Planning Theory & Practice, Vol. 9, No.

2, 227–248, June 2008

Approaches to Democratic Involvement:

Widening Community Engagement
in the English Planning System
JULIET CARPENTER & SUE BROWNILL
Department of Planning, School of the Built Environment, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK

ABSTRACT Participation has become integral to the delivery of public services, as governments
attempt to involve citizens in decision making through processes of consultation and engagement.
This paper addresses the issue of community participation in the context of the English planning
system, which has recently been restructured to focus more sharply on integrating communities in the
planning process. It presents findings of research into the workings of the reformed planning system,
in particular in relation to the objective of public participation, using the case of the Planning Aid
service. The paper sets the discussion in the context of two different forms of democracy
(representative and deliberative democracy) and associated strategies for participation. It then
outlines the recent reforms in the planning system, highlighting the different approaches to
participation that are being applied. The paper then examines the case of Planning Aid, a service that
aims to involve disadvantaged groups in the planning system. The paper concludes that the outcomes
from recent experiences of participation in planning are in part due to the “hybrid” approaches that
are emerging within the system. While this provides the potential for more inclusive planning, it is
argued that this “hybridity” needs to be acknowledged by policy makers and practitioners if strategies
and mechanisms are to be put in place that respond to the demands of different forms of democracy.

Keywords: Community engagement; participation; forms of democracy; Planning Aid

Introduction
Participation has become integral to the delivery of public services, as governments
attempt to involve citizens in decision making through processes of consultation and
engagement (Albrechts, 2002; ODPM, 2003). This has particularly been the case in England
since the election in 1997 of the Labour government under Tony Blair (Imrie & Raco, 2003).
New Labour’s policies since 1997 have espoused the importance of the devolution of
power, and involving citizens in decision making, management and the delivery of public
services (ODPM, 2005). This has been evidenced in, amongst other areas, health,
education, and in particular in the field of regeneration, where communities have been
encouraged to participate actively in the management and decision making structures of
urban regeneration schemes (Lawless, 2006).
This paper aims to explore the issue of community participation in one particular public
policy context, that of the revised planning system in England. While participation is by no
Correspondence Address: Dr Juliet Carpenter, Department of Planning, School of the Built Environment, Oxford Brookes
University, Gipsy Lane, Oxford, OX3 0BP, UK. Tel: þ 44 1865 484 194. Email: jcarpenter@brookes.ac.uk

1464-9357 Print/1470-000X On-line/08/020227-22 q 2008 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/14649350802041589
228 J. Carpenter & S. Brownill

means a new concept,1 the planning system in England was restructured in 2004 to focus,
among other things, on integrating communities in the planning process (ODPM, 2004a).
Labour’s local government “modernisation” agenda has put significant emphasis on
renewing democracy at the local level, with priority given to devolving power to
communities through more direct forms of democratic practice.
This paper aims to explore approaches to engagement within two different forms of
democracy, and in particular, to examine “hybridity” within the reformed planning system
in England. For the purposes of this paper, we define hybridity as the combination of
different approaches towards democracy that are emerging within the planning system. We
argue that such hybridity results in contradictions and tensions, which have a direct impact
on participation outcomes. The paper presents research into the workings of the reformed
planning system, in particular in relation to the objectives of public participation. It is
structured by a framework which focuses on two different forms of democracy and
associated strategies of participation. It then sets out the recent changes in the English
planning system in 2004, highlighting the potential contradictions that are emerging
between different approaches being applied to participation. The paper then explores the
case of the Planning Aid service to examine these issues in more detail. Planning Aid is a
public service that aims to increase involvement of disadvantaged groups and citizens in
the planning system. The research shows that the outcomes from recent experiences of
participation in planning are due, in part, to the tensions between different approaches that
are emerging within the system. In conclusion, we argue that, although such hybrid
approaches have the potential to facilitate more inclusive planning, this will only take place
if policy makers and practitioners acknowledge the existence of the range of approaches,
and thus design strategies and mechanisms that take account of this.

Approaches to Democracy and Strategies of Participation

Questions related to the “who, what, where, why and how” of public participation are
closely linked to the approach to democracy within which such questions are being asked.
In the UK, under the New Labour government since 1997, tensions have been emerging
between two such conceptions of democracy: representative and deliberative democracy
(Thomas, 1996; Amin & Thrift, 2002; Phelps & Tewdwr-Jones 2000; Hillier, 2002; Held,
1987). Here we develop a framework drawing on these two conceptions which allows us
to examine how far actual practices express these tensions in the case of public
participation in planning in the English context.
Representative democracy gives a mandate to elected representatives to act in citizens’
interests. Some political science theorists argue that representative government by elites is
the most appropriate democratic structure, as participation is incompatible with a modern
representative democracy based on power being handed to elected representatives (see
Dahl, 1989). Others (for example, Thomas, 1996) suggest that public participation within
representative democracy is undertaken to serve particular means: either to inform
politicians of deeply held views, so that policy can avoid potentially conflictive situations
in the future, or as a means of legitimising decisions through token involvement in the
decision making process.
Applying such an approach, the strategy of participation involves minimum
engagement, with the justification that elected representatives are given a mandate to
take decisions for the electorate. Where participation is seen as necessary, the techniques
might involve contacting a limited number of organisations to comment on a proposal,
rather than encouraging a wider canvassing of opinion. Such a strategy takes little account
 Approaches to Democratic Involvement: Widening . . . Planning System 229

of the fact that some groups in a community are less likely to be involved than others. Thus
no particular effort is made to engage the “voices from the borderlands” (Sandercock,
1998) that are not normally heard in consultation, unless a potentially conflictive situation
has been identified which could generate difficulties in the future, and which could be
avoided through consultation. There are also questions over what happens to the results of
consultation, and the potential power of an elite executive to override the findings of a
participation exercise.
A number of commentators have noted a recent shift in emphasis in public policy in the
UK away from representative democracy towards more participatory forms of democratic
practice (e.g. Barnes et al., 2004a). This shift appears to stem from two concerns: firstly,
concern about the way in which public services are managed and governed, and secondly,
a concern to create opportunities to involve citizens in decision making processes, as a
democratic right to be involved in the public policy process.
One such form of participatory democracy is so-called “deliberative democracy” (Elster,
1998; Bohman & Rehg, 1997; Gutmann, 1998), in which urban space is seen as an arena of
deliberation (Amin & Thrift, 2002). Drawing on Habermas’s (1984) concept of
communicative rationality, deliberative democracy is built on the premise that agreement
between different groups can be negotiated through rational communication. Rather than
focusing on self-interest, the emphasis of deliberative democracy is on “the creation of
institutional contexts and practices which promote open dialogue and encourage the
emergence of shared solutions through the uncovering of new forms of knowledge and
understandings” (Campbell & Marshall, 2000, p. 327, emphasis in the original).
Proponents of this view argue that better decisions are likely to emerge from inclusive
debate and discussion, and that along the way trust in public institutions and agencies of
governance can be restored and a more active citizenry created (Bloomfield et al., 2001).
Strategies within a framework of deliberative democracy therefore adopt community-
based, negotiated decision making, rather than state-led solutions to resolve conflicts
(Fraser, 2005). Techniques might include focus groups, citizens’ juries and larger fora to
engage the wider public. As noted by Campbell and Marshall (2000), there are striking
similarities between deliberative democracy and two relatively recent strands of planning
thought: collaborative planning (Healey, 1997) and communicative planning theory
(Innes, 1995; Forester, 1999). Both these strands stress the need to place dialogue and
communication at the core of planning theory and practice, as well as the importance of
involving all stakeholders in the process (Innes & Booher, 2004). Thus one of the key
processes should be mediation through facilitation, where different sides are able to
develop and refine their understanding of the situation, and then construct new positions
which are more accommodating of others’ interests.
However, a number of critics of deliberative democracy have raised concerns at various
levels (Amin & Thrift, 2002). It has been suggested that negotiations can be manipulated
by special interest groups, and that deliberative democracy does not take into account
entrenched inequalities and differences. It is also claimed by Foucauldian (1979)
commentators that deliberative democracy overlooks the complex power relations that
infuse society, with open deliberation often concealing self-interest and institutionalised
inequality. Flyvbjerg (1998) suggests that despite the intentions of government and others
to promote participation, the rationality of power dictates that the end result is unlikely to
be consensus, due to these underlying power structures. Others suggest that deliberative
democratic practices exist in an “institutional void” without their own rules, where
participants bring their “own institutional assumptions and expectations” (Barnes et al.,
2004a, p. 108). Nevertheless, despite these critiques, deliberative democracy does provide
230 J. Carpenter & S. Brownill

a useful concept to fit into the analytical framework here, as a form of democracy that
seeks consensus through deliberation.
These forms of democracy and associated strategies of participation embody a
normative understanding of the value of public involvement in policy making. The first
takes a democratic elitist perspective, where public participation helps to inform local
elites of public opinion, although this in no way guarantees influence on the outcome of
the policy process. The second emphasises the importance of collaborative deliberation
and discussion, with flows of information and dialogue between them, as well as the
resultant increase in trust in both public institutions and agencies of governance that can
be a by-product of deliberative engagement.
Both these approaches to democracy and related participation strategies have
implications for how to engage citizens in the planning process. It has been suggested
by government that participatory democracy is the approach that is being applied in the
restructured planning system (ODPM, 2004a, p. 4). This paper aims to explore this
assertion by examining whether it is appropriate to talk about one single approach, or
rather whether a “hybrid” mix is emerging, made up of various components, and which
are manifest in the various strategies of community engagement that are being used.
Embedded within this argument is the concept of governance cultures, that is, the norms
that are embedded within the working practices of actors and institutions involved in
governance, and which are deeply rooted in the mindsets of planning officers and elected
members as well as that of communities.
Some see the planning reforms as a movement from one form of democracy to another.
Here, we argue that situation is more complex, with a more fluid, hybrid situation
emerging. In his analysis of governance structures in urban development, Raco (2005) uses
the term “hybridity” to describe New Labour’s approach to sustainable communities. It
would appear that this term would be equally applicable in the planning context, given
the different forms of democracy that appear to be overlaid in the revised planning
system. In his discussion of hybrid democracy, Albrechts hopes that:
out of a shift towards a more hybrid democracy in some places, a type of
planning emerges that expands practical democratic deliberations rather
than . . . restrict[s] them, that encourages diverse citizens’ voices rather
than . . . stifle[s] them, that directs resources to basic needs rather than to
narrow private gain. This type of approach uses public involvement to present
real political opportunities, learning from action not only what works but also
what matters. (Albrechts, quoted in Hillier, 2002, p. 271)
What then are the possibilities for opening up spaces for a more inclusive planning,
through a shift towards a more hybrid democracy, and what tensions and complications
might arise in such a shift? We examine this through the case of the reformed English
planning system and in particular the Planning Aid service.

The English Planning System Reformed

The Labour government came to power in the UK in 1997 following 18 years of
Conservative rule. The New Right narrative that had underpinned policy thinking under
previous governments had emphasised the importance of the market, the role of the
individual, and consequently had underplayed the role of participation in public policy
delivery and decision making (Thornley, 1993). In contrast, much of New Labour’s
discourse in all policy arenas has emphasised renewing democracy by empowering
 Approaches to Democratic Involvement: Widening . . . Planning System 231

communities to be involved in decision making about services that affect their lives
(Imrie & Raco, 2003). As the following quote from Tony Blair soon after election illustrates:
Our policies, programmes and structures of governance are about engaging
local people in a partnership for change and enabling communities to take a
decisive role in their future. (Blair, 1998, quoted in Imrie & Raco, 2003, p. 9)
This echoes the communitarian principles (Etzioni, 1996; Newman, 2001) that underpin
many of New Labour’s policy agendas, with its emphasis on rights and responsibilities,
and with a corresponding shifting emphasis on the role of, and approach to, participation.
It is interesting to note in this context how the Conservative party in opposition is now also
emphasising community engagement in decision making, suggesting that this could be a
lasting feature of English policy (Heseltine, 2007).
Behind the government’s policies is a concern for developing the capacity of individuals to
engage and take decisions on local issues (Coaffee & Healey, 2003; Barnes et al., 2004b). This is
clearly the case in planning. As Baker et al. (2006, p. 5) state: “Stakeholder involvement is one
of the fundamental components of the reformed planning system.” This is backed up by
statements from the Government’s strategy paper for community involvement in planning:
Planning shapes the places where people live and work. So it is right that
people should be enabled and empowered to take an active part in the process.
Strengthening community involvement is a key part of the Government’s
planning reforms. (ODPM, 2004a, p. 1)
and furthermore:
Our aim is that planning should provide opportunities for people, irrespective
of age, sex, ability, ethnicity or background, business, the voluntary sector and
others to make their views known and have their say in how their community
is planned and developed. (ODPM, 2004a, p. 4)
These planning reforms were set out in New Labour’s Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act of 2004, seen as one of the most significant changes to the English planning
system since it was established in 1947.
The Act introduced a number of new mechanisms to structure the planning process,
including a two-tier system of Local Development Frameworks and Regional Spatial
Strategies. Alongside these new mechanisms, the government has also established
Statements of Community Involvement (SCIs), in which local authorities are required to
set out a statement of their proposals for community engagement in planning. One of the
principles underpinning SCIs is the concept of “front-loading”, which means involving
communities at the earliest stage possible in the planning process, to encourage their full
and active engagement. When successful, such an approach could be seen as sitting neatly
within a deliberative democratic framework, with participation being woven into the
planning process.
In the reformed system, the Government also emphasised the need to widen
participation in planning, to include those not normally engaged in the process:
An inclusive approach is needed to ensure that different groups have the
opportunity to participate and are not disadvantaged in the process.
Identifying and understanding the needs of groups who find it difficult to
engage with the planning system is essential. (ODPM, 2004a, p. 9)
232 J. Carpenter & S. Brownill

To support this policy statement, the Government committed over £7.1 million over 5
years (2003 – 2008) to Planning Aid, a programme that provides advice and support to
disadvantaged groups and individuals about the planning system. It is well documented
that certain group interests, such as landowners, developers and the well-educated, have
been privileged in the past by the planning system (Healey et al., 1988; Healey, 1990;
Bedford et al., 2002), while other groups, such as members of ethnic minority communities
have been excluded from the planning process (Royal Town Planning Institute and the
Commission for Racial Equality, 1983; Krishnaryan & Thomas, 1993, 1994; ODPM, 2004b).
The renewed focus on engagement of disadvantaged groups through Planning Aid is
aimed at addressing these differentials. However, Planning Aid is just one mechanism,
particularly targeted at “excluded” groups and individuals, to promote engagement in the
planning system. It operates in parallel to other mechanisms such as SCIs and wider
practices to integrate communities more fully into the planning process.
The Government’s rationale for greater participation in planning is based on a number
of well-rehearsed principles that also run through other policy arenas:
. Involvement leads to outcomes that better reflect the views and aspirations and meet the
needs of the wider community in all its diversity;
. Public involvement is valuable as a key element of a vibrant, open and participatory
democracy;
. Involvement improves the quality and efficiency of decisions by drawing on local
knowledge and minimising unnecessary and costly conflict;
. Involvement educates all participants about the needs of communities, the business
sector and how local government works;
. Involvement helps promote social cohesion by making real connections with
communities and offering them a tangible stake in decision making.
(ODPM, 2004a, p. 4, emphasis added)
The notion of participatory or deliberative democracy is seen has having a major
influence on public policy (Stoker, 2004), and is explicitly referenced in the quote above.
There are clearly close parallels between the government’s objectives for the revised
planning system, and the so-called “communicative turn” in planning theory (Innes,
1995, 1999; Forester, 1999). Both emphasise consensus, inclusivity, developing
institutional networks and building community capacity to engage with public policy
formation. However, as this paper will explore, the approach being applied within the
English planning system is not as clear-cut as the policy discourse would suggest. The
concept of participatory or deliberative democracy is being applied alongside a more
deeply embedded culture of representative democracy. On the one hand, the
Government’s aim is:
to build strong, empowered and active communities, in which people
increasingly make decisions for themselves, with the state acting to facilitate,
support and enable citizens to lead self-determined, fulfilled lives (ODPM,
2004a, p. 5).
while within the same document, it states that:
decisions about local plans and planning applications are taken by local
representatives, accountable to their local electorates . . . participation cannot
substitute for proper decision making through the accountable institutions
(ODPM, 2004a, p. 6, emphasis added).
 Approaches to Democratic Involvement: Widening . . . Planning System 233

These quotes clearly illustrate the tensions between deliberative and representative
democracy. While there are other tensions within the reformed planning system that have
been highlighted elsewhere, such as the contradictions between speed and participation
(Brownill & Carpenter, 2007; Kitchen & Whitney, 2004), we focus here on this “hybrid”
democracy, and the potential tensions that this introduces.

Participation and the Planning Aid Service

The research findings reported here are based on an evaluation of Planning Aid, the
service that aims to increase participation of “disadvantaged groups” in the planning
system. The evaluation was carried out by the authors for the Royal Town Planning
Institute (RTPI) between 2004 –2006, and included an evaluation of a specific
demonstration project in North Kent, part of the Thames Gateway redevelopment. It is
based on a review of government planning documents as well as qualitative research
on the performance and practice of the Planning Aid service.2 It should be noted that
Planning Aid is not representative of approaches to participation as a whole across
England, but rather is a programme funded by government that is specifically
targeted at increasing the participation of disadvantaged groups in the planning
system.
Planning Aid was first established in the 1970s, but was relaunched in 2003 as a
national, publicly funded service. Three years into the new service, empirical evidence
gathered through the research provides a good opportunity to assess the workings of
the revised planning system through this programme. While it will inevitably take
longer than three years to see the full impact of the changes to the planning system,
the research presented here provides a good opportunity to assess its initial
achievements, highlight potential tensions, and to explore whether the approach
adopted seems to be realising its ambitions. The translation of different approaches to
democracy into participation strategies has been assessed through in-depth interviews
with stakeholders, and “success” in participation has been evaluated through target
groups’ involvement in the Planning Aid service, evidenced through monitoring
returns and supplemented by interviews with stakeholders. It should also be noted
that the research was undertaken prior to the publication of the Planning White Paper
in May 2007 (CLG, 2007), and therefore does not address the proposed reforms that
are tabled in that document.
We start by looking in more detail at the revised English planning system through the
eyes of stakeholders, examining the form(s) of democracy being applied through the new
Act, and the participation strategies that are being implemented to achieve its objectives.
The paper then examines one aspect of the new system, i.e. the Planning Aid service, in
more detail. Planning Aid aims to engage “excluded groups” in the planning system. This
section illustrates the application of the various approaches and strategies in practice, and
asks whether they are effective in delivering inclusive planning on the ground. We
conclude by re-examining the revised planning system in the light of this experience and
the discussion on approaches to democracy. Through the discussion, we suggest that a
hybrid system has the potential to deliver outcomes more effectively, as long as policy
makers and practitioners are aware of the potentialities, and are equipped with the
necessary resources and methods.
234 J. Carpenter & S. Brownill

Planning Aid Practitioners’ Reflections on Approaches to Democracy

Within the Planning System
Our claim that, despite the rhetoric of a deliberative approach of participatory democracy,
the English planning system appears to be adopting a more hybrid model, was confirmed
in interviews with our research respondents when they were asked to comment on
participation within the reformed planning system. While the objectives of the revised
planning system are to engage citizens in decision making within a framework of
deliberative participatory democracy, our research suggests in practice that the new
system is still underpinned by democratic elitism through a system of representative
democracy that ensures decision making is kept within the hands of elected members,
supported by planning officers. Although many local authorities are committed to
consultation, respondents in our research reported that some local authorities do not agree
with the rationale behind public participation:
They [councillors] sometimes say: “Why do we have to consult? We were
elected, so why should we consult the electorate on decisions?”
while another Planning Aid stakeholder commented that:
Members don’t realise the importance of consultation, so they don’t want to
fund it.
Elements of democratic elitism are thus still evident among some local authorities, a stance
which sits uneasily with the attempts to weave participation into the democratic decision
making process.
Respondents recognised that embracing the principles of community engagement
within local authorities was down to governance cultures (Cars et al., 2002), within the
overall framework of representative democracy, with marked differences between local
authorities, some being very resistant to active involvement. The governance culture
provides the context within which working practices of actors and institutions take shape.
Given that representative democracy is embedded in the system, changing such a culture,
although championed by those promoting the reform of the new planning system, will be
a long and difficult process, taking time and resources (see Shaw, 2006).
One of the key messages to come from the research was the need for a change in
mindsets on all sides, and to embed community consultation into the practice of planning
as the norm rather than the exception. It was felt by respondents that there remains an
underlying distrust of the planning process amongst the public, coupled with apathy and
a perception of disenfranchisement. These serve as barriers to engagement, particularly
for groups that are not normally involved in the process.
Indeed, while a representative democratic system is in some places working contrary to
community engagement, some respondents went so far as to suggest that the new
planning system itself was actually acting as a constraint to the involvement of community
groups, in particular due to the potential contradiction between the pressure for efficiency
in the new system, and the requirement for public engagement. This perception is backed
up by a survey of local authorities by Sykes (2003) which revealed that over 70% of local
planning authorities felt that they would have difficulty meeting these two objectives
simultaneously (see also Kitchen & Whitney 2004). It would certainly seem plausible that
the speed and performance requirements could leave little time for meaningful
consultation that would allow community groups to fully understand the planning
system and process, to get to know the issues and how to be involved (Brooks, 2002).
 Approaches to Democratic Involvement: Widening . . . Planning System 235

As Doak and Parker note: “There is an emphasis on speed and efficiency in the new
system that sits uneasily with effective (time-consuming?) public involvement, and is
likely to benefit some interests (at the expense of others?)” (Doak & Parker, 2005, p. 36,
brackets are original). While this view was echoed by a number of respondents in our
research, one commentator felt that there was not necessarily a conflict between speed
requirements and involvement, as long as the consultation was done well. Nevertheless
many respondents felt that this tension was pulling in different directions, undermining
the deliberative democratic approach, and acting as a barrier to inclusive outcomes.
Respondents also felt that other elements in the new system had introduced further
tensions into the planning process, which work against a deliberative democratic
structure. The concept of “front-loading” (see above) may be written into the new system,
but a number of respondents commented on the problems presented by such an ambition,
due to the limited skills capacity within the public, private and voluntary sectors, to
engage with the community. Again, one of the premises underlying deliberative
democracy, of equality of access to participation, is undermined by a lack of skills and
capacity. As Albrechts states,
Developments towards more direct forms of democracy, the focus on debate,
public involvement and accountability—even with the best intentions—imply
the danger of making democratic public involvement more and more
dependent on knowledge and on the skills of the more highly educated.
(Albrechts, 2003, p. 252)
The complexity of the new system has also introduced tensions that work against
community involvement and deliberative democracy. A new raft of planning documents,
guidance, processes, structures and acronyms have compounded the difficulty of
understanding how the planning system works, increasing rather than reducing its
accessibility. Actually getting members of the community to a sufficient level of
knowledge where they can engage meaningfully with the planning system takes time and
commitment. As one respondent in our research remarked:
The government has produced an overly complicated system, which actually
hasn’t done community engagement a lot of favours.
These issues will be illustrated further in the next section, in the light of the recent
experience of the Planning Aid programme. This empirical research examines the
implementation of Planning Aid within this hybrid approach to democracy, and
investigates whether the strategies employed are effective in engaging communities to
become involved in, and influence, the planning process.

The Role of Planning Aid in Engaging Communities in the Planning System

Planning Aid is an independent organisation with a long history of promoting
participation in planning, first established in 1973 by the Town and Country Planning
Association (TCPA), an independent charity which promotes awareness of planning
issues (Thomas, 1992).3 In the run-up to the reforms of the planning system in 2004, the UK
Government was looking for ways to provide more support to engage communities in the
planning system, and identified Planning Aid as a long-established body that could
contribute to this agenda. The service has, however, been in existence through both Labour
and Conservative governments, and being independent, is not associated with any one
particular political party.
236 J. Carpenter & S. Brownill

Planning Aid aims to provide support to “disadvantaged groups”4 to enable them

to participate in the planning system. Its overall objectives are to provide advice,
information, education and capacity building to community groups and individuals
who would otherwise not engage with the planning system. The service is provided
free to those who are not able to afford professional planning advice (Reeves &
Burley, 2002).
The programme has operated for over 30 years, with the majority of funds coming from
external sources. With the reform of the planning system, however, the Government’s
Planning Green Paper identified Planning Aid as a potential means of helping to engage
disadvantaged groups and individuals in planning issues (DTLR, 2001, p. 43). In 2003, in
the run-up to the 2004 Planning Act, the Planning Aid service was re-launched with £3.8
million of government funding over 3 years (2003 – 2006) to provide advice and support to
disadvantaged groups and individuals to enable them to engage with the planning
system. Funding was extended by over £3.3 million, to cover the period 2006-2008. In
addition to this core funding, the service also receives funding from agencies such as local
authorities and regional development agencies, to undertake specific commissioned
projects (amounting to over £200,000 in 2006– 2007).
Operated by the RTPI and a separate independent charity (that covers the London
area), Planning Aid now has paid staff in all of the 9 English regions plus London,
networked through a central unit. Each regional team consists of one full-time
coordinator, one part-time caseworker and one full-time or two part-time community
planners, backed up by a team of volunteers across each region. The work of the regional
teams is split into two areas. The first involves a helpline for disadvantaged groups and
individuals to access free planning advice. The helpline generates casework that is
managed by the caseworker and partly dealt with by volunteers. The second involves
community planning work, through which the community planners build links and
partnerships with community groups, deliver training and help communities with
planning issues. The national unit, with a staff of five, acts as a central hub, facilitating
information flows, good practice between regions, and coordinating national level events
and activities.

The Planning Aid Strategy

The aims of the Planning Aid service, as stated in the RTPI service delivery plan drawn
up at the start of the re-launch of the service, are:
. To build the planning capacity of financially disadvantaged and socially excluded
communities and assist them in shaping their physical, social and economic
environment;
. To develop an expanded and more sustainable network of Planning Aid services
capable of identifying, engaging and responding effectively to the needs of the above.
(RTPI, 2003, p. 3 –4)

More specifically, its objectives are:

. To increase engagement and participation in the planning system as a whole;
. To increase the ability of disadvantaged communities to participate in the planning
system through a structured programme of capacity building;
. To increase access to and use of Planning Aid by disadvantaged local communities
through initiatives to target and reach these communities;
 Approaches to Democratic Involvement: Widening . . . Planning System 237

. To influence service delivery by statutory bodies by helping to raise awareness of the

needs of disadvantaged groups among statutory bodies;
. To increase the number of volunteers by putting in place the structure and services to be
able to recruit, retain and support these volunteers.
(RTPI, 2003, p. 4)
The term “disadvantaged communities” is, of course, a complex one. The RTPI’s definition
of “disadvantaged groups” is certainly broad, including taking in those on low incomes (the
financially disadvantaged), as well as minority ethnic communities, disabled people and
community groups, and raises many issues about how to define “disadvantage” in this
context.4 There are debates within the Planning Aid service over whether all people who are
not engaged in planning could be classified as “disadvantaged”, as their lack of awareness
puts them at a disadvantage. Furthermore, there are cases where some communities
voluntarily exclude themselves, as is their democratic right. Necessarily in our research,
we took the RTPI’s definition, although we acknowledge that there are issues behind
such definitions which warrant further clarification in a wider discussion on the topic.
The work of the Planning Aid service has always been focused on reaching “financially
disadvantaged and socially excluded communities” and involving them in the planning
system. To achieve this aim, the strategy of engagement that has developed has been multi-
pronged. As first proposed by Bidwell and Edgar (1981), Reeves and Burley (2002) suggest
that there are different strategies for Planning Aid, with each taking a different emphasis
depending on local circumstances in each region. The first is based on a phone line
involving models of advice and advocacy. The Advice Model is a reactive service that is
based around a helpline run by staff caseworkers, who pass on some eligible cases to
volunteer planners to follow up. The Advocacy Model involves a qualified planner taking
on an individual’s or group’s planning problem, representing them and finding a solution.
The second approach is based on community planning and involves environmental
education, community capacity building and direct involvement of communities in
influencing planning policy and strategy. The Environmental Education Model involves a
qualified planner providing information to community groups on planning and
environmental issues, through publications, training and workshops. The Community
Development Model involves a pro-active community planning arm that is run by staff
community planners who carry out outreach work and provide experiential learning for
community groups. Community planning also seeks to involve local communities in the
development of strategy and policy, from regional spatial strategies to area action plans and
very localised initiatives, such as community centres and play areas.
However, there appear to be tensions emerging within Planning Aid’s original aims, as
the service tries to combine these different roles. In particular, these tensions can be seen as
centering around two such roles. One is a “bridging role” through the advice and
advocacy models, acting as a broker between different actors in the planning system to
encourage better involvement of disadvantaged groups and to secure consensus. The
other is an “emancipatory role” through environmental education and community
planning, championing excluded groups and working with them, to empower and ensure
that their voices are heard.
There are resonances between these roles and the alternative models of democracy as
discussed in Section 2. In particular the emancipatory role comes closest to encompassing
a strategy for deliberative democracy, however, even in this role there are barriers to
achieving inclusive planning which illustrate the limitations to deliberative democracy.
These barriers are explored further below.
238 J. Carpenter & S. Brownill

The Planning Aid Experience

Who’s engaging through Planning Aid? Planning Aid aims to target disadvantaged groups,
and facilitate their engagement in the planning process. Following its relaunch in 2004, the
service has reached a large number of people and community organisations, on a
relatively small budget, with a steady increase in the number of people assisted. During
the year 2006 –2007, the service helped over 37,500 individuals with planning issues, and
supported over 745 communities, residents’ groups and other organisations through its
work. In addition, 483 community planning events were held, attended by over 20,700
people. Aside from this core-funded work, regionally funded projects supported over
13,500 people, and locally funded projects helped over 4,500 groups and individuals in
planning-related issues (National Planning Aid Unit (2007) and data provided on request).
However, there are also mixed messages about the achievements of the different
strategies over this period, in particular in reaching the targeted disadvantaged groups.
This is partly due to the limited budget within which the service is working, and
particularly due to funding allocations which only allow a 0.6 full-time equivalent (FTE)
caseworker per region (rather than 1.0 that was envisaged when the targets were set). This
is clearly an unrealistic level of staffing, given the task at hand. On the advice and
advocacy role with individuals, around 7,500 people have been assisted up to the end of
2006 –2007, which, given the small budget, is a considerable achievement. But as Figure 1
shows, the number of individuals calling the helpline is on average 56% of the proposed
target5 (although it should be noted that this is the only target which the service has not
fully achieved). There have been a number of reasons suggested for this, including the
issue of unrealistic targets set at the beginning of the relaunch and the limited resources
and staffing. The casework service is currently working beyond capacity, and the service
has therefore had to limit its promotion of the helpline. However, the picture is markedly
different for community groups contacting the service, with the numbers consistently
above the target (around double for 2006 – 2007) with almost 2,000 organisations involved
in Planning Aid up to the end of 2006– 2007 (see Figure 2).

Figure 1. Number of individuals assisted through casework, compared to the target (2004 – 2005 and
2005– 2006). Source: National Planning Aid Unit quarterly monitoring figures, provided on request.
 Approaches to Democratic Involvement: Widening . . . Planning System 239

Figure 2. Number of organisations assisted through casework, compared to the target (2004 – 2005
and 2005– 2006). Source: National Planning Aid Unit quarterly monitoring figures, provided on
request.

While the service is rooted in the rhetoric of deliberative democracy, the strategy
adopted through the advice phone line does not necessarily encourage the involvement of
people not normally engaged in the planning process, nor does it recognise people’s
differential ability to engage through different mechanisms. There are clearly deep-seated
barriers to individuals’ engagement which certain strategies address better than others
(see Baker et al., 2006). As critics of deliberative democracy suggest, not everyone can
engage on an equal footing.
Monitoring data also show that Planning Aid is not managing to reach many of the
excluded groups that are targeted by the service. Figures show that 43% of those calling
the Planning Aid helpline during 2005 –2006 and 2006 –2007 were defined as cases eligible
for support. The other 57% did not fall within the criteria that define “disadvantage”,
although they were still able to obtain 15 minutes of telephone advice from the service, as
this is provided to anyone who calls. Indeed, one of the key challenges for Planning Aid is
defining the target “disadvantaged” population, as noted earlier.4
Similarly with the community planning work, Planning Aid has been meeting and
exceeding its targets, particularly in terms of the numbers involved, but figures indicate
that the profile of those participating does not match the excluded groups that are targeted
by the service. While some individual regions are working successfully in areas of high
deprivation, the monitoring figures presented in Table 1 suggest that some disadvantaged
groups are less well represented. For example, data suggest that those from minority
ethnic communities form only 1% of participating groups, although the classification used
in the monitoring system may mask figures for the involvement of minority ethnic groups
within other categories, such as residents’ or school groups. Nevertheless, figures for other
“disadvantaged” groups, such as the disabled, are also low (1% of participating groups),
whereas data for outreach work with other agencies such as local planning authorities and
regeneration partnerships show considerable success (over 30% of groups worked with).
This is clearly a complex area due to the definitions, for example, working with
240 J. Carpenter & S. Brownill

Table 1. Breakdown of groups worked with on community planning projects in 2005– 2006, and
2006– 2007.
2005–2006* 2006–2007

Type of group Number of groups % Number of groups %

Black and minority ethnic 5 1% 1 0%

Citizens Advice Burea 4 1% 0 0%
Disabled groups* 4 1% 1 0%
Faith groups* 6 1% 2 1%
Residents group 35 7% 1 0%
School group 49 9% 75 21%
Youth group 11 2% 14 4%
Women’s group N/A N/A 2 1%
Voluntary group 29 6% 4 1%
Local planning authority 77 15% 34 10%
Parish/town council 21 4% 0 0%
Regeneration partnership 54 10% 48 13%
Rural com councils 6 1% 7 2%
Other 111 21% 74 21%
Missing information 107 21% 94 26%
Total 519 100% 357 100%

Source: National Planning Aid Unit (2007) and monitoring figures provided on request from NPAU. *Data for
quarters 1 and 2 only, in 2005–2006.

regeneration partnerships that involve many different groups. In addition, some

community planning projects such as the gipsy and traveller training are being
undertaken with separate funding, and so do not appear in the core monitoring figures.
However, given the data in Table 1, it is worth considering the balance between working
with agencies such as local authorities and regeneration partnerships, and concentrating
on specific target groups in community planning work, and the implications that this has
for achieving the overall objectives of the service.
An example of successful community planning work comes from the Thames Gateway,
where the North Kent project run by South East Planning Aid organised a number of
workshops with groups of children and young people through local schools (South East
Planning Aid, 2006). “Success” was defined by the number and range of young people that
were involved in the different initiatives, and the impact these initiatives had on their
awareness of the environment in which they live. One project in a secondary school
involved students identifying key issues for their area, such as poor recycling facilities,
graffiti and a lack of leisure facilities. They set up a photographic exhibition to raise
awareness within the school and local community, and planned to follow it up with a
second project related to climate change. Another project focused on a local primary school,
with pupils identifying aspects of the neighbourhood that they liked and disliked. The
findings were then discussed with the planning consultants that had been commissioned to
produce a masterplan for the area’s regeneration, and a number of the ideas generated by
the school children were taken up. These projects were seen to have been very positive for
participants, giving them a voice, and involving them at an early age in a local participation
exercise. It helped children from all backgrounds to look at their environment with a critical
eye, and think about their area in a different way. As one respondent commented:
The project empowered the children . . . it made them examine their
environment with a new eye . . . They are the future of the community, and it
gave them a voice.
 Approaches to Democratic Involvement: Widening . . . Planning System 241

This is particularly important in an area such as the Thames Gateway, one of the
Government’s four growth areas in the south-east of England, where, over the next
10 years, a projected 160,000 homes will be built. Involving school children in thinking
about their environment, and raising awareness about planning issues at an early age
should encourage engagement in planning later in life. Within the model of deliberative
democracy, these exercises have helped develop individuals’ capacity and build
community capacity for the future.
However, experiences through Planning Aid also illustrate some of the limitations of
deliberative democracy. In southern England, Planning Aid has been working in a small
town of 9,000 people, where there are plans for a major housing extension development of
between 2,500-3,400 new homes on a disused military site. They have been working with
local communities as well as the private house builder and local authority, to consult on
issues such as infrastructure provision, green space and the very issue of creating new
communities on the edge of an existing town. The revised plans for the development
following consultation appear to have taken on board the communities’ views where there
was a consensus, and integrated the communities’ preferred options. Nevertheless, one
respondent did comment that although the meetings between the different parties were
ostensibly very successful, once behind closed doors there were complaints amongst
community participants, and the tone was markedly less positive. While the Planning Aid
service clearly has no control over this, it does illustrate the limits to deliberative
democracy, with an underlying distrust between parties, sentiments that are deeply
rooted and difficult to shift, even in a supposedly successful collaboration.
Despite considerable successes on a low budget, overall, the model of deliberative
democracy coupled with the strategy adopted by Planning Aid does not appear to be fully
able to overcome the complex barriers that prevent disadvantaged groups from engaging
in planning. From the figures available, while Planning Aid has helped thousands of
people since its relaunch, it appears that, in particular, disadvantaged groups are not
coming forward in the numbers expected. This could be reluctance on their part to be pro-
active, or a lack of awareness of the possibilities for engagement. It could also relate to an
apathy that is generated by a public that feels it “can’t make a difference”. In addition, a
system of representative democracy risks generating feelings of distrust, when it is
perceived that elected officials are not listening to the opinions of local people, taking
decisions behind closed doors.
The Planning Aid service is also under pressure to deliver against its targets, working as
it does within a target-driven culture under a regime of New Public Management
(Hoggett, 1991). This is putting the service under pressure to focus on meeting targets
perhaps at the expense of a broader aim to meet its objectives of involving disadvantaged
groups. In particular, there could be a role for Planning Aid to play a more active part in
supporting local authorities in their wider strategies to involve disadvantaged groups in
planning. For example, some Planning Aid services have been commenting on local
authorities’ Statements of Community Involvement (see above). However, this is not
formally written into the Planning Aid work programme, and is therefore not being
prioritised by some regions, in the target-driven culture that has come to characterise
public service provision.

Are the strategies and resources sufficient?. The strategy adopted by Planning Aid is
twofold: a casework helpline for callers from the targeted disadvantaged groups, and
community planning outreach work (see above). However, there was the feeling among
some of the research respondents that the strategy adopted has not been as successful as
242 J. Carpenter & S. Brownill

hoped. This is partly due to the fact that the service has not promoted the helpline, due to
capacity issues, and has not made the phone number a “Freephone” line. As a strategy for
deliberative democracy, it does not take account of individuals’ “comfort levels” in using
helplines and their possible reluctance to pick up the phone.
The term “hard to reach” has infiltrated the discourse of participation in planning, but
could perhaps be seen as symptomatic of the way the planning system sees excluded
communities. The experience of Planning Aid suggests that, rather than certain
communities being “hard to reach”, there are groups that are “easy to reach, but hard
to engage”. With the right tools and methods, it has been shown that it is possible to
engage those not normally involved in planning issues. In north Kent, for example,
community planning exercises used visual aids as a way of engaging people, holding a
competition using aerial photos to identify locations and to make suggestions about
environmental improvements in the local neighbourhood. Another strategy adopted by
Planning Aid has been to invest considerable time into building partnerships with other
organisations in the same field, to create a network of partners with similar interests.
But such methods involve time and resources, both of which are in short supply.
Planning Aid staff commented that many local authorities do not cost their consultation
exercises properly, and some do not even allocate a budget for consultation. One
coordinator reported that local authorities seem to have little idea of what consultation
exercises cost. It was reported that one of the London boroughs had set aside £10,000 for
consultation while another did not set aside any budget. Others are putting aside
resources for consultation at a later date, thereby not supporting the front-loaded
consultation process. Some respondents reported that, in general, elected members do not
appreciate the importance of consultation, and therefore are not willing to fund it. Echoing
the importance of the local governance culture, some respondents commented that in
certain rural Conservative or Liberal Democrat areas, the local authorities were not
forthcoming in financing community engagement. Local councils are working to tight
budgets, and community involvement is not high on their list of priorities for scarce
resources. Reactions by some local authorities and their members would suggest a
framework of representative rather than deliberative democracy, which raises questions
over whether engagement actually does lead to influence.
Even with a good level of resources, our research suggests that there is a significant
skills gap in the area of community planning within local authorities, and specifically in
engaging disadvantaged communities. Planners often have not had the chance to
develop community facilitation skills, while community facilitators themselves do not
normally have a planning background. Engaging with a diverse public requires additional
skills including sensitivity and imagination (given that the majority of professional
planners, particularly more senior planners, are white and middle-class themselves (RTPI,
1998)). As one Planning Aid worker commented:
Planning staff [in local authorities] aren’t confident about engaging with the
community.
There are also well-documented problems surrounding the general shortage of planning
staff in local authorities (Durning & Glasson, 2004), which inevitably impacts on the
service provided.6 One Planning Aid respondent anecdotally commented that some local
authorities employ over 50% of their staff from temporary employment agencies. If
disadvantaged groups are to be included in the planning system, there need to be the
resources and skills to involve the “easy to reach—hard to engage”, who will not
necessarily respond to traditional methods and participation strategies. Planning Aid is
 Approaches to Democratic Involvement: Widening . . . Planning System 243

short on resources, but low-cost methods such as letter writing do not necessarily elicit a
response. As one Planning Aid worker commented:
We wrote to 27 faith groups in one city, and only 1 replied. And yet they’re all
faced with planning issues.
Alternative methods are needed to reach certain groups, but this requires a level of
resources that are not available within the planning system generally or within the
Planning Aid service as it is currently set up.
There are also concerns about the e-planning agenda, and the move towards on-line
consultation and its impact on widening participation. A survey of local authorities by
Sykes (2003) shows that the interactive websites planned by many local planning
authorities will be among the top three consultation methods in the future. But online
consultation necessarily excludes those without the skills or resources to access the Web,
who are often the most disadvantaged (or “hard to engage”) in society (Kitchen &
Whitney, 2004). Echoing elements of deliberative democracy, Web-based consultation
exercises assume a network of engagement, accessed equally by all on a “level playing
field”. In theory, all interests have an equal opportunity to feed in their views. In practice,
this is far from the case, and again illustrates how different approaches are being
combined within the current planning system, without taking into account differential
abilities to engage with the process.
Planning Aid was set up to give advice and support to community groups and
individuals that are excluded from the planning system. Community engagement is
clearly a long-term project. But since its relaunch, it has become apparent that the
resources set aside are dwarfed by the task at hand. Although the service has helped over
37,500 people through its casework and community planning activities, it is stretched to its
full capacity in terms of staffing, and does not have the resources to do more than scratch
the surface of the needs of excluded communities:
Planning Aid can’t deliver as they haven’t got the funding. If the Government is
serious, they should give proper money.
Mirroring the skills shortages in local planning authorities, Planning Aid has also had
difficulty recruiting and retaining staff, which has compounded their capacity problems.
However, it is not just a question of resources. Increased resources are part of the
solution, but there are other issues to overcome. As many examples of Planning Aid’s
work have shown, community involvement in planning is not just about responding to a
consultation exercise. It involves recognising the power of the community, and being
transparent about the degree to which they can influence decisions. It is about building
up trust and faith in the planning system, to address apathy and disenfranchisement. And
it is also about a shift in mindset in the long term, at the local, regional and national levels,
both in the public and private sectors, to fully integrate community views. As one
respondent in our research put it:
ODPM think that if there’s more money, more people will engage.
More resources would help to engage communities, but not necessarily those normally
excluded from the process. There are more fundamental issues about the form of
democracy and strategy of participation that are being applied, and whether they are the
most appropriate frameworks within which to engage community groups in planning.
While Albrechts suggests that “hybrid democracy” is an ideal to work towards, in reality it
offers a contradictory terrain that opens up possibilities, but also presents constraints.
244 J. Carpenter & S. Brownill

While the framework of deliberative democracy fits with some aspects of Planning Aid’s
strategy, there are also other aspects which undermine the framework, in particular the
use of the advice phone line to reach disadvantaged groups. In addition, Planning Aid,
and community engagement more generally, are being applied within a system of
representative democracy which, in particular contexts and situations, is also acting as a
barrier to widening participation.

Discussion
A main aim of the reform of the English planning system in 2004 was to integrate
communities more fully into consultation and decision making. One inspiration for this
idea, we have argued, was a model of deliberative democracy. However, evidence
suggests that it is not possible to “read off” the new system as the realisation of a single
form of democracy as an underpinning for the new system. There are elements of different
forms influencing current policy and practice, with representative democracy co-existing
with deliberative democracy. The blurring of the boundaries between these two forms has
led to “hybridity” and tensions. There has also been a mix of strategies for community
engagement within the system, producing varied results.
The strategy adopted by Planning Aid to focus on disadvantaged groups has been two-
fold: on the one hand, it has remained reactive, through its helpline, providing a service to
those who get in touch of their own accord; on the other hand, it is proactive through its
community planning and environmental education work, a strategy which fits more
closely with a deliberative democratic framework. But monitoring data show that this mix
of strategies is not managing to fully engage with its target disadvantaged groups. Partly
due to the strategies adopted within a context of underfunding and a paucity of resources,
the Planning Aid service is not covering all the groups and areas that it aims to reach.
Where the service is most active, the results have been impressive and feedback has been
positive. Indeed, the service is developing a considerable reputation for its expertise,
professionalism and effectiveness. So Planning Aid itself is not failing, but it is working
with limited resources, in a context of enduring barriers to participation that are not
currently being addressed.
In terms of the wider planning system, new structures have been put in place to
encourage community participation in planning, but initial evidence from our research,
for example in relation to Statements of Community Involvement, suggest that there is still
some progress to be made. Others have also pointed to the limitations of current
frameworks. For example, national guidance on regional planning and development plans
advises local authorities to take account of ethnic minority needs when drawing up plans
(Harris & Thomas, 2004). But the guidance suggests that this is essentially a technical task,
and with the right mechanisms and consultation skills in place, the views of ethnic
minority groups will feed into the process. Findings from our research presented here
suggest that this is not the case, and that the picture is much more complex. As Beebeejaun
states:
There continues to be a need to question the extent to which planning and
planners critically engage with the assumptions underpinning initiatives to
widen participation. (Beebeejaun, 2004, p. 448)
These “assumptions” being applied in the English planning system are that community
groups will engage if the structures are put in place. Experience through Planning Aid
suggests that, while this is occurring to a certain extent, it is not happening on a level that
 Approaches to Democratic Involvement: Widening . . . Planning System 245

was hoped for, and has not taken full account of barriers to engagement. Although the
rhetoric of deliberative democracy features within the discourse of the new planning
system, there are forces which are preventing it from taking root. This is partly due to a
governance culture in some places, with a tension between representative and deliberative
democracy where some local authorities are more open to participation than others, and
partly due to other enduring factors such as a lack of time, resources, and the long-
standing barriers to participation that are not addressed by the new system. Full account
needs to be taken of these enduring barriers. And a service aimed at reaching those that do
not typically engage needs to be sufficiently resourced, to enable appropriate tools,
methods and strategies to be applied.
The planning system in England was again at a crossroads in 2007, potentially facing
another shake-up in the light of the Barker Review of Land Use Planning (Barker, 2006)
and the Planning White Paper (CLG, 2007), which could bring further changes to a
planning system that has not yet had time to settle down, following the reforms of 2004.
Planning Aid stakeholders suggest that ideally the service would become part of the
“establishment”, with sufficient resources to run a service on a scale that could address the
complex issues involved. Nevertheless, there are still tensions between competing
strategies which are struggling to deliver. As a respondent from the Planning
Inspectorate7 noted:
The jury’s out on the reformed planning system and increasing public
participation, because it is a huge exercise and it can’t be done by Planning Aid
alone.
It is still early to draw definite conclusions about the revised planning system introduced
in 2004. Nevertheless, early evidence does suggest that there are flaws in the assumptions
underlying the new system. With good quality Statements of Community Involvement,
realistic resourcing and a fundamental shift in mindset, over the next 10– 15 years there
could be a move towards more inclusive participation in planning. But the current
trajectory suggests that the familiar barriers to participation by excluded groups will
continue to operate.
Evidence from the experience of the Planning Aid service suggests that there is
potential within the new planning system, as Albrechts hopes, to “expand practical
democratic deliberations . . . encourage diverse citizens’ voices” and “direct resources to
basic needs rather than to narrow private gain” (Albrechts, in Hiller, 2002, p. 271). But
there are also limits within the current hybrid approach, where the local context, such as
a strong governance culture of representative democracy, coupled with long-standing
barriers to participation, could limit the potential for achieving Albrechts’s vision.
However, based on the discussion here, we suggest that an awareness of the possibilities
and limitations of a hybrid democracy can act as a starting point for opening up spaces
where diverse voices can be heard and can influence planning practice in the future.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Planning Aid for their permission to publish this paper.
However, the article reflects the views of the authors alone rather than those of Planning
Aid or the Royal Town Planning Institute. For more information on Planning Aid, see
www. planningaid.rtpi.org.uk
246 J. Carpenter & S. Brownill

Notes
1. The Skeffington Report advocated involvement of the public in planning decisions in 1969 (MHLG, 1969).
2. This included an analysis of monitoring returns from the regional services and feedback forms from
individuals and community groups using the service, as well as interviews with Planning Aid staff, national
and regional stakeholders, and staff from the Ministry responsible for planning matters (the Office of the
Deputy Prime Minister—ODPM, now renamed Communities and Local Government—CLG).
3. The management of Planning Aid transferred from TCPA to the RTPI in the 1990s.
4. “Disadvantaged groups” are defined by the Royal Town Planning Institute as “people on low incomes;
unemployed people; minority ethnic communities; women and women’s groups, disabled people and
disability groups; older people; children and young people; tenants groups; community groups and
voluntary organisations” (RTPI, 2003, p. 6).
5. The monitoring figures refer to Planning Aid’s core funded work, rather than its regional projects, that are
funded separately on an ad hoc basis, in response to sponsors’ requests within the regions.
6. The gap between the cost of living and planners’ wages has been cited as a reason for staff shortages within
Local Planning Authorities, as well as the strong competition from private sector planning consultancies
(Doak & Parker, 2005)
7. This is the Semi-Judicial Agency charged with reviewing local authority planning decisions.

References
Albrechts, L. (2002) The planning community reflects on enhancing public involvement, Planning Theory and
Practice, 3(3), pp. 332–347.
Albrechts, L. (2003) Reconstructing decision-making: planning versus politics, Planning Theory, 2(3), pp. 249 –268.
Amin, A. & Thrift, N. (2002) Cities: Reimagining the Urban (Oxford, Blackwell).
Baker, M., Coaffee, J. & Sherriff, G. (2006) Achieving Successful Participation: A Literature Review (London, CLG).
Barker, K. (2006) Barker Review of Land Use Planning: Final Report and Recommendations (London, HMSO).
Barnes, M., Knops, A., Newman, J. & Sullivan, H. (2004a) The micro-politics of deliberation: case studies in public
participation, Contemporary Politics, 10(2), pp. 93–110.
Barnes, M., Newman, J. & Sullivan, H. (2004b) Power, participation and political renewal: theoretical perspectives
on public participation under New Labour, Social Politics, 11(2), pp. 267–279.
Bedford, T., Clark, J. & Harrison, C. (2002) Limits to new public participation practices in local land use planning,
Town Planning Review, 73(3), pp. 311–331.
Beebeejaun, Y (2004) What’s in a nation? Constructing ethnicity in the British planning system, Planning Theory
and Practice, 5(4), pp. 437– 451.
Bidwell, L. & Edgar, B. (1981) Promoting participation in planning: a case study of Planning Aid, Dundee area, in:
C. Smith & D. Jones (Eds) Deprivation, Participation and Community Action, pp. 137–152 (London, Routledge and
Kegan Paul).
Blair, A. (1998) Foreword, in Social Exclusion Unit, Bringing Britain Together—A National Strategy for Neighbourhood
Renewal, Cmnd 40458, pp. 1–2 (London, The Stationery Office).
Bloomfield, D., Collins, K., Fry, C. & Munton, R. (2001) Deliberation and inclusion: vehicles for increasing trust in
UK public governance?, Environment and Planning C, 19, pp. 501–513.
Bohman, J. & Rehg, W. (Eds) (1997) Deliberative Democracy (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press).
Brooks, M.P. (2002) Planning Theory for Practitioners (Chicago, American Planners Association).
Brownill, S. & Carpenter, J. (2007) Increasing participation in planning: emergent experiences of the reformed
planning system in England, Planning Practice and Research, 22(4), pp. 619– 634.
Campbell, H. & Marshall, R. (2000) Public involvement and planning: looking beyond the one to the many,
International Planning Studies, 5(3), pp. 321–344.
Cars, G., Healey, P., Madanipour, A. & de Magalhaes, C. (Eds) (2002) Urban Governance, Institutional Capacity and
Social Milieux (Aldershot, Ashgate).
Coaffee, J. & Healey, P. (2003) My voice, my place: tracking transformation in urban governance, Urban Studies,
40(10), pp. 1960–1978.
CLG (Communities and Local Government) (2007) Planning for a Sustainable Future, White Paper (London,
HMSO).
Dahl, R.A. (1989) Democracy and its Critics (New Haven, CT, Yale University Press).
DTLR (Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions) (2001) Planning: Delivering a Fundamental
Change, Planning Green Paper (London, HMSO).
 Approaches to Democratic Involvement: Widening . . . Planning System 247

Doak, J. & Parker, G. (2005) Networked space? The challenge of meaningful participation and the new spatial
planning in England, Planning, Practice and Research, 20(1), pp. 23 –40.
Durning, B. & Glasson, J. (2004) Skills Base in the Planning System, Volume 1, Literature Review for LGA (London,
Employers’ Organisation and ODPM).
Elster, J. (Ed.) (1998) Deliberative Democracy (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
Etzioni, A. (1996) The New Golden Rule: Community and Morality in a Democratic Society (New York, Basic Books).
Flyvbjerg, B. (1998) Rationality and Power (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).
Forester, J. (1999) The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes (London, MIT Press).
Foucault, M. (1979) Discipline and Punish: The Intervention of the Prison (London, Allen Lane).
Fraser, H. (2005) Four different approaches to community participation, Community Development Journal, 40(3),
July pp. 286 –300.
Gutmann, A. (Ed.) (1998) Freedom of Association (Princeton, Princeton University Press).
Habermas, J. (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and Rationalisation of Society (Cambridge,
Polity Press).
Harris, N. & Thomas, H. (2004) Planning for a diverse society? A review of the UK government’s Planning Policy
Guidance, Town Planning Review, 75(4), pp. 473– 500.
Healey, P. (1990) Policy processes in planning, Policy and Politics, 18(1), pp. 91– 103.
Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning (London, Macmillan).
Healey, P., McNamara, P., Elson, M. & Doak, A. (1988) Land Use Planning and the Mediation of Urban Change: The
British Planning System in Practice (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
Held, D. (1987) Models of Democracy (Cambridge, Polity Press).
Heseltine, M. (2007) Cities Renaissance: Creating Local Leadership, Submission to the Shadow Cabinet Cities Taskforce
(London, Conservative Party).
Hillier, J. (2002) Shadows of Power: An Allegory of Prudence in Land-Use Planning (London, Routledge).
Hoggett, P. (1991) A new management in the public sector?, Policy and Politics, 19(4), pp. 243–256.
Imrie, R. & Raco, M. (Eds) (2003) Urban renaissance? New Labour, Community and Urban Policy (Bristol, Policy
Press).
Innes, J. (1995) Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: communicative action and interactive practice, Journal of
Planning Education and Research, 14(4), pp. 183 –189.
Innes, J. (1999) Consensus building in complex and adaptive systems: a framework for evaluating collaborative
planning, Journal of the American Planning Association, 65, pp. 412– 423.
Innes, J. & Booher, D. (2004) Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century, Planning Theory and
Practice, 5(4), pp. 419–436.
Kitchen, T. & Whitney, D. (2004) Achieving more effective public engagement with the English planning system,
Planning, Practice and Research, 19(4), pp. 393–413.
Krishnaryan, V. & Thomas, H. (1993) Ethnic minorities and the planning system (London, RTPI).
Krishnaryan, V. & Thomas, H. (Eds) (1994) Race Equality and Planning: Policies and Procedures (Aldershot,
Avebury).
Lawless, P. (2006) Area-based urban interventions: rationale and outcomes: the new deal for communities
programme in England, Urban Studies, 43(11), pp. 1991–2011.
MHLG (1969) People and Planning, Ministry for Housing and Local Government, “The Skeffington Report” (London,
HMSO).
National Planning Aid Unit (2007) Year 4 National Quarterly Monitoring Report, April 2006–March 2007.
Unpublished.
Newman, J. (2001) Modernising Governance: New Labour, Policy and Society (London, Sage Publications).
ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (2003) Participatory Planning for Sustainable Communities:
International Experience in Mediation, Negotiation and Engagement in Making Plans (London, ODPM).
ODPM (2004a) Community Involvement in Planning: The Government’s Objectives (London, ODPM).
ODPM (2004b) Diversity and Equality in Planning: A Good Practice Guide (London, ODPM).
ODPM (2005) Improving Delivery of Mainstream Services in Deprived Areas: The Role of Community Involvement,
Research Report 16 (London, ODPM).
Phelps, N. & Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2000) Scratching the surface of collaborative and associative governance:
identifying the diversity of social action in institutional capacity building, Environment and Planning A, 32,
pp. 111–130.
Raco, M. (2005) Sustainable development, rolled-out neoliberalism and sustainable communities, Antipode, 37(2),
pp. 324–347.
Reeves, D. & Burley, K. (2002) Public inquiries and development plans in England: the role of Planning Aid,
Planning Practice and Research, 17(4), pp. 407–428.
248 J. Carpenter & S. Brownill

RTPI (Royal Town Planning Institute) (1998) Feasibility study into the recruitment of black and ethnic minorities into the
planning profession (London, RTPI).
RTPI (2003) Planning Aid Main Programme Delivery Plan October 2003–March 2006. Paper presented to
National Planning Aid Programme Board, 1 August.
RTPI & the Commission for Racial Equality (1983) Planning for a Multi-Racial Britain (London, Commission for
Racial Equality).
Sandercock, L. (1998) Towards Cosmopolis (Chichester, John Wiley).
Shaw, D. (2006) Culture Change and Planning (London, CLG).
South East Planning Aid (2006) Engaging Communities Facing Change: Lessons from Kent Thameside, a National Pilot
Project in the Thames Gateway, June 2006 (London, RTPI).
Stoker, G. (2004) Transforming Local Governance (Basingstoke, Palgrave).
Sykes, R. (2003) Planning Reform: A Survey of Local Authorities (London, Local Government Association).
Thomas, H. (1992) Volunteers involved in Planning Aid, Town Planning Review, 63(1), pp. 47– 62.
Thomas, H. (1996) Public participation in planning, in: M. Tewdwr-Jones (Ed.) British Planning Policy in Transition
(London, UCL Press).
Thornley, A. (1993) Urban Planning under Thatcherism: The Challenge of the Market, 2nd edn (London, Routledge).