A ‘planning revolution’ or an ‘attack on planning’ in England: digitization, digitalization, and democratization

ABSTRACT

This article focuses on the planning–technology nexus. Recent work explores the potential of digital technology in overcoming the longstanding limitations of a lack of public engagement and citizen empowerment in the planning process. In August 2020, the Government published a White Paper to democratize, digitize, and digitalize the planning system. We interrogate whether these radical reforms constitute a ‘planning revolution’ or an ‘attack on planning’; we focus on two important issues: democratic deficit and digital divide. The article examines how statements about digitization and digitalization may meet the Government’s desire to make the planning process more inclusive (i.e. equitable, fair, just) by empowering greater numbers of people to influence planning decisions for their local communities. In this agenda-setting article, we reflect on the English planning landscape; more broadly, we critically reflect on the values and political rhetoric involved in embracing technological innovations, and how these intersect with societal concerns.

KEYWORDS:

• Technology
• planning
• democracy

Disclosure statement

This article was written with technologists involved in the PlanTech sector. Justin McHenry is an Associate working on a Knowledge Transfer Partnership between Queen’s University Belfast led by Philip Boland and Stephen McKay, and VU.CITY led by Jamie Holmes. The contents of this article have been shared with senior management in VU.CITY.

Notes

1 The UK Government develop planning policy and legislation for planning in England.

2 Digitization is the conversion of data from analogue to digital, digitalisation refers to the use of digital technologies.

3 Such as too many policies, too complex, too slow, too many legal challenges, high risk, costs and uncertainty, excessive restrictions on land use. For robust rebuttals from planning professionals (see BBC 2020a; Quinn 2020; Stone 2020; Wainwright 2020) and planning policy experts (Ellis 2020).

4 These include GIS, 3D technologies, Virtual Reality, Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, immersive technologies, urban/city dashboards and Digital Twins.

5 Ertiö (2015, 310–315) identifies eight types of participatory apps that are either Environment-Centric (informing apps, shared reality apps, trend monitoring apps, and integrator apps) or People-Centric (nudge apps, local network apps, citizen impact apps, and public dialogue apps). Public dialogue apps are particularly interesting: “interactive apps with strategic power, which request citizen input on planning and development issues via mobile devices” (Ertiö 2015, 314).

6 The accessibility of digital and computational technology to ‘everyday users’, rather than experts and professionals, enabling them to make their own decisions based upon city data.

7 For example, council services, car parking, traffic congestion, public transport, cultural venues, retail and shopping, sport and recreation, hotels and restaurants, bars and clubs.

8 There are different forms of e-government that involve ordinary people. Government-to-Citizen (G2C) is a ‘one-way communication’ on local services and processes; Citizen-to-Government (C2G) involves platforms for online citizen participation; and Citizen-to-Government-to-Citizen (C2G2C) whereby citizens become ‘producers of information’ (Cavallo, Lynch, and Scull 2014).

9 Examples include NeoGeography (GIS tools that can be used by laypersons and non-experts without intensive training), Web 2.0 (Internet user-generated content and the growth of social media) and 3D visualisations.

10 They interviewed 24 experts, surveyed 115 industry professionals and sought the views of more than 2000 members of the public across the UK.

11 PlanTech is a ‘field of practice for emerging technologies and digital innovation for how we plan and design cities’ (https://neighbourlytics.com/blog/plantech-explained). It involves data analytics, digitization, automation and AI, regarding land-use planning, community engagement, urban design, approval processes and transportation. Whilst PropTech is limited to the property sector, PlanTech focuses on ‘technology to create better places’.

12 Chapman, Tait, and Inch (2020, 308) argue that planning design codes and computational urbanism in the UK

are a pre-condition for the entry of property technology companies and a further round of datafication. Their technology relies on algorithms that move in to manage parts of the datafied infrastructure and make decisions. Applying algorithmic technology to planning could begin to divorce spatial decision-making from political accountability.

In America, Safransky (2020, 201) argues Market Value Analysis leads to “algorithmically produced markets value assessment” that affects a range of future planning decisions for different classes of people, decisions that are potentially taken out of the hands of professional planners.

13 The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulations shape this. Devlin (2020, 65) accepts that it is unclear whether this clause or a similar one will affect #PlanTech after the UK leaves the European Union.

14 It could be reduced to a ‘tick-box’ exercise with due consideration of the context of individual planning applications.

15 Indeed, it can be argued that printed land use maps might not be readily accessible or easily comprehensible to those citizens without background knowledge of spatial issues and the planning process.

16 Such as the elderly, the poor, those in manual occupations, those without English as a first language, disabled people, and Gypsy and Traveller communities.

17 In a short summary report, Chapman et al. (2020) identify four conditions for the better integration of technology into planning. One, use technology to supplement not replace public participation in planning. Two, use technology to recognise the complexity of place and the lived experience. Three, use technology to ensure public engagement. Finally, ensure that methods and objectives of technology are subject to critical and political reflection.

Additional information

Funding

The second and fifth authors were supported by EPSRC grant number EP/T022582/1.