ExploringNewModelsofCommunity-basedPlanningintheDevolvedUK

ProjectReport

SimonPembertonDeborahPeel

AScopingStudyfundedbythe

October2016

ii

AbouttheAuthorsSimonPemberton,PhD, isReader inHumanGeographyatKeeleUniversity.Simonworked on several post-doctoral research projects concerned with ruralregeneration partnership working and the institutional governance of transportbeforebecomingHeadofRegeneration for a local authority inNorthWales.Afterfour years in practice, Simon took up the position of Director of the MerseysideSocialInclusionObservatoryattheUniversityofLiverpoolbetween2004and2010.Subsequently,SimonheldthepositionofSeniorLecturerinGeographyandPlanningat the University of Birmingham. In 2013 he was appointed Reader in HumanGeography at Keele University. His academicwork has a strong policy applicationand bridges the geography-planning-public policy interface. He has researchinterestsinthreemainareas:1)Therescalingofthestateandimplicationsforurbanand rural regeneration; 2) Superdiversity and urban planning; and 3) Community-basedplanning.Email:s.pemberton@keele.ac.ukDeborahPeel,PhD, isaFrenchgraduate, social scientistand independent scholar.Followingaperiodofsometenyearsworkinginlocalgovernmentintownplanning(1989-1999), Deborah held academic positions at theUniversities ofWestminster,Dundee,Liverpool,andUlster.MostrecentlysheheldtheChairofArchitectureandPlanningat theUniversityofDundee. Since2016, she is EmeritusProfessorat theUniversityofDundeeandholds aVisitingProfessorshipatWageningenUniversity.She has researched and published widely, including studies of communitydevelopment trusts, the reformandmodernisationof statutory landuseplanning,and education and training in the built environment. She is an Executive BoardMemberoftheEuropeanObservatoryonLocalAutonomy.Email:d.peel@dundee.ac.ukAcknowledgementsTheauthorsaregratefultothePlanningExchangeFoundationforsupportingthiswork.Theauthorswouldalsoliketothankallthosewhoagreedtobeinterviewedforthisstudy.DisclaimerLinkstomaterialswereaccurateat22October2016.Wherepossiblewehaveusedopensourcedmaterials.

3

Contents

Page(s)

Abouttheauthors Ii

Acknowledgements Ii

Disclaimer Ii

1.INTRODUCTION 6-11

1.1Context 6

1.2Structureofthereport 6

1.3Backgroundtothestudy 7-8

1.4Studyaim 8-9

1.5Studyobjectives 9-10

1.6Methodology 10-11

1.7Researchethics 11

2.CONTEXTFORCOMMUNITYPLANNING 12-16

2.1.Introduction 12-13

2.2Localserviceprovisionanddelivery 13-14

2.3Definingcommunityplanning 14-16

2.4Summary 16

3.COMMUNITYPLANNINGARRANGEMENTSINTHEDEVOLVEDUK

17-22

3.1Introduction 17

3.2Scalarrelations 17-18

3.3 Legislative, policy and organisationalarrangements

18-21

3.4Summary 22-23

4. MODELS AND PRACTICES IN JOINT-WORKING

24-37

4.1Introduction 24-25

4

4.2Modelsofcommunityplanning 25-27

4.3 Designing joint-working arrangements forcommunityplanning

28

4.3.1Policyincrementalism 28-29

4.3.2Resourcing 28-29

4.4 Organisation of joint-working relations forcommunityplanning

30

4.4.1Cross-scalarworking 30-32

4.4.2Theimportanceofcentre-localrelations 32-34

4.4.3Organisationanddeliveryinpractice 33-34

4.5 Management of joint-working relations forcommunityplanning

35

4.5.1Outcomes-basedworking 36-37

4.6Summary 37

5.COMMUNITYENGAGEMENT 38-43

5.1Democraticdimensions 38-41

5.2Technocraticdimensions 41-43

5.3Summary 43

6. COMMUNITYPLANNINGAND LANDUSEPLANNING

44-50

6.1 Constructing a link between communityplanningandlanduseplanning

44-45

6.2 Differentiated experiences across thedevolvedUK

46

6.2.1England 46-47

6.2.2Wales 47-48

6.2.3Scotland 48-49

6.2.4NorthernIreland 49-50

6.3Summary 50

7.CONCLUSIONSANDRESEARCHAGENDAS 51-55

7.1 Conceptual / terminological issues incommunityplanning

51

5

7.2Communityplanningasevolvingpolicy 51-52

7.3Thegovernanceofcommunityplanning 52-53

7.4 The scaling and re-scaling of communityplanningactivity

53-54

7.5Politics,powerandcommunityplanning 54-55

8.STUDYDISSEMINATION 56

9.REFERENCES 57-60

APPENDIX1:INTERVIEWSCHEDULE 61-62

6

1. INTRODUCTION1.1ContextThisreportsetsoutthefindingstoapilotstudyundertakenbetweenJuly2015andApril2016,andfunded by the Planning Exchange Foundation. Our motivation in carrying out this work was toextend,andfleshout,anearlierdesk-basedstudy1throughinterviewswithpeopledirectlyinvolvedinimplementingcommunityplanninginpractice.Our previous work was informed by a comparative literature review which highlighted issues inrelation to multi-level governance and the reworking and rescaling of service provision. Thereshaping of local – or community-based – governance has led to new types of service and newserviceproviders.Asstate-market-civilsocietyrelationsarereconfigured,theso-called‘filling-in’oflocalgovernanceraisesquestionsforthenatureofhorizontal,verticalandcross-scalarrelations,andjoint-working.Our purpose in undertaking this study was to get a sense of perceptions and experience on theground of those directly involved in implementing community planning. Set against the evolvinglegal and policy background to community planning in the devolved UK, this report summarisessomeofthekeyfindingsandthemesemergingincontemporarycommunityplanningpracticewithaviewtomappinganumberofresearchpriorities.1.2StructureofthereportThisopeningsectionprovidesthebackgroundtothestudy.Wesetouttheresearchaim,objectivesandmethodology.Thenextsectiondefinesthecontextforunderstandingcommunityplanning,andwe draw attention to wider strategies of public sector reform and issues in relation to theterminologyofcommunityplanning.The coreof the report isorganisedaroundour researchobjectiveswhicharegroupedunder fourheadings:

• Section3:CommunityplanningarrangementsinthedevolvedUK.• Section4:Modelsandpracticesofjoint-working.• Section5:Communityengagement.• Section6:Communityplanningandlanduseplanning.

In theconclusions, Section7,we teaseout thekeypoints,makesomegeneral recommendations,and set out a number of priorities for future research. Section 8 explainswhatwe have done intermsofdisseminatingthework.Section9liststheprincipalreferencesused.

1Pemberton,S.,Peel,D.andLloyd,M.G.(2015)The‘fillingin’ofcommunity-basedplanninginthedevolvedUK?.TheGeographicalJournal,181(1),pp.6-15.

7

1.3BackgroundtothestudyEffortstoprovideappropriatepublicservicesthatareeffective,efficientandequitableisnotanewconcern.2Overtime,changingeconomiccontextsandsocietaltrends,suchasanageingpopulation,aconcernwithinequalityandresourceconstraints,haveprovidednewconditionsforre-thinkingthetype,nature,scaleandmodeofdeliveryofpublicservices.FollowingtheRioEarthSummitin1992,forexample,effortstopromotesustainabledevelopmentundertheLocalAgenda21initiativewereanattempttojoinupservicesatthelocal leveltobetteraddresscommunityneeds,particularly inareasofdeprivation.3Notwithstandingthepresententhusiasmforcommunityplanning,thefamilyofcommunity-basedgovernanceinitiativeshasalongpedigree.Community planning takes various forms, andmodels of community planning comprise differentdimensions,includingfocusingoncommunityengagementtechniques,4ideasrelatingtosupportingcommunity enterprises and bodies, and involvement in service delivery by the third sector, forexample.5 Indeed, it is acknowledged that different interpretations – or social constructions – ofcommunityplanningcansometimesmuddythewatersintermsofdifferentparties’expectations.Important threads running through community planning debates are issues of control, and theextent to which public services are best managed at centralised or local levels. As services areredesigned, questions are then raised in relation to the remit and responsibilities of serviceproviders;howtoresource,manageandintegrateservices;howtomaintainqualitystandards;andhow tomanage roles, relationships and expectations across the different interest groups. In thispilot study, we wished to explore current practices of community planning in England, Scotland,Wales and Northern Ireland with a view to mapping comparative experience and identifyingresearchpriorities.Lyingbehindthegeneralnotionof ‘communityplanning’ isadrivetowardsthedecentralisationofservices to enable more responsive local services, support greater influence and control bycommunity and voluntary groups, and offer greater sensitivity to user needs in defined places orlocalities.6IntheUK,communityplanninghasthusemergedasaspecifictypeof‘policypartnershipvehicle’ to address a range of issues. From an organisational perspective, community planning isdesigned to assist in reducing service duplication, overcome organisational fragmentation, anddeliverrelativelymoreintegrated–andbetter–publicservices.Fromacommunity–orcivilsocietyperspective – the emphasis has been on securing greater – and earlier – engagement, offeringimproved and more coherent service responses to complex needs, and, in some cases,decentralisingresponsibilityforservicedesignanddelivery.

2Terry,F.(2004).PublicManagement–TimeforaRe-launch.Availableat:http://www.publicnet.co.uk/features/2004/01/30/public-management-%E2%80%93-time-for-a-re-launch/3Lucas,K.,Ross,A.andFuller,S.(2003)LocalAgenda21,communityplanningandneighbourhoodrenewal,York:JosephRowntreeFoundation.Availableat:https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/local-agenda-21-community-planning-and-neighbourhood-renewal4See,forexample,CommunityPlaces(2013)CommunityPlanningToolkit:Communityengagement,Belfast:CommunityPlaces.Availableat:http://www.communityplanningtoolkit.org/sites/default/files/Engagement.pdf5Escobar,O.(2015)ReimaginingCommunityPlanninginScotland:AVisionfromtheThirdSector,Edinburgh:WhatWorksScotland.Availableat:http://www.vascotland.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/WP-Reimagining-Community-Planning-august-2015.pdf6See,forexample,theScottishGovernment’s(2016)consultationdraftoncommunityplanningguidance.Availableat:https://consult.scotland.gov.uk/community-empowerment-unit/community-planning-guidance/user_uploads/00497123.pdf-1

8

Interestingly, in England for example, specific interest has been paid to the delivery of housing,through a particular model of community planning, that of neighbourhood planning. This focusdrawsattentiontotherelationshipbetweenthecommunityplan,understoodashavingaservicesfocus, and local development plans, which have a physical remit, and are concerned with theallocation,useanddevelopmentof land.Howtomanagethisrelationshipraisesseveralquestionswhich, we felt, were important to explore, particularly since the introduction of a statutory linkbetweencommunityplanningandlanduseplanninginthe2014legislationforNorthernIreland,forexample,andsimilardebatesinScotland.7Moves to ‘empower’ communities, as in theCommunityEmpowerment (Scotland)Act2015,havewitnessed new statutory rights being developed and strengthened, including, the right to buy. Intandem, new statutory duties have been devised. These duties includemechanisms for requiringstatutorypublicbodies towork together, toworkactively toengage localpeople, and towork tosupportlocalcommunitiesiftheywishtodelivertheirownservices.Assuch,newrelationsbetweendifferent ‘partners’, and at different scales, are emerging. This inter-sectoral working involvesattendingtoaspectsofcross-scalargovernance.Theevolutionofcommunityplanningacross theUKhas involvednewapproaches toperformancemanagement.Arangeofmeasuresdedicatedtoassessingtheeffectivenessofcommunityplanninghasdeveloped.Initiallydrivenbyaconcernwithoutputsandprocesses,thismonitoringaspecthaswitnessedaturntoanoutcomes-basedapproach.Here,thereisevidenceofaturntoconcentrateonawell-beingfocus,a‘policymove’whichoffersamoreholisticwayofappreciatingserviceaims.Finally, since political devolution, efforts to implement service decentralisation have witnesseddifferencesinapproachinEngland,Scotland,WalesandNorthernIreland,reflectingprioritiesatthesub-national level. Inparticular,then,wewereinterestedinexaminingthereconfigurationof localpublicserviceprovisioninthecontextofpoliticaldevolutionintheUK.1.4StudyaimGiventherangeofinitiativesemerginginthebroadfieldofcommunity-basedgovernance,ouraimincarryingout this researchhasbeen tocritically reflecton theseparatedevelopments thathavetaken place across the devolved UK, and to see what shared learning may be derived from thedifferentapproachestodesigningandimplementingcommunityplanning.The literature highlights a number of themes. Previous studies have, for example, attempted toevaluate theprocessesandoutcomesofdifferentmodelsof communityplanning;andhighlightedissuesconcernedwith:resourcingandsupportforimplementingcommunityplanning,theextentofformalisationofgovernancearrangements, leadershipissues,thenatureof joint-working,scalesofworking, the importance of local and national politics and the regulatory environment forcommunity-basedplanning.8

7Forexample,oneofthequestionsaskedinthe2015/16“RootandBranch”ReviewofthePlanningSysteminScotlandspecificallyaskedwhattherelationshipbetweencommunityplanningandlanduseplanningshouldbe,recommendingstrongeralignment.Availableat:http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Built-Environment/planning/Review-of-Planning8Wells,P.andGoudie,R.(2005)ProcessEvaluationofPlanRationalisation:FormativeEvaluationofCommunityStrategies.London:OfficeoftheDeputyPrimeMinister.Availableat:https://www.shu.ac.uk/research/cresr/sites/shu.ac.uk/files/formative-eval-community-strategies.pdf

9

The report seeks to take forward work that has focused on how community planning mayencompass a spectrum of relational models, involving, for example, collaborative relations as aconsequenceofcross-boundaryworking,9aswellastherelationshipbetweencommunityplanningand land use planning.10 It also explores the extent to which working and service deliveryarrangements involve statutoryorvoluntary-stylemodelsof joint-working,andwhichmay involvethedevelopmentofamemorandumofunderstandingor‘concordat’approach.11Throughexamining thepolicy, legislativeandorganisationalarrangement forcommunityplanning,the report additionally considers theways community planning has been initiated and delivered.Buildingonourearlierwork,1213thestudyprovidesthebasisforconsideringpolicyconvergenceordivergence and the explicit policy learning evident within and between the devolvedadministrations.Thepurposeof this studywas to teaseoutpractitionerexperienceandcritical reflectionsonsuchissues in thedesignanddeliveryof localpublic services inEngland,Scotland,WalesandNorthernIreland,withaviewtobetterunderstandinghowcommunityplanningisoperatingontheground.Inparticular, we were concerned with exploring multi-level governance and joint-working in theprevailingcontextofpublicsectorreconfigurationandsustainedfinancialcut-backs.Intermsoftime-line,thestudyencompassestheperiodfollowingpoliticaldevolution,thatis,weareconcernedwith understanding community planning under the Scottish Parliament and theWelshandNorthernIrelandAssemblies.Thistime-frameisgenerallyacceptedashavingwitnessedvarianceinpublic servicedesign anddelivery across theUK.14 In short, a broader interest in constitutionalreform,andpoliticalpowersbeingdevolvedtothenation-regions,maybeseenashavingstimulateddiscussions about further devolution, decentralisation or diffusion of powers to local people.Community planning features as an important dimension of this broader agenda and meritsattention.1.5StudyobjectivesInformedbythesedebates,thisscopingstudywasdesignedaroundfivemainobjectives:

1. To identify and explain the legislative, policy and organisational arrangements forcommunity-basedplanningacrossthedevolvedUK.

2. Toidentifymodelsofjoint-workingundercommunity-basedplanning.3. Toexplorehowjoint-workingrelationsaredesigned,organisedandmanaged.

9Sullivan,H.andSkelcher,C.(2002)WorkingAcrossBoundaries:CollaborationinPublicServices,London:PalgraveMacmillan.10Peel,D.andLloyd,M.G.(2007)CommunityplanningandlanduseplanninginScotland:aconstructiveinterface?PublicPolicyandAdministration,22(3),pp.353-66.11Peel,D.andLloyd,M.G.(2012)TheEdinburghConcordat:Contractual,CollaborativePositivePlanning?,PublicPerformance&ManagementReview,36(2),pp.275-289.12Pemberton,S.andLloyd,M.G.(2008)Devolution,communityplanningandinstitutionalde-congestion?LocalGovernmentStudies,34(4),pp.437-451.13Pemberton,S.,Lloyd,M.G.andPeel,D.(2014)Thefillinginofcommunity-basedplanninginthedevolvedUK,TheGeographicalJournal,181(1),pp.6-15.14See,forexample,Deloitte(2014)TheStateoftheState2014-15,London:DeloitteLLP.http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/uk/Documents/public-sector/deloitt-uk-state-of-the-state-2014.pdf

10

4. Toconsidertheimplicationsarisinginrespectoftheinterestsreflectedwithinjoint-workingarrangementsandissuesofcommunityengagement.

5. Therelationshipbetweencommunityplanningandlanduseplanning.Giventheemerging interest indevelopingaconstructivebridgebetweencommunityplanningandstatutorylanduse–orspatial–planning,afinalobjectivewas:

6. Toidentifyresearchprioritiesforenhancingjoint-workingincommunity-basedplanningandlinkswithlanduseplanning.

1.6MethodologyInundertaking comparativework,our aimwas todevelopa structuredapproach toexploring thenature of community-based planning in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. Wereviewed the legislative, policy and organisational arrangements for community planning in eachnation,andundertookin-depthsemi-structuredinterviewswithkeyactorsinvolvedwithcommunityplanningineachofthedevolvedterritoriesbetweenJuly2015andApril2016(Table1).Table1:ResearchParticipants England Scotland Wales NorthernIrelandCentralGovernment

CommunitiesandLocalGovernment(x2)

ScottishGovernmentPublicBodies&PublicServiceReformDivision

WelshGovernmentLocalGovernmentDivision

GovernmentofNorthernIrelandDepartmentoftheEnvironment

LocalgovernmentassociationsforthefourcountriesoftheUK

LocalGovernmentAssociation

ConventionofScottishLocalAuthorities(COSLA)

WelshLocalGovernmentAssociation

NorthernIrelandLocalGovernmentAssociation

Communitybody(nationallevel)

LocalityPlanningAdvisoryService

PAS(formerlyPlanningAidforScotland)

- CommunityPlaces

Strategicpartner IndependentSteeringGroupmember

NationalHealthService

NationalHealthService

-

Localauthority Strategiclevel Strategiclevel Strategiclevelx3

Strategiclevel(x2)

Localauthority Deliverylevel(neighbourhoodplanning)

Communitylevel(regeneration)

Deliverylevel(sustainability)

LanduseplanningEducationandemployment

Table 1 shows that amulti-scalar,multi-sectoral approach informed the selection of participants,withtheaimofexploringdifferentagendasatdifferentlevels.Interviewswereconductednationallywith senior civil servants. Here, the objectivewas to develop a central government and strategicperspectiveoncommunity-basedplanningpractices,andtobetterunderstandhowthispolicyareahad evolved over time. In order to build up a local government perspective, interviews wereundertakenwithrepresentativesfromthelocalgovernmentassociationsofthefourcountriesoftheUK. The four Associations share a common agenda, making the case for subsidiarity beyondWestminster,Holyrood,Cardiff,andStormont,andstrengtheningthepowersof localgovernment,

11

increasingfiscalautonomyatthe local levelandstrengthening localdemocracy.15Theyalsoreflectsub-national priorities. In order to capture a community perspective, interviews with communitybodies with a national focus were undertaken and provided insights into the nature of evolvingcommunityroles,engagementdynamicsandpriorities.To illustratepracticeatthe localauthority level, foururban-centredminicasestudies(oneineachterritory)wereselectedto frame interviewswith local strategicandoperationalactors involved incommunity planning, including local authority officers and other partner organisations. Takentogether,theintentionwastodevelopacompositeinstitutionalpictureofcurrentpractice.AcopyofthetopicguideusedtostructuretheinterviewsisattachedasAppendixOne.We acknowledge that there are certain limitations in generalising from a small-scale, scopingproject.First,we inevitablyhad tobeselective in thenumberof interviewsundertaken.Wewerealert,however,tothefactthatcertainbodieshadanadvocacyroleorcampaigningelementaspartof their mandate. We understand, too, that government spokespersons, for example, werenecessarily constrained by their obligations to reflectministerial positions, and the timing of the2016generalelectionsinthedevolvedadministrations.Theperspectivesreflectedinthisstudy,wesuggest, are nevertheless indicative of the (small p) political nature of this topic. Second, weacknowledge thatweonly carriedout fourmini case studies. Thesewereurban-basedandplace-specific, so it is important to considerwhat rural, or island contextsmightmean for community-based planning and governance. Throughout, however, we were able to test and challengeassumptions through researcher triangulation and we suggest that the in-depth nature of theprojectofferssomeusefulinsightsintocontemporarycommunityplanningpractice.1.7ResearchethicsTworemarksarepertinent:Ethicalapprovalwasobtained fromthe respective institutions inpreparing thispilot study,withaviewtorespectingtheopinionsofthoseinterviewed.Allcommentsareanonymisedandeveryefforthasbeentakentoensurethatcommentsarenotattributable.Fulluseofmaterialsthatareopensourceismadeinordertofacilitateaccesstothestudyfindingsandwiderreferencematerial.

15See,forexample,UKCouncilsuniteindevolutioncall.Pressrelease.Availableat:http://www.cosla.gov.uk/news/2015/04/uk-council-leaders-unite-devolution-call

12

2. CONTEXTFORCOMMUNITYPLANNING2.1IntroductionBywayof contextualisation, it ishelpful to locate communityplanningwithinwider strategies forpublicsectorreform.Moreover,ahistoricalperspectiveprovidesacounterbalancetocontemporaryeffortstoeffectchange.Inthisrespect,aconcernwithfindingnewwaysofmanaginganddeliveringpublic services has been informed by alternative theories within the broad field of publicadministration. IdeasandpracticesassociatedwithNewPublicManagement, inparticular,maybeseenaspromptinganinterest indevelopingandimplementingefficiencygainsintraditionalpublicservice approaches. This agenda involved moving to the use of different service-providers, forexample,includingthecontractingoutoftypicalstateservicestodifferentproviders.16Thisshiftindeliverymodeprecipitateda turn to localgovernmentas the ‘enablingauthority’ rather thansoledeliverer.Overtime,citizensbecameconsumersofserviceswitha‘righttoexit’andservicequalitywas measured in terms of particular contractual relations and initiatives, such as the Citizen’sCharter.Sucharrangementsdefinedaparticularstate-citizensetofrelations.Giventhechangingarrangements,measuringtheeffectivenessofservicesbecameapriorityandarange of performance and evaluation tools and techniques followed. In recent times, continuouspublic spending cuts have accentuated a concern with how to reconfigure the Welfare State.Attempts to transformestablished expectations of the nature of aWelfare State have stimulatedparalleldebatesaroundtheprinciplesnecessarytoshapeservicedesignanddelivery.Asservicesarerationed,attentionhasdeliberatelyfocusedonissuesofequityandhowbesttoprioritiseservices.Here, the priority of tackling inequalities, particularly in relation to health and poverty, has takencentre-stage.17Propositions for service design and delivery are shaped by ideological perspectives, and serve toillustratecontestedsolutionsaroundtheappropriatebalanceofcontrolandresponsibilitybetweencentralandlocalgovernment.18Suchdebatesdrawattentiontothefunctional,territorialandscalardimensions of public sector activity and in what ways public policies and public services areredistributive.19A continued–and toa largedegreeamoreurgent–emphasisonmodernisationand reform has been driven by the effects of the global recession from 2008 and a particularideological responsedrivenby a commitment, by certainpolitical leaders, to financial austerity.Aconcernwithdevelopingmoreefficientservicesandmakingbestuseofresourceshaswitnessedtheintroductionofsharedservices,forexample.20Ineffect,reducedfinancialresourceshavemeantthat

16Wilson,J.(2004)NewManagementofPublicServices:TheUnitedKingdomExperience,ViešojiPolitikaIrAdministravimas,7,pp.49-59.Availableat:https://www.mruni.eu/upload/iblock/86f/6_j.wilson.pdf17See,forexample,thesigninguptotheUN’sSustainableDevelopmentGoalsbytheScottishGovernment.Availableat:http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Leading-the-way-in-tackling-inequality-1b49.aspx18See,forexample,Murray,J.(2014)PolicyPaper:Theroleoflocalgovernmentinamodernstate,London:CentreforLabourandSocialStudies.http://classonline.org.uk/docs/2014_the_role_of_local_government_in_the_modern_state.pdf19Keating,M.(2013)RescalingWelfare.PresentationtotheBritishAcademy/RoyalSocietyofEdinburghEnlighteningtheConstitutionaldebate.SeminaronWelfareandPublicServices,20November2013Glasgow.Availableat:https://www.royalsoced.org.uk/cms/files/events/programmes/2012-13/speaker_notes/MichaelKeating.pdf20Peel,D.,O’Keeffe,B.,Shi,L.,Leith,K.andKeaveney,K.(2012)SharedServicesAcrossLocalGovernment:SharingInternationalExperiences,Armagh:InternationalCentreforLocalandRegionalDevelopment(ICLRD).April.Availableat:URL:http://i2ud.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Shared-Services_International-Case-Studies.pdf

13

efforts to secure theon-going sustainability of service provision anddelivery at a local level havebecomeapriority.Communityplanningnestswithinthesedebates.2.2LocalserviceprovisionanddeliveryWhatserviceprovisionanddeliveryatalocallevelmeaninpractice,however,isopentodebate.Forexample, theUKGovernment signed the Council of Europe’s Charter of Local Self-Government in1997.TheCharterwassubsequentlyratifiedbytheUKin1998,committingtheUK,alongsideotherratifyingmemberstates,toguaranteeingthepolitical,administrativeandfinancialindependenceoflocalauthorities.Critically,thisCharterprovidesthattheprincipleoflocalself-governmentshallberecognised indomestic legislationand,wherepracticable, in stateconstitutions.This confirms theemphasisonthecontinuedcentralroleoflocalgovernmentinservicedelivery.Intandem,andreflectingEuropeanprinciplesofsubsidiarity, increasingattentionhasbeenpaidtoactively seeking to involve communities in the design, delivery, and indeed evaluation, of localservices.Thisapproachisreferredtoas‘co-production’.21Whilstthereissomeevidenceoftensionsandlimitationsinrespectofhowco-productioninthecontextofcommunityplanningmightbestbeadopted, it isargued that there is considerablepotential todevelopmodelsof co-production thatcan simultaneously promote community well-being; help to secure democratic engagement andparticipation in decision-making; and achieve efficiencies in service delivery through integratedserviceprovision.22Here,itisusefultonotethatcommunity-centeredapproacheshaveevolvedovertime, being variously associated – and to varying degrees – with thinking around communitydevelopment,communityeducation,communityworkandcommunityengagement.Sincethemillennium,ithasbeensuggestedthattherehasbeenadegreeofsharedlearningintheevolution of community planning across the four nations of the UK.23 Interest in sharing andcomparinginsightsinthiswaymaybecriticallyanalysedusingabodyofrelatedtheoriesconcernedwith notions of policy transfer, lesson-drawing and policymobilities, for example.24 Such thinkingdrawsattentiontodifferentstylesofpolicy-makingandimplementation.Itisarguedthatpolicystyleis context dependent and affected by a combination of differences, such as the type of policyproblemfaced,thesizeandrelationalinter-dependenciesofaparticularjurisdiction,andassociatedideological,culturalandattitudinalresponsestopolicyprocesses,whichareaffectedbythepowerand influence of different interest groups.25 Explanations of why, and how, policy develops in aparticularwayarethuscontestedanddynamicoverplaceandtime.Whilstpublicservicereformandmodernisationisaninternationalphenomenon,politicaldevolutionintheUKoffersaninterestingarenaforcomparingcontext-specificwaysfordeliveringappropriate

21See,forexample,http://www.thinklocalactpersonal.org.uk/_assets/BCC/nef_Co-production_1.pdf22See,forexample,Boyle,D.andHarris,M.(2009)TheChallengeofCo-production:Howequalpartnershipsbetweenprofessionalsandthepublicarecrucialtoimprovingpublicservices.DiscussionPaper.London:NESTA.Availableat:https://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/the_challenge_of_co-production.pdf23Laffin,M.(2007)ComparativeBritishCentral-LocalRelations:RegionalCentralism,GovernanceandIntergovernmentalRelations,PublicPolicyandAdministration,22/1,74-91.Availableat:http://ppa.sagepub.com/content/22/1/74.full.pdf24Pemberton,S.,Peel,D.andLloyd,M.G.(2015)The‘fillingin’ofcommunity-basedplanninginthedevolvedUK?.TheGeographicalJournal,181(1),pp6-15.25Cairney,P.(2013)‘MajoritarianVersusConsensusPolicymaking’ora‘CommonEuropeanPolicyStyle’?TheCaseoftheUKandScotland,PaperpresentedtotheJapanesePoliticalScienceAssociationAnnualConference,HokkaiGakuenUniversity,Sapporo,September.Availableat:https://paulcairney.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/cairney-jpsa-2013.pdf

14

localpublicservices.MuchofthisreformprogrammewasinitiallydrivenbyacommitmenttoBestValue, which provides a statutory basis for accountability, use of resources and performancemanagement, togetherwithvision, leadershipandpartnershipworking.26Within this context, andsince2000inparticular,therehasbeenaraftoflegislationandpolicyguidance,aswellasdedicatednational commissions, including the 2011 Christie Commission in Scotland and the 2014WilliamsCommission on Public Service, Governance and Delivery inWales, aimed at rethinking the publicsectorandhowbesttore-organiseservicesandservicedeliveryinefficient,effectiveandequitableways.In short, public sector reform and modernisation in advanced economies, increasing and morecomplex service demands, and,more recently, financial pressures on public services, provide theoverarching context in which the design of policy, restructuring and rescaling of institutionalarrangements,andthenatureofjoint-workingfortheplanninganddeliveryofpublicservicestakesplace.Within this broad rethinkingof providing services in amore coordinatedwayhasbeen theintroductionofcommunityplanning.2.3DefiningcommunityplanningAtthispoint,itisworthnotingthatterminologyaroundcommunityplanningisproblematicinsofarasthetermmeansdifferentthingsindifferentcontexts.Here,it ishelpfultotakeastepback.It isgenerallyagreedthattheconceptofcommunityplanningintheUKwasintroducedina1995LabourPartydraftpolicypaper,RenewingDemocracy,RebuildingCommunities.27Theproposalwasforlocalcouncils to produce a document setting out service objectives and priorities, alongside a set ofperformance targets. From this perspective, community planning is seen as resembling the‘PerformancePlan’withintheBestValueregime.A pilot project programme initiated by the Labour Party at the end of 1995 involved 14 Englishcouncils and one Scottish council (Clackmannanshire). Reflecting thinking at that time, the pilotprojectwasprimarilyconcernedwithdevelopingnewapproachestoconsultingcommunitiesaboutthe localauthorities’ownstrategiesandserviceplanninganddelivery,with lessattentiongiventopartnershiparrangements.Intandemwitheffortstoimprovethecommunityfocus,assetoutintheWhitePaper,ModernisingLocalGovernment:InTouchwiththePeople,28aparticularemphasiswasplacedonthereformandmodernisationofthepublicsector.Thesedebatessetthetoneforsubsequentstatutoryandpolicydevelopments.TheForewordtotheWhitePaper,forexample,remindsusthatthisagendawascastin termsofdevisingpublic services ‘fit for the21st century’. Theaimswereexpressed in termsofqualityandequality:

Peopleeverywheredeserveandrightlyexpectapleasantandsafeenvironmentinwhichtheycanliveandwork.Weallwantgoodquality public services,with rising standards inour schools and inour

26See,forexample,NorthernIrelandLocalGovernment(BestValue)BillExplanatory&FinancialMemorandumhttp://archive.niassembly.gov.uk/legislation/primary/2000/niabill19_00-efm.htmandScottishGovernmentinformation:http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Government/PublicServiceReform/14838/56427Thishistory,includingthepilots,isexplainedin:Rogers,S.,Smith,M.,Sullivan,H.andClarke,M.(1999)CommunityPlanninginScotland:AnEvaluationofthePathfinderProjectscommissionedbyCOSLA,Edinburgh:ScottishExecutiveandCOSLA.Availableat:http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/158150/0042793.pdf28DepartmentoftheEnvironment,TransportandtheRegions(DETR)(1998)Modernlocalgovernment:intouchwiththepeople,London:DETR.Availableat:http://www.politicsresources.net/docs/DETR1998.pdf

15

healthcare.Wewantlocalcommunitieswhereeveryonecanparticipateinsociety,andeffectivecareisavailabletothosewhoneedit(DETR,1998,p.2).

Moreover,itwasclearlystatedatthattimethatthenatureofserviceprovisionwasexpectedtobedifferent.Whilstacknowledgingthecentralroletobeplayedbylocalauthorities,theintentionwasbasedonchangingandchallengingestablishedpractice:

Todothis,councilsneedtobreakfreefromold-fashionedpracticesandattitudes.Thereisalongandproud tradition of councils serving their communities. But theworld and howwe live today is verydifferentfromwhenourcurrentsystemsof localgovernmentwereestablished.There isnofuture intheoldmodelofcouncilstryingtoplanandrunmostservices.Itdoesnotprovidetheserviceswhichpeople want, and cannot do so in today's world. Equally there is no future for councils which areinward looking and who aremore concerned tomaintain their structures and protect their vestedintereststhanlisteningtotheirlocalpeopleandleadingtheircommunities(DETR,1998,p.2).

Thesepoliticalambitionscreatedaparticularenvironmentinwhichpowerrelationsbetweencentralandlocalgovernment,anddifferentscalar,sectoralprovidersandlocalcommunitiesmightvariouslybereconfigured.Sincethen,andsetagainstshiftsinpoliticalcontrolatcentralgovernmentlevel,includingcoalitiongovernments inScotland,EnglandandWales,andpower-sharing inNorthern Ireland, the last twodecadeshavewitnessedconsiderableexperimentationinlocalpublicservices.Policy experimentation has been shaped by different ideologies, influenced by market-basedthinking, and informed – to varying degrees – by the European concept of subsidiarity. Ideasconcernedwiththeappropriatescaleofgovernance,orthefundamentalnatureofrepresentativeorparticipatory democracy, have also been influenced by changing state-market relations, andparticularly,thescopeofthestate.AsGiddensdifferentiated,somewhatgraphically:

Theneoliberalswanttoshrinkthestate;thesocialdemocrats,historically,havebeenkeentoexpandit.29,p.70

These ideologicaldebateshave informedwiderdiscussionsabout theextentandnatureofcentralcontrol–andparticularlythesizeofthestate.Itisworthnoting,however,thatGiddensgoesontoargue:

The issue isn’t more government or less, but recognising that governancemust adjust to the newcircumstancesoftheglobalage;andthatauthority,includingstatelegitimacy,hastoberenewedonanactivebasis.p.72

It follows that thediversityandreachof thosepotentiallyable tobe involved intheactivedesignanddeliveryofpublicservicescan–or,indeed,hasto–beextended.The 21st century has seen sub-regional government variously evolve, with greater devolution ofpowers, including,most recently, a broadening of powers to initiate primary legislation inWales.Suchresponsestorenewingsub-nationalgovernanceonanactivebasisprovidepartofthecontexttotheintroductionofcommunityplanning.DevolutiondebatesattheUKlevelprecipitateddiscussionsnotonlyaboutdecentralisingpowerstothe Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but to local government and local communities,

29Giddens,A.(1998)TheThirdWay:TheRenewalofSocialDemocracy,Cambridge:PolityPress.

16

effectively giving greater power in determining local need and prioritising services.30 Notably,Milibandmadethecasefor“doubledevolution”:

Icallit'doubledevolution'–notjustdevolutionthattakespowerfromcentralgovernmentandgivesitto localgovernment,butpower thatgoes from localgovernmentdown to localpeople,providingacriticalroleforindividualsandneighbourhoods,oftenthroughthevoluntarysector.31

Todate,theextentofcommunitycontrolhasbeensomewhatmarginalised,althoughexperienceofcommunitydevelopment trusts, forexample, illustratesnew formsof localised service support. InScotland,newlegislativemeasuresintheformoftheCommunityEmpowerment(Scotland)Act2015are being put in place to facilitate asset transfer, for example. In England, a number of new‘community rights’ were introduced through the 2011 Localism Act, including a ‘right to bid’ tomanagelocalcommunityassets.Assuch,thepotentialfor‘communityplanning’liesinofferinganumberofavenues(ormodels)forservicedelivery,intermsoftherolesplayedbyindividualcitizens,and,particularly,intermsofhowstate-citizenrelationsaremanaged.Here,thelegitimacyoflocalgovernmentperformsanimportantdemocraticfunction.Howcorepublicserviceprovisionhasevolvedinpracticehasresultedinvariousdesignanddeliveryapproaches being put into place, new joint-working relations emerging, and new vocabulariesdeveloping. Importantly for this study, ideas and terminology in relation to community-basedplanningtendedtovaryacrossEngland,Scotland,WalesandNorthern Ireland,associetygrappleswith how to conceptualise, articulate and provide core public services in the face of growinginequalities. Public service provision at the local level is being actively socially reconstructed;conceptsanddefinitionsmatter,particularlyifsharedlearningistotakeplacemeaningfully.2.4SummaryBywayof summarising themain concepts involved in communityplanning, since1999, therehasbeen a turn to localism and neighbourhood planning in England. In Scotland, conversations haveprogressedfromcommunityplanningtocommunityempowerment.InWales,therehavebeenon-going discussions on the modernisation of public services, the absolute centrality of securingresource efficiencies, and a recent emphasis on securing long-term sustainability and communitywell-being. InNorthern Ireland, the restorationof powers to local government, after almost fortyyearsofcentralisedcontrol,hasprovokeddeepdebatesaboutroles,rightsandresponsibilities,andhowbesttoreconfigurethearrangementsanddeliverymethodsof localpublicservices,basedonthesharingofactivities,resourcesandvisions,andalignment,includingwiththeRepublicofIreland.Variously, ideas of social, economic and environmental well-being; resilient communities; andsustainabledevelopmentperformimportantrhetoricaldevicesindevelopinglocalserviceprovision.Reflectingaconcernwithbeing‘intouchwiththepeople’,thereremainsanimportantemphasisoncommunity engagement. Critically, there is a noticeable attempt to ensure that those formallyinvolvedwith communityplanningdo their utmost to engagewith local communities, particularlythosewho tend to be excluded.Moreover, there is an emphasis on handing power over to localcommunitiestomanageservicesthemselves.

30See,forexample,theUKGovernment’son-lineresourceinrelationtodevolution.Availableat:https://www.gov.uk/guidance/devolution-of-powers-to-scotland-wales-and-northern-ireland31Weaver,M.(2006)‘Morepowertothepeople,urgesMilliband’,TheGuardianon-line.Availableat:http://www.theguardian.com/society/2006/feb/21/localgovernment.politics

17

3. COMMUNITYPLANNINGARRANGEMENTSINTHEDEVOLVEDUK3.1IntroductionThepurposeofthissectionistooutlinesomeofthemainfeaturesofcommunityplanningintermsofitslegislativeandpolicybasisacrossthedevolvedUK.TheinstitutionalarrangementsinEngland,Scotland,WalesandNorthernIrelandprovidetheworkingcontextfordiscussionsaboutcommunityplanning, including the respective statutory and organisational arrangements; and bottom-upmodelsandpracticesofjoint-working.The discussion is locatedwithin the broader devolved governance context for policy learning andthusitisimportanttoappreciatethecomparativecontext.SpecificmeasuresandarrangementsareinplacetomaintainregularinteractionsandgoodcommunicationbetweentheUKGovernmentanddevolved administrations of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government and Northern IrelandExecutive, through, for example, the Memorandum of Understanding and its SupplementaryAgreements,butthereisalsoevidenceofadditionalsharingandcomparingofcommunityplanningexperiences32 and changes in relation to land use planning through initiatives such as the Inter-ParliamentaryResearchand InformationNetwork.33Reflecting ideasofpolicy transfer,34 the studyfindingsofferevidenceofpoliciesbeingadaptedtofitlocalcircumstances.3.2ScalarrelationsAcross the devolved UK, perceptions of the appropriate level of decentralisation operate at anumberof levels, includingEU-national, national-regional / sub-regional andnational-local.WhilstEnglandistheonlycountryoftheUKthatdoesnothaveitsowndevolvedparliamentorassembly,movestodecentralisepowerbytheNewLabourGovernmentwereimportantinexploring,andthenshaping, the development of regional and sub-regional structures of governance, as well as newcommunityplanningresponsibilitiesforlocalgovernment.When compared in the round, interviewees in the devolved regions tended to refer to issues ofscale, territoryandproximity in theirelaborationofdecentralisedanddevolvedpowers.The localgovernmentassociationsofthedevolvedregionslocatedcommunityplanninginadiscoursearounddemocraticrenewal:

“Ithinkalargepartofitisdowntothefactthatyouhavegotalotofsmallauthorities(inWales)….…AlotoftheLocalismActdidn'tcomeintoWalesforthatveryreason,youknow.TherewasthisfeelingthatyoualreadyhadtheCommunityStrategiesandtheyweresupposedtobebuildingupfromallthecommunitiesbeneaththem,sowhyhaveanotherlayer?”

WelshLocalGovernmentAssociationrepresentative.

32See,forexample,Cave,S.(2013)CommunityPlanning,ResearchandInformationServiceResearchPaperNIAR220-13,Belfast:NorthernIrelandAssembly.Availableat:http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/globalassets/documents/raise/publications/2013/environment/11913.pdf33Cave,S.,Rehfisch,A.,Smith,L.andWinter,G.(2013)ComparisonoftheplanningsystemsinthefourUKcountries.SPICeBriefing13/35.Availableat:http://www.parliament.scot/ResearchBriefingsAndFactsheets/S4/SB_13-35.pdf34Stone,D.(2001)LearningLessons,PolicyTransferandtheInternationalDiffusionofPolicyIdeas,CSGRWorkingPaperNo.69/01.Availableat:http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/2056/1/WRAP_Stone_wp6901.pdf

18

“Tome,theScottishdebateisquiteunique,andIthink,justbecauseoftheproximityofeverybody,it’samuchsmallerplace,sothedebate is thatmuchmore focusedandyou’respeaking face-to-facetothekeyplayers.”

ConventionofScottishLocalAuthoritiesrepresentative.

Implementation of community planning is of necessity context specific. Notably, the case inNorthernIrelandisverydifferent,giventheprogressive(thoughinterrupted)restorationofpowersto local government since the1998Belfast /GoodFridayAgreement. The radical restructuringoflocal government, including boundary reorganisation to reduce 26 local authorities to create 11councilsin2015,gaverisetothepotentialforexperientiallearningfromthedevolvednations,andEngland. There was also scope to build on local experience from related partnership workingactivities,suchasthoseinrelationtopolicingandsafety.It is evident that community planning in Northern Ireland continues to be shaped by the power-sharingnatureofCentralGovernmentandpoliticalcontrolovercertainservicefunctions.On-goingsectarian concerns further accentuate expectations for community planning on the ground,particularlyinrelationtodevelopingsharedservicesintheformofcommunityplanning:

“I think [..the introductionof communityplanning]was to try toovercome thehistorical issues thatwe’ve had here, in addition to sort ofmodernising local government inNorthern Ireland.Wewentfromasituationwheretherehadbeennomajor localgovernment legislationsince1972–andthatwasrectifiedin2014.And,inthemeantime,obviously,inotherareasoftheUKandotherplaces,therehadbeenalotofchangesofthinkingandalotofiterationsofwhatcouncilsshoulddoandshouldbe.Andweverymuch,asasectorwiththeDOE[Departmentof theEnvironment]…we lookedatwhathadbeenput inplace inScotlandandWales,andbeingabitmoresimilar toNorthern IrelandthanEnglandwould be. Andwe felt that community planningwas a good step and the right direction,particularlygiventhe fracturingofpublicservices inNorthern Irelandwhich ismuchmoreprevalentthanitwouldbeinotherareas.”

NorthernIrelandLocalGovernmentAssociationrepresentative.

It isyet tobeascertainedwhetherthe2016departmental reconfiguration inNorthernIrelandwillreduceservicefragmentation,orsimplyintroduceanothersetofrelationaldynamics.Thesechangeshavecomeaboutrelativelyswiftlyontopof thenew localgovernmentboundaryand institutionalchangeswhichhaveyettobedinfully.Nevertheless,theperceptionsofthefoundationalroletobeplayedbycommunityplanninginNorthernIreland’spublicsectorreformwereencapsulatedbytheLocalGovernmentAssociationrepresentativeas:“theonlyshowintown.”Thisviewofthe leadingroletobeplayedbycommunityplanningwasechoedbyanationalcommunitybodyrepresentativeinNorthernIrelandwhosuggestedthatforthenewcouncillevel“communityplanningisalmosttheoverarchingapproachtothewaytheywishtodolocalgovernment.”GiventhatNorthernIrelandisthemostrecentadopterofcommunityplanning,suchrecognitionof theapproach is testimonytocommunityplanning’splaceintherescalingandrevisionofthepublicservicelandscape.3.3Legislative,policyandorganisationalarrangementsIn terms of the legislative basis for community planning, the Local Government Act (2000) wasimportant in both England and Wales in formalising a new community leadership role for localgovernment. This legislation placed a specific emphasis on modernising public services, securingcitizen participation and engagement, and integrating service delivery. Consequently, similar localpartnership structureswere developed in both areas to deliver local community planning – LocalStrategic Partnerships in England andCommunity StrategyPartnerships inWales.Given that eachdeliverymechanismwasnon-statutory(andwithonlythelocalauthorityhavingadutyto‘consult’

19

otherpartners), it is, perhaps, unsurprising that common criticismsemergedaround theabilityoflocalgovernmenttosecureintegrationofpartneractivities,andtoengagewithlocalgroups.Thus,overtime,effortsweremadetore-shapeandstrengthencommunitygovernanceactivities.InEngland,therewasarguablyaslightlyearliermovethanWalestowardstheformalmonitoringandperformance management of community planning arrangements, with the introduction ofSustainable Community Strategies and Local Area Agreements in 2004. In Wales, the WelshGovernment’s ‘Making the Connections’ agenda and the 2006 Beecham Review – led to newperformance management systems being introduced in Wales, and which becamemore evidentwiththere-configurationofCommunityStrategyPartnershipsintoLocalServiceBoards.Inaddition,thisapproachhasbeenstrengthenedmorerecentlyinWaleswiththeintroductionofPublicServiceBoardsin2016.Indeed,thePublicServiceBoardshaveastatutorybasistodevelopWell-BeingPlansthatdirectlyinformnationalwell-beingtargetsandobjectives.Forsome,then,theuseofstatutorypowershascalledintoquestiontheextentofsubsidiaritybeingachievedfromnationalgovernment,andatamorelocallevelinrespectofengagementwithlocalcommunities:

“Ithinkyou'veseentheWelshGovernment, inalotofcases,tryingtoexertmorecontrol…tryingtolookatmoreofthis,sortof,onesizefitsallapproach…”

WelshLocalGovernmentAssociationrepresentative.In England, since 2010, there have been a number of interventions by national government thathave sought to develop greater freedoms and incentives for local collaboration and to create alighter touch regulatory environment in respect of performance management. This activity hasincludedtheremovalofLocalAreaAgreements.Ontheotherhand,concernswithneighbourhood(landuse)planninghavealsobecomeincreasinglypredominanttofacilitatewhathasbeentermeda‘pro-development’localism,focusedonincreasingandunderliningthelocalbenefitsofhousingandeconomic development.35 It has also emphasised devolving power to local communities. Thisattempt at further service decentralisation canbe selective, however, in termsof the groups andintereststhatmaybeactivelyinvolved:

“Ifyouspeaktosomepeople,theyarequitecriticalofit,becausetheirsortoftakeonit,itfeelslikeit's,sortof,whipped,itfeelslikethereisacertaindirection.”

Localauthoritystrategicofficer1.

“Weworkwithparishcouncilsbecausewelikethem,they’vegotaccountability.They’reveryoftenataneighbourhoodlevel.”

CivilServant1,CommunitiesandLocalGovernment.Communityplanning inScotlandfoundits legislativebasis intheLocalGovernment inScotlandAct2003buthassubsequentlybeenrevised.36Initiallydevisedtoimprovescalarconnectionsbetweennational priorities and those at regional, local and neighbourhood levels, community planning ispredicated on joint-working and rationalisation. Important principles underpinning communityplanning were identified as turning on cross-sectoral partnership working; coordination; andcommunityengagement.AnInitialReviewofCommunityPlanningin2006byAuditScotlandnotedthatcommunityplanninghas the potential to add value to existing joint-working through providing: “a local strategic35Clark,G.(2011)Planningforgrowth.Availableat:https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/planning-for-growth--736Campbell,A.(2015)TimelinefortheDevelopmentofCommunityPlanninginScotland.July.Availableat:http://whatworksscotland.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Development-of-Community-Planning-in-Scotland-Timeline.pdf

20

framework and building a culture of co-operation and trust”.37 This comment highlights theimportance of ‘softer’ dimensions, such as trust, in working relations – aspects that requirenurturing. Itwas identified,however, that the fullpotentialof joint-workingwasunderminedbyanumberofadministrativeaspects,includinginstitutional,organisational,structuralandperformancemanagementissues.Communityengagementandelectedmemberinvolvementwerealsoidentifiedasrelativelyweak.Reflectingthe“tightfinancialcontext”andaperceivedneedtoimproveflexibilityandcreatemorefreedom, in 2007 the Scottish Government and Convention on Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA)signedaConcordat.Thisvoluntary-basedagreementallowedfortheremovalofring-fencingandtherighttoretainefficiencysavings,andincreasedlocalautonomy.38Moreover,since2007,amajorityScottishNationalPartyadministrationhaspromotedanoutcomes-based approach to public sector activity, based on the National Performance Framework. Forcommunity planning, this initially involved the preparation of Single Outcome Agreements.Subsequently, the 2011 Christie Report shifted the policy emphasis towards prevention,performance, and people, whilst still highlighting the central role of community planning andpartnership working.39 This initiative was followed by the 2012 Statement of Ambition, whichemphasised theneed for partners to assume joint responsibility for theoutcomes, indicators andtargetssetout intheSingleOutcomeAgreementandagreedwiththeScottishGovernment.40Thisarrangementraisedexpectationsandeffectivelydemanded:

“…amoreintricate,sophisticatedunderstandingoflocalcircumstancesandamoreintenseresponsefrompartners.”

ScottishGovernmentrepresentative.Importantly,joint-workingwasencouragedratherthanlegallyrequired.TheCommunityEmpowerment(Scotland)Bill(2014)soughttoimprovepublicservicesandenhancecommunityvoicewithinthestrengthenedcontextofanoutcomes-basedapproach. Integral tothesubsequentlyenactedCommunityEmpowerment(Scotland)Act2015wasthestrengtheningofthedutiesonpartnerstoparticipateincommunityplanning,theextensionoftherangeofpublicsectorbodiessubjecttocommunityplanningduties,thereplacementofSingleOutcomeAgreementswithLocal Outcomes Improvement Plans, and the introduction of locality plans for those areaswherecommunities experience the poorest outcomes.41 The clearer legal arrangements for communityplanning imply that what might have previously been seen as a partnership approach based oninvitation and encouragement, cooperation and trust, were not effective. Imposing statutoryobligations, however, means there is then an important task to be done in terms of legalcompliance. The 2016 consultation exercise on the associated community planning guidance andregulations emphasises that community planning continues to be seen as the central driver fortransformingpublicservicesatthelocallevel.37AuditScotland(2006)AnInitialReviewofCommunityPlanning,Edinburgh:Availableat:http://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/docs/central/2006/nr_060616_community_planning.pdf(p.6)38ScottishGovernmentandCOSLA(2007)Concordat.Availableat:http://www.gov.scot/resource/doc/923/0054147.pdf39Christie,C.(2011)CommissionontheFutureDeliveryofPublicServices,June.Edinburgh:ScottishGovernment.Availableat:http://scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/352649/0118638.pdf40CommunityPlanningReviewGroup(2012)CommunityPlanningReview-StatementofAmbition,Edinburgh:ScottishGovernment.Availableat:http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Government/local-government/CP/soa41Campbell,A.,Evans,A.,Gilman,L.andReid,A.(2014)CommunityEmpowerment(Scotland)Bill.SPICeBriefing14/58.Edinburgh:ScottishParliament.Availableat:http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefingsAndFactsheets/S4/SB_14-58_.pdf

21

ThelegislativebasisforcommunityplanninginNorthernIrelandissetoutintheLocalGovernmentAct(NorthernIreland)2014.TheActmakesthelinkbetweencommunityplanningforadistrictandwell-being explicit, with community planning partners being required to identify long-termobjectivesfor improvingwell-being insocial,economicandenvironmental terms,workingtowardssustainabledevelopmentandpromotinggoodrelations.Inrelationtomonitoring,the2014Actalsostipulatesthatcouncilsmustproduceastatementeverytwoyearssettingoutprogressmade,andoutcomes achieved, in meeting the community plan objectives for their respective district.Importantly, the Actmakes a statutory link between the community plan and the local land usedevelopment plan. It is anticipated that in aligning the two plans, not only will duplication incommunity engagement, for example, be reduced, but there will be better synergies in serviceoutcomes.ThesituationinNorthernIrelandisdifferentfromelsewhereinthatthereorganisationoflocal government and rearrangement of powers creates a fresh canvas for service design anddelivery. In this context, the land use planning system is specifically oriented towards a ‘placeshaping’approachwhichincorporatesaspatialanalysisandvisioningprocess.Anunderlyingaimisfor each council, within the framework of community planning, to shape places for localcommunitiesthroughlinkagestootherfunctions,suchasregeneration,localeconomicdevelopmentandlocaltourism.Specifically,andnotingthereferencetobusinessinvolvement,

[thelocaldevelopmentplan]providesthespatialstrategyforthecommunityplan,flowingfromthevision for the council area and its communities, and linking public and private sector investmentthroughthelanduseplanningsystem.42para10.2

Intermsofdevisinganddesigningthelegislativeprovisionsforcommunityplanning,thereappearstohavebeenlearningfromthechangesmadetoearliermodelsofcommunityplanningacrossthedevolvedUK:

“Yes, I really do think, those [new councils] who really grasped it, that is how they're … learning,looking verymuchat the Scottish practice in termsofwhere theyare now15odd years later.Andtryingtonotexactlyjumpto…straighttothere.Becauseit'sthethirdgenerationofplansforScotland.Buttolearnalotfromwhat'shappenedthere.And,certainly,particularly inrelationtoworkingwithotherpartners,andCouncilshere, Iguess,wehavesome,youknow,like,PCSPs,so,PolicingCommunitySafetyPartnerships.There'salready,someof thosepartners…,youknow,thosepartnershipswerealreadythere.Andthey'rebuildingonthat.Andsomeofthemhave,Ithink,alsotakentheopportunitytobeabletoreflecton,maybe,howtheywoulddothosedifferently,aswell.But,yes,Ithink,particularlywitheducation,health,someofthe,thosebigplayersthatreallyimpacton their citizens in their areas, that, you know, they have toworkwith those partners to have anyinfluence.”

Nationalcommunitybodyrepresentative–NorthernIreland.Intermsofthelearningandtransferofpolicyinitiativesandpractice,thereisthussomepotentialtosidestepsomeoftheinterimstagestaken.Nevertheless,legislationandpolicyarethentailor-made,basedonderivinglessonsfromexperienceinearliermodelsofexecutingpartnershipworking.StatutoryguidanceinNorthernIrelandaccompanyingthe2014legislationsetsouthowtheelevennewcouncils,asleadpartners,will‘workwithstatutorybodiesandtheircommunitiestodevelopand

42DepartmentoftheEnvironment(2015)StatutoryGuidancefortheOperationofCommunityPlanningLocalGovernmentAct(NorthernIreland)2014,Belfast:DoE.Availableat:http://www.niccy.org/media/1682/community-planning-guidance-oct-2015.pdf

22

implement a shared vision for promoting the well-being of an area, community cohesion andimprovingthequalityoflifeofitscitizens.’43para3.3Significantly,communityplanningisseenasalong-termprocess.Thestatutoryprovisionsestablishthebasisfor joint-workingacrosstheregionalandneighbourhood scales, and proactively encouraging community engagement, ensuring that thatengagementspansthepreparationandmonitoringstagesofcommunityplans.3.4SummaryEffortstoreorientcommunityplanning,understoodasintegratedserviceprovision,wouldsuggest,ontheonehand,aconcernwithinstitutional,organisationalandadministrativeaspects,asdifferentactors,includingprofessionals,practitionersandpoliticians,areencouragedtoapproachthenatureandimpactoftheirserviceprovisioninnewways.Ontheotherhand,thereisaservice-user,orcivilsociety,perspectivewhichemphasisesnotjusttherighttobeconsulted,buttherighttobeactivelyengagedinservicedelivery.Notions of community engagement in public services are being reconfigured and extended inparticularways.Forexample, inEngland,theshifttoneighbourhoodplanninghasbeenpredicatedaroundthe themeofdevolvingpowerandsecuringcommunity involvement (but in termsof localplanning processes), efficiency (in respect of planning processes) and engendering a pro-growthattitude.Morebroadly,concernswithneighbourhoodbudgetinghavealsoinvolvedanemphasisoncommissioningandservicere-designanddelivery.InScotland,communityplanninghasbeenmodified,inpart,inrelationtowiderissues,suchaslandreform. InWales, thereareon-goingattemptsatsecuringserviceefficienciesandreinforcingbothhorizontal and vertical relations, especially with the Welsh Government. In Northern Ireland,communityplanninghasbecomeamechanism,inpart,bothforcoordinatinginstitutionalcorporateplans at one scale, and addressing community needs and devising shared visions at theneighbourhoodlevel,attheother.Significantly, inNorthernIreland,communityplanningispartofthetransformationofthepublicsector-andlocalgovernment-inparticular.WithreferencetounderstandingthestatutorybasesforcommunityplanninginthedevolvedUK,wewouldhighlightcertainthemeswhichhaveemergedovertime.Whilsttherearedifferences inthelegal, institutional and cultural arrangements for community planning across England, Wales,ScotlandandNorthernIreland,andthepaceandcontextforchangevary,keypointsinvolve:

• a shift from community planning partners being invited or encouraged to participate incommunityplanningtoastatutorydutyonpartnerstoengageinpartnershipworking;

• joint responsibility on partners, at all scales, to engage in all stages of the communityplanningprocess,frompreparationtomonitoring;

• how to secure full participation, and under conditions of increased demand and reducedpublicsectorresource;

• aturntoanoutcomes-basedapproach,andwithanemphasisonservice-userbenefitsandexperiences,andreducinginequalities;

• astrongerfocusonwell-being;• newperformanceregimes,andacommitmenttocontinuousimprovementaspartofalong-

termprocess;

43DepartmentoftheEnvironment(2015)StatutoryGuidancefortheOperationofCommunityPlanningLocalGovernmentAct(NorthernIreland)2014,Belfast:DoE.Availableat:http://www.niccy.org/media/1682/community-planning-guidance-oct-2015.pdf

23

• new rights in relation to service provision being extended to civil society and the thirdsector,includingrightsto‘build’,‘challenge’and‘plan’;

• newstatutorylinkagesbetweenlanduseplanningandcommunityplanning;• a stronger emphasis on proactively engaging communities in all aspects of community

planning,particularlythoseindividualsandcommunitiesexperiencingdisadvantage;• greatervisibilityofcommunityplanninginrelatedactivities, includingscopefornewforms

ofelectedmemberinvolvementinrelevantstatutorybodyactivities.

24

4. MODELSANDPRACTICESINJOINT-WORKING4.1IntroductionIn this sectionwe consider the differentmodels that have emerged for community planning in adevolvedUK, aswell as how joint-working relations for community planninghavebeendesigned,organisedandmanaged.In terms of models of community planning, we have already noted above how the terminologyrelatingtocommunityplanningiscontested.Ontheonehand,‘communityplanning’maybeseenasrepresentinganattempttoredesigntheservicescommunitiesneed.Thisviewtendstocharacterisecommunity planning as involving integrated service provision. From this perspective, models ofcommunityplanningmaybeviewedfromaninstitutionalororganisationalviewpoint.Here,astrongargument is made that community planning demands joint-working and strategic alignment oforganisationalresources,prioritiesandactions.Thismeansthattraditionallyseparate(so-calledsilo-oriented) public sector organisations, such as those concerned with housing, education, health,employmentandsafety,forexample,butalsosocialcareandsocialinclusion,needtorethinktheirserviceobjectivestobettermeettheneedsof individuals, familiesandcommunities.44Theexplicitintegration of regenerationwithin the framework of community planning inNorthern Ireland is acaseinpoint.A community planning perspective asserts that services are required to be relatively more user-responsive,reflectingtherealitythatsolutionstoindividuals’needsarerarelyresolvedbyasingle-serviceapproach.Thisthinkingisconsistentwiththeideathatcertainproblemsare‘wicked’,thatis,complex, difficult to solve, and likely to be intertwinedwith a range of issues.45 It follows that arelativelymoreholisticapproachtodevisingserviceresponsesisrequired.On the other hand, there is a strong emphasis in community planning on services being citizen-centred,reflectingtheinter-relatedandmulti-facetednatureofthelivedexperience,andtheneedsof individuals. From this perspective, models of community planning assume a user-centredapproach,requiringanunderstandingofspecificusers’needsoverthelife-course,andnecessitatinguserorcommunityinputintothetypeandnatureofservicesprovided.Interestingly,suchresponsesare not new. One local authority representative referred to experiences of joined-up working byserviceprovidersinthemid-1990s,forexample,dealingwiththeissueofyoungpeopleandsexualhealth.Theyhighlightedtheneedforservicesthatwereinnovative,multi-facetedandresponsivetousersandpointedtothebottom-upinfluencethattriggeredtheintervention:

“…buttheideacamefromyoungpeople,anditwasn’ttofocusonteenagepregnancy.Itwastolookatitholistically.Soitwasaservicethatwascentrallybasedwithanoutreachelement–butfocussedoneverythingfrominformation,toone-to-onesupport,torelationships,andmentalwell-being,tofun-doingthingsthatwere‘justgoodfun’,aswellasprovidingkeysexualhealthservices.”

Localgovernmentofficer–neighbourhoodlevel–Scotland.

44http://www.sitesplus.co.uk/user_docs/880/File/SWAN%20BDOR%20Outcomes%20Report%20Towards%20a%20Concordat.pdf45Rittel,H.W.J.andWebber,M.M.(1973)Dilemmasinageneraltheoryofplanning,PolicySciences,4,pp.155-169.Availableat:http://urbanpolicy.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Rittel+Webber_1973_PolicySciences4-2.pdf

25

Two decades later, efforts to create models of joint-working are still evolving, but certain coreprinciples remain: community planning is predicated on improving connections between specificpolicyareas;andmustbecontext-andplace-specificandcitizen-andcommunity-relevant.Given the spectrum of models for community planning – from an institutional to a communityperspective,aswellasthedegreetowhichprioritiesaredrivenfrom‘above’or‘below’–thereisaneedtoconsiderwhoisinvolvedinthedesign,organisationandmanagementofsucharrangements.Therefore, the sub-sections below focus on the influences shaping and defining the nature andpriorities of community planning, how community planning is organised and delivered on theground, and the ways in which community planning is managed and evaluated in terms of itseffectiveness.4.2ModelsofcommunityplanningThesocialconstructionofcommunityplanningmaybeseenas‘caught’–atleastinpart–betweenstatutory(top-down)interpretations–whichdefinethelegaloperatingremitofstatebodies–andpopular(bottom-up)understandings–whichreflecttheparticularaspirationsofthecommunitiesofplace, identityand interest,andwhoare,paradoxically, thispolicyarea’svery focalpoint.Politicalconstructionsofcommunityplanningareaconsequenceofprevailing ideologies,and,astheremitand extent of community planning have evolved over time, awareness of, and expectations of,communityplanninghavelikewisechanged.InNorthern Ireland, inparticular, communityplanningbecameacentralbuildingblock inmeetingtheoverarchingambitionsoftheReviewofPublicAdministration.Thisbroadprogrammeforpublicsectorreformcontinuestoinvolvefundamentalgovernmentrestructuringwithwiderdevelopmentof policy. Crucially, this institutional rescaling has led to substantial decentralisation to localgovernment.Withtherestorationofanextensiverangeofpowerstoelevennewcouncils,thishasdramaticallychangedtheservicecontextforlocalcommunities:

“Thebigthinghere,Iguess,wasaboutlocalgovernmenthavingmorepower,andwhatlocalCouncilscoulddowiththat,giventhattheywereclosertothegroundintermsofhowcommunityplanningcanactuallybedeliveredorstructured.But,youknow,Idothinkitwasmainlyaboutserviceplanningandhowyoucandomorewithprobably lessresources,and,backthen,therewerea lotmoreresourcesthantherearenow-soit'sanevenbiggerissue.

But,Ithink,likemanyplaces,it'ssuchacondensedconcept.Ithinkcommunityplanningisreallynotthebesttermactuallyforit,becausecommunitiesassume,then,thatit'sallaboutcommunities,andobviously the outcomes are verymuch, sort of, about communities. But it isn't about communitiesdoing theirownplans.And thenpeople think, ‘Is itmanagersplanning?’The fact thatCouncilsalsohave the newpower, all of the [land use] planning powers transferred has confused things, too… Ithink,…thewholedelayinthathappeningdidn'thelp.

Nationalcommunitybodyrepresentative–NorthernIreland.Pragmatically,onelocalgovernmentrespondent,operatinginastrategiccapacityinalocalauthorityinNorthernIreland,encapsulatedtheirunderstandingofcommunityplanningthus:

“So, forme (andmaybe that’s very simplistic) – but, forme, it’s a case of - if you had the properplanningprocess,andyouactuallylookedatproperoutcomes…youknow,youdecided:‘Thisiswhatwe want to achieve’; ‘These are the interventions that we want’… How are you actually going tochangewhat’shappeningattheminute,then?That’swhatcommunityplanningisforme.”

Localgovernmentstrategicrepresentative2–NorthernIreland.

26

Examiningthelinksbetweeneducationandemployability,andtheneedtojoinupdifferentserviceproviders,offersapracticalexampleofwhatcommunityplanning,understoodasintegratedservicedelivery,seekstodoinpractice:

“But I think it’sparticularly thecase inNorthern Irelandthatwe[localgovernment]can’tdeliveronour own. So for the areas that I’m most interested in, and I think the areas that affect theneighbourhoodsdramatically, likeemployabilityand skills, for example... Imean, that is theperfectexamplewhere…[…]..therearesomany,youknow,partnersthatareresponsibleandpeopleacrossthecity...Andactually,ifyouhaveanindividual,it’stheirwholepathway.Youknow,literallyfromthedaytherewerebornuntilthedaytheydieintermsofemployability,education,skills….

Soif[….communityplanning]reallywasdoneproperly,thenIthinkthat’ssortoftheperfectexampleofit.Andit’stherewherethecity,ifyoulike,decidesoragreescollectively,‘Well,whatarethemostimportantthings?’Andhavingdecidedthat,howyou’reactuallygoingtodothem.”

Localgovernmentstrategicrepresentative2–NorthernIreland.In Scotland, in contrast, a strategic local government respondent, when asked what the term‘communityplanning’signified,cautioned:

“It’samisnomer.Wehavegotlocalstrategicplanning,whichisco-communityplanning,whichisrunbyA,andwe’vegotneighbourhoodplanning,whichiscalledlocalcommunityplanning,whichisrunbytheCommunitiesTeam.Andthetwoarebothmechanismsforjoining-uptheavailablepublicsectorresourcessotheycan, inaperiodofscarcity,makethebest impactontheprofileofneedsthatareperceivedbythosethataredoingthejoining-up.So,locally,theagendaroleswillbeslightlydifferentfromtheoneswhich,atastrategiccitywidelevel,arepursued.

But, in both cases, it’s a response to a scarcity of resources. And a desire to, I think, deliver betteroutcomes-evenifyouhadplentyofresources.

So,at itssimplest, it’sabringing-togetherofthosewhocanlookatthebundleofthingswhichweredescribedas needs orwants, and the bundle of responses that agencies canmake.And that is theinterfaceoftheplanningbit-howyoudothat.”

Localgovernmentstrategicrepresentative-Scotland.Thisobservationsuggeststhattheambitionsforcommunityplanningmaypotentiallyobscureissuesofstrategic-andneighbourhood-levelpublicserviceplanning.Moreover,variousreports(e.g.AuditScotland (2014) found differences in performance across Scotland’s community planningpartnerships,suggestingthatsomelocalmodelsoperatemoreeffectivelythanothers.Subsequentlegislationandpolicyisintendedtoaddressidentifiedconcerns.InWales,respondentshighlightedsomesimilarobservationstobothNorthernIrelandandScotlandintermsofafocusofcommunityplanningaroundsecuringintegratedservicedelivery,andachieving‘morewithless’:

“It isaboutagroupofpeoplethatcometogethertolookatunblockingissuesandtalkingaboutthereallydifficultstuffthatishappeningandwhichneedsagroupofpeopletoworkatastrategiclevel.Thereisaclearremitofbreakingdownbarriers,butalsoworkingtogether.

StrategicLocalServiceBoardrepresentative–Wales.There was, however, also a degree of uncertainty evident over the extent to which communityplanning was about strategic engagement, or whether it was more about local communityengagement:

“Iwouldchallengeyoutogodown,youknow,thatstreetandgetanybodytosaywhatthehellitis.”

27

Localgovernmentstrategicrepresentative1–Wales.

“Doyoulookoverthebalcony,orareyouinwiththepeoplebelow?Youknow,arethepeoplebelowlookingupatthebalcony?What'stheremit?”

StrategicLocalServiceBoardrepresentative–Wales.Thesituationwassummarised,inWales,bythefollowingrespondent:

“Somehaveoperatedstrategicallypickingoutsomehighlevelissueswheretheycouldimprovejoint-working and sort of trying to marshal all the resources underneath them and all the differentpartnerships in the area. But some others have focused and tried to engage on quite specific localissuesthatwerecausingaproblem.”

WelshLocalGovernmentAssociationrepresentative.InEngland, thepresent iterationofcommunity-basedgovernanceturnsheavilyonneighbourhoodplanning,which closely resembles a local landuseplanningactivity in termsof allocating land forhousing, andpromoting local economicgrowth.This formof communityplanningmaybedirectlytracedtothecommunity‘rights’option,asformalisedinthe2011LocalismAct:

“Neighbourhoodplanningis,inmanyways,it’sverynarrowinitsfocusanditwasdesignedtobeso.It’skindof,notanaccident…they’rejust,kindof,headdownintheplanningfunction,andit’sdifferentto,youknow,inWales.It’sjustplanning,justaboutplanninghereinEngland...yougetanassuranceoverthedeliverabilityofthehousingandthesystem’sriggedsothatthatconclusion’salwayspositiveintermsofdevelopment,inthesenseofnumbers,notinthesenseofwhatitlookslike,whereitisandsoon.”

CivilServant2,CommunitiesandLocalGovernment.Nevertheless, therewasanacknowledgement thatneighbourhoodplanning–by its verynature–couldalsoinformaconsiderationofbroadercommunityplanningissues:

“Lookingback, it’s fairlyobviousthat,youknow, ifyouasknon-plannersbased inthecommunitytocomeroundandonlythinkaboutlandusepolicy,Imean,obviouslythey’renot.They’rejustgoingtothinkaboutwheretheyliveandsomeofthat’saboutlanduseandsomeofthat’saboutloadsofotherrandomstuff.”

CivilServant2,CommunitiesandLocalGovernment.Anothercentralgovernmentrespondentarticulatedtheissuesasfollows:

“There’s quite awide power. There’s loads of stuff you can dowith it that’s not necessarily abouthousing.Anditcanleadintootherthings……othercommunityrights….There’sonlysomuchwecandoaboutemploymentthroughaneighbourhoodplan.Sothey’vegoneonandbecomeinvolvedinotheractivities,forexample,aroundlocalservicetransformationandcommunityassets.”

CivilServant1,CommunitiesandLocalGovernment.

Thuswhat canbe identified is a rangeofmodelsbeingpromulgated for communityplanning,butwith an organisational perspective frequently to the fore, and especially in Wales. Nevertheless,being citizen-centred and being responsive to local needwas also evident in terms ofmodels ofcommunity planning. In the devolved nations, there was an emphasis on shaping local servicedeliverythroughlocalinputandlocalintelligence.Overall,theimplicationsarethatmodelsofjoint-workingwillcontinuetoevolveasfurtherimprovementsaresought.

28

4.3Designingjoint-workingarrangementsforcommunityplanningWithreferencetothedesignofjoint-workingarrangementsforcommunityplanning,thereisaneedtoconsiderthedominantpolitical ideasordiscourses.SectionThreeindicatedtheextenttowhichlegislationhas evolved, andpowers relating to community planninghavebeen strengthened. Thevarious time-lines in terms of how community planning has evolved across the devolved UKdemonstratetheextenttowhichthenatureofpartnershipworkinginthepublicsectorhaschangedonanincrementalbasis.From a top-down perspective, designing and developing ‘effective’ working relationsmay extendfrompromotingorganicandvoluntaryrelations,wherepartnershipsorsharedservicesareactivelyencouraged, to the use of legal arrangements and duties to cooperate, where relations areunderpinnedbystatute.Suchissuesareexploredfurtherbelow.4.3.1PolicyincrementalismSome intervieweeswere able to position contemporary developments for community planning inrelationtoalongerhistorical–andideologicallyinformed–time-line.Forcertainindividuals,therewasasenseinwhichpersonalexperienceoffourdecadesofchangeinpublicserviceprovisionhadrevealedprolongedconcernswithrespecttotheappropriatebalancebetweenstrategicworkingandlocal service delivery, the size of local government, and thebreaking upof certain democraticallyaccountable, strategic functions, particularly in the light of neoliberal influences stemming frompoliticalthinkinginthe1980s.

“Sowe’veendedupatagovernmental levelwith incrediblewaste, incredibleduplication, incredibleslamming-up of services, and then ‘community planning’ pops up as a mechanism for correctivetherapy.We’ll bring it all back together again, and we’ll join up all those things that we’ve spentdecadestakingapart.Andit’sa‘game’.Ifyoustandbackfromit,andifyougetlongenoughinthetoothaboutit,thisisagameofchange.Andchangegivestheillusionofprogress,andpeoplemaketheircareeronchange.Theydon’tmaketheircareerondeliveringsustainable,measurableoutcomechanges.So,youknow,…it’sreinvention.”

Localauthoritystrategicofficer-Scotland.Taking a post-war model of public service values and service provision as his starting point forexplaining his experiences of the changes occurring in the public sector, led one interviewee tocomment:

“It’salongtermdismantlingofBeveridge.”Localauthoritystrategicofficer–Scotland.

Theever-changingcontext,theintervieweecommented,wassimilartothatoftheRomanhistorian,Petronius,reflectingonhisexperiencesoftheRomanArmy:

…we trained hard … but every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would bereorganised.Iwastolearnlaterinlifethatwetendtomeetanynewsituationbyreorganising;andawonderfulmethoditcanbeforcreatingtheillusionofprogresswhileproducingconfusion,inefficiencyanddemoralisation.46

46CitedbytheConvenerofLothianRegionalCouncil,CouncillorEricMilIiganintheForewordtoMidwinter,A.(1995)LocalGovernmentinScotland:ReformofDecline.Basingstoke:Macmillan.

29

A number of interviewees in both England and Wales also highlighted that the on-goingrestructuringandrescalingof thepublic sectorhad impacteddetrimentallyon thedesignof joint-working arrangements for community planning. For example, it was suggested that therationalisationofLocalServiceBoardarrangementsinWaleshadtakenconsiderableeffortandtimeto‘beddown’,simplyhighlighting,perhaps,thatchangetakestimetoimplement.Ontheonehand,suchobservations indicateaconcernnotonlywiththetransactioncosts involved inorganisationalchangebutalsothepotentiallyadverseeffectsonmorale.Ontheotherhand,thevariousiterationssuggestacertainpragmatismwithrespecttohowpoliciesbed in, work (or not), and evolve in practice.Working at the neighbourhood level in communityplanning,onelocalgovernmentofficernotedhowlongimprovementscantaketohappen,andhow,intandemwithmanagingon-goinginterventions,thereisorganisationalchangetocontendwith:

“Sowhere I amnow - in terms of community planning, or local community planning and city-widecommunityplanning-is[thatit’s]partofadecentralisationstrategythattheCouncilhasprogressedsince the late ‘90s - providing more democratic structures, and opportunities for the localcommunities…-areinventionoflocalcommunityplanningstructuresthreetimes!ThereusedtobeNeighbourhoodServiceteams,whichwereallprofessionalstaff,whichevolvedintoNeighbourhoodPartnershipNetworks,whichevolvedintotheLocalCommunityPlanningPartnerships,which is the structurewe currently have to implement local community plans, and they’ve been inplacesince2007,2008.”

Localauthoritystrategicofficer-Scotland.Suchstoriesofon-goingresponsestorestructuringwereevidentacrossthecasestudiesandfurtherchangewasanticipated.4.3.2ResourcingAnemphasisonsecuringefficiencygainsandimprovingtheeffectivenessofever-reducingresourceswasalsoveryevidentinthedesignofsucharrangements.Betteruseofresourceswasusedtojustifythedesignofcommunityplanningstructures,withaviewthatcommunityplanningoffered,notonlyawaytosustainpublicservicesunderconditionsofincreaseddemandandresourceconstraint,butto address long-term issues and a changed focus. Data sharing, staff allocation, and sharingequipmentmayallservetoimproveresourceefficiency.Againstabackgroundoffinancialcut-backs,humanissues,however,appearedtopersist:

“Soevenstandingstillinthisclimateisprettygood.Welfarereformchanges,bedroomtax,universalcredit…Youknow,it’sreallydifficultforpeople,andtherearequiteintractableproblems,becauseit’smulti-generational.Andthere’salotof,youknow,beliefsandvaluesandthingsthatpeoplejustholdcoretothem,thatarejustembeddedacross,youknow,twogenerationsnow.Andsoit’squitedifficulttobringaboutchangeforpeople.”

Strategiccommunityplanningpartner–Scotland.A pooling of partners’ budgets, and a move away from funding individual organisations, wereidentifiedasofferingopportunitiestoinformthedesignofnewarrangements,andinthecontextofplaced-basedcommunityplanninginWales,forexample:

“We'reverymuchplace-based.It'sabouttheplace…We'vegotsomequitecommittedpartnerstherewhowanttoseethingswork.Attheendofthedaythey'renotfightingoverthebudget...”

StrategicLocalServiceBoardrepresentative-Wales.

30

A key resource highlighted for facilitating joint-workingwithin community planning arrangementswastheavailabilityofdesignatedofficerswithinpartnerorganisationswithdefinedresponsibilitiestoundertakespecifiedactivities:

“Unless they've had a clear resource team underneath them to help drive things through, the nexttime,theytalkaboutthesameissues.And,ofcourse,nothingishappeninginthemeantime.They'reallbusypeople,sotheycomebackandtheystartcomingupwiththesameoldgroundagainand,youknow, people start to think ‘this is awaste of time’. In the areaswhere they've put some resourcebehind it [the formerLocalServiceBoard],andsomeworkhasbeengoingon in-betweenmeetings,thenithasbeenbetter.”

WelshLocalGovernmentAssociationrepresentative.Dedicated officer support was therefore perceived as being crucial in ensuring that communityplanning ‘added value’, and that priorities for action set out by strategic community planningpartnershipsweretakenforward.Nevertheless,considerablevariabilityexistedacrossWales–andindeedtheotherdevolvedterritories– in respectof thepresenceofcommunityplanningdeliveryteamstoimplementagreedactions.4.4Organisationofjoint-workingrelationsforcommunityplanningIn termsof theorganisationof joint-working relations for communityplanning, there is aneed toconsider theorganisational formsemergingandwho is leadinganddriving sucharrangements. Inthisrespect,thediscussionfocusesonthreekeythemes:i)theimportanceofcross-scalarworking,ii)thenatureofcentre-localrelations;andiii)organisationanddeliveryinpractice.Insodoing,thishelps to highlight the partners involved in community planning processes and the role that civicleadersmayplay;andtheopportunitiesforcivilengagementthatmayexist.4.4.1Cross-scalarworkingA first key point that emerged related to the importance of cross-scalar working for communityplanning, and the implications for organisational arrangements. For example, the importance ofcross-scalar relationships in securing commitment and support to community planningarrangementswas identifiedas a recurring theme in shaping theextentof collaborationbetweenpartners.InWales, the Inquiry intoLocalServiceBoardshighlighted theneed forabetterbuy in from localpartners, including those at a strategic level, as well as the engagement of health bodies47.Nevertheless, interviewees argued that the introduction of new arrangements for communityplanninginWales(intheformofLocalServiceBoards)haddetrimentallyimpactedonthedeliveryoflocalpriorities.Indeed,intervieweeshighlightedhowmanypublicsectororganisations,suchasthepoliceorhealth,havearegionalorsub-regionalremitandthereforehavehadtoserviceasignificantnumber of community planning partnership arrangements. Thismultiple servicing role hasmeant

47NationalAssemblyforWales(2008)InquiryintoLocalServiceBoards.Health,WellbeingandLocalGovernmentCommittee(Cardiff:NationalAssemblyforWales),p.5.Availableon-lineat:http://www.assembly.wales/en/pages/searchresults.aspx?k=inquiry%20into%20local%20service%20boards&q=inquiry%20into%20local%20service%20boards

31

thatindividualsrepresentingsuchorganisationshavenotonlyhadcompetingdemandsontheirowntime,butalsohadtomanagecompetingprioritiesfortheresourcesoftheiremployer:

“Scaleisakeyissue–certainpartnershavetoservicemultipleLocalServiceBoards–forexample,thePolice,ProbationServiceandHealth.Therearelotsofpartnersthatsitaroundthathavearegionalrepresentation,notjustX.SoevenafocusonXisachallenge.”

Localauthoritystrategicofficer2-Wales.Hence there are clearly questions about how best to organise roles and responsibilities, both interms of organisational capacity, and jurisdiction. In some cases, such issues were compoundedwhere the involvement of local elected members in community planning arrangements made itdifficult forworking beyond individual local authority boundaries. Indeed, in relation to (the nowdefunct)CommunityStrategyPartnerships, ithasbeenreportedhowasignificantnumberof localcouncillorsoflocalauthoritiesinWalesinitiallyviewedthecommunityplanningprocessasadirectthreattotheircontroloflocalauthorityservicesandfunding.Thissituationhadbeencompoundedwherechanginglocalpoliticalleadershiphadledtodiscontinuitiesinthelocalauthority’sapproachtocommunityplanning.48As a result of changes in local political leadership and local councillor resistance, there has beenconsiderable variation across Wales with respect to the extent to which community planningarrangementshave focused strategically to improve joint-workingasopposed to focusingon localissues. In certainpartsofWales, someLocalServiceBoardsmerged inanattempt to realign theiractivitieswithsomeoftheirpartnersandinanattempttodevelopabroadercross-scalarandinter-sectoralapproach.Butevenwherethistookplace,intervieweeshighlightedhowseparateplanshadoften still been produced, and which meant that a concern with local issues had tended topredominate.TheuncertaintyandupheavalassociatedwithpublicsectorrestructuringinWalesalsoimpactedonthe ability of certain partners to be consistently represented within community planningarrangements.

“ThedifficultyatthattimewastheHealthBoardsweredrawingout,youknow, intoone, insteadofthe six thatexistedpreviously in thisareaofWales,andwhichpulledpeopleback. I can rememberprobablytwoyearsofstrugglingatalocallevel,tryingtogethealthboardrepresentation.Wereallydidstrugglewithit.”

StrategicLocalServiceBoardrepresentative-Wales.SuchissuesremainpertinentgiventhatthenewPublicServiceBoardsinWaleswillatleastinitiallybebasedupontheexistingstructureof localgovernment. Inaddition,withtheintroductionofthe2015Well-beingandFutureGenerationsActandPublicServiceBoardsinWales,someintervieweeswelcomedthefactthatsuchstructureswillbestatutoryandofferalonger-termperspectivebeyondelection cycles. However, others seriously questioned the ability of Public Service Boards to dothings verydifferently givena lackof resourcesand thenatureof current fundingmechanisms.Adifferentresourceallocationmodelwasgenerallydeemedtobeessentialincreatingastepchangeinpartners’waysofworking.Inthisrespect–andreturningtotheideaofpooledbudgets–placeorarea allocations focused on preventative ‘up-stream’ activities were seen as offering potential todeliver the new Well-being Plans more effectively rather than continuing to fund individualorganisationsandactionswhichdealtwithproblemsthathadalreadyemerged.48Williams,P.,Rogers,S.,Sullivan,H.,Evans,L.andCrow,A.(2006)People,PlansandPartnerships:ANationalEvaluationofCommunityStrategiesinWales,Cardiff:WelshGovernment.Availableat:http://llyw.cymru/statistics-and-research/people-plans-partnerships/?lang=

32

As such, thesepoints allude to the increasingpressureson thepublic sector in termsofdemand,financial limitationsandquality improvements. Thishas changed theoperatingandorganisationalcontextforcommunityplanning.Asaconsequence,thereareattemptsnotsimplytomoderniseandreformthepublicsector,buttoreinventpublicservices.Strategiclevelchangeshavebeendrivenbyeffortstorationalisethepublicsectorandthusservedtoaltertheconstituencyandinter-relationsoftheplayers involved.Moreover, inScotland,theemphasisonlocaldeterminationofcommunityplanningformandfocushasledtoavarietyofcommunityplanningmodelsemergingontheground.Ontheonehand,thislocaldifferentiationistobeexpected,giventheverydifferentcontextsoftheurban,rural,coastalandislandcommunitiestobeserved.Ontheother,strategicpartnersoperatingacrossdifferentlocalauthorityareaswillneedtobeadeptinadaptingtolocalforms.In Scotland, it was also evident that organic attempts at joint-working in some council areas toimprove public service provision had been identified by Central Government as a model worthrolling out across Scotland. As ambitions for integrated services provision through partnershipworking have grown, the legal basis for community planning has been strengthened. This turn tostatutoryforce is,perhaps,counter-intuitive,giventhe initialbottom-upambitionto improve localservices. The Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 places the National PerformanceFramework on a statutory footing. Strengthening the performance regime around an outcomesfocusmeansthatmoreeffortwillneedtobepaidtoelaboratinganddemonstratingachievementsinrelationtoindividuals,familiesandcommunitiesontheground.InNorthernIreland,therelativelyrecentintroduction(April2015)ofthedutytopreparecommunityplans, in tandemwith the creationof the11newcouncilsmeans that it is far tooearly to assessprogress. It is very clear, however, that Northern Ireland engaged in an in-depth examination ofmodels of community planning operating across the devolvedUK,49whilst also being sensitive toextensive experience in partnership working in the existing councils, such as the Policing andCommunity Safety Partnerships. Thisworkwas accompaniedby awide-ranging set of activities inrelation to capacity-building and support for transition committees by the Community PlanningFoundationProgramme,forexample.It isalsoclearthattherewillbelocaldifferentiationintermsof the precise form each community planning arrangement adopts. The use of workshops andconsultationactivitieswithdifferentstakeholders, forexample,hasexplicitlyservedtoshape localsolutions.50Moreover,nationalguidanceemphasisestheimportanceofcross-scalarworking.4.4.2Theimportanceofcentre-localrelationsThenatureofcentral-localrelationsinNorthernIrelandisverydifferentfromotherpartsoftheUK,givenahistoryof centraliseddecision-making, the radical reforms to local governmentunderway,thenewlocalauthorityboundaries,andchangesinjobrolesandpersonnel.Thisparticularsituation,and the relatively small size of Northern Ireland, creates a particular context for new relationaldynamics:

“[Communityplanningis]...comingfromdifferentdirections.Ithinkyouhavehadthe,kindof:‘Here'sthestrategy’,‘Here'stheregulations’,comingfromtheDepartment[oftheEnvironment]-topdown.

49See,forexample:BlakeStevenson&Strategem(2005)CaseStudyAnalysesforRPAonCommunityPlanninginOperationwithintheUKandIreland.October.Availableat:http://www.communityplanningtoolkit.org/sites/default/files/CommunityPlanningR2.pdf50See,forexample,BelfastCityCouncil’s‘BelfastConversation’initiativeaspartofitseffortstoco-createthe‘BelfastAgenda’.Availableat:http://www.belfastcity.gov.uk/council/Communityplanning/TheBelfastConversation.aspx

33

AndcreativityandinnovationcomingfromtheChief,thenewlyappointedChiefExecutives,who,alotofthem,arereallygraspingthisasanopportunitytoputtheirmarkontheCouncilandhowthey'redoing things.And to re-organise theentireCouncil -andverymuchput their stampon it.And takeforwardcommunityplanning.”

CommunityBodyNationalLevel–NorthernIreland.

Theclimate inwhichcommunityplanning isbeingput intoeffect inNorthern IrelandmaythusbeconsideredasverydifferentfromgovernancecontextselsewhereacrossthedevolvedUK.Oneviewsuggested that community planning was symptomatic of a new working culture and mind-set,involvingcentralandlocalgovernment,butalsootherpartners:

“Andseeingit[communityplanning]asjustadifferentwayofworking.Youknow,thewayweshoulddo things - rather than itbeing this thing called ‘communityplanning’. It'saboutworking together,aligningservices,addressingneeds,gettingbetteratcomms[communications]forcitizens.Andreallylooking at that as a way of working, really, as opposed to just branding it purely as communityplanning.Soit'sbeenquitedifferent,Ithink.AndtheCouncils-wewerepartofacontractforworkingwiththeDepartment[oftheEnvironment]tosupportthe11newCouncilsanddevelopingit-communityplanning-andthepreparing.And…rightacrosstheboard-there'ssomuchenthusiasm.And,youknow,anumberoftheCouncilsareseeingitasanopportunitytodosomethingdifferently,andtobuildbetterworkingrelationshipswithsomeofthoseotherpartners,and,really,fortheCounciltohavethatpower-andtoreallyshowthe, sort of, civic leadership, that, perhaps, we haven't had here from Councils, given the limitedpowersthattheydidhavepreviously.So,Ithink, it'sboth.Ithinkwe,sortof,gotthisregulationandstrategycomingfromthetop-down-butnotbeingoverlyprescriptiveeither,youknow.Itwas,sortof-here'sthebroadwaytodoit,but,youknow,youcanstilldecideyourselves.AndthelocalCouncilshavereallygoneforwardwithit,justtakenitandareputtingtheirmarkonit,andthenmakingitfortheirlocalarea,too.Soit'snot justcommunityplanningfortheregion. It'swhat'sgoingtobebestforourCouncilarea-andreallygettingthatownershipanddrivebehind it.And,certainly,wherethat'shappened, I thinkyoucanseethosethataremaybedevelopingfasterandhavearealgripofcommunityplanning.”

CommunityBodyNationalLevel–NorthernIreland.InNorthern Ireland, therewasalsoevidenceof thenewcouncils cooperating to influence centralgovernment. Here, influencing the emerging Programme for Government was identified asimportant.Therewerealsoaspectsofscaleintermsofhowlocalandregionalprioritiesmightbeimpacted:

“So,Ithink,they[localcouncils]reallyseethebenefitofthat,andeven,Ithinkeachofthe11Councils,you'llprobablyseethemworkingtogethermoretoinfluencecentralgovernment,andhavingalliancestogether to try and persuade central government, because there's going to be that angle, as youwouldexpecttheretobe-tobe localprioritiesandthenregionalpriorities.SoIthinkthenewChiefExecutives are working very well and very… in a smart way really, in terms of having their ownalliancesandagenciesthatthey'llbeabletopulltogethertoinfluencecentralgovernment.”

CommunityBodyNationalLevel–NorthernIreland.Toadegree,thissituationcontrastswithwhatishappeninginEnglandandWales.InEngland,ithasbeennotedhowpreviouslythelinksverticallybetweencommunityplanningarrangements–intheformofLocalStrategicPartnerships–andothersub-regional,regionalandnationalpolicyinitiatives

34

andgovernancearrangementswas limited.51Beyond2010,aconsiderationofstrategicrelations inrespect of neighbourhood planning – as well as broader concerns with service re-design andneighbourhood budgeting – highlighted in particular how central government hadmade on-goingattempts to develop strategic relations directly with local communities rather than localgovernment. Nonetheless, the removal of the requirement for Local Strategic Partnerships has,arguably, undermined attempts to secure integrated approaches to local delivery and howefficiencies in local budgets couldbe re-allocated througha collaborativediscussionwithnationalgovernment:

“There’sdefinitelyanissuewhere,youknow,localauthoritiessay,well,wecanputmoneyinherebutthebenefitswill accrue to theNationalHealthService (NHS),andalso, youknow,weputmoney inhereanditsavescentralgovernmentmoney,andcannotwehavesomeofthat?SoIthinkthat’sanargumentwehaven’tresolvedatall……”

CivilServant2,CommunitiesandLocalGovernment.Moreover,theroleoflocalauthoritiesinsupportingneighbourhoodplanningwasarguedtobelessabout whether they felt such activities were a good idea or not and more about checking andmonitoring,andundertakingarangeofexaminationstoexpeditetheprocess:

“Ithinkministersareinaplacewheretheywanttomakesurethatnolocalauthoritiesaredelaying,orseentobedelaying,andthereareexampleswhere it’stakena longtimetodocertainparts.Wepay themmoney and I thinkministers feel that,well, in those situations you should be, you know,marching to the beat, quite a speedy drum. So perhaps we will have a situation where you justautomaticallyproceedtothenextstageifittakestoolong.”

Civilservant2,CommunitiesandLocalGovernment.WithreferencetoWales,asimilar lackofastatutoryobligationfornon-localauthoritypartnerstoparticipate in strategic community planning partnerships (at least until the introduction of PublicService Boards) was cited as a key weakness in terms of securing strong joint-working relations.Equally, continuing attempts at the structural reorganisation of local government in England andWales have been identified as being potentially unhelpful and disruptive in terms of workingrelationships both horizontally and vertically, and despite efforts to secure a closer workingrelationshipbetweentheWelshGovernmentandlocalcommunityplanningpartnerships.4.4.3OrganisationanddeliveryinpracticeNewmodelsanditerationsofgovernanceforcommunityplanningareemergingacrossthedevolvedUK.Yet,on-goingconcernswereraisedbyintervieweesovertheabilityofstructuralreorganisationtodeliverresultsinpractice.FromaScottishperspective,oneintervieweecommented:

“… I mean some of that stuff Britain does very well, and it does… it does governance very well,actually, you know.We can actually plan very well.Whether our delivery matches our planning, Ithink,hasalwaysbeenthechallenge,forme,andoftenwedon’tfollowthroughontheplan.Weplan,wecreatealegislativeprocess,werestructurearoundthatplan-aswe’redoingwithhealthandcarenow-andwedoallofthatstuff.Therealissuewithhealthandcareistherearecertainsicknessesinthesystem.Oneofthemiswedon’tpayenoughtaxfortheoutcomesweexpect…Solet’sreorganise,andseeifwecanlosesomeofthatpoliticalissueinareorganisation.Ireckoninfivetotenyears’timewe’ll be having the same debates as have been up to now, and that are being deflected by theintegrationofhealthandsocialcareinScotland.

51Darlow,A.,Percy-Smith,J.andWells,P.(2007)CommunityStrategies:Aretheydeliveringjoinedupgovernance?LocalGovernmentStudies33(1),pp.117-129.

35

Soit’sagoodthingtodo.Itwillhavebenefits.Itwillshakeup.Itwillallowsomepeopletoleaveonvoluntaryretirement.It’llbringnewbloodthroughintothesystem.Butitwon’tultimatelyachievetheoutcomesthataredesiredofit,becausewedon’tputenoughinput…”

Localauthoritystrategicofficer-Scotland.Moreover,theextenttowhichcommunityplanningarrangementscouldbeorganisedstrategically,whilstatthesametimebeingusedasatooltoempowerlocalgroups,wasdeemedtobecrucialinshapingdeliveryinpractice.ThiswasexemplifiedinrelationtoneighbourhoodplanninginEngland:

“There’s also, kind of, conversations going on about thewhole localism versus not having, kind of,anythingstrategicatall…….”

LocalGovernmentAssociationrepresentative1-England.

“It’sreallygivensomecommunitiesaseatatthetablewithlocalauthorities.It’s,kindof,madegroupsgrowinconfidenceandcapability.They’regettingtogripswithreallycomplextechnicalplans.”

CivilServant2,CommunitiesandLocalGovernment.Notwithstanding such arguments, given the emphasis on housing and local economic growth inneighbourhoodplanninginEngland,itremainstobeseenwhetherstrategicgovernmentambitionsare realised in practice, and how these pan out on an England-wide basis. Sustained communitycapacityand inputmayalsoprove tobean issue in sucharrangements,andwhichmay thereforereinforceandprivilegetheorganisationalperspectivetocommunityplanningdiscussedearlier.Overall, the sectionhas thereforehighlightedhow issues have emergedover the extent towhichstrategic partners have been able to service multiple (local) community planning structures inScotland,WalesandNorthernIreland.ButinthecontextofneighbourhoodplanninginEngland,theexact oppositemay be evident. Indeed, an interviewee in England reported that one designatedneighbourhood plan area was cutting across five local authority boundaries. Therefore, theneighbourhood plan had to be in general conformity with all five local authorities’ local plan,introducingincreasingcomplexityinrespectoftheorganisationofjoint-workingarrangements.Thisalsocalledintoquestiontheimportanceofleadership:

“Thewhole process is cryingout for a leader….......Iwould like to say thatwhat is important is thecouncil,andtheroleofofficersaswell.Ithinkwithoutthat,localauthoritiescanprettymuchchoose,iftheywish,tobelukewarm….”

Localauthoritystrategicofficer–Wales.More broadly, with reference to centre-local relations, it was identified that there has beenconsiderablevariabilityinrespectoftheverticalrelationsthatexistedbetweencentralgovernmentandlocalcommunityplanningpartnerships.Inthisrespect,theneedforjoiningupnationally,aswellaslocally,wasperceivedasbeingcrucialinshapingtheeffectivenessoforganisationalarrangementsforcommunityplanning.However,itwasclaimedthatthishadbeenfrequentlyunderminedthroughaninconsistencyofdirectionfromcentralgovernmentinrespectof informingcommunityplanningstructures, and their subsequent effectiveness. This point will now be considered further in thefollowingsection.4.5Managementofjoint-workingrelationsforcommunityplanningThemanagementofjoint-workingrelationsforcommunityplanningmayincludenationalinspection,auditing, and performance regimes. These activities variously affect operational dynamics andworkingrelationsandhaveevolvedtofocusonoutputs,processesand,mostrecently,outcomes.

36

4.5.1Outcomes-basedworkingAnimportantthemetoemergefromthestudywastheincreasingattentiononoutcomesasawayto focus different parties’ working ethos around holistic goals. An outcomes-based approach isdesigned to orient service providers towards putting in place measures to achieve change inindividuals’, families’ and communities’ quality of life. The approach shifts attention away frominputsandoutputstowardsmakingadifferenceinpeople’slives.Notably, the introduction of the National Performance Framework in Scotland and the 2007Concordat between the Scottish Government and COSLA were influential in shifting attentiontowards outcomes, particularly in Scotland, but also elsewhere. Here, the use of logicmodels, inwhich stakeholders participate to ensure inputs, actions, outputs and outcomes are evidence-informed, logical and achievable, is an example of reorienting service thinking away from apotentiallynarrowservice-focuson,say,thenumberofworkplacementsmade,tosomethingmoreholistic.52Orientingservicesaroundwell-being,arguably, creates space for service innovation.The2015 Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act has not only strengthened the status of thePerformance Framework but focused attention on identifying local outcomes that meet nationalpriorities.TheremitofthenewActwassummarisedasfollows:

“Itgivesadefinedpurpose forwhat communityplanning shouldachieve for the first time,which isverymuchabout improving localoutcomesand tackling inequality. It placesa rangeofdutiesonanumberofpartners - not just the local authority, butalso thehealthboard, integrated jointboard,etc.,-tosupportcommunityplanning.Andtheinvolvementofcommunitiesisrightattheheartofit”.

Localauthoritystrategicofficer-Scotland.InWales,therehasbeenthedevelopmentofamuchcloserworkingrelationshipbetweenlocalandnationalgovernment.ThiscloserworkingbecameparticularlyevidentwiththeintroductionofLocalServiceBoards,and,indeed,withministerssigningofftheactivitiesoftheLocalServiceBoards,andwithGovernmentofficialssittingoneachBoard.Buttherehavealsobeentensionsbetweennationalgovernment and local areason the specificityofnational targets setout for the Single IntegratedPlansoftheLocalServiceBoards.

“TheWelshGovernmentwereveryspecificsaying, ‘Youneedtosetyourself targets…..Youcan’t justsay“improvingtrend”or“decreasingtrend”….wewantpercentages.AndtheLocalServiceBoardfeltquitestronglythatitdidn’twanttodothat.”

Localauthoritystrategicofficer2-Wales.Hence,with themove tostatutoryPublicServiceBoards (with responsibility forproducingaWell-beingPlan), therewas thehopeamongst those interviewedat a local level that thenewnationalperformancemanagement arrangements for community planning – and focused around securingnationalwell-beingoutcomes-wouldnotbeoverlyprescriptive,asthiscoulddetractfromwhatthenewBoardscouldachieve.

“Ireallyhopeitisnotalistof‘youmustdothis,youmustdothis’.BecausePublicServiceBoardswilllosetheopportunity tobethe local leadfor thearea if that is thecaseandwewillbesotiedup inequalityandassessmentsandeverythingelse.TojustticktheboxesforWelshGovernment,itwillbeamissedopportunity.”

Localauthoritystrategicofficer3–Wales.

52See,forexample,ScottishGovernment(2009)TowardsaMentallyFlourishingScotland:PolicyandActionPlan2009-2011,Edinburgh:ScottishGovernment.Availableat:http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2009/05/06154655/2

37

Thelonger-termapproachtomonitoringchangeundernewarrangementsforcommunityplanningdeveloping in Wales was also generally welcomed by local interviewees. Nevertheless, it wasreiteratedthatsuchanapproachtoassessingserviceeffectivenessandmeasuringoutcomesonthegroundwouldrequireachangeinapproachatanationallevelintermsofworkingbeyondelectoralcycles,ashiftinmind-setwhichmayprovedifficulttoachieve.

“X isaworkingclasstown–thereare lotsofhealthproblemsasaresultand itmakes itdifficult toachieveoutcomes. Long-termbehavioural change focusedaroundprevention is required.But short-termoutcomesareoftenrequired.Thescepticismcomesfromthefactthatyouoperateonafourorfive-yearpoliticalcycleandthepoliticianswillworktothatcycleandthat'swhatdrivestheirdecision.”

WelshLocalGovernmentAssociationrepresentative.Notwithstanding such pessimism, some moves towards adopting a longer-term approach havealreadybeendeveloped in different parts of theUK. Furthermore, the 2015Well-being of FutureGenerations (Wales) Act is informing the development of a longer-term approach by the PublicServiceBoards inWales,andwithanacknowledgementthatconsiderabletimewillberequiredtosecuregenerationalchange.4.6SummaryAnumberofkeymessagesemergeoverallintermsofthedesign,organisationandmanagementofjoint-workingarrangementsforcommunityplanning.Theseinclude:• theextentofintegrationinrespectofcross-scalararrangements;• theimportanceoflocalpoliticsintermsofthereceptivenessofthelocalauthoritytocommunity

planningandworkingwithother‘extra-local’partners(includingcentralgovernment);• theguidanceavailablefromnationalgovernment;• theavailabilityoflocaldeliverystructures(suchaslocaldeliveryteams)toimplementpriorities

setoutbycommunityplanningpartnerships;• thehistoryof relationsbetweenthe localauthorityand localneighbourhoods,andwhichmay

varyconsiderablybylocalauthorityareaandimpingeonlocalintelligencegatheringandtheco-productionofservicedesign(anddelivery);

• theextent towhich the local authority localplan isup-to-date, as this canhelp to strengthenrelationsandlinkagesbetweencommunityplanningandotherformsofplanning.

38

5. COMMUNITYENGAGEMENTIn the introduction, we positioned the interest in public sector and public service reform andmodernisationin lightofbroadereffortstobringgovernment‘closertothepeople’.Sincethelate1990s, there have clearly been efforts to advance this agenda and address aspects of democraticrenewal. The positioning and engagement of communities in community planning is thus all-important,raisingcriticalquestionsabouttheextenttowhichcivilsocietyisplacedonaspectrumofbeingpassiveoractive,and, crucially, thedegree towhich serviceprovidersandpartnersassumeresponsibilityforinvolvingindividualsandcommunitiesanddeliveringservices.Whilst the various statutory provisions in each of the four jurisdictions set out communityinvolvement requirements, howparticipation isperceived,put intoplace, andexperiencedby thevariousinterestsdiffers.Importantly,however,communityengagement,inthecurrentiterationsofcommunity planning, extends beyond simple requirements to inform local people about theexistenceofacommunityplan. Ithasshiftedto incorporateactiveengagementof local individualsandcommunitybodies,potentiallyinservicedelivery.Asaconsequence,therearedemocraticandtechnocratic dimensions to be considered. These considerations extend to how communityengagement in community planning is meaningfully linked to other statutory consultationrequirements,suchasthoseinvolvedinlanduseplanning.5.1DemocraticdimensionsPositioningcommunityplanningwithreferencetounderstandingsofmulti-levelandcross-sectoralgovernance is variable. Significantly, it is generally recognised that the UK remains a highlycentralised state in terms of local powers and decision-making.53 How wider civil society – andindividualcitizens-engageinissuesofservicedeliveryclearlyalsovariesacrosstime,placeandscaleand theextent towhichpower isdevolved similarly fluctuates.Asnewmodelsof servicedeliveryemerge–suchasthoseinvolvingcommunitybodies–newissuesformulti-levelgovernancecometothe fore. Consequently, changing levels of responsibility suggest a new strategic and coordinatingroleforlocalgovernment.In Scotland, for example, community planning, as a local level activity, was couched generally inrelation to the European concept of subsidiarity. A COSLA representative, for example,was quiteclearinstatingthatcommunityplanningneededtobeunderstoodintermsofempowerment:

“We’ve really been hammering that [subsidiarity] because what we kind of get is the view fromGovernmentthatthingscanbedevolved.Butthenyou’resaying, ‘We’renotaskingyouto letusdosome things that you’re prepared to keep control of. We’re asking you to… We’re asking forsubsidiarity.We’reaskingforyoutohandoverthepoweroversomethingsandtotrust…[…]…trustlocalplayerstoreally,withinsomesortofframework,toreallybefreetosay,‘Thisiswhat’sbestforourarea.’And,withinaframework,therearesomethingswewouldinvestin-andsomethingsthatwewouldn’t-becausethey’renotrightfortheprioritiesandtheneedsofthisarea.”

ConventionofScottishLocalAuthoritiesrepresentative.

53Smith,J.(2013)LocalgovernmentinEngland:dowecomplywiththeEuropeanCharterofLocalSelf-Government?ReporttotheLocalGovernmentAssociation.Availableat:http://www.local.gov.uk/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=1f372790-a6b2-4e78-90ad-30cff0016f2a&groupId=10180

39

Reference was also made, in the Scottish context, to the activities of the 2014 Commission onStrengthening Local Democracy, and, fundamentally, “what needs changing” in relation todemocraticstructures(Nationalcommunitybodyrepresentative-Scotland).TheextentoftheinfluenceoftheEuropeanCharterofLocalSelf-Governmentonlocalgovernmentin Scotland was also introduced by the COSLA representative as inviting a strengthening of localgovernmentpowers:

“…where we had a direct interaction with the EU on the European Charter and subsidiarity andwhether it isactuallybeingplayedout intheUK. Inourcase,theycametoScotlandtosay, ‘What’syourexperienceofit?’And,Ithink,weweresaying,thatourexperienceofitisthere’salotofrhetoricarounddevolvingthingstolocalgovernment,butprobablytherealityofthatdoesn’tmatchup.And, in our view, the European Charter and subsidiarity aren’t being acted upon… […] So in theScotlandBill,and inotherplaces,we’vebeenpressing for - ifnot theEuropeanCharterprovisions -somethinglikethat.Somethingthatgiveslocalgovernmentrightstoact.”

ConventionofScottishLocalAuthoritiesrepresentative.Notably,Article3oftheCharterstates:

Localself-governmentdenotestherightandtheabilityoflocalauthorities,withinthelimitsofthelaw,toregulateandmanageasubstantialshareofpublicaffairsundertheirownresponsibilityandintheinterestsofthelocalpopulation.

As such, theCharter emphasises the role of local authorities inmanaging the local public sphere.Recognising the local level of authority in relation to multi-level governance, the concept ofsubsidiarity gives further credence to the importance of proportionality, local competence,autonomy and appropriateness of service planning at the local level. Thus, in relation to theEuropeanUnion,whilstitisnotthecasethatlocalgovernmentisalwaysthemostappropriatebody,itisconfirmedthat:

Thesubsidiarityprinciple,(EuropeanUnion(Art.5(3)TEU)),requirestheEUtoconsiderwhichlevelofgovernmentisappropriatewheredecisionstowardsaspecificendshouldbetakenandthattheseshouldtakeplaceatthelevelclosesttothecitizens.Oftenthiswouldmeanlocalgovernment.54

The June2016EUReferendumresultoccurredafter the interviewshadbeenundertaken,but theextent towhich local autonomy is decentralised to the level of citizens and communities remainsopentoquestion:

“Well,thechallengeisthat,ifyoupushpowerdown,youhavetogivepoweraway.So,ifyouwantto‘empowercommunity’,i.e.theCommunityEmpowerment[Scotland]Act-who’sgivingwaytothat?”

Nationalcommunitybodyrepresentative-Scotland.Placing community involvement inaEuropeancontext invites comparativeanalysis,particularly inrelationtothenatureofthepowersgivento,andheldby,localcommunitiesinalltheirrichnessanddiversity.Intermsofinternationallearning,thecontextoflocalcommunitygovernance,understood

54ConventionofScottishLocalAuthorities(2014)Subsidiarity:ScottishLocalGovernmentinfluencingtheEuropeanAgenda.Brussels:COSLA.Availableat:http://www.cosla.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/cosla_subsidiarity_scottish_councils_influencing_eu_agenda-.pdf

40

as community power, is thus all important, raising new expectations. One perspective was thatcommunitycontrolremainsrelativelyweak:

“… I thinkwhatweneed in theUK, as awhole, is to lookat our government structures,whichareactuallyincrediblyoutdated,andtheydon’tfitanymore.So,therefore,ifyouhaveaEuropeanlookatsubsidiarity - subsidiarity in Norway, Sweden, Germany, France… looks very different to thesubsidiarityherebecausewedon’thavethatkindof level. […] Itstartswith localgovernment intheUK,ordistrictcouncilsinEngland.But,youknow,atthatlevel,actually,you’restillquiteremotefromthepeople,youknow.”

Nationalcommunitybodyrepresentative-Scotland.Nevertheless, aspirations on the ground, and how the precise opportunities for involvement areperceived and realised, tend to be very different. The range of players (statutory, business, thirdsector,communitybody)expected(andrequired)toparticipateincommunityplanningisextensive,raisingquestionsabout theplaceof individualcommunitymembers.Thestatusofcommunities intheemergingmodelofcommunityplanninginNorthernIreland,forexample,illustratesthispoint:

“Imean,youthinkoftheactualdutyofcommunityplanningnowthat'sbestowedonCouncilsandthecommunityplanningpartners-sonotjustCouncils-and…youknow,itis-kindof–[…]‘communityoflocalgovernancenearly.’Andlocalauthorities,theotherpublicservicesproviders,and,then,sittingalongsidethat,like,theprivatesector,andthenthecommunityinvolvementsector-andthencitizens,maybe,-evenfurtherback.”

Nationalcommunitybodyrepresentative–NorthernIreland.Issues relating towhere andhow ‘community’ fitswithin community planning arrangements, andthe extent to which there are opportunities for involvement in community planning, were alsohighlighted as important elsewhere. In Wales, it was identified that the non-statutory nature ofcommunity planning structures had impacted on the extent of community engagement that hadtakenplace,andonthe levelsof interestandawarenessbythegeneralpublicastotheremitandrole of such structures. Questions were also raised over the extent to which structures forcommunity planning should be focused on empowerment. For example, a number of individualsquestioned:‘Howfardowndoyougo?’andthat:‘ItwasnotnecessarilyfortheLocalServiceBoardtorespond,givenitsplanislonger-term’(Localauthoritystrategicrepresentatives1and2).In England, interviewees highlightedhow the extent ofmaturation of local authorities’workwithlocalcommunitiesconsiderablyimpactedontheextenttowhichlocalcommunitieswereinvolvedinthedesign,developmentandimplementationofneighbourhoodplanningactivity.Thisisparticularlyrelevant in relation to efforts to secure the wider engagement of individuals beyond the ‘usualsuspects’,andtodevelopasustainablelong-termapproachtocommunityengagement:

“ThefundamentalthingisthattheNeighbourhoodForum…..ifthisweretoreallywork…..itneedstobeeither parished or given some long-termism. You know, not constituted just to produce theneighbourhoodplan…..itmustbetheretodeliver,toimplementtheplan”.

IndependentNeighbourhoodPlanningSteeringGrouprepresentative–England.Moreover, in relation towidening involvement beyond ‘the retired people in the Home Counties’(CivilServant1,CommunitiesandLocalGovernment),ithasbeenwidelyreportedhowthefocusofneighbourhood planning has extended in many areas to include more deprived localities, thebusiness community, ethnic minorities and transient communities. Nevertheless, transientcommunitieswereviewedasparticularlydifficulttoengage,giventhattheymayhavelessinterestintheneighbourhoodplanduetotheirmobilityandlackofplaceattachment.

41

Emerging thinking and practice in community planning therefore demonstrate that, whilstcommunityinvolvementisnolongerseenasatokenisticelement,ormereadd-on,topublicservicedesign anddelivery, as understood in termsofArnstein’s (1969) hierarchical ladder of degrees ofpowerinparticipation,55therearestillaspirationsformorepowerinsomequarters.5.2TechnocraticdimensionsFacilitating community engagement involves putting the necessary structures, processes andtechniquesintoplace.TakingtheLocalGovernmentAct(NorthernIreland)2014bywayofexample,the legislationdemonstrates the statutory requirement imposednotonlyon the council, but alsothe community planning partners, and the need actively to seek participation in determining theservicefocusandthereviewofthecommunityplan’seffects.Specifically,Part10,Section73(1)oftheActstates:

Acouncilanditscommunityplanningpartnersmustseektheparticipationofandencouragethe personsmentioned in subsection (2) to express their views, and take those views intoaccount,inconnectionwith—(a)communityplanning;(b)theproductionofacommunityplanforthedistrict;and(c)thereviewofcommunityplans.

Such obligations raise fundamental issues about the design of the necessary arrangements fordiversecommunitiesofinterest,placeandidentitytobeactively(andequally)engaged.The case of Northern Ireland is particular, given, in part, because of the centralisation andsubsequentinterruptedtransferofpowerstolocalgovernment.Nevertheless,ahistoryofbottom-up and self-organised self-help led to an extensive set of community-based groups serving localneeds.ThesigningofaConcordatbetween theNorthern IrelandGovernmentand thecommunityandvoluntarysector, forexample, is indicativeofthe importantroleplayedbycivilsociety inthatjurisdiction, the acknowledged value of active citizenship in developing public policy, designingcitizen-centred services and ensuring services are appropriate and responsive; and the need forpartnershipworkingatnational,sub-regionalandlocallevels.56 The implications are that effort is required in building new capacity. InNorthern Ireland the newcontext appears to have given councils an important platform for engaging citizens, althoughexperienceisdifferentiatedontheground:

[for] “…nearly all of the 11 Councils, engagementwas high up on their priority of issues that theywantedtotackle.Andallofthemhavedonequiteextensiveengagement,sothattheycansay,‘Well,wehavethissoundevidencebaseonwhichtoidentifywhatourprioritiesandwhatourissuesareinthearea.’

55Arnstein,S.(1969)ALadderofCitizenParticipation,JournaloftheAmericanPlanningAssociation,35(4)1969,pp.216-224.Availableat:http://www.lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherry-arnstein/ladder-of-citizen-participation.html56DepartmentforSocialDevelopment(2013)ConcordatbetweentheVoluntary&CommunitySectorandtheNorthernIrelandGovernment,Belfast:DSD.Availableat:http://www.communityplanningtoolkit.org/sites/default/files/WorkingTogetherR5.pdf

42

And so, actually, to date, there's been quite a lot of engagement, and, in some cases, it has beenpurelyinformation,‘ThisisthenewpowerswhichCouncilshave’and‘Thisiswhatwe'regoingtodo’,and‘Wedon'tknowexactlywhatwe'regoingtodo,yet,butwe'regoingto,kindof,takeyoualongonthatjourney.’Andthenothershaveleftitto,kindof,laterwherethey'reableto,tosay,‘Thisisourstructure.Thisishowwe'regoingtodoit.Andweactuallywantyoutobeapartofthedesignofit.’Andthereisthatverymuchtechnicaldesignapproach,andnoonewasexcluded.And there's been something like 150 people at a series of workshops in terms of co-designing theprocessofdevelopingthecommunityplan.So it's,kindof, strangethatengagementhasbeenquitehigh up there on the agenda. And in terms of ensuring that the citizen is included, I think that isbecauseit'sbeendrivenbylocalCouncils.”

Nationalcommunitybodyrepresentative–NorthernIreland.In Scotland, efforts to promote and facilitate effective community engagement across differentspheres, such as health and social care, have been informed by various guidance. The NationalStandardsforCommunityEngagement,forexample,areasetofgoodpracticeprinciplesforusebypublicsectorbodies,thirdsectororganisations,communitygroups,electedmembersandtheprivateandindependentsectors.Originallyintroducedin2005,theStandardswererevised in 2015-16 in light of the changing policy landscape and emphasis on communityempowerment.57Arangeofpublicsectoragenciesandindividualshaveendorsedthesevenstandardsasbeingappropriatetothenewcontextforsupportingshareddecision-making,andsharedorcommunity-ledaction,andwhichresultinpositiveimpact.In Wales, discussions over the structures, processes and techniques for facilitating communityengagementweremade in the context of broaderproposals for reorganising local government inWales,aswellasaturnto‘PlacePlans’initiallyproposedinthedevelopmentofthePlanning(Wales)Act2015.(WereturntothislatteraspectinSection6.)WithregardstoproposalsforfurtherlocalgovernmentreforminWales,58questionswereraisedbyintervieweesinrespectoftheabilityofthenewPublicServiceBoards–whichwillbebasedonlocalauthorityboundaries–torespondtoissuesatalocallevel,especiallyiftherearevoluntarymergersand an eventualmove to fewer, but larger, authorities. As such, technocratic concerns appear tooutweighissuesofdemocraticaccountability.TherelativeselectivityoflocalauthoritysupportinbothWalesandEnglandwasalsohighlightedasakeyissueintermsofcommunityengagement.Forexample,inrelationtoneighbourhoodplanninginEngland,discussionshadarisenovertheextenttowhichsupportshouldbetargetedtowardsthosemostlikelytoproduceaneighbourhoodplan:

“I thinkX for instance is very, very far off. They’vebeendesignated. They’vebeendesignated for awhile,but I think it’s justbecause it’s so laborious, theprocessandhowtheyset themselvesup. I’dalmostbesurprisediftheyevergetaneighbourhoodplandone.That’s,kindof,difficult,Ithink,forus,becauseifwethinkthereisn’tmuchchanceofthemgettinganeighbourhoodplandone,well,shouldweprioritiseotherareas?”

57ScottishCommunityDevelopmentCentre(2016)NationalStandardsforCommunityEngagement.Glasgow:SCDC.Availableat:http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Built-Environment/regeneration/engage/standards58WelshGovernment(2014)WhitePaper–ReformingLocalGovernment,Cardiff:WelshGovernment.Availableat:http://www.wlga.gov.uk/non-wlga-publications/welsh-government-l-white-paper-reforming-local-government

43

Localauthoritydeliveryofficer-England.Consequently, whilst technocratic concerns are frequently focused around the importance ofstructures and processes, these are power-laden, and thus the involvement of particularcommunities and individuals in community planning may be strategically selective, as well asspatiallyuneven.5.3SummaryCommunity engagement is a prerequisite of community planning. Indeed, some definitions of‘community planning’, and in other international contexts, are synonymous with communityengagement.Threeaspectsfromourfindingsmeritattention.First, community engagement has traditionally been framed in terms of involving people inresponding to professionally - and politically-led planning processes. Conventionally, thisconsultationstageoccursonceaplanorstrategyhasbeendrafted.Thenewthinkingincommunityplanningemphasisesnotonlyendeavouringtoengagecommunitiesinplandesignandpreparationin shared ways, but also in plan monitoring. Taking communities’ views into account andengagementoverthelongertermislinkedwithaturntoanoutcomes-basedapproachandgreaterattention to the impacts felt. Moreover, adopting a community planning approach emphasisesdeveloping strategic uses of community engagement in order to reduce community consultationfatigueanddevelopmoreholisticsolutions.Second,therequirementactivelytoengagepeople–particularlydisadvantagedcommunities–issetoutinlegislation,andthisdutyextendstocommunityplanningpartners.Third,thenotionofcommunityengagementhasprogressedfromarelativelyinstrumentalconcernwith informing communities about services to community bodies (potentially) running particularservices.Thishasbeen reflected in termsof the ‘community right to challenge’ setoutunder the2011 Localism Act in England, for example, and which provides the opportunity for localcommunities tobid to run theirown services. The2015CommunityEmpowerment (Scotland)Actsimilarlyprovidesforco-productionandemphasisescombiningthemutualstrengthsandcapacitiesofcommunitybodiestoachievepositivechange.Fromthisperspective,andreflectingontheearlieriterations of public service reforms highlighted in Section 2, users have thus moved from beingpassive to active citizens – potentially from consumer to provider. There are, nonetheless, deepquestionsaround the reachof suchcommunityengagement idealsand theextent towhich thosewhoexperiencemultipledisadvantagecanparticipateinthisnewgovernancearena.

44

6. COMMUNITYPLANNINGANDLANDUSEPLANNINGAsmodelsofcommunityplanninghaveevolved,questionshavebeenraisedaboutitsrelationshipswithotherpublicsectoractivities,and, rathermorefundamentally,otherplans.Aspecial issueoncommunityplanningandstrategiesin2000,forexample,flaggedaconcernthattheintroductionofcommunity planning in England and Wales might simply produce another plan, leading to thequestion:‘Howmanyplansdoesittaketoimprovehealthandwell-being?’59p.8Rather,itwasargued,anover-ridingobjectiveofcommunityplanningwastochangeprocessesandimpactsontheground.Anothercommentator,atthattime,pointedtotheambitiousnatureofcommunityplanningtobe:‘holistic, joined-up, cross-cutting, collaborative, empowering and sustainable’.60p.3 This ambitiousagenda remains a familiar one. So how does one integrate plans and put strategic planning intopractice at the local, neighbourhood level, and in a way that ismeaningful to local people? Thissection considers the particular relationship between community planning and land use planning,givencertainsimilaritiesinfocus.Weaddresstheparticularfeaturesofthis linkinEngland,Wales,ScotlandandNorthernIreland.First,however,wesetoutawayofunderstandingthelinkages.6.1ConstructingalinkbetweencommunityplanningandlanduseplanningThereareimportantsimilaritiesbetweencommunityplanningandlanduseplanning.First,thereisa‘planning’ function, understood as coordination to shape future action. Second, there is a‘community’focus.Third,thereisastatutorydutytoproduceaplan.Atfacevalue,therefore,thereis an intrinsic link between these specific activities that seems not to require further thought. Inpractice,however, thephysicalandpublicservice link isnotalwaysclear.Thereare thenpracticalaspectstoconsiderintermsofdevisingsharedprocessesandoutcomes.Whenstatutorycommunityplanningwas firstbeing introduced inScotland in theearly2000s, forexample, theneed to facilitate a ‘constructive interface’between thisnewpublic activity and theestablished landuseplanningsystemwas identified.61p.3At that time,questionswereraisedaboutthe relationship between the various plans, ownership and process, but also the nature of thenecessaryculturetoachievecooperationacrossthepublicsector.Thepreciseremitoflanduseplanning–asthephysicalmanifestationofacommunityvision–andits relationshipwithcommunityplanning requireselaboration. In termsof terminology, it appearsthat ‘place’canserve toprovidea linkbetweenwhatare intendedtobetwomutuallysupportiveactivities:

“Wellweuseit[spatialplanning]becauseland-useisalittlebitonedimensional.So,weliketheplaceagenda - that’s why we use spatial planning…. because when you’re planning something there’soverall change, servicedelivery -and spatialplanning is the townand countryplanningor land-useplanningpartbutitbringsinalsotheplaceagenda.”

Nationalcommunitybodyrepresentative-Scotland

59Hamer,L.(2000)‘Howmanyplansdoesittaketoimprovehealthandwell-being?’,egmagazine,6(8),pp.8-10.London:UniversityofWestminster.60Williams,P.(2000)‘Communitystrategieswillfailiftheydon’t‘muddlethrough’’,egmagazine,6(8),pp.3-5.London:UniversityofWestminster.61Peel,D.andLloyd,M.G.(2007)CommunityplanningandlanduseplanninginScotland:Aconstructiveinterface?,PublicPolicyandAdministration,22(3),pp.353-366.

45

Similarly, inNorthern Ireland, thenewguidance for theoperationalisationof communityplanningemphasises‘place-shaping’inrelationtolanduseplanning:

Thelocaldevelopmentplansystemaimstomoveawayfromanarrowlandusefocustowardsa‘placeshaping’approachwhichincorporatesaspatialanalysisandvisioningprocess.62,para10.2

At one level, public services generally have a physical presence: people visit libraries, clinics, andsportscentres,forexample.Appropriatelydesignedandlocatedbuildings,witheaseofaccess,aremattersdealtwith,atsomepoint,bythelanduseplanningsystem,intermsofsiting,layout,designandhoursofuse, forexample.Planningnew settlements,or retrofittingexistingneighbourhoods,involves thinking,notonlyaboutplaceandspace,however,butpeopleandservices.Thesitingofnewhousing–orlocationofwasteorenergyfacilities-areexamplesofdevelopmentsthatformanintegralpartofcommunity lifeandultimatelycommunitywell-being.Understanding localpeople’sviewsandperceptionsoftheirenvironment–andpublicservices–isthusdirectlyrelevanttolanduseplanning.Thereisanimportantdistinction,however.StatutorylanduseplanningintheUKisapracticebuiltoncaselaw,wherelearnedjudgeshaveinterpretedthelawanditsapplication.Whatmayseemtobe a planning-relatedmatter in practicemaynot constitute a ‘material planning consideration’ inlaw.Integratingcommunityplanningandlanduseplanningasasingle,strategicplanningapproachmaythusprovetobesomewhatchallenginginpractice.DrawingonthecasestudyfromWales,forexample,there isclearlyanawarenessofthepotentialstrategiclinkagebetweenthesetwoactivities,evenifjoint-workingisnothappeninginpractice:

“The LocalDevelopmentPlan shouldbeamechanism, inmymind, todeliver theaspirationsof theCommunityStrategy.Andtheideaistotiethetwo,and,youknow,theywerealwaysseenasthetoptwostrategyplans,butitneverreallyhappens….they'retryingtosecond-guesswithinPlanning,well,whichlandshouldwedevelop,whichlandshouldweallocatefor,youknow,whatpurpose?”

Localauthoritystrategicofficer2-Wales.Itfollowsthatthereisalogicinfindingwaysto‘bridge’thesetwoactivitiessothateachprocessismutually informed.Pragmatically,andfromanorganisationalperspective, joint-working inrelationtoconsultingcommunitiesatthedifferentstagesofplanpreparationmightofferefficiencysavings.Intermsofthelogic,qualityandeffectivenessoftheplan,therearepotentiallydirectsynergiestobegained,as inter-relatedaspectscanbe identified,discussedand(hopefully)mediated.Prioritiescan be discussed. Moreover, best practice guidance on community engagement warns that overconsulting communities can result in consultation fatigueandoverload.63Reducing theamountofconsultation,throughsharedexercisesanduseofdatamightminimisethatrisk–andofferbetterresults.Asthe2015NorthernIrelandguidancehighlights:

Commontoboththelocaldevelopmentplanandcommunityplanningprocessesisthattheyaimtoprovidea long termvision/framework to support the social, economicandenvironmentalneedsofthearea, requireanevidence-basedapproachtodecision-making,andseek theengagementof thecommunitythroughouttheprocess.ibid,para.10.4

62DepartmentoftheEnvironment(2015)StatutoryGuidancefortheOperationofCommunityPlanningLocalGovernmentAct(NorthernIreland)2014,Belfast:DoE.Availableat:http://www.niccy.org/media/1682/community-planning-guidance-oct-2015.pdf63ScottishExecutive(2003)TheLocalGovernmentinScotlandAct2003:CommunityPlanning:StatutoryGuidance,Edinburgh:ScottishExecutive.Availableat:http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2004/04/19168/35272

46

Asthedevelopmentplanismonitored,animportantconsiderationisthenhowprogresstowardsthedefined indicators contributes tomeeting thehigh-leveloutcomes setout in thecommunityplan.Similarly, monitoring of the community plan may indicate review of the development plan. Theprocessisintendedtobemutuallyreinforcing:

Monitoringandreviewofthelocaldevelopmentplan–afteradoption,theplanmustbemonitoredannuallyandreviewedeveryfiveyears,orsoonerifcircumstancesrequireit.Theindicatorsbywhichthe localdevelopmentplanwillbemonitoredshouldalignwiththehigh levelvision,outcomesandactions contained in the community plan. Reviewof the community planwill assist in determiningwhetherthelocaldevelopmentplanalsoneedstobereviewed.ibid

6.2DifferentiatedexperienceacrossthedevolvedUKIntermsofthetypeanddepthofconnectionbetweencommunityplanningandlanduseplanning,experiencesclearlydifferacrossthedevolvedUK.Therearealsovariousdegreesofconnectivity–ordisconnectbetweenthetwoactivities.Weaddresseachcountryinturn:6.2.1EnglandIn England, since the election of the Coalition Government in 2010, neighbourhood planning hasbeen used to help deliver the Government’s economic and housing growth objectives.64Furthermore, the neighbourhoodplanning process – has to somedegree – been viewed as beingheavilyregulatedandmanagedbynationalgovernment,particularly intermsofdeliveringhousinggrowth.Indeed,themonitoringoftheneighbourhoodplanningprocess,atanationallevel,hasbeenunder increasing scrutiny according to those interviewed. This oversight functionwas particularlyevident in those areas proposing large-scale housing development, and given the Government’sgrowthagenda.Moreover, national government is making renewed efforts to expedite neighbourhood planningwhere possible and has concentrated on ensuring that local authorities are supportive in thisprocess.Indeed,thefocusonplanapprovalfollowingindependentexaminationwasalsoidentifiedby a number of interviewees as having informed the type of national performancemanagementsystem now in place, although it was acknowledged that there was some flexibility within thesystem:

“It’s really difficult because the results of Communities and Local Government are to do with thenumberofneighbourhoodplansthathavegoneforexamination–‘tick’.Tous,ifgroupshaveactuallyhadaconversationandsaid,“No,actuallywedon’tneedaneighbourhoodplan…..whatweneedisanaction plan or a delivery plan on how we’re going to bring forward this particular communityproject”…… and they’ve gone out and done that, then we’re, like, well, brilliant. That’s a success.They’veachievedwhattheywantedtoachieve,butit’snota‘tick’ondelivering.Andthat’sjusthowgovernmentswork,isn’tit?Butthisbroaderoutcome–hasbecomemorerecognised.”

LocalGovernmentAssociationrepresentative2-England.InEngland,thecreationofawiderstrategicsteeringgroupforneighbourhoodplanning–aswasthecaseintheminicasestudyarea–canactasa‘miniLocalStrategicPartnership,’andwhichcanservetointegrateneighbourhoodplanningwithbroaderconcernsaroundserviceintegrationanddelivery.

64SeetheRTPI’sdescriptionofneighbourhoodplanningavailableat:http://www.rtpi.org.uk/planning-aid/neighbourhood-planning/what-is-neighbourhood-planning/

47

Nevertheless,opportunitiesfortheengagementoflocalresidentsinsucharrangementsalsoneedtobeconsidered.Furthermore,itwasrecognisedthatlanduseplanning,throughtheneighbourhoodplan,couldonlydosomuchandthattheneighbourhoodplanwas:

‘…notgoingto,sortof,betheanswertoeverything.’IndependentNeighbourhoodPlanningSteeringGrouprepresentative.

It was further suggested that some type of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats(SWOT)analysis could initiallybeundertakenby local communities. Local communities could thenremainflexibleastowhethertheneighbourhoodplanwasthemostappropriateresponse,giventheresultsoftheSWOTanalysis.Inturn,thisapproachcouldactasacatalystforcommunitiestoengagein broader processes of community planning concerned with community infrastructure, localservicesandneighbourhoodbudgets.One suggestionwas that the examination process associatedwith neighbourhood planningmightalsocurrentlyunderminetheadoptionofawiderapproach,andthedevelopmentoflinksbetweenlanduseplanning(throughtheneighbourhoodplan)andbroaderprocessesofcommunityplanning.Assuch,ourresearch indicatedthat independentexaminationsofneighbourhoodplanshad ledtoexaminersrecommendingthatanumberofbroaderpolicyareasbetakenoutoftheneighbourhoodplan. Indeed, interviewees noted how examiners had advocated that only the planning policyelementsshouldbeincludedandexamined,ratherthanthenon-planningpolicyelements.Perhaps,oneof themost strikingdifferences in community-basedgovernance in thedevolvedUKrelatestotheprecisefocusofcommunityplanning,withEnglandofferingaparticularemphasisonmanaginghousingneed.Thepracticalexperienceofcommunitiespreparinganeighbourhoodplan–effectively undertaking a land use planning function - differentiates the English model from therelatively more integrated service delivery emphasis evident in Wales, Scotland and NorthernIreland.6.2.2WalesFromacontemporaryperspective, inWales ithasbeenreportedhow“planningofficersrarelygetinvolved in community planning.” 65. This limited involvement was despite the production of theWales Spatial Plan in 2004 (update 2008), which attempted to set the context for local andcommunityplanning,andwhichsplitWalesintosixspatialplanareas.TheWell-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 identifies the need to linkwith both theEnvironment(Wales)Act2016andPlanning(Wales)Act2015atanationallevel.Questionsremain,however,overthelevelof integrationbeingachieved.Forexample,therewasevidencethat,asofyet, those involvedwith the Local Development Plan had not been heavily involvedwith broaderstructuresofcommunityplanning–suchasthe(earlier)LocalServiceBoard-andviceversa.Indeed,beyond informal invitations for planningofficers to attendmeetingsof the Local ServiceBoard, itwasconsideredthattherehasbeenagenerallackofformalinvolvementofplanningofficersintheworkofsuchBoards.

65SeeWilliams,P.,Rogers,S.,Sullivan,H.,Evans,L.,Crow,A.(2006)People,PlansandPartnerships:ANationalEvaluationofCommunityStrategiesinWales,Cardiff:WelshGovernment,p.87.Availableat:http://llyw.cymru/statistics-and-research/people-plans-partnerships/?lang=

48

Thissituationmaynowbechanging,inpartgiventherestrictionsonpublicsectorexpenditureandtheimplicationsarisingfromtheapprovalbyplanningofficersofmajorinfrastructuredevelopmentson thecostsofwider servicedelivery.At thevery least, thereappears tobeageneral awarenessthatconnectionscanbemade:

“Ithinksomeofthepublicsectorpartnersarenowstartingtobecomemoreawareofmajorplanningdecisionsbecauseofausterity.Beforetheywould just ridewith it,butnowthey’resaying, ‘Actually,this is going to put huge pressure on our services.’...So people are, in some cases, a bit smarter inrelationtoassessingimpactontheirservicesofplanningdecisions.Becausetheyjustcan’taffordtoabsorbitanymore.”

WelshGovernmentrepresentative.

In respectofPlacePlans,workhadstarted incertainpartsofWalesonproducing theseasanewform of Supplementary Planning Guidance, and which can provide the opportunity for localengagement and involvement in shaping local planning decisions, and feed upwards into morestrategicplans, including theWell-beingPlansof thePublicServiceBoards.Nevertheless, the finalPlanning(Wales)Act2015removedproposalsforstatutory‘PlacePlans’atalocal level,andwhichmay have strengthened the links between physical land use planning and community planning.Consequently,apotentialopportunityformorecloselyintegratinglanduseplanningwithstructuresofcommunityplanninginWaleshasarguablybeenlost.6.2.3ScotlandIn Scotland, a 2015 study examining the scope for developing stronger connections betweencommunityplanningandspatialplanningidentifiedanumberofpotentialbarrierstosuchamove,including: understanding the two activities; timescales; and statutory processes; reduction inresources;institutionalbarriers;commitmenttoimplementation;andculture.Therewere,however,commonobjectives inthetwoprocesses, including:deliveringoutcomesandthesharingofsimilarprocesses, resources and knowledge. Given the, prevailing conditions of financial and resourceconstraint, and, inmany respects, shared focus, itwas recommended that stronger joint-workingcould bring mutual community and organisational benefits, and meet Government objectives offurtheringserviceintegrationandbuildingservicesaroundcommunities.66Therelationshipbetweenlanduseplanningandcommunityplanninghasalsobeenexplicitlyraisedaspartofthe2016IndependentReviewPanelonPlanninginScotland.Onerespondent,theScottishUrbanRegenerationForum(SURF),forexample,noted:

Scotland’s statutory Community Planning framework provides a nationwide basis for cross-sectorservice prioritisation and coordination. It is the kind of high-level, strategic collaboration that athoughtfultaxpayerwouldexpecttohappenanyway.As a practical concept, it stands in positive contrast to the lack of a similar cooperative leadershipmodelinEnglandandelsewhere.Itdoesnot,however,haveanymeaningfulconnectiontothespatialplanningsystem.

66Hayes,S.andMiller,N.(2015)LinkingPeopleandPlaces:SpatialandCommunityPlanning,Edinburgh:RTPIScotland.Availableat:http://www.rtpi.org.uk/media/1301398/linking_people_and_places_final_-_web_version_march15.docx

49

Alignment would provide both processes with additional value around community engagement,strategic collaboration and pro-active planning. In the context of public spending reductions,capitalisingonthisvaluebecomesallthemoredesirable.67

DuetotheregenerationfocusofSURF’swork,thismaybeconsideredanimportantview,since,asanactivity,regenerationhas longsincesoughttoprovide integratedandholisticsolutionsto long-termproblems.The Independent Review Panel’s 2016 report highlights that land use planning tends not to berepresentedincommunityplanningpartnerships,but,importantly,thereisscopeto:

createefficiencies, forexamplebyallowing for joinedupcommunityengagementonaplacebasedagenda. It will also be important to create synergies between development plans and emerginglocalityplans.68

Importantly,thePanel’sfirstrecommendationforcreatingstrongandflexibledevelopmentplansstated:

Aligningwithcommunityplanning,developmentplansshouldberecognisedasacentralandpowerfuldriveroftheplaceagenda.Toachievethisthereisaneedtofocusonoutcomes,ratherthanpolicyandprocedure.ibid,p.10

The indications are that the imminentwhitepaper in relation to the statutoryplanning system inScotlandmaywellinvolveadifferentfocusforlanduseorspatialplanning,butcertainlyseeamoreformalassertionofthenecessarylinkagesbetween‘physical’andcommunityplanning:

Planningneedstomoveawayfrommicro-managementofthebuiltenvironment,avoidfocusingonprocesseswhichaddlittlevalue,andtofocusinsteadondeliveringgreatplacesnow,andforfuturegenerations.Whilstthishasbeenanaspirationforsometime,thecurrentcontextofpublicsectorfinance,lowmarketconfidence,complexinteragencyrelationships,landreformandcommunityempowermentalldemandthatthereisarenewedandcollectivedrivetowardsachievingthisgoalibid,para.1.6

6.2.4NorthernIrelandGiven the particular political context in Northern Ireland, and the centralised land use planningsystemthatprevailedlargelyuntilApril2016,communityinvolvementinspatialplanninghad,priortotherestorationofpowerstolocalgovernment,beensomewhatlimited:

“I think, in the early days, certainly, the only impact the community ever had, would have beenthroughtheforward-planningworkofthelocaldevelopmentplansthatwereproducedforNorthernIrelandovertheyearsbetween’74,andwell,Isuppose,justrecently…And,Ithink,overthatperiod,theknowledgeoflocalcommunitiestohaveanimpactonthoseplanshasbecomegreater.Sothat,intheearlydays,…AreaPlanningproducedit,and,Ithink,theyrarelygotobjectionstoit.”

Strategic/LocalGovernmentPlanner–NorthernIreland.

67SURF(2016)ResponsetotheIndependentReviewofPlanning.Availableat:https://ideas.scotland.gov.uk/independent-review-of-planning/align-spatial-planning-with-community-planning68Beveridge,C.,Biberbach,P.andHamilton,J.(2016)Empoweringplanningtodelivergreatplaces.AnindependentreviewoftheScottishplanningsystem.Edinburgh:ScottishGovernment,May.Availableat:http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0050/00500946.pdf

50

The restoration of land use planning powers to local government, and the new powers aroundcommunityplanningandwell-being,changesthecontextquitedramatically.Significantly, the statutory link between community planning and land use planning in the 2015legislation inNorthern Ireland suggests thatNorthern Ireland has themost explicit links betweencommunityplanningand landuseplanning.Moreover,asdiscussed in thepreceding sections, thelegislationprovidesthescopeforactivecommunityengagement.69Thepublicationofdepartmentalguidancehasalsoprovidedforastrongargumentforthestrategicalignmentofthetwoprocesses.70Timewilltellwhethertheperennialconcernsaroundcapacity,confidenceandwillingnesstoengage,forexample,andtheneedtoresourceappropriatetoolsandtechniques,canbeaddressed.6.3SummaryAs community planning has matured, the alignment of the land use planning dimension hasattracted further attention. In part, this connection may be explained by a strengthening in theemphasis on ‘place’. Both community planning and land use planning have progressively movedtowards the concept of place since, in part, this term is held to be more meaningful for localcommunities.Therehasalsobeenaconcernwithimprovingtheimpactoftheactivities.Givenrestrictionsonpublicsectorbudgets,effortstosecureefficiencysavingsthroughthestrategicalignmentofcommunityplanningandlanduseplanningactivitieshavecometothefore,andwithpotentiallyabiggerroleforlocalcommunitiesinshapingtheoutcomesofbothprocesses.Attentiontothedifferentstagesofeachplanningactivity, includingthevisioning,consulting,monitoringandreviewing stages, is in evidence, with a clear indication that the plans, processes and intendedoutcomes involved are mutually informing and reinforcing. As such, there is scope, throughproactivejoint-working,forcollaborativegain.71Basedontheevidencegathered,therewouldappeartobeanumberoftechnocraticanddemocraticimplicationsandrelatedissuesconcerninghowgovernanceandperformancemanagementsystemsof relevance to each planning process are configured. Linking back to Section 3, practical issueswould also appear to turnon theextent towhich thebridgingbetween communityplanning andlanduseplanningrequiressometypeofformal legitimacy,that is,whetherthere isarequirementfor a statutory link between community planning and land use planning to bemade, orwhetherthose involved in both sets of activities cooperate inmore informalways. Given that communityplanningispredicatedonjoint-workingacrossthefullspectrumofserviceproviders,itisreasonabletoaskwhylanduseplanningrequiresspecificattention.

69DepartmentoftheEnvironment(2014)InformationLeaflet16:Pre-ApplicationCommunityConsultationGuidance,Belfast:DoE.Availableat:http://www.planningni.gov.uk/index/advice/advice_leaflets/pre-application_community_consultation_guidance_-_june_2014.pdf70DepartmentoftheEnvironment(2015)StatutoryGuidancefortheOperationofCommunityPlanningLocalGovernmentAct(NorthernIreland)2014,Belfast:DoE.Availableat:http://www.niccy.org/media/1682/community-planning-guidance-oct-2015.pdf71See,forexample,Amey(2008)CollaborativeGainResearchStudy.ReportfortheImprovementService.Broxburn.Availableat:http://www.communityplanningtoolkit.org/sites/default/files/AlignmentR13.pdf

51

7. CONCLUSIONSANDRESEARCHAGENDASAnimportantaimofthisstudywastoexplorecontemporarythinkingaboutcommunityplanninginthedevolvedUKwith experiencedpractitioners andpolicy-makers. The intentionwas, literally, tofleshoutadesk-basedstudythathadidentifiedanumberoftheoreticalissuesincommunity-basedgovernance.Ourstartingpointwasthatthepost-devolutioncontext,andasustained‘hollowingout’of thestate,had led toa ‘filling in’ofnewstructuresandpolicyapproaches;communityplanningwas one such initiative that sought to ‘join-up’ services – orwork across boundaries. Howwas itworkinginpractice?Through speaking with a range of actors at national, sub-national, strategic and neighbourhoodscales, we offer the following observations. In particular, we critically reflect on the findings andteaseoutsomeresearchpriorities.Thesearebroadlybasedaroundthekeyresearchobjectivesforthestudy.7.1Conceptual/terminologicalissuesincommunityplanningThe nomenclature of community planning infers that communities lie at the heart of this field ofpolicy and that it involves a forward-looking – or vision-oriented - activity. For some of thoseinterviewed, the viewwas that communities had quite limited powers, and the term ‘communityplanning’ was ambiguous – if not misleading. Certainly, in research terms, the nuances in theterminology–andquiteexplicitdifferencesbetweenEnglandandthedevolvednationsintermsofthe focus on neighbourhood planning – made drawing precise comparative insights difficult. Wehavebeenatpains topointout that contextmatters, and therewasa clear sense inwhichplacematteredbothwithinandbetweenthefournationsexamined.Terminologyandpracticeareclearlyevolving. Arguably, as the statutory bases for partner and community participation arestrengthened, there is a need for clarity since terminological difficulties may be an obstacle toaction:ResearchPriority1Develop a conceptual map of the evolving terminology with a view to better understanding therelationships between ‘statutory’ and ‘popular’ definitions of community planning and what thismeansfordeliveryofefficient,effectiveandequitableservices.7.2CommunityplanningasevolvingpolicyIt is clear that England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are at different stages in theircommunityplanningjourney.Theprocessesofdevolutionanddecentralisationareon-going;poweris being re-negotiated. The respective community planning experiencesmust be seen against thebroadercontextofchanginginstitutionalstructuresandfundamentalreorganisation.Putsimply, inEngland,theLocalGovernmentAct2000gaverisetoonemodelofcommunityplanning.Thismodelwas supplanted from 2010 onwards through the development of a different approach by thecoalition government, and confirmed through the 2011 Localism Act. In Northern Irelandcommunitieshavehadtowaituntil2015fortheinitiatinglegislationforcommunityplanningtobeputinplace.Again,incomparativeresearchterms,itisimportanttoappreciatethesedifferenttime-linesandcontextualrealities,butalsotobealerttothelegalnuancesintermsofdutiesandrights,for example. InWales, the emphasis onwell-being and future generations and the new planninglegislation similarly change the operating context, whilst in Scotland land reform and community

52

empowermenthavealteredthepublicsector-communitylandscape.Aplanningwhitepaperisalsoanticipatedwhichmayreconfiguretherelationshipbetweenlanduseandcommunityplanning.Inpractice,someconcernswereraisedinrelationtotheiterative,organisationalrestructuringandinevitable transaction costs involved in devising new structures and processes. There is scope toexamine community planning in relation to Lindblom’s (1959) theory of ‘muddling through’.72 Adifferent viewexpressedwas that developments in community planning effectively represented acertainfine-tuning,orpragmatisminrelationtowhatwas–orwasnotworking.ReflectingRittelandWebber’s (1973) attempts to develop a general theory of planning, community planning exhibitsmanyof the samedilemmas.73Aspartnershipworking is framed in termsof statutoryduties, it isimportant to understand what this context will mean for joint-working of a more informal andcooperativenature.ResearchPriority2Investigate the evolving legal and jurisdictional arrangements for community planning, and theimplications for the formalisationof communityplanning structures, the respective involvementoflocal, regional andnational partners, and theextentandeffectivenessof cross-sectoral and cross-scalarapproachestocommunityengagement.7.3ThegovernanceofcommunityplanningThe new forms of joint-working relations that have emerged for community planning can beexplained in termsof the ‘hollowingout’of thestateand the ‘filling in’of layersofgovernmentalrelations as part of a multi-level governance.74 A number of commentators have argued thatdevolution in the UK has led to increasing convergence in the nature of governance and policystructures.75Incontrast,intermsofcommunityplanning,ithasbeenillustratedthatcontext(place)matters,andwithvariationexistingbothwithinandbetweeneachofthedevolvednations.An important focus in respect of governance structures for community planning relates tointegration.Thismaybecomplexandcontested,aswellaslayered.76Nevertheless,itshouldseektoenablebothhorizontal and vertical relations at different scalesofworking, from thenational andregional levels to the local (e.g. neighbourhood or locality) level.77 A focus on integration alsohighlightshowthismaybeshapedbycentralgovernment.Indeed,whatcanbediscernedacrossallfour nation states are examples of ‘meta-governance’ – the influence of national government onlocalattemptstodevelopjoint-workingandassociatedissuesoftowhomthestategivespowers,on

72Lindblom,C.(1959)TheScienceof“MuddlingThrough”,PublicAdministrationReview,19(2),pp.79-88Availableat:http://urban.hunter.cuny.edu/~schram/lindblom1959.pdf73Rittel,H.W.J.andWebber,M.M.(1973)Dilemmasinageneraltheoryofplanning,PolicySciences,4,pp.155-169.Availableat:http://urbanpolicy.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Rittel+Webber_1973_PolicySciences4-2.pdf74Goodwin,M.,Jones,M.andJones,R.(2012)Re-scalingthestate:Devolutionandthegeographiesofeconomicgovernance.Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.75Shaw,J.,MacKinnon,D.andDocherty,I.(2009)Divergenceorconvergence?DevolutionandtransportpolicyintheUnitedKingdom,EnvironmentandPlanningC,27,pp.546–67.76Morgan,K.(2002)Thenewregenerationnarrative–localdevelopmentinthemulti-levelpolity,LocalEconomy,17(3),pp.191–199.77Allmendinger,P.(2003)Re-scaling,integrationandcompetition:futurechallengesfordevelopmentplanning,InternationalPlanningStudies,8,pp.323–328.

53

what terms, and how the state chooses to redraw and redefine its distribution of powers overtime.78Keyfindingsthatemergedfromthestudypointedtowardstheimportanceofadutyonpartnerstoparticipate in all aspects of the community planning process, the potential of pooling budgets tosecure integrationofactivities, thepotential impactof further localgovernmentreorganisationonthe development and continuity of joint-working relations, and the need for (land use) planningofficers and those involved with the community plan to be linked from the outset. In addition,pertinentquestionsaroseovertheextenttowhichthosemosttransientorseldomheardshould,orcould, be involved in community planning structures, and the impact of previous workingexperiencesongovernancerelations.Allofthesepointsthereforerequirefurtherinvestigationandelaboration–andparticularlyinothercontexts–forexample,ruralareas.ResearchPriority3Explorethegovernancestructuresandrelationsofrelevancetojoint-workingincommunityplanning–forexample,betweencentralandlocalgovernment,andinbothurbanandruralcontexts.7.4Thescalingandre-scalingofcommunityplanningactivityThe re-scaling of the state is an on-going process and which can impinge on the ability of local,regional andnational actors to service community planning arrangements. Evidence fromeachofthe nation states suggests that there has been a ‘structural’ filling in of the state, andwhich hasinvolved the emergence of new forms of governance for community planning. Nevertheless, inrelation to cross-scalar working, there is also evidence of ‘relational’ filling, involving new orreconfiguredarrangementsbetween local communityplanningpartnershipsandother institutionsandorganisations.79Inthisrespect,thepreviousrestructuringandre-scalingofthestatecanshapetheextenttowhichcurrentactorsareabletoengagewiththenewterritorialscalesofinterventionforcommunityplanning–assuchtheymayassociatewithnewstructuresandscalesforcommunityplanningtodifferentdegrees.There may also be difficulties in securing horizontal and vertical integration in governance forcommunityplanningwherethereislittleevidenceofanypreviousintervention.Indeed,ifreferenceismade to the emergenceof newneighbourhoodplanning arrangements in England, those areasengaging later in the process have – in some instances – experienced difficulties where theirproposed territorial scalesofworkingcutacross,orchallenge, the rationalityofexistingboundarydesignations.Anumberofresponsestosecuringcross-scalarworkingemergedfromtheresearch- forexample,the use of master-planning in setting out a framework for securing integrated working. Strongleadershipwasalsonotedashelpingtofacilitatejoint-workingrelationswithotherpartnersbeyondthelocalareainordertodelivertheprioritiesinthelocalcommunityplan.Nevertheless,theactualways in which this can be achieved requires further exploration. For example, what type ofstructuresmightberequired?Whoshouldbeinvolved?Couldpooledbudgetsfacilitatecross-scalarworking? What role should national governments play in this process? How do the evolving78Jessop,B.(2000)‘Governancefailure’.In:G.Stoker(Ed.)ThenewpoliticsofBritishlocalgovernance.Basingstoke:MacMillan,pp.11–32.79Shaw,J.andMacKinnon,D.(2011)Movingonwith‘fillingin’?Somethoughtsonstaterestructuringafterdevolution,Area,43(1),pp.23–30.

54

arrangements forcommunityplanning impactoncross-scalar relations?Howmight (local)politics,placeandidentityimpactontheextentofintegrationwithincross-scalarapproaches?ResearchPriority4Investigatethewaysinwhichtheongoingre-scalingofthestateinforms-andisinformedby–theevolvingnatureofcommunityplanningarrangements ineachofthedevolvednations,andthekeymechanismsrequiredtofacilitatecross-scalarworking.7.5Politics,powerandcommunityplanningThechangingstructuresandscalesofstateactivitycanbothinfluence–andalsobeinfluencedby–thenatureof localpoliticsand localpolitical strategies.80 In turn, theoutcomeof this relationshipcan shape processes and structures of community planning. As the structures for governingcommunityplanningevolve,sotoowillthedominantforces,andthestrategiesthatarepursued.81Hence‘objectsofgovernance’forcommunityplanningmaybedifferentiatedandfocusedtowardssomeinterestsandcollaborationsoverothers,somespatialscalesofinterventionoverothers,andsometimehorizonsoverothers.82IfNorthernIrelandistakenasanexample,ithasbeenreportedhow,historically,planninghasbeencentralised.83 However, the introduction of community planning has led to an increase in theimportance of social and political forces at the local level. A wider set of partners (for example,planners,communityorganisationsandotherlocalactors)arenowinvolvedincommunityplanningprocesses.Buttheobjectsofgovernanceforcommunityplanningarecontested–whilstthere isafocus around securing social well-being and economic development, long-standing political andreligioustensionsarealsoshapingcommunityplanningactivities.InEngland,ithasbeenhighlightedhowthemoveawayfromearliercommunityplanningapproachestoafocusonneighbourhoodplanninghasledtonewconcernswithsecuringeconomicandhousinggrowth,andunderpinnedbynewnationalpoliticalstrategiesandstateprojectsfocusedaroundre-stimulating the private sector and community-self-help. But the emphasis within neighbourhoodplansofallocatingmore–notless–landforhousingdevelopmentcouldbeviewedasinvolvingtheprivilegingofprivatesectorinterestsoverothers.Thusfurtherresearchisrequiredtoexploretheimportanceofnationalandlocalpolitics–andinter-relations therein–on thenatureand focusof communityplanningactivities inEngland,Scotland,Northern Ireland and Wales. In what ways might the new relations between the UK and theEuropean Union following the June 2016 EU Referendum result impact subsidiarity and localdemocracydebatesacrosstheUKandincross-borderareasontheislandofIreland?Howimportantis the regional / strategic dimension for community planning?What impact will future local andnational elections have on community planning?Which activities may be prioritised as a result?Whichactorsinvolvedincommunityplanningarrangementsmaysecuremorepower?Willnational80Pemberton,S.andGoodwin,M.(2010)Statepower,localgovernmentreorganisationandaccumulationandhegemonyinthecountryside,JournalofRuralStudies,26(3),pp.272-283.81Brenner,N.(2004)NewStateSpaces:UrbanGovernanceandtheRescalingofStatehood.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.82Jessop,B.(1997)‘Aneo-Gramscianapproachtotheregulationofurbanregimes’.InM.Lauria(Ed.)ReconstructingUrbanRegimeTheory:RegulatingUrbanPoliticsinaGlobalEconomy,London:Sage,pp.51–73.83McNeill,L.,Rafferty,G.andSterrett,K.(2006)CommunityPlanninginBelfast.Belfast:QueensUniversity,Belfast.

55

governments use national targets to reduce local discretion?What implicationsmay arise for theengagement of local communities? To what extent may local elected members associate ordisassociatewithcommunityplanningarrangements?ResearchPriority5Explore the ways in which national and local politics shape the evolution of community planningarrangements, the actors and scales that are privileged (over others) and the implications fordemocraticand/ortechnocraticapproachestocommunityplanning.

56

8. STUDYDISSEMINATIONConferencepresentationsmade:Peel,D.‘ThePowerofCommunityPlanning’,PresentationmadetotheAnnualRTPIYoungPlannersConference2016,‘Planningforchange:Shapingourfuture’,EuropaHotel,Belfast.October14.Peel,D.andPemberton,S.‘Well-beingandStrategicAlignment:InsightsfromCommunityPlanningin the Devolved UK’, Presentation made to the UK-Ireland Planning Research Conference 2016,CardiffUniversity,September6-7.Peel,D. ‘CommunityPlanning in Scotland:Towards constrainedautonomy?’ PresentationmadeaspartoftheCommunityPlanningTrackattheUKIrelandPlanningResearchConference2015,LondonSouthBankUniversity,September11.Pemberton,S.andPeel,D. ‘Urbangovernanceandnewmodelsofcommunity-basedplanning inadevolvedUK’,PresentationmadeaspartofthePlanningintheWakeofAusterityUrbanismtrackattheRoyalGeographical Society / Instituteof BritishGeographersAnnual International Conference2015,ExeterUniversity,September3.

ForthcomingArticle:Peel,D.‘RethinkingSharedServices:TowardsSharedOutcomes?’Borderlands,theJournalofSpatialPlanninginIreland.

57

9. REFERENCES

Allmendinger,P.(2003)Re-scaling,integrationandcompetition:futurechallengesfordevelopmentplanning,InternationalPlanningStudies,8,pp.323–328.

Arnstein,S.(1969)ALadderofCitizenParticipation,JournaloftheAmericanPlanningAssociation,35(4)1969,pp.216-224.Availableat:http://www.lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherry-arnstein/ladder-of-citizen-participation.html

AuditScotland(2006)AnInitialReviewofCommunityPlanning,Edinburgh.Availableat:http://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/docs/central/2006/nr_060616_community_planning.pdf

Beveridge,C.,Biberbach,P.andHamilton,J.(2016)Empoweringplanningtodelivergreatplaces.AnindependentreviewoftheScottishplanningsystem.Edinburgh:ScottishGovernment,May.Availableat:http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0050/00500946.pdf

BlakeStevenson&Strategem(2005)CaseStudyAnalysesforRPAonCommunityPlanninginOperationwithintheUKandIreland.October.Availableat:http://www.communityplanningtoolkit.org/sites/default/files/CommunityPlanningR2.pdf

Brenner,N.(2004)NewStateSpaces:UrbanGovernanceandtheRescalingofStatehood.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Brookfield,K.(2013)(Ad)VenturesinNeighbourhoodPlanningLocalImplementationofaNewPlanningRegime.London:PlanningExchangeFoundation.Availableat:http://planningexchangefoundation.org.uk/reports/Neighbourhood%20Planning%20Final%20Report%202.pdf

Cairney,P.(2013)‘MajoritarianVersusConsensusPolicymaking’ora‘CommonEuropeanPolicyStyle’?TheCaseoftheUKandScotland,PaperpresentedtotheJapanesePoliticalScienceAssociationAnnualConference,HokkaiGakuenUniversity,Sapporo,September.Availableat:https://paulcairney.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/cairney-jpsa-2013.pdf

Campbell,A.,Evans,A.,Gilman,L.andReid,A.(2014)CommunityEmpowerment(Scotland)Bill.SPICeBriefing14/58.Edinburgh:ScottishParliament.Availableat:http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefingsAndFactsheets/S4/SB_14-58_.pdf

Cave,S.(2013)CommunityPlanning,ResearchandInformationServiceResearchPaperNIAR220-13,Belfast:NorthernIrelandAssembly.Availableat:http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/globalassets/documents/raise/publications/2013/environment/11913.pdf

Christie,C.(2011)CommissionontheFutureDeliveryofPublicServices,June.Edinburgh:ScottishGovernment.Availableat:http://scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/352649/0118638.pdf

Clark,G.(2011)Pro-localismandpro-development:AspeechtotheAdamSmithInstitute,2February.Availableat:https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/planning-for-growth--7

CommunityPlaces(2013)CommunityPlanningToolkit:Communityengagement,Belfast:CommunityPlaces.Availableat:http://www.communityplanningtoolkit.org/sites/default/files/Engagement.pdf

CommunityPlanningReviewGroup(2012)CommunityPlanningReview-StatementofAmbition,Edinburgh:ScottishGovernment.Availableat:http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Government/local-government/CP/soa

ConventionofScottishLocalAuthorities(2014)Subsidiarity:ScottishLocalGovernmentinfluencingtheEuropeanAgenda.Brussels:COSLA.Availableat:http://www.cosla.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/cosla_subsidiarity_scottish_councils_influencing_eu_agenda-.pdf

Darlow,A.,Percy-Smith,J.andWells,P.(2007)CommunityStrategies:Aretheydeliveringjoinedupgovernance?LocalGovernmentStudies,33(1),pp.117-129.

Deloitte(2014)TheStateoftheState2014-15,London:DeloitteLLP.

58

http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/uk/Documents/public-sector/deloitt-uk-state-of-the-state-2014.pdf

DepartmentoftheEnvironment(2014)InformationLeaflet16:Pre-ApplicationCommunityConsultationGuidance,Belfast:DoE.Availableat:http://www.planningni.gov.uk/index/advice/advice_leaflets/pre-application_community_consultation_guidance_-_june_2014.pdf

DepartmentoftheEnvironment(2015)StatutoryGuidancefortheOperationofCommunityPlanningLocalGovernmentAct(NorthernIreland)2014,Belfast:DoE.Availableat:http://www.niccy.org/media/1682/community-planning-guidance-oct-2015.pdf

DepartmentoftheEnvironment,TransportandtheRegions(DETR)(1998)Modernlocalgovernment:intouchwiththepeople,London:DETR.Availableat:http://www.politicsresources.net/docs/DETR1998.pdf

DepartmentforSocialDevelopment(2013)ConcordatbetweentheVoluntary&CommunitySectorandtheNorthernIrelandGovernment,Belfast:DSD.Availableat:http://www.communityplanningtoolkit.org/sites/default/files/WorkingTogetherR5.pdf

Escobar,O.(2015)ReimaginingCommunityPlanninginScotland:AVisionfromtheThirdSector,Edinburgh:WhatWorksScotland.Availableat:http://www.vascotland.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/WP-Reimagining-Community-Planning-august-2015.pdf

Gallent,N.(2013)Re-connecting‘peopleandplanning’:parishplansandtheEnglishlocalismagenda,TownPlanningReview,84(3),pp.371-396.

Goodwin,M.,Jones,M.andJones,R.(2012)Rescalingthestate:Devolutionandthegeographiesofeconomicgovernance.Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.

Giddens,A.(1998)TheThirdWay:TheRenewalofSocialDemocracy,Cambridge:PolityPress.

Hamer,L.(2000)‘Howmanyplansdoesittaketoimprovehealthandwell-being?’,egmagazine,6(8),pp.8-10.London:UniversityofWestminster.

Jessop,B.(1997)Aneo-Gramscianapproachtotheregulationofurbanregimes.In:M.Lauria(Ed.)ReconstructingUrbanRegimeTheory:RegulatingUrbanPoliticsinaGlobalEconomy,London:Sage,pp.51–73.

Jessop,B.(2000)Governancefailure.In:G.Stoker(Ed).ThenewpoliticsofBritishlocalgovernance.Basingstoke:MacMillan,pp.11–32.

Keating,M.(2013)RescalingWelfare.PresentationtoBritishAcademy/RoyalSocietyofEdinburghEnlighteningtheConstitutionaldebate.SeminaronWelfareandPublicServices,20November2013Glasgow.

Availableat:https://www.royalsoced.org.uk/cms/files/events/programmes/2012-13/speaker_notes/MichaelKeating.pdf

Laffin,M.(2007)ComparativeBritishCentral-LocalRelations:RegionalCentralism,GovernanceandIntergovernmentalRelations,PublicPolicyandAdministration,22(1),pp.74-91.

Lindblom,C.(1959)TheScienceof“MuddlingThrough”,PublicAdministrationReview,19(2),pp.79-88.Availableat:http://urban.hunter.cuny.edu/~schram/lindblom1959.pdf

Lucas,K.,Ross,A.andFuller,S.(2003)LocalAgenda21,communityplanningandneighbourhoodrenewal,York:JosephRowntreeFoundation.Availableat:https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/local-agenda-21-community-planning-and-neighbourhood-renewal

McNeill,L.,Rafferty,G.andSterrett,K.(2006)CommunityPlanninginBelfast.Belfast:QueensUniversity,Belfast.

Midwinter,A.(1995)LocalGovernmentinScotland:ReformofDecline.London:Palgrave.Morgan,K.(2002)Thenewregenerationnarrative–localdevelopmentinthemulti-level

polity,LocalEconomy,17(3),pp.191–199.Murray,J.(2014)PolicyPaper:Theroleoflocalgovernmentinamodernstate,London:

CentreforLabourandSocialStudies.Availableat:http://classonline.org.uk/docs/2014_the_role_of_local_government_in_the_modern_state.pdf

59

NationalAssemblyforWales(2008)InquiryintoLocalServiceBoards.Health,WellbeingandLocalGovernmentCommittee(Cardiff:NationalAssemblyforWales).

Availableon-lineat:http://www.assembly.wales/en/pages/searchresults.aspx?k=inquiry%20into%20local%20service%20boards&q=inquiry%20into%20local%20service%20boards

Peel,D.,O’Keeffe,B.,Shi,L.,Leith,K.andKeaveney,K.(2012)SharedServicesAcrossLocalGovernment:SharingInternationalExperiences,Armagh:InternationalCentreforLocalandRegionalDevelopment(ICLRD).April.Availableat:URL:http://i2ud.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Shared-Services_International-Case-Studies.pdf

Peel,D.andLloyd,M.G.(2007)CommunityplanningandlanduseplanninginScotland:aconstructiveinterface?PublicPolicyandAdministration,22(3),pp.353–66.

Peel,D.andLloyd,M.G.(2012)TheEdinburghConcordat:Contractual,CollaborativePositivePlanning?,PublicPerformance&ManagementReview,36(2),pp.275-289.

Pemberton,S.,Peel,D.andLloyd,M.G.(2015)The‘fillingin’ofcommunity-basedplanninginthedevolvedUK?TheGeographicalJournal,181(1),pp.6-15.

Pemberton,S.andGoodwin,M.(2010)Rethinkingthechangingstructuresofrurallocalgovernment–Statepower,ruralpoliticsandlocalpoliticalstrategies?JournalofRuralStudies,26(3),pp.272-283.

Pemberton,S.andLloyd,M.G.(2008)Devolution,communityplanningandinstitutionalde-congestion?LocalGovernmentStudies,34(4),pp.437-451.

Rittel,H.W.J.andWebber,M.M.(1973)Dilemmasinageneraltheoryofplanning,PolicySciences,4,pp.155-169.Availableat:http://urbanpolicy.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Rittel+Webber_1973_PolicySciences4-2.pdf

ScottishExecutive(2003)TheLocalGovernmentinScotlandAct2003:CommunityPlanning:StatutoryGuidance,Edinburgh:ScottishExecutive.Availableat:http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2004/04/19168/35271

ScottishGovernmentandCOSLA(2007)Concordat.Availableat:http://www.gov.scot/resource/doc/923/0054147.pdf

ScottishGovernment(2009)TowardsaMentallyFlourishingScotland:PolicyandActionPlan2009-2011,Edinburgh:ScottishGovernment.Availableat:http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2009/05/06154655/2

ScottishGovernment(2016)CommunityEmpowerment(Scotland)Act2015.Part2CommunityPlanning.Consultationondraftguidanceandregulation.March.Edinburgh:ScottishGovernment.Availableat:https://consult.scotland.gov.uk/community-empowerment-unit/community-planning-guidance/user_uploads/00497123.pdf-1

Shaw,J.andMacKinnon,D.(2011)Movingonwith‘fillingin’?Somethoughtsonstaterestructuringafterdevolution,Area,43(1),pp.23–30.

ShawJ,MacKinnonDandDochertyI.(2009)Divergenceorconvergence?DevolutionandtransportpolicyintheUnitedKingdom,EnvironmentandPlanningC,27,pp.546–67.

Smith,J.(2013)LocalgovernmentinEngland:dowecomplywiththeEuropeanCharterofLocalSelf-Government?ReporttotheLocalGovernmentAssociation.Availableat:http://www.local.gov.uk/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=1f372790-a6b2-4e78-90ad-30cff0016f2a&groupId=10180

Stone,D.(2001)LearningLessons,PolicyTransferandtheInternationalDiffusionofPolicyIdeas,CSGRWorkingPaperNo.69/01.Availableat:http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/2056/1/WRAP_Stone_wp6901.pdf

Sullivan,H.andSkelcher,C.(2002)WorkingAcrossBoundaries:CollaborationinPublicServices,London:PalgraveMacmillan.

Terry,F.(2004).PublicManagement–TimeforaRe-launch.Availableat:http://www.publicnet.co.uk/features/2004/01/30/public-management-%E2%80%93-time-for-a-re-launch/

60

SURF(ScottishUrbanRegenerationForum)(2016)ResponsetotheIndependentReviewofPlanning.Availableat:https://ideas.scotland.gov.uk/independent-review-of-planning/align-spatial-planning-with-community-planning

Weaver,M.(2006)‘Morepowertothepeople,urgesMilliband’,TheGuardianon-line:http://www.theguardian.com/society/2006/feb/21/localgovernment.politics

Wells,P.andGoudie,R.(2005)ProcessEvaluationofPlanRationalisation:FormativeEvaluationofCommunityStrategies.London:OfficeoftheDeputyPrimeMinister.Availableat:https://www.shu.ac.uk/research/cresr/sites/shu.ac.uk/files/formative-eval-community-strategies.pdf

WelshGovernment(2014)WhitePaper–ReformingLocalGovernment,Cardiff:WelshGovernment.Availableat:http://www.wlga.gov.uk/non-wlga-publications/welsh-government-l-white-paper-reforming-local-government

Williams,P.,Rogers,S.,Sullivan,H.,Evans,L.,Crow,A.(2006)People,PlansandPartnerships:ANationalEvaluationofCommunityStrategiesinWales,Cardiff:WelshGovernment.

Availableat:http://llyw.cymru/statistics-and-research/people-plans-partnerships/?lang=Williams,P.(2000)‘Communitystrategieswillfailiftheydon’t‘muddlethrough’’,eg

magazine,6(8),pp.3-5.London:UniversityofWestminster.Wilson,J.(2004)NewManagementofPublicServices:TheUnitedKingdomExperience,

ViešojiPolitikaIrAdministravimas,7,pp.49-59.Availableat:https://www.mruni.eu/upload/iblock/86f/6_j.wilson.pdf

61

APPENDIX1:INTERVIEWSCHEDULE

TopicGuide:ExploringNewModelsofCommunity-basedPlanningintheDevolvedUKOverallaim:Toexaminecommunity-basedplanningapproachesinthedevolvedUKandtheimplicationsforsecuringgoodpractice.SectionA:Generalinformation1.Howlonghaveyouworkedinyourcurrentorganisation?2.Howlonghaveyoubeeninyourcurrentposition?3.Whatdoesyourroleentailonaday-to-daybasis?4.Hasthischangedovertime?Ifso,whyandinwhatways?SectionB:Researchthemes,objectivesandquestionsTheme Researchobjectives IndicativequestionsRationaleandfocus

1.Toexplaintheorganisationalarrangementsforcommunity-basedplanningacrossthedevolvedUKwithreferencetomulti-scalegovernance,leadership,resourcing,andcommunityengagement.

1.Whatwascommunity-basedplanningsetuptoachieve?2.Hastherebeenanemphasisonstrategyand/orprocessdevelopment?3.Hasthischangedovertimeornot?Why?Whynot?4.Whatarethebenefits/problemsassociatedwiththeapproach(es)?

Governanceandpolicy

1.Toexplaintheorganisationalarrangementsforcommunity-basedplanningacrossthedevolvedUKwithreferencetomulti-scalegovernance,leadership,resourcing,andcommunityengagement.

1.What are the legislative andpolicy arrangements for thedelivery of community-basedplanning?2.Inwhatways,andtowhatextent,iscommunity-basedplanningresourced,monitored/auditedbycentralgovernment?3. What are the implicationsthat arise for centre-local

62

government relations, cross-scalar governance andcommunity-based planning atthelocallevel?

Workingarrangements–structuralandrelational

2.Toidentifymodelsofjoint-workingundercommunity-basedplanningwithaviewtoascertainingpatternsofdivergence/convergenceandscopeforsharingpractice.

1. How have joint-workingrelations been designed,organisedandmanaged?2.Whoaretheparties/partnersinvolved?3.Whatroledolocalcivicleadersplay?4.Whatopportunitiesforcivilengagementexist?5.Whichinterestsarereflectedwithin the development ofjoint-working arrangements?How?Why?Withwhatresults?6. To what extent havearrangements been influencedfromwithin/beyondthearea?Bywhom?Where?Why?Withwhatresults?

Examplesofgoodpractice

2.Toidentifymodelsofjoint-workingundercommunity-basedplanningwithaviewtoascertainingpatternsofdivergence/convergenceandscopeforsharingpractice.

1. What is seen as workingwell/lesswell?Why?2.Howcouldjoint-workingincommunity-basedplanningandlinkswithlanduseplanningbeenhanced?3.Whatneedstochangeinrespectoffunding/policy/governance/workingarrangements?

Future/furtherresearchpriorities

3.Toprioritisearesearchagendaonjoint-workingincommunity-basedplanninginformedbyidentificationoftheprincipalconcernsofpractitionersandpolicy-makers,andinparticularconsideringtherelationshipofcommunity-basedplanningwithlanduseplanning.

4.Tousethestudyfindingstoprioritiseamajorresearchapplication(egtotheESRC).

1.What elsemight need to beinvestigated to understandprocesses and patterns ofdivergence/convergence?2.Whichaspectsofcommunity-based planning and land useplanning need to be furtherexplored?3.Whatotherbarriersand/oropportunities to joint-workingneedunpacking?