Fola Kalesanwo Dissertation

1
Young People’s Participation in the Urban Planning and
Design Process for the London 2012 Olympic Park
Dissertation submitted for the degree of Master of Town and Country Planning,
School of Environment, Education and Development, University of Manchester
Folakemi Kalesanwo
8995096
May 2016

2
Abstract
This aim of this dissertation is to examine the participation and engagement of young people in the
urban planning and design process for the Olympic Park. The study is motivated by research
questions focusing on; how influential young people’s participation was on the final plans for the
Olympic Park, how effective the planning system is in engaging with young people and finally, to
investigate if and how young people continue to participate in planning following the Olympics.
Current academic literature and previous research relating to young people’s participation in
planning consistently highlights that there are many advantages in engaging young people in
planning. Despite these advantages being broadly accepted within the planning profession, there are
many challenges that arise that can act as barriers to young people’s participation. This also points
towards an inadequacy within the planning system to effectively engage with young people.
In order to further explore this argument, this dissertation employs an in-depth study of
Fundamental Architectural Inclusion’s Architecture Crew and Legacy Youth Panel. These two
groups, made up of young people from across East London were extremely active in the planning
and design process for the Olympic Park.
The findings from this research shows that there were opportunities for young people to be deeply
engaged in the planning for the Olympic Park, however also supports current literature to suggest
that the planning system is not effective in engaging with young people, mainly as this research has
found planners did not make a significant contribution to promote young people’s participation.

3
Declaration
No portion of the work referred to in the dissertation has been submitted in support of an
application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other institute of
learning.

4
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank everyone who helped me in writing this dissertation;
Firstly, my supervisor Iain Deas for his guidance and advice.
Secondly, Gabrielle Appiah and Nick Edwards for agreeing to be interviewed and sharing their
experiences, which contributed greatly to this research. Also, Jonny and Dena from Kaizen
Partnership for their great help during this process.
Thirdly, my sister Mayowa for taking the time to proof-read my work and give me feedback.
Lastly, to all my friends and family for their continued support and words of encouragement.

5
Contents
Chapter One: Introduction (p.7)
1.1 Background of Research Topic and Scope of Study (p.7)
1.2 Research Structure (p.7)
Chapter Two: The Participation of Young People in Planning Within Literature (p.9)
2.1 What is Participation? (p.9)
2.2 The Benefits of the Participation of Young people in Planning (p.10)
2.3 Examples of the Participation of Young People in Planning: Campus-Community Partnerships
(USA) (p.11)
2.4 Challenges When Engaging Young People in Participation (p.12)
2.5 Barriers to Young People’s Participation (p.14)
2.6 Changing Attitudes Towards the Participation of Young People (p.16)
Chapter Three: Methodology (p.17)
3.1 Conceptual Framework (p.17)
3.2 Aims and Objectives of Research (p.17)
3.3 Research Questions (p.17)
3.4 The Use of a Case Study to Collect Data (p.18)
3.5 Setting the Parameters for Research: Who is a ‘Young Person’? (p.18)
3.6 Secondary Data Collection: Document Analysis (p.19)
3.7 Secondary Data Collection: Literature Reviews (p.19)
3.8 Primary Data Collection: Interviews (p.20)
Chapter Four: Policy Review (p.21)
Chapter Five: Setting the Context of East London (p.24)
5.1 An Introduction to the Olympic Host Boroughs (p.24)
5.2 Young People in East London (p.25)
5.3 Challenges with Community Participation in East London: A Historical and Current Context
(p.26)

6
Chapter Six: Making Young People’s Participation Real: A Case Study (p.28)
6.1 Fundamental Architectural Inclusion: An Introduction (p.28)
6.2 The Architecture Crew (p.28)
6.3 The Legacy Youth Panel: An Introduction (p.30)
6.4 What Makes a City a Good Place for Young People: The Legacy Youth Panel’s Perspective
(p.30)
6.5 The Legacy Youth Panel: Successes and Achievements (p.33)
6.6 The Legacy Youth Panel: Challenges and Barriers to Young People’s Participation (p.34)
6.7 The Legacy Youth Panel: Making a Positive Impact on Young People (p.36)
6.8 The Legacy Youth Voice: The Future of Young People’s Participation (p.37)
6.9 The Olympics and Young People: An Inspired Generation? (p.39)
Chapter Seven: Conclusion (p.40)
7.1 Discussion (p.40)
7.2 Implications for Planning Practice and Policy, and Priorities for Future Research (p.41)
Bibliography (p.43)
References (p.48)
List of Figures
1. Sherry Arnstein's Ladder of Citizen Participation (p.9)
2. Map of the Olympic Host and Growth Boroughs (p.24)
3. The Legacy Youth Panel’s Manifesto (p.32)
Word Count: 11, 463

7
Chapter One: Introduction
1.1 Background of Research Topic and Scope of Study
In the UK, public participation in the planning process is strongly encouraged. National planning
policy supports this as a means of creating healthy and sustainable communities. However, national
planning policy is not always consistently translated to the local level. This is evident as the
importance of community participation is often absent from local planning policy.
In spite of this, there is still a recognition within the urban planning profession that the planning
process should encourage community participation and include all sections of society. However, in
reality those that typically engage in planning’s participatory processes tend to belong to a particular
category of the public (e.g. middle class, educated, retired, part-time employed or white).
Marginalised groups in societies are often not represented during the participation process. The
purpose of this research is to study one marginalised group, young people and how they interact
with the participation process.
The aim of this study is to examine how young people engage in participation within planning. To
facilitate this, this study will focus on the role of young people in the planning and design process
for the London Olympic Park. Through this, other research areas will also be explored, such as; the
effectiveness of the planning system to engage with young people, and how young people may or
may not have been inspired by the London 2012 Olympics to become involved in future
developments in their communities.
1.2 Research Structure
First, this study will look at how the participation of young people in planning is represented in
academic literature. This will provide an opportunity to identify common themes within the
research area, particularly relating to the benefits of and challenges associated with the participation
of young people in planning.
Second, the methods that were used to collect the data that contributed to the research is outlined in
a methodology, along with the advantages and disadvantages of the chosen methods. The objectives
and the subsequent research questions are also addressed within the methodology. The aim of
examining the role that young people played in the planning and design process for the Olympic

8
Park will be achieved by meeting the young people and planners who were involved in the
participation process for planning the Olympic Park. The research questions that follow this focus
on broader topics around the subject matter of the study, relating to the influence that the
participation of young people in the planning for the Olympic Park have had, the possibility of the
London Olympics creating a legacy of youth participation and the overall effectiveness of the
planning system in engaging with young people.
Third, a case study of Fundamental Architectural Inclusion’s Architecture Crew and Legacy Youth
Panel will be used to analyse groups that were actively engaged in planning for the Olympic Park.
This will also demonstrate how to effectively engage young people in the built environment and
planning process, the broad range of benefits that come from doing so, and how planning practice
can hinder effective participation.
Fourth, the results of the study are presented and analysed in light of current planning practice. This
study aims to use the outcome of the findings of this research to inform ways in which young
people can be successfully engaged in future planning policy and practice.

9
Chapter Two: The Participation of Young People in Planning Within Literature
2.1 What is Participation?
Arnstein (1969) describes participation as a term used to give citizens power, and is designed to
cater particularly to the ‘have-nots’ or socially deprived members of society who would otherwise
be excluded from economic and political processes. Participation can take various forms with
varying degrees of effectiveness for empowering citizens. These various forms are represented
through eight levels in Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Ladder of Citizen Participation (Source: Sherry Arnstein, 1969)

10
Community participation in the context of planning, is based on the principle that the environment
works best when all members of society are involved in how it is created and developed over time.
Participation is intended to be an essential element of any society, where people have a continuous
involvement in how social, economic and physical conditions change and develop.
The main purpose of participation is to discover how people use, perceive and value their
environment. Participation can also be used to identify the key challenges facing a community, in
order to ascertain what local people need in their community and their aspirations for the
development of their community. The outcome of such participation can be translated into practical
working plans in order to fulfil the ultimate purpose of participation, which is to create places that
reflect the needs and desires of those that will use it (Passon et. al, 2008).
2.2 The Benefits of the Participation of Young people in Planning
There can be many benefits from young people playing an active role in participation. Passon et.al
(2008) identifies one key benefit as; young people becoming more aware of the purpose of planning
and having a greater understanding of the planning system and what it intends to achieve. Planning
professionals can often be quite detached from the general public, and particularly young people
who tend to be the group of society that are least knowledgeable about planning. Participation of
young people therefore helps to bridge the gap between young people and the planning profession.
And ultimately, when more young people have a better understanding of planning processes, this
will result in the creation of built environments that are better adept at incorporating the needs of
young people.
When young people engage in community participation, it can also be argued that they are
developing a greater understanding of the importance of democracy, and through participation
young people exercise their civic responsibilities and become more powerful citizens. Cele and
Burgt (2015), argue that an understanding of democracy is something that is best developed in a
person’s youth. So that when people engage in participation from a young age, they are being taught
skills that will eventually help towards building a democratic, fully-inclusive society in the future.

11
2.3 Examples of the Participation of Young People in Planning: Campus-Community
Partnerships (USA)
Undergraduate students at the University of Colorado participated in a campus-community
partnership run by the Growing Up Boulder (GUB) partnership trust. GUB facilitated the
engagement of 52 primary school and 16 secondary school students in relation to a housing
development in the City of Boulder (Derr, 2015).
The university students consulted with the children in order to gain their perception of dense and
child-friendly housing. This was done by leading the children through interactive activities such as
producing drawings, essays and three-dimensional models. From this, the university students were
able to incorporate the children’s ideas into their designs for the housing developments planned in
the area.
One of the key successes of this partnership was that the university students completed the project
with a greater understanding of the value that children’s ideas and perspectives can bring to the
urban planning and design process. Some students emphasised their appreciation for the children’s
‘out-of-the-box’ ideas. The children’s creative thinking was attributed to the fact that they had very
limited technical knowledge about the urban planning and design process and therefore were less
restricted in their thinking. One comment that reflects the overall views of the university students is;
…listening to kids can help us become more innovative in practices, making our built
environment more friendly and lively. (Derr, 2015, p.123)
The university students also highlighted how their experience of working with children contrasted
greatly with their experiences working with planning professionals, whose perspectives they say,
were often stifled by regulations and other building constraints.
Following the GUB’s campus-community partnership, Derr (2015) outlined a number of ways that
the children were positively impacted. These positive impacts could also be attributed to all
situations where there is participation by young people;
• An increase in confidence and self-esteem, especially when they can see that their ideas have
influenced the final designs. This also leads to a greater sense of validation and value from the
wider society.

12
• Developing a greater ability to communicate, by sharing their ideas not only with their peers but
also with those who are older than them.
• Learning about democracy through expressing their ideas, listening to other ideas and coming to
decisions in a collaborative manner, including making compromises.
• Being introduced to diverse learning styles that are different to the traditional teaching styles used
in schools.
Another example of a successful university-community partnership is the Youth Neighbourhood
Mapping Initiative (YNMI) run by the University of Memphis. The objectives of the project were to
teach the young participants to; (1) take pride in their area and seek ways of improving the local
assets, (2) seek solutions for negative aspects of their community and (3) appreciate that they are
relevant stakeholders in the neighbourhood (Ferguson et.al, 2010).
The university students ran the YNMI and encouraged the young participants to imagine ways of
improving their local neighbourhood. Technology was the primary method used to present the ideas
of the young participants; such as through the use of geographic information systems and exploring
online maps. The young people responded very well to the use of technology, a method not
commonly used in traditional participation processes.
Ferguson et.al (2010) were of the view that this innovative approach to participation is more
engaging for young people as they respond more positively to techniques that are; dynamic,
interactive, expressive and challenging.
2.4 Challenges When Engaging Young People in Participation
Some of the benefits associated with engaging young people in participation have been considered
above. However, community participation can be quite restrictive in the type of people that engage
in the process. Passon et. al (2008) highlights that the degree of a person’s involvement in
participatory processes is heavily dependent on their skill set, role in the community and their
willingness (or capability) to commit time and energy to participate. Young people often do no
possess the same skills as the adult population and their freedom to take part in any activities
outside of the home is often heavily monitored by their parents or guardians. It is therefore possible
that young people can be easily left out of the participation process.

13
The difficulty in engaging young people in planning could be linked to the fact that both planning
and the built environment are very much adult oriented (Passon et al, 2008). Adults generally have
more say in deciding how the built environment is developed and the decisions made are mostly
informed from an adult’s perspective. As a result, it can be challenging for young people to have
their voices heard in an adult dominated domain, with the effect being that young people can be
seen as a disenfranchised group of society. Young people may be even more disenfranchised than
other marginalised groups (e.g. disabled or ethnic minorities), because their age can completely
exclude them from discussions around the built-environment which are typically adult-led
(Matthews et.al, 1999).
With the understanding that planning and participatory processes are mostly adult oriented, another
difficulty that can arise when engaging young people in participation is a difference in perceptions.
It is possible that adults and young people perceive the built environment differently, therefore
when it comes to participation, the two groups would have different views of the things that add or
detract value from their local community. A participatory process that excludes young people,
therefore will result in young people living in environments that do not reflect their values or needs.
For example, the findings of a recent study undertaken by Laughlin and Johnson (2011), points
towards a flaw in urban planning and design process that has built itself up around an adults
perspective of good urban design. The study found that what young people perceived to be public
space and what they value the most about it often differed from an adult’s perspective. The study
also showed that young people generally tend to express themselves differently to adults. In
addition, the urban planning and design process has become burdened by various complexities that
make it difficult for even an adult outside of the profession to interpret, much less young people.
Although many of the university students that participated in the campus-community partnerships
agreed that the participation of the young people produced more creative and innovate ideas, for the
reasons stated in the paragraph above, it was difficult to translate these ideas into practical designs.
One university student (involved in the GUB partnership) pointed out that although the children had
valuable ideas, incorporating these into an adult-focused design system proved very difficult. As a
result, many young people felt as though their views on this were not taken into proper
consideration during the making of the plans for the housing development.

14
2.5 Barriers to Young People’s Participation
Matthews et. al (1999) outlines some of the factors that prevent participation from young people.
First is the question of the appropriateness of a young person’s inclusion in the participation
process. Second is the perception (mostly from adults) that young people lack the competence to
participate effectively. These factors are mostly speculative and have not been proven to be true,
however these assumptions can act as a barrier hindering the participation of young people.
The idea that young people are not competent enough to engage in participation contradicts the
position that young people are fully valid citizens, who hold the democratic right to have their say
in matters that effect them. Further, many young people have demonstrated their competencies
through their ability to handle various responsibilities. For instance, many young people in the UK
provide a service of care within their families, even for their older relatives. Also, many young
people have mastered the art of time management, through balancing their social lives, academics
and taking part in extra-curricular activities (Matthews et.al 1999). This suggests that those who
doubt the capability of young people may be underestimating their capabilities.
The competency of young people has been a recurrent theme throughout literature. Cele and Van de
Burgt (2015) draw on the Swedish planning system as an example, where some planners believe,
“young people should not be involved in practices they can’t master” (Cele and Van de Burgt, 2015,
p.22). However, the competency of a young person is heavily dependent on their age (Driskell,
2002), this is particularly important as what is considered to be a young person is indefinite and
open to personal interpretation. Generally, young people can be grouped into two broader terms of
children (12 years and younger) and teenagers (13 years to 19 years).
Cele and Van de Burgt (2015) also point out that planners are more responsive to working with
teenagers. This is because there is a belief that teenagers are more competent participants, as they
are more easily relatable to adults and can adapt to a mature environment better than a younger
child. This again demonstrates a major barrier in young people’s participation where the value of
the young participant is determined by how well they are able to conform to an adult way of
thinking.

15
On the other hand, some planners may be reluctant to work with teenagers, as they do not believe
they can offer any real value to the built environment, bur rather see them as social delinquents
(Cele and Van de Burgt, 2015).
Passon et.al (2008) suggests that subjects such as citizenship is being inadequately taught in
schools, which then results in young people not having a full understanding of their social and civic
responsibility to participate in all affairs relating to their community. It therefore appears that there
are many young people that are growing up in a society that discourages their participation.
This can produce a barrier to young people’s participation, because effort first has to be made to
instil a sense of democratic responsibility in young people, whom may have never taken this on
before. In order to overcome this barrier, young people need to be conditioned from an early age to
recognise the importance of participation. Matthews et.al (1999) argues this;
…democratic responsibility is something which does not suddenly arise in adulthood but is a
condition which has to be nurtured and experienced at different stages along a transition and so
should be a feature of all democratic education (Matthews et.al, 1999, p.137).
The political context of a country also has a role to play in creating barriers for young people’s
participation. For example, in the UK, participation by young people is not taken as seriously as it is
in other European countries, such as France, Sweden, Spain and Italy. In such countries,
participation by young people is facilitated by the national government as well as well established
grass-roots organisations. For example the Nationale des Conseils d’Enfants et de Jeunes (France),
Democrazia in Erba (Italy) and the Spanish Youth Council are examples of governmental councils
or community organisations that promote successful youth participation. In contrast, the UK has
struggled to establish youth councils that promote participation. The closest attempt was the
National Youth Agency and the British Youth Council, however these councils lack the capacity to
function effectively (Matthews et.al, 1999).
Another notable difference between the successes of community organisations in other European
countries in comparison to the UK is the support from the national government. This suggests that
participation by young people benefits from not just direct engagement with the work of planners or
architects etc., but also from a wider national support framework that encourages participation.

16
Therefore effective participation by young people is most likely to be achieved when the national
government prioritises the inclusion of young people in all areas of societal management.
Alternatively, even when planners work hard to engage young people in participation, they can still
be presented with struggles. Integrating young people’s participation in the planning system within
a societal framework that already limits the involvement of young people can be extremely difficult.
Communication can also act as a barrier for young people’s participation. Not only may young
people be unfamiliar with the type of language used by planning professionals, they may also be
unresponsive to the style in which planning professionals communicate. For example, when
undertaking research into young people’s perception of public space, Jupp (2007) found that young
people (particularly teenagers) were apprehensive about communicating with adults, which was put
down to a lack of trust. A relationship and friendly rapport had to be formed between the teenagers
and adults before they became less resistant to engaging in the research activities.
2.6 Changing Attitudes Towards the Participation of Young People
Although young people have been labelled as incompetent and inexperienced, Laughlin and
Johnson (2011) describe young people as ‘neighbourhood experts.’ This is because young people
are a part of communities, they experience their local environments everyday and because of this,
would most likely be able to offer even more insight and expert knowledge than a planner would be
able to.
The participation of young people is increasingly being seen as critical to the creation of sustainable
communities. Young people will eventually inherit and become inhabitants of the places that are
currently being created, and from this perspective planners are beginning to realise that the
involvement of young people in participation is crucial. This has also led to a shift in seeing young
people as ‘current stakeholders’ rather than stakeholders to be consulted in the future (Ferguson
et.al, 2010).

17
Chapter Three: Methodology
3.1 Conceptual Framework
As shown through the literature review, there are many benefits to the participation of young people
in planning. However, in practice there are many barriers to the participation of young people.
When young people participate in planning, it is usually carried out in a tokenistic manner. With the
perceived notion that young people lack competency, they are often not consulted on significant
plans.
There are some examples where young people have successfully participated in planning processes
(such as the campus-community partnerships analysed above), however, these are mainly restricted
to USA or other Western European countries. There is therefore an opportunity to further explore
the participation of young people in the urban planning and design process within the UK context.
3.2 Aims and Objectives of Research
The aim of this research is to examine the role of young people in the urban planning and design
process for the London 2012 Olympic Park. The methodology adopted to achieve this aim is met
through the following objectives to; (1) meet with young people who have been involved in the
planning and design process for the Olympic Park in order to gain insight into their experiences,
and (2) meet with planners who were involved in promoting and facilitating the participation of
young people.
3.3 Research Questions
The research questions can be summarised as;
1. In what ways did young people participate in the planning and designing for the Olympic Park?
2. To what extent was their participation influential to the plans and designs for the Olympic Park?
3. Following the conclusion of the London 2012 Olympics, in what ways do young people
continue to participate in the planning process?
4. How effective is the planning process in engaging with young people?

18
3.4 The Use of a Case Study to Collect Data
In order to achieve the objectives of this research, case study examples will be used to demonstrate
how young people participated in the planning and design of the Olympic Park. The case study
examples to be used are; (a) The Architecture Crew, (b)Legacy Youth Panel and the (c) Legacy
Youth Voice.
The London Olympics was chosen as the focus of this research because East London’s host
boroughs were undergoing large scale regeneration even before the Olympic bid was won.
Thousands of planning applications have been submitted in the area since it went into decline in the
1980s. Since securing the Olympic bid, there was a push to develop the area and instal the
necessary infrastructure required to host the London Olympics. Since the London Olympics ended,
East London has become a key site for investment and future developments. With this rapidly
changing built environment, there should be plenty of opportunities for local residents to have their
say in the developments planned for their area. East London and the backdrop of the London
Olympics and the development drive that followed, provides an ideal context in which to research
the participation of young people in the planning process.
3.5 Setting the Parameters for Research: Who is a ‘Young Person’?
The UK government is in agreement with The UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child that
defines a child as anyone who is under the age of 18 (United Nations, 1989).
Youth are also regarded as young people. The term youth suggests a person who is slightly older
and in a transition period from childhood dependence to adulthood independence. This group can
also be defined in relation to education and employment. Generally, youth refers to a person that is
between the age where they can leave compulsory education and when they find their first
employment. This group can therefore cover a wide range of ages, particularly as unemployment
becomes more of an issue for young people (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organisation, 2016).
Although young people can cover a wide breath of society, this research will focus on a particular
section of this group. This allows for more accurate results, as it is likely that there will be

19
significant differences across age groups. Therefore in the context of this research, a young person
is defined to mean someone between the ages of 13 and 21 years old.
This age range is most suitable as it is large enough to include young people considered as children
and older youth, providing a representation of a diverse group of young people. However the range
is not so large as to produce significant variations in the results.
3.6 Secondary Data Collection: Document Analysis
Documentary analysis is the process of gathering relevant documentary evidence to support and
validate the research.
When undertaking this research, documents from governmental and non-governmental
organisations were analysed. For example documents produced by the London Legacy
Development Corporation, Olympic Delivery Authority and community engagement companies
were examined.
When conducting the documentation analysis, it was important to ensure that information was
collected from a reliable source. For this reason, the majority of the documents used in this research
were produced by central or local governments where the reliability of the information could be
ensured.
Documents from independent community engagement companies also played a significant role in
the secondary data collection and supported the research of the case studies. Although these
provided very valuable information, they had to be used with discretion as it is possible that the
information may be biased in favour of the organisation that produced the document.
3.7 Secondary Data Collection: Literature Reviews
In order to gain an insight into the topic of young people’s participation in academia, a literature
review was undertaken, which made use of predominately academic journals. The literature review
also helped to identify key areas for further research, such as the challenges around young people’s
participation.

20
3.8 Primary Data Collection: Interviews
Interviews were conducted with a young person (19 years old, from Tower Hamlets in East London)
who has participated in the planning process, and with an adult (Co-founder of a community
engagement company). Both of the interviewee’s responses have helped to inform the study of the
case studies, and some of their responses are quoted where relevant.
The young person was asked about; their experience participating in the planning process, how they
feel they had contributed to the plans for the Olympic Park, how they have been impacted through
engaging in the participation process and their overall thoughts on the legacy the Olympics has left
for young people. Similarly, the adult was asked about; the activities they helped to facilitate for
young people’s participation, the challenges that arose when young people interacted with planners
and their thoughts on how the Olympics has impacted young East Londoners.
The interviews were conducted both over the phone and face to face. Both of these methods had
their advantages and disadvantages. For example, during the face to face interview with the young
person, there was an opportunity to assess their facial expressions and body language in addition to
their verbal responses. However, these could not be assessed during the phone interviews.
However, phone interviews are much easier to organise and were extremely useful in this case as
the interviewee was based far away.
Interviews took on a semi-structured format. This proved to be very effective as it allowed for the
interviewees to expand upon the questions asked. Interviewees often changed the direction of the
interview based on their responses by providing more information that was not initially intended,
and therefore gave interesting and unique insights into the topic. Furthermore, having some
structure to the interviews meant that when the interviewee did veer off topic, the interview could
easily be refocused. Another advantage of semi-structured interviews, was that there was a
coherence to the questions that the interviewees were asked. This allowed for great consistency in
the results and made comparing the results easier and more reliable.
One key advantage of collecting primary data through interviewing, was that the data collected was
specifically tailored to address the research questions.

21
Chapter Four: Policy Review
Community participation in planning is heavily supported by national planning policy. The National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)(2012), states that in order for local authorities to promote
healthy and sustainable communities, all sections of the community should be involved in
developing Local Plans and deciding planning applications. The NPPF requires local planning
authorities to actively promote opportunities for community engagement in the early or pre-
application stages of proposed developments, and are also expected to encourage developers to
engage with the public on their schemes (Department for Communities and Local Government,
2012).
Overall, national planning policy emphasises the need for inclusion of all sections of society but it
does not directly address the need for participation by young people. This is as expected,
particularly as the NPPF’s guidance is in outline form and does not go into detail. It is however,
encouraging to see that the need for community participation is recognised at a national level for
which planning authorities can then implement in detail at a local level.
The London Plan (2015) is produced by the Mayor of London, and in it, he outlines his
commitments to delivering new developments in London through collaborating with various
stakeholders, including local community groups. The London Plan is supported by the localism
agenda as it sets out plans to devolve power and decision making responsibilities to communities,
through the use of neighbourhood planning (Greater London Authority, 2015).
There is also a recognition in the London Plan of the valuable contribution local communities can
make to the plan making process. Because of this, an approach to planning which involves the
community at various stages, from plan making, planning decisions, and strategy making is
encouraged.
Furthermore, it is also acknowledged in the London Plan that there is an increasing number of youth
living in London. Therefore, local authorities are expected to increase the opportunities available
for this growing part of London’s population to participate in the planning of their communities.

22
The Strategic Regeneration Framework (SRF)(2009) is produced by the Mayor of London and the
five Olympic host boroughs which sets out the plans to achieving a long lasting Olympic legacy and
the convergence of East London, where communities in the host boroughs can enjoy the same
economic and social opportunities that other boroughs across London enjoy (Greenwich Council
et.al., 2009).
The SRF endorses the necessity to provide spaces that are safe for young people. Youth violence
and gang crime have been identified as the main challenges to providing safe spaces for young
people. In order to combat this, the SRF states that local authorities will work closely with schools
and youth groups to tackle gang culture. The Olympics also presented a unique opportunity to
encourage more young people to engage in life in their local community. It is hoped that increased
participation in sport and community affairs will empower young people and reduce crime rates.
The Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) and the London Legacy Development Corporation
(LLDC) were the two main organisations involved in the developments required for the London
Olympics. They also produced their own policies outlining their intentions to engage with East
London’s communities.
The ODA was responsible for the construction of the infrastructure and sporting venues on the
Olympic Park. The ODA produced a Learning Legacy Policy in order to assist in their community
engagement work (Olympic Delivery Authority, 2012).
The Learning Legacy Policy sets out guidelines on engaging with local school children. The ODA’s
main objective in engaging with local schools was to teach children about safety whilst living near
an active construction site. One way this was done was through offering health and safety drama
workshops and educational programmes. One of the successful educational programmes that was
implemented was the Construction Crew Project, as the children became enthusiastic about the
Games and the Olympic developments through engaging in the various workshops (Olympic
Delivery Authority, 2012).
The LLDC is responsible for the long-term planning of the Olympic Park and are also key
facilitators of community engagement. In September 2012, the LLDC produced a community

23
engagement policy to outline their engagement objectives for the future of the Olympic Park
(London Legacy Development Corporation, 2012).
The LLDC’s community engagement policy highlights the importance of collaborative engagement
between the existing and expected new communities around the Olympic Park. The purpose of this
policy is to ensure that both existing and new community groups are included in the Olympic legacy
and that any potential divergence in interests are addressed in an equitable manner.
Further to the review of these key policies it can be seen that there is little reference to participation
from young people in planning within national planning policy. However, the importance of
community participation as a whole in the planning process is consistently addressed throughout
national planning guidance.
The role of young people in the planning process becomes clearer in regional planning policies as
the London Plan provides guidelines that are specifically suited to an increasingly growing young
population. However, there is still a lack of direction over the strategies that will be used to engage
young people in planning.
The role of young people’s participation becomes much more clearer, when discussed within the
context of the London 2012 Olympics. Engagement policies particularly produced by the ODA set
out clear objectives for young people’s engagement and also gives practical strategies for achieving
these objectives.

24
Chapter Five: Setting the Context of East London
5.1 An Introduction to the Olympic Host Boroughs
The five Olympic host boroughs are; Newham, Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest and
Greenwich (and a sixth, Barking and Dagenham when referring to the ‘growth boroughs’)(Figure
2). The majority of the Olympic host boroughs are located in East London which has become a key
strategic area for regeneration following the deindustrialisation of the Docklands.
Figure 2: Map of the Olympic Host and Growth Boroughs (Source: Growth Boroughs Unit, 2010b)

25
Two major regeneration areas are based in the host boroughs; the Thames Gateway (made up of all
East and South East London boroughs), which is being managed by the Thames London Gateway
Partnership to improve public transport networks in order to support economic growth in the area.
The Lower Lea Valley (located across Newham, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest) is also an area
of severe deprivation and unemployment. The Lower Lea Valley regeneration project has been
described as the “largest remaining regeneration opportunity in inner London” (BBC, 2007), and
plans to create better living spaces, train local people and provide them with jobs.
Following London’s successful bid, the Olympics was also used as a tool for further regeneration of
the host boroughs. The Olympics is expected to bring a long lasting legacy of convergence to the
Olympic host and growth boroughs. This means that the social and economic gap between these
boroughs and the rest of London will be closed (Growth Boroughs Unit, 2010a).
Within the host boroughs there are higher levels of unemployment, residents have fewer
qualifications, are more likely to live in poor and overcrowded housing, and young people are more
likely to be a victim of crime and die younger than an average Londoner (Growth Boroughs Unit,
2010a). The Olympics has helped to bring high quality facilities and iconic new developments into
these areas, however, it is still too early to access whether the social and economic conditions of
local residents have improved and the legacy of convergence has been achieved.
5.2 Young People in East London
Young people represent a significant proportion of the population within the five Olympic host
boroughs. For example, 35% of Tower Hamlets population are young people, which is significantly
higher that the 18% average for the rest of inner city London, and over 70% of Tower Hamlet’s
young population are from ethnic minority backgrounds (London Borough of Tower Hamlets,
2009). Similarly, Hackney, Waltham Forest and Greenwich all have a diverse population which
young people make up a significant proportion of. Newham however has one of the youngest
populations in the UK, with a third of its population being 19 or under (London Borough of
Newham, 2012).
Having such a large young population, the host boroughs have all made provisions for young people
in their relative core strategies and local plans. Within these, the main issues facing young people in

26
East London have been identified as poor educational attainment, a lack of employment
opportunities, poor health (especially relating to obesity) and the fear of gang related crime and
violence.
The host boroughs’ plans for the future of young East Londoners therefore centres around
improving the social infrastructure for young people. This will include partnering with schools and
businesses to raise educational attainment, aspirations and provide apprenticeship opportunities.
Building attractive public spaces that young people feel safe using, along with increasing and
improving the provision of facilities for the youth, are also amongst the visions shared by the host
boroughs.
5.3 Challenges with Community Participation in East London: A Historical and
Current Context
Since it’s decline, many plans aimed at regenerating East London have been produced. However
many of the development plans have not been realised and local residents have seen very little
physical transformation.
Using the deindustrialisation of the Docklands as an example, there were a number of plans
proposed to redevelop the site. However, redevelopment was very slow as it took almost 30 years
before the site was completely redeveloped.
This cycle of planning for regeneration and then not seeing the results has contributed to many East
London resident’s lack of trust in the planning system and has also created a sense of pessimism
among the community, who grew to believe that redevelopment would never happen.
Another challenge for community participation and is more evident in current East London
communities is the lack of familiarity with their local and surrounding areas. Despite being a key
area in the city for regeneration and by hosting the London Olympics, East London has already and
will undergo further major changes, however many local residents are still unfamiliar with the plans
proposed for their local area.

27
East London has some of the most deprived boroughs in London, people from deprived
backgrounds are therefore less likely to travel outside of their immediate community, or will do so
sparingly. This is one reason that is found to explain why many local residents lack knowledge of
wider East London areas. Poor communication from planning professionals about the plans
proposed in the area, could have also been a factor.

28
Chapter Six: Making Young People’s Participation Real: A Case Study
6.1 Fundamental Architectural Inclusion: An Introduction
Fundamental Architectural Inclusion is an architecture centre based in East London that seeks ways
for people to be involved in the transformation of their communities. This is achieved through
offering school programmes, community participation, education and training services.
At a time when East London was undergoing regeneration and major changes were taking place in
the area, there was a growing concern that the local community were not fully aware of what was
taking place. Fundamental was therefore established to promote awareness of and understanding
among the wider community of the scale of regeneration and proposed development in their area,
particularly across the main Olympic host borough of Newham.
In 2007, with Neighbourhood Renewal Funding, Fundamental carried out pilot programmes to test
different engagement techniques within East London’s communities where they often worked with
local schools. During this trial period, young people’s unfamiliarity with the regeneration and
development planned in their area became more evident. Fundamental was therefore presented with
an opportunity to further explore engagement with young people, and have since facilitated many
youth participation programmes, two of which (The Architecture Crew and the Legacy Youth Panel)
have been studied further for this research.
6.2 The Architecture Crew
Established in 2003, the Architecture Crew is the UK’s first youth architecture forum. The group
reaches those aged 13 to 19 living in Newham. The Architecture Crew are an example of
Fundamental’s attempt to bring a fresh and innovative approach to community engagement, as the
members take on a leadership role in the management and branding of the forum (Fundamental
Architectural Inclusion, 2009).
The Architecture Crew allows for a more engaging and continuous participation process for young
people. This is because the forum is largely run by young people and by empowering them to have a
central role, they will in turn have a greater sense of ownership over the forum. The young members
are also involved in engaging with other young people, this could be one reason by the Architecture
Crew has been so successful, as young people tend to relate better with their peers.

29
The Architecture Crew demonstrates the importance of innovation and creativity in order to
successfully engage young people in the built environment. Interestingly, this approach is in
contrast with many current participatory processes within the planning system, where planners
would have a central role in facilitating participation. It cannot be said whether one approach is
better than the other, but it is clear that young people respond better to participation and engagement
techniques when it is carried out in a way that they can relate with.
The Architecture Crew have also been involved in deep levels of engagement, when in 2004
students aged 14 to 15 participated in a formal competition to produce architectural designs for the
Olympic Aquatic Centre. The participants worked towards an official brief and deadline and also
competed alongside 6 other professional architectural teams. In order to prepare for their
competition entry, the students visited the proposed site for the aquatics centre and received basic
training in architecture, space and design (Fundamental Architectural Inclusion, 2005).
 
Although the design submitted by the students did not win, they gained new technical skills and an
insight into a career in architectural design and planning. Fundamental found that through
participating in the competition, the students became more aware of regeneration and as a result
became curious to learn more about the buildings and developments in their community
(Fundamental Architectural Inclusion, 2005).
Fundamental Architectural Inclusion (2005) commented that the young people’s involvement in the
competition proved that “building the future isn’t just for professionals.” This undermines the
perception that young people do not have the competency to participate in the planning process, an
argument highlighted in academic literature. The work of the Architecture Crew in this competition
demonstrates that when given the opportunity and sufficient guidance, young people can make a
valuable contribution to the planning and design process, a contribution that is not just exclusive to
professionals.

30
6.3 The Legacy Youth Panel: An Introduction
A few years after Fundamental was established, London won its 2012 Olympic bid. East London,
an area already undergoing major regeneration now had the added task of hosting one of the biggest
global events. The focus of Fundamental’s work therefore shifted towards planning for the Olympic
legacy. In 2007, Fundamental was commissioned by the LLDC to run a youth panel that would
engage young people in the planning for Olympic related developments (in particular the Olympic
Park). The aim of the panel was to provide young people with an opportunity to have an input in the
planning for the Olympic Park and to see more young people involved in the planning and design of
their local area following the Games. Consequently, in October 2008, the Legacy Youth Panel was
launched.
The Legacy Youth Panel is made of members aged 14 to 19 living in the Olympic host boroughs.
Young people who were already engaged with the built environment (e.g. were part of the
Architecture Crew) or were from a politically active background were elected to be on the panel.
The panel was heavily involved in the planning for the Olympic Park, for example, they were able
to; meet regularly with planners and architects, sit on panels to judge proposed designs for the
Olympic Park and to be consulted in relation to the plans.
6.4 What Makes a City a Good Place for Young People: The Legacy Youth Panel’s
Perspective
Following consultation with the master planners of the Olympic Park, the Legacy Youth Panel
produced a report as an official response to the planning application. The report covers a range of
themes (community cohesion, housing, accessibility, safety, youth provision, employment and
learning, schools, sports and leisure and ownership) that outline the changes the young people
would like to see in the area and to advise the planners on how to achieve a development that caters
to the needs of young people. The report provides an interesting insight into the perspective of
young people and what they value most about their area.
The prevailing issue highlighted by the young people was their concern about post code tensions
between communities. The panel’s report therefore greatly reflects the desire of young people for
cohesion and the resolution of tensions across communities (Legacy Youth Panel, 2009).

31
The young people expressed that it was essential that the plans for the Olympic Park would provide
spaces not only for young people to come together and socialise, but also spaces that are open to
everyone in the wider community. This was important as the young people felt that communities
having shared ownership of public spaces would encourage social mixing and help resolve
conflicts. Providing spaces that are safe to use and well lit was also a key factor that the young
people wanted incorporated into the plans for the Olympic Park. This is especially important as the
fear of crime was also an issue for the young people (Legacy Youth Panel, 2009).
Accessibility was also a theme that the young people focused on by expressing the need for public
spaces that are inclusive to all types of people. A comparison was made with the Canary Wharf
development, which the young people felt excluded from due to the predominant business and
office land uses. It was therefore stressed that the Olympic Park should, in contrast, have a mix of
uses open to everyone (Legacy Youth Panel, 2009).
The panel further emphasised all of these themes when they produced their own manifesto in 2010,
detailing their vision for the Olympic Park and their local communities (Fundamental Architectural
Inclusion, 2010)(Figure 3).

32
Figure 3: Legacy Youth Panel’s Manifesto (Source: Fundamental Architectural Inclusion, 2010)

33
6.5 The Legacy Youth Panel: Successes and Achievements
Soon after the panel’s creation, the young people met with master planners from AECOM where
they were consulted on the initial plans and designs for the Olympic Park. Consultation meetings
with planners was one the main participatory processes the young people were engaged in.
Consultation can be a useful tool to inform people about plans for their area, but is not often
regarded as a fully empowering form of participation. However, in this particular case the young
people were consulted during the very early stages of the plan making process. By consulting the
young people during the initial stages of the planning process, it allowed them to feel that their
contribution would make a difference. One panel member was of the view that a lot of what the
young people contributed during the consultation stage was reflected in the final plans. This
approach is in contrast to most consultation practice, where the public are usually only consulted
once a plan is nearly or completely finalised.
During the consultation period, the young people showed great enthusiasm. When presented with
plans and designs, they gave their honest opinion, even criticising the plans. This came as a surprise
to some of the planners who did not expect the young people to be so enthusiastic and forthright.
One particular incident that Nick Edwards (co-founder of Fundamental) recalls during a
consultation was when the young people were shown designs for a development of 12,000-14,000
new homes. The vision of a canal-side mixed-use development was described to the young people
alongside CGI images. However, they were very vocal in their opposition as they felt that the
images of ‘white people drinking beer at a canal-side cafe’ did not reflect them as a majority black
and ethnic minority group.
The Legacy Youth Panel consulting directly with the planners is a major achievement, considering
that a lot of planners and developers use private engagement companies to consult the public on
their behalf. The young people were also involved in this form of consultation with a company
called Soundings, that organises pop-up events with the young people, talking them through plan
proposals.

34
During the panel’s consultation with Soundings, plans were broken down thematically and the
young people were then able to comment in relation to these themes such as character of space or
accessibility. This method of breaking down plans, allowed the young people to understand the
various different elements that go into a plan. They were also able to pin-point certain aspects that
they may not have easily seen within one whole plan. Furthermore, one panel member
communicated that they felt this approach allowed them to better appreciate the input they had
made.
The Legacy Youth Panel were also engaged in a number of other ways. For example, small groups
of young people from the panel had the opportunity to sit on panels alongside professional planners
and architects. Their positions on these panels allowed for them to articulate their opinion on plans
and have a say on whether a design should be approved. One design that the young people were
particularly engaged with was for the Timber Lodge Cafe on the north side of the Olympic Park. In
fact, the decision to have the cafe on the site was inspired by the young people’s desire to
incorporate a community centre in the Park.
Fundamental Architectural Inclusion is very much a multi-disciplinary organisation, which is
reflected in the work of the Legacy Youth Panel where various other techniques were used to
engage the young people. For example, the panel took an active role in organising and hosting three
successful events targeted at youth, and recorded a soundscape that accompanied a fly-through of
the Olympic development proposals. This multi-disciplinary approach is one of the main reasons
behind the success of the Legacy Youth Panel, and highlights the importance of using creative and
diverse techniques in order to engage with young people.
6.6 The Legacy Youth Panel: Challenges and Barriers to Young People’s Participation
Engaging young people in participation can present many challenges, of which some of these have
already been discussed in this Paper. However, within the context of the Legacy Youth Panel, there
were still some challenges that posed as a hinderance to the participation of young people.
Meeting with the master planners of the Olympic Park was certainly one of the Legacy Youth
Panel’s main achievements. However, the eagerness of the young people to be involved in the
planning process was not always met with enthusiasm from the planners. During an interview with

35
Nick Edwards, when asked about the challenges with engaging young people in planning, he
suggested that the planners often lacked enthusiasm and appeared not to see the young people as
legitimate stakeholders:
I think they [master planners] just thought they’d buy them coke and pizza, have a chat with
them. Nobody would write things down, even though it was meant to be the biggest
benchmark of community consultation in Britain. They [the young people] weren’t really
seen as stakeholders, even by the people who commissioned us to do the work.
There was very much a sense from Fundamental and the young panel members that the planners
were not expecting their time spent with them to be purposeful and that they were amazed at the
level of interest the young people actually had. Upon the realisation that some planners appeared
not to be fully committed, the Fundamental team took on the role of researchers. In this, they
recorded everything the young people said regarding the plans and used this information to assist
the young people in making their official response to the planning application.
Communication barriers between professionals or adults and young people has already been
discussed as a challenge in engaging young people. The legacy youth panel also experienced this
challenge during their meetings with the Olympic Park’s master planners. Nick Edwards recalls:
…they [master planners] were describing these five new neighbourhoods with 12 to 14000
new homes, you might go out from a leisure area and then you can walk across this beautiful
landscape park to your flat in Hackney Wick. And the young people would be going; ‘My
God! You don’t wanna be going there, you don’t want to do that, you can get jacked!’. Then
the planners were going, ‘What do you mean by jacked? What is this word?’
Although a minor communication barrier, this example shows that planners can misinterpret views
from the community, especially when working with a group they would not normally have much
contact with, such as young people. This may also point towards a soft skills gap in the planning
profession, as very few planners are trained on how to interact with and engage effectively with
younger people. Furthermore, going beyond skills and training, examples like this suggests that
planners may simply be out of touch with the younger population.
Challenges such as this were mostly overcome, as Fundamental’s role as a facilitator of engagement
meant that they ensured that there was a clear and constant line of communication between the
young people and the planners. Fundamental’s team worked to ensure that the young people’s views

36
were expressed clearly to the planners. The planners were also sensitive to this issue and made a
concerted effort to explain often complex planning and design terms in a way the young people
could understand. For example, one young person noted;
…they [master planners] told us a lot of the terms that they use in planning and they use in
development, so that we can relate to it more…they broke it down to an extent…Generally,
in planning processes they use a lot of jargon, they use a lot of acronyms, so you can’t really
get to understand it. But this was a very focussed project where they were thinking, actually
these people need to understand [in order] to help us.
The Legacy Youth Panel was established soon after London won it’s Olympic bid, therefore any
plans for the Olympic Park were still in the early stages and construction of the site had barely
begun. During the time in which the planners held consultations with the young people, the site for
the Olympic Park was vacant and bordered off. This presented a challenge when engaging with the
young people as the plans and designs they were presented with often seemed intangible as the
young people found it difficult to imagine a development in an area they had no access to.
One panel member also thought that the inaccessibility of the Olympic Park site could be the reason
why some young people have a lack of interest in being involved in the development of the site;
So if we’re talking in the context of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, no-one would come
here anyway, so they wouldn’t think it affected them. The people who normally go to
planning meetings and want to get involved are normally negative towards what’s
happening…we are thinking about our really close-knit community and not further afield,
which is what the Park really is.
6.7 The Legacy Youth Panel: Making a Positive Impact on Young People
The work of the Legacy Youth Panel can also be seen to have had doubled as a social bridging
exercise. All of the panel members were selected from the five Olympic host boroughs. These are
areas which have some of the highest levels of deprivation in the UK and the majority of the young
people on the panel were also from deprived backgrounds.
Fundamental’s work with the Legacy Youth Panel helped to introduce young people from deprived
backgrounds to new parts of the city, many of whom may never had visited these places before. The
young people were also given the opportunity to meet professional planners, architects and other

37
high profile professionals such as Boris Johnson, and were also given the opportunity to discuss the
Legacy Youth Panel and their perspectives on the Olympic developments.
When asked about how being a part of the Legacy Youth Panel has impacted them, one young
person said;
I definitely, feel that I’ve grown, we didn’t just talk to no-one within the LLDC, we met the
heads of LLDC and really high-up people, we’ve met Boris [Johnson]. We’ve met some
really high profile people, and in doing that, you have to have confidence to approach them,
to talk to them about what you’re doing. It’s given me a lot of confidence, we do
presentations to them about what we do, so doing presentations has given me confidence.
Communication too, …confidence to talk to strangers, random people about what we know
and what we’re doing.
Through being on the Legacy Youth Panel, many young people felt as though they had provided
some sort of input into the development of the Olympic Park, which therefore led to them having a
greater sense of ownership of the development.
Similar to that of the Architecture Crew, one of the main aims of the Legacy Youth Panel is to
engage young people in their built environment and encourage them to be involved in participatory
processes. As a result of being on the panel, young people learned more about the various elements
that contribute to the planning process, and were able to become more aware of their communities,
particularly in a time when it was undergoing major changes.
Furthermore, one panel member explained that the Legacy Youth Panel helped them feel well
informed during the time of the Olympic developments. And is also now more knowledgeable about
the future of the Olympic Park following the Games;
And I can see that it [Olympic Park] has a future now, because I can see the developments.
For everyone else walking around, it’s just hoarding and they don’t know what it is. But I’m
like; ‘that’s gonna be a new university, that’s gonna be a new cultural centre, that’s gonna be
housing, and this place is gonna be amazing for years to come.
6.8 The Legacy Youth Voice: The Future of Young People’s Participation
In 2013, the LLDC commissioned a company called Kaizen Partnership to take over the Legacy
Youth Panel. The panel, now called Legacy Youth Voice is still running almost four years after the

38
London 2012 Olympics. The group has continued to grow and has been able to reach more young
people by recruiting more members each year (they are currently at over 90 members) which extend
across all five of the Olympic host boroughs.
The fact that the work of the Legacy Youth Panel has been able to continue through the creation of
Legacy Youth Voice, highlights that more and more young people are not only interested in the
temporary Olympic Games event, but also in being involved in the ongoing future developments of
their communities. With its membership increasing each year, Legacy Youth Voice suggests that a
legacy of youth participation has been created.
Legacy Youth Voice have also expanded and now reaches a wider age range of young people. In
2014, Legacy Youth Voice created a sub-group called the Legacy Youth Board. This smaller group
provides an opportunity for older members of the group to continue the work they started as part of
the Legacy Youth Voice. As many of the young people grow older, the Legacy Youth Board
provides a way for them to stay connected to other young people and with the planning process.
Furthermore, the older members (or alumni), typically have more experience and therefore meet to
discuss higher profile plans. Architects and planners often consult with the Legacy Youth Board, as
they are a smaller group. Information gathered from their consultation is then relayed back to all of
the members.
Along with a change of name, Legacy Youth Voice has also changed its focus. Previous facilitators,
Fundamental focused very much on the Olympic legacy planning and preparing the young people
for the London Olympics. However, upon the completion of the London Olympics, the LLDC were
presented with an opportunity to engage young people in a different way and commissioned Kaizen
Partnership to achieve this.
The Legacy Youth Voice are still actively involved with consultations regarding the ongoing plans
for the Olympic Park, but have also picked up a second mandate geared towards social action.
Legacy Youth Voice provides the young people with a platform to address social issues in a
practical manner. This additional mandate, also responds more effectively to the needs of the young
people, who had already expressed in their planning application response and manifesto, their desire
for safe places free from the fear of crime and social tensions.

39
6.9 The Olympics and Young People: An Inspired Generation?
The 2012 London Olympics was meant to inspire a generation, some aspects of these include; to
encourage young people to participate in sport, engage in social action and volunteer in their
community. Although there are doubts as to what extent this has been achieved (or not achieved at
all), groups such as the Legacy Youth Panel/Voice demonstrate young people’s increasing
awareness of and interest in Olympic related developments.
One panel member was especially inspired and who’s introduction to the planning profession from
their time on the Legacy Youth Panel has led to them studying a planning degree and completing an
internship with a community engagement consultancy:
I’ve definitely progressed since I’ve been there (Legacy Youth Panel), so when I started off I
didn’t know anything about planning, I wasn’t interested in planning at all. And this is how I
got into planning actually …I would say that as a result of being a part of this consultation
process I can see that there is a way that you do planning that involves the people that are
going to be affected, a way that we could really shape where we live. And I think this has
made me want to do planning more than if I was just told it in a careers advice centre or
something like that. You are getting to see the potential of planning.
Although an isolated example, this mirrors the reality that more young East Londoners are engaged
with the built environment and want to have their say in the future development of the Olympic
Park.
More importantly, by being given an opportunity to influence the plans and designs for the Olympic
Park, young people have a greater sense of pride and ownership over a previously underdeveloped
part of their local area. One Legacy Youth Panel member summarised their views on this, which
also reflects the views of many other young people on the panel;
I’m getting to enjoy the Park itself as part of the legacy. I can come here with my friends and
have a drink here in the cafe or I could just sit out in the park. I get to go into Olympic
venues and use high-quality sport facilities. I feel pride in my area now… and now when I
say I’m from East London I don’t have to feel ashamed of it. Because now it’s this new and
vibrant cool area to be in, and I think thats a massive legacy for me.

40
Chapter Seven: Conclusion
7.1 Discussion
The aim of this research was to examine the role of young people in the planning and design
process for the Olympic Park. This aim has mainly been achieved through conducting primary
research, in the form of an interview with an active member of the Legacy Youth Panel/Voice, who
shared their experience of being a part of the groups.
As only one young person was interviewed, this creates some limitations as it is possible that the
views of one person is not representative of a substantial part of the panel or even the wider East
London young population. However, this young person did play a particularly active role within the
Legacy Youth Panel and was involved in the majority of the consultations on the Olympic Park
plans, so is therefore in a position to provide a useful insight due to their varied experience.
In order to further examine the role of young people in the planning and design process for the
Olympic Park, this Paper also sought to gain an insight into how planners engaged with young
people. However this objective was not met, as it became apparent over the course of the research
that planners were not the main facilitators of young people’s participation. Companies such as
Fundamental Architectural Inclusion and Kaizen Partnership were both commissioned by the LLDC
to engage young people in the Olympic developments rather than the planners themselves.
Therefore, it was more suitable to communicate with these companies as they played a much more
significant role in facilitating young people’s participation than the planners did. Essentially, the
companies would work with the young people, oversee the consultation and ensure that their views
were communicated clearly to the planners.
It was presumed that the role taken on by the engagement companies would have been fulfilled by
planners. However this is not an isolated situation, as it is very common for planners and developers
to hire specialist companies to organise community consultation events on their behalf. This
highlights an area of planning that lacks the competency to effectively engage with the public, and
particularly young people.

41
This issue does answer one of the research questions around how effective the planning process is
in engaging young people. It was expressed during the interview with the young panel member that
they felt the planners took on board the ideas brought forward by the young people during the
consultations in the final plans for the Olympic Park, which demonstrates the planners capabilities
to incorporate the young people’s views into the plans. However, this was to a considerable extent
made possible through the help of Fundamental, and raises the questions as to whether the planning
process is truly competent in engaging with young people.
Other research questions centred on how young people participated in the planning and design
process for the Olympic Park and the extent to which their participation influenced the plans for the
Park were answered through the use of the Architecture Crew and Legacy Youth Panel case studies.
The young people of the Architecture Crew did not influence the plans or designs for the Olympic
Park, however they were in a better position than the Legacy Youth Panel to do so as they had
practical professional experience by competing in the Olympic Aquatics Centre Architectural
Design Competition. In contrast, young people’s participation in The Legacy Youth Panel was
centred more on consultation with planners.
It was interesting to observe that the Architecture Crew’s more direct approach did not create as
much influence as the Legacy Youth Panel’s consultations. This disproves Sherry Arnstein’s (1969)
theory of consultation being a sham, where citizen’s participation in consultation is treated as a
ritual. Although there were concerns that this could have been the case with the Legacy Youth
Panel, the young people still felt that their time consulting with planners was worthwhile.
7.2 Implications for Planning Practice and Policy, and Priorities for Future Research
This research focuses on the young people who did participate in some way in the planning and
design process for the Olympic Park. However, it is still possible that a lot of young people were
not given the same opportunities or were not interested enough to seek them out. It would therefore
be constructive to balance this research with further studies into the reasons for non-participation
from young people. This may be more difficult to achieve as non-participants would be harder to
locate, but it would be valuable to contrast the experiences of the young people who did participate
in the planning and design process with those that did not.

42
One question within this research that has potential to be explored further is how young people
continue to participate in planning following the Olympics. The Legacy Youth Voice has been
suggested as a starting point to address this research question.
Despite the acknowledgment of the importance of young people’s participation in planning, young
people are still very rarely represented in planning practice. There are many reasons for this and one
that has been explored in this research is the skills shortage within the planning profession to carry
out community engagement, especially with young people. One way this issue can be addressed is
to train planners on how to engage with a variety of sections in society and to be able to effectively
communicate and relate to young people.
Planning practice is often informed by planning policy, it is therefore in policy where the power lies
to bring about effective change. If more young people are to participate in planning and design
processes, the importance of this and the strategy to implement this must be emphasised within
local planning policies.

43
Bibliography
BBC London, (2014). Thames Gateway. [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/
content/articles/2007/02/07/thames_gateway_lower_lea_feature.shtml [Accessed 30 April 2016].
Cele, S and Van der Burgt, D. (2013) Participation, Consultation, Confusion: Professionals’
Understandings of Children’s Participation in Physical Planning. Children’s Geographies, 13(1), p.
14-29.
Department for Communities and Local Government, (2012). National Planning Policy
Framework. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf [Accessed 30 April 2016].
Department for Culture, Media and Sport, (2012). Inspiring a Generation: A Taking Part Report on
the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/
uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78316/Taking_Part_Olympic_Report.pdf [Accessed 3
May 2016].
Derr, V. (2015) Integrating Community Engagement and Children’s Voices into Design and
Planning Education. CoDesign international journal of cocreation in design and the arts,11(2), p.
119-133.
Driskell, D. (2002). Creating Better Cities with Children and Youth: a manual for participation.
United Kingdom: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation and Earthscan.
Ferguson, N and Trippel, A. (2010) Engaging Urban Youth Through Technology: The Youth
Neighbourhood Mapping Initiative. Journal of planning education and research, 30(1), p.52-65.
Fundamental Architectural Inclusion, (2009). The Architecture Crew: A Case Worth Studying.
[online] Available at: http://www.fundamental.uk.net/downloads/accase.pdf [Accessed 30 April
2016].

44
Fundamental Architectural Inclusion, (2005). Case Study: Aquatics Centre Architectural
Competition. [online] Available at: http://www.fundamental.uk.net/downloads/Aquatics.pdf
[Accessed 30 April 2016].
Fundamental Architectural Inclusion, (2008). Case Study: Legacy Now Consultation, Young People
Masterplanning for the Olympic Legacy. [online] Available at: http://www.fundamental.uk.net/
downloads/FundCase_Legacy.pdf [Accessed 30 April 2016].
Fundamental Architectural Inclusion, (2014). Fundamental Architectural Inclusion: Home.
Available at: http://www.fundamental.uk.net/home.html [Accessed 30 April 2016].
Fundamental Architectural Inclusion, (2010) Legacy Youth Panel Manifesto. [online] Available at:
http://www.fundamental.uk.net/lnyp/manifesto.pdf [Accessed 3 May 2016].
Fundamental Architectural Inclusion, (2010). Legacy Youth Panel Summary. [online] Available at:
http://www.fundamental.uk.net/downloads/LNP_summary_web.pdf [Accessed 3 May 2016].
Fundamental Architectural Inclusion, (2008). Regeneration Awareness Programme for Schools:
Bridging the Gap. [online] Available at: http://www.fundamental.uk.net/downloads/bgcase.pdf
Greater London Authority, (2015). The London Plan: The Spatial Development Strategy for London
Consolidated with Alterations Since 2011. [online] Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/
default/files/gla_migrate_files_destination/London%20Plan%20March%202015%20(FALP).pdf
Greater London Authority, (2012). Olympic Legacy Supplementary Planning Guidance. [online]
Available at: http://queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk/~/media/lldc/local%20plan/local%20plan
%20examination%20documents/regional%20planning%20policy%20documents/
rp5%20%20olympic%20legacy%20supplementary%20planning%20guidance
%202012%20%20%20combined.pdf [Accessed 30 April 2016].

45
Greenwich Council. et.al., (2009). Strategic Regeneration Framework. [online] Available at: http://
www.gamesmonitor.org.uk/files/strategic-regeneration-framework-report.pdf [Accessed 30 April
2016].
Growth Boroughs Unit, (2010a). About the Growth Boroughs. [online] Available at: http://
www.growthboroughs.com/history/ [Accessed 30 April 2016].
Growth Boroughs Unit, (2010b). Map of London’s Growth Boroughs [Online Image]. Available
from: http://www.growthboroughs.com/ [Accessed 30 April 2016].
Jupp, E. (2007) Participation, local knowledge and empowerment: researching public space with
young people. Environment and Planning, 39(12), p.2832-2844.
Laughlin, D and Johnson, L . (2011) Defining and Exploring Public Space: perspectives of young
people from Regent Park, Toronto. Children’s geographies, 9(3-4), p.439-456.
Legacy Youth Panel (2009) Official Response to Output C: March 2009. London, United Kingdom:
Fundamental Architectural Inclusion, p.1-11.
London Borough of Hackney, (2010). Core Strategy: Hackney’s strategic planning policies for
2010-2025. [online] Available at: http://www.hackney.gov.uk/media/6826/Hackney-core-strategy-
development-plan-document-December-2010-/pdf/Adopted-LDF-Core-Strategy-final-
incchaptimagescov-Dec2010-low-res [Accessed 3 May 2016].
London Borough of Newham, (2012). Newham 2027: Newham’s Local Plan - The Core Strategy.
[online]. Available at: https://www.newham.gov.uk/Documents/Environment%20and%20planning/
CoreStrategy2004-13.pdf [Accessed 30 April 2016]
London Borough of Tower Hamlets, (2009). Core Strategy: Development Plan Document. [online]
Available at: http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/Documents/Planning-and-building-control/Strategic-
Planning/Local-Plan/Core-Strategy-and-MDD/Core-Strategy-low-resolution.pdf [Accessed 30 April
2016]

46
London Borough of Waltham Forest, (2012). Waltham Forest Local Plan: Core Strategy. [online]
Available at: https://branding.walthamforest.gov.uk/Documents/adopted-core-strategy.pdf
London Legacy Development Corporation, (2012). Community Engagement Policy. [online]
Available at: http://queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk/~/media/lldc/policies/
119753959lldccommunityandengagementpolicynov2012.pdf [Accessed 30 April 2016].
Matthews, H. et.al. (1999) Young people’s participation and representation in society. Geoforum,
30(2), p.135-144.
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, (1999). Convention on the
Rights of the Child. [online] Available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/
CRC.aspx [Accessed 30 April 2016].
Olympic Delivery Authority, (2012). Learning Legacy: Lessons Learned from the London 2012
Games Construction Project. [online] Available at: http://learninglegacy.independent.gov.uk/
documents/pdfs/equality-inclusion-employment-and-skills/426301-ll-public-partic-comm-engage-
aw.pdf [Accessed 30 April 2016].
Passon, C. et.al. (2008) Implications of Adolescents’ Perceptions and Values for Planning and
Design. Journal of planning education and research, 28(1), p.73-85.
Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, (2016). Young People. [online] Available at: http://
queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk/our-story/get-involved/education-and-young-people/young-
people [Accessed 3 May 2016].
Royal Greenwich (2014) Royal Greenwich Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies. London,
United Kingdom: Royal Greenwich.
Arnstein, S. (1969) A Ladder of Citizen Participation. In: LeGates, R and Stout, F. The City Reader.
Fifth Edition. USA and Canada: Routledge, p. 238-250.

47
Sherry Arnstein (1969) Eight Rungs on the Ladder of Citizen Participation [Online Image].
Available from: http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherry-arnstein/ladder-of-citizen-participation.html
The Thames Gateway Transport Partnership, (Year Unknown). What we do. [online] Available at:
http://www.thames-gateway.org.uk/about/what-we-do/index.html [Accessed 30 April 2016].
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, (Year Unknown). What do we
mean “youth”. [online] Available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/
themes/youth/youth-definition/#topPage [Accessed 30 April 2016].

48
References
BBC London, (2014). Thames Gateway. [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/
content/articles/2007/02/07/thames_gateway_lower_lea_feature.shtml [Accessed 30 April 2016].
Cele, S and Van der Burgt, D. (2013) Participation, Consultation, Confusion: Professionals’
Understandings of Children’s Participation in Physical Planning. Children’s Geographies, 13(1), p.
14-29.
Department for Communities and Local Government, (2012). National Planning Policy
Framework. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf [Accessed 30 April 2016].
Derr, V. (2015) Integrating Community Engagement and Children’s Voices into Design and
Planning Education. CoDesign international journal of cocreation in design and the arts,11(2), p.
119-133.
Driskell, D. (2002). Creating Better Cities with Children and Youth: a manual for participation.
United Kingdom: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation and Earthscan.
Ferguson, N and Trippel, A. (2010) Engaging Urban Youth Through Technology: The Youth
Neighbourhood Mapping Initiative. Journal of planning education and research, 30(1), p.52-65.
Fundamental Architectural Inclusion, (2009). The Architecture Crew: A Case Worth Studying.
[online] Available at: http://www.fundamental.uk.net/downloads/accase.pdf [Accessed 30 April
2016].
Fundamental Architectural Inclusion, (2005). Case Study: Aquatics Centre Architectural
Competition. [online] Available at: http://www.fundamental.uk.net/downloads/Aquatics.pdf
Fundamental Architectural Inclusion, (2010) Legacy Youth Panel Manifesto. [online] Available at:
http://www.fundamental.uk.net/lnyp/manifesto.pdf [Accessed 3 May 2016].

49
Greater London Authority, (2015). The London Plan: The Spatial Development Strategy for London
Consolidated with Alterations Since 2011. [online] Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/
default/files/gla_migrate_files_destination/London%20Plan%20March%202015%20(FALP).pdf
Greenwich Council. et.al., (2009). Strategic Regeneration Framework. [online] Available at: http://
www.gamesmonitor.org.uk/files/strategic-regeneration-framework-report.pdf [Accessed 30 April
2016].
Growth Boroughs Unit, (2010a). About the Growth Boroughs. [online] Available at: http://
www.growthboroughs.com/history/ [Accessed 30 April 2016].
Growth Boroughs Unit, (2010b). Map of London’s Growth Boroughs [Online Image]. Available
from: http://www.growthboroughs.com/ [Accessed 30 April 2016].
Jupp, E. (2007) Participation, local knowledge and empowerment: researching public space with
young people. Environment and Planning, 39(12), p.2832-2844.
Laughlin, D and Johnson, L . (2011) Defining and Exploring Public Space: perspectives of young
people from Regent Park, Toronto. Children’s geographies, 9(3-4), p.439-456.
Legacy Youth Panel (2009) Official Response to Output C: March 2009. London, United Kingdom:
Fundamental Architectural Inclusion, p.1-11.
London Borough of Newham, (2012). Newham 2027: Newham’s Local Plan - The Core Strategy.
[online]. Available at: https://www.newham.gov.uk/Documents/Environment%20and%20planning/
CoreStrategy2004-13.pdf [Accessed 30 April 2016]
London Borough of Tower Hamlets, (2009). Core Strategy: Development Plan Document. [online]
Available at: http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/Documents/Planning-and-building-control/Strategic-
Planning/Local-Plan/Core-Strategy-and-MDD/Core-Strategy-low-resolution.pdf [Accessed 30 April
2016]

50
London Legacy Development Corporation, (2012). Community Engagement Policy. [online]
Available at: http://queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk/~/media/lldc/policies/
119753959lldccommunityandengagementpolicynov2012.pdf [Accessed 30 April 2016].
Matthews, H. et.al. (1999) Young people’s participation and representation in society. Geoforum,
30(2), p.135-144.
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, (1999). Convention on the
Rights of the Child. [online] Available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/
CRC.aspx [Accessed 30 April 2016].
Olympic Delivery Authority, (2012). Learning Legacy: Lessons Learned from the London 2012
Games Construction Project. [online] Available at: http://learninglegacy.independent.gov.uk/
documents/pdfs/equality-inclusion-employment-and-skills/426301-ll-public-partic-comm-engage-
aw.pdf [Accessed 30 April 2016].
Passon, C. et.al. (2008) Implications of Adolescents’ Perceptions and Values for Planning and
Design. Journal of planning education and research, 28(1), p.73-85.
Arnstein, S. (1969) A Ladder of Citizen Participation. In: LeGates, R and Stout, F. The City Reader.
Fifth Edition. USA and Canada: Routledge, p. 238-250.
Sherry Arnstein (1969) Eight Rungs on the Ladder of Citizen Participation [Online Image].
Available from: http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherry-arnstein/ladder-of-citizen-participation.html
The Thames Gateway Transport Partnership, (Year Unknown). What we do. [online] Available at:
http://www.thames-gateway.org.uk/about/what-we-do/index.html [Accessed 30 April 2016].
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, (Year Unknown). What do we
mean “youth”. [online] Available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/
themes/youth/youth-definition/#topPage [Accessed 30 April 2016].

Fola Kalesanwo Dissertation

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (18)

Similaire à Fola Kalesanwo Dissertation

Similaire à Fola Kalesanwo Dissertation (20)

Fola Kalesanwo Dissertation