Public participation, planning and housing: A changing balance of power?

Abstract

The British town and country planning system is one of the most sophisticated and complex planning systems in the world. Its purpose, as defined in one of the latest government publications devoted to the issue, is “to help achieve sustainable development” (CLG, 2012: i). It is supposed to promote the general public interest, as well as the best use of resources, by resisting demands from sectional interest groups. Since its inception in the 1910s, it has undergone many changes that have been justified by the need to foster greater public participation (MHLG, 1969: 3). These changes have been brought about by the multiplication of conflicts around planning issues from the 1960s onwards that have challenged the alleged democratic nature of the system. On the face of it, those conflicts have led to greater democracy in the system through more opportunities for public involvement. However, being involved does not always mean being heard, as Arnstein’s famous ladder of citizen participation has shown.1 This chapter explores the development of public participation in the planning system from a housing studies perspective, a multidisciplinary field of research that emerged in the 1980s and which has drawn from all social sciences to study the three dimensions of housing (or the phenomenon of residence as defined by Kemeny, 1992: 78), dwellings, locality, and households. It will examine the various stages the planning system has gone through in light of some conflicts that illustrate the contested nature of housing renewal and the power relations in this public policy area. My contention is that the governance of housing renewal has evolved, in rhetoric, from a representative model to a participatory or collaborative model as a result of conflicts and protests, but in practice, power has ultimately remained in the hands of government, be it central or local.