1

THE ROLE OF THE LOCAL STATE IN URBAN REGENERATION IN

ENGLAND: FROM A PARTNERSHIP APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP OF
PLACE?

Nathan Jon Renison

This Dissertation is submitted in part fulfilment of the regulations
for the MSc in Spatial Planning










Oxford Brookes University September 2011
2

Declaration of Individual Authorship:
I affirm that this dissertation contains no unacknowledged work or
ideas from any publication or written work by another student or any
other person.
Statement of Ethics Review Approval:
This dissertation involved human participants. A Form E1BE for group
of participants, showing ethics review approval, has been attached to
this dissertation as an appendix.
3

Abstract
This dissertation explores the local states role within the contemporary
policy and practice arenas of the modern multi-sectoral Urban
Regeneration Partnership. It utilises the case study of the Castlefields
Regeneration Partnership, Runcorn established in the early 2000s to
regenerate a failing neighbourhood. It seeks to use the case study to
look beyond the modern orthodoxy of the partnership ideal by
proposing a concept of leadership of place, where local authorities can
have a confident local leadership role within urban regeneration.

WORD COUNT: 16239

4

Content
1.0: Introduction 8
1.1 The Management of Regeneration 8
1.2 Dynamics of Regeneration 10
1.3 Defining Leadership of Place 11
1.4 An emerging model for Regeneration Delivery? 12
2.0 The Dynamics of Urban Regeneration in England 14
2.1 Parameters of the literature review 14
2.2 Institutional history of urban regeneration in England 14
2.3 Deconstructing the dynamics of regeneration partnerships 27
2.4 Looking beyond the partnership 40
3.0 Methodology 42
3.1 General Hypothesis 42
3.2 Research Design 43
3.3 Reflection-in-action 46
3.4 Selection of Case Study: Castlefields Regeneration 48
3.5 Peeling back the layers of a Partnership 49
3.6 Limitations 50
3.7 Summary 52
5

4.0 Case Study: Castlefields, Runcorn 54
4.1 Castlefields, A new town neighbourhood 54
4.2 Background to Regeneration Courtship 55
4.3 Production of the Castlefields Masterplan Engagement 59
4.4 Partnership Governance Marriage 67
4.5 Implementation Family Life 74
4.6 Issues for Further Analysis 77
5.0 Castlefields Regeneration Leadership of Place in action? 81
5.1 Courtship Displaced power and influence 81
5.2 Engagement Convergence of power and influence 84
5.3 Marriage Establishment of hierarchy of power and influence 87
5.4 Family Life Consolidation of power and influence 92
5.5 Summary 97
6.0 Conclusion 98
Bibliography 100
Appendices 109
Appendix A: List of Interviewees 110
Appendix B:Ethical Review Form 113
6

List of Figures:
Fig. 4.1 Courtship 1998 2002 58
Fig. 4.2 Engagement 2002 2003 66
Fig. 4.3 Extract from Minutes of CRSG 24
th
June 2005 69
Fig 4.4 Marriage 2003 2004 73
List of Tables:
Table 4.1 Overview of Masterplan Projects, Castlefields Programme 62
Table 4.2 Castlefields Regeneration Programme Key Life events 78
7

Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the help and support of my friends, family
and colleagues during the production of this Dissertation. In particular
the guidance of my supervisor, Sue Brownill has been invaluable in
turn a mountain into a molehill. I would also like to thank the support
of HBC for enabling me to undertake my MSc, particularly the patience
and support of my Line Manager, Sally McDonald. I would also like to
state my appreciation for all those (past and present) from The
Castlefields Partnership who took time out of their busy day for
interviews. Finally I would like to thank Timothy Oliver Ashworth, the
best friend and proof reader anyone could ask for.

8

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Management of Regeneration - Beyond a Partnership
Approach

A partnership approach has become the generic phrase, in both
academic literature and regeneration practice, to describe contemporary
best practice for the organisational structure in which urban
regeneration is managed. It is a Partnership which instigates designs
and implements regeneration within a defined geographical area,
typically at the sub-regional, town or neighbourhood level.

Since the mid 1970s the Urban Regeneration Partnership has emerged
to become the modern orthodoxy in urban regeneration policy which
through various mechanisms brings together central and local
government, the private and voluntary sectors and local communities
(Ball and Maginn, 2005). The prescribed assumption being that by
collaborating the sum achievements is greater than the individual
organisations could deliver independently, whilst both organisation and
the use of resources is more efficient.

This dissertation seeks to look beyond this generic partnership
terminology and explore whether a new discourse of leadership of place
9

has emerged from the contemporary policy arena within which
regeneration has operated over the last decade.

Within this new policy arena has the role of the local state actor The
local authority evolved within the partnership setting? Is its role, as a
leader within the management of regeneration and as shaper of place,
getting stronger?

The fundamental question to be addressed within this study is whether
the role of the local authority within the management of regeneration
through the partnership approach has evolved as a response to
conditions set by the contemporary regeneration policy and practice in
England?

In answering this central question the following supplementary
questions will be addressed:

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

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

10

The general hypothesis of this study is that the local authority role
within the delivery and implementation (its management) of
regeneration has evolved in response to conditions set within
regeneration policy and practice. This new role is one of strength where
power and influence is exerted over other stakeholders within the
partnership milieu. This new role is defined as leadership of place
where partnership working has been evolved into leadership.

1.2 Dynamics of Regeneration - Governance, Delivery and
Implementation

Before one can seek to identify through empirical research whether the
role of the local state in the management of regeneration is evolving it is
first important to understand the context in which this trend could
operate. This is achieved through a review of existing literature
(Chapter 2) and focuses on two key dimensions in the context of this
study.

The first is establishing the broad institutional history of urban
regeneration policy in England. A particular focus is the conditions set
by contemporary regeneration policy discourse that has emerged since
1991.

11

The second, and more important dimension, relates to the practicality of
the management of regeneration and in particular the development of
academic and practitioner understanding of governance models
including the partnership approach. These models seek to understand
the formal and informal networks and regimes the organisational
spaces - where the business of regeneration operates. Finally an
understanding of the role of leadership within the management of
regeneration will be explored.

From the review of existing literature it should be possible to establish
whether the conditions both in terms of policy and governance
structures existed where local authorities could exert influence and
power and demonstrate leadership of place in the management of
regeneration.

1.3 Defining Leadership of Place The family analogy

It is the authors original view that regeneration partnerships can be
seen to share many of the characteristics and dynamics of a family unit.
A natural order and hierarchy is established and day to day life is often
mundane. Individuals within the family operate alongside each other
relatively effectively based upon trust and family life moves along.
However, at key life events such as financial crises or the need to
compromise due to competing interests, the family unit is put under
stress and trust is tested.
12

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

Within the narrative of the life of a specific regeneration programme it
will be possible to identify the key life events and challenges faced by
the responsible partnership. These key events within the life of the
partnership will be the points were relationship, trust and individual
roles are tested and hierarchy, power and influence established. Once
identified, these key life events within a programme can form the basis
for further empirical and observational research. This method is
adopted within the empirical research (Chapters 4 and 5) of this study,
and explained in more detail in Chapter 3.

1.4 Leadership of Place an emerging model for Regeneration
Delivery?

At the heart of the general hypothesis is whether it is evident that the
local authority has taken the lead role in directing the resources and
coordinating the actions of the stakeholders throughout the life of a
regeneration programme. Critical to the validity of this study is the
extent to which the policy and organisational arenas places the local
authority within a leadership role within the regeneration partnership
or whether it is the individual actions and dynamics specific to
individual circumstances of characteristics of differing placed-based
regeneration programmes.
13


Crucial to answering this question will be whether or not a broader
evolution of the management and governance of regeneration is evident.
Is contemporary discourse of partnership being replaced by a discourse
leadership of place? If so, can particular conditions be identified and
replicated which enable the local authority to exert parental
responsibility within the partnership family and demonstrate
leadership of place? (These conclusions are drawn within chapter 6).
14

Chapter 2: The Dynamics of Urban Regeneration in England

2.1 Parameters of the literature review

The objective of this study is to test the general hypothesis that the
local authority role within the delivery and implementation (its
management) of regeneration has evolved in response to conditions set
within regeneration policy and practice. A review of existing literature
can inform research through firstly establishing the broad institutional
history of urban regeneration policy in England. Once established the
existing theory and models that seek to deconstruct and explain the
partnership dynamic will be assessed. It should then be possible to
provide a rationale for engaging in the empirical research of this study.

2.2 Institutional history of urban regeneration in England

The emergence of the Urban Regeneration Partnership (URP) in England
has been shaped by the interplay between two urban policy dimensions
the first relates to the relationships between central and local
government (the institutions); the second by the prevailing policy
response to urban failure. The interplay between these policies is best
understood in terms of the evolution of urban regeneration policy.

15

Early regeneration policy shows that social need provided the case for
intervention, issues such as poverty and urban deprivation (Lawless
1989; Robson 1988: cited in McCarthy, 2007). McCarthy (2007) sets out
the two main national government policy responses the Urban
Programme and Community Development Projects (CDPs). Mckay and
Cox (1979) add compensatory education through the creation of
Educational Priority Areas (EPAs). These initiatives allowed local
authorities to access part funding from central government and were
delivered by local authorities with light touch control from central
government (McCarthy 2007, p.28). Analysis by Edward and Batley
(1978, p.176) of the Urban Programme identified the commissioning
and delivery (Edward and Batley,p.176):
Was providing additional help for deprived areameeting special social
needproviding additional help to areas within authorities that lack
resources.

Suggests funding allocation was guided by broader central government
policy to target places of most need.

Three key characteristic of early urban regeneration policy are evident.
Intervention is focussed on social failure and needs; the relationship
between the central and local state is one of trust with the local
authority given responsibility to develop and deliver responses around
broader policy objectives defined by central government with little
accountability. Collaboration with actors outside of the state is neither
required nor evident. The interplay between these three characteristics
16

resulting in intervention being targeted to deprived areas at a local level
to supplement wider state policy.


The relationship between central and local government was recast in
the late 1970s and urban policy redefined. During the 1980s
regeneration policy in England shifted focus away from social failures
onto predominately economic failures with some attention to linked
physical failures (Atkinson and Moon, 1994: cited in McCarthy,
2007,p.29). As McCarthy (2007,p.30) identifies:
This was perhaps manifested most clearly by the introduction of Urban
Development Corporations (UDCs), which took over local authority
powers in several inner urban areas in order to promote property
development-led regeneration.

Whilst the Urban Programme demonstrated that central government
perceived that social failures could be tackled by existing mechanisms
through state actors; the central government ideology during the 1980s
saw tackling economic failures required a more laisez-faire private
sector response as opposed to existing state mechanisms. It can be
seen that places for intervention were determined by a central
government rationale of inner city opportunities rather than individual
need.

17

It could be argued the perception of the local state itself could be seen
to be part of the failure as they were systematically by-passed with
grant aid (McCarthy, 2007). This reflected the central Conservative
government perception that (Hill, 2000: cited in Ball and Maginn,
2005,p.12):
The socialistic mind-set and bureaucratic culture of many local
authorities, in combination with local planning systems, was stymieing
economic development and regeneration.

To address central government lack of trust in the capacity of the local
state, governance structures to deliver regenerations programmes where
put in place (through agencies) which limited local political influence
keeping control firmly in the hands of central government (Ball and
Maginn, 2005 p.13). Exclusion of the local state from central
government regeneration initiatives was evident in a number of
programmes such as City Grant which saw direct engagement between
the state and the private sector (Atkinson and Moon, 1994: cited in
McCarthy, 2007, p.31).

A criticism of these governance structures was that programmes lacked
democratic accountability: played out in conflict at the local level
impacting upon delivery (Brownill, 1993; Brownill et al., 1996: cited in
Ball and Maginn, 2005,p.12) an unfortunate polarisation emerged
efficiency on one side and local democracy on the other (2005,p.13). In
response to conflict there was some marginal involvement of local
authorities and communities such as in later phases of the UDC
18

programme, though these were often regarded as inadequate (Deakin
and Edwards, 1993: cited in Ball and Maginn, 2005,p.13).

Further criticism relates to the separation of social policy from
mainstream regeneration interventions. This is evident in several
programmes from the 1980s such as Safer Cities, Garden festivals and
City action teams, whilst these embraced principles of earlier
programmes from the 70s of dealing with problems at source, they were
not integrated with private sector led economic property based
interventions resulting in dualism of policy interventions (Ball and
Maginn, 2005,p.13).

Urban regeneration policy from 1979 - 1990 is characterised by a focus
on economic and physical intervention; whilst still evident, social
programmes took a back seat and were not integrated with economic
programmes. Crucially economic programmes were delivered through
new governance agencies between central government and the private
sector, largely by-passing a perceived failing local state. Power and
influence of the local state was expressed through local conflict. The
interplay between these characteristics resulting in intervention being
targeted to central government determined local areas without local
accountability or flexibility.


19

Relations between central government and local authorities evolved
again through the regeneration programmes of the early mid 1990s
City Challenge and the early phases of the Single Regeneration Budget
(SRB). A distinct difference between these flagship programmes and
their predecessors of the 1980s was the incorporation of local
partnerships arrangements within initiatives. McCarthy (2007) argued
that these arrangements came through recognition by central
government (via criticisms by the audit commission in 1989 of
regeneration initiatives of the 1980s) that better co-ordination of urban
interventions was required. It was evident that these programmes also
addressed separation of social policy by making addressing social
issues as a central component of policy (Ball and Maginn, 2005,p.14).

McCarthy, (2007,p.33) Identified that addressing need itself was
diluted within these regeneration initiatives towards broader economic
development objectives as through the downgrading of need as a grant
criterion. This criticism recognises the introduction of a new tenet to
regeneration policy competitive bidding between local areas seeking
funding from central government. The capacity of partnership boards
meeting bidding criteria was critical in determining which bids were
successful: central government retaining power and influence.

Central government criteria for these programmes allowed local
authorities within regeneration policy decision-making, although local
authorities were facilitators rather than developers and owners (Ball
and Maginn, 2005 p. 14). Funding criteria placed local authority
involvement within a broader local partnership governance structure
20

incorporating participation of community and voluntary groups, as well
as levering in private sector finance. The competitive process for
allocation of funding received a number of criticisms it was open to all
local authority areas, rather than focussed on areas of need; time
constraints limited effective partnership formation; focus was on bid
quality rather than need, and; lack of accountability due to reduced role
of local authority (McCarthy, 2007,p.33).

The establishment of English Partnership (EP) during this period is a
further expression of central government retaining control of
regeneration policy and implementation. EP was conceived as English
Development Agency directly accountable central government
(McCarthy, 2007,p.34). Whilst governmental aim was that it would work
in partnership with local authorities; delivery was envisaged to be via
the private sector and EP was granted powers such as Compulsory
Purchase which were removed from Local Authority (Blackman, 1995:
cited in McCarthy, 2007,p.34). This early period of EP reflects central
government policy: reducing the power and influence of the local
authorities within urban regeneration.

Urban regeneration policy during this 1990s period represents the
consolidation of previous phases of regeneration policy and the
emergence of the modern URP as the governance structure for
implementation of interventions, through broad local coalitions albeit
with limited power and influence of local authorities. Central
government control was retained through the competitive criteria based
bidding process and the establishment of EP. Also whilst the integration
21

of social need represents a move towards holistic regeneration; funding
arrangements diminished the broader focus of need of an area.
Within the context of this research, the final period of urban
regeneration policy relates to the change in central government from a
Conservative administration to that of New Labour. The starting point
was that previous policies had failed, and they established the Social
Exclusion Unit (SEU) in 1997 with a remit to address the causes of
exclusion and to develop integrated and sustainable approaches to the
problems of the worst housing estates (Oatley, 2000,p.86).

The initial outcomes of the SEU were expressed within the National
strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal published in 2000. The focus was
that over the last 20 years poverty had become more concentrated in
individual neighbourhoods, this notion was justified by significant
empirical data on spatial concentrations of poverty (SEU 2000,p.7: cited
in Oatley 2000,p.87). Imrie and Raco (2003,p.4) identified that the main
conclusions of this report was that previous initiatives had: too much
reliance on short term regeneration; suffered from a lack of leadership;
too little attention to the problems of worklessness, crime and poor
education, and; communities need to be fully integrated in shaping and
delivering regeneration.

New Labour policy responses can be seen to pre-empt the SEU report
with the publication of Index of Local Deprivation (ILD) in 1998 which in
itself was a significant step in legitimising area-based initiatives
demonstrating increasing concentrations of poverty in England. The ILD
22

led to 44 local authorities, which contained 85% of Englands most
deprived wards, being identified as most in need of intervention (Hill,
2000). Linked to the ILD and the outcomes of the SEU, a series of
holistic regeneration initiatives were targeted at most deprived areas.
Initiatives included the New Deal for Communities and the
Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (McCarthy, 2007,pp.3739). These
initiatives encompassed a more holistic approach tackling the multiple
causes of social and economic decline. These changes reflect the
broader poverty focus of earlier 1970s initiatives evident from the
analysis by Edward and Batley (1978).

The relationship between central and local government is arguably
guided by attempts to harmonise policy interventions. Whilst at the
local level governance structures continued a shift began in early 1990s
urban regeneration policy, towards community participation,
partnerships and empowerment; it is at the central government level
where improvements to coordination of policy interventions were
focused. This was achieved through the bending of mainstream
government spending programmes in health, education and
housingtargeted at perceived problem communities (Imrie and Raco,
2003,pp.12-13). New Labours approach to urban regeneration policy
can be characterised as more strategic coherent multi-level governance
targeted through area based initiatives. One expression of coordinated
central government action towards local level need is the refocusing of
the work of EP towards areas of low housing demand and 20% most
deprived wards in England: a stronger emphasis on a working
partnership with local authorities and local and regional organisations
(McCarthy, 2007 pp.3435).
23


Another important aspect of the relationship between central and local
government was the attempt by New Labour to redefine the governance
culture of local authorities. New Labour sought to enable and promote a
role that (Filkin at el, 1999, cited in Hemphill et al, p.62):
Required local authorities to move beyond the management of in-
house services, taking on a new role of community leadership,
whilst outward-looking and open in style.

The implementation of the new broader leadership role for local
authorities is set out in Local Government Act 2000, and in particular
(DETR, 2000,p.1):
Part I of the Act gives local authorities powers to take any steps
which they consider are likely to promote the well-being of their
area or inhabitants. It places authorities under a duty to develop
community strategies, together with other local bodies, for this
purpose. These provisions are intended to give local authorities
increased opportunities to improve the quality of life of their
local communities.

The language of the Act take any steps is clearly one of autonomy and
leadership, and it captures some of the attributes of URP within a
broader urban governance context. The requirement to work with other
local bodies also indicates this was the aspiration. Enshrining and
promoting local autonomy creates fertile ground for the perpetuation of
24

the URP. Autonomy came with caveats including section 3 of the Act
(DETR, 2000) preventing local authorities using the power to raise
money, perhaps the ultimate power in urban governance.

The formation of Local Strategic Partnerships (LSP) through the Local
Government Act (DETR, 2000) instilled the approach of Hastings (1996:
cited in Hemphill et al 2006) policy synergy within urban governance.
This has been reinforced by other actions such by central government
persuading local authorities to separate its strategic housing function
from its housing management function through the decent homes
programme (ODPM, 2000). This has fostered a culture of collaboration
at the local authority level, bringing with it an alternative third sector
culture: innovation and area-based working such as from housing
associations (McArthur, 1995) into the heart of urban governance. New
Labour can be seen here to be redefining the governance culture of local
government to move away from day-to-day service delivery to a strategic
local leadership role. Within the context of this research this is a critical
concept, and the extent to which it has been embraced by different local
authorities and expressed in their actions requires further analysis.

This period of New Labour urban regeneration policy can be categorised
by a shift in emphasis to local need as the basis for intervention.
Central government attempted to coordinate mainstream policy and
local interventions targeting concentrations of poverty based on an
empirical rationale area based initiatives came to fore. Renewed trust
was placed within local authorities with an emphasis on strategic local
leadership and partnership working. Although it can also be seen that
25

central government have retained control of many aspects of policy
direction: directing interventions to more discreet ward level as opposed
to local authority level, restricting flexibility.


Since the 1970s the evolution of urban regeneration policy can be
viewed from an institutional perspective the relationship between
central and local state, played out in tensions and a lack of trust in the
latter. Governance structures to implement regeneration policy evolved:
the 1970s categorised by local authority direct delivery the 1980s by
their bypassing through direct engagement between the central state
and private sector criticism of this approach led to the local state
being gradually brought back into governance arrangements during the
1990s within a wider multi-sectoral local partnership arrangement by
the final period central government trust in local authorities had been
restored: their local leadership role cemented within broader local
partnership arrangements.

By the early 2000s the modern orthodoxly of the multi-sector URP had
emerged. Alongside this move to the perceived partnership ideal central
governmental urban policy had moved between a focus on various
regeneration policy objectives social, economic and physical. By early
2000s this evolved to focus on areas of perceived need and a
multifaceted holistic response in the form of area-based initiatives.

26

In the context of this research it is evident from literature that by the
early 2000s fertile conditions had been set which could place the local
state in a position of leadership within urban regeneration partnerships.
Within this institutional perspective the extent that this has been
realised is not apparent, requiring further research. Additionally,
literature has touched upon a number of other aspects of urban
regeneration policy including the extent of a spatial dimension;
community and multi-sector representation. These aspects will be
explored in more detail within the context of theory and models that
seek to deconstruct and explain the partnership dynamic.
27

2.3 Deconstructing the dynamics of urban regeneration
partnerships

With the policy context for the emergence of the contemporary Urban
Regeneration Partnerships (URP) in England now established it is
possible to focus in more detail on the inter-organisational space within
which the management of regeneration occurs, and partnerships
occupy.

Within the broader context of urban governance it is possible to
deconstruct the management of regeneration. Literature on this subject
is extensive and can be broader categorised: proposing conceptual
models and theories to explain governance structures and the
relationships and interactions within them and on understanding a
particular aspect of urban regeneration such as the extent of
community involvement or the spatial scale of interventions. Whilst
this represents a crude division and are ultimately intertwined in
research they provide a useful framework for analysis.

Laurence et al (2000, p.235) define governance as:
The means for achieving direction, control, and coordination of
wholly or partially autonomous individuals or organisations on
behalf of interest to which they jointly contribute.

28

As Swyngedouw et al (2002. cited in Jones and Evans, 2006) state
cooperation between the different tiers of governments and external
agencies is now central to urban regeneration practice. Research and
literature tends to focus on explaining these mechanisms as alternative
local governance models (Stoker 1999; 2000: cited in Davies, 2001).

In his important text, Davies (2001) identified three distinct governance
typologies, reflecting different tiers of cooperation between various
actors but with particular focus on the relationship between the state
and private sector. These were summarised by Jones and Evans (2006,
pp.1492-1493):

Governance by government
The state as the primary agency for delivery of services with little
or no interaction between government and businesses
Governance by partnership
Local partnerships forming between government and business,
but purely as mechanism for delivering government policy
Governance by Regime
Government and private sector work together in long-term,
synergistic networks that develop spontaneously, not in response
to policy initiatives

29

Whilst governance by government defines more historic approaches to
inter-organisational relationships within the delivery of regeneration;
governance by partnership or by regimes has provided a focus for
seeking to understand contemporary regeneration practice in England.
The tiers of governance broadly mirror the phases of regeneration set
out in section 2.2 above showing how governance structures have
evolved as an outcome of regeneration policy.

An alternative model of governance is urban regime theory: developed in
the USA to help explain the dynamics of local power structures; city
governance and how they influence political decision making
(Digaetano, 1997). The theory goes beyond traditional concepts of
ruling political elites and power as a coercive force; instead on the need
and desire of city governance to get things done (Stoker, 1995). Urban
regime theory seeks to interpret relations between the local state and
business community (Elkin 1987a; Stone, 1989. cited in Davies, 2001).
The model would suggest that decisions about regeneration are more
likely than not be stitched up by powerful unseen players (Manbiot
2001, cited in Imrie and Raco, 2003). Davies (2001,p. 49) critiqued the
application of regime theory to explain UK partnerships citing the work
of John and Cole (1998) in respect of the Leeds Initiative.

A more specific model is that of governance by network developed by
Rhodes and Marsh (1992). There has been much debate within
literature regarding similarities between regime theory and network
analysis (see Stoker and Mossberger, 1994 and Stoker, 1995: cited in
30

Davies, 2001). Rhodes proposed network analysis is that governance
refers to self-organising, inter-organisation networks

Central to understanding the distinction between partnerships,
regimes and networks is the concept of autonomy and distance from
state. A self-organising network suggests autonomy and distance from
the state. Regime theory and governance by partnership suggests a
stronger policy relationship between state and private sector (Davies,
2001: cited in Jones and Evans, 2006). A further difference relates to
timescales: regimes and networks suggest longer term integrated
relationships; partnerships are more short term and focussed on a
specific output. Davies (2001,p.32) acknowledges a basic similarity
between these conceptual theories regime theory like policy network
analysis, is a theory on inter-organisational governance based on
resource interdependence.

Utilising the case study of Attwood Green, Jones and Evans (2006)
explored these theoretical debates concluding that to apply one theory
over another was oversimplification and the practices of governance are
evolving extremely quickly and there is an academic imperative to use
these experiences to refine our theoretical toolkits (2006,p.1506). The
comparisons and application of this conceptual theory is a complex
debate within the discourse of urban governance, within the context of
this research they provide a useful frame for conceptualising URP,
particularly the notion of autonomy and distance from the state. But
their systematic application to further case study would contribute little
to furthering knowledge or practice.
31

Below this broader conceptual framework lies further literature dealing
more directly with URPs in England. This can be categorised by a focus
on the power and influence of those engaged (or not) within the URP. To
understand this research a general concept of the multi-sectoral
partnership model is utilised to capture actions and structures of
decentralised policy making and implementation and crucially focus on
the people involved with delivery (Hemphill et al, 2006).

How a partnership is instigated, who are involved, for what reason and
from what point is crucial to representation and its legitimacy (Smith
and Beazley, 2000). At its most simplistic the partnership model
facilitates budget enlargement for respective partners through enabling
access to additional funding (Mackintosh, 1992: cited in Smith and
Beazley, 2000,p.864). Hasting (1996: cited in Hemphill et al 2006)
identifies synergies for partnership working can be broken down into
two distinct groups - resource synergy which adds value from
coordination of respective resources and skills in joint working (similar
to Mackintoshs view), and; policy synergy where innovations are
created through partner working.

A consistent criticism within literature is that local authorities tend to
dominate URPs at the expense of third sector and local community
interests; the partnership model itself facilitates this process (Geddes,
2000; Jones, 2003). The extent that this criticism holds credence within
a more contemporary context of a resurgent and collaborative local state
as defined by the Local Government Act 2000 could be questioned.
32


Another constant focus of literature concerns community involvement,
participation and empowerment within public policy decision making
and delivery. Seminal works include Arsteins (1969) ladder of
participation and subsequent expansions and critiques of her work
(Burns et al, 1994; Nicholson and schreiner, 1973: cited in Smith and
Beazey, 2000).

Contemporary policy in respect of community involvement in URPs has
been shaped by New Labour discourse, as advocated by the SEU,
community is fully integrated in the shaping and delivery of
regeneration (Imrie and Raco, 2003,p.4). Ball and Maggin (2005)
demonstrate that there is an increasing body of research that suggests
that community involvement is a way of channelling and smothering
local protest (2005,p.21). This is the notion that URP secure legitimacy
for the external intervention within a place through community
involvement at the lower rungs of Arsteins ladder. Bailey (2010)
suggests community empowerment is always likely to be partial.
Hemphill et al (2006) argued that community involvement within the
URP is more a reflection of the move towards local governance and a
focus on people as well as place within area-based URPs.

Regardless of the reason, the partnership ideal of community
involvement is so embedded within regeneration an egalitarian
partnership has become an end to itself and a measure of success
33

(Rhodes et al, 2002; Smith and Beazley, 2000). Although Ball and
Maginn (2005,p.17) argue:
The intrinsic value and potential costs of high levels of
community participation and the potential conflicts with other
policy aims still need to be evaluated and questioned.

This questioning of the egalitarian partnership is valid, particularly
when seen alongside the rejuvenation of strategic roles for local
government over the last decade, which in itself reaffirms, Broady and
Hedley (1989) position that community participation is viewed
sceptically by elected members.

Additionally an egalitarian partnership view assumes that the
community speaks with one voice, but as Atkinson (1999) and North
(2003) demonstrated there are often competing community interests
within an area. Therefore as Bailey (2010,pp.329330) suggested
understanding the rationality for community involvement is not clear
cut: empowerment is always constrained and contingent on the wider
distribution of power within local contexts. He goes on to argue that
(2010,p.330):
A further dimension of empowerment relates to perceptions that
change is possible at the local level, particularly amongst the
residents themselves but also for officers and members of the
local authority and other agencies.

34

The issue of local context including individual actors involvement is
significant in determining the role and involvement of the communities
within URP (Bailey, 2010). Ballard (1999: cited in Hemphill et al,
2006,p.62) argues local government works best when it is genuinely
local, looking to the community for guidance, not towards central
government. The role of autonomy within URPs is often over-simplified
as the conflict between central and local government. The broader role
of autonomy in stimulating leadership, innovation and change within
the URP context is often overlooked.

The underlying theme within much of the literature on community
participation within the URP context relates to defining the role of the
community from the outset, whatever that role maybe be. Current
literature and policy seems to shape the role of community involvement
within URP as being that of Participative citizenship within a framework
of representative democracy (Prior et al 1995 cited in Smith and
Beazey, 2000 p.860).

Multi-sectoral representation within urban governance always raise
concerns regarding issues of power dynamic (particularly in the case of
community voices) and cynicism of why actors are involved
(particularly in the case of private sector interests). The opportunity for
synergy from multi-sectoral representation outweighs these concerns.

Ball and Maginns (2005) review of literature on contemporary
regeneration policy and practice highlighted the inconclusive nature of
35

academic understanding of the effectiveness of partnerships. They state
literature has focussed on three prime issues the general role of
partnerships, the degree of community empowerment within them, and
evaluation of particular programmes (Ball and Maginn, 2005,p.16). This
has been, they argue, at the expense of detailed investigation of the
costs and benefits of the partnership approach and its broader
implications. The partnership as an effective and successful structure
for management of regeneration is central to their critique:
Successful outcomesdepend on the resolution of major
differences, which is influenced by the intensity conflict over
land and public sector resources and the ability of partnership
models to lead to productive compromise. (Ball and Maginn,
2005,p.23)

They identify three critical tasks multi-sectoral partnerships have to
juggle to deliver successful outcomes (Ball and Maginn, 2005,p.24):

Maximising the degree of co-operation and consensus between
partners;
Setting up systems that capitalise on synergies derived from the
partnership;
Managing a large building project, so that it comes in on time and
cost, and possibly managing a series of sub-projects with distinct
characteristic.
36


In concluding, Ball and Maginn (2005) argue that partnership could add
value in respect of these three tasks, but the picture is unclear because
little research been undertaken. This provides a useful frame for
analysis of a partnership case study, to further knowledge and practice.

Leadership within the context of regeneration management is therefore
an important concept. Ball and Maginn (2005,p.20) suggest:
Strong leadership requires making decisions against some
participants wishes, so that executive decisions can be made,
imposing strategies that limit subsequent debate.

This exposes a contradiction at the heart of what constitutes the
partnership ideal.

Judd and Parkinson (1990,p.307) used city-level case studies from
around the world to demonstrate strong connections between
leadership and successful city-wide economic regeneration, arguing that
leadership creates the possibility for success. In the context of mutli-
sectoral partnership context Hempill et al (2006) suggests that
contemporary regeneration policy has switched emphasis towards
delivery based mechanisms that achieve synergistic benefits which go
beyond project delivery, citing a community leadership role as critical to
building confidence within communities. These pieces of research cite
37

the importance of the coming together of the right individuals and
partners for leadership to work.

Sweeting et al (2004,p.353: citing Hambleton and Stewart, 2000;
Stewart 2002) identify a number of leadership roles which might be
adopted within partnership:

Champion taking forward the goals of the partnership;
Salesperson selling the partnership and its achievements to
others in order to generate more resources and support for
partners;
Interpreter moving between networks to carry the message of
one set of interests to another;
Broker moving between networks as a negotiator, bringing
together resources, putting together packages or multi-
organisational projects;
Coordinator mediating, bringing partners together, ensuring
information is shared
Manager ensuring the effective operation of the partnership,
the delivery of output, and the fulfilment of contractual
obligations;
Visionary inspiring the partnership to think long term;
38

Representative reflecting the feelings and wishes of particular
interests and ensuring that their voices are heard in the debates
of partnership;
Agent provocateur Seeking to provoke action where it is felt
unlikely to happen, generating controversy and/or conflict.
These roles provide a credible framework for assessing leadership within
a partnership, having been established from a border body academic
work.

Diamond and Liddle (2005) highlight the complexity of working within a
mutli-secotoral partnership places on regeneration professionals,
working both within the boundaries of other organisations and with
communities. They go on to question the capacity of local authority
officers to show leadership and manage organisational relationships
within a partnership and stakeholder dynamic, beyond hierarchical and
traditional governance structures. Whilst recognising that best practice
and benching-marking being key to advancing practice.


The final aspect of urban regeneration partnership is the spatial
dimension to intervention. It has been argued the resilience of
neighbourhood problems led to the number of Area-based Initiatives
(ABIs) mushrooming in 1990s and the governance of neighbourhoods
regeneration being characterised by a kaleidoscope of interlinked,
39

spatially overlapping partnerships (Dean et al, 1999: cited in Imrie and
Raco, 2003,p.8586).

One criticism of ABIs is that by focusing on internal failure
characteristics contained within defined areas is to the detriment of
external processes (Hasting in Imrie and Raco, 2003,pp.85-100). This
inward-looking critique of area based initiatives can be seen to sit
within Diamonds (2010) discourse of failure.

Halls (1997) study of regeneration policies for peripheral housing
estates argued that approaches mostly focused on solving internal
problems, ignoring external problems. Hall is discussing a wider
critique of the limitations of urban regeneration policy: rather than
tackling the root causes of estate decline the policy merely treats the
symptoms of failure.

New Labours ABIs of the 1990s were seen as integrated multi-level
approachs with a central lead role occupied by local authorities (imrie
and Raco, 2003,p.8586). Criticism that has emerged is what Carley et
al (2000a) called partnership fatigue due to overlapping area-based
polices. This is worsened by a lack of clear frameworks governing
institutional arrangements within the partnership maelstrom,
restricting strong leadership and results (Carley et al 2000b). This
provides a useful approach to further analysis of the local authority role
within URPs due to their wider administrative and political remit.
40


The literature which focuses in more detail on the multi-sectoral
partnership in England, and the search for the partnership ideal
provides a much clearer focus for further research the management of
regeneration and the local states role within that dynamic.

2.4 Looking beyond the partnership

The review of literature provides a strong rational for engaging further
empirical research. The institutional perspective provides a useful
narrative of tension that has led to the modern multi-sectoral URP. The
conceptual frameworks of Rhodes and Marsh (1992) and Davies (2001)
attempt to express how urban governance structures respond to this
broader narrative. More focussed research is concentred on searching
for the partnership ideal Who should be involved, what power and
influence they should have and what actions it should take. These
dynamics of the relationships between partners and individuals (both
formal and informal) are the oil which lubricates the moderns URP and
the glue which ultimately binds actors within partnership
arrangements.

The role of management and leadership within URP dynamics is an
emerging research area, with recognition in literature that practice is
ever evolving and needs to be shared and understood. The work of
Sweeting et al (2004) in respect of leadership roles provide a credible
41

framework for assessing leadership within a partnership. The role and
capacity of local authorities within the partnership dynamic is clearly
contested; and must be viewed within the culture fostered by New
Labour of a local strategic leadership role for the local state.

The imperative for further research is that the search in literature for
the partnership ideal does not fully recognise the more confident and
resurgent local state. Local authorities strategic role and capacity
within the URP should not be viewed sceptically but embraced and
understood. This is the concept of leadership of place and it is only
through case study analysis that this can be achieved.

42

Chapter 3: Methodology

3.1 General Hypothesis

The Review of existing research has established that the policy
conditions exist which are conducive to enable local authorities to exert
influence and power within a contemporary Urban Regeneration
Partnership (URP) in England.

At the heart of the general hypothesis is whether it is evident that the
local authority has taken the lead role in directing the resources and
coordinating the actions of the Partnership throughout the life of a
regeneration programme. Critical to the validity of this study is the
extent to which the policy and organisational arenas places the local
authority within a leadership role within the regeneration partnership
or whether it is the individual actions and dynamics specific to
individual circumstances of characteristics of differing placed-based
regeneration programmes.

Crucial to answering this question will be whether or not a broader
evolution of the management and governance of regeneration is evident.
Is the contemporary concept of partnership being replaced by a concept
of leadership of place? If so, can particular conditions can be identified
and replicated. What factors enable the local authority to exert power
43

and influence within the management of regeneration and demonstrate
leadership of place? (These conclusions are drawn within chapter 6).

3.2 Research Design

The stimulus of this research is through the authors personal
experience of the Partnership in action. This represents a legitimate
basis for social inquiry; as Lofland and Lofland (1995) identified
research can emerge out of researchers personal biography (cited in
Bryman, 2004, p 5). For this personal endeavour to carry significance it
must, however, be viewed in relation to theoretical concerns (2004, p 5).

It is the premise of this research that theory in respect of urban
governance, and particularly the URP, has been dominated and clouded
by a positivist epistemology which seek to simplify and explain the
Partnership as a series of conditions and models that can be tested
rather than understand its practical applications. A case in point is that
of debate between urban regime theory and partnership theory. These
abstract (what Merton, 1967, cited in Bryman, describes as mid-range)
theories compete to simplify the Partnership dynamic. As such the
author proposes that these mid-range theories in respect of the
partnership, whilst academically valid are abstract in their application
in practice.

44

Firstly to truly observe a Partnership it must not be seen a single static
entity but as moving constellation or family of interconnected
personalities. As identified in the review of existing research, whilst
some partnership theory seek to recognise competing interests and
values within the partnership dynamic it is a static model, which does
not attempt understand the fluidity of a partnership.

As such the research has been designed to firstly build a theory rather
than propose and test it. An inductive approach is therefore adopted to
define the relationship between a regeneration programme and the
partnership dynamic which its manages implementation.

It is the authors proposition that URPs can be deconstructed as a
family and within the narrative of the life of specific regeneration
programme it will be possible to identify key life events faced by the
responsible family. These key events within the life of the partnership
will be the points were relationship, trust and individual roles are tested
and hierarchy and influence established. Once identified, these key life
events within a programme can form the basis for further empirical and
observational research.

The empirical research to test the hypothesis has been designed in two
key stages: the first (chapter 4) seeks to utilise secondary data collection
and analysis such as core partnership documents, formal reports from
respective organisations and minutes from Partnership Steering Groups
and neighbourhood forums. Thorough secondary data analysis, this
45

diverse mix of data provides an overview and narrative for the
management of the Regeneration Programme the narrative of family
life. From the Programmes inception, to its design, its funding and
financing structure, its engagement with private sector and the local
community and more crucially its implementation.

The use of official documents derived from the state and private sources
is a valid approach for observing organisational case studies,
particularly prior to interviews (Bryman, 2004,p.387); and as official
organisational records meet Scotts (1990: cited in Bryman, 2004,p.381)
four criteria of quality authenticity, credibility, representativeness
and meaning.

Once identified, these key life events within the Programme will form
the basis for further observational research (Chapter 5) through semi-
structured interviews with key individual actors representative of the
Partnership Stakeholders.

This two stage methodology should provide a systematic study of the
management of the implementation of neighbourhood regeneration.
With a focus on the leadership role (or otherwise) of the local authority,
it will also provide a robust testing of the whether leadership of place is
evident within the case study.

46

3.3 Reflection-in-action
Schon (1983 p26) identified the hierarchical separation of research and
practice as a limiting factor for advancement of knowledge. Reflection-
in-action, Schon argued represents an opportunity to bring some
meaning to abstract academic thinking and bridge this divide.

Reflection-in-action, Schon (1983, p 68) argues enables the professional
to become a researcher in the practice context and;
He is not dependent on the categories of established theory and
technique, but conducts a new theory of the unique case. His
inquiry is not limited to deliberation about means which
depends on a prior agreement about ends.

As a practising regeneration professional, the author has been
immersed in the implementation of the Castlefields Regeneration
Programme through the Castlefields Regeneration Partnership for a
period of 3 year (at time of writing). The authors role within the
Partnership is a Principal Programme Officer working in Castlefields
Regeneration Team, for Halton Borough Council the Local Authority. I
am responsible for managing the Councils interest within the
Partnership and wider regeneration Programme, including the
management of regeneration projects, liaising with Partner organisation,
wider stakeholders and the local community.

47

This provides a unique insight into one particular case study. The
author also lives above the shop having been a resident of Castlefields
for 6 years, providing an additional ethnographic dimension to
accumulation of knowledge and interpretation of data collection.

Whilst engaged in the regeneration of Castlefields, the author has been
enlightened by the scale and complexity of inter-organisational
cooperation and coordination (and the individual professionals
representative of those organisations) involved in implementation the
phenomena of the URP, and the local authorities role within that
phenomena. Castlefields presents the author with an opportunity to
bring together academic understanding with practice to undertake
applied research to an observed intuitive process.

Through reflection-in-action the author seeks to bring professional
knowledge from the implementation of the Castlefields Regeneration
Programme to propose a new concept of the partnership dynamic
leadership of place; rather than seek to test an existing theory. To
advance this the author also proposes a new way of deconstructing the
Partnership The family life analogy. Conforming to Schon assertion
that practitioners can recast fundamental methods of inquiry and
overarching theories (1983, p317).

48

3.4 Selection of Case Study Castlefields Regeneration programme

The case study has been selected to add to the epistemology of
understanding of the contemporary English URP through the process of
practice-based research. As Hemphill et al (2006, p. 59) identified
urban governance has become the catchphrase of modern urban policy
despite lacking precise meaning and often being used in a variety of
different discourses.

In addition to the unique opportunity of drawing on the approach of
reflection-in-action, the case study represents a credible example of a
contemporary URP, it has multi-sector representation and is area
based. Additionally the case study has been been in a period of
innovation for approximately10 years (at time of writing) and is still live
this will provide the opportunity for a more valid Partnership dynamic
to be observed. Interestingly it sits outside of any single pot
programme, such as Housing Market Renewal Areas, so it is not
constrained by the regulations that come with such programmes,
offering the potential for uniqueness to be observed.

As such the single case study of the Castlefields Regeneration
Programme and the dynamics of the Castlefields Regeneration
partnership will be the sole focus for testing general hypothesis and the
analytical method employed to deconstruct the case. Whilst wider
application of both the methodology and testing of hypothesis would
enhance validity; as a minimum justification of the use of this single
49

case study advances both the authors personal professional refections
and local knowledge and future application.

3.5 Peeling back the layers of a Partnership

Within the context of an inductive approach, a qualitative research
strategy is proposed.

Whilst a review of secondary data will enable a narrative of the life
Castlefields Programme and initial analysis of the partnership dynamic,
more importantly it will provide the context for deconstructing inter-
organisational relationships within the Castlefields Partnership to
enable what Geertz (1973), cited in Bryman, 2004 p 275) calls a thick
description.

To ensure thick description validity will be achieved through depth of
analysis of the single case study, the Programme narrative used to
identify partner organisations and key informants for further empirical
analysis through semi-structured interview. Additionally depth will be
provided by, in some instances, interviewing multiple individuals within
a partner organisation from a strategic policy level to those actors on-
the-ground implementing. Focus will be on key life events within the
programme life, particularly implementation, and actors perceptions of
50

the power and influence of respective partner organisations within that
process. The implicit interrogation being the role of the local authority.

Semi-structured qualitative interviewing with key informants of the
people involved in the delivery will enable the layers of the Partnership
to be peeled back, to reveal a truer picture of the partnership dynamic,
than analysis of secondary data alone could establish. Interview
structure will be guided by the stages of the life of the Programme
inception, design, implementation, which will then be conceptualised
within the family life analogy. Key informant will be identified through
secondary data analysis, in accordance with an inductive process.

Therefore each interview will have its own distinct interview guide. A
compendium of interview guides is provided as appendix # to give a
measure of credibility and internal validity and enable transferability to
be tested.

3.6 Limitations

As this study represents reflection-in-action, the interviewees, drawn
from the Partnership are known on a professional basis to the
researcher with on-going interaction. Whilst these pre-existing
relationships will enable focus on formal and informal roles within the
Partnership (as the researcher is already immersed within these
51

relationships with the interviewee), they may also limit responses due to
the partnership being live. For instance it may be perceived by that the
interviewer will utilise interviewee responses in on-going professional
interaction, making for a guarded response and the researchers
objectivity. As Bloor (1997) cited in Bryman (2004, p 274) observes;
Some approaches to enquiry may result in research participants
developing relationships with the researcher of fondness and mutual
regard there may be a reluctance to be critical.

Although it could equally be argued that interviewees will open up to a
familiar face and perceive the interview to be less formal and academic
in nature.

Prior to the formal research a pilot interview was conducted with two
regeneration practitioners at Liverpool City Council working on the
Housing Market Renewal Programme. This tested the approach to the
interview guide around the stage of the life of the programme and how
opened-end and controlled questions worked with the context of the
research area. Additionally the interviewees were known to the
researcher and it was clear that this approach did not appear to limit
candidness of responses. Nethertheless, for transparency potential
limits are identified.

Validity of a thick description requires 360 degree analysis of
Partnership perspectives. Due to the length of the Programme some of
52

the individual actors are likely to no longer be involved in the
Programme, and indeed a number will have retired from professional
working life altogether. As such whilst the two stage method employed
will firstly identify key Partners and individual actors, extent of validity
will dependent of securing partner representation.

Due to the scope of research and limitations on the author, full
transcription of interviews will not be published. As such only sections
of interviews will be transcribed within the research. A degree of
dependability will be ensured through a complete record of audio
recordings and transcriptions for external validation.

Whilst it is important to acknowledge these limitations in advance of
analysis, an assessment of the research reliability and validity will form
part of the conclusion. As a predominately qualitative research strategy
is employed, Lincoln and Gubas (1985) trustworthiness and
authenticity criteria will be used (cited in Brymen 2004, pp. 273 277).
3.7 Summary

Reflection-in-action presents the author with an opportunity to
contribute to the URP governance discourse. Within the scope of the
research a predominantly qualitative research strategy will enable
rigorous analysis of a single case study to provide a thick description
and ensure validity and reliability can be tested. An inductive inquiry
guided by a general concept will enable the general hypothesis of the
53

factor determining the whether the local authorities can exert influence
and power and demonstrate leadership of place in the management of
regeneration.
54

Chapter 4: Castlefields, Runcorn Remaking an English New Town
Neighbourhood
This chapter utilises secondary data to provide an overview of the
Castlefields Regeneration Programme, Runcorn (from now on referred to
as the Programme). The chapter focuses on the establishment and role
of the Castlefields Regeneration Partnership (from now on referred to as
the Partnership), the inter-organisational governance structure which
coordinated regeneration actions.
It is proposed that the Partnership can be viewed as a family unit of
organisations that have come together. The periods of this union can be
viewed as the stages of a relationship of a family courtship,
engagement, marriage and family life. This notion provides a useful
analogy for understanding the fluidity of the Partnership. It will also
help identify the key life events that have shaped and tested
relationships between family members; these provide the basis for
engaging primary research.
4.1 Castlefields, A new town neighbourhood
Castlefields is a residential neighbourhood within the former New Town
of Runcorn (designated phase 3 in 1964), Cheshire. Built between 1968
and 1972, it had approximately 2400 homes, to accommodate a
population of approximately 8000 residents, all of which were social
housing stock including 1400 deck access flats.
In 1989 Castlefields 2400 houses were transferred between two existing
housing associations Liverpool Housing Trust (LHT) and CDS Housing
(now part of the Plus Dane Housing Group). Between them they are the
landlord for the majority of properties within Castlefields. Halton
55

Borough Council (HBC), a Unitary Authority formed in 1998, have
responsibility for social infrastructure such as schools and physical
infrastructure such as public highway. The local centre was acquired by
the private sector.
Despite a promising start, the 1980s saw a change in the fortunes for
Castlefields with the area developing wide reaching environmental,
economic and social problems leading to severe decline (Halton Borough
Council, 2009b,p.1).
4.2 Background to Regeneration Courtship
The origins of the regeneration of Castlefields represent the courtship
stage within the Partnership dynamic between 1998 and 2000. It is
evident in secondary data that a need for action formed the basis for
partners initially coming together.
Between 1998 - 2000 LHT and Plus Dane jointly undertook a series of
resident consultation exercises and viability assessments regarding
potential regeneration. The culmination of this work was securing the
future: A Regeneration Strategy for Castlefields (2000) Produced by
Brock Carmichael Associates on behalf of LHT and CDS Housing. The
study focussed on housing association property interests and the
shopping centre. It included extensive community consultation and
highlighted the residents likes and dislikes:
Redevelopment of the local centre
Selective demolition of deck access flats
Altering the basic mix on the estate
56

Open spaces and mature trees were liked
Residents are loyal to Castlefields and has a strong community
(EP, 2000,p.78 and Appendix 1)

In 1998 HBC identified Castlefields as action area within its
Regeneration strategy for Halton 1998 (HBC, 1998). This was
subsequently incorporated into the Halton Unitary Development Plan.
These documents recognise Castlefields as Corporate priority. A series
of further Castlefields specific studies and consultations identified the
following objectives:

Renewing deck access housing
Improving vehicular access
Sustaining the local population
Replacing the local centre
Improving security and safety
Improving the established landscape quality
Bring forward new quality housing development
(EP, 2000,p.8 and Appendix 1)
The Council had also begun initial interventions within Castlefields
notably via the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) rounds 2, 4 and 5.
57

Delivered by the HBC led Halton Partnership between 1998 and 2006
with Borough-wide interventions on social inclusion, economic and
health issues. Interventions have directly and indirectly affected
Castlefields, the direct intervention being the creation of new training
facility. During this period HBC took the corporate decision to close
three local facilities; bringing the estate into further focus for the
Council.
The review of literature identified that during this period central
government funding was being prioritised to areas of deprivation. In the
2000 IMD Halton was ranked as the 18
th
most deprived local authority
out of 354 in England; Castlefields was ranked as the 145 most
deprived ward out of 8,414 wards in England (Taylor Young, 2002). This
provided a policy imperative for central government to target resources
within this locality. The key agents operating at the North West regional
level were English Partnerships (EP), the Housing Corporation (HC) and
the North West Development Agencies (NWDA).

Each organisation can be seen to have had an existing relationship with
Castlefields. EP as the successor organisation to the CNT had land
interests within the neighbourhood. The HC had responsibility for
distribution of grants for investment within social housing stock and
the NWDA had taken over responsibility for administering SRB funding.

The main organisational stakeholders of the neighbourhood and can be
divided into two distinct groups. The first are local agents: HBC, LHT
and Plus Dane. The second are Central Government agents operating
58

at the North West regional level English Partnerships (EP), Housing
Corporation (HC) and North West Development Agencies (NWDA),
although it must be acknowledged that the NWDA are a more
independent regional body. Four of the six organisations are drawn
from the public sector. Figure 4.1 expresses this initial courtship period
showing how the individual organisations came together around the
shared purpose of a need for action around a place - Castlefields; the
organisations are not yet formed into a formal partnership.

Figure 4.1: Courtship 1998 - 2002

59

It is not evident from secondary data, whether one particular
organisation instigated dialogue formally or informally between
respective organisations but it can be assumed that the various studies
and consultations would have brought organisations into conversation.
The first identified formal mutual working (prior to the establishment of
the Partnership) came via Joint Commission arrangements, the process
by which the HC worked with Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) to
administer affordable housing grants (HBC, 2001). These arrangements
required prioritising need at the local level with endorsement by the
Local Authority, primarily through a Local Housing Strategy. This led
to a first phase of HCe funding for the demolition of 600 deck access
flats and there replacement with 320 new build homes. It is not clear
from secondary data whether at this stage in the relationship the full
extent of resources to deliver holistic regeneration Castlefields was
established or desired by all organisations.
Within this period of courtship that two key life event are identified:
The extent any organisation instigated inter-organisational
dialogue, or showed leadership is this process; and
The appetite by respective organisations to deliver a more
comprehensive and holistic regeneration of Castlefields.
4.3 Production of the Castlefields Masterplan Engagement
This stage in the life of the family represents the engagement of
Partners, solidifying commitment and more importantly distributing
respective responsibilities for delivery. This is achieved through the
production of a Masterplan for Castlefields between 2002 and 2003.
60

In 2002 a brief for the invitation to tender for preparation of Masterplan
and Delivery Strategy to guide the regeneration of Castlefields was
presented by EP on behalf of the Castlefields Partnership (2002). This is
the first point the organisations are referred to as a partnership. This
Brief sought to commission independent consultants. A board was
established to prepare the Brief and included main Partnership
organisations (as identified at courtship stage); a single Tenants
representative and elected Members of HBC (Minutes of Joint
Commissioning Board, 27
th
March 2002).
Whilst no formal Partnership role for either private sector interests or
residents is identified within the brief, to some extent is pacified by the
stated aim of the commission to (2002,p.5):
Prepare a master plan and delivery strategy to guide the
sustainable regeneration of Castlefields, in partnership with
key stakeholders and the local community. (Authors
emphasis)
Suggesting that whilst a core formal Partnership has been identified to
deliver the regeneration, involvement of other actors shaping the
Masterplan is recognised as important. The Brief (2002,p.5) sets out the
strategic vision for Castlefields, which is:
To create a prosperous, integrated and vibrant community by
improving their environmental, economic and social well-being,
which achieves the highest possible standards in terms of design
and development.
61

In addition to the Vision, the Brief (2002,pp.5-6) identifies five guiding
principles and values that the Partnership is committed to,
summarised these are (Authors emphasis):
1. Partnership and Collaborative Working;
2. Holistic Regeneration;
3. Community Led Regeneration;
4. Sustainability; and
5. Make Effective use of Existing Resources.
The extent Partners respective aspirations area reflected within the Brief
is not evident from secondary data and worthy of further analysis.
The production of three distinct documents is identified within the
commission (2002,p.5):
A Baseline Report;
A imaginative and sustainable Masterplan; and
A Delivery strategy.
These Masterplan documents, along with the Vision and guiding
principles and values can be seen to form the basis for engagement of
Partner organisations and the vows for future Marriage.
The Castlefields Masterplan (Taylor Young, 2003a) was formally adopted
by Halton Borough Council in September 2003 (HBC, 2003). The Vision
and guiding principles are carried forward from the earlier brief.
62

The Masterplan sets out 51 regeneration projects. One of the
justifications being to give potential funding partners confidence in the
overall programme and a context in which individual projects and
initiatives can be progressed (2003a,p.16). These projects are shown in
Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Overview of Masterplan Projects
Programme
Theme
Project Overviews
Responsible
Organisation
Housing &
Development
(22 Projects)

HD1-7, 9-11, 13-17: Housing Renewal
projects, including demolition and
refurbishment of deck access blocks on
an incremental basis
LHT & CDS
HD8: Land deal to facilitate new build LHT & CDS
HD12: Land deal to facilitate new build HBC & CDS
HD18HD22: Reclamation of redundant
school and recreation centre for new
parkland, and provision of private sector
housing and a new retail centre.
HBC
People,
P1-P2 & P6: Stimulating employment HBC
63

Community &
Employment
(6 Projects)

opportunities for Castlefields residents
primarily through the adjacent Astmoor
Industrial estate (outside of the
geographical scope of the Masterplan)
P3: Public realm improvements of
signage, rebranding to create a sense of
place.
HBC
P4: Review Castlefields four Primary
Schools
HBC
P5: Production of 10 year action looking
beyond the initial three year programme
All Partners

Infrastructure
(15 Projects)


I1-I8, I13-I15: Restructuring the
highway and footpath network to
redefine movement within the
Neighbourhood and connect it to
adjoining areas to improve accessibility
HBC
I9: Removal of existing shopping centre,
(use of Compulsory Purchase Powers)
HBC
I10: Review strategic land acquisitions All Partners
I11: New outdoor youth activity park on HBC
64

the site of former school and recreation
centre
I12: New youth and community facilities

Environment &
leisure
(7 Projects)


E1: Town Park improvements HBC
E2-E3: General Environmental
Improvements, including temporary
landscaping to vacant land
LHT, CDS &
HBC
E4: Canalside improvements HBC
E5-E6: new public space at former
shopping centre to provide enhanced
setting for retained community uses
HBC
E7: Programme of public realm lighting HBC
(Taylor Young, 2003,pp.16-27)
Analysis of projects identifies three points. Firstly is the majority of
projects are physical interventions, albeit with significant community
benefit such as project I11 providing a new park. Secondly, outside of
housing renewal delivery would largely sit with the local authority
creating substantial resource implications. The final point relates to the
incremental approach to housing renewal by starting on vacant land
and car parks followed by demolition and new build, the stated purpose
65

is all residents who wish to remain in Castlefields will have the right to
housing which meets their needs (Taylor Young, 2003,p.20).
Through the production of the Masterplan the need for action by
respective organisations is translated into a single coordinated
programme around a place Castlefields. Extent of respective Partner
power and influence within this process is not evident but through a
distribution of project delivery an emerging hierarchy of responsibility is
evident i.e. the use of HBC Compulsory purchased power rather than
EPs, and that the resources of HBC will be critical to delivery of the
programme. Figure 4.2 expresses the process of engagement of
Partners.

66

Figure 4.2: Engagement 2002 - 2003

Whilst the organisations are not yet formed into a formal partnership,
inter-organisational working and the language of the partnership is
evident in documentation. The Masterplan forms the basis for
engagement of Partner organisations and the vows for future
Marriage.
Within this period of Engagement that three key life event are
identified:
The extent Partners respective aspirations have competed and are
expressed within the Masterplan process?
67

The role of Masterplan as a binding agent between Partners is it
a shared vision?
Awareness and acceptance by respective Partners of the emerging
hierarchy through distribution of responsibilities and resource
implications of Masterplan project delivery?
4.4 Partnership Governance Marriage
This stage in the life of the family represents the formal Marriage of
Partners, through the establishment of The Castlefields Partnership
the governance structure to manage and coordinate both delivery of
Masterplan projects and relationships between family members. The
establishment of the formal Partnership can be seen to have occurred
between 2003 and 2004.

The delivery strategy states that the Partnership (2003b,p.8);
will be the responsible for securing the necessary expertise and
funding both from the public and private sector to ensure
deliverysuccess of the Partnership will rest on continued
support, commitment and statutory powers of key partnersHBC
will have a key role to play as planning authority (2003,p.8).
This is clear statement of what partner organisations are signing up to
by entering into the Partnership, and represent further vows of
marriage before entering into family life together.
It also recognises the crucial role to implementation that HBC will have,
not only in delivering tasked projects but also in terms of facilitating
68

actions by other partners through its statutory functions such as
planning. HBC will therefore be wearing two distinct hats deliver and
regulator with significant resource implications and the potential for
internal conflict.
In response these resource demands, in 2003 HBC enacted a number of
formal corporate actions (HBC, 2003):
Taking formal ownership of the Masterplan through adopting is a
Corporately;
Production of a Castlefields Supplementary Planning Guidance
based upon the Masterplan;
Disposal of Council land assets;
Establishment of an Elected Member Board, the Castlefields
Implementation Group (CIG); and
Creation of Castlefields Programme Team within the Councils
Major Project Department.
By taking these corporate actions, is this the point that HBC moved
from equal family member to having parental responsibility within the
Partnership? Which is crucial to being answered within the primary
research.
The formal inter-organisational governance space in which the
Partnership operates is the Castlefields Regeneration Joint Steering
Group (CRJSG). The first formal minutes being from 2004 (HBC, 2004).
Analysis of CRJSG minutes suggest that its function was coordination
and cooperation, with formal decision-making falling back to respective
69

partner organisations internal decision-making processes. For instance,
HBC decision making and resource allocation rested with the
constituted Castlefields Implementation Group (for example see HBC,
2004b). The CRJSG is place were family members can come together
and family life discussed and agreements reach and trust is placed.
Figure 4.3 is an extract from minutes of CRJSG held on 24
th
June 2005
and gives an indication of the staff resource respective family members
applied to the Programme.
Figure 4.3: Extract from minutes of CRJSG 24
th
June 2005
CASTLEFIELDS REGENERATION
JOINT STEERING GROUP
Friday 24th June 2005, 10am Municipal Building, Kingsway, Widnes
Present:
Derek Sutton(Chair) (Operational director Major Projects), Chris
Leyshon (Castlefields Programme Manager), Sarah Lucas
(Castlefields Team), Garry Taylor (Castlefields Team), Arnis
Buklovskis (Development Control Team Leader), John Hatton
(Community & leisure Manager), Martin Kavanagh (Highways), Ian
Lifford (Landscape Operational Director) all Halton Borough Council
Helen Tudor (Investment Manager) Housing Corporation
John Rockminster (English Partnership Commercial advisor)
Lambert Smith Hampton
70

Janitha Redmond (Regeneration Manager) English Partnerships
Paul Sheppard (Masterplan consultant) Taylor Young
Giles Brooke (English Partnership appointed construction consultant)
Tweeds
Paul Moscardini (Plus Housing and LHT appointed Architect)
McCalls
Inger Leach (Development Manager) - Plus Housing [Formerly CDS]
Apologies:
Phil Watts (Planning Operational Director), Jon Farmer (Transport
Policy), Mandy Jones (Asset Management), Jerry Goacher (Property
and Assets Operational Director), Steve Williams (Housing strategy)
Halton Borough Council
Claire Griffiths (Development Director) Plus Housing Group
Liz Fudge (Development and Regeneration Supervisor) - LHT
Neil Morrey (Regeneration Manager) NWDA
(HBC, 2005. Note: Author has annotated, shown in italics, known roles
of representatives, by using non-referenced staff directories.)
Analysis of this snapshot of the CJRSG meeting highlights two
important points. Firstly, the extent of ownership that HBC has of this
group in terms of number of representatives; individual staff being
drawn from across Council departments with senior representation;
Operational director of Major Projects chairing the meeting, and; venue
71

being the corporate headquarters of the Council. Secondly, the presence
of consultants and agents of organisations which bring additional
expertise and synergy benefits. Does HBC ownership of family life
translate to a leadership role? Additional these minutes identify the
organisations and likely individuals required to peel back the layers of
the Partnerships through primary research.
It was identified earlier in this section that HBC would be wearing two
distinct hats deliver and regulator. In respect of the regulator role
two mechanisms manage this situation, the first identified above is the
representation of the regulatory functions of HBC (i.e. highways and
planning) at the CJRSG. The second was the establishment of a
Construction Coordination Group (CCG).
Analysis of CCG meeting minutes suggests this group deals with on the
ground regulatory issues such as discharging planning conditions,
adoption of highways by HBC and utility and service issues, which are
factors which can impede effective implementation. Representation at
the CCG consists of HBC planning, highways and the Programme
Team; Project Managers from LHT and Plus Dane; the main contractors;
architects, and; project engineers and surveyors. The CCG acts a forum
for discussion of common issues (See for instance TWEEDS, 2011).
Here the regulatory functions of HBC are held to account and opposite
to its role as chair the CJRSG. Does the CCG operates as a second tier
or extended family to complement the more strategic function of the
CRSG, by separating out more day-to-day implementation issues to not
impede on strategic relationships? This would represent an interesting
partnership management tool, and worthy of further research to identify
whether a multi-level dimension to the Partnership is present.
72

Finally, it must be noted that secondary analysis does not provide an
understanding of the role or importance of informal relationships
between partner organisations, and also the relationships between
individuals operating at different levels within organisations. These
informal relationships and their importance or otherwise within the
Partnership dynamic can only really be understood through primary
research.
The formation of the Castlefields Partnership represents the formal
marriage of Partners into a family unit, with independence retained
through respective organisational decision making processes. The
CJRSG being the formal place were family members can come together,
discuss family and reach agreement. Trust between Partners is
therefore important. An extended family of construction contractors is
also evident within a Partnership, the CCG. Through its ownership of
the CJRSG, corporate actions of 2003, and the responsibility to both
deliver Programme projects and regulate delivery of projects by other
Partners, HBC can be placed within a position of parental
responsibility. What stimulated HBC to take this role and the extent
this translates to leadership are unclear from secondary data. Figure
4.4 expresses the process of Marriage of Partners through the
Partnership governance structure. At time of writing these structures
are all still in place.
73

Figure 4.4: Marriage 2003 - 2004

It can be identified within the period of Marriage that four key life event
are identified:
Is Marriage the point where HBC moved from equal family
member to having parental responsibility within the Partnership
through its corporate actions to take ownership of the
Programme?
Does HBC ownership of the CJRSG translate to a leadership role
within the family?
74

The role and importance of the CCG as the Partnerships
extended family
The role or importance of informal relationships between partner
organisations, and also the relationships between individuals
operating at different levels within organisations.
4.5 Implementation Family Life
The Partnership is still operating with elements of the Programme still
being delivered. In 2012 the Programme enters its 10th year of
implementation.
No formal joint Partnership evaluation of the Programme is available to
date, but a number of interim evaluations have been undertaken. The
most recent by HBC, via a Policy and Performance Board Report in
2009 (HBC, 2009b), which acknowledges that (Para3.3);
At its inception, the regeneration of Castlefields was recognised as
being one of the most ambitious sustainable regeneration
programmes to be undertaken by the Council.
Whilst it is not the purpose of this research to evaluate the relative
success of the Programme, understanding achievement is valid to
understand whether the Partnership has been an effective governance
structure. It can be seen that the report evaluates that (HBC,
2009b,Para3.8) of the 51 distinct projects areas 49 have either been
delivered or are currently being implemented and that (Para 3.10) 14 of
the 16 key outputs targets have already been met or are programmed to
be exceed. In respect of housing renewal, of the 1392 deck access
units, 971 have been demolished, with a further 312 programmed for
75

demolition. These have been replaced by 670 new homes, with a further
79 units under construction and planning permission for a further 424
(HBC, 2011).
Whilst it must be recognised that the HBC evaluation is not
independent, progress is evident. The more important question for
further primary research is whether individual family members
attribute any perceived success to the Partnership arrangements and
the local authoritys role within it.
This period of implementation represents the family members entering
to family life together post marriage, working to the deliver the
Programme. Rather than seek to summarise this period of the
relationship it would be more beneficial to identify from the secondary
data the key life events that have tested the Partners relationships.
Implementation of the Programme has broadly followed the Masterplan
apart from one key change - the relocation of the retail element of the
local centre from its existing position (shown as 1, Appendix #) to new
location by the Canal (shown as b, Appendix #). The reason for this
change was (HBC, 2009b, Para3.12);
After listening to residents views, the proposed location for the
new centre was changed from the Lakeside area back into the
heart of Castlefields where the existing centre is located. This
meant that delivery became dependant on the lengthy process of
securing a Compulsory Purchase Order.
Secondary data indicates use of formal binding mechanisms to manage
delivery of this change. Through a formal development agreement
between the three primary partners involved HBC, CDS Housing and
76

EP. This legal framework was due to complex land and funding
agreements involved and the CPO of the existing the local centre (HBC,
2006), and is in effect a risk management tool or prenuptial within the
marriage of organisations.
It was identified earlier that a first tranche of Partner funding from the
HC was secured in 2001. Secondary data also show that three further
tranches of HC funding were secured in 2005, 2008 and 2010 to deliver
additional housing renewal (HBC, 2007; HBC, 2009; HBC, 2011).
It is evident that these funding bids, submitted by Plus Dane and LHT,
were supplemented by HBC supporting information. For instance in
2007 HBC produced a Castlefields Regeneration Housing Renewal
Programme support Document the stated purpose being (HBC,
2007,p.1):
To provide an overview of the wider Castlefields
regenerationsummarise existing development
commitmentsdemonstrate how CDS and LHT manage their
recently approved bidsidentify CDS and LHTs future
proposalsand the risk associated with not developing the
remaining sites.
As a minimum this can be viewed as a coordinating role undertaken by
HBC. Whether this reflects leadership with HBC seeking to drive
forward the regeneration and was instrumental in securing the funding
is worthy of further research.
The Partnership can also been seen to have lost a family member
during this stage of the relationship, with the withdrawal or divorce of
77

NWDA from the Partnership in 2004. This led to the following assertion
(HBC, 2009b, Para3.10):
Although the Council is working to improve the economic prosperity of
the area, the Masterplan outputs were reliant on a substantial amount
of NWDA funding which never materialised. Consequently tackling the
employment and skills agenda has necessarily assumed a lesser
prominence within the Programme.
The effect this divorce had on the both the Partnership and delivery of
the programme is a final key event.
Within the period of family life four key life events are identified:
Whether individual family members attribute any perceived
success in implementation to the Partnership arrangements and
the local authoritys role within it?
Management of the relocation of the local centre by the
Partnership and the effect of the use of prenuptials on family
relationship.
Whether HBC role is housing grant bids by Plus Dane and LHT
reflects leadership was instrumental in securing the funding?
Effect of NWDA divorce had on the both the Partnership and
delivery of the Programme.
4.6 Issues for Further Analysis
From the overview provided within this chapter it is clear that there are
many issues worthy of further investigation through primary research.
The focus of this research is whether it is evident that the local
78

authority has taken the lead role in directing the resources and
coordinating the actions of family members throughout the life of the
Programme.
As such Table 4.2 summarises the key events in the life of the
Programme that have been identified and will form the basis for the
semi-structured interviews.
Table 4.2: Castlefields Regeneration Programme Key Life Events
Phase of the
relationship
Themes for Interview key life events
Courtship
Background to Regeneration
The extent any organisation instigated inter-
organisational dialogue, or showed leadership is
this process; and
The appetite by respective organisations to deliver
a more comprehensive and holistic regeneration
of Castlefields.
Engagement
Production of the Castlefields Masterplan
The extent Partners respective aspirations have
competed and are expressed within the
Masterplan process?
The role of Masterplan as a binding agent
79

between Partners is it a shared vision?
Awareness and acceptance by respective Partners
of the emerging hierarchy through distribution of
responsibilities and resource implications of
Masterplan project delivery?
Marriage
Partnership Governance
Is Marriage the point where HBC moved from
equal family member to having parental
responsibility within the Partnership through its
corporate actions to take ownership of the
Programme?
Does HBC ownership of the CJRSG translate to a
leadership role within the family?
The role and importance of the CCG as the
Partnerships extended family
The role or importance of informal relationships
between partner organisations, and also the
relationships between individuals operating at
different levels within organisations
80

Family life
Implementation
Whether individual family members attribute any
perceived success in implementation to the
Partnership arrangements and the local
authoritys role within it?
Management of the relocation of the local centre
by the Partnership and the effect of the use of
prenuptials on family relationship.
Whether HBC role is housing grant bids by Plus
Dane and LHT reflects leadership was
instrumental in securing the funding?
Effect of NWDA divorce had on the both the
Partnership and delivery of the Programme.

81

Chapter 5: Castlefields Regeneration Leadership of Place in
action?
Secondary data identified four distinct stages within the life of
Castlefields Regeneration Programme Courtship, Engagement,
Marriage and family life. At each stage key lives events were identified,
junctures in the programme were Partner relationships could have been
tested and the need for leadership may have been required.
Observations from the interviews with Partners (list of interviewees at
appendix A) can be placed within Sweeting et al (2004) framework of
partnership leadership roles typologies to analyse the extent HBC
demonstrated leadership within the Castlefields Partnership. Other
literature is utilised to understand the Case study.
5.1 Courtship Displaced power and influence
Analysis of secondary data identified that Partners came together from
respective positions of a need for action. This was confirmed by all
respondents and is best expressed by a Housing Association
Regeneration Manager:
You could tell this was an area that was definitely unsustainable.
It had issues, it was hard to letwe may have perpetuated that,
the two housing associationsthe larger blocks became difficult
to let[and] got gradually worse, the unit in the local centre were
poor.
Three respondents identified the potential of the area, citing: it being
green (Construction Manager); how fantastic the landscaping was
(Project Architect) and, oh theres a lake here and a canal there, but the
82

estate turned its back on them. (Regeneration Manager, National
Agency, Retired)
The extent any organisation instigated inter-organisational dialogue, or
showed leadership during courtship was contested between local
agents. Whilst it was generally accepted by Partners that a housing
association began the process:
Well I think LHT started the whole programmein probably
1999our board committed ten million to Castlefields and at
that time there was no other partners on-board apart from, we
had been speaking to CDS because wed been doing a lot of
planning at the time and consultation but we took a flier and said
this areas going to need investment, were prepared to put ten
million into it, well see who comes alongI think we went to the
council, I think the council were well aware of the problems and
the issues... [But] people would come to LHT so I would imagine
LHT were more aware at that time than the local authority of the
issues that were going on the estate. (Housing Association
Regeneration Manager)
It was questioned whether they had the capacity to deliver in isolation:
I remember sitting in a meeting in the community centre with
[Name] looking at each other saying, No way. There isnt enough
money in this housing association to do what they were
sayingbut importantly that study [Brock Carmichael, 2000 on
behalf of LHT and CDS] identified two priorities from the
community. One was the local centre, but the number one was
get rid of these deck access flats. (Regeneration Director, HBC,
Retired)
83

HBC becoming a Unitary Authority in 1998 and gaining additional
powers and responsibilities was also recognised as providing the
Council with an authority and broader legitimacy to govern and
intervene within the Borough:
I wrote that [HBC Regeneration strategy, 1998] with a team of
secondeesThat was officer driven. We did become a
unitarynone of the background facts were in the councils
ownershipcrude as that strategy was, it set the sceneNow,
that was overlaying with the political imperativeOh, got to do
my wardout of that came an acceptance that there were areas
of very high deprivation which Halton council hadnt been
involved with, because we never dealt with social services. So, we
didnt know. (Regeneration Director, HBC, Retired)
The appetite by respective organisations to deliver a more
comprehensive and holistic regeneration of Castlefields appears a
catalyst for further partner engagement:
LHT approached us for some funding through the HIPS housing
investment programme to address some of their problem blocks.
They met myself andthe assistant director of housing the
council decided that they would only support it if it was a wider
regeneration programme. (Programme Manager, HBC, Retired)
The Partnership can be seen to have emerged from what Macingtosh,
(1992) simplistic model budget enlargement through enabling
additional funding to be accessed. Whilst it is also evident, in both
secondary data and primary observations, that there are synergies
between respective organisations policies and aspirations for
84

Castlefields, these had not yet coalesced into a shared policy synergy
as described by Hasting (1996: cited in Hemphill et al 2006).
During courtship power and influenced is displaced between respective
partners. HBC gaining additional responsibilities and powers when it
became a Unitary Authority in 1998 signals the emergence of a more
confident and visionary local state, with a desire for local leadership.
This was expressed in use of HIP funding as a mechanism to instigate a
more holistic programme and could be characterised as acting as an
agent provocateur to provoke action where it is felt unlikely to happen.
(Sweeting et al, 2004).
5.2 Engagement Convergence of power and influence

At this stage in the relationship the organisations are not yet formed
into a formal Partnership; but it was identified in the secondary data
that inter-organisational working was evident and the language of the
partnership was present in jointly produced and commissioned
documents.

Respondents from all Partner organisations felt that the Masterplan
expressed Partners aspirations, although the relevance of the
Masterplan to the wider community was questioned by a Ward
Councillor:
It would be interesting to know what people who were around
when the master plan was put together what they thought the
master plan was, because I suspect they havent got a clue.
85


The role of the Masterplan as a binding agent between Partners
provided some interesting responses. Three separate Partners stated the
need for flexibility, such as this from a Housing Association Project
Manager:
I think its good to have a vision that anyone can sign up to...
youve got to be flexible because theres no point in having a
Masterplan saying this is what were doing for the next ten years
because things change, you know, weve seen the last three years,
the economic challenges.
This view was supported by a HBC respondent:
Some of the costings that the consultants used were miles away
from what an actual cost would be, but then again, you see, a
masterplan is only an aspirational document isnt it? If you look
at the master plan we havent stuck rigidly to it, because you
cant stick rigidly to it, because things change, the way you can
get funding can change. Youve just got to be flexible. (Programme
Manager, HBC, Retired)

Both these respondents cite financial factors as the need for flexibility.
It was also evident that the Council saw the Masterplan as critical to
binding in organisation to a formal Partnership:

86

When LHT said, Do we want another master plan? the council
said, Woah, woah, we have a massive interest in this place. We
run social services, we run education, we run community centres,
we own a lot of land, woah, we want to be involved and theres
more than one of you [Housing Associations]we feel that the
fault for all of the problems in Castlefields is largely in the original
planning by Runcorn new town. Therefore, well let the legatees,
EP, who inherited the new town legacy; they have a responsibility
to help in overcoming some of these problems. (Regeneration
Director, HBC, Retired)

Here HBC are utilising Masterplan production as a means to broker
additional Partners, and their resources, into the Partnership. By
stating the extent of assets and responsibilities within the area the
Council is seeking to establish a position of authority within the
emerging Partnership. At this stage in observations it is not clear how
this translates into a position of leadership or hierarchy.
The purpose of the Masterplan can be seen to be as much about being a
single vision which Partners can buy into as it concerned with the
actual regeneration of the neighbourhood. This period represents a
move beyond budget enlargement and the emergence of what Hasting
(1996: cited in Hemphill et al 2006) would describe as a resource
synergy where a partnership adds value through the coordination of
respective partners resources and skills in joint working.
Similarly to the courtship stage, during engagement of Partners, HBC
leadership roles can be observed to be emerging. Respective power and
influenced can be seen to converge around the production of the
87

Masterplan. The Councils use of EP historical legacy with Castlefields
to bring their resources into the emerging Partnership reflects Sweeting
et al (2004) broker leadership role.
5.3 Marriage Establishment of hierarchy of power and influence
The formation of the Castlefields Partnership can be seen to represent
the formal marriage of Partners into a family unit, with individual
independence retained through respective organisational decision
making processes.

From observations, the formation of the Partnership represents HBC
establishing itself within a position leadership:
So [Chief Executive, HBC] got togetherpeople of that level for all
of these organisations that were involved and said, Were going to
get together, were going to do it as a partnership, but were going
to lead, because if we dont lead everythings going to fail. EP are
saying they want the local authority to lead, so thats the way its
going to be...We insisted that a delivery plan was part of the
Masterplan... Then there was some rumbling about commitment,
so that was the only time that that top layer met and [Chief
Executive, HBC] banged heads together and said, You will not get
our support. We know youre bidding to EP for funding, we will
not support that, you will not get it unless you sign up to deliver
this [Deliver Strategy]. (Regeneration Director, HBC, Retired)

88

Council leadership was confirmed by Regeneration Manager, National
Agency:
The Council has had a really strong role, if not them who I
think theres was no alternativethinking of how it was resourced
in EP, there was me, but Castlefields wasnt my main project, it
was quiet low down in the pecking order.

It was observed that parental responsibility for the Programme within
the Partnership family was not challenged by either Housing
Association, for instance:
I think the local authority have to be respected as being the one
that should be the strongest. (Project Manager, Housing
Association)

Apart from recognition by one respondent that the HBC Regeneration
Director ran the Partnership Steering Group (CJRSG) it was not clear in
observations whether this ownership by HBC translated to a leadership
role within the family.

Importance of the extended family to Partnership governance was also
highlighted by 4 respondents, as this examples shows:

89

We have a quarterly meeting with highways and planning there. I
dont do that with any other local authority.we are working in
this sort of bubble of Castlefields but by the same token, were
work in bubbles everywhere elsetheres no chance were going to
get around the table with a highways officer from Liverpool
Council. (Project Manager, Housing Associations); and

Interesting, the wider commitment of this extended family was also
singled out:

I worked with Seddon, and we used to work with CrudenI feel
very confident that they understand what were doing and not
just the big-wigs and directors or whatever, I think the on the
ground, the site manager, the QSeven some of the lads who are
actually working on the site, they understand what everyones
trying to achieve. (Project Manager, Housing Associations)

This recognises how the values of Partnership and the Masterplan
Vision had percolated through the extend family to the edges of the
Partnership. The same example of how this stimulated innovation
within implementation was identified by 3 respondents, and can be
summarised as:

90

Because of the good partnership team that we have there with the
architect and structural engineer and Cruden Construction
particularly with them being a significant partner and contractor
that we work with and all the added value things that introduce
things like the lean construction. (Director, Housing Association).

Lean construction is a relatively new construction site management
method that was utilised by one of the contractors. It was observed in
interview that this brought benefit to both contractor and Housing
Association, and implementation of regeneration.

Trust was singled out as important by 5 respondents to forming
relationships between family members, like this example:

there was a strong level of trust I felt, amongst some of the key
players that were there, which took a while, to establish.
(Regeneration Manager, National Agency, Retried)

The example used by 3 respondents in how trust shaped the
partnership was in the land deal done between the two housing
associations, and can be seen in this exchange:

91

Everythings shared out, you know one of the examples is Plus
Dane had allocationbut they didnt have landWe had available
land and rather than let Plus Dane lose that allocation, although
it was very clear that were one side of the busway, theyre
another side of the busway and housing associations who own
land will probably scoff at, you never give land awaybecause it
was Castlefields and because it was a partnership and we didnt
want to lose that allocation we gave Plus Dane the land.
(Regeneration Manager, Housing Association)

The marriage of Partners through the establishment of Partnership
governance structures can be identified as the point where hierarchy
within the Partnership was established. HBC can be seen to want this
position of power and influence, which was either supported or accepted
by other Partners. Governance structures facilitated an extended
family embracing implementers and regulators, enabling values to
reach to edges of the Partnership. This facilitated spin-offs in
implementation, suggesting that an extend family governance model
helps stimulates what Hasting (1996: cited in Hemphill et al 2006)
policy synergy where innovations are created through partner working.

At this stage, two of Sweeting et al (2004 Leadership roles typologies
are exhibited by the Council. HBC actions of forcibly taking ownership
of the Partnership through a strategic meeting, demonstrates the
champion typology. The second is the utilisation of a delivery strategy
to enable HBC to act as manager to ensuring the effective operation of
92

the partnership, the delivery of outputs, and the fulfilment of
contractual obligations (sweeting et al (2004).

5.4 Family Life Consolidation of power and influence through
Leadership of Place

Family life represents the main period of implementation, post
marriage. Partners are now focussed on delivering the Programme and
maintaining the Partnership.
The overall strength of the Partnership was identified as a key attribute
of success in implementation by all 11 respondents, this is
representative:
Were worked together wellour officers with Plus Dane for
example and the local authorityall in the spirit of partnership
because Castlefields is, you know its not seen as LHTs or Plus
Danes or anyones, were all kind of part of the Castlefields family
to sound a bit corny. (Regeneration Manager, Housing
Association)

The respondent here is (in her own words) likening the Partnership to a
family, suggesting that the Partnership has reached a stage where it
transcends individual organisational boundaries. Providing some
validity to the family life analogy proposed in this study.

93

The role of HBC, was identified as being central to successful
implementation by all non-council Partners. This is typical:
Ive had a role with various outer Merseyside local
authoritieshand on heart if that project had been at another
unnamed authority then you know. I think Halton has a lot to be
grateful for some key individuals who really have been tenacious
and had a strong idea of what they wanted to achieve.
(Regeneration Manager, National Agency, Retired)

The dedicated HBC regeneration team was also singled:
What we [Programme team] did Id say we were a glue, because
RSLs [another term for housing associations] are in competition
with each otherOne of our main roles was keep everybody on an
even keel and keep everyone pushing in the same
directionHaving a central team there, in the Council, to
communicate to heads of Department that, you have to get on
with this so its an internal tool as well as an external tool.
(Programme Manager, HBC, Retired)
Particularly of note is the reference to the dedicated programme team
being an internal as well as an external tool. The National
Regeneration Agency Manager (who part funded this team) gave a more
pragmatic response:

I think its absolutely crucial, theres definitely focus theirthe
obvious other option was to bring in more consultants. But youve
94

got to manage consultantto invest our money into key
personnel without a consultancy agenda is money better spent.

Secondary data identified a key life event was the decision to go against
the Masterplan and reinstate a new local centre in its existing location,
after listening to resident consultation. It can be seen that the strength
of the Partnership gave the housing association the confidence to take
on this project:
Well what were the options at that time?...the local authority was
coordinating it. We did, at that time, obviously see it as what was
still needed within the communityWe have taken onboard quite
an onus.

[Interviewer] Do you think that the fact that there was a partnership
gave you the confidence to take on the responsibility to deliver the
Village Square?

Yes, certainly, both from a support point of view to drive things
forward, as well as the capital point of view. The perfect example
is allowing a planning application to go through with still having
so many ifs and buts.

This response was validated by the Housing Association Director. HBC
are using its power and influence here: In terms of its position on the
95

Partnership; over another Partner, and; internally within its own
organisation (through planning); to make this key project happen.

Both Housing Associations and the National Regeneration agency cited
the instrumental role of the Council, and in particular the Castlefields
Team, in securing additional funding for the Programme, this is shown
in this response:
Without the major project teams I suppose there might not have
been such a driver of pressure to say you know continue to go for
funding, we will back it, youll be our number one priority you
know when it comes to the housing corporation or HCA, you
know this is our number one and well push it through.
(Regeneration Manager, Housing Association)

One of the difficulties the Partnership faced was the effect of NWDA
divorce had on the Programme. All Partner responses felt that there
needed to be more of a focus on socio-economic behind front door
issues, this is typical:
I dont know how our managers are going to deal with some of
those really serious social issues of worklessness, drugs and
those sorts of things. They still exist; they havent gone away just
because weve improved the housing. (Project Manager, Housing
Association)
But there was also a sense that the Partnership could respond to this
gap in the Programme left by the divorce:
96

LHTs kind of taken up the baton again because I think it has
been a very physical regeneration projectthere is still a lot of
people on incapacity benefits, there is still a lot of people
unemployed, its still got high levels of deprivation[the]
Masterplan needs to kind of have a look and consider those
issues that it maybe hasnt done so well onYou might see
different faces from us.
[Interviewer] Do you think the partnership is strong enough to
take that change of individuals?
Well Im a bit worried about HBC because Im not sure that you
know the Castlefields regeneration team are the right people to
take on some of the elements of these issuescan that particular
team influence other departments be that community initiatives.
This exchange demonstrates that whilst, the Partner is committed to
the Castlefields, the effectiveness of the dedicated team is called into
question, as the shift of focus of the Programme move from physical to
soft regeneration, new internal door within the authority are required to
be opened.
Family life can clearly be seen to be the point where HBC consolidates
its position within the Partnership, utilising the power and influence it
has built up through each of the previous stages in the life of the
Programme. It uses this power and influences both internally within the
Partnership to direct the actions of other Partners, to maintain
momentum within the Programme, secure additional funding for the
Partnership. Observations show that the power-base for the Council sits
within the dedicated regeneration team, exercising the Corporate
Authority of the Council.
97

It is at this stage in the relationship, that the majority of Sweeting et al
(2004) leadership roles typologies are exhibited by HBC and notably
include: Champion , Salesperson , Broker , Coordinator, Manager,
Visionary and Representative.
5.5 Summary
HBC leadership role within the Partnership can be seen to have
developed through the four stages in the life of the Programme, into a
position of strong power and influence, this was in-part enhanced by
the extend family model of the governance structure. This is evident in
the gradual increase of Sweeting et al leadership roles typologies as the
Partnership matured and settled into family life. Although whether this
was a position of ultimate control of the Partnership is not fully
answered from the observations, and would require more detailed
analysis of primary research. But as this case study show does
leadership of place require such ultimate authority?






98

Chapter 6: Conclusion
The fundamental question to be addressed within this study was
whether the role of the local authority within the management of
regeneration through the partnership approach has evolved as a
response to conditions set by the contemporary regeneration policy and
practice in England?

It was demonstrated in the review of literature that the since the mid-
90s the policy arenas in which urban Regeneration Partnership
operated have evolve to provide a greater role for Local Authorities. The
Local Government Act (2000) can be seen as a clear signal to local
authorities to act as a strategic local leaders within a collaborative and
partnership setting within the places they govern.

Not all Councils will have embraced this ethos; the newly formed and
confident Unitary Authority of Halton Borough Council did in the late
1999. As the Case study of the Castlefields Regeneration Partnership,
Runcorn demonstrated. Here the place was Castlefields, a failing
neighbourhood, with multi-sectoral Partners initially brought together
by a need for action.
As both the Partnership family, and the Councils role within it,
matured, HBC leadership role became more apparent, within the
management of a complex regeneration programme. This local
leadership role went unchallenged and was accepted and supported by
Partners. The Councils parental responsibility as both deliver and
regulator, ensured it had power and influence at all levels of the
99

Partnership by utilising, what the author observed to be, the extended
family governance model, to capitalise on its established authority to
lever in additional power and influence. This provides a useful model for
further testing and analysis.
100

Bibliography

Bailey, N., Barker, A. and MacDonald (1995). Partnership agencies in
British urban policy. London: UCL Press

Bailey, N. (2010) Understanding community empowerment in urban
regeneration and planning in England: putting policy and practice in
context. Planning Practice & Research. 25 (3), pp. 317332.

Ball, M. and Maginn, P. (2005) Urban Change and Conflict: Evaluating
the Role of Partnerships in Urban Regeneration in the UK. Housing
Studies. 20 (1), pp. 9 28

Broaddy, M. and Hedley, R. (1989) working Partnerships: Community
Development in local authoprities. London: National Coalition for
Neighbourhoods.

Bryman, A. (2004) Social Research Methods, 2
nd
Edition. Oxford
University Press: Oxford.

101

Carley, M. et al (2000a). Urban regeneration through partnership: A
study in nine urban regions in England, Scotland and Wales. York:
Joseph Rowntree Foundation

Carley, M. et al (2000b). Regeneration in the 21
st
Century: Policies into
practice: an overview of the JRF area regeneration programme. Bristol:
Policy Press

Castlefields Partnership (2002) Castlefields Joint Commissioning Board,
Minutes of Meeting held on 27
th
March 2002. Castlefields Joint
Commissioning Board.

Davies, J. (2001). Partnerships and Regimes: The politics of urban
regeneration in the UK. Aldershot: Ashgate

DETR (2000). Local Government Act 2000: Explanatory notes [Online]
Available at:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/22/notes/data.pdf
(Accessed: 14 July 2011)

Diamond, J (2010). Context to Globalisation and Regeneration
Management. In Diamond, J., Liddle, J., Southern, A. and Osei, P., (ed.)
102

Urban Regeneration Management: International Perspectives. Abingdon:
Routledge, pp. 13 31.

Diamond, J. and Liddle, J. (2005). Management of Regeneration:
Choices, Challenges and Dilemmas. Routledge: London.
DiGaetano, A. and Klemanski J. (1993). Urban Regime Capacity: A
comparison of Birmingham, England and Detroit, Michigan, Journal of
Urban Affairs. 15 (4), pp. 367 84

Edwards, J. and Batley, R. (1978). The Politics of Positive
Discrimination: An evaluation of the Urban Programme 1967 77.
Google Books [Online]. Available at:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=N7gNAAAAQAAJ&oi=fn
d&pg=PR9&dq=the+urban+programme&ots=3sVLX4osOS&sig=-
eUtHWMxLROvN5uSbF1MS8bB3qQ#v=onepage&q&f=false (Accessed:
06 July 2011)

English Partnership (2002) Invitation to tender for the preparation of a
Masterplan and delivery strategy to guide the regeneration of
Castlefields, Runcorn, Cheshire. English Partnership.

Geddes, M. (2000). Tackling social exclusion in the European Union?
The limits to the new orthodoxy of local partnership. International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research 24 (4), pp. 782 800
103


Hall, P. (1997). Outward-looking Approaches Regeneration Policies for
Peripheral Housing Estates: Inward- and Outward-looking Approaches.
Urban Studies 34 (5 6), pp. 873 890 [Online]
http://usj.sagepub.com/content/34/5-6/873.full.pdf+html (Accessed:
08 July 2011)

Halton Borough Council, (1998). A regeneration strategy for Halton.
HBC
Halton Borough Council (2002) Castlefields Joint Commissioning
Board, Minutes of meeting 27
th
March 2002. HBC
Halton Borough Council (2001) Report to executive Board, Castlefields
Housing Project Joint Commissioning arrangements. HBC
Halton Borough Council (2003) Report to executive Board, Castlefields
Regeneration: Feedback from public exhibition of Masterplan and next
steps. HBC
Halton Borough Council (2004a) Castlefields Joint Steering Group,
Minutes of meeting 15
th
October 2004. HBC
Halton Borough Council (2004b) Castlefields Implementation Group,
Minutes 18
th
May 2004. HBC
Halton Borough Council, (2006) Report to Executive Board, Castlefields
Village Square, voluntary memorandum of understanding. HBC [Web
Link]
104

Halton Borough Council (2007) Castlefields Housing Renewal
Programme, Halton Borough Council Support Document.
Halton Borough Council, (2009a) Creating a Sustainable Community
Information Sheet. HBC
Halton Borough Council, (2009b) Report to the Urban Renewal Policy
and Performance Board, Castlefields Regeneration Programme Review.
Halton Borough Council
Halton Borough Council (2011) Castlefields Regeneration Programme:
Housing Renewal Factsheet. HBC

Hemphill, L. et all (2006). Leadership, Power and Multisector Urban
Regeneration Partnerships. Urban Studies 43 (1), pp. 59 80

Hill, D. (2000) Urban Policy and politics in Britain. London: Macmillan.

Imrie, R. and Raco, M. (eds.) (2003) Urban Renaissance? New Labour,
community, and
urban policy. Policy Press: Bristol.

Jones, P (2003) Urban regenerations poisoned chalice: is there an
impasse in (community) partition-based policy. Urban Studies 40 (3).
pp. 581 601
105


Jones, P. and Evans, J. (2006). Urban Regeneration, governance and
the state: Exploring notions of distance and proximity. Urban Studies 43
(9). Pp. 1491 1509

Judd, D. and Parkinson, M. (1990). Leadership and urban
Regeneration. Sage: London.

Laurence, E., Heinrich, C. and Hill, C. (2000). Studying goverance and
public management challenges and prospects. Journal of public
administration research and theory. 10 (2), pp. 233 261.

Lawless, P. (1989). Britains Inner Cities. 2nd ed. London: Chapman

McCarthy, J (2007). Partnership, Collaborative Planning and Urban
Regeneration. Aldershot: Ashgate.

McArthur, A. (1995). Innovative Approaches to neighbourhood
regeneration by housing associations in England. Planning Practice and
Research 10 (3 4) pp. 317 331

106

McKay, D. and Cox, A. (1978). Confusion and Reality in Public Policy:
The Case of the British Urban Programme. Political Studies 26 (4) pp.
491-506

McKay, F. and Cox, A. (1979). The Politics of Urban Change. Google
Books [Online] Available at:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_8cOAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontco
ver#v=onepage&q&f=false (Accessed: 06 July 2011)

Murray, S. (1994). Between Whitehall and Town Hall: the realignment of
urban regeneration policy in England. Policy and Politics 22 (2), pp. 155-
146
Mossberger, K and Stoker, G. (1997) Inner-City Policy in Britain: Why it
will not go away. Urban Affairs Review 32 (3) pp. 378 - 402

North, P. (2003). Communities at the heart? Community action urban
policy in the Uk. In: Imrie, R. and Raco, M. (eds.) (2003) Urban
Renaissance? New Labour, community, and
urban policy. Policy Press: Bristol. pp. 121 138

Oatley, N. (2000). New Labours approaches to age-old problem. Local
Economy 15 (2), pp. 86 97.

107

ODPM, (2000) Housing Stock Transfer: A Tenants Guide. Wetherby:
ODPM Publications.

Rhodes, J. et al. (2002) Lessons and evaluation evidence from ten single
regeneration budget case studies. London: DETR.

Robson, B. (1988). Those inner cities: reconciling the economic and
social aims of urban policy. Oxford: Clarendon.

Runcorn Development Corporation (Unknown likely 1969), Castlefields
Brochure. CNT

Schon, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner, How professional think in
action. Basic Books: USA

Smith, M. and Beazley, M. (2000) Progressive Regimes, partnerships
and invovlement of local communities: A framework for Evaulation.
Public Administration 78 (4), pp. 855 878.

Stoker, G. (1995). Regime theory and urban politics. In: Judge, D. et al
(eds). Theories of urban politics. London: Sage.

108

Sweeting, D. et al. (2004) Leadership and partnership in urban
governance: evidence from London, Bristol and Glasgow, in Broddy, M.
and Parkinson, M. (ed.) City Matters: competitiveness, cohesion and
urban governance. Policy Press: Bristol.

Taylor, M. (2007) Community participation in the real world:
Opportunities and pitfalls in new governance spaces, Urban Studies, 44
(2), pp. 297 317.
Taylor Young, (2002) Castlefields, Runcorn Masterplan baseline report
and draft options paper.
Taylor Young, (2003a) Castlefields: An ambition for regeneration and a
plan for action, part 1 Masterplan and action plan.
Taylor Young, (2003b) Castlefields: An ambition for regeneration and a
plan for action, part 2 Delivery strategy.
Tweeds, (2011) Castlefields construction co-ordination meeting, minutes
of meeting 26th January 2011. Tweeds
109

Appendices
A List of Interviewees
B Ethical Review Form E1BE
110

Appendix A List of Interviewees
Position Organisation Interview Details
Regeneration
Officer
Housing
Association
15:30 Thursday 11
th
August,
Offices, Runcorn.
Project Manager Housing
Association
16:00 Friday 12
th
August,
Offices, Liverpool.
Regeneration
Manager
Housing
Association
14:00 Friday 12
th
August,
Offices, Liverpool.
Councillor
Halton Castle
Ward
Elected Member 14:00 Tuesday 16
th
August,
House, Runcorn.
Councillor
Halton Castle
Ward
Elected Member 14:00 Tuesday 16
th
August,
House, Runcorn.
Programme
Manager (Retired)
Local Authority 11:30 Wednesday 17
th

August, Church View Public
House

111


Operational
Director Major
Project (Retired)

Local Authority

11:30 Wednesday 17
th

August, Church View Public
House
Senior Highways
Officer
Local Authority 14:30 Wednesday 17
th

August, Offices, Runcorn.
Director -
Programme &
Commercial
Development
Housing
Association
15:00 Tuesday 9
th
August,
Liverpool
Project Manager Housing
Association)
08:45 Tuesday 11
th
August.
House, Runcorn
Regional
Regeneration
Manager (Former)
National
Regeneration
Agency
11:00 Friday 29 August.
Woodside Ferry Terminal
Caf, Birkenhead


Chair
Castlefields
Community Forum
Housing
Association
Interview not secured
112


Chair Plus Dane
Neighbourhood
Panel

Housing
Association


10:00 Tuesday 9
th
August,
House, Castlefields
Director /
Architect
Project Architects 12:00 Tuesday 9
th
August,
Offices, Liverpool

Site Manager Construction
Contractor
09:00 Friday 19
th
August,
Site Compound, Castlefields

113

Blank Page E1BE FORM