Earlier this year I visited Singapore and wrote about how government interventions have led to some remarkable outcomes on housing, health and urban life in a nation state that is ethnically diverse and ageing rapidly.
I also remarked that as a one-party nation state, Singapore is able to test new approaches and drive through interventions without much opposition. So while Singapore demonstrates the kinds of outcomes we might aspire to here in the UK, getting there is more challenging when our democratic systems and processes are often very messy.
We value that multiple interests and voices have a right to be expressed and considered in planning decisions, and we have an increasingly deep understanding of how the development of the homes and places we inhabit impact our lives and livelihoods.
As interests multiply and fragment and data and evidence increase, our planning systems get overwhelmed. And too often the interests and voices considered are reduced to binary choices. It’s the easy way out, and media channels amplify this trend, as simple messages – and antagonistic ones in particular - get our attention.
So it’s no surprise that planning discourse is now defined by binary and often antagonistic interests: nimby v yimby; green belt v brownfield; growth v stagnation; affordable v market; developer v community; short-term v long-term investment; volume housebuilder v SME builder …..and many more.
Planning – like life – isn’t binary. And sustainable planning outcomes are based on uniting communities around a shared vision, not dividing people based on competing interests. It’s hard to listen to multiple voices and even harder when some are uncompromising or even hostile, and many planning officers in local authorities lack the resources to cope. This often results in poor communication that aggravates and emboldens the stronger voices.
How we get beyond this is a challenge of our times, but change is needed.
Perhaps it starts in how we train planners. Last year I wrote about how my alma mater, MIT, educates and trains planners as multidisciplinary practitioners. This means not only engaging with multiple disciplines – eg architectural design, public health, environmental science, data science, community organising, economic development – but also with individuals and organisations representing multiple interests.
It’s also about recognising and adopting tools that are available to inform and support multidisciplinary planning. Several of these worthy of mention focus on integrating health and wellbeing into the planning process – something that tends to unify local people:
1. The Local Government Association recently published guidance on utilising the powers and practices of local councils in developing healthy neighbourhoods. The guidance offers a summary of key powers and practices in local government that impact health and wellbeing, a review of best practice case studies, recommendations for councils seeking to improve health and wellbeing and recommendations for the new government.
2. I recently interviewed several practitioners in Wales who work collaboratively between public health and planning to provide tools for policymakers, local authorities and private developers that lead to fully informed and evidence-based planning decisions.
3. Our Place, based in Scotland, provides a collaborative space for contributions of “information, tools and resources to help support the development of places and services that improve our health, our prosperity, our quality of life and protect our environment”. Its Place Standard Tool provides a simple framework to structure conversations about place. “It allows you to think about the physical elements of a place (for example its buildings, spaces, and transport links) as well as the social aspects (for example whether people feel they have a say in decision making). The tool also provides prompts for discussions, allowing you to consider all the elements of a place in a methodical way.”
4. Centric Lab has developed a Community Informed Health Impact Assessment Toolkit which “provides a framework for going on a journey of co-production.” There are different stages to the process, encouraging points of reflection, research, and engagement with different people, organisations and stakeholders. “The framework is designed to ensure a healthy amount of time and space is given so that democracy, equity, and lived experience sit at the heart of the outcome.”
A multidisciplinary approach to planning for places can also be supported by the way developments are funded. While many are ill at ease with private financing of our public infrastructure, my experience in developing new hospitals relied heavily on multidisciplinary thinking and practice, as a central feature of the PFI bidding consortium was a multidisciplinary approach to designing, building and operating healthcare facilities. The disciplines and data required to demonstrate the value for money and risk transfer demanded by HMTreasury meant that old templates for hospital development had to be scrapped and new ones created in their place. Architects, engineers, medical equipment suppliers, patients, clinicians, builders – all were represented in gaining an understanding of how best to design, build and operate a hospital for the 21st century. This was actually a really hard thing for many to do and delivered some world-class facilities.
These are just some of the guidance, toolkits and experience available to help local planners to manage and embrace the messiness of our planning system, and avoid the dominance of binary positions and interests. Those of you committed to developing places that embody and serve all of our interests – please share.
Clare Delmar
Listen to Locals
August 14, 2024
