Public Participation in Planning: A Review

Author(s): Seán Damer and Cliff Hague

Source: The Town Planning Review , Jul., 1971, Vol. 42, No. 3 (Jul., 1971), pp. 217-232
Published by: Liverpool University Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40102750

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Liverpool University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The Town Planning Review

This content downloaded from

146.155.157.237 on Tue, 18 Jul 2023 15:30:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
IN PLANNING: A REVIEW

by

SEAN DAMER and CLIFF HAGUE

The Evolution of Public Participation

Public participation in planning is a familiar idea in this country. Yet for all its
familiarity, it is a relatively new idea. Its debut in the professional planning
literature came only six years ago,1 while a more extended discussion is hardly
older than the Planning Advisory Group's (PAG) Report.2 Full and official
sanction for the term was not provided until the 1968 Town and Country Plan-
ning Act; in that year the term was firmly endorsed by the official mandate given
to Mr A. M. Skeffington by the Minister of Housing and Local Government:
\ . . to consider and report on the best methods, including publicity, of securing
the participation of the public at the formative stages in the making of develop-
ment plans for their area'.3

Thus it took only four years for the idea to evolve from obscurity to warranting
an investigation by special government committee. The publication of the
Skeffington Report in 1969 served to stimulate considerable debate about the
notion, both within the planning profession and by the public. The very extent
of this debate makes the rapid evolution of the notion more worthy of analysis.
Where did it originate? Why was it accepted? Why are people so interested in it?
Does it work? How do planners legitimize its appearance?
These questions do not seem to have been asked very often during the con-
temporary discussion of public participation, and without an understanding of
its origins, it would seem difficult to evaluate this notion thoroughly. This paper
is an attempt to answer the questions asked above, and then to evaluate the
Skeffington version of public participation in the light of the answers. We are
concentrating our attention on Skeffington for two reasons: first, the Report,
at the moment, contains the only extended proposals for public participation in
this country; secondly, it is a Government - that is, official - report.
It is our contention that the growth of the idea of public participation in planning
in this country can be explained with reference to five interrelated factors.
These are: (i) the example of American planning experience; (ii) the social
ethic of planning; (iii) a general growth of interest in participatory rather than
representative democracy; (iv) a history of bottle-necks and hold-ups in the
administrative processing of plans; (v) a growth of public interest in the urban
environment.

This content downloaded from

146.155.157.237 on Tue, 18 Jul 2023 15:30:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
218 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING

THE EXAMPLE OF AMERICAN PLANNING EXPERIENCE

The evolution of public participation can be seen as having been influenc

some extent at least, by the American experience of 'citizen particip
While the extent of this influence is hard to quantify and qualify precisel
reasonable index is the rate and content of articles on American planning exper
in British planning journals.
Occasional articles appeared in our journals throughout the 1950s4, but
first specialist descriptive article appeared in 19615. This article pres
somewhat rosy view of participatory planning in the U.S.A.: 'it is a fasci
feature', and it 'often makes first-class contribution on specialist asp
This optimistic viewpoint was shared by a later commentator who
'There is great scope here at home to operate on similar lines'.8 The first
discussion did not appear until 1964,9 but there was no thorough-going a
until that of Josephine Reynolds in this journal in 196910. What is interesting
so much the dearth of academic discussion of participatory planning as the fact
practically all the quoted articles and reviews have a particularly benign per
of the American experience. There appears to have been little awareness
bitter conflicts which were raging over planning issues in America durin
two decades of the 1950s and 60s. The uproar about the process of urban r
which perennially seemed to displace the poor, the deprived and the
vantaged, had reached into the highest places in the U.S.A. The extent of in
in the land of the free had been systematically exposed by social scientists,
had appalled the nation - or at least, the liberal, well-educated sections of
population. The 'advocacy planning' movement came into being as a respon
situation where the voice of the poor just did not get represented in the p
process, and where their inner-city low-rent housing was being persi
demolished in an effort to relocate commercial interests or middle-class residen
land with high rateable value. Traditional city planning came under
fire, and citizen participation - always an important part of the American plan
ethic - was brought out of its temporary state of desuetude, given a vig
dusting, and rapidly became the critical American planning issue. Plannin
behalf of the many competing groups in society - 'advocacy' or 'plur
planning - rapidly became the subject of controversial experiment. All the
aspects of such a diversified planning experience were discussed in a volum
literature including such periodicals as the Journal of the American Instit
Planners, Fortune, and The Nation, as well as in books.11 Perhaps the most
ted publication to bring American planning problems to the attention of B
planners was Jane Jacobs' stirring if polemical book The Death and Life of
American Cities.12 This work, indeed, could justly be described as the lietm
the new anti-planning movement, while the phrase which Kennedy
famous - 'maximum feasible participation' - summed up the hopes for the
A key factor of all the American discussion was the essentially political c
of decisions about the use of land and the disposition of scarce urban res
Contemporary British commentators seem to have missed this point.

This content downloaded from

146.155.157.237 on Tue, 18 Jul 2023 15:30:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SEAN DAMER AND CLIFF HAGUE 219

THE SOCIAL ETHIC OF PLANNING

The next factor is the 'social ethic* or the 'social ideology' of British plan
This term refers to the strong tradition of social commitment and idealism inhe
in our planning. This ethic is nothing new: it is the core of most British 'H
of Planning* courses, and encompasses the various Public Health Acts as well
writings of such people as Patrick Geddes and Ebenezer Howard. It refers
traditional professional concern of town planning to reform the squalid o
crowding and blight which have persisted for so long in our cities. It has
fully discussed elsewhere, in these terms :

'Town Planning, as part of a broader social programme, is responsib

providing the physical basis for better urban community life; the main id
toward which town planning is to strive are (a) the provision of low-d
residential areas; (b) the fostering of local community life; and (c), the co
of conurban growth'.13
This concern for providing an optimal physical framework for the good
has been inconsistently evinced over time, and its expression has varied, b
existence as a cornerstone of planning ideology cannot be doubted, especiall
still survives after violent attack by sociologists.14 Our point here is that b
of its traditional interest in the commonweal, and the sympathy with the
group that it implies, British planning would be very sympathetic to any notion
public participation.

THE QUEST FOR DEMOCRACY

The third factor is the international growth of interest in participatory, rather than
representative, democracy. This movement, while not easily susceptible to
documentation, appears to be patently supra-national, and is characterized
by the people's demands for more participation in the formulation of policies
which are going to affect them. These demands are, in turn, characterized by
a radicalization of political values and a concern for civil rights. It is this movement,
subsuming these values, which appears to have affected students and other young
people in Europe, Latin America and the U.S.A. It appears also to have stirred the
apathy and resignation of many oppressed minority groups - political, ethnic, and
religious. It appears to have had the general effect of motivating people to ask the
question 'Why' ? more often. On a less dramatic note, it underpins the recommen-
dations of various governmental reports in this country which stress the recogni-
tion of local level participation as a matter of right; thus, Maud expresses the hope
that large bureaucracies will not be permitted to smother a vital form of public
participation in local government, while Plowden and Seebohm both desired
active citizen involvement in, respectively, schools and social service agencies, and
Skeffington, of course, is totally concerned with public participation in planning.

ADMINISTRATIVE DELAYS IN PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

It is quite clear from the literature that a major planning consideration du

This content downloaded from

146.155.157.237 on Tue, 18 Jul 2023 15:30:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
220 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING

the 1960s was how to cut down on the length of

the stage of implementation. Gross delays came a
process: first in dealing with ordinary planning a
sing planning appeals; and thirdly and perhap
ministerial approval of development plans. The av
planning appeal was thirty-six weeks, and ther
months between the lodging of the appeal and
Comment on these difficulties was made by many
was discussed at considerable length in the con
Keeble's analysis, in his book Planning at the Crossroa
at the 1964 Town Planning Institute Summer Sch
crucial document for our purposes is the PAG
treatment to this matter. PAG started off with an
problems of the administration of plans, thus:

'We have found wide variations in the performanc

in terms of the time taken to deal with planning
not in the ambit of planning control or planning
trative machine. Our measures are therefore main
control and measures designed to tone up the syst
report, however, PAG had pointed to the stra
paragraph 1. 15 of the Report states: \ . . the main
system lies not in the methods of control but in
they are based and which they are intended to im

All plans, and objections arising from them, ha

by the Ministry of Housing. As a result

'. . . the attempt to process all these detailed plans

including provision for objections (of which th
thousands on a single plan) and public local enqui
serious delays which tend to undermine public co
average time taken by the Ministry of Housing t
submission is two to three years, but some cases m

The solution the Group recommended was for

submitted to the Minister, with 'minor and deta
subject to ministerial review only in 'exceptional c
are, then, being given a new task - that of aut
Plans.19 What is important here is that while th
now required to produce such plans, they also mus
and to avoid any possible accusation of partiality w
in the decision-making process, at least to some ex
Local Plans, local planning authorities, are obliged
the public for comments, while at the larger scale
participation is introduced, then there will be fe

This content downloaded from

146.155.157.237 on Tue, 18 Jul 2023 15:30:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SEAN DAMER AND CLIFF HAGUE 221

more rapidly implemented. Participation was an administ

whole British planning system was not to disintegrate.
Many planners, of course, interpreted the introduction
notion in a somewhat more positive light. They saw part
means of transferring the burden of dealing with objectio
government, but as a method of ensuring better planner
Thus, the Town Planning Institute in its submission to Sk

\ . . planning is unpopular with many members of the p

of measuring public gain against private loss, real or imagined
case of planning by the very fact that to a considerable ex
to be taken on trust . . . This 'we* and 'they' attitude, 'we*
mercy of 'they* the planners is all too prevalent, and is ind
which public participation in the sense of full public invo
sibility for, planning is not being achieved at present'.20

The implication is that with a programme of 'proper

antagonism to planning, and its manifestation in the lodg
fade away. This is a theme we will return to elsewhere as
assumptions of Skeffington.

A GROWTH OF PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT

If the planners were worried about objections and protests against p

decisions, who were the objectors and protesters? In many cases, the obj
were lodged on behalf of voluntary associations whose specific raison d'et
concern with the physical environment. There has been a steady growth
number of such organizations. This increase represents a growing body of artic
opinion which is no longer prepared to let local government officials ha
responsibility for local planning. Such groups were, not surprisingly, co
extensively by the Skeffington Committee, and would seem to be the fi
most obvious beneficiaries of any participation programme.
It is interesting to speculate why there should have been such a gro
interest in urban affairs among laymen. One fairly obvious point to make is th
educational standards rose, so would an appreciation of what was going on
urban physical and social environment. A second consideration would be
with the notion that people are most likely to be stimulated into co-ope
action when they perceive their own interests to be directly threatened
feeling is that there has been a growth in the extent to which people have
recent years, that their spatial and social interests have been affected by p
proposals. More than that, these feelings have been expressed by sections of
hitherto unaffected by urban planning. As slum-clearance schemes g
momentum through the 1950s and 1960s, and as local authority housi
remained obstinately long, the impetus to build medium- to high-density
pal housing on suburban sites was increased. Such proposals were often b
contested by the existing middle class suburbanites, who were well

This content downloaded from

146.155.157.237 on Tue, 18 Jul 2023 15:30:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
222 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING

educated to learn rapidly the rhetoric of plan

standards, and the quality of environmental desig
Meanwhile, the steady rise in car ownership wa
authorities to re-examine, and re-plan, their obs
cities were constrained to produce transportatio
motorway standard, and as these inevitably bega
turally-sound, owner-occupied housing, thei
necessity for much town centre re-planning als
Planning proposals throughout the 1950s and 60s
selection of sectors than had been the case previo
been felt in inner-city slum districts. Consequent
social groups were being affected and they prote

SUMMARY

Our contention is that these are the factors which are necessary to the explanatio
of the genesis of public participation from its infancy in the 1950s, through th
recommendations of PAG, to its encapsulation in the 1968 Act, and further to th
establishment of the Skeffington Committee and its Report. We would furthe
contend that two of these factors interrelate to provide a sufficient explanation of t
rise of public participation to its present form: the trend towards participatory
rather than representative democracy, and the break down in the processing of plans

Discussion : The Participation Game

In view of the arguments which we have been developing in this paper, it is no
surprising that the Skeffington Report has had a generally tepid reception from
both planners and public. The feeling seems to be that Skeffington is generall
A Good Thing, but somehow the next steps towards a participatory planning ar
still unclear. This reserve is not new. While Skeffington, and his precurso
in the discussion of participation - PAG and the 1968 Act - appear very optimist
about the notion, some prominent planners have made their attitude evident.
Lewis Keeble said, in 1961 :
\ . . we need very badly to give (the planner) a somewhat freer hand, at any rate . . .
to the extent of confining lay intervention to the approval of each important item o
proposed policy and each stage in plan-making, rather than continuing a system
which has as an important feature month by month lay dabbling'.21
And at the same time as the Skeffington Committee was conferring, Professo
Colin Buchanan was suggesting that if the standards of professional planning
were higher, then demands for participation in its processes would disappear.2
Other planners, more conscious perhaps of their 'social ethic', were encouraged
by Skeffington for they saw it as an essentially democratic and far-sighted docu
ment, giving the ordinary citizen a real chance to share in the planning of his
environment. Our feeling is that such views completely miss the essential draw-
backs of the Report. These are, in our estimation, to do with theory or more

This content downloaded from

146.155.157.237 on Tue, 18 Jul 2023 15:30:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SEAN DAMER AND CLIFF HAGUE 223

precisely, lack of theory. What planning theories, or th

organization, political decision-making, or communications,
Skeffington to back up his recommendations ? The answer is non
proposals for participation appear to have no theoretical cont
What does appear on analysis is that the Report barely conceals
stance aimed at defending the professional prerogatives of the plan
The Committee seems to have reacted in a straightforward manner to
outlined in the first half of this paper rather than to analysing
standing their dynamics.
PARTICIPATION AS EDUCATION

The implications behind much of the Report are that planning is an apo
activity operating in a culturally and politically homogeneous society. Per
most revealing comment in the whole Report is one which deals not wit
cipation as such, but with planning:
'We have never forgotten that planning is a means and not an end; and
purpose is to set the framework within which houses, roads, and comm
services can be provided at the right time and in the right place'.23
Now as the planners are trying to provide the various facilities 'at t
time and in the right place', it seems difficult for them to comprehend
there should be any conflict between themselves and the public or b
different sectors of the public. After all, nobody could seriously argue th
facilities should be provided in 'the wrong place at the wrong time'. Thu
only credible source of conflict between planners and the public must l
latter's ignorance of planning matters, and it is the fervent hope of Skef
that such ignorance can be eradicated by the education of the public thr
participation and a sympathetic mass-media. Two themes which emerge st
from Skeffington are this need to educate the public, and secondly an op
assessment of the likely pay-off from the practice of participation.
Throughout the Report, therefore, there is a strong emphasis on educat
public into a comprehension of the planners9 point-of-view; this ed
it is asserted, should start in school (paras. 244, 245), should continue thr
adult life when one is a member of 'the public', (paras. 54, 245, 246), wh
mass media (paras. 249, 250) are to receive special attention. After all, 'peo
help the work of the local authority by; (i) responding constructively to oppor
ties to participate . . .' (para. 55) (our italics). Voluntary associations and
children may assist in survey work, but the framework of the survey
course, be subject to the control of the planners (para. 184). The ess
Skeffington's optimism, and indeed the alembic of the whole report, is
found in paragraph 20, which includes the comment:
'. . . we see the process of giving information and opportunities for parti
as one which leads to greater understanding and co-operation rather tha
crescendo of dispute'.

This content downloaded from

146.155.157.237 on Tue, 18 Jul 2023 15:30:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
224 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING

It would be apposite at this juncture to recall a comment of

'When people reject a planner's idea, it is rarely because th

but because they have different life-styles and goals'.24

As has been argued above, this is a perspective which Skef

seem to have recognized.
Any definition of participation involves the notion of 'h
the Minister of Housing said:

'. . . above all I am determined that there shall be more real

planning . . . Bringing people into planning means a great
'right' to inspect plans and object to them. I want to make s
to know what the planning authority is proposing to incl
attitudes harden'.25

This clearly seems to imply that the public are supposed

deciding what are the planning issues - before the plan is d
pays lip-service to this ideal by talking about 'participatio
formative stage in the making of development plans for
we have argued above, the text of the Report makes it
game is being played, that the name of the game is particip
set by the planners, as is its tempo, and its final result. The Re
'. . . the responsibility for preparing a plan is, and must rem
of the local planning authority', (para. 56). What the game
relations - public relations for the planning profession. T
participation in planning is to make life easier for the plann
It is significant that the type of planning being taught in
ments of town planning does not now correspond with the s
by Skeffington. In modern departments, planning is genera
sion-making process, in which values play a crucial part. The be
means unique version of such a model is that of Chapin.27
urges that councillors '. . . ought to approach the preli
planning proposals with an open mind'.28 We presume tha
that they should not seek to oppose the values on which a p

PLANNING, PARTICIPATION, AND POLITICS

Moving from a general critique of Skeffington's understanding of participation,

we now turn to examine the critical lack of theory mentioned above. This
contains two elements: (i) the failure to recognize the essentially political nature
of planning as an activity, and (ii) the failure to relate participatory planning to the
organizational and spatial context of politics.

The Political Context of Planning

The fact that planning operates in a political context was raised by Skeffington,

This content downloaded from

146.155.157.237 on Tue, 18 Jul 2023 15:30:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SEAN DAMER AND CLIFF HAGUE 225

if not discussed; paragraph 45 (ii) states, realistically enough: 'It

to expect planning issues to be decided outside the political a
while inexcusable that this obvious truth was not pursued furthe
thing about the political nature of planning which is of much gre
Much of planning activity has to do with the distribution of scarce u
and facilities - albeit houses, open space, or whatever. In this con
involved in a power struggle; this power is not just to do wit
land, it has also to do with the fact that certain uses of land can enha
people's life-chances. As Ray Pahl has put it, 'planners are im
keepers in the urban system; their professional ideology ha
influence in shaping the availability of resources in the city - res
frequently in short supply and over which there is a conside
public conflict between the 'have's' and the 'have-nots', resource
a spatial dimension to the misery of those already deprived socia
situation it is positively obscurantist to talk about facilities bei
the right place at the right time', or of educating the public to ap
ideals of planners should really be its ideals also.
This very British view that the values subsumed in any plan m
interest values, of which the planners are special guardians,
criticized in the last decade, particularly by such writers as Webber3 °
But the traditional notion is still esconced in British local autho
probably because of the well-established 'responsibility' ethic whi
local government in this country. Those who adhere to this stanc
the realpolitik of the pluralistic society in which we live - that i
prising a multitude of social groups having different, competing
quently conflicting sets of values. This view of society is neither
mistic; it clearly has some empirical reference, and it also allows
sion of social change. One American planner has pungently expres
in his country:

'We are, then, really concerned . . . when we talk about pluralisti

the representativeness and with the adequacy of the representa
local government ... we are concerned that they have not fulfilled
in terms of representing the 'pluralisticness' in the society that ou
fully, or more fully, represented in the policy-making process'.32

While there is no echo of this kind of sentiment in SkefEngt

may have been reaching toward it when it expressed concern ab
joiners' and with ' ... the fact that many (voluntary) societies re
aspect of community life' (para. 56). Even the implications 01 st
this one seem to have escaped the Committee. It does not seem to
that there may be a conflict of interests between the joiners' and
One has to ask what it is that the 'non-joiners' are being urged t
to know what it is that one is going to participate in. As we ha\
there is really only one thing involved in 'public participation i

This content downloaded from

146.155.157.237 on Tue, 18 Jul 2023 15:30:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
226 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING

that is a programme. But programmes are to be ju

serve, and our argument is that the Skeffington m
interests. It may be, in fact, a totally risible action f
programme which at the end of the day is going t
whether he wills it or not.
The notion of participation as a programme implies
appears uncertain as to whether public participation
or merely a means to an end. As has been observed
participation offered in the Report - 'the public sh
policies and proposals' - is so vague as to be usele
isomorphic with 'democracy'.33 While this ambigui
Report, our argument has been that participation in
facilitate the goal of the speedy implementation of
undemocratic in our understanding of that term.

The Parameters of Participation

Even given this analysis, several problems remain. T

deals with local and city plans rather than regional
from the massive potential difference in physic
and a city plan, there can also be great differences i
in terms of planning matters alone, there is just no
any, of these scales of plans is tangible and comprehens
sense would indicate that the smaller-scale local pla
visible and often immediate in terms of time - offer t
participation. But, ironically, this is perhaps the leve
radical change is smallest; participation in local plan
purely cosmetic activity. While this cosmetic activi
to the local citizen - for example, in deciding betwe
tation - it is miniscule compared with the urban system
The second problem is that this is hardly 'particip
sense proposed by the Minister of Housing. The reas
the real problems of participation is, we suggest, th
tion in planning alone, especially as conceived by S
Planning does not exist in an administrative vaccum
organizational framework of local government. Th
should be especially motivated to participate in plan
government matters - except when their own imm
threatened, as by compulsory purchase orders. Citiz
to participate generally in local political life before t
pate in decisions affecting solely matters to do wit
But at the moment, the lack of interest in local go
notorious. While it could be argued that this demons
realistically know that they are powerless against th

This content downloaded from

146.155.157.237 on Tue, 18 Jul 2023 15:30:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SEAN DAMER AND CLIFF HAGUE 227

that they are disadvantaged vis-a-vis the system, in the Marxist

suggested that

'. . . local government areas do not fit modern patterns of life .

artificial division of interest between town and country; services
between a variety of authorities; and many authorities are too s
size and revenue for the effective performance of their functions. Re
frustration of people, councillors, and increased domination of lo
affairs by central government which lacks confidence in th
local authorities; this has the effect of increasing public scepticism to

So before talking about public participation in local, city, or re

it might first be in order to establish the extent to which peop
spatial framework of politics - what is the size of the area with
might be motivated to participate in taking decisions about
issues ? This was the sort of question which was pursued in t
Attitudes Survey' undertaken as a research study for the Maud
The relevant findings for our purposes are, in summary : most p
small area - not much bigger than a group of streets - as a 'hom
area' ; feelings of attachment to such areas are common, and ar
related with length of stay in the area; only a very small propo
those interviewed evinced interest in 'elective participation in loc
citizens with complaints or enquiries would contact administrativ
than elected representatives; electors markedly preferred preservi
in terms of the optimum size of local authority areas.
Michael Young, in research at Hornsey, has also established that
point a local 'community' or 'neighbourhood', and goes on t
modified framework of local government might take account of
ing some form of neighbourhood council for these small areas.3
pessimistic inferences are to be drawn from this: first, at the mo
clearly not motivated to participate generally in local political affairs
spatial areas which they do perceive, and do show some sentime
small - smaller, generally, than wards. If people are generally n
anything larger than a group of streets, it seems unrealistic to s
will perceive, and participate in, any planning matter which de
area. And this is making the assumption that people will necessar
decisions about neighbourhoods to which they feel attached; such
research as does exist on this matter would suggest that this is a
assumption. But even given that there was some kind of correspo
neighbourhood feeling and participation in a local activity, the th
inference remains: what size is a neighbourhood? How small are t
Who decides what their boundaries are going to be? Who dec
neighbourhood representation at city level will be? What iss
bourhoods take decisions about? If neighbourhoods are as sm
Young suggest, then there are going to be hundreds in any larg

This content downloaded from

146.155.157.237 on Tue, 18 Jul 2023 15:30:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
228 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING

inevitable consequences of jammed communications

be dramatic in their intensity. Much as one may wi
participation in local affairs only appears to 'take-off 'w
diate, local threat and, secondly, when there is a r
participation being successful in removing the threa
hardly justifies the name of 'participation' at all.
If the crude version of Skeffington-type participa
operating on behalf of the planners, then the 'grass
movement appears as an ever cruder ideology benef
the political scientists who study it.

THE FUTURE

Most of the forecasts made at the Discussion Group on participation at

Town and Country Planning Summer School of 1968 are reasonable. Ther
a risk that the operation of Skeffington-type participation could aggrav
planning blight or speculation in land, could cause delays, and could increase
work-load of local authority planners. But these are perhaps less problematic t
assessing the 'success' of a participation programme. This, however, will depend
whether participation is defined as a means or an end. There was confusion ab
this in the minds of local planning authorities even before Skeffington was p
lished. Thus the Barnsbury exhibition was judged to have been a success becau
'. . . the range and volume of comment,' (Appendix 10, para. 20), yet only 3.15
the households in Barnsbury attended (ibid., para 21.) The 'campaign' ran
Hampshire County Council had had '. . . a considerable success in allaying pub
fears.' (Appendix 9, part I (a), para. 8). And more recently in Glasgow, a partic
tion exercise has been held to have been a great success because in the first plac
cut down on the number of objections to the Govan Comprehensive Developm
Area Plan, and secondly, because the zoning of an attractive site was altered f
industry to housing.38 Consequently, one vital need for the future is research
operational definitions of 'public participation' in all its contexts in an effort
give it specific meaning and reality, and permit of its measurement.
There are two other pessimistic probable outcomes of this official type
paiticipation. First, it is not unreasonable to predict an early amelioratio
relations between planners and middle class pressure groups of the civic
amenity variety; the whole tenor of Skeffington Report is that it is permeabl
'constructive' criticism, besides which some of these groups are genuinely abl
offer expert help to local authorities on matters where the latter may neither hav
the time nor the expertise to effect thorough-going investigations. However, t
is likely to be conflict if an authority, after consultation, takes a decision wh
contradicts the wishes of the pressure group. This kind of conflict is inevitabl
that participation is being marketed as a commodity which will benefit everyb
and it is for this reason that disillusion is likely to set in when the goods do
come up to expectations.
The second probable outcome of the practice of this version of participatio

This content downloaded from

146.155.157.237 on Tue, 18 Jul 2023 15:30:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SEAN DAMER AND CLIFF HAGUE 229

is still trouble, for despite the presence of a 'Community

the Skeffington Report proposals will clearly tend to b
articulate (middle class) sections of society at the expense of
groups - the working class. It seems highly probable t
Development Officer is more of a community-manipulator,
local planning authority than anything else. He seems to b
with the planning officers (para. 85) to be able to act as an a
terested or inarticulate. Such advocacy is also ruled out by
earlier, that plan preparation was to be exclusively the resp
planning authority. This restriction clearly pre-empts the possi
local planning on a participatory basis. On the one hand, th
less articulate are not to be adequately represented in the p
suspect will be the case, and if what are essentially political dec
allocation are allowed to masquerade as value-free pro
as they are and will probably continue to be, then the lose
game will be precisely those sections of society least eq
defend their needs - sections which also happen to be the lo
education, housing, occupational skill, etc. On the other han
get a chance to express their opinions through the Com
Officer, the planners should not be surprised if they are tol
more money, not more exhibitions.
There is another factor to be considered here: as the introduct
type considerations into the planning process over the las
have achieved little except further delays in the realization of p
of militant environmental pressure groups has stepped-up.
groups are involved in working class areas, and have an un
orientation. They can be seen as the militant arm of th
participatory democracy which we suggested earlier was a ge
the first consideration of participatory planning in Britai
similar to those of some of the American 'advocate-planne
their goal is to have the voice of the poor represented in th
have their values articulated and listened to, and to have t
important issues in urban life respected. As the recent ex
motorway protesters, and squatters, have shown, thes
prepared to disrupt the ordinary processes of planning an
to make their point. They also seem to be much more succe
system in achieving their ends of a more equitable deal fo
any effective form of participatory local government, and i
of the future, are going to have to adopt a substantial amou
power to cater for the urgent and immediate demands
currently are not admitted to the urban system.
Proposals for more effective participation in planning are
here, as the core of our argument is that without more par
life, and a consequent redistribution of power, participati

This content downloaded from

146.155.157.237 on Tue, 18 Jul 2023 15:30:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
230 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING

is meaningless. Two points might be made, withal. First,

strative boundaries of neighbourhoods could be decided on
reason why local authorities could not permit neighb
whatever they may be called) to do whatever they wished
ment, provided they could raise the money. There is n
elected representatives or professional planners, for that
enforcing their aesthetic judgments in areas where people
deciding for themselves what it is that they desire. It is be
accepted in our time that the people who, as it were, live
design should have some say in the selection of its com
point involves decisions at the structure/city plan leve
policy decisions, which are intrinsically political, and are
politicians directly responsible to the electorate - in theor
have argued above, the most effective form of participation
issues would stem from more widespread and meaningful
politics. At the same time, it is curious that very often whe
decisions involve the use of land, there is an attempt to n
referring it to the professional expertise of the planner.
concerned - planners, electorate, and councillors. If city-wi
use considerations, they should still be debated at the p
potential benefits and costs for different social groups by d
posals should be made manifest as far as possible.
All this may sound somewhat unrealistic to the tradition
land use planner, but we would argue that insofar as p
concerned, planners will have to come up with something
Skeffington. They will have to because the days of tacit ac
decisions about the urban system are over. If planners, and
colleagues cannot devise a more participatory local governm
are that the people will take their power away from t
previously 'inarticulate* and 'apathetic' people are awar
comment by Sherry Arnstein, an American planner :

'. . . participation without redistribution of power is an e

process for the powerless. It allows the power holders to cl
considered, but makes it possible for only some of these to ben
status quo'.39

The status quo is manifestly no longer acceptable.

Conclusion

In an attempt to evaluate the current position of 'public participation in planning',

we have analysed the origins of the notion. Two factors are presented as being
necessary to an explanation of the evolution of the notion to its present state
as defined in the Skeffington Report: first, the cumbersome and inefficient

This content downloaded from

146.155.157.237 on Tue, 18 Jul 2023 15:30:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SEAN DAMER AND CLIFF HAGUE 231

nature of the pre-1963 planning machinery; secondly, the m

representative democracy towards a more participatory politica
further postulated that the authors of the Report concentrated t
the first factor at the expense of the second. This has led to a fo
participation which concentrates on educating the public in
perspective on environmental matters. As the idealogy of the pro
suggests that he is the sole expert on these environmental issues,
theories of social and political organization which might have ale
potential for conflict which the present proposals for participati
further failure to perceive planning as a political activity with po
ces, has served to compound the problem. The essential ambiguity
to whether participation is a means to an end, or an end in itself, has
document presenting an ambivalent process. On the one hand, i
that delays and inhumanities in the planning process are unaccept
as well as to planners. On the other hand, its proposals offer a sys
which purports to tell the public all that is going on without let
real contribution to policy formation. The fact that there is evide
ing numbers among the public demand power to make such contr
been faced. Hence the proposals of the Skefiington Committee a
inadequate in the light of the politics of the 1970s, especially
increasing tendency towards militant, and effective, tactics by
groups. It remains to be seen whether public participation can h
any of the functions of local government, or whether it is mere
ideology in its own right.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1 cf: 'Editorial', and J. N.Jackson: Planning Education and the Public, Jour
Planning Institute, Vol. 50, No. 6, June 1964.
2 The Future of Development Plans, Report of the Planning Advisory Grou
HMSO., paras. 1.47,5-3, 5-8.
3 People and Planning; Report of the Skeffington Committee on Public Particip
HMSO., 1969, para. 1.
4 See, for example, reviews of Community Organisation for Citizen Partic
Renewal, by W. C. Loring et al., in Journal of the Town Planning Institut
December 1958, and of Urban Renewal, by R. Hemdahl, Journal of the Town
Vol. xlviii, No. 1, March 1061.
5 Lichfield, N., Planning for Urban Renewal: The American Approach, Jour
Planning Institute, Vol. xlviii, No. 3, March, 1961, p. 56.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 Lane, L. W., Urban Renewal, Journal of the Town Planning Institute, Vol. xlvni, 1962, p. 196.
9 Jackson, J. N., op. cit.
10 Reynolds, Josephine, Public Participation in Planning, Town Planning Review, 1969, Vol. 40,
No. 2, pp. 131-148.

This content downloaded from

146.155.157.237 on Tue, 18 Jul 2023 15:30:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
232 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING

ii Meyerson, M. & Banfield, E., Politics, Planning, and the Public Interest
1955. Gans, H. J., The Urban Villagers; The Free Press, N.Y., 1962; Rossi
Urban Renewal, Free Press 1961.
12 Jacobs, Jane, The Death and Life of Great American Cities: Random Ho
1964.
13 Foley, D. L., British Town Planning: One Ideology or Three? British Journal of Sociology,
Vol. xi, No. 3, Sept. i960.
14 Keeble, Lewis, Planning at the Crossroads: The Estates Gazette Ltd., 1961.
15 Jones, J. D., Review of Planning Administration; Town and Country Planning Summer School
Sept. 1969.
16 PAG, Interim Report (paras. 6 & 7).
17 PAG, op. cit., para: 1.15.
18 Ibid., para. 1.29.
19 But in some aspects of local planning, the Ministry retains its power; thus the Minister is still
the final judge for appeals against refusal of planning permission or against C.P.O.'s: cf. PAG,
para. 1.48.
20 bee Journal of the lown Planning Institute, July/ August 1968, pp. 343-344.
21 Keeble, Lewis, op. cit., p. 3.
22 cf. Verney, S., (Ed): People and Cities, Collins, 1969, p. 151.
23 People and Planning, op. cit., para. 18.
24 Gans, H. J., Planning for People Not Buildings, Environment and Planning, 1969, Vol. 1.
25 The Minister of Housing & Local Government, at the second reading of the Town & Country
Planning Bill, 1968.
26 People and Planning, op. cit., para. 1.
27 Chapin, F. S., Urban Land Use Planning, University of Illinois, Press, 1965.
28 People and Planning, op. cit., para. 45(ii).
29 cf: Pahl, Ray: Urban Sociology and Planning: Urban Thelry and Research, Centre Jor
Environmental Studies, University Working Paper, No. 5.
30 Webber, M., Planning in an Environment of Change, Town Planning Review, Vol. 39,
Numbers 3 and 4, pps. 1 81-195 and 277-295.
31 Davidoff, P., Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning, Journal of the American Institute of Planners,
Nov. 1965.
32 Mann, Seymour Z., Opening Remarks, in Proceedings of the National Conference on Advocacy
and Pluralistic Planning, NY., ig6g: Hunter College, City University of New York, 1970.
33 cf. Green, G., The Skeffington Report, in Social Science Research Council Newsletter No. 10,
Nov. 1970.
34 The authors would like to thank Jean Forbes of Glasgow University for discussing this point
with them.
35 Royal Commission on Local Government in England, Vol. 1. (The Maud Report)
36 Summary, in Vol. 9, Community Attitudes Survey; Maud Report, op. cit.
37 Young, M., The Hornsey Plan: A Role for Neighbourhood Councils in the New Local Government;
National Suggestions Centre, 1970.
38 cf: Public Exercise on ^39m. Govan Plan Succeeds, The Glasgow Herald, 31.12.70.
39 Arnstein, Sherry, A Ladder 01 Citizen Participation ; Journal oj the American Institute of
Planning, July, 1969.

This content downloaded from

146.155.157.237 on Tue, 18 Jul 2023 15:30:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms