Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Training for Community Groups In association with Longford Community Resources Ltd

Final Report April 2012

0 Landscape Urban & Architectural Consultants LCRL Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme 2011-2012

1 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Contents

Contents

Introduction 3 Drumlish 20

Frame of Reference 4 Keenagh 21

Training Programme/Methodology 5 Lanesborough 22

Media 10 Mullinalaghta 23

Participating Communities 11 Longford Town 24

Evaluation 28 Abbey lara 12 Summary of Basic Needs 34 Ballinalee 13 Conclusion 37 Ballinamuck 14

Ballymacormack/Stonepark 15 Recommendations 38

Carrickboy / Ballycloughan 16 Anticipated Difficulties 40

Clondara 17 Feedback 42

Killoe 18 Acknowledgements 43 Cullyfad / Ennybegs/ / Killeenatruan

Dromard 19 Legga / Moyne

2 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Introduction

Introduction

Village and Area Enhancement Training for Community Groups was initiated by LCRL to offer communities the opportunity to Participating Communities examine and develop local initiatives and to capitalise on their own local resources. Keystone designed a programme using the •Abbeylara principles of participatory community engagement to maximise the involvement of varying population groups in community • Drumlish based activities. Once engaged, participants were taken through a process of analysing their surroundings, illustrating proposals • Ballinalee and forming communication structures through Steering and Working Groups. The engagement of participants centred around • Keenagh the build‐up to, and running of a series of workshops designed to encourage learning through doing. • Ballinamuck • The principle outputs of the programme are a collection of Area Enhancement Plans supported by Steering and Working Groups in Lanesborough • Ballymacormack / Stonepark each community. The programme focused on enhancement work, building relationships and learning simultaneously. Capitalising • Dromard –Legga / Moyne on people resources is of equal output to the Area Enhancement Plans and is part of long‐term transformative shift towards • Carrickboy / Ballycloughan conscious participation of community in the shaping of their culture and surroundings. • Mullinalaghta Communities became involved in the programme through expressions of interest received by LCRL. The programme commenced • Clondra in June 2011 and was hosted by Keystone Landscape Architects Dominick Comerford & Michael Cunniffe. • Longford Town • Killoe, A long‐term vision of what one's community could be, became the principle goal for participants in the creation of the plan. Short • Cullyfad/Ennybegs, Killeenatruan and medium term objectives were placed in context as 'stepping stones' to achieve this vision.

The purpose of this report is to communicate the successes and difficulties encountered by community's over the course of the programme. A brief description of each community's involvement is outlined later.

Common needs are evaluated and summarised to provide an overview. These vary between communities and are not always highlighted as priority in every Area Enhancement Plan. The programmes performance in the delivering of outputs and teaching participatory behaviour is analysed and evaluated. We offer our recommendations for future support, highlight anticipated difficulties and inform future work using participatory process's in these communities.

3 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Introduction

Frame of reference

The area enhancement training programme works within a wide frame of reference, covering the Where, What, Why, When and How of community enhancement. 'The improvement of one's quality of life through the shaping of one's surroundings' became the necessary core principle to develop a higher shared purpose, in order to evaluate ideas and ultimately to deliver consensus.

Keystones approach to the Participatory Process

The programme was centred around a community exhibition night. Local residents brought their ideas together in the community centre for debate and discussion. This was immediately followed by a workshop that focused on distilling principle issues from the many and disparate proposals.

Keystone choose to work in this way in order to maximise participation and stimulate interest in those not ordinarily 'active' within the community. There was a consistent build up to the community exhibition night, which became the climax of the programme. Working groups were then given some time to learn to work together while tasked with refining principles and proposals. This became the build up to a second community night out for the launch of the plan/community vision.

Our trainers guided the process through the first build up to exhibition night. Once the ideas were out on the floor and small working groups were formed, our trainers began to step back from rigidly guiding the programme and allowed the community to take ownership of the process in the build up to the launch night of the plan/community vision.

4 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Training Programme

The Training Programme

Phase 1: Create base for idea of participation & shaping (or creating new) Steering Group

Keystone's first points of contact to local communities was a list of community groups received from LCRL who expressed an interest in taking part in Area Enhancement Training. Some time was spent on both sides learning about how the programme would run in each community. The end of this phase was marked by an information evening held in each community where a presentation was made. Discussion on the main concerns of the community followed. Proposals were requested rather than merely highlighting issues for the exhibition night.

A steering group was formed to communicate to the wider community about the process and to make requests for proposals/ideas. Keystone provided a programme of works outlining the sequence of phases, the goals for each phase, and the Steering Groups role. Small flyers were also provided to assist in communicating the intentions to the wider community.

The process commenced in June and a general information evening at Longford Towns Rugby Club was organised by LCRL to formally launch the programme on July 19th 2011.

The mark of a successfllfully complltdeted Phase 1 was a self organiiising Steer ing Group who ttkook enough courage f rom the build up to express passion for their community and its surroundings. In order to ensure as many communities as possible made it past this point, Keystone returned to 5 villages (Abbeylara, Ballymacormack/Stonepark, Drumlish, Mullinalaghta Longford Town) to offer further encouragement and guidance.

There was some fall off in phase 1. Newtowncashel did not partake des pite numerous approaches to various ggproups. An Information evening was held in Abbeyshrule / Tashinney with the local tidy towns group. This was a busy time of year for them and despite a number of later approaches they did not take any further part in the programme.

5 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Training Programme

The Training Programme

Phase 2: Collection of ideas

A number of different approaches to 'the collection of ideas' were taken by communities as they began to take ownership of the process. This involved community meetings, church announcements, newsletter announcements, newspaper notices, door to door leaflet drops, and in some cases door to door request for ideas. Drop boxes were placed in some areas to aid collection.

Most National schools participated with an exceptionally large participation from the schools in Keenagh. Secondary schools proved more difficult to motivate as class's are made up of children from areas not taking part in the programme. We did however get a good response from the Secondary School located in Moyne.

A mar k of a successflful outcome to Phase 2 is comm itment s hown by t he SiSteering Group to communicate t he priiilnciples and passion for the betterment of their community, answer questions with clarity and then set about collecting the ideas. Carrickboy / Ballycloughan showed particular enthusiasm and called to nearly every household in the community. This is no small amount of work and helped the Steering Group learn to work together.

Ballymacormack / Stonepark and Cullyfad /Ennygybegs found it difficult at first but after further encouragement from Keystones trainers to make the final push an impressive collection of ideas was assembled. As expected it was found that central drop boxes did not work well for collecting ideas and the personal approach of the Steering Group members worked best. Drop boxes were necessary to facilitate anonymous ideas. The participatory process needs a strong Steering Group that can maintain guiding principles at the centre of the process.

6 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Training Programme

The Training Programme

Phase 3: The exchange of ideas/ Public Exhibition and Workshop

The exhibition night and following workshop marks a shift from Keystone's hosting of the process to the community itself taking ownership and hosting themselves in a self organising way. The evening was designed to condense the process that takes place over the enti re programme into one niihght. The skills ldlearned are thhferefore repeated an d lliearning happens b est thhhrough ddioing. The evening focuses on work developing a vision for the community as well as building relationships and learning simultaneously.

In order to manage large numbers of people and vast quantities of information the evening was very structured and ran as per Keystones tender proposal. The guiding principle 'improving ones quality of life through the shaping of one's surroundings' used in Phase 1 and 2 became the first lens with which to analyse ppproposals/ideas. This was done as short loud but brief discussions among our trainers thereby holding the attention of the room. Proposals were broken down to expose the underlying issues and then handed back to the room.

By splitting the room into small working groups, people were forced to participate once again. Each group had to quickly self organise, debate, and rebuild the proposals in the form of illustrations using maps. Once the ideas were broken down using the primary lens it forced the participants to debate its merits using only core principles, thereby increasing the odds of delivering consensus. Working groups were then in a position to use other lens (user groups, sustainability, biodiversity, other stakeholders) to refine proposals.

A measure of a successful evening was observing a number of working groups hosting their own conversations on possibilities, making presentations and refining details of execution. On more than one occasion our trainers left the building after 11pm with Working Groups still engaged in their work.

7 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Training Programme The Training Programme

Phase 4 Illustration and development of Area Enhancement Plan

The Area Enhancement Plan is a measuring and organisational tool to steer communities in the direction of a greater long‐term vision. It is a snapshot of where plans are, at that moment in time. While in theory the snapshot is scripted at the end of the exhibition nights workshops, Working Groups were encouraged to develop these plans further before this 'snapshot' was illustrated in the plan. The majority of Steering Groups maintained most of their strength but there was a fall off rate among Working Groups and their members. Keystone continued to liaise and meet with Steering Groups throughout phase 4 offering instruction on illustrations and structuring plans. Our trainer’s input into this phase was much larger than originally planned.

After the highs of exhibition night a number of Steering Groups needed extra support and encouragement to regroup. Once a few weeks had past these communities found it difficult to maintain contact with their Working Groups, many of who had lost interest as time lapsed. Those Steering Groups that were successful at self organising and delegating post exhibition night were in a position to use time with Keystone's trainers to develop and refine their plan to a very professional level. Up to five meetings and more were needed for most communities to produce a publishable draft of the plan and for others twice was sufficient.

OiOvercoming obtbstac les throug h ex tra suppor t

Keystone produced a Starter Template tailored to each community in order to aid the structuring of the plan. PowerPoint was chosen as the most appropriate software for the production of plans as it is commonly used software. However computer literacy was scarce and this turned out to be a significant challenge for some. Mapping exercises also proved difficult for a number of Working and Steering Groups.

A skills audit was carried out at each exhibition and an illustration team was formed in order to overcome these anticipated difficulties. Some Steering Groups were not successful at maintaining momentum and utilising this skills base resulting in greater input from Keystone. In these cases one or two people were responsible for the illustration of the plan while feeding back to the Steering Group. This became frustrating for these individuals due to the heavy workload. They did however benefit from one to one tuition on illustration techniques.

Despite these obstacles the Steering Groups have held together and all but three communities, Ballymackormack /Stonepark , Clondra and Longford Town have produced a final draft of their Area Enhancement Plan to date (20/04/2012). Two of the remaining three have completed the first draft. One of these communities are in the final stages of completing an impressive Plan.

*The nature and scale of Longford Town required a different approach than the rest of participating communities and is documented as a special case in this report. See p.24.

8 Rural Longggford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Traininggg Programme

9 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Media

Use of Media

Prior to Keystone’s appointment ,advertisements were placed on Shannon‐side Radio by LCRL to announce the forthcoming training programme and to assist in recruiting participants.

Various media outlets such as the Longford‐Leader, Shannonside radio, and social networking sites eg: facebook was by communities throughout the 4 phases of the programme. Most communities were familiar with placing adds relevant to their area in the Longford Leader on a weekly basis and this was considere d the most effec tive way to ge t ifinforma tion to the wider commun ity in one bbdroad sweep.

Publishing details in the Longford‐Leader, church notices and word of mouth were the most common means of communicating to the wider community. Flyers were designed and printed by keystone to assist the Steering Group communicating the programme. . A general face book page ‘Longford idea sharing forum‘ was set up with the intention that communities would share enhancement ideas and learn from each other. However broad‐band is not widely available in the county and it was little used. Longford Town was the only area to set up a specific facebook page and with some degree of success.

Both the Longford Leader and Shannonside radio were contacted by Keystone and interviews were conducted with both to promote the ‘Collection of Ideas and Exhibition’ in Longford Town. A poster was designed by the Steering Group and Keystone and distributed throughout the town. A large add was also placed in the Longford Leader along with a series of radio Adds in the week prior to the Longford Town exhibition which were funded by LCRL

Keystone supported and advised in the organising of a number of Launch events including giving a short talk at the events and giving interviews to the Longford Leader.

10 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Participants

The Programme Participants

Abbeylara Patricia Masterson 0872930483

Ballinalee Michael Carrigy 087 2915072

Ballinamuck Carmel Gill 086 3739686

Ballymacormack / Stonepark * Micheal O Sullivan 0862718035

Carrickboy / Ballycloughan Michael Leonard 087 6605080

Clondra Peggy Baxter 043 3326417

Killoe Cullyfad / Ennybegs /Killeenatruan Sean McGoey 086 8171084

Drumlish Anetta Keane 086 8141023

Keenagh Olive McKeogh 087 6270358

Lanesborough Seadna Ryan 085 1595512

Dromard Legga / Moyne Teresa Mc Nerney 0861026252

Mullinalaghta Harry Rogers 086 2619015

Longford Town Una Fitzgerald 087 2943592

11 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Participants Abbeylara Phase 1 Contacts made with community groups several times and after discussion and information pack forwarded an information meeting held Aug 11 however there was a very poor turnout of only 5 people . Agreed to hold second information evening provided increased numbers which was held Date with c24 in attendance. Further presentation was given and steering group formed to encourage and collect enhancement ideas form the wider community as part of Phase 2 .

Phase 2 Steering group was active throughout phase 2 and were generally self operating

Phase 3 Exhibition evening held date with c24 attending.. Somewhat fragmented evening as ball alley was not ideally suited for public meeting due to acoustics. Exhibition was held and rated by the public in terms of marks of importance by the public in attendance. A number of working groups were formed under the following headings :

. Village Centre ,Ballywilliam, Carra Walks

Further presentation given in relation to developing the themes established into an Enhancement Plan as part of phase 4. Phase 4 The group as a whole were somewhat fragmented on the night and progress was difficult in phase 4. Other community projects were being driven separately and in parallel to the Enhancement Plan and appeared to be diverting attention .

Ongoing Follow up correspondence resulted in a small core group effectively taking over from the groups formed at the exhibition /workshop with Patricia Masterson taking over the actual production of the plan . Starter/Template plan was produced by Keystone and a number of follow up meetings and draft versions of the plan have been worked on .

A new revitalised Community Group is being set up ‘Abbey‐ Carra Associates’ and the completed plan was successfully Launched 29 March 2012.

12 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Participants Ballinalee Phase 1 Community groups contacted and Phase 1 Meeting held 27 July at Village community centre . .Presentation given and discussion with regard to the overall of overall programme. Steering group formed and phase 2 commenced.

Phase 2 Steering group was active throughout phase 2 and were generally self operating .Flyers distributed ,adds placed in local media ,parish news letters and local consultation took place .

Phase 3 Exhibition night held 24 Aug with very good turnout .It was a successful exhibition and workshop . Good vibrant community with lot of interest and enthusiasm. All ideas were rated by members of public attending and 4 no. working groups formed to further develop themes established. Village Centre , Approach Roads, Walkways ,& river Heritage Loop Phase 4 Starter /Template Plan developed for the group however there was a decline in momentum in phase 4 developing the actual plan. We continued to correspond and encourage and the groups did have further meetings. We arranged further meeting on 7 Nov with Ken Percival who took the role of heading up production of the plan as some of the main members of the steering group have had new babies and input became limited . We were concerned that there was a lack of graphic skills within the group and that the task was too large for Ken effectively alone .He did not even have the basic power point / graphic skills . We encouraged to seek additional help form other members of the groups . There have been a number of meetings and drafts of the plan which is now complete. This is a result of Ken putting a lot of time into learning the programme , following the template and listening to our advice and suggestions .

The plan is well completed considering the task that was involved and the limited skills available . The plan is due to be launched April 2012.

13 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Participants Ballinamuck

Phase 1 Community groups contacted and information evening held 3 Aug with good turnout of 18 people from wide section of the community. Presentation and overview of the programme given. Struggle to form Steering group but agreed to form steering group committee and enlarge. Paddy Howe agreed to be main contact.

Phase 2 Slow to get phase 2 going and meeting held 11 Aug 11? with Bobby Hilton and Carmel Gill who now appear to be heading the steering group . Agreed provisional date for Phase 3 Exhibition 21 Sept. Flyers distributed and advertising in local media and parish news letters

Phase 3 Exhibition held 21 Sept with over 30 attending. All ideas were rated by members of public attending and working groups formed to further develop themes established.

Phase 4 The group slow to get going with phase 4 the production of plan . They were not meeting on any regular basis and no one appeared to be driving the plan and leading the group . We made several attempts to motivate and Carmel was doing her best but was not on the production team . We pressured for meeting prior to Christmas to review progress .Some good illustration work was done but no plan was coming together other than the starter /template that we produced .

It was agreed to hold weekly meetings with the production team during February, momentum built up again and the plan started to take shape with final drafts being reviewed by e mail .

The Completed plan was Launched 1 March 2012

14 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Participants Ballymacormack / Stonepark Phase 1 Contact made with community group Phase 1 Meeting held 27 June. Presentation was given and the overall programme discussed . Steering group formed and provisional date of Sept 10 set for the exhibition of ideas. This was the first group to become involved with the programme and gave a very positive and energetic response. Correspondence was slow over next number of weeks and towards end of August we were notifies that new steering ggouproup woul d need to be foedormed as estgexisting goupgroup dddid not haeave tethe capacity to work wi th tsthis ppogarogramme due to othe r ongoing projects. A Second information evening was held 12 Sept and a new Steering group Committee was formed after much needed encouragement given to the group .

Phase 2 Flyers distributed and good effort from the group to seek ideas from the community . The school and Micheal O Sullivan were very active in this phase and in the holding of the exhibition .

Phase 3 Exhibition evening held 10 Oct 2011 large turnout c 27 and successful evening. Ideas were rated and working groups formed under following headings:

Canal Amenity Development and Foot paths Car Parks, Bus Shelters And Club House/Community Centre Village Centre , community centre ,bus shelters , community garden

Phase 4 Starter / Template plan presented and given to group and skills audit. Design team for production of the plan agreed also. A number of follow up calls were made to set up progress meetings but the group seemed to go to ground and no further meetings held or progress version of the plan produced to date . We feel that good work was done at the exhibition /workshop and that there are ample skills within this community to produce a plan . We hhdad a ffllollow up call form Mich ae l in FFbeb 2012 who noted th at th ey h ave real iiintentions of compllieting the p lan an d will be in contact .

15 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Participants Carrickboy / Ballycloughan Phase 1 Community groups contacted and Phase 1 information meeting held 14 July 2011. Good vibrant and interested group. Steering group formed. Date for exhibition to be confirmed after community consultation . Local school did a session prior to summer break and produced children’s drawings .

Phase 2 Progress in phase 2 slow. A poor response form community at first which resulted in the momentum at phase 1 meeting dropping .We put pressure for Exhibition date which was agreed Sat 24 Sept 2011.Leaflet drops were conducted along with local notices and door to door request for enhancement ideas which was a unique effort for this community.

Phase 3 Successful exhibition held Sat 24 Sept with 15 attending . There was a funeral same day which conflicted with exhibition. It was agreed to pass on general results and include others in working groups. Good exhibition and workshop despite a lot of people missing . Ideas were rated and working groups formed under the following themes

Village Centre Walks / Heritage Sports/// Amenity /Play area (Village Park ,Village Green Area)

Starter/ Template Plan for the area was presented and given over to assist in production of the plan .Skills audit was difficult but steering group were confident to work on this.

Phase 4 Phase 4 slow and seemed to be struggling with presentation skills within the Community. Meeting on 14 Nov 2011 to review progress of plan . Yvonne appeaed to be doing it alone and needed to get more input and help. Maps and illustrations needed a lot of work. Local Architect Brendan Quaine was brought into the process which made a major difference .

A number of progress meetings were held . The plan was completed after our last meeting prior to Christmas .A community meeting was held to approve the plan and it was submitted to LCRL . We are not aware of any intention to have a formal launch .

16 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Participants Clondra

Phase 1 Peggy Baxter were contacted in July and the programme outlined. There was an awareness of the process due their attendance at an information evening held in Longford's Rugby Club. It was requested by the community to postpone the process until late August‐September due to other engagements.

Keystone were infdformed of work b eing carried out b y Humph rey Murph y on trai ls in an d aroun d Clldondra. It was agreed that we coordinate community meetings to maximise community involvement. The information evening was held on Oct 3rd in conjunction with Humphrey Murphy. Attendance approx 20. We were well received and enthusiasm was evident. A Steering group of 8 people was formed. The exhibition evening was agreed for October 18th.

Phase 2 The steering group took their role seriously and felt a little out of their depth. It was agreed that the exhibition be pushed back for a later date. As was feared the group lost their momentum and the exhibition was held on the much later date of Nov 24th 2011. After the slow start the group operated on their own and collected a staggering number of ideas from the vast majority of the community.

Phase 3 The exhibition night went very well and all the targets for the night were achieved. There is a great sense of community and interest in the future of their village. There were approx 50 attendees with most of them staying until the end of the workshop phase. Strong working groups were formed. The working group focused on trails were put in contact with Humphrey Murphy to develop the ideas further.

Phase 4 As predicted, the delay in holding the exhibition resulted in people becoming preoccupied with Christmas preparations. We agreed in Mid December to pick things up in the new year. A number of one to one meetings with the steering group are took place in February/ March. The group have vast quantities of information, unstructured documents from working groups, drawings etc.A first draft of the plan has been produced however this group needs more attention in order to complete the plan

17 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Participants

Killoe Villages Cullyfad /Ennybegs / Killeenatruan Phase 1 Community groups contacted Phase 1 information meeting held 7 July Small turnout of c 7 numbers Group consisted of reps from 3 communities in the parish of Killoe .Cullyfad ,Ennybegs & Killleenatruan .Presentation given and overall programme discussed . Initially a bit overwhelmed but agreed to form a steering group to cover all communities.

Phase 2 This consisted of suggestion boxes and distribution of leaflets . There was very poor response from both and the programme lost an amount of momentum . There was resistance to get date for Exhibition and pressure from Keystone resulted in agreed date of 4 Oct 2011 with Padric Loughrey heading up a further group meeting .

Phase 3 Exhibition on 4 Oct was well organised and well attended. The ideas at the exhibition ideas were separated into the different communities and combined issues prior to the exhibition . Ideas were rated by the community on the night and 4 no working groups were formed covering the following themes :

Cullyfad Villag e ,Ennyygbegs Village ,Heritage and Sigggnage ,Sports and Walkways

Each group gave brief presentation of what they were going to develop . A presentation was given of a Starter / Template plan for the area and left with the group . Discussion and skills audit to develop teams for production of the Plan . Fr Sean Casey was an influential driver of the process at this point.

Phase 4 A number of draft plans were reviewed and the plan developed quite fast. There were a large number of group meetings and they really took ownership of the process . Mary Byrne and Adrian Lee were responsible for the actual production work with Fr Casey overseeing the process.

Plan is completed and was successfully launched on 13 March 2012 .

18 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Participants

Dromard Legga/Moyne Phase 1 Community groups contacted and Phase 1 Information evening held 13 Sept 2011with good attendance approx 12. Presentation and overview of the programme given. The group were very interested and seemed well organised . Steering group formed with out difficulty after discussions and the meeting ended with good positive energy .

Phase 2 Phase 2 taken on well by the Steering group and an action plan to get enhancement ideas from the general community was put in place . Leaflets distributed in addition to local media advertising and involvement of transition year students in the process. Date for Phase 3 Exhibition of ideas was initially set for 11 Oct and subsequently postponed to Oct 17.

Phase 3 Exhibition held Monday 17 Oct with very large turnout ( 100+ ) Steering group had put a lot of work into sorting ideas into themes and areas prior to the exhibition which was very helpful. Working groups were slow to form on the night but with encouragement momentum built up and following themes established working groups Moyne Village, Legga Village Latin School Community School Parish Cemeteries and Mass Rock Sports and Leisure Walkways and Roads

Template developed ,presented at the exhibition given to the group to work with .A skills audit was carried out and the steering group put together a design team to produce the plan

Phase 4 Development of the actual plan was coordinated well by the groups and had the advantage of good organisation by Teresa and the steering group .In addition they had Gerry McCabe & Julia Smith who had excellent graphic skills and ability to produce the plan . A small number of drafts of the plan were reviewed plan completed early January and Launched 21 Feb 2011

19 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Participants

Drumlish Phase 1 Community groups contacted Phase 1 information meeting held 29 Aug with a very large and interested group of 23 .The presentation was given and overall programme discussed and a steering group formed for Phase 2 with good energy .

Phase 2 Phase 2 was slow and date for the exhibition needed to be set .There was a fall off in interest and the steering group needed to Work harder and focus on the task of collection ideas . There was some disappointment that not all community groups got involved . Phase 3 Exhibition evening held 19 Sept 2011 small ( 23) but satisfactory number of attendees . Ideas were rated and then divided into corresponding themes and working groups formed . Main theme headings were ;

Village Core, Approach roads ,Heritage / Signage ,Amenity walks ,Corn mill and Scoil Naomh Mhuire

Template /starter plan was developed and presented to the group outlining how the plan would be produced from here . The template was left with the group to commence putting the plan together

Phase 4 Very slow to respond in phase 4. First draft of plan produced in Jan 2012 .It appears that there was difficulty getting input from those involved and the groups did not keep the momentum going . There is still a small core group but the bulk of the work was being done by Annette Kane. There was a huge amount of work done on the plan but it did not follow the format given and needed a lot of reorganisation in order to read . Mapping was poor and needed a lot of work

Further meetings were held and Matt Gray agreed to help reconfigure the draft plan .This was done helped to get the plan into reasonable shape . A number of further drafts were developed and the completed plan was Launched on 21 March with a turnout of over 100 in attendance

20 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Participants Keenagh

Phase 1 Community groups contacted Phase 1 Information Evening held 15 August with attendance 8 people . Representation was from a wide range of the community a number wearing a number of different hats. Presentation was given and programme outlined . There was good buy in and agreed to confirm date for exhibition without delay .

Phase 2 Phase 2 progressed with some difficulty getting broad interest . There were a number of community meetings but feed back was that groups appeared to be only interested in their own area and not the broader community . After a number of steering group meetings a decision needed to be fixed for the exhibition day. Wed 21 Sept was requested which was a clash with Ballinamuck . Advertisements were placed so date could not be changed .

Phase 3 Exhibition held on 21 Sept with Keystone dividing recourses . There was a good turnout (30) and large exhibition of ldeas .Local schools comprised approx one third of the exhibition . The community rated the ideas and a number of working ggproups were formed based on following

Village Centre ,Areas outside the Village ,Sports Facilities ,Field School /Wetlands / Tourism

Presentation of Starter /Template plan for the area and skills audit .Group need to find more illustrators / graphic help for production of the plan .

Phase 4 Progress of the plan was slow at first . First progress plan sent and meeting held 7 Nov to review progress . Plan needed a lot of work at this meeting particularly in relation to mapping . A number of follow up meetings and progress plans were produced .Plan is being produced mainly by Cath Patterson with Olive Mc Keogh assisting in the organisation .Plan was completed prior to Christmas . No formal launch is being planned to date

21 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Participants

Lanesborough

Phase 1 Community groups contacted and Phase 1 Information evening held 20 July 2011with good attendance approx 25. Presentation and overview of the programme given. Steering group formed after discussions and the meeting ended with good positive and energetic momentum .

Phase 2 Phase 2 taken on well by the group and large signs and blank idea pages made up. Leaflets distributed in addition to local media advertising and targeted approach to selected areas to gathering ideas Phase 3

Phase 3 Exhibition held Friday 16 September with very large turnout ( 95+ ) Steering group had put a lot of work into sorting ideas into themes and areas prior to the exhibition which was very helpful. Working groups formed around the following themes Village centre Approach Roads Town Park & Woodlands Tracks & Trails General and Peripheral Themes Template developed ,presented at the exhibition given to the group to work with .A skills audit was carried out and the steering group put together a design team to produce the plan

Phase 4 Development of the actual plan was coordinated well by the groups and had the advantage of good organisation by Seadna Ryan and the steering group .In addition they had Mary ????who is a graphic designer on the team. A small number of drafts of the plan were reviewed plan completed early January . Good vibrant and interested group. Launch date to be agreed .

22 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Participants

Mulli na lag hta

Phase 1 Initial Phase 1 information evening held 12 July with poor turnout of 4 people . Presentation was given in any case and discussion on how to build up the interest and get more to attend . A second information evening was arranged with a much increased turnout . The presentation was given again and a steering group formed for Phase 2 with good energy .collection of ideas form the wider community .

Phase 2 Distribution of flyers and community consultation resulted in collection of ides by the steering group who were well organized and liaised well with the wider community .

Phase 3 The first exhibition of the programme was held 16 August 2011 in Mullinalaghta with 23 in attendane . The ideas were rated by the community and working groups formed under the following themes:

Village Centre Derrycassin Woods and sports Area Areas Sourrounding the Village

Phase 4 A number of discussions and correspondence followed and draft plan was discussed at meeting 23 Sept 11 . A Template plan was developed for the area and draft plan altered to follow this format . There have been a number of draft updates of the plan which was launched A really good interested group .

23 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Programme Participants

Longford Town

The nature and character of Longford town mean very little comparisons between small rural communities, their social structures and a town of this size (a third of the whole county). These differences were outlined in Keystones document 'Area Enhancement Training For Longford Town, exploring possible strategies, outcomes and obstacles' (15/09/2011). Concerns were raised by Keystone on the suitability of the current programme. Obstacles were anticipated and the resources available to overcome them "would take much more resources than that assigned to the entire county". Keystone revised the expected outcomes and outlined the many difficulties and unknowns that could damage the process. A meeting was hldheld wiihth LCR L to discuss the approach an d it was requested to proceed .

Phase 1

Date for initial information evening was agreed for 5 Oct at Temperance Hall . LCRL notified the relevant communities of the meeting and provided additional input as was re quired and as was necessary. There was a very poor turnout of 14 people at the meeting. Presentation of the programme was given and discussion of how to form and build up a steering group .No steering group formed on the night but it was agreed to hold a further information evening on 28 Sept and all in attendance would promote attendance at the second meeting. A provisional date of 20 Oct was set for the exhibition. The second information evening also had a very poor turnout of 9 people with some new faces. It was agreed to proceed and provisional Steering Group was formed and outline strategy planned for following phases discussed.

24 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Programme Participants

Longford Town (2) Phase 2 Keystone contacted the Longford Leader and Shannon side radio. We subseqqyuently did interviews with both pgpromoting the Enhancement Plan Programme for Longford Town. A poster was designed in addition to 5000 new flyers printed differentiating Longford Town from Rural Longford and given to the Steering Group for distribution. The date for exhibition postponed to 21 Nov as Steering Group needed time to get organised. It was agreed that the Main Library was the most suitable venue. Despite the advertisement campaign no ideas were left in drop box' s placed at Council offices and only one Idea was left in a dropbox placed at the Library.

Quotations were obtained for a large add in the Longford Leader and series of advertisements on Shannonside radio. These were approved by LCRL and put into action. Further meetings with Steering Group 15 Nov prior to exhibition night, Mairead Ni Chonghaile and Library Staff discuss exhibition layout & evening

Phase 3 The exhibition night held on Nov 21st was reasonably successful in terms of the numbers who attended and participated. We recorded 35 signatures on the attendance sheet and approximately the same number actively participated in the evenings workshop. We estimate additional 15‐20 pppeople attended and voted on the presented ideas but did not stay for the workshop and did not sign attendance. Ideas submitted ranged from town centre to the canal project, to a large number of completed and uncompleted residential areas. There was one idea for Carrickglass Demesne, one idea to develop and extend the Mall, a skate board park, and discussion with regard to the Barracks but no specific idea submitted. Voting patterns were frustrated by groups from specific areas voting for their own area only. This created an imbalance with regard to the town enhancement as a whole. When asked for a show of hands for town centre improvements proposals, there was overall majority in support.

Working groups were formed as a mixture of themes and areas Residential: Oaklands , Laurells , Tefia Park , Springlawn ,Glenridia , White Linnen Woods. Canal Group . Town Centre . Skate Park . Playground.

A template plan developed for the town was presented and an overview given of what was now required in order to develop an Enhancement Plan for the town from the ideas presented at the exhibition 25 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Programme Participants

Longford Town (3) Phase 4

An immediate follow up meeting was held the following Tuesday 28th with Working Groups to address imbalances in areas of the town being covered. The aim was to form additional groups for excluded areas, to discuss the development of the plan. Individual residential groups ideas and potential illustration for the plan were discussed. The town centre group was broken into task groups focused on smaller areas. This helped overcome the overwhelming complexity and volume of the work load. Some signs of self organisation were noted by our trainers and the arrival of some transition year students was a welcome boost. A drop box software system was set up for sharing information and gave participants the ability to monitor each others progress. The template plan developed further to include all areas proposed and were uploaded into the drop box. Keystone raised concerns that all groups were not being included and that the only active group appeared to be the town centre. The template was not being followed and there were raising levels of frustration that communications between the Steering Group and Working Groups were not as it should be. There was no coordination among participants on the production of t he overall plan.

Keystone proposed that a weekend workshop be held over a Friday afternoon/evening and Saturday to complete the plan as far as possible with the current groups . This was agreed with LCRL and proposed and agreed at group meeting on 20 Feb to be held on 9/ 10 March . The aim of the workshop was for the assembly and production of the actual plan. All gpgroups were to complete their areas and submit for review with Keystone prior to the workshop. All groups not at the meeting were to be brought back into the process by the Steering Group and be informed of what was needed. Keystone attempted to directly contact as many groups as possible and were available to assist any group on request prior to the workshop. No group submitted proposals prior to the workshop or confirmed attendance with the exception of Una Fitzgerald and Tom Sherlock .

A poor turnout of 11 attended the workshop on Friday. They represented 6 out of 18 groups. Turnout on Sat was less with 9 plus some visitors. The overall response was disappointing. The workshop was a success for the groups that did take part.

26 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Programme Participants

Longford Town (4) Phase 4 cont

The first draft of a Plan was completed in the workshop. However there remains a large number of uncompleted sections. This has been placed in the Longford Town dropbox making it available electronically to participates. The draft plan does not create a coherent vision for Longford town but is instead a collection of ideas for a number of areas unconnected spatially. Some good work done for the Urban core and some roads entering the town has potential to form a vision but is as yet unfinished. There was a discussion before concluding that that the Steering Grou p need to reorganise and p ut a structured action plan together to complete the plan .We have made a number of calls to the Steering Group since but no further progress has been made.

Conclude

As outlined in earlier documents, Longford town requires considerable resources to advance a participative development process relating to Area Enhancement. Keystone put a large amount of resources into the programme to ensure all participants had a positive experience. The main success for Longford Town came from the build up and hosting of the exhibition. In the following meetings and workshops any attempt to coordinate unrelated groups was met with resistance. Ultimately this can only be achieved by reaching consensus and commitment to a binding principle by the majority of community groups in the town. Some community groups did find guidance from Landscape Architects very useful but it is unclear that much has been learned about the participatory development process. A small number of very committed individuals did commit huge amounts of energy to deliver the first draft of the plan. Unfortunately some of these local champions could feel this experience was not a positive. These active participants remain severely under resourced in terms of manpower and any attempt to re‐engage the communities of Longford town will require many multiples of the support available for this programme. Each of the smaller communities that make up Longford town require individual support if the successes of more rural communities are to be repeated.

27 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Evaluation Evaluation of Exhibition proposals and the underlying issues being addressed

An 'Area Enhancement plan' brings about thoughts of change to the physical environment. Improving ones quality of life through the shaping of one's surroundings became the first tool used by communities to analyse ideas. Our trainers did not discou nt an y idea once otout on the floor and intang ible enhancements were eeploredxplored as well as those affecting the physical environment.

Cultural values

The built environment

The village centre is a common theme among all communities highlighted by requests for upgrading of the civic space, street furniture and planting. Tidy towns groups are active in most communities but feel limited to greening due to budget constraints and are inhibited by a lack of clarity on where Local Authorities and Community group work ssoudhould begin adand edend. Spor ts fieds,elds, Sch ool s, tethe Village Cen tr e, CucChurch aadnd GaeyadGraveyard aeare oteoften dscodisconn ected spatially, often 1km + apart from one another. Crumbing foot paths are an issue but greater weight is attached to addressing their absence between community facilities, the village centre and housing.

Community gardens, green space and parks are a source of great pride for communities and where absent, ideas for Evolution locations and the attaching new functions such as amenity facilities, playgrounds, sports & fitness facilities were all explored.

Playgrounds, Sports & fitness facilities were also explored. It is recognised that combining services and facilities in and around the village centre and/or community centre will strengthen community relations and civic life.

Car parking is an issue for a minority of communities around community centres and the village church. Play grounds and other social infrastructure in the immediate space around key village bu ildings were proposed by some as bibeing a more ittimportant use of space than large car par ks. However locating spill over parking areas diduring large community events proved to be a difficult and devise task for working groups.

The community centre itself is a vital piece of infrastructure for quality of life in these rural communities. Where facilities were not up to modern standards. i.e. cold, damp or crumbling they ranked among the highest priorities.

28 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Evaluation

Cultural values

Seeking new functions for empty buildings, new and old is a consistent concern for most communities. Many old public service bu ildings now stdtand idle and var ious cultura l and community activ ities were proposed for these. Open heritage houses were also proposed but in all cases the economic viability of these proposals are felt to be a limiting factor. Seasonal use of these buildings were explored in some of the larger towns.

Empty housing estates that were built in recent years are of deep concern particularly for those directly affected by them. Given the large number of these estates our trainers encountered we were surprised they did not receive greater attention at voting in the community exhibitions. Longford town contradicts this trend where deep concern by residents was reflected in their exhibition. Unfinished and dangerous housing estates were of greater concern to rural communities

The spatial spreading of community facilities and housing from the village core in recent years was highlighted by a large number of proposals in all communities. The rebuilding of crumbling walls, tree and hedge planting, softening Local Authority roadwork's with planting, footpaths, making safe 'blind' turns for pedestrians and cyclists are some examples of proposals attempting to address some of the problems this spreading has caused. Community workshops explored how they might define the beginning and end of the village and how they could Structure announce its presence in a more definite way than welcome signage. Design themes were often applied to approach roads in order to make a greater impression. Street lighting for these areas was explored in all workhkshops.

Heritage values became a strong theme for most communities. There is particular affection for schools that lost their function in living memory. There is a genuine awareness of the importance Heritage plays in forming a distinct identity. The majority of proposals concerning these values targeted heritage sites, exploring new functions, clean ups and arranging formal heritage walks to raise the communities awareness of their presence and the stories attached. Other communication tools such as signage and information panels were proposed.

Sculptures, statues and heritage museums were proposed in some communities but failed to garner much support in the voting process on exhibition night. When analysed under the 'quality of life' measuring tool it was felt there were more pressing concerns. It was suggested that the naming of new projects arising from the programme after significant historical figures may be more appropriate.

29 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Evaluation

Ecological values

Walk ways are arguably in the top 3 proposals for every community with the exception of Longford town. Proposals were many and wide ranging in every community. Road walks, trail walks, walks in the woods, by the river, cycle ways, horse tracks and canoe trails all feature.

Many people living in rural Ireland, particularly in poorly located housing estates around the village fringe are effectively islands, cut off from one of our most great and abundant resources, 'open space'. There is a genuine and deep belief among participants that accessing this space will improve their quality of life in a very large way.

Working groups were formed around this theme and routes refined in the following workshops. These working groups were very successful at narrowing exhibition proposals down to viable projects based around definite design principles with clarity on the community needs being addressed.

The majority of communities did remain internally focused and there was little desire to explore the benefits into linking walkways with those of adjoining communities or indeed national or regional way‐ Connection walks. Exceptions to these include the canal walks and a routes between Clondra and Lanesborough.

Principle proposals reflecting value for wildlife and ecology came in the form of an expression of need to access and observe the ecology of landscapes that surround these communities.

Conservationist proposals came in the form of ecology gardens arranged in a way to encourage diversity. They were for the most part proposed by Tidy Town group members highlighting good work by the National Tidy Towns unit in including ecological principles into the competition. There was however little weight given to these proposals during the voting process.

30 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Evaluation

Ecological values

road walks, and circuit walks, reorienting village walks

Evening walks along rural roads are a growing feature of rural life. This was reflected in exhibition ppproposals for liggghting, footpaths and imppgroving safety along reggyularly used loop walks for village and rural dwellers.

During workshops it was recognised that footpaths and lighting along many of these routes would not be practical. Focus was directed at making blind corners safe, 'stand in' areas when walkers are met with oncoming cars and widening of verges. A number of 'circuit walkways' around existing sports fields with lighting and village walks with lighting were explored for winter walks.

Where an abandoned railway, canal, river or small stream flowed past the village itself some particularly interesting walks were proposed and developed further through our workshops. The river walks in particular offer significant potential in reorienting village life towards these tremendous resources. Adaption

In all workshops participants were encouraged to develop walks for local residents as primary user groups. Once this was done the larger trails were designed to fit around these, linking up heritage sites, natural resources and general places of interest.

It was noted among some Steering groups post exhibition night (Phase 4) that a number of the proposed walking trails would be entered in the appendix of the plan only. It was felt that some of the routes could be divisive in the community unless significant time and effort was put into winning support of the land owners who have not participated in the process.

Exhibition proposals addressing inadequate services and facilities were of most basic concern for communities. In one community where many of these concerns have been addressed in the recent past, attention is now turning to recycling, community composting and other ecologically conscious proposals that will simultaneously enhance community ties.

31 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Evaluation

Community Values

The GAA and other sporting organisations clearly perform a major role in maintaining and building kinship. Where not already in place there were proposals for other forms of activities to be held in the community centre such as dance, bingo, yoga, etc. The variety of activities and methods of using these buildings is inspiring. In many cases the GAA have a dedicated community building that is widely used for all manner of community activities. In some cases the absence of an insulated community buildin g is affecting the quality of life and the associated binding function of social outlets for these communities.

Proposals to enhance/expand existing sporting facilities were proposed at many of the exhibition nights. In most cases these are already in an advance stage of design development. As mentioned earlier the attachment of circuit walks around these facilities are proposed by some.

Amenity facilities such as crazy golf, pitch and putt were proposed but failed to attract a major share of votes. Community

Playgroun d fac ilities were a hthot titopic everywhere. There is a noticeabl e absence of any kin d of pldlayground fac ilities in the more rural communities of LfdLongford. It is recognised among participants that the location of these facilities should be in close proximity to existing meeting places such as community centres, village gardens, and sports complexes. River walks in and around the village were cited as potential and attractive locations.

Play/exercise equipment for teenagers and adults were proposed. It was felt that this form of equipment should not be ringed into a confined space and instead placed intermittently along walkways, tracks and circuit walks ringing sports facilities.

32 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Evaluation

Bigger Ideas serving the Region

A small number of more ambitious proposals were proposed at community exhibitions in Lanesborough, Clondra, Longford town, Cullyfad and Stone Park. In all cases our trainers encouraged local people to focus on their own needs first. It is recognised by everyone involved that many of these larger projects will benefit the region as a whole and attract visitors to boost the local economies.

Lanesboroughs proposals include an open air amphitheatre in a disused quarry, an open air cinema, the expansion and enhancement of existing walking networks. Proposals for walking and canoe trails between Lanesborough and Clondra offer significant potential, particularly because they are concentrated in an area that has real potential to attract visitors.

Work is being carried out by ILC with a specific focus on developing trails in the County of Longford. Keystone coordinated with ILC throughout the running of the programme for Clondra. After forming the Clondra trails working group HhHumphery MhMurphy was in a position to assitist this WWkiorking Group t o ad vance the ir ambitious proposals. It should be noted that some of principles behind the proposals were presented to the community before the Working Group was formed. None the less the community appear to have embraced the plans. Balance

The Longford town spur of the Royal Canal is a major resource for the surrounding communities. This was reflected in the Longford Town and Stonepark exhibitions. The canal action group have a strong and significant lobby group in place highlighting the many advantages its reopening can bring to the wider community. At the very least it can function as a safe cycling, walking, running route through beautiful countryside connecting villages to the town and vice versa. It was noted that it would be of significant use to school children cycling to school.

Carrickglass Demesne is of national significance and its current state of repair was raised as an issue rather than a proposal in Longford Town and Cullyfad. In the following workshop Cullyfad residents explored how this large estate could be put to public use in the form of a park. It was noted that very few local people had ever been inside the walls despite living beside it their entire lives. Given that this was not a part of people's lives up to now and the people have no mental picture of what potential lies behind the walls the working group found it difficult to make progress in the following workshop. The unsightly mess surrounding the otherwise Architecturally impressive gates to the estate are of deep concern. Cullyfad are exploring ideas on how to limit the damage of two additional unfinished and/or empty housing estates in the village that are not hid behind large walls. Little progress was made on putting forward a valid proposal for Carrickglass Demesne.

33 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Evaluation

Summary of basic needs highlighted

The general weight of the proposals presented at the Community Exhibitions were directed towards addressing "inadequate services and facilities and were seen by the local community to be more basic concerns of a much higher priority than the physical character of the village". (Owen S., Bishop J. & O'Keeffe B. 2011). As the quote suggests this finding is not new and was highlighted in a study of the Visual Design Statement Process in Ireland which also used differing approaches to Participatory Community Engagement as a process. While a VDS's work within a much narrower frame of reference, where basic needs are not being met the results from communities are similar.

Each of the Area Enhancement Plans includes a table highlighting priority projects. These projects were initially selected based on a voting process carried out on the exhibition night and modified significantly in the workshops that followed. There was a fall off rate of participants post exhibition night and some working groups functioned better than others. Therefore it must be assumed that the weight attached to ideas in the voting process may not tlttranslate exactly to those priitidioritised in the projtject ttblables. The vast majitjority of nee ds are no t comp lex an d are considered as basics by all.

Distilling the principle needs from the proposals and debate on the underlying issues, our trainers observed the following:

Movement It is very clear that people want access to the countryside for leisure, exercise and to be able to move from A to B for without total reliance on a car. In the majority of cases the distances involved are small.

Parents want their children to be able to walk or cycle to the village, school, or sports field without relying on their parents to drive them 1/2km due to lack of safe space for cyclists and pedestrians.

People need safe places to walk in the winter time with lighting

34 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Evaluation

Summary of basic needs highlighted

35 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Evaluation

Summary of basic needs highlighted

Village structure • Revamp the civic centres of the villages

• Soften the recent damage to villages spatial integrity by tying the village together using combinations of tree planting stone wall restoration, hedgerows, footpaths and paving

Facilities • People want to be able to meet each other in a warm public place/building centrally located for a cup of tea which is child friendly and does not serve alcohol

• This is an issue where community centres are not up to modern standards and the population size could not justify a commercial cafe. The building needs at least one dedicated room for organising activities.

• Community play facilities and gardens are needed for small children as well as parents to get together

• Improve existing sports facilities

Heritage • Tidying up of heritage sites and the restoration of some key buildings.

• Principle functions for these buildings are as tea houses/activity room described above

• Communicate the existence and importance of heritage sites, folklore, natural resources, walks, trails, flora, fauna using signage and information panels

36 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Conclusion Conclusion

The process of forming proposals/ideas on how to improve ones quality of life through the shaping of our surroundings stimulated a passion for community, excitement at opportunities, and taught Steering Groups how to work together. The build up in Phase 1 and 2 combined with an intensive engagement of Working Groups on exhibition night culminated in a clarity of purpose that delivered consensus on how to address wide ranging issues. Delivering this consensus is one of the most difficult tasks in the participatory process. The skills learned by participants can be applied to address more specific issues with new proposals following the same process (e.g. sustaining the local economy or tackling social issues).

Arguably the most difficult task in participatory development occurs during implementation. Maintaining interest and overcoming common obstacles such as self doubt, friction and breaking loose from agreed principles and groups requires an ongoing shift in the way community is invited, engaged and included in the work.

Participatory development is not an efficient process and "does not proceed along a critical path which narrows options" (Corrigan C. 2011). It requires a slow cultural shift . Therefore this programme plays a small part in a long term transformation movement. Keystones is very aware of its role in this transformation process. We are equally aware of the damage an ill executed programme can cause to this process. Our trainers always strive to ensure each community has a positive experience through their participation . Keystone believe this programme delivered enormous success's and additional support was provided throughout the programme to ensure these positive outcomes.

There are real opportunities to address some of the most base service and infrastructural deficiencies outlined in each communities Area Enhancement Plan. Large regional projects highlighted in the recommendations offer opportunity to the entire region. The social capital animated through this programme is a precious resource that can be re‐engaged to maximise the proposals presented for funding and to develop large landmark projects.

37 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Recommendations Recommendations For Future Support

Big picture:

Clarity on where Local Authorities and Community group work should begin and end. While a bigger long term vision was sought by communities when forming the plan, communities were repeatedly tempted to target their energies on proposals that could be channelled through LCRL funding. Communities were encouraged to be proactive in the implementation of the proposals regardless of what sources of funding were available.

Waiting on promises of Local Area Plans (where not already existing) and confusion on how to lobby local authorities persisted throughout the programme particularly in relation to regeneration of the village core, footpath s and lighting. Without some kind of mechanism that clarifies where Top‐down structures meet Bottom‐up, excuses for inaction will persist and blame portioned.

Links with Local Authority Area Enhancement Plans are not a formal part of the Planning system and are unlikely to be adopted in planning guidelines in the near future. This significantly limits the Plans influence on third parties. They represent communities position on the enhancement of their surroundings, documents their heritage prioritising what means most to them and emotional attachments to places and buildings old and new.

Some form of channel needs to be put in place to facilitate the communication of these plans to the Local Authorities. It should be noted that Longford's Heritage officer Mairead Ni Chonghaile was proactive in engaging and assisting the organisation of Longford Towns exhibition night and a number of County Councillors participated in Community exhibitions and workshops. Longford's Planning Authority were approached through Mairead Ni Chonghaile and LCRL but did not participate in the programme.

38 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Recommendations

Additional support for larger proposals with significant potential

Significant potential exists in the vast number of proposed tracks, trails and road walks. They need to be re‐ examined on a regional scale in order to form functional links between communities as well as existing regional way‐walks

Carrickglass Demesne and its unfinished buildings are of deep concern for Longford Town, Cullyfad and many other neighbouring communities. There was a unified consensus on its use by the public. Communities were overawed at the prospect of exploring the idea further. Project focused support to communities is necessary if further plans are to be developed.

Unfinished and empty 'Ghost Estates' are alarmingly common in Co. Longford. They are often located in small villages with the effect of doubling the size of the built environment. Serious concern for safety and a fears of antisocial behaviour are universal. Many people expressed an equal fear of these buildings becoming social housing.

Further Training for continuing Sustainable Enhancement This programme was very successful to get communities to consider and produce an enhancement plan for their area . Further training should be provided to those proceeding with specific enhancement projects to ensure that they are carried out to the best standards of research and design and not solely based on an individuals idea .This ensures enhancement is sustainable in the long term and is part of a continuous enhancement programme connecting to and linking with other enhancement programmes and projects in adjacent areas

39 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Recommendations

Anticipated Difficulties

Community's ability to use their own plan should not be over‐estimated. PjProjects subibmitte d for fdifunding need to be cross chkdhecked wihith all of t he t hemes outline d in t he p lan. Example: Our trainers were contacted by a participant who described how plans were advancing for a footpath leading to a sports field. There was no consideration of tying the village together spatially using other elements such as trees, stone walls, hedging etc despite earlier plans developing them. This route would also be a key link in a triangular walk planned for village residents. There was no consideration to extend the path to link an existing laneway which would form the second side the ppproposed triangle. There were additional plans to locate exercise equipment and play facilities to the third side of the triangle in the long term.

Ideally Working Groups and Steering Groups should be cross checking themselves. The case outlined highlights the need for some form of support at application stage. Great design solves many problems with one solution but is of no use if one forgets the design.

Participatory process This programme was designed and executed to engage community members and maximise their participation in the process. It is not an efficient process and "does not proceed along a critical path which narrows options" (Corrigan C. 2011).

It requires a slow cultural shift to get to a point where community can function in this way without some form of support. Therefore this programme plays a small part in a long term transformation movement. Keystones is very aware of its role in this transformation movement.

We are equally aware of other programmes that have damaged this process and are committed to ensuring each community has a positive experience through their participation. Keystone believe this programme is an enormous success and provided additional support throughout the programme to ensure this.

Our trainers believe any future programme working to continue the participatory process could provide support in the following way: Regroup and/or reorganise Working Groups to better utilise the social capital animated in Phase 1‐3.

40 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Recommendations

Anticipated Difficulties (cont)

Given the large number of working groups this work needs funding. Tasks should include: Development and illustration of proposals, learning to achieve consensus, learning to work together.

Ensure long‐term proportioned representation of ideas

As Keystones handed over of the process to the community, many working group members fell away. The void was again filled by strong motivated personalities. New and innovative 'sheltering' techniques are required on a regular basis to ensure ideas can continue to be exchanged in an open and free manner.

Regular community meetings so maintain 'Area Enhancement Plan' as live document

Keystone encouraged communities to post their plans on‐line so they can be updated by community members. However, Poor compu ter literacy lllevels exclldudes most partici pant s from usi ng these forms of social media. Annual or Bi‐annual meetings hosted by non community members would help ensure the Steering Group structure remains in place and documents are updated.

41 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Evaluation

Feedback from Participants

18 communities participated in 13 different groups. 9 groups responded to the request for feedback, representing 13 communities. Generally those who offered feedback are groups who stayed with the programme through to the end, the results are not representative of all participants. They do however shed some light on the process.

'Participants' refer to those who completed the feedback form.

Area Enhancement plan & proposals Participants Feel the resulting 'Area Enhancement plans reflect strongly the needs of their community Community facilities reflecting cultural values are seen to be most urgently needed There is also a concern that these facilities did not receive sufficient attention in the process Participants perception of the collective urgent needs was not aligned to proposals that could improve their own personal quality of life . Walkways accessing the country side that surround these communities were highlighted as the single most influential proposal improving individuals quality of life

Learning & Relationships Participants agree overwhelmingly that their participation has raised there awareness of the community needs today and into the future The process enabled participants to identify those who held similar ideas Participants were unanimous in the view that their ability to work with others had improved Participants understanding of how to replicate the process was mixed

Actions The majority of participants intend to continue working beyond grant application stage and see some of these projects through to implementation

See Appendix for Feedback form analysis

42 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Evaluation

Feedback from Participants

Programme Process Participants were very pleased with the programme: scoring 43 from 52 Knowledge of trainers scored 56 from 65 Scope of programme content scored 48 from 65 Community Participation scored 35 from 60 Benefit to community scored 52 from 65 Important outcomes to participants: 'Raising issues and advancing proposals that address them' were held of equal value to 'Learning how your community can be enhanced' Building and strengthening relationships with others was also seen in a strong light Participants did not persistently identify groups whom did not take part in the programme. Among the most common were 'Other community groups', 'Sporting clubs' and 'New residents' in the area . There was little imagination shown when asked how one might engage these missing groups The most consistent wihish for more input was address ing FdiFunding concerns

The feedback forms paint a very positive picture in general. Results proved to be more positive than expected. One of the more interesting outcomes is the difference between interventions perceived to address collective concerns and interventions that can improve one's own personal quality of life. Walkways were over three times more popular than their nearest rival under the lens of one's own personal quality of life. Community facilities were three times more pppopular to their nearest rival under the lens of urgent community needs. Only one individual identified travellers or foreign residents as missing from the process. Keystone did not observe any foreign residents at any meeting. Participants displayed a mixed understanding of how to replicate the process to address new ideas. In general the personal feedback Keystones trainers have received from participants has been positive.

See Appendix for Feedback form analysis

43 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements to the following who were of great assistance to us in facilitating this training programme :

All the Communities who participated and provided ample amounts of tea and sandwiches

Shannon Side Radio . LfdLongford LdLeader

Longford Public Library

Longford Family Centre

The Board of LCRL for making this programme possible under the Rural Development programme

Adrian Green & Margaret Walsh and back up staff at LCRL

References

Corrigan. C. (2011) “From consultation to participatory engagement”, Harvest Moon Consultants.

Owen S., Bishop J. & O'Keeffe B. (2011) Lost in Translation? Some Issues Encountered in Transferring Village Design Statements from England to Ireland Journal of Urban Design.

44 Rural Longford Village and Area Enhancement Plan Training Programme Keystone

Keystone Project & Design

Keystone are a small firm of LLdandscape UUbrban & AAhirchitectura l CClonsultants. Our team i s arranged around th e k ey th emes o f sustainable design, community engagement and project management. Our operation is principally made up of two Award Winning Landscape Architects/ Urban Designers who have strong working relationships with many partner companies with expertise in related disciplines. We have over 20 years combined experience and have carried out projects country wide with offices in Dublin , Leitrim and Roscommon.

DOMINICK COMERFORD ML Arch Dip Arch &Tec Dip Proj Man Dip Const Law

Principal of Keystone Project and Design since 2002, practicing as Landscape Urban and Architectural consultant specialising in delivering design, planning, construction and feasibility projects for both private and public clients. With over 20 years experience as project architect at a senior level in Ireland and the UK and has a clear understanding of delivering quality in design. As Senior Urban Design Consultant to Mouchel until 2009 he led the Landscape and Urban Design team in the Dublin office, with responsibility for landscape and urban design input to the infrastructure and planning projects across the island of Ireland. He has won a number of awards and design competitions and is actively involved with the Irish Landscape Institute and council member since 2009.

MICHAEL CUNNIFFE ML Arch B Des

Michael has a background in Industrial design and has worked with leading Landscape Architectural consultancies in Germany, the Netherlands and Ireland. He is an experienced practitioner in conversational leadership and is a member of the global network of consultants 'The Art of Hosting and Harvesting Conversations that Matter’ –see www.artofhosting.org. The Art of Hosting brings together methodologies such as Circle work, World Café, Open Space Technology, Theory U and Appreciative Inquiry. This set of instruments enables the effective facilitation of group conversations of all sizes.

Landscape Urban & Architectural Consultants

13 Beaufield Park Stillorgan Co .D ublin Glacka u n Arigna Co. Leitrim [email protected] 087 2427592 [email protected] 0863037189 45 RURAL LONGFORD VILLAGE AND AREA ENAHACEMENT TRAINING Keystone Landscape Architects & Urban Designers & LCRL

Feedback Forms Spreadsheet

13 No. Completed feedback forms from 9 communities Ballinalee Carrickboy/Ballyclo Clondra Drumlish Dromard‐ Dromard‐ Dromard‐ Dromard‐ Mullinaghta Kennagh Killoe Villages Killoe Villages Lanesboro Abbeylara Ballinamuck Ballymacormac Longford ughan Legga/Moyne Legga/Moyne Legga/Moyne Legga/Moyne k/Stonepark Town

1.A. AREA ENHANCEMENT PLAN None recieved None recieved None recieved None recieved Q How accurately does the Area Enhancement Plan reflect the needs of your community today? ‐ Poorly ‐ Passable ‐ Very Well ‐ Excellently Very Well Excellently Very Well Excellently Very Well Excellently Very Well Passable Very Well Very Well Very Well Very Well Excellently

Q Can you single out a particular proposal from the plan the wider community needs urgently? Playground Better Roads/Drainage Old School/CommunityVillage Core Playground,Crossroad‐BWalk & Civic Space Community Centre Skills Audit, training, waWalking/Running TrackSporting facilities, PlaygNo Extend Carparking at chStructured approach to enhancement

Q Can you single out a proposal made on exhibition night you feel have not received sufficient attention in the following community meetings? Creche facilities No Teenagers Facilities No X Nursing home/IndepenX Long term‐older personNo Soccer facilities No Playground Action Planning

1.B. LEARNING & RELATIONSHIPS Q Has parcipaon raised your awareness of your communies needs today and into the future?‐ Yes ‐No ‐Comment Yes Yes Yes (Strutures what peoYes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No, Already aware Yes Yes Yes

Q Name one proposal that can most improve your own personal quality of life? Scenic Walkways Roads/Drainage Sports Centre Bog Trot walk Playground, Walking traWalkways Community Centre Training opportunities, Walking/Running TrackWalkway, Wetland Safe Walkways Sports, Walkways Trails & Walkways

Q Did you or somebody else display this same proposal at the exhibition night? ‐Yes ‐No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes X Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Q Has your ability to work with others in your community improved? ‐Yes ‐No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Q You may have new ideas that address 'pressing problems'/'improve quality of life for you and others'. Outline how you will bring idea's to the communities attention and to funding? Step 1. consult others bring public feedback finalise playground planRaise at meeting Present plans to public,Public meeting/feedba 2 Attention of CommunitX Meeting with communi Bring problem to meetiConsultation/communi Open Meetings Allert Authorities Actions, Timelines, research costing Step 2. Develop idea from feedback publicity at opening Newsletter Prioritise Ideas,plan, priorities Discussion, needs Community consultatioX Funding App Meetings Discussion Idea gathering Parish Bulletin Pressurise owner to ful Application to LCRL Step 3. bring team together for funding fundraising for other prShannonside/facebook Grant application Costs/funding Consensus Attention of Funding orX Annual Review Agreement/Address Plan/funding Local notes Action Project 1.C. ACTIONS Q Do you intend to connue working within your Working group and/or Steering group‐ to the point of grant applicaon‐ to the point of implemenng proposal ‐ not again Grant application Implementing proposal Implementing proposalImplementing proposa Grant application Grant application Implementing proposalWhen time allows Implementing proposalImplementing proposalNot again Implementing proposalImplementing proposal

2 PROGRAMME/PROCESS Q How would you rate this the overall programme ‐ Poor ‐Average ‐Above Average ‐Excellent Excellent Excellent Above Average Excellent Above Average Above Average Above Average Above Average Above Average Above Average Above Average Above Average Excellent

Q Most important outcomes of the process to you personally?Rate 1 to 3, beginning with the most important:

R aising issues and advancing proposals that address them X 2 1 1 1 213232 Learning how your community can be enhanced X 1 1 3331 3 2113 Building/strengthening relationships with others X 3222 1 1321

Q Are there 'people groups' in your community whom did not take part? Try to at categorise Villagers, Teenagers Individual homeownersNew occupants, Farme GAA, Community AssocX No No hunting club No New residents Football, Soccer, ICA Sc Farm orgs, Sports clubsNo

Q Suggests on how they might be persuaded to become more involved in community work Parents vocalising requ constant invitations, up personal approach, EveX X Execution of project will encourage others communication X X Selling as more than 'EnPublicity, Personal apprX

Q Please rate the following specific aspects of the programme 1: poor 2: average 3: Good 4: V Good 5: Excellent ∙ Knowledge of Trainers Excellent Very Good Excellent Excellent Excellent Very Good Good Good Very Good V Good Excellent V Good Excellent ∙ Scope of programme content Excellent Very Good Excellent Excellent Very Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good V Good ∙ Community Participation Average Average Good Good Good Very Good Average Excellent Average Poor Good Excellent ∙ Benefit to community Very Good Very Good Excellent Excellent Excellent Good Good Good Excellent V Good V Good Good V Good ∙ Overall success Very Good Average Good Excellent Excellent Average Good Good Very Good V Good V Good Good Excellent

Q Are there any particular aspects of the programme you wished more input from Keystones trainers? LCRL Printing Planning Scedules & souClear Communication f XNoPlan/Template No Job creation ideas LCRL Funding issues No Funding for Plan produ Project Duration & CostNo Steering Group support: specific training for Steering Group to build inclusive participation Q Aspects of the programme you would prefer to have shortened X None Technical illustration X No Phase 1: Steering Grou No None Producing plan ourselv None Context location, Statu No

Q Other feedback or comments: Community exhibition wExcessive workload (Dr Advanced warning would be welcome Printing Company Geneartion of MatchingContinue training through funding application Sincere Thanks Well Designed & implemented, considerable benifit Specific training night on Template Training on Fundraising Info at Training application stage of the level of work involved More meetings with Steering Group APPENDIX

RURAL LONGFORD VILLAGE AND AREA ENAHACEMENT TRAINING Keystone Landscape Architects & Urban Designers & LCRL

Feedback Forms analysis

13 No. Completed feedback forms from 9 communities

1 PROPOSAL OUTCOMES 1.A. AREA ENHANCEMENT PLAN How accurately does the Area Enhancement Plan reflect the needs of your community today? ‐ Poorly ‐ Passable ‐ Very Well ‐ Excellently Can you single out a particular proposal from the plan the wider community needs urgently? 42 of 52 cultural facilities 7 cultural skills 1 communityservices 2 communitysport 1 ecological walkways 2 Can you single out a proposal made on exhibition night you feel have not received sufficient attention in the following community meetings? cultural facilities 3.5 cultural skills 1 communityservices 1.5 communitysport 1 ecological walkways 0 1.B. LEARNING & RELATIONSHIPS Has parcipaon raised your awareness of your communies needs today and into the future?‐ Yes ‐No ‐Comment 12 out of 13 Name one proposal that can most improve your own personal quality of life? cultural facilities 1.5 cultural skills 2 communityservices 1 communitysport 1.5 ecological walkways 7 Did you or somebody else display this same proposal at the exhibition night? ‐Yes ‐No 11 out of 12 APPENDIX

Has your ability to work with others in your community improved? ‐Yes ‐No 13out of 13 You may have new ideas that address 'pressing problems'/'improve quality of life for you and others'. Outline how you will bring idea's to the communities attention and to funding? Step 1. consult others bring public feedback 1of 33 Step 2. Develop idea from feedback 2 of 33 Step 3. bring team together for funding 3 of 3215 of 27 Q. Not understood 4 1.C. ACTIONS Do you intend to connue working within your Working group and/or Steering group to the point of grant application 3 of 12 to the point of implementing proposal 8 of 12 not again 1 of 12 2 PROGRAMME/PROCESS How would you rate this the overall programme ‐ 1 Poor 0 2 Average 0 3 Above Average 27 4 Excellent 16 43 of 52 Most important outcomes of the process to you personally?Rate 1 to 3, beginning with the most important: 1st pref 2nd pref 3rd pref R aising issues and advancing proposals that address them 442 22 Learning how your community can be enhanced 515 22 Building/strengthening relationships with others 342 19 Are there 'people groups' in your community whom did not take part? Try to at categorise Villagers 1 Teenagers 1 Individual homeowners 1 New residents 2 Farmers 1 Foreign residents 1 travellers, 1 unemployed 1 sport 4 APPENDIX

Other community orgs 5 Suggests on how they might be persuaded to become more involved in community work invitation 3 opportunities to put ideas forward 1 lead by example 1 better communication of goals 1 Please rate the following specific aspects of the programme 1: poor 2: average 3: Good 4: V Good 5: Excellent ∙ Knowledge of Trainers 56 of 65 ∙ Scope of programme content 48 of 65 ∙ Community Participation 35 of 60 ∙ Benefit to community 52 of 65 ∙ Overall success 47 of 65 Are there any particular aspects of the programme you wished more input from Keystones trainers? Planning Scedules 1 Communication 1 Plan/Template 1 Training 2 LCRL Funding issues 4 Project Duration & Costing 1 Aspects of the programme you would prefer to have shortened Technical illustration 1 Phase 1: Steering Group understanding of aims 1 Producing plan ourselves 1 Context location, Statuary policy, History Heritage 1 APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX

RURAL LONGFORD VILLAGE AND AREA ENAHACEMENT TRAINING Keystone Landscape Architects & Urban Designers & LCRL FEEDBACK FORM

Name /Community ____Clondra______

1.A. PROPOSAL OUTCOMES

How accurately does the Area Enhancement Plan reflect the needs of your community today?

 Poorly  Passable √Very Well Excellently

Can you single out a particular proposal from the plan the wider community needs urgently?

__Old school refurbishment______

Can you single out a proposal made on exhibition night you feel have not received sufficient attention in the following community meetings?___Facilities for Teenagers______

1.B. LEARNING & RELATIONSHIPS

Has participation raised your awareness of your communities needs today and into the future?

√ Yes No Comment____It has put structure on what people have been saying for ages______

Name one proposal that can most improve your own personal quality of life?

______Sports Centre______

Did you or somebody else display this same proposal at the exhibition night? Yes√ No

Has your ability to work with others in your community improved? √ Yes No

You may have new ideas that address 'pressing problems'/'improve quality of life for you and others'. Outline how you will bring idea's to the communities attention and to funding? step 1. Present plan to community at public meeting – spread the word‐ increase participation step 2.Invite all Theme Groups to a meeting to decide what project to progress first and foremost step 3.Make application to LCRL

1.C. ACTIONS

Do you intend to continue working within your Working group and/or Steering group

 to the point of grant application APPENDIX

 √ to the point of implementing proposal (if I can find the time –this will depend on what’s expected)  not again

1 of 2 RURAL LONGFORD VILLAGE AND AREA ENAHACEMENT TRAINING Keystone Landscape Architects & Urban Designers & LCRL

FEEDBACK FORM

2. PROGRAMME/PROCESS

How would you rate this the overall programme

Poor Average √ Above Average Excellent

Most important outcomes of the process to you personally? Rate 1 to 3, beginning with the most important:

 2Raising issues and advancing proposals that address them  1 Learning how your community can be enhanced  3 Building/strengthening relationships with others

Are there 'people groups' in your community whom did not take part? Try to at categorise

_Recent occupants of new housing in the area/farmers/people from other countries/travellers/ many people who are out of work and who would have spare time to give to community______

Suggests on how they might be persuaded to become more involved in community work

__One to one contact is best and this can be done by door to door work/events such as exhibitions/newspapers/fliers______

Please rate the following specific aspects of the programme: 1 poor 2 average 3 good 4 very good 5 excellent

Knowledge of Trainers 5 Scope of programme content 5 Community Participation 3 Benefit to community 5 (potentially) Overall success 3 (but could be 5 if projects are realised Are there any particular aspects of the programme you wished more input from Keystones trainers?

__Communication was a big problem for our group. We didn’t understand what we were supposed to be doing a lot of the time and this was in spite of Trainers considerable efforts. No one in our APPENDIX

group realised that after the exhibition WE had to do the plan. if we had understood better what we were supposed to do, we could have saved ourselves a lot of wasted effort and got the job done a lot better and quicker ______

Aspects of the programme you would prefer to have shortened

Some members have said that the technical challenge of getting the plan together was beyond the abilities of our group.. At the same time our group was concerned that a good quality report would be the end result as some of our names/photos are in it and it would make community realise that this was a group serious about improving the village

______

Other feedback or comments:

On a personal note, I did not anticipate from the start that the group itself was responsible for the actual drafting and production of the plan . I found that the workload was too much as I don’t have this amount of time to spare..

Thank you for participating and completing this evaluation form

Please use additional pages if necessary and attach

How best to improve communications??? – don’t have time to elaborate here but group will be happy to answer any questions on this matter if required.

2 of 2 APPENDIX

RURAL LONGFORD VILLAGE AND AREA ENAHACEMENT TRAINING Keystone Landscape Architects & Urban Designers & LCRL FEEDBACK FORM

Name /Community __Ballycloghan Carrickboy______

1.A. PROPOSAL OUTCOMES

How accurately does the Area Enhancement Plan reflect the needs of your community today?

Excellently

Can you single out a particular proposal from the plan the wider community needs urgently?

___better roads drainage ______

Can you single out a proposal made on exhibition night you feel have not received sufficient attention in the following community meetings?__no______

1.B. LEARNING & RELATIONSHIPS

Has participation raised your awareness of your communities needs today and into the future?

x Yes whole community more aware______

Name one proposal that can most improve your own personal quality of life?

Roads drainage so I needn’t worry about house being flooded. Others are also concerned _

Did you or somebody else display this same proposal at the exhibition night? NO

your ability to work with others in your community improved? Yes

You may have new ideas that address 'pressing problems'/'improve quality of life for you and others'. Outline how you will bring idea's to the communities attention and to funding? step 1. Raise at meeting step 2.local newsletter step 3.Shannonside/Facebook

1.C. ACTIONS

Do you intend to continue working within your Working group and/or Steering group

  to the point of implementing proposal 

1 of 2 APPENDIX

RURAL LONGFORD VILLAGE AND AREA ENAHACEMENT TRAINING Keystone Landscape Architects & Urban Designers & LCRL

FEEDBACK FORM

2. PROGRAMME/PROCESS

How would you rate this the overall programme

Excellent

Most important outcomes of the process to you personally? Rate 1 to 3, beginning with the most important:

  Learning how your community can be enhanced 

Are there 'people groups' in your community whom did not take part? Try to at categorise

__individual home owners who did not attend any meetings or participate suggests on how they might be persuaded to become more involved in community work

___constant invitations and updates in newsletters______

Please rate the following specific aspects of the programme: 1 poor 2 average 3 good 4 very good 5 excellent

Knowledge of Trainers 4 Scope of programme content 4 Community Participation 2 Benefit to community 4 Overall success 2 so far Are there any particular aspects of the programme you wished more input from Keystones trainers?

_better explanations about planning schedules And sources of funding ______

Aspects of the programme you would prefer to have shortened

____none, up to community how long it takes______

Other feedback or comments:

Community exhibition was well executed and helped clarify and focus ideas

Thank you for participating and completing this evaluation form

Please use additional pages if necessary and attach APPENDIX

RURAL LONGFORD VILLAGE AND AREA ENAHACEMENT TRAINING Keystone Landscape Architects & Urban Designers & LCRL FEEDBACK FORM

Name /Community ____

Mullinalaghta Community Group

1.A. PROPOSAL OUTCOMES

How accurately does the Area Enhancement Plan reflect the needs of your community today?

Very Well

Can you single out a particular proposal from the plan the wider community needs urgently?

Walking /Running Track with Lights at Community Park.

Can you single out a proposal made on exhibition night you feel have not received sufficient attention in the following community meetings?

No.

1.B. LEARNING & RELATIONSHIPS

Has participation raised your awareness of your communities needs today and into the future?

Yes.

Name one proposal that can most improve your own personal quality of life?

Walking/Running Track

Did you or somebody else display this same proposal at the exhibition night? Yes

Has your ability to work with others in your community improved? Yes

You may have new ideas that address 'pressing problems'/'improve quality of life for you and others'. Outline how you will bring ideas to the communities attention and to funding? step 1. Bring problem to the monthly Community Meetings step 2.Discuss problem at Community Meeting step 3.If there is group agreement the problem can be addressed

1.C. ACTIONS

Do you intend to continue working within your Working group and/or Steering group APPENDIX

 to the point of implementing proposal

1 of 2 RURAL LONGFORD VILLAGE AND AREA ENAHACEMENT TRAINING Keystone Landscape Architects & Urban Designers & LCRL

FEEDBACK FORM

2. PROGRAMME/PROCESS

How would you rate this the overall programme

Above average.

Most important outcomes of the process to you personally? Rate 1 to 3, beginning with the most important:

 Raising issues and advancing proposals that address them 

Are there 'people groups' in your community whom did not take part? Try to at categorise

No.

Suggests on how they might be persuaded to become more involved in community work

______

Please rate the following specific aspects of the programme: 1 poor 2 average 3 good 4 very good 5 excellent

Knowledge of Trainers 4 Scope of programme content 3 Community Participation 5 Benefit to community 5 Overall success 4 Are there any particular aspects of the programme you wished more input from Keystones trainers?

Not from Keystone trainers, but an LCRL representative should also have been part of all the training sessions to address funding issues and identify what was most suitable for funding and what was not..

Aspects of the programme you would prefer to have shortened

None.

Other feedback or comments:

APPENDIX

The idea of the programme getting the Community to work together and identify enhancement projects was good. It got the Community working together.

However the next stage of application for funding and trying to proceed with projects is more difficult and the training, coaching and advice from Trainers, LCRL, etc, should continue with groups past the training stage.

In our experience, the whole production of the ‘Enhancement Plan’, only got peoples hopes up and to achieve and get funding for most of the projects before the end of 2013, unfortunately will not happen.

The process of training, should have commenced with training on Fundraising etc, and identifying how much fundraising was needed before any projects were identified or before any plan was drawn up.

The bottom line is none of the projects can be achieved without first having a sufficient amount of funds and that is where the whole process should have began.

In our opinion the process was done in reverse.

No fault to Keystone or the training, that was the job they were given to do and they did it very well, but the process should have been different and LCRL representatives should have been present at all sessions.

Thank you for participating and completing this evaluation form

Please use additional pages if necessary and attach

2 of 2 APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX

RURAL LONGFORD VILLAGE AND AREA ENAHACEMENT TRAINING Keystone Landscape Architects & Urban Designers & LCRL FEEDBACK FORM

Name /Community Killoe Villages and Area Enhancement Plan

1.A. PROPOSAL OUTCOMES

How accurately does the Area Enhancement Plan reflect the needs of your community today?

 Poorly  Passable Very Well Excellently

Can you single out a particular proposal from the plan the wider community needs urgently?

No

Can you single out a proposal made on exhibition night you feel have not received sufficient attention in the following community meetings? No

1.B. LEARNING & RELATIONSHIPS

Has participation raised your awareness of your communities needs today and into the future?

Yes No Comment______

Name one proposal that can most improve your own personal quality of life?

Safe walkways so that people can exercise

Did you or somebody else display this same proposal at the exhibition night? Yes No

Has your ability to work with others in your community improved? Yes No

You may have new ideas that address 'pressing problems'/'improve quality of life for you and others'. Outline how you will bring idea's to the communities attention and to funding? step 1. Open meetings/ Relevant committee meetings step 2.Parish Bulletin step 3.Local Notes

1.C. ACTIONS

Do you intend to continue working within your Working group and/or Steering group

 to the point of grant application  to the point of implementing proposal  not again  We intend to call a steering group meeting and hand ownership of the relevant projects over to the parish groups involved APPENDIX

1 of 2 RURAL LONGFORD VILLAGE AND AREA ENAHACEMENT TRAINING Keystone Landscape Architects & Urban Designers & LCRL

FEEDBACK FORM

2. PROGRAMME/PROCESS

How would you rate this the overall programme

Poor Average Above Average Excellent

Most important outcomes of the process to you personally? Rate 1 to 3, beginning with the most important:

 2 Raising issues and advancing proposals that address them  1 Learning how your community can be enhanced  3 Building/strengthening relationships with others

Are there 'people groups' in your community whom did not take part? Try to at categorise

Yes. Football, Soccer, ICA, School affiliated Groups

Suggests on how they might be persuaded to become more involved in community work

Personally I think because this project was sold as an “enhancement” project people probably felt it was the responsibility of the relevant village groups to become involved. Had I been involved in the initial meeting I would have issued written invitations to them to attend open meeting. Please rate the following specific aspects of the programme: 1 poor 2 average 3 good 4 very good 5 excellent

Knowledge of Trainers 5 Scope of programme content 3 Community Participation 1 Benefit to community 4 Overall success 4 Are there any particular aspects of the programme you wished more input from Keystones trainers?

No Keystone carried out their remit to perfection sometimes going beyond their duties to assist. LCRL should have put funding or personnel in place to assist with the coordination and production of the plans as this very heavy work load rested on the volunteers. We were lucky to have expertise among us but again none of us were on the steering group and decided to step in to redeem the production of the plan….

Aspects of the programme you would prefer to have shortened None

Other feedback or comments:

Thank you sincerely for all your help and assistance. APPENDIX

Thank you for participating and completing this evaluation form

Please use additional pages if necessary and attach

2 of 2 APPENDIX

RURAL LONGFORD VILLAGE AND AREA ENAHACEMENT TRAINING Keystone Landscape Architects & Urban Designers & LCRL FEEDBACK FORM

Name /Community Lanesborough______

1.A. PROPOSAL OUTCOMES

How accurately does the Area Enhancement Plan reflect the needs of your community today?

 Poorly  Passable Very Well Excellently

Can you single out a particular proposal from the plan the wider community needs urgently?

_Structured Approach to Enhancement______

Can you single out a proposal made on exhibition night you feel have not received sufficient attention in the following community meetings?Action Planning______

1.B. LEARNING & RELATIONSHIPS

Has participation raised your awareness of your communities needs today and into the future?

Yes No Comment______

Name one proposal that can most improve your own personal quality of life?

_Trails and Walks______

Did you or somebody else display this same proposal at the exhibition night? Yes No

Has your ability to work with others in your community improved? Yes No

You may have new ideas that address 'pressing problems'/'improve quality of life for you and others'. Outline how you will bring idea's to the communities attention and to funding? step 1. Setting out the actions and timelines…preliminary research and costings step 2.Application to LCRL for funding step 3.Action project

1.C. ACTIONS APPENDIX

Do you intend to continue working within your Working group and/or Steering group

 to the point of grant application  to the point of implementing proposal  not again

1 of 2 RURAL LONGFORD VILLAGE AND AREA ENAHACEMENT TRAINING Keystone Landscape Architects & Urban Designers & LCRL

FEEDBACK FORM

2. PROGRAMME/PROCESS

How would you rate this the overall programme

Poor Average Above Average Excellent

Most important outcomes of the process to you personally? Rate 1 to 3, beginning with the most important:

 Raising issues and advancing proposals that address them 2  Learning how your community can be enhanced 3  Building/strengthening relationships with others 1

Are there 'people groups' in your community whom did not take part? Try to at categorise

_No______

Suggests on how they might be persuaded to become more involved in community work

_N/A______

Please rate the following specific aspects of the programme: 1 poor 2 average 3 good 4 very good 5 excellent

Knowledge of Trainers 5 Scope of programme content 4 Community Participation 5 Benefit to community 4 Overall success 5 Are there any particular aspects of the programme you wished more input from Keystones trainers?

No, very comprehensive______

Aspects of the programme you would prefer to have shortened APPENDIX

__No______

Other feedback or comments:

Excellent process, very well designed and implemented…will considerably benefit our community

Thank you for participating and completing this evaluation form

Please use additional pages if necessary and attach

2 of 2 APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX

RURAL LONGFORD VILLAGE AND AREA ENAHACEMENT TRAINING Keystone Landscape Architects & Urban Designers & LCRL FEEDBACK FORM

Name /Community __Dromard______

1.A. PROPOSAL OUTCOMES

How accurately does the Area Enhancement Plan reflect the needs of your community today?

 Poorly Passable Very Well Excellently

Can you single out a particular proposal from the plan the wider community needs urgently?

____skills audit, training, walkways development, older persons services______

Can you single out a proposal made on exhibition night you feel have not received sufficient attention in the following community meetings?__older persons services long term______

1.B. LEARNING & RELATIONSHIPS

Has participation raised your awareness of your communities needs today and into the future?

Yes No Comment___it is a start______

Name one proposal that can most improve your own personal quality of life?

___training opportunities, walkways & sports development______

Did you or somebody else display this same proposal at the exhibition night? Yes No

Has your ability to work with others in your community improved? Yes No

You may have new ideas that address 'pressing problems'/'improve quality of life for you and others'. Outline how you will bring idea's to the communities attention and to funding? step 1. Regular meetings of Dromard Rural Development step 2. Funding Applications Group Meetings step 3. Annual reviews of the Enhancement Plan

1.C. ACTIONS

Do you intend to continue working within your Working group and/or Steering group

 to the point of grant application  to the point of implementing proposal  when time allows

1 of 2 APPENDIX

RURAL LONGFORD VILLAGE AND AREA ENAHACEMENT TRAINING Keystone Landscape Architects & Urban Designers & LCRL FEEDBACK FORM

2. PROGRAMME/PROCESS

How would you rate this the overall programme

Poor Average Above Average Excellent

Most important outcomes of the process to you personally? Rate 1 to 3, beginning with the most important:

2 Raising issues and advancing proposals that address them

 Learning how your community can be enhanced 3

1 Building/strengthening relationships with others Are there 'people groups' in your community whom did not take part? Try to at categorise

__hunting club______

Suggests on how they might be persuaded to become more involved in community work

__communication______

Please rate the following specific aspects of the programme: 1 poor 2 average 3 good 4 very good 5 excellent

Knowledge of Trainers 3 Scope of programme content 3 Community Participation 2 Benefit to community 3 Overall success 3 Are there any particular aspects of the programme you wished more input from Keystones trainers?

_greater emphasis on job creation ideas______

Aspects of the programme you would prefer to have shortened

____n/a______

Other feedback or comments:

The difficulty in generating matching funding in the current environment

Thank you for participating and completing this evaluation form, Please use additional pages if necessary and attach

2 of 2 APPENDIX

RURAL LONGFORD VILLAGE AND AREA ENAHACEMENT TRAINING Keystone Landscape Architects & Urban Designers & LCRL FEEDBACK FORM

Name /Community Dromard______

1.A. PROPOSAL OUTCOMES

How accurately does the Area Enhancement Plan reflect the needs of your community today?

 Poorly  Passable Very Well Excellently

Can you single out a particular proposal from the plan the wider community needs urgently?____ Development of Latin School Community Center ______

Can you single out a proposal made on exhibition night you feel have not received sufficient attention in the following community meetings?______

1.B. LEARNING & RELATIONSHIPS

Has participation raised your awareness of your communities needs today and into the future?

Yes No Comment______

Name one proposal that can most improve your own personal quality of life?

__As above Community Center ______

Did you or somebody else display this same proposal at the exhibition night? Yes No

Has your ability to work with others in your community improved? Yes No

You may have new ideas that address 'pressing problems'/'improve quality of life for you and others'. Outline how you will bring idea's to the communities attention and to funding? step 1. step 2. step 3.

1.C. ACTIONS

Do you intend to continue working within your Working group and/or Steering group

 to the point of grant application  to the point of implementing proposal APPENDIX

 not again

1 of 2 RURAL LONGFORD VILLAGE AND AREA ENAHACEMENT TRAINING Keystone Landscape Architects & Urban Designers & LCRL

FEEDBACK FORM

2. PROGRAMME/PROCESS

How would you rate this the overall programme

Poor Average Above Average Excellent

Most important outcomes of the process to you personally? Rate 1 to 3, beginning with the most important:

 Raising issues and advancing proposals that address them  Learning how your community can be enhanced  Building/strengthening relationships with others

Are there 'people groups' in your community whom did not take part? Try to at categorise

______not to my knowledge ______

Suggests on how they might be persuaded to become more involved in community work

______

Please rate the following specific aspects of the programme: 1 poor 2 average 3 good 4 very good 5 excellent

Knowledge of Trainers 3 Scope of programme content 3 Community Participation 4 Benefit to community 3 Overall success 3

APPENDIX

Are there any particular aspects of the programme you wished more input from Keystones trainers?

No______

Aspects of the programme you would prefer to have shortened

No______

Other feedback or comments:

Thank you for participating and completing this evaluation form

Please use additional pages if necessary and attach

2 of 2 APPENDIX

RURAL LONGFORD VILLAGE AND AREA ENAHACEMENT TRAINING Keystone Landscape Architects & Urban Designers & LCRL FEEDBACK FORM

Name /Community ___Dromard Rural Development Group _

1.A. PROPOSAL OUTCOMES

How accurately does the Area Enhancement Plan reflect the needs of your community today?

 Poorly  Passable Very Well Excellently

Can you single out a particular proposal from the plan the wider community needs urgently?

______Sli na Slainnte Walk & village enhancement____

Can you single out a proposal made on exhibition night you feel have not received sufficient attention in the following community meetings?

_Nursing home – independent living for older persons

1.B. LEARNING & RELATIONSHIPS

Has participation raised your awareness of your communities needs today and into the future? zx Yes No Comment______

Name one proposal that can most improve your own personal quality of life?

______Walkways ______

Did you or somebody else display this same proposal at the exhibition night? Yes No

Has your ability to work with others in your community improved? Yes No

You may have new ideas that address 'pressing problems'/'improve quality of life for you and others'. Outline how you will bring idea's to the communities attention and to funding? step 1. Bring to attention of Dromard Rural Development step 2. DRDG organise community consultation and revise plan accordingly step 3.Lodge an expression of interest with relevant funding agency with a view to meeting

1.C. ACTIONS

Do you intend to continue working within your Working group and/or Steering Group?

 to the point of grant application  to the point of implementing proposal  not again APPENDIX

1 of 2 RURAL LONGFORD VILLAGE AND AREA ENAHACEMENT TRAINING Keystone Landscape Architects & Urban Designers & LCRL

FEEDBACK FORM

2. PROGRAMME/PROCESS

How would you rate the overall programme?

Poor Average Above Average Excellent

Rate the Most important outcomes of the process to you personally? Rate 1 to 3, beginning with the most important:

1 Raising issues and advancing proposals that address them

3 Learning how your community can be enhanced

2 Building/strengthening relationships with others

Are there 'people groups' in your community who did not take part? Try to at categorise

______All group’s participated______

Suggestions on how they might be persuaded to become more involved in community work

___Carry out small visual projects e.g. enhance pumps at crossroads thereby giving a sense of place, may encourage more people to volunteer______

Please rate the following specific aspects of the programme: 1 poor 2 average 3 good 4 very good 5 excellent

Knowledge of Trainers 4 Scope of programme content 3 Community Participation 5 Benefit to community 3 Overall success 2

Are there any particular aspects of the programme you wished more input from Keystones trainers?

__ Plan template

__meetings with steering group –This would have acknowledged that by volunteering on the steering group, to access the training, we were seeking to empower ourselves to build inclusive participation and to empower our community to become involved in community based activities, by understanding the aims, goals and process outlined in the 4 principle phases of the training. APPENDIX

Aspects of the programme you would prefer to have shortened/changed?

_ That part of phase 4 is combined in phase 1 so as to improve the steering group’s understanding of the overall aims of the training.

______

Other feedback or comments:

As all the plans ended up with the same layout, a price could have been negotiated with a printing company in Longford to print a specific number for each area.

The difficulties with the template could have been overcome by an afternoon/night training session with all the groups who participated in the initiative in a central location.

More time allocated to meeting the steering group would have enhanced learning.

Thank you for participating and completing this evaluation form

Please use additional pages if necessary and attach

2 of 2 APPENDIX

RURAL LONGFORD VILLAGE AND AREA ENAHACEMENT TRAINING Keystone Landscape Architects & Urban Designers & LCRL FEEDBACK FORM

Name /Community ___DROMARD______

1.A. PROPOSAL OUTCOMES

How accurately does the Area Enhancement Plan reflect the needs of your community today?

 Poorly  Passable Very Well Excellently

Can you single out a particular proposal from the plan the wider community needs urgently?

______Playground ,Crossroad‐Bus shelter /Welcoming feature______

Can you single out a proposal made on exhibition night you feel have not received sufficient attention in the following community meetings?______

1.B. LEARNING & RELATIONSHIPS

Has participation raised your awareness of your communities needs today and into the future?

Yes No Comment______

Name one proposal that can most improve your own personal quality of life?

Playgound, walking trails and the upgrading of the Latin School Community Centre______

Did you or somebody else display this same proposal at the exhibition night? Yes No

Has your ability to work with others in your community improved? Yes No

You may have new ideas that address 'pressing problems'/'improve quality of life for you and others'. Outline how you will bring idea's to the communities attention and to funding? step 1. Holding a community meeting step 2.discussing its importance or outlining thet need for it step 3.voting or agreeing to bring forward for considering its for funding

1.C. ACTIONS

Do you intend to continue working within your Working group and/or Steering group

 to the point of grant application  to the point of implementing proposal  not again APPENDIX

1 of 2 RURAL LONGFORD VILLAGE AND AREA ENAHACEMENT TRAINING Keystone Landscape Architects & Urban Designers & LCRL

FEEDBACK FORM

2. PROGRAMME/PROCESS

How would you rate this the overall programme

Poor Average Above Average Excellent

Most important outcomes of the process to you personally? Rate 1 to 3, beginning with the most important:

 Raising issues and advancing proposals that address them (1)  Learning how your community can be enhanced (3)  Building/strengthening relationships with others (2)

Are there 'people groups' in your community whom did not take part? Try to at categorise

______yes there seems to be one just interested in their own projects______

Suggests on how they might be persuaded to become more involved in community work

______

Please rate the following specific aspects of the programme: 1 poor 2 average 3 good 4 very good 5 excellent

Knowledge of Trainers 5 Scope of programme content 4 Community Participation 3 Benefit to community 5 Overall success 5 Are there any particular aspects of the programme you wished more input from Keystones trainers?

______no______

Aspects of the programme you would prefer to have shortened

______no perfect______

Other feedback or comments:

Thank you for participating and completing this evaluation form

Please use additional pages if necessary and attach

2 of 2 APPENDIX

RURAL LONGFORD VILLAGE AND AREA ENAHACEMENT TRAINING Keystone Landscape Architects & Urban Designers & LCRL FEEDBACK FORM

Name Community Drumlish Area Enhancement/Drumlish Tidy Towns

1.A. PROPOSAL OUTCOMES

How accurately does the Area Enhancement Plan reflect the needs of your community today?

 Poorly  Passable Very Well Excellently

Can you single out a particular proposal from the plan the wider community needs urgently?

Village Core – Buildings need a facelift and enhancement urgently – a job that will make a statement to the wider community that this Enhancement Group mean business – for visual and aesthetic impact – which will build on our Pride of place. First impressions of a place last forever... Visual impact and cleanliness and cared for buildings build the feel good factor and seduces / encourages the community to do more.

Can you single out a proposal made on exhibition night you feel have not received sufficient attention in the following community meetings?

All of the areas got as much attention as was possible... cannot otherwise comment.

1.B. LEARNING & RELATIONSHIPS

Has participation raised your awareness of your communities needs today and into the future?

Yes Participation and Process has heightened awareness of what is possible and how much there needs to be done and eventually joining up on a larger scale with the other ½ of the parish.

Name one proposal that can most improve your own personal quality of life?

The Bog Trot walk in the great outdoors is an amenity that will offer much tranquillity and diversity to my busy life – space to chill out and get away from busy activity...

Did you or somebody else display this same proposal at the exhibition night? Yes & many others

Has your ability to work with others in your community improved? Yes No

You may have new ideas that address 'pressing problems'/'improve quality of life for you and others'. Outline how you will bring idea's to the communities attention and to funding?

Step 1. Call a public meeting and put it to the community that X or Y could do with some attention – invite feedback and invite any other ideas that might help enhance our space and thereby our quality of life... APPENDIX

Step 2. Gather all ideas from all quarters – the little people to our Senior citizens and all in between meanwhile, noting down ideas and opportunities missed this time round.

Step 3. Produce a Plan and have a big launch –

Step 4. Prioritize which project(s) to do first – taking into account making an impact for the wider community and other competing priorities...

Step 4 . Estimates of Cost & quotations being – to inform the Expression of Interest Fundraising always to be kept in mind ...

Step 5. Formal application for Funding to be made to LCRL

1.C. ACTIONS

Do you intend to continue working within your Working group and/or Steering group

 Yes ‐ to the point of grant application and completion of the various projects (or until I burn out – whichever is the earlier...)  to the point of implementing proposal  not again

1 of 2 RURAL LONGFORD VILLAGE AND AREA ENAHACEMENT TRAINING Keystone Landscape Architects & Urban Designers & LCRL FEEDBACK FORM

2. PROGRAMME/PROCESS

How would you rate this the overall programme

Poor Average Above Average Excellent

Most important outcomes of the process to you personally? Rate 1 to 3, beginning with the most important:

1 Raising issues and advancing proposals that address them 3 Learning how your community can be enhanced 2 Building/strengthening relationships with others

Are there 'people groups' in your community whom did not take part? Try to at categorise

The Local GAA Football Club & Drumlish Community Association – both of these are engaged with LCRL for major funding – they feared their groups might lose out if included in the Plan.

Suggests on how they might be persuaded to become more involved in community work

They will come on board once their own projects reach completion – their processes were fairly advanced when this one commenced. We are a community – the enhancements they carry out will also be of benefit to the whole community. APPENDIX

Please rate the following specific aspects of the programme: 1 poor 2 average 3 good 4 very good 5 excellent

Knowledge of Trainers 5 Scope of programme content 5 Community Participation 3 Benefit to community 5 Overall success 5 Are there any particular aspects of the programme you wished more input from Keystones trainers?

Hard to say ‐ the learning curve was steep and a lot had to be learned very quickly in terms of producing /publishing our Plan... However, we did achieve our Plan to much acclaim – a major achievement.

Aspects of the programme you would prefer to have shortened – can’t say at the minute

Other feedback or comments: The original phone call from Keystone arrived out of the blue – there was no advance warning from anyone that this might be coming our way...

Thank you for participating and completing this evaluation form

Please use additional pages if necessary and attach

I said earlier we got dropped in at the deep end – Could have done without it but once the Plan was born the stress was over... it was a very steep learning curve but the Learning was/is invaluable ...

The projects and needs of our Community are all desirable, realistic, and achievable... the process gives us as a Community ownership of our village and has to date built a great team of ‘doers’ and positive people who each and all hold the VISION of the goals /objectives we strive to reach.

This process has lifted already the spirit of the people – it covers every part of the Drumlish Area and we just cannot wait to get past this part of Applying and waiting for Approval – Patience needs to be learned now...

2 of 2 APPENDIX

RURAL LONGFORD VILLAGE AND AREA ENAHACEMENT TRAINING Keystone Landscape Architects & Urban Designers & LCRL FEEDBACK FORM

Name /Community ____Clondra______

1.A. PROPOSAL OUTCOMES

How accurately does the Area Enhancement Plan reflect the needs of your community today?

 Poorly  Passable √Very Well Excellently

Can you single out a particular proposal from the plan the wider community needs urgently?

__Old school refurbishment______

Can you single out a proposal made on exhibition night you feel have not received sufficient attention in the following community meetings?___Facilities for Teenagers______

1.B. LEARNING & RELATIONSHIPS

Has participation raised your awareness of your communities needs today and into the future?

√ Yes No Comment____It has put structure on what people have been saying for ages______

Name one proposal that can most improve your own personal quality of life?

______Sports Centre______

Did you or somebody else display this same proposal at the exhibition night? Yes√ No

Has your ability to work with others in your community improved? √ Yes No

You may have new ideas that address 'pressing problems'/'improve quality of life for you and others'. Outline how you will bring idea's to the communities attention and to funding? step 1. Present plan to community at public meeting – spread the word‐ increase participation step 2.Invite all Theme Groups to a meeting to decide what project to progress first and foremost step 3.Make application to LCRL

1.C. ACTIONS

Do you intend to continue working within your Working group and/or Steering group

 to the point of grant application APPENDIX

 √ to the point of implementing proposal (if I can find the time –this will depend on what’s expected)  not again

1 of 2 RURAL LONGFORD VILLAGE AND AREA ENAHACEMENT TRAINING Keystone Landscape Architects & Urban Designers & LCRL

FEEDBACK FORM

2. PROGRAMME/PROCESS

How would you rate this the overall programme

Poor Average √ Above Average Excellent

Most important outcomes of the process to you personally? Rate 1 to 3, beginning with the most important:

 2Raising issues and advancing proposals that address them  1 Learning how your community can be enhanced  3 Building/strengthening relationships with others

Are there 'people groups' in your community whom did not take part? Try to at categorise

_Recent occupants of new housing in the area/farmers/people from other countries/travellers/ many people who are out of work and who would have spare time to give to community______

Suggests on how they might be persuaded to become more involved in community work

__One to one contact is best and this can be done by door to door work/events such as exhibitions/newspapers/fliers______

Please rate the following specific aspects of the programme: 1 poor 2 average 3 good 4 very good 5 excellent

Knowledge of Trainers 5 Scope of programme content 5 Community Participation 3 Benefit to community 5 (potentially) Overall success 3 (but could be 5 if projects are realised Are there any particular aspects of the programme you wished more input from Keystones trainers?

__Communication was a big problem for our group. We didn’t understand what we were supposed to be doing a lot of the time and this was in spite of Trainers considerable efforts. No one in our APPENDIX

group realised that after the exhibition WE had to do the plan. if we had understood better what we were supposed to do, we could have saved ourselves a lot of wasted effort and got the job done a lot better and quicker ______

Aspects of the programme you would prefer to have shortened

Some members have said that the technical challenge of getting the plan together was beyond the abilities of our group.. At the same time our group was concerned that a good quality report would be the end result as some of our names/photos are in it and it would make community realise that this was a group serious about improving the village

______

Other feedback or comments:

On a personal note, I did not anticipate from the start that the group itself was responsible for the actual drafting and production of the plan . I found that the workload was too much as I don’t have this amount of time to spare..

Thank you for participating and completing this evaluation form

Please use additional pages if necessary and attach

How best to improve communications??? – don’t have time to elaborate here but group will be happy to answer any questions on this matter if required.

2 of 2