Selected adverts

Since the Localism Bill was introduced on 13th December 2010, there is set to be a radical increase in community involvement as part of the coalition's "Big Society".

Some argue that globalisation and modernisation are destroying the “community” (Short and Kim, 1999); therefore we must endeavour to amalgamate communities together. Involving them in the planning system may be a solution to this problem. However, as seen in the previous section, it is not a simple process and may be detrimental to the delivery of a speedy, flexible and responsive planning system, which the Barker Report (2006) aimed to achieve. Also, public participation means different things to different people, and difficult though it may be, it is essential to establish which view of participation is being adopted.
 
In terms of policy practice, public participation must not be over-simplified. The planning system is complex and we must not limit opportunities for fear of them not understanding. Organisations such as Planning Aid or other advisory boards can improve the dissemination of information. However, certain issues may be too complex for the most intellectual members of the community and these must be dealt with care and using different methods, which improve transparency and accessibility as much as possible.

For participation to be beneficial in terms of policy practice, it needs to be started early (front-loading) and needs to involve both bottom up and top down processes, which must meet somewhere in the middle (BNE TV Question Time, 2010). Not only is it beneficial to change the bottom up processes, but local governments and councils may need changing, to make the system more synchronised. The level of community involvement must be appropriate to the type and length of the planning. For example, as seen from the West Itchen Neighbourhoods Programme, community involvement in larger developments can cause severe problems.

Involvement in the planning system needs to be a continuous process, so there is no point involving the public at the beginning and then ignoring them thereafter. It should be an inclusive process that involves the largest pool possible from society and the voiceless members need to be found and included. Involvement should be embedded into the psyche of society, similar to other countries in Europe and not be seen as a burden. Each stage of the planning process should be fed back to the people involved both orally and in a summary report and there should be clear formal stages.

From the outset, we must outline what we are trying to achieve from both the community involvement and the planning, as outputs are equally as important as inputs. This may involve a large information base, which provides adequate background for the public to understand their involvement and the effect of their involvement.

Finally, there needs to be more creativity in engagement, similar to Planning for Real, where people can interact with the components of the planning system. The Brecon Beacon National Park (BBNP) was a successful example of this.

Also more experimenting needs to occur and the internet may play a larger role in including the ‘voiceless’. We must overcome the difficulty of reaching all of the different groups within a community. There needs to be more honesty in the planning system, which makes the public feel important and in control of the places in which they live and work. The new Conservative-Lib Dem coalition may have the answers to these problems, but it is too early to say at present.

Lancaster, Northwest England

As planning shapes where people live and work, it should be a democratic event. The Planning Green Paper (2001) highlighted the need for public involvement in plan making. This was particularly reinforced by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Council’s now have to include a Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) in their Local Development Framework (LDF).

For example, Lancaster City Council’s SCI was adopted in June 2006 and was inspected thoroughly before it was put into force. It focuses on the need to work towards sustainable development, whilst striving for equity, accessibility, participation and inclusivity.

The population of Lancaster is very diverse, including; a high proportion of students; high retired population in Bare, Slyne, Kellet and Silverdale; fewer people of non-white ethnic origin compared to national averages; particularly high numbers of people with degrees and a higher than average number of people who are Christians (Lancaster SCI 2006). Therefore the population is very varied and there are consequently various target groups in terms of encouraging community involvement:-

1) People living in areas of multiple deprivation and regeneration areas
2) People living in areas where major change is likely (e.g. around Lancaster City Centre)
3) People with disabilities and limiting long term illnesses
4) Rural communities

Planning Aid (PA) is a public service that aims to increase involvement of disadvantaged groups and citizens in the planning system. Planning Aid provides free, independent and professional town planning advice and support to communities and individuals who cannot afford to pay planning consultant fees. It complements the work of local planning authorities, but is wholly independent of them. Planning Aid can help people to:
• Understand and use the planning system
• Participate in preparing plans
• Prepare their own plans for the future of their community
• Comment on planning applications
• Apply for planning permission or appeal against refusal of permission
• Represent themselves at public inquiries

Whilst PA can inform disadvantaged people, there are different methods that can be used to engage all individuals and communities in the plan making process, which in turn can influence recommendations, such as: -

• Site notices
• By appointment
• Online information
• Leaflets
• Exhibitions
• Surveys
• Stakeholder meetings
• Public inquiries/meetings
• Focus Groups/Citizen Panels
• Panels and Forums
• Planning for Real
• Area forums

Site notices are important to keep the public informed. They provide contact information that the public can use to find out further information and make complaints. However it may be argued that the site may not be accessible to all members of the public, who may be directly or indirectly affected by the development.

By appointment is where officers visit neighbours and try to inform them of the development plans. However it may be said that officers lack the expertise and ability to communicate effectively with the public.

Leaflets and exhibitions are popular and easy to understand, but can be staff intensive and expensive. Leaflets can have a potentially erratic distribution, whilst exhibitions are often self-selecting in terms of participants. Direct neighbour notification by letter is often the most favoured approach. The council may also attempt to involve the public by press notices of applications, but this is arguably not an all encompassing approach.

Surveys show quantifiable and analysable results and can reach people that do not normally respond, but they are difficult to use for dealing with complex and interrelated issued with large numbers of choices and options.

Stakeholder and public meetings make dialogue possible and help to break down barriers between different parties. Stakeholder meetings may be selective in who to meet and there is need for accurate recording. Often suspicion arrives. At public meetings there is a risk of confrontation, domination by a few and the participants are self-selecting. An example of a major public inquiry is the Lancaster Canal Corridor Call-in Inquiry, which has been “called in” by the Secretary of State due to the large number of listed buildings and conservation areas that are involved in the proposal. However, the developer, Centros did not turn up at the inquiry (attendants included Lancaster City Council, English Heritage, SAVE Britain’s Heritage, It’s Our City local residents group and Allied Lancaster ltd who own Marketgate shopping centre). This shows that public inquiries do not always go according to plan. However, the developers plans have been thwarted by this inquiry.

Focus groups/citizen panels have the ability to reach people who don’t normally respond, but they are expensive and there is major commitment for participants. Focus groups can be used when policy is complex and issues are controversial. Panels and forums bring specialist expertise but can be very expensive. Area Forums allow dialogue and discussion, but domination by certain participants can occur as well as self-selecting participants. Planning for real allows inclusivity, dialogue and discussion, but can be expensive, impractical and delivery of results is not guaranteed.

Further barriers to public involvement are that planning does not always address problems as communities see them; there is a lack of awareness of available opportunities; inaccessibility of documents; complex procedures and practices; lack of expertise; distrust of government; consultation fatigue; a belief that views will not be taken into account and the fact that the public only get involved in site-specific development that affect them.

It has often been said that removing the public involvement would streamline the plan-making process and speed up developments but for sustainable development to be achieved we must ensure that the social aspect of it does not come under threat. The government should re-evaluate its “front-loading” approach and strive for a deliberative democracy instead of a representative democracy.

References

Terms of Use