Robert Emmet CDP Community Garden

Work Package 3: Urban/Industrial Regeneration, Land Use Planning and Creative Design

ROBERT EMMET CDP COMMUNITY GARDENMáirín Ó’Cuireáin | Contact: [email protected] | www.turas-cities.org1

Robert Emmet CDP Community GardenREUSE OF VACANT SITES BY URBAN COMMUNITIES



Robert Emmet CDP Community Garden Case Study

The Case Study

Characteristics Process of reuse to vacant 2 acre space owned by local authority in city center, where usable green space is rare, by Community Development Project (CDP) targeting disadvantaged socio-economic members, facilitating an emerging vision from these members to activate the space temporally. Principles and practices of working from grassroots, collective decision-making and empowerment of marginalized.

Key ResourcesFunding by local authority and Community Development Project. Land owned by local authority. Expertise by the community project and specialists. Community capital progressed the project through volunteers carrying out the bulk of ongoing work on site.

Key ActorsLocal community within walking distance of 1km, people attending services and groups locally (including homeless), Robert Emmet Community Development Project and Dublin City Council.

The Process

Issues & Challenges Efforts in obtaining satisfactory temporary licensing/leasing arrangements between local authority and local community. Development of overarching goals which emerged from community meetings allowing evolution of processes and problem solving to project of issues such as antisocial behavior, water issues. Human resources issues.

Power & AgencyThe local authority, to the Robert Emmet Community Development Project, and back to the local authority again.

Knowledge Gap Safe to fail parameters and considerable learning by doing curve resulting in progressive increase of transferable skills. Clear process on licensing /leasing arrangements needed.

The Outcom

es

Outcomes Site rezoned as a park, Community project has established a profile, and community keeps bees now. Increased awareness of food. Methodology and approach follows community development approach and could yield similar outcomes elsewhere. Challenge remains in developing clear structure for temporary licensing and leasing agreements to this and similar projects.

Social ValueIncreased transferable skills, confidence and resilience within the local community, as they were allowed develop their own vision for place.

Lessons Learnt Change needed in accountability in relationships between local authority and local community. Communities thrive when facilitated, ‘land ownership’ can impede this. Transferable activity possible from temporary site to temporary site, as networks already exist.



Characteristics A two acre site in Dublin’s city centre which was transformed for four summers as a community garden and sports and recreation area managed by a local community organisation – Robert Emmet Community Development Project. This case study is concerned with the process of reuse to the space and not the original decision to develop the site, though it is discussed below to provide context.

Context The site has had many uses over the centuries but in the 60’s was developed as a social housing flat complex, with just over 100 flats designed by the architect William Scott. In early 2003, plans were agreed to demolish the flats as they were not meeting modern housing needs, were very run down and would have been costly to refurbish. Following minor refurbishment and some new build, new social housing was provided and the site was cleared in 2005. The site was and still is owned by the local authority, Dublin City Council. The intention had been to develop the site under public private partnership. This partnership would deliver mixed use development, the private gain being the apartments and the public gain being the community centre.

What remained was a site just under 2 acres on the corner of Bridgefoot Street and Island Street in Dublin’s South West Inner City located between Thomas Street and the Ushers Island. Secure fencing placed around the site for demolition remained in place after demolition was complete.

During the planning phase for the community centre, a comprehensive ‘consultative ‘ frame work was established; led by Robert Emmet CDP and supported by Dublin City Council, with representation from both and local residents. It became evident there would be a delay in the building while the project went to public tender and it was agreed under this consultative framework, by Dublin City Council to pay for a resurfacing of the site to be used as a sports area, managed by Robert Emmet Community Development Project . This took place in late 2006. In 2007, personnel changed in both Dublin City Council and the Community project. The economy was slowing down. In May 2008, with new personnel, a request was put into the ‘consultative group’ to establish a community garden as the site was not being used for anything at all at that point, despite having marked sports areas. It was endorsed by consultative group, though was not expected to be very popular. The intention for the community project was to use the community garden as the tool to engage and build relationships in the area.

Introduction The case study serves to assist in understanding the motivations and processes in realising small scape resilience projects, including interactions with local authorities and other stakeholders from the perspective of the community development project only. Robert Emmet CDP Community Garden is a case study account authored by Marín Ó’Cuireain of the Robert Emmet Community Development Project. The inquirer and the respondent are the same.



Date Action Impact

May 2008 Posters placed around and on railings of site This became a method of communicating and letting people know about upcoming meetings

May 2008 27 people attended open meeting A ‘wish list’ was drawn up and date set to start

May 2008 30 people turned up last Saturday in May Small little beds built with rock lying around, more volunteers than had been expected, so there was not enough work planned and volunteers just got on with clearing the area

Summer 2008 Regular volunteers – adhoc workshops, including many children’s workshops It was very late in season to start the work which did impact on results but good contact and visibility developed in community

Autumn 2008 Review of process revealed : (i) participants were reluctant make decisions or take action because space was all shared (ii) the target group for the Community Project were not really engaging

Agreed need to provide participants with their own individual space within the communal garden and to proactively engage target group

October 31 2008 Pumpkin display in garden Looked spectacular – but huge bonfire proceeded on green area on Bonham Street

February 2009 Classes introduced Tutor was not appropriate for target grou

Spring 2009 Design Provided by landscape designer for 13 6m x12m raised beds, 1 m high Very hard work, logic for design hard to follow, took months to build and fill raised bed. Ultimately no follow through from designer, it proved a pointless exercise. No plans/layouts were developed subsequently

June 2009 20 Individual Boxes for plots completed. Increased participation Good engagement from local community, good feedback in community. Regular use of site

Summer 2009 Local Asian members of community began playing cricket on site Mixed response at outset but very positive eventually. Cricket classes given to local young people

July 2009 Irregular communication with Dublin City Council regarding leases and licence for site

Robert Emmet CDP agreed conditions, but never received a final draft to sign

August 2009 Hens introduced into garden Huge positive response in community

October 31 2009 Pumpkin Display and ‘haunted tour’ in garden Well attended, but massive health and safety risks taken

March 2010 Continued requests for plots – new classes started Still ad hoc, but more structure, hens providing excellent focus and interest

March 2010 Local young people request permission to place a pigeon loft on site after a fire After much consideration, agreement given to young people. Notice to remove structures received from Dublin City Council within weeks. No action taken

How long did the project take?



Date Action Impact

Summer 2010 50 individual plots all being used. Water source placed on site. Beehives placed on roof of nearby building

Very active, conditions and agreements constantly being updated and reviewed as issues arose. Hens continuing to be very popular. Hard to keep up with demand for plots. Daily structure and supervision needed on site

October 31 2010 Display and ‘ghostly’ figure in garden

Spring 2011 More community groups seeking use of space Good links with groups, but still no communication from Dublin City Council

Summer 2011 Increased incidences of drinking and smoking hash Increased vigilance needed. Over 100 active users of garden plots

August 2011 A structure placed on site by an individual with no previous interaction with project

This individual approached a local authority official and reportedly informed; that they were advised no one had any right to be active on the site, therefore they could do as they pleased

Autumn 2011Removal of hens and pigeon loft by community project. Extended negotiation requesting compromise from individual with structure in garden

No conclusion, and some incidence of intimidation reported. A lock from garden was removed

November 2011Decision taken by community project to suspend activities in garden until a lease or licence was provided beyond the ‘memorandum of understanding’

Written notice given to every organisation and individual with agreements with Robert Emmet CDP advising them of this, anticipation a resolution soon

March 2012 Agreement from Dublin City Council that Robert Emmet CDP would receive a licence

Plans developed for summer 2012. No licence materialised

February 2013 Site Cleared By Dublin City Council subcontractor.

Written assurance provided of impending licence to be awarded to Robert Emmet Community Development Project

Plans developed by for summer 2013

March 2013 Decision taken at council meeting for Parks Department to manage site and no licence would be awarded to Robert Emmet CDP

The site was to be designed by landscape architects contracted by Dublin City Council.

Summer 2013 Several meetings with Parks Department Landscape Architects to discuss potential site uses. Site Cleared for a second time by Dublin City Council sub contractors

All the raised beds dismantled and timber removed

November 2013 Contact made from official from housing department for consultation regarding the potential site uses.

Public meeting arranged

Agreed to return with plans from Parks Department (December ‘13 or January ‘14)

July 2014 Site cleared by private contractors, hoardings erected, portakabins placed One quarter of site used for offices for company developing student accommodation. Likely to be in use for 2-3 years



SiteThe site is 2 acres. The catchment area for Robert Emmet Community Development is generally between Thomas Street and the Liffey, though many people from Smithfield and the Liberties engaged in this project. This site is located in an area surrounded on 2 sides by local authority housing with almost 1200 people living in them. There are also five apartment complexes housing a mixture of professional owner occupiers, professionals renting, people and families on social welfare on rent allowance. These apartment complexes have all been built in the past 15 years. Aims and IntentionsIt aims were to engage members of the local community in their community following the community development principles and practices such as; working from grassroots, collective decision making, empowering those most marginalised and removing barriers to facilitate participation. Its intention was to use the space/ site as a community resource so that it wasn’t left derelict creating a poor impression of the area. There is no history of community gardens or gardening in the area but there is a rich history of livestock being kept in the area well within living memory.

Deprivation IndexThe most recent CSO figures outline the overall changes taking place in the community over the past 15 or 20 years with ‘gentrification’ taking place. However Trutz Haase 2011 Pobal HP Deprivation Index outlines how little has changed for members living in local authority flat complexes. Unemployment is still very high, with low educational outcomes with only a handful of people living in local authority housing graduating to 3rd level. Drug and alcohol misuse and serious gangland and organised crime are very prevalent in this very tight knit community. This work defines in more detail the socio economic profile of the community.

Perception

There is a ‘perception’ that the local community living in flat complexes are not interested in sustainability or resilience, though they are interested in community capital and articulate this and it is reflected in the level of community and voluntary activity. Its possible and even likely, if some investigation was done into attitudes into sustainability and resilience, the findings would be surprising. Residents regularly express frustration at the inability to recycle simply in the flat complexes.

Sense of OwnershipThe place was previously occupied by Bridgefoot Street Flat complex – so many people living in the area a strong sense of ownership and entitlement to decisions made affecting the site.

Planning Context of Project The site was one of a number in the time period 2004-2008 which were designated for development under public private partnership. It had been zoned for housing and since the intervention of the community garden on the site, plans have changed and it is now designated as a park. (Its unclear if this decision can be reversed) Environmental context and/ or Social Context The area has very little green space or trees and is in an area which was traditionally a manufacturing area with many factories and warehousing units. The immediate environment has a lot of undeveloped and abandoned sites creating a very poor impression of the area which contributes to a community’s low self esteem. The closest green spaces are locked most of time because of chronic anti-social behaviour namely intravenous drug use.

Social ContextThe community living in the flat complexes tend to have lived in the area for generations and are a very strong close-knit community. Newer members of the community tend to be more transient with relatively few owner occupiers.

Wider context locally and regionally There are a number of other sites which had local authority housing and were demolished and had collapsed public private partnership. There are many sites throughout the city which are abandoned and undeveloped and serve as locations for anti-social behaviour and dumping which could, even over a 12 month period, be used and leave a legacy in a community.



Key resources Funding The costs of the palisades fencing and tarmacadam was met by local authority as part of the initial development.The costs of developing the site; soil, timber, tools, plants were all met by the Community Project with revenue raised from grants, and a small amount from individuals and groups who rented plots if they could afford it. The entire investment over the period by the community project was approx €20,000.There remains an unspent grant of €3500 for this project. LandOwned by local authority.

ExpertiseThe Community Project, some adult education tutors, and other leaders from groups who used the space. Volunteers / participants who took partNo ‘expert’ language was used in general unless an ‘expert’ was brought in for a specific reason.

Community capital The project could not have progressed without community capital. Volunteers carried out all the work in the project. On some occasions ‘corporate volunteers’ came for one day events to do big jobs, but they had no investment in the community.People living in the community ‘policed’ the site, opened and closed it and looked out for any problems or anti-social behaviour. Institutional CapitalDublin City Council : Land Owners –held the power. National College of Art and Design; Often credited with the project and some individual interaction with students but no significant or formal engagement despite the proximity.

Commercial Capital No Commercial Capital

Relationships

• Community Project and active community volunteers;

• Community Project and target group – disadvantaged adults and families;

• Community Project and Dublin City Council personnel;

• Community Project and People living in local authority housing;

• Community Project and owner occupiers and renters living in apartment complexes;

• Relationships among individuals living in local authority housing and private housing;

• Community project and other community projects and services;

• Community project and groups and initiatives with similar aims;

• Community projects and third level institutions.



Key Actors Participants

• People living in local authority flats and private housing within a walking distance of 1 km;

• People attending services and groups locally (in particular homeless services);

• The reuse of the site as a community garden was instigated by Robert Emmet CDP.

Key partners and stakeholders

• Robert Emmet CDP;

• The local community;

• Dublin City Council.

The site is very visible and easy to see what’s going on and who is involved – this meant the target group were able to ‘observe’ at a distance before developing the confidence to take part. This visibility facilitated very strong passive policing of the site by local people. The majority of those who participated were from disadvantaged background as this is the target group of Robert Emmet CDP and they were encouraged to take part. Core beliefs and principles of the different people taking part.

It’s not possible to state the core beliefs and principles of those taking part. Every person who did participate was asked to sign an ‘agreement’ with core principles to be adhered to on the site.

Issues, Challenges and Alternatives During the inception, development and implementation, InceptionThe major issue was convincing people it was possible so that people would be interested. The challenge was involving the target group of the Robert Emmet CDP – the people who came forward at the outset, tended to be professionals living nearby who are motivated to participate in this type of activity anyway. DevelopmentBringing the local authority along with the project and trying to convince them to realise the potential of the project and the efforts of getting a licence. The major issue in this phase was the request for a ‘pigeon project’ on the site, considering a young person had been placed at serious risk at another location caring for pigeons. The alternative could have been to refuse the request, and potentially avoided conflict at a later stage, but it risked alienating a lot of young people and turning people against the project. The other serious consideration was if any of the young people had come to any harm in an alternative location.

Challenges The planning of the project itself:• The layout;

• Keeping all elements flexible enough for change but ensuring the balance between the local ownership was structured enough to manage so that change could occur, and developing the initiative;

• Staying focussed on the original aim and ensuring the project did not develop into a ‘food project’ which did not have community at its focus.

AlternativesA design for the whole site was an alternative, but would have delayed the initiative massively and reduced the local investment. The small area which was designed and planned was very problematic and did not end up as the designer intended it. It has taken over a year to see a sketch proposal from those currently designing the project.

Implementation Issues Anti-social behaviour – as the garden became more established and the space used more especially for sports, drinking and smoking hash became problematic and had to be managed. Ensuring that the project was progressing, developing and changing despite no additional resources in particular human resources. Children accessing the site unsupervised through breaches in the perimeter fence.

ChallengesThe challenge for the project was dealing with its success in 2009 and 2010. Much work was done to remain grounded in the target group, and the local community took ownership. This had mostly benefits; people were involved, provided surveillance and security and inhabited the space.But challenges it presented were as follows:

• Car washing using the water source provided for gardeners;

• Parking on site;

• People sharing keys;

• Motivated, active volunteers implementing new ideas without any discussion;

• People using the space at all times, meaning allocated times were not observed;

• People outside the area very keen to get involved, but rarely had the same commitment to community as the majority of other users did.



Process of participation and communication Community and TextingThe process of participation was open to anyone within 1 km walking distance and people engaged largely due to word of mouth or walking past the site and observing activities there. Once involved communication took place with participants via text mostly with public meetings quarterly.Local Authority

Communication with the local authority took place by email from the community project and by phone from Dublin City Council except for any correspondence regarding legal matters on the site.

Design

There was no distinction between design and implementation. There was no specific design phase as because the whole project largely depended on volunteers and there seemed a need to ‘get on with things’ while time commitment and motivation were there.

Evolution

There was an overarching set of goals which emerged at meetings but it was an evolution rather than a design.

At stake for each group Community ProjectCredibility and reputation among community and with local authority.Local authority

Local support, public presentation of the city

Local Community

a unique opportunity to interact and engage with one anotherIndividual Participants

Opportunity to improve skills.

Kinds of conflicts which came up

• The use of the site: - Parking on site - Car washing on site with water source - Materials being stored on site e.g most people short on space hard to resist secure 2 acre site;

• Commercial Companies who had been asked on one or two occasions to donate material continued to deposit on site (dumping) - Manure from Local street traders - Shredding material from Tree surgeon - Material for composting from Landscaper;

• Participation – People seeking to use the site but with no interest in the community or not wishing to agree to conditions;

• People transferring their ‘plot’ to another person;

• Keys – given to different people;

• Children damaging plants while on site without permission;

• People stealing vegetables and fruits;

• Opening and closing times;

• Groups seeking to use site for specific ‘closed’ events. (Private party with bouncy castles);

• Keeping pigeons on site;

• Ownership –rights and entitlements;

• Erection of ‘structures’;

• Giving talks on site without permission;

• Smoking Hash and Drinking on site.

All new issues or conflicts were discussed at steering committee or at open meetings and decisions were taken and in general, these were added as ‘conditions for participation’ which people signed up to. On the whole, people were accommodating and perfectly understanding and adjusted behaviours or habits to comply. For ongoing issues, such as smoking hash, there needed to be constant vigilance, and dealing with the issues daily when it happened and in the end it stopped. This was a particular challenge as there is relaxed attitude locally to drinking and some drug taking.

Points of consensus

• Making the place ‘look good’;

• The sense of pride;

• Cleaning;

• Meetings.



Barriers to doing the project

• Human Resources to develop and manage the project;

• Human Resources to manage and oversee the volunteers or to carry out specific work;

• Water Supply for the first two seasons;

• Suitable trainers to provide demonstration and training at suitable levels to participants;

• No suitable place for a nursery to raise plants;

• No satisfactory licence or lease from the local authority for the site;

• Limited Printed and visual educational material for use outside;

• Seating areas – (there were very few seating areas developed which most people regretted, though other named it as a success).

Signage.

Alternatives explored Dedicated StaffThe option of a dedicated staff or human resource was not properly explored, but after it was closed – in anticipation of its opening – the community project took an unemployed person on a training initiative in anticipation of the garden re-opening.

Power and Agency Local Authority The local authority controlled the site at the outset, but when the plans for the Public Private Partnership Development took place and the consultation phase began; the community project took more control.

Financial Liability

The resource (the site) appeared to hold little significance for the local authority yet it was and still is a tremendous resource in the community. The sheer size in the middle of a community with very little open space and the emotional ties people feel in relation to it mean this is unavoidable. The local authority appeared to view it as a financial asset and were mostly concerned with any activity it becoming a financial liability which appears to be a root of the failure in progressing any interim activity and the deep resistance from the local authority to the community ‘taking ownership’.

Community Control

It was controlled during 2008-2012 by the community through consensus and agreement and the pursuit of a common goal. As soon as the control or balance of power came into any question at all, it was no longer viable for the community to manage the site.

When the community project came involved in the consultation phase and plans to use the site on an undefined ‘interim basis’, control gradually transferred to the community project. The community project physically had the keys to the site. Decisions were made by the community project and the community.

While the project was running, the community controlled the site. Unacceptable behaviour was addressed; different activities were facilitated especially sports. The site was used as much as possible, with as many different activities as possible. Agency shifts Initially the agency was the size of the community centre due to be built. This changed to the range and types and numbers of people participating and active on the site.The agency is now the security of the site and/ or the financial return on the site. The downturn in the economy allowed the first shift in agency perhaps.

Decision Making

Decisions were made which would facilitate the greatest benefit for the community and without waiting for responses and communication from the local authority. Decisions were reached by consensus through dialogue and discussion.

Key Shift

The second year 2009, when significantly more people became involved but in particular the introduction of hens onto the site signified the greatest shift in terms of the level of popularity.

No Water Supply

For two years, attempts were made to manage the site with no water supply on site. Barrels were left on site which did collect water, but these were a hazard for children.However when the tap was placed on site, this created other issues:• The tap was left on at times overnight

resulted in a huge waste of water;• Children playing with the water;

• People were inexperienced using the hose and washed away seedling often;

• Overwatering plants;

• People car washing on site;

• Finally the hose was removed leaving only a tap and everyone had to use buckets.

Peer LearningSeveral different trainers were engaged at different times often dependant on funding availability– but it was unorganised and was often too advanced for the participants. While this did not work, what worked very well was participants sharing with one another and sharing learning with one another about what worked or didn’t for them. This type of peer learning was an unanticipated outcome.



Knowledge Gaps Knowledge that would have helped the project

Better horticultural or arts workshop skills Theoretical Background that might help to understand/ support the practice

• More knowledge of leases and licensing arrangements

• If the project had had a proposal to present to the Local Authority as a solution such as models in other jurisdictions or a proposal outlining the potential to develop an urban farm for Dublin, the outcome may have been different. Urban farms and community garden feature in planning documents for the past 20 years, and perhaps presenting a worked up proposal allaying fears of permanency or risks of litigation could have influenced the decisions taken by the council in 2013.

Practical knowledge that might help to support the practice

• More knowledge of vegetable growing.

• Carpentry skills to build furniture.

Precedents or other similar examples of this type of process or project

• Summer Street Garden, Dublin 1

• International examples in Detroit, Philadelphia Green (Pennsylvania Horticultural Society), Los Angeles – the subject of a documentary The Garden.



Outcomes What were the outcomes?

• The community group have built good links with the people living in the flat complex and apartments;

• There is a solid cohort of volunteers who participate in events and activities if needed;

• The site is now rezoned as park and is no longer set to be developed for private housing;

• The community project established a profile among both its target community and with other institutions including IMMA, UCD, Fáilte Ireland, and the local authority;

• The opportunity for minority groups to engage with the community project and other members of the community;

• The community project now keep bees;

• One of the local apartment complexes has set up a small herb garden in their communal area;

• The local community now look after and maintain a green area adjacent to the site which is used for football training;

• There are increased skills in relation to horticulture in the area;

• Many more of the children in the community have an awareness of food.

The unique element of this development is that, an agreement had been given in the ‘consultation’ phase to use the site on an interim basis, referred to as a memorandum of understanding but it had been intended for sports. The methodology and approach follows a community development approach which could yield the same outcomes in similar contexts. InnovativeNot working to a plan may be considered innovative. Using this method, because of the size of the site, meant participants were able to carry out projects and develop ownership over their work. This approach did also contribute to problems and conflicts, – the building of a ‘no dig’ garden with no consultation and the erection of a shed to keep pigeons with no consultation.

Value Participation, conversation and social interactions were all valued by participants, local residents and community groups. The garden was photographed often, and represented nationally and internationally.

The value it has brought is a self-confidence among community members that things can be achieved. It has resulted in the green space adjacent to the site being used constructively, litter and dog fouling is cleaned up more than previously, and the grass is cut and maintained by volunteers in the community. Before this project, this particular space was only used for bonfires and rallying stolen bikes. Value to Each Stakeholder Local Authority – have finally realised financial value by leasing out a portion of the site to developers during construction phase of nearby development (assuming there is a capital gain being realised). The local authority also regularly referenced this project in establishing the community gardens in subsequent years in Chamber Street and Weaver Square. Community ProjectRelationships built.

Participants

Skills gained.

Value on a Larger Context The land has been designated to remain as open space.

Process Driven The project was only represented once publically; in a radio interview with local women who were training. A position was adopted not to have any media representation so that the project remained faithful to the process and not to its own image or appearance. This hugely benefitted the process. A position was also taken not to place emphasis on horticultural production or knowledge – that everyone could take part, and gardening success or failure meant little. Finally a position was also adopted early on, not to benefit commercially from any activity on site, beyond modest running costs. This was invaluable during subsequent negotiations and lobbying in the community when car boot sales and circuses were proposed.

Scepticism and ComplaintThe greatest challenge was the scepticism in the local community and in the local authority, which was overcome for a period of time, before succumbing. Two families overlooking the site complained bitterly at the outset having to look at this ‘eye sore as the space took shape and after one year requested that shrubbery be remove so they could see into the space.



The Effect of the Project - Short Term and Long Term Short termIt created a much better impression in the community and people felt safer and often referred to it. There ‘seemed’ to be less dealing in the immediate streets Long TermLong term, there is a benefit to the health of individuals in the community as they have access to more open space. It could result in policy goals of community groups getting leases or licences with more ease in the future.

This Case Study’s Contribution to the Bigger Picture of Resilience In Dublin, if we could overcome the barriers here, there are much bigger sites and many smaller ones, such as the Bottle Bank Site in Ringsend. These sites could be included in a network and comprehensive plan for Urban Farming to be developed over a 25 year period in Dublin. Barriers were fear, lack of knowledge and understanding among community participants and the local authority. Opportunities were the availability of the site itself and the Robert Emmet Community Development Project and the being fortunate they were located in such proximity. Knowledge from this could be integrated into planning knowledge or policy context.

Licence for Temporary UseThere could be a straightforward and simple mechanism introduced to enter into short or medium term licensing arrangements with community groups to use vacant sites during periods of transition, particularly among communities with less access to open space for sports or recreation. This kind of activity in a city centre is easily transferrable as networks already exist with relationships already established which could be used. One site could close and another opens up with equipment, skills, expertise and possibly even personnel transitioning from one site to another.

Lessons learnt Things That Need to Change The accountability of the local authority to the local community. Since 2008, seven local authority personnel have had responsibility for this site with no paper trail or line of accountability evident and a lack of clarity about where decisions are actually being made.A clear accountable mechanism for the public to see that plans are followed through and if not a clear reason for the change. Knowledge, Which Was Reinforced Communities find ways to thrive when facilitated and power and ‘land ownership’ can impede this. New Understandings Gained - Ways of Working Different community groups working with similar target groups welcomed the opportunity to work in a common location and this work could have been developed and would have potential.

Knowledge was understood that wasn’t understood before.Peer learning could have been facilitated and logged.Materials and equipment could be provided at very little cost with a big impact, but a consistent staff member or possibly committed volunteer could have resulted in the project still being active or having moved to another location.

Observations About How These Lessons Might be Transferable in Terms of Skills or Knowledge There could be a follow up qualitative study done with members of the community, participants and residents who were not participants to capture the impact in the community of the establishment of this community garden, the reaction when it was closed and the ongoing anticipation of it reopening. This could be combined with a survey in attitudes referred to above. Learning from a brief study like that could inform the design and instigation of a new site. It would provide the opportunity to establish base points and measure the impact of a specific intervention to see if it reaches its goal.

Robert Emmet CDP Community Garden

Documents

Transcript of Robert Emmet CDP Community Garden