Brown, s (2011) practice practice practice what can architects learn from social enterprise by Sam Brown

? ?

Practice / Practice. Practice? What can architectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s learn from social enterprise?

An exploration of a new model of practice in the context of Localism in the UK Sam Brown 100235416

0.0

PROLOGUE

e began work on the bunkhouse when we arrived at the Wood; roping in other staff members as and when we could, such as when we needed a digger driving or the sawmill operating. We slowly began to integrate with the other members of staff who, as far as we could tell, had no real idea as to who we were or why we were in their woodland. There was little budget available for the build, save for things we couldn’t legally do ourselves, such as the installation of electrical services. We began to reuse materials left over from other building projects; the usual over-ordered material contingencies and products of mistaken Bills of Quantity. Anything we could make out of timber, we did; making full use of the supply of timber thinnings from forestry and woodland management operations; we took durable Douglas Fir and Larch for cladding and shingles, and Scots Pine and Western Hemlock for furniture and interior finishes. We burned the off-cuts in a salvaged wood-burner to stay warm. Surplus insulation was squashed between studs made from cutdown, structural pine decking, whilst doors and windows came from a local contractor refurbishing a nearby school – reusable so long as you didn’t mind the dents and scratches. Over a few months of making-doand-mending, we became more skilled with our hands, doing everything ourselves, from block-laying and concrete-mixing to site carpentry, roofing and plastering. So began the adventure at Hill Holt Wood.”

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 0.0

iii

and perspective as required…and to Steve Hillary4 - without whose guidance I would not have had a roof over my head; and without that, nothing to write about.

Thanks are due to my supervisor, Cristina Cerulli, for encouraging me to think beyond the scope of this dissertation and imagine the possibilities afforded by research in this way; to all the staff at Hill Holt Wood1; to Nigel and Karen Lowthrop2, for creating the conditions under which this adventure could take place, and for opening my eyes to the world of social enterprise; to Tom Morgan3, for helping me see the winter through. And for supplying appropriate quantities of tea, biscuits

0.0

CONTENTS

ii iii iv

0.0 PROLOGUE 0.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 0.0 CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0

HILL HOLT WOOD

3.0

SOCIAL ENTERPRISE AND THE CIVIC ECONOMY

4.0

GREAT EXPECTATIONS - LOCALISM IN THE UK

5.0

SO WHY SOCIAL ENTERPRISE FOR ARCHITECTS?

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

7.0 CONCLUSION

8.0

BIBLIOGRAPHY & IMAGES

9.0

APPENDICIES

1.0

1.1

INTRODUCTION

Setting the scene

o what is Hill Holt Wood? How did I end up there, and why am I using my MArch dissertation to reflect upon my experience? What, even, do I mean by ‘my experience’? I have ended up telling this story in nearly every new social situation I have found myself in since returning from the woods. My time there has strongly influenced both my architectural interests and the way in which I see the world; an ontology that, although I do not touch on it explicitly here in this text, is aided by a reading of Richard Sennett’s work on craftsmanship (Sennett 2008). Whilst I would hesitate at using the term ‘epiphany’, I would certainly describe the experience as ‘life-changing’.

UNDERGRADUATE DISSERTATION The Possibility of Craft (Brown, 2009), exploring the opportunities offered to the architect by advances in digital fabriation technology, and speculating about the emergence of new ways of working as a designer with direct control over the final object of their work.

GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS The financial crisis commonly believed to have begun in July 2007 (and often called the Credit Crunch or the Global Financial Crisis) is considered by many economists to be the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. It resulted in the collapse of large financial institutions, the bailout of banks by national governments, and downturns in stock markets around the world (Behravesh et al. 2009).

Additionally, in nearly every media story I hear relating to the ‘Big Society’, I can draw parallels to things I witnessed or participated in during the 393 days I spent living at Hill Holt Wood. The model of architectural practice we eventually engaged with is one I hope to make both known and replicable. I offer it up as part of a continuing exploration into the craft of practicing architecture, with both technical and social dimensions, which seems as appropriate as ever given the rapidly changing context of practice into which my contemporaries and I look set to graduate.

1.2

So why ask the question?

At the time of writing, the debate surrounding ‘localism’ and the wider political agenda of the Big Society in the United Kingdom is moving from a discussion of its feasibility and ideological merit to serious contemplation of its implications and pragmatic application. It is generally accepted that in the wake of the global financial crisis of 2007, there is real possibility that no ‘boom’ will follow this particular ‘bust’. Many commentators anticipate that a ‘new economics’ will shape the UK economy in the decades to come; one that places greater emphasis on the civic economy in response to a scarcity of resources. Simply put, going back to ‘business as usual’ is not a sensible or sustainable way to use time, money or human endeavour (Dobson 2011). ‘Localism’ is happening; so what are we going to do with it? As part of this evolving discourse there is an increasing level of attention being paid to the emergence of social enterprise as a powerful global concept describing those businesses with primarily social objectives, whose surpluses are principally reinvested for that purpose in businesses or in the community, rather than being driven by the need to maximise profit for shareholders and owners (Paton & Spear 2010, p.26; Social Enterprise Journal 2011). My ‘experience’ - as a student of architecture graduating from my undergraduate

degree in 2009 - was in part prompted by the financial crisis and the associated firsthand experience of how economic recession in the UK can constrict the prosperity of the construction industry, and by derivation, the prosperity of architectural profession. Finding it almost impossible to gain the necessary employment required for entry to postgraduate training, I engaged in a joint venture with two colleagues and an existing business with the aim of filling the void. That business was a Social Enterprise by the name of Hill Holt Wood, and together we explored the potential of offering architectural services under the specific expression of social enterprise as a business model. Two of the three of us were able to fulfil the requirements of the Royal Institute of British Architects’ (RIBA) Professional Education and Development Record (PEDR) for Part 1, which constitutes the necessary evidence required for progression to Part 2. The service we helped to establish is now in its third year of operation, continuing to employ Part 1 students and - whilst providing architectural services to the community - support those students in gaining the professional experience required in order to continue their training. In all, the experience seemed to be richer and ‘rawer’ than that gained by the majority of my contemporaries. As localism emerges as an ideology, it is time to think about how architects can engage with the civic economy to effect progressive social, environmental and economic change.

1.3

Research objectives

The research objective of this dissertation is to engage in a period of critical reflection on the potential of and opportunities offered by social enterprise for the professional practice of architecture, with the aim of making recommendations for both the specific social enterprise involved and wider architectural practice in general. Although the exploration of architecture as social enterprise was initially implicit we simply did what we needed to do in order to fulfil our initial objective of gaining experience - the success of the venture has led all parties to take it seriously as a concept. As the context of localism moves from ideological campaign to pragmatic reality, both parties may benefit from careful consideration of how to engage with the forces that will affect the economy - and therefore their individual and collective prosperity - in the years to come.

1.4

Research questions

I believe in the power of good design to support positive social, environmental and economic change, and therefore believe it is possible for architects to add value to the civic economy. In asking what the architectural profession can learn from social enterprise, I am seeking to make recommendations as to how the profession

PEDR is the on-line professional experience record for architectural students on the year out and post ‘Part 2’ working towards their Examination in Professional Practice and Management (Part 3). The PEDR has been written by the RIBA ‘to help architectural students record their professional experience and development in the workplace as part of their minimum seven years education and training leading to qualification as an architect’ (RIBA 2011a). The PEDR is supposed to ensure that students gain experience relevant to the professional practice of architecture, and as such is organised so as to mimic the work stages set out in the RIBA Plan of Work. These work-stages typically run from Stage A (Appriasal) and proceed alphabetically to Stage L (Post Practical Completion), covering distinct areas of service against which a fee can be allocated.

might best engage with the opportunities offered by localism as both ideology and legislation. I am seeking the answer to two key questions; First of all, in a context of rapid political, economic and social change, how might architects best apply the skills they have gained in education and experience of architectural practice? What might be the most appropriate form for my own future practice to take, and what might I need to learn in order to apply myself to it? Secondly, how might my experience of social enterprise as a particular model of practice best inform the development of that practice, as an agent of progressive change in the community?

1.5

Methodology

In engaging with a critical reflection of on-going practice, I am adopting an action research methodology, as outlined by McNiff & Whitehead (2002). Whilst action research does not require a rigidly defined sequence of methods, it can be characterised by the following: - We review our current practice and identify an aspect we want to improve; - We imagine a way forward, try it out and take stock of what happens; -

We modify our plan in the light of what we have found and continue with the ‘action’;

We evaluate the modified action;

...and so on until we are satisfied with that aspect of our work. (McNiff & Whitehead 2002, p.20)

This dissertation therefore forms part of a cycle of on-going action research into both my own practice as an architect, and the practice of architecture as social enterprise. Treating practice, of any kind, as research in this way can ensure that as practitioners we are participating in the “living out of values” (Whitehead 1985, p.97).

The literature surrounding social enterprise, the civic economy, and especially localism, is especially young and relatively unestablished. Key terms are often used interchangeably, within imprecisely defined theoretical arenas; particularly in observational accounts ‘from the field’. As such, maintaining rigour in this study has proved a difficult task; many sources are necessarily from magazine or journal articles, or obtained first hand from conferences and colloquia, for which proceedings have not yet been published. In the closing weeks and months of conducting this research, some sources have been published that confirm work conducted earlier in my research, such as a clause-by-clause analysis of the Localism Bill (Remarkable Engagement 2011a; S.Brown, forthcoming). In these cases, I am glad that such publications confirm my own thoughts. As I attempt to ‘live out’ my practice, my evolving methodology has involved participation in the 3rd EMES International Research Conference on Social Enterprise, which took place in Roskilde, Denmark and to which a draft of this dissertation was accepted as a paper and recently selected for publication (S.Brown, forthcoming); it is in turn included here as an appendix (refer to Appendix 8). Attending this conference allowed me to expose my research - during its development - to the wider field of study surrounding social enterprise and discover that not only is spatial production in this context particularly under-theorised (Moulaert 2011), but that there is also a perceived lack of grounded theory based on action research by practitioners (Granados et al. 2011; Granados & Nayak 2011). It is my hope, therefore, that architects and other spatial practitioners from the UK may continue to make worthwhile contributions to this important field.

1.6

Research limitations

I am not seeking to provide a ‘how-to guide’ for establishing an architectural practice as a social enterprise; research has suggested that this is too large a task for this dissertation and, rather, I hope to provide a ‘primer’ that affords a better understanding of the field. I am also unable to put the recommendations I make into practice, as would be done in a continuing action research methodology, due to the limited time available for the study and the typically long time-periods accompanying cycles of action research. However, I do hope to take them forward as part of my on-going critically reflective practice.

EMES The EMES acronym comes from the name of the Research Network’s first project, the EMES project - ‘L’Emergence des enterprises sociales en Europe’ (on the emeregence of social enterprise in Europe)which ran from 1996 to 1999 and sought to establish a definition of social enterprise, which had been observed as an emerging global phenomena; characteristically, initiatives which combine entrepreneurial dynamics and social objectives in an original way. The network, initially comprising researchers from fifteen European Union member states, was formally established as a non-profit association (ASBL under Belgian law) in 2002 (EMES 2011; Social Economy Europe 2011). EMES research conferences are designed to bring their network together in order to compare research and encourage the development of trans-disciplinary methodologies suitable to the study of the complexity of social enterprise.

Frank Moulaert delivers his plenary address at the 3rd EMES International Research Conference on Social Enterprise, Roskilde, Denmark, 3-7 July 2011 6

2.0

2.1

HILL HOLT WOOD

First foot forward - An academic engagement

ecoming involved with Hill Holt Wood, as both a place and organisation, was a slow process that began during my first year studies at the Leicester School of Architecture (LSA). Our final brief for that year was for an autonomous, off-grid ecohouse, with a ‘real’ client and site at the Wood.

WOODLAND COMMUNITY HALL Refer to Fig.1 below.

PLANNING POLICY STATEMENT 7 This policy - which sets out different policies on land use with reference to the sustainable development of rural areas - allows development in sensitive areas such as ancient woodland if it is; a) of outstanding architectural merit, b) is environmentally responsible, and c) contributes to the sustainable social and economic development of the local community (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2004).

Fig.1 - The Woodland Community Hall evolved from initial designs by students at the Lincoln School of Architecture and development by Simons Design, before being developed further and eventually executed by Hill Holt Wood as a self-build project. Images courtesy of Hill Holt Wood Design Team (2011).

Our tutor had previously run a similar project - at a different School - for an off-grid office, cafe and community hall to replace the organisation’s original offices, for which it had grown too large. That project eventually turned into a real building, after passing through various design ‘hands’, including pro-bono professional input and in-house custodianship. Pursued as a self-build project, obtaining planning permission for this building was a tricky process, as Hill Holt Wood is actually a 34-acre piece of ancient British woodland in rural Lincolnshire. However, due to the organisation’s environmentally progressive ideals, permission was granted under the UK government’s Planning Policy Statement 7, which encouraged innovative eco-design as part of government policy. This permission also came with the condition that five rural, affordable homes also be provided, sowing the seed for my future involvement.

LOCATION OF HILL HOLT WOOD

COLLINGHAM

Fig.2

AR EW

oN -T

/ th

NORTON DISNEY

HILL HOLT WOOD

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE LINCOLNSHIRE

oL -T

Fig.2 - Hill Holt Wood is located in rural Lincolnshire, in the East Midlands region of the UK. Hill Holt Wood is accessed directly from a main regional trunk road, the A46, which links the town of Newark to the southwest, and the city of Lincoln in the north-east. In addition to scattered individual rural dwellings nearby, the Woodâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s nearest population centres are the villages of Collingham, across the A46 to the north-west, and Norton Disney to the south-east. Collingham also has a mainline rail connection to London. Norton Disney carries an LN (Lincoln) postcode, whilst Collingham is located in Nottinghamshire. The county line between the two runs along the north-west boundary of the woodland.

Although our first year projects perhaps understandable came to no built fruition, a colleague, Tom Morgan, maintained sporadic contact with Hill Holt Wood throughout the remainder of our undergraduate education. In third year, an assessed component of our Professional Studies module involved the competition-style submission of design work carried out on a brief of our choosing over a two-week period. Having grown better acquainted with Tom, we decided to tackle a new brief set by the Wood, along with a third colleague, Ben Higham. The brief asked for the design of an Artist’s Studio and Guesthouse, again autonomous and off-grid, which could provide rentable studio space alongside accommodation for the Wood’s increasingly high-profile visitors. The project was well received academically, receiving both a good grade and an ROK-sponsored ‘scholarship’ recognizing innovation in construction in student projects. Hill Holt Wood also voiced a strong interest in building the project. With the final few months of our third year studies looming, we had to put this exciting prospect on hold whilst we completed our studies, compiled portfolios and sought placements with architectural practices in order to satisfy the criteria of admission to RIBA Part 2 accredited university courses. However, as noted, we also found ourselves graduating into the first months of a global financial crisis and the worst recession in the UK since the 1930s (Conway 2009; Robinson 2009). Facing the prospect of being unable to find employment, we began to investigate other ways of obtaining experience that could count towards PEDR assessment . One of the options open to us was to continue to develop the design for the Artist’s Studio and Guesthouse at Hill Holt Wood. The obvious target was the attainment of planning permission, with a longer term view of actually constructing the building.

TOM Refer to Appendix 1 for Tom’s thoughts on his time at Hill Holt Wood.

ARTIST’S STUDIO AND GUESTHOUSE Refer Fig.3 below GUESTS Although probably unlikely to have stayed at the Wood if given the opportunity, ‘high-profile’ refers to visits by HRH Prince Charles, and by David Cameron prior to his election as Prime Minister, both in recognition of the organisation’s social and environmental innovations.

Fig.3 - The brief for the Artist’s Studio & Guesthouse asked for competition-style presentation alongside ideas for how the project would work technically. Construction contractor and developer ROK sponsored a scholarship at the LSA that recognised innovation in construction in student design projects (refer to bottom image). Through a system of large section softwood members and kiln-dried hardwood dowels, the project proposed a method by which Hill Holt Wood’s own timber could be used in with greater structural capacity than would normally be possible, whilst also retaining the possibility of constructing the building as a self-build project.

Holder (2010) highlights that for many ‘actors’, engagement with social objectives in a project is often driven by other motivating factors, such as the desire to experience a building project, or to develop new skills. MOTIVATION

2.2

Seeing the wood for the trees - what is Hill Holt Wood?

Becoming involved with Hill Holt Wood was initially driven by a desire to find a way into work and to ‘make things’, rather than by any real ideological motivation. Indeed, at the time, I had no idea of the wider reaching movement of social enterprise.

ANCIENT WOODLANDS in Britain are those which have been continuously wooded for a minimum of three to four hundred years; although in the case of Hill Holt Wood, signs of woodland management date back to Roman times.

It has already been mentioned that Hill Holt Wood is actually the name of an area of ancient woodland. Hill Holt Wood as an organisation evolved from the aspiration of founding director, Nigel Lowthrop, to demonstrate that the conservation of any environmentally significant resource and its open access to the public need not be reliant on grants and the good-will of patronage or donation. As a trained ecologist and

REHABILITATION principally means the removal of prevalent invasive plant species, such as rhodedendron, and the promotion of endangered, native-British flora and fauna, such as wild muchrooms, daubenton bats and birds of prey.

self-styled entrepreneur, Lowthrop sought to prove that the woodland could be used to generate enough income to not only pay for its own rehabilitation, but also to support a family living a responsible modern lifestyle. Buying the woodland in 1995, he and wife Karen formed the Hill Holt Wood Woodland Management Committee in 1997, which developed over the next five years to include representatives from eleven local parishes, recognizing the important role of local communities in their vision.

EDUCATION Typically, schemes such as ‘Solutions 4’ (Sol4), or Entry-To-Employment (E2E) accept learners that have either been excluded from the public school system, have self-elected to withdraw from it, or have left school with no qualifications (Children & Young People Now 2007). Although Hill Holt Wood began with Sol4 and E2E programs, Foundation Learning (FL) is now the predominant system in use. Developed for low attaining 14- to 19-year olds (as well as 19- to 24-year olds with high-level special needs), FL aims to help raise their participation, attainment and progression. There is no overarching qualification; instead young people work on a personalised programme that leads to a mix of small, flexible qualifications, as a basis for progression to further learning or employment. Foundation learning can be delivered in schools and colleges, or by private or third-sector training providers. (Department for Education 2011).

As its capacity expanded, Hill Holt Wood diversified its operations. Thinnings were sold as firewood and woodland management strategies developed, aiming to return the woodland to its native, British state. As expertise was gained, the Wood was able to take on other local contracts and grew as a forestry and woodland management business. Holding expertise also meant they could train people, as well as being able to fulfil a long held personal belief that land-based education is more appropriate for some members of society, particularly those that mainstream education service is failing. Training, and the associated goals of building capacity for employment in the local community, became the main social mission of the business, alongside its original environmental objectives. In 2002 a volunteer board of directors took control of the business and Hill Holt Wood was established as a Social Enterprise, which reinvests all profits generated by operations in the woodland into the social objectives of the business (Clearly So 2010; Hill Holt Wood 2011), managed in trust, by and for the local community. As the organisation’s operation has grown, so has its need for buildings to operate from. In keeping with its founding inspiration, Lowthrop originally furnished the business with new facilities constructed as self-build projects from materials sourced from the woodland and surrounding community. This gave rise to the replacement of original on-site caravans with a suite of offices and classrooms, complete with electrical and communications servicing, constructed from timber and load-bearing straw-bale. At the same time, the Lowthrops applied for planning permission to build their own family home within the woodland, which although initially met with strong resistance, was granted ten years later following public support generated for their work in the woodland.

As described, those early office buildings have been augmented in partnership with design departments at local universities, in turn supporting the organisation’s wider training goals. The new offices, cafe and community hall have again been constructed as self-build by Hill Holt Wood as an organisation, this time utilising rammed earth and more advanced eco-materials such as triple-glazing, recycled plastic roofing tiles and Combined Heat and Power (CHP) generation. Needless to say, Hill Holt Wood has gained a great deal of practical experience by constructing its own buildings. As an entrepreneur firstly and foremost, Nigel Lowthrop could see the connection between this experience, and the links being made with graduating architecture students facing difficulty securing the employment necessary to continue their training. These students had skills which, in combination with the resources of Hill Holt Wood, could effectively deliver eco-design projects at local level. Lowthrop had always spoken of this aspiration, and as students we had always entertained the idea that we might be able to play a role in supporting that vision. We approached Hill Holt Wood with the proposal that, providing we could gain the support of an RIBAchartered architect, we could engage in a joint venture investigating the potential of a design service, run by students, working to support both the social objectives of the existing social enterprise and on-going training of the students. And so, on the 20th July 2009, we arrived at Hill Holt Wood to begin an adventure that would result in some of the most enjoyable and most challenging experiences I have had the privilege of engaging with.

2.3

Money makes the world go round - funding and benefit-in-kind

The pragmatic reality was that neither we nor Hill Holt Wood could afford to fund our ‘experiment’ directly. As a socially innovative organisation, Hill Holt Wood had a number of ideas for how we might support ourselves whilst undertaking a placement there; effectively working for free and accepting benefits-in-kind. At this point, the three of us agreed that our priority was to complete an RIBAapproved year-in-practice, which would be jeopardised by the time-commitment necessary to make effective use of the benefits-in-kind offered by the Wood. We had neither the courage, nor the skill to make effective use of shooting rights and permaculture-based forest gardening. With this in mind, we sought to be a little ‘entrepreneurial’ ourselves, investigating potential sources of income available to us through contacts in the profession and academia. We had initially written to the RIBA to check the validity of the experience we would be getting. Following this, we were invited to apply for the RIBA’s Walter Parker Bursary supporting students experiencing potential economic hardship in their ‘Year-Out’.

hese ranged from being permitted shooting rights in order to hunt for our own food, to using our design skills and the Wood’s resources to produce street furniture, such as bus shelters and park benches, for sale in the local area. Nigel had always also entertained the idea that we might live on site, rent-free, in lieu of a steady wage; our presence would contribute to the security of the business’ premises. However, having initially turned up with our tents, we quickly realised that it would be difficult to maintain a professional attitude and appearance whilst camping – especially with the onset of what would become the coldest winter for 30 years. It was suggested that, rather than camping, we might live in either the Lowthrops’ old caravan (“perfectly liveable, it’s got under-floor heating and a shower and everything....”), or in a re-used demonstration eco-home that the Wood had recently erected at a local agricultural and rural trade show. Having been encouraged by what I would later come to view as a necessarily exaggerated optimism characteristic of the organisation, particularly its founder, we proceeded to meet with a few problems. Firstly, the caravan, whilst being just spacious enough for the Lowthrops and their children in the early days of their inhabitation of the woodland, was unsuitable for three males in their early-twenties. It also turned out to have serious problems with its bottled gas supply (the caravan was later condemned) and electricity and water supplies unmanageable by inexperienced students. Secondly, the re-usable bits of the ‘demonstration eco-home’ turned out to be only the timber-frame, which turned up damaged and in pieces a few days later. It was suggested that we take a few weeks to repair the frame and make it fit for inhabitation, which the Wood paid for on the proviso that we did the work ourselves. This in itself was the beginning of a major operation.

We were awarded the sum of £500 each, which enabled us to cover initial costs of travelling to Hill Holt Wood and living costs until we had secured further funding. In return, we agreed to contribute a piece to the RIBA’s Education Yearbook 2010 (S.Brown & Morgan 2010, pp.90–91) and at our own suggestion, to publicise our experiences through a blog hosted by RIBA-affiliated student society, Archaos (Anderson et al. 2011). Additionally, we made a successful bid to De Montfort University’s Knowledge Transfer Office (KTO) to be part of their Graduate Intern Scheme for newly graduating students demonstrating entrepreneurship in finding themselves placements. This provided a weekly contribution towards our wage. We also approached programme leaders at the LSA to see if they could employ us as teaching support staff . This suggestion was welcomed and viewed as building valuable links between academia and innovative practice. We then asked for a contribution from Hill Holt Wood to ensure a total wage that matched the national minimum. Still not completely comfortable, but willing to take a risk, we agreed this starting arrangement which took effect from the 3rd August 2009, and ran for six calendar months. After this point, we hoped to be generating enough income in order to justify a full-time, sustainable wage. We were always acutely aware of – and grateful for - this contribution and the arrangement would necessarily influence the way we conducted our activities at Hill Holt Wood.

This took the form of a government training bursary that covered tax and National Insurance (NI) contributions on behalf of the prospective employer in addition to a wage of £95/week, providing that contribution was 105% match funded by the employer. GRADUATE INTERN SCHEME

TEACHING SUPPORT STAFF We taught for one day a week, in first and second year, for two terms in the 2009/10 academic year, receiving £8/hour for 4 hours work each week, plus travel re-imbursement. This money would be paid to Hill Holt Wood in order to contribute to their payments towards the Graduate Intern Scheme. REMAINING CONTRIBUTION This left Hill Holt Wood with a weekly contribution of approximately £68 per person, free from tax and NI.

Learners putting together formwork for rammed earth during the construction of the Woodland Community Hall 16

Fig.4

HILL HOLT WOOD AS SOCIAL AND SPATIAL ASSEMBLAGE

Fig.4 - Hill Holt Wood can be thought of as both place and organisation; as a social and economic assemblage of actors and agents - an idea derived from Actor-Network-Theory (ANT), as developed by Michael Callon (1986), Bruno Latour (2005) and others. In this sense, it exists ‘in a constant making and re-making’ (Latour 2005, p.9) of relationships between individuals, between individuals and the

organisation, and between the organisation, State and society, that sustains it as a business. Hill Holt Wood employs people, trains people, accepts volunteers, operates as a school, seeks and accepts contracts both privately and on behalf of the local authority, and seeks to influence policy at local and national administrative levels.

17 The ‘Village’ Original straw-bale and timber offices, canteen, stores, classrooms

Site for affordable rural home.

Bunkhouse Primarily for Design Team accomodation, but also available to other Rangers and working guests of Hill Holt Wood.

and sawmill. Permaculture Garden for food production.

Site for Artist’s Studio & Guesthouse

Nigel & Karen’s House Off-grid and situated in the privately-owned portion of woodland.

) rops owth ood) te (L olt W Priva H l il c (H Publi

Site for affordable rural home.

Craft / Building Test site used for construction and craft demonstrations and experiments

Woodland Community Hall Available for hire at varying rates dependent on client; (local people / charity or educational / private business). Base of operations for CEO, Design Team and Senior Rangers.

Camping One of several sites available for camping, serviced by composting toilet facilities

GOVERNANCE

(Founding Director) Nigel Lowthrop

Karen Lowthrop (CEO) FIREWOOD SALES

+ 18

BOARD OF TRUSTEES - Board members comprise local community organisation representitives,‘patrons’, elected specialists in Law and Finance and staff representative. STAFF (RANGERS)

COUNTRYSIDE MANAGEMENT CONTRACTS FOR LOCAL AUTHORITY / PRIVATE GARDEN MAINTENANCE

- Founding director Nigel Lowthrop does not currently sit on the Board.

(mechanics / teachers / students / photographers / plumbers / foresters / conservationists / environmental scientists / biologists / ex-military / builders / carpenters / joiners / caterers / administration / accountants ...and a clown.

HILL HOLT WOOD DESIGN TEAM - 2 Staff; Part of Ranger team - Autonomous / Report directly to CEO / Nigel Lowthrop used as a consultant DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION

LEARNERS / TRAINEES (FL / SOL4 / UNEMPLOYED IN TRAIING)

A ‘C LA SS ’-

FORESTRY / CONSERVATION / WOODLAND MANAGEMENT AT HILL HOLT WOOD AND OTHER SITES

E NG RA

R/ 4-5 LEARN

E RS

HORTICULTURE / PERMACULTURE / COOKING & CATERING

MECHANICS

2.4

The evolution of the Hill Holt Wood Design Team - The projects

Due primarily to our own lack of skills, we took longer and longer to complete the work on the bunkhouse described in the prologue to this document and other jobs began to be thrown at us. We started teaching both university groups visiting the woods and groups of ‘learners’. Any enquiries relating to the organisation’s existing eco-buildings were directed to us, eventually leading to commissions for the designs of similar buildings. Our role grew quickly from this initial condition. A pivotal point came with the new year of 2010, when only two of us returned to work following the Christmas break. Our Graduate Intern Scheme contract was due to expire and we had yet to prove ourselves as a genuine source of income in the eyes of Hill Holt Wood’s Board of Trustees. As such, we faced having to continue without a wage until our work began to pay dividend. One member chose professional principal over the continuing risk of joint venture and left to join a mainstream architectural practice. Eventually, with a roof over our head and spring on the way, we threw ourselves back into our experiment knowing that success depended on some hard graft. Having initially worked on our own laptops, and from any desk going spare amidst the perpetual chaos that comes with a school for at-risk youth, we eventually moved into the new offices having hastily installed a makeshift internet connection using salvaged cable strung between trees. Other facilities followed as we began to feel more comfortable running ourselves as an office. Requests for a plotter, and dedicated Design Team computer equipment were approved. Professional Indemnity (PI) insurance was purchased, and the first and second of our completed PEDR sheets came back, signed and approved by both our academic supervisor at the LSA, and our PEDR Employment Mentor. As work took off, we were soon recruiting; firstly a replacement for Ben, and secondly part-time administration assistant to help with research, printing and general office management. We drew upon experience gained in our third year studies and holiday work in order to set up rudimentary, yet effective data management systems and provide a working imitation of a professional communications framework through which to liaise with clients.

BEN Refer to Appendix 2 for Ben’s thoughts on his time at Hill Holt Wood.

THE EMPLOYMENT MENTOR is the individual who directly supervises and has detailed professional knowledge of the work prepared by the student undertaking professional experience. The Employment Mentor should be an architect with at least 5 years’ experience of the design of buildings and the administration of subsequent contracts. In non-architectural work settings, the Employment Mentor should be an experienced professional in their own field, and if possible, a member of an appropriate professional organisation. The Employment Mentor may not necessarily directly employ the student (RIBA 2011b). Refer to Fig.5 below.

Fig.5 Sole-practitioner Noel Barrowclouch of Studio G Architecture served as our Employment Mentor for the purposes of PEDR. We met with Noel, informally, once a month at his practice office in Collingham to discuss the work we had been doing. We carried our own insurance, and so Noel’s liability was limited to the extent of his duties as our Employment Mentor, and not for the actual work we were carrying out.

Fig.6 Clockwise from top; Michael Anderson and Samantha Gill (2nd internship); Rich Lawrence and Reuben Davies (3rd internship); Sam Brown and Tom Morgan (1st internship).

SAM & MIKE Refer to Appendix 3 & 4 for Sam and Mike’s thoughts on his time at Hill Holt Wood. RICH & REUBEN Refer to Appendix 5 & 6 for Rich and Reuben’s thoughts on his time at Hill Holt Wood.

At the point at which Tom and I returned to RIBA Part 2 studies, I am proud of the fact that we were in a position to be able to recruit two further graduates by open competition to replace us. The use of a competition in the recruitment process was designed to convey the ‘culture’ we had established in the office. These graduates, Samantha Gill from Nottingham Trent University and Michael Anderson from Cambridge University, received a full wage from the beginning of their employment and ran the Design Team until the summer of 2011, when they too were succeeded by a third paid internship of Part-1 graduating students. As such I consider the venture to have successfully established an economically sustainable design service that alongside other social and environmental objectives - supports architecture students in their on-going professional development and education. The work conducted during our second incarnation as an ‘office’ is probably best illustrated by accounts of projects we were engaging with.

2.4.1 Re:Gainsborough

Re:Gainsborough is an urban renewal project for a large area of dilapidated terraced housing in the South West Ward of Gainsborough, Lincolnshire, UK. The majority of the Ward was scheduled for compulsory purchase, demolition and new-build construction by the Local Authority, but Hill Holt Wood director, Nigel Lowthrop, was able to use contacts gained through other business activity such as the fulfilment of training, education and countryside management contracts to persuade the Authority to let Hill Holt Wood propose an alternative. As advocates for sustainable development, Hill Holt Wood prepared a feasibility study which proposed radical refurbishment and retrofit of the existing buildings instead of demolition. This work was prepared by the Hill Holt Wood Design Team. The proposal recommended the establishment of a ‘special purpose

vehicle’ (SPV) for development, which would be set up as a social enterprise in a similar way to a development trust . The SPV would include representatives from the local authority (as principal investor), Hill Holt Wood (as social enterprise project lead) and from the local community, and would aim to ensure that every possible penny of investment in the scheme was retained within the project rather than being creamed off by commercial developers. The scheme aimed to address unemployment, a major concern in Gainsborough, especially amongst out-of-work builders, labourers and metal-workers left behind by the town’s receding manufacturing industries. Hill Holt Wood and other SPV partners would provide training in this regard, prioritising the building of local capacity for retro-fit work as part of its sustainability credentials. The project sought to facilitate and maintain engagement with ‘local heroes’, such as a local arts organisations and youth group

Method of initiation: Pro-active, seeking to influence policy, advocacy, Special

Goals: Feasibility Study / Individual Building Design for Pilot Project / Neighbourhood-

Purpose Vehicle (SPV)

scale masterplan / Training / Jobs / Build Capacity for Further Development.

activists, as partners in the SPV. In this way, the project aimed to engage with the ideas and deliberation of local community. Four main stages of work were proposed, including the feasibility study and a pilot scheme in which an individual property would be purchased and refurbished by the SPV, before extending the scheme to refurbish an entire street and continuing to include the rest of the Ward. As advocates of sustainable development, Hill Holt Wood believed that Gainsborough could only make genuine progress in terms of environmental improvement and sustainability of employment if it engaged with the opportunities offered by the scale of the project. At the time of writing, the scheme is progressing with the refurbishment of the pilot scheme after a lengthy delay in obtaining funding resulting from the staffing changes at the local authority following the last general election.

Notes: Large scale, biggest budget (paid our wages for a the majority of our employment, allowing us to do other things at the woods).

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O

Typical Terraced Property Street Vision Street Vision Neighbourhood Strategy Street Vision Detailed Design - Rear Community Asset - Church / Art Space Building Stock Survey Consultation - What do people want? Building Stock Survey Community Asset - Church / Art Space Building Stock Survey Environmental Impact Assessment Detailed Design - Building Fabric Strategy Detailed Design - Spatial Reconfiguration

Front (Southside) Elevation Scale 1:100

Rear (Northside) Elevation Scale 1:100 DRAWING REFERENCE PLANNING: pp - 00933909

G008-12

This drawing shows the proposed location of the building and potential landscaping scheme.

DRAWING REFERENCE PLANNING: pp - 00933909

G008-11

A B C D E F G H I J K L M

DRAWING TITLE

HOME FARM SCREVETON - PROPOSED ELEVATIONS 1 0F 2

DRAWING TITLE

HOME FARM SCREVETON - PROPOSED SITE PLAN

SCALE

1:100

SCALE

1:250

PAPER SIZE

NOTES This drawing shows front (south) and rear (north) Elevations.

NOTES

This drawing shows the proposed location of the building and potential landscaping scheme.

Straw Balle Building Engineered Timber Joists Rammed Earth Wall Rammed Earth Wall Building Progress Building Progress Volunteer Build Day - Straw Bale Building Progress Completed Building Client - David Rose Volunteer Build Day - Rammed Earth Planning Drawing - Elevation Planning Drawing - Site Strategy

Method of initiation: ‘standard’ / typical engagement, but not to RIBA work stages. Client approached us having seen the buildings at Hill Holt Wood at Nigel’s suggestion. Goals: Individual Building Design / Consultation during ‘specialist’ construction using low-impact materials / Capacity building in a local contractor to be able to take on future low-impact construction projects / to get a project built and ‘in the portfolio’. Notes: a ‘learning experience’ for all involved that highlighted HHWs need for greater capacity in overseeing construction, but also the value in letting students take projects through planning application and building control stages / engaging client as a partner in design.

2.4.2

Farmeco Community Carefarm

The Farmeco Community Carefarm, in Screveton, near Newark, Nottinghamshire, UK, is often viewed as the Design Team’s first ‘real project’. Client David Rose wanted to establish a social enterprise to promote agriculture in the local community, using his land to provide opportunities for education and training, build awareness and facilitate engagement with the local community. Whilst Nigel Lowthrop was also providing consultancy on the establishment of social enterprise, the Design Team focussed on the design for an ‘ecocentre’ that could be used as a classroom

and activity-base. In keeping with the aim of the social enterprise, the building was to be built predominantly from materials sourced on the farm, and built with volunteer labour. Hill Holt Wood was to produce designs for the building, and although we did not follow the RIBA Plan of Work, work was charged for in distinct stages; to the submission of a planning application; to the submission of drawn material to building control; and then further consultancy work as necessary during construction. Hill Holt Wood’s advantage of having premises upon which it was possible to test out construction mean that as part of the design work we were able to talk the client and contractor through the use low-impact building technologies,

“I realised that I’ve got all this land and I don’t grow a single thing I could eat!” David Rose, Client

such as straw-bale and rammed earth construction. Consultancy during construction would be undertaken by Rangers from Hill Holt Wood who had gained experience through the construction of Hill Holt Wood’s own buildings. At the time of writing the ecocentre is nearing completion and, although work is still being conducted on interior fit out and landscaping, it is being used to support Farmeco’s programme of activities. K

2.4.3

Norton Big Wood

Norton Big Wood is an area of woodland located approximately 1 kilometre from Hill Holt Wood. The site was gifted to the parish council of Norton Disney by Cemex, a quarrying company seeking permission to extract gravel in the area. The initial planning application was refused on environmental grounds, due in part to successful lobbying from Hill Holt Wood. A Section 106 agreement was then used by the local authority to permit the limited extraction deemed necessary, whilst securing the valuable asset of Norton Big Wood for the community in the long term. The parish council asked that the woodland be sold to Hill Holt Wood for the sum of £1, due to their exemplary record of managing their own woodland and on the condition that Norton Big Wood would also be managed as a publically accessible local amenity. For Hill Holt Wood, it was also an opportunity to prove that the economic model of woodland management in place at their own woodland was replicable elsewhere. This model includes the acceptance of some development of the woodland to support its on-going sustainable

management, and introducing socially-motivated programme. Whilst at Hill Holt Wood, this was the use of the woodland as a vocational training facility and school for at-risk youth, at Norton Big Wood this would be through use as an occupational therapy facility for mental-health patients. Day patients and self-referred sufferers of conditions such as anxiety, depression and bereavement would conduct conservation work as part of their treatment administered with the aid of local GPs and the charity Ecominds, whilst sufferers of more severe conditions such as dementia, would be encouraged to engage with lighter activities such as nurturing saplings and potting native wild flowers for distribution in the woodland as part of its rehabilitation programme. Capital for this programme would be raised by the sale and on-going management of the site as a whole as an ‘eco-burial ground’; the sale of plots funding the necessary woodland management work. As at Hill Holt Wood, the programme would be non-residential, although the operation would require some buildings in order to be successful. Again, those buildings would be low-impact and

Method of initiation: Advocacy / track record / desire to replicate Hill Holt Wood

Goals: Change of Use planning permission / Neighbourhood-scale masterplan /

model to prove its value.

Multiple, individual building designs (long term).

A B C D E F G H I J K

Log Cabin Log Cabin Phase 1 - Acces Woodland Character Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Timber Extraction Survey

constructed form materials sourced from the woodland. The Design Team was able to provide the necessary work to apply for planning permission to change the use of the land to allow eco-burials and, later, to provide the necessary drawings to facilitate construction of the buildings needed. A masterplan was also needed for the woodland to facilitate a discussion of how a few affordable rural homes could be built there, to fulfil a perceived local need and provide passive security for the site. The proposals for Norton Big Wood have met with surprising resistance from local residence, given that Hill Holt Woodâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ownership was facilitated by the parish council. Lowthrop attributes this to the conservative not-inmy-backyard attitude of rural England, but also acknowledges that it may due to complacency on the part of Hill Holt Wood in terms of maintaining engagement with the local community. Whilst there are vocal concerns amongst residence that Hill Holt Wood may be seeking to gain unjustly from development of the woodland, I believe the motivation to have been a mixture of genuine social and ecological concern, and the managementâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s desire to prove critics wrong by replicating the Hill Holt Wood model of woodland management.

Notes: Opportunity to replicate socially innovative model of woodland management; significant local resistance due to reduced levels of community engagement / challenges of maintaining engagement with a community and problems that occur if you do not.

2.5

Concluding thoughts on Hill Holt Wood

As I come to reflect upon my experience of working at Hill Holt Wood, I would start by stating that it was at once incredibly challenging, immensely rewarding, intensely political, and intricately socially diverse. There were times when we felt resented by existing staff and management for the burden we brought, and times when we felt truly valued for the contributions we made. I feel as if there was definitely a moment when we realised we had proved ourselves in the eyes of our colleagues, which coincided with the start of ground-works for our first ‘real’ building, the generation of genuine income, and our ‘survival’ of a harsh winter in the woods.

Alongside the relationships I developed with other members of staff and ‘learners’ through shared experience; the amount of time I was able to spend outside in a natural environment; and the amount of ‘making’ and hands on experience I was able to pursue - the most rewarding aspect of my experience has got to be the flexibility, responsibility and freedom of effectively being allowed to ‘be my own boss’. This last factor, particularly, has led to me believe that this model offers opportunities to architectural students unlikely to be had in typical architectural practice. The responsibility of having to propose ways of generating an income, based on my own skill-base, has given me a new insight into the value of architectural skills beyond the mainstream professional office. I enjoyed the sense that I was helping to make a positive difference to the lives of others, both directly through the design and teaching work I was doing, and indirectly by supporting a wider organisation that had adopted environmental and social goals alongside economic ones. Nigel Lowthrop intends to ensure that the Hill Holt Wood Design Team continues to be self-sustaining in its provision of a responsible, local, design service specializing in sustainable development, fusing emerging architectural talent with the wider skills needed to initiate projects. The next phase, in response to steadily growing demand for the office’s services, is the acquisition of experience in delivering architectural projects, either through the recruitment of a fully qualified architect, or RIBA Part 2 graduating students. This investigation, then, perhaps comes at a time when its

WINTER IN THE WOODS December, January, February...

SUSTAINABILITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP is the process of creating new enterprises that survive and thrive by contributing to human wellbeing and the functioning of ecological systems. Parrish’s study is an investigation of the principles, processes, and paradigms of successful sustainability entrepreneurship (2007, p.iii)

contribution to the future of the Design Team can be truly meaningful. To bring the working definition of Hill Holt Wood up to date, Parrish uses the following description in his PhD on ‘sustainability entrepreneruship’: “Hill Holt Wood Ltd. is a community-owned enterprise engaged in job skills training for at-risk, socially excluded, and unemployed young adults through the ecological restoration of a degraded ancient woodland. The enterprise is pioneering a new model of countryside management that creates income generating opportunities to support the maintenance of healthy ecosystems, provide rural employment, and address the needs of some of society’s most disadvantaged members.” (Parrish 2007, p.157)

Whilst on its website, admittedly in promotional terms, Hill Holt Wood adds: “Hill Holt Wood is a small (34 acre) woodland operating as an environmental social enterprise and controlled by a voluntary board of directors representing local communities and councils as well as local and national businesses… Hill Holt Wood – “Proving the value of ancient woodland in the 21st century”.” (Hill Holt Wood 2011)

For the specific interests of this study, Hill Holt Wood exists as an organisation operating within the context of blurred boundaries between ‘normal’ ways of doing things, to deliver important local services in a way that is economically sustainable and socially and environmentally progressive. Additionally, it now has the capacity to deliver architectural services in support of sustainable community development. At this point it is worth taking a closer look at social enterprise and the wider field of civil society and the civic economy in which it sits. What, for example, makes a social enterprise a social enterprise? And how are those qualities in evidence at Hill Holt Wood?

3.0

SOCIAL ENTERPRISE AND THE CIVIC ECONOMY

“There is a growing interest, at the international level, in exploring how social innovation can help provide novel solutions to social problems, improve social cohesion and social capital, and enhance the fabric of civil society and the third sector through greater citizen involvement and participation.” (EMES 2011, p.1)

3.1

So what makes a social enterprise a social enterprise? - A civil society perspective

n the introduction to this study, the term social enterprise was introduced as ‘a powerful global concept which describing businesses with primarily social objectives whose surpluses are principally re-invested for that purpose in businesses or in the community rather than being driven by the need to maximise profit for shareholders and owners (Paton & Spear 2010, p.26; Social Enterprise Journal 2011).

UK CIVIL SOCIETY ALMANAC Refer to Fig.7 below. Diagram surveying civil society associations by income. This is likely to change substantially as the political culture of budget deficit reduction takes hold in the UK. Reproduced courtesy of NCVO (Clark et al. 2010, pp.3-4).

As such, the emergence of social enterprise sits at a particular point in the rich history of ‘civil society associations’ that have long influenced the economy. In the UK, this history includes voluntary and community groups, trade unions, faith-based organisations, co-operatives and mutuals (Paton & Spear 2010, p.4) and there is documented evidence of social enterprise from more than one hundred years ago in Victorian England (Shaw et al. 2002). The Key Fund (2011) adds charities and social entrepreneurs to that list, whilst the UK Civil Society Almanac 2010, produced by the National Council for Volunteer Organisations (NCVO) also includes political parties, football supporter trusts, universities, building societies, independent schools and housing associations in its broad annual survey (Clark et al. 2010, pp.3–4). As a further example, Hill Holt Wood began as a private business, all-be-it one with

Fig.7

social objectives, and was transferred firstly to community ownership - for which there are a variety of legal mechanisms - before evolving as a social enterprise carrying the Social Enterprise Mark. Paton & Spear’s illustrative list can be expanded further to include Community Interest Companies (CICs), Industrial & Provident Societies for Public Interest and Companies Limited by Guarantee as specific legal forms of business available to civil society associations who wish to pursue economic activity. Social Enterprise UK, formerly the Social Enterprise Coalition, offers a membership service and claims to be the UK’s national body for social enterprise (Social Enterprise UK 2011b). It is affiliated with the Social Enterprise Mark scheme, which is the only available certification authority for social enterprises (Social Enterprise Mark Co. 2011). It can therefore be accepted that there is a sector-specific attempt to guarantee the responsible action of businesses assuming the title of Social Enterprise. However, it is worth noting that the Mark is often viewed as a ‘badge’ that can be bought without any real guarantees, and that social enterprise is not itself a form of business in the legal sense; therefore there is not an exclusive definition of what is, and what is not, a social enterprise. Rather it is often used as a catch-all term for any of the enterprises described in this chapter who engage in economic activity primarily towards socially progressive objectives. What is repeatedly apparent is that civil society is itself both a continually evolving subject and a contested term; and subject to continuing academic debate and political interest (Clark et al. 2010, p.4). However, most sources, such as the NCVO and the EMES Research Group, generally agree that civil society is about people acting together, independently of the state or the market, to make a positive difference to their lives and the lives of others. Likewise, it still pertains that - as Dart (2004, p.413), Young (2001) and Grenier (2002) noted almost a decade ago - there is no precise and consistent usage of the term social enterprise. However, common use of the phrase ‘social enterprise’ mirrors its technical etymology. It is possible to have both social enterprise, where there is entrepreneurial activity that is socially motivated; and also to have a Social Enterprise, as in a business, or entity holding that status or referred to by that description.

3.2

Social innovation and the role of the social entrepreneur

Social enterprise and Social Enterprises often emanate from the activities of social entrepreneurs. In the case of Hill Holt Wood, this is particularly obvious in the form of founding director, Nigel Lowthrop. Indeed it is often a criticism of social enterprises that their individual modes of operations are of limited use as a model for other ventures, as they are often highly dependent on their founders in terms of vision, ongoing motivation, operational know-how and networking.

ROB PATON & ROGER SPEAR represent a reliable authority on the general study of civil society; Rob Paton has taught at the Open University for more than 25 years and was instrumental in setting up the Centre for Public Leadership and Social Enterprise, where he is based. Starting with studies of worker co-operatives in the 1970s, he has had a long-standing interest in how value-based organisations can sustain their social commitments and still ensure effective, enterprising forms of management and organisation. He is also a member of the Advisory Council for the University Network for Social Entrepreneurship. (Paton & Spear 2010, p.37) Roger Spear also teaches at the Open University, and is Chair of the Co-operatives Research Unit. He is also a founder member and vice-president of the EMES Research Network (refer to pp.35-36).

However, it is perhaps more important to see this as a characteristic of some forms of social enterprise, rather than a shortcoming. Some social entrepreneurs operate in a certain way, exploiting niches just as a successful business-person might. However, these niches tend to be found in social need rather than merely unexploited economic capital and their exploitation tends to be referred to as social innovation. Civil society commentators frequently note that social entrepreneurs achieve results by working across disciplines and employing higher-level management thinking in the initiation of projects (see 00:/ 2011; Johar 2011; Lowthrop et al. 2010; and Hulgård & Andersen 2011) and as noted, civil society initiatives tend to emerge in response to societal concern (Paton & Spear 2010, p.4). Understanding the role of social entrepreneurs in establishing and leading civil society organisations is crucial to assessing any potential of social enterprise.

3.3

Civil society and the civic economy - place-making and the production of space

As Paton and Spear note, civil society associations can be active in the economic sphere in two ways; as either a socially motivated business run by associated governance; or in seeking to influence the business of others (Paton & Spear 2010, p.6). Economic activity that is primarily socially motivated is often seen as part of the ‘third sector’; the part of an economy or society comprising non-governmental and non-profit-making organizations or associations (OED Online 2011). As such it sits apart from the public and private sectors, and social enterprise can therefore be differentiated from socially-orientated projects emerging from large companies’ Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) agendas.

Although recently absorbed by the Design Council - a charity - as a result of UK Government cuts, CABE now functions as its subsidiary, incorporated by Royal Charter, and receiving grants from the Department for Business Innovation and Skills and the Department for Communities and Local Government, alongside those from other sources. As such, some consider its activity to now be part of the third sector rather than the public sector. CABE

The term public sector describes the part of the state that deals with the production, delivery and allocation of goods and services by and for the government or its citizens, and the national, regional or local municipal level, whilst private sector refers to the part of a country’s economy that consists of privately owned enterprises. Both influence the economy in obvious ways, and we are probably familiar with the means of spatial production in both sectors; the former is perhaps represented by local authority planning departments, and government-funded infrastructure and advisory panels such as the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), whist the latter is certainly recognisable in the form of the private architects practice working on commission. Whilst it is undeniable that the state and market influence the production of spaces and places, until recently it would be difficult to identify an example of the third sector contributing significantly to the production of space. The civic economy is where the civil society and the economy overlap. It is those

parts of civil society that are concerned with and engaged in economic activity (Paton & Spear 2010, p.6), whilst in the Compendium for the Civic Economy, editors and London-based strategy and design practice 00:/ add: “We define the civic economy as comprising people, ventures and behaviours that fuse innovative ways of doing from the traditionally distinct spheres of civil society, the market and the state. Founded upon social values and goals, and using deeply collaborative approaches to development, production, knowledge sharing and financing, the civic economy generates goods, services and common infrastructures in ways that neither the state nor the market economy alone would have been able to accomplish” (00:/ 2011, p.9)

In the same book, the National Endowment for Science Technology and the Arts (NESTA) and Design Council CABE add to this definition by stating that the civic economy ‘combines the spirit of entrepreneurship with the aspiration for civic renewal’ (NESTA & Design Council CABE 2011, p.3). They go on to state: From local food growing projects to sustainable supermarkets, community waste-to-energy plants to co-operative telecoms services, these initiatives are having a tangible impact on social interactions and economic opportunities in cities, villages and towns. They are even influencing the physical shape and appearance of these places, changing the way they are designed, built and used”

(NESTA & Design Council CABE 2011, p.3)

By these statements, the civic economy is paired closely with place-making, urbanism and the design, management and use of the built environment, with particular reference made to organisations such as Hill Holt Wood and other forms of social enterprise. Social enterprise sits, therefore, within the broader field of social innovation, civil society and the civic economy. The interest of this study, however, lies with the relevance of social enterprise to the practice of architecture in contexts where a greater expectation is being placed upon the civic economy, such as the specific instance of the UK Coalition Government’s Localism Bill and accompanying Big Society agenda. It could be said that in the context of localism, the quality and future of the built and natural environments are of great societal concern, to which civil society initiatives are likely to respond (Paton & Spear 2010, p.4). So what exactly is ‘localism’ in the UK? And how does it look set to influence the production and management of the built environment?

Well-known examples of social enterprise include Jamie Oliverâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Fifteen restaurants, the Big Issue, the Eden Project, Dwr Cymru (Welsh Water), Divine Chocolate and the Co-Operative Group. 34

Fig.8

The 3rd EMES International Research Conference on Social Enterprise, Roskilde, Denmark, 4th-7th July 2011

Attending an international conference was an eye-opening experience for me into the world of professional academia. But even by research conference standards, EMES was a bit different: Sat waiting, worried, after registration...until Maria comes to talk to me; “Do you speak English?” 35

“I am English!”, I reply, happily.... “Great, I’ll tweet that we’ve met.”, she says. And I am slowly exposed to the world of networking. After, we are sat awaiting the opening plenary talk, conversing in hushed tones and in awkward small talk. A wild-haired woman has taken a seat at the front, whilst behind her a younger man fiddles with a mixing desk. Shortly, the silence is broken by the woman, who crackles over her radio mic; “We have a little...ah....technical problems” (hahahahahahahahhahahahha) English clearly isn’t her first language as she introduces herself as being of Palestinian origin, and how she has been asked to play for us. Still no mention of the conference. Then Simone plays her drums for us, as confused academics wander past, peering through the glazed wall of the auditorium and wondering if they’re in the right place...

Refer to Appendix 8 for a copy of the paper presented. Images (Clockwise from above): Wordcloud of key themes as discussed over the course of the conference, taken from author’s notes; Pages from author’s notebook; Roskilde University’s lakeside campus; PhD solidarity meeting, in parallel to established research community, at which an active community of young researchers was evident, discussing various initiatives for keeping in contact and exchanging research.

4.0

GREAT EXPECTATIONS - LOCALISM IN THE UK

“The time has come to disperse power more widely in Britain today.” The Prime Minister (David Cameron) and the Deputy Prime Minister (Nick Clegg) Coalition Agreement, May 2010

4.1

So what is Localism? - The Localism Bill as an Act of Parliament.

E Refer to Fig.9 below. Diagram illustrating the progression of a proposed Bill through the UK Parliament; starting in the House of Commons, and moving through the House of Lords before becoming legislation upon receiving Royal Assent. If a Bill were to be proposed in the House of Lords, the House stages would be switched and the Bill would still need approval from both Houses in order to be enacted into Law. The Localism Bill is currently at Report stage in the House of Lords. Reproduced courtesy of Parliament (2011). PROCESS OF ENACTMENT

ssentially, the term ‘localism’ can be used to refer to the political aspiration of empowering civil society to take more responsibility for decision making and the provision of local services. Its overarching theme is the devolution of power to local authorities and communities (DCLG 2011a, p.1) which forms a core component of the current coalition UK Government’s ‘Big Society’ agenda, upon which the Conservative Party based its election manifesto. The Big Society is represented in legislation by the Localism Bill 2010/11 (DCLG 2010), and the Government expects the Bill to become enacted in 2012. Whilst currently undergoing the slow process of enactment, through successive rounds of parliamentary debate and finally royal ascent, the Bill looks certain to be passed in something closely resembling its current form. At the time of writing, the Bill is at Report stage in the House of Lords, which represents a fairly advanced stage of enactment. Attention is now being paid to precise wording, rather than general content or vision. Many commentators believe that it will bring about a profound shift in the way that England is governed (Brady 2011; Dobson 2011; Johar 2011 and others).

Fig.9

The Bill was introduced to the House of Commons on 13th December 2010 and introduces new free-standing legislative provisions, as well as amending other legislation in four key areas which can summarised as: local government, planning, regeneration and housing. Almost all of the Bill’s provisions extend to England and Wales only, except minor aspects of infrastructure planning which also extend into Scottish legislation, and so reference by commentators to the ‘UK’ may be misleading.

4.2

A literature review of the Localism Bill

Literature surrounding the Bill is confusing, as the Bill itself is still undergoing

amendment in parliament. Revisions are documented after each House session or Committee meeting and are also made publically available online (UK Parliament 2011) meaning that the Bill is available to view online, in current and past forms, as it progresses through parliament. The Localism Bill itself currently stands in 2 volumes; the first as a 202-page document of ‘clauses’ that form the bulk of the Bill’s legislation; and the second as a 247-page register of ‘schedules’ that list other legislation affected or engaged by the Localism Bill. There is also an accompanying 101-page document of explanatory notes (DCLG 2011b). As such, the Localism Bill represents a substantial and widereaching piece of legislation. Simultaneously, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has published a Pain English Guide to the Localism Bill (DCLG 2011a) which seeks to address any confusion surrounding the consequences of the Bill’s enactment. It is very promotional in its tone, and therefore lacks criticality. However, it is aimed at a general audience and serves to clarify some of the intricacies of the Bill. The Bill itself is based on two green papers, set out by the Conservative Party whilst in opposition, entitled Control Shift (2009) and Open Source Planning (2010), which set the scene for the Bill’s publication.

Green Papers and White Papers are commonly used to educate readers and help people make decisions, and are often requested and used in politics, policy, business, and technical fields. White Papers are used as a means of presenting government policy preferences prior to the introduction of legislation; as such, the publication of a White Paper serves to test the climate of public opinion regarding a controversial policy issue and enables the government to gauge its probable impact. By contrast, Green Papers, which are issued much more frequently, are more open-ended. Also known as consultation documents, green papers may merely propose a strategy to be implemented in the details of other legislation or they may set out proposals on which the government wishes to obtain public views and opinion (Chapin & Deneau 1978, p.33). GREEN PAPERS

A large proportion of the Bill’s clauses affect the way the built environment is designed, procured and managed. As a result, localism is swimming gradually into focus into the professional discourse surrounding architectural design, urban design and planning, which stand to be substantially affected by the new legislation. Notable literature in this area includes the output of a number of regional and national colloquia on the effects of the Localism Bill on the procurement, design and regeneration of the built environment, including material by current RIBA President Angela Brady (Brady 2011) and former RIBA President George Ferguson (Ferguson 2011). Nationally, international development NGO, Architecture Sans Frontières UK (ASF-UK) hosted a conference on social enterprise that concerned itself deeply with localism (ASF-UK 2011). The RIBA itself has also hosted a number of events, bringing together professionals form backgrounds such as planning and development, alongside architects, to discuss how to make localism ‘work’; such as the ‘From Whitehall to Wigan’ event, held at the institution’s headquarters in London (Boler 2011; C.Brown 2011a; Cuff 2011; Kleiner 2011; Reed 2011). Recently, the RIBA-sponsored think tank for the built environment professions, Building Futures, published a report entitled ‘The Future for Architects?’ (Jamieson 2011), which surveyed a range of construction industry professionals about the evolving role - and value - of an architect, and accompanied a pair of nationally-focussed live debates on the topic. These are all important sources for this study as they represent the general view of a

SOCIAL ENTERPRISE: LESSONS FOR ARCHITECTS took place at the National Council for Volunteer Organisations headquarters in London on the 2nd and 3rd of February 2011 and invited speakers from a broad range of disciplines to catlyse debate about social enterprise and the civic economy. Speakers included Nigel Lowthrop of Hill Holt Wood, Inderpaul Johar of Architecture 00:/, and Jonathan Essex of Bioregional alongside academics, activist researchers and business advisors specialising in social business and qualitative auditting.

number of inter-dependent professions, as the wider industry in which they operate debates how it should respond to the demands of localism.

4.3

Physical Analysis of the Localism Bill

As observed, the Localism Bill itself addresses four primary areas of policy for England and Wales. These are: Local Government, Community Empowerment, Planning and Housing. In discussions, these are frequently further simplified; Local Government and Community Empowerment are usually considered as complimentary sets of ideas, whilst Planning is almost always considered in the context of ‘development’ and ‘regeneration’. Housing, as a topic, almost always remains as a third, isolated area of discussion; proposed changes address issues of management and social housing tenure, rather than design and spatial production per se. The Bill includes a specific section on policy in London, the details of which are beyond the scope of this dissertation.

Fig.10 - The Localism Bill 2010/11.......

CLAUSES

Chapter 4 + 5 - Predetermination and Standards - 8 clauses Chapter 6 - Pay Accountability - 6 clauses Chapter 7 - Miscellaneous - 3 clauses

Part 2 - EU Fines Part 3 - Non-Dometic Rates

4 Chapter 1 - Local Referendums - 17 clauses

Chapter 2 - Council Tax- 9 clauses

Part 4 - Community Empowerment

Chapter 3 - Community Right to Challenge - 6 clauses

Chapter 4 - Assets of Community Value - 20 clauses

Chapter 1 + 7 - Plans + Strategies - 7 clauses

Part 5 - Planning

Chapter 2 - Community Infrastructure Levy - 2 clauses Chapter 3 - Neighbourhood Planning - 6 clauses Chapter 4 - Consultation - 1 clause Chapter 5 - Enforcement - 4 clauses Chapter 6 - Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects - 12 clauses Chapter 1- Allocation + Homelessness - 5 clauses Chapter 2 - Social Housing Tenure Reform - 14 clauses

Part 6 - Housing

Chapter 3 - Housing Finance - 9 clauses Chapter 4 + 5 - Housing Mobility and Regulation - 4 clauses Chapter 6 - Other Housing Matters - 4 clauses

Part 7 - London

Part 8 - General

202 PAGES / 215 CLAUSES

Volume 1 Volume 2 247 PAGES

SCHEDULES

2 Volumes

Chapter 3 - Governance - 3 clauses

LOCALISM BILL 2010/11

Part 1 - Local Government

Chapter 1+ 2 - General Powers of Authorities - 10 clauses

Fig.10 - The anatomy of the Localism Bill 2010/11. The Bill stands in 2 volumes; the first as a 202-page document of ‘clauses’ that form the bulk of the Bill’s legislation; and the second as a 247-page register of ‘schedules’ that list other legislation affected or engaged by the Localism Bill.

4.3.1

Local Government and Community Empowerment

Parts 1 and 4 of the Localism Bill seek to address the empowerment of local authorities and communities. In summary, the Bill seeks to: -

Grant a general power of competence to local authorities (clauses 1-7).

Enable local authorities to choose to return to the committee system of governance, and allow for referendums for elected mayors in certain authorities (clauses 10-12).

Abolish the Standards Board regime and the model code of conduct for councillors, and introducing local accountability and a criminal offence of deliberate failure to declare a personal interest in a matter (clauses 14-20).

- Give more discretion over business rate relief to local authorities (clauses 35-38). -

Grant a new power for residents to initiate local referendums on any local issue and he power to veto excessive council tax increases (clauses 39-65).

Grant new powers to help communities save local facilities and services threatened with closure, and giving voluntary and community groups the right to challenge local authorities over the provision of their services (clauses 66 to 88). (DCLG 2011a, pp.1–2)

4.3.2

Planning and Regeneration

Parts 5 of the Localism Bill affects the planning system and reflect the government’s attitude towards regeneration and the production of the built environment. Generally, the government seeks to devolve power, to streamline the planning system and make it easier for communities to have an input into it (Brady 2011). Primarily, this has at its heart the intention to reduce the amount of planning guidance that has built up over the years and replace it with a new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) – an initiative commonly referred to as planning reform. The NPPF, however, does not constitute part of the Localism Bill itself, but instead accompanies it and is itself subject to an on-going debate over its wording and content. Planning reform is also sometimes referred to as ‘bottom-up’ planning (Ibid.; Ferguson 2011; Cuff 2011) in reference to the aspiration that a neighbourhood should decide what it needs or wants, and the NPPF maps out planning priorities

against broader social, environmental and economic objectives. A particular point of contention exists over whether or not the NPPF should include a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’, which would allow planning officers to permit any development - seemingly regardless of impact - in the absence of any contention from the community. Although intended to ensure that the NPPF is ‘pro-development’ and therefore an ‘economic stimulus for growth’ in the context of the global financial crisis (DCLG 2011c), it is commonly argued that the presumption represents a particular weakness in the new legislation that leaves communities and neighbourhoods vulnerable to exploitation due to imprecise definition of the term ‘sustainable’. In summary, policy addressing planning and regeneration allows for: -

The abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies (clause 89).

The abolition of the Infrastructure Planning Commission and a return to the position where the Secretary of State takes the final decision on major infrastructure proposals of national importance (clauses 107-118).

- Amendments to the provisions governing the Community Infrastructure Levy (which allows councils to charge developers to pay for infrastructure). Some of the revenue raised will be available for the local community (clauses 94- 95). -

The provision for neighbourhood plans , which may be approved if they receive 50% of the votes cast in a local referendum (clauses 96-101).

Provision for neighbourhood development orders to allow communities to approve development without requiring normal planning consent (clause 96).

The conferral of new housing and regeneration powers on the Greater London Authority and abolishing the London Development Agency (Part 7). (DCLG 2011a, p.2)

4.4

Summary of observations relevant to the design and production of the built environment

Whilst the summaries provided by DCLG in the Plain English Guide to the Localism Bill are useful in understanding the Bill’s wider implications, there are a number of aspects of specific relevance to the design and production of the built environment worthy of further discussion. These are underpinned by three key concepts intended to ensure that planning decisions originate from local rather than national policy (Remarkable

Engagement 2011a), which can be summarised as follows: -

…the Community Right to Build;

…the Community Right to Challenge;

…and the Community Right to Buy.

These concepts affect how communities can engage with the design and production of their built environment in three main ways: -

…through the production of Neighbourhood Plans;

… through Asset Transfer from Local Authorities;

…and through a new Duty to Consult placed upon developers.

4.5

The production of Neighbourhood Plans

Clauses 96 – 101 and Schedule 9 of the Localism Bill provide for a new system of neighbourhood planning, through which it is possible to exercise all three Community Rights. With the enactment of the Localism Bill, Local Authorities will be required to hold Local Plans and Neighbourhood Plans (DCLG 2011a, p.16), against which to assess applications for planning permission. This is commonly seen as the big change ushered forth by localism (Brady 2011) as it places the larger part of responsibility for the generation of such plans onto communities rather than the local authority. Neighbourhood Plans are seen as the main vehicle by which communities can have a say about what happens in their neighbourhood. Community groups submitting a Neighbourhood Plan for approval must have a recognisable constituency. In an area where there is a parish council the only applicant for a neighbourhood development plan or order can be the parish council. In areas where there is no parish council only ‘neighbourhood forums’ may apply, and a plan will not take effect unless more than 50% of those voting in a local referendum, vote in favour of it. (DCLG 2011a, pp.18–19). Communities may also propose Neighbourhood Development Orders (NDOs) that specifically permit development of a certain kind in a certain place, and is administered as a new category of planning permission. Some local authorities are already engaging with the process of neighbourhood planning in anticipation of the enactment of the Localism Bill. However, there are a number of issues. Firstly, although Neighbourhood Plans will be able to permit

development above that identified by the local authority (Brady 2011) they will have no specific power to stop development, and must conform to local and national planning policies that form part of the NPPF. Additionally, where a Neighbourhood Plan is absent, there will be a ‘presumption in favour of development’. This potentially leaves communities vulnerable to exploitation if they have not drawn up a Plan. Additionally, Neighbourhood Forums, with whom power can rest in the absence of a parish council, may constitute as few as three people (Ibid.), which renders the process susceptible to ‘vocal minorities’. Defining a community or neighbourhood, where it is not already clearly defined, is difficult, as recognisable communities often only identify themselves in response to threat, rather than opportunity. Ensuring that neighbourhood forums accurately represent a community is therefore essential, and may prove one of the biggest challenges of localism. It is also likely that neighbourhood planning will have a greater take up in some areas than others (Ibid.). Whilst some communities may already be well established, and benefit from active community members with professional skills in spatial planning, others may face a scarcity of resources - such as funding - needed to gain support in its absence within the community.

4.6

Asset Transfer from Local Authority

The ‘Community Right to Challenge’ and the ‘Community Right to Buy’ mainly influence a community’s ability to provide their own local services where the State or Local Authority is deemed to be lacking or deficient. However, this can also apply to assets such as vacant or under-used land or building stock under the Local Authority control. Under the ‘Community Right to Buy’, local groups will have a legal right to nominate any vital community asset - including local shops, pubs, libraries and leisure centres - to be assessed for recording on a ‘most wanted’ list by the local council. The asset could then be listed for five years. In that time, the owner of a listed asset will have to tell the council if they intend to sell, which will trigger a window of opportunity or ‘community countdown’, giving people time to prepare their business plan and raise the funds they need to make a credible bid before it goes on the open market (RUDI 2011). Again, the actions necessary to take advantage of this require that communities are properly resourced and supported, especially in seeing potential value in assets and in preparing strategic business plans.

THREE PEOPLE is the current minimum required to form a Neighbourhood Forum, as detailed in Schedule 9 Clause 61F 5;a-d of the Localism Bill. There is currently an ongoing debate surrounding the potential increase of this minimum to twelve.

4.7 THE CHANGING BILL... Listed as Clause 107 in the draft Bill, current as of 23/06/2011, but originally listed as Clause 102 in the Bill as originally proposed. Clause changes are likely as the Bill progresses through the process of enactment and can be difficult to track depsite the publication of each amended version of the bill online (see UK Parliament 2011).

Duty to Consult

Clause 107 effectively shifts the duty to consult on applications for planning consent for major projects onto the applicant (RTPI 2010, p.12) by making ‘consultation’ statutory, and seeks to protect and enable the Community Right to Build and to Challenge. The Localism Bill therefore brings with it a new Duty to Consult for developers, which requires prospective developers to consult local communities before submitting planning applications for certain developments. Developers have often done this as a way of ‘demonstrating’ that they have consulted locally on plans they have in fact already produced – in other words, a ‘tick the box’ exercise. The new powers mean that they will have to comprehensively consult on all large proposals before the plans have been produced, and then show how they have taken the local community’s views into account by including a Statement of Community Involvement in the submitted version. Failure to reflect what local people want from development could result in refusal of planning permission. As a result Community consultation is no longer an optional part of the planning system. However, the Duty to Consult only applies to large developments, of approximately two hundred housing units or bigger. Some commentators argue that developments much smaller than this can have a significant impact on a local community, and that the remit of the Duty to Consult should be extended (Brady 2011).

4.8

RDAs are replaced by the vaguely-defined Local Enterprise Partnerships, which look set to specifically target private business start-up and growth, rather than the wider reaching economic and social development objectives of the RDAs. Hill Holt Wood liaised regualrly with its RDA, the East Midlands Development Agency (EMDA) and partnered with it on several key projects. REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES

The Localism Bill in the wider context of the Big Society and economic constraint

The Localism Bill 2010/11 as discussed sits within a wider context of budget deficit reduction and cuts in government funding, from which civil society is not immune. In this context of scarce resources, there are many voices speaking out about localism; particularly the RIBA, which wants to ensure that local involvement will not mean poorer design, or give undue regard to the ‘not-in-my-backyard’ approach to development (Scott-Marshall 2011, p.22), a concern that Nigel Lowthrop cites as the biggest challenge of sustainable development (2011; Lowthrop et al. 2010). These concerns are given impetus by the observation that the UK Government is also reducing funding for a range of strategic, mid-level, ‘umbrella’ organisations – such as Regional Development Agencies - that provided strategic support for the civil economy under the previous government. Many third sector organisations depend upon this kind of support in order to operate at all, and the demands of localism also seem to require this level of strategic intervention. Some commentators therefore criticise the Big Society as empty rhetoric that actually acts against the values it

advocates, theoretically allowing communities and civil society organisations to do more for themselves whilst simultaneously removing the support that enables them to do so (McCabe 2010, p.13). Professional services, such as architectural design, are part of that ‘umbrella’ support. If their traditional outlet is compromised by government cuts, their valuable support may become unavailable to those with a responsibility for making decisions about the built environment. It remains to be seen whether the Localism Bill can truly catalyse a ‘genuinely decentralised bottom-up approach to development [which] will strengthen grass roots engagement with the development process’, as set out as the original aspiration in Open Source Planning (Conservative Party 2010, p.14), but in the meantime it is possible to take a closer look at the key demands it is likely to make of both communities and the professional practice of architecture.

Fig.X - Cerulli and Udall (forthcoming) point towards the potential for academia to fill the void left by strategic ‘umbrella’ organisations through initiatives such as Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (KTPs), engaged scholarship or activist research methods. Their case study, Reimagining Portland Works: Sustainable Futures for Sheffield’s Industrial Heritage Project, illustrates how the role of university-based activist research can enable and support collective civic action and create significant changes and results, even in the context of general scarcity of resources. In the particular case study, academic actions empowered tenants of a historic ‘integrated works’ to establish themselves as an Industrial and Provident Society for the Benefit of the Community, and gave momentum to their campaign to save the Works from speculative conversion into residential flats by its current owner.

Front page of The Independent, Tuesday 20th July 2011 48

5.0

SO WHY SOCIAL ENTERPRISE FOR ARCHITECTS?

“The success of these measures depends on the process being no more complicated than proposed and local communities being given the independent support and advice needed to take advantage of the new rights. Otherwise, the Government’s ambitions for 20% – 60% of the country having a neighbourhood plan in the next decade will not be met and they will largely come forward in rural areas and areas of development pressure where the development industry or landowners fund the process. The availability of independent support to neighbourhoods is especially important in these growth areas to ensure public confidence in the integrity of the process. The success of neighbourhood planning also requires both the development of a new network of “enablers” with the skills and competencies to support communities and a change in the attitude of many councils. More councils will need to move away from an approach based on “representation” and “consultation” truly to engage with their communities.”

Civic Voice - national charity for the civic movement in England, 2011 (Remarkable Engagement 2011c)

5.1

The Demands of Localism - The Localism Bill and the statutory obligation to consult

ince beginning the process of enactment into law, the Localism Bill has received much coverage in the architectural press and at regional and national colloquia of spatial practitioners. A recent article in The Architect’s Journal (Murray 2011, p.19) attempted to survey the threats and opportunities currently facing the architectural profession, and highlighted the effects of the Localism Bill on planning legislation and practice as one of the main factors (C.Brown 2011b, p.26; Cross 2011, p.40; Waters 2011, p.27; Williams 2011, p.33), alongside the decline of the architect’s influence in the built environment (Ashton 2011, p.37; Williams 2011, p.33). CIVIC VOICE is a representative forum resulting of extensive consultation and discussion with hundreds of civic and amenity societies and their members and over 100 other interested organisations and partners about the future of the civic movement following closure of the Civic Trust in April 2009. This work was led by the Civic Society Initiative and funded by the National Trust, the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation and civic societies with support from CPRE, the North of England Civic Trust, English Heritage and the RIBA among others (Civic Voice 2011).

In the introductory quote to this section civic-movement charity Civic Voice points out that the effective uptake of the ideals represented by localism depends upon the effective ‘enablement’ of ‘true engagement’ by communities in the processes of spatial production, the facilitation of which is an opportunity for architects to engage with engagement. This is a view shared by organisations such as Glass-House, a national charity who ‘exist to provide independent and impartial support’ and work between communities and professionals as a specialist in engagement and ‘new ways of working’ (Glass-House 2011), and Remarkable Engagement, a commercial ‘engagement consultant’ offering the same kind of service to developers. However, whether further specialisation and compartmentalisation of the design process - and services targeted at architects and developers - may not be the most effective way to facilitate engagement. When the Localism Bill becomes enacted into law, public consultation will become a statutory obligation on all planning applications, rather than merely a beneficial accessory. Applicants - the majority of whom will be developers of varying sizes will need support in order to instigate and document this engagement. Additionally, if localism demands that communities take on greater responsibility for the quality of their neighbourhoods, then they too will require support from professionals and

“ in order to shoulder that responsibility effectively. As Anna Scott-Marshall, specialists head of policy and public affairs at the RIBA notes: “…it is clear that there is a desire from local authorities for support and work from architects - often as facilitators rather than designers.”

(Scott Marshall 2011, p.22)

Scott-Marshall is quoting from a ‘snapshot’ survey of local authorities by the RIBA, which identified that the majority of local authorities would require support in engaging with communities, highlighting a particular desire for a tool, such as a database or shortlist, that identified architects ‘qualified in community consultation’. Local authorities also acknowledge that communities will need support in developing their Neighbourhood Plans (Ibid.p.22). Remarkable Engagement adds ‘strategic site promotion’ (2011b) as a further area of work resulting from the demands of localism; referring to the identification of community assets that will for a key aspect of neighbourhood planning. Communities will certainly be vulnerable to coercion by quick-off-the-mark developers unless they prepare and adopt a Neighbourhood Plan. This is particularly true if the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ - included in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) that accompanies the Localism Bill and currently under particular scrutiny - is retained. Likely obstacles to the preparation of such a plan include a lack of constituency in the community rendering it incapable of cohesive action, and a limited availability of financial resources with which to obtain professional support. The difficulty presented in identifying and therefore representing or supporting a community may prove to be one of the biggest challenges of spatial planning in the context of localism.

Fig.11 Architect and community activist Teddy Cruz led a discussion about the challenges of defining ‘community’ at the Designing Civic Encounter conference, initiated by ArtTerritories in Ramallah, Palestine, on the 24th July 2011. ArtTerritories is conceived as an independent platform for artists, thinkers, researchers and curators to reflect on their art practice and engage in critical exchange on matters of art and visual culture in the Middle East and the Arab World, and as such is clear demonstration that the demands of localism in the UK are neither unique, nor without precedent.

COMMUNITY Refer to Fig.11 below.

PRESUMPTION IN FAVOUR... A ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ was proposed in the Conservative’s Open Source Planning Green Paper, and accompanies the Localism Bill rather than being discussed within it (RUDI 2011). It is a is a policy instrument designed to act as an incentive to development, as previoulsy discussed in section 4.3.2 of this study.

5.2

From communities to stakeholders - participation in practice

The Localism Bill itself appears to refer predominantly to communities that are geographically local to a development. However, defining ‘community’ can run into semantic difficulty; it is possible to be a member of multiple communities, and communities can define themselves in terms of a wide range of common factors, such as location, interest or threat. Indeed, it is a common observation that communities often only become identifiable as distinct constituent groups in response to threats (see Cruz 2011; Dobson 2011; Lowthrop 2011 and others). The pro-active identification and engagement with a community presents a difficult challenge. NABEEL HAMDI Nabeel Hamdi is commonly acknowledged as a pioneer of participatory design and planning practice, having established his reputation through award-winning housing projects facilitated during his time at the Greater London Council (1969-78), and in 1997 he won the UN-Habitat Scroll of Honour for his work on Community Action Planning (Conflict in Cities 2011). In particular, his 2004 book, Small Change, has been highly influential in describing the role that informality plays in urban life, and his work epitomises an approach that looks for ways to use his skills as an architect to bolster or augment already existing structures, rather than starting from a ‘blank canvas’ (Awan et al. 2011a).

As Hamdi points out, ‘stakeholders’ is a more useful term than ‘community’ when talking about engagement. Different stakeholders may have different expectations of, and capacities for participating in design work and spatial production (2010, p.88), a concept which Schneider and Till refer to as ‘spatial agency’ (2009; Awan, Schneider & Till 2011b; Awan, Schneider & Till 2011a). As Schneider adds, the concept of spatial agency takes into account the ‘multiplicity of voices’ belonging to those that the production of architecture affects and is affected by (in Curti & Caines 2011). At Hill Holt Wood, for example, someone who lives in the local area, and someone who has an interest in promoting or learning about sustainable design, could both have a stake in a particular project. Whilst they both may have a stake in a project, they could each form part of a separate community; the former, as part of the geographically local community and the latter as part of a ‘community of interest’. Hill Holt Wood might also interact with local business interests, such as of a local building firm who might stand to win any potential contracts generated by development, but who might also add capacity to the project team. Each agent will be able to talk about aspirations and doubts - and about design - in different terms, and exhibit a different willingness and ability to engage with the project. A skilful facilitator of design in this context would be able to value the input of such varied stakeholders, represent it, and communicate across multiple registers when assessing the ‘development capacity’ of a given project - a concept that architect and activist Teddy Cruz refers to as the ‘architect as inter-locator’ (2011), and Bauman Lyons Architects refer to as the ‘stitcher of disconnections’ (2008, p.13). Cerulli and Holder also use the phrase ‘architect as go-between’, as an actor who to ‘makes connections and communicates between individuals, groups and networks of people’ (2009, pp.29–34). Engagement with each stakeholder in ways such as these, leads to an understanding of their capacity for engaging in development, and doing this continually contributes to the legitimacy of the engaging organisation in the eyes of each ‘community’. If the community can be better thought of as the group of stakeholders in any proposed development, then a neighbourhood can be conceived as the territory, or realm, in which development proposals affect that community. Conceiving of

‘community’ and neighbourhoods in this way is also helpful when considering how to initiate projects in the context of localism. To rise to the challenge of identifying and representing the best interests of a community, and facilitating their engagement in the design of a neighbourhood plan, architects may need to be aware of the opportunities for participatory governance offered by social enterprise practice.

5.3

Social enterprise, legitimacy and governance

“As businesses driven by their social mission, social enterprises often seek to protect their mission through their choice of legal or governance structure…many social enterprises are characterised by non-traditional governance and ownership structures. They can be owned by their employees, consumers/users, trustees, public bodies, the wider community or a combination of different stakeholder groups.” (Social Enterprise UK 2011a)

A key theme discussed in the literature surrounding social enterprise and civil society is the idea of legitimacy. It refers primarily to the concept of trust, and to the degree to which an organisation can legitimately claim to represent the interests of those who hold a stake in its operation. Major national or multi-national corporations who practice Corporate Social Responsibility - such as allowing staff to volunteer, investing in small businesses or donating to charities - do so as a way of maintaining or improving their legitimacy. As such it could be cynically regarded as ‘keeping people on your side’, and in this regard social enterprises are not exempt. Social enterprises, it could be claimed, tend to exhibit specific organizational forms, languages, values, and practices that make it easier to accord them legitimacy as community advocates. As an example, In the case of Hill Holt Wood, a sense of legitimacy is clearly evident in the way that the local community supported Lowthrop’s application for planning permission to build his own home in the woodland. Although initially resistant, the community was persuaded by the work of Hill Holt Wood and the benefits of having Lowthrop and his business in the neighbourhood. When the business was transferred to community ownership, the maintenance of legitimacy was sought through the adoption of an appropriate governance structure; specifically a Board of Trustees, to which the C.E.O. and their management team are directly accountable. The Board is comprised of stakeholder representatives, such as an elected member of staff and active members of the geographically local community, alongside founders and investors. It ensures that the business is working towards its social and environmental objectives by voting on issues of governance, such as growth, investment in staff, equipment and premises, and appointments to the Board. This is not the only governance option open to social enterprises; co-operatives are perhaps the best known example, where every member has an equal vote on

LEGITIMACY refers to the state or quality of being legitimate. In political science, legitimacy is the popular acceptance of a governing law or régime as an authority. Political legitimacy is considered a basic condition for governing, without which, a government will suffer legislative deadlock(s) and collapse (Dahl 1971, pp.124-188). According to political sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset legitimacy also “involves the capacity of a political system to engender and maintain the belief that existing political institutions are the most appropriate and proper ones for the society” (1983, p.64).

HOME Refer to p.12 of this study to revisit the process by which the Lowthrops gained gained community support for their application for planning permission.

decisions taken about the directorship of the organisation. Indeed, the variance of governance structures is intricate and often depends on the specific context of each organisation. Three of the nine criteria for recognising a social enterprise used by the EMES International Research Network relate to governance, principally that they exhibit ‘governance of a participatory nature, involving persons affected by the activity’ and ‘decision making power not based on capital ownership’ (Hulgård & Andersen 2011). Accessibility is another key factor in accumulating legitimacy. One of Hill Holt Wood’s strengths lies in its location in publically accessible woodland. It promotes itself as a ‘shop-front’ and point of contact for its activities, opening them up to public scrutiny. Legitimacy - at least in the eyes of a geographically local community - might

HOW TO BE A HAPPY ARCHITECT In their book, ‘How to be a Happy Architect’, Bauman Lyons Architects discuss a number of ways in which they work as a ‘stitcher of disconnections’ amongst project stakeholders, including retaining the ability to say ‘no’ to creating further disconnection, as embodied by their decision to only work within a two hour drive of their office.

NORTON BIG WOOD Refer to 2.4.3 for the project description of Norton Big Wood.

necessitate a commitment to a place in this way, a tactic with other benefits such as ‘better knowledge of the place’ and a ‘better lifestyle for the design team and lighter eco-footprint’ (Bauman Lyons Architects 2008, p.99). Whilst it is possible to engage with a particularly deep, theoretical discussion of governance and legitimacy (see Dart 2004; Spear et al. 2007), it remains beyond the scope of this study. Governance is, however, key to ensuring that the social enterprise retains legitimacy in its claims to represent the interests of a community. A particular challenge exists in remaining participatory (Hulgård & Andersen 2011) as continual engagement with stakeholders tends to be resource intensive. Diminishing legitimacy can, however, begin to impact on the capacity of an organisation to effect change, particularly in the field of spatial planning. This is in evidence in the resistance experienced by Hill Holt Wood in the project at Norton Big Wood, where the geographically local community had grown wary of the organisation due to a reduced level of ‘out-reach’ and engagement, despite having recommended them on the basis of previous legitimate activity. Participation in governance - and the legitimacy in action accorded by it - is a concept as easily applied to social enterprise as a ‘project’ as to Social Enterprise as a business. It is therefore an important factor when considering how to initiate projects in the context of localism.

5.4

Project Initiation and the limitations of being an architect

The project descriptions discussed in the chapter on Hill Holt Wood demonstrate some of the different ways that Hill Holt Wood initiated projects for its Design Team, other than waiting for a ‘commission’ from a ‘client’. However, as ‘year out’ students we found that sometimes we were still pursuing work in a certain way purely to meet the PEDR criteria; for example, producing a certain set of drawings, and engaging in certain, seemingly prescribed and exclusive relationship with our clients. At times, this felt like we were ‘going against the grain’ of how that particular job should be

administered or facilitated. Indeed many commentators, such as Riley (2010), Till (2009a; 2009b) and Milliner (2000, p.223), point out that professional practice as an architect in the UK is somewhat exclusive; with Riley and Till adding that such exclusivity results from binary definitions of such terms as ‘architect’ and ‘client’ in key documents governing professional practice, such as the RIBA Plan of Work and the Architect’s Job Book (Riley 2010, p.2; Till 2009b, p.1). Riley argues that the ‘users’ are excluded from the design process used to produce the spaces and places that they use and inhabit, by protocol designed to unjustly preserve the status - and therefore prosperity - of the architect. Like Riley, as ‘year out’ students we were recording a lot of our experience as ‘other’ (Riley 2010, p.v), highlighting the inflexibility of PEDR and the Plan of Work with regard to alternative practices of spatial production and accredited ‘professional’ experience. Whilst Riley’s work goes on to look at how the practice of architecture might become more inclusive through a reformatting of the external regulations governing it, social enterprise is an example of how the structure and governance within practices and projects might also allow for greater inclusivity within an architectural design process.

BETH RILEY Beth Riley’s MArch dissertation, Barriers of Exclusion, Modes of Inclusion - completed whilst studying at the Sheffield School of Architecture, UK - analyses exclusivity in the architectural profession as a product of its governing literature. It proposes a reformatting of the Plan of Work to allow the professional practice of architecture to include a greater variety of spatial practices and engage with a wider range of spatial agency, ‘placing the user at the heart of the Plan’ (Riley 2010). to exclude: give no place to, to prevent the existence, occurence or use of”

“

Barrie

Analy

sing

rs of exclu and reform

atting

With the Woodland Community Hall (p.8), initiation of the project was dictated by the limited capacity of a relatively young organisation, and necessitated various non-financial transactions in procurement; for example, the trade of ‘live’ educational experience for ‘initial design work’ between Hill Holt Wood and local Schools of Architecture. In the case of Re:Gainsborough (p.21), Lowthrop actively engaged local authority councillors in order to influence policy through advocacy for sustainable community development. Specifically targeting what he saw as the limitations of bureaucratic procurement procedures, Lowthrop and the Design Team produced design work accompanied by a business case that advocated for the innovative use of a ‘special purpose vehicle’ to take development forward. Advocacy accompanied a track record of legitimate representation in the project at Norton Big Wood (p.25), whilst the commission to design buildings at Farmeco Community Carefarm (p.23) shows that more traditional forms of appointment are not ruled out by this approach. However, in this last example, the Design Team did not follow the RIBA Plan of Work, agreeing instead to charge a fee against distinct stages of work as perceived by the client, such as ‘design to submission of a planning application’ and ‘further design to a submission to building control’. All of the above demonstrate the application of tactics, knowledge and skill beyond that normally expected - or permitted - of an architect. Lowthrop acknowledges these as ‘simply the skills of an entrepreneur’ (Lowthrop 2011), whilst it can also be argued that the status and legitimacy of a being a ‘social enterprise’, rather than specifically a private, architectural practice, allows further room for manoeuvre.

“

sion,

the RI BA

to include: ACKNOWLE

DGEMENTS

to contain, I would like to thank comprise, Beth Riley embrace” 0701

Prue Chiles for all her help, support and encouragement.

10054

mode Plan

s of inclusi

of W ork

on:

5.5 INCLUSIVE DESIGN Whilst the term ‘inclusive design’ is often used interchangeably with the term ‘participation’, it more strictly refers to initiatives that engage young, old and vulnerable people; referred to as ‘universal design’ in the USA (Design Council 2011). It can usefully be understood here as a specific form of participatory design.

This isn’t new - what about ‘participation’ and the tradition of working inclusively?

Also commonly referred to as ‘inclusive design’, or ‘co-design’, participation is the subject of rich and intense discourse surrounding the concept of the ‘citizens’ right’ to the ‘social city’ (Lefebvre 1968; Hamdi 2010, pp.87-103; Hickey & Mohan 2005). The appropriate facilitation of participation as a design tool in the built environment professions is also widely debated (Blundell-Jones et al. 2005; Jenkins & Forsyth 2010; Marlow & Egan 2011; Hamdi 2010). Participation as an idea presumes that architecture in its widest sense is ‘rarely delivered through an individual’ such as an architect, but rather that the architect ‘becomes not the agent of change, but one among many agents’ (Schneider & Till 2009, p.97). It is a belief that is unfortunately applied only to varying extents and with varying success, in what could be argued as only a minority of projects. As Oliver points out: While architects are familiar with the notion of consultation as a means to interact with the public, participation is a significant step further and requires a transparency, and a willingness to engage. The

Hamdi refers to harvest mapping as ‘the harvesting of needs, emotive attachments and aspirations...coupled with the harvesting of tangible resources - skills, talents, enterprises, innovations, materials and equipment...an asset mapping exercise of physical and human resources, and in particular of social capital - networks and alliances and neighbourliness not easily visible’ (2010, p.80). HARVEST MAPPING 2012 ARCHITECTEN & SUPERUSE Refer to Fig.12 and Fig.13. SPACESHAPER Refer to Fig.15

BUILDING CAPACITY follows with the common belief amongst development experts that ‘local communities and local built environment professionals should be determining their own development, and any external players should be building capacity and helping to facilitate the change needed’ (see discussion in Ernst 2010, p.7).

architect does not need to abandon the skills they have, but consider how to use them as a servant or interpreter. This can transform the commodity of architecture from a private skill to ‘a social resource’ opening up the rights for people ‘to make high demands of it.” (Oliver 2005, p.66)

Hamdi highlights examples of participation in design, referring to activities such as ‘harvest mapping’ (Hamdi 2010, p.71), notably employed by 2012 Architecten and partners Superuse in a number of small-scale art and architecture projects, including Villa Welpeloo and Wikado Children’s Playground. With younger groups, prompting by an ‘expert’, whilst participants sketch ideas or creatively answer questions is another form of facilitated participation, as pursued by facilitators of the Spaceshaper toolkit. Conversely, The Sorrell Foundation asks young people to act as the client on projects, using a programme called the ‘Design Club’ to ‘encourage young people to develop their skills as clients, consumers and critics of design’ (The Sorrell Foundation 2011). There is a wide range of tactics that can be used to facilitate participation in this sense, ranging from ‘mapping’ exercises which aim to reveal a vision for the development of a neighbourhood, to those which seek to build capacity in a community to undertake further work independently. The greatest opportunities for participation in the design process occur in its earliest stages, when the brief is being formed and a vision established, and before the requirement for technical expertise limits the extent to which those without training can engage in design work. Within the specific scope afforded by planning reform and the Localism Bill, principal opportunities for participation lie similarly with brief development and strategic thinking, both of which form important elements of preparing a Neighbourhood Plan.

Fig.12 - The project for Villa Welpeloo, Roombeek, Netherlands (2005), by 2012 Architecten and SuperUse used ‘harvest mapping’ - tapping into the local civic economy to source materials and labour - to enagage the client and construction team as partners in design.

Whilst there is nothing to say that private architecture practices cannot facilitate genuinely participatory design processes, social enterprise provides a conceptual structure through which architects may be viewed as legitimately representing the interested of a community, who can participate in the overall governance of the practice or project rather than merely the process of design.

5.6

So what are the challenges for architects who want to become ‘enablers’ and ‘social entrepreneurs’?

It is clear that architects can - and do - do other things besides the co-ordination of technical design information in the production of buildings. However, as the RIBA and think-tank Building Futures’ report ‘The Future For Architects?’ suggests, the vast majority of these skills come under ‘pre-project’, as defined by the RIBA Plan of Work, covering preparatory work that lies behind the early design stages and is frequently undertaken for free, despite being of high value to clients (Jamieson 2011, pp.32–33). Despite tangible anxiety within the profession (Murray 2011, p.19) architects are still widely regarded as possessing valuable skills for development; an observation given further impetus by the context of localism. As Bauman Lyons Architects note: “Architects have developed skills of ‘analysis, strategy, design and the ability to visualise’ and have the capacity to ‘perceive, understand and stitch together the multiple disconnections caused by the exceptionally rapid rate of change… Architects have the capacity to think on a variety of scales and handle complex data. We are problem solvers with a regard for aesthetics, and as such we have a vital contribution to make to the job of stitching together multiple disconnections.” (Bauman Lyons Architects 2008, p.13).

DOING OTHER THINGS As one amongst many references, Cerulli & Holder (2009, pp.29-34) reflect on the role of the designer in the context of community regeneration projects from the perspective of complexity science, noting the role of the designer as ‘ste presence’, educator and ‘go-between’ in three case studies, only one of which involved the production of a physical building.

Fig.13 - 2012 Architecten and SuperUse re-used wind turbine blades at Wikado Children’s Playground in Rotterdam, Netherlands (2009), having again obtained them through ‘harvest mapping’; this time with the local community.

Fig.14 - ASF-UK using ‘mapping’ of local assets as an activity to engage with a geographically local community in Birmingham, UK.

The likely demands of localism, such as the facilitation of a discussion about - and articulation and communication of - a vision for a neighbourhood, that engages a wide variety of stakeholders, and which preserves or ‘adds value’ to a site or asset through good design, certainly requires skilled practitioners. Although specific examples of successful participatory practice are identifiable, they are often small in scale and characterised by the ‘high risk’ and contingency of involving others in the design process. Professions in general seek to minimise risk, and as a result the majority of mainstream architectural practice operates within the defined ‘box’ and routine of the Plan of Work, rather than embracing the contingent - and therefore, risky - process of participatory design. Whilst social enterprise and social entrepreneurship may offer a vehicle by which architects can work outside of a restrictive professional framework, practice legitimate, inclusive, participatory design and find work - in the context of localism, it is commonly accepted that they will need to acquire additional skills in order to do so. These may principally be categorised as entrepreneurial skills, especially those of the social entrepreneur active in the civic economy, and participatory design skills, allowing for the production of genuinely inclusive design.

5.6.1

Entrepreneurial Skill

“We’ve stopped recruiting architects - they just don’t have the skills you need to work in the areas we work”. Inderpaul Johar of Architecture 00:/ speaking in London, 2011 (Johar 2011)

Higgins uses the Higher Education Academy’s definition of entrepreneurship, understanding it as ‘activity which leads to the creation and management of a new

Fig.15 - The Spaceshaper toolkit is designed to be used by trained facilitators to engage young people - aged between nine and fourteen - as partners in the design process. Information about a site is gathered, communicated and represented in a variety of formats to stimulate thought and discussion about the design and use of spaces. The young people are asked to produce sketches, postcards, photographs and to collect data in response to certain, discrete and pre-determined questions. Data collected in the field is e used to generate automatic ‘ramble-grams’ - moving animations that represent the results of questioning. The sessions of engagement are documented in a report, which is designed to augment the brief issued to the design team. 59

organisation designed to pursue a unique, innovative opportunity’ (2005, p.65), whilst Dees et al. describe entrepreneurs as ‘innovative, opportunity-orientated, resourceful, value-creating change agents’ (2002, p.xxx), an idea that fits closely to that which many architects aspire. Adding the ‘social’ caveat directs skills in entrepreneurship towards ‘the public good rather than private profit’ (Higgins 2005, p.65). Social entrepreneurs, then, ‘create and sustain social value, engage in a process of continuous innovation and learning, act boldly and exhibit a heighted sense of accountability to the constituencies served and for outcomes created’ (Dees et al. 2002, p.xxxi). Social entrepreneurship is essentially perpetually innovative, and requires creativity, rather than process-based management, thinking first of the social goals and then of how a business can achieve these (Karlothungun 2009, p.2). Over the last decade, many business schools have begun to offer courses on social entrepreneurship (Brock & Ashoka Global Academy 2008, p.5), and it is recognised even as requiring an augmented skillset to that of a business entrepreneur. Karlothungun points towards the core values of humanism, equality and social justice for all as key differentiating qualities between the two (2009, p.2). Despite the emergence of academic courses in social entrepreneurship, most entrepreneurs will claim that essential skills can only be learned in the ‘real world’ (Lowthrop 2011; Dobson 2011), whilst Higgins claims that ‘live’ educational experiences are essential in developing these real world competencies (2005). Indeed, ‘Live Project’ education is receiving increasing attention in UK schools of architecture and planning as resources become scarcer in both practice and

PROJECT OFFICES & LIVE PROJECTS A number of UK School’s of Architecture run Live Projects and actively engage their students in the work of their Project Offices. At the time of writing, a Google search for Schools running Live Projects as part of their programmes of architectural education returns; East London, Kent, London Metropolitan, Oxford Brookes, Sheffield, the University of the West of England (UWE), UCL (The Bartlett) and the Welsh School of Architecture (Cardiff). It is known that the prominence of Live Projects in course programmes varies from School to School. A similar search for Project Offices associated with Schools of Architecture and offering ‘live’ experience to students returns; Leicester, Manchester, Portsmouth and Sheffield.

academia. A civic-economy symbiosis between the two is often mutually beneficial, as clearly demonstrated at Hill Holt Wood, and as discussed at Live Projects 2011; a recent national colloquia titled after that specific element of architectural education. University-based ‘project offices’ are able to offer this kind of experience to students (Graves & Andrews 2011) and many schools run ‘live projects’ as part of their academic programmes (Khonsari & Denicke-Polche 2011; J. Anderson & Priest 2011; Butterworth 2011; Chandler 2011). A live project in architectural education may be defined as: “…a teaching project that brings students of architecture into contact with one or more aspects of the reality of architectural practice: a real client, a real timeline and a real outcome that is of value to the client. Established as an adaptation of the studio-based model of architectural education, their origins lie in nineteen-fifties’ experiments in the university-based architectural education. Contemporary UK live projects are increasingly cited as developing broader skill-sets in their students than traditional studio based projects, often drawing reference from design/build or service learning projects in North America.”

(Benedict-Brown & Queen’s Unversity Belfast 2011)

It is clear that there is potential in this model of education to provide learning opportunities in which students can gain skills in entrepreneurship. It is also clear that social enterprises may have a greater capacity for partnership with educational institutions, as in evidence at Hill Holt Wood, meaning that they could be instrumental in providing opportunities through which students can learn the skills they need in order to practice effectively within them. This is an area worthy of further study beyond the scope of this dissertation.

5.6.2

Participatory Design Skill

Moving from the conventional position of ‘provider’ to that of ‘enabler’ requires a different attitude and a different set of skills and competencies. In the field of international development, Sharma sums up what it means to be an ‘enabler’: “I now work as a consultant to communities, translating their knowledge and aspirations into plans and proposals, and helping them articulate and present these to governments, donors and their own selves for implementation.” (Sharma in Hamdi 2010, p.64)

Indeed, the discourse surrounding facilitation of development is perhaps better understood within this field than it is within architectural design. Hamdi goes on to describe tools that can be used to facilitate development: “Tools are the means with which to achieve ends. All will have limitations, and most times, in the swamp

of practice, one finds one has to adapt or invent tools as one proceeds. Mapping, transect walks, role play and model making generate knowledge and socialize differences, which is an important prelude to engaging people as partners in design, implementation and management of places and programmes.”

(Hamdi 2010, p.76)

Toolkits such as Community Action Planning (CAP), Strategic Action Planning (SAP) and Planning for Real exist; primarily setting out methodologies for engagement that see people as the main resource for development rather than as an object of the development efforts or as mere recipients of benefits. Each utilises a number of the techniques that value low-tech and accessible ‘tools’ to engage stakeholders as partners in design. Toolkits involve elements of direct observation (‘looking’), in which the team can see conditions for themselves, checking information on maps and spotting clues in order to form a first opinion. Doing this well requires elements of the detective, reading out from observable indicators (‘facts on the ground’) to understand how things work locally. ‘Listening’ - through semi-structured interviews with stakeholders - can also form part of observation: “While looking reveals information about the visible structure of place, interviews tell about the hidden social and economic structure of community” (Ibid, p.70)

Hamdi notes that ‘transect walks’ - walking and talking with local people and other stakeholders - are a useful way to organise observation, and then record and represent the discoveries (Ibid.). Looking and listening are normally supplemented by measuring and counting, adding quantitative data to the mix, such as where the highest land values might be and where the greatest commercial activity occurs. There are then techniques for ‘harvesting the resources of a community’, such as human capital resources (skills) and physical assets (tools, land, etc.). All these activities can be done by, or in partnership with community organisations. Much of this information can be communicated in maps, models or diagrams - or even performed - and as Hamdi notes, these are: “…useful participatory tools for documenting aspirations and of expressing views and opinions about place in a non-confrontational setting…the collaborative process of making maps and models helps break down the barriers between ‘them and us’ and builds a sense of cooperation among participants at the earliest phase of planning.”

(Ibid. pp.72–74)

I would add to Hamdi’s observation that maps and diagrams avoid bias towards literacy, by noting that they avoid dependence upon architectural literacy specifically,

TRANSECT WALKS can be presented as drawings.

which is one of the roots of the exclusive practice of architectural design. Additionally: ‘Cognitive or social maps, for example, map events in people’s past and present experiences that can reveal social and political relationships that will need to be considered when preparing proposals’

(Ibid, p.72)

‘GAMESTORMING’ by Dave Gray, Sunni Brown and James Macanufo is aimed at management consultants, and describes a variety of techniques for generating creative solutions and enhancing ‘productivity’ in management teams. With their book, Gray et al. aim to dispel the myth that creativity and invention are a ‘black box’ accessible only to ‘creatives’ - a concept easily transferable to the realm of ‘enabling’ and participation in design.-

Among the other tools, games and role-play can be used to build awareness of the needs and desires of groups of people who may not be well represented in the planning phases, and to strategically build awareness and sensitize professionals, government officials or community leaders to key issues. Gray et al, also note the power of ‘gamestorming’ to facilitate communication and unlock creative potential in diverse groups of stakeholders (2010). A further quote from Hamdi perhaps gives a sense of the diversity of thinking involved in ‘enabling’: “What changes will be demanded (now, soon, later) in order to deal with problems and implement options? What changes in professional attitudes, work routines or habit? What to standards, what to legislation and power relations that open doors for people to access resources of knowledge, materials, land, money? What changes to method or organization of work, to partnerships and relationships between insiders and outsiders if we are to deliver on the strategic aspect of our planning? What does it all mean for policy?”

(Hamdi 2010, p.68)

It could be claimed that acting ‘entrepreneurially’ and ‘enabling’ are not all that dissimilar. Hamdi refers to this concept as ‘urban acupuncture’, looking for interventions that could release the energy latent in place (2010, pp.64–65); David Kohn refers to a similar idea as ‘jujitsu urbanism’ (2009, p.38) due to the martial art’s exploitation of existing energy. The main strength of working in this way is the identification of possible partners and the earliest stage of development - between community groups, between formal and informal private enterprise, between all and respective government departments - and in doing so, engaging with the civic economy. Again, it seems the most effective way to acquire relevant skills is through a ‘live’ educational experience complimented by academic support, and although organisations such as Architecture Sans Frontières UK are developing pedagogy for practitioners engaging in development as ‘enablers’, Schools of Architecture may benefit from embracing such pedagogy in their own teaching.

5.7

Concluding thoughts - so why is social enterprise of interest to architects?

In returning to the observation that social enterprise can be both an activity and a status, social enterprise can be said to be useful to architects in two ways. Firstly, a professional architecture, planning and urbanism practice could be a Social Enterprise, with associated governance, operating as a legitimate community service and identifying and supporting communities as they shoulder the responsibilities demanded by localism. Secondly, architects could act as social entrepreneurs, establishing socially enterprising projects in order to procure the built environment in a legitimate, participatory manner. In the case of the latter, a Social Enterprise could also be established to undertake the on-going management of a project post â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;completionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, which could facilitate the on-going involvement of the architect or other spatial practitioner and a commitment to place.

The reciprocal frame roof of the Woodland Community Hall at Hiill Holt Wood, which not only makes economical use of use of native resource, but also symbolises the complexity and inter-dependence of the organisations it accomodates. 64

6.0

6.1

RECOMMENDATIONS

Action research outcomes

he goal of action research is to identify aspects of practice that can or should be altered. That is what this study has achieved. The outcome of that research is a series of recommendations for both Hill Holt Wood as an organisation, and my own futures practice as an architect. Having conducted this period of reflection, I would add a series of further recommendations for wider architectural practice and for further research. The recommendations are simple, and further study might generate more specific opportunity for implementing them.

6.2

Recommendations for Hill Holt Wood

It is clear from this study that there is a demand for services, such as those provided by Hill Holt Wood, that looks likely to grow as localism takes root in the UK. However that same organisation has experienced problems with legitimacy as it neglected to maintain resource-intensive levels of engagement with its local geographic community. The medium and techniques of participatory design may offer Hill Holt Wood a way to rebuild and maintain its local legitimacy, whilst also expanding the service it can offer as a design team. Particular attention might be paid to the documentation of engagement work, as it is likely to form an important part of evidence demanded by planning reform. It would also aid the process of social auditing which, although not discussed here, presents a difficult challenge for social enterprises, requiring the evaluation of qualitative evidence alongside quantitative figures such as those normally found in accounting.

6.3

Recommendations for my own practice

In terms of my practice, I might need to be entrepreneurial, and initiate projects in ways that ‘stack benefits’ for stakeholders in the civic economy. I know from my experience at Hill Holt Wood that this is not easy, and that I do not yet have an awareness of being an ‘enabler’ that would allow me to practice effectively in the way that I have described. I too can learn from models of engagement practiced in international development, and an appropriate step forward for me would be to gain some experience working with organisations that have a track record in participation.

6.4

Recommendations for wider architectural practice

There are clearly aspects to Hill Holt Wood that would be hard to replicate in other situations, and it is therefore important to distinguish between those aspects of social

enterprise and social entrepreneurship that are transferrable and those that are not. It is my opinion that social enterprise represents a viable mode of engagement for architects working in the context of localism. However, it is clear that it requires an augmented set of skills from those traditionally expected of an architect. Architects may need to begin to work entrepreneurially, across professional boundaries and in a more inclusive manner, in order to initiate social enterprise that can shape the built environment. Social entrepreneurs make meaningful change, but embrace risk; whereas professions, especially in the built environment, are almost entirely risk averse - due in part to the high cost of liability. The profession should think about how it absorbs risk, which may require addressing education to ensure that graduates have competencies that allow them to embrace risk in the design process. Such competencies are best developed through ‘live’ educational experiences, and social enterprises may be well placed to support their delivery, especially if the work of students during the project can be directed towards socially or environmentally progressive aims. Whilst the RIBA and ARB appear to be making changes to the PEDR criteria to ‘reflect the global nature of the practice of architecture, and allow for greater flexibility in terms of the types of placement that students can undertake during their professional experience‘ (RIBA 2011), this diversification probably needs to be more wide reaching. After all, if the initiation of community-led projects is unlikely to originate exclusively from architects, then it is unhelpful to adhere rigidly to an exclusive ‘architectural’ Plan of Work. As Riley suggests, reformatting the Plan to become more inclusive may catalyse changes in practice within the wider construction industry (Riley 2010, pp.73–74).

6.5

Further Research

Other avenues not touched upon, but worthy of further investigation to uncover their potential relevance to architectural practice in the context of localism might be;

6.5.1

Benefit Stacking and ‘one-stop-shops’

This refers principally to the integration of architectural practice with other community service activities. At Hill Holt Wood, our practice as architects depended upon and was enriched by is access to and by the other ‘business streams’, such as forestry, countryside management and education. There is

HOUSEBRAND Refer to Fig.16 below.

a case to be made that social enterprise, conceived as Parrish’s ‘sustainability enterprises’ (see Parrish 2007, p.165) and integrating with other communitylevel service provision, would be in a strong position to serve communities. John Brown’s Housebrand project in Calgary, Canada, is a good example of this, operating as a ‘one-stop-shop’ for quality-of-built-environment related enquiries from its local community, whilst also engaging in advocacy work to promote the benefits of good design (J.Brown 2010). Indeed the ‘one-stop-shop’ model of practice is cited by practitioners as being the future model of choice for clients facing increasing complexity in procurement of projects (see Murray 2011, p.19). Social Enterprise has particular value to these set-ups as a way of maintaining their perceived legitimacy, instead of running the risk of being perceived as large monopolies that simply exclude diversity in choice.

6.5.2

‘Live’ education

There is clear potential for social enterprise to link with schools of architecture, planning and urbanism, and across other conventionally distinct disciplines, to deliver ‘live’ educational experiences where conventional architectural practice cannot. This kind of ‘blurring of boundaries’ in educational experience is vital in developing entrepreneurial skills that spatial practitioners need in order to effectively engage with the civil economy. During our time at Hill Holt Wood, we certainly had an enjoyable experience that has enriched our educational experience in the practice of architecture. We had a big stake; as founding members, working on our own projects, living on-site as part of a community. I would argue that being ‘involved’ in this way is a much more rewarding experience that that currently on offer to architectural students. The production of ‘enablers’ of localism with relevant ‘skills and competencies’, as highlighted by Civic Voice, should become a key pedagogical concern, although further work is needed to define those terms.

Fig.16 - Housebrand is a social enterprise and advocacy organisation for better design and healthier housing in the ‘normal’ north-american housing market. It operates a drop-in showroom where people can access architectural advice, alongside the Slow Home Studio, a series a physical and virtual workshops discussing how to access and instigate good design at home.

7.0

CONCLUSION

his study has introduced the political context of ‘localism’ and the Big Society, and situated it within an understanding of the civic economy. Within that understanding, social enterprise has been identified as an emerging expression of how civil society organisations can engage in economic activity, and therefore with the processes of spatial production that influence how our built and natural environments are shaped and managed. The particular case of Hill Holt Wood has been used to illustrate a discussion about the opportunities for legitimate governance and entrepreneurial initiation of projects offered by social enterprise, and its potential for rising to the challenges of localism and engaging with the civic economy. Additionally, the Localism Bill 2010/11 itself has been studied, revealing specific opportunities for architects who, acting as social entrepreneurs, might enable communities to become partners in designing the future of their neighbourhoods. This study has discussed the particular challenge of localism with regard to the identification and representation of communities; and the skills that architects might need to learn in order to meet that challenge effetively. In doing so, it sought recommendations for both the wider practice of architecture, and the specific example of the Hill Holt Wood Design Team, concluding that social enterprise offers an opportunity to practice legitimate participatory design through participatory governance of practices and projects. For Hill Holt Wood, adopting a more participatory approach to the design process itself rather than merely to the initiation of projects may offer a vehicle through which to maintain legitimacy in the eyes of the communities it seeks to serve. So is it really possible - in practicing architecture as social enterprise - to ‘combine the spirit of entrepreneurship with the aspiration for civic renewal’, as NESTA, CABE and Architecture 00:/ hope (00:/ 2011)? The material presented in this study would suggest an affirmative response. However, key questions do remain; for example, is Hill Holt Wood a one-off? Is it transferable? Can schools of architecture ensure that graduates have the opportunity to gain the skills they will need to practice in the context of localism? Should every Neighbourhood Plan also be accompanied by a continually evolving Community Action Plan and framework for continuing civic participation rather than remaining as merely a document against which an authority can assess planning applications? Transferability is certainly believable if one is to survey projects such as those compiled in Architecture 00:/’s Compendium for the Civic Economy (2011); although the reliance of social enterprises on ‘the social entrepreneur’ is a notable observation. What is certain, however, is that architects are likely to find it increasingly difficult to influence the design of the built environment in ways which they are used to. Whilst as an author and practitioner having conducted this study, I find the idea of the civic economy more powerful and interesting than ever, I also believe that engaging with its current and potential processes of spatial production can effect meaningful social, environmental and economic change. Social enterprise offers architects a way in, but is far from adequately understood in a way that would enable its effective uptake in wider architectural practice. I hope that for those involved, this study has cast some light on the path to that eventual goal.

8.0

8.1

BIBLIOGRAPHY & IMAGES

Books. And bits in books.

00:/, 2011. Introducing The Civic Economy. In 00:/, ed. Compendium For The Civic Economy. London: 00:/.

Awan, N., Schneider, T. & Till, J., 2011b. Spatial Agency: Other ways of doing architecture. London: Routledge.

Bauman Lyons Architects, 2008. How to be a Happy Architect. London: Black Dog Publishing.

Blundell-Jones, P., Petrescu, D. & Till, J., 2005. Architecture & Participation. Oxon: Spon Press.

Brock, D.D. & Ashoka Global Academy, 2008. Social Entrepreneurship: Teaching Resources Handbook - For Faculty Engaged in Teaching and Research in Social Entrepreneurship. Arlington, USA: Ashoka Global Academy for Social Entrepreneurship.

Brown, S. & Morgan, T., 2010. The RIBA Walter Parker Bursaries. In Nunes, J.P. (ed.) RIBA Education Yearbook 2010. London: RIBA.

Callon, M. (ed.) (1998) The Laws of the Markets. London: Blackwell Publishers.

Cerulli, C. & Holder, A., 2009. Acting from the bottom up: Stories of designers and communities. In F. Hackney, J. Glynne, & V. Minton, (eds). Networks of Design: Proceedings of the 2008 Annual International Conference of the Design History Society (UK), University College Falmouth, 3-6 September 2008. Falmouth: Universal Publishers, pp. 29-34.

Chapin, H. & Deneau, D., 1978. Citizen involvement in Public Policy-making: Access and the Policy-making Process. Ottawa: Canadian Council on Social Development.

Clark, J., Kane, D., Wilding, K. and Wilton, J., 2010. The UK Civil Society Almanac 2010. London: National Council for Volunteer Organisations.

Dahl, R., 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven (Connecticut) and London: Yale University Press.

Dees, J.G., Emerson, J. & Economy, P., 2002. Strategic Tools for Social Entrepreneurs - enhancing the performance of your enterprising nonprofit. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Gray, D., Brown, Sunni & Macanufo, J., 2010. Gamestorming: A Playbook for Innovators, Rulebreakers, and Changemakers. Sebastopol, USA: Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Reilly Media.

Hamdi, N., 2010. The Placemakers Guide to Building Community. Oxford: Earthscan.

Hickey, S. & Mohan, G., 2005. Participation - From Tyranny to Transformation? Exploring new approaches to participation in development. London: ZedBooks.

Jamieson, C., 2011. Building Futures: The Future For Architects?. London: Building Futures.

Jenkins, P. & Forsyth, L., 2010. Architecture, Participation and Society. London: Routledge.

Latour, B. (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lefebvre, H., 1968. Le Droit à la ville, Paris: Anthropos.

Lipset, S.M., 1983. Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics (2nd ed.). London: Heinemann.

McNiff, J. & Whitehead, J., 2002. Action Research - Principals and Practice (2nd ed.). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Milliner, L., 2000. Delight in transgression. In Nicol, D. & Pilling, S. (eds.) Changing Architectural Education: Towards a new professionalism. London: Spon Press, pp. 223-231.

NESTA & Design Council CABE, 2011. Preface by NESTA and Design Council CABE. In 00:/, (ed.) Compendium For The Civic Economy. London: 00:/.

Oliver, G., 2005. Responsive Practice. In Ray, N. (ed.) Architecture and it’s Ethics Dilemma. London: Taylor & Francis.

Sennett, R., 2008. The Craftsman. London: Allen Lane.

Till, J., 2009a. Architecture Depends. London: MIT Press.

Whitehead, J., 1985. An analysis of an individual’s educational development: The basis for personally orientated action research. In Shipman, M. (ed.) Educational Research: Principles,Policies and Practice. London: Falmer.

8.2

Journals, Newspapers and Magazines

Ashton, K., 2011. The Profession Is Dead. Long Live The Profession - We Must Do More To Prove Our Worth. The Architect’s Journal, 13/01/2011, p.37

Brown, C., 2011b. The Profession Is Dead. Long Live The Profession - On Planning. The Architect’s Journal, 13/01/2011, p.26.

Cross, R., 2011. The Profession Is Dead. Long Live The Profession - On Social Responsibility. The Architect’s Journal, 13/01/2011, p.40.

Dart, R., 2004. The legitimacy of social enterprise. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, Vol.14, Issue 4, pp.411-423.

Higgins, M., 2005. Promoting Social Entrepreneurship through a “Live” Project. CEBE Transactions, Vol.2, Issue 2, September 2005, pp.63-73.

Kohn, D., 2009. Jujitsu Urbanism. Materials Architecture Design Environment (Made), Issue 5, October 2009, pp.38-39.

Murray, C., 2011. The Profession Is Dead. Long Live The Profession - Introduction. The Architect’s Journal, 13/01/2011, p.19.

Schneider, T. & Till, J., 2009. Beyond Discourse: Notes on Spatial Agency. Footprint (Agency in Architecture: Reframing Criticality in Theory and Practice), Spring 2009, pp.97-111.

Scott Marshall, A., 2011. Community Spirit. RIBA Journal, (July/August 2011), p.22.

Waters, B., 2011. The Profession Is Dead. Long Live The Profession - On Planning. The Architect’s Journal, 13/01/2011, p.27.

Williams, F., 2011. The Profession Is Dead. Long Live The Profession - On The Profession. The Architect’s Journal, 13/01/2011, p.33.

8.3

Legislation, Policies and Guides to Policy

Conservative Party, 2009. Control Shift: Returning power to local communities - Responsibility Agenda: Policy Green Paper No.9. [WWW] Available at: http://www.conservatives.com/~/media/Files/ Downloadable%20Files/Returning%20Power%20Local%20Communities.ashx?dl=true [Accessed September 12, 2011].

Conservative Party, 2010. Open Source Planning: Green Paper - Policy Green Paper No.14. [WWW] Available at: http://www.conservatives.com/~/media/Files/Green%20Papers/planning-green-paper.ashx [Accessed September 12, 2011].

DCLG, 2011a. A Plain English Guide To The Localism Bill. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.

DCLG, 2011b. Localism Bill 2010/11 - Explanatory Notes. London: Department for Communities and Local Government. [WWW] Available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmbills/126/ en/2011126en.htm [Accessed September 9, 2011].

DCLG, 2011c. Planning, building and the environment: Presumption in favour of sustainable development. [WWW] Available at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planningsystem/planningpolicy/

presumptionfavour/ [Accessed September 20, 2011].

DCLG, 2010. Localism Bill 2010/11 (HL Bill 71-I). London: Department for Communities and Local Government. [WWW] Available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/20102012/0090/2012090v1.pdf [Accessed September 9, 2011].

Department for Education, 2011. Foundation Learning. [WWW] Available at: http://www.education.gov. uk/16to19/qualificationsandlearning/foundationlearning [Accessed September 27, 2011].

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2004. Planning Policy Statement 7. London: TSO.

Parliament, 2011. Localism Bill 2010-11. [WWW] Available at: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/ localism.html [Accessed September 9, 2011].

8.4

Electronic Resources

Awan, N., Schneider, T. & Till, J., 2011a. Spatial Agency: About. [WWW] Available at: http://www. spatialagency.net/ [Accessed September 13, 2011].

Behravesh, N, Rogoff, K. & Roubini, N., 2009. Three top economists agree 2009 worst financial crisis since great depression; risks increase if right steps are not taken, February 29, 2009. [WWW] Available at: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20090213005161/en/Top-Economists-Agree-2009-WorstFinancial-Crisis. [Accessed October 03, 2011].

Benedict-Brown, J. & Queenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Unversity Belfast, 2011. Live Projects 2011: About [WWW] Available at: http://liveprojects2011.wordpress.com/ [Accessed September 14, 2011].

Anderson, M., Brown, S., Higham, B., Gill, S., Morgan, T.= & Poll, S., 2011. Hill Holt Wood Design Team. [WWW] Available at: http://cainecrawford.typepad.com/hillholtwood/2010/11/hill-holt-wood-design-team. html. [Accessed August 31, 2011].

Children & Young People Now, 2007. Resources: Workplace - A fresh path for excluded pupils. [WWW] Available at: http://www.cypnow.co.uk/news/762361/Resources-Workplace-fresh-path-excluded-pupils [Accessed February 20, 2011].

Civic Voice, 2011 Civic Voice - About Us. [WWW] Available at: [Accessed Sptember 28, 2011].

Clearly So, 2010. Company Details: Hill Holt Wood. [WWW] Available at: http://www.clearlyso.com/ company/189/HillHoltWood.jsf. [Accessed September 26, 2011].

Conflict in Cities, 2011. About Us: Prof Nabeel Hamdi. [WWW] Available at: http://www.arct.cam.ac.uk/ conflictincities/CV-nabeel_hamdi.html. [Accessed September 30, 2011].

Conway, E., 2009. Britain on the brink of an economic depression, say experts. The Daily Telegraph, 19/02/2009. [WWW] Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/4326894/ Britain-on-the-brink-of-an-economic-depression-say-experts.html. [Accessed February 23 2011].

Curti, C. & Caines, M., 2011. Spatial Agency: a conversation with Tatjana Schneider on architecture as a quietly revolutionary practice. Cluster: City-Design-Innovation, 21/04/2011. [WWW] Available at: http:// www.cluster.eu/2011/04/21/spatial-agency-a-conversation-with-tatjana-schneider-on-architecture-as-aquietly-revolutionary-practice/ [Accessed September 13, 2011].

Design Council, 2011. Design Council: Inclusive Design Resource. [WWW] Available at: http://www. designcouncil.info/inclusivedesignresource/. [Accessed October 5, 2011].

Glass-House, 2011. The Glass-House Community Led Design: supporting people, improving places. [WWW] Available at: http://www.theglasshouse.org.uk/ [Accessed September 20, 2011].

Hill Holt Wood, 2011. Hill Holt Wood: History. [WWW] Available at: http://hillholtwood.com/about/history/ [Accessed September 8, 2011].

OED Online, 2011. Third Sector. Oxford English Dictionary Online. [WWW] Available at: http:// oxforddictionaries.com/definition/third+sector [Accessed September 7, 2011].

Remarkable Engagement, 2011a. Localism Agenda - Background. [WWW] Available at: http://www. localism-agenda.com/background/ [Accessed September 12, 2011].

Remarkable Engagement, 2011b. Localism Agenda: Making it work. [WWW] Available at: http://www. localism-agenda.com/making-it-work/ [Accessed September 12, 2011].

Remarkable Engagement, 2011c. Localism Agenda: Reaction. [WWW] Available at: http://www.localismagenda.com/reaction [Accessed September 12, 2011].

RIBA, 2011a. Professional Education and Development - News. [WWW] Available at: http://www.pedr.co.uk/ [Accessed September 7, 2011].

RIBA, 2011b. Terminology. [WWW] Available at: http://www.pedr.co.uk/textpage.asp?menu=1a&sortorder =150&area=main [Accessed September 27, 2011].

Robinson, N., 2009. Recession “worst for 100 years”. BBC News Online, 19/02/2009 [WWW] Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7880189.stm. [Accessed March 20, 2011].

RTPI, 2010. Localism Bill “Living” Brief. London: Royal Town Planning Institute. [WWW] Available at: http:// www.rtpi.org.uk/download/10797/101220-RTPI-Localism-Bill-Living-Brief.pdf. [Accessed September 12, 2011].

RUDI, 2011. Community Right to Buy and Community Right to Challenge: consultation on “revolutionary”

new community rights. [WWW] Available at: http://www.rudi.net/node/22322. [Accessed September 12, 2011].

Social Economy Europe, 2011. EMES European Research Network. [WWW] Available at: http://www. socialeconomy.eu.org/spip.php?rubrique541 [Accessed September 21, 2011].

Social Enterprise Journal, 2011. Social Enterprise Journal: Unique Attributes. [WWW] Available at: http:// www.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/journals.htm?id=sej [Accessed September 5, 2011].

Social Enterprise Mark Co, 2011. The Mark. [WWW] Available at: http://www.socialenterprisemark.org.uk/ [Accessed September 7, 2011].

Social Enterprise UK, 2011a. Policy: legal and governance. [WWW] Available at: http://www. socialenterprise.org.uk/pages/legal-and-governance.html [Accessed September 13, 2011].

Social Enterprise UK, 2011b. Social Enterprise UK - About Us. [WWW] Available at: http://www. socialenterprise.org.uk/pages/who-we-are.html [Accessed September 7, 2011].

The Key Fund, 2011. Welcome to the Key Fund. [WWW] Available at: http://www.thekeyfund.co.uk/. [Accessed September 05, 2011]

The Sorrell Foundation, 2011. Design Club. [WWW] Available at: http://thesorrellfoundation.com/design_ club.php [Accessed September 20, 2011].

8.5

Out and About. Conferences, Colloquia and Interviews

ASF-UK, 2011. Introduction. Presentation given at the Social Enterprise: Lessons for Architects conference, hosted by Architecture Sans Frontières UK at the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, London, UK, 02/02/2011 to 03/02/2011. London: ASF-UK.

Brown, C., 2011a. Bermondsey Neighbourhood Forum. Presentation given at ‘From Whitehall to Wigan: Making localism work’ seminar at the RIBA, Portland Place, London, UK, 17/05/2011. London: RIBA.

Brown, J., 2010. Is this the North American dream? Presentation given at the At Home: Forum, Sheffield School of Architecture, 06/12/2010. Video recording available from Sheffield School of Architecture School Office on request [Last accessed December 6, 2010].

Boler, B., 2011. ‘How do you engage business?’. Presentation given at ‘From Whitehall to Wigan: Making localism work’ seminar at the RIBA, Portland Place, London, UK, 17/05/2011. London: RIBA.

Brown, S. Forthcoming (expected 2011). Exploring Architecture in Civil Society : Social Enterprise as an expression of localism and community advocacy in architectural design – a case study and critical reflection on practice. In EMES (ed.) EMES Selected Papers Series - Group 3: Papers from the ’3rd EMES

International Research Conference on Social Enterprise: Social Innovation through Social Entrepreneurship in Civil Society’, Roskilde, Denmark, 04/07/2011 to 07/07/2011. Roskilde: EMES. [WWW] Available at: http://www.emes.net/index.php?id=538 [Accessed September 27, 2011].

Butterworth, C., 2011. Liveness: building on 13 years of Live Projects at the University of Sheffield. Presentation given at the Live Projects 2011 Conference, held at Queen’s University, Belfast, UK. Belfast: Queen’s University.

Chandler, A., 2011. AVArke at the University of East London. Presentation given at the Live Projects 2011 Conference, held at Queen’s University, Belfast, UK. Belfast: Queen’s University.

Cruz, T., 2011. ‘Diagramming Praxis: Where-What-Why-Who-How?’. Presentation given at Designing Civic Encounter Conference in Ramallah, Palestine, 21/07/2011 to 24/07/2011. Ramallah: Art-Territories.

Cuff, N., 2011. ‘A councillors perspective’. Presentation given at ‘From Whitehall to Wigan: Making localism work’ seminar at the RIBA, Portland Place, London, UK, 17/05/2011. London: RIBA.

Dobson, J., 2011. ‘6 Signposts to JFDI Urbanism’. Presentation given at the ‘Orangery Academy: What”s the Big Idea?’ seminar hosted by Beam, Wakefield, UK on 06/07/2011. Wakefield: Beam.

EMES, 2011. Call for Papers for the 3rd EMES International Research Conference on Social Enterprise Social Innovation Through Social Entrepreneurship in Civil Society held at Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark, from 04/07/2011 to 07/07/2011. Roskilde: EMES.

Ferguson, G., 2011. ‘The Art of Social Enteprise: low cost, loose fit, big effect’. Presentation given at the ‘Orangery Academy: What”s the Big Idea?’ seminar hosted by Beam, Wakefield, UK on 06/07/2011. Wakefield: Beam.

Granados, M., Hlupic, V., Coakes, E. & Mohamed, S., 2011. Social Enterprise and social entrepreneurship literature: A bibliometric analysis from 1991 to 2010. Paper presented at the 3rd EMES International Research Conference on Social Enterprise: Social Innovation through Social Entrepreneurship in Civil Society, Roskilde, Denmark, 04/07/2011 to 07/07/2011. Roskilde: EMES.

Granados, M. & Nayak, A., 2011. Conversation following the presentation of “Social Enterprise and social entrepreneurship literature: A bibliometric analysis from 1991 to 2010” (Granados et al., 2011) at the 3rd EMES International Research Conference on Social Enterprise: Social Innovation through Social Entrepreneurship in Civil Society, Roskilde, Denmark, 04/07/2011 to 07/07/2011. Recorded Conversation.

Graves, F. & Andrews, M., 2011. Live Projects at the Portsmouth School of Architecture: A Critical Review. Presentation given at the Live Projects 2011 Conference, held at Queen’s University, Belfast, UK. Belfast: Queen’s University.

Hulgård, L. & Andersen, L., 2011. Plenary 1: Opening session. Pleanry presentation given at the 3rd EMES International Research Conference on Social Enterprise: Social Innovation through Social Entrepreneurship

in Civil Society, Roskilde, Denmark, 04/07/2011 to 07/07/2011. Roskilde: EMES.

Johar, I., 2011. An Architecture of Change - the work of Architecture 00:/. Presentation given at the Social Enterprise: Lessons for Architects conference, hosted by Architecture Sans Frontières UK at the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, London, UK, 02/02/2011 to 03/02/2011. London: ASF-UK.

Khonsari, T. & Denicke-Polche, S., 2011. Live Projects at London Metropolitan University. Presentation given at the Live Projects 2011 Conference, held at Queen’s University, Belfast, UK. Belfast: Queen’s University.

Kleiner, D., 2011. RCKa Case Study - Community-Centric Architecture. Presentation given at ‘From Whitehall to Wigan: Making localism work’ seminar at the RIBA, Portland Place, London, UK, 17/05/2011. London: RIBA.

Lowthrop, N., 2011. Conversation between the author and Nigel Lowthrop, 23rd June 2011. Recorded interview.

Marlow, O. & Egan, D., 2011. Studio Tilt: Co-Design - what is it to participate?. Presentation given at the Social Enterprise: Lessons for Architects conference, hosted by Architecture Sans Frontières UK at the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, London, UK, 02/02/2011 to 03/02/2011. London: ASF-UK.

Moulaert, F., 2011. Plenary 3: Social innovation through social entrepreneurship in civil society. Paper presented at the 3rd EMES International Research Conference on Social Enterprise: Social Innovation through Social Entrepreneurship in Civil Society, Roskilde, Denmark, 04/07/2011 to 07/07/2011. Roskilde: EMES.

Reed, R., 2011. Introduction. Presentation given at ‘From Whitehall to Wigan: Making localism work’ seminar at the RIBA, Portland Place, London, UK, 17/05/2011. London: RIBA.

8.6

Other Papers and Conferences

Brady, A., 2011. ‘Challenges and Opportunities in a Changing World’. Presentation given at the OPUN Neighbourhoods and Localism Conference, in Leicester, 28/03/2011. Leicester: OPUN.

Brown, S. 2009. The Possibility of Craft. BA (hons) dissertation at the Leicester School of Architecture, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK. Leicester: De Montfort University. Ernst, S., 2010. Vulnerability and Risk: Learning in Action - an educational approach to engage architecture students with the complexity of development. MArch dissertation at the Sheffield School of Architecture, University of Sheffield, UK. Sheffield: University of Sheffield.

Grenier, P., 2002. The Function of Social Entrepreneurship in the U.K. Paper presented at The International Society for the Third Sector Research Conference, Cape Town, South Africa, 2001. Cape Town: ISTR.

Holder, A., 2010. Project Anatomy: Exploring initiation and agency in 3 case studies. PowerPoint submission for MArch Architecture at the Sheffield School of Architecture, University of Sheffield, UK. Sheffield: University of Sheffield.

Karlothungun, G., 2009. Listening to the Social Entrepreneur: What is social entrepreneurship? In Karlothungun, G., (ed). Listening to the Social Entrepreneur 2009 Report. A report on the Listening to the Social Entrepreneur Conference 2009, University of East London, UK. London: Center for Institutional Studies. [WWW] Available at: http://www.uel.ac.uk/cis/documents/ListeningtotheSocialEntrepreneur-Report.pdf [Accessed September 14, 2011].

Lowthrop, N., Anderson, M., Brown, S., Gill, S., Morgan, T., & Poll, S., 2010. Innovation Without Boundaries: Challenging Assumptions - The Triple Bottom Line Approach. Paper presented at the RICS COBRA 2010 Research Conference: Biodiversity and the Built Environment, Paris, France, 02/09/2011 and 03/09/2011. Paris: RICS.

McCabe, A., 2010. Below the Radar in a Big Society? Reflections on community engagement, empowerment and social action in a changing policy context. Birmingham: Third Sector Research Centre.

Parrish, B.D., 2007. Sustainability Entrepreneurship: Design Processes, Principals and Paradigms. PhD thesis at the School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, November 2007. Leeds: University of Leeds.

Paton, R. & Spear, R., 2010. Civil society and the â&#x20AC;&#x153;commanding heightsâ&#x20AC;? - The civil economy: Past, present and future. London: Commission of Inquiry into the Future of Civil Society in the UK and Ireland.

Riley, B., 2010. Barriers of exclusion, modes of inclusion - analysing and reformatting the RIBA Plan of Work. MArch dissertation at the Sheffield School of Architecture, University of Sheffield, UK. Sheffield: University of Sheffield.

Shaw, E., Shaw, J. & Wilson, M., 2002. Unsung Entrepreneurs: Entrepreneurship for Social Gain. Durham, UK: University of Durham Business School.

Young, D., 2001. Social Enterprise in the United States: AlternateIdentities and Forms. Presentation given at the Convention of the European EMES Network. in Trento, Italy. Trento: EMES.

Spear, R., Cornforth, C. & Aiken, M., 2007. For Love and Money: Governance and Social Enterprise. London: National Council for Volunteer Organisations / Open University. Till, J., 2009b. Architecture is not architecture is not architecture is not architecture. Presentation given at the RIBA Research Symposium, September 2009. Transcripts published. London: RIBA.

8.7

Images

0.0 / pp.i-ii

Brown, S. (2009) Building the bunkhouse [photograph].

0.0 / p.iii

Brown, S. (2009/10) Image 1; 2; & 4 [photographs].

0.0 / p.iii

Hill Holt Wood (2009/10) Image 3 [photograph]. Reproduced courtesy of Hill Holt Wood.

1.6 / p.6

Brown, S. (2011) Frank Moulaert at the 3rd EMES International Research Conference on Social Enterprise, Roskilde, Denmark, 4th to 7th July 2011 [photograph].

Fig.1 / p.8

Hill Holt Wood Design Team (2011) The Woodland Hall Ground Floor Plan 1 [drawing], The Woodland Hall Ground Floor Plan 2 [drawing], The Woodland Hall [photograph]. Reproduced courtesy of Hill Holt Wood.

Fig.2 / p.9

Brown, S. (2011) Location Drawings (original imagery taken from GoogleMaps) [diagrams].

Fig.3 / p.11

Brown, S., Higham, B. and Morgan, M. (2009) Artists Studio & Guesthouse [drawings]. Reproduced courtesy of Brown et al.

Fig.3 / p.11

De Montfort University (2009) Photographs of graduates [photographs]. Reproduced courtesy of DMU.

2.3 / p.14

Brown, S. (2010) Winter in the woods. [photographs].

2.3 / p.16

Hill Holt Wood (2008) Construction work with learners [photograph]. Reproduced courtesy of Hill Holt Wood.

Fig.4 / p.17

Brown, S. (2011) Hill Holt Wood as a social and spatial assemblage [diagram].

Fig.5 / p.19

Brown, S. (2011) Noel Barrowclough and the Design Team [photograph].

Fig.5 / p.19

Studio G Architecture (2011) Logo [logo] [WWW] Available at: http://www.sga-llp. co.uk/ [Accessed 06 October, 2011].

Fig.6 / p.20

Gill, S. (2010) Sam and Tom [photograph].

Fig.6 / p.20

Hill Holt Wood Design Team (2011) Rich and Reuben [photograph]

Fig.6 / p.20

Lawrence, R. (2011) Samantha and Mike [photograph]

2.4.1 / pp.21-22

Hill Holt Wood Design Team (2010/11) Images B; C; D; E; F; M; N; & O. [drawings]. Reproduced courtesy of Hill Holt Wood.

2.4.1 / pp.21-22

Brown, S. (2010/11) Images A; G; H; I; J; K; & L [photographs]. Author’s own photographs.

2.4.2 / pp.23-24

Brown, S. (2010/11) Images E; F; G; I; J; & K [photographs]. Author’s own photographs.

2.4.2 / pp.23-24

Farmeco Community Carefarm (2010/11) Images A; B; C; D; & H [photographs]. Reproduced courtesy of Farmeco Community Carefarm

2.4.2 / pp.23-24

Hill Holt Wood Design Team (2010/11) Images L; & M [drawings].Reproduced courtesy of Hill Holt Wood.

2.4.3 / pp.25-26

Brown, S. (2009/10/11) Images A; B; E; F; H; I; & J [photographs]. Author’s own photographs

2.4.3 / pp.25-26

Hill Holt Wood Design Team (2009/10/11) Images C; & D [drawings], Images G; & K [photographs]. Reproduced courtesy of Hill Holt Wood.

2.5 / p.27

Brown, S. (2010) Winter in the woods. [photographs].

Fig.7 / p.30

NCVO (2010) Civil society by income [diagram]. As produced in Clarke et al. (2010), pp.3-4.

3.3 / p.34

Various (2011) [photographs] [WWW] The Big Issue (2011) Available at: http:// www.bigissue.com/ ; Co-Operative Group (2011) Available at: http://www. co-operative.coop/ ; Divine Chocolate Limited (2011) Available at: http://www. divinechocolate.com/default.aspx ; Dwr Cymru (2011) Available at: http://www. dwrcymru.com/ ; The Eden Project (2011) Available at: http://www.edenproject. com/ ; Fifteen (2011) Available at: http://www.fifteen.net/Pages/default.aspx [all Accessed 06 October, 2011]

Fig.8 / pp.35-36

Brown, S. (2011) EMES Collage [diagram].

Fig.9 / p.38

Parliament (2011) Passage of a Bill through the House of Lords and House of Commons [diagram].

Fig.10 / p.41

Brown, S. (2011) Mapping the Localism Bill [diagram].

4.8 / p.47

Francis, R. (2011) Portland Works Tenant Workshops [photographs] Reproduced with thanks to Julia Udall.

4.8 / p.48

The Independent (2010) Front page, Tuesday 20th July 2010 [scanned image]

Fig.11 / p.51

Brown, S. (2010) Defining Community - Teddy Cruz at Designing Civic Encounter conference, organised by ArtTerritories in Ramallah, Palestine, 24th July, 2011 [photographs].

Fig.12 / p.57

2012 Architecten (2011) Building in progress & re-use diagram, Villa Welpeloo [photographs] [WWW] Available at: www.2012architecten.nl [Accessed 02 October, 2011].

Fig.13/ p.58

2012 Architecten (2011) Wikado Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Playground [photographs] [WWW] Available at: www.2012architecten.nl [Accessed 02 October, 2011].

Fig.14 / p.58

ASF-UK (2010) Mapping in Birmingham, UK [photograph] Reproduced courtesy of ASF-UK.

Fig.15 / p.59

Brown, S. (2011) Spaceshaper in action [photographs].

5.6.2 / p.61

Tovivich, S. (2010) Presenting transect information: BUDD student work at the DPU, UCL [drawing] In: Hamdi, N. (2010) The Placemakers Guide to Building Community. Oxford: Earthscan, p.70.

5.7 / p.64

Gill, S. (2011) Woodland Community Hall reciprocal frame roof [photograph].

Fig.16 / p.68

Housebrand (2011) Housebrand: About Us Images [photographs] [WWW] Available at: http://housebrand.ca/category/architecture/projects/ [Accessed 06 October, 2011]

8.7 / p.84

Brown, S. (2011) Hanging up the shirt [photograph].

App.1 / p.85

Brown, S. (2009) Tom Morgan [photograph].

App.2 / p.87

Brown, S. (2009) Ben Higham [photograph].

App.3 / p.89

Lawrence, R. (2010) Samantha Gill [photograph].

App.4 / p.91

Gill, S. (2010) Michael Anderson [photograph]..

App.5 / p.93

Gill, S. (2011) Rich Lawrence [photograph].

App.6 / p.95

Gill, S. (2011) Reuben Davies [photograph].

App.7 / p.97

Brown, S. (2010) Nigel Lowthrop [photograph].

App.8 / pp.101-102

Brown, S. (2010) 3rd EMES International Research Conference on Social Enterprise, Roskilde, Denmark, 4th to 7th July, 2011 [photographs].

Hanging up the work clothes. It is Nigel Lowthropâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s intention that previous Design Team interns might return after gaining their RIBA Part 2 qualification... 84

APPENDIX 1: Statement by Tom Morgan

Tom Morgan was one of three original members of the Hill Holt Wood Design Team. Reflective statement requested as part of research methdology [May 2011].

Upon reflection, the thing I enjoyed most about my experience at Hill Holt was the opportunity to work in such a varied work force. It was a place where highly skilled professionals at the point of retirement worked alongside energetic employs just out of education. It was also a mixing pot of a vast range of professions such as ex-military employees, roofers, general builders, mechanics, engineers, gardeners, foresters, business men, biologists, architects and technologists, accountants, administrators and a clown. Certainly an unorthodox mix but I have come to realise the most beneficial and exciting developments all occurred at the interface between various skill levels and fields.

I have very few negative points about the experience. At times I feel as a design team we lacked experience and the constant presence of a qualified architect would have both allowed the whole operation to be more efficient and guided us through the process of building better. I do however feel that without a more experienced leader it encouraged us to be experimental and ambitious and gave us the freedom to work out answers to problems which best suit the Hill Holt Wood organisation without restriction.

On the whole compared to the start of the placement I feel happier, more confident, more knowledgeable and have many more valued friends than before. I reflect on my time with pride and satisfaction in the knowledge that the hard work we invested in what were, at worst atrocious conditions, and at best inconvenient have resulted in more architectural students being taken on and the continuation of a economically sustainable arm of the company. Having been placed in a position of responsibility I have developed a good work ethic and I feel more adaptable and confident to think on my feet.

Based on previous experience in architectural offices I am certain that the experience has made me a better architect. I have a far greater appreciation for the process of building; fresh from an undergraduate degree it is easy to be naive. The smaller nature of the projects we undertook meant that we not only designed, but went on site and constructed them along side experienced builders. This had many benefits although the most beneficial for me was being able to put a design on to paper and then build it. The process helped me to understand the importance of what was drawn and how it can be interpreted, improving my attention to detail and demonstrating the knock on effect of mistakes. The diversity of staff at the Hill Holt wood also meant that everybody had a different opinion and a different criticism. I believe this resulted in us becoming very good at balancing opinion and mediating between groups. We were also put in positions of much greater responsibility than a usual placement, although stressful this meant we had to research fully our ideas and deliver them with conviction. The opportunity to achieve visible results in hard conditions was also an inspiring and satisfying position to be in which has reinforced my enjoyment of architecture and encouraged an interest in the process of design and making.

I often think about my time at Hill Holt Wood but this is the first time I have really tried to reflect on the experience. It has surprised me how hard is to the fully comprehend and express my thoughts on the experience because it has had such a complex and beneficial effect on me in so many ways.

APPENDIX 2: Statement by Ben Higham

Ben Higham was one of three original members of the Hill Holt Wood Design Team. Ben left his post after 6 months. Reflective statement requested as part of research methdology [May 2011].

The part I enjoyed the most about working at Hill Holt Wood was the design and construction of the bunkhouse, by a country mile. The times when I was in the office/out-and-about I didn’t really enjoy in comparison (when I knew there was still things to do on the build). When it came to Christmas and we were told we had to put the anchors on the build (during work hours) and concentrate on office-based activities, is when I decided to leave Hill Holt Wood. For me I foresaw doing office-based design tasks a less enjoyable than the build. If I was to do office-based work it would be the same (in terms of enjoyment) whether I was at Hill Holt or in a practice. But being in practice would expose me life/ procedures in an actual practice. The salary HHW offered for the post-Christmas period was a defining factor [in my departure] as well. Not in terms of increasing my bank balance but to my moral. (I know why they offered what they did but……) To work that hard for 5 months then to be offered so little made me feel very much unvalued by them. And it’s hard to give your best when you feel like that.

The fact I was only involved in the design team’s infancy means I can only really comment on what I experienced. Knowing that it has most probably developed since my time there. From the point-of-view of the students who are part of the team, it is immensely beneficial to gaining a greater understanding of construction, although a basic one. Allowing hands on experience that in turn leads to a greater understanding of those technique/process they are exposed to. These are skills that very few architects (qualified or student) will ever gain. But on the other-hand the informal nature of the design team and lack of a permanent full-time professional overseeing things, means the people taking part miss out on the professional side of working in an office. Which could leave them at a disadvantage when/if trying to get a job in an architectural office.

The Woodland Community Hall was a big worry for me. It was a project that seemed good on paper and in theory but I feel wasn’t executed at all well. It terms of being well over-budget, very late, and there were aspects of the build quality that I feel undermined its credentials. I really think the project suffered from not having a construction professional in charge. Maybe I’m being a bit harsh on HHW as it was a big project to undertake but my fear is that those characteristics are replicated in other projects. I know you and Tom did at least 2 projects and I have no idea how they turned out so my fear may be completely unfounded (sorry). I think the design team would benefit greatly from a resident qualified architect. Who can put in place those professional procedures and requirements, in turn exposing the students to those aspects I stated they might miss. Would HHW be more successful in turning its ideal into buildings through operating a design consultancy rather than a design team? Working alongside design professionals to alter the way they design and think, rather than ‘going it alone’.

Just a thought.

I feel it would be very hard for larger/more commercial practices to operate as social enterprises. For smaller practices it is a model they could adopt but do they need to? Practices (both big and small) can and do implement/undertaken some of characteristics that define social enterprises. But without using the title of ‘social enterprise’. Grimshaw try to be socially aware. In terms of: partaking in community projects (both at home and abroad); environmental issues (both of the projects themselves and of the office itself). Rogers Stirk & Harbour operate a charity alongside the practice, distributing the employee’s portion of the profit share to their chosen charities.

In summary, I think you can be social aware and have social enterprise ‘ideals’ without necessarily being a social enterprise.

APPENDIX 3: Statement by Samantha Gill

Samantha Gill was one of the second paid internship of RIBA Part 1 Graduates forming the Hill Holt Wood Design Team from August 2010 to August 2011. Reflective statement requested as part of research methdology [May 2011].

Hill Holt wood is very hard to describe, as it is so complex. It is an award winning social enterprise; It is a school that helps under privileged kids; it is a sustainable hub; it is an experimental area; itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s a centre of community and it was my home for a year. Hill Holt Wood is a place that has been experimenting with sustainable design for 12 years. They built their first straw building 12 years ago however in the past 5 years there has been a lot of development. There is The Wood Hall - the community hall. This has won many sustainability awards over the past few years. There is also a design team which specialise in sustainable design and construction; however, sustainably environmentally, economically and socially.

The thing I like most about Hill Holt Wood is that when you are there you feel like anything is possible. People are taken under other peoples wings and given the second chance they need; Ideas are always considered and if they have viability they can be perused but most of all Hill Holt Wood will always be the place where I found my confidence and passion. The experience of the design team pushed my architectural and business ability to the next level allowing my confidence to really blossom. Being given the chance to lead on projects at such an early stage of my career is an opportunity that does not come around a lot. It was very daunting at first but once I started to cope with the pressures and the responsibilities I proved to myself that I am capable and gave me the confidence to start up my own firm.

Along with this it was incredible to get a chance to get hands on with the projects. Building the kitchen has made me appreciate the art of detailing in a design and has also allowed me to leave a small legacy within the wood.

Nigel is the head of the design team however he was around very rarely so getting decisions and guidance from him was difficult at times. This meant we had to make a lot of decisions by our selves, which was great, however it also meant that it look a lot longer to get things done. I feel that I have a stake in the organisation. With Nigel being so busy it gave me more responsibility and control over the design team. Also living onsite made you feel like a big part of the community at Hill Holt Wood. From the small responsibilities like locking the gates at night to giving tours around the wood and being there for every event, wedding and party made me feel like a valued part of the team. Personally I feel that the Hill Holt Wood design team is the start of a new age of architectural practises. Having worked in a social enterprise for year it has made me appreciate the needs of others within my designs and in my life. It has taught me that growth within a company does not have to be about wealth but can be about community growth, and personal growth. In the future I hope to set up an architecture practise that is a social enterprise as I feel it is an important and necessary step for the profession.

APPENDIX 4: Statement by Michael Anderson

Michael Anderson was one of the second paid internship of RIBA Part 1 Graduates forming the Hill Holt Wood Design Team from August 2010 to August 2011. Reflective statement requested as part of research methdology [May 2011].

When asked by anyone, both architects and others, where I worked and what I did at Hill Holt Wood I was never quite sure what to say. Yes we may be a small office specialising in the design of innovative, sustainable buildings in unusual situations (the easiest way to explain ourselves to architects) but we are also a small part of a much larger, more complex organisation which is involved in everything from land management, forestry and construction but whose main purpose is education of disadvantaged young people.

This is both the best and worst thing for the Design Team. Lots of people know the name of the business but have no idea what goes on while others know parts of the business but do not realise what else Hill Holt Wood are involved in. As a small part of an established enterprise the design team benefits from existing contacts, the expertise and knowledge of the rest of the ranger team and the financial stability gained from being involved in many different business areas. This means that as part of the Design Team you aren’t simply a designer but a teacher, tour guide, marketing coordinator, graphic designer and (in my case) IT technician. Most of the time this is a fantastic opportunity, helping you to feel like a truly important part of the whole setup and allowing you to use skills and learn a vast amount that would simply be impossible in a conventional practice. However, these multiple roles and responsibilities can sometimes be difficult to juggle and prioritise, especially when being managed by many different people! Not only that but there are times when you wish you could just spend some time on the more mundane and conventional work as designers!

One of the big advantages that Hill Holt Wood Design Team has over other practices is the lack of preconceptions and the flexibility that we gain from being recent graduates. This freedom helps us to explore new avenues without prejudice or bias that may come from experience. Coupled with Hill Holt’s sustainable ambitions this can help to create some very interesting and exciting solutions to the problems we are given. Another important part of the business is that it gives us an enormous opportunity which would be very difficult to get anywhere else. By changing the team every 12 months the Design Team acts as a teaching and learning exercise for the largest number of people, though this does present some logistical and organisational problems when it comes to changing the team.

The changeover form the original team to Sam and I was less than ideal, mostly due to the fact that this was the first time it had happened! Personally I only had 1.5 weeks to learn the office routines, systems, procedures and projects before Sam and Tom left. This was a huge challenge, especially when taking on existing projects. The biggest problem I found with such a small handover time was the simple lack of knowledge of the project’s past and reasoning behind certain decisions. While this could be helped as the previous team were simply on the end of a phone it was quite difficult to ensure the projects continued perfectly smoothly. In the handover from Sam and I to the new team, we were much better prepared. By getting the new team to start at least a month before we left they had a much greater chance to get a proper grip on the projects and a much easier introduction to the company’s practices.

What the future holds for Hill Holt Wood Design Team is a difficult question to answer, as a practice that is really only finding its feet and its place in the wider organisation (let alone the industry) it could go many different ways. There is always the possibility for huge growth, there are the constant suggestions of projects that could be on a scale the company has never even thought likely before. However, the Design Team is not set up to be able to cope which this and as such I believe that it either needs some serious investment to prepare it for the future or it should look to stay as a small practice as it currently is. There is great potential for the design team to become a key resource for local (or even national) universities and students when it comes to questions of sustainability and socially responsive design, a relationship that I believe should be nurtured over time from the small teaching responsibilities and ‘live’ project briefs of today to a much more active role in expanding understanding and the potential of so called ‘alternative’ practices. Architects have long been needed to be mediators and listeners in projects where there are very different opinions and it is somewhat suprising that there are not more architects operating as Social Enterprises, where this responsibility to people and communities is a key part of the business.

APPENDIX 5: Statement by Rich Lawrence

Rich Lawrence is currently undertaking an internship as part of the third intake of RIBA Part 1 Graduates forming the Hill Holt Wood Design Team from August 2011 onwards. Reflective statement requested as part of research methdology [July 2011].

I first became aware of the Hill Holt Social enterprise in 2007 when the NTU Architectural course took part in a live project at Hill Holt aiming to create a new style of residential housing in the Roman Villa area of the site.

I discovered the design team shortly before graduating in 2010 when an email was forwarded to all my course colleagues posting a job as part of the design team. At this time I had a job lined up, and I wasn’t aware of the scope of work which a member of the design team could produce.

Ironically a close colleague applied for the position and was granted a place as part of the second design team and it was at this point that I realised the value of the Hill Holt experience – the Part 1s are the design team. I visited Hill Holt Wood frequently during this time and was able to have a first-hand experience of the social enterprise.

My enthusiasm for this style of working (and learning) became apparent when I volunteered for three months prior to the interview stage for the Part 1 placement.

My fascination with Hill Holt Wood began when I visited my colleague and spent time in the woodland. I was amazed to hear that a Part 1 Architect was given so much freedom. They manage their own time, project work and clients. They live on site and have the opportunity to create their own living accommodation. It allows Part 1 Architects to take a kinaesthetic approach to architect and truly appreciate every line drawn by exploring the workshop, liaising with the skilled craftsmen on site and by making their own accommodation in their spare time.

But the opportunity and freedom offered in the Hill Holt placement is also my greatest concern. With a Part 1 acting as the lead architect, they must take a project from concept through to practical completion which is a great opportunity, but a lot of responsibility for an Architect-in-training. I do worry that I may not be good enough, and feel that I may doubt myself more than once in the coming year. I must remember to ask for help when needed, and ensure that I check fire and structure regulations thoroughly. As a young Architectural student at the beginning of my career I am at my most inexperienced and I feel that this placement year will be a case of “sink or swim”.

It was interesting to meet former course colleagues during 2010 (before I started at Hill Holt Wood) as most have experienced a CAD focused role in architect. It was apparent that my colleague who worked at Hill Holt Wood for their placement year had a vast amount of experience when it came to detailing and alternative construction techniques, and had become incredibly knowledgeable in the planning process.

Reuben Davies is currently undertaking an internship with the Hill Holt Wood Design Team, beginning in August 2011. Reuben is a qualified architectural technologist. Interview requested as part of research methdology and administered on 20/09/2011 at Hill Holt Wood.

APPENDIX 6: Transcript of interview with Reuben Davies

Hi Reuben, could you introduce yourself?

Ok, my name is Reuben Davies. My background is in architectural technology. So I went from school to college,

I did a BTEC National Diploma in construction, then took a year out working and realised that I wanted to go to university. I chose Architectural Technology at Nottingham Trent, I did four years there - that’s with a year’s placement - and graduated in July of this year. During my time at university, I became aware of Hill Holt Wood - it’s fairly local to Trent - and I was aware of what was happening here, the eco grounding of it. Then I also personally knew through university, Sam Gill, who was working here between Part 1 and Part 2, and that they were looking to take people on for the year. It seemed like what I wanted - a good balance between hands on physical experience, as well as the responsibility and flexibility that you get in the office. So I knew about it through experience, and the set procedure of the Employers Office [at Trent]. And now I’m working here!

Where did you do your placement year? I did half my year working for

Nottingham Trent University in the Estates department - onsite development stuff that we did in-house as opposed to tendering out. And then I did four or five months at Easterly Architects down in London, who do sustainable stuff - specifically working on retrofit schemes, Retrofit ForThe Future, and stuff like that. And then I went back into final year. And what would you say…I mean, how long have you been working here? I’ve been here since July 25th…so two months? Three months? Is that right…I can’t remember! And how would you compare the kinds of projects, and how you go about them here, compared to what you experienced in your placement year? I suppose more than anything it’s the scale of the projects really. They’re smaller projects. Due to the capacity we have and the clientele that were dealing with. The character of the projects too, the techniques were using, the materials were using, I mean more than anything its small scale on the bigger picture of the built environment. But that’s by no means a bad thing, you know what I mean? I mean, being a graduate, you don’t want to be over-awed by the thing! You want to feel confident and know you have the ability to maintain the project from start to finish. But it’s a good size. There’s the odd project we have that are bigger, but we still have the small house extensions and small buildings, so you’re not over-awed by everything. You’ve got time to build that confidence, and feel confident about yourself. Which as a graduate is as important as anything I think. Well I’d agree. I think what I got out of being here was that feeling of, you know what, you can do something. And in anything else, you’ll be able to tackle things. Oh yeah, definitely, that’s like a fundamental element that everyone needs to surpass at some point. Its like a self-reflective point you get to and you think ‘ no actually, I can do this’. I now feel confident standing shoulder to shoulder with someone who runs an architecture practice, and now that I’ll be able to talk about things like ‘well, we did this job, and that was where the money was coming from, and we were employed on this basis, and so on’. Which is why it was attractive to me - you get the responsibility that a whole practice has…from the initial client meeting, to dealing with the invoices, the quotations. Like I’ve said to other people about this job, in another architects practice as a graduate I’d be doing the CAD details, and I’d just be on one side of the project doing revision after revision, and the financing department would deal with finance, and the marketing with that...

And you realise that everything is interconnected… Yes. Definitely. How would you

compare your perception of the Design Team within the wider organisation before you came here to what it is now? It’s a tricky one. Coming into this sort of job, you can have ideas about how it’s going to be, but I don’t think you can ever think accurately about it. With it being a social enterprise, and not a straightforward business set up or structure, this business here, we do so many things…whether it’s the on-site stuff, or coming from the marketing side of things, or the kids and the educational side of things, or the workshops, doing drawings for toilets on site, or the buildings on-site. And at the same maintaining that you are a professional design practice with external clients, and you have this whole other aspect of it. It’s a tricky one. For this business, it’s a key element, as I think we’re relied upon for so many things as well, I mean, the technological stuff particularly, to do with anything on site, we’re kind of the link for that. Just as a side, could you kind of sum up in one paragraph what your understanding of social enterprise is? Er, well yeah…I think my understanding of social enterprise is that its one that operates with its own self-sufficiency in mind. What it progresses, or expands, or makes, both on a monetary value, or social, goes straight back into the business, Its like a closed-loop system, its not linear in terms of its wastage, and its sustainable - not in terms of the most over-used phrase ever, but in terms of its basic principal of being something that is able to maintain itself. And being able to better and grow itself through its own actions. And based on what you’ve experienced over the last three months, what would you say are the frustrations or limitations of it? And what would you hope that it might improve over the time you’re here. You and Rich have a bit of a say in that, and Nigel does, so how do you think it might evolve to be more effective at what it does? The design practice? Well, I suppose I’m not too sure. One of the things that is a barrier, especially when you’re dealing with external clients, is that when you explain to them that you’re two graduates, running the practice for the year, there’s the lack of experience, do you know what I mean? There’s this ‘oh, its just two graduates, students doing the designs and doing the work’, and it kind of works two ways, because people don’t expect much, and when you do the work, and they see the standard, they’re quite surprised by it, do you know what I mean? It is a barrier to a certain extent, because its what people are expecting of you, which means it will limit what they’re giving you to do. There’s two of us in the practice too, which limits what we can do. But it works quite well in terms of a structure, we have Nigel that we use as a design consultant, and we get a lot out of that, as he’s a bit of a font of knowledge, and crackpot ideas - but that’s good! That’s what a design practice needs. Then you need to take that and make it work. So yeah…er…that’s about it… That’s great, thanks.

APPENDIX 7: Transcript of interview with Nigel Lowthrop

Nigel Lowthrop is a biologist by training and the founder of Hill Holt Wood. He speaks regualrly on issues such as sustainbility, development and entrepreneurship, and serves as a consultant director of the Hill Holt Wood Design Team. Interview conducted via Skype on 23/06/2011.

Hi Nigel, It’s Sam Hi Sam Can you hear me? Yep Good Did you get the email? Yep Is there too much to go through today? There’s quite a bit!.. Right…I guess here are four areas that I’m interested in…the first is about how you would describe Hill Holt Wood, generally? Well, in one sentence, I would simplify it to ‘an environmental social enterprise’. In terms of what it does, then, I suppose its about an holistic approach to countryside management, providing social, environmental and economic outputs. At the start, Hill Holt Wood was based very much on that definition of sustainability, the three legs, and about how you balance them and apply them Great, and how would you describe it to an architect? Well, pretty much in the same way, but adding that one of the areas of expertise we’ve developed is in low-impact development and construction, and trying to push the boundaries of environmental design. And what’s led Hill Holt Wood to wanting to push those boundaries? I think its two things - it’s the fact that if you’re going to have to have development in an environmental site, such as an ancient woodland, you have to do it in as low-impact, tidy and neat a way as possible, and in all aspects, impact and material use, and also its part of the sustainability aim of the business, its about using resources in the most sustainable way. Ok, great, and now if you could talk about policy. Hill Holt Wood as an organisation seeks to engage with and seeks to influence influence local and national governmental policy, and through its development has come up against policy that was both supportive and that it has exploited, and also policy that has been restrictive. Could you just tell me a bit about that, and point out any key policies that have been supportive or restrictive? Certainly, and I think this will link to some of your other questions about Localism. Simply, I don’t think there has been much in the way of policy that has been supportive , really, apart from specific areas. I think government works in these ‘silos’, and it’s very difficult to join things up, and when you start joining things up across multiple departments, a) they don’t understand it, and b) they start to lose interest in anything that isn’t directly to do with them. And you could say that law applies in the same way, as there tends to be a rule or a law that applies to do with an issue, or specific policy, rather than trying to take a broader perspective of things. In terms of restrictive, I think the most restrictive has been planning, and I’m not entirely certain how that is going to improve or change. Because there two sides to it; there’s the basic formulaic approach to planning that just says say no to everything; and then the other side is when they become very open to the views of local people, you get the ‘nimby’ argument, and you get small groups of people who are very vocal, who can prevent things anyway! So both systems are preventative in terms of innovation and change. Local groups can often be negative towards anything that is different or new in terms of development, and then the rules themselves that are in place at the moment are inherently restrictive. Would you say that that is equally likely to apply in an urban area as it is in a rural area such as that surrounding Hill Holt Wood? Probably less so in an urban area, as there’s an almost acceptance of development. An OK, you may have schedules and listings and all that sort of thing, which is always an issue as it is in rural areas, but I think that the fact that the land is developed, then your starting point is ‘yes you can do something’, whereas in green space the assumption is that you cant. And the aspects that are too negative of that are that government officials have just got it ingrained in them that greenfield development is bad, and I think that it is a very out-dated view. There is also this idea that to be sustainable you have to be next to services, and that the future will be about centralising, that you cluster development together so that you don’t have to develop new services. I would say that they’re absolutely wrong with that, and that the future should be more about dispersed development. Because then you can supply the services locally from the surrounding area, which you can’t do if your conglomerations are too large. The other aspect is the assumption that anything that is a development in a rural area is a bad thing, because you’re putting a building where there was land, you know, green space. But the fact is that most of the green space in rural areas is managed very badly, and couldn’t be described as sustainable or environmentally positive. And that includes most of our food production. It’s actually a very negative environment with very little in terms of diversity or wildlife there. So I think they ought to be more open to the idea

that development can actually still produce food, or do whatever the countryside is expected to do in a particular place; it can provide affordable development; and it can actually be much better in terms of biodiversity and habitat and sharing the footprint with a greater variety of plant and animal life. Great. So that brings me on to the Localism Bill, and I’d like to know how aware you are of it and of its content, and the potential implications it has for planning, and particularly any threats or opportunities you can see for Hill Holt Wood… Well. I think its going in the wrong direction. What I’ve picked up from the Localism Bill, is that its lost some of the things I heard in the early days when the Conservatives - or the Coalition - first took over, and were talking about localism. I heard Francis Maud give a speech and then be questioned afterwards where he said that in his view, central government - which given the economic situation would be very tight on budgets - would actually remove their control when that money got down to local level, and that they were going to encourage departments to use their budgets locally. And I though ‘fantastic!’, that the idea of joining up national budgets at a local levels makes a lot of sense, because you can get more for your money. But the opposite seems to actually have happened. So my problem with the Localism Bill is that it doesn’t match what is actually happening. What is actually happening is greater centralisation , more than Labour were doing ; its about bigger contracts, with the Department of Work and Pensions as an example of this, ten year contracts, ruling out localism totally. The same is true for all government departments. They seem to think the only way forward is scale, and seem to equate saving money, or better value for money with scale. And again, I would argue that the opposite is true; and that joined-up localism deals in much smaller sums of money, but in joining up those budgets, is not only better in terms of results, but economically better also; its cheaper! Well, one of the main criticisms I’ve come across is that with the government’s appropriation of terms such as social enterprise, they’re talking very much about a national scale… Everything’s got to be big. They’re not interested [in small]. And they can’t equate that lots of small equals big. They can’t get that at all. One of the things that is in the Localism Bill is the new community right to develop its own Neighbourhood Plan… Yep. ..and what I’m interested in looking at is whether you see a role for Hill Holt Wood in working with the local authorities that you already engage with to help them work with their local communities to develop those Plans. I think it could do. But I’ve seen this sort of approach over the years around here, where there have been various forms of trying to get local consensus and views - visioning and such - but none of them have ever come to anything. And the reason is that you tend to get the usual suspects come forward, and they have their own view of place and future, which may not agree with the majority. And there never seems to be some sort of agreement or way forward. And then you get the budgets side of it. And I think it tends to come down to leadership; having individuals who can excite the rest of the community with an idea, with a vision. I think that the idea that you’re all going to sit in a circle and come to some way happy way forward is just not going to happen. So I’m not convinced by it, I’m not convinced by that part of it. The idea of giving officers of government - and I mean at all levels of government - much more control over local budgets, is actually a better way forward. And that we should start to trust them. If we’ve given someone a job to run something, then we should let them run it. At the moment we don’t trust them to run it, so central government imposes formulaic approaches, and confines and restricts the actions of the individual officers at a local level. Therefore they don’t get excited, and become jobsworths, because they’re not engaged and don’t have the passion, or feel like they can make their personal mark on things. And it just kills innovation. I did briefly work for local government, and I broke the rules as I do with most things, and thought I came up with some pretty good ideas. Now the councillor supported me and started doing exciting things, but the system imposed on me said you can’t do that, and slowed me down. There was this feeling that if I was doing things, then other people had to do things, and they didn’t like that, they’d rather sit behind their desk and do very little. So the momentum was always to slow down, do as little as possible, and not change. So I think if we could trust individuals - in whatever job they are doing - to be different, and engage with their local community, and innovate, it would be a better way forward, and a way that you might get real change. That seems to be one of the

trickiest things; having the medium or the forum through which to engage with the community… Yes. If you’re a local officer, and were told these are your six parishes, and this is your budget, now get on with it, then things would happen. But we don’t. We divide that budget between twenty different officers, and give them a much larger area, so there is no way they can get to know their community or their whole area and then the money is diluted into such small amounts that there’s never enough to do anything. When I was a nature reserve warden, I worked with local farmers -which wasn’t in my remit - but I was left to my own devices a lot because the management structure was virtually non-existent. I didn’t have a budget, but I could do what I wanted to do, and by meeting people in the pub, and knocking on farmers doors. I developed a lot of interest from local people, hat hadn’t been there before, to work support the nature reserve, and work with the nature reserve, and to do things. And I don’t think that I’m unique in that. I think if you give any individual the freedom to do that - preferably with a bit of a budget - then things will happen. The key is putting motivated individuals into situations, with knowledge, and things will happen.

Great, thanks.

100

101

APPENDIX 8: EMES Selected Papers Series

102

The paper included in this appendix (and affixed to the inside back cover) was presented at the 3rd EMES International Research Conference on Social Enterprise, hosted by the Centre for Social Entrepreneurship at Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark, from the 4th to the 8th July, 2011. It was later selected for publication in the EMES Selected Papers Series, available from the organisationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s website at [http://www.emes.net/index. php?id=458].

EMES CONFERENCES SELECTED PAPERS SERIES

Exploring Architecture in Civil Society: Social Enterprise as an expression of localism and community advocacy in architectural design â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a case study and critical reflection on practice. Sam Brown Sheffield School of Architecture, University of Sheffield, UK

3rd EMES International Research Conference on Social Enterprise Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, Roskilde, Denmark 4-7 July 2011

Exploring Architecture in Civil Society: Social Enterprise as an expression of localism and community advocacy in architectural design – a case study and critical reflection on practice. Sam Brown Sheffield School of Architecture, University of Sheffield, UK 3rd EMES International Research Conference on Social Enterprise Roskilde, Denmark 4-7 July 2011 Abstract

Forthcoming legislation in the UK looks set to place greater responsibility for the design and production of the built environment onto communities themselves. This responsibility requires professional and technical support in order to be met effectively. This paper draws on the author’s experience of working for an award winning environmental and social enterprise, Hill Holt Wood, alongside an analysis of the forthcoming legislation associated with the Localism Bill 2010/11 in the UK and suggests that social enterprise offers an exciting model for professionals, such as architects, who wish to support communities as they respond to Localism.Architects, as one of a number of professional disciplines involved in the design and production of the built environment, have skills that communities will need in order to negotiate the challenges presented by Localism. However, ‘normative’ professional practice in the construction industry is exclusive and does not easily allow for the participation of community groups on the design process. Architects may have to change what they do in order to continue to practice effectively and responsibly. At Hill Holt Wood, a student-initiated design practice has been successfully integrated within an existing social enterprise that already provides other local services, such as education and management of the environment. In considering architectural design as a local service rather than merely professional consultancy, an opportunity may exist for architects to better support civil society through social enterprise. This paper concludes that whilst the social enterprise model presented in the case study offers opportunities to architects to change how they practice, it too may need to review how it practices in order to respond appropriately to Localism. Further detailed analysis of the case study may reveal how this may best be achieved. Keywords:

Architecture; Built Environment; Localism; Social Enterprise. 1

Structure 1.0

Introduction

2.0

The Localism Bill – The Big Society and the UK

3.0

Case Study – The Hill Holt Wood Design Team

4.0

Discussion of Observations

5.0

Conclusion

6.0

Bibliography

1.0

Introduction

1.1

Academic Context

This paper forms part of an M.Arch Architecture (RIBA Part 2) dissertation thesis at the Sheffield School of Architecture, University of Sheffield, UK. The dissertation is viewed as a preliminary study leading onto future PhD research. It utilises a case study and analysis of legislation to raise questions and identify further areas of study. It seeks advice from experts in the field as to the best way to approach these areas, and for an evolving methodology for the research in general. 1.2

Personal Context

At the time of writing, I am also at a particular stage in my training to become a professionally qualified architect in the UK. I have recently completed my ‘Year Out’, which commonly forms the ‘bridge’ between the BA Architecture (RIBA Part 1) undergraduate degree and master’s level academic training (refer to Fig.1).

Fig.1 – Architectural Education in the UK 2

The architecture profession in the UK is regulated by two governing bodies; the Architect’s Registration Board (ARB) and the Royal Institute of Professional Architects (RIBA). These institutions set standards for the ‘Year Out’, detailing what can and cannot be counted as valid experience contributing towards progression from Part 1 to Part 2 of professional training. The design-end of the construction industry has been one of the most severely affected sectors following economic recession in the UK. Upon graduating, I found it incredibly difficult to find employment that met these criteria. It was this experience that led me to Hill Holt Wood, and the world of social enterprise and the civic economy, where boundaries that previously seemed rigid were blurred, and a fundamentally different way of doing things underpinned the economics of community development. Working here, as a designer, I began to ask questions of my chosen profession and of its influence on and obligation to - society. The current UK Coalition government is implementing its ‘Big Society’ agenda with the introduction of the Localism Bill 2010/11, currently undergoing the slow process of enactment into law through parliament and royal ascent. The Big Society represents a political re-valuation of civil society in the UK, particularly with regard to community development and the provision of local services. This paper acknowledges that the Bill is almost certain to be passed in something closely resembling its current form, and seeks to discuss the opportunities and challenges it presents rather than to debate its merits. 1.3

Methodology

In reflecting on my own experience of architectural practice - and seeking recommendations for how that experience could be improved for both myself and others - I am engaging with an Action Research methodology as discussed by McNiff and Whitehead (2002). As McNiff points out, it is simply good practice to take stock from time to time in order to decide how best to move forward (Ibid:1). Action Research may therefore be regarded as critically reflective practice. Treating practice, of any kind, as research in this way can ensure that as practitioners we are participating in the “living out of values” (Whitehead 1985:2). Whilst action research does not require a rigidly defined sequence of methods, it can be characterised by the following: -

We review our current practice and identify an aspect we want to improve;

We imagine a way forward, try it out and take stock of what happens;

We modify our plan in the light of what we have found and continue with the ‘action’; 3

We evaluate the modified action;

...and so on until we are satisfied with that aspect of our work. (Lomax et al. 1996:ix)

In this research, I am seeking the answer to two key questions; First of all, in a context of rapid change, politically, economically and socially, how might I best use the skills that I have gained in my education and experience of architectural practice? What might be the most appropriate form for my own future practice to take, and what might I need to learn in order to apply myself to it? Secondly, I have experience of working for a social enterprise, which forms the subject of a case study presented in this paper. How might my work best inform the development of that organisation, as an agent of progressive social, economic and environmental change in the community and its neighbourhood?

2.0

The Localism Bill – The Big Society and the UK

2.1

A General Introduction - The Localism Bill as an Act of Parliament.

The Localism Bill 2010/11 was introduced to the House of Commons on 13th December 2010 and introduces new free-standing provisions and amends other legislation in four key areas; local government, planning, regeneration and housing. Its overarching theme is the devolution of power to local authorities and communities (DCLG 2011:1; Parliament 2011a), which forms a core component of the current coalition UK Government’s ‘Big Society’ agenda, upon which the Conservative Party based its election manifesto. Almost all of the Bill’s provisions extend to England and Wales only, except minor aspects of infrastructure planning which also extend into Scottish legislation, and so reference by commentators to the UK may be misleading. The Government expects the Bill to become enacted in 2012, and many believe that it will bring about a profound shift in the way that England is governed (Brady 2011). The Bill is currently progressing through the process of enactment into legislation by the UK Government. This is a long process, allowing for much debate and scrutiny. At the time of writing, the Bill is at Committee stage in the House of Lords, which represents a fairly advanced stage of enactment. Attention is now being paid to precise wording, rather than general content or vision. Simultaneously, debate surrounding the potential social, environmental and economic 4

impact of the Bill’s enactment is shifting from a discussion on its merits and likely influence to the pragmatics of its application in use.

Fig.2 – The passage of the Localism Bill 2010/11 through UK Parliament. At the time of writing the Bill had reached Committee stage in the House of Lords, and has found its more or less final form. Attention is now paid to the exact wording of the Bill. Source: www.parliament.uk

2.2

A literature review of the Localism Bill

Literature surrounding the Bill is confusing, as the Bill itself is still changing. Revisions are documented after each House session or Committee meeting and are also made publically available online (Parliament 2011b), meaning that as it progresses through parliament, it is available to view online, in current and past forms. The Localism Bill itself currently stands in 2 volumes; the first as a 202-page document of ‘clauses’ that form the bulk of the Bill’s legislation; and the second as a 247-page register of ‘schedules’ that list other legislation affected or engaged by the Localism Bill. There is also an accompanying 101-page document of explanatory notes (Parliament 2011c). As such, the Localism Bill represents a substantial and wide-reaching piece of legislation. Simultaneously, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has published a Pain English Guide to the Localism Bill (DCLG 2011) which seeks to address any confusion surrounding the consequences of the Bill’s enactment. It is very promotional in its tone, and therefore lacks criticality. However, it is aimed at a general audience and serves to clarify some of the intricacies of the Bill. A large proportion of the Bill’s clauses affect the way the built environment is designed, procured and managed and so Localism is swimming gradually into focus in disciplines such as architectural design, urban design and planning which stand to be substantially affected by the new legislation. Notable literature in this area includes the output of a number of regional and national colloquia on the effects of the Localism Bill on the procurement, design and regeneration of the built environment, including material by RIBA President Elect 2010/11 Angela Brady (Brady 5

2011), and former RIBA President George Ferguson (Ferguson 2011). Nationally, international development NGO, Architecture Sans Frontières (ASF) hosted a conference on social enterprise that concerned itself deeply with Localism (ASF-UK 2011). The RIBA itself has also hosted a number of events that aimed to bring together professionals form backgrounds such as planning and development, alongside architects, in order to discuss how to make Localism ‘work’ (Boler 2011; Brown 2011; Cuff 2011; Kleiner 2011; Reed 2011). The RIBA-sponsored think tank for the built environment professions, Building Futures, has also recently published a report entitled ‘The Future for Architects?’ (Jamieson 2011), which accompanies a pair of nationally-focussed debates and surveys other construction industry professionals about the evolving role and value of an architect as the context of practice changes. These are all important sources for this study as they represent the general view of a number of inter-dependent professions on the nature of professional practice within a wide area that is set to change with the enactment of the Localism Bill.

2.3

Physical Analysis of the Localism Bill

The Localism Bill itself addresses four primary areas of policy for England, in addition to a specific section on policy in London. These are; Local Government; Community Empowerment; Planning; and Housing. In discussions, this is often simplified to two main areas of discussion; Local Government and Community Empowerment are usually considered together as complimentary sets of ideas, whilst Planning is almost always considered in the context of ‘development’ and ‘regeneration’. Housing, as a topic, almost always remains as a third, isolated area of discussion; proposed changes address issues of management and social housing tenure, rather than design and production.

Fig.3 – ‘Mapping’ the Localism Bill – The Bill itself comprises ‘clauses’ and ‘schedules’; of the clauses, most relate to specific aspects of the devolution of power such as Local Government, Community Empowerment, Planning and Housing.

2.4

Local Government and Community Empowerment

Parts 1 to 4 of the Localism Bill seek to address Local Authority and Community Empowerment. In summary, the Bill seeks to; -

Grant a general power of competence to local authorities (clauses 1-7)

Enable local authorities to choose to return to the committee system of governance, and allow for referendums for elected mayors in certain authorities (clauses 10-12)

give more discretion over business rate relief to local authorities (clauses 35-38)

grant a new power for residents to initiate local referendums on any local issue and he power to veto excessive council tax increases (clauses 39-65)

grant new powers to help communities save local facilities and services threatened with closure, and giving voluntary and community groups the right to challenge local authorities over the provision of their services (clauses 66 to 88). (DCLG 2011:1-2)

2.5

Planning and Regeneration

Parts 5 and 7 of the Localism Bill affect the Planning System and reflect the government’s attitude towards regeneration and the production of the built environment. Generally, the government seeks to devolve power, to streamline the planning system and make it easier for communities to have an input into it (Brady 2011). Primarily, this has at its heart the intention to reduce the amount of planning guidance that has built up over the years and replace it with a new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Brady 2011) – an initiative commonly referred to as planning reform. The NPPF is a single document and maps out planning priorities against broader social, environmental and economic objectives. Planning reform is also sometimes referred to as ‘bottom-up’ planning (Ibid; Ferguson 2011; Cuff 2011) in reference to the aspiration that a neighbourhood should decide what it needs or wants. In summary, policy addressing planning and regeneration allows for; -

the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies (clause 89)

the abolition of the Infrastructure Planning Commission and a return to the position where the Secretary of State takes the final decision on major infrastructure proposals of national importance (clauses 107-118)

amendments to the provisions governing the Community Infrastructure Levy (which allows councils to charge developers to pay for infrastructure). Some of the revenue raised will be available for the local community (clauses 94-95)

the provision for neighbourhood plans , which may be approved if they receive 50% of the votes cast in a local referendum (clauses 96-101)

provision for neighbourhood development orders to allow communities to approve development without requiring normal planning consent (clause 96)

the conferral of new housing and regeneration powers on the Greater London Authority and abolishing the London Development Agency (Part 7) (DCLG 2011:2)

2.6

Summary of observations relevant to the design and production of the built environment

Whilst the summaries provided by DCLG in the Plain English Guide to the Localism Bill are useful in understanding the wider implications of the Localism Bill, there are a number of aspects of specific relevance to the design and production of the built environment. These are underpinned by three key concepts, which can be summarised as; -

...the Community Right to Build;

...the Community Right to Challenge;

and the Community Right to Buy.

These concepts affect how communities can engage with the design and production of their built environment in three main ways;

2.6.1

...through the production of Neighbourhood Plans;

...through Asset Transfer from Local Authorities;

and through a new Duty to Consult placed upon developers.

The production of Neighbourhood Plans

Clauses 96 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 101 and Schedule 9 of the Localism Bill provide for this new system of neighbourhood planning. With the enactment of the Localism Bill, Local Authorities will be required to hold Local Plans and Neighbourhood Plans (DCLG 2011:16), against which to assess 9

applications for planning permission. This is commonly seen as the big change ushered forth by Localism (Brady 2011), as it places the larger part of responsibility for the generation of such plans onto communities rather than the local authority. Neighbourhood Plans are seen as the main vehicle by which communities can have a say about what happens in their neighbourhood, and can exercise the new Community Right to Build. In an area where there is a parish council the only applicant for a neighbourhood development plan or order can be the parish council. In areas where there is no parish council only “neighbourhood forums” may apply for a neighbourhood development plan or order. A plan or order will not take effect unless there is a referendum on it and more than 50% of those voting, vote in favour of it. (DCLG 2011:18-19). Communities may also propose Neighbourhood Development Orders (NDOs) that specifically permit development of a certain kind in a certain place, and is administered as a new category of planning permission. Some local authorities are already engaging with the process of neighbourhood planning in anticipation of the enactment of the Localism Bill. However, there are a number of issues. Firstly, although neighbourhood plans will be able to permit development above that identified by the local authority (Brady 2011), they will have no specific power to stop development, and must conform to local and national planning policies. Additionally, where a Neighbourhood Plan is absent, there will be a ‘presumption in favour of development’. This potentially leaves communities vulnerable to exploitation if they have not drawn up a Plan. Neighbourhood Forums, with whom power can rest in the absence of a parish council, may constitute as few as three people (Ibid.), which renders the process susceptible to ‘vocal minorities’. Ensuring that neighbourhood forums accurately represent a community is therefore essential. However, the identification of a ‘community’ may itself be difficult and variable, dependent on geographic location or interest. Defining a community or neighbourhood, where it is not already clearly defined, is difficult, as recognisable communities often only identify themselves in response to threat, rather than opportunity. It is also likely that neighbourhood planning will have a greater take up in some areas than others (Ibid.). Scarcity of resources - such as funding - particularly means that neighbourhood planning will be out of the reach of some communities, whilst others that are perhaps better resourced and more established will find the process easier.

2.6.2

Asset Transfer from Local Authority

The ‘Community Right to Challenge’ and the ‘Community Right to Buy’ mainly influence a 10

community’s ability to provide their own local services where the State or local Authority is deemed to be lacking or deficient. However, this can also apply to assets such as vacant or under-used land or building stock under the Local Authority control. Under the ‘Community Right to Buy’, local groups will have a legal right to nominate any vital community asset - including local shops, pubs, libraries and leisure centres - to be assessed for recording on a ‘most wanted’ list by the local council. The asset could then be listed for five years. In that time, the owner of a listed asset will have to tell the council if they intend to sell, which will trigger a window of opportunity or ‘community countdown’, giving people time to prepare their business plan and raise the funds they need to make a credible bid before it goes on the open market (RUDI 2011).

2.6.3

Duty to Consult

Clause 107 (in the draft current as of 23/06/2011,originally listed as Clause 102 in the Bill as originally proposed) effectively shifts the duty to consult on applications for planning consent for major projects onto the applicant (RTPI 2010:12) by making ‘consultation’ statutory, and seeks to protect and enable the Community Right to Build and to Challenge. The Localism Bill therefore brings with it a new Duty to Consult for developers, which requires prospective developers to consult local communities before submitting planning applications for certain developments. Developers have often done this as a way of ‘demonstrating’ that they have consulted locally on plans they have in fact already produced – in other words, a ‘tick the box’ exercise. The new powers mean that they will have to comprehensively consult on all large proposals before the plans have been produced and then show how they have taken the local community’s views into account in the submitted version. Failure to reflect what local people want from development could result in refusal of planning permission. However, the Duty to Consult only applies to large developments, of approximately two hundred housing units or bigger. Commentators argue that developments much smaller than this can have a significant impact on a local community, and that the remit of the Duty to Consult should be extended (Brady 2011).

2.7

The Localism Bill in the wider context of the Big Society and economic constraint

The Localism Bill 2010/11 as discussed represents a core piece of legislation underpinning the 11

Big Society agenda in UK politics. It sits within a wider context of budget deficit reduction and cuts in government funding, from which civil society is not immune. Whilst charities and volunteer groups are experiencing reductions in income and other financial support, the UK government is also reducing funding for a range of strategic, mid-level, ‘umbrella’ organisations – such as Regional Development Agencies - that have traditionally provided strategic support for the civil economy. Many third sector organisations depend upon this kind of support in order to operate at all. Some commentators criticise the Big Society as empty rhetoric that actually acts against the values it advocates, theoretically allowing communities and civil society organisations to do more for themselves whilst simultaneously removing the support that enables them to do so (McCabe 2010:13). Professional services, such as architectural design, are part of that ‘umbrella’ support. If their traditional outlet is compromised by government cuts, their support may become unavailable to those with a responsibility for making decisions about the built environment.

3.0

Case Study – The Hill Holt Wood Design Team

3.1

Introduction to Case Study

Localism looks set to empower organisations that can fuse local service provision with the design and production of the built environment. If communities and civil society organisations have greater responsibility placed upon them, then they may need professional and technical support in shouldering those responsibilities effectively. As a student of architecture, experiencing architectural education as set out in the introduction to this paper, I have been required to undertake a period of professional work experience termed the ‘Year Out’. I spent that year working for a social enterprise that sought to integrate the design and production of the natural and built environment with local service provision, as a community advocate and ‘honest broker of knowledge’. As such, it sought to provide strategic-level support to individuals, local authorities and civil society, independent from donation, or government grants. Parrish (2007:165) has described the business as a “sustainability enterprise”, where “the potentially competing interests of multiple goals were balanced by structuring activities so that beneficial outcomes in one domain served to reinforce the beneficial outcomes of other domains”.

Organisations such as this are in an exciting position as the Localism Bill becomes law, and the following case study begins to examine the particular qualities of that organisation with regard to the strategic support of sustainable community development. The wider study will ask what lessons can be learned from innovative social enterprise for architectural practice at large.

3.2

Hill Holt Wood as a social and economic assemblage

The hardest thing to do in beginning this case study is discuss what Hill Holt Wood is or what it does. The easiest way is often to describe it firstly and foremost as a business; all be it one with social and environmental goals in place of guarantees of shareholder return on investment. In this way, it is an example of a social enterprise, a business model rapidly gaining publicity in the current political climate of the UK. I find it convenient to think of Hill Holt Wood – both as place and organisation – as a social and economic assemblage of actors and agents, an idea derived from Actor-Network-Theory, as developed by Michael Callon (1986), Bruno Latour (2005) and others. In this sense, it exists “in a constant making and re-making” (Latour 2005:9) of relationships between individuals, between individuals and the organisation, and between the organisation, State and society, that sustains it as a business. Hill Holt Wood employs people, trains people, accepts volunteers, operates as a school, seeks and accepts contracts both privately and on behalf of the local authority, and seeks to influence policy at local and national administrative levels. Hill Holt Wood could be summed up as an award-winning environmental social enterprise based in ancient woodland in rural England. The passage below, written reflectively, depicts the scenario in which myself and two colleagues freshly graduated from our BA (hons) Architecture degree at De Montfort University, Leicester, UK – found ourselves within a few months of arriving at Hill Holt Wood; “We began work on the bunkhouse when we arrived at the Wood; roping in other staff members as and when we could, such as when we needed a digger driving or the sawmill operating. We slowly began to integrate with the other members of staff who, as far as we could tell, had no real idea as to who we were or why we were in their woodland. There was little budget available for the build, save for things we couldn’t legally do ourselves, such as the installation of electrical services. We began to reuse materials left over from other building projects; the usual over-ordered material contingencies and products of mistaken Bills of Quantity. Anything we could make out of timber, we did; making full use of the supply of timber thinnings from forestry and woodland management 13

operations; we took durable Douglas Fir and Larch for cladding and shingles, and Scots Pine and Western Hemlock for furniture and interior finishes. We burned the off-cuts in a salvaged wood-burner to stay warm. Surplus insulation was squashed between studs made from cut-down, structural pine decking, whilst doors and windows came from a local contractor refurbishing a nearby school – reusable so long as you didn’t mind the dents and scratches. Over a few months of making-do-and-mending, we became more skilled with our hands, doing everything ourselves, from block-laying and concrete-mixing to site carpentry, roofing and plastering. So began the adventure at Hill Holt Wood.”

3.3

What does Hill Holt Wood do?

As it currently stands, Hill Holt Wood, Ltd. is a community-owned enterprise engaged in job skills training for at-risk, socially excluded, and unemployed young adults through the ecological restoration of degraded ancient woodland. The term Hill Holt Wood actually refers to the name of that ancient woodland, which exhibits evidence of woodland management dating back to the Roman period (Hill Holt Wood 2011). The enterprise is pioneering a model of countryside management that creates income generating opportunities to support the maintenance of healthy ecosystems, provide rural employment, and address the needs of some of society’s most disadvantaged members. The enterprise has been held up as a model for rural sustainable development by the UK Environment Secretary, the Forestry Commission, and the Department for Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), and has won numerous social business awards. An audit evidencing the beneficial social and environmental impacts of the enterprise was certified by professors of biology and sociology from the University of Lincoln, and Lincoln law enforcement officials have credited the enterprise for a noticeable reduction in area youth crime (Parrish 2007:143). The organisation evolved from the aspiration of founding director Nigel Lowthrop to demonstrate that the conservation of any environmentally significant resource and its open access as a public resource need not be reliant on grants and the good-will of patronage or donation. As a trained ecologist and self-styled entrepreneur, Lowthrop sought to prove that the woodland could be used to generate enough income to not only pay for its own rehabilitation, but also to support a family living a responsible modern lifestyle. Buying the woodland in 1995, he and wife Karen Lowthrop formed the Hill Holt Wood Woodland Management Committee in 1997, which developed over the next five years to include representatives from eleven local parishes, recognizing the important role of local communities in their vision. Hill Holt Wood diversified its activities as the extent to which it could manage the woodland grew. Thinnings were sold as firewood and management strategies developed. As expertise was gained, the Wood was able to take on other local contracts and developed as a forestry 14

and woodland management business. Holding expertise also meant they could train people and offer consultancy, as well as being able to fulfil a long held personal belief that land-based education is more appropriate for some members of society, particularly those that mainstream education service is failing. Training, and the associated goals of community empowerment, became the main social mission of the business, alongside its original environmental objectives. In 2002 the founders conferred ownership of the enterprise to a community-controlled governing board, converting their own status from owners to employed managers. The governing board was restructured to include representation by local individuals, companies, faith organisations, and funders, as well as a staff representative and the executive director. Hill Holt Wood was thus established as a Social Enterprise, which reinvests all profits generated by operations in the woodland into the social and environmental objectives of the business (Clearly So 2010; Hill Holt Wood 2011).

3.4

The Architecture of Hill Holt Wood

As the organisationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s operation has grown, so has its need for buildings to operate from. In keeping with its founding inspiration, Lowthrop originally furnished the business with new facilities constructed as self-build projects from materials sourced from the woodland and surrounding community. This gave rise to the replacement of original on-site caravans with a suite of offices and classrooms, complete with electrical and communications servicing, constructed from timber and load-bearing straw-bale. At the same time, the Lowthrops applied for planning permission to build their own family home within the woodland, which although initially met with strong resistance, was granted ten years later following public support generated by their work in returning, managing and maintaining the woodland as a local amenity. More recently, those early office buildings have been complimented with a new building, developed in partnership with design departments at local universities, in turn supporting the organisationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s social objective of providing training opportunities and pushing the boundaries of sustainable development. The new offices, cafe and community hall have again been constructed as a self-build project by Hill Holt Wood as an organisation, this time utilising rammed earth and more advanced eco-materials such as triple-glazing, recycled plastic roofing tiles and Combined Heat and Power (CHP) generation. Needless to say, Hill Holt Wood has gained a great deal of practical experience by constructing its own buildings, and a great deal of knowledge in ecodesign and sustainable development through the associated planning and research. As an entrepreneur firstly and foremost, Nigel Lowthrop could see the connection between this experience, and the links being made with students at design schools; particularly with graduating architecture students facing difficulty securing the employment necessary to continue their training. These students had skills, which in combination with the resources of Hill Holt Wood

could effectively deliver eco-design projects at local level. Lowthrop had always spoken of this aspiration, and as students, myself and my two colleagues had always entertained the idea that we might be able to play a role in supporting that vision. We approached Hill Holt Wood with the proposal that, providing we could gain the support of an RIBA-chartered architect, we could engage in a joint venture investigating the potential of a design service, run mostly by students, working to support both the social objectives of the existing Social Enterprise and on-going training of the students. As it currently stands, the Hill Holt Wood Design Team consists of two or three students, operating autonomously within the wider social and economic assemblage of Hill Holt Wood and the local services it provides. It operates under the loose directorship of Nigel Lowthrop, with the larger part of decision making in terms of design and general administration of the Design Team being the responsibility of the students. Students – as interns - are firstly and foremost employed as ‘Rangers’, including general ‘Hill Holt’ tasks such as teaching, and conservation alongside their duties as members of the Design Team. Following the initial involvement of myself and two colleagues during our ‘Year Out’, the Design Team was profitable, generating enough income to cover our wages. This met one of Hill Holt Wood’s business objectives of providing training opportunities whilst integrating a new business stream within the wider economic assemblage of the business. A second internship was then offered, employing two more ‘Year Out’ students. At the time of writing, interviews have been held for a third internship and successful candidates are set to start work in the coming weeks. The Design Team has proven to be a sustainable activity stream for the business. The evidence from this case study therefore suggests that architectural design services can be successfully practiced as part of a social enterprise providing other local services. The body of research, of which this paper forms a part, will go on to study specific aspects of the Hill Holt Wood Design Team in order to establish the wider viability of architectural design services integrated with other local services as a social enterprise.

4.0

Discussion of Observations

This paper has presented a study of the UK Government’s Localism Bill 2010/11 alongside a case study of a design service integrated with local service provision at Hill Holt Wood. Alongside the areas of interest identified from the case study above, it has made the following observations 16

concerning the Localism Bill; -

The likely importance of Neighbourhood Plans;

The opportunity for Asset Transfer from Local Authority;

The new Duty to Consult placed on developers;

It has also presented a case study from which some interesting observations emerge. These observations depend upon an understanding of architectural design as an exclusive profession; and upon an awareness of participatory design processes.

4.1

Architecture as an exclusive profession

As noted in the Introduction, professional regulatory bodies for the practice of architecture in the UK – the ARB and the RIBA – define what an architect can and cannot do, which is limiting and exclusive. They also - by state licence – place the architect in an exclusive position of power within the design team (Riley 2010:2). This exclusive arrangement may not be the most effective in a time of financial constraint and scarce resources, and in response to legislation that places new demands on the design of the built environment. Architects – and their regulatory institutions - may need to ‘blur the boundaries’ of professional conduct in order to best serve communities acting in response to the demands placed upon them by Localism. ‘Boundaries’ to be ‘blurred’ might include the distinction between built environment professionals, such as architects, planners, and urban designers, as well as that between professionals – as traditionally objective consultants – and policy makers in local government. There is interest in ‘making Localism work’ across the built environment professions (RTPI 2010, Reed 2011). By not following rigidly the RIBA Plan of Work, Hill Holt Wood is able to widen the definition of its practice of architecture.

4.2

Participatory Design

The Duty to Consult, as previously discussed, places a greater emphasis on participatory design processes. Communities may need the financial and logistical support of developers to achieve their aspirations, and developers will now require the consent of the majority of that community in order to proceed with development. Far from being alien to the profession, participation has a rich history within architecture, urban design and planning (Blundell-Jones et al. 2005), as well as current vitality. In embracing participation more fully, the architectural profession may better serve communities and civil society 17

organisations, and provide a richer dialogue between developers and communities regarding development. Hill Holt Wood did not truly practice participatory design, although the organization’s identifiability and accessibility amongst the local community may ideally place it do to so. To develop this thinking, the social enterprise could be considered as a two way valve between developers and communities; it is to ‘go to’ organisation for anything to do with design and construction of the built environment that affects a particular neighbourhood. It may be useful to consider a social enterprise alongside the idea of neighbourhood forums outlined in the Localism Bill.

4.3

Key observations from case study

Key areas of interest, which need specific support with evidence from the case study, are as follows; -

Choosing not to use the title ‘architect’, or follow standard construction management

procedure such as the RIBA Plan of Works. This might allow for a blurring of professional boundaries better suited to effective support of community development and a more inclusive practice of architectural design. -

Considering architectural design as a community service, rather than solely as

professional consultancy, might allow a more inclusive way of working than the exclusive relationships encouraged by the profession’s governing institutions and guiding documentation. -

‘Alternate’ as opposed to ‘alternative’ practice, allowing for the pursuit of ‘normal’ or

‘traditional’ modes of practice alongside less traditional modes, such as participation, co-design and community advocacy. Practice in the third sector may be usefully subsidised by ‘traditional’, more exclusive practice. -

The use of an integrated business model, affording a holistic view of the value of good

design alongside other community services, and greater job-satisfaction through variety. This may also make design services accessible to communities by providing them with a known outlet for those services. Hill Holt Wood’s aspiration to become a ‘one-stop-shop’ and ‘honest broker of knowledge’ for sustainable design and construction present opportunities to work more inclusively. -

The maintenance of strong links with the on-going education of professionals at a

strategic point in their university-based training; blurring the boundary between academia and practice. Having social goals – such as the provision of training opportunities - alongside economic ones may afford a different kind of relationship between academia and practice to 18

the traditional pseudo-vocational model, and may present an opportunity to engage and initiate different kinds of projects in different ways. -

The use of ‘Special Purpose Vehicles’ (SPVs), led by social enterprises, to manage

development in trust for a community. This may also present an opportunity to initiate projects in a different, more inclusive way. SPVs allow key stakeholders, such as designers, local authorities, developers and community groups to exchange views and develop projects in an open ‘forum’, which is specifically tied to a certain project or on-going community participation in design and production of the built environment in a particular neighbourhood. -

The engagement of local and national policy surrounding community development, and

seeking to influence it through demonstration of innovative good practice, rather than merely conforming to prescriptive regulation. This activist approach bears hallmarks of successful community advocacy, and stimulates discussion surrounding concepts such as ‘leadership’ and ‘vision’ in development.

5.0

Conclusion

5.1

Concluding Thoughts

Theory surrounding the Localism Bill is in its infancy, and as such it is difficult to make an accurate survey of it. Literature on Social Enterprise, particularly with reference to the professional practice of architectural design, is also relatively rare. As such it can be hard to draw many conclusions at this preliminary stage. However, the eventual enactment of the Localism Bill 2010/11 in the UK looks likely to place greater responsibility for design and production of the built environment onto communities and civil society organisations. To engage with design and production effectively and responsibly, those communities and organisations will require professional and technical support from practitioners such as architects. Social Enterprise represents an opportunity to integrate professional design services with local service provision and community advocacy, providing accessible and accountable support for civil society as it shoulders its growing responsibility for the design of its environment. Architects, who have traditionally been schooled as a ‘jack-of-all-trades’, may have something to offer as the climate surrounding development begins to require the specific skills of a generalist.

Although architects may have valuable skills, these are currently limited by the exclusivity of ‘normative’ professional practice, which does not easily permit the production of architecture in many ways other than a clearly defined architect-client-design team relationship. In order to best serve civil society, and best support community groups as they shoulder their newly acquired responsibilities, architects may have to change how they practice, blurring the boundaries of professional disciplines and embracing social entrepreneurship in the initiation of socially and environmentally progressive community development. This blurring of boundaries could result in new organisational structures such as social enterprise becoming more common, alongside the adoption of more participatory practices that enable effective and responsible engagement of communities in design and production of their own environment. However, there are many questions arising from what remains an under-theorised field within the built environment professions. The case study of the Hill Holt Wood Design Team presents promising evidence that architectural design services can be pursued as a social enterprise. Analysis of forthcoming legislation suggests that practice in this way may more effectively support communities in shouldering the responsibilities demanded of them by Localism in the UK. However, this claim needs to be more rigorously supported with evidence from the case study, alongside theoretical speculation and comparison with other case studies. However, the important question remains; is the Hill Holt Wood Design Team a one-off product of unique circumstances, or does the integration of architectural design with other local services as social enterprise offer a valuable model for ‘alternate’ architectural practice? What else do we need to know in order to better support this assertion? This paper has been presented at the 3rd EMES International Conference on Social Enterprise in order that the author may begin to hold conversations with experts in the field about the outstanding issues prevalent in this study.

5.2

Outstanding Issues

5.2.1

Community

An important area of study will surround the difficulty of identifying ‘community’. If Localism asks that ‘communities’ take on greater responsibility, then identification and empowerment of 20

those communities is a key task. This is also a problem facing Social Enterprises, who need to identify and be accountable to the communities they seek to serve. There is a disjunction between the geographic idea of community, as referred to by the Localism Bill, and the service of communities of interest as commonly encountered by social enterprises. What can an architect offer in terms of identifying and engaging with a community? Participatory design processes and creative surveying from arts practice may offer solutions in this respect. 5.2.2

Epistemology

It’s difficult to find anyone other than architects thinking publically about the role of architects in response to Localism. We become a very self-referential profession, and tend to think that we are the answer to everything. Additionally, researching the Localism Bill is difficult. Not a lot is written or published in this field, although there is a lot of ‘talking’, at colloquia and gatherings, particularly amongst built environment professionals. Discourse is often confusing, often using terminology loosely with varying definitions in different contexts and with a great degree of interchangeability. How can I make my study a sound, rigorous one that is well referenced? 5.2.3

The professional and risk in civil society

How can I talk about civil society in terms that professionals will engage with? How can social enterprise become more common in professional service provision? Is its limiting factor that professional services cost a lot? One key question would be this; acting as entrepreneurs, who take on and exploit risk, how can architects manage the process of risk and liability? The exclusive nature of the architecture profession seems to be the way it is for precisely that reason, as it allows the architect to be aware of, and to manage risk, by being in control. Construction contracts also tend to allow the tracing of liability between contractor, designer and client. How could risk be managed more informally so as to not be inhibitive for the social entrepreneur? Is it simply a question of worrying less about it? Professional qualification and association go some way towards guaranteeing competence. At Hill Holt Wood we obtained ‘Design Warranty’ insurance that incorporated the usual professional indemnity insurance that architects and other built environment professionals normally take out to guarantee themselves against liability for their work. It’s harder, and more expensive to get without those professional qualifications. So shouldn’t those qualifications, that insurance and risk management rely on, reflect the need for new skills?

5.2.4

Good design and civil society

What evidence is there to suggest that good design is important to the development of a vibrant civil society and strong civic economy?

6.0

Bibliography

Documents Riley, B. (2010) Barriers of exclusion, modes of inclusion - analysing and reformatting the RIBA Plan of Work. M.Arch thesis, Sheffield School of Architecture, Sheffield: University of Sheffield. Blundell-Jones, P., Petrescu, D. & Till, J. (2005) Architecture & Participation, Oxon: Spon Press. Callon, M. (ed.) (1998) The Laws of the Markets, London: Blackwell Publishers. Clearly So (2010) Company Details: Hill Holt Wood [WWW] Available at http://www.clearlyso.com/ company/189/HillHoltWood.jsf [Accessed: 19/02/2011]. DCLG (2011) A Plain English Guide To The Localism Bill, London: Department for Communities and Local Government. [WWW] Available from: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/ pdf/1818597.pdf [Accessed: 07/02/2011]. Hill Holt Wood (2011) Hill Holt Wood: History [WWW] Available at http://hillholtwood.com/about/history/ [Accessed: 19/02/2011]. Jamieson, C. (2011) Building Futures: The Future For Architects?, London: Building Futures. Latour, B. (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lomax, P., McNiff, J. & Whitehead, J. (1996) You and Your Action Research Project, London: Routledge. McCabe, A. (2010) Below the Radar in a Big Society? Reflections on community engagement, empowerment and social action in a changing policy context, Birmingham: Third Sector Research Centre. McNiff, J. & Whitehead, J. (2002) Action research: principles and practice, 2nd ed., London: RoutledgeFalmer. Parliament (2011a) Localism Bill 2010/11 (HL Bill 71-I) [WWW] Available at http://services.parliament.uk/ bills/2010-11/localism.html [Accessed: 20/06/2011] Parliament (2011b) Bill documents accompanying the Localism Bill 2010-11(HL Bill 71-I) [WWW] Available at http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/localism/documents.html [Accessed: 20/06/2011]. Parliament (2011c) Localism Bill 2010/11(HL Bill 71-I) - Explanatory Notes [WWW] Available at http://www. publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmbills/126/en/2011126en.htm [Accessed: 20/06/2011] Parrish, B. D. (2007) Sustainability Entrepreneurship: Design Processes, Principals and Paradigms. Ph.D. thesis, School of Earth and Environment, Leeds: University of Leeds. RTPI (2010) Localism Bill “Living” Brief. London: Royal Town Planning Institute. RUDI (2011) Community Right to Buy and Community Right to Challenge: consultation on ‘revolutionary’ new community rights. [WWW] Available at http://www.rudi.net/node/22322 [Accessed: 30/06/2011] 22

Whitehead, J. (1985) An analysis of an individual’s educational development: The basis for personally orientated action research. IN: Shipman, M. (ed.) (1985) Educational Research: Principles,Policies and Practice, London: Falmer.

Presentations / Conferences ASF-UK (2011) Social Enterprise: Lessons For Architects - Alternative forms of practice in an evolving context, Social Enterprise: Lessons For Architects, London: Architecture Sans Frontières – UK. Boler, B. (2011) “How do you engage business?”, From Whitehall to Wigan - Making Localism Work?, London: RIBA, 17/05/2011. Brady, A. (2011) “Challenges and Opportunities in a Changing World”, Neighbourhoods and Localism Conference, Leicester: OPUN, 28/03/2011. Brown, C. (2011) “Bermondsey Neighbourhood Forum”, From Whitehall to Wigan - Making Localism Work?, London: RIBA, 17/05/2011. Cuff, N. (2011) “A councillors perspective...”, From Whitehall to Wigan - Making Localism Work?, London: RIBA, 17/05/2011. Ferguson, G. (2011) “The Art of Social Enterprise”, The Orangery Academy...New Directions In Placemaking: What’s The Big Idea?, Wakefield: Beam & Integreat Plus, 07/06/2011. Kleiner, D. (2011) “RCKa Case Study - Community-Centric Architecture”, From Whitehall to Wigan - Making Localism Work?, London: RIBA, 17/05/2011. Reed, R. (2011) “Introduction”, From Whitehall to Wigan - Making Localism Work?, London: RIBA, 17/05/2011.

Images Fig.1

Brown, S. (2011) Architectural Education in the UK [Author’s own work].

Fig.2

www.parliament.uk (2011) Passage of a Bill [WWW] Available from: http://www.parliament.uk/about/ how/laws/passage-bill/ [Accessed: 30/06/2011).

Fig.3

Brown, S. (2011) Mapping the Localism Bill [Author’s own work].