The role of urban planners in the UK has changed due to the increasing influence of neoliberal ideology. Planners were once seen as apolitical technicians focused on social welfare, but now promote entrepreneurship and work with private enterprises. Neoliberalism has also transformed suburbia from isolated residential areas into decentralized, deregulated spaces that attract investment and prioritize private interests over public goods. While critics argue this undermines environmental and social outcomes, supporters see benefits like limited government and economic growth. The evolution of neoliberal policies has spatially reconfigured cities and reshaped the governance and objectives of urban planning.

1. Changing Role Of Planners in UK
Changing Role Of Planners in UKNeoliberal ideology has undergone evolution over the
years to gain its present influence which has changed the public policy in the UK and in
specific the roles regarding market, state and individual policy. The changing role of
planning may be discussed with reference to suburban growth and how the concept of
suburbia has changed over the years (Peck, 2011, p. 889). In the past suburbs were created
as less-than-urban centers where not much of significance took place and with bland
politics and manicured lawns being the face of the region. A twist has occurred where now
suburbia exhibits neoliberal thought through deregulation, spatial planning and
decentralization (Gunder, 2010, p. 302). It is a new era in which neoliberal ideology has
gained dominance hence economic development translating to more open, competitive as
well as unregulated markets which are free from state interference.The ideology of
neoliberalismNeoliberalism (a political philosophy) is the support of economic
liberalization, unregulated trade, privatization, reduced regulation, and enhancement of
private sector’ s role in the society. The Neoliberalization process has become a catalyst
and an expression of the present creative destruction taking place on political-economic
space at various geographical scales. It is as if neoliberalism has become a collective form of
liberalism which has combined classical liberalism with Keynesianism and theory of
growth. Through the neoliberalization process the policy settings have changed hence
influencing the role of planning. Government function for instance has changed to a
decentralized, depoliticalized as well as agencified one (Jessop, 2000, p. 324). Privatism has
set in and the common good has now been replaced by the priority of the client or the
consumer. This means that the right of individuals to own specific things privately is
recognized. The common interests are hence overshadowed by immediate interests of
people.SuburbiaSuburbia refers to suburbs collectively or those that inhabit them. A suburb
is a residential region that exists as a part of an urban area or a city. Alternatively, a suburb
may be viewed as a residential community that is situated separate from the city but within
commuting distance of the same. It should be understood that neoliberalization is not a final
state but a process that is subject to changes in ideology. The suburban concept of today is
reflective of this evolved form of neoliberalism which is characterized by open-endedness,
decentralization, privatization and practices that are market-oriented (Peck, 2011, p. 891).
In the past, suburbia developed because of the desire of people to move from the big
problems associated with big cities. It was departure from metropolitan planning and
excessive regulation by municipal authorities. Suburbs were considered to be realization of

2. self-rule in a naturalized form through establishment of a small government and residential
migration that is tax-induced. Although neoliberalism does not promote seclusion, its
philosophy supports principles that are in action in suburbs. Integrating neoliberalism and
suburbia has resulted in a new form of suburbia that does not necessarily have to seclude
the residential area but that seeks to transform city life from extreme regulation to
deregulation, privatization and free trade among other changes.Changing role of
plannersPlanners posed as visionaries or the pioneers of hope (Nelson, 2005). They help to
reconcile the differing perspectives existent in the society. Prior to neoliberal dominance
and the influence caused by its ideology, planners were considered apolitical technicians
who held ‘ neutral’ tools that enabled economic development without bias of exploitation
of the public resources (Nelson, 2005, p. 64). They were social engineers and not focused on
enterprise but the welfare of the society. Another role of planners is the acting as agents
such that their partnership with state enhances the promotion of free markets. In planning,
market is used to refer to land and property.The support for municipal activities that was in
the past promoted by the central government, now gets dismantled under neoliberal policy.
As such, tasks are devolved and responsibilities and burdens are no longer shared between
the central government and the municipality. Planners no longer serve as social engineers
but instead promote entrepreneurism which is even rewarded through local incentives
established by the municipalities. Rather than rely on the central government for funding,
the municipalities seek revenue from local sources of revenue and given that private
enterprises and other private finance instruments contribute to this revenue, privatization
is promoted. This means that planners no longer work with the state to realize free markets
but instead work with private enterprises to address the clients’ interests. This means that
the planner does not seek to exert positive influence but rather hopes to employ their
expertise to meet the objectives of their employer. In essence, the planner changes from
being a visionary and a savior to being a perpetuator of the neoliberal ideology.The
planning framework changes from public housing and low rent residential structures to
new interest in real estate markets. Emergency shelter which was existent in previous cities
gets transformed to warehouses which accommodate the homeless. Construction subsidies
that are project based get eliminated together with rent controls. In their place, market
rents are created and in low-rent niches, the planners develop tenant-based vouchers.
National space-economies become fragmented and in their place urban industrial systems
are developed. Technopoles are created, industrial spaces are developed at a subnational
scale and planners therefore adopt an economic development based agenda (Mishtal, 2010,
p. 58). Rather than champion for the social development, planners now support revenue
generation, increased investment and corporate consumption.The planning role which
previously appreciated occupation of urban public spaces now strives to eliminate these
spaces or alternatively intensify their surveillance. The planner does not find working-class
neighborhoods necessary and instead destroys these traditional structures aiming to create
space for speculative redevelopment. The planner was previously a friend of the community
and engaged in planning initiatives that were community-oriented. However, under
neoliberal policy systems, this role of the planner is removed and planning initiatives now
prioritize the interests of elites and corporate. Large scale megaprojects are created given

3. that they attract investment from corporate entities (Mishtal, 2010, p. 58). Local land use
patterns are hence reconfigured and creation of privatized spaces becomes an acceptable
practice. The planning structure does not mix social reproduction with industrial space.
Instead industrial space is developed separate from social reproduction centers. Social
reproduction is allowed to occur in urban enclaves and gated communities, which are
created as ‘ purified’ spaces. These spaces are solely developed with the objective of
promoting social reproduction. Planning decisions therefore are made based on the
principle of ‘ highest and best use’ regarding land use.The rise of neoliberal
governanceNeoliberal governance and its rise were founded on suburbanization dynamics
which developed in the post war period under Keynesian thought (Allmendinger and
Haughton, 2013, p. 18). Debate during the 19th century on liberalism focused on the
negative nature of liberalism with critics considering it corrupted. Instead of acknowledging
private voluntary arrangements, liberalism exhibited a tendency to seek intervention of the
state with common terminologies in use being welfare and equality instead of what really
needed to be addressed – freedom (Allmendinger and Haughton, 2013, p. 19). This was to
change in the mid 20th century and by late 20th century the failures of urbanism created
through Keynesian thought developed need for alterations on the perspective of people
regarding liberalism (Allmendinger and Haughton, 2013, p. 19). The new ideology treated
welfare and equality not as primary elements in liberalism but as alternatives to freedom
hence resulting in policy changes regarding state intervention and eradication of classical
liberalism. The change that has occurred over the centuries regarding liberalism is more
pronounced when the economic rather than the political dimension is evaluated. Political
changes are few including promotion of decentralized power and less focus on
liberty.Neoliberal vision has integrated post Keynesian ideology to result in the new face of
liberalism which is in support of devolution, decentralized power and deregulation. It
should be noted that natural factors have caused a new political environment to emerge
where population density is high, uneven restructuring landscapes are common and
metropolitan regions are under splintered governance regimes. It is perhaps this situation
that has fueled the creation of new suburbs which are not just secluded centers
characterized by large lawns and trees but that are now political units independent of
government’ s intervention and that utilize state powers to become distinguished
residential and economic centers compared to the city. The independence established under
neoliberalism now has influenced suburbia to detach itself from social and financial
responsibility (Gleeson and Low, 2000, p. 8). This has been achieved through establishment
of crabgrass governance in suburbia where political economies that are centrifugal have
been made and exploited. Under this form of governance, the community perceives
grassroots rule to be important and tailor their government to suit the needs of the
citizens.Critics of neoliberal suburbiaNeoliberal suburbia is a new form of suburbia that has
incorporated neoliberal principles such as deregulation, privatization, free trade as well as
open markets. It is the belief of libertarians that the logic and rational of suburbia is wrong
given that the entire system is characterless and the space planning is antisocial. It is their
view that the best thing is for people to adjust to the metro-cosmopolitan lifestyle where
residents live in urban townhouses that are situated off the busy streets, they have no yards,

4. are full of shops as well as restaurant and these enterprises can easily be accessed since
they are placed within walking distance from homes. However, this criticism is stated by
supporters of suburban neoliberalism as a concealed attack that is aimed at eliminating
deregulation and free markets by biased politicians and technocrats (Gunder, 2010, p.
304).Further criticism on suburbia and suburban development argues that it impacts on
food security and other natural resources such as air, water quality and wildlife. The
seclusion and independence created under neoliberal suburbanism is also cited to result in
social alienation, higher taxes and low wages (Lai, 2008, p. 262). In fact, higher taxes are a
factor that has been used frequently by elected officials who oppose housing growth. They
express that this lower density and sprawling development results in increased government
expenditure hence necessitating taxes to be increased.Although criticism has been directed
at neoliberal suburbanism, there are those who defend the ideology and refer to the
positive elements of the ideology including the small-government solutions which are
considered effective and consumer sovereignty which promotes economic growth and
positive development. Neoliberalism is appropriate in limiting bureaucratic planning which
is centralized and regulated highly. It is obvious that big cities develop and introduce big
problems such as congestion, poverty, unionization of government administrations and
dilution of voter power (Lai, 2008, p. 262). It is appropriate to have intervention measures
like land utilization which is practiced in neoliberalization and introduction of economic
efficiency.Neoliberalization (spaces of the ideology applied to cities)Cities presently are
developed in a geoeconomic environment that is very uncertain and that exhibits elements
such as monetary chaos, speculations regarding financial capital changes as well as
interlocality competition that is intensifying at a very rapid rate. The disorder spreads from
local settings to the global scale. Many local governments consequently have experienced
constraints as they attempt to adjust to the rising levels of economic uncertainty, resolving
the uncertainty with short-term interspatial competition and undercutting of regulation so
that investments and jobs can be attracted.There are those cities that have adopted
neoliberal programs to deal with the above problems. This has been achieved through
‘ interiorization’ of neoliberal programs into policy regimes for urban centers
(Viswanathan, 2010, p. 271). The move is a form of territorial alliance that is projected to
rejuvenate local economies through a shock treatment strategy. Enhanced fiscal austerity is
part of this shock treatment. The policy experiments being performed target cities
especially suburban peripheries. Examples of these neoliberal policy experiments are tax
abatements for local geographies, partnership between public and private sectors, place-
marketing and social control strategies. The primary idea in this neoliberal policy is to
mobilize city space so that this space is utilized as platform for economic growth that is
market oriented and where elite consumption practices are performed. Although highly
effective in rejuvenating local economies, the new policies are found to be partially
destructive. Majorly, though, neoliberal policy is highly creative and open to independent
practice.Evolution of neoliberal policyThe neoliberal policy was initially deployed in the late
1970s in the United Kingdom. In the initial stages of ‘ proto-neoliberalism’ cities and urban
centers were targeted and in the economic dislocations that occurred, struggles ensued
between proponents and opponents (Arampatzi and Nicholls, 2012, p. 2598). Further

5. struggle was evident in different types of sociopolitical struggles. Collective consumption
gained prominence politically and there was a perspective that this new approach reflected
urban phenomenon under capitalist ideology. Modernizing alliances found themselves
struggling with preservationists regarding the appropriate form of economic restructuring
that should occur especially given the challenges faced in the post war regime. In the
agreement established, neoliberal policy was only adopted in stages with local economic
initiatives got adopted in older industrial centers aiming to renew growth although this was
performed while maintaining sociopolitical settlements.Spatial planningThe role of
planning on a general scale today boils down to spatial governance influenced by neoliberal
policy. The governance discourse is a representation of a specific ‘ art of government’
which has roots in liberal concept regarding the state. Political consensus is stressed,
accommodation is mutual and problems are solved in a collective mechanism. The space of
power is applied in politics where partnerships are promoted and self-rule is practiced.
Spatial planning is considered to have gained root in modern urban centers based on
necessities such as ecological and economic ones. Rationality and logic are replaced with
market-oriented, revenue focused and private-enterprization. Planning as well as
economics are some of the elements that are calculated through rational mechanisms
(Roberts, 2003, p. 872).The dilemma develops regarding the new role of planners. Now
acting as brokers, and sometimes facilitators, the planners target to redeem themselves by
facilitating consensus-based strategies in decision making. This redemption is sought by
planners given their failures in the past. Earlier phases of interventionism by planners
resulted in political backlash since their strategy bore negative results. The 1980s too
marked an era of failure by planners who contributed to failure of pro-market planning. The
newest planning role under the new spatial planning orthodoxy calls for associational
networks and planning through collaborative mechanisms (Kaup, 2010, p. 129). The
neoliberal planner will now prioritize shared understanding in land-use. He is a partner of
the municipality and the private sector. He is a facilitator of consensus or a broker of the
same. The planning profession is not an independent institution but one that depends on
other institutions like the government and the private sector.ConclusionThe role of
planning has changed. The decentralization, deregulation and privatization that have been
introduced by neoliberal policy have contributed to this change. Planners were originally
saviors, social engineers and visionaries but now they seek to facilitate consensus. They act
as partners with the state and the private entities given that self-rule is promoted and
revenue is obtained from local sources of revenue. Since private investment is one means of
gaining revenue, the local government therefore promotes privatization and planners are
expected to work with these groups to realize the new objectives. The suburban image that
was in the past perceived to be a form of seclusion and widely recognized as a center
characterized by manicured lawns and tress has now changed under neoliberal
policy.ReferencesAllmendinger, P. and Haughton G., 2013, The Evolution and Trajectories of
English Spatial Governance: ‘ Neoliberal’ Episodes in Planning, Planning, Practice &
Research, 28(1): 6 – 26Arampatzi, A. and Nicholls W. J., 2012, The urban roots of anti-
neoliberal social movements: The case of Athens, Greece, Environment and Planning A,
44(11): 2591 – 2610Gleeson, B. and Low N., 2000, ‘ Unfinished Business’ : Neoliberal

6. Planning Reform in Australia, Urban Policy & Research, 18(1): 7 -28Gunder, M., 2010,
Planning as the ideology of (neoliberal space), Planning Theory, 4: 298 – 314Jessop, B.,
2000, The crisis of the national spatiotemporal fix and the ecological dominance of
globalizing capitalism, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24: 323 –
360Kaup, B., 2010, A Neoliberal Nationalization, Latin American Perspectives, 37(3): 123 -
138Lai, C., 2008, The Neoliberal City: Governance, Ideology, and Development in American
Urbanism, Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(2): 262Mishtal, J., 2010,
Neoliberal reforms and privatisation of reproductive health services in post-socialist
Poland, Reproductive Health Matters, 18(36): 56 -66Nelson, R. H., 2005, Private
Neighborhoods and the Transformation of Local Government.Washington, DC: Urban
Institute.Peck, J., 2011, Neoliberal Suburbanism: Frontier Space, Urban Geography, 32(6):
884 – 919Roberts, S., 2003, Neoliberal Geopolitics, Antipode, 35(5): 886 – 897Viswanathan
L., 2010, Contesting racialization in a neoliberal city: cross-cultural collective formation as a
strategy among alternative social planning organizations in Toronto, Geojournal, 75(3): 261
– 272