Framing people and planning: 50 years of debate

The last 50 years have not only seen major changes in the forms and practices of participation but also in the ways in which it has been characterized and understood. Alongside the report of the Skeffi ngton Committ ee on public participation in planning, 1969 saw the publication of Sherry Arnstein's 'ladder of participation' which famously typified participation from tokenism to citizen control. Since then the ladder has been replaced by the networks of collaborative planning and both have been challenged by the focus on planning's 'dark side' where participation is associated with coercive forms of governmentality and governance through community. This article discusses the evolution of these ideas, not to provide a historiography per se, but to highlight the themes, issues and contradictions they suggest lie behind participation. These include debates about the extent to which power can ever be devolved to the people; clashes between the different modes of governance inherent in planning (representative, legal/bureaucratic, participatory); the significance of action outside the formal participation apparatus (insurgent planning); and the ways in which the publics of planning have been made and remade within different planning regimes, often with profound implications for the inclusion and exclusion of different social groups and concerns. The article concludes that as a result public participation in planning can be seen as a shifting terrain of underlying tensions and contradictions, which presents both openings and closures for citizens seeking to influence the use and development of land

The political identities of neighbourhood planning in England

The rise of neighbourhood planning has been characterised as another step in a remorseless de-politicisation of the public sphere. A policy initiated by the Coalition Government in England to create the conditions for local communities to support housing growth, neighbourhood planning appears to evidence a continuing retreat from political debate and contestation. Clear boundaries are established for the holistic integration of participatory democracy into the strategic plan-making of the local authority. These boundaries seek to take politics out of development decisions and exclude all issues of contention from discussion. They achieve this goal at the cost of arming participatory democracy with a collective identity around which new antagonisms may develop. Drawing on the post-political theories of Chantal Mouffe this paper identifies the return of antagonism and conflict to participation in spatial planning. Key to its argument is the concept of the boundary or frontier that in Mouffe’s theoretical framework institutionalises conflict between political entities. Drawing on primary research with neighbourhood development plans in England the paper explores how boundary conditions and boundary designations generate antagonism and necessitate political action. The paper charts the development of the collective identities that result from these boundary lines and argues for the potential for neighbourhood planning to restore political conflict to the politics of housing development

Taking stock of neighbourhood planning in England 2011-2016

Neighbourhood planning (NP) as enabled by the 2011 Localism Act in England has precipitated a considerable literature discussing its potential, limitations and likely shortcomings referenced against government rhetoric and the reporting of initial experiences of the process. This paper provides an overview of the current literature on neighbourhood planning and sets out how it has been received and practised across England drawing on empirical evidence. The extent of take-up and the experience of those involved first five years of neighbourhood planning and to consider how community-led planning may be designed and used following operational principles of inclusivity, capacity-building and adding value

Responsible participation and housing: restoring democratic theory to the scene

Tensions between individual liberty and collective social justice characterise many advanced liberal societies. These tensions are reflected in the challenges posed for representative democracy both by participatory democratic practices and by the current emphasis on (so-called) responsible participation. Based on the example of ‘community’ housing associations in Scotland, this paper explores these tensions. It is argued that the critique of responsibility may have been over-stated – that, in particular, ‘community’ housing associations offer the basis for relatively more inclusive and effective processes of decision-making than council housing, which relies on the traditional processes and institutions of representative local government for its legitimacy

Branding the City: The Democratic Legitimacy of a New Mode of Governance

__Abstract__ Place branding has been used to influence ideas concerning communities and districts, especially in regeneration programmes. This article approaches branding as a new governance strategy for managing perceptions. Considering the popular criticism that branding is a form of spin that prevents the public from gaining a proper understanding of their government's policies, this article focuses on the democratic legitimacy of branding in urban governance. The branding of two urban communities in the Netherlands is examined empirically in terms of input legitimacy, throughput legitimacy and output legitimacy. The research shows how the democratic legitimacy of branding varies in the two cases. In one case, branding largely excluded citizens, whereas in the other case there was limited citizen participation. The article indicates that, although branding can potentially be a participatory process in which the feelings and emotions of citizens are included, this potential is not always fully realised in practice

Is the ‘New Deal for Communities’ a New Deal for Equality? Getting Women on Board in Neighbourhood Governance

Across the EU, neighbourhoods have been the focus for achieving social cohesion and reducing social exclusion. Neighbourhood renewal and community involvement were central themes in the UK Labour government's urban policy. This article focuses on the challenge of community engagement given the heterogeneity of individuals and neighbourhoods. It uses the case study of a New Deal for Communities (NDC) partnership to explore the experiences of different women on an NDC board, including those from minority ethnic groups. The NDC in the case study provides optimism about the possibility of including diverse groups and people in neighbourhood governance, yet too little attention is still given at both national policy and neighbourhood levels to working politically and productively with concepts of ethnicity and gender

A Housing Affordability Standard for the UK

Since 1990 there has been extensive exploration of the meaning of housing affordability by members of the academic, professional and advocacy communities in Britain. These debates have revealed weaknesses in the traditional ratio standard of affordability and led to arguments in support of an alternative, residual income concept of affordability. However, so far there has been only limited success in operationalising and applying the residual income approach in the UK. In the US, by contrast, arguments in support of a residual income approach to housing affordability emerged in the late 1960s and early 1970s, culminating in the formulation of operational standards utilising normative family budgets. This paper draws upon the US experience to formulate a residual income housing affordability standard for the UK that utilises the non-shelter components of the Family Budget Unit (FBU) ‘Low Cost but Acceptable’ budgets as the normative standard for minimum adequate residual income. The paper concludes by suggesting how use of such a ‘shelter’ poverty standard to assess housing affordability problems and needs in the UK might yield results that differ from those based on the ratio standard

What is housing affordability? The case for the residual income approach

This article seeks to increase the awareness of and support for the residual income approach to housing affordability indicators and standards, especially in the United States. It begins with an overview of various semantic, substantive, and definitional issues relating to the notion of affordability, leading to an argument supporting the conceptual soundness of the residual income approach. The concept is then briefly set into the historical context of U.S. and British debates on affordability measures. This description is followed by a discussion of two of the principal issues involved in crafting an operational residual income standard: the selection of a normative standard for non-housing items and the treatment of taxes. The article concludes by considering some of the potential implications of the residual income paradigm for the analysis of housing problems and needs, for housing subsidy policy, and for mortgage underwriting practice