Skeffington report 1969 pdf

While Skeffington, and his precursors in the discussionof participation - PAG and the Act- appearvery optimistic about the notion, some prominent plannershave made their attitude evident.

Our feeling is that such views completely miss the essentialdraw- backs of the Report. What planning theories, or theories of social organization, political decision-making, or communications, are utilized by Skeffington to back up his recommendations?

The answer is none. The Report's proposals for participation appear to have no theoretical context whatsoever. What does appear on analysis is that the Report barely conceals an idealogical stance aimed at defending the professional prerogatives of the planning profession. The Committee seems to have reacted in a straightforward manner to the pressures outlined in the first half of this paper rather than to analysing them and under- standing their dynamics.

Perhaps the most revealing comment in the whole Report is one which deals not with parti- cipation as such, but with planning: 'We have never forgotten that planning is a means and not an end; and that its purpose is to set the framework within which houses, roads, and community services can be provided at the right time and in the right place'.

After all, nobody could seriously argue that these facilities should be provided in 'the wrong place at the wrong time'. Thus the only credible source of conflict between planners and the public must lie in the latter's ignorance of planning matters, and it is the fervent hope of Skeffington that such ignorance can be eradicated by the education of the public through participation and a sympathetic mass-media.

Two themes which emerge strongly from Skeffington are this need to educate the public, and secondly an optimistic assessment of the likely pay-off from the practice of participation. Throughout the Report, therefore, there is a strong emphasis on educatingthe public into a comprehension of the planners9 point-of-view; this education, it is asserted, should start in school paras. After all, 'people can help the work of the local authority by; i responding constructivelyto opportuni- ties to participate.

Voluntary associations and school- children may assist in survey work, but the framework of the survey will, of course, be subject to the control of the planners para. The essence of Skeffington's optimism, and indeed the alembic of the whole report, is to be found in paragraph 20, which includes the comment: '.

Any definition of participationinvolves the notion of 'having a share in'. As the Ministerof Housing said: '. Bringing people into planning means a great deal more than the 'right'to inspectplansand object to them. I want to make surethat people can get to know what the planning authority is proposing to include in its plans before attitudesharden'.

Skeffington pays lip-service to this ideal by talking about 'participationof the public' at the formative stage in the making of development plans for their area,26 but as we have argued above, the text of the Report makes it quite apparentthat a game is being played, that the name of the game is participation,that its rulesare set by the planners,as is its tempo, and its final result. The Report is adamantthat '.

What the game is all about is public relations- public relations for the planning profession. The purpose of public participationin planningis to make life easierfor the planners. It is significantthat the type of planningbeing taught in contemporarydepart- ments of town planningdoes not now correspondwith the simplistemodel offered by Skeffington.

In modern departments,planningis generallyperceivedas a deci- sion-makingprocess,in which valuesplay a crucialpart. The best-known,butby no means unique version of such a model is that of Chapin. This contains two elements: i the failure to recognize the essentiallypolitical nature of planningas an activity, and ii the failureto relateparticipatoryplanningto the organizationaland spatialcontext of politics. True, and while inexcusablethat this obvious truth was not pursuedfurther,there is some- thing about the politicalnatureof planningwhich is of much greaterimportance.

Much of planningactivityhasto do with the distributionof scarceurbanresources and facilities- albeit houses,open space, or whatever. In this context, planning is involved in a power struggle; this power is not just to do with the zoning of land,it hasalsoto do with the fact thatcertainusesof landcan enhanceor constrain people's life-chances. As Ray Pahl has put it, 'planners are important gate- keepers in the urban system; their professionalideology has a great deal of influencein shapingthe availabilityof resourcesin the city- resourceswhich are frequently in short supply and over which there is a considerableamount of public conflict between the 'have's'and the 'have-nots',resourceswhich can add a spatialdimension to the misery of those alreadydeprived socially'.

Those who adhereto this stancefail to realize the realpolitikof the pluralisticsociety in which we live- that is, a society com- prising a multitude of social groups having different,competing, and not infre- quently conflictingsets of values.

This view of society is neithercynical nor pessi- mistic; it clearlyhas some empiricalreference,and it also allows for a comprehen- sion of socialchange. One Americanplannerhaspungently expressedthe situation in his country: 'We are, then, really concerned. Even the implications 01 statementslike this one seem to have escapedthe Committee. It does not seem to have registered that theremay be a conflictof interestsbetween the joiners' and the 'non-joiners'.

One has to ask what it is that the 'non-joiners'are being urged to join; one wants to know what it is that one is going to participatein. But programmes are to be judged in terms of whom they serve, and our argument is that the Skeffington model serves only the planners' interests.

It may be, in fact, a totally risible action for a citizen to participate in a programme which at the end of the day is going to clear him out of his house whether he wills it or not.

The notion of participation as a programme implies something else: Skeffington appears uncertain as to whether public participation in planning is a goal in itself or merely a means to an end. As has been observed elsewhere, the definition of - participation offered in the Report 'the public sharing in the formulation of - policies and proposals' is so vague as to be useless; it is, in fact, practically isomorphic with 'democracy'.

Its proposals are, then, undemocratic in our understanding of that term. The Parametersof Participation Even given this analysis, several problems remain. The first is this: Skeffington deals with local and city plans rather than regional or even national plans. Apart from the massive potential difference in physical scale between even a local and a city plan, there can also be great differences in the time-scale involved. Now in terms of planning matters alone, there is just no evidence to suggest which, if any, of these scales of plans is tangible and comprehensible to the citizen.

Common- sense would indicate that the smaller-scale local plans- because they are highly visible and often immediate in terms of time - offer the only real chance of public participation.

But, ironically, this is perhaps the level where the potential to effect radical change is smallest; participation in local planning is unlikely to transcend purely cosmetic activity. While this cosmetic activity may be of huge importance to the local citizen - for example, in deciding between redevelopment or rehabili- tation- it is miniscule compared with the urban system at large The second problem is that this is hardly 'participation'- especially not in the sense proposed by the Minister of Housing.

The reason for this failure to address the real problems of participation is, we suggest, that a consideration of participa- tion in planning alone, especially as conceived by Skeffington, misses the point.

Planning does not exist in an administrative vaccum, it is firmly enmeshed in the organizational framework of local government. There is no reason why citizens should be especially motivated to participate in planning as opposed to other local government matters- except when their own immediate interests are directly threatened, as by compulsory purchase orders.

Citizens will have to be motivated to participate generally in local political life before they can be expected to partici- pate in decisions affecting solely matters to do with the physical environment.

But at the moment, the lack of interest in local government in this country is notorious. This was the sort of question which was pursued in the 'Community Attitudes Survey' undertaken as a research study for the Maud Commission.

Michael Young, in research at Hornsey, has also established that people can pin- point a local 'community' or 'neighbourhood', and goes on to argue that a modified framework of local government might take account of this by introduc- ing some form of neighbourhood council for these small areas. If people are generally not attached to anything larger than a group of streets, it seems unrealistic to suppose that they will perceive, and participate in, any planning matter which deals with a larger area.

And this is making the assumption that people will necessarily participate in decisions about neighbourhoods to which they feel attached; such small amount of research as does exist on this matter would suggest that this is a very questionable assumption. But even given that there was some kind of correspondence between neighbourhood feeling and participation in a local activity, the third problematic inference remains: what size is a neighbourhood?

How small are these small areas? Who decides what their boundaries are going to be? Who decides what form neighbourhood representation at city level will be? What issues can neigh- bourhoods take decisions about? Much as one may wish it were otherwise,people's participationin local affairsonly appearsto 'take-off'when, first,thereis an imme- diate, local threatand, secondly, when there is a real, tangible chance of such participationbeing successful in removing the threat. In fact, this kind of activity hardlyjustifies the name of 'participation'at all.

If the crude version of Skeffington-typeparticipationis an ideology which is operatingon behalf of the planners,then the 'grass-roots'political participation movement appearsas an ever cruderideology benefitingnobody, except perhaps the political scientistswho study it. There is a risk that the operation of Skeffington-type participation could aggravate planningblight or speculationin land, could cause delays, and could increasethe work-load of local authorityplanners.

But these are perhapsless problematicthan assessingthe 'success'of a participationprogramme. This, however, will dependon whether participationis defined as a means or an end. Have you found an error with this catalogue description? Let us know. If you provide contact details, we will be in touch about your request within 10 working days.

All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3. Free digital downloads While there is limited access to our Kew site, signed-in users can download digital records for free. Read about our fair use policy and why we are doing this. This website uses cookies We place some essential cookies on your device to make this website work. Set cookie preferences. Start new search Print Discovery help Bookmark. Ordering and viewing options This record has not been digitised and cannot be downloaded.

Book a visit Request a copy. Let us know. If you provide contact details, we will be in touch about your request within 10 working days. All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3. Free digital downloads While there is limited access to our Kew site, signed-in users can download digital records for free. Read about our fair use policy and why we are doing this. This website uses cookies We place some essential cookies on your device to make this website work. Set cookie preferences.

Start new search Print Discovery help Bookmark. Catalogue description Public participation in planning: Skeffington Report Ordering and viewing options This record has not been digitised and cannot be downloaded. Book a visit Request a copy. Let us know Which field contains the error?