A guide for design professionals in understanding their role in community engagement, in the context of the new Localism Agenda.

Type Guide Book

Section Case Study Spa Fields, Islington Youth Shelter, Fluid

DateNovember 2011

AuthorRowena Hay

EditorJames Parkinson

Published byRoyal Institute of British Architects

Fluid

148 Curtain RoadLondon EC2A 3AT

T | +44 (0)20 7729 1705E | mail@fluidoffice.com

RIBA Guide to Localism: Opportunities for ArchitectsPart 2: Getting community engagement right

Guide to LocalismOpportunities for architectsPart two: Getting communityengagement right

Guide to Localism: Getting community engagement right 1

Localism should play to the strengths of the architectural profession.For decades now, many architects have used communityengagement and collaborative design techniques as a crucial part of the design process, essential to producing buildings and spacesthat meet the needs and future potential of the end user.

Far from being an onerous burden, the introduction of measures such as the new Duty to Consult provides both new opportunities and new responsibilities. There will be a new opportunity for communities to shape their built environment whilst at the same time placing aresponsibility on developers to genuinely engage in the process andtherefore make it more difficult for banal, poor quality developments to get through the planning process in the future.

The formalisation of processes such as community consultation and brief development in statute should also be a signal to architectsthat their skills are valuable, that they should look to engage them in new ways and look to capitalise more on the services they provide. This document intends to outline the role architects can play as enablersof successful community engagement; by introducing key principles and tactics associated with best practice and demonstrating how the profession can emerge as an integral leader in this field.

Foreword

‘Architects have a role to play as enablers ofsuccessful communityengagement.’

Angela BradyRIBA President 2011–2013

James Jordan

Starter for Ten communityengagement tactic, Spa FieldsPhoto: Fluid

2Guide to Localism: Getting community engagement right

Introduction

Localism is the driving principle underpinning the Government’schanges to the policy framework for planning, housing, regeneration and economic growth. The proposals involve a radical devolution ofresponsibilities to the local level, giving new powers and opportunities to councils and communities to plan and design their places. The aim is to drive change at a local level and empower communities with new rights to have more say in the development process.

This new approach to planning – to managing change in local communities – has profound implications for the working practices of all built environment professionals.Localism requires a shift to partnership approaches with local people, requiring new skills in building effective dialogueand developing a shared understanding of places, theirchallenges and their potential.

Architects have exceptional opportunities to use their skills within this new context. They can emerge as integral design enablers and facilitators of localised plan-making, helping communities and local authorities to maximise the potential of their places.

Many practitioners are already doing substantial work in this area; others are actively seeking to develop new skills and capacities in response to the emerging policy proposals.

The aim of this guide, part two of the RIBA’s Guide to Localism, is to consider the role architects can play in community engagement by applying their skills creatively. The principles of successful andmeaningful community participation within the design process will be introduced and then illustrated through case studies.

Localism needs design professionals to succeed, but the quality of the places created by this new process will be dependent on their ability to appropriately engage with local people and local issues,right from the beginning, designing ‘with’ rather than ‘for’ communities.

The format of this document is intended to guide architects in this process.

‘The time has come to dispersepower more widely in Britain today’1

1 The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister (2010), Coalition Agreement. Available atwww.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/news/coalition-documents

Guide to Localism: Getting community engagement right 3

Community engagement skills will beessential with respect to the emergingpolicy context outlined within theLocalism Bill, particularly for projectsthat are led by developers andcommunity groups. These includehousing schemes and developmentsthat will fall under the forthcoming Dutyto Consult legislation as well as existingand new community buildings that maybe developed or improved through the Community Right to Build and theCommunity Right to Buy.

Duty to Consult

Developers will be required to consultwith local communities prior tosubmitting planning applications, sothat local people have a chance tocomment and suggest changes todevelopments at an early stage in theproject. Ideally this consultation will takethe form of meaningful communityengagement, so that the needs andaspirations of local people feed into the development from its initiationonwards. Within their proposaldevelopers will need to show how they have consulted with local people,what comments they have received,and how they have taken thecomments into account. It is likely that this will be applied to residentialdevelopments of over 200 units, or on a site area of four hectares or more,and to non-residential developmentsproviding 10,000 square metres of newfloor space or with a site area of twohectares or more.

Community Right to Build

Local community groups will beallowed to take forward developmentsfor the benefit of their communityincluding housing, local shops andcommunity facilities. If supported bythe local people, who will vote ondevelopments through a referendum,schemes will bypass the usualrequirements of the planning system.The scheme aims to encourage localpeople to determine local solutions toproblems such as a lack of affordablehousing or local amenities throughcommunity-led development.

Community Right to Buy

Local community groups will have the right to bid for (and take over)valued community assets and facilitiesthat are threatened with closure, for example a shop, a local pub, acommunity centre, or a library. A list of buildings and land that are valued by the local community will be kept by local councils and updated bymembers of the community. If assets on the list come up for sale,communities will be given extra time to prepare a bid to take them over.

Section 1The role architects play in communityengagement page 4

Section 2The principles of successful communityengagement page 6

Section 3Case studiespage 8

This guide should be read in conjunction with Part one in this RIBA Guide to Localism:Neighbourhood planningwhich explains the proposedchanges to the planningsystem in detail and suggestssome ways in which architects can get involved in neighbourhood planning.This guide has been prepared for the RIBA by Rowena Hay and edited by James Parkinson with input and assistance from many practisingarchitects and planners who have supplied casestudy material and examples from their inspiringwork with communities. Our thanks go to them all.

© Royal Institute of British ArchitectsNovember 2011

ContentsKey policy proposals

4Guide to Localism: Getting community engagement right

Section 1The role architects play in community engagement

‘If people are to feel a sense ofbelonging to the world in whichthey live, an involvement in thespaces they inhabit is a goodstarting point’2

Many of the changes proposed as part of the Localism Bill are aboutgetting people involved in the designdecisions that shape the look and feel of their neighbourhoods, parks,community buildings and homes. Thedirect involvement of building users inthe design process is not new, andsince the 1970s architects have been at the forefront of new approaches to community engagement. Earlycollaborations between communitiesand architects formed in reaction to the failures of some modernist planningand architecture, which imposeduniversal design solutions oncommunities who had no say, orownership, over the outcomes. Manyarchitects sought new collaborativeways of working that involved users in the design process throughworkshops, consultation exercises, and even self-build constructionmethods. In the 1970s UK participatorydesign practice was pioneered byprojects like Ralph Erskine’s Byker Wallin Newcastle, a social housing projectthat gave local people a say in thedesign of their new estate,3 and WalterSegal’s self-build housing in Lewisham,which involved residents in the designand construction of their own homes.4

This philosophy of participatory designpractice, particularly with less affluentmembers of the community whowould not usually be able to afforddesign services, continued with theestablishment of a network ofCommunity Technical Aid Centres inthe late 1970s.5 These include Assist in Glasgow6, who provided design andtechnical advice for the improvementsto tenement housing;7 and a decadelater Matrix, a design and researchpractice that created participatorydesign methods to develop projectsthat aimed to respond to the needs of women.8

In the last decade there has been a renewed interest in participatorydesign. The large-scale schoolrebuilding programme initiated by thelast Government has produced manygreat examples of the successful andproductive engagement of students,parents and the wider community inthe design process9 [Kingsdale Schoolpage 12]. Many architects have workeddirectly with community clients to improve community facilities[Castleford Bridge page 8] and haveengaged the most excluded groups in projects to improve the public realm[Spa Fields page 10 and BroadwayCommunity Garden page 9]. Housingassociations and developers havecome to recognise the value ofinvolving current and future residents in the development of housing designsand have employed architects tofacilitate this involvement [GraylingwellPark page 9]. There has also been amove within architectural education to increasingly consider communityparticipation as a key part of designstudio projects.10

Evidence and experiencedrawn from participatorydesign practice points to thefact that a collaborative designprocess done well not onlyengages local people in thedesign of the built environmentthat they experience everyday,but can also lead to better andmore sustainable projects, andto a more collaborative andpositive process of change. Photo left: Segal CloseArchitectural Press Archive/RIBA LibraryPhotographs Collection

Photo right: Byker WallRIBA Library Photographs Collection

2 Blundell Jones, P, Petrescu, D, and Till, J (2005), Architecture and Participation, Abingdon: Spon Press.3 http://www.futurecommunities.net/case-studies/byker-estate-newcastle-1967-present4 http://www.segalselfbuild.co.uk/about.html 5 http://www.spatialagency.net/database/community.technical.aid.centres6 Established in 1972, Assist is one of the few remaining CommunityTechnical Aid Centres in the country. The practice has, from its earlydays, worked on participatory design projects with community-ledclients, housing associations and cooperatives. Assist work on thebasis that architects should be listeners and primarily guide the designprocess, which they achieve by working in close consultation withstakeholders in the preparation of design briefs, the development ofdesign options and during construction. Through open days, designworkshops and planning weekends, Assist work to achieve a point of consensus where all members of a community embrace a sharedvision for the design of a new building or plan.7 Forsyth, L, Pereira, M, Townsend, L, and Edge, M (2009), ‘Casestudies of organisations with community based practices’ in Jenkins, P and Forsyth, L Architecture, Participation and Society, London:Routledge.8 http://www.spatialagency.net/database/matrix.feminist.design.co-operative9 CABE (2004), Being involved in school design. Available athttp://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/publications/being-involved-in-school-design10 Rural Studio, a design-build enterprise operating from thearchitecture department at Auburn University in Alabama, USA, aimsto teach students about social responsibility in architecture by workingwith poor communities to build real projects.http://apps.cadc.auburn.edu/rural-studio/Default.aspx The University of Sheffield School of Architecture in the UK has alsopioneered a similar ‘Live Project’ element to diploma educationhttp://www.ssoa.group.shef.ac.uk/#panel-1

6Guide to Localism: Getting community engagement right

‘The idea of citizen participationis a little like eating spinach: no one is against it in principlebecause it is good for you.’11

In the current policy context a lot of lip service is paid to communityengagement, which is uncriticallyaccepted as ‘good for you’. However,there are degrees of involvementranging from token consultation to fullcommunity control over decisions asillustrated in Sherry Arnstein’s ‘ladder of citizen participation.’12 If communitiescannot see the impact of theirinvolvement on final outcomes, thencommunity engagement can be an‘empty and frustrating process for thepowerless’13 and people feel that theircontributions are falling on deaf ears.This can very quickly lead to apathywithin the participants, often referred to as consultation fatigue, where thecommunity lose enthusiasm for theprocess. Consultation exercises thatare measured by the number of peoplewho attend meetings or amount ofsurveys returned, remain a ‘window-dressing ritual’ because there is ‘noassurance that community concernsand ideas will be taken into account.’14

In this type of engagement, all thatcommunities achieve is that ‘they haveparticipated in participation’; all that‘powerholders achieve is the evidencethat they have gone through therequired motions of involving ‘those people.’15

It is widely understood that successfuland meaningful engagement dependsupon handing over some element ofpower to local communities, so thatthey can have a real say in the decisionmaking process and, therefore, designoutcomes. Underpinning this is thenotion of trust. People become acutelyaware of the difference betweenmanipulation and participation; theyknow when they are unlikely to getwhat they want out of a process andonce trust is lost, it can be very difficultto regain.

Trust must be earned and can be fostered if a two-way learningrelationship (between the communityand the design professionals) isestablished early on. There can then be a collaborative investigation of theissues, requirements and aspirationsfor a project. If this process is clearlyevident in the emerging designstrategy, then it is more likely that thecommunity will accept and appreciatethe eventual design solution. This willultimately lead to a design that betterfits local needs and fosters a sense of ownership within the community,enhancing civic pride; a key factor in good placemaking.

A number of principles can be drawn from the practicaland academic literature oncommunity participation in the design process, and fromthe case studies that arepresented in this briefing.There is no one way of ‘doing’community engagement. Thefollowing principles offer anapproach, for inspiration, ratherthan a prescriptive method.

Section 2The principles of successful community engagement

11 Arnstien, S (1969), ‘A ladder of citizen participation’, Journal of the American Planning Association, 35: 4, 216–224. 12 http://www.partnerships.org.uk/part/arn.htm13 Arnstien, S, ‘A ladder of citizen participation’14 Ibid15 Ibid

Guide to Localism: Getting community engagement right 7

Why involve people?to create a robust brief and vision that is based on local knowledge and expertise

to reflect on what the building or site is for

to bring people together with similar and/or differentviews to explore options, identify solutions, and avoidfuture conflicts and opposition

to create a stronger sense of belonging andownership over the project

to raise design aspirations that remain achievable

to educate people about design and thedevelopment process

to develop mutual learning between all partiesinvolved in the project

to create an environment that is more responsive to social and environmental change.

Who to involve?people who use, visit, work in, govern, maintain, build and fund the project

local resident bodies, local businesses and voluntary groups

people who are too often left out of the designprocess including young and older people, lessaffluent communities, black and minority ethnicgroups, women, LGBT communities and individuals,as well as people with physical and sensorydisabilities

people who visit the area regularly, such as touristsor people travelling to work.

When to involve?draw up an involvement plan at the outset of the process

begin involvement at an early stage in the project sothat a brief and shared vision can be collaborativelydefined

continue involvement as the design evolves so thatideas, suggestions and changes can be taken onboard at key stages

carry out a post-occupancy evaluation.

How to involve?set clear objectives for engagement and betransparent about the process

set aside appropriate time and resources

make sure there are clear benefits from taking part in the process

let participants set the ground rules for engagement

raise awareness of opportunities and be transparentabout challenges and limitations

raise awareness, knowledge and skills about design

use language that is free of jargon and simplifytechnical terminology

promote discussion as a listener and guide, ratherthan identifying definitive solutions

recognise the importance of ordinary conversationsand storytelling

recognise that one technique or method ofengagement will not suit all people in all situations

hold events in community venues where people feelcomfortable and welcome

provide a crèche or other support facilities thatpromote inclusive attendance

hold events at different times of day, and inconvenient, local venues to suit different needs

consider different communication routes to reachpeople who don’t attend events; for example, socialmedia is often a cheap and flexible option.

8Guide to Localism: Getting community engagement right

Section 3Case studies

Castleford, West YorkshirePractice: McDowell + Benedetti

Local people were at the heart of thedevelopment of Castleford Bridge,which not only links two sides of thetown, but also provides a meeting placefor local people and visitors that thecommunity can be proud of.

Castleford Bridge was one of a number of community-led design projectsdeveloped as part of the town ofCastleford’s regeneration. The projectstarted with a series of public meetings in bars, clubs and community centresaround the town. A simple question wasasked: how do you want to see yourtown improved? One priority that cameout of these early conversations was the need to reconnect the town with the River Aire and to provide a newpedestrian bridge to connect ‘duckisland’ – a primarily residential area cut off from the rest of Castleford – with thetown centre. Two community champions

were chosen by local people to work on the project and provide an importantlink between design and regenerationspecialists and the local community. Ascrucial members of the developmentteam they had a key role in determiningthe selection of the bridge’s architect,McDowell + Benedetti, and helped keepregeneration specialists and designersfocused on the project aims as definedby the local community. The success ofthe final scheme owes much to theirpassion and commitment to the project.The result has been a bridge ofconsiderable architectural merit thatreunites the town with its river andprovides local people and visitors withsome much needed quality public realmwhere they can relax, meet their friendsand enjoy nature. The bridge hasbecome a symbol of positive change for Castleford and a source of pride for the local community.

www.castlefordheritagetrust.org.uk/

Photo:Tim Soar and M

cDow

ell +Benedetti

Castleford Bridge

Guide to Localism: Getting community engagement right 9

Tilbury Estate, EssexPractice: Muf architecture/art

Muf architecture/art facilitated acreative engagement process withlocal people who wanted to transforman underused and dangerous space at the centre of their estate into acommunity garden for everybody.

The Broadway Community Garden was developed with residents from the Tilbury estate through a 12-weekengagement and community art project.The Residents Association wanted toensure that the community had a senseof ownership over the project andwanted everybody to be involved inmaking it happen. Muf ran a variety ofparticipatory events, which were held indifferent community venues to providedifferent groups on the estate with anopportunity to share their ideas. Instead of running traditional stakeholdermeetings, Muf went out to thecommunity and ran informal sessions in local pubs and businesses. Storiesabout the connection between the localtravelling community and horses led to

a number of community events focusedon this theme. Children made horsecostumes and photographed themselvesaround the estate. These images wereturned into posters which were put up on bus shelters around the local area,allowing local children to share their workwith the community, promote the projectand make a small but positive change totheir surroundings. The final outcome ofthe engagement process and communityart project was a new garden in theestate that included space for youngerand older children, as well as an area forhorses. During the engagement process,horses had become a symbol of prideand local identity for a community whopreviously lived in an estate with a badname, and who had felt neglected andundervalued.16

www.muf.co.uk

16Muf, (2005), ‘Rights of common: ownership, participation, risk’, inBlundell Jones, P, Petrescu, D, and Till, J, Architecture and Participation,Abingdon: Spon Press.http://www.spatialagency.net/database/muf http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/http://www.cabe.org.uk/case-studies/broadway-community-garden

Chichester, West SussexPractice: John Thompson & Partners

Early and sustained involvement ofmembers of the community, using avariety of engagement methods,ensured that local people’s prioritieswere central to the design of this newmixed-use development.

John Thomspon & Partners werecommissioned to engage the communityin the design of a new residential andcommercial development in Chichester.The process was initiated at the pre-planning stage so that local people had areal say in the development of proposalsand options. At a Community PlanningWeekend a plan for the area wasdeveloped through hands-on designworkshops involving the community andthe design team. A set of core prioritieswas agreed – the need to retain andcelebrate the site’s history, to meet highenvironmental standards, to providecommunity space for all ages, to offer amix of housing types and tenures and toestablish a Community DevelopmentTrust to manage the site post-completion.Ideas put forward by the community havebeen integrated into the design, with thedevelopment of a cultural hub to providefacilities for local artists and designers,and the retention of historic buildings onsite for community use, including a new‘people’s pub’ in a listed farmhouse. Toensure that genuine dialogue with thecommunity was sustained, otherengagement methods were also used,including a regular community forum, a newsletter, a website to keep everyoneup to date, and focus groups to addressspecific concerns such as arts, cultureand the development of a zero-carbonstrategy.

www.jtp.co.uk/

Photo: Muf

Graylingwell ParkBroadway Community Garden

Photo: John Thom

pson & Partners

10Guide to Localism: Getting community engagement right

Islington, LondonPractice: Park Life/Fluid with students from LondonMetropolitan University

This participatory design project sawthe transformation of a much neededbut neglected green space, into apopular park that accommodates thediverse needs of the local community.

A range of engagement techniques were used in order to involve differentparts of the community in the redesign of Spa Fields, a small park located in a densely populated part of Islington. The park serves a diverse communityincluding office workers, local teenagersand young families. Participatoryexercises focused on the individual needs of these different groups,particularly women and young people.The Women’s Design Service facilitatedthe engagement of local women, who asa result highlighted the safety concernsthat stopped them using the park. Theirinput led to a number of design changes

leading to a safer and more welcomingpark for everyone, including the additionof new entrances, safer and more visibleroutes through the space, as well as achildren’s play area that is not cut off fromthe rest of the park.17 Young people werealso actively engaged in the design andconstruction of new youth shelters. Thearchitecture practice Fluid and studentsfrom London Metropolitan Universityfacilitated formal engagement events at the local youth centre and also spoketo young people on their own turf inplaces where they congregated with their friends. In collaboration with thedesign team young people made keydecisions about the purpose of theshelters, where they should be locatedand the materials used. As a result youngpeople have their own space within thepark redevelopment, feel respectedbecause they were asked to be involvedand have a sense of ownership over the shelters, which they look after.18

www.fluidoffice.com

Spa Fields

17 CABE. (2008), Inclusion by design. Available athttp://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/publications/inclusion-by-designhttp://www.parklifelondon.com/spa-fields.html18 Fluid, (2005), ‘Your place, or mine...? A study of participatory design,youth, public space and ownership’, in Blundell Jones, P, Petrescu, D,and Till, J, Architecture and Participation, Abingdon: Spon Press.

Photo: Fluid

Guide to Localism: Getting community engagement right 11

Camden, LondonPractice: Niall McLaughlinArchitects

A thoughtful and sensitive consultationprocess engaged older people,including those with dementia, in thedevelopment of a design strategy forCamden care homes to meetresidents’ needs and aspirations.

Niall McLaughlin Architects werecommissioned to prepare a feasibilitystudy and designs for two new carehomes to meet the current and futureneeds of frail older people in Camden.Three workshops were facilitated by thepractice and informed the developmentof an aspirational brief reflecting theneeds and hopes of residents includingthose at various stages of dementia,front-line caring staff and care homemanagers. At the first workshop,

cameras were handed out soparticipants could take photos of thingsthey wanted to be included in their carehomes. These photos were turned intopostcards and circulated to residents who wrote comments on the back thatwere – according to the design team –‘demanding, challenging and oftenmoving’. The second workshop was held in two existing care homes to findout what worked and what didn’t for staff and residents. Large-scale modelswere made on which comments andobservations could be recorded, and local historians and residents sharedmemories about each site. The designersalso spent time immersed in care homes,including overnight stays to learn aboutthe day-to-day running of the homes andthe daily pattern of life for the residents. Inthe third workshop participants arrangedpieces of furniture within bedroom,

bathroom and living room spaces thathad been taped out on the floor. Inputand opinions about the size of spaces,arrangement of furniture and location ofwindows were recorded. A document in the form of a scrapbook entitled WhatYou Told Uswas produced to record all the accumulated ideas from theconsultation; key themes that emergedincluded the importance of mobility andsocial interaction to the well-being ofresidents. The design strategy respondedto these priorities through a series ofsocial spaces, gardens and courtyardswhere older people may wander freely,return ‘home’ easily and feel part of thepublic life of their community, whatevertheir level of independence.

www.niallmclaughlin.com

Homes for Older People

Images: N

iall McLaughlin A

rchitects

12 Guide to Localism: Getting community engagement right

East Dulwich, LondonPractice: dRMM

The extensive involvement of students,staff and the wider school communityin the redevelopment of this previouslyrun-down building provided a uniqueopportunity to set a new educationalvision for the school.

dRMM worked with a cross-disciplinaryteam that included an educationalpsychologist, an education researcherand performance artist to facilitate aninnovative participatory process from brief development, through design,construction and post-completionphases of this school refurbishment.Various engagement techniques wereused during the one-year consultationperiod including interviews, workshops,seminars, questionnaires and meetingswith staff, students and parents. Creativesessions and visits to other inspiringbuildings and projects ran alongside

the more formal process. The designteam built real-size models of differentrooms and spaces so that children andadults could understand the design andmake decisions about various options,including materials and colours.19 Thedesign was developed alongside a visionfor the educational future of the school,which included the integration of the builtenvironment into the curriculum, changesin the structure of the school day, andconsideration of the role the school could play in the wider community. As a result of this thorough and creativeengagement, project staff and studentsnow have a sense of pride andownership over their new school. There has been a reduction in staffturnover, reduced levels of vandalism,increased use of school facilities by thewider community and students resultshave improved.20

www.drmm.co.uk

Kingsdale School

19 Forsyth, L. Pereira, M. Townsend, L. and Edge, M. (2009), Case studies of social participation in different building types. In Jenkins, P and Forsyth, L. Architecture, Participation and Society.London: Routledge. 20 Case study taken from CABE, (2004), Being involved in schooldesign. Available at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/publications/being-involved-in-school-design

Photos: Alex de Rijke

Links and resources

Architecture Centre Network www.architecturecentre.net/docs/home/

Asset Transfer Unit http://atu.org.uk/

Association for community design www.communitydesign.org/

The Building Futures Gamewww.buildingfutures.org.uk/projects/building-futures/the-building-futures-game

Centre for Accessible Environments www.cae.org.uk/

Community Land Trusts www.communitylandtrusts.org.uk/home

Community Planning www.communityplanning.net/

Design Council CABE www.designcouncil.org.uk/our-work/cabe/

The Glass-House Community Led Designwww.theglasshouse.org.uk/

Groundworkwww.groundwork.org.uk/

Helen Hamlyn Centre for Designwww.hhc.rca.ac.uk/

Landscape Institute Spaceshaperwww.landscapeinstitute.org/Spaceshaper/inaction/index.html

Locality http://locality.org.uk/

Meanwhile project www.meanwhile.org.uk/

NESTA Compendium for the Civic Economywww.nesta.org.uk/assets/features/compendium_for_the_civic_economy

People and participation www.peopleandparticipation.net/display/Involve/Home

The Prince’s Foundation for the Built Environment www.princes-foundation.org/

RUDIwww.rudi.net/pages/16651

Rural Studio http://apps.cadc.auburn.edu/rural-studio/Default.aspx

Sheffield School of Architecture – Live Projects www.ssoa.group.shef.ac.uk/#panel-1

Spatial Agency www.spatialagency.net/

Walter Segal Self Build Trust www.segalselfbuild.co.uk/home.html

Women’s Design Service www.wds.org.uk/index.htm

1Guide to Localism: Neighbourhood Planning

Royal Institute of British Architects66 Portland PlaceLondon W1B 1ADT 020 7580 5533www.architecture.com

Cover image: Lighthouse walk to engage the entire town of Fleetwood Photo: BCA Landscape

Design: D

uffy