Will new neighbourhood planning and management tools lead us in utopian or dystopian directions?
My last blog on the uses of futurology encouraged some ‘science fiction’ thinking in exploration of ‘possible futures’ for our cities and communities. In science fiction writing, a ‘Jonbar’ moment (or ‘Jonbar hinge’) is a moment in time from which radically alternative futures/histories could emerge. The term comes from a Jack Williamson novel, ‘The legions of time’ – where, if the young protagonist (John Barr) picks up a magnet it eventually leads to a science-based utopian society; whereas if he picks up a pebble it leads to a dystopian tyranny. It’s a similar (if distinctive) construct to the ‘butterfly effect’ in chaos theory, or the ‘for want of a nail… (a kingdom was lost)…’ proverb.
I use this crude linking device to introduce this week’s blog, because the evidence (produced by this Planning title’s neighbourhood planning updates, amongst others) strongly suggests that we may be at a Jonbar moment in neighbourhood planning. If we are, local authorities (LAs) and their partners need to do considerable strategic thinking, and put in a place a number of measures, to encourage local and national outcomes that lean more towards utopian, rather than dystopian futures for local planning and development.
As of end-November 2013, planning resource.co.uk lists 853 areas that have applied for designation. 640 of these had been designated; but only 18 completed plans had been submitted (to the LA). 15 had completed their independent examination, and 7 have been adopted (after positive referendums).
The incidence of neighbourhood planning activity is quite skewed. For instance, over 60 designations have been accepted in Herefordshire; and over 30 in Chichester; whilst more than 130 LAs have had NO applications or designations to date. There is also an emerging inverse relationship between neighbourhood planning designations and deprivation. The 20 most deprived districts have a total of only six designations (with fifteen districts having no designations).By contrast, the twenty least deprived (so affluent) districts have 49 designations (with only six districts having no designations).
There have been contested applications for designation in some LAs, where the LA has to determine how to resolve overlapping or competing neighbourhood planning ambitions. For instance, in Westminster, the council approved a business-led application by the Victoria Business Improvement District (BID), whilst rejecting an application by Buckingham Gate neighbourhood watch for a community-led designation within an overlapping area.
There is also a growing body of contested activity between neighbourhood planning intentions and housing development envisaged within local plans. For instance, this journal reported Barratt Homes and Wainhomes leave to challenge Cheshire West and Chester Council’s endorsement of Tattenhall Neighbourhood Plan, potentially on a number of grounds. The hearing is scheduled for next month.
There are a number of reasons why 2014 may be the tipping point for this activity. Many more of the 640 designations will proceed to examinations and adoption processes during 2014. This alone is a huge workload for already hard-pressed LAs. It will prove a catalyst for increasing issues of managing the process vis-a-vis the Local Plan, the development industry (on occasions), and community empowerment issues. In addition, one can anticipate increasing requests for designation – especially in areas (e.g. of the 130 councils) not yet engaged in neighbourhood planning activity.
Second, neighbourhood planning is only one of a number of neighbourhood management policies evolving from the Localism Act and the whole place community budgets process. Community rights to bid, build, and challenge (effectively for local land, buildings – including housing and community facilities – and council services), can make demanding requirements on LAs in the round, going well beyond the planning service. The inception of the ‘Our Place’ programme – extending the twelve neighbourhood community budget (NCB) pilots to at least 100 communities (and 20 ‘driving proposals’ that break new ground) – is a further exciting strand of activity that will impact an increasing number of councils and their partners.
Further details and analysis of these measures are provided in a policy briefing I recently produced for the Local Government Information Unit. Beyond being overwhelmed by the pure volume of neighbourhood and communities work just as the next round of cuts come on-stream, it is this very confluence of multiple new policies being implemented concurrently which provides the potential of so many different alternative futures for neighbourhood planning and management.
LAs and partners really need to manage this Jonbar hinge strategically. Their strategic approach to communities and neighbourhoods needs to be reviewed and adapted to the new policy context and (to some extent) government expectations.
This needs to cover issues such as what geographies make sense for community empowerment, neighbourhood planning and management in specific LAs? This will not always be self-evident. There may well be different social, economic, and physically-shaped communities; and existing institutional and administrative configurations to consider (parish councils certainly – but perhaps also school catchments, town centre designations etc).
Are communities and neighbourhoods policies about democratic renewal and governance (so perhaps parish councils and/or democratic area committee/forum developments), local services commissioning and/or provision, consultative and influencing processes, or mixed/hybrid models?
Any new approach needs a fit-for-purpose evidence base on which to make local decisions, an honest and deliberative process for assessing community capacity and capabilities, and for resolving ‘difficult issues’ – both within and across communities. One of the ‘dystopian’ fears of poor or very disjointed LA stewardship of the most local of ‘double-devolution’ measures might be the proliferation of postcode lottery social outcomes, increasingly exclusive and excluding characteristics of (affluent) local communities, and ‘NIMBY charter’-led councils.
Most councillors (and economic development professionals) are passionate about devolution, local empowerment and influence over the major decisions that affect community wellbeing. Many come into politics and the profession to pursue progressive ideals to these ends. If 2014/15 is to turn out to be a positive ‘Jonbar’ moment for neighbourhood planning and management, we will need all our passions and professionalism to support deployment and development of these new instruments of double devolution coherently and cohesively. Between the bottom up pressures of local enthusiasms and energies, and the sometimes muddled and contradictory top-down government pressures of localism and growth under public austerity, it will not always be pretty or pleasant – but it will be absolutely vital.
