TOTTENHAM MARSHES PROJECT
A PRACTICAL STUDY OF WORKING WITH AN URBAN COMMUNITY

Back to Ranger index

by Roger Cole & Dave Perkins: Lee Valley Regional Park Authority

Of all the policy buzzwords currently in use ‘Social Inclusion’ has to be one of those nearest the top of the political agenda. However community consultation, involvement and empowerment have been developing within countryside management for some time as the following case study illustrates.

Throughout its 24 mile length (from the Thames into rural Hertfordshire) the 10,000 acre Lee Valley Park offers informal recreation opportunities to over two million visitors annually. With 75-100,000 visitors per year Tottenham Marshes (approx.100 acres) is situated just six miles from the centre of London and is managed by the Park Authority as an open space countryside area for informal recreation. Only a stone’s throw from Whitehart Lane and the Spurs football stadium it is the archetypal example of an ‘urban greenspace’ with all the associated problems and challenges which that entails but with a surprisingly high wildlife and potential amenity value.

With poor physical as well as psychological links to the local residents the challenge was to engage the local community in the management and development of Tottenham Marshes; as well as evaluating how best to maximise the site’s existing potential and make it more accessible to a wider audience and further, to encourage them to use it in the right way (!).

The Ladder of Involvement
The North American academic S.Arnstein has suggested that there are various approaches to interacting with communities all of which may be used to a greater or lesser extent viz:

- INFORMATION – giving out information.
- EDUCATION – explaining what’s going on/raising awareness.
- CONSULTATION – this might vary from offering an option (and ignoring responses !) to offering choices and choosing the most popular.
- INVOLVEMENT – people are asked to tell you what they think the issues are (rather than you asking them to comment on specific issues). Community views will have some influence although traditional power holders still make the decisions.
- PARTNERSHIP – people are directly involved in the decision making ie. true power-sharing.
- COMMUNITY CONTROL – in this scenario all decisions are made by the community.

In terms of achieving community ownership of a site perhaps the least that we as site managers hoped to be able to do was to enable the community to make informed choices, (within the constraints of funding, management, ecology and other factors) about the future development and management of the site.

How did we do it?
The project was undertaken as a partnership by the Park Authority and other statutory organisations with responsibility for the area (including British Waterways, the Environment Agency and local London boroughs). Full discussion and agreement was needed between all partners on the direction of future development for the site as a prelude to the community project. A Land Use Strategy/Master Plan was first prepared and consultants were then commissioned to manage the community engagement process using the master plan theme as the main "vision". Any forum needs support and co-ordination.

How did we find the community?
Standard techniques such as questionnaires to site users, local residents and local tenants associations were employed. A public display about the development plans was produced for use in local markets/shopping areas and discussions were held with targeted local groups e.g. Local Agenda 21 Group, Local Neighbourhood groups, specific interest groups such as anglers, walkers etc. Others involved in the consultation included local regeneration agencies, businesses, adjacent facilities and community leisure centres.

How did we involve the community?
Firstly various groups were asked about the vision, (which they subsequently agreed and adopted). This was followed by the establishment of a User Forum to provide ideas and input and review progress. This also served the purpose of improving communication and understanding between all groups and became the main focus of community involvement in the Site.

What did we learn?
Any forum needs support and co-ordination and therefore money and/or resources which the Park Authority currently provides. Without that help it is unlikely that the forum would continue in the longer term. Some other specific lessons were;

- Forum members must feel they are in charge (and not the Park Authority).
- The forum must be clear about what they can do/change and what they cannot.
- Many people like to know what is going on but may not come to the meetings.
- Often people come when they want to complain but not when they want to compliment.
- It’s very easy for people to object to something but less easy to get them to give positive support.
- People are very suspicious about any statutory agency.
- It takes a long time to get trust and a short time to lose it.
- Meetings can easily get hijacked (needs a strong independent chair).
- Art projects seem to work really well!
- As hard as you try there are some parts of the community that you will never reach.

Where do we go from here?
The engagement process is now fully established with public opinion having already positively influenced the development proposals of Tottenham Marshes. The complexity of the situation with numerous land management issues and various interested parties has slowed matters, but progress has been made in increasing awareness of the Site via the Users Forum. The next step is to explore the most appropriate way forward for widening stakeholder engagement and the sense of ownership, possibly by giving the Forum even greater influence over future management and development decisions. Other initiatives are being explored to reach other sections of the community that are not currently involved or interested in the site, especially 14 to 18 year olds and those from ethnic communities in the Tottenham area.

To date the process has taken some three years and a great deal of time, effort and commitment from all those involved. Above all the most powerful motivation to carry on are the small successes, that happen from time to time, when the community see the implementation of their ideas (with a little help from the Authority) and become the owners and advocates of the Site. Call it social inclusion, community outreach or stakeholder involvement success should not only make our day to day job as countryside managers easier but result in real benefits to the community – and after all that’s what the site is there for.

Back to Ranger index