In Britain today, oppression is not politically correct but there is still evidence to show it occurs throughout all races and, therefore, each person is an individual and can show similarities to various ‘ethnic blocks’.
As identified by Thomas 1997, gender inequalities still persist today where women are still seen as subservient to men. As a Development Control (DC) officer, daily contact with Architects, Agents, Solicitors and members of the public is a huge component of the profession. It is quite shocking to discover how many people including women expect DC officers to be male and assume women to be the secretaries phoning on behalf of the DC officers. For example when phoning to make appointments for site visits, applicants including women assume that the DC officer will be male and this mistake is openly admitted. On some occasions there is much more open sexism for example in meetings it has been the case where males have said “A woman planning officer, why would you want to do that, is it not a man’s job to deal with buildings etc?”. It can be extremely difficult to be taken seriously when female in meetings whereby the majority of the people involved are male and of an older generation. Often women in these situations are not given the respect deserved or required. This is a concept that bewilders many women entering the profession to experience should ‘backward thinking’ in the 21st Century. It has sadly become apparent however that ‘sexism’, and even ‘ageism’ is still very much a regular occurrence within the planning profession itself. This aspect of exclusion within the profession can only be overcome by increased awareness from having direct contact with female planning officers. I feel also it is a generation change, whereby through time, when today’s younger generations are older, it will not be as big an issue as it tends to be the older generations that are least aware. This is not the situation for all older generations of course.
As Thomas 1997 states we need to reject the view of ethnicity, which ignores identities and bases its categories on ‘origin’ histories and national inheritance, and instead should incorporate work, gender and sexuality into the equation too. Another type of social exclusion aside from race and gender is those individuals that are termed by society as ‘disabled’. Thomas, 1992 discusses how anti-racism and anti-sexism appear to have been higher on the political agenda than disability. In Planning however there is a greater emphasis towards accessibility to all by making new developments easily accessible to the physically challenged/disabled individuals of society. Thomas believes that planners should also be aware of how handicap in the built environment relates to the rest of the lives of disabled people. A publication by a disabled woman was written which demonstrates how essential it is in practical terms for disabled people to be involved in the policy making process if it is to be sensitive to their needs. (Thomas 1992).
A survey by the OPCS devised a way of categorising different types of disabled people. The sectors were ‘Impairment’ (parts or systems of the body do not work), ‘Disability’ where people cannot do certain things, and ‘Handicap’, where an individual is disadvantaged. This is not a accurate division at all, as within the sectors there is so much variety. It is also ignorant and inaccurate to try to categorise people in such a way as it may be argued that any form of disability could fall into all of these categories and people who are not judged by society to be disabled may not be able to do some things which again would fall into some of these categories. For example people that are partially sighted can wear contact lenses and still perform all normal daily routine yet they do have impairment. Society, however, would not judge them to be the same as others that may fall under the impairment category.
Accessibility in the built environment has a social stigma attached. Planners may judge people as being handicapped if for example they cannot walk. Attitudes need to be changed to realise that a person who cannot walk is not necessarily handicapped, it is the layout of the built environment that handicaps the person by making places inaccessible to them. This is a very important point and crucial to the future of planning against social exclusion. Having carried out an experiment in where an able bodied colleague spent 3 days in a wheel chair and attempted to carry out normal daily activities, it became apparent how unaware the able bodied members of society are to the challenges disabled people face every day. In particular meticulous planning was carried out to find a route that was entirely ‘wheelchair friendly’ and as a result journey times became much longer. There were not only physical challenges but also mental challenges to be contended with as it became more and more apparent how differently people would interact with a wheel chair user, resulting in lack of confidence, the feeling of being patronised and even helplessness.
It would seem, therefore, that the Planning system may be blamed for the social exclusion of the disabled, but can it be blamed for the social exclusion of certain ethnic groups?.
It would appear so, as some Local Authorities have a Policy for funding community buildings for ethnic groups as opposed to religious groups which results in an incentive for people to pigeon hole themselves into an ethnic group. This then creates a sense of differing ethnic groups. In social/affordable housing, it can become the situation that members of certain ethnic groups may all be housed together or due to certain services provided, different ethnic groups may move to areas that accommodate their needs. It would appear therefore, that the Planning system can be blamed for increasing segregation instead of integration and encouraging social interaction. The study published by the RTPI in 1993 discovered that there was evidence to support that racism is widespread in Britain and that bureaucratic processes can be indirectly discriminative. It appeared to be the case that Planners in the British planning system in the 1990’s were unaware of the implications of their work. (Thomas 1997).
Yiftachel, 1995 argues that planning
“ is a ‘professional activity aimed at producing a public good of one kind or another”
(Yiftachel 1995, pp216).
Yiftachel goes on to argue that because of this, research into the theory and practice of urban and regional planning has concentrated mainly on its ability to achieve goals for the good of the public such as residential amenity, economic efficiency, social equity, or environmental sustainability; and has not concentrated on the negative effect of planning polices resulting in the achievement of quite the opposite such as social repression.
It is noted however, that the article was written in 1995 and much more focus is being placed on social oppression and problems and tensions surrounding political, environment and economical issues. The statement that planning policies of the past have caused social oppression and divides within communities is not entirely accurate. There is little doubt that policies played some part in the state of society but there are many many causes for all aspects of oppression whether it be social, environmental, economical or political, and it is vital that all the roots of oppression be found and addressed in the interests of the public and the environment.
Davoudi and Atkinson 1999 feel that social exclusion is new to the UK and planners and the planning system have not had time to adapt to the issue. They suggest that planning policies in the 1980’s actually exacerbated social exclusion, by increasing solar polarisation in equality and spatial segregation.
So with all these individual forms of social exclusion is it possible to include everyone equally in the British Planning System?
In Britain there are access groups that advise planners on accessibility issues surrounding the disabled, although, not enough research has been carried out to see how effective these groups have been in changing the attitudes of planners and the public, towards an accessible environment to all. In the US state sponsorship of anti-discriminatory legislation and consultation with access groups was a vital factor in empowering the political influence of disabled people. Problems surround the legitimacy of access groups, however, as some groups have just 30% of members disabled and some of those 30% are not impaired, disabled or handicapped to a great extent. The make-up of these groups needs to be addressed and the interests of disabled people should be represented accurately as the motives and ethics of some access groups may be questionable. (Thomas 1992).
Thomas’ paper of 1992 is still very applicable today and it is not evident that the circumstances have changed dramatically from the time of his writing. Thomas 1992, aims to replace the notion of accessibility as being a technical design issue to an idea of it being a social-political issue. Disabled groups are becoming more empowered and influential as the issues surrounding disability are climbing higher on the political agenda. Planning Officers however, need to be more aware of the needs of the interest groups as there is no legislation or policies in the UDP in many local authorities to enforce such requirements. Building regulations require certain standards, but this is dealt with after the planning stage. It should be an issue that is addressed at all stages of development if the accessibility of the built environment is ever to improve. The amount of access groups should be increased and they should be consulted on all large new developments to see how ‘handicap free’ a development is. Increased awareness should be carried out by Central Government and it should be fed down to Local Governments to ensure that all planners are considering developments and how disabled friendly they are as well as the usual assessments. The access groups should have a wide variety of people with various disabilities so that the needs of all can be addressed and realised to some extent. As Thomas 1992 states:
“ There is nothing natural or inevitable about handicap, it is created, and sustained; it can be reduced or eliminated’
(Thomas, H, 1992, pp23).
Farnsworth and Hussain 1993 discuss ways in which Local Authorities have introduced planning initiatives that have an ethnic minority dimension. E,g leaflets translated, policies preventing sub-division and distinguishing between different groups as clients or customers and tailoring services to their expressed demands. Farnsworth and Hussain 1993 argue that there is a second division cross-cutting the categories and that each initiative has the potential to influence groups positively by giving them power and yet negatively by controlling their aspirations:
‘Initiatives give power if they are about identifying the needs of different groups and attempting to accommodate or provide for them. Initiatives are seeking to control if they are geared towards getting non-conforming groups to fit in with the system, for instance discouraging people from submitting planning applications which are likely to be refused. This is not to say that controlling initiatives are always bad initiatives, but that they need to be balanced by positive efforts which provide opportunities.
(Farnsworth & Hussain, 1993, pp19).
Farnsworth and Hussain 1993 feel that the emphasis of land use planning has been changed by the Conservative’s political dominance and a shift in social consensus. In the 1980’s planners were concerned with improving a Council’s image. (Farnsworth & Hussain 1993).
Similar emphasis is in place today as a focus on ‘best value’ is now present. Monitoring is in place to see how decisions are made and how people of different sectors of society are treated. The 8 week figures are concerned with determining applications s within 8 weeks, as previously discussed this does not always result in best practice as negotiation time is cut down and takes place in between application and resubmission.
Farnsworth and Hussain refer to Derby Council and describe how serving the client is of the highest priority. Due to a study of the Council it was revealed Asian applications were refused more than others and different initiatives have since been developed to assist the needs of ethnic communities. In Leicester City Council planners are acting as property brokers finding premises through involvement identifying sites where a service/facility would be more likely to gain permission. Although this is a good initiative in the way that it is meeting the needs of ethnic communities, it may be prejudicing the other sectors of society who do not benefit this. It could be claimed that planners are favouring ethnic communities by giving them more assistance in gaining permission and not providing the same service to other members of the public.
Derby Council also appointed a Black planner to liase with minority groups and translate for them. This was a negative move, however, as there was no career ladder for the post holder, and it became difficult to keep the post filled for a length of time. Derby Council also translates documents stating the restrictions of planning but Farnsworth& Hussain argue that this gave a negative and controlling image of planning.
Yiftachel, 1995 also discusses whether planning is reform or control. The paper demonstrates that planning polices made by early founders were based around reform and modernization, yet the polices were also used as a means of controlling a minority population. A case study is used to demonstrate how this was so. The Arabs were repressed as a result of the planning policies that reinforced spatial, procedural and socio-economic inequalities and deprivation in pre-1967. The case study also showed that in a modern democratic system, control can only be held to a certain extent, as at the time of writing the paper the Arabs in Majd el Krum had become more assertive and resistant resulting in some policy changes. The study demonstrates that although the policies were devised by the top, the bottom challenged those policies, and it is this motion that then creates social conflicts and tensions.
The 1993 RTPI study described by Thomas 1997 showed systematically different outcomes for one group of people rather than another in planning applications. Monitoring of this is a positive move as the issue can then be addressed, however, this cannot be considered to be totally conclusive as Thomas 1997 states the results may be for other reasons.
Personal experience of planning in the London Borough of Enfield has illustrated changes in procedure to attempt to include all members of the public. All correspondence from the Council has the following printed on the reverse of the letter in 9 different languages
‘If you require the letter to be translated into his language please tick the box and return to the following address…’
(Enfield Council standard consultation letter, 2003)
This is an attempt to ensure that the different non-English speaking groups are included in the consultation process. Often phone calls are received from children phoning on behalf of their non- English speaking parents enquiring as to why they had not been consulted. It is not only correspondence but all advisory notes on planning applications can also be translated. So one of the reasons why the monitoring of determinations may show more refusals to one group may be that they have not requested the information be translated. In other situations where revised plans and negotiations are taking place with a non-English speaking applicant, again a child may be used for translation purposes. It can be very difficult to negotiate a planning application with a child who does not fully understand the instructions being used. A translator is available for meetings, but the offer is very rarely taken advantage of. If revised plans are not received within the 8 week time limit, the application is refused due to the pressure from Central Government to determine all application in 8 weeks.
Davoudi and Atkinson 1999 believe that planning could play a main part in addressing social exclusion by co-ordinating the actions of themselves with other organisations and addressing the needs of deprived communities.
The Urban Task force have recognised the importance of such a role as a January 1999 report emphasised that:
‘More effectively than any other are of public policy, planning combines strategic vision with public involvement and regulation of change’
(Davoudi and Atkinson 1993, pp233).
For this to be achieved however Davoudi and Atkinson 1993 believe that barriers between participating organisations should be broken down and a genuinely participative approach developed. They suggest key policy statements to tackle the issue. One is targeting those worst affected as described by the discussion paper on Regeneration programme. Another is described by the New Deal for communities which discusses the need to combat social exclusion long-term by attacking all social and environmental problems. (The Social Exclusion Unit has 18 cross-cutting action teams in Whitehall) and another is Partnerships and Participation. This is being promoted by Labour Administration. All of these could facilitate the creation of a planning system with greater access to deprived communities and thereby influence its outcome. If the system did this, it would play a positive role in the struggle against social exclusion.
Davoudi and Atkinson 1999 believe that the partnership arrangements have often been less encouraging. A very valid statement is made however, reminding that planners are just one group of many who can influence development. This is considered to be an important point as planners are only one group of many who can influence social attitudes and the practice of many aspects of life where Social Exclusion is apparent.
To conclude, the preferred approach to planning in relation to social exclusion should be one that, through policies and practice, strives towards a world of reduced environmental deprivation, reduced poverty, reduced exclusion, and reduced tensions. It would be idealistic to strive towards a world where there is none of the above but at this stage it is simply not realistic. Planning theorists should be researching ways of improving the planning system to eradicate all forms of exclusion within and outside of the planning system, by learning from the mistakes of the past. More specific policies and procedures relating to all needs of the community need to be produced which aim to eliminate disadvantages experienced by the ‘disabled’, the ‘ethnic minorities’ and issues relating to gender. It is also extremely important to highlight the issues of location. Each community has different needs and it may not be practical to devise one system for all, as its relevance will vary across the country although there are forms of social exclusion everywhere, the amount and type varies.
Planning should be fair system by ensuring the same service is provided to all regardless. It should be remembered also that planning is just one system that has indirectly caused social exclusion, it must be remembered that there are other systems and organizations that also cause social exclusion through procedures and attitudes and these too need to be addressed if social exclusion is ever going to be reduced. Increased awareness campaigns, increased monitoring, more research, specific policies, increased consultation with specialist groups and adapting to new procedures are all ways to strengthen the battle against social exclusion.
References
Davudi, S & R.Arkinson, (1999), “Social Exclusion and the British Planning System” Planning Practice and Research, 14(2) pp 225-236
Farnsworth, R., & M. Hussain, (1993), “Race and Planning Initiatives: Action by Derby City Council”, Planning Practice and Research, 8(3).
Thomas, H., (1997) “Ethnic Minorities and the Planning System: a study revisited”, Town Planning Review, 68(2), April.
Thomas, H., (1992), “Disability, Politics and the Built Environment”, Planning Practice and Research, 7(1)
Yiftachel, O, (1995) “The Dark Side of Modernism: Planning as Control of an Ethnic Minority”, in Sophie Watson and Katherine Gibson (ed.), Postmodern Cities and Spaces, Oxford Blackwell, Ch. 15, 216-242
