diversity and planning research into policies and procedures apendix 1

8/8/2019 Diversity and Planning Research Into Policies and Procedures Apendix 1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/diversity-and-planning-research-into-policies-and-procedures-apendix-1 1/43

Planning and Diversity: Research into Policies andProcedures

Appendices



Planning and Diversity: Research into Policies andProcedures

Appendices

March 2004

Sheffield Hallam University: Sheffield

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: London



Report prepared by:

Chris Booth, CRESR, Sheffield Hallam UniversityElaine Batty, CRESR, Sheffield Hallam UniversityRose Gilroy, GURU, University of NewcastleDr. Lorna Dargan, GURU, University of NewcastleHuw Thomas, Cardiff UniversityDr. Neil Harris, Cardiff UniversityProfessor Rob Imrie, Royal Holloway College, University of London

The findings and recommendations in this report are those of the consultant authorsand do not necessarily represent the views or proposed policies of the Office of theDeputy Prime Minister.

Office of the Deputy Prime MinisterEland House

Bressenden PlaceLondon SW1E 5DUTel: 020 7944 4400

Web site: www.odpm.gov.uk

© Queen's Printers and controller of Her Majesty's Stationery

Copyright in the typographical arrangements rest with the crown.

This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation.

This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the publication specified.

For any other use of this material, please write to HMSO Licensing, St Clements House, 2- 16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ Fax: 01603 723000 or e-mail [email protected]

March 2004.



Appendices

Contents

Appendix 1 Research Methodology ..............................................1

Appendix 2 Survey Questionnaire.................................................4

Appendix 3 Survey Questionnaire Results................................. 12

Appendix 4 Key Actor Interviews: Topic Guideand List of Interviewees ...........................................26

Appendix 5 Diversity Proofing Exercise .....................................31

Appendix 6 Diversity Proofing Results.......................................35

Appendix 7 Case Study – London Borough of Harrow..............95

Appendix 8 Case Study – Manchester City Council.................103

Appendix 9 Case Study – Plymouth District Council...............114

Appendix 10 Case Study – Warwick District Council ................123

Appendix 11 Case Study – The Planning Inspectorate..............135



Planning and Diversity: Research into Policies and Procedures: Final Report 1

Appendix 1Methodology




development control system does not disadvantage any user or group ofusers;

• examine the linkages between the development plan and developmentcontrol system and social exclusion and neighbourhood renewal;

• identify areas of good practice and areas for improvement in addressingissues of diversity in the development and delivery of policies by theODPM, the Planning Inspectorate and Local Planning authorities.

The approach proposed by the research team was developed to address thefollowing key research issues and add value to the project :

• the extent to which national and regional planning policy reflects achanged legislative context on diversity at European and national level;

• the extent to which national and regional planning policy is sensitised tothe diverse needs in society, the shortcomings, missed opportunities andareas for development and improvement;

• the level of knowledge and awareness in GORs, RDAs, local authoritiesand the Planning Inspectorate of diversity, a changed legislative contextand the implications for planning policy and practice, in development plansand development control;

• which references to diversity in existing planning guidance influencedevelopment plan policy;

• the factors which hinder/facilitate the translation of PPG and RPG advicerelating diversity specifically into development plans, and developmentcontrol, either directly or via plans and SPG;

• the linkages between planning policies and guidance and the operation of

the each part of the planning system and other agendas such as, socialexclusion, neighbourhood renewal and work life balance etc.

The team undertook the research in three main stages:

Stage 1 (Data Collection, December, 2002 - January, 2003)

Updating of existing literature review . This involved an evaluation of theliterature review already undertaken by the research team. This wassupplemented by examining development plans, development control, thework of the Planning Inspectorate and PPGs. The review identified examplesof good practice that were followed up in the survey of key informants.

Diversity proofing of PPGs and RPGs was undertaken to evaluate how theexisting national planning policies, guidance and advice addresses diversity. Adiversity proofing template was drawn up to facilitate this desk basedexercise. This proofing mechanism identified coverage, scope, significanceand missed opportunities.

A postal survey of all local planning authorities in England and Walesexamined how issues of diversity are being addressed in development plansand development control. The survey was used to identify what steps arebeing taken to ensure that users or groups of users are not disadvantaged by




the development plan system and development control processes, thedevelopment and delivery of policies, the level of awareness and knowledgeof diversity issues and so on.

A survey of key actors was conducted, which included a wide range of

national level organisations, the Planning Inspectorate, equalitiesorganisations and pressure groups (see below). This involved semi-structuredinterviews with selected representatives to build up a picture of theirknowledge and concerns. The key informants were identified in consultationwith the ODPM, and included:

Planning: RTPI, RICS, LGA, English Heritage, PINS

Equalities: EOC, Centre for Accessible Environments, CRE, Age Concern,Refugee Council, WDS, RADAR

Users: HBF, CBI, NOF, Transport 2000, CPRE, FOE

Stage 2 Case Studies and Analysis (February – March, 2003)

Case studies : A matrix of authorities was drawn up to reflect geographicaldiversity, rural, urban, inner city, medium sized towns and localities withdifferent demographic profiles. From these a limited number of localities werechosen for case study exploration of UDPs part 1/structure plans, UDPs part2/local plans and development control processes. The cases studiesexamined the relationship between national/regional policy and developmentplans and SPG, consultation and involvement in development planning, therelationship between development plans and other agendas such as socialexclusion, neighbourhood renewal, best value and the race equality scheme.It also considered the practice of development control and the relationshipwith national policies and guidance. A small number of cases involvingappeals (written reps, hearing and PLI) were also examined to addressrelevant issues within the Planning Inspectorate.

Analysis of the findings from stages 1 and 2 involved four sources of

evidence: the literature review; the diversity proofing of RPGs and PPGs; thesurvey of key actors; and the case studies. The analysis will identify thedeficiencies of the existing national and regional planning policy, guidanceand advice in terms of addressing issues of diversity and the promotion ofdiversity. It is expected that different communities of interest will have differentrequirements, some of which could well conflict. These tensions and conflictswill need to be addressed and highlighted.

Stage 3: Final Report and Recommendations (April – May 2003)

The draft final report and final report were prepared during this stage. Itidentified gaps and shortcomings of the existing policy guidance in relation to




diversity and recommendations on how to address issues of diversity in thereview of PPGs and RPGs. The ODPM advised on the format and structure ofthe report, as well as the nature, scope and level of detail required in therecommendations.



Appendix 2

Survey

Questionnaire




Appendix Two

Survey Questionnaire

Responding to diversity in the planning process

1. Introduction

a) Name of your local planning authority (LA)

...................................................................................................................

Position of respondent

...................................................................................................................b) Type of authority (i.e. county, district, unitary)

2. Diversity and training

a) Does your LA provide training on diversity issues?

YES r No r Don't know r

b) Does your LA provide training on planning and diversity issues?


If YES, answer questions 2(c) to 2(e); otherwise go to question 2 (f)

c) Does training include any of the following:

YES NOWomenOlder peopleFaith GroupsEthnic GroupsDisabled PeopleGypsies & TravellersAsylum seekers/ RefugeesGay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender peopleChildrenOther (please specify

d) When was training on diversity and planning issues first introduced to

your LA? ...............................................................................................




e) Has training improved understanding of planning and diversity issues?

Very significantlySignificantlyNeither significantly nor insignificantlyNot significantlyNot at all

f) Should the LA provide training on planning and diversity issues?


g) If YES, what should that training include? ...............................................

h) For LAs which do not provide diversity training should they do so?


i) If YES, what should the training include?

...................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................

3. National initiatives on diversity issues

a) Where would you expect to find information on diversity and planning?

Yes No UnsureNational governmentLocal governmentRTPIEqualities Bodies(e.g. CRE, Equal Opps Commission)Other (please state)

b) Where have you actually found information on diversity and planning?

Yes No Haven’t LookedNational governmentLocal governmentRTPIEqualities Bodies (e.g. CRE, Equal Opps Commission)Other (please state)




c) How helpful is national guidance/ guidelines (e.g. Race Equality Schemes,Equality Standard, corporate health indicators, etc) in enabling your LA toaddress issues of diversity (please tick relevant category and specifyguidance)?

Guidance/ guidelinesVery HelpfulHelpfulNeither helpful or unhelpfulUnhelpfulVery Unhelpful

Please give reasons for your response?

..........................................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................................

4. National guidance on planning and diversity issues

a) How helpful are PPGs in enabling your LA to address issues of diversity(please tick relevant category)?

Very HelpfulHelpfulNeither helpful or unhelpful

UnhelpfulVery Unhelpful


..........................................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................................

b) How helpful are other forms of guidance (e.g. RTPI Practice Advice Note 12:Planning and Women; Practice Advice Note 3: Access for Disabled People;etc) in enabling your LA to address issues of diversity (please tick relevantcategory)?

Very HelpfulHelpfulNeither helpful or unhelpfulUnhelpfulVery Unhelpful


....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................




c) Is your LA acting on guidance about diversity and planning contained inPPGs and related guidance?

YES NOFormulation of development plan policiesPreparation of SPGAdvice on planning applications

5. Diversity and development plans

a) Does your LA have policies on diversity in the Development Plan (s)/ SPG?


b) Does your LA have development plan policies / SPG that relate to thefollowing groups:

Yes No Don't KnowDev Plan SPG Dev Plan SPG Dev Plan SPG

WomenOlder peopleFaith GroupsEthnic GroupsDisabled PeopleGypsies & TravellersAsylum seekers/ Refugees

Gay/lesbian/bisexual/ transgender peopleChildrenOther (please specify

c) Has your LA assessed the impact of the development plan (s) / SPG ondifferent groups?

Yes No Don't KnowDev Plan SPG Dev Plan SPG Dev Plan SPG

WomenOlder peopleFaith GroupsEthnic GroupsDisabled PeopleGypsies & TravellersAsylum seekers/ RefugeesGay/lesbian/bisexual/ transgender peopleChildren

Other (please specify




d) If you have answered Yes to any part of questions 6 (b and c), please statehow your LA assesses the impact of planning policies? (Please tick relevantcategory)

Consultation with representative groups

Commissioned researchFocus groups/Citizens panelsFeedback from specialist LA officersJudgement of planning officersUser satisfaction surveysOther (please specify

e) In preparing Development Plans /SPG, has your LA consulted with thefollowing groups (Please tick relevant category)

Always Often Sometimes NeverWomenOlder peopleFaith GroupsEthnic GroupsDisabled PeopleGypsies & TravellersAsylum seekers/ RefugeesGay/lesbian/bisexual/transgenderpeopleChildrenOther (please specify

f) In preparing Development Plans/SPG, has your LA experienced difficulty inconsulting with the following?

Always Often Sometimes NeverWomenOlder peopleFaith Groups

Ethnic GroupsDisabled PeopleGypsies & TravellersAsylum seekers/ RefugeesGay/lesbian/bisexual/transgenderpeopleChildrenOther (please specify


..........................................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................................




6. Diversity and development control

a) Does your LA monitor planning applications in terms of:

YES NO

WomenOlder peopleFaith GroupsEthnic GroupsDisabled PeopleGypsies & TravellersAsylum seekers/ RefugeesGay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender peopleChildrenOther (please specify

b) In the last 12 months, have any planning applications raised diversityissues?


c) If YES, please briefly outline the issues raised?

...................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................

d) Has your LA used planning conditions in relation to diversity and planningissues?


e) If YES, can you provide details?

...................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................

f) In assessing applications, does your LA consult with the following (pleasetick relevant category)

Routinely occasionally forspecific kinds ofapplications

for applicationsin particular

localities

not knownlocal group toconsult

WomenOlder peopleFaith GroupsEthnic GroupsDisabled People




Gypsies &TravellersAsylum seekers/ RefugeesGay/lesbian/ bisexual/ transgenderpeopleChildrenOther (pleasespecify

g) In assessing applications, does your LA experience difficulty in consultingwith the following? (Please tick relevant category)

Always Often Sometimes NeverWomenOlder peopleFaith GroupsEthnic GroupsDisabled PeopleGypsies & TravellersAsylum seekers/ RefugeesGay/lesbian/bisexual/transgenderpeople

ChildrenOther (please specify

7. General issues

a) What are the main problems in seeking to respond to diversity issues?(please tick relevant catagory)

A significantProblem

A Problem Not a Significant

Problem

Not aproblem

Lack of timeLack of commitmentCouncillors lack ofawarenessLack of finance andresourcesLack of awarenessamongst planning officersLack of knowledge

amongst planning officersLack of support from




CouncillorsLack of guidance fromcentral government

Other reasons (please specify, or amplify on the points above)

..........................................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................................

b) Do you have any other comments?

..........................................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................................

THANK YOU FOR FILLING IN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. CAN YOU PLEASEPLACE IT IN THE PRE-PAID ENVELOPE AND POST IT BACK BY THE 7 th

MARCH 2003

Elaine Batty CRESR Sheffield Hallam UniversityEmail:[email protected] Tel: 0114 225 4519

ALL RESPONSES WILL REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL.



Appendix 3

Summary of Survey

QuestionnaireResults




Appendix Three

Summary of Survey Questionnaire Results

Since the early 1980s, issues of diversity have been incorporated into a rangeof local authorities plan making and development control functions, inaccordance with legal directives. However, all too often issues of diversity andequality have been treated by planners as an add-on and, in some instances,viewed as special needs. Unintentionally, some authorities have served tomarginalise issues of diversity, often by focussing solely on gender, race anddisability. It is clear that a modern planning process must respond to the newpolicy agendas particularly around a more inclusive approach to issues ofdiversity. There is, however, little or no knowledge of how far the planningsystem has responded to issues of diversity. In seeking to address this, apostal questionnaire was sent to chief planning officers in local authorities inEngland in the period from December 2002 to February 2003. 385questionnaires were sent out and, after two reminders, a total of 239 usablequestionnaires were returned, a response rate of 62% (1).

As table 1 shows, the majority of responses were from district councils. 56.4%(115) of local authorities have policies on diversity in their development plans.As table 2 indicates, the most common references in the development planare to disabled people and travellers, and then to children and older people.Few authorities refer to other groups, such as faith groups and women, andsome groups, such as gay and lesbian people and asylum seekers, arenoticeable by their absence in all but a few of the respondent authorities.Moreover, local authorities are less likely to deal with diversity issues inrelation to planning applications and other development control processes.Only 36.8% (85) of respondents said that diversity issues had been raised onone or more planning applications in the previous 12 months. As onerespondent said, ‘diversity is not a relevant issue to the majority of ourapplications’.

The general feeling conveyed by respondents, then, is that issues aboutdiversity and planning are not that well understood or a priority in planningpractice and procedure. At one extreme are those officers who are puzzledabout the term diversity. For instance, one officer said, ‘what do you mean bydiversity’? For another, ‘this is the first time I have come across the termdiversity. I assumed at first glance that it was to do with nature conservation’.For others, diversity issues are not important in their authorities, or as anofficer commented, ‘diversity has not been perceived as a major issue todate’. Others concurred and, for an officer in a large metropolitan area, ‘wedon’t know…what the diversity issues are’. This view was more common thannot with other respondents variously suggesting that ‘diversity is not asignificant issue’, and ‘diversity issues are not generally regarded as a

relevant priority’.




Most authorities (64% or 153) provide some training on diversity issues, butonly a minority (13.1% or 31) on the interrelationships between planning anddiversity. As one officer suggested, in relation to training on planning anddiversity, ‘we do not have any regular training on these issues’. For another,‘we carry out very little in-house training on planning issues…it should be

provided through RTPI events’. Others felt that training ought not to bespecific to planning and diversity, or as a respondent suggested, ‘any trainingshould be in the context of corporate equalities strategies…there’s no need toseparate out planning as the issues are generic’. Of those authorities that doprovide general training on diversity issues, then, issues about ethnicity,gender, disability, faith groups, and travellers are most likely to be covered. Ofless importance is training related to children, asylum seekers or refugees,and gay and lesbian people.

Of those officers that responded to the question about how far training hadimproved their understanding of planning and diversity issues, then, thelargest proportion (38.9% or 28), felt that it had made little or no difference tothem. For one officer, ‘formal training may not be the ideal method’, whileanother respondent was of the opinion that ‘surely educated people shouldalready recognise these issues’. Others felt that training was wasted givendifficulties in staff retention or, as an officer said, ‘there is also a problem ofhigh staff turnover’. Some, however, value the training experience and 45.9%(33) of respondents felt that training had either significantly or verysignificantly improved their understanding of planning and diversity issues.Thus, as a respondent noted, training ‘highlights what the issues are andwhat role the land use planning system has’.

Some respondents identified what they perceive to be gaps in trainingprovision. For one officer, the problem is lack of knowledge of how to relateissues about diversity to land use matters. As s/he said, ‘we need guidanceon how diversity issues other than the well known ones…can be treated as amaterial land use or spatial planning issue and the type of policies, proposals,development control criteria or conditions that are robust and practical anddefensible in law’. This was a common observation, or, as another officernoted, ‘in terms of policy writing it is easy to develop policies addressingdisability and accessibility. However, it is more difficult to develop policiesspecific to women or religious groups which are relevant (and there is little

best practice to draw on)’. Likewise, an officer said that there is a ‘need tofocus on what planning can achieve’, which, for another respondent, requires‘practical good practice examples’.

The majority of local authorities, as table 3 shows, respond to aspects ofgovernment advice about planning and diversity. Thus, 81.6% (173) ofauthorities have incorporated some guidance about diversity and planninginto the formulation of their development plan, while 72.4% (134) refer toguidance about diversity issues in providing advice on planning applications.This still means that a significant proportion of local planning authorities areresisting government, and other, guidance about issues on diversity. For

instance, some respondents are of the view that diversity issues are notappropriate planning matters or, as an officer said, ‘planning is land use




based, not cultural or gender based’. Others were dismissive of a focus ondiversity because planning, in their opinion, already responds to all interests.Thus, for one respondent, ‘diversity is a flawed concept. It is not necessary toseek supposed problems and representations and disadvantages. ThePlanning Service serves the whole community not stratified segments of it’.

Respondents from rural areas, or places where there is a perception, byofficers, of a more or less homogeneous population, are unlikely to see thepoint or purpose of planning for diversity. Thus, one officer said, ‘diversityissues are not a real problem for planning in a rural district’, a view shared byanother: ‘most areas of diversity are not significant in this large rural area’.This view was evident in county councils dealing with structure or strategicplanning issues. Some respondents here felt that strategic work was too farremoved from ‘people-based’ issues: ‘Planning at the strategic level tends tobe neutral to diversity issues. They become more ‘real’ at the local level’.Others concurred: ‘we are a mineral and waste development control authorityonly and therefore these questions are of little relevance’. Likewise, oneofficer said that ‘Structure plan work doesn’t tend to go into detail on diversityissues’, while, for another, ‘it’s hard to make strategic planning mattersinteresting and relevant to specific groups’.

In seeking to find information about planning and diversity, officers looktowards a variety of sources. The majority have the expectation that nationaland local government, the RTPI, and equalities organisations will be the mainproviders of information yet, as table 4 shows, less than half of respondentsuse such channels for information and a significant proportion have neverbothered to look. A typical comment from one officer was ‘I haven’t checkedthese out’. While this might indicate an indifference to the issues on the partof planning officers, comments from respondents suggest that they lackknowledge of where to get information about planning and diversity. Thus,officers variously said that it is ‘difficult to find diversity references’, ‘I havelittle knowledge of these’, ‘people are often not aware of the existence ofthese publications’, and, ‘I do not recall any advice addressing diversityissues’.

In terms of the helpfulness of national guidelines, such as race equalityschemes and corporate health indicators, in informing planners about

diversity issues, 49.5% (or 90 respondents) feel that they are helpful or veryhelpful (see table 5). As one officer said, the national guidelines are ‘helpfulbut not conclusive’ while, for another, they have ‘been successful in providingcorporate information’. However, most respondents were non-committal aboutthe usefulness of national guidelines, often because they had little or noknowledge of them. Thus, as a respondent commented: the guidelines are‘not relevant to planning policy’, Others were not aware of the contents ofnational guidelines or, as one officer noted, ‘I don’t know as I haven’t looked’.A minority (8.2% or 15) find the guidelines to be unhelpful or very unhelpful. Atypical response was that the guidelines are ‘not terribly informative’, and thatthey require officers ‘to actively seek information and then it doesn’t

necessarily answer the question’.




The Development Plans Good Practice Guide, and Planning Policy Guidance(PPGs) 1, 3, 11 and 12, highlight the need for planners to address issues ofdiversity. They variously encourage local planning authorities to take accountof access issues, and suggest that although development plans should notcontain non-land-use policies, it is necessary to refer to social considerations

in the reasoned justification and explanatory memorandum. However, thepotential impacts of strategic options, on different groups in society, also haveto be appraised. Only a minority (19.8% or 45) of respondents found, as table6 suggests, PPGs to be helpful or very helpful or, as one officer said,‘addressing diversity in framing planning policy is implicit rather than specificbut is expressed well enough in PPG 12. Others felt likewise and variouslynoted that guidance ‘that deals with diversity issues is generally helpful’ and‘policy guidance notes are very helpful’.

Most respondents were not complementary about PPGs and felt that theyprovide little advice about planning and diversity issues. For one officer, thePPGs are disappointing because ‘there are no explicit references to diversityissues – they are dated and in need of revision’. Others concurred withanother officer noting that, ‘I’ve never noticed any comment on diversityissues in PPG’s’. A significant minority (21.6% or 49) feel that PPGs areeither unhelpful or very unhelpful in providing guidance. Thus, for one officer,‘there is very little guidance in PPGs on these issues so we more or less doour own thing’. For some, PPGs, and related guidance, are problematicalbecause they do not provide much practical advice about how to translatediversity issues into tangible planning policies. As an officer said, there are‘no examples of best practice that can be learnt from’. Likewise, for anotherofficer, ‘PPGs don’t make a strong link between land use planning anddiversity…they don’t move into diversity culture or the fact that a diversity ofsolutions can be difficult to handle in planning terms’.

As table 7 indicates, other forms of guidance, such as RTPI Practice AdviceNotes, are seen as helpful by 55.3% (120) of respondents. As an officersuggested, the guidance ‘puts issues in a land use planning context’. Formany, though, it was a case that, as one officer said, ‘people are not aware ofthe existence of these publications’. The RTPI was singled out as providinglimited advice and information about planning and diversity issues. Thus, forone respondent, the ‘RTPI stuff is largely useless in terms of day to day

detail. Advice on disability from national networks is about the best there is(i.e. non-RTPI)’. Likewise, another officer felt that ‘RTPI advice notes werehelpful but these are not kept up to date and they only cover a limited rangeof issues’. Others concurred in variously suggesting that RTPI advice is‘difficult to access and now quite old in many cases’, and it is ‘rather datedand not especially relevant at county level’.

Comments from respondents indicate that more guidance on diversity issuesis required: ‘If the planning system is expected to take diversity issues morefully into account, then further guidance is needed’. Some felt that theemphasis on community plans would act as a catalyst, or, as an officer said,

‘the community planning process should be better able to focus on ‘diversityneeds’ and feed into local planning’. Guidance will not necessarily overcome




ignorance or political indifference, at the local level, to issues of diversity andplanning. For one officer, ‘the hardest part is putting policy into practice soalthough guidance is useful it can’t replace a positive local attitude’. Othersfelt likewise in pointing to the importance of local attitudes and officers’predisposition to the issues: ‘the government sets the agenda but

implementation and wider understanding needs in-house debate and training’.Some felt that the relative dearth of guidance should not be used as anexcuse for inaction: ‘PPGs are not helpful because it is not there in anymeaningful detail in terms of how to respond. But its absence should notprevent a LPA from taking its own action in these areas’.

In the preparation of the development plan, a large minority of localauthorities do not consult with key groups in their localities. Table 8 showsthat just over a third of authorities never consult with women’s groups (34.7%)or children (36.9%), and a high proportion never consult with asylum seekers(78.6%) or gay people (71.4%). The most likely groups to be consulted aredisabled people and ethnic minorities. For many authorities consultation is aproblem or, as one respondent said, ‘it is difficult to identify groups and theirrepresentatives to consult and in obtaining responses’. Others suggested thatgroups’ apathy and disinterest in planning did not lead to meaningfulconsultation: ‘It is very difficult to interest people in general planning policyissues…most of the groups…tend to have other priorities’. This was acommon observation with another officer noting that ‘there’s a feeling of lackof relevance of planning system to the daily life of most folk irrespective of thesub group’.

Where consultation does take place, it tends to be with easy-to-identifygroups, such as older people and disabled people, who have well-establishednational and local networks. As one officer said, ‘we find that women andolder people are well represented in responses to consultations’. In contrast,some groups are more difficult to engage with. Thus, for one respondent, ‘wehave found that attempts to involve children and young people receive amixed reaction. Not all young people or other groups seem to be interested inplanning issues’. Likewise, another officer suggested that ‘difficulties havebeen found when consulting as often only some groups reply’. Others werenot sure how far land use issues related to specific groups: ‘disabled people,gypsies, older people, and children have clear needs which have special and

land use implications. It is not so easy to identify the land use implications ofsexual orientation’.

Similar comments were made in relation to development control. Thus, inassessing planning applications, most local authorities, as table 9 suggests,do not routinely consult with different groups. This is usually because officersdo not know of any local groups to consult with or, more likely, that theprocess does not involve much consultation (as a matter of procedure androutine). For instance, respondents said that they do not consult with women(101 or 71.1%), ethnic minorities (95 or 64.2%), or gay people (120 or 82.8) inrelation to planning applications or, as a respondent commented, ‘we don’t

explicitly consult these groups’. Rather, as an officer said, it is more likely that‘the council does not tend to target specific groups’, a comment echoed by




another officer who noted that ‘we don’t make such distinctions in theconsultation process’. For others, the ‘lack of knowledge of representativegroups is an issue’, and ‘there are very few groups to consult’,

Very few local planning authorities assess the impact of their development

plan or SPG on different groups. As table10 shows, just under 8% (16) ofrespondents assess the impact of the DP on women, a figure that declines to1.5% (2) in relation to those authorities that assess the impact of SPG onwomen. Marginally more authorities (12.8% or 27) assess the impact of theDP on older people, travellers (18% or 38), and disabled people (23.4% or51). These figures are all much higher in contrast to the assessment of impactof SPG on the respective groups. For those that do assess the impact of theDP and SPG, then 73 authorities said that they do so by talking torepresentative groups, 76 rely on officer judgement, and 61 seek feedbackfrom specialist officers. Very few authorities commission research (16), usersatisfaction surveys (21), and focus groups or citizens panels (39), as meansto gauge impacts of the DP and/or SPG on different groups.

As previously intimated, diversity issues have been raised on planningapplications in 36.8% (85) of respondent local authorities. These, typically,have been in relation to sheltered housing schemes, hostel accommodationand impact on amenity, access for disabled people, homes for people withlearning difficulties, groups seeking places of worship, sites for travellers, andchildren’s play areas. Moreover, only 47 (20.3%) local authorities have used aplanning condition, in relation to planning and diversity issues, over the last12 months. Such conditions are most likely to be set in relation to issuesabout disabled people’s access to buildings and the provision, and use of,gypsy sites. However, there is evidence that some authorities use planningconditions in relation to the development of schools, retirement homes, andplaces of worship.

As table 11 shows, significant proportions of officers feel that a range offactors hampers responding to diversity issues. For some, a focus onplanning and diversity is a step too far for over-stretched and under-budgetedlocal authorities. As one officer stated, ‘guidance is often welcomed but thereis a danger of too much prescription coming from government. Others feel, asa respondent intimated, that ‘small authorities are in serious danger of failing

to provide the main functions because of excessive concentration on thewidest possible range of matters which will not always be relevant’. Likewise,another officer suggested that ‘the planning function here has enoughproblems with the workload; non-statutory work is kept to a minimum’. Thelack of time and resources is also an issue in hindering authorities’ responsesto diversity. For one authority, ‘there are loads of things we’d like to do, or dobetter. But for years all local authorities I know have had diminishing time andresources relative to increasing demands for work’.

Other comments were of the view that diversity issues should not be seen as just ‘a planning matter’. As one officer said: an understanding of diversity

needs to be an inherent, not separate, consideration. Therefore it needs to bean integral part of a councils’ approach to all services rather than a planning




consideration’. Others felt that a holistic approach to diversity is required. Forone officer, ‘there should not be a need for distinctive diversity policies in theUDP – the policies ought to reflect diversity objectives’, a view shared byothers. Thus, for one officer, ‘you will note that I am pretty cynical about‘diversity’. The planning system should take account of the needs of its

communities in providing a framework for development’. One respondenteven suggested drastic action: ‘why not consider forcing us to consider theseissues…opportunity to do so with the new legislation’.

Tables

Table 1: Type of Authority

Number (%)

County 27 (11.3)

District 147 (61.5)

Unitary 63 (26.4)

Source: Authors’ survey, 2003

Table 2: Does your local authority have development plan policies thatrelate to the following groups?

YesNo (%)

NoNo (%)

Don’t knowNo (%)

Women 27 (14.4) 156 (83.4) 4 (2.1)

Older people 95 (48.2) 101 (51.3) 1 (0.5)

Faith Groups 33 (17.6) 151 (80.7) 3 (1.6)

Ethnic Groups 36 (19.6) 147 (79.9) 1 (0.5)




Disabled People 187 (86.2) 29 (13.4) 1 (0.5)

Gypsies andTravellers

172 (78.9) 43 (19.7) 2 (0.9)

Asylumseekers/Refugees

8 (4.4) 170 (93.4) 4 (2.2)

Gay/lesbian/bisexual 6 (3.3) 171 (94.5) 4 (2.2)

Children 93 (47.4) 99 (50.5) 3 (1.5)

Other 6 (9.7) 53 (85.5) 2 (3.2)

Source : Authors’ survey, 2003

Table 3: Proportion of local planning authorities that act on guidanceabout diversity and planning in relation to key aspects of the planning

process

Number (%)

Formulation of development planpolicies

173 (81.6)

Preparation of SPG 100 (58.8)

Advice on planning applications 134 (72.4)





Table 4: Where do local planning authorities find information ondiversity and planning?

Yes

No (%)

No

No (%)

Haven’t looked

No (%)

Nationalgovernment

99 (47.4) 19 (9.1) 91 (43.5)

Local government 71 (36.2) 28 (14.3) 97 (49.5)

RTPI 108 (50.7) 14 (6.6) 91 (42.7)

Equalities bodies 91 (43.1) 21 (10.0) 99 (46.9)

Other 23 (29.9) 4 (5.2) 50 (64.9)


Table 5: How helpful is national guidance in enabling local authorities toaddress issues of diversity

Local authoritiesNumber (%)

Very helpful 6 (3.3)

Helpful 84 (46.2)

Neither helpful or unhelpful 77 (42.3)

Unhelpful 14 (7.7)

Very unhelpful 1 (0.5)





Table 6: How helpful are PPGs in enabling local authorities to addressissues of diversity

Local authorities

Number (%)


Helpful 43 (18.9)


Unhelpful 45 (19.8)

Very unhelpful 4 (1.8)


Table 7: How helpful are other forms of guidance (e.g. RTPI Practice

Advice Note 12) in enabling local authorities to address issues ofdiversity?

Local authoritiesNumber (%)


Helpful 120 (55.3)


Unhelpful 5 (2.3)

Very unhelpful 0





Table 8: In preparing Development Plans/SPG, do local authoritiesconsult with different groups?

Always

No (%)

Often

No (%)

Sometimes

No (%)

Never

No (%)

Women 49 (28.8) 18 (10.6) 43 (25.3) 59 (34.7)

Older people 57 (32.0) 27 (15.2) 47 (26.4) 46 (25.8)

Faith Groups 46 (25.4)29 (16.0) 59 (32.6) 47 (26.0)

Ethnic Groups 63 (33.9)23 (12.4) 45 (24.2) 55 (29.6)

Disabled People112 (55.7) 39 (19.4) 36 (17.9) 14 (7.0)

Gypsies andTravellers

57 (30.2) 33 (17.5) 55 (29.1) 43 (22.8)

Asylumseekers/refugees

11 (6.9) 5 (3.1) 14 98.8) 125 (78.6)

Gay/lesbian/bisexual 19 (11.8) 8 (5.0) 18 (11.2) 115 (71.4)

Children 26 (14.8) 20 (11.4) 65 (36.9) 65 (36.9)

Other 9 (20.9) 6 (14.0) 5 (11.6) 23 (53.5)





Table 9: In preparing applications do local authorities consult withdifferent groups?

Routinely

No (%)

On

occasionsNo (%)

For

applicationsin particular

localitiesNo (%)

Local

group notknownNo (%)

Women 11 (7.7) 12 (8.5) 9 (6.3) 101 (71.1)

Older people 11 (7.4) 27 (18.1) 14 (9.4) 87 (58.4)

Faith Groups 8 (5.4) 26(17.6) 20 (13.5) 85 (57.4)

Ethnic Groups 9 (6.1) 20 (13.5) 13 (8.8) 95 (64.2)

Disabled People 63 (32.5) 68 (35.1) 10 (5.2) 41 (21.1)

Gypsies andTravellers 9 (5.6) 46 (28.8) 15 ( 9.4) 80 (50.0)

Asylumseekers/refugees 4 (2.8) 6 (4.2) 5 (3.5) 117 (82.4)

Gay/lesbian/ bisexual 6 (4.1) 6 (4.1) 4 (2.8) 120 (82.8)

Children 4 (3.0) 6 (4.4) 9 (6.7) 107 (79.3)

Other 3 (5.0) 2 (3.3) 3 (5.0) 48 (80.0)





Table 10: Has your LA assessed the impact of the development plan(s) /SPG on different groups?

Number who hadassessed the impact

of DP

Number who hadassessed the impact of

SPG

Women 16 (7.8) 2 (1.5)

Older people 27 (12.8) 4 (3.0)

Faith Groups 10 (5.1) 1 (0.8)

Ethnic Groups 22 (10.7) 1 (0.8)

Disabled People 51 (23.4) 14 (10.6)

Gypsies andTravellers 38 (18.0) 3 (2.3)

Asylumseekers/refugees 5 (2.5) 1 (0.8)

Gay/lesbian/ bisexual 6 (3.0) 1 (0.8)

Children 24 (11.7) 4 (3.0)

Other 3 (2.5) 2 (2.5)





Table 11: What are the main problems in seeking to respond to diversityissues?

A

significantproblemNo (%)

A

problemNo (%)

Not a

significantproblemNo (%)

Not a

problemNo (%)

Lack of time 66(34.9%)

63(33.3%)

35(18.5%)

25(13.2%)

Lack of commitment 7(3.9%)

45(25.1%)

75(41.9%)

52(29.1%)

Councillors lackof awareness

12(6.9%)

58(33.1%)

70(40%)

35(20%)

Lack of finance andresources

70(37.6%)

58(31.2%)

38(20.4%)

20(10.8%)

Lack of awarenessamongst planning

officers

17(9%)

68(36%)

73(38.6%)

31(16.4%)

Lack of knowledgeamongst planningofficers

19(9.9%)

78(40.8%)

63(33%)

30(15.7%)

Lack of supportfrom councillors

8(4.7%)

43(25.3%)

83(48.8%)

3520.6%)

Lack of guidancefrom centralgovernment

50(25.5%)

76(38.8%)

48(24.5%)

21(10.7%)




Appendix 4

Key actor

interviews




Appendix Four

Key actor interviews

Diversity and planning topic guide

Areas to be covered in discussion with organisation representatives

Name of organisation

Name of interviewee/phone number

Interviewer

Location; date

Basics

What is your role and position in theorganisation?

What is the broad remit of yourorganisation

How is this carried out?




Issues

What are the main problemsconfronting thegroups/individuals that you

represent?

How does your organisationseek to address suchproblems and/or issues?

How far are environmentalplanning issues important tothe groups you represent?

Interviewer please highlight allthat apply

quality of streetscape / culturalexpressionaccessibility of streetscape/ of transport/ of housing/ safety of street/ neighbourhood/ transport/ parkingaffordability of transport/housing

journey towork/school/everyday lifeconcerns – issues of cost,

time, sustainabilityopportunities for employment/ growing own business neighbourhood vitality- shopsand servicesrecreation and playspace participation /voice ingovernance / planningprocesses of these groups ascitizensparticipation /voice in

governance / planning processes of these groups as “planners”

How do you seek to influenceissues relating to theenvironment?




Governance and planning

How far do you feel nationalgovernment is responding,adequately, to such issues?

How far do you feel regionalgovernment is responding,adequately, to such issues?

How far do you feel localgovernment is responding,adequately, to such issues?

What do you think about theplanning system?

To what extent do you feelplanning plays a role inmaintaining inequality/problemsfor those you represent?

To what extent do you feel thatplanners use their powers topromote the interests of thoseyou represent?

What do you think aboutplanning officers’ attitudes andpractices toward those yourepresent? Probe for invisibility,

dated stereotypes, check listmentality.Have you tried to influence anyaspect of planning policy orprocedure?

What influence or impact haveyou had? Ask for work/initiativesthat were notably successful orunsuccessful




Aspirations

What broad changes inapproach to planning couldmake planning more positive?

Probe for issues of policy orprocesses.

Why do you say this?

Are there any barriers toprogress in planning that needto be challenged? Probe forlevel of government. Probe forbarrier type-organisational,attitudinal, financial, skills

How can such obstacles beovercome?



List of Key actors interviewed

Helena Herklots Age ConcernSarah Langton-Lockton Centre for Accessible EnvironmentsMerron Simpson Chartered Institute of HousingJoe Charlseworth Commission for Racial EqualityIan Jeffries Confederation of British IndustriesHenry Oliver Council for the Protection of Rural EnglandJeff West English HeritageAndrea Murray Equal Opportunities CommissionHugh Ellis Friends of the EarthAndrew Whitaker House Builders FederationCarol Thomas Joint Mobility Unit Access PartnershipHarbinder Dhaliwal Local Government AssociationRichard Hill New Opportunities FundDavid Wilkes Office of the Deputy Prime MinisterSue Smith OxfamJonathan Bore Planning Inspectorate.Baljeet Mann Planning Inspectorate.Hazel Duffy Planning Inspectorate.Corinne Swain Planning Inspectorate.Alun Francis RADARAlison Senney Refugee CouncilEwan Willers Royal Institute of Chartered SurveyorsDavid Rose Royal Town Planning InstituteDenise Carlo Transport 2000Wendy Davis Women's Design Service

diversity and planning research into policies and procedures apendix 1

Documents