Transcript 14AprilPresnetation_NH

Planning and Localism
What can social capital tell us?
Outline
• Understanding of the
fundamentals of localism
and planning
• How social capital might
help us better understand
the likely outcomes
– Will people get involved?
– Will it foster NIMBYism
– What happens next – or can
action occur?
The Debate – framing
localism
“Ostensibly, the core objective
of the “Big Society” agenda is
to support altruistic
communities and active
citizens so that they can
supplant failing government
services that reinforce welfare
dependency and incivility in
“Broken Britain”
Jacobs (2014), pp25-26
The Debate – framing
planning
“The Government is
committed to ensuring that
the planning system does
everything it can to support
economic growth. Planning
should operate to encourage
and not act as an impediment
to sustainable growth.
Therefore significant weight
should be placed on the need
to support economic growth
through the planning system”
DCLG 2012 p.6
‘Powers’ under Localism
• Neighbourhood Plans
– Allow neighbourhoods to plan
for the type of development
they wish to see on land within
their area.
• Neighbourhood
Development Orders
– Allow neighbourhoods to
permit (full or outline) this
development without the need
for planning permission
Three questions for NP
based around the idea of
social capital
– Will communities get involved with NP?
– Will these plans be NIMBYist in nature?
– Will plans engender action?
Will communities get
involved?
•
•
•
A longstanding problem in
planning
Charrettes, citizen’s juries,
hand’s-on planning –
successful but costly and small
reach
Question – how do ‘publics’
get constituted in planning?
• Are they simply the
usual suspects?
• Evidence of the Coalition
viewing actors as homoeconomicus (Matthews
et al 2015) who require
economic incentives to
act.
Why is it hard to involve
communities?
•
•
•
Collective action problem –
that is the costs of
participation outweigh the
benefits (free-riding)
Social capital would tell us
that by creating bonds in
communities could help
overcome
BUT this raises its own set of
problems –
• Huge time costs may still
outweigh benefits or
attract narrow groups
• May breed a ‘dark’ or
insular community
• May create a focus only
on the local – bonding
not bridging
Take up of Neighbourhood
Planning
•
•
•
•
1.400 Communities have
applied for an area to be
designated
68 have been formally
adopted
Average voter turnout 33%
Average yes vote 88%
Eric Pickles – Written Statement to
Parliament 26 march 2015
Will these plans be
Nimbyist in nature?
•
Will NPs simply become a charter
for NIMBYism?
• Bonding SC might indicate
yes
• Some early scholarship also
suggests that for housing
this could very well be the
case as it may be particularly
susceptible to middle-class
activism (Matthews, et al
2015)
• Author’s like Aldrich (2008)
actually found companies
searched for areas with low
indicators of civil society
when siting LULUs
• Real danger of bonding at
the expense of bridging or
linking SC – duty to
cooperate
The story of planning
deliver – will NPs
engender action?
•
•
In order to maintain interest plans
need to be action oriented and
deliverable – not simply stories
and aspirations.
Action will require development
partners who are willing to bring
the community’s vision forward
• Communities therefore will
need to build a variety of
very specific types of ties in
a very targeted way (Bracing
SC).
•
Conclusions