Grass roots planning

A Review of Current Practice in Community Led Plans and their Connection with Spatial Planning 

Executive summary

Purpose

The purpose of this research is to develop a better understanding of why communities choose to produce local plans, how they go about it and what impact these plans have had in terms of bringing about change and improvements within their communities. The research also focussed on the extent to which the wider community became engaged in the process and the extent to which the plans were able to influence the formal planning system and community planning partners more widely.

Policy and legislative context

This study has been conducted at a time of great political and economic churn, and when the spotlight of public policy is focused as never before on the role and contribution that Scotland’s communities can play in helping to meet the challenges facing the country. As communities have become more aware of this changing environment and of the opportunities that are beginning to present themselves, many have taken steps to take stock of their situation and have carried out some sort of appraisal of their strengths and weaknesses. As a consequence, this has resulted in many of them drawing up plans to help shape their future development. Across the country, different approaches to ‘community led planning’ have been pursued andwith an equally varied set of outcomes. This study was commissioned with a view to developingbetter understanding of existing practice in this area of community led planning so as to inform future practice in this area of community development.

Categories of community led plan.

As these plans are determined by local context, each is, to a large extent, unique in terms of process followed, format and content. However, over the course of this research, it has been possible to discern three broad categories of community led plan.

1.            Locally initiated and locally developed. This category of plan covers those where the idea to draft a plan was initially conceived by local people, the research and the production process for the plan was carried out by local people and the end result – the plan – has been wholly ‘owned’ by local people.

For this category of plan, each community would cite a different set of factors that prompted their decision to produce a plan. Some were reactive in the sense that it may have been in response to a perceived external threat or because of a lack of investment from their local authority. Others were more proactive in that the production of a plan was seen to be a key element in galvanizing and sustaining local support for a programme of future action. In general terms, the key driver for this category of plan might be described as the community actively choosing to become more empowered. 

2.            Externally initiated and locally developed. This category of plan covers those where the impetus and initial idea to produce a plan came from an external agency (e.g. a local authority, a National Park planning authority, or a third sector intermediary). The resource, or at least part of the resource needed to fund the process of developing the plan, would be provided from that same external agency. However, the process would only proceed if there was sufficient early evidence of community support and that by the end of the exercise, the community had, to some extent, taken ownership of the plan. For this category of plan, the initial driver was generally the agenda of the external agency, e.g.budget pressures within a local authority, a community engagement strategy of a national park authority. The extent to which a genuine sense of ‘ownership’ of the plan transfers to the local community is generally determined by the particular approach and the level of community engagement skills of the external agency.

3.            Externally initiated and externally developed. This category of plan covers those processes whereby the local authority, or some other external agency such as an urban regeneration company, initiates an intensive design workshop within a particular area. Scottish Government have promoted a programme of such events through its Charrette Mainstreaming Programme over a number of years. These events are generally widely promoted to the local community who are invited to input their views in the way of a normal community consultation. In this type of plan, there appears to be little expectation that the community will take ‘ownership’ of the end product other than to be aware of the design/redesign possibilities for the future. These plans are commissioned by external agencies with the plan production process being led by an externally commissioned design team. The key driver for this type of plan appears to be either a desire to apply a spatial/design element to an existing plan and/or as a community engagement tool for a local authority-led regeneration project.

 Key findings from the research:

•             Community led plans are central to the community empowerment agenda.

The Scottish Government’s vision for communities to play a key role in the design and delivery of public services and to own and take control of a range of local public assets, needs to be framed within a coherent and planned approach that has the full involvement and support of local people. The production of effective community led plans can be a crucial element in achieving this end.

•             Community led plans need to be better connected to the statutory planning system.

Given the evidence, there has been some progress and limited good practice in connecting community led plans with statutory planning and its operations. However, many communities that were interviewed are of the view that their community-led plans are yet to be attached in any meaningful way to public policy and lack genuine public sector support.

•             The confusion around planning terminology needs to be resolved

Community led plans have been labelled variously as ‘Community Action Plans’, ‘Community Development Plans’, ‘Neighbourhood Plans’ or ‘Community Plans’. In addition, there are ‘Design Charrettes’ and plans associated with the Community Planning Partnerships. All this terminology and variation has created significant confusion amongst communities, public organisations, consultants and other stakeholders.

•             Community led plans contribute to the process of renewing local democracy

Community led plans can bring local people together and encourage widespread participation in a range of decisions which will have an effect on their lives both as individuals and as a community. In this sense community led plans can be a key element of any national strategy to renew local democracy.

•             Many communities require external facilitation and additional capacity in order to produce effective plans

The skills that are required to develop effective community led plans are not present within every community. However, there is a growing body of knowledge and experience both within the community sector and across Scotland’s public sector bodies. This needs to be recognized and harnessed so that it is more readily accessible to communities who need to avail themselves of it.

•             The production of effective community led plans has resource implications for the public sector.

Local communities will require access to funding to support their aspirations to develop effective community led plans. If community led plans are ever to become an intrinsic part of formal spatial and community planning systems, the development process needs to be supported appropriately.

•             Community led plans work are effective when they have active support from external stakeholders.

As community led plans currently carry no statutory weight, these plans need to be actively championed within the wider community planning partnerships and, in particular, they need to articulate closely with the spatial local development planning system

•             Community led plans must lead to action.

Local people have invested considerable time and energy in producing these plans. Implementation, however is crucial, in maintaining momentum.

•             Leading the process.

There was some support for the idea that that the development of these community led plans could be the responsibility of community councils. However, this was not a universal view and reflects the fact that in some parts of the country, community councils are in good health whereas in other parts this is not the case. However, what does seem crucial is the presence of some kind of local organisation – for instance, a community anchor organisation – that is able to assume a leadership role within a community.

•             More than a plan

The process of developing a community action plan can have an impact beyond the production of the plan itself. The process of drawing the community together around a common task can in itself build local capacity and a better understanding between different (sometimes vested) interests within the community.

•             Success breeds success.

There was evidence that where a community has successfully developed a plan, neighbouring communities have been inspired to do likewise.

•             ‘Local by default’ can challenge prevailing obsession with scale

Some communities felt that the priorities contained in their plans had been effective in challenging the prevailing economic dogmas of large scale and macro-economics. By focusing on small scale, economic development, the importance of local heritage and tourism, community led plans can be seen to impact on regional priorities.

•             Funding for implementation has to look beyond grants

Consideration needs to be given to more creative/radical ways to underwrite the implementation of community led plans. Suggestions such as direct access to planning gain funding and  a ring-fenced proportion of Council Tax receipts are proposed.

•             External support, partnerships and capacity building are essential

Rarely will a community develop a plan in complete isolation. Even when levels of local capacity are high, community led plans will only be effective in the long run if they are supported by external stakeholders.