Let's be up-beat! It does seem that neighbourhood planning is throwing up some interesting initiatives. After my lecture, I was told by someone that a neighbourhood plan in the vicinity of the Elephant and Castle area of London - an area subject to a long history of reliance on growth-dependent planning - now includes a policy stating that developments have to have regard to the specific needs of the local Hispanic community. This would be a fascinating departure, highlighting the need to plan specifically for local communities that might not benefit from the current development proposals.Indeed this community is at risk of losing vital local retail and commercial facilities from the redevelopment proposals.
Another exciting example comes from Kent where the neighbourhood of St. Margaret's at Cliffe (a walk along the cliff-tops from Dover) is using its community plan to move towards a low-carbon future. This village is already a Kent Low Carbon Community and hosts an eco-conference centre. It is now building sustainability into its draft neighbourhood plan with an emphasis on: sustainable local economic development; sustainable housing including affordable housing; energy efficiency for all the built stock; and decentralised low-carbon energy systems. This looks like another one to watch.
Thursday 28 November 2013
Tuesday 19 November 2013
Marinaleda - an inspirational story
The Observer newspaper has recently carried a fascinating article about a new book - The Village Against the World published by Verso. This tells the story of Marinaleda, a village in Spain, which has responded to the turmoil of Spanish history over the last three or four decades in a quite distinctive way. It seems to be based in a particular form of socialist politics. The Mayor, Juan Manuel Sanchez Gordillo, has represented the village since 1979, standing for his own party, the Collective for Worker's Unity and originally winning 76% of the vote. Under his leadership, the village engaged in protest politics in the 1980s, a key claim being to land around the village belonging to the Duke of Infantado. In 1991 the Andalucian government granted the village 1,200 hectares of this land and this formed the basis of the village's collective farm together with facilities such as a swimming pool, sports centre, school, gardens and some 350 new homes (all 'mortgage-free' according to the paper). The collective basis of the local economy has meant that the villagers have survived even during the austerity budgets of the post-2008 period and the bond-crisis of the Spanish government. Unemployment is reported at 5% compared to the regional level of 36%.
Clearly this can be read as a triumph of oppositional politics and of separation from the capitalist economy. But the important elements, to my mind, of this story are twofold. First, there is the central role that the transfer of land-ownership played. Here we have community landownership underpinning local economic activity and housing development. This just reinforces how little we use this resource in the UK. Second, this is not a village in isolation from the wider capitalist economy. If it has managed to keep unemployment so low, it must be trading its agricultural products with that wider economy. Rather this story seems to fit well with many other stories from lower-income countries where the benefits of collective forms of economic ownership and production enable a 'third' economy - neither the formal economy nor the black economy - to operate successfully. We have often lost sight of this 'third' economy in European countries but it could be ripe for a revival.
Clearly this can be read as a triumph of oppositional politics and of separation from the capitalist economy. But the important elements, to my mind, of this story are twofold. First, there is the central role that the transfer of land-ownership played. Here we have community landownership underpinning local economic activity and housing development. This just reinforces how little we use this resource in the UK. Second, this is not a village in isolation from the wider capitalist economy. If it has managed to keep unemployment so low, it must be trading its agricultural products with that wider economy. Rather this story seems to fit well with many other stories from lower-income countries where the benefits of collective forms of economic ownership and production enable a 'third' economy - neither the formal economy nor the black economy - to operate successfully. We have often lost sight of this 'third' economy in European countries but it could be ripe for a revival.
Thursday 14 November 2013
Tottenham High Street
The Summer of 2011 saw the streets of Tottenham erupt in
violence and looting in the aftermath of the shooting of Mark Duggan by the
police. The subsequent plight of local businesses was highlighted in the press.
But the long term future of the High Street area is bound up with the major
urban regeneration plans of the local council, LB Haringey, intertwined with the
redevelopment plans of the football club, Tottenham Hotspurs. Recent reports in
the Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/oct/30/tottenham-new-stadium-local-business-demolition) suggest that this future is being strongly influenced by the growth-dependent
planning paradigm. The new £400m stadium will bring with it major restructuring
of the area including new shops, cafes, a library and a cinema as well as,
centrally, a new walkway to the stadium for the 56,000 football fans which is
supposed to act as a new public space on non-match days. To make way for all
this a council housing tower block and rows of shops with flats above will be
demolished. But will there be sufficient public gains from the development,
from this replacement of the existing with the new? The concern here seems to
be that the threat of Spurs moving out of Tottenham (voiced during the
discussions over the future of the Olympic Stadium in Stratford) and the impact
of the economic downturn has enabled Spurs in 2012 to renegotiate the planning
obligation which was to provide affordable housing and provide community and
transport facilities worth £16m. The economic power of the football club as
local landowner and leading development partner puts the potential of this
growth-dependent urban regeneration to deliver wider social benefits in
question. To my mind, this is a case where a two-pronged approach is needed.
There needs to be some holding of the line for planning gain arising from the
development; not all the benefits can be assumed to arise from future local
economic growth consequent on the development. And, second, there needs to be a
strategy for those displaced by the development and perhaps left out of any
positive spillover effects. Here a community-led approach could yield dividends
as, indeed, has been shown to work elsewhere in the borough.
Friday 8 November 2013
TCPA "Planning Out Poverty"
The Town and Country Planning Association http://www.tcpa.org.uk/ has just published a report which addresses the question: what role can planning play as part of wider policy interventions to tackle entrenched poverty? This is an important question to ask and try to answer. And I was interested to see the overlap with some of the arguments in The Future of Planning. The report makes four key points:
- the planning system can make a difference;
- but it too often fails to consider distributional impacts and outcomes, particularly for those most in need;
- this is partly because planning has de-prioritised social justice; and
- there are practical measures that can redress this.
It then goes on to make a set of twelve recommendations which can be found at: http://www.tcpa.org.uk/pages/planning-out-poverty.html. There is a strong emphasis here on integrating a concern with poverty reduction into the National Planning Policy Framework, just as I argue for just sustainability to be so-integrated. The publication of the NPPF - while there may be key concerns over its current content - does offer an opportunity for incorporating new principles to guide planning practice. Other recommendations in the TCPA report are perhaps rather generalised, calling for new planning visions and powers. But this emphasises that the time is right for a debate on exactly how the planning system should be reformed and, perhaps, an emerging consensus among many, that low-income communities and those in poverty need to be a focal point for that debate.
- the planning system can make a difference;
- but it too often fails to consider distributional impacts and outcomes, particularly for those most in need;
- this is partly because planning has de-prioritised social justice; and
- there are practical measures that can redress this.
It then goes on to make a set of twelve recommendations which can be found at: http://www.tcpa.org.uk/pages/planning-out-poverty.html. There is a strong emphasis here on integrating a concern with poverty reduction into the National Planning Policy Framework, just as I argue for just sustainability to be so-integrated. The publication of the NPPF - while there may be key concerns over its current content - does offer an opportunity for incorporating new principles to guide planning practice. Other recommendations in the TCPA report are perhaps rather generalised, calling for new planning visions and powers. But this emphasises that the time is right for a debate on exactly how the planning system should be reformed and, perhaps, an emerging consensus among many, that low-income communities and those in poverty need to be a focal point for that debate.
Monday 4 November 2013
Town and parish councils
If community-based planning is to work at all, it requires an institutional base, a way of organising local communities so generate ideas for the local area, harness resources from within the community and maintain open and transparent lines of accountability. The Government has undertaken a consultation exercise on making it easier to create new town or parish councils. So are these the right institutions for community-based planning, management and action? Clearly, given the legislative changes implementing the Localism agenda, there are considerable benefits in having such a council in your neighbourhood. These councils have a General Power of Competence and can exercise the Community Right to Challenge and the Community Right to Bid (in relation to community assets). They hold the new neighbourhood planning powers and also will receive a share of the Community Infrastructure Levy from new development; they can even levy a local tax (or precept) although this will not raise much.
The concern with any such institution must be about its representativeness and transparency. One does not need to believe that everything in "The Archers" is fact rather than fiction to believe some of its portrayal of parish politics. Capture of such councils by a small minority is always a possibility and indeed, representing all elements of a local community (across age, gender, class and ethnicity) may be almost impossible. Consensus cannot always be generated and some form of leadership is necessary for change to be driven through. But the danger of focussing on the 'ease' of creating councils is that the dynamics that have to be put in place to make such councils effective and just may be forgotten.
It is not just about setting up the institution 'vessel' through which community planning will occur. It is also about creating, building, managing, resolving conflicts with the local people - residential and business - who make up that community or amalgam of communities. In the UK we put far too little emphasis on community building, assuming that it will somehow happen in civil society. But such community building can be a vital way of ensuring inclusion and justice in how such parish and town councils operate and we need investment in making this happen.
The concern with any such institution must be about its representativeness and transparency. One does not need to believe that everything in "The Archers" is fact rather than fiction to believe some of its portrayal of parish politics. Capture of such councils by a small minority is always a possibility and indeed, representing all elements of a local community (across age, gender, class and ethnicity) may be almost impossible. Consensus cannot always be generated and some form of leadership is necessary for change to be driven through. But the danger of focussing on the 'ease' of creating councils is that the dynamics that have to be put in place to make such councils effective and just may be forgotten.
It is not just about setting up the institution 'vessel' through which community planning will occur. It is also about creating, building, managing, resolving conflicts with the local people - residential and business - who make up that community or amalgam of communities. In the UK we put far too little emphasis on community building, assuming that it will somehow happen in civil society. But such community building can be a vital way of ensuring inclusion and justice in how such parish and town councils operate and we need investment in making this happen.
After the lecture - Q&As
After the lecture on the 24th October, the Bartlett Urban Planning students also held a seminar last week and the questions raised at both were thought-provoking. I think they can be summarised as follows...
First, there was the issue of how much would be achieved through adopting a community-based approach instead of a growth-dependent approach in various locations. Some could not see real improvements in the well-being and quality of life of low-income communities being tackled without much more structural shifts. Some raised a critique of the capitalist dynamics that create these societal inequalities. In the lecture I did state that a range of policy measures including a revived welfare state and a substantial programme of public sector housing provision were necessary to address societal inequality. I was not seeking to suggest that a community-based planning approach would be a panacea. Indeed I was trying to suggest, in passing, that we too often look to the planning system to solve all urban problems and that we perhaps need to be a bit more modest in our claims for planning. That does not mean we should give up on planning. It does important things but its efforts need to be seen in conjunction with other policies. What I was trying to indicated through the emphasis on community-based planning, is that a reformed planning system could make a small, but not unimportant contribution to improving well-being and quality of life in localities and communities that are largely ignored through the emphasis on growth-dependence.
Second, some raised the question of whether there were not elements of the current government's localism agenda that fitted into the community-based approach. My answer here would be - yes - to a degree. There are indeed elements that could be used as building blocks for the beyond-growth-dependence agenda but they fail for two reasons. The planning system remains attuned to promoting development rather than supporting community initiatives; any clash between the pro-growth stance of the NPPF and local initiatives for local communities are likely to be resolved in favour of the central government policy. And, secondly, there is no mechanism for financial community-based initiatives into the longer-term so that localism may offer much more to local communities with their own resources to invest.
Third, some asked if growth-dependence and community-based approaches were really alternatives. This is an interesting one. It brought home to me that growth-dependence, if successfully implemented, should not mean ignoring communities. Rather it can only really deliver benefits to all sectors of urban communities if such communities are fully involve in and buy into the growth-led plans. And there can be spin-offs from market-led development projects that meet community needs. I would not wish to deny that. I was more concerned to think about those places and communities where market-led development does not reach. Growth-dependence is not an alternative here because it is not being offered by the private sector.
So food for thought. I hope to be back blogging more regularly now that the lecture is done and dusted and the book finally out!
First, there was the issue of how much would be achieved through adopting a community-based approach instead of a growth-dependent approach in various locations. Some could not see real improvements in the well-being and quality of life of low-income communities being tackled without much more structural shifts. Some raised a critique of the capitalist dynamics that create these societal inequalities. In the lecture I did state that a range of policy measures including a revived welfare state and a substantial programme of public sector housing provision were necessary to address societal inequality. I was not seeking to suggest that a community-based planning approach would be a panacea. Indeed I was trying to suggest, in passing, that we too often look to the planning system to solve all urban problems and that we perhaps need to be a bit more modest in our claims for planning. That does not mean we should give up on planning. It does important things but its efforts need to be seen in conjunction with other policies. What I was trying to indicated through the emphasis on community-based planning, is that a reformed planning system could make a small, but not unimportant contribution to improving well-being and quality of life in localities and communities that are largely ignored through the emphasis on growth-dependence.
Second, some raised the question of whether there were not elements of the current government's localism agenda that fitted into the community-based approach. My answer here would be - yes - to a degree. There are indeed elements that could be used as building blocks for the beyond-growth-dependence agenda but they fail for two reasons. The planning system remains attuned to promoting development rather than supporting community initiatives; any clash between the pro-growth stance of the NPPF and local initiatives for local communities are likely to be resolved in favour of the central government policy. And, secondly, there is no mechanism for financial community-based initiatives into the longer-term so that localism may offer much more to local communities with their own resources to invest.
Third, some asked if growth-dependence and community-based approaches were really alternatives. This is an interesting one. It brought home to me that growth-dependence, if successfully implemented, should not mean ignoring communities. Rather it can only really deliver benefits to all sectors of urban communities if such communities are fully involve in and buy into the growth-led plans. And there can be spin-offs from market-led development projects that meet community needs. I would not wish to deny that. I was more concerned to think about those places and communities where market-led development does not reach. Growth-dependence is not an alternative here because it is not being offered by the private sector.
So food for thought. I hope to be back blogging more regularly now that the lecture is done and dusted and the book finally out!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)