Planning and participation in practice: A study of public participation in structure planning

Projyess IR Planning. Vol. 13. pp. I- 102 @Pergamon Press Ltd. 1980. Printed in Great Britain.

Planning and Participation in Practice: A Study of Public Pnrticipatiocl in Structure PIarming’

NOEL BOADEN,’ MICHAEL GOLDSMITH,’ WILLIAM HAMPTON’ and PETER STRINGER’

Contents

Preface

List of Publications

1. Introduction: Public Participation in Strudure Planning

Notes: Chapter 1

7

14

2. The Components of Participation

2.1. Conclusion Notes: Chapter 2

15

21 22

3. The Context for Participation 23

Notes: Chapter 3 30

4. The Management of Public Participation

4. I. The Local Setting 4.2. The Scope of Planning 4.3. The Use of Consultants 4.4. Staffing Participation 4.5. The Role of Councillors 4.6. Handling the Response 4.7. Conclusions

Notes: Chapter 4

5. Information-Giving

5.1. Objectives 5.2. A Framework for Analysis 5.3. The Source of Information 5.4. Exhibitions 5.5. The Narure of the Information Given 5.6. Plans, Brochures and Information Sheets

‘This rewew IS based on the results of the Lmkcd Research Project into Public Participation in Structure Planning, sponsored by the Department of the Environment. However. the view expressed arc those of the authors. and nor necessarily those of the Department of the Environment.

*Department of Sociology. University of Liverpool. ‘Department of Sociological and Political Studies. University of Salford. ‘Division of Continuing Education. University of Sheffield. ‘Department of Social Psychology. University of Nijmtgcn.

3

5

32

34 35 36 37 39 41 43 43

44

44

46 47 48 49 51

,PP I3.1/2-A 1

2 Progress in Planning

5.7. The A udience 5.8. Non-Joiners 5.9. Target Audiences 5. IO. Public Meetings 5. II. The Components of Communication 5.12. Conclusion

Notes: Chapter 5

6. Information Collection

6.1. Objectives and Motives 6.2. Sample Surveys 6.3. Comment Forms and Written Representations 6.4. Consultation with Organisations 6.5. Kits 6.6. Cone fusion

Notes: Chapter 6

7. Interaction

7. I. Consultative Panels 7.2. The Approach to Organised Groups

7.2,1. Organisational Structure 7.2.2. Intra-Group Interaction 7.2.3. Community Workers

7.3. Educational Aspects of Public Participation 7.4. Conclusion

Notes: Chapter 7

8. People and Participation

Notes: Chapter 8

9. Planning for Democracy

52 52 53 54 55 57 57

58

58 61 63 66 68 69 70

72

74 77 79 79 80 81 82 83

85

93

94

Preface

The establishment of a Linked Research Project into Public Participation in Structure Planning was first discussed in 1972. The final writing up of the results took place during 1977-78. In the intervening period, research was conducted in five planning authority areas and background information was collected in many others. During the peak period of fieldwork, from 1973 to 1975, as many as twelve people were working on the project.

The Linked Research Project was unusual both in its organisation and in the methods adopted for disseminating the results. Four multi-disciplinary teams were located at the Universities of Liverpool, Salford and Sheffield, and at the Polytechnic of Central London. This last section of the Project was later moved to the University of Surrey consequent upon the establishment of the Linked Project. The entire Project was coordinated by a fifth team at the University of Sheffield. Disciplines represented in the research teams

included political science, sociology, psychology, planning, geography and social administration. The Project was guided and helped by the establishment of Steering and Liaison Groups consisting of representatives of the Department of the Environment, the local authorities concerned, and the researchers.

We accepted personal responsibility for directing the research located in our own institutions and shared joint responsibility for directing the Project as a whole and for writing this report which we have signed in alphabetical order. We met regularly throughout the Project and in addition several two-day conferences were arranged for all members of the teams. An administrative assistant was appointed to be responsible for the smooth running of the coordinating arrangements. Much of the work involved close cooperation between the various research teams. Questionnaires were jointly designed for use in several different areas; research assistants concentrated their efforts in particular areas at times of peak field work; and data collected in one area was often coded and analysed in another.

The Linked Project was intended to produce information of practical value to the Department of the Environment and structure plan authorities. We decided, therefore, to make our results available as the research proceeded. We did this in three ways. First we spoke about our work at many conferences and meetings throughout the country. In addition we organised a three-day residential conference for structure planners at which we discussed our work, and collaborated with the Planning Exchange in a similar conference in Scotland. We provided a Public Participation seminar at the Town Planning Summer School for three consecutive years. Second, we responded to requests for advice and information from individual planners and local authorities. We answered countless telephone calls and visited local authorities as consultants both formally and informally. Third, we published a series of Interim Research Papers. The Department of the Environment distributed these to local authority planning departments and in addition several hundred copies of each title were sold both in this country and abroad. A full list of the Interim Research Papers, together with other publications associated with the Project, is appended to this Preface.

We are not concerned here to rehearse the material already published. Instead we have taken the main themes from our research and woven them into a coherent pattern within a broader context. Where more detailed results are available we have referred the reader to them. The first part introduces some ofthe wider considerations associated with participation in planning and outlines the underlying strategy adopted during the research. The three

3

4 Progress in Plenning

chapters consist of a general introduction to the concepts involved; a discussion of the components of participation and the relationship between participation and the planning process; and a consideration of the legislative, institutional, and social context within which participation exercises are conducted. The second part is organised into live chapters. The first of these is concerned with the management of participation programmes. The next three look at the various techniques employed. In these chapters we use the analytical division into information dispersal, information collection and interaction between planning authorities and the public which is introduced in chapter two. The final chapter of the second part brings together the empirical data on the type of people who become involved in participation exercises. The report concludes with an essay on the implications of extending participation both for planning and for our present system of local democracy.

During such a large-scale research programme we necessarily incurred many debts which we wish to acknowledge. We must thank our academic departments both for accommodating the research and for making it possible for us to accept the research contracts. We are grateful to the Department of the Environment for providing the resources and to the local planning authorities in Cheshire, Merseyside, North East Lancashire, South Yorkshire and Teesside for providing the opportunities for the research. We regarded many officers from the DOE and the local authorities as colleagues and benefitted from both their help and friendship. Their comments on the drafts of the Interim Research Papers greatly improved the published versions. We must also thank, again anonymously, the thousands of people who responded to our requests for information either in random sample surveys or in more personal interviews.

Within the research team our warmest appreciation must be reserved for our administrative assistant, Mrs. Iris Walkland. She worked with the Project throughout its live-year life and became a valued colleague of us all. She achieved with the maximum of efficiency and the minimum of fuss, the difficult task of maintaining communications between several universities, many local authorities, various offices of DOE, and a large number of researchers scattered throughout the country. When the interim research series was started she brought her considerable experience of such matters to the production and distribution of the Interim Research Papers. She also improved the style of many of the Papers by judicious copy-editing. The success of the series owes a great deal to her efforts. Finally, she edited the present joint work with great skill and relieved us of a lot of the worry of joint authorship.

Ten research assistants worked with the Project for longer or shorter periods. They entered into the work with enthusiasm and commitment. Several continued to help the Project long after they had moved to other employment. Most of the Interim Research Papers are co-authored by one or other of them. We are very appreciative of their hard work which made a major contribution to the Project. In alphabetical order they are: Irene Black, Wendy Beale, Neil Collins, Susan Ewens, Gillian Plumridge, Peter Saunders, Brian Spragg, Maureen Taylor, Patricia Thornton and Raymond Walker. Full-time secretarial assistance was provided by Lynda Nelson and Marie Partington and part-time assistance by Loma Morris, Elizabeth Dawson and Ann Andrews among others.

After so much help, we must make it plain that none of the institutions or individuals mentioned necessarily agree with what follows either in whole or in part. We accept full responsibility for both the facts and the opinions expressed in the report.

List of Publications

INTERIM RESEARCH PAPERS

IRP 1 Peter Stringer and Gillian Plumridge, Publicity and Communications Media in Structure Planning. IRP 2 Peter Stringer and Susan Ewens. Participation through Public Meetings: the Case in North East

Lancashire. IRP 3 Peter Stringer and Gillian Plumridge, Consultation with Organisations on the North East Lancashire

Advisory Plan. IRP 4 William Hampton and Raymond Walker, The Role of a Working Party in Considering the Public

Response to a Draft Structure Plan: a Case Study from Teesside. IRP 5 William Hampton and Raymond Walker, The Role of Consultants in the Public Participation Process:

the Teesside Experience IRP 6 Noel Boaden and Neil Collins, Consultation with Organisations in the Meneyside Structure Plan. IRP 7 Peter Stringer and Gillian Plumridge. Publicity Guidelines IRP 8 Michael Goldsmith and Peter Saunders, The Tale of Lewis the Cat: Public Participation and Settlement

Policy in Cheshire. IRP 9 Michael Goldsmith and Peter Saunders, Participation through Public Meetings: the Case in Cheshire. IRP IO Noel Boaden and Raymond Walker, Sample Surveys and Public Participation. IRP 11 William Hampton and Wendy Beale, Methods of Approaching Groups in South Yorkshire. IRP 12 Peter Stringer, The Press and Publicity for Public Participation. IRP 13 William Hampton and Raymond Walker, The Individual Citizen and Public Participation: aSurvey of

Individual Written Response in Teesside. IRP 14 Peter Stringer, Tuning in to the Public: Survey before Participation.

FINAL REPORTS FROM EACH AREA

Reports from Cheshire, Merseyside, North East Lancashire and Teesside were prepared at the conclusion of these sections of the Linked Project. The Cheshire and Teesside reports contain a lot of detailed information not included in the IRPs.

ASSOCIATED PUBLICATIONS

William Hampton and Wendy Beale, Public Participation in Planning-the Contribution of Adult Education, Adult Erikcation. 48 (6) March, 1976.

William Hampton and Raymond Walker, The Teesside/Cleveland Examination in Public: a report of a survey of participantsiocal Govem&r Studies. V (2) April, 1976.

William Hamoton. Research into Public Particioation in Structure Plannina. In: J. T. Coooock and W. R. D. Sewell (4s) Pubk Phcipafion in Planning (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons I%, 1977). - -

Noel Boaden, Michael Goldsmith, William Hampton and Peter Stringer, Public Participation in Planning within a Representative Local Democracy. PO/icy and Politics. 7 (1) January. 1979.

6

CHAPTER 1

Jntroduction: Public Participation in Structure Planning

‘From the principle of the necessity of identifying the interest of the government with that of the people, most of the practical maxims of a representative government are corollaries. All popular institutions are means towards rendering the identity of interest more complete. We say more complete, because (and this is important to remark) perfectly complete it can never be.’ John Stuart Mill, London Review. 1835.

Since 1968 local planning authorities have had a responsibility to involve the public in the preparation of their plans. Different local authorities have responded differently to it. Some interpreting the statute as providing an opportunity for effective public participation, others doing enough simply to satisfy the Secretary of State. These variations have been related to the kind of area, urban, suburban or rural, or to the mixture of those characteristics, and to the planning history of each area. Such varied contexts condition the attitudes and the roles to be played by the groups involved in planning. Planners, elected members, and the public are all affected by their past experiences of planning and local government. These individual and group relationships have to be set against the framework of organisation created in each authority, and against the social and economic conditions in each area. Together they provide opportunities and constraints for planning and participation. All these factors affected what was done, but the variation in response was also affected by the novelty of the requirement for participation. Some authorities had been trying to involve the public before the 1968 legislation but little had been done to develop the necessary skills or techniques for doing so. The theory of local government, with its emphasis on democratic participation, suggested that special efforts were not needed.

Public participation in planning cannot be divorced from more general questions about democracy and the appropriate role of government, both central and local. These have been under constant review during the past 15 years and government structure and organisation have been modified as a result. The changes have been caused by doubts about the ability of the system, and some parts in particular, to cope with the difficulties of providing services in a complex urban society. The disparities of service within and between different local authorities have raised particular doubts about whether government adequately reflects the needs and wishes of local residents. Lack of support raises doubt about public acceptance of government decisions which they have had no part in making; a doubt which is reinforced by’the inefficiency of much government decision- making. Clearly these elements are interdependent.

The debate about planning has to be seen against the more general discussion of these issues. The 1970 White Paper on Central Government’ recognised the weakness of ‘the apparatus of policy formulation’ and the consequent poor quality of decisions. It recommended new machinery which with changed attitudes would provide ‘the opportunity for greater openness in government, and more responsiveness to the needs and wishes of the community and of individuals . . .‘* Increased efficiency would have its corollary in more public involvement. It is not easy to judge whether the changes which have taken place in central government have had such effects, but central government may not be the best place in which to see greater public involvement.

Local government may be a better setting. Few would argue with the Royal Commission premise that local government is ‘by its nature in closer touch than Parliament or Ministers

7


can be with local conditions, local needs, local opinions. . .‘3 Nor would many argue with the view that such a claim is inconsistent with the poor quality and the great variety in many local government services and with the low level of public participation in local affairs. A succession of official committees have accepted this argument and tried to suggest suitable remedies. The Maud Committee’ suggested simplifying the internal structure of local authorities and clarifying the respective roles of officers and elected members.

Despite their widespread adoption the recommendations of these Committees were inadequate and more fundamental changes were sought. The result was the establishment of a Royal Commission on Local Government to consider the structure and functions of the whole system. Their report makes very clear the interdependence between provision of

the services and the quality of local democracy. They observe:

‘Our terms of reference require us to bear in mind the need to sustain a viable system of local democracy: that is, a system under which government by the people is a reality. This we take to be of importance at least equal to the importance of securing efticiency in the provision of services’r

Whatever the merits of that claim, the diagnosis of the Commission was accepted and its recommendation influenced the Local Government Act of 1972, which established the present system of local authorities.

Developments in the field of planning have to be seen in the context of these wider changes, although planning had its own separate enquiries and legislation. Planning had two distinct investigations: one was concerned with the efficiency and effectiveness of the planning system; the other was concerned with public participation in planning.

The tirst, more general, review of the planning system was undertaken in 1964 by the creation of a Planning Advisory Group. Though the system of planning introduced by the 1947 Act was considered to be among the best in the world at the time, its qualities were acknowledged to have been seriously reduced by social and economic changes over 15 years. The system was:

’ . . too detailed for some purposes and not detailed enough for other purposes. It brings before the Minister issues of major importance but in a form which may be incomplete and out of context, and also many issues of local interest which have no policy significance requiring the Minister’s approval. Yet it does not provide a medium for positive environmental planning at the local level.‘6

Such weaknesses meant that plans were not always of a high standard, and their implementation was often very slow, criticisms which were well understood by the planners in our case-study areas.

The Planning Advisory Group accepted the traditional view that planning is principally concerned with physical, land-use matters though they recognised that:

‘The problems of physical development and redevelopment with which it has to deal are often highly complex, involve investment decisions of great magnitude and extend across many related fields of policy.”

They regarded planning as very much a matter of producing formal plans to provide a blueprint for other agencies rather than as continual interaction with such agencies about their emerging policies. They remarked:

‘ . the basic need is for better plans leading to better quality results. We would stress the function of plans not primarily as a control mechanism but as providing a positive brief for developers, public and private. . .‘I

To achieve these aims they recommended a system which would’distinguish between two main levels of planning while also recognising the urban-rural division in the then structure of local government. County and urban plans would be concerned with the broad structural issues in town and country. In the event a dual system of planning was developed involving structure plans at the most general level and local plans for more detailed proposals. Under the system of local government which emerged in 1974, structure plans became the responsibility of county councils, and local plans of the county districts..The traditional view of planning as the production of formal plans was confirmed in the requirement that local authorities must produce and submit structure plans to the Department of the Environment.

Planning and Particiption in Practice 9

The related issue of public participation in such a reformed planning system was referred to a Committee on Public Participation in Planning (The Skefftngton Committee) in 1968, and they were asked:

b to consider and report on the bat methods. including publicity. of securing the participation of the public at the formative stage in the making of development plans for their area.”

The new planning system was being introduced while the Committee was sitting, and the new Act included provisions for popular participation. It was unusual to create such special requirements for participation, but the Committee recognised that the general issues involved and the particular means of achieving public participation could have direct relevance to other areas of local government work. They recognised that participation:

’ . . can improve the quality ofdecisions by public authorities and give personal satisfaction to those affected by the dccisions.‘rO

The Skeffington Committee considered a number of concepts which are of relevance to our study. Participation was defined as the ‘act of sharing in the formulation of policies and proposals’. ’ ’ This would require the authorities to give the public certain necessary information about their plans. The public must be able to take an ‘active part throughout the plan-making process *.I2 The Committee were not in favour of the more limited traditional views of what is meant by ‘the public’ and commented:

‘WC do not think of the public solely in terms of the community as it shows itself in organiscd groups. WC regard the community as an aggrcgatccomprisingall individuals and groups within it, without limitation.“’

These generous views of the relevant public and the nature of participation are matched by broad views as to the content of planning and a sense that planning should be conceived as a continous process.

The Skeffmgton definition of participation should be seen in the context of the wider debate about the nature of democracy. Over the centuries extensive social and economic changes have occurred in Western societies with consequent adjustments in the forms of democratic government; but there is no common agreement about the content of the concept itself. The classical meaning of the term is familiar to most people and finds distinct echoes in subsequent comments about local government in various countries. Aristotle wrote of democracy:

. . . WC can now proceed to study its attributes or institutions. (Under the head of the executive). there is the election of officers by all. andjrom all; there is the system of all ruling over each, and each, in his turn, over all; . (Under the head of the judicature), there is the system of popular courts, composed of all the citizens or of

persons selected from all.. . . (Under the head of the deliberative). there is the rule that the popular assembly should be sovereign in all matters. . .‘I’

Such a conception of direct universal participation (though based on some people not en,joying citizenship) survived in amended form until the nineteenth century when it had to give way to the pressures of industrialisation, population growth and their attendant urbanisation. The transition occurred in the middle years of the nineteenth century and John Stuart Mill expressed the shift from classical to modern ideas of democracy in his comment:

’ . . . the only government which can fully satisfy all the exigencies of the social state is one in which the whole people participate (but) since all cannot, in a community exceeding a single small town, participate personally in any but some very minor portions of the public business. it follows that the ideal type of a perfect government must be representative.‘”

For most purposes of modem government, when democracy is discussed, this representative form is meant.

The demand for public participation in planning, certainly in the Skeffington formulation, contains strong elements of participant democracy. Considering the history of the last hundred years these must raise serious questions, as well as constituting an implicit threat to existing representative institutions. Participation does this most obviously when it involves a change in the distribution of power, and by implication in the beneficiaries of planning decisions, by securing a form and style of participation to those

10 Progress in PIeming

who have previously been excluded for one reason or another. Some observers feel that power should formally move to new groups; others have a more moderate view and are content that such groups should have greater potential impact through modified procedures and new opportunities. This view recognises that influence, for any such group,

will ultimately depend on the issues involved, the mode of access to decision-making, and the views of all the parties involved.

One way of easing the transition to more power for those previously excluded would be to create a separate planning agency outside the local government system. It could have its own direct participatory methods which might stimulate public involvement and promote public confidence without directly challenging the existing power structures of local government. Inevitably this would have to be at the expense of any direct impact on those other services which remained within the local government system and susceptible to its less open methods of decision-making. Experience with the National Health Service and with regional economic planning which have such separate structures does not suggest that they are easy vehicles for wider public involvement despite their less formal representative

structures. The alternative approach is the one adopted in the planning legislation which involves

direct public participation in planning, but leaves the service as one part of the wider representative local government system. The problems here are different. The Mill view expressed earlier suggests that direct participation is only possible at the local level. This suggests that the level of structure planning may well not be the most appropriate setting for such experiments in direct democracy. In addition the problem remains of reconciling plans adopted with direct public participation and the decision-making process of the wider representative system. How are conflicts to be reconciled and whose views are to prevail? If public participation means giving power to the people it must surely alienate the elected membership; if it does not, the public may not wish to participate.

Other views of participation would avoid such head-on conflict. One such view sees participation primarily in a technical light; making a contribution to improving the plan- making process. Planning obviously depends to some degree on professional experience and technical knowledge, but the content of plans cannot be left entirely to planners. Brian McLaughlin in Control and Urban Planning concludes:

‘In general. there is need for much greater attention to be paid to the interface between theconsumers and providers of local government services. . . so as IO help provide a more relevant, realistic and responsive set of policies and also to help the business of foreseeing the need for fresh policies.“6

In his earlier textbook he advises planners first ‘to gather as much information as possible on the aspiration of the client groups’,” and subsequently to present their list of goals and

objectives to the politicians and the public for discussion and modification. Similarly the DOE has advised local authorities ‘Giving the public the opportunity to participate in the formative stage will. . . (inter alia) make the plan a better plan’.‘* Another view from Bernard Crick is that participation may not be directly about power or the technical quality of planning, but rather a means of improving the democratic process by increasing the flow of communication.‘9

The understanding of participation varies enormously depending on the values and intentions of the observer. Nor are the distinctions merely academic. If the representative institutions of local government are to remain dominant, then public participation as an avenue to power is probably untenable; a return to participatory democracy is not feasible. But other roles for participation are possible, though none avoid the problem of reconciling the views of the public with the ultimate decision-taking role of the elected members. Tensions will arise and the nature of any participatory programme will depend on how those tensions are perceived and what measures are chosen to relieve them.

The complexity of the possible relationship between public participation and existing forms of government may be gauged from Arnstein’s analysis of eight categories of participation.20 These range from mere tokenism to the transfer of power to the participating public. Basically her categories revolve around two dimensions. One concerns the form of participation adopted and ranges from direct to indirect participation, or in the

Planning and Participation in Practice 11

formulation just discussed, participatory end representative democracy. Thenearer one moves to the direct form, the more likely it is that the participant will exercise power. The other dimension is concerned with the effect, or potential effect, of participation on government decision-making. This second dimension relates partly to the volume of participation: how many people involve themselves, and how often; and the effect this has on the planning process. Greater involvement tends to mean transfer of power, less involvement probably means participation of the more technical kind discussed earlier.

The volume of participation is not simply a matter of numbers, but also reflects the frequency and extent of such activity and the form which it takes. An opinion poll or survey will produce one result; a public meeting another; these in turn will differ from consultation with small local groups. Part of the difference stems from the different audiences likely to be engaged by such different methods, and part from the fact that in some cases the planners dictate the content of public response while in others the public retain more autonomy.

Measurement of actual effects is difficult for these reasons, but potential is even more difficult. In one sense potential may be related to the timing and frequency of participation. Under the old planning system, opportunities for public participation aroseaftertheeffective decisions had been taken and this may still be the case under the more recent arrangements. In the decision-making processes of local government, publicity was often poor and many discussions were held and commitments made, in private; only when decisions were announced, and it might be too late, did people become aware ofthe need to participate.2’ This often involved a public inquiry, long delays in planning, and consequent planning blight. On the other hand, opportunities may occur too soon. The views of thosewho participateearly in the process of planning may be overlooked when decisions finally come to be taken, or their effect may be limited by comparison with inputs nearer the time of decision. Alternatively the public may not be motivated enough to participate in the early stages when the effects of any proposed plans are either unclear or remote. Attitudes towards the timing of participation depend on what is being sought from involvement. Power may require regular and frequent involvement and influence will certainly require some participation at critical points of decision. The more technical inputs from the public may be gathered more easily at single points, and quite early points, in the process. Much will depend on the capacity of the planning authority to cope with participation. The ability to process, record, retain and recall the public contribution is crucial to the timing and the character of any participation.

Other factors are also important. One of these is the nature of planning itself: One aspect of the debate about planning concerns the distinction often drawn between planning as a continuous process of forward decision-making, and planning as the production of finite formal plans. The other aspect relates to the substantive content of plans, or the scope of the process in which planners should be involved. In the former, planning is unquestionably an activity which is both continuing and continuous, though the new planning legislation requires the preparation of formal plans and their submission to the DOE. In relation to public participation the preparation of formal plans may present problems for authorities who wish to involve the public on a more continuous basis.

On the question of the content of plans and planning, one issue is obviously the geographical focus, spatial considerations being particularly relevant to traditional land- use and transportation plans. The counties are required to take note of plans in adjoining counties and of national and regional planning, but the boundaries of each structure plan are clear. In local planning the district councils are the pertinent authorities, but the geographical focus is less precise.

The scope and content of structure plans is not clear. The Planning Advisory Group concentrated largely on physical matters, though recognising that structure plans (as they became) could be much wider than the subsequent legislation allowed. Wider interpretations of structure plans would all imply an holistic view of the work of the local authority and of the social and economic life of the county concerned. Comprehensive planning involves the planner with the whole range of local government activity. Corporate planning is concerned with issues and policies which are the province of other departments in the local authority; the corporate planner considers the interaction of such policies, and


plans for the coordination of the work of traditionally separate departments. The definition of community planning is wider still. In John Stewart’s terms:

‘Community planning is wider in scope than corporate planning. It does not take as its starting point those problems which are the concern of the local authority. Community planning is not restricted to problems which are the concern of any particular organisation. It is concerned with planning to meet the problems and needs of the community within a specifKd area, irrespective of the particular organisation which might be involved -or even whether any organisation would be involved.‘22

Stewart recognises that community planning in this sense is an aspiration rather than a reality, but the aspiration to such an ideal also underlies the movement towards corporate planning, and the original enthusiasm for wide ranging structure plans. Some local authorities and some planners would welcome an extension of their planning function, but the complexity of community planning and the limited influence of local government over so many aspects of social and economic life, make it difftcult to adopt. In some ways it is the scope of planning most consistent with extended public participation. The public do not easily divide their lives in the way that professional areas of service are divided, and there are many cases of participation generating a wider range of issues than the planners can effectively manage.

It is instructive in this context to look at the advice given by the DOE to planning authorities in relation to the scope of structure plans. The Development Plan Manual offers one version of the structure plan:

‘The term structure plan is used here to mean the social, economic and physical systems of an area, so far as they are subject to planning control or influence. The structure is, in effect, the planning framework for an area and includes such mattem as the distribution of the population, the activities and the relationships between them, the patterns of land use and development the activities give rise to, together with the network of communications and the systems of utility service.‘”

Such a statement comes near an official version of community planning, though it is open to varying interpretations. Later advice from the Department clarifies and narrows the focus of structure planning. A Circular on Structure Plans in 1974 urged:

6 . . . authorities should. . . concentrate on those issues which are of key structural importance to the area concerned, and their inter-relationships. Issues which are not ofstructural importance should not normally be dealt with.‘”

Many factors make this narrowing necessary. The functional responsibilities of the planning authority limit the range of issues over which it can effectively plan with a strong chance of having any effect. Metropolitan counties in particular are limited in this way: their Districts perform many of the most important local government tasks in the area. They have responsibility for education, housing, social services, and in addition, separate political control. If wider influence is to be achieved it cannot rest on the power vested in the local planning authority or in the plan; it must depend on increased consultation with those who are taking local decisions, so that planners may educate them and influence their judgement.

The statute demands formal submission of a plan. At the same time such plans are the outcome of lengthy processes and require monitoring once approved, and adaptation over time. ‘Planning in short, is a continuous process which is not completed when a plan is produced.‘25 Such notions are entirely consistent with the systems approach to planning which sees feedback and adaptation as constant elements in a cyclical planning process. Such a view has profound implications for public participation, involving as it does a concept of dialogue in which the public are one of the voices. This is entirely consistent with the approach adopted by Skeffington, though the Act does not altogether encourage such planning concepts.

In recognition of the problems posed by participation the DOE accepted the need to learn from early experience of the new requirements and commissioned us to make an examination of public participation in structure plan preparation of five northern local authorities. They ranged from metropolitan to shire counties, and from predominantly urban to largely rural conditions; they included areas with acute social problems and others where the chief problems were concerned with growth and development; they

Planning and Participation in Prectice 13

included different sizes and types of planning department; and they varied in political terms. They offered a comparative series of case studies around which to examine both the theoretical issues of public participation in planning and the practical question of how it might be undertaken more effectively.

The two Metropolitan Counties, Merseyside and South Yorkshire, each cover a major city, Liverpool and Sheffield respectively. Merseyside began planning in 1973, before reorganisation, with the creation of a joint planning team drawn from the eight local authorities which would form part of the then proposed new county. This team had to adjust to working as a new unit, but had the advantage of being detached from the other work of the eight parent authorities. When reorganisation took place in 1974 any advantages gained by detachment of the team from day-to-day departmental work were lost with the creation of a permanent County Planning Department which took over responsibility for structure planning.

South Yorkshire began work on a county-wide structure plan only after the new county came into existence. This avoided transition difficulties, but it meant that planning and participation had to be undertaken in a new environment along with the creation of a new department and a new authority. South Yorkshire was a late addition to the list of Metropolitan Counties and differs in many respects from the other metropolitan areas. Sheffield is the only major city in the county, and except for Rotherham, the other major centres of population are separated from the city and each other by miles of open countryside and small settlements. The population is more dispersed and less interdependent than in the other metropolitan counties. This presents problems of balance between Sheffield and the other three metropolitan districts which have to be considered in the context of public participation. Several former county boroughs had to adjust to second tier status within the new county and old rivalries remained to compound the tensions of the new system.

Of the Shire Counties, Cleveland, which incorporated Teesside, is similar in character, though different in status, from the metropolitan counties. The new County took in Hartlepool and parts of Yorkshire and County Durham as well as Teesside; Teesside itself had only existed since 1966 having been formed from the amalgamation of Middlesbrough, Stockton-on-Tees and several surrounding towns.

Lancashire and Cheshire, the other Shire Counties, were conventional County Councils, both before and after reorganisation, though each experienced changes. Both are large, wealthy counties and typical of such areas. There are many district interests to be accommodated, and one or two county boroughs were especially important before 1974. North East Lancashire where our study took place, included Burnley and Blackbum; these two county boroughs were concerned to establish their position in the new county of Lancashire before local government reorganisation and the sub-regional plan (not formally a structure plan) provided them with an opportunity.

The politics of the areas varied widely. The three main urban authorities tended to have been Labour controlled, though sub-areas within them had often had different majorities. The two County Councils have both been Conservative for much of their history, though some of their urbanised districts had Labour councils. Political variation between county and districts is potentially more important in the metropolitan areas where the division of functions is more even. South Yorkshire was uniformly Labour, reducing this tension, but Merseyside initially had a Labour County while the Districts were controlled by all three major parties. This added one further difficulty to an already extensive list.

Given these formal settings the objectives of the research programme were:

‘(a) to gather information on the merits/demerits of various public participation techniques. . . with a view to formulating practical advice to local planning authorities and others involved in participation: and Cb) to formulate criteria by which DOE would be able to assess the adequacy of public participation on plans submitted to the Department.‘*6

Many of the research problems associated with our work are common to all social research: the problems of data collection and survey design; and the difficulties of interpretation when data is unreliable or not fully representative. But the central problem of researching public participation in planning is the difftculty of deciding criteria for


measuring the success of a particular participation programme. The objectives of public participation may vary widely, and are seldom made explicit;27 it becomes impossible therefore to decide whether or not they have been achieved. Moreover, some of the more obvious criteria of success are not easy to interpret or will only become apparent after several years’ experience of participation. An examination of any changes in the final plan which may result from public participation is not sufficient. If the planning was sensitive to public opinion in the first place, then a very successful public participation campaign might lead to few amendments. If the public have been involved from the start of the planning process then it may be difficult, and unnecessary, to disentangle their contribution from that of the planners or of other participants. The favourable consequences of public participation might include the intangible benefits of increasing public awareness of planning issues and improved competence to participate in local authority affairs in the future.

For such reasons we were unable to adopt a rigorous research model based upon the evaluation of public participation programmes in relation to stated aims and specified objectives. Our approach was based upon observation, surveys, case study methods and constant discussion. We interviewed councillors, local government officers, and many participant members of the public; in addition we had access to the tiles of the planning departments in our case study areas. We were careful in our use of these methods and as objective as possible in interpreting our results, but we make no pretence of ‘scientific’ accuracy. Nor do we apologise for the methods we adopted; they are not inferior nor superior to other methods; they were simply more appropriate for the subject matter of our

enquiry.2m

NOTES: CHAPTER I

1. The ReornPnisarion of Central Government. Cmnd 4506 (London: HMSO. 1970) oara 2. 2. ibid. para 3. -

, .

3. Royal Commission on Local Government in England. 1966-1969. Cmnd 4040 (London: HMSO. 1969) para 28. 4. Managemenr of Local Government. Report (London: HMSO. 1967). 5. Royal Commission on Local Governmew in England. 1966 1969. op. cit.. para 28. 6. The Future o/Development Plans (London: HMSO, 1965) para 1.31. 7. ibid, para 1.5. 8. ibid, para 1.34. 9. People andplanning (London: HMSO. 1969) para 1. IO. ibid, para 2. I I. ibid, para 5(a). 12. ibid. para 5(a). 13.ibid. para5(b). 14. Aristotle, The Polirics (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1948) pp. 302-303. 15. J. S. Mill. On Representative Government (London: Dent, 1960) p. 217. 16. J. Brian McLaughlin. Controland Urban Planning (London: Faber, 1973) p. 179. 17. J. Brian McLoughhn, Urban andRegiona/Planning (London: Faber, 1969) p. 120. 18. Department of the Environment, Circular 52/72 (London: HMSO, 1972) p. 3. 19. Bernard Crick, Them and us, In: Political TheoryandPractice. (London: Allen Lane the Penguin Press, 1971). 20. Sherry R. Arnstein, A ladderof citizen participation in the U.S.A..Journalofthe AmericanInsfituteofPlanners

(July, 1969). reprinted in Journal of the Town Planning Institute (London: April, 1971). 21. Foradiscussionofsomeoftheseideassee:P.H.Levin.Governmenr~drhePlanningProcess(London: Allenand

Unwin. 1976). 22. J. D. Stewart, Managemen/ in Local Government (London: Charles Knight. 1971) p. 65. 23. Department of the Environment,Developmenr Plans: a Manualon FormandConrenr (London: HMSO. 1970).

para 3.6. 24. Department of the Environment, Circular 98174 (London: HMSO. 1974) para 5. 25. ibid., para 27. 26. Quoted from the briefprepared by the Department of the Environment after discussion with t he research team. 27. c/ Andrew Thomley, Theoretical perspectiveson planning participation, Progress in Planning, 7, (I) (Oxford:

Pergamon. 1977). 28.ForadiscussionoftheproblemsofevaluatingtopicssuchaspublicparticipationseeMichaelKey.PeterHudson

and JohnArmstrong,Eva/uarionTheoryandCommunityWork(London:YoungVolunteerForceFoundation, 1976).

CHAPTER 2

The Components of Participation

Journalists’ mnemonic: who said what to whom, how, why. when. where. and with whal result?: Mediaeva scholar: quis. quid, quibus, ubl. cur. quomodo. quando;

Aristotle: marcrial. formal. efficient and linal causes (what. how. by whom. and why?)

In presenting our empirical data on the use of various techniques of public participation we have been influenced by the importance of communications theory. Whether participation is considered from a plan-making perspective or from the perspective of political change, communications remain an important element in the discussion: an element which seems particularly appropriate to a study based upon the practical use of specific techniques.

First we will consider the two main perspectives from which an analysis of public participation is usually undertaken: its importance for the planning process and its significance for the practice of democracy. The distinction between these two approaches is the key to many of the disagreements which occur during discussions of participation. Its objectives are sometimes described in terms of the contribution it can make to the smooth running of the planning system and the improvement of the objectives pursued by planners; but some people, including some participants, interpret the objective of participation as the redistribution of power away from established institutions and towards more participatory modes of democracy. These objectives are not necessarily contradictory: it is possible to envisage a development of representative democracy which incorporates many more participatory opportunities.

The terms of our research brief removed many of these political and philosophical questions from the centre of our concern. But they must not be ignored simply because they deal with values rather than with matters susceptible to empirical research. If the various actors in a participatory process are pursuing different objectives then interaction may lead to conflict rather than consensus, or people may not respond to initiatives by local authorities because they do not accept the relevance of these initiatives in terms of their own objectives. Evidence from other research projects supports the view that changes in existing institutions must accompany any significant extension of public participation.’

Within our brief there is room for further discussion about the purpose of participation within the framework of local authority planning. The interest in public participation among planners has developed as attitudes towards the nature of planning have changed. The gradual movement away from a rational model of planning, with its high technical content and reliance upon oflicers, and the greater acceptance of consensual and participatory models has accompanied a growing awareness of the essentially political nature of planning. A useful distinction between these three models with a further elaboration of the rationale of participatory planning is provided by Richard Warren Smith in an article in Policy Sciences’. To summarise his argument: Rational planning is concerned with achieving specified goals by the most eIlicient means. The goals themselves are unquestioned and may be defined in very general terms of the ‘good life’. Planning is seen mainly as a technical exercise with little or no political context and as such becomes the responsibility of the professional planner. This view of planning dominated the profession until at least the early 1960s; it clearly leaves little opportunity for public involvement.

16


Consensual planning, on the other hand, allows a greater role for public participation. There is a search by planners for support or for a consensus both about the means to be used and about the ends to be achieved. The political content of planning is accepted, though the technical component remains large. Those individuals or groups whose interests are affected directly by planning proposals will be given the chance to participate: the purpose of the participation is to promote the consensus.

Finally, participatory planning engages the individual citizen in the planning process to the fullest extent. Both the policies to be pursued and the preferred strategy for achieving them are decided by those for whom the plan is designed. The people are actively involved; the planner’s role is technical, advisory and subsidiary. If Smith’s three models are represented on a continuum (Fig. 2. l), then each move towards participatory planning subsumes the earlier types and implies a greater degree of interaction between the public and the planners.

Rational planning-~ Consensual planning+ Participatory planning

Minimal interaction_, Maximum interaction

FIG. 2.1. Ideal types of planning: and the interaction invoked

In addition to outlining three models of planning, Smith presents a rationale of participatory planning which includes aspects relating to all three. The rational aspects of participatory planning arise from the growing complexity of the planning process and the need for a continuing flow of relevant information. Smith provides his own summary:

. . ’ individuals and small groups are more intimately involved with environmental changes, they can, with great immediacy and accuracy, provide a planning process with information and judgments regarding local systems. Incorporating this function throughout the range of the planning domain provides the whole with the vitality and adaptiveness of the aggregate of local system vitality and adaptiveness.”

There are really two points to be made here: first, plans may be ineffective if they do not embody the values of the people they are intended to serve; second, plans may be unacceptable to the public if they have not been involved in the determination of the policies to be pursued. This second point represents Smith’s consensual aspect of participatory planning. Consultation between planners and individuals or organised groups will enable a consensus to emerge which will lead to the smooth implementation of the plan. A further refinement of this approach would incorporate the concept of feedback to provide a continuous reassessment of planning aims and methods as the implementation of the plan proceeds. The channels of communication and decision, in Deutsch’s phrase, become the nerves of government.’

When evaluating public participation our research has shown that most planners will be content with rational and consensual considerations which can be Seen as advantageous for the planning process. Smith, however, goes further by considering the personal and social aspects of participatory planning. By providing a context in which individuals and organised groups can have an effect on their environment, participation contributes to the self-confidence and competence both of individuals and of communities. This approach provides one strand in the philosophical justification for participation discussed earlier; Smith adds a planning dimension. If the planning process is to provide a learning system within which society can adapt to the constant pressures of social and environmental change, then public participation must provide the sensitive indicators of new directions. An active society is a healthy society because it is a more adaptive society. Smith concludes:

‘This becomes a fun&mental consideration to a planning process which intends to become instrumental in the development of a society that enhances human existence.”

Smith’s models are distinguished by a different relationship between planners and public; but all are based in a consensual view of society: the possibility of an agreed plan exists, the differences occur in the methods used to discover and develop that plan. Conflict theory provides an alternative approach. Simmie writes:

‘The production of a structure or a corporate or a local plan based on the assumption that a geographic area necessarily contains one community sharing common values, and therefore having standard requirements, is increasingly a recipe for conflict.‘6


There is no consensus about the policies which would lead to a better society because there is no common agreement about the composition of the ‘good society’; the conflicts which ensue over the allocation of resources between different policies form the basis of politics.

Conflict theory does not have to be accepted in all its elegant simplicity for us to recognise that the power to make planning policy carries with it the power to distribute resources in a manner favourable to the policy-maker or groups with whom he is associated. Planners are concerned with some of the most sensitive political decisions of our time, both in broad policy formation and in the implementation of development control. Those who argue, with Smith, that planning must provide a guide in the constant development of social conditions are led inevitably, in our view, to a concern with democratic processes. Public participation in these circumstances becomes an integral part of planning either as a complement to existing institutions or, more radically, as a means of changing the beneficiaries of planning by securing access to the decision-making process for those previously excluded either directly or indirectly by reason of their poverty or ethnic background.

These latter considerations led Sherry Arnstein to develop her ladder of citizen

participation as a method of analysing the effects of participation programmes.’ Arnstein recognises the limitations of her typology; there may be an almost infinite gradation along the continuum from manipulation to citizen control; but even more significant may be the conduct of different participants in a particular programme. A programme may be designed along lines which Arnstein would define as tokenism, but the public may use that programme in a way which enhances their capacity to affect decisions.

A more fundamental criticism of the Arnstein typology concerns the implication that the ladder may or should be climbed; the higher rungs are given greater ethical value than those lower down; such judgements are purely subjective. Moreover, the relationship between the aims of the participatory democrats and the attainment of full control by citizens is not self-evident. The ‘have-riots’’ will not necessarily benefit from it: it depends upon which citizens exercise that control and in whose interests. The involvement of every citizen is a fantasy and even if achieved would not imply an automatic consensus about the policy to be followed. Politics is about power; but no one has absolute power, and no institutional arrangements - or lack of them - can guarantee control to any particular group.

The improved information flow which will accompany public participation may have effects upon the political process irrespective of any direct proposals for supplementing existing institutions. We have already referred to Deutsch’s study of communication models and political decision systems in which he states:

’ we may consider apeople a community of social communication habits. Moreover, changes in the basic data of communication habits or communication experiences may be indicative of later changes in the social functions of existing political units.‘* (Original emphasis.)

More recently a British economist has discussed the implications for the social organisation of production and exchange which follow from the greatly enhanced communication opportunities provided by computers;‘and Bernard Crick has stressed the importance of communications in considering the concept of participation.

Crick specifically discussed this issue in the context of planning. He is less concerned with institutional participation than with the greater openness which should characterise a government committed to citizen participation. Like Amstein he recognises the dangers of tokenism: the advisory committee which can silence the local leaders included among its membership; or the confidential information conveyed on the understanding that it will not be published. He goes on to argue:

‘Participation. in societies as large as ours. is only valuable if it leads to increased communication maximisation of participation is a false hare to pursue in the name of democracy. compared to. for a prospect of real change. a maximisation of communication and publicity.“”

We are still left with a variety of methods for assessing the impact of participation programmes. Depending upon our objectives we may be concerned with the redistribution of power, however defined; we may be concerned with the effect upon the attitudes of

, P.S. 13. Ii2 I


participants towards the existing structure and the provision of services; or with the consequences of greater openness upon present arrangements. These approaches have one theme in common: they are all associated with a change in the relationship between those who make decisions and the general public; if this is the aim it will be reflected in the methods of public participation adopted. These are almost certainly going to include opportunities for direct discussions between members of the public and local councillors or officials as well as relevant publicity and information collection on the part of the planners. Even so, discussions between the public and the local authority do not automatically imply a change in democratic processes. The impact of any particular method of public participation will depend upon the general aims of those concerned with it and the wider circumstances which surround its introduction. The same method may be used in a participatory or a manipulative manner. Often the differences between various programmes will lie not with the methods used but in the motives of those who employ them.

The organising framework we shall develop for our material draws upon many of the ideas already discussed and to the questions posed in the traditional schemes for analysing communication patterns which head this chapter. These questions will not be considered in a simple order; we shall attempt an integrated discussion; but they constitute the basis of our approach.

First, who is the communicator? The source of a message may vary in its credibility and the outcome may differ for communications from sources varying in this way. We shall argue that the public may expect elected councillors to be the source of political discussions about policy; the less the councillors become involved in a participation programme the more it will approximate to a rational model of planning. Where the source or context of a communication is a group or organisation, then the status and level of interaction of the different parties to the communication will be relevant; as will the receiver’s knowledge of, and agreement with group or organisational norms. These considerations have obvious importance in relation to a local authority’s approach to various groups and organisations.

Second, what is to be communicated? Variations in the message may include: stylistic features; the order of presentation; what is included or omitted; and the discrepancy of the message from the receiver’s initial position of knowledge, opinion or belief. A local authority will need to match the material communicated to the needs of the recipient. This means an effort must be made to differentiate between audiences, and to learn more about the various circumstances in which the message will be received.

Third, who do we communicate with? The public as defined by the Skefftngton Committee is ‘an aggregate comprising all individuals and groups. . . without limitation’.‘* Such a definition is useful as an exhortation but needs to be refined before it becomes a guide to practical action: the public is a heterogeneous rather than a homogeneous mass. The planner must know the many different publics.

Fourth, how do we communicate? The techniques used will vary to suit the circumstances defined in answering the previous questions; they will also be affected by the purposes the particular act of communication is intended to serve. The short, sharpmessage whichattracts attention by its sudden impact may not aid comprehension or lead to a rational evaluation of the substance of the communication. Before wecan answer our ‘how’ question we must have answered ‘who’, ‘what’ and ‘why’.

Taken together the typologies we have discussed could form any number of complex frameworks for the analysis of our material. We have distinguished three components to any attempt to involve the public in planning. I2 First, information has to be dispersed as a basis for participation. Second, information needs to be collected from the public if they are to contribute to the deliberations of the local authority. Third, a two-way flow of information (interaction) between the planning authority and the public needs to be fostered if the communication system is to be completed and participation made a reality. These three components occur together as part of an integrated process, nevertheless it is sometimes useful as an analytical expedient to disentangle them. Each component may be given more substance by considering two further dimensions: what is being communicated and to whom or by whom.

The information being conveyed to the public will vary according to the attitudes and

Plenning 8nd Psrticipetion in Practice 19

objectives of the planning authority. First, it may consist of a set of proposals already agreed by the local authority. In this case the general public are either being told what will happen or at best being given the opportunity to comment in the expectation of modifying details of implementation. Second, the public may be involved at an earlier stage. They may be informed of the discussions taking place within the planning authority and of the alternative strategies being considered. They will then have an opportunity to influence the decisions during the formative stages. Third, there may be a move towards the more open government advocated by Crick. All information would be freely available to the public as a basis for scrutinising the activities of local authorities and for developing public discussion.

Similar considerations apply to the collection of information by the local authority from the public. First, some information will be of the purely factual kind contained in census data. Such details are a basis for any form of planning and do not really form part of a public participation programme. Second, information may also be sought from public and private bodies about decisions or future policies. Again, such information has usually been collected by planners and assumes increased importance when emphasis is placed upon forms of community planning. Third, and more closely connected to public participation, will be information collected about public attitudes and opinions. The significance of this information will obviously vary with the topics upon which opinions are asked for and the stage of the planning process which has been reached.

Any programme of public participation involving a two-way flow of information between a planning authority and the public will also involve some degree of interaction between them. The form such interaction takes will be affected by the attitude of the local authority and in some circumstances by pressure from local interest groups or members of the general public. It may lead to, or be the result of, more participatory approaches towards local democracy. There will be a continuum between a simple exchange of information and the confluence of a mutually developed plan. By interaction we usually understand a position towards the latter end of this scale.

The concept of heterogeneous publics is important for the other components of the present analysis. For example, the information needs of various sectors of the population may vary and the local authority will expect to collect different types of information from the numerous publics with whom it communicates. We have adopted a three-fold classification of the public into major elites, minor elites, and individual members of the public. By the use of the term ‘elites’ we imply a selection of sectional interests rather than an appeal to the general public.

Major elites are those organisations without whose co-operation and advice the local authority will find it difficult, or even impossible, to construct and implement a plan. They include neighbouring local authorities, commercial and industrial concerns, nationalised industries, and other public bodies. They may also include certain major pressure groups. Consultation with some of these organisations is a statutory requirement in the planning process and is similar to the discussions which go on between government departments and major national organisations during the legislative process. In the Manual on Form and

Content the Department of the Environment has separate sections for consultation and participation. I3 The distinction is not always easy to maintain, nor necessary, in our approach: we can interpret consultation as a method of participation. Local authorities, however, undoubtedly have a different perception of the two activities, and so do many of the major elites who achieve the status of consultees.

Minor elites comprise the voluntary organisations which occur in any area, with neighbourhood, community and parish councils where these exist. Many planning authorities approach such groups as a convenient way of collecting the different opinions held within a community. In addition, local people often organise action groups to present their views to the local planning authority and sometimes adhoc bodies grow which assume some of the characteristics of a community forum. ” Minor elites vary considerably in size, organisational structure, and competence in planning matters: they should not be approached in a uniform manner; nevertheless they are distinguishable both from major elites and from the unorganised public.

Finally, planners will often direct aspects of a participation programme at individual


members of the public. Although a large proportion of the adult population belongs to at least one organisation. there are significant differences between various age groups and between men and women.” Many people are only passive members of an organisation to which they belong or may disagree with its policy on planning matters. When we write of approaching the people as a collectivity of individuals we are including those we have previously classified as belonging to major or minor elites. The distinction being made is concerned with the role adopted in particular circumstances rather than with inherent differences or exclusive categories.

The three-fold classification of the public can be related to various approaches to democracy which give differing emphasis to the involvement of people not elected as public representatives. The consultation at national level in Britain has only recently included the element of open bargaining which is commonplace in the pressure-group lobbying practised in the United States; and this element of open bargaining is apparent only in relation to economic policy discussions between both sides of industry and the Treasury. The organisations concerned value the early opportunity consultation gives them to influence decisions and the entrance they gain to offtcial discussions. Similarly. in local government planning major elites often acquire privileges of access which are denied to other groups. They play a prominent part in the Examinations in Public.“j

Few local action groups and amenity societies in Britain achieve a regular involvement in local government policy discussions. Still less are individual citizens given easy access to policy debates: committee meetings are poorly publicised and attended, and the public are seldom allowed to contribute. ” Minor elites usually have a limited opportunity to participate in Examinations in Public, and frequently find such opportunities as do occur do not accord with their preferred procedures.”

While the privileges of major elites may be justified when public participation is considered from a rational planning perspective, they frequently offend the notions of equality held by other participants.” If public pa rticipation is viewed from the perspective of enhancing democracy by encouraging individual involvement, consultation with major elites is a very short step towards open government. Such consultation may even act against the spirit of greater public involvement by removing certain issues from the stage of public debate into the close confines of private accommodations. For these reasons the distinction which is sometimes made between consultation and participation becomes less tenable if a participatory view of planning is adopted.

The components of participation just outlined may be combined to form various models of public participation. The prudent planner will disperse information about council decisions to major elites in the area and take care to collect information about their policies when these affect planning matters. He may also encourage interaction between the planning authority and major elites by establishing consultative committees and circulating specialist reports. Such activities are very much in line with the consultation approach, and may not be concerned with public participation at all.

Another model would be based upon local interest groups and other minor elites. Perhaps the approach of the conscientious planner with limited resources, or of the cautious councillor who feels that mass participation is a will o’the wisp. Such a local authority may limit its activities to informing such groups about proposed planning activities and to receiving their opinions. A working party or community forum may help in such a programme, or community workers may be appointed to stimulate group involvement and to raise the level of local understanding of planning.

A model based on individual opinions might concentrate upon dispersing information through the mass media and obtaining the views of the public through sample surveys. In this model very little interaction would occur between the public and the planning authority. A more open participatory model based upon individuals could involve making available all information which did not breach personal or commercial confidentiality. and the encouragement of individual members of the public in the submission of their views. The public might also be invited to participate in the plan-making process itself with the technical assistance of planning officers. Versions of this open model have become popular in local planning and in association with General Improvement Areas and Housing Action Areas.‘O


Many participation models can be constructed from the various elements we have defined. In developing such models for practical application it is important to be consistent and to avoid introducing techniques which do not accord with the broad objectives of the programme. There should be a congruence between the three aspects of information flow that we have distinguished: information dispersal, information collection, and interaction between the planning authority and the public. Discrepancies are most likely to occur when the interchange of information is not completed by sufficient attention to the mutual development of opinion. If the information flow outwards is not matched by opportunities for local people to present their views no creative interaction will occur, the ensuing cynicism towards the participation programme may cause unnecessary conflict. A more usual in *onsistency is for a local authority to collect opinions from the general public but to make II adequate provision for integrating these comments into the policy-making process. In some cases the public participation programme appears to be running parallel to the plan-making process and like any set of parallel lines, they never meet.

2.1. CONCLUSION

The pattern of motives, objectives and techniques which forms any programme of public participation makes it difficult to justify any simple typology. We have preferred to indicate the various dimensions which emerge from a systematic analysis; these are summa&d as a matrix in Fig. 2.2. The cells of the matrix would be occupied by appropriate participation techniques and those cells which need to be filled when developing any particular programme can be identified. Some techniques will be suited to several different purposes but the matrix may help in adopting a systematic approach to the combination of techniques into a coherent programme.

IdorUlh I llnumbmb8tw888 gdnc dI.8. I

Cotwctuwl Rtticip8toty Rational Gmmti Pmticipatofy Rhonal Conwtmual Participatory planning 1 planning 1 pluming 1 planning 1 plamhg 1 plamtiq 1 pluming ( planning I

We have adopted the three-fold classification of information dispersal, information collection, and interaction between the planning authority and the public as a coarse filter in presenting our material; but any typology obscures the complexity of reality. So much in public participation depends not on the particular techniques being used but on the motives of the acton in the process; motives which may not be fulfilled or may be misconceived as a means to their objectives. A planner may intend to manipulate an audience but find the interest he arouses causes pressure for greater involvement; or a local activist may find his early enthusiasm for open government is moderated as he becomes incorporated in a consultative committee structure.

Nor are we looking at a static structure. The position constantly changes as planning policies, social circumstances, and the personalities of planners, politicians, and participants gradually develop in different directions. ‘The democratic currents of history’. as Michels reminded us, ‘resemble successive waves. They break ever on the same shoal. They are ever renewed. This enduring spectacle is simultaneously encouraging and depressing.‘*’ Too often depression comes to the fore as participation techniques seem to yield little reward for the effort involved. People concerned mainly with the benefits for the planning process which may be obtained through the greater involvement of the public will be impatient for results. There is no reason why they should not get them if the most effective methods are used for particular purposes in each circumstances. Those people,


on the other hand, who are concerned with the benefits to our form of government which may come through opening our policy-making processes to a larger number of people will need to be more composed: patience and persistence will be needed in the pursuit of that particular aim.

NOTES: CHAPTER 2

1. Many examples could be quoted from the reports of the Community Development Projects and the Inner Area Studies. See e.g. the recommendations of the Birmingham Inner Area Study, In: lJnequu/ Ciry (London: HMSO. 1977)~~. 318-19.

2. Richard Warren Smith, A theoretical basis for participatory planning, Pa/icy Sciences 4, 1973. 3. ibid p. 281. cf: Norman &Mb?, People ondPlaming (London: Faber and Faber, 1970) p. 353; and George

Dobry, Qc, Review of the Development Control System (London: HMSO, 1975) para 10.3. 4. Karl W. Deutsch, Z4e Nerves of(70vernment (London: The Free Press of Glencoe. 1963). 5. Richard Warren Smith, op. cit., p. 291. 6. J. M. Simmie, Citizens in Conflict (London: Hutchinson, 1974) p. 208. 7. Sherry R. Arnstein, A ladder of citizen participation in the U.S.A., Journalof the American Instituteof

Planners (July 1969); reprinted in JoumolofTown Planning Institute (London: April 1971). 8. Karl W. Deutsch, op. cit., pp. 177-178. 9. Stephen Bodington, Computers andSocialism (Nottingham: Spokesman Books, 1973). IO. Bernard Crick, Them and us, In: Politico/Theory ondProctice (London: Allen Lane the Penguin Press.

1971) pp. 136 and 157. CJ his Participation and the future of government, In: J. A. G. Griffith (ed.)From Policy to Aclministrotion (London: Allen & Unwin, 1976); and Politics and vlannina, Proceedinas of the Town and Country Planning Summer School 1972(London: The Royal Town Planning Institcte, 1972). - _

I I. People andPlanning (London: HMSO, l%9) p. 1. 12. The ideas contained in this section of the chapter have been developed in a different form in William

Hampton, Research into public participation in structure planning, In: J. T. Coppock and W. R. D. Sewell (eds) Pubic Participation in Planning (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 1977).

13. Development Plans: aManualon Form ond Content (London: HMSO, 1970). 14. One such forum produced a critique of the public participation programme itself: Public Porticipution in

Structure Planning: the Teesside Experience, A Study initiated by Community Advancement Project, CES RP14 (London: Centre for Environmental Studies, 1976).

IS. cf: Management of Local Government, Vol. 3, The Local Government Elector by Mary Horton (London: HMSO, 1967) pp. 113-121.

16. William Hampton and Raymond Walker, The Teesside./CIeveland Examination in Public, Loco/ Government Studies, 2, (I) April, 1976. CJ Lee Bridges and Carol Vielba, Structure Plan Examinations in Atblic: a Descriptive Analysis. and Carol Vielba. A Survey of nose takingPart in Two Structure P&n Exominarions in Public (University of Birmingham: Institute of Judicial Administration, 1976).

17. One example of a council where the public could speak in debates is described at William Hampton and Penelope Pike, The open council and public participation: the Leichhardt experience, PO/icy undPo/itics, 2, (4) June, 1974.

18. Hampton and Walker, op. cit. 19. ibid 20. cf, Ralph Taylor with Jim Humbcrstone and John Peaden, Case study I: the Sharrow experience, Journalof

the Royal Town Planning Insritute, 59, (4) April, 1973; and Richard Darlington. Public participation in improvement areas in Cambridge, The Pfonner, 59, (IO) December, 1973. A fuller report of the Cambridge experience is available from the author, price El.

21. Robert Michel.s,Po/iticolPorties (New York: Collier Books I%2 paperback edition) p. 371.

CHAPTER 3

The Context for Participation

. . . we have tried to look beyond procedures. We want the paper of the plans to come to life; and to come to life in a way that people want. The essential requirements are that planning authorities should act openly, and that the public should react constructively to the facts and ideas put before them.‘Skeffigron Reporr.

The public participation exercises which form part of the preparation of a structure plan take place within a context or environment which may encourage or discourage different forms of public involvement. An understanding of the factors which shape this context is crucial to an understanding of the part public participation can and does play in the production of a structure plan. In this chapter we discuss briefly the influence of the relevant legislation and subsequent circulars; local authority matters, including the pattern of vertical and horizontal intergovernmental relations; the pattern of intra-authority relations, together with the attitudes and perceptions of elected members; and resource allocation. Last, we look at those for whom participation in planning is intended - the public.

It is useful to remember the distinction made earlier between the production of a formal plan, such as a structure plan, and the general planning process, which includes not only structure planning, but local and regional planning. The production of a structure plan involves submitting a formal legal document to the Secretary of State for the Environment for his approval. Certain specific elements of this plan will have been subject to public participation. By contrast, at least in theory, the structure plan process has no finite timespan, but should be regarded as a continuous activity involving constant monitoring and evaluation of planning aims. The formal structure plan may provide only limited opportunities for participation, but there may be a number of opportunities and occasions when public participation is an appropriate part of the structure plan process. For some local authorities public participation may be considered an integral part of the structure plan process, in others it is seen as little more than a minor statutory requirement.

Part of the context within which both structure planning and public participation take place is determined by Acts of Parliament, departmental circulars and court decisions. The relevant legislation and subsequent advice is brief, though not unambiguous. The planning legislation of 1968 and 197 1 evolved from the 1965 report of the Planning Advisory Group (see Ch. 1 p. 8). By 1968 participation had becomea word toconjure with in Britain,as it hadin Franceand the USA. Yet the Town andcountry PlanningAct 1968doesnot actually mention the word participation. but requires that:

‘the local planning authority shall take such steps as will in their opinion secure - (a) that adequate publicity is given in their area to the report of survey. and to the matters which

they propose to include in the plan: fb) that persons who may beexpected todesire an opportunityofmaking representations totheauthority

with respect to those matters are made aware that theyareentitled toan opportunityofdoingso:and tct that such persons arc given an adequate opportunity of making such representations:

and the authority shall consider any representations made to them within the prescribed period.”

Furthermore, the Secretary of State has to be satisfied that the authority has taken steps which ‘adequately achieve the [above] purposes.‘2 If the Minister is not so satisfied, he can require the authority to undertake further work to meet these legislative requirements.

The Department of the Environment deliberately did not expand in detail on these legislative requirements until 1977, preferring generally to leave the actual methods and

23


form of public participation for planning authorities to decide for themselves. Nevertheless, sound advice on public participation in planning matters was made available to planning authorities through the publication of the (Skeffington) Report of the Committee on Public Participation in 1969 (see Ch. I p. 9).3

The Committee defined participation as the ‘act of sharing in the formulation of policies and proposals’ and noted that ‘there will be full participation only where the public are able to take an active part throughout the plan-making process.” At the outset, the Committee made a distinction between publicity and participation, using the word publicity to mean ‘making of information available to the public’, and stating that ‘publicity alone is not participation: but it is the first essential step towards it’. The Committee also recognised the existence of a heterogeneous public, comprising all ‘groups and individuals within it [the community] without limitation’.’

The Committee stressed6 the need for keeping people ‘informed throughout the preparation of a structure or local plan for the area’ and that ‘where alternative courses are available, the authority should put them to the public and say which it prefers and why’, and that ‘the public should be told what their representations have achieved or why they have not been accepted*. Their proposals for community forums, which would provide local groups with a collective opportunity to discuss planning matters, and for the introduction of community development officers who were to ‘secure the involvement of those people who do not join organisations’ were considered interesting and radical at the time.

Despite its good intentions, the Report remained something of a nebulous document, displaying a certain innocence which led one pair of critics to write:

‘The Committee see participation as a pilgrim’s progress, leading from ignorance and apathy to undentanding, consensus and constructive action. The case for these assumptions is preached but never argued.. .”

The Committee did not consider seriously that participation could lead to conflict, or that participation might possibly frustrate action, resulting in further delays in implementing planning proposals. Most particularly, it failed to appreciate that the various publics who might participate in planning matters might do so from a variety of motives and with different expectations as to the possible outcomes of participation. Furthermore, the Committee failed to recognise the vested interests of the professional planners involved in public participation. Planners do have different views and at the very least, will want to avoid losing arguments with laymen, a point noted by Levin and Donnison.*

The Committee seemed to assume that if the ignorant, the apathetic or the helpless were encouraged to express their views on planning matters then these traditional non- participants would take up the opportunities presented and that their views would necessarily be taken into account when plans were finalised. However, the Committee declined to say how the representative of the politically weak (the community development officer) would be able to present their views when he is employed by the planning authority. While the Skeffington Committee was aware of many of the problems associated with public participation it glossed over many others and its recommendations were very much matters of common sense.

Circular 44/719 (subsequently replaced by Circulars 55/77 and 4/79) devoted attention to both public participation and consultation with public sector bodies. The section on public participation discussed a number of general considerations arising from the legislation, but did not seek to give fully comprehensive advice to authorities on how they should implement the legislative requirements. It proved impossible to compile a complete list of public authorities and bodies to be consulted on every plan, but the circular mentioned a number of such bodies which would normally expect to be consulted.

By 1972 the Department had formulated its reactions to Skefftngton and outlined these in an annex to Circular 52/72. The Department was unable to give full support to the more radical proposals made by Skeffington namely the employment of Community Development Officers and the introduction of community forums. Of ttie former, the Circular said that they were ‘unlikely to be necessary solely in the specific context of development plans’, while the latter were seen as ‘essentially a local matter’, though not

Planning end Perticipetion in Practice 26

necessarily disadvantageous. lo The Circular accepted Skefflngton’s less contentious recommendations. In terms of the different stages of participation, the Circular notes that authorities should participate when ‘real choices are available’, when ‘realistic alternatives’ can be published, and when there is ‘least possible danger of planning blight’.

Structure Plan Note l/77 discussed the principles of preparing a programme, publicity, providing opportunities for response and evaluating and using the response. drawing on experience from structure plan participation, including many of the results of our own research.” However, in common with previous advice, the note refrained from laying down rigid requirements and standards which would have constrained authorities’ action in this field. Authorities have been allowed a good deal of room for manoeuvre in making their own interpretations of the legislation, and the Secretary of State had not at the time of writing exercised his power under section 8(4) of the 1971 Act to direct a structure planning authority to take further action in order to meet the statutory requirements.

To sum up, the legislation and Department of the Environment advice establish a predominantly permissive framework within which structure plan participation operates. The legislation is dedicated more towards ensuring that the authority takes some steps towards involving the public than towards specifying in detail what those steps should be. In issuing advice to authorities, the Department has followed the principle that they should be free to take their own decisions on this subject, and has also recognised that it would be impossible to specify standards which hold good for all structure plans. However, the absence of strong prescriptive advice has inevitably left a number of authorities uncertain how to proceed. Some have decided to take a broad interpretation of participation, and have experimented with methods and techniques not recommended by Skefflngton or circulars. Others have felt that they were being discouraged from doing more than the minimum necessary to meet the statutory requirements: moreover, precisely what was necessary to meet these requirements was not always clear.

The Department of the Environment has been more precise about the scope and content of a structure plan. The subject matter of a structure plan will affect the numbers and types of people likely to be sufficiently interested to want to express their views, and the wider the scope of a structure plan the more topics it covers, the more people are likely to feel that their interests may be directly affected. Alternatively there may be key areas or issues in a structure plan, such as transport or housing, which are of general interest and which may also encourage people to express their views. The Development Plans manual listed the following subject headings as topics to be covered in the structure plan:

’ . population; employment and income; resources; housing, industry and commerce; transportation; shopping; education; other social and community sctviccs; recreation and leisure; conservation; townscape and landscape; utility services and other subjccts.“1

but Circular 98/74 more narrowly defined the content of a structure plan as dealing essentially with the central issues of population, employment and transportation. This reflected both the Department’s experience of evaluating and approving the first submitted structure plans as well as its concern with the apparently slow progress in structure plan preparation and submission.

Undoubtedly the Department wanted tospeeduptheproductionofstructureplans.and the imposition of both subject and time cdnstraints on planning authorities limited thescope of public participation.

Local authorities want advice and guidance from central government departments.‘l Nevertheless, not all will necessarily follow the advice given in governm.ent circulars. In these cases, the opportunities for public participation may well be increased. In our case studies, Merseyside chose to allow the issues to be covered by the Structure Plan to emerge as part of their early participation exercises,,though later the range of topics narrowed. Cheshire’s approach followed the advice in the Developmenr Pians manual more closely, in effect following Circular 98/74, though widening the scope.

The North East Lancashire sub-regional plan began with emphasis on transport and industry and was later extended to cover most of the topics in the Development Plans manual, and later formed the basis of the structure plan. The roots of the Teesside Structure Plan lay in a complex process of local government change and reorganisation


culminating in the creation of a new County, Cleveland, in 1974. Here the content of the structure plan was determined by the material considered suitable for a sub-regional plan proposed long before the new planning system evolved.

Other factors come into play in shaping the environment of public participation. Local authorities are part of an extensive network of relationships between counties and districts and between local authorities of the same status. Each structure plan authority has to come to terms with the proposals of its neighbours as well as carrying its district authorities along with its own proposals. Difficulties are also presented by the need for structure plans to Iit into the context defined by plans produced to cover the country’s regions.”

The problem of relationships between counties and districts can be illustrated by a comparison of the position in Merseyside and Cheshire. The former is a Metropolitan County, a new authority dealing with a number of districts, most of which were former county boroughs with independent planning powers. Cheshire was a former shire county. As a former top-tier authority, Cheshire’s officials and members were used to the organisational requirements and realities of a two-tier system. This was something which many people in the new metropolitan counties and districts had to learn.

The North East Lancashire sub-regional plan is an example of the difficulties of cooperation and coordination involved in having produced a strategic plan before local government reorganisation. It was produced as an udviso~y plan by an independent unit established by and answerable to the old Lancashire County Council and Blackbum and Bumley County Boroughs; any one of the three could have exercised a veto on the proposals. Furthermore, the plan affected the interests of twenty municipal borough/district councils and forty-seven parishes, whose interests also had to be accommodated within the plan. There were difficulties for the North East Planning Unit in producing the plan. However, since the plan was only an advisory one with no statutory basis, it was no doubt easier to secure agreement on its proposals.

A structure plan authority is obliged to consider the perspectives and activities both of neighbouring structure plan authorities and of its district authorities.15 These form part of the complex pattern of intergovernmental relationships which shape the work of any local authority, and may well shape the scope and content of a structure plan. In turn, this may have direct and indirect effects on the form and nature of the public participation exercises associated with the plan’s preparation. A district authority might well be in conflict with its county authority over various matters, so that relations between the two levels become soured. The district might then be unwilling to help with structure plan participation, arguing that it is purely a county responsibility. The county in turn, perhaps feeling unwelcome in the district, might well not make as great a participation effort there as in other areas.

There are a number of factors within a structure plan authority which also shape the public participation environment. Though they are undoubtedly related in the real world, they are here treated as analytically distinct. They may be classified as organisational. attitudinal and resource factors. Many organisational problems arise because local authority departments (and the authorities themselves) have long-standing commitments and policies on many issues. The planners seldom start with a clean sheet.

Organisational factors refer to the pattern of inter-departmental relationships within which the structure plan is prepared. Since reorganisation most local authorities have moved towards a more corporate approach and structure as advocated by the Bains Report.16 Bains stressed the interdependence of the activities of local authorities and urged them to undertake comprehensive planning in order to establish policy priorities which could be reviewed periodically. Such comprehensive, or corporate, planning should be undertaken by a central policy committee, while the work of the authority as a whole should be coordinated by a chief executive officer to whom all other chief officers would be subordinate.

Inevitably the introduction of corporate planning brought problems for structure planning, particularly when the two are seen as separate activities. When this happens, the whole scope and content of the structure plan is open to question, as is the function of public participation, with the result that problems of inter-departmental cooperation are


magnified. Some departments may claim that their activity is not within the scope of the structure plan and refuse to cooperate in any way in its preparation. In other cases the structure planners may claim that a particular function is a relevant element in the structure plan, perhaps laying themselves open to claims of ‘imperialism’. Again other departments may be only too willing to allow the planning department to prepare the plan asitseesfit- this happened in Cheshire. Other departments, notably transportation, were drawn in from time to time where necessary and the influence of the chief executive was occasionally felt, but the bulk of the work was undertaken by the structure plan team in the planning department.

Even in authorities claiming to have adopted a corporate planning system, problems of interdepartmental relations remain. Teesside was the most deeply committed of our case study areas to a corporate planning approach, with the Structure Plan designed as the main statement of policy priorities. Attempts were made to involve other departments in the preparation of the Plan, particularly at the public participation and subsequent analysis stages but there were difficulties.”

By attitudinal factors we mean the views which planners and elected members hold about the purpose of planning (particularly structure planning) and the part public participation is expected to play in the preparation of the plan. Planners’ varying views about the nature and purpose of planning have been well documented in recent years,i8 and largely reflect their views about the nature of society and of their own role: some adopt a consensual view of society, others a conflict view. Some see the planner as a kind of unfettered technical expert, who should be left in charge of the planning process.

Another difference of attitudes among planners concerns theforms of planning: whether it should be comprehensive and future-orientated or rather more limited; whether it should be essentially concerned with land use or be more socially-oriented. What is important here is the way in which these different views of planning affect the role of public participation in structure planning. Those who would advocate that planning is mainly about future land use and its physical arrangements would see planning mainly as a technical exercise with little political content, those who would argue for a more socially-oriented view of planning see a greater role for public participation though the technical component remains large. Participation of this kind - mainly by those groups or individuals whose interests or needs are perceived’by the planners as being directly affected - is perhaps best considered as a form of consultation. Certainly consultation was a process clearly understood by the planners in our case study areas: public participation was not so clearly defined. Those who argue for a conflict-based model of planning are also likely to argue for a more active involvement by the individual in the planning process. The planner would be seen as only one actor among many, and one whose values count no more than any other actor. The planner’s role becomes technical, advisory and subsidiary.

We found a most interesting diversity of views among planners both within and between different planning departments. Both structured and unstructured interviews with planners in our case study areas showed a wide range of views about the purpose of planning and participation, though considerable agreement about the purpose of structure planning. Some planners saw planning as concerned with land use and the physical environment, consequently with little part for participation to play. In Teesside and North East Lancashire, the planners involved in our case studies showed attitudes which came nearest to the ‘rational planning’ model, though without its traditional land use connotations. In both areas planners talked about planning involving a corporate approach to policy making, being concerned with achieving a better life. Cheshire planners, after an early concern with techniques, seem to have adopted a far more pluralistic/consensual view of planning, Merseyside planners seem to have moved from a radicaVparticipat0r-y view of planning towards a more conventional view (rational planning) supplemented by corporate advocacy for more resources as a result of changes in staff at the time of reorganisation.”

Most planners involved in our case studies saw the objectives of structure planning as providing a strategic framework for development in their area, related to the regional level of planning. In relation to the function of public participation differences began to emerge. While a majority of our planners believed that one of the main purposes of participation


was the collection of information and ideas, this view was most heavily stressed in Teesside. Cheshire’s planners were somewhat sceptical about the virtues of participation during their first exercise, regarding much of it as experimental, but as a result of this experience they became much more committed. The planners most convinced of the virtues of public participation in structure planning were those in South Yorkshire.. There can be little doubt that different planning ideologies will affect both the way in which planning authorities prepare their structure plans and the part which public participation will be expected to play in that process. The planners themselves operate within a framework set by elected members, whether as committee or council members. So the views of elected members on planning and public participation form a second set of attitudinal factors which shape the public participation environment. While it is difficult to be precise about councillors’ views on planning generally and structure planning in particular, it was noticeable that many councillors were none too sure about the definition of a structure plan, nor what purpose participation should play in its preparation.20

Councillors’ attitudes on planning and participation reflect their age, their life-style and their social class, as well as their other demographic characteristics. Most councillors are members and representatives of the main national political parties or else are likely to have connections with both national and local organised groups, whose views they will reflect. As committee and council members, councillors have a good deal of contact with their professional officers, and will also reflect the advice and views offered by them.

There can be little doubt that many elected members regarded the onset of public participation with a certain amount of suspicion. For one thing they perhaps saw participation as a threat to their role as representatives. Councillors might well claim that they both know what the people concerned want and that they are best able to express these views; such councillors might well argue that public participation is unnecessary.

Another expression of councillors’ concern about representation (and one often also voiced by planners) centred around the possibly unrepresentative nature of the participating public. Elected members expressed concern that only the views of a small minority of well-organised and unrepresentative groups would be obtained as a result of engaging in public participation exercises; planning proposals would then favour the interests of those groups rather than the wider public.

Finally, councillors might regard public participation as a threat to their role as the elected/formal decision makers, since it involves the idea of sharing decision making and sharing power. A crucial factor in determining councillors’ attitudes towards public participation appears to be the extent to which they are themselves involved in the participation exercises. Cheshire involved a majority of the members of its Strategic Planning and Transportation Committee as chairmen of public meetings, and other councillors often attended meetings as observers. Many of the councillors so involved became convinced of the value of public participation; some even being prepared to see participation extended in to other areas of local government activity. The councillors’ involvement in Cheshire also helped to establish the importance of the structure plan and of public participation.

The importance of the structure plan was less well-established and the councillors less involved in other of our case studies. The position of the North East Lancashire Advisory Plan is suggested by its title; Teesside had been subjected to so many different plans that the structure plan was probably regarded by many councillors as simply another act in a continuing drama. In Merseyside, for reasons connected with local government reorganisation, councillors and planners apparently agreed to give the structure plan a fairly low priority.

All these internal factors contribute to determining the resources the planning authority are willing to make available for participation exercises. Employing a ful1 range of public participation techniques from sample survey to community development officers is extremely expensive, particularly if it involves the use of consultants. Costs - in money as well as time and staff - rise rapidly once participation of any kind begins though they remain relatively small in the context of the total cost of preparing a structure plan. Most plans take 4 or 5 years to produce, so that at the time of our research a total cost of E500,OOO would not be particularly high. Our case study areas were perhaps unusual as the


budgets they had for participation were generous compared with many authorities. The factors discussed so far have disregarded the effects of those for whom such

programmes are organised, namely the public. Because of its complex and future-oriented nature, structure planning is not a good vehicle for public participation: it is likely to interest only a small minority of the public. The public is a heterogeneous collection of groups and individuals, varying greatly in their organisational and participatory skills, as well as in their motives and expectations from participation. Furthermore, people and groups will vary in terms of the extent of their knowledge and understanding of planning matters and the planning system, as well as in their perception of the accessibility of the planning system and their own ability to influence planning decisions.

According to earlier national and local surveys, few people are interested in taking an active part in local affairs and few have actually done so. Only 8% of the population in the Maud Committee survey was interested in becoming a councillor, and only 7% had ever been to a council meeting. 21 Almond and Verba found that the British stressed passive participation in local affairs, compared with the more active Americans.22 But there are other more optimistic hints about the general predispositions of the public towards participating in planning matters. Most people know at least one way in which they think they could influence local matters, and there is a substantial minority who would like a greater say in local affairs. Certainly Hampton’s earlier work in Sheffield suggests that there exists in the community a reservoir, largely untapped, of people able and willing to take part in local affairs. 23 In other words, there is an audience which would be willing to contribute to the structure plan process. But if the previous surveys are correct,24 such an audience would not accurately reflect the character of the population: it is likely to be composed very much of the middle-class, male, older, long-term residents who are also members of voluntary groups.

Our work in North East Lancashire and Cheshire helps us to develop some aspects of these questions. Our survey was concerned with a number of questions including people’s knowledge and views of local services, their interest in participation in local affairs as well as their recent participation experiences, their perception of different channels of communication, and their sense of personal competence in relation to local issues. Findings tended to confirm what we knew from similar national and local surveys. Less than one person in five was interested in taking an active part in local affairs and scarcely more than one in ten had attended a recent local public meeting, though there were more optimistic hints about the general predisposition of the public towards participation on planning matters from the North East Lancashire data.

Over 90% of the respondents in North East Lancashire could name at least one way in which they thought they could influence matters, but not everyone takes advantage of the opportunity when offered. In Cheshire those who attended the exhibitions and public meetings were drawn largely from what has been described as the articulate middle class. This must reflect the techniques which planners most generally use to encourage public participation: it is the well-organised middle class who are most likely to respond to exhibitions and public meetings, or who belong to the kind of groups most often contacted by planners.

This picture of the participating middle class exaggerates the similarities to be found in the structure plan audience, for it ignores the different motives and expectations of that audience. Some people will attend meetings or exhibitions solely to obtain information about planning proposals, perhaps not wishing to become further involved. Many, however. will wish to express their views. while others attend meetings and exhibitions as members of organised groups. Such groups are likely to vary in their skills and procedures for responding to the planners. The groups we have called the major elites have long- established relationships with planning and related questions. The minor elites may come to planning for the first time and perhaps do not have clearly defined interests. Many groups are beginning to be involved in planning matters at the initiative of planning authorities. Such groups are likely to have difficulty in responding for they are often not sure of the relevance of planning questions to their own concerns; or else they lack the organisation to respond in the way, or within the time allowed, by the planners.

Organised groups of both kinds are also likely to vary in their expertise in planning


matters. Some groups, such as the statutory undertakers who have a long history of consultation with planning authorities, are likely to have specialist staff whose sole responsibility will be to &al with planning matters and to liaise with local authorities. Other groups, such as some civic or amenity societies, may well have members with apposite professional skills to draw on. Still more groups will completely lack expertise so facing considerable difficulty in making any response. It is difficult, therefore, to predict with any accuracy which groups or which types of groups are best able and willing to respond to planners’ requests for views on structure plan issues: in some cases, planning authorities receive responses from the most unlikely sources, but not from the expected quarters.

The individual member of the public is faced with similar problems, and, as a result, is probably even less likely to respond to participatory initiatives from a structure plan authority. Most individuals lack the technical expertise to deal with planning matters, even if they want to do so, nor are they familiar with the corridors of power in County Hall. So we may expect low rates of participation on structure plan issues from individuals. In Teesside with a 1966 population of just under half a million, just over 200 comments were received from individuals on the Teesside Structure plan. In Cheshire, with a population of just under a million at the time of local government reorganisation in 1974, twenty-seven individual comments and 385 comment forms were received during the first phase of participation.25

The vast majority of people are likely to be untouched by attempts to encourage their participation. Most efforts at increasing public participation result in increasing the total number of participants from an infinitesimally small proportion of the total population to a proportion only slightly larger. At the public meetings in North East Lancashire and Cheshire the average attendances were roughly nine people in every 10,000. Even doubling these numbers would mean that the proportion was still very small.

This review of the audience for structure planning shows how the public itself affects the scope and nature of participation exercises forming part of the structure plan process.

NOTES: CHAPTER 3

1. Town and Country Planning Act 1968. Ch. 72. Part I. Section 3. p. 4. 2. ibid.. p. 4. 3. Report of the committeeon public participation in planning. PeopkattdP/anttin~ (London: HMSO. 1969). 4. ibid.. p. 1. 5. ibid.. p. I. 6. ibid.. p. 27. 7. P. Lcvin and D. Donnison. People and planning. Public Admittisfration. Vol. Winter. 1969. Reprinted as J.B.

Cullingworth fed.) Probkms o/an Urban Society. 3 (London: Allen and Unwin. 1973) p. 91. 8. ibid.. p. 91. 9. Memorandum Circular 44/?1: Department of the Environment. pp. 20-27. 10. Memorandum Circular 52/?2: Town and Country Planning Act 1971. Part II. Development plan proposals.

Publicity and Participation. (Department of the Environment. 1972) p. 7. I I. Structure Plans Note I/??: Public Participation in the Preparation of Structure Plans: and Regional Office

Advice Note I/??: Slatutor.r Requirements and Departmental Procedure Relating to Public Participation in the Preparation of Local Plans.

12. For a discussion of this concept see Report of the Bains Committee. The New LocalAuthorities: Management and Structure (London: HMSO. 1972).

13. For a discussion of central/local relations see J. A. G. Grifliths. CentralDepartments and Locd Authorities (London: RIPA and Allen and Unwin. 1966).

14. Development Plans: a Manualon Form and Content (London: HMSO. 1970) p. 9. 15. One might also add other organisations. such as statutory undertakers. nationalixd industries and other

large entrepreneurs whose views and possible future actions are likely to have an impact on the structure plan. 16. The New Local Authorities: Management and Structure. op. cit. I?. Hampton and Walker. The Role of a Working Party in Considering the Public Response to a Draft Structure

P/an: A Case Study of Teesside (Sheffield: Linked Research Project into Public Participation in Structure Planning. IRP 4. 1975).

18. For example. P. Hall. Urban andRegional P/amting (London: Penguin Books. 1974) Ch. I. 3. 19. Boaden et al. Public participation in planning within a representative local democracy. Poliry and Politics. 6.

January 1979. 2O.Officcrs/Councillors Survey. Linked Research Project. 19?4/?5. 2 I. Report of the Committee on the Management of Local Government. 3. The Local Government Elector

(London: HMSO. 1967)~~. 57, 162.


22. G. Almond and S. E. L. Vcrba. The Civic Culture. (Boston: Little Brown and Co., 1965) p. 127. 23. W. A. Hampton. Democracy and Communiiy (London: OUP. 1970). 24. See particularly Maud Committee Report and Hampton. op. cit. For a more general survey see R. E. Lane.

Polifical Lije Glcncoe USA: Free Press. 1959). 25. Other authorities have had high responses to postal surveys. For example. Cheshire in 1975 achieved a 500/r

response rate to the postal qucstionnairc which formed part of their second phase of public participation. while North Yorkshire received 16.493 returns out of 28.236 originally distributed.

CHAPTER 4

The Management of Public Participation

‘ . . . in a democratic institution manapment efficiency cannot be the only consideration. It was put to us in evidence that our objective must bc to make democracy as efficient as possible, not to make efCcicncy as democratic as possible and there is a good deal of truth in this.’ The New Local Authorities: Managemenr and Structure (Bains Report).

Against the background of complexity of purpose, constraint and opportunity mentioned above, the organisation of public participation in structure planning is a daunting task. Authorities may settle for minimal participation, informing the public as they are required to do and complying with other legislative requirements, but doing little more than that. Or they may seek to develop an interactive programme which will require innovatory effort and the expenditure of quite large resources. Whichever course is chosen the authority will have to decide which techniques are to be used, but such questions of method demand other decisions first. Techniques take time and consume resources. Their results, assuming that they are designed to produce results, have to be integrated into the wider planning process. Planning authorities have to decide how much effort they are going to devote to public participation and how they will handle any results which flow from that effort. Logically such decisions should precede those about techniques.

Planning authorities must consider planning and participation in relation to their other work. Decisions are taken every day, by the local authority and by outside bodies, by the planning department and by other departments, which may significantly influence public participation. Discussion at a public meeting may easily be overtaken by events, even if an effort is made to anticipate such possibilities. Survey results may take some months to process and analyse during which time circumstances change or people move, especially in volatile urban situations. These features are especially true of structure planning. The level of discussion is both general and abstract, and the structure plan is concerned with long- term futures, all factors which make for uncertainty in both official and public minds. This is reinforced by the fact that the actual production of a structure plan extends over a long period, even years.

Public participation has now been made a formal part of this complex process, but it is only a small part. It has to be integrated with the many other aspects of planning and plan preparation. The probability of participation affecting any plans is conditioned by the degree of integration achieved. Equally important is the visibility of public impact on planning. The tendency in some local authorities has been to treat public participation as an extra to be tagged on at the end of the planning process. Such an approach makes it difficult for the public to have any impact on the plan, and by suggesting that the authority does not intend them to have such impact may reduce the credibility of participation in the public mind. Even where it is not treated as an afterthought, public participation often displays other characteristics which have similar effect. The giving of information to the public is often emphasised at the expense of other aspects of participation, giving little opportunity to voice their opinions or to influence the final plan. In other situations public views are gathered, but about alternatives which are so far developed as to reduce any effective public choice.

Such approaches may of course suit the authority’s purposes. They may want to limit public opportunity in this way and simply be adopting an obvious and direct way of doing

32


so, but one which may alienate or antagonise the public. This was one of the features of the old planning system which public participation was partly designed to overcome. Not that’ participation is always positive. If it is to be more thorough and effective it may take a long time and delay the production of the structure plan, and with it, of any local plans. Such delay can involve several costs. Uncertainty can cause blighting which affects both property values and decisions about development. Delay can also affect the planning process and participation itself. Inevitably it makes the context of participation less certain which may genuinely negate any public contribution, or appear to do so.

Each planning authority has to weigh such costs and benefits of public participation, which must be reconciled with the more direct costs of cash and manpower. There will also be other less direct costs. Staff might be working on different jobs and money might be differently spent. All these costs will vary with the techniques being used and the ‘model’ of participation being followed. Authorities which accept ‘participatory planning’, must at least seek information from the public and should be aiming for interaction. The high costs involved will have to be met if the objective is to be attained. Authorities trying only to ‘legitimise’ their plans may avoid the costs of interaction, but will have to pay for some public feedback.

The categories of cost are reasonably clear. The benefits of participation are more elusive and uncertain. Many of the public will benefit from the opportunity to participate, and some from the experience of taking that opportunity and becoming involved. Such benefits may take a long time to manifest themselves. From the point of view of the authority there will be short and (predominantly) longer-term benefits. A large turn-out at a meeting or a substantial response rate to a survey may be of immediate benefit. The important returns are more likely to lie in the future. Public acceptance of the final plan may be one satisfactory outcome especially if it prevents opposition at the local plan level or at the stage of implementation. Such factors will reduce costly later delays. Developers may want early decisions, but lacking those they are likely at least to want predictable futures; where futures are uncertain and conditions are changing, there can be benefits in the delays caused by participation. As the 1977 Motorway Inquiries illustrated, delay can allow events to develop and ensure that the ultimate decisions are more ‘right’ than they might otherwise be. Costly delays from one perspective become saving graces from another.

Whatever calculations an authority makes about costs and benefits, further managerial and administrative decisions will be necessary. Any programme will involve the allocation of money and staff time. It should also involve simultaneous decisions about where each part of the programme fits into the plan preparation and how the information obtained will be used. Unless a fully interactive model is achieved, and this seems unlikely, the points of direct contact between public and authority are only one element in the participation process. Contact does not by itself ensure that the input is heard by the planners, or if heard, that it will affect their decisions. This will be determined by whoever makes contact directly with the public, and more importantly, by the way in which public contributions are processed.

The management of public participation is critical for the character of the process and the outcome attained. Because it is a recent and extra responsibility, public participation may require innovatory action; but local authorities are not noted for their capacity to innovate.’ Because it is implicitly critical of the performance of existing members and officers there may be a case for limiting their involvement. Both these factors suggest that an authority might be well advised to bring in consultants who could innovate without directly threatening the existing local government system and would distance participation from those of whom it is most critical. Both factors which might simplify getting information from the public and in some circumstances giving information to the public. Interaction might take place between consultant and public, but if plans were to be affected there would still be a need to engage those within the authority. The material which consultants present has still to go through normal local government machinery. All these factors must be weighed in any decision about the use of consultants. Equally it must be remembered that they cannot operate in complete isolation from the authority, and will depend on support and advice from officers and members. With or without consultants,

,.P.P 1.1: ‘.,2--C


authorities face decisions both about the roles of their own members and of their officers - both difficult decisions.

Should public participation in structure planning be conducted exclusively by elected members, by officers of the authority, or by some combination of the two? If officers, should they be planners only, or also staff from other departments? Answers will depend on the authority’s views about the nature and purpose of participation and their view of the proper scope and depth of structure planning. The broader the scope and the greater the depth, the more likely is it that non-planners, both members and officers, will need to be involved. This may raise inter-professional, inter-departmental, and possibly inter- authority conflicts. it has been rare for the different departments and professions within local government to work easily together, and it is unlikely that structure planning will make it easier. This need not prevent an authority from trying to widen involvement, though planners must have a prominent role. Again decisions will arise as to whether some officers should specialise in public participation, or whether it becomes part of the work of everyone in the planning department.

These choices may condition the techniques an authority can adopt, or they may be conditioned by the choice of techniques. They will affect the planning process and the kind of plans produced. They will also have wider effects on the work of the authority within and outside planning. The close interaction of all the decisions to be taken makes each of them very important.

4.1. THE LOCAL SETTING

The general terms we have used so far have implied a uniformity among local planning authorities which does not exist. It is therefore necessary to know something of the particular local situation. General factors are the same for all authorities, but the pattern of functional responsibilities varies between types of authority and the internal departmental organisation is a matter largely of local discretion. The actual pattern of established relationships and past experience will also be peculiar to each authority. Reorganisation in 1974 disturbed established local patterns and created new mixtures of departments and authorities. In their turn these can significantly affect any programme of participation. The local authorities we studied are large and have typically complex departmental structures and highly professional staff. Planning is carried out in independent departments and each has a large staff of qualified planners. This permits a high degree of specialisation within the planning departments, with only senior staff having to take the wider view of any plans. While this may create a coherent, professional planning department in each area, it does not always make for an easy relationship with other departments in the same authority, or with other local authorities. Indeed the presence of a strong planning department may be seen as a threat by these others and provoke defensive reactions in consequence. Where it does, it may have serious consequences for the scope of any planning which is undertaken, and for its effectiveness. After all, it is these others who will implement any action necessary in the plans.

In this respect the five authorities are different. Teesside had the most straightforward situation, despite the imminent transformation to the Shire County of Cleveland. As a single tier, all-purpose County Borough, all departments were part of the same authority and had had several years in which to develop working relationships - or antagonisms. All the other authorities had to cope with two or even three levels of local government. In the metropolitan counties, interdepartmental conflicts become inter-authority conflicts. In the Shire Counties the division of functions internalised many of the conflicts within the county council. The Districts were left with planning functions and the size of each District made them potentially threatening to any County activity.

Before 1974 both North East Lancashire and Merseyside created special joint planning teams to prepare their plans. These involved planners from various participating authorities working together; externally their relationships were interesting. They could approach departments and other authorities without being seen as a threat, or as one


authority trying to dictate to others; but relationships had to be developed from scratch. The balance between the costs and benefits of special units and conventional authorities may be better judged in the light of what follows. The outstanding characteristic of all the five authorities is the complexity of local government and planning.

4.2. THE SCOPE OF PLANNING

In theory, a decision about scope should form the basis for other decisions about planning and participation. In practice it may be the other way round: the general structure of local government in an area is one factor. Breadth in the Metropolitan areas inevitably involves consultation and cooperation with the District councils, while the narrower, more traditional approach avoids some of that interaction and with it the conflict which it can generate. In the Shire Counties the range of functions which the counties themselves perform make it more difficult to avoid a wider scope in planning. In its turn scope can have a profound effect on the level of public participation. The individual member of the public is concerned with many activities and with most local government services, though the emphasis of his interests will change over time. Changing emphases in the personal consumption of services may produce changing attitudes towards levels of local taxation. Resentment at paying for services not personally consumed has been one characteristic of recent protest by ratepayers.

This breadth of individual interest and concern is reflected in group activity as well. The pattern of such organisation is not uniform. In general the middle class are the joiners, and at the individual level, the more articulate.

Public participation may offer individuals and groups an enhanced opportunity to become involved in planning. It may also stimulate others to become involved, and possibly to organise. Inevitably this will depend in part on the techniques adopted, and on the scope and content of any plans. This does not mean that authorities must necessarily choose corporate plans, though a commitment to ‘participant’ planning is likely to lead them in that direction. It is important that plans, the planning process and participation are similar in scope. Where plans do not conform to the scope implied in the process, or raised by the public, major problems can follow.

Part of the difficulty may be met by informing. the public fully about the process, but this may simply raise the question why they have had no effect, which may be embarrassing. Future participation is likely to be undermined, and with it public confidence in the plans which are produced, and even in the planning process itself. Whatever the decisions taken about the scope of planning at the outset, it is likely to change during the planning process. Some topics may have to be omitted from plans as a result of early planning experience, or they may engender opposition which makes it politic to omit them. The passage of time may change the priorities among issues to be considered. The closer the date comes for formal plan submission, the more likely is it that central issues will predominate. All these factors condition decisions about the scope of planning in any particular authority.

The most corporate plan among our case studies, at least in intention, was almost certainly that conceived by the Merseyside Planning Team, although South Yorkshire also had broad intentions. In their original proposal to their Councillor steering group, the Merseyside team accepted the widest possible brief within the 1971 Regulations2 and went on to make their position very clear:

‘If the plan is 10 achieve social and economic as well as physical aims, the plan-making process will need to be widely based It will be necessary to consider alternative policies, some of which will fall outside thenormal scope ofphysicalplunning. Close cooperation and consultation with all local authority departments and other interests will be essential.”

The philosophy underlying it was applied consistently throughout the early stages of planning. However, it is not always clear that the intended breadth was achieved or that it was uniformly beneficial, nor that the breadth of public participation was always reflected in other aspects of the plan preparation.


North East Lancashire and Cheshire were both narrower still in the scope of their planning, and could be said to conform to the Department of the Environment’s then most recent advice. Once again the effect on public participation is not entirely clear; though it is reasonably certain that the participation aspect of planning did not determine the scope.

The five cases represent caution and variation in relation to corporate planning, as well as reflecting local pressures and ambiguities in the legislation. Leaving the local planning authorities so much autonomy allows them to adjust to their special conditions, though it probably means that most are fairly cautious. The effect on participation is not absolutely clear, especially as other things also affect the public. Structure planning is remote and can be rather abstract in form, and these factors may be just as inhibiting as the narrowness of focus adopted by the authority. In none of the cases does the decision about scope appear to have been taken with the public participation in mind.

It is clear that the main determinants of scope are the attitudes of planners conditioned by the relationships within and between local authorities. There was little corporate discussion of the scope of planning; teams of planners took their own decisions in light of their anticipation of responses inside and outside their own authority. In most cases participation was organised and carried out by a small number of people in the planning department or by a specialist structure plan team.

4.3. THE USE OF CONSULTANTS

Settling the scope of structure planning paves the way for a series of related decisions as well as conditioning the outcome of some of them. For each authority the primary decision concerns the resources they are willing to expend on a programme. By its nature public participation involves work beyond that carried out in normal plan preparation. It also involves periodic bouts of intensive work when large numbers of staff, or amounts of staff time, may be needed. Existing staff may not be able to deal with this work, or perhaps they are not suitable for it. An alternative is to hire outside staff by using consultants to do the public participation work.

Among the most obvious advantages of this are the provision of skills and manpower which would not otherwise be available to the authority, and of being outsiders with a more detached viewpoint. The outsider also has the advantage of being less threatening to departments and people within an authority who might not welcome innovation; and, if necessary can be used as a scapegoat.

There are disadvantages however, such as the direct cost of employing consultants. The expense cannot be hidden under other aspects of the budget and so is exposed to objection from those opposed to participation. There are other costs less directly attributable to the consultants. Although they contribute their own skills and often their own labour, consultants lack local knowledge and sometimes know little about the framework of local government. In such cases they lean heavily on existing staff and this should be considered in estimating the cost of using consultants. Because of the money spent on hiring consultants, there can be a reluctance to reject their findings or their advice. In addition consultants may adopt work styles and methods which create problems for the normal work of the local authority. This may create tensions during the public participation programme, but may also make integration of the consultants’ work difficult.

This pattern of general advantages and disadvantages uniformly need not apply. Consultants vary enormously in their resources, skills and attitudes. They only do what they are asked and paid to do, which makes the brief offered by the planning authority most important. The authority must decide in broad terms what it wants to have done, and must determine which consultants offer the best terms for doing that. Even where the advantages of using outsiders are clear-cut, the effort required of the authority should not be discounted.

Teesside commissioned a London-based firm of consultants to carry out their programme together with an associated firm to make a sample survey of the population. It is difficult to evaluate the work of the consultants in general as it was closely intertwined


with that of the local authority. The case does make one distinction clear. The consultants had a resident manager in Teesside during the programme and they prepared the publicity material. He provided advice and expertise, but not labour. Local authority staff met local groups and manned exhibitions and public meetings. Only the survey involved the use of outside labour on the detailed work.

Though it is difficult to be precise, it does not seem that Cleveland, Teesside’s successor, would use a consultant again, or not in the same way. Issues of demarcation between consultants, local authority staff, and elected members, arose and caused problems and delays. One thing is clear from Teesside’s experience: the brief consultants receive is vital. The authority must spell out what it wants and is willing to pay for. The case also suggests that consultants may benefit from early involvement. They learn about the problems and the expectations of people in the authority and there is a chance for mutual awareness to develop before the work is too far advanced.

Some of the difficulties of using consultants for the full programme of participation can be avoided by using them for particular aspects only. Merseyside and South Yorkshire did this in commissioning surveys. On such a narrower front the rationale for going outside the authority is very clear and the assessment of its value easier. The local authorities recognised their inability to carry out a survey themselves. They needed skills for sampling, questionnaire design, field interviewing and supervision. They had the skills and machinery for much of the analysis, but not the ready-made computer programmes or the time to complete it quickly.

Once again the quality of the brief will partly determine the response, which in turn will make the choice easier. It is not simply a matter of buying the skills to do a survey. The results have to be used by the planners and incorporated with other elements in the participation programme and with other data in planning. This should be made clear to the consultants. The authority must make some preliminary decisions about how much data they can use and what kind of data they need. Unused or unusable data from surveys costs money to collect, and may cause embarrassment if discovered by the public.

If the broad scope and direction of the survey are clear, the details are best left to the consultants. The experience of our authorities confirms this. Briefing in Merseyside and South Yorkshire was more explicit than in Teesside and the results better. All the surveys reflected a failure to plan for the use of results, though South Yorkshire had learned from Merseyside’s experience. Without such planning, consultants, especially to carry out surveys, are a luxury. The costs were high, especially in relation to spending on public participation as a whole.

Without consultants local authorities have to consider how to provide the necessary resources and manpower. A variety of techniques are relevant to public participation, and surveys are especially popular with councillors. If local authority staff are to learn these skills and have time to apply them, the costs are likely to be just as high as using consultants. Compromises may be necessary. Consultants may be used for advice at critical stages, and the authority can then proceed on its own. An alternative may be for groups of local authorities to use their joint resources to buy full-time services. This will require organisation of programmes and workloads, but would give local authorities the benefit of specialist skill. All need awareness on the part of each local authority of what is needed and of what is available. The lessons of our five authorities indicate some of the possible directions to follow. To use consultants badly is worse than not using them at all.

4.4. STAFF1N.C PARTICIPATION

Most of our authorities chose not to use consultants, or to use them only for particular tasks like conducting a survey. This seems likely to remain normal practice for the reasons just considered. Public participation is additional work. Which staff should be involved in it? How should they be involved and who should carry out which tasks?

A case can be made out for the involvement of a very wide range of staff, or for the use of a narrower specialist group, perhaps drawn from the planning department. First, the case

30 Progress in Plsnning

for wide involvement: public participation can involve large numbers of staff, or at least man-hours, particularly when techniques such as exhibitions or group meetings are used; certainly if exhibitions are going to be fully informative and enjoy any real chance of direct feedback from the public who attend. If an authority plans to conduct its own survey, some of the operations are very labour-intensive. Several authorities we studied offered organised groups an opportunity to meet and talk to members of the planning team. They were not always ready to cope with the response, but were saved from more acute embarrassment by the low response to the invitation.

Two virtues are argued to follow from wider staff involvement in public participation. On the one hand, if such staff are drawn from different departments, the scope of planning is likely to be widened. Wider staff involvement means more, or more varied, avenues of access for the public. The different skills and backgrounds of staff from different departments make it likely that they will be alert to differen: messages from different publics. Many groups will already have contact with officers in departments whose work is of interest and who may provide better contact than planners with whom they are unfamiliar. Wider staff participation may mean wider public participation. Corporate intentions in preparing plans would suggest wide staff involvement. So would a genuine wish for participatory planning.

Yet a case can be made out for speciahsation. Dealing with the public is not a skill for which all professions are trained, nor does it come easily to all kinds of people. Indeed, not all staff accept the case for public participation and those who do not may be best left out of any programme. In choosing staff, experience of contact with the public is obviously useful, though rare among a number of local authority professions. But commitment to participation and enthusiasm for it may be just as important. Specialisation will help develop such qualities - particularly important where participation is seen as a number of linked phases or as a continuous process.

There can be disadvantages in specialisation. While the specialists engage the public closely and effectively, the remaining staff are insulated from the public; nor do the latter meet the wide range of staff involved in the various aspects of planning and implementation. The impact of any public participation comes to depend as much on the contact between the specialists and the decision-makers as between the public and the specialists. The latter are the gatekeepers to the authority and control the messages going through, Whether these reach the decision-makers is a separate and complicated matter. Authorities must choose whether to employ many gatekeepers giving many points of access to the public; or to use fewer gatekeepers and limit the number of messages reaching the authority. The former leaves them with the problem of bringing the messages together in an effective way and avoiding being overloaded with information.’ The latter produces less information but later processing will be easier. Either means a loss. There are no clear rules to guide the choice.

It is evident from our case studies that public participation is seen primarily as a planning responsibility and that the work is confined largely to planners. This partly shows the preference for a narrow scope of planning arising from the complex structure of local government. Such a view has to be modified in the case of Teesside. Staff from a wide range of departments within the County Borough were involved in various aspects of structure plan preparation and participation. Despite the fuller use of consultants, the planning of the participation programme together with the processing of responses was left to an inter- departmental working party.” Not unexpectedly the contribution of the different departments to the working party varied, and planners were dominant.

None of the other authorities involved such a wide range of staff. In North East Lancashire and Merseyside this reflected the special status of the team and the fact that they had no direct colleagues who could be involved. Merseyside established consultative groups with officers from other authorities as part of its participation programme indicating a wish for a wider involvement of staff. The Metropolitan counties face problems in any case, as most of the implementing departments are in the Districts. Inevitably the County planners operate in isolation, especially in relation to public participation.


Cheshire did not have this ptiblem and the presence of most functions within the county meant that others could have been involved. In the event only limited attempts were made to involve other departments and these were concentrated at the stage when public response was being considered. Planners from the County and the Districts manned the exhibitions, talked to organised groups and conducted the public meetings: the Districts are important to a successful Settlement policy. The focus of such a policy may also partly explain the absence of representatives from other departments. In the main though it seems to reflect the planners’ view that they and not other departments were responsible for participation.

The general pattern is for the planners to operate exclusively or at least to dominate the participation process. The degree of specialisation among the planners themselves also varied. Here one must distinguish between the planning of the participation programme and carrying it out which obviously involve different amounts of effort. A small team cannot handle efforts like extensive exhibitions such as those in Cheshire, unless time allowed for participation is greatly extended.

In relation to the general planning and management of participation the picture varies. It is necessary to remember that public participation forms only a small part of the planning process and that exclusive specialisation is likely to be rare. It did happen in Merseyside before reorganisation and in South Yorkshire. In each case one off&r was appointed to deal with participation. Other members of staff though usually junior and few in number, were involved. The other authorities had wider involvement. Teesside tried to use a working party, though in the end the planners in it were dominant. Cheshire adopted a policy of involving all the planning staff in decisions about participation, though there was a tendency for some to play dominant roles.

The officers exclusively concerned with participation demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses of the case. Naturally they were committed to participation and invested the programme with great significance. They started with, or acquired, a sensitivity to the public and to the problems associated with participation. They had, and acquired, skills necessary for dealing with consultants and for managing varied participatory techniques. But participation was effectively hived off. These staff became something of a conscience for the rest in relation to their statutory obligations by organising opportunities for the nuhlic tn narticinate. r ___-_ -_ r _-___- r ___.

Their specialisation made it difficult to insert the public’s viewsinto the planning process. Exposure of other officers to the public might have helped this process. If the public are to have impact they must permeate the planning machine mom fully: or those officers responsible for participation must be able to work more effectively with their colleagues. These comments presuppose that participation is designed to permit public opinions to influence the shape of plans. Where it is not these arguments may not apply. It is certainly possible to give legitimacy to plans by allowing the public to comment without having to absorb that comment effectively into the planning machinery. As always the motives of the authorities condition the pattern of specialisation to be adopted.

4.5. THE ROLE OF COUNCILLORS

Councillors have to continue with the conventional routine of local government during participation. They have connections with the public, formally at election times, but in other ways between elections. Most councillors claim that these contacts make them closely aware of what the public want. The statutory addition of public participation to this pattern of normal contacts indicates that Parliament was less certain. This somewhat paradoxical situation confronts each local authority with the decision whether to involve its councillors directly in ‘public participation’, and if so, how best to do it.

The answers in a particular authority will depend in part on the history of relationships between officers and members. nnd nn the rlemee nf nartv cantr~! 2nd cnnfllst in the - ---__-- -__- _______ - ___, __-_ --- ---- --~-- _- r-_, council. One factor is the fact that many planners see their own role as a very technical one. Elected members handle the political aspects of planning, but these are seen as independent


of the technical issues. As planners see it, involvement with councillors would come at the stage when participation has taken place, and the public comments are being considered. The planners manage the process of soliciting such comments. A related complication is that the members are charged with the ultimate formal decision about the content of the structure plan. To involve them in public participation might be seen as pre-judging such decisions, or as prejudicing their views about the final plan.

Any view which sees participation as an extended form of direct local democracy must accept that it has political significance. If politics are the councillors’ province then they need to be involved with the public. In their normal work they are already exposed to a range of public pressures. Dispassionate, objective judgements are not possible, even if desirable. Ultimately the structure plan will affect the allocation of services and resources by the various local authorities. The issue around participation is not to avoid prejudices being expressed from sections of the public, but to ensure that all prejudices have an equal chance to be heard. The key to participation by councillors is to be found in the motives for involving the public in the preparation of plans.

The most unusual response to the need for councillors to be involved was in Merseyside though they also operated in more conventional ways. Conventional politics did not directly affect the work of the specially-created structure planning team. Councillors were unlikely to receive public comment on the structure plan during their other work. To overcome this a Steering Committee of councillors, some from each authority, was formed. It was responsible for directing the work of the structure plan team, and was advised by a parallel committee of senior officers. In the event the Steering Committee met only twice before local government reorganisation made it unnecessary. That covered a period of eighteen months during which a great deal of formative planning work was undertaken. It gave no effective direction to the work of the planning team, and in the little work which it did do the Steering Committee was totally guided by the structure plan team. This reflects the powerful position of officers in relation to members, and the dominance of technical matters within structure planning. Ultimately the Steering Committee would have had to accept or reject the structure plan though their early performance suggests that this would have been a formal decision.

Teesside established a similar committee in the County Borough. It met only three times during the early stages of the public participation programme and its meetings had been discontinued before the assessment of public comment began. It seems clear that novel working arrangements are not easy to establish, and that if councillors are to be fully involved, structure planning may have to be integrated into the normal work of the planning authority.

Merseyside’s unusual situation did produce one unusual result. Local councillors throughout the county area were consulted in a special survey which formed one aspect of the public participation programme. One justification for this decision was that as the formal elected representative the councillor could speak for the people in his ward as a total gro~p.~

Organisations often operate across wide areas and Merseyside failed to consult those with a more local emphasis like the many community groups and associations. Councillors with their wards as reference points were seen as giving spatial reference to information. A relevant gap in public information, considering the land-use emphasis of structure planning, would be filled. The accuracy of councillors’ information about their wards is difficult to assess without other data being available. Party biasses and the selective nature of their contacts with the public make their views somewhat suspect. The heterogeneity of some wards makes them even more so.

The other reason for consulting councillors in this way involved elements of public relations and of the long-term education of councillors. It was felt, probably correctly, that councillors would resent their formal role being threatened by public participation. Involving them in the programme in this way would go some way towards alleviating that feeling and might modify their views about the other public inputs being made. At the same time it would alert them to the fact that a structure plan was being prepared and do so at an early stage. It might also modify, through them, the views of their councils which would


carry the major responsibility for implementing the plan when it was finally approved. Of these justifications, the effect on councillors was perhaps not important. A survey of

this kind, with one respondent speaking for a large area and for many people, poses major problems. Because of the large number of councillors it is necessary to ask direct and fairly simple questions, which tends to give a sense of homogeneity in wards which is often not justified. The resulting simple answers which could be scored and compared hardly reflect the reality and do not do justice to the councillor’s knowledge of his ward. The same fault is often remarked in random sample surveys of the public at large. The technique seems particularly unsuited to councillors. Its public relations value to councillors would have to be its main justification.

The other authorities used their councillors in more conventional ways but also limited their involvement. The most popular technique was to involve councillors in the conduct of public meetings which were part of the public participation programme. In both Cheshire and Teesside this was done, in the former case with councillors taking the chair at meetings in their wards. This was regarded as a most successful method of involving councillors. The meetings expose them to the views of the public and at the same time involve them in the process of structure plan preparation. The presence of councillors may invest the meeting with more significance in the public mind, and may also make it more related to the normal work of the local authority. The significance which councillors attach to such meetings is clear from their willingness to be involved. Two reservations should be made. Meetings are a means of giving information to the public. They are less suitable for collecting information from the public. The result may be that councillors get an inaccurate view of public feelings from attendance at meetings. The second reservation is that the public may perceive a councillor who takes the chair, or participates in a meeting as aligned with those who organise and speak at such meetings. This could lead the public to question the openness of the planning process and raise doubts about whether the politicians do ultimately control the planners whom they employ.

No other attempts were made to involve councillors in the process of actual public participation. This may simply mark a confirmation of the feelings that gave rise to the statute requiring public participation. Councillors are not always well organised or equipped to conduct a major effort at public involvement. Public participation is as much a threat to planners’ technical autonomy as to politicians. It may be that planners are protecting their own positions by not involving councillors more.

4.6. HANDLING THE RESPONSE

The gathering and the use of information are obviously closely related, though they are often organised independently. The handling of any response from the public vitally affects the relevance which public participation has for structure planning. Inadequate processing of survey results or the failure to record the proceedings of meetings may mean that public input is lost. Less obvious, but equally important, failure to integrate the input from public participation with information and opinion coming from other sources may reduce participation to a token exercise. This is complicated by the fact that handling the response essentially means interpreting it. Large amounts or complex kinds of information have to be presented to decision-makers in a way which reconciles them with other data being used in planning. Survey results can be readily aggregated and given a summary form, though not always without losing information. Other kinds of information are less easily dealt with.

In most authorities such varied information has to be integrated while conventional planning work continues. Motivation to integrate and coordinate the results of public participation depends on the degree of commitment to it. Capacity to do so relates to the quality of staff, relationships within the authority, and the way in which participation has been organised. Much depends on the authority recognising at the outset of its programme that there may be a need for sophisticated processing and that there may be problems in handling the response which is obtained. The time to decide the solutions to such problems


is when the participatory techniques are being chosen and their details worked out. The scope of a survey and the size of the sample must in part at least, be related to the capacity of the authority to handle the data. We have much evidence of authorities handling these issues separately. It is almost as if the act of taking part was thought to be sufficient, which it may be if the authority is not concerned to do more than legitimise its normal decision- making..

There are two distinct processes at this stage of handling participation. The product of each technique has to be processed and presented, the survey analysed or the consultation reported. Then these analyses and reports have to be woven into the planning process alongside the other inputs which are being made. Both processing and integration are crucial to participation. Each of our case study authorities handled the response in a different way, though all revealed a failure to devote sufficient effort to this aspect of participation.

Teesside was in the late stages of the planning process, with no previous history of formal public participation, but had the new statutory requirements obviously in mind. They recognised the need both to solicit and deal with responses from the public. An off&-s’ Working Party was established to plan the programme of participation and to handle the response. Despite this effort, our estimate is that even more time would have been needed if the input from participation was to have been processed effectively.

By comparison, Cheshire’s efforts were much more limited. A working party of planners was established to consider the various sources of information. The main analysis was undertaken around three meetings, on only one occasion did the working party have pre- digested written information to consider. This reflects a failure to appreciate the significance of this stage of participation, and certainly a failure to prepare for it. Merseyside and South Yorkshire had only limited exercises to absorb because of their stages in plan preparation.

Merseyside seem not to have given close collective consideration to what they would do with any public response which was received. The initial processing of the various participation techniques was left to those who had organised them to complete before the next stage of the planning process. This led to haste and partial analysis of much data. It was assumed that the planners not directly involved in participation would absorb the results into their own work. In the event the efforts to persuade them to do so were less than fully successful.

South Yorkshire adopted an interesting and fruitful approach to handling its responses. Material from their attitudes survey and from their kit exercise was processed by planners through working groups of officers and through the county planning committee. The officers were aware that councillors would have the last word, and decided to hold an Open Day for members to start the process of sifting the public response. The Open Day was to begin a dialogue between councillors and officers and begin some selection of public inputs.

The Open Day was regarded as a success though not entirely within the context of the public participation process. As an exercise in setting initial priorities it did not work. Members fell back on personal experience and anecdote. But the spin-offs were invaluable. Members and offtcers acquired mutual experience and respect. The Open Days revealed the variety of opinion about plans and participation, and although that may not help long- term decision-making, they mark a major attempt to allow the councillors to perform their constitutional role.

One of the major lessons of our work, if the wider educational goals of participation are to be met, is that the public should receive some feedback about reaction to their comments and suggestions. It may be agreed that the final plan is enough feedback in itself but it is not the ideal instrument. Its very finality may be a problem in that people do not have another chance to amend it, though they can perhaps influence its implementation. Also it is a complex document; tracing the effects of participation in the final plan is difficult and it may not be a good way to report their effects to the public.

Merseyside approached the preparation of the Statement on public participation in a strange way. The only direct feedback to the public was a brief general report to the


Council on participation. Each individual exercise was written up but the results were not communicated to the participants or the public at large. In some cases, particularly the household survey, results were used as a stimulus to other forms of participation, they were offered as a source of discussion to the various Consultative Groups, whose comments often seemed more important to the planners than the survey results themselves. The long-term effects are difficult to calculate in the absence of further participation.

North East Lancashire engaged the issue of feedback and produced a report,Reacrions to the Advisory Ph. The significance of this process to the planners may be gauged from their introductory comment: ‘The last part of the report contains our recommendations on the extent to which the points raised by consultation should be met by amending the Advisory Plan or investigated in further work on the Structure Plan’. Here is a clear basis for the public to judge their effect on the planners and the plan. The planners were also at pains to point out that evaluation of this first participation or consultation exercise ‘may be instructive for subsequent exercises in consultation’. The recognition of participation as a developing and cyclical process reflects a highly developed view of the role of the public. But it would obviously be difficult to use such a system where response was more extensive. It would also present more problems at intermediate stages in the preparation of a plan when the issues are more diverse and complex.

4.7. CONCLUSIONS

In this chapter we have been examining those preliminary decisions and ultimate processes which are essential to successful participation whatever goals are being sought. The fast essential is for the planning authority to know where it wants to be in relation to participation. The second is for it to understand that getting where it wants to be will depend on a number of decisions. These decisions will be about consultants and about internal staff; about the role of councillors and about the scope of planning. Each of these issues has to be tackled, and in an integrated way, if participation is to be carried through efficiently and effectively. Above all the handling of the input from participation is every bit as important as getting that input.

NOTES: CHAPTER 4

1. N. T. Boaden, Innovation and change in English local government, Pofiricuf Studies. XIX, (4) Winter, 1971. 2. Department of the Environment, The Town and Country Planning (Structure and Local Plans) Regulations,

(HMSO, 1971). 3. Merseyside Structure Plan Team,Merseys&fe: Project Report (Liverpool: September, 1972) para. 4.3. 4. For a general discussion of these issues see Karl W. Deutsch The Nerves of Govemmenr (New York: Free

Press, 1966). 5. The role of the working party is considered fully in W. A. Hampton and R. Walker, TheRole of a Working

Party in Consiakring the Public Response to a Drqft Structure Plax a Case Studv from Teesside (Sheilield: Linked Res&ch Project &to Public Pa&ipation in S&ucture Planning, IRP4.1975): -

6. John Gyford. LoculPo/it~cs in Eritaln (Croom Helm, 1976) offers an introduction to these issues and an extensive bibliography.

CHAPTER 5

Information- Giving

. . . . we should not be satisfied with democratic sops, with small increases in ritualistic processes of individual participation - unless such participation increases the flow of communication.’ Bernard Crick, Polirfcal Theory and Pracf ice.

Information-giving is the first of the three principal categories on the horizontal axis of the matrix of public participation (Fig. 2.2). It lies at the heart of participation. The development plan system which was introduced in the Acts of 1968 and 1971, including the statutory requirements for public ‘involvement’ in planning (to use Dobry’s careful expression),* evolved from the 1965 report of the Planning Advisory Group.Z In the report the objectives for participation were largely a matter of information-giving. It looked to publicity and participation to ‘make for better public understanding of planning policy both in its general objectives and as it affects individuals in areas of development or redevelopment*. Special care should be taken to explain not only the proposals but also the processes involved - the rights of objection, arrangements for rehousing, help with relocating businesses and other assistance that will be given to those affected. Subsidiary objectives seem to have been to ‘ensure a greater degree of public interest and involvement in the planning process’ and to ‘provide . . . authorities with a new opportunity for winning public support for their proposals’. The motives behind these statements and the subsequent legislation were apparently administrative in emphasis. Information was the right of the citizen, particularly in so far as it enabled him to take advantage of opportunities for objection and forms of compensation. It was hoped that by providing more and earlier information, objection would be less contentious and disruptive of the planning process. Public involvement was to be supportive or accepting, to afford planning policy a smooth passage.

5.1. OBJECTIVES

The reasons or motives for undertaking a participatory exercise are particularly important. A planner who is faced with the task of designing and running a participation exercise will find that many of the choices which he has to make are more easily resolved if he has first defined his objectives. They offer a criterion both for the appropriateness of each step of the exercise and also for evaluating its success afterwards. Participation exercises which we have monitored have always revealed the pursuit of objectives. But often they were implicit and poorly articulated. Under such circumstances decisions are made automatically. It is assumed without question, for example, that the immediate source of any communication for participation should be the professional planner; or that the message should be an account, in full or in summary, of the whole of a set of policies and proposals. Assumptions like these carry with them implications for the other components of communication. In the case of structure planning these assumptions might well lead to a restriction of participation to major elites, and to a use of techniques which are controlled by the planner and suited primarily to communicating complex, technical arguments. The implicit objectives of the exercise are then seen, particularly by a cynical would-be participant, as exclusive and mystifying.

44


Undcr- Awareness standing Evaluation Retention Action

I I I I I I I I Objective Why?

I

Outcome With what effect?

I

FIG. 5.1. A finmewort for analyslng information-givktg

The natural form of the classic question which we introduced in Chapter 2 is ‘Who says what to whom, how and with what effect?‘. If a why is added it seems to fall readily after the ‘how’. The ordering of components in the question corresponds in some way to the treatment they receive in the design of participation exercises. The first three components are settled only too quickly. ‘A local authority’s planners* are to communicate their ‘policies and proposals* to the ‘public’. So much seems to be indicated by the statutory requirements, and, it would be argued, by common-sense. But when it comes to the ‘how’ both the Act and common sense give one pause. The term ‘adequate publicity’ is vague and ambiguous. A variety of techniques immediately suggest themselves. Public meetings, exhibitions, the local press, leaflets, booklets, local radio, posters and so on have different and imperfectly understood implications of expense, manpower, required skills and penetration. Resolving the choice of competing techniques often becomes the major focus of decision in setting up a participation exercise. The subsequently ordered components of the classical question ‘why’ and ‘to what effect’ are submerged.

The choice of techniques is a relatively trivial matter. Admittedly, understanding of the alternatives is limited. It was to help supply that deficiency that the Department of the Environment set up our research projects. However, one can readily envisage planners receiving advice about techniques and being given the skills to operate them as a part of their initial and midcareer training. Deciding on motives and expectations for participation and fixing criteria for establishing whether they have been satisfied is much more complex and difficult. Professional ideologies have to be explored. Extended time perspectives may be involved in the criterion question. But, however problematic, these issues are fundamental to participation. Techniques are not. If one is to distinguish real from token participation, it might well be in terms of whether or not objectives have been defined and the exercise evaluated, rather than by the range and expense of the techniques used.

If information-giving is to make for a more efficient planning system, this can come about in several different ways. One can distinguish between the interests of administrators,planners and recipients. We have said that the administrative objective is a smooth passage. A speedily produced plan and a minimum of objections makes for an efficient system. Early information-giving presumably oils the wheels by eliminating that element of surprise which fuels opposition and confrontation. The passage of time between the announcement of preliminary, tentative policies or alternatives and the establishment of a firm and detailed proposal allows the public to anticipate change and adapt to its implications. They may even experience a healthy impatience for action of any sort rather than tolerate further delay.

The planner’s objectives in giving information, where technical efficiency is the goal, are somewhat obscure. As with other professionals, it is hardly a part of his ethic. One should assume perhaps that telling people about policies and proposals not only makes them more acceptable, but also tends to encourage people to act in conformity with them. Achieving the best possible plan is in part a matter of successfully implementing it. Implementation in


turn depends on consonant behaviour and activities. If plans are unknown and are not totally deterministic, one may only accidentally fall in with them and may unwittingly frustrate them.

Put in these terms the planner’s objectives are the obverse of the recipient’s. The one aims at more efficient service provision; the other wishes to enjoy the services more fully. He can in general only do so if he is informed about the opportunities offered by the services. If there is to be a relation between efficient service provision and an improvement in the quality of local democracy, as was suggested in Chapter 1, then the provision of information will be one of the most important mediators.

A change in the balance of availability of information could well change the distribution of beneficiaries of planning. But this cannot be the objective of information-giving nor of efficient planning, in themselves. It rests on an independent political decision. Information- giving, which is simply to aid the provision and enjoyment of services is based on a rational approach to planning. It is neither a political nor a participatory process,. The political benefits of information-giving can be found in the several impacts which we earlier proposed that participation might have politically. It can lead to and constitute a more open mode of government; influence attitudes towards existing governmental structures and services; and promote a redistribution of power through a wider sharing of decision- making. Crick’s3 concept of participation as a superior form of democracy achieved through an increased flow of information has already been referred to. Information-giving, provided that it promotes a heightened level of understanding of democratic processes, is a prerequisite to participation. The goal of participatory democracy, open government rather than institutional participation, is best served by maximising publicity and communication. If attitudes are to be affected as a result of participation, one must ask whether this happens as a by-product or whether information is given in or&r to persuade and to change attitudes. It is doubtful whether information can be transmitted that is free of evaluative connotations. But there is nevertheless a distinction to be made between communications that vary in their persuasive intent. The planner who operates with a rational or consensual approach to participation is likely to engage in persuasion. Rational planning must proselytise its virtues. Consensual planning must persuade interest groups to achieve and maintain a coalition. A change in public attitudes would often accompany the rational or consensual planner’s success.

The impact of participation which leads to a redistribution of power involves a more active use by the citizen of the information given than in the two other instances. In open government it is not clear that the citizen has to do anything with the information which makes for openness. He may possibly comment. In the usual attitude change version he is the passive victim of a ‘hypodermic’ model of communication and influence. The persuasive serum is injected and attitudes change by an unseen chemistry. But for power to be effectively redistributed the citizen must consciously use the information and act with deliberation and intent. More than that, in the process of redistribution he will probably have to interact, in particular with those who have previously held the balance of power.

These three impacts of participation and the attendant motives for engaging in information-giving run parallel to the very activities of information-giving, information- receiving and interaction which are being considered in this and the two subsequent chapters. Information may be distributed fot its own sake, to generate a response, or to promote interaction.

5.2. A FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS

So far we have been considering objectives for information-giving in terms of issues which were raised in the first part of this review. An alternative view of objectives might lay more immediate emphasis on what is intended to happen to the recipient of the information. In a matrix devised to systematise a discussion of experiments on attitude change, McGuire’ used the components of communication as one axis and intended consequences as the other. He distinguished five categories of consequence: attention (awareness in the matrix), comprehension (understanding), yielding (evaluation), retention

Pkwmng and Pwticipation in Practice 47

and action. In the case of attitude change processes, the categories ideally represent a series of successive steps which the receiver must go through if a message is to be fully persuasive. Each stage depends on the preceding one. But in practice it is by no means clear that the sequence stands. It may sometimes be reversed. Sometimes the earlier steps may be unnecessary. However, the value of the framework, in our discussion as well as in McGuire’s, is not proved by its empirical validity. Rather it enables us to order a great deal of complex information. If it is selective, at least it is explicit. If it seems to go too far analytically, at least it atlows us to see where there may be gaps in our understanding.

What, for example, might be the objective of information-giving for open government? Attention and awareness might be sufficient for a majority of the population, at least in the short term. More complex processing of the information leading to understanding or evaluation, might be expected in only a minority of instances where the information is particularly relevant to individuals. Where a response to the information given is looked for, this may be as relatively simple as filling in a comment form or as ambitious as becoming involved in the redistribution of the balance of power in decision-making processes. What levels of comprehension and evaluation are sufftcient or necessary or feasible for these ends to be satisfactorily achieved? It will depend on all the variables on the vertical axis of Fig. 5.1. The nature of the receivers will probably be crucial. But this will interact in turn with the identity of those who are giving the information and the kind of information being given. Additional variables such as the attendant political climate (a ‘when’ or ‘where’ component in our scheme) will probably also be relevant.

In the case of structure planning, the degrees of comprehension and retention to be sought may be particularly difftcult matters to decide and even more difftcuh to achieve. The systemic complexities and abstractions of planning at this level are so great that serious doubts remain about the feasibility of achieving anything more than the most partial understanding. Most people are relatively unused to thinking in terms of relations. Also they tend to be more interested in concrete issues. Whether structure plans are formal statements of policies and proposals to cover the succeeding I5 years or rolling programmes to be updated periodically, they are likely to make considerable demands on the retentive powers of those who wish to be continuously involved. For these reasons, simple attention may again be the feasible level at which to aim.

5.3. THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION

The nature of the who, what and to whom of information-giving components may be influenced by the legislation. Statutory requirements are sometimes treated as ultimate definitions of a sphere of activity. In attempting to fufil the requirements for participation under certain interpretations of the Act, planners may be closing the door on a range of approaches which might tit their objectives more nicely.

For example, it is the local authority which has the statutory responsibility to publicise its policies and proposals. The policies and proposals are complex, technical statements. Directing publicity can be viewed as a semi-professional task. The unquestioned conclusion is that local government offerers, and in particular planning offtcers, are the most appropriate sources of communication with the public. But a great deal is neglected in such a conclusion. Obviously the authority has to be the ultimate source of information about its plans. It is not so clear that it has to be the immediate source from the receiving public’s viewpoint. Do planners have the necessary skills for engaging in publicity? Can they achieve adequate publicity with their necessarily limited financial and manpower resources? What is the proper role of the elected representative in telling people about the decisions he has taken?

Alongside the directions which the Act may be taken to imply, there is a feeling that the planner, as a local government offtcer and as a professional, should be accountable in some sense for his plans. Accountability appears threatened by the planner not being in complete control of the information dissemination process. But this surely takes the principle too far. The interpretative transmission of an authority’s policies and proposals by a third


party, say the Press, in no way invalidates them. It does not expose the authority to legitimate criticisms that it would not have otherwise been open to.

The skills and techniques which enable an effective communication to be made with the public are not normally a part of a local authority planner’s repertoire. Learning the skills ‘on the job’ will usually be inefficient. Unless a participation officer is appointed, an individual has only spasmodic experience of communicating with the public. The context of each exercise can be particular, making generalised principles very difficult to learn.

The full use of available media for communication is expensive in time and resources. For a single officer to art-range, say, forty-seven exhibition sites and thirteen public meetings, as was done in Cheshire, is very demanding. The assumption that the planner should be the immediate source of a communication tends to result in information-giving which is largely from the planner’s perspective. This affects both the content of the communication and the way in which it is received by the public. Their frameworks for considering the services which are being planned are different from the planners. Furthermore, if the information about planning proposals is seen to be controlled by the local authority to the extent that they fully determine its form and content, an atmosphere conducive to participation is unlikely to develop.

Intermediaries in the information transmission process, such as community development officers or the community forum, could achieve much that a planner cannot. But again there is little evidence of motivation to set them in business. Elected representatives might play a much larger role than they do, particularly if they were full-time members, in interpreting and transmitting technical information to the electorate. They constitute an existing and well-organised instrument for such a purpose, if they could see it as their duty. But our case studies have shown few signs that they do see it this way.

For the present, an authority may find best value in using the individuals and organisations in the community who already serve some information-giving function. The Press is an obvious example; voluntary groups and organisations are another. Entrusting them with much of the task of publicising planning matters, arranging exhibitions and public meetings and so on has been successful in the few cases where it has been tried. As a tactic it seems a very promising way of grappling with some of the issues that emerge from the question ‘who?‘.

5.4. EXHIBITIONS

Some of these issues about the source of information can be put in context by referring to actual instances from our case study areas, Cheshire and Teesside. The major preoccupations in setting up a planning exhibition seem interestingly to have less to do with who is to be seen as mounting it than with its format and with the exhibition’s location. But the Cheshire experience has been described in detail elsewhere.s In Teesside, exhibitions together with public meetings formed the comer-stone of participation. They were judged to be the significant part of the exercise. Much of the advice on and evaluation of the medium, as of other aspects of the exercise, came from the public relations consultants whom the local authority retained for the purp~se.~ The consultants emphasised seven criteria for choosing the location of an exhibition: four physical variables (comfort, security, quiet and adequate space) and three related rather more positively to attracting a potential audience. The location should be familiar, have a catchment area for an impulse audience, and satisfy regional interests and,loyalties. They proposed three types of exhibition. The Council accepted the formula of having a static exhibition in the sub- regional centre for the whole participation period, shorter-lasting static exhibitions in the area’s major centres, and a mobile caravan to visit the smaller centres.

It is not clear what objectives Cheshire and Teesside had for their exhibitions at the earlier stages of their planning. But the objectives, in terms of the evaluation they made when prompted by the research teams, were very similar in the two counties. The exhibitions were to communicate planning proposals to the public, on the public’s own ground, and to create an opportunity for discussion between members of the public and the


planners. Either of these objectives may seem admirable. But they are insufftciently articulated. The components of the intended act of communication are not spelled out. Furthermore they lead to a number of rapid decisions which have in the end undesirable consequences.

Some of these problems would have been overcome by separating the two objectives and by questioning more precisely how an exhibition could help achieve them. One might expect that the facilitation of discussion between a local authority and the public would be the fundamental and continuous basis of participation. Indeed we move toward that position in Chapter 7. To set up an isolated spectacle as the setting for interaction is evidence of tokenism. Contact with the public needs to become a part of the planners’ everyday working life - in ‘surgeries’, working groups, community forums, and by conducting both formal and informal door-todoor surveys.

It is doubtful whether a manageable exhibition, on a scale which people do not find forbidding, can do more than scratch the surface of structure planning policies and proposals. Perhaps an exhibition should be aiming at goals of ‘awareness’, ‘retention’ or ‘action*. For many members of the public the simple presence of some kind of exhibition would be sufficient to penetrate awareness or draw attention to the fact that the local authority is preparing a structure plan and is willing to go out to tell people about it. This will be the limit of many people’s involvement. For this purpose the exhibition can be very simple. It should be eye-catching, rapidly assimilable and open to casual inspection. As far as format is concerned audio-visual displays also contribute considerably to drawing an audience’s attention.’

They also have a role to play in promoting retention. Research has shown that dynamic presentations promote a longer-lasting retention, if not of detail, at least that a message has been sent. For more detailed retention of even the simplest information in the exhibition, take-way material would seem to be an indispensable instrument.

An important goal of many exhibitions which we have seen has been to promote further action on the part of visitors - to fill in comment forms, for example, or to attend a public meeting. The goal is usually frustrated, however, by making it an ancillary component of the total message. Typically action is urged on the last panel of the exhibition, at which point attention is exhausted or the panel is missed as the exit is sought. There are arguments for devoting the major part of the simpler kind of exhibition actively to encouraging people to take their curiosity further.

When these more feasible aims of promoting awareness, retention and action are defined, the need for a distinction between the two original objectives of exhibitions becomes more evident. The ‘what’ component of the communication has become clearer. So too should the ‘who’ and ‘to whom’ components become clearer. There is no intrinsic need for the more modest kind of exhibition to be manned at all. But there could be great advantage in having an institution or individuals to whom the putative audience is actually related to appear in this role. In other words, groups and organisations of all kinds - schools, places of work, community organisations - might be persuaded to house the exhibition. By this means an audience is automatically defined, rather than being the undifferentiated public. Representative exposure of the exhibition can be attempted in terms of sectional rather than geographical interests. Hoped-for action on the part of the audience, such as attending a meeting, can also be managed on a group or institutional basis. A small exhibition or stand is set up for several days in advance to announce a public meeting in the same place. Arrangements like these are in no way a prescription for success. They are suggested as an indication of what might happen if some of the more common interlocking sets of assumptions were questioned.

5.5. THE NATURE OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN

The content of the Cheshire exhibition was judged unsatisfactory by the planners: ‘It didn’t really get across either the structure plan or settlement policy’. The written statement and key diagram constitute the plan. What aspects of it might an authority reasonably

I.P.P. 13: l/Z-,,


attempt to communicate? Few individuals or groups, except statutory organisations, will have the time, motivation or expertise to tackle the full document.

And yet there is a danger that planners may implicitly assume that the entire contents of the document have to be transmittted. That seems the most obvious answer to the question ‘what?‘. The Act may strengthen the assumption. The nebulous term ‘adequate publicity’ presumably refers to publicity which is adequate for the purposes both of reaching those who might be expected to wish to make representations and also of giving them the material to make representations which can usefully be taken account of. The planners are enjoined to publicise their policies and proposals in the expectation that relevant comments from the public will to some extent lead to changes in the plan. The orientation here is from the planner outward. The hard line argues that comments on the plan which are not cast in the same general framework and which do not rest on the same basis of knowledge have no contribution to make. The implication that the submitted plan may not always be the appropriate message is derived partly from its inevitable size and its technical complexity.

The varying degrees of interest that people may have in the different subject areas of structure planning - housing, employment, education and so on - was indicated in a sample survey which we conducted in North East Lancashire.* Several questions were included which were intended to tap the electorate’s interest in nine aspects of service provision - housing, leisure and recreation, jobs, roads, public transport, shopping, health and social services, education and quality of the environment. On the basis of these observations one would predict that people in North East Lancashire would be more likely to attend to information about health and social services, education, public transport and housing. We have also observed apparent differential interest between topics in the substance of questions asked at public meetings9 and in the planning material published by the local press.‘O

If one objective of information dispersal is to enable citizens to make better use of the services being provided for them, services in which they find some shortfall or deficiency might well be the target for especial emphasis - provided that it is handled tactfully enough to avoid undue cynicism in the audience. Information dispersal in the context of participation should not, of course, be thought of as limited to the plan preparation or up dating stages. For successful plan implementation and for more fully meaningful participation, information needs to be given at much later stages when proposals are put into effect. The information needs of members of the public may not coincide with the planners’ perceptions of the relative importance of the different improvements they are seeking to achieve.

Although a wide range of services were included in the ground to be covered by structure planning, as laid down in the Development PIans manual,” more recent advice from central government12 has suggested a narrower scope to local authorities. From the viewpoint of participation, apart from other considerations, this may not be an advantage. There will be less to give publicity to; but also less opportunity to deal with those issues which are most salient to some publics. A frequent complaint from those who have conducted public meetings is that the audiences ask ‘irrelevant’ questions.

Relevance is a matter of viewpoint. If public meetings are for the public as well as for officers and members then even apparently irrelevant questions will be needed. Until participation is more widely practised by education, housing and other local authority departmentsI or in a fully corporate manner, planners may have to supply some of that deficit. Limiting structure planning to land-use planning or defining the relevant publicity as being only that which explicitly deals with land-use will be a constraint on, the development of participation in local government. Although the complexities of interrelations between different facets of structure planning (Development Plans manual version) seem an impediment to involvement for a majority of the population, people do nevertheless sense the interrelated character of service provision.

Respect for the public’s view of what is or is not relevant has other implications for one’s interpretation of what constitutes structure planning. The surest way to produce a readily communicable set of planning proposals is for them to be cast from the start in a framework which is consonant with the audience’s. Consonance is helped by the public’s

Planning and Participation in Practice 5 1

involvement from an early stage of the planning process, in an interactive mode. By interaction the frameworks of planner and public move toward one another. As each tries to make sense of the other’s viewpoint, he gradually incorporates it into his own and both become successively modified. In this way participation becomes an integral part of planning, because it gradually modifies its objectives and procedures. The extent to which participation is or should be integral to or an adjunct of planning is one of the major issues which the profession has to face.

Similarly the question of whether planning is a matter of producing a formal plan for deposit or is rather a continuous process can be’discussed with the focus on participation. We have argued that participation is a learned activity and a long-term proposition. Planning will become more familiar and its subject matter more easily retained if information is given regularly rather than in spasmodic bursts which coincide with the climaxes of plan preparation. An important component of regular communication is feedback on the outcome of earlier exchanges.

Communications which proceed by stages make their own particular demands as far as content is concerned. Simple information will precede complex. The past may be treated before the present and the future. There is great scope for approaching proposals for the future through a description and analysis of how the environment has changed and developed through planning decisions, or lack of them, in the past. The past is familiar and easily visualised. If planning is treated as continuous and integral with participation, one can accept that the complexities of scenarios for the future might not be at all widely communicated in any detail in the early cycles of the planning process.

Adopting the public’s viewpoint will affect the content of one’s communication with them in another way. The language of planning is technical and jargon-ridden. Most local authorities have recognised the need to dismantle this barrier to understanding. It is sometimes difficult to appreciate that many apparently simple and familiar words are in fact not a part of most people’s vocabulary. It is impossible for a planner to expunge them all. To get over the difficulty some authorities have hired public relations consultants, or journalists to translate their ideas into readily intelligible language.

Language of varying complexity will be appropriate for different audiences, in different situations and for different purposes. Major elites will be more capable than minor elites at processing technical information. Individual members of the public will be quickly discouraged. Public meetings, exhibitions and pamphlets will frustrate their particular functions, whoever the audience, unless they are presented simply and directly. Awareness, retention and action will be served by simple messages, but of varying style; with repetitive, memorable and stimulating emphases.”

5.6. PLANS, BROCHURES AND INFORMATION SHEETS

The extent to which even organisations may require different treatment was illustrated in the North East Lancashire case-study. About one-third of those who were sent a consultation copy of the Advisory Plan document - a well-written and well-laid out book, but with 172 pages - found that they could deal with it.” They were mostly larger organisation who were used to dealing with such documents or had had an earlier involvement with the Plan. However, as many organisations complained that it was too general. A further one-sixth of surveyed organisations, mostly small, voluntary bodies, found the document too speciaiised and over-long.

The need of different audiences for different levels of information was recognised by authorities in all our case-study areas. But hitting the right level and the right number of levels, with economy, proved difficult. Cheshire used three pieces of literaturei to make information available to the public about their proposals: a booklet Your Move, a four- page comic 77re Cutolysr, and a series of district information sheets. Each had its own objectives, as well as its own successes and failures. In Teesside a brochure which gave a simple resumC of the Plan was used for mass distribution. More substantial detail was included in a four-page newspaper supplement. It was noted in Teesside that many people


turned up at public meetings with a copy of the supplement. They used it as a reference source, the purpose for which it was originally intended.

The public’s evaluation of proposals may have been an objective of the Teesside publicity, but if so it was carefully hidden. The presentation of alternatives and the inclusion of direct questions to be answered by the reader are pre-requisites if one wishes to ensure evaluation.

5.7. THE AUDIENCE

The assumption is that the public (the ‘to whom’ component) is a homogeneous mass, rather than a possibly very large set of publics with differing characteristics - this is undoubtedly encouraged by the very term ‘public participation’. In the absence of clear indications of what the Secretary of State would accept as ‘adequate publicity’, planners have tended to adopt the safe position that the more widespread the publicity, the larger the audience aimed for and achieved, the more adequate it will be judged to be. A further inhibition against differentiating between sectors of the public may be the belief that it carries with it the risk of unwittingly discriminating between the different sectors, by providing them with different information.

The mass audience assumption ignores the range and importance of relevant individual differences in the population: the differing familiarity with and liking for the institutions of local government, different interests and knowledge, motives and expectations for participation, exposure to media and sense of political efficacy. These sources of variation crucially affect the way in which the other components of communication are treated. Working towards an entire homogeneous public eliminates the possibility of realistic criteria for judging the effectiveness of participation exercises. Many participation exercises over-estimate the number and scope of the audience which might realistically be involved. The frustration, disillusion and cynicism which result is profoundly damaging to the status of participation.

5.8. NON-JOINERS

Another motive behind the decision to treat the public as a homogeneous mass may be out of respect for the ‘non-joiners’. It is dubiously reasoned that a blanket coverage is more likely to reach them than an exercise which operates through groups and media such as exhibitions and public meetings. But is is possible that their being ‘non-joiners’ may be a positive stance on their part; they simply do not want to participate in social and political institutions. On the other hand, society may be so ordered as to exclude certain individuals from its institutions. It seems unlikely that planners would overcome these barriers by any short-term act of communication. Knowledge of who were the non-joiners would help define a more rational treatment of them. Greater knowledge of the characteristics of all potential audiences and non-audiences for participation is desirable. There is unfortunately no requirement to show that the basic data have been collected and considered for participation policies and proposals. As a result the planning of participation exercises belies their authors’ profession.

The main purpose of the sample survey which we conducted in North East Lancashire was precisely to supply this kind of information. I7 It was carried out as one example of a pre-participation intelligence operation which might make planning for participation more rational.

The results of the survey enable one to estimate the size and many of the characteristics of the likely audience for publicity through groups and organisations, local newspapers, local radio, libraries, exhibitions, public meetings and so on. Profiles can be drawn of those who claim to have been involved in local government previously, and of those who have not. Information was collected on people’s preferred channels of communication, both for

PJanning and Participation in Practice 63

receiving information from the local authority and for making their own voice heard. The situation of the non-joiner can be examined through a survey like this one.

In general we would predict that an intended communication is more likely to reach its audience, other things being equal, when it has a viable ‘social’ context. Action should be included as a communication objective, not only because participation exercises are looking for a response, but because the implications for action make the communication more arresting. Leaflets delivered to households might be improved very often by focussing much more sharply on something specific which the reader is invited to do, particularly something which involves him with others. Invitations to public meetings are a weak instance of this device. More powerful would be an invitation to the whole household to discuss proposals and put across a joint view, or to a member of the household to elicit the viewpoint of others living on the same street.

But this very emphasis on the importance of social and active connotations in publicity for participation makes it even less likely that the non-joiner will change his label.

5.9. TARGET AUDIENCES

At the opposite pole from the assumption that the entire population is one’s target audience are a number of minimal strategies. The most extreme is to deny that there can be any particular audience other than that which explicitly reveals itself. The strategy is to make people seek any information which they need. This is in effect to revert to the arrangements that were in operation before the current legislation on public involvement in planning.

The legislation itself suggests a strategy which is almost as economical as the minimal one. One might choose to focus on the audience suggested as ‘those who might be expected to wish to make representations’. A survey of those who do make representations would show that they are few in number and most often are writing on behalf of a group or organisation. They have often attended a public meeting or exhibition. On this interpretation the audience for information on planning is small and not too difficult to identify.

Earlier we put forward the idea that intermediaries might be used to good purpose. In that case the planner will have to identify in principle the particular audiences which an intermediary might reach and he will have to select with care the most suitable intermediaries for any target audience. But he will be relieved of the tasks of becoming familiar with the audiences’ different characteristics.

One of the most common examples of the use of intermediaries is the press conference. Our North East Lancashire case-study, however, showed the dangers of taking for granted a common medium of communication: a great deal more care and preparation is needed than is usually given. The press conferences in North East Lancashire were much less successful than they might have been.‘*

The elected representative should be a more obvious candidate for the role of intermediary than one finds him to be, even in the mundane role of dispenser of information. The absence of councillors from participation exercises was noted in all our case studies. In North East Lancashire they entered rather as an afterthought and following the initiative of people quite outside the responsible councils. A local college of further education organised a one-day seminar for councillors from eight neighbouring councils.i9 The planners considered the seminar a great success and regretted that they had not devoted a much greater proportion of time and resources to similar events at other times and in other parts of the sub-region.

Even less often identified than the elected representative, either as an audience or as intermediaries, are the officers in other departments of the authority. In Teesside however, they had quite a large role to play. They helped to man the exhibition. They served on a working party to consider public response to the structure plan.20 Where effective plan implementation is one of the goals of participation, officer involvement at


an early stage is as important as public involvement. This is consistent with corporate management; but it can be attempted without a strong corporate structure.

The identification of particular audiences serves to avoid the most fundamental and surprising error in participation, the assumption that the public is a unit, homogeneous. Few planners would believe that they are plunning for a homogeneous public. Whether a conflict or consensus model of society is adopted, sectional interests have to be taken account of.

More mundanely, this differentiation can make anything which goes beyond token participation more economical, in ways to which we have already alluded, more rational and more capable of evaluation. Differentiating the public allows the identification of ‘target’ audiences for information.

Before a decision is made about the identity of target audiences, at least two other questions have to be considered. Firstly, what categorical distinctions are there which group people within the community, which are both related to planning issues and might constitute available audiences? Secondly, what are the relevant characteristics of the groups and audiences?

There are a large number of groupings within the community, produced by such obvious variables as sex, age, social class, occupation, location and so on. Age groups constitute audiences in schools, for example, and old people’s clubs. Occupational groups can be approached through trade and professional associations and through the workplace. Groupings of this kind are ready target audiences for meetings and exhibitions where their particular concerns can be dealt with. The characteristics of the target groups and audiences will affect decisions about what one communicates to them, the medium one uses and the response expected. People’s motives and expectations for becoming involved in planning vary considerably. Motives and expectations are not always consistent with what we would think of as the optimal situation or the strategy to adopt in carrying out participation. Nor need they dictate one’s tactics. But knowledge of themwouldseemtobean important component of the planning stages of a participation exercise.

These individual differences can be attributed also to aggregated audiences, of course; but at that level group characteristics may enter the picture, which are independent of individual factors. Some of these were highlighted in our Merseyside case-study of consultation with organisations. The main intention of this consultation exercise was to generate a response.21 But the organisational characteristics are also pertinent to information dissemination; these may not be insurmountable barriers to effective involvement, however. The point is that with advance intelligence, means may be found for overcoming them; or the decision taken that the effort required makes organisational involvement a poor medium of communication.

5.10. PUBLIC MEETINGS

The role of target audiences in planning a participation campaign can be illustrated from our observations on the organisation of public meetings in two of our case study areas. This has been discussed in some detail in an interim research papcr22 on North East Lancashire. The place of public meetings in a wider participationexercise is illustrated by our accountz3 of Cheshire’s settlement policy participation exercise.

The value of having a target audience is particularly to boost attendance at a meeting, by enabling the organisers to issue more direct invitations, whether individually or through a social network. It also helps at the time of the meeting by giving speakers a more exact idea of who their audience is. The audience themselves are perhaps more likely to recognise their identity and common, or conflicting, interests. There should be more opportunity for a consistent thread or theme to emerge from the discussion. Many planners react against such a focussed discussion in the belief that an unrepresentative group are merely flogging their hobby horse and that a structure plan is too complex to deal with in this way. If


participation is to serve their purposes as well as the planners, they will explore their own interests and should be encouraged to do so. In their more general programme for the involvement in participation of organ&d groups, Cheshire failed to establish a feasible target audience. In terms of our earlier scheme for arriving at a target audience, Cheshire only completed one of the three necessary steps. They identified a potential audience, but were insufficiently selective and were not aware of its characteristics.

5.11. THE COMPONENTS OF COMMUNICATION

An emphasis on the ‘how’ of communication is liable to draw attention away from more central considerations, especially from objectives. During our research it was striking that it was information on techniques which planners sought from us and from the Department of Environment. But to treat information-giving as another part of technical, rational planning activities obscures the esssential participatory goals. A total approach to information-giving needs to be developed, a multi-media system, with an emphasis on objectives and channels rather than techniques of communication.

We will end this chapter by focussing on the Press. 24 Its significance is not simply as another medium for putting out publicity material. It is a unique, but familiar and deeply- rooted social institution, which has to be incorporated in any attempt at participation if the exercise is to deserve the name. Press involvement is a necessary part of any contemporary political process. Information-giving should be thought of in such terms, rather than as an annexe to democracy. We shall use the Press to draw together by way of conclusion, the various components of communication which were summarised in Fig. 5.1. We shall emphasise the ‘who’, ‘what*, ‘to whom’ and ‘why’ of Press involvement.

Many of the institutional features which inhibit work with the Press are encapsulated in the identity of the journalists who staff it. If Press publicity is to appear it will in most cases be the journalists who produce it. This runs counter to the natural assumption that the planners should be the immediate source of publicity material. In some cases the journalists’ role may be mitigated by extensive briefing, editing and even re-writing by the planners. But that cannot often occur, if only out of respect for a fellow professional who has his own distinct skills which deserve to be exercised. There is a stereotyped attitude to journalism which has to be overcome if the work of individual newspapers and journalists is to be seen positively. Local authorities tend to complain that the local Press promotes a ‘them’ and ‘us’ division between authority and public, and is unduly partisan; reports are said to be frequently over-selective, incomplete, perfunctory, distorted and inaccurate; fundamental material is omitted in favour of whatever is newsworthy. Sometimes these complaints are justified. But they also rest on a misapprehension of the role of the journalist as entirely an ‘objective’ recorder of facts and events in a full and unequivocal format. He also has a role as commentator and as a stimulus to social and civic processes. The institutional form of the Press requires the journalist to rewrite and reinterpret material which comes before him, within the constraints of accuracy and integrity.

The advantage of journalists being the immediate source of the information which reaches the public lies precisely in that point. They are trained intermediaries between the specialist and the layperson. Despite their different skills, the interests of local authority officers and journalists often overlap, not least in the matter of participation. A co- operative relationship needs to be established, gradually and on an individual basis, so that officers and journalists may understand, respect and help one another. Objectives should be made clear on both sides and an agreed position negotiated. Our case studies showed that press conferences are not always a good introduction to Press involvement, though they are often used in that way. The most important conclusion was that co-operation between journalists and local government depends on a mutual appreciation of how the other party works and of their particular constraints.

With the mass media, decisions about the source of information are likely also to determine its nature. In their newspaper supplement North East Lancashire exercised

66 Prugress in Pknning

control over the content and attempted to cover the whole Plan in one double spread. Even if readers’ interests are so comprehensive, the information would probably have been better communicated in a serial form.

A deliberate policy of feeding the Press and facilitating their task may combat some of the possible disadvantages in their control over what appears and when, in the papers. Their greater interest may be limited to certain topics, and interests may vary between individual papers and between evening and weekly papers. Material needs to be released as early as possible and in the form.of readily digestible summaries.

The number and characteristics of those who may be reached by newspaper publicity is possibly easier for an authority to determine than with other media. Circulation figures and surveys by such bodies as the Newspaper Society or the Evening Newspaper Advertising Bureau can be found to provide these data. An authority should and can go further to investigate any variations in readership between different sectors of the public.25 There are likely to be significant geographical variations in readership figures which might suggest different approaches to publicity in different districts. There are socio-economic differences between readers and non-readers of evening, biweekly and weekly papers. Certain sectors of the public may be ‘blind spots’ for press publicity. Readership may overlap significantly with the audience for local radio and with more extensive group membership. The overlap might be interpreted in terms of redundancy; or it could suggest ways in which multichannel communication could be pressed home more effectively.

There are a number of possible objectives behind Press publicity. It may be intended to generate a reaction from the public. But unless deliberate and unusual steps are taken to provoke actions on the part of the public, the Press will not be useful for this purpose; and this is probably a rare objective for the local newspapers themselves. The material of any mass medium is frequently used for ‘conversational coinage’. This is a form of action which can be mediated through the Press, and there was ample evidence in our case studies of the importance of word-of-mouth as a source of information. The life of the newspaper is short - 8 hours or so for an evening paper. Retention of information can be aided by press publicity only by means of repetition, perhaps through a series of regular articles on planning issues and proposals. Editors can be encouraged to be more or less evaluative and to ensure that points both in favour of and against proposals are made.

The public’s better understanding of planning proposals is a reasonable objective for press publicity. Proposals may not be presented in the form in which they were conceived or published by the planning authority, but in many cases they will be all the more comprehensible. Concepts do not have one form only and meanings are negotiated socially. Participation requires the translation of ideas into readily assimilable alternative forms. Without it planning is an exclusive and mystifying process. In the matter of awareness the Press has its most obvious role to play. Even by simply scanning headlines large numbers of people will learn of and be reminded that a planning process is in train, even if they understand no more than that. The basically non-reactive nature of newspapers as information channels is understood by the public and is one of their peculiar advantages.

Working with the Press will usually be relatively inexpensive to an authority. Most of the cost will be for officers’ time in establishing and maintaining a good working relationship with journalists, who can achieve much that planners have neither the time, training nor even inclination to attempt. Local newspapers appear at regular daily or weekly intervals. They provide a framework for giving participation and the planning process the continuity which is so often lacking in the public’s eyes.

We have foundz6 that the more devoted readers of local newspapers are also those who have a greater sense of community involvement. National surveys show that the local Press regularly reaches one-half to three-quarters of all individuals - a figure which is unlikely to be reached by any other medium which a local authority could reasonably hope to use. The local newspaper is a familiar and established institution, well-integrated into the community. Participation ideally is an integrative process, bringing together decision- makers and fellow-citizens. The process will never be successful if pursued through alien institutions.


5.12. CONCLUSION

In future participation exercises we would hope to see planners working alongside some of those people outside the local authority who have particular and institutionalised skills for reaching the local community. The information which they give will be determined less by a wish to put across planning proposals fully and formally; and more by knowledge of the interests and forms of expression which are familiar and important to the intended audience. Who that audience is likely to be will depend on many factors: the nature of the message, the medium through which it comes, the kind of response invited, and so on. A thoughtful participation exercise will show evidence that these interrelations have been considered in advance. Most importantly, the objectives will have been spelled out. Ultimately the nature of the information given, its source and its channel will depend on objectives. No participation exercise should conclude without an evaluation of the extent to which objectives have been met and at least an estimate of the degree of public response, at whatever level that may have occurred, from awareness to action.

NOTES: CHAPTER 5

1. G. Dobry, Review of rhe Development Control System (London: HMSO. 1975) Chapter 10. 2. Planning Advisory Group, The Future of Developmenr Plans (London: HMSO, 1965). 3. Bernard Crick, Them and us, In: Political Theory andProcrice (London: Allen Lane the Penguin Press. 1971). 4. W. J. McGuire, The nature of attitudes and attitude change, In: The Han&ook of Social Psychology, 3. G.

Lindzey and E. Aronson (cds), Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass. 5. M. Goldsmith and P. Saunders, lXe TIJC of Lewd Ie Cot: Acblic Pordcipation and Serrlemenr Policy in

Cheshire, IRP 8, Linked Research Project into Public Participation in Structure Planning, Sheffield, 1975. 6. cl W. Hampton and R. Walker, *Role of Consultants in the Public Parricipation Process: rhe Teessidc

Experience, IRP 5, Linked Research Project into Public Participation in Structure Planning, Sheffield, 1975. 7. c$ also P. Stringer and D. Uzzell, The Use ofAudi*Visual ond Other Techniques in Public Participation in

Plonttfng (London: Dcpartwnt of the Environmmt, 1978). 8. For a description see P. Stringer, Tuning in lo Ie Acblic: Survey before Participation, IRP 14. Linked

Research Project into Public Participation in Structure Planning, Shcffild, 1978. 9. P. Stringer and S. Ewcns, Participation through Public Meetings: rhe Case in North Easr Lancashire, IRP 2.

Linked Research Pro&t into Public Participation in Structure Planning, Sheffield, 1974. M. Goldsmith and P. Saunders, Porriciparion through tilic Meehgs: the Case in Cheshire, IRP 9, Linked Research Project into Public Participation in Structure Planning, Sheffield, 1976.

10. P. Strinpr, The Press andPublici?yfor Public Porticfpurion. IRP 12, Link&d Research Project into Public Participation in Structure Planning, Sheffield, 1977.

11. Dcnartment of the Environment. Devetomnenr Plans: a Manuoion Form and Content (London: HMSO. 1970). -

_

12. Department of the Environment, The Town and Country Planning Act 1977: Memorandum on Srructure and Z_ocol Plans, Circular 55/77 (London: HMSO, 1977).

13. S. Hatch (cd.) Towurds Participation in Loco1 Services, Fabian Tract 419 (London: Fabian Society, 1973). 14. cl: also P. Stringer and G. Plumridge, Publicity Guidelines, IRP 7, Linked Research Project into Public

Participation in Structure Planning, Sheffield, 1975. 15. & P. Stringer and G. Plumridge. Consulrorion with Organisotions on rhe North East Lancashire Advisory

P/un. IRP 3. Linked Research Proiect into Public Participation in Structure Planning. Sheffkld. 1974. Cf also N. Roaden and N. Collins, Consulro~on with Organisotions~n the Merseyside S&ucture plan, IRP 6; Linked-Research Project into Public Participation in Structure Planning, Sheffield, 1975.

16. See M. Goldsmith and P. Saunders, op. cit., IRP 8. 17. For details see P. Strinpr, op. cit., IRP 14: 18. P. Stringer, op. cit., IRP 12. 19. P. Stringer and S. Ewens, op. cir. 20. W. Hampton and R. Walka. *Role of o Working Party in Considering Ihe Public Response to a Draft

Structure Pkm. IRP 4, Linked Research Rojcct into Public Participation in Structure Planning, Sheffield, 1975. 21. op. cit. 22. P. Stringer and S. Ewens. op. cit. 23. M. Goldsmith and P. Saunders, op. cit., IRP 8. 24. P. Stringer. op. cit., IRP 12. 25. See P. Stringer. op. cit.. IRP 14. 26. P. Stringer, op. cit., IRP 12.

CHAPTER 6

Information Collection

‘&cause one tends to talk about “the public interest” or “the public view” one can be kd into thinking that all that is needed is to sound out the public, find out what their view is. and implement it. The fact is that thcrr will be almost as many views as there are individuals or groups consulted.‘Revvkw of rheDevelopmenr Control

Sysrem (Dobry Report).

One of the ways in which we shall consider techniques for information collection is in the extent to which they are served by efficient and conscious efforts at information dispersal. Different techniques suggest different tactics. At one end of the spectrum the random sample survey by door step interviews usually relies on respondents* general state of knowledge and interest or, at best, on broad unfocussed publicity. In contrast the ‘kit’ technique, pioneered by South Yorkshire County Council, is structured around the principle of providing people with specific guidance, contextual background and planning data, to enable them to make more considered and informed responses. At intermediary points between the survey and the kit lie comment forms, written representations and various types of consultation.

One’s definition of participation, the objectives in a particular situation and factors contingent upon a given context will determine the relation between information dispersal and collection and interaction, and the extent to which they are exercised. An interactive counterpart to the sample survey might be a representative community forum. The communications mnemonic will be used again: ‘Who is invited/encouraged/permitted to say what ro whom. . .?‘. We have already suggested a component which may be added: that is ‘in response to what. . 7’ The objectives of attention, comprehension, evaluation, retention and action are also relevant. Information collection may seem to be a matter only of promoting a form of action in members of the public. But the quality of that action will vary in the degree to which it is accompanied by say, comprehension or evaluation.

6.1. OBJECTIVES AND MOTIVES

Why collect information? The question of objectives must again be predominant. The PAG report treated participation as a matter of publicity and public relations. It

referred’ to the need for a ‘much greater knowledge of the social needs and aspirations of the community’; but in the context of research for a more highly sophisticated planning system. Information collection about the public’s needs and aspirations would be a technical exercise, serving the goals of a rational planning ideology and looking to a more effective implementation of planning proposals.

The statutory provisions of the 1968 Act fall short of information collection, in an active sense. Publicity has to be given to the opportunity to make representations, but there is no suggestion that the public should be encouraged to do so. The report of the Skefftngton Committee, in its main recommendations, has remarkably little to say about the positive steps an authority might take to gather information from the public, other than the appointment of community development officers who might work with people and give their views to the authority. Purposes of the proposed community forums which are referred to in the main text are absent from the recommendations2 -namely, ‘to present

58


the views of the constituent organisations to the planning authority* and ‘to continue a dialogue with the authority throughout the plan-making process*. It is assumed that people will comment and make representations. But very little is suggested as to the form these might be expected to take, who they might come from, or how they should be handled. There is a thread throughout the report which suggests that participation should be a positive activity. However, one has no sense of the way in which positive information might flow from the public to the authority.

The Department of the Environment Circular’ which refers to the 197 1 Act and the Skefftngton report stresses that it is important ‘to seek the views of the ordinary citizen and to listen to them’, but without elaborating the point further. It gives little encouragement to the concepts of community forum and community development officers as institutions to aid participation. Three further recommendations of Skeffmgton are treated quite summarily. It is suggested that the best way of telling people what their representations have or have not achieved - providing feedback to the information-collection process, in other words - would be by including it in the statement on public participation which is submitted to the Secretary of State. This statement is then to be made available to the public. Such a suggestion formalises and distances the authority’s response to those who were interested enough to participate. On the recommendation that ‘people should be encouraged to participate by helping with surveys and other activities’ the circular only points out that this might be useful ‘provided authorities ensure that people are not asked to do work for which they are not equipped’. This begs the question of what participation might involve. Finally, in response to a whole chapter in the report on education and participation, the circular promises that the DOE will produce some publicity material about the new planning system.

One administrative motive behind participation, we have suggested, is to speed the passage of planning proposals to their approval by the Secretary of State. The effectiveness of public participation is judged by the extent to which it has enabled issues to be fully discussed before the Examination in Public.’ The intention is to avoid unduly contentious and prolonged public inquiries. However, one has the impression that it is not so much the substance of what the public have to say which is of interest, as the fact that they have expressed themselves. If the substance is to be incorporated in planning proposals there has to be commitment on the authority’s part to use the information which they collect. This entails a radical reorientation of attitude toward the public viewpoint. Before the Examination in Public there will be ample time for an agile authority to gloss over the points made. Those who have made the representations may not be invited to appear at the Examination.

The most positive statement in central government documents on the status of information collected from the public is in the Dobry report reviewing the development control system.3 The proper function of public involvement is to ‘assist elected members and central government by giving them information and other help they may need’. Three of the four arguments given for public involvement revolve in part around the assumption that the public is a valuable source of information: ‘The public has more detailed, first- hand knowledge [than the elected member] and can be of vital importance in reaching sound decisions’; ‘In many ways. . . the public can now offer information and points of view not otherwise available’; ‘Local and central government can profit from the special expertise of amenity societies and from the voluntary efforts of the public’. However, it is still by no means clear what this information might be, nor how it might be collected and handled.

In terms of our earlier distinctions, information might be conceived of as ‘rational’, ‘consensual’ or ‘participative*. Rational information would be information which was collected for technical purposes. It would be factual, though it might consist of information about values which were treated as though they were facts. The public’s attitudes and opinions or their reactions to planning proposals would be interpreted as having the same determinacy and status as, say, traffic flow data or employment figures. The information would be expressed in the planners’ terms. It would tend to be collected by rational, mechanical means - sample survey, for example - from sources which were treated as


units unrelated in any direct way to the planning authority or to one another. Consensual information would acknowledge the possibility of these relationships. It

would involve bargaining or negotiation between the authority and elite groups, which might also extend to inter-group negotiations. Different value positions would be explicit. A political exercise of power or influence would be apparent. The information collected would be used as ‘promissory notes’ to guarantee the effective implementation of proposals in a context of elite cooperation.

What one might term ‘participative information* would be rather different. It would be drawn from the public in general. It would be explicitly value-laden and might include values quite different from those contained in planning ideologies, The context in which the information was collected and the uses to which it might be put would be open to scrutiny. The information would guarantee neither more nor less about subsequent events than the exchanges in any dialogue are expected to. The collection of information would be administered in such a way that the giving of it was of direct benefit to the public themselves, not only through eventual outcomes, but through the information they received, their increased understanding and concern for planning decisions and their heightened sense of civic and political identity and influence.

It may be that the term ‘collection’ should be more widely interpreted, as implying a willingness to accept and process whatever information the public offers. When the public is interested primarily in a more efficient service provision, planners may lind their comments immediately relevant and helpful. But there may equally be occasions when this congruence is absent. Planning authorities will have to decide how far and in what way they are prepared to use information generated by the public which is not expressed in the form or terms that planning techniques suggest as suitable for incorporation. A similar issue was posed over publicity. When we examined the conduct of public meetings, we found a tendency for questions from the audience, on matters defined as part of the structure plan proposals by its authors, to be treated as ‘information*; all other questions were ‘noise’.

One goal for participation on the part at least of a sector of the public may be a redistribution of power. We suggested earlier that this goal might best be achieved through interactive forms of participation. If power is to be redistributed the public voice must be heard. The crucial factor under the present system of government will be the authority’s commitment to use the information which is presented to them.

The same applies if the redistribution of power is treated as a possible impact of participation rather than a motive for it. For the other two impacts to which we have referred - attitude change and open government - the role of information transmission from the public to the authorities is not so clear cut. If open government is promoted one may well anticipate that the public will address itself to the authorities. They may make enquiries and react to the answers they obtain. But there is little need for the authorities to solicit their reactions. As regards attitude change, past models have tended to treat those who hold the attitudes to be passive. Their attitudes are changed as a result of skilful manipulations by another. More recently it has been recognised by social psychologists that some commitment and involvement is necessary on the part of the potential convert. He usually changes his attitudes in situations where he is interacting with others with whom he feels involved and on a subject-matter to which he is in some way committed. The open expression of an attitudinal position in the context of an explicit relation to the change agent is one of the more effective means whereby attitudes become changed. It is in this sense that eliciting a response and collecting information might be important.

Underlying this discussion of motives for information flow from the public to the authorities is a potential confusion between exercises in which information is deliberately collected for particular purposes which have been decided on in advance; and the incidental receipt of information which results from the public’s right to comment, but the impact of which is entirely discretionary. There are intermediate positions as well. An added complication comes from the ambiguity of what constitutes information. Should it be value free? Does it have to be directly relevant? In what sense do the sources need to be expert?


6.2. SAMPLE SURVEYS

In 1975 we organised a seminar for planning officers on public participation. As a preparation we asked them to think about a number of questions relevant to participation and to record their answers. In the event we were surprised by the attention given to the technique of sample surveys, particularly in view of the considerable cost and expertise required to mount them. The advantages which were attributed to sample surveys were primarily their ability to provide fully representative information, and in particular to balance the comments made by a vocal minority and by special interest groups. The planners were becoming embroiled in one of the fundamental dilemmas posed by all aspects of participation under our present form of government. In many ways they are drawn into direct involvement with what are strictly political matters. To be actively concerned about the representativeness of those who participate spontaneously or about the nature of their special interests goes far beyond the province of the uncommitted professional servant. One of their worries about the sample survey_was that it might place the elected representative in an awkward position when decisions had to be taken. But themotives for conducting it are an anterior consideration and more profoundly undermine the nature of representative democracy than the survey’s results could ever embarrass the conduct of democracy.

Sample survey methodology may appear to release the planner from the need to determine who is involved in a participation exercise. This was a consideration of several planning officers on Merseyside.6 It is the only method of communication with the public which comes at all close to reaching a full response - a response rate of around 80% is typical. A successfully drawn and achieved sample has the characteristic of including members of many minorities, the inarticulate and non-joiners and of ensuring their response. But in this respect it represents a very deliberate and significant selection of who is to participate. The planners’ motives seem contradictory.

The Teesside case study’ illustrates well the results of the ambiguity of purpose that has surrounded some of the earliest explorations with sample surveys. If the value of a survey depends on its impact on the decision-making process, the Teesside surveys were a failure. The data were underanalysed; only a limited number of cross-tabulations were prepared.

Surveys are open to serious question as an expensive way of reaching a fraction of the population. No evidence is available to show that survey respondents are particularly ready to talk about the experience and to diffuse awareness of the structure plan through the community (though it might be interesting to attempt to encourage such a process). Were the 1700 Teesside respondents the most useful contacts to have made, informationally or politically? In what sense were the 1700 ‘reached’? It is doubtful whether they understood the context within which they were making a reaction. The survey questionnaire informed them that ‘We are carrying out a survey on what the people living in this area think about local issues’. This is a dubious context for political participation. Participation more properly suggests an informed debate than the cool, uninvolved proprieties of the survey.

The question of the context within which respondents perceive themselves and the use of consultants by Teesside,” and by most other councils who have conducted surveys, raises the particular issue of who is being addressed by the public in information-collection exercises. When a questionnaire is assembled, significant aspects of its form and content may be determined by the consultants. In Teesside this was a source of confusion. The officers who were involved in discussing the questionnaire went further than the consultants had expected in changing the phrasing of questions.

When the questionnaire is administered the confusion persists. One looks in vain in the consultants’ reports on the sample surveys carried out in Teesside, Merseyside and South Yorkshire for an indication of what respondents were told of the source of the survey. Who is the nebulous ‘we’? The question is rarely asked by respondents. If the interviewer is skilful at establishing rapport with the respondent, the interview becomes, in important respects, a simple two-person interaction.

There is even more fundamental ambiguity about whether the respondent is addressing officers or members through the questionnaire. The ambiguity is inherent in the rationale


for surveys and the treatment of their results. But we know that the electorate is more likely to contact an officer than a member for information or to complain.9 The burden of the questionnaire will point in the direction of planning and planners. In South Yorkshire instructions to interviewers quite specifically referred to ‘the planners [having] to take into account what is wrong with the area at the moment from the planning point of view . . .‘.

The significance of wrong attributions of responsibility for the questionnaire, even if there is not an unequivocally correct one, is political. It has to do with the perceived status of any answers the respondent may give. Does he imagine that he is providing planners with technical, or semi-technical data; or elected representatives with information with which to make a political decision? The questionnaire may leave him undecided on this. Should the electorate be asked to give politically sensitive opinions to contribute to political decisions, nominally by those whom they elect, without being made fully aware that they are operating within a political context? The sample survey which seeks to inform policy and political decisions is a radical departure from accepted democratic institutions. It asks a small fraction of the electorate actively to contribute to those matters in ignorance of any of the implications of their contribution. Least of all do they appreciate that they have become the ‘sampled representatives’ of their fellow citizens. The planner, has to disentangle the technical and the political; and has to rethink his relations with the elected member and with the public. The objective of a survey may originally be to provide basic input data for the planning process, in parallel with traffic counts and employment trends. But it rapidly becomes laden with expressions of value and is used to offset pressure group opinion. The difftculties which many councillors have in finding the time to master anything more than the briefest digest of survey results ensures that the larger part of the task of interpreting the public view is done by officers.

The South Yorkshire survey questionnaire illustrated the range of types of questions which may be included, relating variously to behaviour, beliefs, problem identification, satisfaction, attitudes and priorities for improvement. In contrast, the one used on Merseyside was much more limited. It concentrated almost entirely on ‘issues’, raising as many as thirty-seven areas of concern.

The general class of attitudinal questions is open to other objections as well. Quite apart from the considerable technical problems in measuring attitudes, they are a conceptually fuzzy area. They are often roughly indicative: ‘I am the sort of person who might think thus of such and such’. Or they are looking for a reaction from another; a crude initial attitudinal exchange may be considerably refined through negotiation of understood meanings. In this context the potential importance of interactive techniques of participation is suggested.

One system of categorising attitudeslO distinguishes three different functions for them. Attitudes may have a meaning function, as part of an individual’s attempt to construct for himself a stable and meaningful world within which he can order his life. Secondly, attitudes may serve to express one’s identification with, and promote one’s acceptance by, favoured social groups. This is the conformity function. Finally, there is a value function. Attitudes enable the individual to formalise. identify and stabilise his own self-conception, whether or not he is relating to others.

The sample survey’s attitudinal questions are usually intended to fall into the first category, dealing with appraisal of the physical environment and service provision. But the functions of attitudes are entangled: ‘Only by emphasis on the three together can one arrive at an adequate picture of the complex adjustments that go into the formation of a man’s opinions’.” Possibly the major finding of the Merseyside survey, and a puzzling one for the planners, was people’s identification of vandalism as the area’s principal problem. How far was that an objective appraisal of material conditions, an expression of a felt relation to authority or another sector of the public, or a sublimation of the same sort of aggression which led to vandalism?

Emphasising the object-appraisal function of attitudes suggests a rather rigid, rational view of Man. Indeed, the intention behind the attitudinal survey is often to slot it into a technical decision-making process as another piece of hard, quantified data. In our case- studies we observed how easy it is for survey results to take on an authoritative, even


legitimising character. The social-adjustment function assumes that within any expressed attitude there is also necessarily expressed a position of consensus with society or a part of it. None of our case-study authorities made this explicit. It was perhaps implied by Teesside, in that they asked for respondents’ attitudes toward plans and planning and toward making views known to the council. Such questions suggest the possibility and potential significance of certain evaluative relations to the authority itself. The more personal, self-defining role of attitudes corresponds to the personal ‘educational’ gains which may accrue from participation. In this sense, merely to be asked to think about and voice one’s attitudes to planning problems, alternatives and proposals might be thought to be of value. To be made to think about current issues and openly articulate a viewpoint is an educational benefit. If it is done without any commitment to action or experience, any relation to one’s social fellows or any sense of political accomplishment, it is admittedly a small and tenuous benefit. But in a full participatory setting these would be features of attitude surveys.

The social function of attitudes should be seen not only as a matter of social values being reflected in individuals but also as a means by which they establish and express relations with society and with other individuals. Attitudes are usually manifested in interaction with others. The ambiguity of relation in the survey situation has been commented on. But the issue goes further and impinges on the question of who is to be the respondent in a survey of attitudes. Attitudes develop and are expressed in social contexts - in the family, peer group and class sub-culture. To an extent they also help to define the contexts. If an individual is sampled, it is necessary to infer that his attitudes are those of the household, the street or other social group. Aggregation by geographical area or social class can give some indication that attitudes are shared by these groups. The important point is, however, that the individual respondents’ answers can never mirror the more dynamic aspects of attitudes. Essential to some theories of participation*2 is that the individual appreciates how his attitudes agree or conflict with his fellow citizen’s But for the respondent, as opposed to the planner, this appreciation is not a part of the survey. There is a critical lack of congruence between the way in which attitudes work in everyday social life and the form in which they become fixed by the survey instrument.

Both the agenda for a questionnaire as a whole and the more detailed focus of questions is set by the planners. The interpretation put on answers is also entirely outside the influence of respondents. This planner-orientation is a major flaw in the use of surveys for participation.

Questions tend to be simplistic. It is assumed that respondents lack any of the sophisticated knowledge of the planners, but no attempt is made to rectify the gap by including as a part of the survey procedure an information priming element. The nearest approach is where planning publicity has been previously distributed. There is no particular validity in the state of ignorance of vital concomitant factors in which most respondents will find themselves. One might argue that as an individual the respondent has the right to see this problem solved or for the survey method to be suspended.

In nearly all cases the traditional techniques of information dispersal are apt for producing a response of sorts from their audience. The survey method as commonly practised is unique among the communication techniques we are discussing in its asymmetry. The information flow is virtually unidirectional.

6.3. COMMENT FORMS AND WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS

In the use of comment forms and written representations respondents are self-selected rather than sampled. There is very little chance of influencing this self-selection nor of predicting its outcome, as the total population is often the target. Specific information will have been previously distributed; again, often at a saturation level. Written comments are usually expressed in their author’s own terms and sometimes are lengthy and complex. They are unambiguously addressed to the planning department. The technique is as simple


as the survey is sophisticated. It is based on the barest interpretation of the statutory obligation to enable the public to make representations.

Arguably the formal representation is the only form of informationcollection referred to in the 1968 Act. It does have the virtue of providing some instrumental continuity with the pre-1968 system of public involvement in the planning system. That system was found by government to be inadequate rather than fundamentally wrong. And there will always be people who prefer, if they can, to continue acting as they have always done. The removal of familiar instruments of participation, whatever their apparent shortcomings in cost and penetration, may alienate those who are used to participating. In straightforward terms of redistributing the balance of influence this might be an advantage. But it is not clear that the alienation of an existing participating elite would not lead to a mote general political apathy. Moreover, the removal of familiar instruments may directly disillusion those who never actually use them. The simple presence in society of such forms as public meetings and letters to the council may be important factors in enabling inactive citizens to feel that there are direct lines of communication between them and government. Satisfying such tenuous political ambitions may not be the goal of those who advocate participatory ideals, but it may be an important part of the route to the goal.

Comment forms do have the advantage of encouraging some kind of active response to publicity material which might otherwise be taken in rather passively. Even the slightest encouragement of a manifest reaction to planning policies and proposals is a move on the road to participation. Filling in a comment form is likely to be accompanied by a greater effort after comprehension of the publicity which backs it up, and by an evaluation of planning alternatives, whether or not they have been made explicit.

The comment form is perhaps most apt when alternative issues and proposalsare being explained. To present alternatives without inviting their comparison is both teasing and contrary to the spirit of participation. To invite comment on a preferred proposal only invites confrontation and opposition. It also denies people an adequate opportunity to make sense of the proposal: there is ample psychological evidence that this process is facilitated by, if not reliant upon, the act of comparison. Responses which are guided by comparison are likely to be more clearly focussed, less vague and apparently irrelevant. The evaluation of alternatives can be asked for both in terms of relative preferences, to give a simple quantitative indication of response; and in supporting statements in the respondent’s own words, to ensure that the basis of public preferences is not invalidly assumed by the planner or forcibly cast in his own terms.

The use of comment forms and written representations in three of our case-study areas - Cheshire, Teesside and North East Lancashire -highlighted some interesting points about their use both by the public and the planning authorities,. In Cheshire this was arguably the principal channel provided by the authority for public response. But a little over four hundred comment forms were completed and sent in. The space left for free comment proved to be inadequate. The wording of questions was not clear; in particular, the examples which were used to indicate the kinds of comment people might make over- determined their answers. At the same time, the form probably provided more information than the planners would otherwise have collected, particularly from individuals. Ninety- three per cent of returns came from individuals, as opposed to groups.

Written comments received from individual members of the public and from groups formed an important part of the material available to the Working Party which considered the public response on Teesside. I3 Together with the notes taken at the public meetings held during the participation exercise, they constituted two very thick volumes. An attraction of written comment, both to the authorities and to members of the public, is that it is a matter of record. It is often more detailed, clearly expressed and carefully argued. There is a tradition of treating it formally. But it is a dangerous principle for a participation exercise to appear to ignore or down-grade the importance of oral and informal comment. The great majority of the public express themselves more readily, and probably more truly, in oral and informal terms.

The weight of material that may be presented by public comment can cause a number of problems in its processing. It is difficult to digest for communication to the elected


representative. And yet it may be essential political information. While the essence of comments may be capable of brief summary, it may be the details which contain the political significance. The more informal and unstructured a method of information- collection is, the more probable is it that this problem will arise.

More generally, the processes involved in attempting to reduce public comment to a manageable format introduce contentious manipulations of it. Some comments will be excluded on the grounds of irrelevance. But relevance is relative to one’s viewpoint. And however irrelevant the comments may be judged to be, they may still deserve an answer if participation is not to be interpreted as a facade. Comments are typically categorised, grouped under a range of subject heads. The categories are likely to be those with which the officers work. Categorisation will tend to destroy the systemic nature of more reasoned comments and more complex responses to planning proposals as a whole. When comments are distilled there are additional dangers of omitting or misrepresenting parts of an argument. Enumerating the frequency of apparently similar comments involves the planner in a numbers game of dubious validity. Are weights to be attached to some comments on the basis of the identity of their source or because they are well or poorly supported? Frequencies and the summary areas of comment to which they refer can easily become reified. Once again these dangers seem all the more likely the more unstructured is the means by which comments are collected.

If we sense difficulties about the processing of written comment in Teesside, it may be partly because it was so much oriented towards the authority’s purposes rather than conveying any advantage to the public who commented. A quite different impression was generated in North East Lancashire where an important component of handling comments on the Advisory Plan was the desire to provide ‘feedback’ to their authors.

The wish to engage in feedback to the public may provide one of the major motivations for inviting written comments. Commenting on spontaneous comments is likely to be much less contentious than commenting on what purports to be the opinions of a representative sample of the public as a whole as derived from a sample survey. Consultation with organisations and the use of kits, which we discuss below, lead to direct feedback only with those major and minor elites who are reached by these means. Comments from individual members of the public can more readily be identified with positively or negatively by their fellows.

Feedback we assume to be a fundamental component of participation, at least in the analytic model we are developing in these three chapters. Ultimately one road to interactive participation is through processes which facilitate feedback and dialogue. Apart from this superordinate justification there are a number of other advantages to be had from feedback. It provides some continuity to what can readily be a discontinuous and spasmodic set of events. Continuous participation, with an emphasis on theplanning process, is not easily envisaged.

When comments on a plan as such are specifically being invited, participation can be a ‘one-off’ event. Feedback not only carries the process forward in time and gives it unity, but it may also promote people’s confidence that they are engaging in a worthwhile and potent activity. It shows, or should show, that the authority is willing to listen to the public and take their views seriously. At best it will show the public how they can and do have some direct influence on planning decisions. When the feedback is suitably published it can be heard by many more than the protagonists who originally occasioned it. Most important, perhaps, of the subsidiary benefits of feedback is the educative impact of arguments for and against particular positions. The reasoning underlying a set of policies and proposals is perhaps most successfully communicated to lay people when their own comments on them, or those of other members of the public, are being answered in an argumentative form.

In North East Lancashire, a year after the publication of the Advisory Plan a report was produced, Reactions to the Advisory Plan. It itemised all observations received during the consultation period and commented upon them. Recommendations were made on the extent to which points raised by consultation should be met by amending the Advisory Plan or investigated in further work on the Structure Plan. 1.P.P. I3 : I/Z- E


An encouraging aspect of the Reactions Report is that its commentary shows the Planning Unit ready to learn not only from the public’s comments but also from their own experience of running a participation exercise: the authority profits from its own feedback.

In Cheshire the second phase of structure plan participation also fell outside our research brief. But one of its most noteworthy features was an improvement in the information-collection process. In the first phase reliance was placed very largely on comment forms and written representations, which by themselves are a weak method of collecting a response. In the second phase two postal questionnaires were used. The shorter of the two, a ten-page version, achieved a response rate of over 40% from the random sample of 5000 individuals to whom it was sent.

There is a need for authorities to build up a corpus of experience and lessons on participation. It is a generally u&amiliar activity in its present form and has been taking place within a new development planning system. Different procedures will be appropriate in different local circumstances. Matters cannot be, and are not, guided by central governmental ‘fiat’ or recipe. Much of the success of participation exercises inevitably depends on the efforts of one or two individual officers in an authority. Their need to learn and accumulate experience is equally as great. These needs, of authorities and individual officers, are one of the ancillary reasons for a more continuous approach to participation. Indeed neither planners nor public arelikely to find it easy to learn participation if it consists of spasmodic and disconnected events. Even when there have been more years of experience of participation a quickly responsive attitude of continually re-learning the skills may be necessary. Participation will be a dynamic and constantly evolving process.

Many planners at the seminar to which we referred earlier were uneasy about how far they should take note of the articulate opinion of a very few individuals. Underlying their unease are the difficult issues of elitist and pluralistic theories of democracy and of the relation between the individual and collectivities in the constitution of social identity. Listening to the voices of a few individuals is clearly not what most planners expect of participation. But refusing to listen to them may be equally contrary to the participatory spirit. One of the functions of participatory democracy outlined by Pateman” is the integration of individuals into their social and political institutions. One of the most important and difficult tasks of participatory planning may be to find ways of integrating the individual and collective viewpoint as it emerges, without opting for the easier extremes of elitism or collectivism.

6.4. CONSULTATION WITH ORCANISATIONS

Groups and organisations may be approached precisely as collectivities which supersede individual viewpoints. They are seen as representing a viewpoint which is likely to be shared by its members or electorate, but is not necessarily formulated by them or formally endorsed. On the other hand groups may be treated as a convenient means for identifying and contacting a wider range of persons from whom information might be collected.

An explicit political component is evident in the former of these two motives, in that particular centres of influence and sometimes of power, are being contacted. In group consultation there may certainly be technical and administrative objectives; but there are also political ones. Groups are often in possession of information which is technically useful to a planning authority, whether in the form of experience, expertise or intentions. Certain organisations will be responsible for implementing aspects of planning proposals. Their viewpoint needs to be heard. From an administrative angle, it is convenient to gather some organisational reactions in advance of the Examination in Public, so that they will not have to be considered for the first time on that occasion. But implicit in the desire to avoid the delay and aggravation of a contentious Examination is the aim of establishing a consensus and smoothing out conflict over planning proposals. Giving an early opportunity to comment may be a means of winning approval from those who are consulted and who do not object. When consultation is carried forward in stages, it may be difficult for an organisation to object at the beginning where proposals are unclear; only to


find that it is too committed later when concrete points emerge. In any event the authority’s search for consensus makes consultation with organisations a more overtly political technique of information collection than either sample surveys or comment forms and written representations.

One aspect of our focus on interactive participation in the next chapter concerns the desirability of more continuous forms of participation. Although consultation cannot be equated with participation, it is not totally dissimilar in its aims and methods and it does offer the best example we have seen of a relatively continuous process of information exchange. Consultation is a well established instrument of government practised at all levels and in all spheres. Often it operates by means of an informal network on a relatively personal basis. An interesting feature of consultative activities as a part of the new public participation exercises is the way in which a much wider range of organisations are being approached than hitherto. Sometimes the familiar pattern of consultation is followed, sometimes a new style is adopted. Consultation has been used by government bodies and other organ&d parties to obtain information on developments of mutual interest and to. express opinions on policy proposals. It generally begins at an early stage of the policy- making process. Its subsequent recurrence enables officers and consultees to recycle their ideas and to incorporate the specialist information which they have collected. For government bodies, statutory organisations and large private concerns consultation provides advance warning of one another’s intentions, establishes constraints, and leads to an exchange of experience and the development of co-operation.

In three of our case-study areasI consultation with groups and organisations was intended to be a major component of the participation programme. A feature of each of the consultative exercises was that the groups which actually responded, effectively selected themselves, however careful the authority’s own selection process and approach to them. But among less highly organised and voluntary groups a selection probably has to be made if an authority is to avoid approaching and collecting information from unmanageable numbers.

There are a number of ways in which this may be carried out. For example, a two-stage process might be introduced, first to disperse information to groups and secondly to stimulate further involvement and response from those who are most interested in the planning proposals. It recognises the different needs for information and the opportunity to respond which different organisations exhibit, but allows the organisation to decide that need for itself. Some form of community forum might also be used to bring together groups which had a mutual interest, based on topics or on geographical proximity. Like the representative community forum referred to earlier or the consultative panels to be discussed in Chapter Seven, this technique would tend to be interactive in nature.

There are at least three forms of outcome in technical and administrative terms which might follow, quite apart from political or educative participatory benefits. There is the immediate input to planning policies and proposals; laying the ground work for the Examination in Public; and preparing interested and competent parties for action which would help plan implementation. In our case-studies we only have evidence of the first of these outcomes. The report Reactions to the Advisory Plan, which has been referred to above, is one of the few published indications of how consultative comment might serve to inform planning proposals.

The Reactions report demonstrates the particular attention which bureaucracy gives to written observations. This may be to the disadvantage of smaller organisations who would be more at ease making less formal, oral comments. One incidental advantage of less formal consultation is the decreased reliance on consultative documents. There are considerable difficulties in getting their form and style right. More personal contact would obviate the need for a range of documents tailored to the needs of different types of organisation. Planners need to have a feel for the particular interests of different organisations, and the level of that interest in areas of planning. They should become acquainted with some of the details of how different organisations operate. Problems or idiosyncrasies of communication within an organisation, or between one organisation and others, can interfere seriously with a consultation exercise. Knowledge of this kind is a


natural product of more informal contact. But this is not to say that the approach to different types of group does not still have to be varied.

In Cheshire we monitored a stage of the planning process intermediate between those in Merseyside and Lancashire. Cheshire’s attempts to involve groups and organisations were more elaborate than in the other case-study areas. The planners liaised closely with their main consultees, opened up new access points to themselves for industrial and service bodies, and tried to bring a number of groups newly into the process. The most successful aspect was the close relations that developed between the county and the districts and neighbouring structure plan authorities. On the other hand the interest groups were not engaged. The major failure seems to have been an inability to establish access points and viable links to facilitate further involvement and response beyond the contacts actually tried. One conclusion from this judgement points even more firmly in the direction of deliberate interactive techniques than to observations on other methods of information collection.

Consultation with groups and organisations is one of the most common techniques of information collection. At best, they can provide a coherent and structured response to proposals from large numbers of people and representing particular, identifiable sets of interests, with relatively little outlay of time and resources on the part of a planning authority. Much of the labour of collecting information could be taken from an authority if groups were given more responsibility for organising exhibitions, meetings and so on.

6.5. KITS

The Structure Plan Kits used in South Yorkshirei (see Chapter 7) differed from other forms of group consultation in having much sharper objectives and in being specifically designed to involve minor elites. The kit procedure adopted a much more sophisticated method of recruiting groups’ involvement. As a result the response rate was considerably higher. The Kit instrument is able to collect much the same kind of information as a sample survey questionnaire, as far as content is concerned. But it is done on a basis of information provided. The Kit goes further than other techniques in being simultaneously and essentially a method of dispersing and collecting information. It becomes more an educational device than other techniques, and thus represents a move from the rational to the participatory mode of planning and participation. It enhances the objectives of the classical theory of participation also in encouraging interaction betwen fellow-citizens. Information is collected from group members in relation with one another, rather than as isolated individuals or group representatives or sampled units. The use made of Kits in South Yorkshire introduced into practice the concept of intermediaries between the planning authority and the public; in this case, specially recruited, part-time community workers. Finally, by being a two-stage process, with two Kits, it provided opportunities for feedback. The Kit was to be distributed in a way that aroused groups’ interest and encouraged their response.

By and large the Kits were favourably evaluated, by participating groups at least. More than two-thirds of groups considered that the method should be repeated. Although first reactions were often of incomprehension, after help and explanation members were able to proceed with the Kit. Many groups, predictably, saw their role as one of providing information to the Council. They felt that they could provide knowledge on local needs and local matters, could assess the needs of specific sections within the community, or had specialist knowledge of some activity. In this respect they would fulfil the role envisaged by Dobry. Also groups felt they could contribute to the planning process by reacting to information given to them by the Council on future planning proposals. These groups looked for early involvement in the planning process; they tended to have a wider interest in public policy matters. The claims of these groups to be fully representative could probably not be justified, but they were certainly representative of an important section of


local opinion. It could be that groups which saw their role in these terms would be particularly useful targets for interactive techniques of participation.

6.6. CONCLUSION

We have been strongly critical of sample surveys. Many of the defects of surveysfor participation are unique, suigeneris, and not just a mattter of the way in which they are used. Some of the objections to the method might be mitigated by a more interactive mode of enquiry. Something akin to a community panel representatively established, might serve. This would overcome the individualistic bias of surveys. Attitudes, conflicts and their implications could be explored, over a period. Planners and the community might address one another directly. Over a course of sessions the basis on which views were being solicited could be clarified. There would be more scope for the community to raise its own issues and to ask for information which it was lacking. The panels would be organised on a scale that ensured one was doing something more than reinventing the local council. The drawbacks to this device are those common to the use of panels for longitudinal social research. In particular, the panel ceases through its experiences and learning to be typical of the wider population. In participatory exercises this might be partially overcome by simultaneous attempts to educate the population and to keep them informed of the panel’s deliberations. The recruitment of a representative panel in the first place is a considerable task. Asking people to supply information at intervals over an extended period is to make unusual demands. One consequence is likely to be a high rate of drop-out from the panel, with its further implications for representativeness.

Another feature is that qualitative rather than quantitative information will be collected by the planners. But it is not clear that this would be a disadvantage. Decision-makers have traditionally relied on qualitative information about attitudes, opinions and values, and their success has been measured by their skill in deploying it.

Both advantages and disadvantages have been attributed above to comment forms and writtten representations as a means of information collection. They are a relatively familiar instrument of participation. Their design and processing, though not entirely straightforward, probably make fewer demands on the skills and resources of officers than other techniques considered in this chapter. They promote learning by encouraging an active response to publicity material. Written comments will usually include the most detailed and carefully reasoned responses to proposals which an authority will receive through any channel. Suitably treated they can lead into a feedback process and the beginnings of an educative, interactive dialogue between authority and public. Disadvantages include a tendency to be discontinuous and oriented toward the plan as product rather than process. It is a difficult medium for the majority of people to use. By itself it is no way to judge the extent of the public’s involvement in a participation exercise. For this reason there are particular dangers that written comments will be given undue attention and weight. Many people may feel that their views have been satisfactorily expressed at a public meeting, exhibition or other relatively informal event. Handling a written response and attempting to bring it within manageable and communicable proportions may, even in the most careful hands, lead to a number of distortions.

The major point of interest over consultation with organisations to emerge from our case studies centred on the attempt to formalise a long-established tradition of relatively informal consultation in contacts with a much wider range of organisations than have previously been approached. There is an indication that the more informal modes of consultation which have previously evolved may be particularly suitable for a range of organisations and contexts: The critical task for an authority is to find a way of establishing the different needs to participate of different groups.

There are a number of specific disadvantages in consulting organisations by a formal, and usually single, approach. By not entering into a sequence of recurring contacts it is very difficult to synchronise the needs of the authority and the organisation. Formal consultation usually entails a document as its basis. There are very real difficulties in


drawing up something which will communicate adequately to a diversity of interests and experience. There appears to be an expectation in formalised consultation of obtaining a response, and an expert response, which is often unrealistic. Its frustration can lead to disillusion with the consultation process. In more informal consultation such expectations are modified at an early stage before very much has been committed to the enterprise. Through more personal contacts the reasons why a response is not forthcoming or is relatively unsophisticated are also likely to be more apparent or can be explained. Possibly the most serious drawback is that formal consultation tends to be a mere technique without a carefully devised set of objectives. It would be misleading to suggest that the Kit type of technique is altogether superior to other means of information collection. Different techniques meet different objectives. Helping people to participate is a rather sophisticated notion which does not inform the majority of ‘take it or leave it’ participation exercises. In some ways it lays too much emphasis on ‘technique’, and it makes considerable demands on the skills of offtcers as well as of the public.

The Kit is a particularly apposite example with which to finish this chapter. Not only does it point very clearly to interactive aspects of participation, but its use has had many features which one would like to find in any exercise. It was designed with unusual care. Its objectives were clear-cut, feasible and worked out in advance. It was successful in both dispersing and collecting information in an integrated way. The form of the Kits made possible a much more systematic analysis of the information collected than is the case with most other techniques. It was a flexible instrument, an essential characteristic where a planner is dealing with a heterogeneous public in a context which inevitably he cannot be fully acquainted with beforehand. Intermediaries (in the form of part-time community workers) between the authority and the groups were found to facilitate the participation. Groups were not sent the Kits individually and unprepared. The prior meetings arranged for them enabled them to appreciate which other groups were involved and to ask questions about what was expected of them. When they undertook their task it engaged significantly more of the membership than seems usual with other forms of group consultation. It was exceptionally successful at getting a detailed response from the minor elite groups, who possibly represent the greatest challenge for participation at the level of structure planning.

NOTES: CHAPTER 6

1. Planning Advisory Group, The Future ofDevelopment Plans (London: HMSO. 1%5) para. 1.39. 2. Committee on Public Participation in Planning, People end Plonning (London: HMSO, 1969).

Compare paras. 65 and 253(iv). 3. Department of the Environment, Town and Country Planning Act 1971: Part II Development Plan

Proposals: Publicity andPublic Porticijmtion, Circular SU72 (London: HMSO, 1972). 4. cf: Department of the Environment: Structure Plans, The Examination in Public (London: HMSO

1973). 5. G. Dobry, Review of the Development ControlSystem. (London: HMSO. 1975) Chapter IO. 6. N. Boadcn and R. Walker, Sump/e Surveys andPublic Porticipotion, IRP 10, Linked Research Project into Public

Participation in Structure Planning, Sheffteld. 1976. 7. ibid 8. W. Hampton and R. Walker, The Roleof Consultants in thepublic ParticipationProcess: theTeessideExperience,

IRP 5. Linked Research Proiect into Public Participation in Structure Planning, Shcffteld, 1975. N. Boaden and R. Walker, op. cit.

9. P. Stringer, Tuning in to the Public: Survey before Participation, IRP 14. Lit&d Rcscarch Project into Public Participation in Structure Planning, Sheffield, 1978.

10. M. B. Smith, J. Bruncr and R. W. White, Opinions ondPersonuiity (New York: Wiley, 1956). Il. ibid 12. cf: C. Pateman, Participation and Democratic Theory (Cambridge University Press, 1970). 13. W. Hampton and R. Walker, The Roleofo WorkingPartyinConsideringthePubbcResponse toaDroftStructure

Phtn: II Cose Study from Teesside, IRP 4, Linked Research Project into Public Participation in Structure Planning, Shcfftcld. 1975.

14. C. Patcman. op. cit. 15. P. StringcrandG. Plumridge, Consultationwith Orgonisorionson theNorthEostLoncashireAdvisoryPlon. IRP3.

Linked Research Project into Public Participation in Structure Planning, Sheffield 1974. N. Boadcn and N. Collins, Consultation with Organisations in the Merseyside Structure Plum IRP 6. Linked Research Project into Public Participation in Structure Planning, Sheffteld, 1975. M. Goldsmith and P. Saunders, The ToleofLewistheCot:Public

Planning and Participation in Practice 7 1

Participation and Settlement Policy in Cheshire. IRP 8. Linked Research Project into Public Participation in Structure Planning, Sheffield, 1975.

16. W. Hampton and W. &ale, Methodc of Approaching Groups in South Yorkshire, IRP 11, Linked Research Project into Public Participation in Structure Planning, Sheffield, 1976.

CHAPTER 7

Interaction

‘Democracy is the faith that the process of experience is more important than any special result attained, so that special results achieved are of ultimate value only as they are used to enrich and order the inquiry process. Since the process of experience is capable of being educative, faith in democracy is all one with faith in experience and education.’ John Dewey, The Philosophy of the Common Man.

In a properly prepared participation programme information-giving and information- collection are interwoven in a process of interaction between the local authority and the public. The distribution of information will form the basis for the collection of information which in turn will contribute to the planner’s understanding as subsequent stages of the participation programme are developed. This process will be made easier if the distribution and collection of information are arranged in phase with each other to promote a continuous cyclical interaction between the local authority and the people. Through this interaction both the local authority and the people should be engaged in a learning process. Discussion and modification of attitudes will occur. Interaction implies, therefore, a much richer completion of the communication process than unilateral information dispersal and collection or any simple amalgamation of these two aspects. The various actors in the process must relate to each other in some way if interaction is to occur.

A lot of interaction between the local authority and the general public takes place within the normal political and administrative framework. Many departments providing services have frequent opportunities to meet those who use their services: notably housing and education departments. Often this interaction results from informal discussions in which councillors or officers are natural participants but sometimes there are more formal approaches through tenants’ or parents’ associations.

The promotion of interaction involves more than the simple matter of providing opportunities for conversations between councillors or officers and individuals who have something to say. Such conversations may take place at public meetings or exhibitions, but some institutional form will be needed to provide a framework for the continuation of the conversation over time which will allow interaction in our sense to develop. People will need opportunities to learn about the issues and procedures before they can effectively participate. The Skeffington Committee proposed community forums and the appointment of community development officers for these purposes.’ No structure plan authority has established forums in the form suggested, although there has been some interest in connection with local plans. In general there has been a reliance on the existing organisations which form the basis of our social life.2

Most of the organisations approached by local authorities are part of the traditional social fabric of any community: sports associations, churches, cultural or welfare groups; but some are of more recent origin. They reflect the inability of the political parties to accommodate the growing demand for participation which is apparent in some sections of the population. Eighty-five per cent of the amenity societies responding to a Civic Trust survey in 1974 had been formed since 1957; 37% had been formed since 1970 - the Skeffington Report was published in 1969.’ The growing number of such organisations, and of the various neighbourhood action groups which now occur in every city, is not necessarily a criticism of the local political parties. Attachment to a neighbourhood -or ‘home’ area - is not associated with an awareness of political institutions.4 When people

72

Ptenning and Perticipetion in Practice 73

wish to participate in local affairs they do not think naturally of joining a ward political party: they form a parents’ association, an anti-nuisance committee, a social welfare group, or an amenity society.s The consequences of these new forms of activism were recognised in planning by the introduction of statutory public participation, but other local services have also been affected. Since the Seebohm Report in 191%~ the social services departments have been much more concerned with the development of voluntary organisations and other forms of community work. The Taylor Committee recommended a change in the nature of school governing and management boards to make them a forum for discussion between representatives of parents, pupils, staff, the local authority and other people from the local community.’

Although such local organisations and groups usually regard themselves as non-political they are frequently concerned with the contentious political issues of determining priorities and allocating public resources. Public participation programmes, in planning or elsewhere will only be successful if they integrate the methods people adopt in expressing themselves into the formal political process. Public participation techniques should put planning on the agenda of the existing political network; it should also provide opportunities for this network to interact with other social or community networks. One reason why the interactive possibilities of the techniques we discuss were not fully achieved was the lack of understanding between these various networks. Councillors and officers are frequently suspicious of local groups or participants, and local people are often contemptuous of politicians and bureaucrats. It is not a matter of agreeing with each other’s viewpoint, but of understanding general attitudes and procedural constraints.

A survey we conducted in North East Lancashire showed some interesting differences between the planners’ expectations of the public and the response the public made to the survey.8 The planners tended to be young and to have lived elsewhere. They viewed the general population as parochial in attitude, local in origin, attached to the area, and largely uninterested in what went on around them except at a very local community level. Although these four general characteristics appeared in our sample of the population, in each case the planners over-estimated the proportion to which they applied. The councillors, most of whom had lived in the area all their lives, had a similarly exaggerated view of the people they represented. Planners and councillors differed in their assessment of the public opinion of various local services. The planners tended to think the public were better satisfied with the services than the planners were themselves; while the councillors expected the public to be more critical than their representatives. On some other topics, such as the proportion of activists in the community, the councillors had a more accurate perception than the planners of the true position.

Such a survey highlights some of the difficulties which are present in a public participation programme. We would expect the quality of communication to be affected by the extent to which the parties concerned share a common framework of reference or are working together to produce such a framework. Too often in a local authority, professional planners prepare a publicity and participation programme for an audience whose background and aspirations they neither share nor fully understand. Councillors, often closer to the local population, are seldom involved in these preparatory stages, and tend to have little sympathy for the development of more participatory modes of local democracy. Their experience and expectations rest within a representative framework. In such circumstances publicity may be widespread and the participation programme may be conscientiously prepared, but it will not encourage a widespread interaction between the public and the planning process.

The very idea of a direct interaction between members of the public and the person concerned with making a decision or drawing up a plan is often misleading. Local authority decisions and plans are based on the work of many officers and committee discussions. The contribution of particular individuals to this process may not be easily defined. Similarly organisations approached by a local authority to represent the views of the people will embrace various individual attitudes rather than a unified group view. The communication process is conducted through intermediaries because the terms ‘local authority’, ‘planners’ and ‘people’ represent abstract collective entities rather than


individuals who can meet for personal discussions. The interme~diary may be a local councillor, a local planning officer, a professional community worker or person paid to perform these specific duties, or be a member of one of the communicating groups. The chairman of a council committee may act as an intermediary for his back-bench colleagues; and, of course, the offtcers or activists in a local organisation may represent the views of their membership.

In our case study areas several techniques were used by local authorities to develop discussions around structure plan issues which would go beyond a normal programme of information dispersal and collection. Most of these techniques were concerned with an approach to organised groups, and several involved an educational element. Public participation has much in common with education and shares the need to provide both information and a capacity for understanding alternative solutions to problems. In Cheshire and Teesside organised groups received special invitations to meet planners for discussions either just before the start of more general public meetings or on specially arranged occasions. In Merseyside and Cheshire some representatives of special interests or groups were brought together in working parties or consultative groups. In South Yorkshire the local authority went further and stimulated discussion inside organisations with special kits and personal contact through part-time community workers and adult education.

The consultation process is obviously closely allied to a participation programme, but there are important differences. In our case studies we found consultation was more sustained: there was a more or less constant source and exchange of information and opinion both formally and informally. Participation was rather more episodic, occurring during fairly clearly-defined periods. During periods of intense activity consultation becomes more specific and more organised. Those consulted are generally a small group and can be treated individually so that a specific, specialist response is obtained.

Formal consultation procedures (and unofficial contacts), can open up access points in the planning authority. During our study, Cheshire’s county-wide interest groups did not become very involved in the consultation exercise and so were essentially limited to one access point; the officer who collated the written submissions. Previously the main implementers and major ratepayers had also been restricted largely to this single access point, but the settlement policy consultation exercise widened their formal involvement. The seminars (see Chapter 5) and the consultative panels (discussed below) gave them other formal points of access, and opportunities to develop informal links with some of the planning officials. The districts and adjoining structure plan authorities enjoyed a very much closer involvement with the county; most of them have strong formal and informal lines of communication with councillors and offtcers.

The more access points available to an organisation, the stronger its consultative position and the greater the likely degree of interaction. Obviously the statutory planning agencies have advantages here, for they have the resources to maintain formal links and, because of their interaction with other local authorities, the chance to develop and maintain informal contacts. A strong consultative position can sometimes prove a mixed blessing, particularly for amenity societies or other minor elites who wish to challenge the basis of a planning proposal. Issues may be discussed informally or privately, effectively forstalling useful public debate. In such circumstances a consensual approach becomes less positive and reveals the possibilities for manipulation. Consultation procedures may also act against the participatory understanding of a public participation programme by creating a climate of confidential discussion between planners and major elites which restricts public debate about essential features of the plan. Sometimes even councillors will be excluded from discussions.9

7.1. CONSULTATIVE PANELS

A consultative panel brings several people together to give fairly continuous consultation during the preparation of a structure plan. Panels may include private


individuals and representatives of minor elites as well as of major elites, but usually the person chosen represents an interest rather than an organisation: they serve as individuals rather than as delegates. The continuing nature of the consultative panels is important. Such a regular involvement is not obviously possible with the public at large, nor even with organised groups.

Consultative panels may be the province of the least representative group of participants. Their use is perhaps the most elitist technique of public participation; in some ways it is also the most interactive.

Consultative panels can be used to test reactions to proposals or statements of issues before these are presented to the public - or even to the planning committee. This was the main purpose of consultative groups, as they were called, during structure plan preparation in Merseyside. They can also be used to help formulate proposals; panel members provide expertise which supplements the skills and knowledge of the planners. After discussion with their Merseyside counterparts, the Cheshire planners decided to adopt the second approach. We were able to monitor the work of the panels in both planning authorities.

In Merseyside twelve panels were started. These were: Education, Housing, Shopping, Social Services, Urban Conservation, Rural Conservation, Transport, Leisure and Recreation, Industry and Commerce, Health, Treasurers, and Environmental Services. Some panels were concerned with specific areas of local government work while others had a wider basis and dealt with topics central to the traditional areas of planning. The membership of the panels reflected these differences. The Education and Social Services panels consisted of the Directors of these services drawn originally from the eight authorities in Merseyside, and after local government reorganisation in 1974, from the five district councils. The Housing panel included the relevant chief officers, but added representatives from the building societies, the voluntary housing movement and a building firm. It included neither a tenant nor an owner occupier. These omissions were justified by the planners in terms of the role of the panel and the need for expertise. The make-up of the panels dealing with wider topics was more comprehensive and included representatives of civic and conservation societies as well as of industry and commerce.

Some panels met more often than others. Some met hardly at all; others met several times and then had long breaks; none met regularly over the whole planning period. Most went out of existence soon after local government reorganisation. The reasons varied: some related to the confusion in the new County Planning system; others to the attitude of the panels themselves.

The panels were intended to meet regularly to discuss matters relevant to structure planning. One member of each panel was to act as chairman: a role of great importance. An active, interested chairman made a panel work well. This brought into focus the demands such panels make upon the staff of planning departments. The apposite member of the planning team acted as secretary to each panel and other planners attended meetings when required. The panels were intended to carry out work of their own and to produce papers themselves. They could not do so immediately, and with the exception of the Environmental panel did not really do so at all. This threw an enormous burden on the planners, who had to service twelve panels between them, sometimes with several meetings in one week. The quality of servicing deteriorated as a result, and there was often no senior planner present. In the technical sense this did not matter, but many panels included chief officers from other Departments, and protocol would have been better maintained with more senior staff present; some panels may have stopped meeting for this reason.

The panels did develop individual identities. The planners had hoped the panels would develop over time, but several refused to extend their membership. Most notable were the Directors of Social Services who accepted a regional officer from the Department of Health and Social Security, but would not accept any voluntary social workers, and argued that only departmental Directors should attend. The argument turned on confidentiality and the willingness to discuss matters openly, but there were no objections to junior staff from the planning department. Some panels really became liaison committees of chief officers: wider membership would have been unsuitable for this perceived function.

Because the panels in Merseyside were introduced early, there was not always much


material to be considered, and sometimes there was uncertainty about the value of meetings. The most popular stimuli were the reports from the other public participation exercises; the reports of the household survey and of the councillor survey, for example, and of the distribution of theMerseyside Review. Each panel was asked to discuss and comment on these reports. The results were often predictable: ‘I already knew that’ was one response, and another was to presume total perfection in a department not mentioned critically. In addition there was much speculation about things outside the panel’s field of expertise.

The Social Services Panel gives an example of a more specific discussion. From June 1974 to August 1974 meetings were devoted to reviewing and amending the Social Deprivation Policy Report which was shown to the panel as an intended part of the structure plan. The Reporr was also closely concerned with the Social Service Departments. After various consultations and consideration by the Social Services Panel, the Report was redrafted. The two drafts showed major changes in form and presentation, but the content remained almost identical. Criticisms of substance by the Social Services Panel had not been accommodated in the second draft. The planning authority was not obliged to accept every criticism but sometimes lack of time rather than principle accounted for apparent refusal.

In Cheshire four consultative panels were created: for housing, recreation, industry and shopping. Each panel was limited to ten or twelve members to allow effective discussion. The chairmen were drawn from the specialist members of each panel. The local authority was represented by a senior member of the structure plan team, a limited number of other officers and secretarial support. Though the panels’ membership was broadly representative of the interests covered by each subject area, there were one or two interesting omissions; and some interests were heavily represented. The Recreation panel contained a disproportionate number of academics and had no representative from the commercial side of the leisure industry, unless British Waterways counted. The Shopping panel possibly under-represented small shopkeepers and over-represented large supermarkets and chain stores; considerable effort was needed before two women were found to represent consumer interests on this panel. The Housing panel had no consumer representative, either tenant or owner-occupier, and no academic; private developers and builders were possibly over-represented. The Industry panel was the most representative though even here employees were less strongly represented than management and employers. It must be repeated that membership was intended to be generally representative of the interests concerned with the topic under review. Members were also chosen for their ability to contribute to the general discussion. Omissions were likely to be due to difficulty in finding suitable candidates and to the wish to keep the panel small, rather than to deliberate attempts to exclude particular interests.

The four panels met at least four times in the first 12-18 months of their existence. Their brief was deliberately not very specific: each panel largely determined its role for itself. The Recreation panel saw its task as acting as ‘constructive critics, advising, suggesting’, which was also the role adopted by the Housing panel. These panels were essentially responding to material produced by the planners rather than originating material; the other two panels initiated more of their own programme. The Industry panel asked for the 1972 Survey of Employers in the county to be updated. The Shopping panel provided technical definitions to distinguish the size and scope of various retailing operations. Different perceptions of their role determined how often the panels met and how they worked. The Recreation panel held four one-day meetings while the Industry and Shopping panels met roughly every two months. The Housing panel began by holding quarterly half day meetings but these became more frequent to tit in with the planners’ timetable.

From our monitoring of Merseyside and Cheshire we can make a number of general comments. The membership of the consultative panels came from two main sources: as representatives of local authority departments or outside organisations, or because the planners knew them to be interested in structure plan issues. Such people tended to be similar to the planners in background and attitude and came from a fairly obvious list of


organisations. Consumers of all kinds were under represented. The choice of chairman is very important. He or she needs to be an expert in the relevant policy field, and to accept responsibility for ensuring that all aspects of the topic are covered; the chairman must also ensure that the fullest use is made of the panel’s expertise. The chairman has to be able to suggest a satisfactory way forward if the panel becomes becalmed during the discussion. The essential quality is an ability to perceive the general principles hidden in the specific instances quoted by panel members.

Consultative panels will not easily initiate their own activity. They are likely to want support and preparatory documents from the planning department. These demands on planners’ time are disproportionate to the number of people involved when compared with other aspects of the participation programme; on the other hand the contribution made by the panels may be an important, if conventional, technical input to the planning process.

To evaluate the technique in general terms; it was helpful and beneficial to bring outsiders into detailed discussions with the planners. In both areas the panels brought together people who did not usually meet and formed a useful basis for informal contacts and mutual education. But panels can only make a very specialised contribution to a public participation programme. They should ,always be balanced by more broadly based techniques.

7.2. THE APPROACH TO ORGANISED GROUPS

Many local authorities tell local interest groups about planning issues as a basis for participation. Sometimes a general publicity booklet or specially produced report is distributed; sometimes the groups are invited to explanatory meetings followed by questions and discussion. These meetings have sometimes developed into discussion groups which have allowed continuous interaction between the planners and organised sections of the public. A few local authorities have accepted the broader educational implications of public participation. They have tried to stimulate discussion within groups in different ways including through adult education. In these ways they have tried to broaden the response from the public and to improve the possibilities of regular interaction. Our case studies offered three contrasting approaches. In Cheshire the local authority invited representatives of organised groups to arrive before public meetings for informal discussion with the planners. The group meetings inevitably overlapped with the subsequent public meetings which caused confusion as people arrived early only to find a meeting already in progress. On the other hand, most of the group representatives stayed for the public meeting and helped to improve the quality of the discussion. There was no attempt to encourage regular interaction between group representatives and local authority planners.

In Teesside a series of special meetings was arranged for group representatives. If necessary discussion was adjourned to a subsequent meeting. The officers were also prepared to attend meetings with individual organisations and to see representatives privately. Arrangements were the responsibility of the resident representative of the firm of consultants. An up-to-date list of Teesside organisations likely to be interested in various aspects of the plan was kept and the secretaries told how their members could participate.

The meetings for groups in Teesside considered a wide range of topics concerned with the structure plan; in addition a number of the more active representatives prepared a report on the participation programme itself. The report was very critical of the timing of the programme \;hich for specifically local reasons had occurred in the final stages of the preparation of the plan; lo the authors considered that the most effective participation came through members of groups and suggested four possible reasons:

‘First, political participation seems lo go with other types of participation; those who are non-participants in other respects are less likely to participate in a planning exercise, and those who are naturally inclined lo participation are likely lo be members of groups. Second, groups provide a useful forum in which ideas and reactions can be aired, thrashed out and clarified, and thus a valuable background lo participation. Third,


people generally fmd it easier to discuss issues, at least in the tirst instance, in a group of people they know and regard more or less as equals, than in the more formidable surroundings ofan offtcial public meeting. Fourth, through membership of a group, the burden of participation can be shared and those who do bear it feel in a stronger position in public than if they were speaking only for themselves.‘”

While the report praised the general planning of the meetings and complimented the helpful attitude of the planning offtcers, it was critical of the lack of involvement of councillors in the participation programme. The authors recognised:

‘that, at least in the areas of policy debated in structure planning, there is not-and should not be - any alternatiK to the process of decision taking by the elected representatives ofthe public in Council.‘”

But, the Reporr added, the councillors too often made ‘themselves experts in the mechanism of government rather than the subsrunce’.” The Report emphasised the importance of information as a basis for effective participation and quotes approvingly the comment of a planner:

‘The crunch is information. lfgroups get enough assimilable information early enough, then nothing can stop them participating. If they don’t. then nothing can enable them to.“’

The interaction between group representatives and planners in Teesside encouraged good personal relationships but it did not resolve all the conflicts over policy. These continued up to and beyond the Examination in Public’5 but the mutual personal respect remained. It will seldom be possible to achieve a consensus about all the issues in a structure plan; it may be possible to create a climate in which these and other planning matters can be debated by wider sections of the public as part of a continuing interaction between people and planners.

In South Yorkshire the local authority approached organised groups early on in an effort to overcome some of the disappointments experienced by other local authorities.r6 The approach to groups was intended for those seriously interested in the issues and encouraged as many groups as possible to participate. I’ The structure plan ‘kits’ discussed in Chapter 6 were issued to elicit the views of organised groups on specific problems and priorities germane to structure planning. The kits were intended to generate discussion in the groups as a basis for the submission of views which would contribute to later stages of plan preparation. The South Yorkshire approach, in other words, tried to phase the dispersal and collection of information and to engage organised groups in a cyclical interaction with the planners. The local authority explained:

‘The first kit was deliberately left as unstructured as possibk so that views could emerge with the minimum of prompting. The second kit refined and elaborated the findings ofthc first kit. The second kit was more structured in that groups were asked to rank a series of problems which has been identified by respondents to the first kit and to suggest priorities for their solution.‘”

The first kit was introduced to the groups at a series of successful meetings. About half the groups invited were present and the meetings gave the local authority an opportunity to outline the public participation process and to publicise the kits and the adult education classes arranged to coincide with the issue of the second kit. Leading members of groups were to develop an understanding of the process and encouraged to report back to their wider membership. In addition, planning officers were ready to visit groups if asked and a number of part-time ‘community workers’ were employed to help groups within categories which previous experience had shown to produce a poor response. When the response had been collated, conferences were arranged for councillors so that they could examine the original responses and discuss the implications for the developing policies of the council.‘9

The approach adopted by South Yorkshire achieved a very good response when compared with the response obtained by many other local authorities;*0 it was also explicitly educational in some of the techniques adopted. We thought it worthwhile to interview some of the groups concerned. The following comments are based on interviews with eighty-two different groups at the first or second stage of public participation; in sixteen cases the groups were interviewed at both stages. The groups interviewed comprised twenty-nine groups who had received community worker help, twenty-nine other groups who had responded, and twenty-four groups who had not responded to the local


authority’s invitation to participate. A full report of this survey has been given elsewherq2’ but we may summarise some of our conclusions.

7.2.1. Organisational Stnmture

Most groups have a committee structure and a system of general meetings. Nevertheless, it may be difficult for a local authority to get beyond the secretary or first contact in the organisation and to reach the wider membership. The first individual approached will often act as a filter for material considered suitable for further discussion.22 The approach by the planners must be presented so as to avoid an immediate rejection: for some organisations an official letter may create the right atmosphere of ‘legitimacy’; for other groups personal contact is essential. The difficulty for a local authority lies in deciding which approach is the more suitable in each case. It is not possible to use an existing categorisation of groups as a basis for different approaches by the local authority: variations in levels of ability or interest in participation exist, but they occur within the same category of group and not solely between categories. Another problem is that groups change as the membership fluctuates and new officers emerge.

7.2.2. Intro-Group Znteraction

Most organisations will need to call special meetings if only a few weeks’ notice is given of a public participation exercise and even special meetings take some time to arrange and may need a committee decision. The alternative is for an individual or select few to prepare the response. The responses received by South Yorkshire had been prepared on average by about a dozen members in each group. In most cases (two-thirds of the sample) these had included people other than the officers and committee. The South Yorkshire experience is better in this respect than that in Merseyside where it was common for one person or a very small number to reply on behalf of the group. We believe the more personal approach and the design of the kit to be responsible. The people concerned in the preparation of the response was largely self-selected, but not obviously different in character from other members of the organisation; except that they were by definition among the more active members.

Suggestions were made in the South Yorkshire kits about methods the groups might use in arranging their discussions in preparing their response. The first kit, for example, suggested dividing members into multiples of six so that each sub-group could consider one of the topics mentioned in the kit before a full group discussion. Most groups ignored these suggestions. Groups vary considerably in their constitutional arrangements, and some of the suggestions were more suitable for those with more formal structures. A local authority should not place any reliance upon its suggestions being followed.

The South Yorkshire experience points to the need for a finer breakdown of information about different groups than the usual broad categories based on purpose or type of membership. Information is needed which will give a local authority an understanding of the characteristics, internal organisation and levels of interest which will affect the willingness or ability of a group to respond to the local planners* approach and enable regular contact to be maintained. Closer liaison with other local authority departments - like housing, social services or recreation - can give access to existing sources of information about local groups. It might be possible to consult ‘umbrella’ organisations about the best way to approach their associated groups. Ideally a group information system based on these sources might be stored in a computer which would allow the data to be reassembled in ways suitable for particular participation approaches.


7.2.3. Community Workers

The appointment of the part-time helpers mentioned earlier was in the spirit of the Skefftngton recommendation for the appointment of community workersz3 and this name was adopted for them although in some ways it was misleading. The Skeffington Committee expected the community development officer to be a full-time employee either of the local authority or of some other agency such as a council of social service.

In South Yorkshire the part-time community worker was given a specific task to be completed in a specified time: primarily they were to stimulate and help certain groups to respond to the structure plan kits. In addition they were expected to:

’ . . . act as an educationalist in meetings with the groups, i.e. to encourage the expression of views, to pose alternative viewpoints, to question beliefs. to supply information where appropriate, to collect information from the County Council if requested to do so, and to aid the compilation of a written statement of views.‘”

They had little opportunity to establish longer-term relationships with community groups. Nor were they able to work among unorganised members of the public in the way which would be expected of a full-time community worker.

Nevertheless, part-time appointments gave the local authority the chance of drawing on a wider range of experience than would be possible with a more limited number of full-time community workers; the costs were relatively low and the informality of the part-time workers’ contract gave the local authority a great deal of flexibility in their employment.

The part-time community workers were intermediaries between the local authority and the organised groups. They were not committed to the policies of the council as a full-time officer would be, nor were they expected to act as an advocate for the views of the groups. They were expected to interact in both directions. They justified their appointment. The groups we interviewed nearly all (82%) believed they had benefitted from the visits of the part-time community workers. Most often, by the ability of the community workers to explain and clarify the purposes of structure planning and public participation. Several groups also stressed their administrative and secretarial contribution. The part-time community workers were able to help the planning officers to gain an understanding of the response the groups were making to the kits and to enable them to adapt the participation programme accordingly.

Certain developments of the technique are suggested by comments made to us by the groups, by the community workers; and by our own observations. Important factors seem to be a thorough knowledge of the area in which a group is located, a greater inside knowledge of a group’s structure which would help them know how best to introduce the exercise, and how to stimulate interest. There was some feeling that insufficient time had been available for the community workers to fulfil certain aspects of their role. Particularly the educative side.

These comments all point to the need for a longer-term approach to certain types of groups within the community if they are to develop an interactive relationship with the local authority. This prompts the question of whether part-time community workers are suitable for such an approach. The distinction between the full-time community worker and the part-time helpers used in South Yorkshire must constantly be borne in mind; each does different things. Making use of the existing full-time community workers in local government departments is one alternative to the part-time helper, but other possibilities are feasible. Local people who live in the area in which a group is located could be used even if they have no formal skills; or a group member might be invited by the council to be the link between the local authority and the group, perhaps being paid a small amount to get the group organised to participate in the exercise. If local planning authorities develop this approach they are likely to require the services of full-time community workers as envisaged by the Skeffngton Committee. Their task would be to recruit, co-ordinate and brief the part-time and lay community workers. They would also be expected ‘to be a link with existing groups or to promote new local ones which would eventually stand on their feet as independent bodies for participation’.25

Planning and Perticipation in Practice 81

7.3. EDUCATIONAL ASPECTS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Most of the discussions which take place during consultation or participation programmes are educational in the broadest sense. The participants are learning from each other. Public participation programmes, however, may need to become more explicitly educational if wider sections of the public are to be included. Many people have neither the self-confidence in public afffairs nor the understanding of the issues involved to allow them to express their opinions. The distribution of information as a basis for public response should become education for participation. Even more fundamentally it may become part of a wider education for citizenship. A working party established by the Royal Town Planning Institute in 1975 included the following paragraph in its final report:

‘If, as we have argued, the whole process of planning and government is to become more democratic, then greatly increased emphasis has to be placed on participation as a learning experience for planners and the public alike. Education of the public about planning ought to begin at school; there are already indications that some teachers and some local education authorities are beginning lo take this responsibility seriously. The kind of initiative taken by the Town and Country Planning Association through its Planning Aid Service and its publication, theEul[erin of Environmentul Education (BEE), needs more development and even wider application. Other organizations such as the WEA, the adult education institutes and the Open University are also undertaking valuable work in this field. But. as in other areas of life, the best learning experience is direct involvement.‘”

The long term development of school curricula is obviously beyond the capacity of local planning departments. There is a growing interest in environmental education but a general preparation for citizenship is not yet given the status of the traditional school subjects.27 Planners are usually ill-equipped to enter such controversies but they should be active in making their expertise available to educationalists when opportunities occur.

Adult educationalists traditionally have an interest in preparing people for citizenship. R. H. Tawney, one of the founders of the Workers’ Educational Association, once wrote:

’ . . . . The purpose of an adult education worthy of the name is not merely lo impart reliable information, important though that is. It is still more to foster the intellectual vitality lo master and use it, so that knowledge becomes, not a burden to be borne or a possession to be prized, but a stimulus lo constructive thought and an inspiration lo action.‘”

The extramural departments of universities, and more recently many local education authorities, have been associated with this tradition which has been supported in official reports on the subject.29 Adult education classes are arranged both in general politica! subjects and to help people fulfil various public off%es such as magistrates, school governors and managers, councillors or trade union shop stewards. Education for public participation should have emphasis on practical applications for local planning matters. The Royal Town Planning Institute’s working party argued:

L . . . the responsibility for the education of the public for participation must, in the end, devolve upon professional planners and politicians . . . . Formal education at school or evening classes can only begin lo establish a background of information, and perhaps only then for a committed minority. The main thrust has lo come from a commitment lo openness and dialogue on the part of those in the Planning Service and the politicians.‘”

MS Forbes put it succinctly: ‘The planner in his participation efforts is very much a member of the adult education team.‘”

In South Yorkshire the planners joined the adult educational agencies in providing a series of short courses in association with their public participation programme. The syllabus was developed around the second structure plan kit together with background material on the local government system and planning procedures. The background material was available on duplicated sheets to enable the groups to discuss them informally. Such an approach is preferable to presenting information through formal lectures. The educational agencies provided a tutor for each course and they were assisted by a member of the planning department who contributed technical knowledge. The tutor did not need a detailed knowledge of planning questions. Thirteen courses were successfully arranged with the total registration of nearly 150.

Educational activities are difficult to evaluate: the effects are often not apparent for a ,.P.P. 13: I/Z--F


long time after the event, and they will then be overlaid with many intervening experiences. One of the objectives of the South Yorkshire courses was to give participants experience of working with the kit before leading similar discussions in their own organisations. The group also had the opportunity of compiling a class response which they could discuss with their resident planner and most of them did so. The longer-term aim of increasing general understanding of planning issues is more difficult to assess and we can only obtain a few hints from our interviews and later events. The adult education groups were in general much more critical than other people we interviewed of the content of the kits. They expressed disquiet about the way the policy choices were presented and about their artificial polarisation. The courses themselves may have given the understanding which led to such criticisms of the kits: complexities are much more easily expounded in a small discussion group over several weeks than written into a document for wide distribution. The groups also created a demand in a few areas for further educational activities concerned with planning. In one small town these activities resulted in the formation of a community society with the object, among others: ’ to make and maintain liaison in a spirit of cooperation with the various public bodies charged with statutory duties over the society’s area . . . ‘.

7.4. CONCLUSION

If, as we have suggested, interaction should be seen as a continuous and long-term educative process this will have implications both for planning and for the practice of local democracy. A continuous to and fro of discussion rests uneasily within a planning process which in practice is usually concerned with the production of discrete plans. If public participation is to form an integral part of planning, as the Skeftington Report certainly suggested, then it should affect the planning process itself and not be rather hesitantly handled as a technical exercise akin to a trafftc census or a public relations campaign. The publics will need to be involved through new institutions or new approaches to old institutions. Councillors will need to become more relaxed in the exercise of their power and ready to accept a broader basis for decision-taking. Some type of local forum, neighbourhood group, or community council, may be needed to organise public involvement at the geographical level at which most people are willing to respond.

In our case study areas we saw no radical restructuring either of planning or of the democratic system. The encouragement of interaction between planners and public was approached cautiously and without persistence. No local authority supported the establishment of permanent institutions of local consultation or participation. Even in South Yorkshire, where the approach to public participation was so imaginative, the majority of the council remained firmly within the tradition of representative democracy and strongly opposed to the development of neighbourhood councils.

Our intention in making these comments is not to criticise particular local authorities. Public participation has not been presented to them as a method of making fundamental changes in our system of government, and there is no reason why people should necessarily agree with it if it were. Our purpose is to indicate the implications of introducing public participation into existing planning and democratic procedures: implications which were not fully explored during the passage of the legislation or in its subsequent implementation. The evaluation of the techniques of public participation must finally depend upon an understanding of the purposes for which they are being introduced.” In our experience the discussion of such questions occupies most of the time when councillors or planners meet to consider public participation at conferences or seminars: they are seldom mentioned in offtcial publications.

Planning end Perticipstion in Prectice 83

NOTES: CHAPTER 7

1. Report of the Committee on Public Participation in Planning People and Planning. (London: HMO. 1969). paras. 60-7 I and 80-90.

2. In a survey conducted in Birmingham. Dr. Newton found approximately 30% of the 4250 formally organ&d voluntary associations covered in the study bad been politically active in the previous I2 months. Politically active was defmcd in a very broad way but further analysis showed that ‘the vast majority. . . wcrc so in the sense that they were making demands on public policy and ~sources.‘. Kenneth Newton. Srcend City Politics (Oxford: Clarcndon Press, 1976) pp. 39 aod 61. cf: Barry S. Fujishin. Styles of Advocaqy: The Roles of Vohmtary Organisarions in the Binnbtgham PLannhg Process (Birmingham: Ccntrc for Urban and Regional Studies. 1975); and Anthony Barker, 7’hr Local Amenity Movement (London: Civic Trust, 1976).

3. Anthony Barker. op. CL, pp. 21-23. 4. William Hampton, Democracy and Community (London: Oxford University Press. 1970) pp. 118-21. 5. A survey we conducted in North East Lancashire supported this generahsation: 19% of the respondents had

an active interest in getting something done locally; 6% intended to pursue their interest through a local group and only 1% m&tionai a local political party though 2% intended to approach a councillor.

6. Report of the Committee on Local Authority and Allied Personal Social Services (London: HMO. 1968). 7. A New Partnership for our Schools. Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Managemenr and Governmennt

of Schools (London: HMSO. 1977). 8. The survey was based upon the concept of co-orientation. An introduction to the concept and to the

literature may be found at F. G. Kline and P. J. Tiihenor @Is) Current Pcrspecrives in Mass Communicadon Research (Beverly Hills: Saga, 1972). and P. Clarke (cd) New Modelsforhfass Commwicarion Research (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1973). The survey is fully reported in Peter Stringer, Tuning in to rhe Public: Survey &fore Particijmrlon (Shcflicld: Linked Research Project into Public Participation in Structure Planning, IRP 14. 1978).

9. Ken Coata. Ashfirld: Whar’sgoing wrong?(Nottingham: Institute for Workers Control Pamphlet No. 53. May 1977).

10. Planning for the Teesside sub-region had preceded the planning legislation of 1968 and had continued through several changes of form as local authority and planning boundaries wcrc changed. In view of this earlier planning activity the Department of the Environment allowed Teesside to adopt an abbreviated structure plan programme.

I I. Public Participation in Structure Planning: the Teessidr Experience (London: Centre for Environmental Studies. CES RPl4.1976) pp. 76-77.

12. ibid., p.71. 13. ibid., p.73. 14. ibid., p.77. IS. William Hampton and Raymond Walker. The Tecssidc/Cleveland examination in public: a report of a

survey of participants, Local Govemmenr Sldics, V (2) April, 1976. 16. Peter Stringer and Gillian Plumridge. Consuharion with Organisarions on the North East Luncashire Advisory

PIon (Sheffield: Linked Research Project into Public Participation in Structure Planning, IRP 3. 1974). Appendix E. It is difficult to arrive at comparative figures for the percentage of groups responding out of those approached, and still more difficult to comparc the quality of the response received. Of fifteen structure plan authorities quoted by Stringer and Plumridge not one claimed a response from more organiscd groups than South Yorkshire; the six authorities which gave details both of organisations which were consulted and of those who responded generally had a response rate of kss than one in ten. In Buckinghamshirc a reasonable raponsc was obtained both from Parish Councils (33%) and from local amenity and similar groups (38%). Details from Buckinghamshirc County Structure Plan 1976: Report on Public Participarion, pp. 137-141 and 143-M. In none of these cases was any interaction attempted between the groups and the planning process.

17. In addition to approaching groups South Yorkshire organiscd other activities to cater for the different kvcls of interest both in the structure plan process and in participation within the community. A public attitude survey was undertaken by means of household interviews with a representative sample of residents, and various publicity exercises were also arranged. These activities were intended to reach thoac who showed little or no interest in the preparation of the structure plan, or whose interest was limited to a desire to be kept informed of what was going on. South Yorkshire Stntcture Plan Report of Survey. Vol. I. : The Structure Plan Process, January 1977, p.7.

18. ibid., pp.7-8. 19. Roy Darke. 77te Conrextfor Public Participation in Planning, South Yorkshire (Sheffield: Centrc for

Environmental Research, Occasional Paper 76/29, October, 1975). 20. See footnote 16. 21. Full details of the survey and methods adopted are given in William Hampton and Wendy Beak, Merhodc of

Approaching Groups in South Yorkshire (Shelfeld: Linked Research Project into Public Participation in Structure Planning, IRP 1 I, 1976).

22. A similar observation was made during our research in Merscyside. 23. People and Planning, op. cir.. pan. 84. 24. First Approach IO rhe Public on the Structure Plan (South Yorkshire County Council, August 1974) p. 27. 25. People and Pfanning, op. cit. pan. 84. In 1975 the Department of the Environment sponsored two

appointments of Environmental Liaison Off~~rs to local Councils for Voluntary Service. An evaluation of this experiment will be found at William Hampton.Provi&tg rhe Posh Word. . . (London: Departmmt of the Environment, 1978).

26. PIanning and Ihe Future (London: Royal Town Planning Institute, 1976). pan. 135. cl Jean Forbes, Information, education and planning, in Jean Forbes (cd.) Studies in Social Science and Planning (Edinburgh and London: Scottish Academic Press. 1974).

27. In 1969. the year the Skcffington Report was published. the Politics Association was founded for tuchcrs of political subjects. Subsequent discussions about curriculum development and other topics can be followed in the Association’s journal, Teaching Polttics. In a report issued in 1978. Her Majesty’s Inspecton of Schools proposal that the teaching of politics should form one of the eight core areas of the curriculum.


28. R. H. Tawney, Fhe Raakal Tradition (London: Penguin Rooks, 1966) p. 88. 29. Adult Education: a Plan for Development (London: HMSO, 1973) (Russell Report) and Adult Education: the

ChaUenge of Change (Edinburgh: HMSO, 1975) (Alexander Report). For a short general discussion of the topic see William Hampton, Adult education and the teaching of politics, Teaching Politics. 6 (2) May, 1977.

30. Planning and the Future, op. cit., para. 136. 31. Forbes, op. cit., p.285. 32. William Hampton and Wendy Raak. Public participation in planning-the contribution of adult

education, Adult Education 48 (6) March, 1976. This article is reproduced in Hampton and Beale. Methodc of Approaching Groups In South Yorkshire. op. cit. An earlier and more elaborate collaboration between adult education and a public participationprogramw had taken place in 1968 when the Extramural Department of Southampton University and the Workers Educational Association wcn asked by the South Hampshire Plan Advisory Committee to take part in the programme of public participation by setting up a number of study groups. Nine groups were established with an average attendance for each group which varied from ten to twenty five. Six of the groups met regularly throughout the three-year preparation of the plan; three groups met for one year only. Each group received copies of twcnty-scvcn reports prcparcd by the Planning Unit as these were published. They then prepared a written response. Each group’s response was circulatad to all the other groups so that each knew what the others were thinking. We are indebted to Mr. Kay of Southampton University for information on these groups.

33. cfI Andrew Thomley, Theoretical Perspectives on Planning Participation, prosrcsS in Planning, 7 (1) 1977.

CHAPTER 8

People and Participation

‘I do not assert that it is easy to teach men to exercise political rights; but I maintain that. when it is possible, the effects which result from it are highly important; and I add that, if there ever was a time at which such an attempt ought to be made, that time is our own.’ Alexis de Tocqueville, Democrucy in America, 1835.

In this chapter we shall examine the nature of the public involved in structure planning. It must be remembered that the public, as individuals and as members of organised

groups, has always participated to a greater or lesser extent in local government policy- making, though not always by right as the legislation now implies in relation to local and structure planning. People vote in local and national elections, join political parties at ward or constituency level, making their views felt on a number of issues. They contact councillors and offtcials on matters of concern, and they write to the press and organise petitions and meetings. All this is part of the accepted process of politics, continuing without any special need for legislation. Even before 1968 people and groups were involved in the planning process, so that public participation is not necessarily a new experience and they are unlikely to distinguish between other forms of participatory activity in local government and the new style public participation in planning.

From the planning authority’s perspective the 1968 legislation and later related documents have obliged those responsible for the organisation of public participation programmes to reconsider what participatory activity there was in relation to planning and to consider new ways of extending it or making it more effective in order to fullil their statutory obligations. Planners looked on public participation in structure planning as something new; this is why planners in some of our case study areas appeared to draw a distinction between consultation (which was what they were doing already) and public participation (which was novel and additional), whereas in other areas the planners saw participation simply as an extension of consultation. As a result, the planners adopted techniques better suited to consultation, failing to recognise that not all sections of the public appreciated what is involved in the consultative process.

Participation depends initially on the opportunities available for people and groups to become involved in the planning process. We are concerned here with the accessibility of the planning system; how easy it is for the different sections of the public to put their views to the planning authority and to what extent the latter is able and willing to take these views into account.

Different sections of the public have greater or lesser access to the planning process according to the way they are perceived by the planners. At one extreme, there are what we have called the major elites, many of whom have a long history of participation in planning and other local authority activities, and who the planners believe have a contribution to make to the development and implementation of a structure plan. All our case study authorities treated some sections of the public in what might be regarded as a privileged fashion, if only because they believed these sections were very important to the successful production of the structure plan.

At the other extreme, there are the ‘non-joiners’ - who apparently lack sufficient motivation and skill to become involved in the structure plan process. With the limited exception of South Yorkshire, none of our case study areas made deliberate and considered efforts to contact this section of the public, except for getting their views through the

85


relatively passive technique of the sample survey used by Teesside, Merseyside and South Yorkshire. ‘Non-joiners’ had little access to the structure plan process.

Nevertheless planners in all our case study areas tried to some extent to make the planning system more accessible to a wider range of groups and individuals, even though it remains true to say that some sections of the public had greater access than others.

From the public’s point of view, there is little reason to distinguish between public participation in planning and other forms of activity. People participate because their interest in something is sufficiently great for them to want to be involved. Without some motivation, the incentive for individuals to participate is likely to be at best minimal and even totally lacking. In the context of structure planning, it is often difficult to see how such motivation can be stirred. People may well be motivated into participating if they feel that they can benefit in some way or if they feel threatened by something which is happening. Participation because of some perceived threat has been the experience most common in the planning context, as people see themselves threatened by road proposals or slum clearance schemes. But such situations, by comparison with structure planning, are relatively short-term and immediate. What kind of factors are likely to affect the motivation to participate in relation to the longer term basis of structure planning?

The motivation to participate may be promoted by some sense of self-interest, but equally it may be promoted by a wider sense of group or community interest. The more wide ranging a structure plan, the larger the number of individuals and groups who are likely to see some benefit or threat to themselves and as a result the larger the number of people who may want to participate.

Motivation is also likely to reflect factors like the attachment to an area, or an interest in a particular activity. People who are older, or have lived in a particular area for a considerable period, or feel that they have a stake in their community, are more likely to want to be involved in discussions about the future of the area than are those who are younger, or relative newcomers.

Equally important as motivation are the skills which people can bring to the participation process. Everybody is likely to have some participatory skill, even the so- called ‘non-joiners’, and everybody is likely to have something to contribute to the structure plan process. The problem is tapping and utilising these skills, or making people aware of their skills and encouraging them to use them. Participatory skills are most likely to reflect class or status related variables such as occupation, education and group membership, though they should in no way be regarded as solely middle-class attributes.’ There is no reason why working-class people should not - and in practice they oAen do - possess these participatory skills. Without them it would be difficult to explain the many areas of participation largely dominated by the working class, such as tenants’ associations, welfare rights organisations and action groups, to be found in many of the predominantly working-class areas of our major cities. We shall see that the planners’ failure to discriminate clearly between their various structure plan audiences in terms of skill and motivation partly helps to explain a lack of response to many of the participatory initiatives made.

Many people are unlikely to give detailed consideration to their own condition in 15-20 years time, let alone that of their neighbours. Even fewer are likely to be concerned with the future of their immediate locality, let alone of the wider county area which is the boundary of a structure plan. Still fewer people are likely to be interested in the range of issues with which a structure plan is likely to deal, or to have the expertise to understand all the details and technical matters underlying them.

Nevertheless, there remains a suspicion that there are some sections of the public never reached by the planners’ publicity techniques but who have information which may be considered important to the production of the structure plan, and whose interests may be vitally affected by it, though they are both unaware of this and lack the necessary skills to do much about the situation. These are the ‘non-joiners’.

Precisely because they are ‘non-joiners’ this section of the public is a difficult one to identify. One way in which this problem can be tackled is by the kind of pre-participation survey which we undertook in North East Lancashire. The picture of the ‘non-joiner*


which that survey suggests is not dissimilar from that produced by others looking at similar groups in different situations: ‘non-joiners’ tend to be elderly, the unemployed, single parent or single person households, people with little formal education and no car. Few read a local newspaper, listen to local radio, or belong to many groups or associations.’

We have no direct experience of this particular section of the public as a result of our researches, as none of our authorities made any deliberate effort to reach them. At one time, Cheshire hoped to use community development officers in some parts of the County, but the proposal was later dropped as too expensive. South Yorkshire came closest to reaching the non-participants through the part-time community workers and the special adult education classes, but these efforts were very much directed to groups, rather than individuals. The experiment does provide one or two clues about this non-participant section of the public. Principally the community workers were used to help groups prepare a reply to one or both the kits used by South Yorkshire. The groups approached were not expected to respond initially: in the event, two out of five of the groups still failed to deliver a reply. Lack of organising ability, or interest and of time, or planning being outside the group’s normal activities, were the reasons these groups gave for non-response, and it is not difficult to suggest that non-participant individuals might well give similar reasons for their non-participation. Yet over half the groups contacted by the community workers did produce a reply, and the help of the community workers at the various stages of preparing it was important, though the extent to which any longer term commitment to participation was generated is at least doubtful. The South Yorkshire experience does suggest that if non-participants can be better motivated and the necessary skills supplied or developed, this section of the public can be brought into the planning process.

Most people do participate in the political affairs of their community in some way. People pay their rates or rents, or complain about the inadequacy of refuse collection services. Some have a more intense and extensive range of contacts, being active in local party or voluntary associations, or whatever. Between 30 and 40% of the adult population exercise the right to vote in local elections; far fewer are intensely politically active,3 though most would be able to suggest ways of putting across their views on particular matters or persuading a local authority to take action on a particular matter.’

Our North East Lancashire pre-participation survey gives some idea of the way people view their local authority, its work, and those aspects of its activity which appear to them to be of greatest interest. Greatest interest was shown in policy areas like housing, transportation and education: planning does not come high on the list. Our survey of respondents to the Teesside Structure Plan suggests that many people think it is difficult to get local councils to act and even more difficult for local people to influence council decisions. Most people would expect to contact an ofticial rather than a councillor if they wanted to find out something about a particular issue or complain about a service, as our own North East Lancashire survey and other earlier surveys demonstrate.5 It is hardly surprising that those individuals who did participate were a quite unrepresentative section of the total public. Table 8.1 gives us a profile of the audiences at public meetings in Cheshire and North East Lancashire and of those who made written comments on the Teesside plan.

Both public meetings surveys confirm the general picture of participants as being middle class, owner-occupiers, long-term residents, the older, the better educated and the males, as well as from the ranks of those who belong to organised groups, even though the two surveys were undertaken in different areas some twelve months apart.

Table 8.1 clearly shows how important skill, as indicated by class and educational factors, is in determining whether or not people are likely to participate in structure planning and also hints at the importance of motivation. This latter factor emerges strongly from our Teesside data on individual respondents. An awareness of or interest in some issue, local or more specific, appears as a strong motivation of those who responded to the Teesside structure plan.

Many of those who took part in the meetings or attended exhibitions appreciated them. The Cheshire exhibition was found to be interesting by 70% of respondents to the small survey we conducted, while only 10% thought it bad. Public meetings were similarly


TABLE 8.1. ‘Ibe mdknce for sttmdre pin muters

chashire NOdSEd TOtEi LW regzts

a % (I 46 I) 46 a %

Length of residence Under 5 years 6-15 years 16-25 years 25years+

SCX

Male Female

‘be Under 35 Over 35

Type of tenure Owner-occupier Rent

Use of car (yes) 457 85.6 115

Age education ended 14 or less I5 16-18 18+

89 16.7 41 50 9.4 23

161 29.9 82 199 37.2 2

Group membership None l-3 4 or more

28 5.2 8 268 50.2 83 228 42.8 64

Cla& Middle class Working class

430 69

80.5 97 13.0 45

83 15.5 25 102 19.1 I1 85 15.9 35

256 47.9 78

346 64.8 97 185 34.6 57

129 403

434 76.3 134 65 12.2 14

24.2 44 76.0 106

16.1 10 7.1

22.5 20

50.3 49

62.6 49 36.8 32

28.3 16 73.5 63

86.5 62 9.0 8

74.2 56

26.5 18 14.8 7 52.9 23

I.3 32

5.2 9 53.5 41.3 72

62.6 53 29.0 26

12.3 118 15.6

24.7 254 33.6

60.5 383 50.7

60.5 492 64.2 39.5 274 35.8

19.7 189 24.8 77.6 572 75.2

76.5 630 87.9 9.9 87 12.1

69.1 688 76.3

22.2 148 20.4 8.6 80 II.0

28.4 266 36.6 39.5 233 32.0

11.1

88.8

5.9

94. I

65.4 32.1

45

715

580 140

80.5 19.4

Source: North East Lancashire Public Meetings Survey 1973; Cheshire Public Meetings Survey 1974; Teesside Survey of Individual Respondents 1974. l Middle class = Categories A, B, C,; Working class = Categories C,, D, E.

perceived as an appropriate technique. Accepting that such meetings are mainly for information-giving, support for them as a means of obtaining reactions remains high, though lower than considering them as efficient in giving information.

Going to public meetings and exhibitions are both things which the middle class are more likely to do than the working class, just as the skills necessary to understand and exploit the opportunities presented by such techniques are predominantly but not exclusively to be found among the middle class.

Going to exhibitions, attending a public meeting, filling out a questionnaire or a kit form, perhaps submitting a written comment is about all that can be expected of individual members of the public in the way of participation in structure planning. Few may get beyond the stage of attending an exhibition or public meeting. This suggests two things. First, most people became involved because they wanted information, rather than from a belief in some right or duty to participate. In many cases, if this information suggests that planning proposals are not going to affect them directly and immediately, most people will take no further action. Second, of those who wish to participate further, most are likely to become involved in a relatively indirect, passive and modest way: most are not seeking conflict, but to ensure that their views are considered by those who take planning decisions.

Most people could suggest ways in which they might both attract the local authority’s attention to issues and influence its decisions should they so wish. Table 8.2 shows the ways people who attended the public meetings in North East Lancashire and Cheshire thought

Planning end Perticipetion in Prectice 99

TABLE 6.2. Ibc best way to i~ttuemce propoa&

Metbolt c&&ire N. E. Lams TOtd

I‘ % II % II %

Contact planning body 197 36.9 55 35.5 252 36.6

Through local group 150 28.1 26 16.8 176 25.5

Contact councillor 53 9.9 I5 9.7 68 9.9 Contact M.P. 26 4.9 5 3.2 31 4.5

Write to a newspaper 16 3.0 5 3.2 21 3.0

Start petition 3 0.6 4 2.6 7 I.0

Other 14 2.6 4 2.6 18 2.6

Source: North East Lancashire Public Meetings Survey 1973: Cheshire Public Meetings survey 1974.

the best for influencing planning proposals. Table 8.2 suggests three main channels through which our respondents felt they might influence proposals: direct contact with the officials of the planning authority was thought to be the best method.6 This view reflects first, the encouragement generally given to people to ‘contact the planners’ if they have any views on proposals; second, the trust people have in the ability and willingness of planning authorities to take their views into account; third, it may reflect an assessment of the power distribution within the planning authority, with people believing that power lies in the hands of the planners; it is towards them, rather than elected members, that views should be directed.

Few respondents (10%) thought that contacting a local councillor was the best way of influencing local planning proposals. People may no longer see councillors as the most effective decision-makers, and believe that they are no longer able to represent views on policy matters adequately. Many of those participating became involved by their membership of organised groups: such groups have become the normal basis for political action. Limited in their own ability to influence events, people join others of similar outlook in the hope of increasing their political impact. Most areas, from the village to the metropolitan area, contain a range of groups which becomes wider and more diverse as the area becomes larger and more heterogeneous.

Most groups have little or no contact with a local authority, existing for essentially non- political reasons. Newton estimates that about 20% of the groups he identified in Birmingham had some contact with the local authority.’ Planning has its share of these groups, though its activities are different from those of many other local authority departments: it is, essentially not a service-providing department, so there are likely to be relatively fewer groups active in the planning arena than in other sectors.

In our case studies, what sort of groups did planners contact, how many responded and what did they think of the opportunities offered them? Table 8.3 gives the details and demonstrates the different approaches adopted by our different authorities. The response rate is much higher in the urban-metropolitan areas than it is for the more rural counties.

TABLE 8.3. Type of orgadsed group coatncted by Autkity and type of groop mpoding

I % I %

Pdiliul 16 5.2 2 12.5

Rdi8iou 14 4.6 6 4.3

Educationll 12 3.9 2 16.7

WClhfZ 26 8.5 I 3.8

TamotKomm. Ass. 25 8.1 IO 40.0

EJnirwmmal8roup I4 4.6 II 78.6

CommacinVcmploycc 67 21.8 7 10.4 PrdckoNl I6 5.2 - -

spau 3. 1.0 8 -

SodYarksu~

I w I 46

I09 4.5 6 5.5

147 6.0 3 2.0

5 6.1 - - 76 3.1 I I.3

2 2.4 - - 12 26.1 2 16.6 32S 13.3 6 1.8 55 2.2 7 12.7

I2 14.6 5 41.7 I6 34.8 6 37.5 74 3.0 I9 25.7

16 19.5 - - I8 39.1 3 16.6 81 3.7 8 9.0 40 1.6 I 2.5

358 14.7 2 0.6

208 31.9 71 34

45 6.9 6 13

II9 18.2 26 21 40 6.1 24 61) 56 8.6 IO I7

29 4.4 5 17 said &? 26.1 I2 15.0 564 23.1 IS 27 I03 IS.8 I6 I5 Cultunl I3 4.2 6 46.1 I79 7.3 - -

How 21 6.8 3 14.2 126 5.2 2 1.6 olhn 4. 73 3.0 - - 72 I,” 4 5 _ . _ - hriacoluuih - - 47 57.3 5 10.6 22; ;:; 30 13.3 Toul 307 100.0 72 23.4 82 100.0 IO 12.2 46 100.0 II 23.9 22Ul 100.0 100 4.1 652 100.0 162 24

1.P.P. 13: I;2 G


Table 8.3 also gives some idea of the types of group most likely to respond on structure plan issues. Environmental groups were most likely to respond as they have a history of involvement in planning matters and can be expected to be highly motivated towards participation, while general social groups may have had little experience of planning matters or may not see the relevance of structure planning to their interests.

When considering the public as members of organised groups the heterogeneous nature of this section of the structure plan audience must be taken into account. The classification used in Table 8.3 is large, but even so hides a tremendous diversity of groups. Many of the groups contacted felt that the issues raised by settlement policy did not affect them and as a result did not bother to respond. In more detailed work on groups conducted inNorth East Lancashire, Merseyside and South Yorkshire a number of other reasons are suggested why groups of this kind may not respond.

The most frequent reason for non-response among groups in South Yorkshire was that structure planning was ‘outside the scope of normal group activities*. These groups vary tremendously in the way they are organised and how often they meet. Shortage of time, either for groups to respond or because the group was busy with other matters, was also often mentioned by groups in all our authorities as a reason for non-response. Groups vary greatly in their understanding of the issues at stake and what participation involves.

It is’difficult to assess objectively how expertise or its lack affects the nature of the group response - some subjective assessment must be applied. In some cases, the group has information about an issue which is not available to the planners, and the group is able to correct the authority on a particular matter. In others, a group may take up issues in a way that demonstrates its knowledge and competence. Some organised groups possess members or supporters with sufficient background, understanding, or even relevant professional expertise to assist in responding to invitations to participate in planning matters. Such people can help a group frame their response so that planners can accept it as well as helping the group to see the relevance of the issues involved to their own interests.

The majority of group replies were in the form of a short letter to the planning

authorities. Others sent longer replies, occasionally submitting quite detailed alternative strategies. Many groups took up the planning authorities’ invitations to participate by coming to public or specially-organised meetings. Most groups regarded such meetings as opportunities to learn more about the issues and strategies involved in the structure plan. The evidence from Cheshire, where special collective and individual group meetings were organised, strongly supports this view: only one group came to any meeting prepared to present an agreed statement of its views, and our meetings survey results* showed that most group representatives would report to their groups before taking any action. This suggests that most groups were still learning what public participation in structure planning involved, though a few already had sufficient interest, ability and expertise to want to respond on a broader basis.

This view is reinforced when the range of comments offered is considered. As the

Merseyside and North East Lancashire experience suggested, the range of comments offered, considered geographically or substantively, is likely to be narrow. In Merseyside the Liverpool Stores Committee response was concerned largely with city centre development and revitalisation; in North East Lancashire many comments dealt with matters of a non-strategic, highly-localised nature.

This picture causes concern about the ability of some groups to contribute at a level appropriate to structure planning, either because they lack the necessary skills or because they do not see the relevance to their own activities of the issues raised. It also raises questions about how the planning authority integrates narrow and non-strategic comments into the structure plan. While such comments may have strategic implications, the process of absorbing them can result in a loss of their original force and direction.

This problem also relates to the kind of approach made by the planners and the material they presented. In all our areas, many groups either did not fully comprehend the material sent to them by the authorities, or they did not understand what action they were expected to take. Even in South Yorkshire, where the authority went to great trouble to overcome this problem with the structure plan kits, some groups felt that the material provided was

Plenning and Participetion in Prectice 91

too complex or insufficient. Elsewhere many groups simply failed to understand the kind of approach to participation adopted by our planning authorities or its purpose. This is largely because the latter had failed to differentiate finely enough among the various groups they approached. This was true in Cheshire, where, having.decided on pre-public meeting for groups, the planners failed to think out how to run such meetings once the numbers attending rose above a handful. Both Merseyside and North East Lancashire treated all groups as if they had the same level of expertise and interest as those with previous involvement in planning.

Nevertheless, in recognising the existence of large numbers of organised groups active in their planning areas, our authorities tried hard to give access to the planning system to many individuals who were members of groups and who had little or no previous experience of planning and little sense of its relevance for them. Having made this decision the planners usually left such groups to fall by the wayside. Those groups who met the planners on their own terms were treated as equals, those who did not were seen as less important or relevant to the task of producing a structure plan.

This distinction is best demonstrated by the process we have described as consultation. Consultation is not fundamentally different from participation. Yet in the minds of the planners there were certain groups and individuals who were to be given greater access to the planning system than other sections of the public.

Since consultation is a more sustained process than participation, those consulted are likely to have more ways, direct and indirect, of approaching a local authority than members of the public generally. Often they are given more detailed technical information or allowed special meetings. Those consulted tend to have the skills as well as the motives to exploit their opportunities for participation more fully than most individuals though there are exceptions to this assumption.

Cheshire’s fairly elaborate consultative programme used the post, seminars and meetings. Although each was aimed at specific groups of those consulted, no technique was confined to specific groups. Sometimes all three approaches were used with a single group to give the greatest possible contact between groups and the local authority. Table 8.4 illustrates this.

TABLE 8.4. Reqmmse to Cbeabire’s antsaltatba exercke by type of amsultee

Dktricts Other structure

PI- outhoritks

Main Malor inpkmeaters ratepayers

county-w&k interests

Number originally contacted a 10 No replies or no comments 0 0 Commented - writkn submissions only 0 9 Attendance aI seminars 0 0

No furthkr involvement - - Commented after seminar - -

Attendance at meetings a I

Commented after meeting a I

Source: CheshireCounty Planning Department tiles.

36 119 42

I2 65 23

6 4 16

18 51 3

7 40 3

IO 10 0

1 1 0

I I 0

Postal contacts were the planning department’s first official attempt to consult organisations specifically about settlement policy. For a number of organisations this was the entire consultation exercise. Three seminars were held during September 1974, two


arranged especially for the major ratepayers. Fifty (about 70%) of the organisations represented did not submit any subsequent comments.

Meetings were seen primarily as the main point of contact between the structure plan team, the District Councils and other structure plan authorities. Meetings were arranged between the structure plan team and other organisations but these were limited and mainly involved officials from British Rail, Greater Manchester Council and the CBI. In all cases, as Table 8.4 shows, the response was much higher from those consulted in this way than it was from those approached by other techniques.

Undoubtedly many of the groups consulted by Cheshire in writing or through the seminars did not respond either because they felt no need to reply or to supplement their informed comments. Our detailed work on consultation with groups in Merseyside and North East Lancashire confirms that many groups failed to grasp the opportunity for consultation presented to them or else to see the relevance of the structure plan to their interests. In neither case did the planning authorities distinguish its consultees as carefully as Cheshire had attempted to do.

Merseyside, for example, sent copies of their ‘Merseyside Review’ to 120 groups in the area, of which sixty-five could be classified as consultees. About 40% of these failed to respond. In North East Lancashire, two-thirds of about fifty contacted did not respond.

In both these areas, as in Cheshire, skill and motivation appeared to determine whether or not those consulted by the planning authorities responded to planners’ approaches. Some groups did not see themselves as playing the consultative role the planners expected of them. Civic societies in North East Lancashire seemed to see no role for themselves in strategic planning and in general failed to understand the consultative process. The planning authorities largely failed to arouse the motivation of potential consultees sufficiently for them to respond, mainly because they did not choose those they approached sufficiently carefully for them to see the relevance of the plan and the issues with which it dealt to their own interests. The planning authorities failed to communicate with, and to educate sufficiently, those whom they thought would have the most to contribute to the planning process and would be most affected by it. The planners repeatedly failed to recognise people’s different interests, motives and skills, so failing to get the greatest possible contribution by the public to the planning process. This was partly because the planners, with their preference for seeing planning as a rational, technical exercise, wanted the public to consider structure planning in the same way. Those members of the public who were able to meet the planners on the latter’s terms were largely treated as equals: others tended to be politely ignored.

The evidence from the exhibitions, the public meetings, the planning kits and the adult education classes all show that many members of the public can understand what structure planning is about, have relevant comments to make and possess the necessary skills to make them. Partly because of the way planners think of planning, partly because of the kinds of issues with which structure planning particularly deals, it would be unreasonable to expect vast numbers of people to participate; not everybody will want to do so. Most will be seeking information to ensure that what is being proposed either does not directly threaten them or will benefit them.

Our research strongly suggests that more of the public is capable of participating in planning more of the time. In doing so they are likely to make their needs, wants and policy preferences clearer. By being involved, people will learn about the kinds of constraints under which a planning authority operates: they will begin to understand better what is possible and what is not.

Such an exchange between the public, planners and politicians can only lead to improvements in the quality of the planning process. A public educated about planning matters, planning issues and the planning process is better able to contribute to that process: planners and politicians with a better understanding of the different needs and wants of the public ought to be able to adopt policies which are better suited to meet these needs and wants. But these improvements ought not to be limited to planning alone: they should extend to the democratic process itself. In our concluding chapter, we consider how this might be achieved.


NOTES: CHAPTER 8

1. For a discussion of this point see hi. Gokismith and P. Saunders, Particijnm’on through Public Meetings: the Case in Cheshire (Sheffield: Linked Rcscarch Project into Public Particination in Structure Planning, IRP 9 1976) and P. Stringer and S. Ewcns, Participation throuih fibtic Meetings: thicase in North East Luncash,$e (Shefftcld:. Linked Research Pro&t into Public Participation in Structure Plannina. IRP 2. 1975).

2. See P. Strinpr, ?4e Press andPublicity& Public Participation (Sh&ield: Linked Rcscarch Project into Public Participation in Structure Planning, IRP 12, 1977) pp. 4-7.

3. See L. J. Sharpc (cd.), Vofiflg in Cities, (Macmillan, 1966). 4. G. Almond and S. E. L. Verba, 7Xe Civic Culture (Boston: Little Brown, 1965) pp. 186207 discuss this point. 5. See Almond and Verba op. cif. and W. A. Hampton, Democracy and Commu~~lry (OUP, 1970). 6. This point is discussed extensively in Goldsmith and Saunders op. cir.; Stringer. op. cit., and W. A. Hampton

and R. Walker, The Individual Cifizen andPublic Participation (Shefftcld: Linked Research Project into Public Participation in Structure Planning, IRP 13. 1978).

7. K. Newton, Second City Politics (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976) pp. 3 l-88. See also B. Zisk, Local Interest Polirics: One Way Street (New York: Bobbs-Merrill 1973).

8. Goldsmith and Saunders, op. cit.

CHAPTER 9

Planning for Democrat y

‘In a free democratic society, where cultural freedom. not cultural uniformity, is the purpose of planning. social ends are rtfledcd in the final impact of plans and policies on the lives of individuals; and they resolve themselves at that point into values that are simple and intelligible as well as significant.’ Barbara Wootton. Freedom Under Planning.

The nature of our research and the way in which public participation has been undertaken create an appearance of separation from the context in which it takes place. At best public participation is seen as a purely technical exercise and at worst as an awkward addition to conventional local authority planning. In reality it is neither of those things. Public participation is not a selfcontained activity, nor is it an end in itself. Both intentionally and unintentionally, it is affected by, and affects, the context in which it is undertaken. Some members of the public are satisfied, in the short-term at least, with the mere fact of being involved in a participation exercise, but participation is more than mere involvement. Participation must be judged in relation to the nature and purpose of planning and of the democratic processes of local government. It must also be judged in relation to the local authority as a whole, and by its effects on the whole population of the area. Partial and particular analysis may be misleading.

Such a widening of the analysis of public participation raises many questions. The nature of planning and of democracy are both the subject of wide differences of opinion. The local authority is a varied and complex organisation housing many actors with divergent views

about both topics - and about participation. They are faced by an equally heterogeneous public. Despite such difficulties, participation in structure planning has been undertaken with these wider issues in mind. Planners have been affected by their views of what planning is about and politicians by their relationships with the planners. The public have responded in the light of their experiences and expectations. However, the basic questions with which we started remain. How do we evaluate participation? Has it been a success or can it become successful?

Such questions revolve around more basic issues. Local government in general, and planning as a part of it, is concerned with providing services appropriate to different sections of the public. It is about who gets what and when. This is most obvious in the allocation of school places or council houses. It is equally relevant for planning. Planners may not provide direct services but their plans are designed to condition those who do, while development control attempts to ensure conformity with such plans. The provision of local services will have different effects on various sections of the public so local government and planning are also about how resources are allocated. Who decides and by what means, who gets what and when. These two groups of questions lie at the heart of public participation. They are inevitably related, and both are important in an assessment

of participation. If participation is to be assessed in relation to the concepts of planning and democracy,

these concepts need to be more fully understood. The requirement for public participation was imposed on planning which may not be the most appropriate aspect of local government for its implementation. The basic character of planning is one of uncertainty. Though planning is concerned to give precision to future intentions it can never be wholly precise. The present is never fully understood, let alone the future. Despite the difficulties

94

Plenning and PmTicipetion in Practice 95

plans involve commitments, even if allowance is made for modification and adaptation: moreover they do not commit the planners alone. Planners and plans commit others to

courses of action and this indirect effect is an important aspect of planning. Democracy, or the how of decision making, is equally complex. The term can mean full popular participation, an indirect, representative system, or varied combinations between these two positions. Different citizens or groups may enjoy different access and involvement in the governmental system while the system as a whole remains democratic. Who enjoys what degree of access and why become fundamental questions.

Participation must be related to these factors: objectives in undertaking it must be considered in these terms. The overriding question, both for planners and participants, must be why participate? In the minds of some planners, the objective may be to explain future commitments or to dispel aspects of uncertainty. In the public mind the objective may be to change future intentions or to clarify uncertainties. Among some politicians participation may be about widening the range of those involved, or about sustaining representative methods whoever is involved. Some of the public may engage in participation to maintain advantage, while for others it may be to gain advantage.

Positions vary with the person or group involved and with the situation confronting them. Only when these positions are clear can one judge participation. The legislation and advice and circulars do not help. They do not specify objectives or intentions. Implications may be drawn from them, but in the last resort these are matters of judgement. None of our local authorities did as little as the statute seems to require, yet none could be sure they would satisfy the Secretary of State. The understandable absence of national criteria leaves local authorities with an open door. Whether they go through, and how far, depends on them.

The rest of this chapter examines these broader issues. We are concerned with the legislative, governmental and political framework within which participation takes place; and we enter strong pleas for a change of attitude on the part of the people involved. Some of our judgements may seem harsh, but they are not intended to reflect on individuals or on the various local authorities we have observed. We simply wish to emphasise our main point: participation is not a technical exercise, it has profound implications for the planning and governmental systems within which it occurs. Existing programmes of participation could be improved by a more analytical approach and by a more careful use of techniques, but a movement towards full public participation would imply radical changes in these systems. We believe such a move to be justified on general social and political grounds: other people will disagree; but at least we hope the argument wil1 be conducted in these terms. Evaluation is an empty phrase until we know what we are trying to achieve.

The legislation is part of the complex context within which participation is embedded. One can ask whether the statute book was a fertile ground in which to sow the seeds of participation; there was clear evidence of some participation in planning before 1968. Legislation certainly formalised what was already in train. But how far did it go in encouraging or inhibiting those earlier initiatives?

Both the stimulating and numbing powers of the Act influenced the Skeffington Committee’s work. An optimistic and enthusiastic group of people produced an elaboration of the bare statements in the Act. They made a series of recommendations which embodied much of the more progressive thinking among planners, local‘government officers and others about how participation might be put into effect. Parts of the report may in the future play a role in helping participatory efforts forward, but in the short term this movement has been inhibited. To some sectors of central government People and Planning went a very long way beyond the statutory requirements. Accordingly Circular 52/72 may be seen as an attempt to temper any undue enthusiasm.

Planners in many structure planning authorities have clearly been enabled by the general statements in the Act to develop pre-1968 participation activities. Ifthepracticeofthe 196Osis taken as a standard, in many senses the participation exercises which we monitored went far beyond the mere provision of adequate publicity and the receipt and consideration of representations. And yet this may have been both a desirableandanundesirableconsequence


of open-ended legislative drafting. At best it represented an imaginative and energetic response to a contemporary political breeze; but it also showed fear of not satisfying the Secretary of State with theReport on PublicParticipation. In general,anyattemptto makethe statutory requirements or the advice which flows from them more precise and specific would quickly provoke accusations that the government was not giving local authorities sufficient room for manoeuvre in designing participation programmes which will tit local circumstances. Nevertheless, the statutory requirement to give satisfaction, before there was any clear indication of what the necessary conditions might be, generated anxiety and irritation among those responsible for public participation exercises. The requirements were over-interpreted and the Secretary of State’s inferred but obscure attitudes became of greater importance than the Act. In consequence, activity was often more important than thought, and events more important than objectives. Difficulties are presented for participation by the two-tier system of local government and planning, and particularly by the introduction of structure planning. A third tier, central government, also poses problems in the ambivalence of its relation with local government. Statutory requirements are enacted, but the interpretation or advice which is offered leaves a wide range of choice. Structure plan participation is usually required before local plan participation. Little participation in regional planning has been achieved. The complex interaction of the various levels of government together with the different requirements for public participation in the preparation of various types of plan leaves both the public and the practitioners uncertain of their ground. Trunk road planning provides an example of an area where local and central government officers work very closely together and where the conflicts of national, regional and local considerations come into play. These two characteristics should make it a useful trial ground for working through the problems imposed on participation and planning by tiers of government. And yet the provisions for and practice of, road planning consultation are a shadow of what one finds in the development plan system. Nor are more satisfactory models to be found elsewhere.

Many planners base their decisions about participation exercises on a series of assumptions about how such exercises should be organised. It is accepted for example, that the planning department should be the first point of contact for transmitting information between them and the public; that ‘public participation’ should involve the entire public; that something closely akin to the draft statement, or its summary, should be communicated. Such assumptions inhibit imaginative interpretations of the statutory requirements. The possibilities of participation exercises which are managed to a significant extent by others than local authority officers are not considered, despite the accompanying economies of time and money. The involvement of the public as a whole in the structure plan process is such an absurdity that the first task in a participation exercise should be to redefine the term ‘public’. But this is scarcely ever done. If it is attempted, imaginative initiatives are more likely. If planning proposals were communicated to the public by people other than planners it is possible that such changes in the message transmitted would be valid indications of a laymen’s differing viewpoint, as well as allowing more effective communication. They might even be taken as spontaneous and unselfconscious responses to the proposals.

Possibly the grossest assumption of all is that the planning team knows what it will do with any responses elicited from the public. Elaborate and expensive information collection exercises are mounted which produce a great deal of complex data. The planning team later find that they have neither the resources nor the techniques to handle it and it is laid aside. At this level the problem can be readily solved: either survey-type exercises are abandoned, or the available techniques are mastered. But at other levels there is no easy technical solution. Whether and how responses are to be processed and transmitted to elected members is more than a technical question. Similarly, the planners may not be prepared to accept the public’s view of the way in which their representations should be made. Handling the response is a task which needs to be systematically designed rather than treated as an innate skill.

The failure to see beyond these assumptions goes hand in hand, in mutual reinforcement, with an emphasis on techniques. Techniques of communication are seized on partly


because of their familiarity, at least to planners. Exhibitions, public meetings and talks to groups, leaflets, and press coverage were familiar if not very frequent aspects of a planning department’s work before 1968. They tended to lend themselves to the kind of visual presentation which was encouraged by planners’ training and which was embodied in the statutory submission of town or county maps. These media are in many ways more suited to the business of development control than to structure planning.

These techniques are also a visible demonstration that something is being done. Holding an exhibition and meeting in every settlement, within say 5 miles of virtually all households, and distributing a leaflet to every household are seen as the kind of positive actions which can scarcely fail to satisfy the Secretary of State. Techniques which try to stimulate interaction between the local authority and the public are more difficult to introduce and less amenable to evaluation: the ‘numbers game’ or the counting of heads are insufficient criteria upon which to judge, for example, a community forum.

The development of an attitude or orientation toward participation is more important than ephemeral achievements but it is this change of attitude which is lacking, both in the failure to be explicit about objectives, and in the almost exclusively planner-centred management of participation. If this review has seemed to be less about how the public might participate than about the ways in which planners might get them to participate, this has been no more than a reflection of the state of play. One might be less troubled by participation not being for citizens in general, as part of their political education, if alternative models were being followed. Whether administrative ease and uncontentious inquiries or more closely determined and effective plans were the goal, spelling it out would ultimately be more beneficial, not only to the products of participation but also to the promotion of a more participatory society. Understanding why events move as they do is the cognitive prerequisite of participation as a political force, and the understanding should start with the agents.

It is important to stress the possibility of alternative objectives for participation. There may be preferred ideology, but the term itself admits of many valid interpretations. We have pointed to administrative, technical, redistributive and educational objectives. While our own values would probably tend to hold to varying mixtures of the latter two objectives, others are equally valid within the restricted systems which gave them definition. Participation is a rich term, but the richness tends to careless use and ultimately to cynicism about many of the values and processes to which it.refers. Where the purposes of participation are not spelled out by its practitioners it rapidly becomes a meaningless catch-word.

One of the advantages of widely understood objectives is that the understanding helps to integrate the citizen into his social and political institutions and to integrate the planner with his colleagues and with those whom he serves. Planning and participation are alike in tending toward the corporate. The Development Plan manual demonstrates the possible scope of planning, even though certain restrictions were later laid on it. The idea of planning as a land-use controlling device alone has become almost untenable in the light of the complexities of public administration. Planning involves and needs to be integrated with the work of other departments. This corporate approach is intuitively recognized by the public, when they refuse to confme.their questions or comments to ‘strictly planning issues’. There is a danger that if the scope of planning is restricted the public will be uninterested in participation.

Participation exercises need to orientate themselves toward identifiable groups with some deliberately specific message, communication technique and expectations. At the same time there is a danger that too much may be made of group membership. An important disadvantage in over-emphasis on group participation is that it might lead away from a corporate approach to participation. Tactically the heterogeneous public must be recognised; but strategically participation tends toward the creation of a unified, but not consensual, public.

Throughout the review we have emphasised that purpose and objective must be decided before effective decisions can be made about participation. But that cannot be done in isolation. One of the major lessons of our work is that planning and participation must be


seen as interdependent. It is not enough to decide what is expected of, or wanted from participation. We would argue that effective participation, whichever view is taken of the public’s role in government and planning, depends more on an adjustment of planning and planners to the public, than the reverse.

Change and adaptation often challenge established positions and in this case will affect the distribution of power in society and the allocation of resources. This has not happened yet in the cases we considered and it may be that those who introduced and organised participation did not intend it to happen. Public participation was to serve the needs of planning and planners who were believed to be serving the needs of the public. In a democracy the needs of the public must come first: the interpretations of professionals, whatever their specialism, seldom agree completely with public opinion.

A number of implications have emerged from our work about the kinds of changes that are needed. Legislation for public participation implies that structural changes in rules and institutions can modify behaviour. and they can. We have commented on the significant, though unpredicted, effect on public participation of the requirement to satisfy the Secretary of State. But attitudes must change as well if behaviour and results are to be different. Institutional change can encourage this but by itself it cannot make it happen.

The lessons for the planners are clear, though implementation of them will not be easy. Planners share with other local government officers a professional status which needs to be reconsidered. Extensive graduate and postgraduate training and the control of planning practice through the Royal Town Planning Institute are some of the outer trappings which condition more general attitudes and values about planning and society. Aspects of this professional model and the content of its practice and idealogy must adapt if planners are to mediate in public participation.

Many of the planners in our live authorities had obvious difficulty in litting participation into their view of planning and their own perception of their role. Training and later practice had not given any basis for doing this. The general failure to involve elected members in participation, though partly the result of councillors’ own attitudes, reflects this. The failure may not mark a rejection of representative government, and in our cases certainly did not, but it does mark a reluctance to see public participation as having any relationship with established structures of democratic decision taking. Planners’ training must include more theory about planning and democracy: planning is a political activity and its social and political aspect must become as important as the technical aspect. Only when their own work can be put in this context will they be able to handle participation effectively.

This is not a plea for planners to accept participant democracy as the norm. It is a recognition that any rational pursuit of that or any other goal depends on much clearer understanding of the social dynamics in which they operate. Car ownership figures and traffic censuses are not the raw material of planning: people, and the needs of people, should be the starting point. Techniques are not redundant, but they need a theoretical setting in which they become the servants and not the masters of planners. The wide use of random sample surveys often reflects a lack of awareness of the social and political context from which people reply to questions. Without that awareness the results can mislead, in some cases disastrously.

Such major changes are beginning in some places but are unlikely to spread quickly. Some of the planners with particular responsibility for participation in our case studies had moved towards the position we advocate; in some cases that was why they undertook the work. Their attitudes were seen in ambitious intentions as in Merseyside and an imaginative programme in South Yorkshire. The success of such efforts can be developed; their failure against more demanding criteria is not important. The limits on their success reflect the prevailing ideology of planners which is based on a technical/rational model and this may change as we all become more humble in our search for solutions to social problems. Equally there are structural barriers to greater success implicit in the present nature of planning and the governmental context in which it is set. These must change too.

The complex structure of government and planning does not help participation. The interaction of central government, county councils and district councils produces


constraints, often unintentional, which condition participation. The existence of three levels of government means that responsibility for different functions must be divided or shared between them. Neither position is clear and the result is sometimes chaotic. People have to understand a complex governmental machine: it might have been better if the machine had been adjusted to the people in the manner suggested by the Royal Commission on Local Government.

The nature of planning in relation to the structure of government is directly relevant to participation. The obligation to involve the public is imposed at the structure and the local plan level, as the structure plan determines limits for the local plan. Public involvement must take place when determining decisions are made. Even if the public do not determine the outcome, there must be a possibility of doing so. But are structure plans an appropriate setting for public participation?

Our research suggests that they are not. Motivation arises at the point where the individual or group perceive the relevance of planning. The siting of schools or the line of a motorway has implications for those who live near the chosen sites and for those who do not. The implications will vary between those who own cars and those who do not, parents and others affected by the presence of a school. Issues of this kind are concrete and the public can appreciate their effects, there are immediate issues to engage them and future intentions may not materialise.

Unfortunately structure plans have characteristics which make participation difficult. They are general, tend to deal with a limited range of abstract issues and with remote futures. Some people who already contribute are capable of commenting at a strategic level and sometimes raise fundamental issues underlying planning proposals, but planners find that few people are able to deal with the strategic issues which they do not see as relevant to their own lives. The structure planners must read the comments and opinions made about particular matters for their wider implications: the public must learn to appreciate the significance of developing general policy.

This two-way exchange is complicated by the division within planning. The development of a single level of local authority planning may eventually be necessary if public and planners are to communicate effectively. Only then will we avoid the issues of demarcation and relevance which affected theauthorities we observed. The planners taking the long- term view will then also be responsible for short-term developments. There will be problems and difftculties: structural change cannot avoid them; short-term interests cannot always be reconciled with long-term - but they can be seen and presented to the public together. If the planning system prevents this, and it seems to, and if we seriously want people to participate, the planning system must be changed.

Changes in attitude by planners and public will take a long time and will involve continuing education on both sides. Participatory planning does not end with the production of a plan, nor even with an updating of a plan. It requires that planning should be seen as a process, germane to all activity, whether transport and land-use, education or housing, and the process should involve the public. If planning is to be for people it must adjust to people - operating at their level and at their pace. Finite plans do not work in this way, but a process approach to planning has the possibility.

The deficiencies of the existing practice of local democracy were cited in our first chapter as one of the reasons for the introduction of statutory public participation in planning.

The proportion voting in local elections was low, and falling; the general attitude towards councillors was one of indifference or hostility; and the knowledge of local services and institutions was minimal. The introduction of public participation was not intended to overcome all these deficiencies; nor would it be sensible to try to resolve such problems simply by institutional reform - but the phrases contained in the Act were a recognition of the need to improve opportunities for the general public to comment on local planning matters.

The Act gave little guidance on how this improvement might be achieved and the implications for local democracy were left obscure. Worthwhile advice could only be based on the distillation of lessons from experience and became available only as the results of research like our own, and the first public participation statements, were published. Even


these were open to different interpretations so local authorities formed their own judgement on the requirements of the legislation. The obvious and safest course was to provide more information through such techniques as public meetings and exhibitions and to obtain information on public attitudes through public surveys. The public would remain removed from the political process of deciding how to allocate resources; and the improved communication channels would be filtered through planning officers. The alternative approach involving more people more closely in the political process would imply more interaction between them and the elected councillors. We saw no attempts to pursue this approach.

The implied failure of local representatives to reflect their constituents’ views is a contentious issue in discussing public participation with councillors. They see little need to supplement their work in their own wards and fear their responsibilities will be undermined by unrepresentative pressure groups, fears which may be exaggerated or misplaced. Again we find public participation grafted onto an existing structure: the planners accept it as an addition to their normal work of planning; the other local authority departments regard it as a peripheral activity of the planning department; and the councillors treat it as extraneous to political decision-taking.

A change in the relationship between local people and the political process would presuppose a different attitude towards public decision-making. The councillor would not be trying to maintain a position of superiority. He would welcome the chance to understand other people’s attitudes to particular policies.

Such a change of attitude is consistent with the councillor keeping his right to make decisions: public discussion has become more open, but the political process remains fundamentally the same. Many people would be satisfied with this interpretation of public participation and consider any other interpretation would dangerously erode the basis of representative democracy. There are other interpretations, however, which consider the major issue to be the dispersal of political power.

In a democracy the wishes of the people should form the basis of public policy. The

difficulty is to decide how these wishes can be ascertained; the political struggle is to determine which people shall have the greatest influence. The official discussions and practice of public participation assume a broad consensus about policy issues: the intention is to smooth disputes by providing more information and by removing misunderstandings. We doubt such a sanguine outlook. The conflicts about local policy are real conflicts about the distribution of local resources among different sections of the population. Any scheme which gives different sections of the public different access to policy-making procedures may reinforce existing inequalities. That is why many Labour councillors are suspicious of public participation programmes which draw a disproportionate response from people who already have the skills to exercise social power. It is the reasoning which underlies the recommendations in the Skeffington Report for the appointment of community development officers and the use of part-time community workers in South Yorkshire.

Fundamental questions about the effects of different systems of local government lie behind the discussions about changes in the structure and management of local authorities which have taken place over the past few years, and they are inherent in our discussion of public participation. The difficulty is that they are seldom made explicit. Royal Commissions on local government pretend decisions about local boundaries can be made without any reference to the political and social consequences that changes will incur. Committees on management in local government either ignore political considerations or else hope that they will not influence decisions on management structure; similarly with public participation. Public participation is not politically neutral, but its consequences for democracy are not easily identified. These consequences will depend on how the programme is organised, what methods are used, and perhaps crucially, on the attitudes of the people concerned whether planners, councillors or participants.

One difficulty in conducting a discussion about the effects of public participation on the practice of local democracy is the lack of any relevant theoretical framework for the discussion. We do not understand how various policies or combinations of policies affect the distribution of resources in local authority areas. What policies would be needed to


stop the decline of certain inner-city areas, or to ensure a fairer access to the housing stock? Or what consequences for industry would follow from a switch from building roads to more use of public transport, and what effects it would have on local employment prospects? Our lack of knowledge makes it difficult to assess the likely success of structure plans or central government policies concerned with these issues. Some local authorities say that their plans are intended to favour certain broad sections of the population, but we cannot judge whether they will be successful. Many local authorities do not even express their objectives in these terms and may be oblivious of the redistributive effects of the policies they propose.

The low level of theoretical understanding about how local democratic procedures work makes it difficult to predict the effects of changes in the relationship between the people and their elected representatives. We have been largely concerned with attempts to improve the communication of information relevant to decision making: but a stronger view of public participation could imply changes in how and when local decisions were made. An increase in the practice of co-option to existing committees is one possibility; greater decentralisation to neighbourhood or community councils is another. Any such proposal would increase the number of people who participate, but the consequences for local democracy also depend on factors like the provision made for localities or groups of people who remain excluded from these activities. In the last analysis, our attitude towards public participation and the way in which we evaluate its success or failure depends on ethical rather than technical decisions. If democracy implies that the wishes of the people form the

basis of public policy then these wishes must be ascertained before policy is decided. We have discussed the ways in which this might be achieved and argued about the possible consequences for planning and local democracy, but we believe in the fundamental purposes of participation. For democratic reasons planning must start from the interests of the people. This implies greater interaction between the views of the people and the technical skills of the planners. The conflicts which are implicit in policy proposals will not necessarily become more easily resolved, but they will become more open and more amenable to political decisions. Too often at present presumed technical needs pre-empt political judgement - whether of the councillors or the people.

In our case study areas we observed conscientious attempts to interpret public participation in the light of current viewpoints and understanding. We might expect the possibilities to grow as experience teaches how public participation works in practice. As this happens the nature of the audience being addressed by the planners may change. If the numbers involved are to grow, opportunities must be matched by increased motivation to respond on the part of the public.

Prospective participants could be encouraged by an education which gives them the self- confidence and skills needed to perform their role as citizens. This does not necessarily mean formal classes; nor should we believe that only prospective participants would benefit from opportunities to learn more about planning and political processes: participation should be an opportunity to learn for planners and public. The planner, the councillor, and the well-informed citizen should accept their responsibilities as a source of public education and encouragement, while also accepting that not everyone will wish to participate however favourable the opportunities.

The previous paragraph should not be read as a prelude to social indoctrination. We are not proposing a single transmission of information from the ‘expert’ to the public: we hold to an interactive view in education as in participation. The proportion of the population who respond will increase when we adopt techniques that suit people’s expectations and perceptions. Participation itself should be preceded by an attempt to discover the public’s views on how their opinions might be canvassed. In this way a public participation programme can be chosen to match the needs of the people it will serve. It is worth asking people what kind of participation they want. Do they simply want to be told what proposals are being formulated, or do they also wish to make a positive response in the knowledge that their voice will be heard? There will probably be variations in the extent to which different individuals and groups are ready for more interactive forms of participation, but they will all be able to say what medium of communication they would prefer.


At a higher level, people can indicate what their objectives for participation are: what kind of relationship, what degree of co-orientation with planners they wish to have. In general, planners and public assume that their viewpoints coincide even though the coincidence is seldom verified. It is inconceivable that agreement could occur within the foreseeable future across a society which is so complex and has such divergent objectives as at present. To make agreement the desired state today tends towards a consensual framework which can only incorporate a few sectors of the public: those who don’t agree are excluded by default. A preferable goal might be that all concerned should perceive their differences accurately. Many of the participation exercises which we have monitored have tried to do this. Planners have told the public of their proposals and the public have been given some opportunities to give the planners their reactions - but this is not enough. What is needed is a search for mutual understanding and mutual adjustment to different points of view. This could lead to a fuller democracy.

One cannot overestimate the difficulties of reaching this goal or even its acceptance as a goal. We have seen some of these difficulties in the extent of professionalism in planning and in the nature of structure planning; in the limited skills and motivation of many people; and in the uncertainty, multiplicity and complexity of local government and its relation to the public. But despite these difftculties and the rather tenuous movement which has been’made towards the higher objectives of participation, we remain convinced that progress is possible. The form it will take depends upon the interaction of planners, politicians and the public.

Documents

Planning and participation in practice: A study of public participation in structure planning