carpenter-brownhill-approaches to democratic involvement

Approaches to Democratic Involvement:Widening Community Engagementin the English Planning SystemJULIET CARPENTER & SUE BROWNILL

Department of Planning, School of the Built Environment, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK

ABSTRACT Participation has become integral to the delivery of public services, as governmentsattempt to involve citizens in decision making through processes of consultation and engagement.This paper addresses the issue of community participation in the context of the English planningsystem,which has recently been restructured to focusmore sharply on integrating communities in theplanning process. It presents findings of research into the workings of the reformed planning system,in particular in relation to the objective of public participation, using the case of the Planning Aidservice. The paper sets the discussion in the context of two different forms of democracy(representative and deliberative democracy) and associated strategies for participation. It thenoutlines the recent reforms in the planning system, highlighting the different approaches toparticipation that are being applied. The paper then examines the case of Planning Aid, a service thataims to involve disadvantaged groups in the planning system. The paper concludes that the outcomesfrom recent experiences of participation in planning are in part due to the “hybrid” approaches thatare emerging within the system. While this provides the potential for more inclusive planning, it isargued that this “hybridity” needs to be acknowledged by policymakers and practitioners if strategiesand mechanisms are to be put in place that respond to the demands of different forms of democracy.

Keywords: Community engagement; participation; forms of democracy; Planning Aid

Introduction

Participation has become integral to the delivery of public services, as governmentsattempt to involve citizens in decision making through processes of consultation andengagement (Albrechts, 2002; ODPM, 2003). This has particularly been the case in Englandsince the election in 1997 of the Labour government under Tony Blair (Imrie & Raco, 2003).New Labour’s policies since 1997 have espoused the importance of the devolution ofpower, and involving citizens in decision making, management and the delivery of publicservices (ODPM, 2005). This has been evidenced in, amongst other areas, health,education, and in particular in the field of regeneration, where communities have beenencouraged to participate actively in the management and decision making structures ofurban regeneration schemes (Lawless, 2006).

This paper aims to explore the issue of community participation in one particular publicpolicy context, that of the revised planning system in England. While participation is by no

Correspondence Address: Dr Juliet Carpenter, Department of Planning, School of the Built Environment, Oxford BrookesUniversity, Gipsy Lane, Oxford, OX3 0BP, UK. Tel: þ44 1865 484 194. Email: [email protected]

Planning Theory & Practice, Vol. 9, No. 2, 227–248, June 2008

1464-9357 Print/1470-000X On-line/08/020227-22 q 2008 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/14649350802041589

means a new concept,1 the planning system in England was restructured in 2004 to focus,among other things, on integrating communities in the planning process (ODPM, 2004a).Labour’s local government “modernisation” agenda has put significant emphasis onrenewing democracy at the local level, with priority given to devolving power tocommunities through more direct forms of democratic practice.

This paper aims to explore approaches to engagement within two different forms ofdemocracy, and in particular, to examine “hybridity” within the reformed planning systemin England. For the purposes of this paper, we define hybridity as the combination ofdifferent approaches towards democracy that are emerging within the planning system. Weargue that such hybridity results in contradictions and tensions, which have a direct impacton participation outcomes. The paper presents research into the workings of the reformedplanning system, in particular in relation to the objectives of public participation. It isstructured by a framework which focuses on two different forms of democracy andassociated strategies of participation. It then sets out the recent changes in the Englishplanning system in 2004, highlighting the potential contradictions that are emergingbetween different approaches being applied to participation. The paper then explores thecase of the Planning Aid service to examine these issues in more detail. Planning Aid is apublic service that aims to increase involvement of disadvantaged groups and citizens inthe planning system. The research shows that the outcomes from recent experiences ofparticipation in planning are due, in part, to the tensions between different approaches thatare emerging within the system. In conclusion, we argue that, although such hybridapproaches have the potential to facilitate more inclusive planning, this will only take placeif policy makers and practitioners acknowledge the existence of the range of approaches,and thus design strategies and mechanisms that take account of this.

Approaches to Democracy and Strategies of Participation

Questions related to the “who, what, where, why and how” of public participation areclosely linked to the approach to democracy within which such questions are being asked.In the UK, under the New Labour government since 1997, tensions have been emergingbetween two such conceptions of democracy: representative and deliberative democracy(Thomas, 1996; Amin & Thrift, 2002; Phelps & Tewdwr-Jones 2000; Hillier, 2002; Held,1987). Here we develop a framework drawing on these two conceptions which allows usto examine how far actual practices express these tensions in the case of publicparticipation in planning in the English context.

Representative democracy gives a mandate to elected representatives to act in citizens’interests. Some political science theorists argue that representative government by elites isthe most appropriate democratic structure, as participation is incompatible with a modernrepresentative democracy based on power being handed to elected representatives (seeDahl, 1989). Others (for example, Thomas, 1996) suggest that public participation withinrepresentative democracy is undertaken to serve particular means: either to informpoliticians of deeply held views, so that policy can avoid potentially conflictive situationsin the future, or as a means of legitimising decisions through token involvement in thedecision making process.

Applying such an approach, the strategy of participation involves minimumengagement, with the justification that elected representatives are given a mandate totake decisions for the electorate. Where participation is seen as necessary, the techniquesmight involve contacting a limited number of organisations to comment on a proposal,rather than encouraging a wider canvassing of opinion. Such a strategy takes little account

228 J. Carpenter & S. Brownill

of the fact that some groups in a community are less likely to be involved than others. Thusno particular effort is made to engage the “voices from the borderlands” (Sandercock,1998) that are not normally heard in consultation, unless a potentially conflictive situationhas been identified which could generate difficulties in the future, and which could beavoided through consultation. There are also questions over what happens to the results ofconsultation, and the potential power of an elite executive to override the findings of aparticipation exercise.

A number of commentators have noted a recent shift in emphasis in public policy in theUK away from representative democracy towards more participatory forms of democraticpractice (e.g. Barnes et al., 2004a). This shift appears to stem from two concerns: firstly,concern about the way in which public services are managed and governed, and secondly,a concern to create opportunities to involve citizens in decision making processes, as ademocratic right to be involved in the public policy process.

One such form of participatory democracy is so-called “deliberative democracy” (Elster,1998; Bohman & Rehg, 1997; Gutmann, 1998), in which urban space is seen as an arena ofdeliberation (Amin & Thrift, 2002). Drawing on Habermas’s (1984) concept ofcommunicative rationality, deliberative democracy is built on the premise that agreementbetween different groups can be negotiated through rational communication. Rather thanfocusing on self-interest, the emphasis of deliberative democracy is on “the creation ofinstitutional contexts and practices which promote open dialogue and encourage theemergence of shared solutions through the uncovering of new forms of knowledge andunderstandings” (Campbell & Marshall, 2000, p. 327, emphasis in the original).Proponents of this view argue that better decisions are likely to emerge from inclusivedebate and discussion, and that along the way trust in public institutions and agencies ofgovernance can be restored and a more active citizenry created (Bloomfield et al., 2001).

Strategies within a framework of deliberative democracy therefore adopt community-based, negotiated decision making, rather than state-led solutions to resolve conflicts(Fraser, 2005). Techniques might include focus groups, citizens’ juries and larger fora toengage the wider public. As noted by Campbell and Marshall (2000), there are strikingsimilarities between deliberative democracy and two relatively recent strands of planningthought: collaborative planning (Healey, 1997) and communicative planning theory(Innes, 1995; Forester, 1999). Both these strands stress the need to place dialogue andcommunication at the core of planning theory and practice, as well as the importance ofinvolving all stakeholders in the process (Innes & Booher, 2004). Thus one of the keyprocesses should be mediation through facilitation, where different sides are able todevelop and refine their understanding of the situation, and then construct new positionswhich are more accommodating of others’ interests.

However, a number of critics of deliberative democracy have raised concerns at variouslevels (Amin & Thrift, 2002). It has been suggested that negotiations can be manipulatedby special interest groups, and that deliberative democracy does not take into accountentrenched inequalities and differences. It is also claimed by Foucauldian (1979)commentators that deliberative democracy overlooks the complex power relations thatinfuse society, with open deliberation often concealing self-interest and institutionalisedinequality. Flyvbjerg (1998) suggests that despite the intentions of government and othersto promote participation, the rationality of power dictates that the end result is unlikely tobe consensus, due to these underlying power structures. Others suggest that deliberativedemocratic practices exist in an “institutional void” without their own rules, whereparticipants bring their “own institutional assumptions and expectations” (Barnes et al.,2004a, p. 108). Nevertheless, despite these critiques, deliberative democracy does provide

Approaches to Democratic Involvement: Widening . . . Planning System 229

a useful concept to fit into the analytical framework here, as a form of democracy thatseeks consensus through deliberation.

These forms of democracy and associated strategies of participation embody anormative understanding of the value of public involvement in policy making. The firsttakes a democratic elitist perspective, where public participation helps to inform localelites of public opinion, although this in no way guarantees influence on the outcome ofthe policy process. The second emphasises the importance of collaborative deliberationand discussion, with flows of information and dialogue between them, as well as theresultant increase in trust in both public institutions and agencies of governance that canbe a by-product of deliberative engagement.

Both these approaches to democracy and related participation strategies haveimplications for how to engage citizens in the planning process. It has been suggestedby government that participatory democracy is the approach that is being applied in therestructured planning system (ODPM, 2004a, p. 4). This paper aims to explore thisassertion by examining whether it is appropriate to talk about one single approach, orrather whether a “hybrid” mix is emerging, made up of various components, and whichare manifest in the various strategies of community engagement that are being used.Embedded within this argument is the concept of governance cultures, that is, the normsthat are embedded within the working practices of actors and institutions involved ingovernance, and which are deeply rooted in the mindsets of planning officers and electedmembers as well as that of communities.

Some see the planning reforms as a movement from one form of democracy to another.Here, we argue that situation is more complex, with a more fluid, hybrid situationemerging. In his analysis of governance structures in urban development, Raco (2005) usesthe term “hybridity” to describe New Labour’s approach to sustainable communities. Itwould appear that this term would be equally applicable in the planning context, giventhe different forms of democracy that appear to be overlaid in the revised planningsystem. In his discussion of hybrid democracy, Albrechts hopes that:

out of a shift towards a more hybrid democracy in some places, a type ofplanning emerges that expands practical democratic deliberations ratherthan . . . restrict[s] them, that encourages diverse citizens’ voices ratherthan . . . stifle[s] them, that directs resources to basic needs rather than tonarrow private gain. This type of approach uses public involvement to presentreal political opportunities, learning from action not only what works but alsowhat matters. (Albrechts, quoted in Hillier, 2002, p. 271)

What then are the possibilities for opening up spaces for a more inclusive planning,through a shift towards a more hybrid democracy, and what tensions and complicationsmight arise in such a shift? We examine this through the case of the reformed Englishplanning system and in particular the Planning Aid service.

The English Planning System Reformed

The Labour government came to power in the UK in 1997 following 18 years ofConservative rule. The New Right narrative that had underpinned policy thinking underprevious governments had emphasised the importance of the market, the role of theindividual, and consequently had underplayed the role of participation in public policydelivery and decision making (Thornley, 1993). In contrast, much of New Labour’sdiscourse in all policy arenas has emphasised renewing democracy by empowering


communities to be involved in decision making about services that affect their lives(Imrie & Raco, 2003). As the following quote from Tony Blair soon after election illustrates:

Our policies, programmes and structures of governance are about engaginglocal people in a partnership for change and enabling communities to take adecisive role in their future. (Blair, 1998, quoted in Imrie & Raco, 2003, p. 9)

This echoes the communitarian principles (Etzioni, 1996; Newman, 2001) that underpinmany of New Labour’s policy agendas, with its emphasis on rights and responsibilities,and with a corresponding shifting emphasis on the role of, and approach to, participation.It is interesting to note in this context how the Conservative party in opposition is now alsoemphasising community engagement in decision making, suggesting that this could be alasting feature of English policy (Heseltine, 2007).

Behind the government’s policies is a concern for developing the capacity of individuals toengage and take decisions on local issues (Coaffee & Healey, 2003; Barnes et al., 2004b). This isclearly the case in planning. As Baker et al. (2006, p. 5) state: “Stakeholder involvement is oneof the fundamental components of the reformed planning system.” This is backed up bystatements from the Government’s strategy paper for community involvement in planning:

Planning shapes the places where people live and work. So it is right thatpeople should be enabled and empowered to take an active part in the process.Strengthening community involvement is a key part of the Government’splanning reforms. (ODPM, 2004a, p. 1)

and furthermore:

Our aim is that planning should provide opportunities for people, irrespectiveof age, sex, ability, ethnicity or background, business, the voluntary sector andothers to make their views known and have their say in how their communityis planned and developed. (ODPM, 2004a, p. 4)

These planning reforms were set out in New Labour’s Planning and CompulsoryPurchase Act of 2004, seen as one of the most significant changes to the English planningsystem since it was established in 1947.

The Act introduced a number of new mechanisms to structure the planning process,including a two-tier system of Local Development Frameworks and Regional SpatialStrategies. Alongside these new mechanisms, the government has also establishedStatements of Community Involvement (SCIs), in which local authorities are required toset out a statement of their proposals for community engagement in planning. One of theprinciples underpinning SCIs is the concept of “front-loading”, which means involvingcommunities at the earliest stage possible in the planning process, to encourage their fulland active engagement. When successful, such an approach could be seen as sitting neatlywithin a deliberative democratic framework, with participation being woven into theplanning process.

In the reformed system, the Government also emphasised the need to widenparticipation in planning, to include those not normally engaged in the process:

An inclusive approach is needed to ensure that different groups have theopportunity to participate and are not disadvantaged in the process.Identifying and understanding the needs of groups who find it difficult toengage with the planning system is essential. (ODPM, 2004a, p. 9)


To support this policy statement, the Government committed over £7.1 million over 5years (2003–2008) to Planning Aid, a programme that provides advice and support todisadvantaged groups and individuals about the planning system. It is well documentedthat certain group interests, such as landowners, developers and the well-educated, havebeen privileged in the past by the planning system (Healey et al., 1988; Healey, 1990;Bedford et al., 2002), while other groups, such as members of ethnic minority communitieshave been excluded from the planning process (Royal Town Planning Institute and theCommission for Racial Equality, 1983; Krishnaryan & Thomas, 1993, 1994; ODPM, 2004b).

The renewed focus on engagement of disadvantaged groups through Planning Aid isaimed at addressing these differentials. However, Planning Aid is just one mechanism,particularly targeted at “excluded” groups and individuals, to promote engagement in theplanning system. It operates in parallel to other mechanisms such as SCIs and widerpractices to integrate communities more fully into the planning process.

The Government’s rationale for greater participation in planning is based on a numberof well-rehearsed principles that also run through other policy arenas:

. Involvement leads to outcomes that better reflect the views and aspirations and meet theneeds of the wider community in all its diversity;

. Public involvement is valuable as a key element of a vibrant, open and participatorydemocracy;

. Involvement improves the quality and efficiency of decisions by drawing on localknowledge and minimising unnecessary and costly conflict;

. Involvement educates all participants about the needs of communities, the businesssector and how local government works;

. Involvement helps promote social cohesion by making real connections withcommunities and offering them a tangible stake in decision making.

(ODPM, 2004a, p. 4, emphasis added)

The notion of participatory or deliberative democracy is seen has having a majorinfluence on public policy (Stoker, 2004), and is explicitly referenced in the quote above.There are clearly close parallels between the government’s objectives for the revisedplanning system, and the so-called “communicative turn” in planning theory (Innes,1995, 1999; Forester, 1999). Both emphasise consensus, inclusivity, developinginstitutional networks and building community capacity to engage with public policyformation. However, as this paper will explore, the approach being applied within theEnglish planning system is not as clear-cut as the policy discourse would suggest. Theconcept of participatory or deliberative democracy is being applied alongside a moredeeply embedded culture of representative democracy. On the one hand, theGovernment’s aim is:

to build strong, empowered and active communities, in which peopleincreasingly make decisions for themselves, with the state acting to facilitate,support and enable citizens to lead self-determined, fulfilled lives (ODPM,2004a, p. 5).

while within the same document, it states that:

decisions about local plans and planning applications are taken by localrepresentatives, accountable to their local electorates . . .participation cannotsubstitute for proper decision making through the accountable institutions(ODPM, 2004a, p. 6, emphasis added).


These quotes clearly illustrate the tensions between deliberative and representative

democracy. While there are other tensions within the reformed planning system that have

been highlighted elsewhere, such as the contradictions between speed and participation

(Brownill & Carpenter, 2007; Kitchen & Whitney, 2004), we focus here on this “hybrid”

democracy, and the potential tensions that this introduces.

Participation and the Planning Aid Service

The research findings reported here are based on an evaluation of Planning Aid, the

service that aims to increase participation of “disadvantaged groups” in the planning

system. The evaluation was carried out by the authors for the Royal Town Planning

Institute (RTPI) between 2004–2006, and included an evaluation of a specific

demonstration project in North Kent, part of the Thames Gateway redevelopment. It is

based on a review of government planning documents as well as qualitative research

on the performance and practice of the Planning Aid service.2 It should be noted that

Planning Aid is not representative of approaches to participation as a whole across

England, but rather is a programme funded by government that is specifically

targeted at increasing the participation of disadvantaged groups in the planning

system.

Planning Aid was first established in the 1970s, but was relaunched in 2003 as a

national, publicly funded service. Three years into the new service, empirical evidence

gathered through the research provides a good opportunity to assess the workings of

the revised planning system through this programme. While it will inevitably take

longer than three years to see the full impact of the changes to the planning system,

the research presented here provides a good opportunity to assess its initial

achievements, highlight potential tensions, and to explore whether the approach

adopted seems to be realising its ambitions. The translation of different approaches to

democracy into participation strategies has been assessed through in-depth interviews

with stakeholders, and “success” in participation has been evaluated through target

groups’ involvement in the Planning Aid service, evidenced through monitoring

returns and supplemented by interviews with stakeholders. It should also be noted

that the research was undertaken prior to the publication of the Planning White Paper

in May 2007 (CLG, 2007), and therefore does not address the proposed reforms that

are tabled in that document.

We start by looking in more detail at the revised English planning system through the

eyes of stakeholders, examining the form(s) of democracy being applied through the new

Act, and the participation strategies that are being implemented to achieve its objectives.

The paper then examines one aspect of the new system, i.e. the Planning Aid service, in

more detail. Planning Aid aims to engage “excluded groups” in the planning system. This

section illustrates the application of the various approaches and strategies in practice, and

asks whether they are effective in delivering inclusive planning on the ground. We

conclude by re-examining the revised planning system in the light of this experience and

the discussion on approaches to democracy. Through the discussion, we suggest that a

hybrid system has the potential to deliver outcomes more effectively, as long as policy

makers and practitioners are aware of the potentialities, and are equipped with the

necessary resources and methods.


Planning Aid Practitioners’ Reflections on Approaches to DemocracyWithin the Planning System

Our claim that, despite the rhetoric of a deliberative approach of participatory democracy,the English planning system appears to be adopting a more hybrid model, was confirmedin interviews with our research respondents when they were asked to comment onparticipation within the reformed planning system. While the objectives of the revisedplanning system are to engage citizens in decision making within a framework ofdeliberative participatory democracy, our research suggests in practice that the newsystem is still underpinned by democratic elitism through a system of representativedemocracy that ensures decision making is kept within the hands of elected members,supported by planning officers. Although many local authorities are committed toconsultation, respondents in our research reported that some local authorities do not agreewith the rationale behind public participation:

They [councillors] sometimes say: “Why do we have to consult? We wereelected, so why should we consult the electorate on decisions?”

while another Planning Aid stakeholder commented that:

Members don’t realise the importance of consultation, so they don’t want tofund it.

Elements of democratic elitism are thus still evident among some local authorities, a stancewhich sits uneasily with the attempts to weave participation into the democratic decisionmaking process.

Respondents recognised that embracing the principles of community engagementwithin local authorities was down to governance cultures (Cars et al., 2002), within theoverall framework of representative democracy, with marked differences between localauthorities, some being very resistant to active involvement. The governance cultureprovides the context within which working practices of actors and institutions take shape.Given that representative democracy is embedded in the system, changing such a culture,although championed by those promoting the reform of the new planning system, will bea long and difficult process, taking time and resources (see Shaw, 2006).

One of the key messages to come from the research was the need for a change inmindsets on all sides, and to embed community consultation into the practice of planningas the norm rather than the exception. It was felt by respondents that there remains anunderlying distrust of the planning process amongst the public, coupled with apathy anda perception of disenfranchisement. These serve as barriers to engagement, particularlyfor groups that are not normally involved in the process.

Indeed, while a representative democratic system is in some places working contrary tocommunity engagement, some respondents went so far as to suggest that the newplanning system itself was actually acting as a constraint to the involvement of communitygroups, in particular due to the potential contradiction between the pressure for efficiencyin the new system, and the requirement for public engagement. This perception is backedup by a survey of local authorities by Sykes (2003) which revealed that over 70% of localplanning authorities felt that they would have difficulty meeting these two objectivessimultaneously (see also Kitchen & Whitney 2004). It would certainly seem plausible thatthe speed and performance requirements could leave little time for meaningfulconsultation that would allow community groups to fully understand the planningsystem and process, to get to know the issues and how to be involved (Brooks, 2002).


As Doak and Parker note: “There is an emphasis on speed and efficiency in the newsystem that sits uneasily with effective (time-consuming?) public involvement, and islikely to benefit some interests (at the expense of others?)” (Doak & Parker, 2005, p. 36,brackets are original). While this view was echoed by a number of respondents in ourresearch, one commentator felt that there was not necessarily a conflict between speedrequirements and involvement, as long as the consultation was done well. Neverthelessmany respondents felt that this tension was pulling in different directions, underminingthe deliberative democratic approach, and acting as a barrier to inclusive outcomes.

Respondents also felt that other elements in the new system had introduced furthertensions into the planning process, which work against a deliberative democraticstructure. The concept of “front-loading” (see above) may be written into the new system,but a number of respondents commented on the problems presented by such an ambition,due to the limited skills capacity within the public, private and voluntary sectors, toengage with the community. Again, one of the premises underlying deliberativedemocracy, of equality of access to participation, is undermined by a lack of skills andcapacity. As Albrechts states,

Developments towards more direct forms of democracy, the focus on debate,public involvement and accountability—even with the best intentions—implythe danger of making democratic public involvement more and moredependent on knowledge and on the skills of the more highly educated.

(Albrechts, 2003, p. 252)

The complexity of the new system has also introduced tensions that work againstcommunity involvement and deliberative democracy. A new raft of planning documents,guidance, processes, structures and acronyms have compounded the difficulty ofunderstanding how the planning system works, increasing rather than reducing itsaccessibility. Actually getting members of the community to a sufficient level ofknowledge where they can engage meaningfully with the planning system takes time andcommitment. As one respondent in our research remarked:

The government has produced an overly complicated system, which actuallyhasn’t done community engagement a lot of favours.

These issues will be illustrated further in the next section, in the light of the recentexperience of the Planning Aid programme. This empirical research examines theimplementation of Planning Aid within this hybrid approach to democracy, andinvestigates whether the strategies employed are effective in engaging communities tobecome involved in, and influence, the planning process.

The Role of Planning Aid in Engaging Communities in the Planning System

Planning Aid is an independent organisation with a long history of promotingparticipation in planning, first established in 1973 by the Town and Country PlanningAssociation (TCPA), an independent charity which promotes awareness of planningissues (Thomas, 1992).3 In the run-up to the reforms of the planning system in 2004, the UKGovernment was looking for ways to provide more support to engage communities in theplanning system, and identified Planning Aid as a long-established body that couldcontribute to this agenda. The service has, however, been in existence through both Labourand Conservative governments, and being independent, is not associated with any oneparticular political party.


Planning Aid aims to provide support to “disadvantaged groups”4 to enable themto participate in the planning system. Its overall objectives are to provide advice,information, education and capacity building to community groups and individualswho would otherwise not engage with the planning system. The service is providedfree to those who are not able to afford professional planning advice (Reeves &Burley, 2002).

The programme has operated for over 30 years, with the majority of funds coming fromexternal sources. With the reform of the planning system, however, the Government’sPlanning Green Paper identified Planning Aid as a potential means of helping to engagedisadvantaged groups and individuals in planning issues (DTLR, 2001, p. 43). In 2003, inthe run-up to the 2004 Planning Act, the Planning Aid service was re-launched with £3.8million of government funding over 3 years (2003–2006) to provide advice and support todisadvantaged groups and individuals to enable them to engage with the planningsystem. Funding was extended by over £3.3 million, to cover the period 2006-2008. Inaddition to this core funding, the service also receives funding from agencies such as localauthorities and regional development agencies, to undertake specific commissionedprojects (amounting to over £200,000 in 2006–2007).

Operated by the RTPI and a separate independent charity (that covers the Londonarea), Planning Aid now has paid staff in all of the 9 English regions plus London,networked through a central unit. Each regional team consists of one full-timecoordinator, one part-time caseworker and one full-time or two part-time communityplanners, backed up by a team of volunteers across each region. The work of the regionalteams is split into two areas. The first involves a helpline for disadvantaged groups andindividuals to access free planning advice. The helpline generates casework that ismanaged by the caseworker and partly dealt with by volunteers. The second involvescommunity planning work, through which the community planners build links andpartnerships with community groups, deliver training and help communities withplanning issues. The national unit, with a staff of five, acts as a central hub, facilitatinginformation flows, good practice between regions, and coordinating national level eventsand activities.

The Planning Aid Strategy

The aims of the Planning Aid service, as stated in the RTPI service delivery plan drawnup at the start of the re-launch of the service, are:

. To build the planning capacity of financially disadvantaged and socially excludedcommunities and assist them in shaping their physical, social and economicenvironment;

. To develop an expanded and more sustainable network of Planning Aid servicescapable of identifying, engaging and responding effectively to the needs of the above.

(RTPI, 2003, p. 3–4)

More specifically, its objectives are:

. To increase engagement and participation in the planning system as a whole;

. To increase the ability of disadvantaged communities to participate in the planningsystem through a structured programme of capacity building;

. To increase access to and use of Planning Aid by disadvantaged local communitiesthrough initiatives to target and reach these communities;


. To influence service delivery by statutory bodies by helping to raise awareness of theneeds of disadvantaged groups among statutory bodies;

. To increase the number of volunteers by putting in place the structure and services to beable to recruit, retain and support these volunteers.

(RTPI, 2003, p. 4)

The term “disadvantaged communities” is, of course, a complex one. The RTPI’s definitionof “disadvantaged groups” is certainly broad, including taking in those on low incomes (thefinancially disadvantaged), as well as minority ethnic communities, disabled people andcommunity groups, and raises many issues about how to define “disadvantage” in thiscontext.4 There are debates within the Planning Aid service over whether all people who arenot engaged in planning could be classified as “disadvantaged”, as their lack of awarenessputs them at a disadvantage. Furthermore, there are cases where some communitiesvoluntarily exclude themselves, as is their democratic right. Necessarily in our research,we took the RTPI’s definition, although we acknowledge that there are issues behindsuch definitions which warrant further clarification in a wider discussion on the topic.

The work of the Planning Aid service has always been focused on reaching “financiallydisadvantaged and socially excluded communities” and involving them in the planningsystem. To achieve this aim, the strategy of engagement that has developed has been multi-pronged. As first proposed by Bidwell and Edgar (1981), Reeves and Burley (2002) suggestthat there are different strategies for Planning Aid, with each taking a different emphasisdepending on local circumstances in each region. The first is based on a phone lineinvolving models of advice and advocacy. The Advice Model is a reactive service that isbased around a helpline run by staff caseworkers, who pass on some eligible cases tovolunteer planners to follow up. The Advocacy Model involves a qualified planner takingon an individual’s or group’s planning problem, representing them and finding a solution.The second approach is based on community planning and involves environmentaleducation, community capacity building and direct involvement of communities ininfluencing planning policy and strategy. The Environmental Education Model involves aqualified planner providing information to community groups on planning andenvironmental issues, through publications, training and workshops. The CommunityDevelopment Model involves a pro-active community planning arm that is run by staffcommunity planners who carry out outreach work and provide experiential learning forcommunity groups. Community planning also seeks to involve local communities in thedevelopment of strategy and policy, from regional spatial strategies to area action plans andvery localised initiatives, such as community centres and play areas.

However, there appear to be tensions emerging within Planning Aid’s original aims, asthe service tries to combine these different roles. In particular, these tensions can be seen ascentering around two such roles. One is a “bridging role” through the advice andadvocacy models, acting as a broker between different actors in the planning system toencourage better involvement of disadvantaged groups and to secure consensus. Theother is an “emancipatory role” through environmental education and communityplanning, championing excluded groups and working with them, to empower and ensurethat their voices are heard.

There are resonances between these roles and the alternative models of democracy asdiscussed in Section 2. In particular the emancipatory role comes closest to encompassinga strategy for deliberative democracy, however, even in this role there are barriers toachieving inclusive planning which illustrate the limitations to deliberative democracy.These barriers are explored further below.


The Planning Aid Experience

Who’s engaging through Planning Aid? Planning Aid aims to target disadvantaged groups,

and facilitate their engagement in the planning process. Following its relaunch in 2004, the

service has reached a large number of people and community organisations, on arelatively small budget, with a steady increase in the number of people assisted. During

the year 2006–2007, the service helped over 37,500 individuals with planning issues, andsupported over 745 communities, residents’ groups and other organisations through its

work. In addition, 483 community planning events were held, attended by over 20,700

people. Aside from this core-funded work, regionally funded projects supported over13,500 people, and locally funded projects helped over 4,500 groups and individuals in

planning-related issues (National Planning Aid Unit (2007) and data provided on request).

However, there are also mixed messages about the achievements of the differentstrategies over this period, in particular in reaching the targeted disadvantaged groups.

This is partly due to the limited budget within which the service is working, and

particularly due to funding allocations which only allow a 0.6 full-time equivalent (FTE)caseworker per region (rather than 1.0 that was envisaged when the targets were set). This

is clearly an unrealistic level of staffing, given the task at hand. On the advice andadvocacy role with individuals, around 7,500 people have been assisted up to the end of

2006–2007, which, given the small budget, is a considerable achievement. But as Figure 1

shows, the number of individuals calling the helpline is on average 56% of the proposedtarget5 (although it should be noted that this is the only target which the service has not

fully achieved). There have been a number of reasons suggested for this, including the

issue of unrealistic targets set at the beginning of the relaunch and the limited resourcesand staffing. The casework service is currently working beyond capacity, and the service

has therefore had to limit its promotion of the helpline. However, the picture is markedly

different for community groups contacting the service, with the numbers consistentlyabove the target (around double for 2006–2007) with almost 2,000 organisations involved

in Planning Aid up to the end of 2006–2007 (see Figure 2).

Figure 1. Number of individuals assisted through casework, compared to the target (2004–2005 and2005–2006). Source: National Planning Aid Unit quarterly monitoring figures, provided on request.


While the service is rooted in the rhetoric of deliberative democracy, the strategyadopted through the advice phone line does not necessarily encourage the involvement ofpeople not normally engaged in the planning process, nor does it recognise people’sdifferential ability to engage through different mechanisms. There are clearly deep-seatedbarriers to individuals’ engagement which certain strategies address better than others(see Baker et al., 2006). As critics of deliberative democracy suggest, not everyone canengage on an equal footing.

Monitoring data also show that Planning Aid is not managing to reach many of theexcluded groups that are targeted by the service. Figures show that 43% of those callingthe Planning Aid helpline during 2005–2006 and 2006–2007 were defined as cases eligiblefor support. The other 57% did not fall within the criteria that define “disadvantage”,although they were still able to obtain 15 minutes of telephone advice from the service, asthis is provided to anyone who calls. Indeed, one of the key challenges for Planning Aid isdefining the target “disadvantaged” population, as noted earlier.4

Similarly with the community planning work, Planning Aid has been meeting andexceeding its targets, particularly in terms of the numbers involved, but figures indicatethat the profile of those participating does not match the excluded groups that are targetedby the service. While some individual regions are working successfully in areas of highdeprivation, the monitoring figures presented in Table 1 suggest that some disadvantagedgroups are less well represented. For example, data suggest that those from minorityethnic communities form only 1% of participating groups, although the classification usedin the monitoring system may mask figures for the involvement of minority ethnic groupswithin other categories, such as residents’ or school groups. Nevertheless, figures for other“disadvantaged” groups, such as the disabled, are also low (1% of participating groups),whereas data for outreach work with other agencies such as local planning authorities andregeneration partnerships show considerable success (over 30% of groups worked with).This is clearly a complex area due to the definitions, for example, working with

Figure 2. Number of organisations assisted through casework, compared to the target (2004–2005and 2005–2006). Source: National Planning Aid Unit quarterly monitoring figures, provided on

request.


regeneration partnerships that involve many different groups. In addition, somecommunity planning projects such as the gipsy and traveller training are beingundertaken with separate funding, and so do not appear in the core monitoring figures.However, given the data in Table 1, it is worth considering the balance between workingwith agencies such as local authorities and regeneration partnerships, and concentratingon specific target groups in community planning work, and the implications that this hasfor achieving the overall objectives of the service.

An example of successful community planning work comes from the Thames Gateway,where the North Kent project run by South East Planning Aid organised a number ofworkshops with groups of children and young people through local schools (South EastPlanning Aid, 2006). “Success” was defined by the number and range of young people thatwere involved in the different initiatives, and the impact these initiatives had on theirawareness of the environment in which they live. One project in a secondary schoolinvolved students identifying key issues for their area, such as poor recycling facilities,graffiti and a lack of leisure facilities. They set up a photographic exhibition to raiseawareness within the school and local community, and planned to follow it up with asecond project related to climate change. Another project focused on a local primary school,with pupils identifying aspects of the neighbourhood that they liked and disliked. Thefindings were then discussed with the planning consultants that had been commissioned toproduce a masterplan for the area’s regeneration, and a number of the ideas generated bythe school children were taken up. These projects were seen to have been very positive forparticipants, giving them a voice, and involving them at an early age in a local participationexercise. It helped children from all backgrounds to look at their environment with a criticaleye, and think about their area in a different way. As one respondent commented:

The project empowered the children . . . it made them examine theirenvironment with a new eye . . .They are the future of the community, and itgave them a voice.

Table 1. Breakdown of groups worked with on community planning projects in 2005–2006, and2006–2007.

2005–2006* 2006–2007

Type of group Number of groups % Number of groups %

Black and minority ethnic 5 1% 1 0%Citizens Advice Burea 4 1% 0 0%Disabled groups* 4 1% 1 0%Faith groups* 6 1% 2 1%Residents group 35 7% 1 0%School group 49 9% 75 21%Youth group 11 2% 14 4%Women’s group N/A N/A 2 1%Voluntary group 29 6% 4 1%Local planning authority 77 15% 34 10%Parish/town council 21 4% 0 0%Regeneration partnership 54 10% 48 13%Rural com councils 6 1% 7 2%Other 111 21% 74 21%Missing information 107 21% 94 26%Total 519 100% 357 100%

Source: National Planning Aid Unit (2007) and monitoring figures provided on request from NPAU. *Data forquarters 1 and 2 only, in 2005–2006.


This is particularly important in an area such as the Thames Gateway, one of theGovernment’s four growth areas in the south-east of England, where, over the next10 years, a projected 160,000 homes will be built. Involving school children in thinkingabout their environment, and raising awareness about planning issues at an early ageshould encourage engagement in planning later in life. Within the model of deliberativedemocracy, these exercises have helped develop individuals’ capacity and buildcommunity capacity for the future.

However, experiences through Planning Aid also illustrate some of the limitations ofdeliberative democracy. In southern England, Planning Aid has been working in a smalltown of 9,000 people, where there are plans for a major housing extension development ofbetween 2,500-3,400 new homes on a disused military site. They have been working withlocal communities as well as the private house builder and local authority, to consult onissues such as infrastructure provision, green space and the very issue of creating newcommunities on the edge of an existing town. The revised plans for the developmentfollowing consultation appear to have taken on board the communities’ views where therewas a consensus, and integrated the communities’ preferred options. Nevertheless, onerespondent did comment that although the meetings between the different parties wereostensibly very successful, once behind closed doors there were complaints amongstcommunity participants, and the tone was markedly less positive. While the Planning Aidservice clearly has no control over this, it does illustrate the limits to deliberativedemocracy, with an underlying distrust between parties, sentiments that are deeplyrooted and difficult to shift, even in a supposedly successful collaboration.

Despite considerable successes on a low budget, overall, the model of deliberativedemocracy coupled with the strategy adopted by Planning Aid does not appear to be fullyable to overcome the complex barriers that prevent disadvantaged groups from engagingin planning. From the figures available, while Planning Aid has helped thousands ofpeople since its relaunch, it appears that, in particular, disadvantaged groups are notcoming forward in the numbers expected. This could be reluctance on their part to be pro-active, or a lack of awareness of the possibilities for engagement. It could also relate to anapathy that is generated by a public that feels it “can’t make a difference”. In addition, asystem of representative democracy risks generating feelings of distrust, when it isperceived that elected officials are not listening to the opinions of local people, takingdecisions behind closed doors.

The Planning Aid service is also under pressure to deliver against its targets, working asit does within a target-driven culture under a regime of New Public Management(Hoggett, 1991). This is putting the service under pressure to focus on meeting targetsperhaps at the expense of a broader aim to meet its objectives of involving disadvantagedgroups. In particular, there could be a role for Planning Aid to play a more active part insupporting local authorities in their wider strategies to involve disadvantaged groups inplanning. For example, some Planning Aid services have been commenting on localauthorities’ Statements of Community Involvement (see above). However, this is notformally written into the Planning Aid work programme, and is therefore not beingprioritised by some regions, in the target-driven culture that has come to characterisepublic service provision.

Are the strategies and resources sufficient?. The strategy adopted by Planning Aid istwofold: a casework helpline for callers from the targeted disadvantaged groups, andcommunity planning outreach work (see above). However, there was the feeling amongsome of the research respondents that the strategy adopted has not been as successful as


hoped. This is partly due to the fact that the service has not promoted the helpline, due tocapacity issues, and has not made the phone number a “Freephone” line. As a strategy fordeliberative democracy, it does not take account of individuals’ “comfort levels” in usinghelplines and their possible reluctance to pick up the phone.

The term “hard to reach” has infiltrated the discourse of participation in planning, butcould perhaps be seen as symptomatic of the way the planning system sees excludedcommunities. The experience of Planning Aid suggests that, rather than certaincommunities being “hard to reach”, there are groups that are “easy to reach, but hardto engage”. With the right tools and methods, it has been shown that it is possible toengage those not normally involved in planning issues. In north Kent, for example,community planning exercises used visual aids as a way of engaging people, holding acompetition using aerial photos to identify locations and to make suggestions aboutenvironmental improvements in the local neighbourhood. Another strategy adopted byPlanning Aid has been to invest considerable time into building partnerships with otherorganisations in the same field, to create a network of partners with similar interests.

But such methods involve time and resources, both of which are in short supply.Planning Aid staff commented that many local authorities do not cost their consultationexercises properly, and some do not even allocate a budget for consultation. Onecoordinator reported that local authorities seem to have little idea of what consultationexercises cost. It was reported that one of the London boroughs had set aside £10,000 forconsultation while another did not set aside any budget. Others are putting asideresources for consultation at a later date, thereby not supporting the front-loadedconsultation process. Some respondents reported that, in general, elected members do notappreciate the importance of consultation, and therefore are not willing to fund it. Echoingthe importance of the local governance culture, some respondents commented that incertain rural Conservative or Liberal Democrat areas, the local authorities were notforthcoming in financing community engagement. Local councils are working to tightbudgets, and community involvement is not high on their list of priorities for scarceresources. Reactions by some local authorities and their members would suggest aframework of representative rather than deliberative democracy, which raises questionsover whether engagement actually does lead to influence.

Even with a good level of resources, our research suggests that there is a significantskills gap in the area of community planning within local authorities, and specifically inengaging disadvantaged communities. Planners often have not had the chance todevelop community facilitation skills, while community facilitators themselves do notnormally have a planning background. Engaging with a diverse public requires additionalskills including sensitivity and imagination (given that the majority of professionalplanners, particularly more senior planners, are white and middle-class themselves (RTPI,1998)). As one Planning Aid worker commented:

Planning staff [in local authorities] aren’t confident about engaging with thecommunity.

There are also well-documented problems surrounding the general shortage of planningstaff in local authorities (Durning & Glasson, 2004), which inevitably impacts on theservice provided.6 One Planning Aid respondent anecdotally commented that some localauthorities employ over 50% of their staff from temporary employment agencies. Ifdisadvantaged groups are to be included in the planning system, there need to be theresources and skills to involve the “easy to reach—hard to engage”, who will notnecessarily respond to traditional methods and participation strategies. Planning Aid is


short on resources, but low-cost methods such as letter writing do not necessarily elicit aresponse. As one Planning Aid worker commented:

We wrote to 27 faith groups in one city, and only 1 replied. And yet they’re allfaced with planning issues.

Alternative methods are needed to reach certain groups, but this requires a level ofresources that are not available within the planning system generally or within thePlanning Aid service as it is currently set up.

There are also concerns about the e-planning agenda, and the move towards on-lineconsultation and its impact on widening participation. A survey of local authorities bySykes (2003) shows that the interactive websites planned by many local planningauthorities will be among the top three consultation methods in the future. But onlineconsultation necessarily excludes those without the skills or resources to access the Web,who are often the most disadvantaged (or “hard to engage”) in society (Kitchen &Whitney, 2004). Echoing elements of deliberative democracy, Web-based consultationexercises assume a network of engagement, accessed equally by all on a “level playingfield”. In theory, all interests have an equal opportunity to feed in their views. In practice,this is far from the case, and again illustrates how different approaches are beingcombined within the current planning system, without taking into account differentialabilities to engage with the process.

Planning Aid was set up to give advice and support to community groups andindividuals that are excluded from the planning system. Community engagement isclearly a long-term project. But since its relaunch, it has become apparent that theresources set aside are dwarfed by the task at hand. Although the service has helped over37,500 people through its casework and community planning activities, it is stretched to itsfull capacity in terms of staffing, and does not have the resources to do more than scratchthe surface of the needs of excluded communities:

Planning Aid can’t deliver as they haven’t got the funding. If the Government isserious, they should give proper money.

Mirroring the skills shortages in local planning authorities, Planning Aid has also haddifficulty recruiting and retaining staff, which has compounded their capacity problems.

However, it is not just a question of resources. Increased resources are part of thesolution, but there are other issues to overcome. As many examples of Planning Aid’swork have shown, community involvement in planning is not just about responding to aconsultation exercise. It involves recognising the power of the community, and beingtransparent about the degree to which they can influence decisions. It is about buildingup trust and faith in the planning system, to address apathy and disenfranchisement. Andit is also about a shift in mindset in the long term, at the local, regional and national levels,both in the public and private sectors, to fully integrate community views. As onerespondent in our research put it:

ODPM think that if there’s more money, more people will engage.

More resources would help to engage communities, but not necessarily those normallyexcluded from the process. There are more fundamental issues about the form ofdemocracy and strategy of participation that are being applied, and whether they are themost appropriate frameworks within which to engage community groups in planning.While Albrechts suggests that “hybrid democracy” is an ideal to work towards, in reality itoffers a contradictory terrain that opens up possibilities, but also presents constraints.


While the framework of deliberative democracy fits with some aspects of Planning Aid’sstrategy, there are also other aspects which undermine the framework, in particular theuse of the advice phone line to reach disadvantaged groups. In addition, Planning Aid,and community engagement more generally, are being applied within a system ofrepresentative democracy which, in particular contexts and situations, is also acting as abarrier to widening participation.

Discussion

A main aim of the reform of the English planning system in 2004 was to integratecommunities more fully into consultation and decision making. One inspiration for thisidea, we have argued, was a model of deliberative democracy. However, evidencesuggests that it is not possible to “read off” the new system as the realisation of a singleform of democracy as an underpinning for the new system. There are elements of differentforms influencing current policy and practice, with representative democracy co-existingwith deliberative democracy. The blurring of the boundaries between these two forms hasled to “hybridity” and tensions. There has also been a mix of strategies for communityengagement within the system, producing varied results.

The strategy adopted by Planning Aid to focus on disadvantaged groups has been two-fold: on the one hand, it has remained reactive, through its helpline, providing a service tothose who get in touch of their own accord; on the other hand, it is proactive through itscommunity planning and environmental education work, a strategy which fits moreclosely with a deliberative democratic framework. But monitoring data show that this mixof strategies is not managing to fully engage with its target disadvantaged groups. Partlydue to the strategies adopted within a context of underfunding and a paucity of resources,the Planning Aid service is not covering all the groups and areas that it aims to reach.Where the service is most active, the results have been impressive and feedback has beenpositive. Indeed, the service is developing a considerable reputation for its expertise,professionalism and effectiveness. So Planning Aid itself is not failing, but it is workingwith limited resources, in a context of enduring barriers to participation that are notcurrently being addressed.

In terms of the wider planning system, new structures have been put in place toencourage community participation in planning, but initial evidence from our research,for example in relation to Statements of Community Involvement, suggest that there is stillsome progress to be made. Others have also pointed to the limitations of currentframeworks. For example, national guidance on regional planning and development plansadvises local authorities to take account of ethnic minority needs when drawing up plans(Harris & Thomas, 2004). But the guidance suggests that this is essentially a technical task,and with the right mechanisms and consultation skills in place, the views of ethnicminority groups will feed into the process. Findings from our research presented heresuggest that this is not the case, and that the picture is much more complex. As Beebeejaunstates:

There continues to be a need to question the extent to which planning andplanners critically engage with the assumptions underpinning initiatives towiden participation. (Beebeejaun, 2004, p. 448)

These “assumptions” being applied in the English planning system are that communitygroups will engage if the structures are put in place. Experience through Planning Aidsuggests that, while this is occurring to a certain extent, it is not happening on a level that


was hoped for, and has not taken full account of barriers to engagement. Although therhetoric of deliberative democracy features within the discourse of the new planningsystem, there are forces which are preventing it from taking root. This is partly due to agovernance culture in some places, with a tension between representative and deliberativedemocracy where some local authorities are more open to participation than others, andpartly due to other enduring factors such as a lack of time, resources, and the long-standing barriers to participation that are not addressed by the new system. Full accountneeds to be taken of these enduring barriers. And a service aimed at reaching those that donot typically engage needs to be sufficiently resourced, to enable appropriate tools,methods and strategies to be applied.

The planning system in England was again at a crossroads in 2007, potentially facinganother shake-up in the light of the Barker Review of Land Use Planning (Barker, 2006)and the Planning White Paper (CLG, 2007), which could bring further changes to aplanning system that has not yet had time to settle down, following the reforms of 2004.Planning Aid stakeholders suggest that ideally the service would become part of the“establishment”, with sufficient resources to run a service on a scale that could address thecomplex issues involved. Nevertheless, there are still tensions between competingstrategies which are struggling to deliver. As a respondent from the PlanningInspectorate7 noted:

The jury’s out on the reformed planning system and increasing publicparticipation, because it is a huge exercise and it can’t be done by Planning Aidalone.

It is still early to draw definite conclusions about the revised planning system introducedin 2004. Nevertheless, early evidence does suggest that there are flaws in the assumptionsunderlying the new system. With good quality Statements of Community Involvement,realistic resourcing and a fundamental shift in mindset, over the next 10–15 years therecould be a move towards more inclusive participation in planning. But the currenttrajectory suggests that the familiar barriers to participation by excluded groups willcontinue to operate.

Evidence from the experience of the Planning Aid service suggests that there ispotential within the new planning system, as Albrechts hopes, to “expand practicaldemocratic deliberations . . . encourage diverse citizens’ voices” and “direct resources tobasic needs rather than to narrow private gain” (Albrechts, in Hiller, 2002, p. 271). Butthere are also limits within the current hybrid approach, where the local context, such asa strong governance culture of representative democracy, coupled with long-standingbarriers to participation, could limit the potential for achieving Albrechts’s vision.However, based on the discussion here, we suggest that an awareness of the possibilitiesand limitations of a hybrid democracy can act as a starting point for opening up spaceswhere diverse voices can be heard and can influence planning practice in the future.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Planning Aid for their permission to publish this paper.However, the article reflects the views of the authors alone rather than those of PlanningAid or the Royal Town Planning Institute. For more information on Planning Aid, seewww. planningaid.rtpi.org.uk


Notes

1. The Skeffington Report advocated involvement of the public in planning decisions in 1969 (MHLG, 1969).

2. This included an analysis of monitoring returns from the regional services and feedback forms from

individuals and community groups using the service, as well as interviews with Planning Aid staff, national

and regional stakeholders, and staff from the Ministry responsible for planning matters (the Office of the

Deputy Prime Minister—ODPM, now renamed Communities and Local Government—CLG).

3. The management of Planning Aid transferred from TCPA to the RTPI in the 1990s.

4. “Disadvantaged groups” are defined by the Royal Town Planning Institute as “people on low incomes;

unemployed people; minority ethnic communities; women and women’s groups, disabled people and

disability groups; older people; children and young people; tenants groups; community groups and

voluntary organisations” (RTPI, 2003, p. 6).

5. The monitoring figures refer to Planning Aid’s core funded work, rather than its regional projects, that are

funded separately on an ad hoc basis, in response to sponsors’ requests within the regions.

6. The gap between the cost of living and planners’ wages has been cited as a reason for staff shortages within

Local Planning Authorities, as well as the strong competition from private sector planning consultancies

(Doak & Parker, 2005)

7. This is the Semi-Judicial Agency charged with reviewing local authority planning decisions.

References

Albrechts, L. (2002) The planning community reflects on enhancing public involvement, Planning Theory andPractice, 3(3), pp. 332–347.

Albrechts, L. (2003) Reconstructing decision-making: planning versus politics, Planning Theory, 2(3), pp. 249–268.Amin, A. & Thrift, N. (2002) Cities: Reimagining the Urban (Oxford, Blackwell).Baker, M., Coaffee, J. & Sherriff, G. (2006) Achieving Successful Participation: A Literature Review (London, CLG).Barker, K. (2006) Barker Review of Land Use Planning: Final Report and Recommendations (London, HMSO).Barnes, M., Knops, A., Newman, J. & Sullivan, H. (2004a) The micro-politics of deliberation: case studies in public

participation, Contemporary Politics, 10(2), pp. 93–110.Barnes, M., Newman, J. & Sullivan, H. (2004b) Power, participation and political renewal: theoretical perspectives

on public participation under New Labour, Social Politics, 11(2), pp. 267–279.Bedford, T., Clark, J. & Harrison, C. (2002) Limits to new public participation practices in local land use planning,Town Planning Review, 73(3), pp. 311–331.

Beebeejaun, Y (2004) What’s in a nation? Constructing ethnicity in the British planning system, Planning Theoryand Practice, 5(4), pp. 437–451.

Bidwell, L. & Edgar, B. (1981) Promoting participation in planning: a case study of Planning Aid, Dundee area, in:C. Smith & D. Jones (Eds) Deprivation, Participation and Community Action, pp. 137–152 (London, Routledge andKegan Paul).

Blair, A. (1998) Foreword, in Social Exclusion Unit, Bringing Britain Together—ANational Strategy for Neighbourhood

Renewal, Cmnd 40458, pp. 1–2 (London, The Stationery Office).Bloomfield, D., Collins, K., Fry, C. & Munton, R. (2001) Deliberation and inclusion: vehicles for increasing trust in

UK public governance?, Environment and Planning C, 19, pp. 501–513.Bohman, J. & Rehg, W. (Eds) (1997) Deliberative Democracy (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press).Brooks, M.P. (2002) Planning Theory for Practitioners (Chicago, American Planners Association).Brownill, S. & Carpenter, J. (2007) Increasing participation in planning: emergent experiences of the reformed

planning system in England, Planning Practice and Research, 22(4), pp. 619–634.Campbell, H. & Marshall, R. (2000) Public involvement and planning: looking beyond the one to the many,International Planning Studies, 5(3), pp. 321–344.

Cars, G., Healey, P., Madanipour, A. & de Magalhaes, C. (Eds) (2002) Urban Governance, Institutional Capacity and

Social Milieux (Aldershot, Ashgate).Coaffee, J. & Healey, P. (2003) My voice, my place: tracking transformation in urban governance, Urban Studies,

40(10), pp. 1960–1978.CLG (Communities and Local Government) (2007) Planning for a Sustainable Future, White Paper (London,

HMSO).Dahl, R.A. (1989) Democracy and its Critics (New Haven, CT, Yale University Press).DTLR (Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions) (2001) Planning: Delivering a FundamentalChange, Planning Green Paper (London, HMSO).


Doak, J. & Parker, G. (2005) Networked space? The challenge of meaningful participation and the new spatialplanning in England, Planning, Practice and Research, 20(1), pp. 23–40.

Durning, B. & Glasson, J. (2004) Skills Base in the Planning System, Volume 1, Literature Review for LGA (London,Employers’ Organisation and ODPM).

Elster, J. (Ed.) (1998) Deliberative Democracy (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Etzioni, A. (1996) The New Golden Rule: Community and Morality in a Democratic Society (New York, Basic Books).Flyvbjerg, B. (1998) Rationality and Power (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).Forester, J. (1999) The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes (London, MIT Press).Foucault, M. (1979) Discipline and Punish: The Intervention of the Prison (London, Allen Lane).Fraser, H. (2005) Four different approaches to community participation, Community Development Journal, 40(3),

July pp. 286–300.Gutmann, A. (Ed.) (1998) Freedom of Association (Princeton, Princeton University Press).Habermas, J. (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and Rationalisation of Society (Cambridge,

Polity Press).Harris, N. & Thomas, H. (2004) Planning for a diverse society? A review of the UK government’s Planning Policy

Guidance, Town Planning Review, 75(4), pp. 473–500.Healey, P. (1990) Policy processes in planning, Policy and Politics, 18(1), pp. 91–103.Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning (London, Macmillan).Healey, P., McNamara, P., Elson, M. & Doak, A. (1988) Land Use Planning and the Mediation of Urban Change: The

British Planning System in Practice (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Held, D. (1987) Models of Democracy (Cambridge, Polity Press).Heseltine, M. (2007) Cities Renaissance: Creating Local Leadership, Submission to the Shadow Cabinet Cities Taskforce

(London, Conservative Party).Hillier, J. (2002) Shadows of Power: An Allegory of Prudence in Land-Use Planning (London, Routledge).Hoggett, P. (1991) A new management in the public sector?, Policy and Politics, 19(4), pp. 243–256.Imrie, R. & Raco, M. (Eds) (2003) Urban renaissance? New Labour, Community and Urban Policy (Bristol, Policy

Press).Innes, J. (1995) Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: communicative action and interactive practice, Journal ofPlanning Education and Research, 14(4), pp. 183–189.

Innes, J. (1999) Consensus building in complex and adaptive systems: a framework for evaluating collaborativeplanning, Journal of the American Planning Association, 65, pp. 412–423.

Innes, J. & Booher, D. (2004) Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century, Planning Theory and

Practice, 5(4), pp. 419–436.Kitchen, T. & Whitney, D. (2004) Achieving more effective public engagement with the English planning system,Planning, Practice and Research, 19(4), pp. 393–413.

Krishnaryan, V. & Thomas, H. (1993) Ethnic minorities and the planning system (London, RTPI).Krishnaryan, V. & Thomas, H. (Eds) (1994) Race Equality and Planning: Policies and Procedures (Aldershot,

Avebury).Lawless, P. (2006) Area-based urban interventions: rationale and outcomes: the new deal for communities

programme in England, Urban Studies, 43(11), pp. 1991–2011.MHLG (1969) People and Planning, Ministry for Housing and Local Government, “The Skeffington Report” (London,

HMSO).National Planning Aid Unit (2007) Year 4 National Quarterly Monitoring Report, April 2006–March 2007.

Unpublished.Newman, J. (2001) Modernising Governance: New Labour, Policy and Society (London, Sage Publications).ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (2003) Participatory Planning for Sustainable Communities:International Experience in Mediation, Negotiation and Engagement in Making Plans (London, ODPM).

ODPM (2004a) Community Involvement in Planning: The Government’s Objectives (London, ODPM).ODPM (2004b) Diversity and Equality in Planning: A Good Practice Guide (London, ODPM).ODPM (2005) Improving Delivery of Mainstream Services in Deprived Areas: The Role of Community Involvement,

Research Report 16 (London, ODPM).Phelps, N. & Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2000) Scratching the surface of collaborative and associative governance:

identifying the diversity of social action in institutional capacity building, Environment and Planning A, 32,pp. 111–130.

Raco, M. (2005) Sustainable development, rolled-out neoliberalism and sustainable communities, Antipode, 37(2),pp. 324–347.

Reeves, D. & Burley, K. (2002) Public inquiries and development plans in England: the role of Planning Aid,Planning Practice and Research, 17(4), pp. 407–428.


RTPI (Royal Town Planning Institute) (1998) Feasibility study into the recruitment of black and ethnic minorities into theplanning profession (London, RTPI).

RTPI (2003) Planning Aid Main Programme Delivery Plan October 2003–March 2006. Paper presented toNational Planning Aid Programme Board, 1 August.

RTPI & the Commission for Racial Equality (1983) Planning for a Multi-Racial Britain (London, Commission forRacial Equality).

Sandercock, L. (1998) Towards Cosmopolis (Chichester, John Wiley).Shaw, D. (2006) Culture Change and Planning (London, CLG).South East Planning Aid (2006) Engaging Communities Facing Change: Lessons from Kent Thameside, a National PilotProject in the Thames Gateway, June 2006 (London, RTPI).

Stoker, G. (2004) Transforming Local Governance (Basingstoke, Palgrave).Sykes, R. (2003) Planning Reform: A Survey of Local Authorities (London, Local Government Association).Thomas, H. (1992) Volunteers involved in Planning Aid, Town Planning Review, 63(1), pp. 47–62.Thomas, H. (1996) Public participation in planning, in: M. Tewdwr-Jones (Ed.) British Planning Policy in Transition

(London, UCL Press).Thornley, A. (1993) Urban Planning under Thatcherism: The Challenge of the Market, 2nd edn (London, Routledge).


Documents

carpenter-brownhill-approaches to democratic involvement