Locating Religion in Urban Planning: Beyond ‘Race’ and Ethnicity?

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Acknowledgements

The research on which this paper draws was made possible by a doctoral studentship from the ERSC, to whom the author expresses sincere thanks. Figure 1 is based on data generated by the Leverhulme Trust-funded project. ‘Ethnicity and Cultural Landscapes', led by Professor Ceri Peach of the Oxford University Centre for the Environment between 1998 and 2001 (ref F/773). The author would also like to thank the editor and anonymous referees of Planning Practice and Research, and the guest editor, Huw Thomas, for their suggestions on earlier drafts of this paper.

Notes

1. This analysis could only use ethnicity data as a proxy for religion on account of the lack of data on religion from earlier censuses than 2001. However, as outlined above, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis comprise the large majority of Birmingham's Muslim population. The Index of Segregation, which varies from 0 to 100, and for which scores of 60+ are considered high (Peach, 2006), showed Pakistanis falling from 66 in 1991 to 61 in 2001, and Bangladeshi falling from 67 in 1991 to 63 in 2001.

2. An examination of the residuals of this analysis further confirms the importance of the relationship between the converted house category and planning decisions. Importantly, the decisions for house conversions stand in a diametrically opposed relationship to those for purpose built mosques. Thus the cells with the greatest leverage in this table are those for ‘house by approved’ (adjusted residual = −4.5), ‘house by refused’ (adjusted residual = +5.3), ‘purpose-built premises by approved’ (adjusted residual = +5.0), and ‘purpose-built by refused’ (adjusted residual = −4.5). Each of the adjusted residuals for these cells is large and significantly different from 0 (i.e. they are >1.96 and thus significant at the 95% confidence level). The direction of these adjusted residuals is also important to note: they show, on the one hand, that a significantly larger frequency of applications to convert houses into mosques and madrasas were refused than would have been expected if the null hypothesis (H₀) of no association between these variables held true. Correspondingly, a much smaller frequency of such applications were approved than would have been expected. On the other hand, a much larger than expected frequency of applications for purpose-built mosques and madrasas were approved, whilst a much smaller than expected frequency of such applications were refused.

3. Available at http://www.salahtimes.com/Web/Pages/ViewPrayerTimesForMonthYear.aspx?PlaceID=3179 (accessed 8 October 2007).

4. The exceptions to this were people who were born in the ‘Far East’. However, the numbers in this category were very small in both censuses.

5. This and subsequent citations to this case derive from the planning file kept by Birmingham City Council Planning Department, Ref: P.A. No. E/C/32689/3 (0224).

6. At the time of this case, ‘places of worship’ formed a separate use class (Class XIII) according to the Use Classes Order 1972. This has since been superseded by the Use Classes Order 1987, in which religious and community uses now form part of a broader use class known as ‘non-residential institutions' (Class D1). This also includes such uses as museums and public halls.

7. This and all subsequent citations of the appeal decision of the Planning Inspector are taken from the Inspector's Report, Ref: T/APP/5104/A/79/09165/G8.

8. Although this must remain speculative, it is perhaps worthy of note that these changes of policy coincided with local political change. Thus, in 1973 when the initial policy was adopted, Birmingham City Council had a Conservative majority, whilst by 1981 the Council was controlled by Labour.

9. Minutes of the Development Control Committee, 6 January 2000, p. 348.

10. Minutes of the Development Control Committee, 20 January, 2000, p. 375.