Delivering the Big Society: Is spatial planning theory limiting the way we see the world?

Alister Scott and Michael Hardman

Centre for Environment and Society ResearchBirmingham City University

Qvistrom’s (2007) ‘Spaces of Disorder’

Theoretical Roots

Land uses at the ‘Fringe’

Re- Connecting Spatial Planning Theory

PLAN

‘Spaces of Disorder’

‘A distinctive feature of spatial planning has for a long time been the desire to establish orderly places… planning still aims at regulation and the creation of places with an unquestionable character of city or country, nature or culture, public or private, and with a clear purpose of what is to be done there and by whom’

(Qvistrom, 2007: 270)

Theoretical Roots 1

Ordering and controlling space (Qvistrom, 2007)‘the reduction of three-dimensional realities to two dimensions’

(Lefebvre, 1991: 285)

Planners have a particular way of seeing – (Lefebvre, 1991; Qvistrom, 2007; Scott 2002)

‘…Spatial abstractions…perpetuate a rational modern and technocentric viewpoint…’the planner’s eye view’ (Hubbard, 2006: 77)

Theoretical Roots 2

Too much reliance on the visual (Scott et al, 2009)‘Landscapes do not have edges, they are seamless webs which extend out in all directions, constrained only by the conceptual

horizons of people for whom spaces mean something.’(Darvill, 1998: 16)

‘that which is merely seen is reduced to an image – and to an icy coldness’ (Lefebvre, 1991: 286)

Land uses at the ‘Fringe’

‘ILLICIT CULTIVATION OF SOMEONE ELSE’S LAND’ (Reynolds, 2008: 16)

‘a system by which we can exist on the earth by using the energy that is in flux and relatively harmless, and by using the food and natural resources that are abundant in such a way that we don’t continually destroy life on earth’.

(Mollison, 1991: 1)

Challenging Convention: Constraints and Opportunities with Spatial Planning

Pushing boundaries

Lifestyle philosophy

New opportunity space?

Artificial boundaries

Marginalisation

Contesting sustainable development

Pushing Boundaries

Both challenge the conventional use of space

Both challenge the spatial planner’s perceived order:‘the purpose of what is to be done there and by whom’

(Qvistrom, 2007: 270)Both champion an environmental ethic above all else

Lifestyle Philosophy

Philosophy drives actions not institutions

Holistic approach challenging the artificial separation of policy areas

Institutions marginalise alternative lifestyles (Hopwitt and Lunkapis, 2010)

(Brithdirmawr.co.uk, 2011)

New opportunity space?

In Theory

Negative

Reactive

Controlled

Proactive

Adaptive

Positive

Enablers

(Adapted from: Middleton, 2010; Mommaas & Jansen, 2006; Scott et al, 2009)

In reality…

Dependent on local institutional context

Bureaucratic barriers

Does not always translate immediately

New opportunity space?

International campaign and protest

Adaptive management

Really want to work with planners?‘there’s no fun in that’

(Hardman, 2011: 10)

(Scott, 2001: 278)

Artificial Boundaries

Agriculture includes horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy farming, the breeding and keeping of livestock (including any creature kept for the production of food, wool, skins or fur, or for the purpose of its use in the farming of land), the use of land as grazing land, meadow land, osier land, market gardens and nursery grounds, and the use of land for woodlands where that use is ancillary to the farming of land for other agricultural purposes, and ‘agricultural’ shall be construed accordingly.’

Town and Country Planning Act 1990/S336

Practice a form of self sustaining food production

Artificial Boundaries

Legislation problematic for Permaculture

Confusing for guerrillas too

Practise a form of ‘urban agriculture’ (rearing livestock and producing food in the city)

F Troop - Symbolic production of food

Solo guerrilla – Fresh produce for neighbours in an alley

BUT ‘…not classified as a valid form of

agricultural activity under the Act’ (Scott, 2001: 280)

Marginalisation of Groups

Spatial planner’s quest for order marginalises guerrillas/permaculturalists

Destruction of guerrilla sites/unauthorised developments

Marginalisation of Place

Abstraction from space - marginalisation

Fringe spaces marginalised

(Qvistrom, 2007: 277)“out of mind; seen but potential not understood”

Contesting Sustainable Development

The Inspector’s view ‘Because of its location in the national park, where the protection of landscape and scenic beauty are especially important, this visually poor quality building neither harmonises with nor enhances its surroundings. Indeed it causes them demonstrableharm .’

(Planning Inspector in: Scott, 2002: 284)

Cause more important than rules‘ “that’s not appropriate”, someone said to me “that’s not appropriate, the council should do that” So you’ve got to be a bit braver and just keep going and not give up.’

(Guerrilla Gardener interview conducted by Michael Hardman)

Outcomes

From Illegal activity to Exemplar

Illegal origins

Key players

Power

Acceptance

Promotion

Outcomes

(Rosa Rose Garten, 2008)

(Gruenewelle, 2006)

From opportunity space to

failure

(Gruenewelle, 2008)

(Gruenewelle, 2008)

“Re-Challenging” Spatial Planning Theory

Planners trapped/comfortable in regulatory functions? (Taylor, 2010)

Idealistic goals crossing a legal minefield

Need to focus on the micro-practices of local governance and decision making (Olsen 1989; Gualini, 2010)

Meanings of place have been transformed and changed through experience and occupation (Scott et al 2009)

Developing Spatial Planning Theory

Realising potentials of space through new lenses which challenge establish order (Qvistrom 2007)

OpportunityOr

Threat?

Any Question?