Citizens Planning Assembly
A new consultation model for planning applications
The continuously growing population of the country has inevitably driven forward more and more building projects. At the same time, questions and issues arise in the development process, and sometimes things can go controversial in the view of the local communities.
Under the current legal framework, it is a statutory requirement to carry out pre-application consultation as regulated by Chapter 4 of Part 6 in the Localism Act 2011, which has added new clauses to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. If we put this under the RIBA Plan of Work, consultation is to be carried out before the end of Stage 2.
Consultation before applying for planning permission.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/20/section/122/enacted
The normal practice of the Local Planning Authority is to undertake a period of consultation after they have received a planning application, for which the main types of involvement include: public consultation, statutory consultees, consultation required by a direction, and non-statutory consultees. The Local Planning Authority will then consider the representations made by consultees and proceed to decide the application. However, as we can see, it is only legally binding for certain types of development to take into definite account the representations by statutory consultees; while it is uncertain how the voices from locals could actually be integrated into the development plan. Currently there are minimum requirements as regulated by The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, that Clause 15(7) states the relevant information is to be published on a website maintained by the local planning authority; however the publicity and effectiveness of the process is sometimes questionable.
According to a study in 2017 conducted by the Royal Town Planning Institute, the majority of those who get themselves involved in the planning process are over 55 years old, while the response rates to a typical pre-planning consultation vary from merely 1 to 3%. The low level of community participation is an issue; while the failure to engage with the younger generations — who should be building for their own future — is another.
Currently, the majority of those who engage in planning are over 55 years. Response rates to a typical pre-planning consultation are around 3% of those directly made aware of it. In Local Plan consultations, this figure can fall to less than 1% of the population of a district.
There may be a lot of reasons behind this phenomenon, some refer it as a lack of trust between local citizens and the developers. In reality, the process of involving the public is mandatory, but the ways of how consultations are carried out vary hugely. Unlike the representations given by statutory consultees, comments given by the local communities are not legally binding in the process of granting planning approval in the local authorities. This renders a situation that representatives of the community often feel ignored and marginalised in the process of consultation. Although guidance is given by the government that local engagement shall not be seen as one of the items under the checklist, and avoidance of cases of asking locals to comment on plans that have already been decided. It is indeed frustrating for communities when promises are made and not kept.
The Elephant and Castle Example
The regeneration development in Elephant and Castle is an example, which is unable to take voices and concerns of the local residents into consideration effectively. The idea of regeneration for the area can be dated back to the late 1990s, while there still have been on-going campaigns and protests aiming to halt the controversial redevelopment. The building plan as proposed by the developer does not meet with the local needs and the council’s policy. They were unable to fulfill the numbers of 50% of the affordable housing designated for social rent, but providing only 12% of those. The local communities were also concerned about the issues that may arise due to gentrification, as local housing estates are to be taken down to make space for building new nice flats. The change in social structuring of the area would cause living more expensive or even unaffordable for the current residents. Having them displaced does not simply refer to a loss of neighbourhood, but also the livelihood, the values and the culture would all be gone. That signifies the importance of an effective channel of public involvement in developments, especially for projects in such a large scale.
As anyone involved in local community activism would know, it is often the same people who tend to take an interest and follow a development through from beginning to end. If we consider that approximately 14,000 people live in East Walworth, that means that perhaps 6% of those saw the exhibitions and only 2% filled in the feedback forms, although there was no requirement on the feedback form to prove local residency. In no other industry, could these statistics be credible!
‘Participatory consultation’ without participatory decision-making is not only pointless but harmful to democratic planning processes. It offers neither space, training nor support necessary for local people to be genuinely and actively involved in the heavily technical issues of local planning.
It is apparent that we have alike observations here regarding the low levels of turnout during the consultation process. One of the explanations to the scenario could actually be the reflection of powerlessness of the locals. It is a matter of trust on one hand; while it is also a red light calling for a systemic change on the model of conducting planning consultations.
We may be facing a similar issue if we compare between the current way of involving citizens’ participation in the planning process, to the frustration that sometimes people feel politicians no longer can represent their voices even for those who have been elected democratically. The fact that elections are held every couple of years does not necessarily catch up with the changes of view in the society through time, as the election result may only reflect the momentary decision of the general public. The same happens in Local Planning Authorities. Although planning applications are being discussed in a panel consisting of a number of Council Members that are democratically elected, public views may change through their term of service, where there is a possibility planning decisions are made without effectively taking local voices into consideration. The good thing is there have been trials in different countries, introducing a model of direct democratic participation, which is called the ‘Citizens Assembly’ or ‘Citizens Jury’.
Existing Model: Citizens Assembly
The Citizens Assemblies are now basically new forms of representative democracy, being practiced in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and the United States and more.
A citizens assembly is a group of people who are brought together to discuss an issue or issues, and reach a conclusion about what they think should happen.
Each assembly has a specific topic of focus, which selects random members from the general public with reference to the overall demographic of the region, taking into account age, gender, ethnicity, education level etc, which strikes a balance between anonymously choosing representatives (to avoid bias) and the overall representativeness of the assembly (to be scientifically comparable to the wider population). For instance, the Climate Assembly UK consists of 110 members from the general public selected through a civic lottery. They are meeting for four weekends from January to March 2020, that through workshops and smaller forums they are working on options of reducing UK greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050. Recommendations would then be presented to select committees for them to work out how these could be implemented, and for further debate in the House of Commons.
Recalling how the so-called ‘active participatory’ approach works in the current consultation models, interactive ways of public involvement are being introduced, including the use of coloured pens, post-it notes and mock-up areas to simulate the experiences and so on. Participants are then usually asked to score, grade or put preferences, which are described to ‘avoid complexities’. The use of multimedia, or even VR and gaming with the advanced technology should definitely be encouraged, as it unpack ideas in a more approachable and friendly manner. However, if we get to the core of the issue, it is actually the lack of legitimacy of the public voices in influencing the local developments that matters.
What if… ‘Citizens Planning Assembly’?
We all know there is a system of calling upon randomly selected citizens to attend to courts for jury services. Being a juror in the judiciary is mandatory under the law, as it is seen as one of the obligations that each shall fulfill of taking up part of the common responsibility. Employers must let employees have time off work as required by the law, and financial subsidies are provided to the ones who are called upon. This mechanism has been functioning well in order for a long time.
What if we are applying a similar way of composing the ‘Citizens Planning Assembly’ for each individual Council regarding the matter of planning applications? Together with the precedents set by the ongoing assemblies, the introduction of a ‘jury service’ solely for this purpose in the local Councils would be feasible. It would in turn be part of the obligations and common commitments of residing around the area, that each individual has a chance to be selected. The size of the assemblies can of course be varied depending on the scale of the developments, but the ultimate aim is to adopt the citizens’ voice into an institutionalised channel of expression. This would be a vital step of being more inclusive in developments, especially we are now in the era emphasising on the importance of a commonly constructed neighbourhood. This would only be achievable if the voices of the public are legitimised and quantified in the decision-making process. Putting forward the Localism Act 2011, it essentially promotes agenda such as new rights and powers for communities and individuals, as well as reforms to make the planning system more democratic and more effective. The proposition of introducing a Citizens Planning Assembly within each Council is fundamentally a form of empowerment, that shifts the authority of decision-making down the ladder, returning it back to communities or even individuals. If we are able to apply such model to the planning application process, given the necessary and corresponding legal powers, it is foreseeable the gap between the two sides — the residents and the developers — could be narrowed in an easier manner.
After speaking with Margareta, a retired local resident living in London, she feels the implementation of a Citizens Planing Assembly could be helpful in engaging the public in a more effective way. According to her previous experience in participating in local planning meetings, it is true that there has been a lack of engagement from the younger people. She thinks it is a pity that the consultation sessions have not been able to cover voices from people across the community, and the introduction of the Assembly would definitely improve the current situation. She also said she is eager to participate if there is a chance in the near future.
Role of CATALYST — the Institution
Having the Citizens Planning Assembly formed by randomly selected representatives from the local community, the board will surely have a mixed composition of people with distinctive backgrounds. Although everyone would have their own brilliant ideas, comments and suggestions, it is unrealistic to expect every invited individual would be adequately equipped with the basic understanding of how development projects work. In such a scenario, it is where the proposed institution CATALYST comes in.
The role of CATALYST in working with the Citizens Planning Assembly could be an official independent advisory body. Being an institution consisting of professionals with an architectural background, it could help members of the Assembly understand the picture in an easier way. CATALYST can essentially provide professional analysis based on the project design details provided by the developer, which independent analysis and reports could be written for a more effective scrutiny by Members of the Assembly. On the other hand, the institution could also send representatives to sit in meetings of both the Assembly and also the Council, in which they are not there to take side, but rather to give advice from a professional point of view without taking sides. Also, they would also be capable of providing details from precedent cases, for members of the Assembly to make sensible judgement based on solid references.
Conclusion
Considering the issues that we have covered, it is fair to say the current model of engaging people is not ideal from the perspective of nurturing a healthy civic society. It is hard to cater every view, but if we are still upholding the value of civic rights, there are surely changes that could be made for a better model of public involvement in the decision-making process of planning applications. Instead of shutting people out, the only way of building trust in society is to increase transparency by letting individuals directly participate in a meaningful manner. Looking back to the example of Elephant and Castle, it is indeed a prolonged ‘fight’; I believe the efficiency and effectiveness could largely be improved, if we start everything from the beginning with the help of a better consultation model. Challenges undoubtedly exist, but let’s give it a try!
Extended Information
Climate Assembly UK
https://www.climateassembly.uk/
Regeneration of Elephant and Castle
https://southwarknotes.wordpress.com/our-longer-writings/listening-to-no-end-regeneration-consultation-and-soundings-ltd-at-the-elepant/
