Presentation by Scot and Hardman at UWE Planning Theory conference May 2011

1. Delivering the Big Society: Is spatial planning theory limiting the way we see the world? Alister Scott and Michael Hardman Centre for Environment and Society Research Birmingham City University

2. PLAN Qvistrom’s (2007) ‘Spaces of Disorder’ Theoretical Roots Land uses at the ‘Fringe’ Re- Connecting Spatial Planning Theory

3. ‘Spaces of Disorder’ ‘A distinctive feature of spatial planning has for a long time been the desire to establish orderly places… planning still aims at regulation and the creation of places with an unquestionable character of city or country, nature or culture, public or private, and with a clear purpose of what is to be done there and by whom’ (Qvistrom, 2007: 270)

4. Theoretical Roots 1 Ordering and controlling space (Qvistrom, 2007) ‘the reduction of three-dimensional realities to two dimensions’ (Lefebvre, 1991: 285) Planners have a particular way of seeing – (Lefebvre, 1991; Qvistrom, 2007; Scott 2002) ‘…Spatial abstractions…perpetuate a rational modern and technocentric viewpoint…’the planner’s eye view’ (Hubbard, 2006: 77)

5. Theoretical Roots 2 Too much reliance on the visual (Scott et al, 2009) ‘Landscapes do not have edges, they are seamless webs which extend out in all directions, constrained only by the conceptual horizons of people for whom spaces mean something.’ (Darvill, 1998: 16) ‘that which is merely seen is reduced to an image – and to an icy coldness’ (Lefebvre, 1991: 286)

6. Land uses at the ‘Fringe’ ‘ILLICIT CULTIVATION OF SOMEONE ELSE’S LAND’ (Reynolds, 2008: 16) ‘a system by which we can exist on the earth by using the energy that is in flux and relatively harmless, and by using the food and natural resources that are abundant in such a way that we don’t continually destroy life on earth’. (Mollison, 1991: 1)

7. Challenging Convention: Constraints and Opportunities with Spatial Planning Pushing boundaries Lifestyle philosophy New opportunity space? Artificial boundaries Marginalisation Contesting sustainable development

8. Pushing Boundaries Both challenge the conventional use of space Both challenge the spatial planner’s perceived order: ‘the purpose of what is to be done there and by whom’ (Qvistrom, 2007: 270) Both champion an environmental ethic above all else

9. Lifestyle Philosophy Philosophy drives actions not institutions Institutions marginalise alternative lifestyles (Hopwitt and Lunkapis, 2010) (Brithdirmawr.co.uk, 2011) Holistic approach challenging the artificial separation of policy areas

10. New opportunity space? In Theory Negative Reactive Controlled Proactive Adaptive Positive Enablers (Adapted from: Middleton, 2010; Mommaas & Jansen, 2006; Scott et al, 2009)

11. New opportunity space? In reality… Does not always translate immediately Dependent on local institutional context Bureaucratic barriers International campaign and protest Adaptive management Really want to work with planners? ‘there’s no fun in that’ (Hardman, 2011: 10) (Scott, 2001: 278)

12. Artificial Boundaries Agriculture includes horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy farming, the breeding and keeping of livestock (including any creature kept for the production of food, wool, skins or fur, or for the purpose of its use in the farming of land), the use of land as grazing land, meadow land, osier land, market gardens and nursery grounds, and the use of land for woodlands where that use is ancillary to the farming of land for other agricultural purposes, and ‘agricultural’ shall be construed accordingly.’ Town and Country Planning Act 1990/S336

13. Artificial Boundaries Legislation problematic for Permaculture Practice a form of self sustaining food production BUT‘…not classified as a valid form of agricultural activity under the Act’ (Scott, 2001: 280) Confusing for guerrillas too Practise a form of ‘urban agriculture’ (rearing livestock and producing food in the city) F Troop - Symbolic production of food Solo guerrilla – Fresh produce for neighbours in an alley

14. Marginalisation of Groups Spatial planner’s quest for order marginalises guerrillas/permaculturalists Destruction of guerrilla sites/unauthorised developments

15. Marginalisation of Place Abstraction from space - marginalisation Fringe spaces marginalised (Qvistrom, 2007: 277) “out of mind; seen but potential not understood”

16. Contesting Sustainable Development The Inspector’s view ‘Because of its location in the national park, where the protection of landscape and scenic beauty are especially important, this visually poor quality building neither harmonises with nor enhances its surroundings. Indeed it causes them demonstrable harm .’ (Planning Inspector in: Scott, 2002: 284) Cause more important than rules ‘ “that’s not appropriate”, someone said to me “that’s not appropriate, the council should do that” So you’ve got to be a bit braver and just keep going and not give up.’ (Guerrilla Gardener interview conducted by Michael Hardman)

17. Outcomes From Illegal activity to Exemplar Illegal origins Key players Power Acceptance Promotion

18. Outcomes From opportunity space to failure (Gruenewelle, 2006) (Gruenewelle, 2008) (Rosa Rose Garten, 2008) (Gruenewelle, 2008)

19. “Re-Challenging” Spatial Planning Theory Idealistic goals crossing a legal minefield Planners trapped/comfortable in regulatory functions? (Taylor, 2010)

20. Developing Spatial Planning Theory Need to focus on the micro-practices of local governance and decision making (Olsen 1989; Gualini, 2010) Meanings of place have been transformed and changed through experience and occupation (Scott et al 2009) Realising potentials of space through new lenses which challenge establish order (Qvistrom 2007) Opportunity Or Threat?

21. Any Question?