Do we need to invest more time, thought and money on making communities work?

 The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has a survey on community and society - "Social capital, civic health, and quality of life in the United States". One of the researchers Samuel Abrams comments on some of their findings:

...when Americans live near a variety of public places and spaces – from cafes and bars to shopping areas and parks, playgrounds, or beaches – trust in others and sense of community increases, feelings of loneliness and isolation decline, and faith is local government is higher than in areas with fewer communal amenities. The data also reveals that these amenities can be regularly found throughout most residential spatial forms to varying degrees around the country from inner cities to small towns and suburbs; only rural areas tend to lack close proximity to these amenities en masse.

This is not simply about public sector provision but a wide variety of places where people meet and interact - "...grocery stores; restaurants, bars, or coffee shops; gyms or fitness centers; movie theaters, bowling alleys, or other entertainment venues; parks or recreation centers; and community centers or libraries."

Abrams focuses on voter turnout in local elections (and how dog owners are more community minded - I guess we'd better not mention the poo though) but at the core of this concern is the idea of trust with the research finding that people "...derive a sense of community from their friends, neighborhoods, and hometowns more than their ideology or ethnic identity. Regular interaction with friends and neighbors produces a strong sense of community."

Put simply, community matters. And this, a discovery that shouldn't surprise anyone, is something that too often takes a secondary place in public policy around crime, economy, health and welfare. All these policy areas run along separate lines with separate groups of experts many of whom see the issue as being about the actions of individuals or small groups of individuals.

What this research suggests is that having people living in identifiable, safe neighbourhoods should be a primary aim of public policy. And, while this chimes with some aspects of city-oriented 'New Urbanism', it also suggests that we should focus a little less on the economics of agglomeration and a little more on the sociology of neighbourhoods. We can agree about 'walkability', about the value of main street, and about how private amenities are as significant - perhaps more so - as public amenities, but not about the impact of city living on transience, loss of community and social isolation. It maybe shouldn't matter that in Manhattan and Inner West London the most common 'family structure' is the single person but perhaps this is an indicator of that social atomisation.

There is, in much of today's urban planning, not merely a disdain for suburbs (despite AEI's research showing suburbia is where there are the most high amenity neighbourhoods) but a somewhat inhuman utilitarianism focused on cramming the highest numbers of 'worker units' in the smallest space. There is a kick-back on all this with the idea that we can develop much more densely without losing the idea of houses or streets - the inner urban world doesn't have to crowded anonymity - but we still see suburban development dismissed sneeringly as sprawl.

At the same time the legacy of Ebeneezer Howard continues with the idea that the answer is new communities - 'garden cities' - are the answer rather than the modest extension of exiting suburbs, towns and villages that are already high amenity places. It's also why we should worry about the decline in our high streets, should stress the value of community centres and village halls, and should consider - for all their sometimes pettiness and nosy-parkering - things like Parish Councils and community associations as vital to a strong neighbourhood. And perhaps, when we're considering splashing public money on railways or huge new hospitals, we should ask whether putting some of that money into community amenities might just be better for society and people's well-being?
...

First salvo in the town planners' war on community is fired...

****

I recall a planner - a very senior planner - describing the localism act and its neighbourhood planning ideas as "the thin end of the wedge". It is a threat to their power and control - and they want it stopped:

The neighbourhood plan for Dawlish had been drawn up by a steering group of local representatives, including Dawlish Town Council and Teignbridge District Council.

The plan, which proposes 900 new homes over the next 20 years, has been examined by Christopher Balch, professor of planning at Plymouth University.

This is the first - an experiment that looked to be going well until this representative of the planning world arrived:

Balch’s report, published today, said that the plan reflected the National Planning Policy Framework by "providing a positive approach to plan-led growth". But he added that "it is not possible to demonstrate that the provision for housing growth is based on an objective assessment of housing requirements", as Teignbridge District Council’s emerging core strategy is yet to have been settled.

You see, dear readers, the local community had done it for themselves and hadn't employed the services of Professor Balch or his pals. So:

Balch said that Dawlish’s proposed neighbourhood plan is "neither positively prepared nor justified".

His report recommends that the Dawlish neighbourhood plan should not proceed to a referendum. In a letter to the council, Balch said: "This could only take place once the strategic policies of Teignbridge District Council have been settled and changes had been made to ensure full conformity."

That's it - the plans are no good because they don't confirm with other plans that have yet to be drawn up. Other plans that will involve planners not the local communities. And so - in my judgement contrary to the spirit of localism - Professor Balch, in the interest of planners everywhere has fired the first salvo in their resistance to communities having any say in what is, or is not, built in those communities.

I hope the referendum goes ahead and sticks Professor Balch's report where the sun don't shine.

....

Wither localism - initial thoughts on the Bill

****

Although the Bill won't be published until later this afternoon, the Government has released an essential guide to the Bill. These notes are drawn from that guide and are accompanied by my commentary. My focus is on the "community rights" elements of the Bill rather than on the local government reform elements such as the (welcome) abolition of the Standards Board for England, transparency requirements and elected mayors. One observation on transparency however is that local councils may begin to pass some of these requirements on to suppliers and partners. Certainly organisations contracting with local government should be prepared for new rules on disclosure and transparency.

The "community rights" elements are:

1. A Community Right to Buy - as ever the devil will be in the detail. However, this is expected to give local communities the 'right' to take over local assets (presumably subject to finances) threatened with closure. It is clear that this extends to private assets such as pubs, shops and post offices as well as public assets such as halls, libraries and youth centres.

2. A Community Right to Challenge - again the details of this will be important but its essence is to provide the same community right for revenue funded services as the "Community Right to Buy" grants for assets. The proposals seem quite limited at present - it isn't clear whether a community will have the right to take over a service or whether the right is limited to "challenge" (meaning the Council can simply ignore the community!)

3. A Community Right to Build - allowing communities that meet certain criteria (including capacity to deliver and a significant level of local support for proposals) to avoid planning requirements. Linked to the New Homes Bonus, the Community Infrastructure Levy and existing s106 provisions, this 'right' could present a real opportunity for developers, housing associations and local authorities to partner with parish councils or community groups to deliver new housing. The clash of NIMBY and BANANA instincts with real incentives to improve local facilities will be interesting to watch (and could prove politically explosive in some places)

4. Local referendums - again we can expect there to be significant strings attached to these proposals (and we should worry a little that the possibility exists for proposition 13 type outcomes - which may cheer ardent taxcutters but could handicap local councils). However, with the granting of a General Power of Competence to local authorities - jokes about which are likely to be legion - the scope for community-driven policy initiatives is a real opportunity

5. Neighbourhood Plans - probably the most controversial element of the Bill, we can expect the planning industry (and probably the large developers) to oppose these proposals. It will be very interesting to see what type of place takes up the opportunity and whether any local councils see this plus the power to vary business rates and 'tax increment financing' as the chance to create a 'freeport' environment with relaxed planning and lower taxes. Not sure this is what Eric Pickles would expect but it could prove an exciting option for some communities.

These are just initial thoughts and need to be seen in the wider context - not least the impact of this year's local government settlement on council net budgets. However, the changes should help create greater initiative and creativity in local government as well as within different communities which can only be a good thing.

....

Boundaries, pubs and Battersea - thoughts on defining place

A few years ago, I instituted an initiative aimed at ensuring that every community in Bradford undertook some form of local planning – this could take the form of neighbourhood action planning, parish plans or elements within wider masterplans or spatial strategies. In part, at least, I can lay claim to attempting to develop the idea of community involvement in service planning – dare I say it, the “Big Society”.

However, this introduction isn’t a precursor to an essay of self-justification but rather an opportunity to discuss again the issue of places and how we define them. Most important, the matter of boundaries. Partly, this is prompted by Battersea Councillor, James Cousins’ irritation (verging on anger) with ASDA for suggesting that his local store is – horror of horrors – in Clapham. James gives very good account of his case and (I suspect) has a rather better grasp of where Battersea becomes Clapham than does ASDA.

However, there are some interesting anomalies of place that can add to this confusion and not just the perfect example of nominal coterminosity – Penge and Anerley. And since we’re talking local knowledge here, I have concentrated on examples from my ward – the incomparable Bingley Rural. And several of the examples will feature pubs!

The Dog & Gun – as everyone knows – is in Oxenhope. Except that, until very recently, it wasn’t it was in Denholme and had always been in Denholme (we should note that the pub car park was in the Parish of Oxenhope whereas the pub itself was in the Town of Denholme). Today – following some jiggery-pokery with te boundary commission – the pub is in Oxenhope.

The Guide is at Hainworth, Keighley of course – that’s the community it serves (along with the clutches of stray bikers who wash up in its car park). Well no – The Guide’s in Cullingworth and always has been!

The Malt Shovel at Harden completes this trio of pubs. It’s not in Harden but in Wilsden (although the thoughful folk from Wilsden Parish Council have put the obligatory sandstone “Welcome to Wilsden” marker beyond the pub). Harden doesn’t start until you’ve cross the Harden Beck.

There are plenty of other examples – the White Horse at Well Heads isn’t in Thornton but in Denholme and the New Coley Garden Centre (see it’s not all pubs!) is in Cullingworth not Denholme. As you can see it isn’t at all clear – boundaries are (as I’ve said before) fuzzy, subject to change and without doubt open to dispute. And, as I’m sure you’ve all guessed, unpopular places get smaller while popular places get larger (it’s OK James I’m not suggesting this is the case with Battersea and Clapham).

In a discussion about Chapeltown in Leeds this trend was noticed – places like Potternewton and Chapel Allerton grow in size as places previously in Chapeltown are ‘liberated’ from that place’s bad image. Just as snootier residents of SE20 started calling it Anerley rather than Penge, the up-and-coming trendies moving into Chapeltown are renaming it Potternewton or Chapel Allerton. Unless, of course, we’re talking about reports of crime! In these cases any shooting within two miles takes place in Chapeltown!

All this really makes the point that places aren't static – boundaries can and do change. And, in the end it’s people rather than institutions that decide where the boundary lies. In Bradford – for the exercise described at the start – we mapped the location of people on the council’s neighbourhoods database who claimed to live in a given place (Wibsey, Queensbury, West Bowling, Heaton, etc) and drew boundaries based on these definitions. And yes there were some overlaps but most communities were clear and identifiable – certainly good enough to deliver the project.

But we decide not folk from elsewhere.

....

Urban planning - the quickest route to a dead community

It is one of the oldest debates around - do we have a grand plan or do we let stuff happen. The planners tend to win this argument - sometimes to the extent of the picture above which of a model showing the "finished" version of Shanghai. This will be a planned city - the untidy, cramped neighbourhoods with winding alleys and street vendors will be replaced with great accommodation towers. The crazy shopping streets will be sanitised and tidied up - turned into tourist attractions or into a copy of the west's stale shopping experience.

Be warned this is what planners do to a place.

What planners say is that we can't allow - Jane Jacobs-like - for cities to evolve and adapt to the needs and demands of their residents. This is far too untidy. Cities need to be planned - in the past for an assortment of reasons (traffic management, zoning industry, public transport) but today the planning is need to create "sustainable cities". Here's one view from the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI)- what I call the "Shanghai View":

"Spatial planning operates at all the different possible scales of activity, from large-scale national or regional strategies to the more localised design and organisation of towns, villages and neighbourhoods. It affects everyone, making policies setting out visions for places and decisions about matters ranging from the location of major new transport or energy facilities and employment development, through to the development of new shops, schools, dwellings or parks needed by local communities. It considers the things that we value and supports our ongoing use of the environment to maintain or enhance these; from the integrity of the atmosphere to limit climate change, to the provision of habitat for individual species; from the identification of global cultural heritage to locally valued townscapes. It maintains the best of the past, whilst encouraging innovation in the design and development of future buildings and neighbourhoods to meet our future needs."

...or possibly urban planners as little gods? Without the guiding hand of the planner our urban environment would be chaotic, jumbled, unmanaged and unsustainable say the RTPI. But would it? If we did away with grand spatial planning, with national planning guidance, with splendidly pompous urban designers..with all the vast and expensive infrastructure of the planning industry, would things actually be so bad?

Should we not revisit the thinking of Jane Jacobs about the organic nature of cities and remember that:

"There is a quality even meaner than outright ugliness or disorder, and this meaner quality is the dishonest mask of pretended order, achieved by ignoring or suppressing the real order that is struggling to exist and to be served."

Planners seek to imposed a false, politically mediated order on communities. Is it any surprise therefore that the public view planning and planners with distrust. Or that the development industry so often see the planning system as an obstruction to economic development, to the provision of homes and to the ability of business to respond adequately to consumer demand.

Planning should be driven by the needs, demands and expectations of neighbourhoods and the people living in those neighbourhoods. Designs about development should be decided democratically at this level - not mediated through and impenetrable, lawyer-dominated, centralised planning system designed merely to obstruct.

Above all we must resist the geographers temptation - the drawing of marks on a map, tidying up of edges. Married to the architect's hubris this had led to cities without soul, places without character. To great squares with no animation, to the replacing of untidy flea markets with shiny malls and to dysfunctional places filled with unhappy people. Planning has done this to us. It's time to reject its ideas, to rediscover the untidy, disordered cities we love.

If we don't learn this all we will do is create our own failing planned cities - and a world of Shanghais would be a bad place.

....