Here is a summarised, detailed overview of the interviews with each interviewee: Peter Cockbait and Sheila Spencer.
\n________________________________________________<\/p>\n
Interview with Peter 25.10.17\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/span> Who are they:<\/b> Key problems:<\/b> Methodology:<\/b> Evaluation and results:<\/b> 3 wishes:<\/b> Brainstorming of ideas\u00a0in regards to\u00a0opportunities using digital platforms? _____________________________________<\/p>\n Interview with\u00a0Sheila Spencer\u00a026.10.17\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/span> Who<\/b>:<\/b> Other changes:<\/b> Complicated process:<\/b> Key problems<\/b> Relation and communication between developer and community:<\/b> 3 wishes:<\/b> __________________________________ Reflection log 26th Oct Here is a summarised, detailed overview of the interviews with each interviewee: Peter Cockbait and Sheila Spencer. ________________________________________________ Interview with Peter 25.10.17\u00a0\u00a0 After introducing ourselves and briefing about the project we asked them to sign consent forms to allow us to record them. Attendance: Cindy, Thomas, Rory Who are they: Peter\u00a0Cockbain\u00a0and … Continue reading 3.1) TRECC Interviews with stakeholders: Outcome<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7027,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[42,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-933","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-team-trecc-1718","category-uncategorised"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/digicivics-at-apl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/933","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/digicivics-at-apl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/digicivics-at-apl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/digicivics-at-apl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7027"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/digicivics-at-apl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=933"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/digicivics-at-apl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/933\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1008,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/digicivics-at-apl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/933\/revisions\/1008"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/digicivics-at-apl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=933"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/digicivics-at-apl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=933"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/digicivics-at-apl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=933"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nAfter introducing ourselves and briefing about the project we asked them to sign consent forms to allow us to record them.
\nAttendance: Cindy, Thomas, Rory<\/p>\n
\nPeter\u00a0Cockbain\u00a0and Heather Docherty both work in the fairer housing\u00a0unit in the Newcastle city council.\u00a0They work on turning council-owned land to delivered housing. The council works closely with the developers when it comes to planning and public engagement.\u00a0There is a large focus on\u00a0accessibility\u00a0and the residents well beings. They also pay a lot of attention to special minority groups.<\/p>\n
\n–Peoples mindsets<\/b><\/em>, they are often negative and have little or no belief that they can influence or make a difference in the planning process.
\n–Reach<\/em>:\u00a0<\/b>They find it hard to reach out to the poorer neighbourhoods (Language and literacy issues),\u00a0as well as students.\u00a0Older\u00a0generations and families tend to get more involved. With many groups,\u00a0they\u00a0mistrust towards the local authorities\u00a0and feel like they are almost working against them.
\n–Lack of\u00a0<\/b>common ground<\/b><\/em>\u00a0for the public to express their views and opinions.<\/p>\n
\n-They try different methods ranging from\u00a0questionnaires, surveys,\u00a0interactive\u00a0posters, joint\u00a0consultation\u00a0events. Sometimes they\u00a0combine\u00a0these methods with bigger events as opportunities to promote and engage.<\/p>\n
\n-The participation levels vary according to the issues.
\n-The results are\u00a0not<\/b>\u00a0representative\u00a0<\/b>of the community\u00a0as a whole as\u00a0there are often small vocal minority groups that speak up and create an intimidating atmosphere for participation.\u00a0-The Relationship between planners and public:
\nIt depends on the planner, their experiences and how they communicate (tone, language).\u00a0-The council tends to work alongside with developers.\u00a0There is social value to high engagement,\u00a0it’s\u00a0important to make sure that there is a common interest to help the community amongst the local authority, planners and developer.<\/p>\n
\n-happy residents, living in good quality housing who feel like they are heard.
\n-positive perception (no assumptions) where they are comfortable with the process.
\n-better communication, promotion.<\/p>\n
\n-anonymous participation. A technical platform can provide consultation opportunities at low costs.
\n-language barriers. Social media and tablets?<\/p>\n
\nAfter introducing ourselves and briefing\u00a0about the project we asked her to sign a consent form to allow us to record her.
\nNote: Sheila has worked in the organisation for a while and can comment on the changes over the years if any.
\nAttendance: Cindy, Thomas.<\/p>\n
\nSheila Spencer has worked in the\u00a0independent organisation, Ouseburn\u00a0valley Trust,\u00a0as a\u00a0trustee\u00a0for\u00a0over 20 years\u00a0and\u00a0involved with community participation in the planning and projects in the area.
\nExperience with public engagement:<\/b>
\n-Engagement levels\u00a0vary\u00a0as it depends on the projects and how it affects people.
\n-The perspective is still quite cynical amongst the communities.
\n-The way the organisation involves people has not changed drastically, but it has gotten harder\u00a0to get information<\/b>, as the council is possibly\u00a0more hard\u00a0pressed (little people). It is hard to get the information and find it.
\n-it is also\u00a0not representative<\/b>\u00a0as mailing list goes to many people outside the area. People who use the area are usually quite passionate and engaged with the projects.<\/p>\n
\nMany new accommodations of different groups of people. Those of higher socio-economic status are often more involved than the poorer\u00a0neighbourhoods\u00a0and new students.
\nstudents are not as invested as many don\u2019t stay long-term, and disadvantaged and homeless groups do not trust the authorities.<\/p>\n
\n-The developers\u00a0have to\u00a0consult multiple times with the public, it is often\u00a0unclear<\/b>\u00a0when
\nthings get approved and\u00a0informing<\/b>\u00a0people about it.<\/p>\n
\n–Reach:<\/em>\u00a0<\/b>Promotion, informing and communication methods are not very efficient, mailing lists are not efficient as many don\u2019t check.\u00a0(Facebook\u00a0works to some extent)
\n–<\/b>Hard to attrac<\/em>t\u00a0<\/b>people to meetings (depends on the issues)
\n–Poor communication<\/b><\/em>\u00a0between planners and community in terms of planning process, important information and updates.<\/p>\n
\n–<\/b>Developers\u00a0have different\u00a0agendas<\/b>\u00a0and often mispresent things as they use CAD models instead of realistic photos. There is mistrust.
\n-Their language is misleading (like promising jobs, which are\u00a0actually just\u00a0temporary)
\n-Uncertainty, hard to see the actual changes, and many \u201cinvisible\u201d amendments to plans.
\n-Method of engagement from\u00a0developers\u00a0side is sometimes successful such as using community events, stalls to increase participation, or using a facility and inviting people.
\n\u00a0Limitations<\/strong> to\u00a0developers\u00a0methods to engage the public:
\n-Developers tend to develop the questionaries\u2019 with can use misleading or confusing language. It ends up supporting their views (motives).<\/p>\n
\n-Would like to see developers increase their reach and circulate to more people in more ways.\u00a0Better promotion to reach people using clear (non-formal, legal) language and increased visibility (bigger posters).
\n–<\/b>Developers setting up events.\u00a0Ideal:\u00a0independent facilitators to engage people (reduce bias)<\/b>
\n-More\u00a0approachable and accessible\u00a0<\/b>material from\u00a0planner:\u00a0Improved\u00a0design,\u00a0layout\u00a0and graphics of planning sites so that documents become easier to navigate. They also want to be better informed and\u00a0updated<\/b>\u00a0about the most recent changes, amendments. (be\u00a0more clear\u00a0in the 2nd\u00a0round of planning).<\/p>\n
\nIn both interviews, we experienced similarities in the responses regarding the engagement and that both stakeholders shared the key problem of reach, and increasing the engagement of the public. They both expressed the difficulty in changing the perception of the community.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"