An Illusion of Democracy: Transforming the UK Planning System from a Reactive to Proactive Model
More than half of the UK public- 56%- have never engaged with the UK planning system. Perhaps worse, when asked if they wanted to be more involved, 46% of respondents showed apathy: they wanted to be neither more nor less involved[1].
Public disillusion with the UK planning system is established and long-standing. Most troublingly, it is also well-known: when did the proposition of making a system- supposedly acting in the public’s good- more democratic, become a radical practice?
The UK planning system is not-fit-for-purpose.
Planning Collective, as a radical practice model, interrogated the role of public consultation in the current UK planning system, as a device- or illusion- for democracy.
Ask any architect about public consultation and they will list you anecdotes about consultations gone wrong: stories of angry shouting matches, or perhaps even worst- a snooze-fest. Seen at best, as a tick-box exercise, at worst a necessary evil; the public consultation is perceived as a risk, rather than recognised for its potential value in ensuring development that is sustainable and just.
It is a performance, that works for no-one.
But to what extent are the caricatures in the culture of NIMBY-ism (Not-in-My-Back-Yard): the ‘tenant representative, meeting Junkie, paranoid android, the anti-privatisation protestor, preservationist leaseholder’[2]- a result of an infrastructure that is exclusionary, and a consultation procedure seen as arcane and inaccessible by the public. ‘We participate in the games and protocols of planners and developers without seeing the rules’[3].
Planning Collective proposed then the introduction of an intermediate advisory body and community assembly, in an ambition to address a current planning system that is not knowledge-just, transparent, collective, sustainable, and equitable. It set the objective- how can public consultation be democratised?
In this, it validates planning, and the engagement of the community within it, as integral components in creating a built environment that is climate, social and economic just, in the face of crisis of our 21st century urban environments.
This essay and body of research criticises the extent in which reform to the interface of Public Consultations can succeed without supplementary reform to the process and timeline of the planning system it exists within: from reactive to proactive.
It hypothesises, what would a genuinely plan-led system look like; and how can this rebalance the voice of the community and enable a democratic planning system, and by proxy, built environment?
What then, does it mean ‘to plan’ in the UK planning system?
The current planning system in the UK remains largely unchanged since its conception under the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947. Its ambition is inherently good: to democratise the use of land; and was originally devised as a reaction two-fold: as a framework in which to organise, commission and manage the reconstruction of Towns and Cities Post-War; and as a method in which to control and regulate the type and quality of land development.
It is a largely devolved exercise; undertaken by Local Planning Authorities, under the guidance of the principles set out under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), at a national scale.
This framework, NPPF, created under the 2011 Localism Act, describes the role of planning as a device from which to deliver sustainable development. Provocatively for our Radical Practice Studio, it defines sustainable development as achieved through three mutually dependent parameters: Economic, Social, and Environmental[4]; a definition that this essay will refer to throughout.
It is from this framework, that Local Plans are devised. Using the National Planning Policy Framework’s 12 central principles as an anchor, Local Plans are planning documents produced by Local Authorities setting out the ambitions for development in the areas they perimeter, as a method of mediating developments, and later providing reference for the approval of planning applications.
Yet it remains, the most significant challenge in the current system is the void of a genuine and robust plan-led approach.
Principally, this is following how, the extent in which the aforementioned devices for ‘planning’ could be described as robust is limited.
Criticism of both the NPPF and Local Plans is they are as extensive as they are vague; a tool for bureaucracy rather than planning. They fail to conceive clear targets or specific strategies for delivery; becoming instead victim to the interpretation of planners and developers. In 2019, only 58% of Local Plans were NPPF-compliant[5].
Local Plans are slow: setting out 15-year local visions, they on average take 7 years to produce[6]- so when deviation from the plan can be permitted on the basis of a plan is out-of-date: they are redundant by the time the ink has dried.
The consequence of this is a system that is dominated by an agenda of ‘development control’; entangled in a cycle of plan-approving, rather than plan-generating. It is reactionary.
In this, Local Planning Authorities are oppressed in a time and resource exhaustive exercise of reviewing planning applications- individually and irrespective of scale. The result: a pattern of development in our built environment that is unpredictable and inconsistent; and fails to hold accountable developments to a sustainable agenda.
Compensated then through private enterprise, much of what it means to plan in the current system, and by proxy our built environment, is to the blueprint of developer’s masterplans… and their agendas.
The potential catastrophe of such a system is perhaps epitomised through the case study of the controversial regeneration of the Heygate Estate in Elephant and Castle. One of 23 sites under developer-led regenerations in the area, Southwark Council approved the Lend-Lease scheme in 2012, despite it only providing 74 of the 432 socially-rented housing units required[7]. The developer reasoned it would not be commercially viable- based on a 25% profit as ‘acceptable’- so instead Southwark Council spent three years and tax payers money, rebuking the displaced community’s appeals[8]- to result in a development that is certainly not socially just, or in its own definition, sustainable.
Proven then is the system is not-fit-for-purpose. The act of planning itself has become marginalised- dominated by the power of developers, enabled through the vehicle of planning authorities, and ultimately drowning the voice of the public.
Planning For the Future
It is at this point in may be interesting to recognise, and briefly place ourselves, in the context of the Planning For The Future White Paper that the UK Government published (for consultation) in August 2020.
In what Boris Johnson in his Forward proclaims to be a ‘radical reform unlike anything we have seen since the Second World War’[9] for the planning system, it too is based on a criticism of the current system that is too reactive, and not plan-led.
With an ambition to make the system more ‘engaging equitable and efficient’, it proposes reform of the Local Plan: asking for the use of code or design guides that outline potential development ‘more clear, visual and rooted in local preference’, in a system that would make the local plan ‘more binding in making decision about development[10]’.
These are similar to the propositions outlined by this research in the next chapter.
How then can a planning system be proactive?
This proposal initially grounded itself using the planning system found in Sweden, as a significant precedent. Here, their equivalent of a Local Plan, the ‘Oversiktsplaner’ becomes a framework from which Detail Plans- ‘Detaljplaner’- of identified sites are developed[11]. These detail plans outline the municipality’s objective for land use, as well as set parameters that regulate building characteristics such height, and material. Broadly, these plans are also similar to Design Coding systems found in other examples such as Germany, the Netherlands, or USA.
In the UK, a comparable body of work is undertaken at RIBA Stage 0–1, by the Client Team. Here, ‘strategic definition’ (stage 0), and ‘Preparation and Briefing’ (stage 1) in their current forms, ultimately result in the decision of ‘client requirements’ and ‘project outcomes, sustainability and quality aspirations, and spatial requirements’[12].
What then if Stages 0 and 1 were consumed by the role of Local Planning Authority; in the curation for what a plan-led proactive system could look like.
‘Strategic Definition’ could be translated as identifying potential sites that suit the ambitions of the larger framework- a Local Plan- and ‘Preparation and Briefing’ would be a moment when the Local Planning Authority could confidently and clearly define the form, density and standards of development, that would (or would not) be acceptable.
In this scenario, it is from stage 2 and 3 that both Client and Design Team would become involved; developing the detail design of the project as they do now, before submitting planning application at the end of stage 3.
The immediate result of such a system is that it outlines acceptable parameters as a pre-requisite for planning- meaning patterns of urban development become predictable and sustainable- not in a way the supresses creativity or innovation, but rather can hold accountable a high standard of design, to ultimately succeed in development that is socially, economically and climate just.
One should not overestimate how this proposal differs from the current timeline and process. Often, consultation back-and-forth already occurs between planning authority and client pre-application. The benefit for developers however in this being the removal of bureaucracy and consultation, that is often costly in terms of projects programme, and removing the risk of a development being rejected.
Most provocatively however, it would radically transform what it means to plan, and be a planner in the current system.
Firstly, through the inauguration of a truly Public Planner. A basic impact, but not to be dismissed is the reinstatement of the integrity and trust surrounding the role of Local Authority Planner. The current ‘anything-but’ role, where the planner has consumed the role of mediator, administrator, firefighter or lawyer, is arguably the reasoning behind why only 7% of people say they trust planners (2% trust developers)[13], and the GLA reports how planners are the hardest public role to recruit[14].
Planning Authorities themselves would need to swell unrecognisably in terms of resource, money and time. In the example of Gothenburg Planning Authority- a district equivalent to the size of Sheffield- it has a team of 97 planning professionals (including 54 Architects), that deliver Detailed Plans at a timescale of 30–40 plans per year, individual plans taking 28 months to prepare[15].
In comparison, in the UK currently, Almost half of local planning authorities have no dedicated in-house design capacity at all. More urgently, Three-quarters of authorities are lacking capacity in the environmental, sustainability and zero carbon knowledge needed to meet the challenges of the climate emergency’[16].
But the principle impact of such as system, is that by placing power back into the hands of a municipal planning authority, there is the scope, by proxy, to empower the role of the public in the planning system.
So then, what is the role of the community in a proactive planning system?
To place ourselves again, momentarily, in the Planning White Paper, it to- like this essay- repeatedly proclaims the need for ‘genuine community engagement rather than meaningless consultation’[17]; yet offers little insight into how this would manifest.
Instead, and arguably contradictorily, its vision for community engagement (outlined in a short chapter lasting one paragraph), is through championing the role of the Neighbourhood Plan: a flagship policy under the 2011 Localism Act.
Similar to the output of Local Plans, it is a supplementary planning document outlining aspirations and ambitions for the local area, however in this instance curated by community groups, or ‘the Neighbourhood’.
Yet the reliance on the Neighbourhood Plan for community engagement, is where any ambition for a new proactive system again falls short. The extent in which this exercise can be described as an effective expression of democracy is limited; and in some ways, in fact acts as a barrier.
To follow our criticisms of the Public Consultation process, Neighbourhood Plans too follow the pattern in planning that places the onus on the community to self-sponsor resource, time and education. In this way then, they inevitably finds a similar trend of those who participate: ‘areas of below average affluence are less likely to enter into the neighbourhood planning process’, with plans concentrated in rural areas (67%), and the South of England (75%)[18].
Their success as a planning strategy is perhaps also exaggerated. As of 2019, eight years after the policy was introduced, 2500 communities had taken up the opportunity to formulate a plan- but only 750 (30%) had completed one[19]. Written separately from Local Plans, 55% of Neighbourhood Plans actually precede the publication of area’s Local Plans[20]: meaning they only serve to add further ambiguity and complexity in interpreting the planning system. Again vague in targets and little strategy for delivery; a ‘Neighbourhood Plan (cannot) be used to refuse a suitable application’[21], as a Local Community found in Sussex found, when following appeal, Central Government (Local Government Secretary) approved the build of 50 houses in contradiction to their Neighbourhood Plan.
In this way then, the ambition of this essay was to discuss how, in a system that is truly plan-led, there is scope for the role of public consultation to become a powerful tool of democratic expression.
In the proposed reform to the planning system outlined, one envisions that it is during the development of detail plans by the Local Planning Authority, that engagement of the public becomes most effective and important.
Fundamentally, because it would transform the public’s interest and influence in the system: enabling the ‘Community as planner’.
Their interest; because the question posed has changed. Rather than asking for their opinion on a development that appears to have already been decided- the public is asked what do they envision for their community and built environment?
Their influence; because in a system that is more self-determined and robust in guaranteeing sustainable development- the opinion of the community is more likely to be actioned and delivered. Genuine democracy diminishes disillusionment.
From this stage, we can then review: proactive planning requires proactive consultation. Or we can ask: proactive planning needs proactive education.
We can take precedent from exemplary interfaces that instruct proactive engagement of the community such as CityScapes ‘Tinder for Planning’ or WeMadeThats Top Trump High Street Workshops. Or examples such as the Urban Studies Centre Network from the 1970’s, that aimed to address the knowledge gap- teaching the built environment to children and adults alike outside the confines of professional education or regulatory bodies- asking therefore why education too is a reactive system.
But it is here, most importantly, the interface models that we composed under Planning Collective, also becomes relevant. The framework in place to make the public consultations meaningful and valued, gives incentive to ensure it is also democratic: knowledge-just, transparent, sustainable, collective or equitable. And in time, genuine democracy diminishes disillusionment; and public participation makes for more a more sustainable built environment.
Hence to conclude, through reform to timeline and process of planning system that transforms the potential of the public consultation, this essay hypothesises scenarios where:
What then could be the value of ‘Community as Planner’ in achieving Carbon Net 0 targets by 2050? Considering how in April 2019, a YouGov poll placed the ‘Environment’ as the fourth greatest issue perceived by the public to be facing the UK, on par with the concerns about the Economy and Immigration: 63% of people agreed with the statement ‘We are facing a Climate Emergency’[22]. How can public engagement hold accountable a construction industry that is responsible for 10 % of the UK’s Carbon Emissions; a figure that rises to 45% when you consider the built environment sector as a whole[23].
Or, what is the potential of elevated non-professional and non-institutionalised voices in resolving the housing crisis? Since 2010, the popularity of Community Land Trusts (CLT) has grown exponentially; to date 257 groups exist and are in the process of delivering 16,000 affordable housing units[24]. How can their experience be used in forming design codes, to address the continued failure of successive governments and the Built Environment Sector to resolve the UK Housing Crisis- a housing system with a deficit of 1.2 million homes[25].
Interview
As part of my research into community engagement in the planning system, I interviewed Andrew Edwards. Andrew is part of a community group, Merton Citizens, that is currently looking at developing affordable housing in the London Borough of Merton, through forming a Community Land Trust (CLT). My interest in interviewing him was to explore it as an example of a community acting collectively, and transforming their role and position in the system in order to increase their influence. This is following how, in the CLT model, the community is arguably assuming the role of developer. Also interesting to note, is that before retiring he also worked for one of the largest property and private developers in the UK, LandSecurities. In this, I also wanted to know his perspective of community consultation from that perspective.
For interview, please refer to upload as per GDrive.
[1] Ben Glover, People Power Planning: How to Better Involve People in Planning to get more Homes Built, 2019, London: Demos
[2] Katie Puckett, How to do a Public Consultation- and Survive, 2005, https://www.building.co.uk/focus/how-to-do-a-public-consultation-and-survive/3056707.article
[3] David Knight, Planning Without Planners, DKCM, 2011, http://dk-cm.com/dkcmessay/planning-without-planners/
[4] Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, National Planning Policy Framework, London, 2019
[5] Hamish Simmie and James Newitt, Planning Data Update, Savills, 2021, https://www.savills.co.uk/research_articles/229130/309483-0 date accessed: January 2021
[6] Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, Planning For The Future White Paper, London, 2020
[7] Oliver Wainwright, Revealed: How Developers exploit flawed planning system to minimise affordable housing, Guardian, 2015, https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jun/25/london-developers-viability-planning-affordable-social-housing-regeneration-oliver-wainwright date accessed: December 2020
[8] Oliver Wainwright, Revealed: How Developers exploit flawed planning system to minimise affordable housing, Guardian, 2015, https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jun/25/london-developers-viability-planning-affordable-social-housing-regeneration-oliver-wainwright date accessed: December 2020
[9] Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, Planning For The Future White Paper, London, 2020
[10] Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, Planning For The Future White Paper, London, 2020
[11] Building Sweden, Obtaining Permission, https://www.buildingsweden.com/permission-to-build
[12] RIBA, Plan of Work 2020 Overview, London: RIBA, 2020
[13] Building Better, Building Beauty Commission, Living with Beauty, London 2020
[14] GLA, 2020 Place shaping Capacity Survey Result Report, London: GLA, 2020
[15] Public Practice, Public Practice’s Response to the Planning for the Future White Paper, London: Public Practice, 2020
[16] Matthew Carmona and Valentina Giordano, Design Skills in English Local Authorities, London: Place Alliance, 2017
[17] Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, Planning For The Future White Paper, London, 2020
[18] James Derounian, The Good the Bad and the Ugly of Neighbourhood Plans, The Planner, 2016, https://www.theplanner.co.uk/features/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of-neighbourhood-plans
[19] Gavin Parker, Why Hasn’t Neighbourhood Planning Taken Off in Britain, City Monitor, 2019 https://citymonitor.ai/fabric/why-hasn-t-neighbourhood-planning-taken-britain-4772
[20] Mitchell Labiak, New Study Casts Doubt on the Claims That Neighbourhood Plans Boost Housebuilding, Property Week, 2019 https://www.propertyweek.com/legal-and-professional/new-study-casts-doubt-on-claims-that-neighbourhood-plans-boost-housebuilding/5096852.article
[21] Sussex Express, Councillors Resign in Protest Against Overturned Planning Decision, Sussex Express, 2016 https://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/news/councillors-resign-protest-against-overturned-planning-decision-1175683
[22] Leo Barasi, Polls Reveal Surge in Concern in UK about Climate Change, Carbon Brief, 2019 https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-rolls-reveal-surge-in-concern-in-uk-about-climate-change
[23] Osborne Clark, Climate Change and the UK Construction Industry, 2020, https://www.osborneclarke.com/insights/climate-change-uk-construction-industry/
[24] National Community Land Trust Network, http://www.communitylandtrusts.org.uk/what-is-a-clt/clt-handbook
[25] BBC Research, Housing Crisis Affects Estimatated 8.4 million in England, BBC, 2019, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49787913 date accessed: December 2020
