide and offers a number of diverse training courses
for public participation practitioners. IAP2 have a set of core values which include (IAP2,
2012):
 Public participation includes the promise that the public’s contribution will
influence the decision
 It promotes sustainable decisions recognising and communicating the needs and
interests of all participants, including the decision makers
 Those who are affected by the decision have a right to be involved in the decision
making process
 Participants will be communicated with on how their input effected the decision

13
In Scotland, the ‘Wheel of Participation’ (as shown in figure 2.3) was developed by South
Lanarkshire Council in 1998 to encourage effective participation techniques (Davidson,
1998). This recognised a key limitation of the Arnstein ladder; the assumption that
residents needed to reach the top rung of the ladder before genuine participation could be
achieved. Unlike Arnstein’s ladder which aims for necessary levels of community
empowerment, the wheel promotes the appropriate level of community involvement to
achieve clear objectives, without suggesting that the objective is always to climb the
ladder (Davidson, 1998).
Figure 2.3: Davidson’s wheel of participation (Davidson, 1998)
2.4 Urban regeneration and community participation
“If there is a collective effort between the regeneration company, public sector
agencies and the local community, with the local authority as drivers of change, there
can be successful sustainable regeneration” (Woolrych & Sixsmith, 2012).
Research has shown that if the public are given a voice and an enhanced role in decision
making it can lead to an increased sense of autonomy and togetherness among residents.

14
Woolrych and Sixsmith (2012) stated that involving the public in the design of regeneration
programmes can have a significant influence in the achievement of its long term goals. It
would increase the likelihood of initiatives being adopted and sustained by local residents as
there would be an increase sense of community and ownership (Woolrych and Sixsmith,
2012).
In the UK, much research on participation in urban regeneration programmes have been
critical. Woolrych and Sixsmith (2012) explain that many local residents experience feelings
of apathy, disillusionment and disengagement as a result of their views and perspectives not
being heard by the professional community (Woolrych & Sixsmith, 2012).
For participation to be effective it is dependent upon the extent to which the local community
are engaged with to shape their own urban environment. Consultation is not in itself enough
as it does not provide the mechanisms through which meaningful change can be facilitated.
There needs to be co-operation as well, as it means that communities are listened to and are
working at the heart of the regeneration programme.
One important facilitator for effective engagement is the willingness from both regeneration
professionals and local residents to be engaged in the decision-making process. Woolrych
and Sixsmith’s (2012) paper involves interviews with regeneration professionals in the
Northwest of England and their view regarding delivering community involvement in their
jobs. One interesting point raised was that some professionals believed that there was an
absence of a culture of engagement and participation which impacted on the enthusiasm of
regeneration professionals to create partnerships with communities. Some professionals
believed that there was a “lack of enthusiasm” among local residents making successful
participation “impossible” (Woolrych and Sixsmith, 2012). One professional also explained
that they did try and engage with people by inviting the community to meetings but “the
problem is that no one shows up, then when they build something people do show up and
complain about it” (Woolrych and Sixsmith, 2012). However the reason residents might not
engage might not be down to enthusiasm but perhaps a reaction to the negative participation
that has been undertaken in the past.
Another important factor for participation to be effective is that the regeneration professionals
need to be properly trained to acquire the skills necessary to engage with the local residents
effectively. Budgets are often not spend on professionals (for example, training programmes)
to acquire the skills necessary to engage with the public as they were not seen as a priority

15
which as a result undermined the importance of participation and engagement in the
regeneration agenda (Woolrych and Sixsmith, 2012).
An example of effective participation is taken from work by IAP2 in Edmonton Canada
(IAP2, 2012). In Canada, through IAP2, the City of Edmonton conducted three location-
based community workshops focused on the Chinese and surrounding communities. The
focus was on gaining the involvements of local residents affected by proposals to route an
LRT line through Edmonton’s China Gate and through the Chinese and surrounding
communities. However the Chinese and surrounding communities felt that they had not been
sufficiently involved and consulted in the development of the proposals of the LRT line
which raised concerns about impacts on the surrounding communities and community
facilities. The city of Edmonton workshops were transparent, encouraging community
members to work in groups to identify the issues and important facilities within the
community. This gave residents involvement on the different design options for the LRT
throughout the area (IAP2, 2012).
The programme was extremely successful and as a result the proposed LRT alignment was
redesigned based on community designs developed at the second workshop. As a result the
majority of the concerns and impacts the residents raised where mitigated (IAP2, 2012). This
successful programme highlights the fundamental reason why consultation with the local
residents should take place before any development occurs.
In contrast, there are many real and lived tensions and conflicts inherent in the promotion of
partnership working and community-led regeneration. For example, a capacity building
initiative in North West England was based around a recently renovated community centre in
an area of high deprivation (Diamond, 2004). Key partners to the initiative were the local
school, a local voluntary group, the regeneration agency (Single Regeneration Budget
imitative), the local further education college and the local social housing company. These
partners had a number of important political tensions between them such as having no shared
view of the ‘capacity building’ model (for community development) being developed with
the local residents. As the local college saw the site as one of its local sites, it took the view
that its outreach programme took importance over other potential users of the community
centre. Also, the SRB wanted the site to be successful, seeing the college’s needs as
secondary (Diamond, 2004).

16
Also, many local residents who sat on the management committee as local representatives felt
that decisions being made were not inclusive of local groups, or they were not addressing
their specific needs. There was also a potential for conflict if the management committee
and/or local groups articulated a different role for the centre. The role of the FE College was
seen as less important to the role of local managers. It was line managed at a distance and as a
result the centre staff did not feel like employees of the college. On the other hand, local
members of the management committee did not feel they could direct the project or assert
their authority (Diamond, 2004).
In conclusion, there does seem to be a real flaw in a process that brings together large and
complex organizations and highly skilled outsiders to manage a local project that is aimed at
developing and supporting local groups whose needs and/or existence may not even be
known or understood by the outsiders brought in to give legitimacy to an initiative. In the
case of the community centre, it is worth noting that all the objectives were met in meeting
the needs of the external funder. However, the local resident’s needs were only partially met
(Diamond, 2004).
2.5 Chapter summary
Urban regeneration in Ireland and the UK has been characterised by area-based regeneration
schemes that were introduced during the neoliberal era. Urban regeneration policy and
practice has identified the importance of participation and engagement and partnership-
working in achieving a successful and sustainable end result. However, undertaking effective
participation is fraught with issues and challenges particularly in bringing together local
residents, regeneration professionals and other community partners. The issue of community
participation is further clouded by the lack of understanding about what constitutes effective
participation and engagement and the different ways in which the community wish to be
involved in the regeneration.

17
3 Methodology
In order to achieve the aim and objectives, this research will adopt a qualitative case study
approach involving open ended questionnaires with community residents and email
interviews with regeneration professionals. This chapter will provide a justification for the
research approach, outline the recruitment strategy and sampling framework and present the
analytical approach to the data analysis. Finally, the limitations of the research will be
clearly outlined.
3.2 Importance of case studies
Case study research is a common research method, particularly in the area of urban studies
and community planning. Case studies allow research investigations to focus on a single or
multiple cases. They also retain a holistic and real world perspective (Yin, 2003), allowing
for in-depth and multiple perspectives to be gathered on a single research problem.
Berg (2001) describes case study methods as systemically collecting enough information
about a particular person, event, social setting or group to permit the researcher to effectively
understand how it operates.
The rationale for using case studies in this research is that the approach allows me to examine
the issue of participation and engagement within the context of regeneration, using the
Ballymun regeneration area of Ireland as a case study example. A case study approach will
provide an opportunity to bring in multiple and different perspectives of the research
problem, will provide a specific focus to the study and will allow in-depth understanding of
the research problem to emerge. However there are limitations with using a single case study
approach (these are discussed in section 3.4).
3.3 Qualitative research
Qualitative techniques involve capturing insights amongst groups, organisations or
individuals based on real world experiences. Qualitative approaches allow interpretive,
experiential accounts to emerge, providing multiple perspectives on the research area. There
are two broad techniques applied when collecting qualitative research (Creswell, 1994);

18
a) Attitudinal techniques where data is gathered by answering a particular set of
questions based on the individual’s perception and experience.
b) Exploratory techniques is where data is collected verbally through interviews.
There are five features of qualitative research. The first is studying the meaning of people’s
lives under real world conditions. Second, is allowing individuals to express their opinions in
an open-ended format that captures people’s perceptions, attitudes and experiences around
specific events (Yin, 2011). Third, is covering the contextual conditions within which people
live such as social, institutional and environmental conditions. Fourth, is contributing the
insights into current or emerging concepts that may help explain human social behaviour.
Finally, using multiple sources of evidence rather than relying on a single source alone. With
any qualitative research the diversity of the participants and complexity of the field setting
are likely to permit the use of interviews and observations, questionnaires and surveys and
even the inspection of documents and articles with the results based on triangulating the data
from these sources (Yin, 2011).
Qualitative research is being used in this research as it will allow the researcher get an open
and transparent opinion of how and if the public were involved in the regeneration process in
Ballymun. Crucially, qualitative research will give the research an in-depth view of the
process and see what things worked and what things did not. It will also provide the thoughts
of the regeneration professionals in the process.
3.4 Open-ended questionnaires/Email interviews
Open-ended questionnaires are one of the most frequent used methods in collecting data in
research studies. They comprise a mixture of open and closed questions. This research chose
to focus on open-ended questionnaires because it encourages participants to explain the
reasons for their responses. They can reveal underlying views and conflicts because of the
open questioning. Email interviews were used with the regeneration professionals.
3.4.1 Community perspective
Open-ended questionnaires were undertaken with local residents in Ballymun in order to
capture the perspectives of those local residents with lived experience of the regeneration
area and who were impacted by the regeneration. Open-ended questionnaires were
undertaken with local residents to identify how/if the regeneration programme involved them

19
in the regeneration effort, identifying how they conceptualise participation and engagement
and to identify how engagement and participation could be improved further (see appendix
for open-ended questionnaire template).
3.4.2 Professional perspective
It was also deemed important to capture the professional’s perspective in order to understand
how participation and engagement has been articulated within regeneration practice. This
may include barriers and facilitators to delivering participation and engagement, to highlight
gaps, to identify best practice, existing tools and frameworks for engagement etc. (see
appendix for open-ended questionnaire template). The regeneration professional’s view is
equally as important as the residents in order to understand if, for example, they tried to
engage with the community but the community didn’t engage back (i.e. showed little
enthusiasm).
3.5 Recruitment sample
In order to get the community’s perspective on the regeneration of Ballymun, an invitation
was sent out to members of the Ballymun community to engage in a questionnaire. Members
of the local community were contacted through the social networking community page
‘Ballymun Says No’ (anti-austerity page). The questionnaire was designed on Survey
Monkey and an attached link was distributed allowing direct access into the questionnaire.
Survey monkey was used as it is faster, preventing having to wait for the return of paper
questionnaires. It is also cheaper as it does not require postage processed automatically. Also,
as many people have access to a computer and the internet today, participants can complete
the survey at a time that suits them. Also, if participants find questions that are not relevant to
them, they can skip them. As a researcher, the online questionnaire’s main benefit is that they
save time as the data is instantly available.
Recruiting the professional’s perspective was more time consuming. After many emails and
phone calls communication was made with Anne Curley, the senior staff officer of the North
West Area of Dublin City Council via telephone who put me in contact with Ronan Glynn,
the Executive Architect of Ballymun Regeneration Limited. Unfortunately there was no reply
from Mr. Glynn. However, correspondence was made with Ronan King in July 2015 via
LinkedIn. He provided one of the professional perspectives of the regeneration of Ballymun.

20
Mr. King also provided contact details for Mr. Ciaran Murray and correspondence was made
with Mr. Murray on 26th
July, 2015, via telephone.
Table 3.1: Professional responses
Name Job Title Company Years
Ronan King Chairman Ballymun
Regeneration
Limited (BRL)
2008-2014
Ciaran Murray Managing Director Ballymun
Regeneration
Limited
1997-2010 (retired)
Table 3.2 Resident Reponses
Male Female
4 3
3.6 Limitations of methodology
There are some limitations and weaknesses to the methodology undertaken in this research.
These include:
 Unfortunately, only a small number of the regeneration professional’s views were
obtained which meant no diverse opinion.
 Case studies cannot be generalised. They can only speak for the case study area where
the data was collected.
 Other stakeholders could have been spoken to such as community groups and
voluntary organisations.
 The trouble with any questionnaire done online is that it cannot be 100% certain that
the participant is actually from Ballymun.

21
3.7 Chapter summary
This chapter has explained the rationale for why the research methods were chosen to achieve
the aim and objectives of this research. The open ended questionnaires with community
residents and email interviews with regeneration professionals were undertaken to achieve a
better understanding of the extent of community participation in urban regeneration
programmes. The next chapter will outline in more detail the case study area of Ballymun
chosen for the research.

22
4 Case Study: Ballymun
4.1 Chapter Overview
Ballymun is an interesting case study to understand the relationship between public
participation and urban regeneration as it was an ambitious regeneration programme, bringing
about significant transformational change and underpinned by an ethos of community
participation. Over the course of the property boom in Ireland (1997-2007) land values in
Dublin rose significantly. As part of a general shift in urban policy toward more neo-liberal
approaches, the government regenerated a number of inner city areas such as Ballymun. The
focus of this research will be on the period between 1997 and 2007 as this was when the bulk
of the urban regeneration was undertaken.
4.2 Overview of Ballymun
Figure 4.1: Map of Ballymun with main street (Source: Ordnance Survey Ireland)

23
The regeneration of Ballymun is an example of an area-based urban regeneration programme
(1997-present) which has had many benefits and flaws. The programme was carried out
through public and private sector partnerships and community involvement (Muir, 2004).
Ballymun Regeneration Limited (BRL), which is wholly owned by Dublin City Council
(DCC), was given responsibility to deliver the programme.
Figure 4.2: Boundary of Ballymun, located south of Dublin Airport (Source: google maps)
4.2.1 History of Ballymun
Ballymun is situated to the north of Dublin City Centre in close proximity to Dublin Airport.
The term ‘Ballymun’ refers to one of the most northerly townlands in the parish of Santry. In
order to understand how the regeneration of Ballymun came about it is essential to know the
history of the area.
4.2.2 Ballymun 1500s-1900s
The first time Ballymun is mentioned in historical sources was in 1537 and was known as
“Ballymon” with only one house sited there, known as the ‘villa of Ballymon’. Over three
hundred years later in 1837, only two houses occupied the townland. 365 acres consisted of
land used for growing oats, wheat, turnips and potatoes (Sommerville-Woodward, 2002). By

24
1900 this had grown to eight housing a population of just 34 people. The population would
have been bigger if it wasn’t for the Famine and cholera outbreak that devastated Ireland in
the 1800s (Bolger, 2008). Dublin and the Santry area were witness to the Easter rising in
1916 which fuelled the war of independence and resultant civil war (1922-23) (McGarry,
2010).
4.2.3 Ballymun Development (1960s-1990s)
In 1947 the government estimated that the country would need 100,000 new houses by the
beginning of the 1960s to replace unsafe and insecure homes, many of which were in Dublin.
Dublin Corporation undertook emergency measures, including evacuating families, following
four deaths from tenement housing collapses on Bolton Street (Sommerville-Woodward,
2002). Within a week Dublin Corporation inspectors had moved more than 1000 people from
their homes with the housing waiting lists doubling in a few months. As a result, Neil Blaney,
the Minister for Local Government at the time, promised that more houses would be built in
Dublin and in May 1964 the Department for Local Government recommended the Ballymun
Housing Scheme to the City Council. This scheme would see Ireland’s first out-of-town high
rise housing project consisting of over 3,000 dwellings (Sommerville-Woodward, 2002).
Figure 4.3: Ballymun flat development 1960s. Source:
http://brandnewretro.ie/2014/04/08/irelands-first-new-town-life-in-the-ballymun-housing-
scheme-1968/
4.2.4 Ballymun Housing Scheme
The decision to undertake the Ballymun Housing Scheme was seen by some as “high rise
folly” and for others it was seen as the sign of the times, a social and political imperative, an

25
image that Ireland had entered the 'brave new world' of public housing (Sommerville-
Woodward, 2002). Ballymun became the symbol of a new modern Ireland (Sommerville-
Woodward, 2002). The belief at the time was that this system of high rise building was the
solution to the housing crisis in Dublin.
Figure 4.4 Ballymun flats in 1970s (Source: http://politico.ie/archive/ballymun-making-
transit-camp)
The plans for the Ballymun Housing Scheme promised much, such as a state-of-the-art
shopping centre, a swimming pool and health clinic. In 1965 the Cubitt Haden Sisk building
consortium were awarded the contract for the development of what was considered the
biggest and boldest housing project in Europe.
When tenants started to arrive in the high-rise flats in late 1966, they regarded the central
heating system as one of the positive aspects of the development, as central heating was not
common in 1960s Ireland. The central heating system was considered the major selling factor
of the dwellings but it became one of the first conflicts between the residents and the estate
managers because the residents were not able to regulate the heat in their flats (Sommerville-
Woodward, 2002).

26
Figure 4.5: district heating system used in Ballymun from 1960s (Source: BRL, 1999)
The government promised that the town centre would be built as the first tenants arrived into
Ballymun so that the residents had shopping facilities. However this did not occur due to
delays in planning and development. By mid-1969 an entire community was created miles
from the city centre without access to everyday services and amenities. This lack of a vibrant
town centre would lead to severe social problems as plans for the town centre had associated
failing to deliver planned health and social facilities such as a swimming pool, gym, library
and health centre (Sommerville-Woodward, 2002).
Furthermore, from the beginning of the development, it was anticipated that public open
spaces, such as public parks and playgrounds would be an important part of the estate with no
dwelling situated more than a quarter of a mile away. However, delays in planning,
developing and building social and recreational facilities including landscaping prevented this
from happening.
In 1969, the government handed over responsibility of the 3000 dwellings in Ballymun to
Dublin Corporation, with the government stating that the scheme was an overwhelming
success, due to the speed and cost of its construction. However in truth Dublin Corporation
were handed a half finished project with little experience of managing such a housing
scheme.

27
4.2.5 Surrender Grant Scheme
The inevitable occurred in 1980 with Dublin Corporation having a surplus of housing units
precipitated by the national economic decline in the 1970s. But the worst came in 1985 when
the government introduced the £5000 ‘Surrender Grant’ scheme which brought about a mass
exodus from Ballymun by those who could afford to take it up. This scheme allocated £5000
to local authority tenants to surrender their dwelling and to buy a home in the private sector
with the hope that this would free up dwellings for lettings without the need for new
development (Norris & Redmond, 2005). However, some of the most influential and active
members of the local community relocated and Ballymun became known as a ‘dumping
ground’ for people with all types of social problems with demand for housing and flats
declining. Only the most vulnerable sought homes in Ballymun such as single parents, the
unemployed and those with alcohol and drug problems (Sommerville-Woodward, 2002).
Figure 4.6: Poorly maintained hallway in Ballymun flats in 1980s (Source:
http://politico.ie/archive/ballymun-making-transit-camp)
4.2.6 Ballymun Task Force
In 1987 a task force was established consisting of public representatives, statutory authorities
and representatives of the community with the purpose of developing and implementing a
housing policy for the area. The task force consisted of local Teachtaí Dála (MPs), one Health
Board representative and four representatives from the Dublin Corporation Housing
Department along with eight community delegates (Martin, 2005).

28
The task force selected an area of Ballymun for a phase one refurbishment programme. They
selected an area (Joseph Plunkett Tower & Balbutcher Lane flats) that was highly visible.
They selected this area because everyone would see the upgrading of the flats in the hope to
raise spirits in the community and give hope to a community of mainly despair. During phase
one, the architects started a process of in-depth consultation with the tenants of the phase one
flats which was crucial in establishing and resolving some of the environmental barriers in
the local community. For example some tenants pointed out that the railings around the
neighbourhood park were too low and this was rectified (Martin, 2005).
4.2.7 Craig Gardner / Price Waterhouse Report
As the work on phase one came to an end the Department of the Environment declared that
there had to be an evaluation of it before making a decision regarding further phases. This
responsibility was given to a team of Irish and British Consultants, Craig Gardner/Price
Waterhouse. In August 1993, Craig Gardner / Price Waterhouse issued a report outlining five
options relating to the flats. They were; minimal works to be carried out on the flats, continue
refurbishment on a much reduced time scale, a balance of full refurbishment and
demolition/new build, full refurbishment of the flats to a new standard or clearance and
redevelopment of the whole estate (Martin, 2005).
All the recommendations suggested that local residents of Ballymun should form a central
part of the regeneration process. Here, there had been recognition that the Ballymun Housing
Scheme had failed to involve residents in the regeneration process. This recommendation was
supported by policy and practice emerging from regional and central government in the UK
and Ireland which positioned community engagement as central to achieving sustainable
regeneration.

29
4.3 Urban Regeneration of Ballymun (1997-2007)
Figure 4.7 Boundary of Ballymun regeneration area. (Source: Department of the Environment,
Heritage and Local Government, 2007)
Moreover, there was recognition that the regeneration in Ballymun pre-1997 was focused on
economic development and job creation at the expense of social and community factors.
Dublin Corporation, now Dublin City Council, gained government support for the large scale
regeneration of Ballymun in 1997 and a regeneration master plan was launched in 1998, with
some local resentment as some believed that the BRL rushed it without the support of
existing community groups. At this time there were approximately 18,000 people living in
Ballymun and social, economic and environmental deprivation was deep seated (Kintrea &
Muir, 2009).

30
Figure 4.8: Shopping Centre in Ballymun in 1999 (Source: BRL, 1999)
The regeneration was to be funded by direct state investment and the use of tax reliefs to
attract private investment, but in 2001, national urban regeneration policy encouraged the use
of Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) as the principal mechanism to deliver regeneration
(Redmond and Hearne, 2013). With PPPs, a private company (usually a consortium
comprising of a financial institution, a building and operating company formed for the
purpose of bidding on a project) is contracted by the State for approximately twenty five
years to design, build, and finance and operate new public services or infrastructure projects
(Hearne, 2014).
Figure 4.9: Aerial photo of Ballymun in 1997. (Source: Ballymun Regeneration Limited)

31
4.3.1 Ballymun Regeneration Limited
In April 1997, Brendan Howlin, Minister for the Environment, requested that Dublin
Corporation set up a new company to oversee the regeneration of Ballymun (Sommerville-
Woodward, 2002). This new company was Ballymun Regeneration Limited and was separate
from Dublin Corporation, but because DC would remain the landlord of the area it was
accepted that there had to be close links between both organisations. The aim was to
demolish all the flats, a decision that was welcomed by the community at the time
(Sommerville-Woodward, 2002). At the time there were 36 high-rise blocks comprising of
2,820 flats including 7 fifteen-storey, 19 eighteen-storey and 10 four-storey blocks making
Ballymun one of the largest public housing estates in Europe (Murray, 2008).
Ciarán Murry was chosen as the managing director and a voluntary board of directors were
appointed, comprising of local councillors, tenants and representatives from the Housing
Task Force and Ballymun Partnership, community representatives, Gardaí, private sector,
health board and the local authority. It was chaired by Daniel O’Hare, the former president of
Dublin City University (DCU) (Sommerville-Woodward, 2002).
On 31st March 1998, the masterplan, accompanied with the Integrated Area Plan, was
prepared and presented to the government (with the aim of the programme to be completed
by the end of 2006). In the late 1990s Ballymun remained one of the most socially-
economically disadvantaged areas in the country. The profile of Ballymun in 1999 is shown
in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: 1999 profile of Ballymun (Central Statistics Office)
Total Population 16,556
Unemployment level 54% (6.7% was the national average)
Lone parent households 37%
Tenants on Social welfare income 71%
Children achieving Leaving Certificate
(GCSE)
7% (21% was the national average)

32
4.3.2 Neighbourhood Forums
The Ballymun Housing Task Force was reorganised and renamed the Ballymun
Neighbourhood Council and the new task force and Dublin Corporation agreed to create local
democratically elected area Forums in 1998 (Martin, 2005).
The Forums were set up to deal with regeneration issues but they also had to deal with estate
management issues such as housing allocations, maintenance and anti-social behaviour. An
example of how the Forums cooperated on Ballymun-wide issues was the Health Centre
campaign. At first the Health Board agreed to move into the Ballymun Civic offices to
replace the outdated health centre but for unknown reasons, they dithered on their
commitment (Martin, 2005). However when the Forums were notified about this
backtracking they set about a campaign to ensure the civic offices would be utilised by the
health board (Martin, 2005). Today the civic centre is home to the Dublin North Central
Local Health Office.
4.3.3 Regeneration highlights
There were many achievements of the regeneration of Ballymun. The BRL’s approach to
economic regeneration was mainly about property development along Main Street and on
vacant land next to the M50 (Kintrea & Muir, 2009). The development of a new Main Street
attracted both private and public sector investment including two hotels (one shown in figure
4.10), hundreds of private apartments and an art centre.
Figure 4.10: New Hotel on Main Street. Photo taken by Gary Farrelly 29/07/15

33
There were a range of civic and community projects completed. A civic centre (as seen in
figure 4.11), originally planned for completion in 2001, was completed by a private developer
in 2003. It is located on Main Street and provided office accommodation for the BRL, the
Health Services Executive and the motor tax office. A new Garda station was also delivered
(figure 4.12). However there was no replacement of the run down shopping centre (figure
4.18) adjacent to Main Street (as the research will reveal in chapter five).
Figure 4.11: Civic centre on Main Street. Photos taken by Gary Farrelly on 29/07/15

34
Figure 4.12: New Garda Station on Main Street. Photo taken by Gary Farrelly 29/07/15
Another success story was the development of a leisure centre (see figure 4.13) on Ballymun
Main Street. It was completed in the summer of 2005 and is fully operational under the
management of Dublin City Council. The leisure centre comprises of a total of 3,426 sq. m.
of gym and pool uses (BRL, 2009).
These developments have only created 315 private sector jobs between 1998 and 2006 and
465 public sector jobs, mainly in the new civic centre, but the majority of these were due to
relocations from other areas (Kintrea and Muir, 2009).
Figure 4.13: New Leisure Centre on Main Street. (Photo taken by Gary Farrelly on 29/07/15)

35
Residents were also very happy with the quality of new homes with only 5% in one estate
survey saying they were dissatisfied (Kintrea & Muir, 2009). Figure 4.14 shows a housing
estate and new apartments that replaced the old Ballymun flats. Dublin City Council remains
the landlord for the majority of the new homes, but there are concerns that it is not up to the
task of managing the estate well in the long term because many people believe that the gains
made in the quality of the flats will be undercut. However, they will be easier to manage in
some ways with the absence of problems such as lifts (break downs), dampness and
communal heating systems that the original Ballymun flats had.
Figure 4.14: New housing estate and new apartments. Photo taken by Gary Farrelly on
29/07/15.
As a success indicator, unemployment fell by almost 30% in Ballymun, since 1997. In 1997
Ballymun had 2,173 people unemployed, compared to 254,379 nationally. However in 2005
Ballymun had 1,431 unemployed, a decrease of 34%, compared to a national decrease of
38% (DoEHLG, 2007).However at the time it still remained between three and four times
higher than the national average. Education standards were low. A survey conducted in 2004
revealed that only 26% of pupils passed the Leaving Certificate, compared to 74% nationally
(DoEHLG, 2007).

36
Ballymun has been transformed since 1997 with a range of quality new community facilities
provided throughout the five neighbourhoods in Ballymun. Perhaps the best measure of the
progress that has been made can be gleaned from the community’s own responses which have
seen Ballymun win close to thirty separate environmental awards and eleven Tidy Towns
awards in recent years. Furthermore in 2008 Ballymun won a Taoiseach’s (prime minister)
Award for Excellence for its Community Safety Strategy, and also won the national title of
Fairtrade Town of Ireland 2008, showing how far the community has come since the
regeneration began (Murray, 2008)
4.3.4 Public Participation
Figure 4.15: Ballymun Regeneration official logo. Source:
http://www.codema.ie/images/uploads/logos/brl_colour_logo.jpg
Perhaps the importance of public participation in the Ballymun regeneration project can be
seen in the official logo. It depicts the hand of the community reaching for a bright new
future, a future that is now in sight (Murray, 2008).

37
Figure 4.16: Structure for community participation in the Ballymun Regeneration project
(Source: Norris, 2001)
Sillogue & Sandyhill
Estate Forum Coultry
Estate Forum
Shangan
Estate Forum
Balcurris
Estate Forum
Popintree
Estate Forum
Focus Groups
Children & Youth
Leisure, Sport & Recreation
Environment & Health
Advice, Support & Community
Development
Education & Training
Employment/ Economic
Development
Ballymun Job Centre Co-op
Ballymun Drugs Task Force
Community Action
Programme
Dept. of Social Welfare
Cospoir
Ballymun Library
Round
Churches, Religious
Schools
Women's Resource Centre
Youth Services
Ballymun Partnership
CAFTA
Ballymun Youth Reach
Housing Working Group
Education & Training Working Group
Economic Development Working Group
Coultry Estate
Fourm
Once off consultation - eg,
planning for real, surveys ,
meetings etc.
Ballymun Housing Task Force
Ballymun Regeneration Ltd
At the time of establishing Ballymun Regeneration Limited, the Government appointed the
Ballymun Housing Task Force as the official liaison group between the residents and the
BRL. The task force carries out this liaison function primarily through the mechanism of the
area forums, as previously mentioned in section 4.3.2.
In each of the area forums, a design sub-committee existed and the BRL assigned an architect
to consult with these about the development of a masterplan and the redesign of the
individual areas of the estate (Norris, 2001).
Two members of the Housing Task Force sit on the Board of Directors of the BRL and the
Task Force held weekly meetings with the BRL to monitor and direct the consultation. In
November 1997 it made a submission to the BRL entitled “Building a Strategy: Shaping a
Town” which set out their own views on the priorities for the regeneration of the estate
(Norris, 2001).
In November 1997 a ‘Planning for real’ day took place in Ballymun Shopping Centre in
which 2000 people attended (Norris, 2001). At this event a model of the proposed estate was
made available giving the chance for the community to propose their own design ideas for the
estate. Furthermore, exhibitions were also held of the draft Masterplan for the redevelopment

38
of Ballymun and on Phase 1 plans for the housing development. Open public meetings were
also held between the BRL and residents and a range of questionnaires were carried out over
time. Some surveys targeted specific groups such as the play survey for children and
members of voluntary and community groups who were surveyed outlining their
accommodation needs (Norris, 2001).
Figure 4.16 describes the ongoing structures for community participation. They revolve
around seven focus groups and in mid-1998 these were wound down and amalgamated into
three working groups which focussed on education and training, housing and economic
development (Norris, 2001).
Another highlight of public participation was an initiative called Safer Ballymun that was
established (BRL, 2011). ‘Safer Ballymun’ is a partnership involving An Garda Síochána
(police), Dublin City Council, Ballymun Regeneration Ltd and local residents who meet on a
monthly basis, and have an action based, problem solving focus in tackling anti-social
behaviour in the area. ‘Safer Ballymun’ has contributed to the introduction of street lighting
in the area, upgrading of CCTV cameras, removal of graffiti and more focussed Garda
patrolling of areas where residents have concerns. As a result Ballymun has become a clean,
green environment where the residents are involved in keeping the area clean.
There is also a local drugs task force that implement the National Substance Misuse Strategy
and a Community Alcohol Strategy for Ballymun (BRL, 2011). This has resulted in a very
close relationship between the police force and the local residents (BRL, 2005). Therefore it
is more likely that residents would report crime to the police if there is a trust and
understanding between them. As a result the number of drug users presenting for treatment
has diminished and a report in 2006 stated that drug abuse has stabilised and drug dealing
was no longer prevalent in Ballymun (Cuffe, 2008). The BRL say that there has been a
reduction in anti-social behaviour and because of the zero tolerance of graffiti there is now a
sense of place amongst local people (BRL, 2011).

39
4.4 Post 2007
4.4.1 Economic Crisis
With the collapse of the property market and the attendant economic crisis, capital funding
for local authorities and housing associations has been drastically reduced and there is limited
funding for regeneration programmes. The PPP programme collapsed. Private developers
withdrew from social housing projects as they were no longer deemed profitable. There were
thousands of local authority tenants left living in substandard conditions. Based on analysis of
six of the planned PPP regeneration projects the State transferred public land worth in excess
of €545m to the developer who returned social housing and community facilities worth
€214m (Hearne & Redmond, 2014). Developers were making massive profits which stopped
in 2008.
The recession has impacted on Ballymun in terms of the high vacancy rates of enterprise
units. In the centre of Ballymun, sites owned by private developers, remain derelict, with
little prospect of development in the short-to medium term. The state investment aspects of
regeneration were drastically reduced from 2008 onwards by the imposition of a series of
austerity budgets (seen in table 4.2) (Redmond and Hearne, 2013).
Table 4.2: Government investment in national regeneration projects. (Source: Redmond and
Hearne, 2013)
Total (m€) 2008 09’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’
Ballymun 65 - - 53 25 16
Limerick 13 11.25 25 35 27.5 28
4.4.2 Post 2007 triumphs
Beside the civic centre, a community development project was completed in 2011 called the
Ballymun Arts and Community Resource Centre (as shown in figure 4.17). The facility
includes a 211 seat theatre, dance and recording studio, meeting and training rooms, a
conference centre, a café bar and a crèche. In 2008 the centre staged 183 separate events and
performances and attracted forty thousand new visitors to shows in Ballymun.

40
Figure 4.17: Ballymun Arts and Community Resource Centre. Photos taken by Gary Farrelly
29/07/15.

41
Alongside these community facilities, the long-delayed arrival of IKEA (figure 4.18) to
Ballymun happened in July 2009 bringing 500 jobs to an area that has always suffered from
unemployment issues.
Figure 4.18: IKEA. Photo taken by Gary Farrelly on 29/07/15
4.5 Criticisms
The regeneration process raised questions about the quality and effectiveness of community
engagement in Ballymun. A vast majority (82%) of Ballymun residents surveyed in 2006 did
not feel they had a say when it came to matters concerning the Ballymun area, and a similar
figure (80.5%) said they did not receive enough information (Redmond and Hearne, 2013).
As well as that, the results from the 2011 Census revealed the failure to address historically
high unemployment levels in parts of Ballymun, as they recorded some of the highest
unemployment rates in the country, with unemployment in Ballymun Ward B at a very high
level of 44 per cent, in comparison to the 15.1% national rate (Central Statistics Office,
2011).
Furthermore there was the failure to deliver a new shopping centre to the Main Street and the
research findings, which will be explained in Chapter 5, shows this delay as one of the major

42
disappointments in the regeneration process. Figure 4.19 shows the shopping centre in 2015
(similar to figure 4.8).
Figure 4.19: Ballymun Shopping Centre. Photo taken by Gary Farrelly 29/07/15
Also, not all the towerblocks have been demolished which was the target in the original
masterplan. As figure 4.20 reveals, some remain in the Balcurris neighbourhood in the area.
Figure 4.20: Old Ballymun flats still standing. Photo taken by Gary Farrelly 29/07/15

43
Figure 4.21: Ballymun today. Source: http://www.mjparchitects.co.uk/projects/ballymun-
masterplan/
4.6 Chapter summary
Ballymun is an area of Dublin that has overseen development since the 1960s. The
regeneration project from 1997 to 2007 had a strategy of creating new job opportunities,
providing new housing and creating a new town centre, amongst others. This chapter has
outlined the programmes achievements and touched on the flaws. There is no doubt that there
has been a massive transformation of Ballymun since 1997, all you need to do is look at
figure 4.23 and 4.24. The next chapter will investigate these criticisms in more detail, by
investigating the findings of the research outlined in Chapter 3.
Figure 4.22: Dublin Skyline 2005. (Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/eoinoc/9008106/)

44
Figure 4.23: Ballymun road from M50 junction, view of towerblocks in 1999 (Source: BRL,
1999)
Figure 4.24: View from Ballymun Road today showing the transformation in the 16 years.
Photo taken by Gary Farrelly 29/07/15

45
5 Research findings
This chapter will analyses the findings from the questionnaire undertaken with two
regeneration professionals that were involved in the Ballymun programme and the
questionnaire that the seven residents undertook. This research will get the views on the
extent of participation in the Ballymun regeneration programme and identify the successes
and failures of the programme.
5.2 Resident’s perspectives
23 questionnaires were sent out to members of the Ballymun community via social
networking sites, including to community pages. A total of 7 people responded. The
questionnaire was created through survey monkey with a total of ten questions.
Profile of participants
It is important to know at what time were the participants present in Ballymun at the time of
the regeneration programme. Of the 7 participants three lived in Ballymun before the
masterplan was created (since before 1997), two lived in the area since between 1997 and
2003, one since 2003 and 2007 and one since 2008.

46
Of the 7 participants four were male and three were female. The greatest response came from
people aged between 30 and 45 years (3 participants). Two participants were aged between
18 and 24 and two between 46 and 55. One participant was aged between 25 and 29.
Participation before development
The majority of the participants recognised that the BRL did work with the community before
the regeneration began. One participant stated “they did work with the community prior,
however it was felt that our opinions fell on deaf ears and weren't taking serious. Seemed
more procedure rather than interest in the community”. Another participant stated “Yes but
residents would feel a lot of promises are broken”. The other five participants stated whether

47
they were there at the time or not believed that there was community involvement with the
BRL before regeneration. One participant that was living there before 1997 stated “Yes, I
remember a public exhibition was held in the shopping centre - to get our thought on the
regeneration”.
Advertisement and community events
It is clear from the participants surveyed that the regeneration programme was advertised by
the BRL. The two participants that skipped the question on advertisement did so because they
were not around at this time.
Furthermore, the findings shows that the BRL did organise events to get the community
involved. One respondent said “Yeah there were a number of meeting organised where the
community could get involved and understand what was being suggested and performed. A
number of these meetings invoked workshops to allow people to try and get their point
across”. Another said that there were meetings and exhibitions in the shopping and almost all
participants said that there were design type workshops.

48
Community’s main issues
As the bar chart below indicates, the three main issues that the community identified were
about jobs, housing and a new shopping centre. However one respondent further said that
“nothing was resolved. No new shopping centre which lost a lot of business and jobs through
the regeneration”.
Type of role public should have
All the seven respondents said that the public should have a role in the urban regeneration
process. One person said “a supportive role” while another said “Definitely. It's their lives,
only they know what their most important problems are”. One participant highlighted that

49
they should have a vital role and that they did in the Ballymun regeneration but once the
regeneration commenced “they were dismissed”.
Results of the regeneration programme
The research has shown that the regeneration programme has been both a success and a
failure according to the participants surveyed (3 people saying success, 3 people saying
failure and 1 skipped the question). One participant that selected failure said “I put failure but
its somewhere in the middle. Some very good things were done but the economic activity
side of things have let it down”. In a rather humorous response one participant put failure as
“It's still a s**t hole. Where apartments are badly designed and thrown together, more leaks
than hot dinners”. A participant that selected the programme as a success did so as “Ballymun
is a much nicer place to live in now than it was 20 years ago”. Another said “Personally
Ballymun looks very nice today so I would say a success but if I was there from the start I
could have a different idea”. Some respondents outlined successes and failures. As one
participant stated; “Well in one hand it was a success compared to the 1980s however it was
far from perfect as there were a number of issues unsolved and opinions of locals not taken
on board. Therefore I'm on the fence”. The majority of respondents (4) said that the shopping
centre needed to be developed first as one said that “it is now derelict” and another said
“there is no point in having nice homes if you have no shops in the area”. Another participant
said that they would of made better designs for the homes because the house are not insulated
properly now.

50
5.3 Professional’s perspectives
Questionnaires were sent out to 7 regeneration professionals who were involved in the
programme. A total number of 2 people responded.
Participant’s role in the regeneration programme
The first response was from Ronan King. Communication was made with Mr. King via
LinkedIn. Ronan was the chairman of the Ballymun Regeneration Limited (BRL) from 2008
to 2014, a total of six years. Communication was also made with Mr. Ciaran Murray who was
Managing Director of the BRL from its incorporation in 1997 up until September 2010 when
he retired.

51
Events organised to involve community
Mr. King was not directly involved at the beginning of the project. However he believes there
was “substantial” collaboration and consultation with the local community at the time of
drafting the initial regeneration. Mr. Murray said people were engaged with, for example,
2000 people attended the Ballymun Planning Day in 1997.
Ciaran Murray stated that four work groups were set up to get the community involved. The
four areas that the work groups would cover were:
 A New image for Ballymun, to change the negative image of Ballymun and promote a
sense of pride.
 Training and Employment issues, this was used to empower people so they can take
advantage of employment opportunities.
 Estate management and home ownership matters: this was used to aspire people to
own their own homes
 Tax incentives to promote economic development:
These work groups were made up of representatives of the local community and people with
specialist skills in each of the four areas.
Ciaran said that there were also design groups that met weekly, a weekly information desk in
the shopping centre every Thursday and meetings between the architects and the Forums.
Mr King and Mr Murray stated there were numerous issues raised and covered the spectrum
of physical (houses to replace high-rise flats, gardens etc.), social and economic issues
(access to jobs).
Priorities in regeneration of Ballymun
Ronan King explained that he did not join the Board as Chairman until January 2008 when
the project was quite advanced in terms of physical regeneration and social programmes.
When he joined he felt that the economic dimension was in need of prioritisation, as there
was relatively little activity of real significance in terms of job creation. He explains that he
also needed to put in place a “wind-down plan” as the regeneration project was already ten
years in existence. A number of key sub-groups were established to tackle these issues. Mr
Murray said that housing jobs and community facilities were the main priorities in the

52
regeneration and he also said that the failure to deliver a new shopping centre was a major
disappointment.
The public’s role in urban regeneration
Mr King said that it is critical that there is buy-in and ultimate ownership by the majority of
local residents if the regeneration is to achieve sustainable improvement. At the same time, it
has to be recognised that it is not possible to “satisfy all of the people all of the time” –
compromises are inevitable.
Mr Murray said the Ballymun project was unique in terms of urban regeneration in that the
entire local community were rehoused in the area unlike other regeneration projects
throughout Britain and Europe where many residents were moved out and cleared sites were
then sold off to the private sector for redevelopment. In Ballymun the community through
their democratically elected representative structures had a major say in all aspects of the
redevelopment including the design and location of all new housing, community facilities,
local parks, playgrounds etc.
Top-down/Bottom-up approach in urban regeneration
Mr. King thinks that it is essential to balance the bottom-up approach of comprehensive
consultation and trust-building with the need for pro-active decision-making and a focus on
progressive actions. Plans should be based on facilitated discussions with the stakeholders
outlined above, but implementation then requires real management, free from political
interference, while building in frequent, honest reviews and regular progress reports.
Mr. Murray said that there are many differing views on this question. He stated “My own
opinion is that both have an equal and essential role in reaching decisions. However it is
critical that there is an integrity in the process to ensure that all views are respected. While
the ideal is that a consensus is reached it is never possible to please everyone particularly
where there are conflicting interests. The important thing to ensure is that there is a
transparent decision making process that has regard for all legitimate views but which
facilitates timely decisions once all issues are considered”.

53
Economic crisis impact
Mr. King believes that the Ballymun Regeneration project was fortunate in that the major
expenditure occurred in tandem with years of significant Exchequer surpluses – 2002-2007.
Unfortunately, by 2008, there was a severe downturn which meant that some aspirational
projects could not be financed as anticipated. The priority had to be placed on ensuring that
all residents could be re-housed.
Mr. Murray also said that most of the redevelopment including community facilities were
delivered before the crisis hit however the failure to secure the redevelopment of the Town
Centre Shopping Centre, “which was always going to be a follower rather than a leader of
Regeneration”, was disappointing. Likewise the Government’s decision to postpone the
Metro line from the City to the Airport through Ballymun will delay the achievement of all
the ambitions of the Masterplan (this was a plan that was scrapped after the recession hit).
Difficulties when working with the community
Mr. King believes that the big issue is trust. By their nature, regeneration projects occur after
decades of neglect, and local communities understandably are wary of hollow promises, and
fearful of being short-changed. They are understandably seeking a better quality of life –
which can mean different things to different people. Achieving consensus for how resources
should be prioritised will always be a challenge, while the team implementing the project are
caught between meeting the needs/demands of the community, and the Departments who
control the purse-strings. In Ballymun, there was active participation by the community, and
the Board included many community reps as well as elected councillors.
Furthermore, Mr. Murray says there are many difficulties involved in working with local
communities such as:
1. Building capacity in the community to ensure meaningful participation.
2. Conflict resolution to deal with competing interests.
3. Child supports to ensure regular attendances at meetings.
4. Vested interests and intimidation which can prevent authentic views being articulated.
5. Designing mechanisms for reaching decisions. He states that it is very easy to get
agreement in principle to proceed with a development proposal and then find huge

54
resistance to the development after the scheme is designed and considerable costs
incurred. People often will refuse to participate in the planning process but suddenly
become very engaged once the Planning Permission is lodged.
6. There are always very legitimate concerns amongst community groups and community
activists that there will be no further need for them if the regeneration is successful and
this can lead to tension.
7. Community groups generally have a very specific focus and deal with many sensitive
issues and accordingly the concept of sharing quality community facilities rather than
having a multitude of individual buildings, which would not be economical to sustain is
difficult to reach agreement on.
5.4 Chapter Summary
This chapter has presented the findings of the questionnaires and email interviews that were
sent out to the local residents in Ballymun and the regeneration professionals that were
involved in the programme. Interestingly everyone agrees that the community should have a
vital role in any regeneration programme. The resident participants said that they did have a
say in the process but their role was dismissed when the regeneration began. This chapter has
also revealed the difficulties with participation on behalf of both sides. Finally, the research
shows that participation was present in the early stages of regeneration, but participation after
this is highly questionable.

55
6 Discussion, conclusions and recommendations
This chapter will summarise the key findings of the research undertaken and the next chapter
will provide options for future research. The section will include an overview of each
objective and how it was addressed, reveal any limitations with it and propose
recommendations for future regeneration practice.
6.2 Comments on research objectives
6.2.1 Understand how community participation is understood and articulated within
regeneration practice
Chapter 2 discussed the move towards a more participatory planning system since the 1960s
through reports such as Arnstein’s ladder, the Skeffington Report and the Localism Act and
regeneration policy that has focussed on more inclusive forms of resident involvement in the
regeneration process. Chapter 5 examined this in more detail through discussion with
regeneration professionals to understand if planning practice in urban regeneration was
present by looking at the case study in Ballymun. The regeneration professionals all agreed
that participation is vital but also agreed that it is difficult to satisfy all sides, particularly
given the diversity of stakeholders involved in the regeneration. Regeneration professionals
felt that they and the community had an equal role in reaching decisions, as it is decisions that
affect their lives, but recognised that it is never possible to satisfy everyone particularly when
there are conflicting interests in the process. Nevertheless, all views should be respected and
accommodated within the dialogue process.
Furthermore, regeneration professionals did identify difficulties when working with the local
community. The literature in chapter 2.4 discussed barriers to residents participating, and
included resident apathy and lack of enthusiasm. Regeneration professionals noted that often
residents refused to participate in the planning process but suddenly become very engaged
once the Planning Permission is lodged. An inter-connected issues is the one of trust with the
local community. As the regeneration usually occurs following years of neglect residents
have often become disillusioned with the regeneration process, and it can then be very
difficult to rebuild trust with the local community.

56
6.2.2 To investigate how urban regeneration practice has facilitated the participation
of the local community
As discussed in chapter 2, participation made its debut in the planning process in the 1960s
through reports such as the Skeffington Report, Arnstein’s Ladder and the Localism Act. The
work of the IAP2 in Edmonton Canada was an example of a successful public participation
programme with the residents actually redesigning the LRT alignment. Chapter 5 analysed
the views of the public in Ballymun involved in the regeneration process and how the
programme addressed the issues that they raised.
The research concluded that many residents did participate at the start of the regeneration
process but many believed that once the regeneration started their views were dismissed. This
shows that it is vital that residents play a role throughout the process and not just at the start.
However the process seems to be in between a success and a failure with one of the
participants stating it a success as it is a far nicer place than it was twenty years ago.
6.2.3 To make recommendations for how regeneration practice can better support
participation within regeneration practice
This research seeks to recommend how regeneration can involve the community with the
process. A number of recommendations for how urban regeneration can better support
participation include:
 Participation before development: If we look at Ballymun (which has had many
successes) and the IAP2 example in Chapter 2, it is vital that participation begins
before development occurs instead of mid-way through the process as a last resort.
The development in 1960s Ballymun was a failure for a number of reasons but the
fact there was no participation before development did not help
 A strong economy. In the case of Ballymun Ciaran Murray revealed that the
government’s decision to postpone the metro line from the airport to the city centre
(because of the economic recession) will prevent the programme from meeting its
own targets. Chapter 5 revealed that the BRL did a good job with engaging with the
residents and majority of the residents surveyed identified one failure, the shopping
centre. One failure does not make the whole process a failure and Therefore one can
only imagine what the responses of the residents would have been if the downturn of
the economy never occurred.

Dissertation 2015

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Dissertation 2015

Similar to Dissertation 2015 (20)

Dissertation 2015