Town Planning Review

The ‘veil’ of control: the perceptions and attitudes of UK design-control planners

Town Planning Review (2019), 90, (2), 139–166.

Abstract

In the UK, design is regulated through a system of control for the public interest, which aims to promote quality in the built environment. This system is primarily implemented by local planning professionals with political oversight. These agents are afforded high levels of discretion in the interpretation and implementation of policy and guidance, yet little is known about how they perceive this system or operate within it, creating a ‘veil’ over the decision-making process. This paper engages with the attitudes and perceptions of these agents through in-depth interviews and Q-Methodology, articulating six unique discourses (the Discretionary Champion, the Civic Advocate, the Rule-Breaking Regulator, the Subjective Theorist, the Self-Assured Evaluator and the Prescriptive Pragmatist) that shed light on a contested arena, identifying how planners understand and approach the control of design, utilise their individual agency, and consider their capacity to pass judgement on design matters.

Access Token
£25.00
READ THIS ARTICLE
If you have private access to this content, please log in with your username and password here

References

ALDER, M. and ASQUITH, S. (1993), ‘Discretion and power’, in M. Hill (ed.), The Policy Process: A Reader, 1st edn, Brighton, Harvester Wheatsheaf. Google Scholar

ALLMENDINGER, P. (1996), ‘Development control and the legitimacy of planning decisions: a comment’, Town Planning Review, 67, 229–33. Google Scholar

ALLMENDINGER, P. (2002), ‘Towards a post-positivist typology of planning theory’, Planning Theory, 1, 77–99. Google Scholar

BLACK, P. (2018) ‘Beauty in the eye of the design reviewer: the contested nature of UK design review’, Journal of Urban Design, doi: 10.1080/13574809.2018.1511973. Google Scholar

BOHMAN, J., HILEY, D. and SHUSTERMAN, R. (eds) (1991), The Interpretative Turn, Reading, MA, Ithaca. Google Scholar

BOOTH, P. (1999), ‘Discretion in planning versus zoning’, in B. Cullingworth (ed.), British Planning: 50 Years of Urban and Regional Policy, London, Athlone Press, 31–44. Google Scholar

BOOTH, P. (2007), ‘The control of discretion: planning and the common-law tradition’, Planning Theory, 6, 127–45. Google Scholar

BOVENS, M. and ZOURIDIS, S. (2002), ‘From street-level to system-level bureaucracies: how information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control’, Public Administration Review, 62, 174–85. Google Scholar

BROWN, S. R., DURNING, D. W. and SELDEN, G. (1998), ‘Q-Methodology’, in G. J. Miller and M. L. Whicker (eds), Handbook of Research Methods in Public Administration, New York, Marcel Dekker, 599–638. Google Scholar

BUILDING DESIGN (2013), ‘Anonymous comment posted about Lee Mallett (2013) “The Planner as Urban Visionary”’, 18 December, https://www.bdonline.co.uk/comment/the-planner-as-urbanvisionary/5065218.article. Google Scholar

CABE (2009), Design Review: Principles and Practice, London, CABE. Google Scholar

CAMPBELL, M. C. and COWAN, G. (2002), Re:Urbanism: Challenge to the Urban Summit, London, Urban Management Initiatives. Google Scholar

CARMONA, M. (2003), ‘Design matters: can we do better?’, Town and Country Planning, 72, 291. Google Scholar

CARMONA, M. (2014), ‘The place-shaping continuum: a theory of urban design process’, Journal of Urban Design, 19, 2–36. Google Scholar

CARMONA, M., DE MAGALHAES, C. and EDWARDS, M. (2002), ‘Stakeholder views on value and urban design’, Journal of Urban Design, 7, 145–69. Google Scholar

CARMONA, M., DE MAGALHAES, C. and NATARAJAN, L. (2017), Design Governance: The CABE Experiment, New York, Routledge. Google Scholar

CARMONA, M. and GIORDANO, V. (2017), Design Skills in English Local Authorities, London, Place Alliance. Google Scholar

CARMONA, M. and SIEH, L. (2004), Measuring Quality in Planning: Managing the Performance Process, Oxon, Spon Press. Google Scholar

CATTELL, R. B. (1966), ‘The scree test for the number of factors’, Multivariate Behavioural Research, 1, 245–76. Google Scholar

CHANDLER, E. W. (1985), ‘The components of design teaching in a planning context’, Town Planning Review, 56, 468–82. Google Scholar

CLAYDON, J. (1998), ‘Discretion in development control: a study of how discretion is exercised in the conduct of development control in England and Wales’, Planning Practice and Research, 13, 53–62. Google Scholar

CLAYDON, J. and SMITH, B. (1997), ‘Negotiating planning gains through the British development control system’, Urban Studies, 34, 2003–22. Google Scholar

DATABUILD (2008), Survey of Local and Regional Design Review Panels, Their Location, Type and Impact, Birmingham, Databuild. Google Scholar

DAVIES, H. W. E. (1980), ‘The relevance of development control’, Town Planning Review, 51, 5–17. Google Scholar

DAWSON, E. and HIGGINS, M. (2009), ‘How planning authorities can improve quality through the design review process: lessons from Edinburgh’, Journal of Urban Design, 14, 101–14. Google Scholar

DCLG (DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT) (2012), National Planning Policy Framework, London, Department for Communities and Local Government. Google Scholar

DEAR, M. J. and MOOS, A. I. (1986), ‘Structuration theory in urban analysis: 1. theoretical exegesis’, Environment and Planning A, 18, 231–52. Google Scholar

DEVLIN, K. (1990), ‘An examination of architectural interpretation: architects versus non-architects’, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 7, 235–44. Google Scholar

DONOVAN, J. and LARKHAM, P. J. (1996), ‘Rethinking design guidance’, Planning Practice and Research, 11, 303–18. Google Scholar

DRYZEK, J. S. and BEREJIKIAN, J. (1993), ‘Reconstructive democratic theory’, American Political Science Review, 8, 48–60. Google Scholar

DWORKIN, R. (1977), Taking Rights Seriously, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. Google Scholar

ELLIN, N. (2006), Integral Urbanism, London, Routledge. Google Scholar

ELLIS, G., BARRY, J. and ROBINSON, C. (2007), ‘Many ways to say “no”, different ways to say “yes”: applying Q-Methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 20, 517–51. Google Scholar

FORSYTH, A. (1999), ‘Administrative discretion and urban and regional planners’ values’, Journal of Planning Literature, 14, 5–15. Google Scholar

GARN, G. A. (1999), ‘Solving the policy implementation problem: the case of Arizona charter schools’, Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 7, 1–17. Google Scholar

GEORGE, R. V. and CAMPBELL, M. C. (2000), ‘Balancing different interests in aesthetic control’, Journal of Planning and Research, 2000, 163–75. Google Scholar

GIFFORD, R., HINE, D. W., MULLER-CLEMM, W., REYNOLDS, D. J. and SHAW, K. T. (2000), ‘Decoding modern architecture: a lens model approach for understanding the aesthetic differences of architects and laypersons’, Environment and Behaviour, 32, 163–87. Google Scholar

GOSPODINI, A. and SKAYANNIS, P. (2005), ‘Towards an integration model of planning education programmes in a European and international context: the contribution of recent Greek experience’, Planning Theory and Practice, 6, 355–82. Google Scholar

HANSEN, B. (2006), The National Economy, Westport, CT, Greenwood Press. Google Scholar

HAUGHTON, G., ALLMENDINGER, P., COUNSELL, D. and VIGAR, G. (2010), The New Spatial Planning: Territorial Management with Soft Spaces and Fuzzy Boundaries, Oxon, Routledge. Google Scholar

HEALEY, P. (2004), ‘Creativity and urban governance’, Policy Studies, 25, 87–102. Google Scholar

HEALEY, P. (2006), ‘Transforming urban governance: changes of institutional adaptation and new politics of space’, European Planning Studies, 14, 299–320. Google Scholar

HILL, H. C. (2003), ‘Understanding implementation: street-level bureaucrats’ resources for reform’, Journal of Public Administration Review and Theory, 13, 265–82. Google Scholar

HUBBARD, P. (1994), ‘Professional vs lay tastes in design control: an empirical investigation’, Planning Practice and Research, 9, 271–87. Google Scholar

IMRIE, R. and STREET, E. (2009), ‘Regulating design: practices of architecture, governance and control’, Urban Studies, 46, 2507–18. Google Scholar

IMRIE, R. and STREET, E. (2011) Architectural Design and Regulation, Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar

KAISER, H. F. (1970), ‘A second generation little jiffy’, Psychometrika, 35, 401–17. Google Scholar

KLINE, P. (1994), An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis, London, Routledge. Google Scholar

LIPSKY, M. (1980), Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of Individuals in Public Services, New York, Russell Sage Foundation. Google Scholar

McKEOWN, B. and THOMAS, D. (1988), Q-Methodology, London, Sage. Google Scholar

MANLEY, S. and PARNABY, R. (2000), ‘The return of the architect-planner?’, Planning Practice and Research, 15, 269–77. Google Scholar

MARCHIGIANI, E. (2004), Guides and Manuals of Better Practice as an Aid to Planning in England, https://issuu.com/planumnet/docs/e.marchigiani__guides_and_manuals_of__better_prac/35. Google Scholar

MURTAGH, B. and ELLIS, G. (2011), ‘Skills, conflict and spatial planning in Northern Ireland’, Planning Theory and Practice, 12, 349–65. Google Scholar

ONARAN, K. S. and SANCUR, F. H. (1998), ‘Design review in small communities’, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 25, 539–57. Google Scholar

PUNTER, J. (1999a), ‘Aesthetic control/design control in the United Kingdom’, Urban Design International, 4, 67–75. Google Scholar

PUNTER, J. (1999b), ‘Improving the instruments, processes and products of aesthetic control in Europe’, Urban Design International, 4, 79–99. Google Scholar

PUNTER, J. (2006), ‘The planning system and the delivery of design quality’, in M. Moor and J. Rowland (eds), Urban Design Futures, London, Routledge, 50–56. Google Scholar

PUNTER, J. (2010), ‘Centenary paper – planning and good design: indivisible or invisible? A century of design regulation in English town and country planning’, Town Planning Review, 81, 343–80. Google Scholar

RÖNN, M. (2011), ‘Quality in architecture and urban design: a disputed concept’, Design Research Journal, 2, 46–54. Google Scholar

RTPI (ROYAL TOWN PLANNING INSTITUTE) (2002), From Design Policy to Design Quality, London, Thomas Telford. Google Scholar

RUDI (2008), Place-Making: Celebrating Quality and Innovation in Urban Life, London, RUDI (Academy of Urbanism). Google Scholar

RYDIN, Y., AMJAD, U. and WHITAKER, M. (2007), ‘Environmentally sustainable construction: knowledge and learning in London planning departments’, Planning Theory and Practice, 8, 363–80. Google Scholar

THEODOULOU, S. Z. and KOFINIS, C. (2004), The Art of the Game, New York, Thomson Wadsworth. Google Scholar

TIBBALDS, F. (1988), ‘Mind the gap: a personal view of the value of urban design in the late twentieth century’, The Planner, 74, 11–15. Google Scholar

UDG (URBAN DESIGN GUIDANCE) (2003), Urban Design Guidance: Urban Design Frameworks, Development Briefs and Master Plans, London, Thomas Telford. Google Scholar

VAN EXEL, N. J. A. and DE GRAAF, G. (2005), Q Methodology: A Sneak Preview, http://www.jobvanexel.nl. Google Scholar

WALTERS, D. (2007), Designing Community, Charettes, Masterplans and Form-Based Codes, Oxford, Architectural Press. Google Scholar

If you have private access to this content, please log in with your username and password here

Details

Author details

Black, Philip

Sonbli, Taki Eddin