Written evidence submitted by Dr Alister
James Scott (LOCO 097)
INTRODUCTION
Dr Alister Scott is a spatial planner with significant
and recognised expertise in governance and public involvement
matters particularly relating to the operation and impact of the
UK planning system. He has widely published in academic and policy
press on issues to do with localism and community involvement
across the devolved countries of the UK and is currently leading
on a project "connecting communities"; training community
champions for Cannock Chase District Council. He is an active
researcher on behalf of Scottish, Welsh and English governments,
agencies and local government clients.
Selected Relevant Publications and Research Projects
Scott A J (2010-11). Managing Environmental
Change at the Fringe Phase IV RELU ESRC 145k
Scott A J; Larkham P Curzon R; Lamb J and Hardman,
M (2010-11). Improving community involvement: Etching Hill and
The Heath Cannock Case District Council Funding from GOWM
Scott 2010 Analysis: Black Hole in Planning, Planning
p6 1 October
Scott 2010 Localism and Landscape: The times they
are a changing. Chairman's Address to Landscape and Localism conference
Austin Court Birmingham. Landscape Character network
Glass, J H, Scott, A J and Price, M F. Integrating
sustainability and upland estate management: a novel participatory
approach in SNH (2010) in press The Changing Nature of Scotland,
SNH: Inverness
Scott A J (2010). Spatial planning encounters a black
hole, Town and Country Planning, 326-327
Roberts, G, Scott A J, Hughes E, and Howard P (2009).
Identifying Good Practice from Countries implementing the European
Landscape Convention. Report to the Scottish Government ICP/001/07,
Edinburgh: Scottish Government
Scott A J, Shorten J, Owen, R and Owen I G (2009).
What kind of countryside do we want: perspectives from Wales UK
Geojournal DOI 10.1007/s10708-009-9256-y online
Scott A J (2006). Assessing public perception of
landscape: past, present and future perspectives, CAB Reviews:
Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and
Natural Resources 1, No. 041 doi: 10.1079/PAVSNNR20061041
SUMMARY POINTS
ABOUT THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE LOCALISM
AGENDA
1. Localism is a good idea in theory and practice.
However, the key lies in its implementation as part of a managed
and structured process. In many of my research publications I
have cited the need for agencies and government to move away from
top-down approaches and respond to locally-based agendas from
the careful collection of local intelligence and the harnessing
of local expertise. In essence moving from expert to facilitator
roles helps improve the way planning is done. I have argued that
this needs a culture change in how government and their agencies
operate and also how the public participate. I have found many
agencies to both elitist and arrogant believing that public involvement
incorporating notions of subsidiarity is dangerous and a threat
to their own professional integrity. I therefore welcome the localism
emphases in current policy. However, in my research I also note
how many public(s) are increasingly sceptical of the perceived
sham of public consultation. There is too much consultation without
real involvement and a feeling that there is a tick box culture
apparent. Rarely do local people see how their views are feeding
and influencing policy. So whilst the rhetoric of "big conservations",
"involvement", "empowerment" and "listening"
resonate across the political platforms at national, local and
community levels the reality is very different. "What
is the point of me giving my view; the council will do what they
want anyway" reflects a powerful sentiment from my work
that explicitly captures the distrust and alienation from public
bodies. Therefore, in promoting this agenda as a policy imperative
there has to be the mechanism that enables the rhetoric to be
translated into practice and bring about real and substantive
change. Mere words are not enough. And can lead to a lose-lose
situation of dashed expectations.
2. Localism redresses the balance from the way
much policy has been top down and imposed on local communities,
but far from the need for government and its agencies to roll
back and reduce its role at national, regional and local levels,
it is incumbent upon government and its agencies to change the
way they work to help deliver this new agenda. This actually is
far more intensive than I think the government realise and is
not a cost cutting exercise as it requires significant resources
to do this effectively. The governance of England from both vertical
and horizontal scales is highly complex and requires significant
unpacking if the full advantages and costs of particular courses
of action are to be understood and assessed at the local level.
3. Here there is a key intersection with localism
and the abolition of RSS inquiries. Their separate consideration
is problematic as planning is all about looking at the bigger
spatial picture and working at the most appropriate scale to address
particular problems. Under the guise of sound spatial planning
principles there is need to operate effectively across the different
scales using appropriate bridging mechanisms (agencies, facilitators
and structures). Here the more local scales necessarily intersect
with the sub-regional and regional (they still exist), national,
European and global scales. Concurrently, the horizontal scales
representing the different sectors also operate giving complex
two dimensional axes. Many agencies arrange and deliver regionally
with few operating at local levels. The key problem as I see it
is that there is no clear body or persons identified to mediate
across these scales. At present I see the spatial planner as that
bridge but the very essence of spatial planning is under attack
by the Coalition government based on some specific and erroneous
New Labour interpretation of spatial planning. Undoubtedly, for
localism to realise its true potential it has to fit within a
bigger jigsaw otherwise things won't join up.
4. However there are specific challenges to overcome
including:
(a) The lack of any national spatial vision dilutes
a collaborative effort to achieve societal outcomes. In a world
where increasingly the interconnectedness of what we do affects
so much we need to work together for collective visions otherwise
we tend to work towards individual agendas and can lurch from
one agenda to the next based on short term horizons rather than
any long term considered view. Good planning should be about 50-100
year timeframes based on agreed outcomes (visions).
(b) The impact of one community/neighbourhood's
decisions affecting other communities up or down stream can lead
to perverse or unforeseen outcomes. Conflict can occur if no one
is looking at the bigger picture. Issues of environmental and
social justice could figure large here based on who can shout
the loudest.
(c) The need to collaborate across scales to
secure economies of scale. Sometimes problems such as flooding
or regeneration require multiple scales of working. If this is
not built into the system co-ordinated approaches might be jeopardised/compromised.
(d) The cumulative impact of many local decisions
could lead to wider strategic problems. Garden grabbing is a case
in point. Who is providing a strategic overview of the impact
of many small scale decisions.
(e) Understanding the complex patterns of governance
impacting upon a given area and the legislative requirements is
a recipe for legal challenges.
(f) The semi judicial nature of planning and
the fact that small scale plans could be liable to judicial review
or legal challenge from developers.
(g) The reliance on local voluntary action at
a time when a lot of people will be concerned at securing jobs
and responding to the cuts. The amount of voluntary activity declines
at times of economic hardship and can by default exclude those
marginalised voices simply due to other priorities. This factor
has not been recognised.
5. In order to address these problems, I argue
that we need to see localism within a bigger spatial jigsaw where
planning is suited to the specific and appropriate scale of the
issue concerned. However, whatever scale is used there must be
a fundamental principle about giving local people the ability
and capacity to meaningfully influence the plans that affect them.
Indeed much European legislation through directives and the recently
signed European Landscape Convention emphasize these principles,
so it is nothing new. What is new is providing the mechanism to
enable this to happen. At present there is a distinct lack of
tools and mechanisms to go beyond the rhetoric. In essence the
Big Society idea is captured and reflected in much of our legislation.
It is just not implemented.
6. In such respects there is a need for a real
culture change for the public(s) and crucially the agencies concerned.
Culture changes do not happen they require investment and capacity
building. For example my ongoing research supporting Community
Champions in Etching Hill and the Heath to understand how they
can be more effective in shaping their own governance is a useful
model to apply to the localism agenda. Similarly in local government
re-organisation in 1974 there was significant investment in community
development officers to enable local people to engage with a more
distant local authority. I do not see any investment in people/agencies
to facilitate this substantive change. Indeed, the converse is
stated with an almost implicit assumption that agencies can be
cut as such work can be done through voluntary action alone. My
own experience is that people who undertake consultations and
facilitation processes are often the first jobs to go as they
do not hit prescribed statutory targets. We are losing the very
people who can help support this agenda.
7. Moreover, I feel the agencies and government
departments need to change the way they work, communicate and
respond to public agendas. Without such structures in place the
localism agenda looks increasingly political as a quick fix tool
to secure cuts in national, regional and authority agency budgets.
8. Recent work I undertook for the Scottish Government
on the implementation of the European Landscape Convention and
work with local communities on landscape initiatives have all
revealed the same key lesson. Effective public involvement
and localism takes time and requires expert facilitation suited
to the local context with no one size fits all approach. In
the past too many agencies imposed their own ideas of what community
involvement was about rather than letting endogenous approaches
evolve. In many cases this was more about demonstrating a process
had been done rather than translating results into meaningful
plans. However, the widely cited Dumfries and Galloway landscape
strategy seen as an exemplar of localism, involved many weeks
of talking, motivating and listening to different public(s) by
a project officer acting as a bridge between the local people
and decision makers. However, the only reason that she was able
to carry out such good participation was due to foot and mouth
which prevented her doing other work. Hence the excellence is
accidental but reminds us all that you only get out of a process
what you put in.
9. The danger of rushed or limited participation
is that not all people participate, traditional power structures
prevail and perpetuate the status quo and the false spectre of
raised expectations leads to community inter and intra tensions.
My experience as an Area Board Member for Scottish Natural Heritage
is really interesting here. Public involvement and consultation
was often seen as an expensive luxury which work programmes could
not really afford other than the statutory minimum requirement.
Yet I often was called into dealing with issues based on stakeholders
conflicts based on misunderstanding SNH proposals. Such post event
costs are never fully accounted for in front ended consultations
and it amazes me that more time is not spent in proactive consultations
in order to communicate effectively with appropriate audiences
and minimize later conflicts. This a serious issue rarely given
credence in organisational behaviour.
10. Of key concern here is the way legislative
requirements affect the localism agenda. The SEA and WFD in particular
impose particular requirements which affect what can be done as
well as providing an "environmental" proofing to plans,
policies and programmes. In a large urban area there is potentially
many hundreds of neighbourhood plans which given the view that
they should shape and drive the planning agenda will require SEA
processes. There is neither the capacity within communities or
at local authority level to do this kind of analysis. Incidentally
the same kind of analysis which resulted in many RSS being deferred
due to lack of procedural protocols. Therefore there is a real
risk that such plans will become stuck in a queue of legal challenges.
The issues of costs and legal representation has not been properly
addressed.
11. The localism agenda, however, is a vital
part of the spatial planning hierarchy and arguably has not been
given the attention it deserves. However, the danger of local
politics and the power of influence can easily distort planning
in the wider societal interest which is what I understand planning
to be about. Therefore we need to have a top down and bottom up
approach that meets somewhere through various bridging points
concomitant with a conversation that produces legitimacy but also
excellent planning products. Crucially The plans must have a statutory
footing. Non statutory processes and outcomes are rarely used
and I hope the new localism Act will allow community plans to
become a statutory part of the planning process and not just a
mere material consideration.
12. Support and sound information is a pre-requisite
for effective participation. When we are considering future development
options communities need to be able to understand the implications
of various development options and therefore a whole new set of
planning posts need to support this requirement. We would not
let communities conduct brain surgery on ministers but equally
I think there is a perception that planning is something that
the public can easily do. As a university lecturer I spend a lot
of my time training planners to be effective and skilled people.
This can't be simply derogated to the community.
13. The local enterprise partnerships are unknown
beasts. These partnerships have considerable potential to act
as sub-regional and regional bridges across different communities.
My understanding is that many of them will be incorporated within
existing local authority strategic partnerships. My contention
is that in order to plan effectively for climate change and for
the future we need to adopt more meaningful regional partnerships
and boundaries and rather than the current trend to create new
structures. The current river basin management groups within water
catchments under the Water Framework Directive afford a potential
model for wider spatial planning as they represent real and logical
natural boundaries and involve key stakeholders which shape many
contemporary planning responses. This is a cost efficient way
to redraw the map of planning in the UK, facilitating joined up
planning to feed from Europe to neighbourhood allowing for horizontal
integration across the sectors of conservation, transport, economic
development and housing.
14. It is interesting to me that a lot of the
planning debates focus on housing numbers when they only represent
one aspect of the spatial jigsaw. Few people embrace the proper
spatial planning approach which is about building sustainable
communities and allowing a range of developments within areas.
It is also important to realise that there is no such thing as
community. There are, however, communities and public(s). Consequently
you will never get a universal view or consensus. Planning decisions
result in winners and losers in many cases but should be located
within a process that is fair and equitable and in the societal
interest. Recognising this and dealing with multiple public(s)
is a key first step but unfortunately the push to localism will
only exacerbate these tensions. I am aware that many communities
resist economic development based on their own values and perceptions
of place. There is a risk that under the current financial incentives
by government will result in a new spatial geography of development
that focuses on economically deprived areas rather than meeting
wider societal needs.
15. This leads on to my final point. There is
no national spatial plan within which any planning takes place
in England. What kind of society do we want and what and where
are the key places for our national infrastructure and developments?
Rather than a cut and paste of existing policy the Government
should portray a spatial picture of England within which strategic
planning at the different levels can take place working towards
that spatial vision. Otherwise we will see ad hoc planning and
power plays which simply pit communities against each other. A
lot of my research has shown increasing public disaffection with
planning simply because people appear powerless to influence it.
The abolition of the regional spatial strategies and a switch
to localism will not prevent this happening, particularly in light
of reduced professional planning resources to facilitate the change.
October 2010
| 
