8/11/2019 Pages from Imrie
1/3
DISABILITY AND
THE
CITY
INSTITUTIONAL
MEDIATION AND
PLANNING
FOR
ACCESs
123
es
it,
dotted
about
the
estate
are
seen
various
charitable
and
thropic
institutions
. . .
in
an
open
healthy
district
.
.
. and it is
but
just
ht
that the
more
helpless
brethren
should
be
able
to enjoy
the
benefits
of
>eriment which
is designed
for
humanity
at
large
p.
20). While a
alist ic at titude underpi ns
Howard s thinking,
the
spread of
new
I
tent ideals
became
one of the
lynchpins of
twentieth
century
planning,
a
range
of authors
has
no te d, t he y were
rarel y s ensi ti zed,
in
the way
--
N__L-
rd was, to
the needs of specific
groups.
In
c er tai n r es pec ts , t hey
became
Of
kg
ottant component in
re)
producing
disablist-socio-economic
tructures,
e
post
war
new towns we re
remarkable
for
their
social
homogeneity,
for
/
Nonas
A
uating
social divisions
and
for seeking to provide
the
able-bodied )
Edfa
NNVO
pools for
the
waves of
productive decentralization
from the
larger
>olitan areas.
aughout the
1940s
and
1950s,
plan making
was implicated in re)
/AL
:ing
the
modernist city, of
separating
functional spaces and, as
Healey
I
comments, producing
environments functional to
the needs
of
ry,
providing
for
the
material
welfare,
moral
improvement,
and aesthetic
aent
of
citizens p. 261).
Yet
this
was
the
period
of
rampant
technical
luralism, a
concern with what
Healey
terms
a
moral
utilitarianism .
I,
as
chapter
4
discussed,
the propagation of modernist
a es th et ic s an d
in
the built form was
premised
on a
conception of
a
unified
public
R
A
ND A A L
st
and a
homogeneous
citizenry
for which the planner as
expert could
or
in
the
certainty
of the
predictable patterns
of their clientele).
Local
were, therefore,
seen as
expressions
of the
societal)
totality,
the
liment
of a
techno-rational
proceduralism apparently
reflecting
and
re)
eing the
core,
central,
va lu es of
society.
The
extent
to
which
plans
were
zed
to diversity,
difference or to
divergent
value systems,
then, was
I, while,
as
Healey
and others
have
argued, a
social
conservatism
stive
of
development
interests
has been, and
c on ti nu es t o
be,
the broad
basis
of t he
local
plan.
ile planning
throughout
the
1960s
maintained an elitist
distinction
Ro
en the
planner as
expert)
and the
public,
the apparent
e xp er ti sm of
local
ng processes was called
into
question
time
and
again
by
the
recurrent
ctures between stated objectives and
outcomes. Economic
crisis
in
the
,
for
instance,
undermined the ability
of the
planning
system
to
maintain
Figure
6.1
Ebenezer
Howard s
conception
of the
social
city
reflected
the
visions
of a
rol
and command
function
while,
increasingly,
planners
were forced
to
section
of late
nineteenth
century
society
who
were
concerned
with
creating
the
good
int
the social
distributive
consequences
of
their
plans.
Competing
groups
ep
v
e
a do
e
he
e
h
vro
e
eenas
witrhe
bhae
Ldaanrd
nad
hneal seae
tn
Sfc
tm
to
seek greater redress through the
planning
system,
its
value-neutrality
indicates
how
he
conceived
of
using
fand
and
rent
in
engineering
social
change
se
tallenged,
and the cl ai med status of
the
local plan,
as
somehow a
technical
Ward,
1994, p.
24). Yet
the
scheme
is
underpinned
by moralistic
v al ue s, of
particular
r
between
competing
interests,
was
s ee n t o be flawed. Greater
participa-
forms
of s ocial
order
reinforced
by
spatial
segregation.
People
with
disabilities
are
l
t he s ys tem w as
called
for,
while radical critiques
emerged
to t ry a nd
re)
a ck no wl ed ge d y et
t hey are
placed
outside
the cities
away
from
the
normaP
population,
the
basis
of the system away
from privileging development interests
ds a
wider,
more
inclusive,
social
base.
The
claimed
technical,
apolitical,
ility
of previous
periods,
then,
was threatened, yet
local
plans,
even
during
sciod, rarely
reflected
the
ferment
of
debate.
Participation
in
planning by
8/11/2019 Pages from Imrie
2/3
WSABILITY
AND THE
CITY
INSTITUTIONAL
MEDIATION
AND PLANNING
FOR ACCESS
>lic remained
hierarchical,
while t he content of
local
plans never seemed
ously
forcing
planners to
prioritize
t he requi rement s
of
the
development
ce
beyond bland,
g en er al , s ta te me nt s of
intent.
Even
where the
land
use industry. Thus the
White Paper,
L if ti ng t he
Burden
DoE,
1985c), stated
that
Ltions of particular proposals
were specified
for
particular
social
groups,
development
plans a re u se ful
because
they
can
assist
developers
and
the
busi-
ople with disabilities,
there
was
always
the
insurmountable
problem of
ness
community .In addition,
the
status of plans
was reduced
to a form of
devel-
ng
able to
resource
some
of the key
policy
intentions.
opers
prerogative
in
that, as
Thornley
1991)
notes, the
development
industry
le
local
planning
practice
never
attained
significant powers, even
during
was
more or
less
told
by
government
t ha t t hei r
market
knowledge
would
be
70s,
throughout the
1980s local planning
departments
experienced a
permitted
to override
the content
of the
development
plan and/or any other
form
ssive
weakening
of the
local
plan as a statutory
and
binding
planning
of
supplementary planning
guidance,
nent. A
range of directives
increasingly
placed
the
onus
on less
prescrip-
The
Planning
and
Compensation
Act
1991),
which
reasserted
the
primacy
of
>1icies and programmes while seeking
to
liberalize
local
regulatory
the
plan
in
the
determination
of
planning
applications,
seemed
to signal
a retreat
i to enable,
so
it
was argued,
greater
leverage
for
the private development
from the
market
utilitarianism
of the
1980s.
For
Healey
1995),
and
others, this
y. A
number of
strategic
moments are
illustrative
of t hi s
more
general
seems
to
indicate an apparent
shift
from market
based criteria
to a
greater
vhich
Thoraley 1991),
and
others, have
describedas the emergence
of an
concern
with environmental
quality
and
community
issues,
and a
re-emphasis
mocratic
authoritarianismintent
on
asserting
the values
of
the
neo-liberal
on
strategy and
plans.
In
particular,
Healey
notes
how a
plethora
o f n ew
strategic
dso
see Rydin,
1993).
In
parti cular, a
succession
of governments
has
put
1
objectives
-
environmental,
development, social
and
community
-
has
led
to
sis
on
creating
a streamlined
planning
service
better geared
to
the
tasks
increased
debate
about policy
co-ordination,
while
there
is now a greater
air of
sting economic
recovery,
in
essence,
utilizing a strategy
of revitalizing
the
expectation
that
planning
can deliver
people from many of
the
harmful
exter-
t
a s t he
central
principle of social
organization.
In
practice, this has
been
nalities
associated with modern
economies.
Indeed,
the government s
appar-
lified
by
the relaxation of the
General
Development
Order
and
Use
ently) renewed
faith in
planning as a tool of environmental management and
,
Order,
t he t ra nsf er
of
planning
powers to
Urban
Development
change seems
signalled
in
the
DoE s revised
Planning
Policy
Guidance
12:
rations,
and t he
greater stress
on m ar ke t c ri te ri a
in
development
control
Development
Plans
and
Regional
Guidance ,
a
document which
encourages
ins.
In
this sense,
a m arket
utilitarianism, as
other chapters
have
inti-
i
local planning
authorities to
consider
issues like
the
revitalization
of
local
,
sought t o re) establish the
contours of
the land
use planning
system,
economies ,
while,
simultaneously,
taking into account
social
distributive
ed, throughout
the
1980s,
government advice
and circulars
emphasized
issues,
gitimate spheres
of
planning as
ones
of
physical land
use
matters,
Yet,
for
people
with
disabilities, and
other marginal and
oppressed
groups,
ow
re) directing
the
s ys tem t ow ar ds t he no ti on t ha t t ec hni ca l,
procedural
their
status within
the local
pl an ni ng s ys te m s ee ms
clear.
For
instance,
in
mid
ns
were of paramount
importance.6
Planners
were
exhorted
to
speed-up
1 99 3, t he
Royal
Town
Planning Institute
RTPI, 1993)
submitted
a
document
tem, expedite decision
making
and create the conditions
for
investment
to
the junior
minister of the
Department
of the
Environment
DoE), David
anomic
developmerit.
Public participation was
squeezed
into
tighter time
Curry, requesting that
prescriptive
policies,
or
policies which
make
binding,
,
it became
more
centralized
and,
as circular 23/81 argued,
planners,
in
unequivocal,
statements, appearing
in Unitary
Development
Plans
UDPs)
reparation
of
local
plans,
need
not necessarily
c on su lt a nd/ or
undertake
and/or
local plans
be
given
the
department s
support?
In
particular,
the
RTPI
ty
at
the survey stage .
The period
for decisions
to
be made
on planning
was
seeking
to
be
al lo wed t o
go
beyond the advice
of
Planning Policy
Guidance
itions
was reduced,
while
developers, far
from sensitized
to
the
needs
of
3
which
states
that
local
authorities
can only
seek to negotiate
accessible
d
people,
were
given
greater
powers to
specify the form and
content
of
housing,
towards
the use
of
directives
in
plans which permit
them
to make
access
pment schemes.
Planning for
residential development,
for
instance,
led
mandatory.
However, Curry s
1993)
response
was
clear
in
arguing
that
your
ty
with t he emergence of
joint
public-private)
housing
studies where
document
is
wide-ranging and
ambitious.
It goes
a
great
deal
further than
the
builders became increasingly involved in
detailed site
allocations at a
revised
p la nn in g gu id anc e o f
PPG
3
and
gives
detailed
guidance
on
a
number
of
:veL
issues
which
in m y v ie w r em ai n
unresolved
..
for
reasons Iknow
you will
under-
al distributive
issues
were
also discounted
by
the
DoE
in
the
1980s
as
s ta nd, t he
Department would
have
to
ob je ct t o prescriptive
policies
appearing
vant
to
land
use
planning
and, as
circular
22/84
stated,
it
is
inappropriate
in
local
plans and
UDP s. In
stating
this, then,
Curry
was
giving
government
ude
in
structure
or local
plan
policies any proposals
which
might lead to
support
to the
efficacy of market
utility, for access
only to
be
provided
if
the
essment of
planning
applications
on the
basis
of t he
identity,
personal
developer/applicant
wishes to
do
so,
and
of
the
right of applicants
to
receive
r characteristics
o f t he
individual
DoE,
1984, p.
44).
Planners were also
planning permission
unless good
reason
t o t he
contrary could
be
found.In
short,
d
not
to
produce
policies
favouring
on e gr ou p
over
another,
yet
such
the
historic
support of government
for
private
property
rights
and the
develop-
ations were
contradictory
in
that
government directives
were
simultane-
ment
industry was being
reasserted.
