SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES -

RESILIENT COMMUNITIES

Research into urban futures

Robert Rogerson & Sue Sadler

2013

WORKING PAPER SERIES –WP1b

Institute for Future Cities and School of Social Work & Social Policy,

University of Strathclyde

Regenerating Lochgelly:

Envisioning a connected and

comfortable community

1

Foreword

This paper forms part of a set of academic outputs associated with on-going research on resilient

and sustainable communities. The focus is on the transformation of four specific localities seeking to

become sustainable communities. In each case, they have explicitly articulated, in their own terms,

a vision of sustainable community and have been working towards their vision over the past years

(up to a decade).

The research builds on findings from an ESRC/Homes & Community Agency programme of research

on the “Skills and knowledge for sustainable communities”, coordinated from the University of

Strathclyde in 2009-11. This suggested that “breaking out of the process of top-down envisioning

requires the adoption of different approaches to involving communities in developing local visions of

sustainable communities” (Rogerson et al, 2011, 162). The research here addresses directly the

absence of detailed accounts of alternative approaches to develop and deliver sustainable

communities.

This working paper forms part of a series emerging from the research. The context and research

questions are set out in a parallel introductory paper, RCP1, which is available on the project website

– www.resilientcommunities.weebly.com. The case studies forming the basis of this research are

examined through a series of working papers (WP1-4) based on each place, alongside an exploration

of issues and contributions to resilient and sustainable communities research (WP5 onwards).

Papers on each case study locality record first, the context and initiative on which the study focuses

(WPa) and second, the stages by which the initiative developed and progressed (WPb). All the above

contribute to additional papers for academic journals and a final paper summarising the conclusions

from the research.

Working Papers Series

Locality Local case study based papers General discussion papers

RCP1 - (Re-) Visions of Resilient and Sustainable Communities

1 Lochgelly WP1a – Scotland’s Sustainable Communities Initiative Exemplar WP1b - Envisioning a Connected and Comfortable Community

WP5 – Imagining future places: comparing visions from the case studies WP6 - Creating sustainable communities: comparing local and generic visions WP7 - Envisioning sustainable communities: ‘we’ll know it when we see it’

2 Scotland’s Housing Expo

WP2a – Scotland’s Housing Expo WP2b - Constructing Visions of the Future for Scotland’s Housing

3 Duneland WP3a – Ecovillage expansion WP3b - Envisioning ecovillage development

4 Gartcosh WP4a – Planning Urban Growth WP4b - Slotting Urban Growth into the Landscape

We welcome feedback and comments on these papers and the academic articles which are being

published from this study. We would, in particular, welcome additional insights from members of

these communities or others involved with the generation of a vision of what a sustainable

community might look like for them. Please send comments to r.j.rogerson@strath.ac.uk.

2

Introduction

This is the second working paper exploring the development of ‘vision’ of sustainable community in

the context of Lochgelly in Fife. The first paper (WP1a) described the community and identified a

vision statement within a Strategic Design Framework, promoted by Fife Council, which became an

exemplar for the Scottish Government’s Sustainable Communities Initiative. It, like many other

studies worked with the notion of a ‘single’ vision to encapsulate the local notion of a sustainable

community in the context of a transformational initiative. The importance of such a vision – variably

termed a guiding vision (Flint, 2013) or strategic vision (Hodgkinson, 2002) or vision statement

(Kantabutra and Avery, 2010) - is underlined in many change management accounts as providing

direction, guidance and shared ownership. Effective visions are noted for their conciseness, clarity,

stability and abstractness, the absence of which is viewed as undermining effective transformation

and co-production (Rafferty and Griffin, 2004).

Our starting point for this paper and for the research project as a whole is that the notion of a single

vision is too simplistic. Rather, in each of the case studies examined, there has been either a set of

visions or a process of envisioning where visions have been created and articulated, revised and re-

presented. Here we explore the different documentary accounts of vision to provide illumination on

(i) the process of envisioning used by participants to articulate their notion of a sustainable

community and (ii) whether multiple visions rather than a single, shared vision has existed in

developing the sustainable community. This paper, along with its three companion ones (Working

Papers 2b, 3b and 4b), explores for each case study the origin, formation and implementation of

vision within the context of the initiative for change. Our objectives are, firstly to examine the

emergence of the ‘vision’ of a sustainable community which has then guided transformational

actions as expressed through public accounts of vision, delving more deeply into the envisioning

processes which generated this vision and, secondly to consider the extent to which such a vision

has itself changed through the process.

To achieve this we have examined the public articulation of the vision and envisioning stages,

recorded in documents associated with planning, and with internal decision making within

stakeholder groups. Such accounts are inevitably partial (the outcome of each stage of deliberation)

and not neutral (published purposively) and offer an incomplete account of the full envisioning

process with debate and differences unrevealed in such account. We acknowledge that while

interviews with key actors and more probing accounts not open to the public could offer us as

researchers deeper explanations and understanding behind the public articulations, such

information would not be available beyond those directly involved with decisions and discussions.

Given our working assumption that visions are purposeful, designed to engage a wider audience

beyond those involved with its construction, the focus needs to be on articulations of vision

designed to achieve this – whether that be on the basis of open access to all or to ‘speak to’ a more

narrowly defined audience beyond those directly involved in writing the statement of the vision.

Our analytical approach, structuring this account

Our approach here is to (re-)construct an account of the envisioning processes involved with the

sustainable community initiative from a range of documentary accounts. Using the vision associated

with such initiative (see WP1a) as the centrepoint – in our nomenclature this is V0 – we have traced

3

back from this to the start of the vision, and forward as it has been used as part of the process of

transformation associated with the initiative.

We have sought to identify an origin of the idea from, or process through, which the vision

statement (V0) has emerged. Such genesis is taken to be a public statement of intent and in each

case has brought together different stakeholders to initiate a path of action. At various stages along

this path, aspects of the vision have been revealed. These accounts often have a variety of purposes,

including to engender and support consultation, to reflect additional partners getting involved with

the initiative, and to fulfil requirements within the process of delivery of the initiative. Recognising

that these are steps towards a vision, we have identified such statements as developmental – in the

nomenclature used here V-x.

Similarly as the initiative and plans have progressed we have tracked how the vision (V0) has been

articulated within the follow on documentation associated with implementation. These documents

include those within the formal planning process and those which have been disseminated for wider

public involvement and information. We use the nomenclature of V+x to represent these.

This paper is structured around our analysis of such accounts, and the envisioning process which is

revealed. In the first section, we summarise the documentary evidence which we have used to

enable use to construct this account of envisioning, placing this in the context of other evidence,

usually documentary, which connects the different visionary points in the development of the

regeneration plan for the town of Lochgelly. Table 1 outlines these. In the main sections, we explore

the formation of the vision through a process of backcasting to identify its genesis, and then work

forward to consider the use of vision within the initiative and towards a realisation of the local

notion of a sustainable community. In the final section, we conclude the analysis by drawing some

key insights which this specific case study reveals about envisioning, the context within which the

vision is articulated, and the role of different actors in taking forward the envisioning process. In

Working Paper 7we use this account, along with those of the other three case studies, to draw out

wider insights and to identify questions which future research needs to address around envisioning

sustainable communities.

Table 1: Visioning Stages in Lochgelly

Time line Action Source

2003 Local Plan 2001-2011 : Lochgelly as a priority regeneration area

Fife Council (August 2003) Cowdenbeath Area Finalised Local Plan

March 2005

Draft Fife Structure Plan 2006-26 published

March – May 2005

Community consultation by Fife Council on draft Structure Plan

V-1 April 2006

Strategic Development Allocation for 1700 new homes over 20 years in Structure Plan

Fife Council’s 2006-26 Structure Plan

? when 2007

Fife Council commission Urban Initiatives to prepare SDF

June 2008

Vision for development published Strategic Design Framework for Lochgelly published

4

June 2008

Scottish Government announce Scottish Sustainable Communities Initiative

Scottish Government (2008) Scottish Sustainable Communities Initiative

August 2008

Application for Scottish Awards for Quality in Planning

Scottish Government website

August 2008

Draft Local Plan published for consultation to October 2008

V0 May 2009

Lochgelly SDF accepted as exemplar project under SSCI

Urban Initiatives (June 2008) Fife Council, Lochgelly Strategic Design Framework finalised report

May 2009

Structure Plan signed off by Scottish Ministers, and Strategic Land Allocation finalised

Fife Council (2009) Fife Structure Plan 2006-2026, Written Statement

August 2009

£1.75m funding provided for business centre under Town centre regeneration scheme

Scottish Government

Sept 2009

Modifications to Local Plan Fife Council (2009) Mid Fife Local Plan Pre-Examination Modifications

Sept/Oct 2009

Lochgelly selected to participate in SSCI charrette series

Fife Council (2009) Report to Planning Committee, 1 October 2009

Dec 2009 Article re community engagement in Lochgelly

Alison Wood (2009) Lochgelly Strategic Land Allocation, Scottish Planner No. 132

March 2010

Charrettes held in Lochgelly, 8-13 March

SSCI Charrette Series

March 2010

Lochgellycharrettecase study published

Scottish Centre for Regeneration (2010) Case Study 103: Lochgelly Regeneration

June 2010

Outcome on consultation of modification to Local Plan published

Mid Fife Local Plan: pre-examination modifications, consultation outcome

V+1 Oct 2010 Charrette Series Report Scottish Government Scottish Sustainable Communities Initiative (2010) Charrette Series Report

Nov 2010 Lochgellycharrette short-term initiative business case presented to Fife Council

January 2011

Lochgelly Project Board formed to address short-term outcomes from charrette (end Nov 2011)

June 2011

Draft Lochgelly Supplementary Planning and Transport Guidance PTG published

August 2011

Mid Fife Local Plan Examination report published

V+2 Sept 2011

Finalised SPTG published

Jan 2012 Local Plan 2008-2021 Adopted

In 2008, the Scottish Government identified plans to transform Lochgelly into a sustainable

community under its Scottish Sustainable Community Initiative (SSCI) as one of its exemplar

projects. Along with 10 other projects across Scotland, the Lochgelly proposals were supported in

order to demonstrate how sustainable communities of the future can be delivered. This account

explores the envisioning process which led to such recognition and how since 2008 the vision to

transform the Fife town has been developed through the SSCI.

5

Prioritising Lochgelly’s regeneration (V-1)

In August 2003, the publication of the finalised Cowdenbeath Area Local Plan identified Lochgelly as

a priority regeneration area. This formalised a widely accepted view that the Fife town was

struggling to recover from the progressive closure of the mining industry which for over a century

had been the mainstay of the town’s economy. Despite several phases of support from national and

local government and its agencies to attract inward investment, the town continued to decline –

demographically with an associated aging population, socially with levels of deprivation, and

economically, with the town being rated as the most affordable place. With this recognition in the

planning system, opportunities for the local authority, Fife Council, to implement special measures

was possible, and this was reinforced when the Council published its draft Structure Plan in March

2005 and following the required public consultation its final 2006-26 Structure Plan a year later.

Alongside its larger neighbours in the Mid Fife area – Kirkcaldy (46,360), Glenrothes (38,720),

Level/Buckhaven/Methil area (24,510) and Cowdenbeath (11,360) – Lochgelly with 6,610 residents

was identified in the Structure Plan as offering opportunities for growth. It was granted one of the 7

Strategic Development Areas (SDAs) designations; large scale development projects with the aim of

increasing employment opportunities, reducing economic disparities and maximising wealth

creation. Priority under the Structure Plan was given to Lochgelly with the release of land for 1700

new houses and associated employment land being earmarked immediately to the north and south

of the town centre. With SDA designation came the expectation that a single, integrated masterplan

would be produced for the Lochgelly area, covering 15 hectares of land for business development

and the land allocated for 1700 new homes being phased over four 5 year time periods to 2026.

These allocations and the notion of SDAs were however modified in the subsequent discussion with

Scottish Ministers. The written statement published in May 2009 renamed the strategic intervention

as Strategic Land Allocations (SLA) reflecting more accurately the nature of support being provided

by the plan. The final Structure Plan also revised the nature of this SLA covered by the Fife town,

indicating:

“Lochgelly will be expanded to provide land fora minimum of 1,400 new houses and 25ha of

employment land for business and general industrial use to 2026. Further expansion will

follow post-2026.Development options will be linked to the public transport network and will

drive the regeneration of the town through improving the town centre, creating employment

opportunities, and enhancing the town’s identity. Additional housing arising from the 1,280

unit strategic allocation to the Dunfermline and West Fife HMA as set out in Proposals PH1

andPH3 may be assigned to Lochgelly following further assessment.” (p20)

This development was in 4 phases, with 100 new homes expected in the 2006-11 period and 450 in

each 5 year period thereafter with 5% being affordable housing. Associated with the housing-led

regeneration approach under SLA , there was expectation that strategic infrastructure would be

delivered – “For all allocations contributions to leisure and community facilities: mixed tenure and

size of housing, including affordable housing; public art; structural landscaping; and integrated open

space will be required.” For Lochgelly this included contributions from developers to the provision of

a new primary school and secondary school, as well as a requirement to provide strategic and local

transport network improvements, health care and community facilities, and employment land.

6

A connected, comfortable place (V0)

The allocation of land for strategic regeneration under the Structure Plan provided new impetus for

the Council and local officials. Within a year, having explored potential development options, the

Council commissioned Urban Initiatives to produce the Strategic Design Framework (SDF) for the

proposed development. As a statement of the vision for the development and for the resulting

shape and character of the town, the SDF was a central element of ensuring that partners involved

in taking forward the housing and employment development were working to a shared set of

objectives, and as a starting point the SFD also identifying sites around the time that met the

allocation and the vision.

Laying out the vision as “to form an integrated, compact, connected, adaptable and viable urban

settlement and business node in the Fife context, a centre of environmental sustainability with a

vibrant and viable town centre, well designed and comfortable spaces which meets the diverse local

needs of existing and emerging communities, within a well formed strategic living, landscape” (p10),

the Urban Initiatives report reinforced the desire to balance new growth within the Fife context with

an integrated development in the context of Lochgelly (see Working Paper 1a for more details).

Figure 1: The urban Initiatives strategic design framework plan for Lochgelly (Urban Initiatives)

7

Accepted by the Council in June 2008, the SDF quickly became a guiding document. For the Council it

represented the first time that they had outsourced production of a SDF and thus saw this as an

exemplar for future practice. Indeed, on that basis, the Council nominated the framework for

Scottish Awards in Planning for 2008, although unsuccessful in winning an award. Second, timing of

the SDF meant that is fitted well into the Local Plan process, with production of the Mid Fife Local

Plan scheduled for early 2009.

But by far the most significant contribution was the submission of the SDF to the Scottish

Government Scottish Sustainable Communities Initiative, launched in June 2008 with submissions to

be made by August that year. Fife Council chose to use the SDF in its entirety as one of its

submissions under this competition, achieving success as one of 11 exemplar projects supported

under the SCCI.

Several consequences arose from this in terms of the visionary process.

1. the SSCI provided an opportunity to take forward the SDF and vision outside of the normal

planning system, enabling it to advance more quickly than would have been the case if

placed into the Local Plan (published in 2009) capturing external support from organisations

to assist in design (A+DS, SUST: Sustainabiltiy in Architecture) and skills and expertise in

supporting delivery from Planning Aid in Scotland and SNH;

2. it reinforced the innovative and transformative dimensions of the plan, including the

learning that might be transferred to other projects as an exemplar and the support from

and involvement in the Scottish Centre for Regeneration’s Mixed & Sustainable Communities

Learning Network;

3. it positioned the vision within the SDF in a new context, one that moved notions of

environmental sustainability in the SDF into the setting of sustainable communities as a

whole; and

4. it gave Fife Council as lead partner confidence to invest in the plan and its implementation.

Capturing local visions, getting local responses (V+1)

The last point was quickly reinforced when the Council sought and was selected to be part of the

Charrette Series associated with the SSCI. Along with projects in Dumfries and Aberdeen, the

Lochgelly initiative took part in this experimental and innovative opportunity to develop new

approaches to planning.

Funded by the Scottish Government, the charrette was envisaged to be “an interactive and intensive

multi-disciplinary event that engages local people with experts to develop designs for their

community. It is a hands-on approach where ideas are translated into plans and drawings”. Led by

the renowned architect Andres Duany, of DuanyPlater-Zyberk& Company (DPZ), the event involved a

series of design workshops within Lochgelly bringing together local people and organisations as well

as staff from the Council, developers, landowners and key agencies.

The process was advertised widely across the community as an opportunity to come along and voice

ideas, views and concerns about how Lochgelly will change over the next 20 years. As background,

the Head of Development Services in the Council and DPZ prepared a briefing documents for

8

residents, outlining the Strategic Land Allocations, initial sites selected under the SDF, and

information on the purpose and format of the charrettes.

The charrette leaflet set out a vision in the following terms:

‘The vision is that the new development will form a natural extension

to the existing town and will help to support the town centre by

providing good connections and easy access. This will provide a range

of housing options so that people can choose to remain living and

working in Lochgelly through different stages of their lives. Lochgelly

should ultimately provide an example of a sustainable community,

developed through a clear vision and implemented by both the public

and private sectors, with extensive public consultation.’

Engagement in the Lochgelly charrette covered six days from 8 to 13 March 2010. The intensive

programme was shaped around a set of themed workshops (Table 1) facilitated by the design

consultants, with public lectures, smaller gatherings and design studio opening providing

opportunities to discuss community vision and goals. According to the Scottish Government report

(2010) on the Charrette Series, approximately 150 people attended the opening lecture and review,

with 200 attending the closing lecture with over 800 participants involved over the sex days.

Table 2 - Programme of charrette themed workshops

Morning Afternoon Evening

Monday 8 March Opening lecture

Tuesday 9 March Developers & landowners

Landscape & sustainability

Wednesday 10 March Transport Town centre

Thursday 11 March Pin up and review

Friday 12 March Community & education

Saturday 13 March Closing lecture

At its completion, the DPZ team along with partners produced a summary for the Scottish

Government on the outcomes and process. The focus of the consultation and interactive design was

split into three elements – designing the new development sites, town centre integrity and finally

2066 visions for the town. The process was set within the context of the SDF. Thus for example the

design of the development sites under SLA focussed on the designated site selections, although

discussions were held to confirm the ‘natural’ boundaries of expansion. Similarly, the need for a new

health centre and primary school were discussed in terms of location.

The report set out a revised vision for Lochgelly in the form of a masterplan for 2066 and phases

from the original Structure Plan end date of 2026. It also captured ideas on design for specific areas

9

of the town (eg Figure 2 for the southern town expansion), for specific new facilities and for key

elements of the town centre that would promote integration.

Figure 2 – Designing the layout of southern town expansion, Lochgelly (DPZ)

The post-Charrette Report from the team (Scottish Government, 2010) offered an illustrative

masterplan, building on the SDF and incorporating the views of participants. Proposals for the

residential development on the edge of the town, regeneration of the town centre, and greater

integration of existing public spaces (Miner’s and Market Squares, Farmers’ Market Hall, Health

Centre, Lochgelly Centre and Primary School) were presented as part of a refined vision of phased

development. The plan also envisaged upgrading of housing (rather than demolition and

replacement) and redesign of housing estates were proposed to raise the quality of environment

within existing residential areas.

Beyond piloting an approach to community engagement, the charrette had the potential to offer

some significant aspects to the envisioning process associated with the Strategic Design Framework

and for wider the ownership of the vision beyond the Council and consultants involved in earlier

stages (to V0).

However, the experience and contribution of the charrettes is less clear and certain. First, as the

entry point for discussion, the option of starting from scratch (ie working from the current realities in

the town) was not used at the basis of the charrette. Instead the Council’s existing vision and

10

proposals for the future contained within the SFD formed the basis for information in advance of the

charrette workshops, were the context of the consultants’ role, and were the starting point of public

involvement. This created some resentment locally and was the subject of criticism during the

consultation process.

Consequently, opportunities for discussion in some wider elements of the vision (eg growth through

residential-led development and the need therefore for more housing) and specific aspects (eg the

number of houses, the selection of sites) were already foreclosed. As the consultants acknowledge

in their summary report for Scottish Government (2010), the focus of the design sessions were on

the SLA areas, on the town centre and on linkages.

Secondly, the steering role of the council, Scottish Government and the delivery team from DPZ all

shaped the discussions. As the Charrette report (2010) notes, Council staff played “leading roles …

clarifying and advising on development policy”, Scottish Government participants were ‘contributing

to the design process and providing further expertise on current Scottish planning policy’ and DPZ

consultants framed the discussion within sustainable design and New Urbanist agendas. In the

workshops and discussion sessions, local community members and organisers were not encouraged

to set out alternative agendas or approaches, but to assist in working towards predetermined

objectives.

Thirdly, the timing of workshops had a bearing on participation, with the morning and afternoon

events advantaging professionals and limiting community engagement, and thus contributions in key

areas of community facilities were restricted to general sessions in the evening.

Nevertheless as a process in taking forward the vision for Lochgelly articulated in the SDF and SSCI

submissions, the charrette process offered additional insights in a way which neither the Council or

community would have undertaken through traditional planning based consultative mechanisms.

Specific ideas were generated which modified or clarified the SDF, including more effective way to

enhance use of public and community facilities (eg the addition of parking spaces close to Lochgelly

Centre) or supporting plans for regeneration (eg the upgrade of building frontages to support the

use of Miner’s Square). Detail was added in areas such as architectural design concepts through the

process which suggested alternative ways of improving residential experiences through upgrading

existing housing frontages with less investment than would be needed for demolition and

replacement.

Giving permission to develop (V+2)

The outcomes from the charrette were discussed at the workshop held with members of

Cowdenbeath Area Committee and Council services and reported to the Planning Committee in June

2010. These were articulated in terms of the relationship between the charrette conclusions and the

preparation of the Mid Fife Local Plan which was due for publication in 2011. This relationship was

expressed in terms of those outcomes from the charrettewhich were compatible with the emerging

Mid Fife Local Plan policies and proposals and those that would suggest a change in direction (Table

3).

11

Table 3 :Charrette outcomes and the Mid Fife Local Plan

Outcomes compatible with Plan Possible change in direction

Focusing major development at public transport interchanges

Increase the development allocation to the north of Lochgelly

Promoting mixed use development Extension of the north eastern development allocation further into the pipeline consultation zone

Identifying opportunities for improvements to public transportinfrastructure

Extension of the employment land at New Farm further east

Providing for a pattern of development that reduces unnecessary traveland supports a more sustainable travel options including walking andcycling

Identification of Lochgelly Golf Course for new development to 2026

Providing for a range of densities appropriate to the scale and locationof the site, and increasing the number of units per hectare, particularlywhere the development sites are close to town centres and transportinterchanges

The link road running through open space from the Avenue Industrial Estate to Union Street

The promotion of a good quality built environment and the raising of design standards

The development of a substantial centre around the rail station that would include offices, shops, public spaces, car parking and a new railstation as well as residential development

Enhancement of Lochgelly’s identity

Support for and regeneration of Lochgelly Town Centre

Town centre proposals

The development of small neighbourhood centres

Development proposals located within the Strategic Land

Source: Fife Planning Committee (2010)

Recognising the significant investment in time and input from the local community, but that due to

statutory restrictions the charrette report could not be considered as part of the Local Plan

examination, the Planning Committee was asked to consider preparing Supplementary Planning

Guidance on the basis of the charrette. This would coincide with the adoption of the Mid Fife Local

Plan and allow the timescale to be extended beyond that of the Local Plan to cover the 60 year

vision from the charrette.

Fife Council undertook work to this effect throughout late 2010 and early 2011 and published

Supplementary Planning and Transportation Guidance (SPTG) in September 2011, after additional

consultation with developers and landowners regarding each of the five growth areas in/around

Lochgelly. This also incorporated other changes too – including the expansion of the housing

development to 1750 (from 1450) in the Mid Fife Local Plan announced in advance of the charrette.

12

The SPTG set out a fresh articulation of the vision for the town:

‘Lochgelly will be a place where people chose to live, work and invest. New development will

be well-connected to existing neighbourhoods and the town centre. The town centre will be

supported to become the vibrant heart of a strong and confident community. New

neighbourhoods will be designed to enhance local identity and to become an exemplar in local

design quality and sustainability. (SPTG, p. 5)

Associated with this, the SPTG provided development principles for each of the strategic land

allocations and indicated that masterplans for each of the 5 growth areas had to be produced.

Drawing on the charrette process and report, the development principles emphasise connectivity to

the town centre, frontages, and green spaces

Figure 3 – The vision for Lochgelly’s new developments (SPTG, 2011, p.5)

Since publication of this, and adoption in January 2012 of the Mid Fife Local Plan, development of

the sites has been limited. The economic downturn in the housing market regionally (and globally)

has discouraged developers so far from producing masterplans for these developments. New

housing has been built but this has been restricted to already allocated land and the continued

pressure on the housing market has causes problems for developers. The 13 new 2 and 3 bed

terraced homes at Hugh Place have been made available by Fife Housing Association, for rent or

shared equity. The New Farm Vale housing development on the east side of Lochgelly by Lomond

13

Homes has been more problematic. The detached homes have sold well, but the developer went

into administration in early 2013 having failed to pay contributions under Section 75 to cover costs

of community facilities for the Lochgelly development and elsewhere. Works on public spaces,

including roads and pavements, remains uncompleted. In such challenging economic conditions, to

date no developer has produced masterplans for the SLA growth areas.

Key stages in developing a vision for Lochgelly

The development of a vision of Lochgelly as a sustainable community is only a very small part in the

overall story of Lochgelly, but the documentary evidence discussed above, suggests that the

following stages were particularly significant:

Table 4 – Key stages in developing a sustainable community vision for Lochgelly

Time line Action

V-1 April 2006

Strategic Development Allocation for 1700 new homes over 20 years in Structure Plan

V0 May 2009

Lochgelly SDF accepted as exemplar project under SSCI

V+1 Oct 2010 Charrette Series Report

V+2 Sept 2011

Finalised SPTG published

Comparing statements from key stages of vision development reveals little substantive change from

Structure Plan in 2006, through that articulated in the Strategic Design Framework in 2008, to the

Supplementary Planning and Transportation Guidance in 2011.

Figure 4 – Comparison across stages in vision development

Structure Plan, 2006 Strategic Design Framework, 2008

Supplementary Planning &Transportation Guidance, 2011

Lochgelly will be expanded to provide land for a minimum of 1,400 new houses and 25ha of employment land for business and general industrial use to 2026. Further expansion will follow post-2026.Development options will be linked to the public transport network and will drive the regeneration of the town through improving the town centre, creating employment opportunities, and enhancing the town’s identity.

to form an integrated, compact, connected, adaptable and viable urban settlement and business node in the Fife context, a centre of environmental sustainability with a vibrant and viable town centre, well designed and comfortable spaces which meets the diverse local needs of existing and emerging communities, within a well formed strategic living, landscape

Lochgelly will be a place where people chose to live, work and invest. New development will be well-connected to existing neighbourhoods and the town centre. The town centre will be supported to become the vibrant heart of a strong and confident community. New neighbourhoods will be designed to enhance local identity and to become an exemplar in local design quality and sustainability

14

In articulating its vision for the future, those involved with (re-)developing Lochgelly make little

mention of sustainable communities. Despite being an exemplar project under the Scottish

Sustainable Communities Initiative, the Lochgelly case study offers little direct insight into what the

stakeholders believe a sustainable community might look like. The focus is on how through

residential growth and economic renewal the town can reposition itself both within Fife and in the

regional setting of the east of Scotland. Nonetheless, there has been considerable stability in the

fundamental elements of the vision presented - a residential-led development, connected to the

existing town, enhancing the town’s identity.

Leadership and Resources

Accounts of a shift to new forms of urban governance have emphasised the changing roles and

expectations of local councils (Kearns and Paddison, 2000; Blakeley, 2010) with more emphasis

sharing responsibilities with other sectors and partners for delivery of services and for the planning

and mobilising citizen participation (Rose, 1999; Barnett, 2002). As Roseland (2012) indicates this

shift to network building and horizontal relationships between local citizens, business, voluntary

organisations and government is often seen as a progressive development towards building

sustainable communities. But it has also brought challenges for those working for councils, new

ways of working, new skills, and new roles – including partnership working and visioning (Hockey et

al, 2010; Sayce and Farren-Bradley, 2011).

This case study illustrates, even in this context of new governance practices, the pivotal role a local

council can have in shaping and guiding the visions of community renewal. Throughout the

transformative initiative Fife Council has been a dominant and steering force, using the instruments

of government to articulate the vision and forms of governance to include consultation from

stakeholders. Whereas in other case studies where the documentation associated with the planning

system was used by communities and partners to express their vision – for example in the

development of the Dunelands ecovillage extension (Working Paper 3b) – the Council used the

planning process here to shape the vision.

Equally, in many regeneration initiatives and indeed the experience of other sustainable community

project, the injection of external resources has been a critical element in advancing progress.

Depleted social and economic capital within communities, and insufficient skills and knowledge to

advance renewal projects require new resources to be captured (Roberts, 2009). In contrast in

Lochgelly the trigger has been the release of existing resources. The decision by Fife Council to

release land under the Strategic Land Allocation scheme has both enabled and shaped the process of

reshaping Lochgelly into a more sustainable community. This release of land for development and

the associated repositioning of Lochgelly as a residential centre (for Fife and potentially Edinburgh)

has enabled a re-imagining of the future of the town. It has placed more emphasis on the area’s

quality of life dimensions and in particular on strengthening the advantages of existing town centre

resources and opportunities. The charrette discussions reinforced the value of existing facilities and

the opportunities of enhancing these towards attracting new residents and meeting the vision of a

desirable place to live. Although external investment will be required to meet some of the

objectives, especially in relation to economic and employment growth, a focus on community

growth through new attracting new residents has encouraged new impetus on utilising existing

resources within the town.

15

The advantage of a strong lead from Fife Council has been noted above, but associated with this has

been less opportunity for the local community to be included except by reacting to proposals from

the Council through the planning process – in consultation over the structure plan and local plans.

The decision to utilise the Strategic Design Framework as the submission to the SSCI meant that

possible opportunities to consult on this were foregone. In this context therefore, the charrette held

in 2010 was a key element of the consultative envisioning process, opening up the process to local

residents and stakeholders for the first time outside of the planning system with the potential to

influence the vision and design of the proposed development. As a participatory method for

engaging local citizens and stakeholders, the charrette has become a signatory feature of New

Urbanism and Duany (MacLeod, 2013). It has however also been subjected to critique over the

potential manipulatory role of the facilitator and its ability to be inclusive (Bond and Thompson-

Fawcett, 2007) and whether as an approach it can work effectively where many divergent and

conflicting views exist (Sarkissian et al, 1997).

Such criticism could also be directed at the Lochgelly experience. First, the asymmetric power

relations in shaping the process were sharply revealed when the terms of reference of the charrette

were laid out - to explore the opportunities associated with the proposed development areas –

giving no opportunity to discuss either the rationale of residential led development or the selection

of areas, both of which had been decided by the Council through earlier stages of the envisioning (V-

1 and V0). Consequently influential local leaders and organisations felt disillusioned – “The charette

was sold as a public consultation giving the people a chance to put forward their ideas, but it was

just an opportunity for Fife Council to tick the consultation box and rubber stamp all the plans they

had before. 90% of the plans that were drawn up at the beginning of the regeneration process are

still the plans being worked on today – nothing has changed in those plans. They’ve tweaked them a

little bit.” (James Glen, spokesperson for Loch of Shining Water voluntary organisation quoted in

Urban Realm, 2011).

Further, the decision to explore visions over a 60 year period rather than 20 years within the

charrette was taken by Duany and his team and bore no relation to the time frames set out by the

Council. Whilst the logic of this has been acknowledged (a 20 year time period was not sufficient to

design a town expansion) by Fife Council in the Scottish Government (2010) report, it illustrates how

the process was reshaped by those leading.

Second, as noted in the discussion above, although 800 people attended, the timing of events

potentially excluded groups in the community from the process. The intention of the charrette to

widen engagement therefore was not fully realised. A comparable number of responses had been

received for example to the draft Local Plan for Mid Fife in August-October 2008, although this

covered a wider geographical area.

Third, the process by which the charrette outputs were translated into plans and design ideas was

based on consensus, with no indication being provided of conflicting views except with the

presentation of three options for the redevelopment of Miners’ Square (but here too it is not

evidence if this reflected contrasting and divergent views from participants or those of the design

team).

16

Stability of vision

As indicated at the start of the paper, managerial accounts of visions emphasise the need for

stability and clarity to functions in terms of providing direction and guidance, and in the process of

generating shared ownership. This analysis suggests that the Lochgelly vision has indeed been stable,

largely unmodified through the various envisioning stages and articulations. This has reflected

strong leadership from Fife Council, steering the visions through planning. Critically however, the

charrette did not fundamentally challenge the vision, and indeed could be portrayed as almost

stands outside the developmental process of a vision for Lochgelly. As a result, this raises questions

about shared ownership and inclusiveness’ a position that will be tested in the next few years as

housing developers propose specific plans on the allocated land. On the other hand, the strong steer

by the Council has carried with it the benefit of focusing local (Fife) resources on the regeneration of

Lochgelly, and becoming an SSCI exemplar undoubtedly lent additional legitimacy to the Council’s

plans and provided access to limited financial support and additional skills and resources, building a

platform for the next stage in the Fife’s town’s process of renewal.

References

Barnett, N (2002) Including ourselves: New Labour and engagement with public services,

Management Decision, 40 (4), 310-17

Blakeley, G (2010) Governing ourselves: citizen participation and governance in Barcelona and

Manchester, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34 (1), 130-45

Bond, S and Thompson-Fawcett, M (2007) Public participation and New Urbanism: a conflicting

agenda? Planning Theory & Practice, 8 (4), 449-72

Flint, R (2013) Practice of Sustainable Community Development: a participatory framework for

change, Springer

Hockey, A, Jimenez-Bescos, C, Maclean, J and Spaul, M. (2010) Generic skills for sustainable

communities: design principles for a learning support environment, Town Planning Review, 81 (5),

523-40

Hodgkinson, M (2002) A share strategic vision: dream or reality?, Learning Organization, 9 (2), 89-95

Kantabutra, S and Avery, G (2010) The power of vision: statements that resonate, Journal of Business

Strategy, 31 (1), 37-45

Kearns, G and Paddison, R (2000) New challenges for urban governance, Urban Studies, 37 (5-6),

845-50

17

MacLeod, G (2013) New Urbanism/Smart Growth in the Scottish Highlands: mobile policies and post-

politics in local development planning, Urban Studies, 1-26 (accessed online 10-17-13 at

http://usj.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/06/19/0042098013491164.full.pdf+html )

Rafferty, A and Griffin, M (2004) Dimensions of transformational leadership: conceptual and

empirical extensions, The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 329-54

Roberts, P (2009) Making places: transforming skills through national action, Town and Country

Planning, 78, 339-40

Rose, N (1999) Powers of freedom: reframing political thought, Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge

Roseland, M (2012) Toward sustainable communities: solutions for citizens and their governments,

New Society, Gabriola Island BC.

Sarkissian, W, Cook, A and Walsh, K (1997) Community participation in practice: a practical guide,

Murdoch, Western Australian Institute for Science and Technology

Sayce, S and Farren-Bradley, J (2011) Education built environment professionals for stakeholder

engagement, in Rogerson R et al (eds) Sustainable communities: skills and knowledge for place-

making, University of Hertfordshire Press, Hertford, p23-35

Sources

Fife Council (2011) Lochgelly: supplementary planning and transport guidance, Draft, June

Fife Council Planning Committee (2010) Lochgelly Charrette Workshop for Cowdenbeath Council

Services, Appendix F, Report, June 29 2010

Urban Realm (2011) Charette charade?, November (accessed 10-7-13 at

http://www.urbanrealm.com/features/334/Charette_charade%3F.html )

This paper is part of a series of Working Papers that explore four case studies and key issues of

envisioning resilient and sustainable communities. Other papers in this series are:

Research Context Paper: (Re-) Visions of Resilient and Sustainable Communities

Case

Study Locality Working Papers Series

1 Lochgelly WP1a – Scotland’s Sustainable Communities Initiative Exemplar

WP1b - Envisioning a Connected and Comfortable Community

WP5 – Imagining future places: comparing visions from the case studies

WP6 - Creating sustainable communities: comparing local and generic visions

WP7 - Envisioning sustainable communities: ‘we’ll know it when we see it’

2 Scotland’s Housing Expo

WP2a – Scotland’s Housing Expo

WP2b - Constructing Visions of the Future for Scotland’s Housing

3 Duneland WP3a – Ecovillage expansion

WP3b - Envisioning ecovillage development

4 Gartcosh WP4a – Planning Urban Growth

WP4b - Slotting Urban Growth into the Landscape

The full set of working papers can be found at www.resilientcommunities.weebly.com

We welcome feedback and comments on these papers and the academic articles which are being

published from this study. We would in particular welcome additional insights from members of

these communities or others involved with the generation of a vision of what a sustainable

community might look like for them.

Please send comments to r.j.rogerson@strath.ac.uk