Rebuilding the Social Contract: A New Model for Planning

1. Context • Planners are seen as bad news – a negative public image • System changes, but still tension between people’s relationship to governance and nature of planning – primarily down to two shifts: • Democratic: Increasing numbers of people wanting to be involved in planning, but not through formal routes. Result of multiplication of means of democratic channels for expression. • Knowledge: Increased access to knowledge and altered relationship between professionals and public • Planners blamed for effects of this broad range of changes which are happening outside of their control, because culture hasn’t kept up with implications of those changes. Planners are the ‘touchpoint’ where the effects of social and cultural changes meet people’s aspirations for development. Planners left with little room to manoeuvre, but shoulder ill feeling. • At the same time, we see increasing importance of place developing.

2. The Social Contract The nature of the social contract that legitimises planning has changed, but not disappeared. We need to find a new way to rebuild that social contract in the light of contemporary relationships between people and governance. Janus-faced policy from government. On the one hand, they cast planning as drag on growth and need for speed, liquidity and efficiency. On the other, implore l.a. to engage with communities more thoroughly. 1. So in policy govt gives financial incentives for l.a. to meet speed targets on applications, but less incentives for community engagement – and the two can, on current models, be counteractive. 2. Current debates are often framed around this perceived dichotomy. But these two aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. Tension is based on old model of social contract. But possible to acknowledge both liquidity and need for place – by rebuilding the social contract model from bottom-up – acknowledging liquidity, autonomy of communities and the importance of place. Community; place; belonging Market; atomisation; individualism Current policy approach leaves these two in tension. System still embodies this. ‘Planning’ is still modelled on 50s vision to an extent. Problems: 1. Lack of separation between DC, planning and complex political context 2. Disconnect between people, planners and elected representatives 3. Trust in l.a. eroded, especially on vision / strategy and regeneration specifics 3. Market / private sector left to be action agent – meaning disconnect between vision and ‘seeing it through’ Development control Planning System Planning Action

3. Disconnect at all three levels Elected representatives Vague, ill-defined relationships between elected reps and dem. System and planners, both dc and planning Planners Erosion of trust / willingness to be ‘planned for’ People

4. Current model Development control Local authority / central targets Planning System Planning Action Private sector

5. A New Model Need for liquidity, mobility etc New social contract model: based on situating communities of interest in their networks of responsibility and generating the appropriate capacity / intelligence through information feedback loops Recognise communities as networked and limits of market in delivering social / democratic outcomes Increasing importance of place and belonging The presumption has been to encourage ownership, atomisation and the free market. But there’s an increased realisation that neother formal representative models nor people’s ‘blind’ actions in the free market are sufficient to model or represent public ‘opinion’

6. New planning models Planning system • DC: • Citizen juries with planner as judge. De-links decision making from political process thus depoliticising the role of planners and policy makers. • DC planner would still hold many of the same skills etc – but play an arbitration / facilitation and communication role, sharing intensive system understanding with citizen jury DC PL DA Local Authority / Mayor? • What is the relationship between this body and: • Elected representative democratic structures • More direct democratic channels – participation / community-led visioning etc. • Potential models: • Proactive agents of policy and action – partnership working; project management and advocacy • Community Futures Trust • Mayoral control with delegated powers • Community-led visioning • …

7. Citizen Juries • Drawn from wide geographic area, but not comprising of local residents • Delinks locally-specific bias and provides democratically legitimate means of situating local planning concerns within the context of the broader responsibility that the locality has • Planner sits as arbitrator / adjudicator – sharing experience and knowledge of complex specifics etc with jury members • Connected strongly to renewed efforts to situate people, communities and local authorities in their networks and embed knowledge of the consequences of that position. Eg community visioning, urban tapestries, and neighbourhood contract. • Such effort legitimises the extra-local constituents of planning citizens jury

8. Global to Local Feedback Global environmental and demographic change Media / government feedback Cent. Gov. Current Model Targets – housing, environmental etc Loc. Gov. Plan (via consultation etc) Public

9. Global to Local Feedback Global environmental and demographic change Media / government feedback New models of feedback needed between global and demographic change direct to local community level. Cent. Gov. New model needed for engagement on central targets – housing, environment etc. Loc. Gov. Need new model here feedback between people and council, linking council action and consequences, and people’s actions and consequences for council Need new model for spreading direct information loops across the community themselves – to allow organic local knowledge to emerge of relationships between people’s everyday lives and the consequences Public

10. Council level Bottom-up Neighbourhood Contract Awareness tools Community visioning Community action DC PL DA Feedback loop • Reconciliation between national targets and local aspirations / targets through dual feedback model. • Firstly, at the level of the community – through urban tapestries type work etc. Secondly, between loal authority and individual / community – with audited statements attached to council bills providing embedded knowledge of effects of council / area performance.