Children, the environment and participatory planning

Public participation in the planning system is well established in both academic and practice based research. The failure to engage the 'public' effectively has resulted in costly and unpopular decisions and produced a debate about how, when and with whom to participate. Children have tended to be marginal or ignored in land use planning but this paper suggests that, given the right techniques, they can be articulate, reasonable and clear thinkers about the type of environment they live in and how it should change. It draws on Mental Mapping and Environmental Affordance methodologies to show how eleven year old children can read their neighbourhood, identify barriers and highlight the benefits they extract from a deeper cognitive understating of their place. The paper concludes by suggesting that these techniques are transferable globally, especially where literacy and numeracy is weak and where planners reliance on formalised consultations reflect the interests of state and economic elites rather than the wider population.

Sexing up the city in the international beauty contest: the performative nature of spatial planning and the fictive spectacle of place branding

This paper responds to recent calls for more academic research and critical discussion on the relationship between spatial planning and city branding. Through the lens of Liverpool, the article analyses how key planning projects have delivered major transformations in the city's built environment and cultural landscape. More specifically, in concentrating on the performative nature of spatial planning it reveals the physical, symbolic and discursive re-imaging of Liverpool into a 'world class city'. Another aspect of the paper presents important socioeconomic datasets and offers a critical reading of the re-branding in showing how it presents an inaccurate representation of Liverpool. The evidence provided indicates that a more accurate label for Liverpool is a polarised and divided city, thereby questioning the fictive spectacle of city branding. Finally, the paper ends with some critical commentary on the role of spatial planning as an accessory to the sophistry of city branding.

Pitfalls in Protection: How Theory Can Enrich Our Understanding of Regulatory Compliance Problems in Planning Practice

This paper responds to demands for greater academic investigation into environmental protection, specifically the practical and structural problems which underpin regulatory compliance in the planning system. It critiques traditional theories of regulation and answers calls for the development of a thematic lens to facilitate the scrutiny of not only operational practice, but also the broader institutional regime. An empirical investigation builds upon the construct of really responsive regulation to study planning control and it becomes apparent that not only are there significant procedural planning difficulties facing regulatory compliance, but also that a much wider raft of issues must be considered if the complex equation is to be solved. The findings demonstrate how theory can be applied to enrich our rudimentary understanding of deep-seated problems and foster insights into areas of structural importance which are relevant to both planning and the wider regulatory arena.

Perceptions of the common good in planning

There has been plenty of debate in the academic literature about the nature of the common good or public interest in planning. There is a recognition that the idea is one that is extremely difficult to isolate in practical terms; nevertheless, scholars insist that the idea ‘…remains the pivot around which debates about the nature of planning and its purposes turn’ (Campbell & Marshall, 2002, 163–64). At the point of first principles, these debates have broached political theories of the state and even philosophies of science that inform critiques of rationality, social justice and power. In the planning arena specifically, much of the scholarship has tended to focus on theorising the move from a rational comprehensive planning system in the 1960s and 1970s, to one that is now dominated by deliberative democracy in the form of collaborative planning. In theoretical terms, this debate has been framed by a movement from what are perceived as objective and elitist notions of planning practice and decision-making to ones that are considered (by some) to be ‘inter-subjective’ and non-elitist. Yet despite significant conceptual debate, only a small number of empirical studies have tackled the issue by investigating notions of the common good from the perspective of planning practitioners. What do practitioners understand by the idea of the common good in planning? Do they actively consider it when making planning decisions? Do governance/institutional barriers exist to pursuing the common good in planning? In this paper, these sorts of questions are addressed using the case of Ireland. The methodology consists of a series of semi-structured qualitative interviews with 20 urban planners working across four planning authorities within the Greater Dublin Area, Ireland. The findings show that the most frequently cited definition of the common good is balancing different competing interests and avoiding/minimising the negative effects of development. The results show that practitioner views of the common good are far removed from the lofty ideals of planning theory and reflect the ideological shift of planners within an institution that has been heavily neoliberalised since the 1970s.