Why Will Self is wrong about public open space

The writer, Will Self has decided that it is a terrible thing that open space in cities is not in public ownership. Using his familiar flowery language he bemoans this as some sort of loss:

“What people don’t understand is that it does affect you psychically. It constrains you in how you think about what you can do in a space, and it constrains your imagination. It’s like a condensing of time and money and space – it needs to be resisted.”

Self added: “The kind of ludic, playful potential of living in a city is being significantly impoverished by this kind of stuff.”

What I don't get here is why, when publicly-owned space has been the subject of interminable (and often seemingly arbitrary) rules, the campaigners have suddenly latched onto the problem with these rules only when they are set and policed by private organisations. Bradford Council, to take one example, has a 16 page booklet explaining the rules governing its parks and covering such things as the flying of kites and model aeroplanes, bathing and ball games. You'll be delighted to know that cricket balls are banned, for example, as is climbing trees and archery.

We're also familiar with 'no ball games' signs on corner patches of grass and a host of other limitations, restrictions and bans used by public authorities to control the activities of the public using that public open space. So Will Self, in saying that the rules imposed by private organisations on land they own with public access rights constrain 'what you can do in a space', is completely missing the point that public authorities have done exactly the same on land that they control. As the public we have, in effect, no more control over the rules governing a public park than we have over the rules in a private park.

The difficulty comes when the rules imposed clash with what somebody wants to do - most shopping malls, for example, ban leafleting and especially political campaign literature. And I suspect most of the mall users - the public - would probably support that, just as they would support controls on chuggers, pedlars and signature collectors (it's worth noting that, while these activities can't be banned on the public highway they are banned in Bradford Council's parks).

Self, by trying to make out that the problem he sees is a problem of the privatisation of open space, completely misses the point - especially when he rails against Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs). These orders aren't available to private organisations they have to be imposed by a public authority, most usually a local council. Now I've some sympathy with the criticism levelled at these orders as they are a lazy approach to policing space since they, in effect, give the police power to criminalise things that aren't criminal - drinking in the street, smoking, singing, shouting and selling. But these powers are not a consequence of space being private but a consequence of the popular desire for what we might call 'order' being more valued than the unpopular desire of people like Self to act freely in public spaces.

It is a huge mistake to make the debate into a private versus public contest for it is nothing of the sort. Everywhere we go, we see the conflict between different uses of public space. We see this with cyclists, dog walkers and horse riders sharing the same green lane in a country park through to the clash between the right to protest and people's right to go about their business without interference. And in between these contestants we see authorities setting rules so as to allow (at least in their eyes) the moderation of a contested open space.

All of this reflects the persistent desire of public authorities to see private activity in public spaces curtailed and controlled (if not outright banned). As Barbara Ehrenberg observed in her book, Dancing in the Streets: A History of Collective Joy, authorities, public and private, dislike gatherings of people (regardless of the reason for gathering):

Although sixteenth-century Europeans viewed mass festivities as foreign and "savage," Ehrenreich shows that they were indigenous to the West, from the ancient Greeks' worship of Dionysus to the medieval practice of Christianity as a "danced religion." Ultimately, church officials drove the festivities into the streets, the prelude to widespread reformation: Protestants criminalized carnival, Wahhabist Muslims battled ecstatic Sufism, European colonizers wiped out native dance rites.

So what Self is protesting isn't a new phenomenon, just a new set of tools and excuses prepared by government to justify the controlling of open space. And what those lovers of order - trust me when I tell you that those dreadful PSPOs are popular with the wider public - fail to appreciate, which I guess is part of Self's point even though he makes it clumsily, is that 'main street' needs those gatherings.

Other consumers and retailers describe social activities on Main Street, which they associate with a variety of experiences, including dining; window shopping; strolling for relaxation; jogging for health reasons; pub crawls; wine tastings; book clubs; language clubs; craft guilds; charity events; art events; parades; demonstrations; mass celebrations following major sports victories; and meeting friends.

....

Rules...

We went to watch the fireworks. We do this every year. And each time they brighten up the night for a fleeting moment of excitement and pleasure. The bangs, whizzes, colours and sparkles are more magical that most of us let on. Even when there's a top chemistry student explaining which chemicals make the different bangs, colours and assorted firework wonders.

And so it should be. There is a prosaic answer to the firework question. Human hands have designed and created the pyrotechnology but, when we hear the rocket swoosh into the sky and, breath held, await the explosion of sound, colour and magic, we don't think 'what a clever chap' but just simply "wow!"

All that talent and skill packed into a little cardboard tube or box just for our pleasure. Those carefully selected chemicals cleverly blended to provide us with a few seconds of wow! This my friends is what we mean by progress and civilisation. Not those dreary places of work, not those orders and controls, not the direction of our lives by others. These are the curse of progress, the black side of civilisation.

This isn't to say that there should be no rules - the game doesn't work without rules. But that, like all good games, the rules should be simple, straightforward, understood by all. The rules shouldn't be the reserve of an elite, reserved only to those who following great study have touched on a few of those rules. Who know enough to answer the question: "can we do that?"

But this is not so. The rules are not simple. They are complicated, voluminous, confusing and contradictory. One day we can celebrate when the bewigged cognoscenti interpret those rules in a way that matches our common senses only for the same great minds to do the opposite tomorrow.

We went to the fireworks. And there were rules. Each year there are new rules. Not replacing the old rules but adding to them. And every year those lighting the sparkling, fizzing wonders comply with those rules. But they mutter; 'this is daft' or "we can't do this next year". One day they will stop. The rules - when you can start, when you can stop, what you can light, how you must set up, whether you can charge, how to deal with the (inevitable) presence of children - an endless avalanche of rules will eventually weigh these men down and the fireworks will be gone.

We'll be sad. A little disgruntled maybe. We might sound off to the bloke alongside in the pub or rant about it to our in-laws. But the fireworks will be gone. Killed by the rules. Our pleasure will be a little diminished. Life will be a little duller.

And what applies to fireworks will apply to all our other little pleasures. To those things - Christmas lights, mulled wine, the smell of grandad's pipe, the logs on the fire - that bring a moment of light, a little fun into our lives. The rules will be applied and each of those things will be no more. And we'll miss them.

But not so much as to do anything. To face the rule makers and campaigners for rules and say; "no, that's enough, thankyou". And one day there will be only rules and no pleasure.

....

Nannying Fussbucket of the week: Yes it's Cllr Audrey Lewis & Westminster Council again!

****

All the papers are running this story - the pub that has been told to serve drinks more slowly or lose its license. Hidden in the detail of this story is the real reason for the problem:

“We have lots of people drinking outside and we know Westminster wants to clamp down on that..."

Now we're getting somewhere at last. It's not the efficient service that's the problem, it's that some people are drinking outside. How very dare they! Anti-social behaviour. Setting a bad example! It must be stopped! The licensing committee will end this ghastly behaviour. Even when:

The pub is on a cobbled mews and is only open weekdays. Mrs Bird added: “We have never had any complaints from residents about noise, there’s no problem with violence - we’re just a popular local pub.”

So it's causing no bother but Cllr Lewis and her Westminster Council killjoys - the one's who pulled the plug on The Boss and Macca - will still stop it. 'Cos of the rules, you know!

Nannying fussbuckets.

....

Nannying Fussbucket of the Week: Cllr Audrey Lewis

****

The woman who pulled the plug on The Boss rather than give him ten more minutes speaks:

I can understand the disappointment of fans when the Springsteen and McCartney duo came to a rather un rock'n'roll-like end. However the licensing rules are ultimately not there to kill the party, but to go some way to discharge the legal responsibility we also have to consider.

We make up some rules and, by jingo, we're going to enforce those rules - to the second - regardless of how many folk's pleasure we spoil as a result. Those licensing rules really are, absolutely and specifically, design to 'kill the party' and that's just what they did. To no-one's benefit.

....

So what do we have instead...?

****

Our local paper in on one of those periodic crusades - this time against the "betting blight" as their headline proclaims:

The campaign calls for gambling premises to be required to apply for a special licence or be subject to a special planning category that would give local authorities the power to refuse them if it would be detrimental to the local shopping environment. 

That's fine so far as it goes. By all means give local councils more powers to stop " rules that allow betting shops to take over building society premises and banks without planning permission." But before you do that, stop and think about what we'll get in place of these shops.

If I travel elsewhere - to one of the few town centres that are actually thriving - I won't find so many betting shops. There will be some - there are three in Ilkley by way of example - but they won't seem so prominent let alone dominant.

The problem in places like Bradford is that, if we don't have the betting shop (or the pawnbroker, or the pound shop, or the takeaway, or the charity shop) we're not likely to have anything at all. And before people think I'm having a dig at Bradford, the same goes for plenty of other places too - town centres without empty shops, places where the town centre race to the bottom, are the exception not the rule.

And those betting shops are not without benefit to the town. Each shop has a staff - a half dozen or so people who are paid to work there - and those shops wouldn't set up if there wasn't a market for what they offer. I don't get it myself but can't see why I should make some sort of moral judgement about the betting industry.

As ever with these proposals - just like the ones intended to removed permitted development rights on pubs - we need to be very careful what we wish for. Is it really better for the town to have empty shops rather than betting shops or takeaways? I'm not sure it is and I'm absolutely sure it's not in the interests of those who hold the leases on these shops.

And for once, I'm in full agreement with Dave Green, Bradford Council's leader (a man who likes a flutter):

...the Council was looking at ways to intervene directly in the development of the district’s high streets rather than simply relying on planning to ensure a greater retail mix. 

The active use of the space under control of the Council for events, markets and all the things of leisure and pleasure that make a town centre these days would be a more positive and, I believe, more effective way to promote town centres that a further set of planning regulations that merely add costs and destroy jobs.

....

When a meeting in a pub needs an "inclusion policy", you know there's something not right with the world!

OK it's David Allen Green but surely this is a joke?

Westminster Skeptics Civility and Inclusiveness Policy

I appreciate that "skeptics" (apart from their inability to spell the word) are a little odd but I can see no point or purpose to such a policy. They'll be having published standing orders and rules for debate next. Followed by endless debates about the rules requiring meetings to resolve those disputes - before you know there's politics followed inevitably by governance and leading to that ghastly excluding organisational mindset that leads most of these bodies to be come self-referencing and purposeless cliques.

How long before Mr Green publishes his "draft" equal opporutnities policy (for a meeting in a pub)!

...

Saying it's a "material consideration" isn't applying the new planning rules

***

The Daily Telegraph is again seeking to scare its NIMBY readers about the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF):

Official inspectors, who have the power to approve local developments, were given the fresh guidance by the Planning Inspectorate last week.

 It told them to start abiding by the new draft planning framework, which campaigners fear could lead to unchecked development in rural areas, because it represents the Government’s “direction of travel”.

Terrifying I know. Except that nearly all applications get nowhere near a planning inspector and, more to the point, that isn't what the inspectors have been told. Which is:

“The draft NPPF is likely to be referred to by the parties in current appeal and development plan casework.

 “Whilst it is a consultation document and, therefore, subject to potential amendment, nevertheless it gives a clear indication of the Government’s 'direction of travel’ in planning policy.

“Therefore, the draft National Planning Policy Framework is capable of being a material consideration, although the weight to be given to it will be a matter for the decision maker’s planning judgment in each particular case.”

So inspectors haven't been told to apply the new NPPF but have been reminded that people in the planning appeals process will refer to it, that this is material and that the inspector should use his judgement. And this is important since there is loads of precedent for Bills before parliament being material considerations in planning. Furthermore it is very clear that the weight given to a particular material consideration is wholly a matter for the planner and always has been. And the law is pretty clear (this from the recent Cala Homes ruling in the High Court):

Secondly, the provisions of a draft development plan document progressing through its statutory process towards adoption, even while objections to them remain unresolved, can be material considerations in a planning decision. There is abundant authority to this effect (see paragraph P70.09 of the Encyclopedia of Planning Law and Practice). Thirdly, emerging national policy, for example in the form of a draft circular or Planning Policy Statement, can also be a material consideration

So all that the Planning Inspectorate has done is to remind inspectors of what the law says. That the NPPF is a material consideration is a matter of fact - how much weight is given to it is a matter of the inspector's judgement. The main considerations for inspectors - the rules if you like - remain the current legislation and, where they are in place, the strategic plans of the local planning authority.

....

A few random thoughts inspired by meatloaf....

As you can see the random thoughts are inspired by the real thing - so no musing on biker fatalism, distinctions between love and lust or making love in a mini cooper. Altogether more wholesome, the blending together of old bread, minced meat and cheese to make a meal that can be served hot or cold, summer or winter, as a dinner party centrepiece or slammed in front of fussy kids.

I am not one for perfection - don't get me wrong, I up for fine dining, fancy combinations and such like - but there's something comforting about things that aren't quite square, perhaps droop a little in the wrong places and attract the occasional sneer from those who prefer image over substance. Indeed, our search for perfection, for a tidy solution seems to me one of the curses of the age.

Take suicide, for example. We're told that the solution - the tidy, fining dining answer - to the terrible truth that some deaths are painful beyond endurance is to allow people to "assist" in that dying. by which we mean accelerating it rather than sharing some of the agony of painful death. But not all people who would assist another's death are minded to do so from undiluted altruism - those staggering acts of love we see from some may be, indeed probably are, exceptional.

And look elsewhere - we speak of "poverty" in mechanistic terms, almost as a permanent state curable only through the setting of rules. Yet each case is different - some poverty is short-lived brought about by tragedy, misfortune or even death while other poverty is sustained by structural disadvantage, inadequacy, ill-health and, yes, even fecklessness. We have discovered that passing a law about poverty does not end that poverty - the rules do not educate, do you feed, do not provide a shoulder on which to cry. But we seek a tidy answer - whether it be to categorise all the poor as lazy or to claim innocence in every such case.

It is too untidy - whether we speak of the pain of death or the suffering of poverty - to say that we should approach each case as just that, an unique human tragedy meriting its own unique response. No we must blame it the "system", on disincentive and on the actions of others - perhaps bankers, maybe politically correct social workers, take your pick.

So much of this is just the image - making the right sounds, painting the right pictures, playing to the gallery. Surely all those things we were taught, the ethics, values and morality of England should tell us that the charge was placed on us all - you, me, the bloke next door - to care for others, to look out for the neighbour. We can't sub-contract that charge to a big system called "the welfare state". The duty that charge entails isn't resolved through the passing of tidy little laws. It is our duty - and too often, too many of us pretend that paying taxes and putting a few pennies in a collecting tin suffices.

Meatloaf isn't a tidy dish, there's not right way to make it, no set of rules (although you're welcome to pinch my version - after all I pinched it too). Yet it works and each family can see its way to its own version - a version that works for them - and a particular combination to accompany. If you seek perfection you won't find it in a meatloaf. But if you want something that does the job - and does it well - then the meatloaf's just the thing. A mix of things, old and new, a little bit of love and a uniqueness to time, place and circumstance - a bit like much of everything else really.

....

Fuzzy boundaries, rational behaviour, rule-breaking and Laws

****

As the newspapers and airwaves are dominated by another example of a politician interpreting expenses rules rather creatively, I thought I would join in with the Great David Laws furore. Not to make a judgment as to whether he should resign, should abase himself before the public or have fifty lashes with the cat o’ nine tails, but to ask a broader question about rules and why we break them.

In doing this I am minded of the fact that we all break rules – sometimes because we don’t like them or agree with them but mostly because either we believe we will get away with our transgression or else the likely punishment is too minor to be a real concern to us. I recall being told of how, outside a certain school, a particular car was ticketed (for parking right outside the gates, on double yellow lines, on a corner within a set of traffic lights) time and time again. In the end, a policeman spoke to the woman as she parked and was told ‘oh, just give me a ticket, my husband will pay it.’

In this case the woman opted to take the consequences of parking closer to the school gates. She saw it as worthwhile – an affordable risk – and behaved accordingly. In a similar manner we (or most of us) routinely break speed limits and trim the edges of a host of other regulatory constraints (tell me you’ve never driven the short hop from the corner shop to home without putting on your seatbelt). The chances of getting caught are very small and – in most cases – the consequences that follow being caught are also small.

Apply this to other circumstances in life – have you ever been given a blank receipt by a taxi driver? What about that insurance claim – how creative were you? And what about sneaking an unwanted letter back into the bag while playing scrabble? I could go on listing examples – petty and not so petty – of how we are surrounded by the temptation of rule-breaking. Indeed some folk take the view that it is perfectly OK to be entirely selective as to which rules to abide by and which rules to ignore.

Partly, all this is a plea to take heed of Christ’s advice in Matt 7:5 (remove the log from your own eye and you’ll see more clearly to remove the mote from your brother’s) but mostly it’s to understand that like everything else, our attitude to rules is entirely rational. Rule-breaking is perfectly normal, rational behaviour – it must be because we all break rules and many of us do so every day. At the same time, our irritation, annoyance or even anger at the rule-breaking of others is also rational behaviour. Plus of course our insistence that rules are tightened, punishments lifted and transgressors exposed.

Rules serve one of two purposes – they enforce equality (by which I don’t mean modern “equalities” but rather that rules ensure we all play the same game – that our engagement with society is ‘fair’) or they allow control. In recent times we have seen a significant sub-set of laws for control – the use of regulation to ‘change behaviour’. In general we place greater importance on laws of equality since these are the laws that protect us and our property. These laws enjoy overwhelming support and their breach is seen as a very serious matter.

Rules of control, however, are less likely to enjoy overwhelming support as they are about governing our behaviour rather than regulating the game. We also (and this is reflected in punishments) see the boundaries of these laws in very fuzzy terms being willing to forgive less significant transgression under some circumstances. This brings with it the risk of arbitrariness – on the agency charged with enforcement acting inconsistently. While there’s no evidence of police bias against red cars, you are more likely to be stopped by the police if you are black and many enforcement decisions are based on value judgments made by officers – all this is evidence of inconsistency. And, as rational actors in this game, we do not like inconsistency since it means we cannot know if the rules of equality apply. Yet we acquiesce in fuzzy applications – we see it as OK for the copper to let the woman off a speeding fine but to slap the full fine on the boy racer who commits the same offence.

And, of course, where there is expectation of leniency there is a greater incentive to break the rules. Look, for example, at the relatively benign world of fines for overstaying in a car park. Even where the risk is considerable (a substantial charge to remove a wheel clamp) people routinely believe that the “I was only a couple of minutes late” argument will work. But look at it from the operator’s perspective and such fuzziness is not rational – enforcing the time is entirely sensible as the alternative is to have space that is occupied but not income-generating.

For public enforcement agencies, on the other hand, fuzziness gives power. The ability of the copper to stop or not stop, charge or not charge is central to their authority – these choices are exercises of arbitrary power. If officers simply enforced the letter of the law, their power would be constrained entirely by what is says in that law. Whereas we allow fuzzy edges to decision-making – call it discretion - you move the power away from the law and onto the individual officer.

Which brings us back to David Laws – because the administration of MPs expenses was deliberately vague, we have a system where fuzzy boundaries allowed for arbitrary and contradictory decisions. And now, with a new regime, it’s become like the attractive woman stopped by the gay cop – all the usual eyelash fluttering and cleavage revelation has no effect. She gets the ticket. Under the regime that existed before, Mr Laws’ behaviour was entirely rational – today with clear boundaries of permission, such behaviour is not rational.

....

Update: It seems that David Laws has resigned - which shows he has a little bit of class in my judgment. In doing this we see once again the triumph of the prurient and of those who merely seek political advantage from others mistakes. I ask whether those baying loudest for his head on a platter are so very innocent - or are they just the same but so far fortunate enough not to get caught.

....