Public involvement in decision-making is core to Planning Democracy’s work and as one of the charity’s trustees I’m often talking about creating a step-change in engagement. But lurking somewhere in the back of my head there’s always a niggling question – is it really possible? What would actually happen if important decisions were made with lots of people involved?

Images come to mind of dusty near-empty public meetings or infuriating committees with too many people never coming to a decision. I find it useful in these cases to remember all the pretty stupid mistakes or unfair decisions made by people in power that could have been avoided if they had taken the time to listen to those whom their decision affects.

So, where do these doubts about public engagement come from? Involve and the RSA have explored this in a recent report called From Fairytale to Reality. What is holding us back, they conclude, from a step-change in public engagement is a set of outdated myths.

The five myths From Fairytale to Reality identifies are:

1. Engagement is too expensive
2. Citizens aren’t up to it
3. Engagement only works for easy issues
4. Citizen power is a floodgate we should avoid at all costs
5. Citizens don’t want to be involved, they just want good services

I have certainly heard, and thought, all of these at some point in my life. The report refers to these phrases as “myths” in the sense that they are untrue but also, more importantly, that they are stories and narratives.

People constantly use stories and narratives as a short-hand way of interpreting and understanding the world. It would, after all, get very tiresome if we had to constantly re-evaluate everything afresh. So short-hand myths are useful but they can also stop us innovating or being able to see another way is possible.

Breaking down our cultural myths and the barriers they form to our thinking is only possible by replacing them with a new story and a positive narrative about how engagement works thorough examples. The report gives six inspiring examples from around the world and a set of recommendations, many of which apply to land-use decision-making.

Supporters of public engagement in the planning system (like Planning Democracy) need to use more myth-busting practical examples and positive narratives to show how involving people, and limiting more powerful interests to level the playing field, delivers better outcomes.

The way the planning system currently operates means there are serious structural and cultural barriers to participation, this makes positive Scottish stories difficult to come by. Still, we’d like to hear about good stories and positive changes we can promote – feel free to share your thoughts in the comments below.

Who possesses
this landscape?
The man who bought it or
I who am
possessed by it?

False questions,
For this landscape
Is masterless
And intractable
In any terms
That are human

(Norman McCaig, A Man in Assynt)

Today Norman McCaig’s words are carved into the Canongate Wall of the Scottish Parliament, sitting on the side of the building where the false questions he posed are periodically debated. Their presence is a poetic counterpoint to more prosaic legal and political realities. Whilst land may be beyond value, masterless even, it is also inscribed with multiple different values whose often intractable claims must be adjudicated between in all too human terms. This is often the job of everyone’s favourite bête noir – the planning system.

The planning system in Scotland remains recognisable in form to that created in the surge of post-war social-democratic optimism. Though the outright nationalisation of land was ultimately rejected, the right to develop and change its use was brought under public control. In principle this meant curtailing the rights of ‘the man who bought it’ to do as he [sic] wished with his land, recognising a wider public interest in the democratic steering of change to town and country. This principle remains in place today – an anachronism perhaps, and one around which many of society’s contradictory demands for land have become entangled.

In truth, the system and its guiding principles never really worked as intended. The production of authoritative plans to rationally guide the development of a brave new world proved more difficult than expected. As publicly-led projects gave way to the vagaries of private market-based development, plans struggled to keep up. Planning became a reactive process responding to the restless search for profit. Without a mechanism for effectively capturing the increases in land values that planning decisions created, publicly generated benefits simply lined private pockets. Socially-progressive ambitions for planning drained away as visions of a better, high-rise future became all too concrete and the idea that planners (or anyone else) might know best what’s good for us came to be rightly challenged.

In Scotland the government has clearly been receptive to this neoliberal ‘common-sense’, often reinforced by complaints from the development industry about the costs of planning regulation

Today ‘the planners’ are a convenient scapegoat for the failings of our towns and cities. Beneath the negative public perception though there is arguably a more complex picture. The scars on many of our high streets and housing estates reveal more about uneven patterns of investment and disinvestment than they do about planning decisions. There have also been some less-heralded successes. Settlements have been contained, areas of natural beauty and environmental value conserved. Even when people sigh and complain about the latest carbuncle the planners have allowed they express a belief that better planning is needed rather than none at all. After all, who’s to say how the landscape would look if the market had been left to its own devices? Yet ‘more market’ is precisely the neoliberal remedy that seems to be driving change to planning in Scotland today.

The planning system is still going through a protracted period of ‘modernisation’ – a process begun in the early days of the new Parliament that has included the passing in 2006 of the first planning legislation since devolution. Over the last ten years the Scottish Government has articulated a range of different ambitions for a ‘modern’ planning system. This has included the laudable but somewhat technocratic sounding goal of making development plans more effective at integrating the impacts of different public services on places. It has also involved the aim of better including people in the making of plans and decisions, recognising that provisions for public participation in planning have rarely proved effective or helped to ensure public trust in decision-making. Most pervasive of all, however has been a concern to improve the efficiency of decisions, ensuring that local authorities are ‘open for business’ and able to ‘facilitate’ development. This latter purpose has become increasingly pronounced under the SNP as the pursuit of ‘sustainable economic growth’ has been promoted above all else, effectively subsuming other goals to the simplistic equation that development = economic growth = success (perhaps even = independence?). Development has therefore become synonymous with the public interest, the prime public good that the planning system should seek to promote.

The founding assumption behind this pursuit of a more efficient system is that planning is a form of regulation that imposes often unacceptable costs on businesses and developers, negatively impacting on the economy. This view of planning has become common currency and is driving increasingly chaotic reform in England as well as further changes in Wales and Northern Ireland. Whilst there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to support it there is little systematic research beyond that produced by neoliberal economists whose own starting assumptions are rarely critically examined.

In Scotland the government has clearly been receptive to this neoliberal ‘common-sense’, often reinforced by complaints from the development industry about the costs of planning regulation. The strength of the development = economic growth = success equation reflects and reinforces the power of pro-development lobbies. They are able to claim that the logic of market success and failure is the only way to truly evaluate their proposals. The planning profession have responded by seeking to change their ‘culture’, presenting a more business friendly face that emphasises their concern to ‘proactively’ make development happen.

All of this has promoted a managerial approach, where the role of the planning system is to realise the unquestioned public benefits generated by development. In this context, however, other public goods that the planning system might seek to promote and protect, social and environmental justice or local democratic renewal, risk being cast aside. Community views, for example, come to be all too readily ignored. Development is done to people not with them and they are exposed to its costs whilst rarely believing in or experiencing its proclaimed benefits (see ‘Revaluing public participation in Scotland’s planning system’ report produced by the charity Planning Democracy). High profile cases such as Donald Trump’s business class bullying of the Aberdeenshire coastline and its residents give an indication of what is at stake in countless other developments across the country. Worryingly, the undifferentiated elision of growth with the public interest also leads to a failure to fully interrogate the proclaimed benefits of development or to assess who such ‘growth’ will benefit if it does materialise. These are key questions that it should be the task of the planning system to both ask and answer.

This is not to suggest that development and growth cannot and do not bring important public benefits. Nor, needless to say, is it an argument for an inefficient planning system or a blanket defence of existing practices. However, it does take us back to McCaig, to the intractability of the land and to questions of how it should be valued and how conflict over who ‘possesses it’ and to what purposes should be resolved.

The costs and benefits of development are contested and contestable, they are certainly not evenly distributed, and in some cases they are hard to demonstrate to a sceptical public. Indeed, proposed development often raises contradictory responses from people whose otherwise intact commitment to the virtues of market forces can be challenged by the threat to landscapes they hold dear. Yet in planning, as in so many areas of public life, the neoliberal common sense fails to address such fundamental tensions.

Any convincing account from the left of how local government should work needs to spell out how people can be empowered to take control over decisions that affect their lives. This implies the democratisation of the social processes that shape our prospects so that they can be purposively and inclusively planned to create the kind of futures we want.

A system of land-use planning is a necessary part of such an account (see http://bit.ly/Vduhe6). It should provide people with a democratic mechanism through which to debate the kinds of places they want to live in now and in the future, taking into account the full range of ways that people relate to and ‘possess’ the land, and assessing where the public interest lies in relation to different forms of development and different models of growth. Such a democratically inclusive process should also seek to shape more socially and environmentally just and sustainable outcomes.

Those three ‘shoulds’ in the two paragraphs above are important. On the one hand, they might seem a rather depressing reminder of how far removed actually existing democracy, local government and land-use planning are from such a reality. On the other hand, however, those three ‘shoulds’ are also a reminder of why democracy, local government and planning are worth fighting for. In their absence it is the all too visible hand of the market that makes and remakes the places we live in.

So what would a radical agenda for planning look like? There are various traditions that might be drawn on to sketch such a picture. These range from more statist solutions that point towards a strengthening and renewal of local government, to more variegated strands of thought that would promote enhanced forms of community control and development of land. At the root of all such conceptions, however, must be a strong belief in democratic control of the land – creating just processes to shape more just places. This requires a fundamental reconnection of planning reform to questions of land reform (processes that have been all too conspicuously separate since devolution). Land and property markets have long been key drivers of inequality in Scotland and yet the failings of a property driven economy have not yet led to fundamental questioning of their role, or a much-needed search for new ways of understanding where the public interest lies in controlling and regulating them. Instead it is the interests of those who buy and sell the land that continue to dominate whilst other claims are sidelined or ignored. A radical reassertion of the public interest justification for planned intervention in the development and use of land is required to create a more just and sustainable Scotland; redistributing the economic value generated by the land, whilst recognising and respecting other ways of ‘possessing’ it.

In a previous court hearing Largs resident Marco McGinty made the case that Hunterston should be removed from Scotland’s national plan, the National Planning Framework, because the power station proposals were never advertised in a local paper and no alternatives were credibly considered as required by EU law. Both these problems stemmed from the fact the power station was only added into the plan at the very last minute.

Marco has nothing to gain financially from this case (and risks losing thousands of pounds). Under Scotland’s ancient rules, having no direct financial interest in something meant you had no interest in it in law. There was no place for people who were defending something purely in the “public interest”, such as the environment which can’t go to court itself. Marco’s case has already helped to change that by successfully arguing that people who take cases in the public interest should not be faced with unlimited expenses should they lose. The first Protective Expenses Order for a public interest case was awarded, but at a very high level – £30,000 not including lawyer’s fees and no legal aid was available.

However the battle was not done. While one judge agreed the case was in the public interest (as opposed to Marco’s interest) and awarded the cap on his expenses; a second judge dismissed the whole case on the grounds Marco himself didn’t have enough ‘title and interest’ in the case.

Only a month later a Supreme Court decision changed the law after Friends of the Earth Scotland highlighted the fact people were barred from taking cases in the public interest.

The court hearing this week is an appeal. Marco’s lawyers will be arguing that his case is in the public interest and he has sufficient interest in the case (he lives nearby and makes almost daily bird-watching trips to the site) for it to be heard.

Lawyers will also be arguing for a reduction in the expenses cap. International law called the Aarhus Convention to which the UK is a signatory means there should be no significant financial barrier to somebody bringing an environmental public interest case. Marco’s expenses cap should he lose was set at £30,000 (not including costs estimated at £80,000). This is a significant financial barrier to just about anyone and so the court will hear arguments it should be reduced.

Both the right to take cases to court in the public interest and the related issue of removing financial barriers to doing so are important democratic principles to argue for. Despite sounding complicated and technical the Hunterston case raises key questions about opening up the ability of Scottish courts to hear public interest cases and who has the right to access justice.

If the unfair barriers placed in front of Marco can be overcome and his case heard by the court the Scottish court system will have been improved. We can then actually get to the details of the Hunterston case itself including the adequacy of its consultation and find out the court’s opinion on this public interest case.

Planning Democracy will be in court this week (Wed, Thurs, Fri) in support of Marco’s case, if you’d like join us click here for details.

This week Planning Democracy will be in court supporting the removal of a coal-fired power station from Scotland’s most important national plan. Join us!

In 2009 plans for a major new coal power station appeared in the National Planning Framework at the last minute to the surprise and anger of many local residents – no mention was made of a power station near Largs in Ayrshire in the original consultation and nothing appeared in a newspaper circulating in the area that advertised the change. Planning Democracy believes this is not good enough for a development of this scale and is supporting Marco McGinty in his appeal to the Court of Session to have the power station removed.

Last year, after thousands of objections, North Ayrshire Council struck the power station from their local plans and the company planning to build it backed off. This was a great win for democracy but while the national plan still green-lights the development another company willing to build could come along, and the important principle that people must have the opportunity to influence their local area will not have been upheld. That’s why Planning Democracy is going to court this week to support local Largs resident Marco McGinty in his appeal.

We’re asking you to join us in support!

The case will be heard in the Court of Session in Edinburgh on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday (6th, 7th, 8th February 2013) starting at 10am each day. We can’t promise it will be fascinating 100% of the time (!) but your presence in court will help demonstrate to the judges the importance of upholding the principle of proper consultation.

If you wish to attend feel free to just turn up at the Court of Session on Parliament Square, Edinburgh (map here), ask for the McGinty case and the staff will tell you where to find the public gallery. Send an email to info@planningdemocray.org.uk with you phone number and we can make more specific arrangements or explain the case in more detail.

SPP Review response form Planning Democracy

This consultation is being run in parallel with the NPF3 consultation. For more information go to http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built-Environment/planning/National-Planning-Policy/newSPP

The main theme of the report is that the Scottish Government places too great an emphasis on a term that is laden with inconsistencies and contradictions. The concern is that the Government’s  primary purpose’ “to focus government and public services on creating a more successful country, with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish, through increasing sustainable economic growth” places undue emphasis on increasing wealth and consumption while ignoring other important factors in life that make us flourish as a nation.

The report states that “In a time of crisis and upheaval, society needs its leaders to be especially clear about the meaning of success; and better at making decisions which properly reconcile social, economic and environmental goals in achieving it”.

We agree

But what we see in the current climate of recession is a kind of panic by politicians in an all out attempt to stimulate growth by whatever means. Politicians see growth as very important. After all elections are apparently won or lost on the state of the economy. So questioning growth is deemed to be the realm of lunatics, idealists and revolutionaries. But is it?

As the report states Oxfam’s humankind index research showed that people value “an affordable, decent and safe home and good physical and mental health” whereas factors relating to the economy were deemed less important.

The LINK report urges parliament to move on from the outdated assumption that economic growth is the cure all and the lazy assumptions that they and others such as the media make; that economic growth = jobs = well-being.

All this chimes with our own thoughts outlined in our manifesto and research paper, which expresses our concerns about the increasing emphasis on pursuing “sustainable economic growth” as the overarching goal of the planning system and using the planning system to stimulate the economy.  We feel that this imbalances the planning system which is put there to weigh up the  competing demands of social environmental and economic interests to ensure the best outcome. Focusing on the economy leads to a prioritising of the interests of one group of stakeholders, namely the developers, whose goal is to make profits. It undermines a system that was put in place to ensure that everyone’s perspective and views are considered and derails our democratic processes. The result? Development that does not reflect what is important in life to most people, that is affordable homes, safe neighbourhoods and a healthy environment.

In addition using gross domestic product as a way of measuring Scotland’s success (as is the current indicator favoured by politicians) does not necessarily properly reflect good development and planning decisions. For example, if the planning system delivers out of town development where people have to drive to the shops, schools or work the commuting costs, the petrol, car insurance and so on are all measured as a positive in terms of GDP, whereas it is likely to decrease your well being in terms of healthy lifestyle. What is the purpose of development then, to increase GDP or create a healthy built environment?

What is needed is for Government to remove this emphasis on growth from their overarching aims and measure success using indicators more sophisticated than GDP. The New Economics Foundation is quoted in the LINK report saying, “When the opposition, pressure groups and citizens all use wellbeing data to make their points, it will be clear that well-being is the real business of government”.

Which brings us onto how do we persuade our politicians to change? For politicians must stop thinking of economic growth as a fix that trumps everything including the environment, the public interest, and fundamentally our democracy.  We believe a public call for change is necessary, but it will not be an easy battle…. environmentalists have been pointing out for years that an economy based on infinite growth on a finite planet doesn’t make sense — not even economic sense. However they are no longer alone, there is a growing chorus of people, including economists, around the world calling for change. We add our voice to this and hope our members will as well.

Opportunities to participate in the last NPF2 were not up to scratch and public awareness of the process was low, a major problem for communities near to national developments like Hunterston power station and Rosyth container terminal.

As a result we’re welcoming the Government’s openness to improve and have published ten specific ways to make sure people have a fair say in deciding national developments. Download and read them here.

At Planning Democracy we campaign for an ‘inclusive’ planning system – what we mean is a system where people are empowered to have a fair influence over what does and does not get built in their community. By a ‘fair’ we mean that there is a level playing field between the public and other stakeholders.

The consultation makes an interesting proposal to do away with lots of existing duties on public bodies to engage and replace them with on overarching duty to “ensure effective community engagement”.

My first thought was this would water down all the specific requirements in planning legislation to advertise locally, hold public meetings etc and give loads of wiggle room for public bodies to engage in any way they wanted.  However the main criticism we hear of public engagement in land-use planning is that people feel they are not listened to and that the important decisions are already made. This is largely because there’s a problem with the culture (as opposed to legislation) of the system which values efficient (e.g. speedy) decision-making over democratic (e.g. participative) decision-making.

So it’s primarily the culture we need to change to deliver a more inclusive planning system.  Culture change is a difficult thing to deliver but maybe a general duty for effective engagement across all public bodies is the foundation that’s needed for more democratically mandated development decisions.

Any general duty to engage would not itself be enough. It would need to be backed up with standards and independent oversight. The consultation floats the proposal that the National Standards for Community Engagement might become compulsory; this would make an excellent set of standards already adopted on a voluntary basis in the planning system (PAN 3/2010) and by other public bodies.

That leaves independent oversight. Imposing a general duty would need an independent body to provide advice and assistance on interpreting national standards and could provide confidence to a public body that they are fulfilling their duties with the power to approve or reject their community engagement plans.

Imposing a general duty like proposed wholesale on the quasi-judicial planning system could be a big change. Much of the system’s timescales and structure would have to remain but some requirements, e.g. to advertise in a local paper, hold one meeting in the locale, might (but not necessarily have to) disappear to be replaced by the duty. This would only improve our democracy and empower communities to achieve their own goals and aspirations if it precipitated a real change towards a more inclusive culture in planning, something I can only see happening with the oversight of an independent body with the teeth to act as a champion for public engagement, run inquires and investigations of its own and challenge those who are failing to open up their decision-making structures.

A proposal needing careful consideration but it’s a thought worth having.

In 2009 Planning Democracy alerted the local community to the fact that Hunterston was a national development in the National Planning Framework (the Government’s top strategic plan for Scotland). We were incensed by the fact that the consultation on this national plan had not been done adequately and many people had no idea that there were plans afoot for a major national development. The power station had been given effective outline planning permission by being named in this document. So we are pleased to see that democracy has now prevailed and the application has been withdrawn (although Ayrshire Power cite financial reasons and the economic downturn as their reasons for withdrawing we feel they could at least acknowledge that a massive negative response from the public might have at least had some impact on their decision!!)

Whilst the immediate threat of a coal fired power station has been removed from those who were concerned about it, the fact is that it remains in the NPF2. We remain concerned about this and will continue to campaign to have it removed because of an important democratic principle. We believe that national developments in the NPF should be debated at a local level before receiving national development status in such an influential document. Until this debate can happen we feel Hunterston should be removed from the NPF2.

In the run up to the 3rd NPF we are campaigning for a more inclusive and effective consultation process.  You too can help!

Please send a copy of this letter to your MSP (or write your own!). MSP letter re NPF

The NPF is the most important and influential planning document that there is, ask your MSP to make sure you can have your say in what goes into it.

http://www.planningdemocracy.org.uk/conference-2012/resources/