Universal planning principles

ARTICLE

How ‘universal’ or ‘global’ are planning principles and concepts?

ABSTRACTThis paper focuses on to study the planning principles in global context and analyse their relevance in terms of race, culture and gender. Also, to understand that is planning able to adrress the needs of a diverse community. Assessing two variant illustrations of planning addressing diversity and evolving as universal. Critically analysing the examples from United Kingdom and India and their approach towards the same. Notably, the origin of planning in one country was due to the other. Also analysing the UN-Habitat’s contribution in making planning principles global and how their agenda seems to evolve across the years. Contemplating the inputs and how successful two different countries are in accommodating and addressing the needs of the community. Do legislation and policies play the envisioned role or it can be accomplished with an intention and conceptualization held under the independent planning authorities? Subsequently, after analysing the two casestudies the conclusion became comprehensible.

1. Introduction: As the world urbanised, planning spaces became an integral element to secure the maximum practical degree of economy, convenience and beauty. It was an attempt to formulate the principles that should guide in creating a civilised physical background for the communities. A “principle” is a basic idea or rule that explains or controls how something happens or works. Although, there are no substantial set of universal planning principles, the principles are based on to create and promote healthy conditions and environments for all the people; to make right use of the land for the right purpose by zoning; to ensure orderly development; to avoid encroachment of one zone over the other; social, economic, cultural and recreational facilities; to preserve the individuality of the town; to preserve the aesthetics in the design of all elements of town or city plan, thus bringing out the social and economic well-being for the community.

National Planning Framework in 2012 under UK Town and Country Planning Act sets out 12 core planning principles which “which underpin both plan-making and decision-taking”. Sustainable development is the priority, also, conserving and enhancing the biodiversity and green belt covers an essential part. Principles addressing the concept of societal equity are three out of twelve: 

Emphasise enhancing and improving the places in which people live their lives, not scrutiny alone



Seek to secure a high-quality of design and a good standard of amenity for occupants



Take account of local strategies to improve health, social, and cultural wellbeing

There are certain core considerations around which the principles are framed, namely- protection of Green belt, sufficient recreation facilities, efficient road system, adequate transport facilities, enough housing and most importantly proper zoning. These core considerations can relatively be defined as planning principles.

Although, these principles are way too idealistic and due to legislations attached to it with third-parties involved- government and stakeholders, has viability issues.

Moreover, due to this the most important aspect that is community is overlooked.

Gender tends to play an intrinsic role in spatial planning which is overlooked.

Awareness struck the planning authorities and grew strongly during 1980s. Two influential reports came out from Greater London Commission (GLC) and Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) in 1986 and 1987-88 respectively. Although, the consideration for the needs of women was not developed in the same pace as that of race and disability (Davies, 1996).

Further, with the rising concerns, RTPI in 2003 framed a Gender Mainstreaming (GM) Toolkit. The toolkit claimed to help the planners understand the following aspects:  Improve plan-making processes by making them more inclusive.  Develop policies sensitive to the needs of the whole community, recognising the different needs of particular groups.  Increase awareness of gender issues and their relationship with planning.  Produce spatial plans that meet the needs of all groups within the local community.

However, the main issue was to ensure that gender considerations were integrated into actual policy with specific changes and implications. Many authorities were just nicking the tip of the iceberg by just formally ticking the boxes. Some LPA’s failed to build a connection between spatial planning and gender, emphasised on human resources aspects of equality. LPAs even failed in considering physical land-use planning dimension. Furthermore, Gender Equality Duty came into force by 2007 eventually. The Duty was equivalent of a lawful overarching obligation on public authorities which was supposed to require them as employers and service providers to promote equal opportunity between men and women (CLG, 2007).

Race and culture issues were on a rise and an equal racial opportunity was a matter of concern since early 1970s. The Race Relations Act in 1976 placed a duty on the LPAs to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination. Further in 1978, RTPI joined hands with Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) to explore the multiracial dimensions of planning and propose obligatory changes. Although in 1990s, the conservative government paid less attention to this issue comparatively. Nevertheless, with the Race Relation (Amendment) Act in 2000, a “general duty� was introduced in local authorities to promote race equality which created hopes amongst various races.

Moreover, with the introduction of new Equality Act in 2010, various categoriesdisability, gender, race, religion, sex and sexual orientation, were merged into single legislation. On one hand, where this act covers a range of direct and indirect discrimination, it also raises a fear amongst people of issues being diluted. (Source).

Under the Equality Act passed in 2010, Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) came into force in 2011 and was considered as a better combined version of previous acts.

There was no longer a requirement for local authorities to produce an equality scheme. This act was set up on a stronger legislation with a monitoring role. In the

present situation, nevertheless the legislation was stronger but still the results are not in place. There are limits as to how far the duty goes in relation to monitoring and evaluation of outcomes (Source).

Across the years there were discussions and recommendations on gender equality and its treatment. Consultations around plans, policy and regeneration projects should involve both women and men; women should be fully involved in the decision making processes both as officers and as members of the public; data need to be collected for both men and women’s activities, in respect of travel, work, care duties and leisure requirements. It is evident that consideration of gender could help make regeneration and planning more successfully for the communities involved. (source).

“The need to involve women as decision makers in all aspects of urban planning and policy making is recognized as the key to give women the access to Right to The City” (Source).

Cases from UK and India have two contrary frameworks in order to address diversity in planning. Where UK has a stronger legislation in terms of race and culture equality and is supposedly earnestly addressing the same in planning, India doesn’t acquire any such legislation. However, Dale Farm, Essex, UK came out to be an exposition of forced eviction and violation of race quality duty act. Whereas, in India there is a city named Auroville, which is an appropriate example of cultural and racial diversity. “Planning for Diversity means constructing approaches to spatial planning, which address difference and equality of opportunity” (Reeves, 1957)

Auroville, India: Auroville also called “City of Dawn” is an experimental township in Vilupurram district in the state of Tamil Nadu, India with some parts in the Union Territory of Puducherry in South India. It is a city built on the concept of unity in diversity where people of different nationalities, different ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds, could live and work together in a spirit of mutual respect and collaboration.

The city is designed by Architect Roger Anger. The purpose of Auroville is to realise human unity. The project was backed up by the Government of India is recognised by UNESCO. The township within the city area of 500 hectares was originally intended to house 50,000 residents. As of May 2016, it has 2,487 residents.

The zoning of the city is in the concept of “galaxy”, with zones divided as peace zone, industrial, residential, international, cultural and green belt. The international zone hosts national and cultural pavilions grouped by continents. Out of 2,487 residents, 1854 are adults and 633 children, from 49 countries with two-thirds from India, France and Germany. The community is divided up into neighbourhoods with Tamil, English, French. Auroville has a unique social and organisational structure and is able to survive in harmony.

The city is running without a government under “Auroville Foundation”, headed by a chairman, including the members from International Advisory Council. The Auroville Foundation, headed by a chairman, is an autonomous body under the Ministry of Human Resource Development. The HRD ministry appoints the seven members of the Governing Board and the five members of the International Advisory Council. There is also a Secretary to the Foundation, appointed by the Government of India, who resides and has an office with supporting staff in Auroville. Although,

comparatively a very small city with the establishment, still it has set an example for cities struggling from urban sprawl.

The city is running satisfactory without any legislation and government, just with the idea of community cohesion the city is to ready adapt people from all backgrounds.

Furthermore, without any “Integrated” master-plan, the approach of its master plan is to create equitable and economically sound society and as it supports vernacular architecture and other different forms of architecture, the city has always interested architects and planners. There is an optimum mix of densities by using sustainable development approaches and hence has very effectively addressed the cultural diversity. Auroville has come up with a participatory planning platform with a broader framework, specifically suited to its existing structure and anticipated future needs.

Dale Farm, UK: Dale farm was the largest Gypsy and Traveller site in the UK established without any planning permission from Basildon District Council. The site was located within the Green Belt, therefore with the rising coercion the Gypsies were forcefully evicted from the site after 10 years. The eviction expectedly involved the removal of around 400 residents, including about 100 children. The British firm of bailiffs, Constant and Co, was given the £2.2 million contract to clear 54 pitches at Dale Farm. The tenfold increase in the value of housing land in the UK over a 25-year period added to the sensitivity of unauthorized conversion of Green Belt land to residential use.

Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) issued a document along with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in the year 2012, Planning

Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) which described government’s planning policies for gypsies and traveller sites. The document incorporated the set of rules and conditions which were supposed to be considered by both, gypsies and Local Planning Authorities (LPA). It was even comprised of the definition of “Gypsy”, explaining the circumstances of being and to be considered as “Gypsy” by the government.

Further in 2015, a new version of PPTS was released by DCLG with some notable amendments. The utmost change was the revised definition of “Gypsy”. In the 2012 version, the interpretation of being a “gypsy” was the one who possesses a “nomadic habit of life” and also, the one who has “ceased to travel temporarily or permanently” will be considered as “gypsy”. So previously, those who had given up travelling permanently for reasons of health, education or old age were required to be treated like those who continue to travel. Whereas in the amended version of 2015 there is a change in the latter part, the person will be considered as gypsy only if he has “ceased to travel temporarily”. The word “permanently” was removed from the definition, with an explanation that gypsies are related with “nomadic life” and the one who has given up travelling permanently will be considered no different from the settled population and will abide by the planning laws accordingly.

The second major amendment was regarding protecting sensitive areas and the Green Belt. The amended document also restricts the circumstances in which temporary permission for Gypsy sites was to be given in the green belt. Under Policy H, paragraph 27, there is an update, that with a lack of an up-to-date five year supply of deliverable traveller sites from the side of LPA, it will not be a “significant material consideration” in planning decisions involving the grant of temporary planning permission in sensitive areas, such as land designated as Green Belt; “sites protected

under the Birds and Habitat Directives and/or sites designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Local Green Space, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), or within a National Park (or the Boards).”

Third notable change in the 2015 document was again in the Policy H, paragraph 25, which states that councils should “very strictly limit” new traveller sites in open countryside. It adds the word “very” to the paragraph 23 of the previous policy.

Therefore, it reads as “Local planning authorities should very strictly limit new traveller site development open countryside”.

In 2014, a proposal was put up by DCLG for the amendments in the already existing PPTS so as to secure both gypsies and the members of the settled community and to bring “fairness” in the planning system. A “Consultation” was hence released in September 2014 so as to seek views on the proposed changes. The “Consultation” response form was even submitted by Mr. Richard Blyth, Head of Policy, Practise & Research, RTPI. He, in his response form, has clearly opposed the proposed amendments and has also provided viable reasons the same. The views stated were not his personal rather it was an organisational response.

Apparently, the amendments made in 2015 are deliberately restrictive in nature. The proposals might increase unauthorised traveller sites, which rather is the main issue of concern for the LPAs. Restricting the gypsies from “open countryside” or green belt areas might result in either of the situations, unauthorised caravan sites or concern for LPA to help them relocate within the settlement boundaries. “Open countryside” is not accurately defined in the document; also, it may vary between plans. By this amendment government seems to restrict traveller sites even from the not-so intrinsic landscape area by stating “open countryside”. It would have been

better if the constraints were more specified and on landscape areas worthy of strong protection. The applications for caravan sites should be treated as any other development activity. There is a difference between permanent settlements and caravan sites, as per their tendency, they occupy the area for short term and they move on and thus have less of an impact.

PPTS, 2015 came up with a new definition of Gypsies and Travellers in order to reduce their count and minimize their eligibility to live on or develop traveller sites.

There is no viable definition of “permanently” ceasing travelling. There can be various reasons, old age, education, a woman who has dependent members in the family because of which she “permanently” stopped travelling. Also, there is no defining time period to explain “temporary” ceased travelling. The LPA is laid with an extra responsibility to prove that travelling has ceased “permanently” without any decisive figures to determine both the cases. This may result in problems in fair enforcement.

Government’s effort to provide “fairness” and equality in the planning policy and to reduce the numbers of unauthorised caravan sites seems contradictory. The more rules and restrictions are imposed, the more possibility of breaking off the rules and chances of revolt increases. Dale Farm was one definitive example of revolt and forced eviction which was a result of many loopholes, be it the then government, planning policies or even local planning authorities because it did not emerge in a year, it took decades to become what it was.

Considering the current changes introduced in PPTS, it requires extra efforts from local planning authorities and put forward some procedural challenges. The Equality Act – Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) came into force in 2011. The tenfold

increase in the value of housing land in the UK over a 25-year period added to the sensitivity of unauthorized conversion of Green Belt land to residential use.

With such amendments, assessing the housing needs can be a solution to unauthorised caravan sites but certainly the assessments will need to be more robust and extensive. Dale farm was the largest Gypsy and Traveller site in the UK established without planning permission from Basildon District Council. As the site was located within the Green Belt hence the Gypsies were forcefully evicted from the site after 10 years. The British firm of bailiffs, Constant and Co, was given the ÂŁ2.2 million contract to clear 54 pitches at Dale Farm. Gypsies are 0.1% of the UK population and economically and socially disadvantaged by various aspects. Over lapping characteristics and law- Human Rights (Article 8) and Housing and Land use Law thereofre, contradictory laws and tricky legislations make things difficult and inexpedeint. The case reflected a continuing planning policy failure, at both local and national level, to resolve the Gypsy/Traveller accommodation shortfall, and a wider planning policy failure to supply sufficient land for new housing under continuing population pressure (Home, R.).

The strength of support for Green Belt and countryside protection underlined within the 12 planning principles “Protect the diversity of different areas of England, protecting Green Belts and recognising the "intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside", overcame the arguments of minority and human rights for appropriate accommodation.

Role of UN-Habitat: UN-habitat, across the years have put up agendas relative to the needs of the development. Initially in Habitat I held in Canada, 1976 the agenda was “improving human settlements”, hence improving the quality of life through more equitable distribution of development benefits, which was then the most pressing matter.

Then further in the year 1996 the discussion was on climate change, because global warming and greenhouse effect was the matter of concern. The growing population, rapid growth of built form and practices harmful for environment started causing environmental disasters. And for now, sustainable development is most substantial.

A type of develoment in which all the three factors are balanced and are equal beneficiaries. Gender equality and women empowerment was also considered in Habitat III held in Quito, 2016. Infact there was more focus on gender issues in Habitat III than in Habitat II held in Istanbul. It was the focal point of discussions hemed by international bodies working towards gender responsive spaces. UNHabitat has released a document “UN-Habitat Policy and Plan for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women 2014-2019”, which sets out its commitment and strategy to advance quality betwen men and women. It discusses further scopes of improved urban policies to develop and adopt gender-responsive plans and designs and further improving policy dialogue at local, national and global level on innovations in urban planning and design by city authorities.

There is clearly a shift evident in thinking while considering planning principles. The policies and documents have started referring to race and gender, culture, diversity, sustinability from economic growth; and equalisation of economic development.

Rather than idealistic principles of planning the idea of community development is important, regardless of gender, race and culture. Thinking globally not in terms of geography but relating it with community. Planning system not only plan-led but also people-led. There is a shift in thinking when considering the extent of planning universally and also the agenda of UN-Habitat across the years testifies the same.



Agyeman, J. and Erickson, J.S., 2012. Culture, recognition, and the negotiation of difference some thoughts on cultural competency in planning education. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 32(3), pp.358-366. [pdf] Available at: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0739456X12441213 [Accessed 20 December 2016].



DCLG, 2012. Planning Policy for Traveller Sites. [pdf] Available at:

<https://vle.anglia.ac.uk/modules/2015/MOD003661/TRI2-A1/Documents/Week%2012/PPTS%202012.pdf&AuthResend1908BC2350124b5095AB75012F A405BA> [Accessed 20 December 2016]. 

DCLG, 2014. Consultation: planning and travellers. [pdf] Available at: <https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/355840/

current_con_doc_in_publication_format_140917.pdf> [Accessed 20 December 2016]. 

DCLG, 2015. Planning Policy for Traveller Sites. [pdf] Available at: <https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/457420/

Final_planning_and_travellers_policy.pdf> [Accessed 20 December 2016]. 

Dory Reeves, 2005. Planning for Diversity: Policy and Planning in a World of Difference. [ebook] Available at: <

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=CwTEP6TIJfcC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=f alse> [Accessed 21 December 2016]. 

Home, R., 2012. Forced eviction and planning enforcement: the Dale Farm Gypsies. International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, 4(3), pp.178-188. [pdf] Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/17561451211273338 [Accessed 20 December 2016].



Planning Resources, 2014. Gypsy policy proposals prompt anger. [online] Available at:

<http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1312937/gypsy-policy-proposals-promptanger> [Accessed 21 December 2016]. 

Planning Resources, 2015. New policy document tightens Gypsy and traveller planning rules. [online] Available at: <http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1362229/new-

policy-document-tightens-gypsy-traveller-planning-rules> [Accessed 21 December 2016]. 

RTPI, 2014. Response Form: Consultation: planning and travellers. [pdf] Available at: <http://www.rtpi.org.uk/media/1164159/dclg_planning___travellers_nov_2014.pdf> [Accessed 21 December 2016].



Sanyal Bishwapriya, 2005. Comparative Planning Cultures. [ebook] Available at: <

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=CwTEP6TIJfcC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=f alse> [Accessed 21 December 2016].

ď&#x201A;§

The Traveller Movement, 2014. Traveller Movement submission to the Department of Communities and Local Government consultation on planning for Traveller sites. [pdf] Available at: <http://www.travellermovement.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/TM-

response-to-DCLG-Traveller-sites-consultation-November-2014.pdf> [Accessed 22 December 2016]. ď&#x201A;§

Willian J.V. Neill, 2004. Urban Planning and Cultural Identity. [ebook] Available at: <

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=CwTEP6TIJfcC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=f alse> [Accessed 22 December 2016].