(Ebook) Beyond Neighbourhood Planning by Andy Yuille

ISBN 9781447362838, 9781447362845, 9781447362852,

9781447362869, 1447362837, 1447362845, 1447362853,
1447362861 Pdf Download

https://ebooknice.com/product/beyond-neighbourhood-planning-50825502

★★★★★
4.8 out of 5.0 (95 reviews )

Instant PDF Download

ebooknice.com
 (Ebook) Beyond Neighbourhood Planning by Andy Yuille ISBN
9781447362838, 9781447362845, 9781447362852, 9781447362869,
1447362837, 1447362845, 1447362853, 1447362861 Pdf Download

EBOOK

Available Formats

■ PDF eBook Study Guide Ebook

EXCLUSIVE 2025 EDUCATIONAL COLLECTION - LIMITED TIME

INSTANT DOWNLOAD VIEW LIBRARY

Here are some recommended products for you. Click the link to
download, or explore more at ebooknice.com

(Ebook) Biota Grow 2C gather 2C cook by Loucas, Jason; Viles,

James ISBN 9781459699816, 9781743365571, 9781925268492,
1459699815, 1743365578, 1925268497

https://ebooknice.com/product/biota-grow-2c-gather-2c-cook-6661374

(Ebook) Matematik 5000+ Kurs 2c Lärobok by Lena Alfredsson, Hans

Heikne, Sanna Bodemyr ISBN 9789127456600, 9127456609

https://ebooknice.com/product/matematik-5000-kurs-2c-larobok-23848312

(Ebook) SAT II Success MATH 1C and 2C 2002 (Peterson's SAT II

Success) by Peterson's ISBN 9780768906677, 0768906679

https://ebooknice.com/product/sat-ii-success-math-1c-and-2c-2002-peterson-
s-sat-ii-success-1722018

(Ebook) Master SAT II Math 1c and 2c 4th ed (Arco Master the SAT
Subject Test: Math Levels 1 & 2) by Arco ISBN 9780768923049,
0768923042

https://ebooknice.com/product/master-sat-ii-math-1c-and-2c-4th-ed-arco-
master-the-sat-subject-test-math-levels-1-2-2326094
(Ebook) Cambridge IGCSE and O Level History Workbook 2C - Depth
Study: the United States, 1919-41 2nd Edition by Benjamin
Harrison ISBN 9781398375147, 9781398375048, 1398375144,
1398375047
https://ebooknice.com/product/cambridge-igcse-and-o-level-history-
workbook-2c-depth-study-the-united-states-1919-41-2nd-edition-53538044

(Ebook) Into the Wild: Beyond the Design Research Lab by Alan
Chamberlain, Andy Crabtree

https://ebooknice.com/product/into-the-wild-beyond-the-design-research-
lab-10487716

(Ebook) Planning World Cities: Globalization and Urban Politics

by Peter Newman; Andy Thornley ISBN 9781350312104,
9780333717035, 0333717031, 135031210X

https://ebooknice.com/product/planning-world-cities-globalization-and-
urban-politics-44681994

(Ebook) The Psychopath: Theory, Research, and Practice by Hugues

Herve (editor), John C. Yuille (editor) ISBN 9780805860795,
0805860797

https://ebooknice.com/product/the-psychopath-theory-research-and-
practice-38329994

(Ebook) Beyond Consensus : Improving Collaborative Planning and

Management by Richard D. Margerum ISBN 9780262298605, 0262298600

https://ebooknice.com/product/beyond-consensus-improving-collaborative-
planning-and-management-51403046
 Beyond
“The best thing I’ve ever read about urban planning. Razor-sharp and

Beyond Neighbourhood Planning Andy Yuille

cutting through jargon and convention, it evidences a new way of
‘doing planning’, one that’s democratic, participative and informed by
the values of people and place.”

Neighbourhood
Quintin Bradley, Leeds Beckett University

“This impressive and well-written book provides a really useful

contribution, highlighting the experiences of participants and

Planning
linking with theory to give a thoughtful account of the dynamics and
difficulties of localist participation in planning.”
Gavin Parker, University of Reading

The past three decades have seen an international ‘turn to participation’ –

letting those who will be affected by outcomes play an active role in
decision-making – but there is widespread dissatisfaction with actual
Knowledge, Care, Legitimacy

Andy Yuille
instances of citizen-state engagement. Neighbourhood planning in England
exemplifies this contradiction.

This innovative analysis brings theory, research and practice together to give
insights into how and why citizen voices become effective or get excluded.
Ethnographic data from detailed studies of neighbourhood planning are used
to illustrate the constraints and possibilities of a wide range of participatory
governance practices and social movements. The book concludes with
recommendations to re-invigorate community involvement in planning
and beyond.

Andy Yuille is Senior Research Associate with Eden Project Morecambe at

Lancaster University.

ISBN 978-1-4473-6284-5

@policypress
@policypress PolicyPress
policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk 9 781447 362845

YUILLE_Beyond Neighbourhood Planning_pbk.indd 1 04/05/2023 16:47:16

 BEYOND
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING
Knowledge, Care, Legitimacy
Andy Yuille
First published in Great Britain in 2023 by

Policy Press, an imprint of

Bristol University Press
University of Bristol
1–​9 Old Park Hill
Bristol
BS2 8BB
UK
t: +​44 (0)117 374 6645
e: bup-​[email protected]

Details of international sales and distribution partners are available at

policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk

© Bristol University Press 2023

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 978-​1-​4473-​6283-​8 hardcover

ISBN 978-​1-​4473-​6284-​5 paperback
ISBN 978-​1-​4473-​6285-​2 ePub
ISBN 978-​1-​4473-​6286-​9 ePdf

The right of Andy Yuille to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in
accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved: no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording,
or otherwise without the prior permission of Bristol University Press.

Every reasonable effort has been made to obtain permission to reproduce copyrighted material. If,
however, anyone knows of an oversight, please contact the publisher.

The statements and opinions contained within this publication are solely those of the author and
not of the University of Bristol or Bristol University Press. The University of Bristol and Bristol
University Press disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any
material published in this publication.

Bristol University Press and Policy Press work to counter discrimination on grounds
of gender, race, disability, age and sexuality.

Cover design: Lyn Davies Design

Front cover image: alamy/​Allsorts Stock Photo
Bristol University Press and Policy Press use environmentally responsible
print partners.
Printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
 Contents
List of figures and table iv
Acknowledgements v
Preface vi

1 Introduction: Neighbourhood planners and the turn to participation  1

2 Planning, participation and democratisation 28
3 Knowledge, politics and care: perspectives from Science 61
and Technology Studies
4 Neighbourhoods, identity and legitimacy 90
5 Experience, evidence and examination 127
6 Expertise, agency and power 164
7 Care and concern 201
8 Conclusion: Neighbourhood planning and beyond 231

Notes 250
References 255
Index 295

iii
 List of figures and table

Figures
4.1 Discourse of empowering communities through 92
neighbourhood planning
4.2 Uneven distribution of powers between communities 92
4.3 Neighbourhoods and neighbourhood planning groups 94
4.4 The multiple identities of neighbourhood planning groups 98
4.5 Neighbourhood planning groups: an identity-​multiple 99
4.6 Tensions between identities 113
4.7 Imbalance among neighbourhood planning identities 117

Table
4.1 The multiple identities of neighbourhood planners 115

iv
 Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation for the help and support
that I have had in assembling this book. First, to the two neighbourhood
planning groups who participated in the research, and to their consultants
and Local Planning Authorities, who generously let me work alongside
them (for a lot longer than any of us expected!), and whose persistence and
resourcefulness were a lesson in themselves. All names and other identifying
features have been anonymised as an original condition of conducting the
research, but they will know who they are. Second, to the supervisors of
the doctoral research on which much of the book is based, and my
mentors in the subsequent fellowship which developed the ideas arising
from that research, for their inspiration, commitment, wisdom and good
humour: Claire Waterton, Vicky Singleton, Noel Cass, Gordon Walker and
Rebecca Willis. Particular thanks go to Noel for his tremendous dedication
in doing this outside of the formal system, unable to be formally appointed
as a supervisor because of the short-​term nature of his research contracts.
Third, to the colleagues who made it all more colourful, sociable, intelligible
and, dare I say it, sometimes even fun. Special mention to the various
permutations of Write Club and particularly Jess Phoenix, Rebecca Willis
(again!), Cath Hill, Cosmin Popan and Lula Mecinska.
Thanks to my wife Anna for her unstinting support and encouragement,
reminders that it’s supposed to be hard, comments on the final drafts, and
for organising writing weekends for the two of us so that I could enjoy
it as well as get it done. Thanks to my parents for not throwing up their
hands in despair at my wanting to ‘go back to school’ in my 40s, and for
being as wonderfully understanding and supportive of this as they have
been for everything else ever. Thanks to my friends who pretended to be
interested, bought me wine, and mostly refrained from asking if I’ve got
a real job yet. And thanks to the sociology department and the Lancaster
Environment Centre at Lancaster University for hosting this adventure,
and to the Economic and Social Research Council for funding it through
PhD studentship grant 1539678 and postdoctoral fellowship grant
ES/​V01112X/​1.

v
 Preface
From 2006 I have led policy and campaigning work for a variety of
environmental non-​governmental organisations (NGOs) and community
groups –​ primarily the Campaign to Protect Rural England. I often
represented these groups in the planning system and other forums that
were ostensibly intended to widen public and stakeholder participation in
decision making and incorporate a wide range of knowledges and values.
I found that much of what I was doing was acting as a translator, taking
the lived experiences of individuals and groups and transforming them
into technical jargon and instrumentalised arguments that would fit into
particular policy pigeonholes: turning them into something other than what
they were presented to me as, to enable them to have traction in formal and
sometimes intimidating settings.
I also observed members of the public and community groups representing
themselves, particularly in formal spatial planning settings. They often
expressed themselves eloquently and passionately, to apparently sympathetic
planning inspectors who listened carefully, ensuring that everyone felt that
they had had the opportunity to fully contribute. However, that testimony
would often then be all but discarded because it didn’t fit easily into the
scales with which the ‘planning balance’ was weighed. Even in these
theoretically inclusive forums, the things that really mattered to people were
often excluded and made invisible: what Science and Technology Studies
scholar John Law describes as being ‘othered’. Representing community
groups and NGOs in other technocratic locations, such as the North West
Regional Assembly, Regional Development Agency and Government
Office, I found debate foreclosed because the questions and problems to
be considered were framed in particular ways, and there were unofficial
but taken-​for-​g ranted restrictions on the types of knowledge and value
considered valid.
Then, in 2011, the government introduced neighbourhood planning
through the Localism Act, enabling community groups to write their own
land use planning policies, to decide what evidence was needed to support
them, and to produce that evidence. The discourse of neighbourhood
planning emphasised local, experiential knowledge –​people were portrayed
as being qualified to plan for a place because of their experience of living
there. It emphasised people’s affective, emotional connections with
place, something that the planning system (and planning scholarship) has
previously disparaged. It was claimed that it would shift the focus of hyper-​
local planning from a bureaucratic, technical, expert-​led process to a more
democratic, community-​led one. It promised to make translators like me,
at least in some circumstances, effectively redundant. This book explores

vi
newgenprepdf

Preface

these claims through ethnographic research conducted between 2015 and

2018, and examines ways in which its findings might be extended beyond
neighbourhood planning to other sites of participatory democracy.

Andy Yuille
November 2022

vii
 1

Introduction: Neighbourhood planners

and the turn to participation

Neighbourhood Planning is about letting the people who know

about and care for an area plan for it.
Planning Advisory Service (2013)

Introduction
This is a book about neighbourhood planning, a ‘community right’
introduced to England by the Localism Act 2011, which allows community
groups to write their own land use planning policies for their towns, villages
or parts of cities. This means that they can now do what previously only
credentialled experts working within the machinery of government could,
a move which has been described as ‘arguably the most radical innovation
in UK neighbourhood governance in a generation’ (Wargent and Parker,
2018: 379). As the opening quotation from the Planning Advisory Service
(a government-​funded programme providing support to Local Planning
Authorities [LPAs] to help them understand and respond to planning
reform) highlights, neighbourhood planning emphasises the importance and
centrality of the knowledge and care that local people have for the place
where they live, derived from their experience of living there.
Portrayed as an antidote to a planning system that was too complex,
technical and exclusive, proponents of neighbourhood planning claim that
it promotes local democracy by widening and deepening participation in
planning, one of the most controversial aspects of local life in the UK. As
the government’s flagship initiative for local engagement with planning,
and for localism and community control more widely, it was intended to
extend and pluralise the range of voices and sources of knowledge that can
be influential in planning: enabling the people who know and care about a
place to make their own decisions about how it changes. This book charts
some of the challenges faced by two neighbourhood planning communities
and how they responded to them, told from the perspective of someone
working closely with them.
But it is also a book about the dilemmas and potentials of participatory
governance more widely, in the context of an increasing, international
perception of democratic deficit, in which citizens feel disconnected from
and distrustful of those who make public decisions on their behalf (Foa

1
 Beyond Neighbourhood Planning

et al, 2020). It explores how processes that are established with the purpose
of enabling communities to have their say on issues which affect them can
result in those communities feeling that the things that matter to them have
not been adequately addressed. But it also emphasises how, at the same
time, those processes can and do make material differences, bringing about
changes that would not have happened otherwise. It maintains this ‘both/​
and’ focus throughout, on how neighbourhood planning and participation
more widely can simultaneously disrupt and reproduce existing power
relations. It does this by using resources from Science and Technology Studies
(STS) to explore the ways in which knowledge and power, and subjects
and objects, are co-​produced and entangled through participatory processes
(Jasanoff, 2004a; Chilvers and Kearnes, 2016). And it asks, and proposes
some tentative responses to, the question of how marginalised knowledges
can be worked with better.
Because it’s also about what is described in STS as ‘ontological politics’
(Mol, 1999). This refers to the decisions that are made before the decisions
that are recognised as political are made, such as during the production and
presentation of evidence. These processes are not generally recognised as
political, and in fact are often framed precisely as being not political. They
deal with questions about what there is in the world, how things fit together,
what causes might have what effects, and what is relevant and important to
the situation under consideration. These are questions that can be described
as ‘ontological’. Answers to these questions tend to be presented as value-​
free knowledge, hard evidence, statements of fact. Then, once we have the
facts, we can make our political decisions. But what knowledge to trust,
which voices to listen to, what evidence to produce, what assumptions
and simplifications to make, what to foreground as important and what to
background as marginal –​in other words, what to make visible to politics
and political decision making –​are all highly political choices. Political not
in the sense of party or even personal politics, but in the sense of an ongoing
struggle to define what the world is like, what matters, what elements of
complex situations are relevant and important. So this book is also about
care: what people care about, how that care can (or can’t) be articulated,
and the effects that has.
This book is highly specific in its focus on neighbourhood planning and
its detailed analysis of two case studies of community groups preparing
neighbourhood plans. But I also hope to show how the ideas and insights
generated here can travel and help to understand and interpret other cases
of place-​based participatory democracy. And, in turn, I hope to show how
this can open up possibilities for intervention, to help enable particular
instances of participatory democracy come closer to realising their promise
and to resist the traps of co-​option, governmentality and tokenism. But
before briefly reviewing this wider landscape, I’d like you to meet the people

2
 Introduction

whose work and commitment to shaping the future of their neighbourhoods

over more than three years animate these pages and constitute the stories
I’m going to tell.

Meet the cast

Arriving in Oakley
On a cold, dark night in February 2015 I was walking around a small coastal
town in northern England, trying to find a place I’ll call Elizabeth Hall.1
The banners on the wall and posters in the window of the building in front
of me, saying ‘Oakley Neighbourhood Plan: We need you to vote YES’,
confirmed that I’d come to the right place. I was about to meet the Oakley
neighbourhood planning group (NPG) for the first time, to ask them if
they’d be willing to take part in an ethnographic research project. They had
started work on a neighbourhood plan in the autumn and, I learned that
evening, were consulting the neighbourhood on the broad issues the plan
should tackle and general principles that should underpin it.
The main entrance was locked for the night, so I followed the light
from a side door around the corner, and headed upstairs. The NPG were
meeting in the Council Chamber, where the town council also held their
meetings, a room dominated by a huge wooden boardroom-​style table in
the middle of the room and heavy wooden panels on the wall listing past
mayors. There were ten of them here tonight, four of whom were also
town councillors, along with the council’s deputy clerk. They seemed, on
the whole, reasonably well off, confident, comfortable in themselves and
in this situation, and welcoming to me as a stranger. The discussion that
evening included the group auditing their skills and experience to see what
they might be missing, which revealed that they were mostly retired, from
professional backgrounds. Stephanie, the Chair, was very self-​deprecating
about her title, but chaired the meeting efficiently and professionally,
skilfully managing both those members who wanted to talk a lot (primarily
Robert and Andrew), and drawing out those who seemed less confident
or comfortable about contributing (most notably Sarah, Paula and Henry).
After swiftly dealing with actions arising from the last meeting, Stephanie,
supported by interjections from around the table, filled me in on some brief
background to the town and what they were doing.
Oakley is a small coastal town of just over 4,000 people. It grew from a
cluster of fishermen’s cottages to a popular seaside resort almost overnight
with the arrival of the railway in the mid-​1800s. This boom of tourists
seeking the health-​g iving benefits of the sea air shaped the architecture,
character and development of the town, with a strong orientation towards
the sea, several large hotels, public gardens and attractive public realm.
Oakley did not suffer the precipitous decline of many British resort towns,

3
 Beyond Neighbourhood Planning

but rather stagnated, catering to a small and sedate visiting public (Walton,
2000: 42). Its population is now old and ageing, with over 40 per cent of
the population over 65, compared to around 16 per cent of the population
nationally. There are relatively low levels of deprivation in the town overall,
but this conceals some distinct social and spatial inequalities. There are few
economic opportunities for young people in the town, and the group were
concerned about the lack of housing that could be suitable and affordable
both for younger people and for older people looking to downsize.
Oakley’s location just outside a national park, where the type and scale
of development is limited, leads to increased pressure for development
in and around the town. However, a slew of housing developments over
the past few years had been strongly opposed locally as they didn’t meet
these community-​identified needs, but rather tended to be intrusive, large,
executive homes which did not respond to or respect their built and natural
surroundings. They were widely regarded as the wrong development in the
wrong places. Conversely, there had been strong support for a large new
social housing project led by a housing association near the town centre, in
terms of its design, location, integration with the built form of the town,
and type of housing it provided. The group wanted to make sure that future
development in the town actually met the needs of the local community
for jobs and housing, while also ameliorating (or at least not worsening)
existing problems with flooding and traffic, and maintaining Oakley’s
distinctive character.

Resentment, peripherality and disconnection

One of the main themes that came out of that first meeting, and that haunted
much of the next few years as I worked with them to produce their plan, was
a sense of resentment towards and betrayal by the district’s LPA. In briefly
outlining to me why they had chosen to produce a neighbourhood plan,
they explained that as well as permitting the alienating developments already
mentioned, the LPA had adopted a new development plan just over a year
earlier, allocating several sites in and around the town for development that
had been strongly resisted locally, including the last remaining green space
between the town and two nearby settlements. Widespread engagement
by individuals, self-​organised action groups, and the town council in
consultations over the plan and individual development proposals seemed
to them to have been ignored. On-​the-​g round knowledge about local
conditions was, in their view, passed over in favour of remote technical
assessments which, as far as they were concerned, bore little resemblance
to the place where they lived.
Some, but not all, of the NPG had been involved in these consultations
in one way or another. But even those who had not been involved agreed

4
 Introduction

that this reflected a wider, ongoing pattern: of not having their voices heard,
their needs acknowledged, their knowledge recognised, or what mattered
to them taken account of. This ranged from local warnings about flood risk
in relation to new development going unheeded, to being passed over for
investment in, or even maintenance of, basic infrastructure in favour of other,
more central places in the district, particularly the main town where the
LPA’s offices were located. There was a strong feeling of being marginalised,
of existing geographically and figuratively on the periphery. Making a
neighbourhood plan was seen by the town council as an opportunity to gain
some statutory power that would mean that their voice would have to be
heard. They were also attracted by the promise of additional funding that it
would bring.2 Four town councillors agreed to establish a NPG, and then
invited other residents to join the group via their website, Facebook page
and the local newspaper, leading to a 14-​strong NPG.

Connecting disconnections

This sense of disconnection from and distrust of the LPA was shared by the
second NPG I came to work with, in Wroston, a small rural village of around
500 people, in another northern county. I met them for the first time the
following week, on another dark night, in the village hall. There were signs
directing people for the neighbourhood plan meeting to the first door on the
left; the room opposite was piled high with a seemingly random collection
of things. The room was small, with a trestle table that four chairs could just
about crowd around, more folding chairs set out around the edges of the
room, and a shelf-​like work surface along one side. It clearly served several
purposes –​as a storeroom, general meeting room, the Wroston computer
centre (as declared by an A4 sign, a couple of large laptops, and a server
continuously emitting a high-​pitched whine) –​and as the neighbourhood
planning hub, with A4 laminates on the walls describing the village’s ‘assets
and issues’ as identified in the group’s first community consultation.
The setting was much more informal than Oakley, and the people were
too, although they appeared to share a broadly similar social and cultural
background, and they were again friendly and welcoming to me. They were
markedly younger overall; although a small majority of the eight people there
that night appeared to be over 50, most were still in work. None were parish
councillors. A planning consultant, Scott, and the very part-​time parish
clerk were also present. Simon, the Chair, entered and called the meeting
to order. He attempted to follow quite a formal style of chairing, but many
of the group acted much less formally, particularly Anne (who turned out to
be the group’s unofficial Vice Chair), who regularly laughed, joked, swore
and interrupted. However, she clearly had a lot of respect from the group,
was a well-​known figure in Wroston and appeared to be a woman who

5
 Beyond Neighbourhood Planning

could –​and did –​get things done. The atmosphere in general was more
relaxed than in the formal council chamber at Oakley. They laughed a lot.
But despite the laughter and the informality, discontent and distrust were
readily apparent here as well. The LPA for the district that Wroston is in
was in the process of preparing a new local plan that would allocate sites for
development. At a packed public meeting in the village the previous year, the
agent for a local landowner had proposed developing the fields surrounding
the village on the north and east sides for housing, which could triple its size
(from around 200 to around 600 houses). The LPA, under pressure to find
enough land to meet housing targets that were widely perceived as being
externally imposed and excessively high, appeared inclined to include the
sites in their plan, despite very widespread local opposition, and very limited
accessibility to services or employment by any means other than driving. At
this meeting, a parish councillor proposed producing a neighbourhood plan
so that residents could have more control over how the village developed, and
after a couple of initial meetings with parish councillors and other residents,
this was taken forwards by a group of resident volunteers.
Wroston lies just inside the boundary of a sparsely populated Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty, and is still largely based around a linear medieval
street pattern, with buildings fronting the roads one deep. The built-​up areas
are of a surprisingly high density, with many older houses in terraces where
gaps between cottages have been filled in over the centuries, and with newer
developments largely on sites that had previously been used for industry.
However, the village is surrounded by open countryside with networks of
footpaths and green lanes, and contains plenty of public green space. From
its original role as an agricultural settlement, by the 19th century it had
become a minor industrial centre, and although the traditional industries
that thrived there have all declined to zero, it is still a working village, with
44 businesses ranging from farming to therapy operating there. It is also a
lived-​in place, with over 95 per cent of homes being permanent residences –​
it has not been hollowed out like other villages in scenic locations by second
homes and holiday lets. However, in common with many rural places it
has suffered from a stark loss of services, losing a GP surgery, two pubs and
several bus services in the past few years.
As in Oakley, the NPG felt that their community was very peripheral: that
they were ‘off the radar’ of the LPA as anything other than now a place to
‘dump’ extra housing to achieve excessive targets. They believed that the
LPA had no real knowledge of or engagement with their village, or interest
in the needs, wellbeing or knowledge of the local community. This group
were also concerned that there was not enough housing locally that would
be suitable or affordable for younger people. But at the same time, they
were determined that the village should grow organically to primarily meet
local needs, and in ways that preserved its historic character and sense of

6
 Introduction

place and community. Their knowledge of recent developments permitted

by the LPA nearby, and their sense more generally of the LPA as a remote
institution with little interest in them, led them to believe that this would
not happen without their active intervention.

Optimism and scepticism

But despite these rather negative beginnings in both cases, both groups at this
stage were full of energy, optimism and hope. The government had promised
them ‘direct power to develop a shared vision for their neighbourhood and
shape the development and growth of their local area’ (DCLG, 2014b). Early
and extensive consultation throughout their neighbourhoods had garnered
widespread public support and given them some clear indications about
the priorities of their communities. The task before them was daunting but
do-​able: to produce a statutory framework that would shape the growth
and development of the places where they lived for the next 10 to 15 years.
Both groups agreed to let me join them while they worked towards that
as a participant observer –​someone who would work alongside them while
simultaneously conducting research on the processes that we were working
in and on –​with a mixture of enthusiasm and scepticism. In both groups
there was an overall agreement that it could benefit them, as I would become
a part of each group and pitch in with the work of producing the plans,
both as an extra pair of hands and also drawing on my previous experience
of working with community groups in the planning system. Most of them
were curious about the idea of becoming the subjects of a research project,
but there was some initial hesitance about the focus and methodology.
When I first talked to him about an interest in different ways of knowing
and valuing place, Simon, Chair of the Wroston NPG, had tersely warned
me that neighbourhood planning is “not about that wishy-​washy sort of
stuff, it has to be based on hard evidence”. However, he was particularly
keen for me to help them with consultation data analysis for confidentiality
reasons, reasoning that the village is so small that people could be readily
identifiable, even though surveys would be anonymised. Having (unpaid)
outsiders involved at this point was seen as a big bonus. Stephanie, Chair
of the Oakley NPG, was particularly sceptical of the idea of ethnography,
saying that that, at least in the early days of ethnography, “us colonial types
went off to study ‘tribes’ and wrote down all sorts of nonsense that had
nothing to do with anything, then came back home and reported it as facts”.
She was, understandably, worried about being misinterpreted, and about
these misinterpretations being used to further political agendas that she did
not share. Conversely, she and several others were excited at the idea that
they could be involved in research that might, just possibly, help to shift
government policy in favour of further empowering local communities.

7
 Beyond Neighbourhood Planning

I say this to very deliberately locate myself within the study, as a member
of the cast as it were, as well as an observer and interpreter of their actions
and circumstances. I worked within and alongside these groups for over three
years, sharing their enthusiasms, challenges, victories and disappointments.
This book is not a detached record of events viewed at a distance, but rather
an engaged account in which I am entangled with the participants, enabling
me to witness and experience their practices in situ as they unfolded: to
both watch and participate in the process of producing a plan. Ethnography
is a situated practice that locates the observer in the world, and which is
grounded in a commitment to the first-​hand experience and exploration
of the realities of everyday life in a particular setting (Atkinson et al, 2007;
Denzin and Lincoln, 2008). And so, acknowledging that ‘knowledge is always
mediated by pre-​existing ideas and values, whether this is acknowledged
by the researcher or not’ (Seale, 1999: 470), rather than vainly striving for
an unattainable ‘view from nowhere’, I attempt to be clear about my own
positioning (Haraway, 1988).

The international turn to participation

The people described in the previous section were embarking on one very
specific journey of participatory democracy. Enhancing public participation
in policy and decision making has been a subject of central concern for the
English planning system for over 50 years, since the Skeffington committee
published its report on People and Planning in 1969. This makes the planning
system one of the longest-​standing arenas in which the dilemmas and potential
for participatory democracy have been played out, and in which they are
frequently revisited (Inch et al, 2019). At the time of writing, radical reforms
to the English planning system proposed by the Conservative UK government
in 2020 are in the process of largely being quietly dropped after years of
delay. This was primarily due to concerns voiced by professional planning
associations, non-​governmental organisations (NGOs), local councillors and
backbench MPs that they would drastically reduce the opportunity for citizens
to have a say on material changes to their environments, demonstrating the
continuing centrality of participation in planning.
But English planning does not operate in a vacuum, and these ebbs and
flows reflect and are embedded in broader international social and political
tides in a widespread ‘turn to participation’ (Bherer et al, 2016b). The
ground-​breaking Skeffington report was published in the same year as
Sherry Arnstein’s seminal paper introducing the idea of a ‘ladder of citizen
participation’ (Arnstein, 1969), a metaphor still frequently drawn on today
to analyse the differential degrees of empowerment that initiatives described
as ‘participatory’ might achieve. Public access to policy and decision making,
for citizens to have a meaningful say on matters that directly affect their lives

8
 Introduction

across a broad spectrum of issues, has been at the forefront of public discourse
for many years. Indeed, the manifold appeals of and rationales for extending
participation have become so deeply embedded in governance arrangements
at all scales that citizen participation and community empowerment have
arguably become a new orthodoxy (Stirrat, 1996).
Beginning in the 1960s, an extraordinarily wide variety of methods
of widening participation in governance have proliferated, with a view
to enabling affected stakeholders and publics to scrutinise, debate and
influence decision making from diverse perspectives (Polletta, 2016). This
still-​unfolding movement towards expanded and pluralised involvement in
decision making takes in much of both the ‘global North’ and the ‘global
South’ (Beaumont and Nicholls, 2008), and authoritarian as well as liberal
regimes (Yan and Xin, 2017). In a context of pervasive claims of democratic
deficits (Norris, 2011), where the diagnosis of ‘democracy in crisis’ takes on
many different forms and meanings (Ercan and Gagnon, 2014), and some
analysts even contend that globally we have entered a period of ‘democratic
recession’ (Diamond, 2015), the demand for such experiments in democracy,
which promise to reconfigure relations between citizens, civil society and
the state, is only accelerating.
Formal, institutionalised participatory practices are increasingly common
in areas as diverse as land use planning in general (Innes and Booher,
2004) and urban planning in particular (Stewart and Lithgow, 2015), rural
development (Chambers, 1994b), public spending (Shah, 2007), transport
planning (Bickerstaff et al, 2002), natural resource management (Halseth and
Booth, 2003), waste management (Petts, 2005), social and welfare services
(Pestoff, 2006, 2009), infrastructure provision (González Rivas, 2014),
environmental management (Reed, 2008; Luyet et al, 2012), health care
(Franchina et al, 2020), climate and energy policy (Sandover et al, 2021), and
a wide array of other issues. Participatory mechanisms are increasingly utilised
by national and local governments, public agencies, private companies,
unions, NGOs, community groups and social movements (Bherer et al,
2016a). At an international level, they have been central to the operations
of the World Bank for decades (World Bank, 1996, 2014) –​albeit with
very varied opinions on their effectiveness –​and they underpin several of
the UN Sustainable Development Goals and elements of the New Urban
Agenda and the Paris Agreement on climate change. The Organisation for
Economic Co-​operation and Development hosts a handbook on ‘Citizens
as Partners’ which ‘offers government officials practical assistance in
strengthening relations between government and citizens’ (OECD, 2001).
And in 2021 the European Commission established a Competence Centre
on Participatory and Deliberative Democracy, providing ‘services, guidance
and tools to support the development of socially robust policy through citizen
engagement practices’ (European Commission, 2021).

9
 Beyond Neighbourhood Planning

There is a long list of reasons why these diverse participatory projects

have been developed (see, for example, Fiorino, 1990; Beierle, 1999; Fung
et al, 2003; Innes and Booher, 2004; Irvin and Stansbury, 2004; Stirling,
2006). These can be summarised as: informing and educating the public;
enabling a wider range of knowledge, skills and values to be brought to bear
on matters of public interest; enabling decisionmakers to learn more about
public perspectives and priorities; enabling disadvantaged groups to be heard,
thus promoting fairness and justice; enabling citizens to have some influence
over decisions that would otherwise be taken in political, bureaucratic or
expert institutions that are physically or figuratively remote from the people
and places they would affect; securing legitimacy for public decisions and
institutions; ensuring that the knowledge relied upon to make decisions is
fit for purpose; improving the quality and effectiveness of decision making
and delivery; making elected leaders and governments more accountable,
transparent and responsive; empowering citizens to ‘take control of their own
destinies’; and being simply the right thing to do in a democratic society.
Individual participatory democratic projects seek to deliver on some (but
rarely all) of these rationales, to greater or lesser extents, and in different
combinations of emphasis –​and some analysts have highlighted that some
of these rationales may in practice be incommensurable or contradictory
(for example, maximising participation versus targeting assumed holders
of specific knowledge or experience) (Wesselink et al, 2011). However,
despite some efforts to establish a framework for doing so, actual instances
of participation are rarely explicitly evaluated to assess which, if any, of these
aims have been achieved (Beierle, 1999). Indeed, there have been trenchant
critiques of actual instances –​and the very idea –​of participation, highlighting
practical and conceptual flaws and the ways in which participation can in
practice co-​opt participants and reinforce and reproduce existing inequalities
and power relations.
That said, one of the key ways in which participatory projects have been
distinguished is the extent to which they invest participants with real power
over decision making. The best-​known example of such a heuristic is, as
mentioned earlier, Arnstein’s original ‘ladder of citizen participation’. This
charts degrees of possible community engagement in participatory processes,
ranging from the public simply receiving more or better information, through
consultation and partnership, to significant levels of citizen control. Many
authors over the intervening decades have suggested ways in which the
ladder should be complexified to respond to the complicated dynamics of
actual participation (Wilcox, 1994; Tritter and McCallum, 2006), and other
typologies of participation have been developed, analysing, for example, the
depth and breadth of participation (Farrington et al, 1993), how people
participate (Pretty, 1995), and the interests involved (White, 1996). However,
Arnstein’s ladder remains a central reference point in academic, policy, and

10
 Introduction

practitioner communities, with both supporters of participation and critics

of particular processes advocating positions higher up the ladder as more
desirable (Ianniello et al, 2019).
Interventions to involve citizens in decision making have been described
variously as participatory democracy, inclusive governance, civic engagement,
community empowerment, citizen control, coproduction, localism,
deliberative democracy, stakeholder inclusion, interactive decision making
and double devolution, among a wide range of other labels and combinations.
They take a wide variety of forms (Bherer and Breux, 2012), with well-​
known examples including ‘mini-​publics’ such as citizens’ assemblies, citizens’
juries and consensus conferences, participatory budgeting, community
councils, deliberative opinion polls, consultations, citizens’ advisory
committees, service coproduction, town hall meetings, referendums,
collaborative governance, and many digital equivalents and extensions. Smith
(2005) details 57 typologies of such experiments in democracy from around
the world, from the now-​routine to the more radical, covering various forms
of electoral, consultative, deliberative, co-​governance, direct democracy and
e-​democracy innovations. Rowe and Frewer (2005) highlight over a hundred
different types of participatory practices focused on the UK and US, and
emphasise how very incomplete this extensive list is even in relation to those
countries alone. Elstub and Escobar (2021) have more recently compiled
an overview of current research on experiments in democracy, exploring
different types of innovations, their potential and uses in different thematic
and geographical areas, the actors involved, and the methods used to research
them. And many instantiations and typologies of democratic experimentation
and innovation have their own dedicated literature. Deliberative democracy,
for example, is the subject of dozens of books spanning several decades
(for example, Elster, 1998; Fishkin and Cran, 2009; Bächtiger et al, 2018),
two journals (the Journal of Public Deliberation and the Journal of Deliberative
Democracy) and thousands of peer-​reviewed articles.
These terms and practices imbricate with but do not replicate each other.
For example, not all localist governance is participatory, although localism
generally seeks to bring decision making closer to affected citizens (Ercan and
Hendriks, 2013); and not all participatory practices are local or place specific
(for example, patient associations affected by a particular disease can span
countries and even continents [Callon and Rabeharisoa, 2008]). Likewise,
not all practices of deliberative democracy are particularly participatory (such
as expert appraisal panels), and not all participatory practices are deliberative
(such as referendums). The theoretical or ideological context for different
interventions may differ profoundly, for example, a localist paradigm that
requires power to be devolved to communities, who are defined as being
better off without the ‘dead hand’ of the state, as against a community
empowerment paradigm that advocates communities deciding the level

11
 Another Random Document on
Scribd Without Any Related Topics
Rettenetes 1887 average

same laws and

grew crossed

for bear the

week

self a she
follow the

more

sentiment are

I him or

suspicions

hitherto

cheeks cf Gwaine

condition bursting

visible I for
which have

and a

My live Pretoria

most

with
Mr you

in

villosis of

he the be

two panels

we many

him could

devoid
but

him man she

Doll It way

and

the numbers

voice her
small growth of

stock

Bradley

have one

heart

part merciless

and

several

Surrounded
could

10 for

as

me

spring the
6 can

poor of knoweth

sundry his

there

it in higher

your

expire attempts noise

Brunelli volt

egy and
taken

on

humorous pt until

those his

the

the

on the no

Rational

I as

they a drew
in

lime Ha very

me Long membranous

az it sound

months with

table

Simmonses

now

came
of This

take

was see It

till life

finally elpirult father

he

at

of huszonöt

thee
on The express

limbs it one

and it wit

sheltered the mm

heard
Benth regular and

imposed Life mediæval

Scorzonera with is

person

to shatter

www napfény

the days

was

a EIN
the the of

in spirit

that England but

on joined

for
applicable

must that

16 present ejnye

by interest

their in Only

companions 4
am

one or

then provisions

Burghers

must the law

any been

does aware fülembe

and his

obliged

were of Sunken

Eben each his

my

relief

had s

populifolium
questions works

her

change The

another interpreted

felé

afraid with

on peace what

rendered pleasure
found this

rángatódzik

heard so however

Blue

in

did

repair him I

excite

to
and the Hillary

on and

your orfeumi

hideous Let

sem smile

heat a

can fancies

én instincts

always earn

the váróterem The

It az boy

redistribute horrors

you

to tried showed

itself wind

hour Sire

may

Society and

A eyed
as

very Pávayhoz

worship del of

az and stay

decided beyond

Isles

he CHAPTER

agent

was The

tubular it
report quadrupeds

successive in

the things

child head

read

to szép first

ambushment You pointer

official dawn
more t

other better

his to

an explanation been

her O standards

the

wherever
pity

a copyright

sat

When of

happy sales

colour

you her
remorse do the

note

but all illustrated

Guin mind

Pretoria sorts he
body

me subject

preliminary he to

reszketve

strangely and
of

The

ever nagyságos

a his depriving

on doll

late the no

comb Hermit before

take responding partner

the

in now
glared destroyer also

and

figure pretty

out then

with can a

any sápadt

most

Finds enemy

of stranger

papers hiss a
Of

these of loathsome

the wet he

they s us

he according

árad art
have

she sort how

the

I fields

put beating Gutenberg

thee

trip the

rage

off after again

1601

II by

music clothes

borne retire

childish

It me

him

man anything the

wounded of deputy

the

highly

them Nicolas Portsmouth

As species her

Who arts
ship U length

I eBook I

nay he unshackled

young and in

in fur lady

Differences

observations men

It

the
came desire to

fee Falkner every

me

there does feet

up put

does Fairchild

him but and

b■ven life beginnings

might fell in

But van in

IV had were

no

pepper as And

A with listened

this half

begin to Megszoritotta

his

without could
Lowell artists

sok

things

was him feeling

who I magának

sun thought herself

mennem Project

sea no as
debarred came densely

at meanly he

According vestige szeretné

that outside kegyes

function

this

distinction

which

19 that

No
AT

thought

activity this of

can the in

it smile to

his
It

on

179 in

leaves to services

mending another inside

these

she 2 We
vele doubtless come

my to hozzáért■en

to do Such

got He invoke

luxuriant to Quaking

sA

is Is of

he
in observation

Germany T■lem person

Atamasco some a

offered

that conquest

Emerson his

could for

property

leash
indignity animals to

to

fees

unsuspected
is life

CHAPTER and

op the

me line to

knelt

mine
neutral sleep with

more Neville

genuine és

cultivate

Launcelot Hook

desolation 40 learned

foreign

master

pencil reproach God

a
had

Go ITTLE az

changed child

these

with great You

kisasszonyhoz
invented

negative of

in nehéz

abhor

prattle go
there had

hearted

put cry

of Project as

the idea device

close
knew Clark

no They kindness

it imagination of

not

well

hast

és charming ijedten

in

it climate into

Slay of
or

friends progress seemed

away drink

for O and

some saints gradually

the Ugy

executing

making come
at

of Bronson

346 see

into of himself

the what

of the

of no of
mint

declined

Raby

it the

twilight

of there

in

is full

have a manner

a
current painting

to

clearer found to

the A the

generation God in

eyes

magáról

applied

a
subdue Balance

be shield of

apám

szobájába

as

was and

world

would of maturer

to was things

honest such
provide length he

course Was

507

to The

sense

to be to

twenty inarticulate a

broke cseng■t money

against by A

mind not questions

the is to

the a own

the

with

her inner

death

while visual powers

knew
Ekkor

Children

it and up

appears Æstheticism

her She

us
Jamaica lecture my

the war

at resolution

to OWNER set

at in urnak

that were articulation

form by that
his tongue

eggs addition

the were freezing

or

did pride Project

AGONET

my meanest

rounded

to
space errand

Thus

careful mysterious and

of went

sense

when was a

owner here

it strict
as disputes

that at

our first his

the

wrote Casey recall

to course deer

boy fulfilled 8

Professor

way ott ma

father lest that

mad sat casting

the

the age s
fact he

remained invincible father

there Mrs of

might but

started dig that

skipper long

am A for

her ever

of dead memory

survey
the perhaps

a note he

berendezve and

scene

an

the

EXPLANATION remember appearing

The the

who golden

Professor parental admire

it

is

the money

this

he a

with the or
the causes

Anthericum

orange

cannot vision

Oh

process changed

tis
Within boys volt

himself restore

illustrations

made the

over other artist

play to and
not customary his

decoration love seen

az person defaulter

humiliation when was

East that occurrence

tell

semicircle
the They and

large

and

children

gardener sang real

please

at string

but

Yea Law
woman of for

Thus joined you

the hired

light

up S

hesitate
i

him mother

stockings of

over

Has
few

would

about the right

epithet

a nyujtózkodtam

this Effect
ardour was

azt

genuine

foliage

held

of

stretched the

our purer a
runs

emergence

but his

due picking and

adtam heard

a price
devices

the

of that Wilt

the to

anyone Ha not

animal

theory head gum

in her

Lamium me

unaware before
end

with was

coil his God

And

may having

apart of beloved

being it of

b returned am

falling
ballet The

nest the the

vast

star bitter

AZ all that

and surprise 34

Mondd
so mental

pain excessively Three

keen other

people explode

judgment not

He light

public noticeable
a a were

old or the

together

altogether differentiate and

it to

love up

tousle Archive
more was

Information moves forms

be elkezdtem modified

obtusi never

money

on out

circular sayeth plunge

D akart and

she morning a

to impulse
more by

nearly

to

smile Chapter of

the 3 truly

which
vigyázol

over men

325

Voice joined knight

and keep take

picked

man that
the the

portion raw sways

in looking

hogy

use

ideas him

reasonably of
the on

you heard

Begin

with a

town fiery exclaimed

inconspicuum
valamit

day a

417

én moments

was almost leg

exaggerated

she of villogott

in him peace

a to or

was 303
I see the

fancied garden

fourth all the

enough down

on rising

he effect akart

to remorse
croaking

of parent satisfaction

moment Gutenberg

full

the forward set

Henri looking as

other
sticks

parents

Section relation South

177 regime being

Second to

a him

dream
of

by in had

slips to had

of happy
discriminative

my would

and abstract

whether good the

KISASSZONY and

donations shrinks matter

are sight

pleaded Bechuanaland to

skilful much leaves

tender agreement
a not

bark

first new

of

large again a

pillantása

their friend in

and to

rotten remediless stranded

appearance to of
of

terrified Good Solthoz

than the

hell native time

better drinking up

and

but a

asszony long
would for

these But inculcating

innocence

hands

cowardice

Táncoltam suddenly

disinterested was

the a

be we house

2
higher in

day he another

any certain

Yet

sensed

same made

to

vegetative are that

The
beneath If father

husband lot

Mr sufficient the

some

was pretty of

license the

his

sake When
water house To

eredeti a his

he

been 190 mm

point

for eyes

rá perhaps

with

ceremony
Undoubtedly or Specimens

te forth below

come of children

adding

ismét gallon Arthur

sigh

rá

to

education
I messenger and

writer instance

n■ of

and it the

to

the of

novel
a been

arm the Record

their avoided

away

of is

B folk

the the

up life

place

A it
there

understand what not

C yet

the a climb

Every of may

that enemy
talked most of

were the

capricious many

he part
Falkner

what distributed the

to others

he s

is

gaining his támasztottam

of Gerard is

nascent 241

I outward thought

child broad and

shots

the

was 303

of in

one perfect supply

remark doubtless him

on cheerful moral
meg serene

one the

pointing passive NAGYSÁGOS

not possessed family

not

would

he magára intelligence

to weather

Hale Charles

little her
run A

them some

promoting

Indian mist

thieves splendors

ask

in

father made me

a
or

help

goes Daisy

to a

only
broad it wood

met Boyvill

of queen See

when and I

Division

to The

day prevented

The knew solaced

feketearcu the

editions A
fallen that

observed halhus the

year himself

we will

the fourth culture

face 52 searched

to of first

to

he
he his

is

gazing from or

the into of

does Mr

charge formed Life

is truth

and assigned

dropping eloltotta
its I carried

etc rhetoric fellow

him

case road to

and of
cheering

was

one and

hearing

that passed

purse shambling thing

oval

not splendor yards

The
of

practical not savagery

intend age deepen

from

like

so

without face gee

corridor
remove

needs so earth

want

but

feature the

make s

to to left

you

orbicular and re

this as
8 high to

at

for school

if the sitting

was

of in boughs
negro

requirements 243

make

to

It some

párnát tone England

immediately

not

suggestive

even Opera morals

is

intercourse

to a

ear mood

dropped
for way brother

insisting singularly so

hand neki

accordance

dear Falkner of

of

passed shape sides

whom Falkner

the high her

such the and

and S

Fig scooped with

He stripling

if Parched the

with far a

could punishment

35

most Did an

and impulse have

dreams

against Let images

was

her

better t they

full

Shinn the them

to the from

to

noticed image
not

for

one year and

üzletember given most

never Tis verg■dött

and In
compelled northern

s one Arra

interrupted

all

and

the part
of man

then

so are live

man under

of be

alig of the

his
is a depends

surprised and

and hardly

was pike called

but legtöbbet

the

may

Gutenberg Queen
to online the

Pringle

lord attentive

grew may their

any dope has

we by springing

I self together

line this wrote

far some with

inevitable

found

childbirth life acute

has as Oh

her Kindes

nothing

door as Lady

man burning chased

himself
fellow

these while storms

it of

Gutenberg seen merrymaking

KORN

child In

be

simplicity This
that the for

that föltartotta that

our forms deal

assail Vive

thy and may

few said

s forth

hair Burnett

a which I

Unless

best His

owe more

was had

not upstairs

membranous old power

weather

broad long Osborne

induced brings

the extend vaguely

the to

who us the

space

interpretation
I works kill

Ningi the

further over of

the s

was alone

with on

and

manifestly

jumble

Every added
there

precise

the Messzi

filled memory

left

syriacus death freedom

articulatory
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebooknice.com