Contestation and conservatism in neighbourhood planning in England: reconciling agonism and collaboration?

Abstract

Neighbourhood planning was formally enabled as a statutory part of the English planning system under the Localism Act 2011. This element of formal planning has generated significant interest as it actively requires local communities to lead on producing a Plan and is widely recognised as formalising a co-produced planning. The paper reflects on research undertaken with a sample of neighbourhoods active in producing a neighbourhood plan and develops a critical discussion about the experience of those participants. The findings highlight that existing power relations, priorities nationally, the framing of neighbourhood planning regulations, local political tensions and local resource constraints affect the emerging practices of neighbourhood planners in England. Many groups have adopted conservative positions or are finding their Plans are being limited by consultants, local authorities or examiners, often concerned with how the Plans will fare in the contested environment of planning and development in neo-liberal times. While some have contended that neighbourhood planning can form part of a progressive localism and there is some hope for such participatory spaces, our view is that innovation is being constrained if not entirely suppressed. We conclude that reform to neighbourhood planning is needed if it is to realise the ambitions of inclusive, empowered and responsible planning at the very local scale.

Resisting the 'Long‐Arm' of the State? Spheres of Capture and Opportunities for Autonomy in Community Governance

“…That said, accounts of social movements and agonism are similarly limited, ignoring the symbiotic relationship evident within governance ensembles, neglecting how statutory support can sometimes catalyse more subversive, or at least contested, practices. Such accounts are only a partial explanation given that alternative movements are filled with contradictions, ambiguities and tensions (Arampatzi, ), and themselves may be pragmatic in nature (Deener, ; Parker et al ., ). Autonomy is also therefore vulnerable, reliant upon and often threatened by powers that may well be predisposed to co‐opt and capture alternative movements.…”

“…In this respect, governance transactions only compound hegemonic power relations (Uitermark et al ., ; Wallace, ; Doering, ), creating essentially elitist spaces where government persists (McAreavey, ; Blakely, ). From an administrative perspective, the state retains effective control of initiatives through the management and manipulation of local policy and institutions (Davies, ; Milligan and Fyfe, ; Fuller and Geddes, ; Parker et al ., ). The co‐optive tendencies of statutory agencies are emboldened through the very discourse of partnership which implicates local stakeholders ‘into a more direct relationship with government and involve them in supporting and carrying out the government’s agenda’ (Newman, : 125).…”

“…Kokx and Kempen, ; Huxley, ; Doering, ). Such accounts, often derived from Foucauldian and more recently post‐political and post‐democratic interpretations of governance, have significant explanatory potential, demonstrated by their prolificacy through the academic literature (Huxley and Yiftachel, ; MacLeod, ; Wilson and Swyngedouw, ; Parker et al ., ). But although attuned to the pitfalls of governance, these analyses almost entirely overlook the scope for autonomy by community actors.…”

Articulating virtue: Planning ethics within and beyond post politics

“…In opening up the spaces between conflict and consensus, planning can operate in a way which forecloses neither difference and debate, nor the possibility of ethically grounded – but temporally and spatially bounded – agreement. To think about participation and engagement in planning, it is necessary not to delimit the boundaries of debate within the constraints of the post-political condition, as is so often the case (in addition to the instances cited earlier, Neighbourhood Planning in the United Kingdom (Parker et al, (2017) is a relevant example), but to open the possibility of situated debate about the right, or virtuous, thing to do within a practice, tradition or community.…”

The use of direct democracy to decide housing site allocations in English neighbourhoods

“…This selection 'confirmed that residents placed the highest value on small sites phased over the plan period and choosing sites with the least possible adverse impact on the landscape' (Overton Parish Council, 2015: 9). The allocation of housing sites had to meet statutory planning requirements for viability and sustainability to ensure the selection would withstand external examination and challenge by developers (Bradley 2018;Parker, Lynn & Wargent, 2017). In this screening process, 'it was not possible to satisfy the public preference for small sites entirely' (Overton Parish Council, 2015: 9) and, due to the constraints of national policy, several large sites were included.…”