Institutional and Conceptual Barriers to the Adoption of Gender Mainstreaming Within Spatial Planning Departments in England

Abstract

Local authority planning departments within the United Kingdom are required to undertake gender mainstreaming as a result of European Union and domestic government requirements. However, research undertaken for the Royal Town Planning Institute demonstrates that few local authorities are doing so. A mêlée of competing equality and diversity considerations at local government level limits the attention given to gender considerations. A review of national policy guidance and planning law indicates that central government is taking an equivocal stance towards gender. It is concluded that before effective gender mainstreaming can take place institutional difficulties and underlying conceptual ambiguities need to be resolved.

Keywords:

• Gender
• mainstreaming
• equalities
• diversity
• implementation
• governance

Introduction

Requirements for gender mainstreaming have been established at the highest levels within the European Union and by the UK government (Cabinet Office, 2000; EC, 2000). As a result, gender mainstreaming should, by now, be embedded in all aspects of public policy areas, including spatial planning. However, research undertaken for the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) has found that this is not so (Greed, 2003a). Institutional difficulties and a confused conceptual basis have resulted in implementation being limited.

Gender mainstreaming may be defined as “the systematic integration of gender into all systems and structures [of government], policies, programmes, processes and projects, into ways of seeing and doing, into cultures and organizations” (Dobbie & Purcell, 2002, p. 1). In respect of the application to local planning authorities, it may be defined as the process whereby gender issues, relations, power differentials and identities are taken into account within all stages and aspects of the plan-making process.

The concept of ‘gender’ incorporates recognition of the different cultural roles of women and men, together with an acknowledgement that a specific form of gender-power relations exists within society, namely patriarchy (Panelli, 2004, p. 67), which disadvantages women (Kirton & Greene, 2003, pp. 53–55). This calls for the need for greater recognition of women's distinctive requirements within society, particularly in the areas of public policy and urban governance, including spatial planning.

It is not the purpose of this article to argue de novo the case for a perspective on spatial planning that acknowledges the importance of women's needs, as these principles are long-established (Greed, 1994a, Appendix II). In summary, it has been demonstrated by research and human experience that women suffer particular disadvantage within a built environment designed with little attention to gender considerations (Anthony, 2001; Booth et al., 1996; Darke et al., 2000, pp. 114–130; Greed, 2003b; Little, 1994; Stimpson et al., 1981). It is now accepted and required practice, within central and local government in the UK, to take into account the differing effects of policies and priorities on women and men. Gender mainstreaming has been recognised as an important tool in achieving this end (Reeves, 2005).

This article draws on a study undertaken for the Royal Town Planning Institute (2001–2003) to ascertain the extent to which gender mainstreaming was already taking place within local planning authorities. Following an initial survey of the overall national situation, a series of 15 case studies was undertaken, which included examples of local planning authorities that were seeking specifically to mainstream gender into spatial policy in its own right, plus those that were adopting a more generic approach to equalities mainstreaming, and those that manifested little commitment to the process, in order to identify those factors that facilitated or blocked progress. A gender mainstreaming toolkit was then produced for the RTPI, drawing on examples of good practice and lessons gained from the survey exercise (see Table 1). Subsequently six representative planning authorities were chosen, half of which had participated as case studies in the original study, to act as pilot authorities in which the toolkit could be trialled and tested, before final revision and adoption by the RTPI and publication on the RTPI website, together with a report of the whole study (Greed, 2003a; Reeves & Greed, 2003). The final sections of the article draw upon reactions and recommendations from readers of the research findings who are keen to move the agenda forward and achieve change.

Table 1. Key question stages in the process of mainstreaming gender into planning (the mini of the RTPI Toolkit)

In order to achieve gender mainstreaming, a local planning authority should ensure that its planning officers ask the following questions in the course of the planning process:
1. Who are the planners and are they representative of men and women?
2. Who are perceived to be the planned?
3. How are the statistics gathered and who do they include? Are they gender disaggregated?
4. What are the key values, priorities and objectives of the plan? Do women or men benefit more from these?
5. Who is consulted and who is involved in participation?
6. How are planning policies evaluated? Are all policy areas tested?∗
7. How is the policy implemented, managed, monitored and managed?
∗Point 6, which is concerned with policy development and testing, involves the use of range of methodologies and enquiries, which can be encapsulated in the question: ‘does the policy in question affect men or women more and do women or men benefit more?’
Source: Reeves & Greed (2003).

This article discusses the institutional difficulties encountered in seeking to insert gender considerations into existing planning structures. Many of the problems encountered at local government level are, arguably, the result of lack of support and direction on the part of the ODPM (the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the central government ministry responsible for spatial planning). Aspects of national policy guidance documents are identified that help or hinder the chances of gender mainstreaming being acknowledged as a valid component of the statutory planning process. It is argued that such institutional problems are the result of conceptual ambivalence towards the notion of gender and an equivocal attitude towards equalities. The effect of this vacillation upon the scope and nature of planning law and practice is explored. The first part of the article draws on the RTPI survey to assess the extent of gender mainstreaming in UK planning. The second section reviews the encouragement for gender mainstreaming in English government legislation and guidance. The final section discusses key conceptual and institutional difficulties that constitute barriers to mainstreaming gender into the planning process and a range of attitudinal, legal and organisational changes which would enable gender mainstreaming to become effective and widespread.

The Extent of Gender Mainstreaming in English Planning

The Mandate for Implementation

As a member of the European Union, the UK is required to take gender mainstreaming on board in all aspects and at all levels of government. The Treaty of Amsterdam 1997, Article 2 and 3, section E, Clause 2, requires Europe-wide horizontal priority to integrate equality objectives into all policy programming processes. Article 13 makes “the elimination of inequalities” and specifically “the promotion of equality between women and men” central considerations in all public policy making activities at both central and local government levels within the EU (Fredman, 2002; Reeves & Greed, 2003).

The requirements of the Amsterdam Treaty came into force from 1999, but progress has been slow within UK local planning departments. Gender mainstreaming activities in the UK are already being undertaken within regional strategies and development activities that are more concerned with economic, rather than physical land-use planning. Regional projects funded by the European Union under the General Regulations for Structural Funds for 2000–06 require gender ‘proofing’ as part of structural funding conditionality (EC, 2000; Fitzgerald, 2000). For example, the city of Sheffield has been subject to Objective 1 EU regional regeneration funding which requires gender evaluation of both spatial policies and funding distribution (Booth, 1999). Gender proofing usually takes the form of a 'tick-box' process whereby assessors check whether gender has been taken into account within the content and terms of reference of, for example, planning policy documents or other government publications. Gender auditing may be seen as broader in that it looks at the extent to which gender considerations inform policy making, organisational structure and resource allocation. However both of these methods may be seen as somewhat reactive, in comparison with gender-mainstreaming in which gender is integrated, from the start, into all aspects of policy decision-making (Kirton & Greene, 2003). Such initiatives have introduced new approaches to doing planning in the UK. However, there has been limited opportunity for a wider range of people to be involved in policy making or appraisal, in spite of calls for a more collaborative approach to spatial policy making (Healey, 1997). Brownill (2000, pp. 114–130) explains, in relation to urban policy, that because the nominated members of the decision-making committees and boards involved are predominantly drawn from male-dominated property professions and businesses, women's concerns are likely to be marginalised (De Graft-Johnson et al., 2003). As a result, the emphasis by urban policy decision makers has been put upon economic development rather than upon the social infrastructural support facilities that would enable more women to participate in the workforce. Brownill argues for the 'regen(d)ering' of urban regeneration policy, that is mainstreaming gender into all aspects of urban regeneration. This theme has been subsequently developed by voluntary agencies working in the inner city (Oxfam, 2005), but has made little headway in influencing government policy guidance.

The Situation in Local Authority Planning Departments

In the UK, historically, it has been the local authority planning department (responsible for town, city and county planning), and not regional authorities, that has been the main level of statutory planning. Local planning authority practice is increasingly influenced by the European Union and national government requirements for equalities mainstreaming. The achievement of such requirements is increasingly becoming a condition of receiving funding, approval and successful appraisal within local government (EOC, 1997). The Equality Standard for Local Government in services and employment sets the Gold Standard against which all equality programmes must be assessed nationally (COSLA, 1999; De Viell, 1998; EOLG, 2001).

A great deal of equalities mainstreaming is underway in order to achieve all-embracing Equalities standards for local government (Greed, 2003a). However, the research for the RTPI found that a generic equalities approach to mainstreaming predominates in local planning authorities, resulting in gender considerations, and particularly women's needs, receiving limited attention. Many ‘women's units’ and ‘women's committees’, and some ethnicity-related programmes in local authorities, had been closed, in spite of their demands still not being met. It was assumed by some local authorities that such initiatives were no longer needed under the new Equalities regime (Onuoha & Greed, 2003).

The new equalities requirements have had a mixed reception. Local authority planners are already dealing with a wide range of performance and output measurement standards including Best Value and Equality standards (EOLG, 2001). Many planners expressed concerns that being expected to deal with generic mainstreaming too, let alone gender mainstreaming, was just another bureaucratic burden that would slow the planning process down even further. The only way some local authorities could deal with all the pressures and include all the minority groups in their deliberations was by adopting a ‘tick box’ approach to policy evaluation. For example, one London borough has 37 different diversity issues against which policies have to be ‘proofed’, resulting in only cursory attention being given to each issue (Greed, 2003b) (Table 2). In this process gender is separated out from other sectoral categorisations, when, in reality, gender crosscuts and overarches all aspects of people's lives (Reeves, 2005).

Table 2. References to diverse groups in National Planning Guidance

(all 2005 unless stated otherwise)
PPS1 Creating Sustainable Communities (2004) replaces PPG 1 General Policy and Principles. Many references throughout to importance of community but generalised, However, para 1.19 refers to the needs of “women, young people, children and the elderly, as well as disabled people, black and minority ethnic groups and other disadvantaged groups”, but not elsewhere.
PPG2 Green Belts not revised yet, but new Circular 10/05 The Town and Country Planning (Green Belt) Direction 2005, no mention of social considerations. However, Green Space: Better Places ODPM Interim Report includes children's needs but no gender dimension.
PPS3 Housing, replacing PPG3, refers to ‘places where people live’, ‘social inclusion’, ‘community’ and ‘mixed communities’ (for example para 28). But the only social group mentioned is ‘key workers’ (p. 25). The linked consultation paper Planning for Mixed Communities (2005) refers to ‘gypsies’ (p. 13), but no other specific groups. Circular 01/2005 on Residential Densities specifies high densities, for sustainability reasons, but does not relate family life issues, children's needs or ‘women and planning considerations’.
PPG 4 Industry, and PPG5 Simplified Planning Zones not yet revised.
PPS6 Planning for Town Centres (2005) replaces PPG6. Emphasis upon social inclusion and community, but only specific social considerations mentioned are ‘anti-social behaviour and crime’ para 2.24 and need for facilities to enable access of cyclists and disabled people (3.25), and needs of small retailers (2.58). Surprising lack of reference to gender considerations in that over 60% of shoppers are women (Greed, 2003, chapter 8).
PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas replaces PPG7 Countryside and Rural Economy. The only social groups mentioned are ‘visitors and tourists’ (in relation to provision of facilities, para 35) and agricultural workers (Annex A). No gender dimension, and lack of reference to lack of black and ethnic minority people in the countryside.
PPG8 Telecommunications not updated, but Circular 10/05 Permitted Development Rights for Antennas addresses the topic, and does not include any gender dimension in spite of fact that women are often prominent in campaigns against mobile phone masts near schools.
PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation replaces PPG9 Nature Conservation No social groups are mentioned.
PPS10 Planning for Sustainable Waste Management replaces PPG10 Waste, nothing on social issues or gender, except reference to ‘Human Health’ para 30. in spite of women's particular concern about carcegenic effects of chemical pollution
PPS 11 Regional Spatial Strategies (2004) replaces PPG11 Regional Planning Guidance. Many mentions of community, and “social progress which recognises the needs of everyone” (para 2.37). Appendix D gives list of invitees in the public participation processes proposed in Section 2, including, Disability Rights Commission, Equal Opportunities Commission, ethnic minority organisations and p. 107 ‘gender groups’. But no reference to minority group needs or issues in the main body of the document. There are five main linked reports on how to do the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of Regional Plans (para 2.37) do not mention specific social groups or issues.
PPS12 Local Development Frameworks (2004) replaces PPS12 Development Plans. Stresses importance of producing a ‘Statement of Community Involvement’ but not disaggregated into different interest groups. Women's National Council mentioned under ‘Other Consultees’ along with disability, age and race representatives but not under ‘Specific Consultees’.
PPGs 13–21 not yet revised
PPS22 Renewable Energy replaces PPG22, refers to ‘stakeholders’ but not defined in terms of social groups.
PPS23 Planning and Pollution Control replaces PPG23 of same name No social dimension except for reference to ‘human health’ p. 14 and Table 2.2. PPG24 Noise not revised.
PPS25 Development and Flood Risk replaces PPG 25 of same name, p. 72 refers to ‘Equity (sic) and Fairness’ and p. 73 specifies ‘Race Equality Assessment’ of policies but no mention of gender or other groups. Disability and escape not mentioned.
MPS2 Minerals Planning Statement (three subreports, noise, dust and contamination). Reference to ‘people living in proximity to site’ no reference to differential effects.
Significant Policy are also covered in the following publications:
Sustainability Appraisal of Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Frameworks
A Practical Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive
The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations (2004) All these documents lack reference to social or equality issues and appear to assume that ‘sustainability’ relates primarily to environmental considerations.
Planning Obligations Circular 05/2005, refers to ‘public involvement’ but unlike the 2004 draft does not include a section on ‘equity and fairness’ and ‘race equality’. A related HM Treasury document (December 2005) Planning-gain Supplement: A consultation significantly refers to a combination of ‘social and environmental benefits’ (p. 42) but only in general terms.

Greater emphasis is being given by local authorities to getting through the taxing process of equality proofing than focusing on the equality-implications of specific policy issues. Since many equalities programmes arrived on their desks from the Human Resources department, some planners innocently imagined mainstreaming related chiefly to personnel matters and not spatial policy. Overall a social (aspatial) rather than spatial emphasis predominates in setting mainstreaming priorities within local authorities. Planners may not realise that there is a linkage between spatial policy development and gender mainstreaming activities. Many planners lack relevant training in equalities issues. In the development control sections of planning departments, some individual planners appeared to be under the impression that gender considerations had no bearing on their work as they believed their decisions were determined by purely technical constraints (Greed, 2000a).

Some planners responsible for forward policy making imagined that ‘women’ had already been ‘done’ in the distant past and that ‘gender’ was no longer of any relevance. Others were under the impression that there is no longer any need to ‘do women separately’ as ‘gender’ is now dealt with (presumably adequately) under generic mainstreaming programmes by other departments, and so it was not their concern. In planning departments where ‘gender’ is given some consideration and a ‘difference’ between the needs of women and men is acknowledged, policy makers are, nevertheless, likely to base their assumptions about ‘what women want’ upon outdated stereotypes of women as housewives, not as workers or commuters. Women's policy needs are assumed to centre only on childcare, street crime and lighting. Gender is not seen as having a bearing on strategic spatial planning, economic development, employment strategy and transportation policies, for all men and women in the area.

Even if some local authorities are conceptually committed to mainstreaming, institutionally they are likely to encounter problems in seeking to insert gender considerations into planning structures and levels of operation. Gender issues do not readily fit into established planning policy hierarchies ‘vertically’. Many of the issues that are of concern to women, not least childcare, have been seen as being ‘too detailed’ to justify inclusion in high-level strategic policy documents, such as county or urban development plans. Because they are not mentioned in such documents they are not seen as legitimate items for incorporation at the detailed local plan level either, as there was no guidance on their inclusion at the strategic level. Reeves calls this phenomenon ‘the strategic filter’ (Reeves, 2002, p. 207). This factor was identified as a major problem by would-be mainstreamers.

Another major disincentive was found to be limited central government policy support or legal mandate to mainstream gender within the statutory planning system. Local planning authorities expressed uncertainty as to how ‘gender’, and other equalities issues, might best to be inserted ‘horizontally’ across the range of different policy topics within the new planning strategy documents. Some authorities were getting around this by lateral thinking, by attaching equalities considerations (including gender) to other more professionally ‘acceptable’ policy areas, such as sustainability (Reeves, 2004). This is justifiable because the official definition of sustainability accepted with the Rio Declaration (1992) (Greed, 2000b, p. 138) includes three components: economic viability, environmental sustainability and social equity (that is prosperity, place and people). Elsewhere in Europe, particularly in Scandinavia, the social equity element has been given greater emphasis, resulting in integration of equalities considerations, and particularly gender, into sustainability programmes (Horelli, 2000).

Those departments that are making progress mainstreaming gender into planning work usually have the support of local politicians (elected councillors) who take a special interest in minority issues, plus managerial support within their local authority (Onuoha & Greed, 2003). The Greater London Authority, which is the strategic planning authority for the capital) has given a high priority to gender considerations within its overarching equality programmes. The GLA has produced a range of Equality Impact Assessment methods in respect of gender, race, disability and other minority issues. These are not dealt with in isolation, but emphasis is put upon understanding how the issues interact, especially when dealing with spatial policy development. This approach might provide a positive model for national planning practice (GLA, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c; Greed & Reeves, 2005).

National Government Legislation and Guidance

National Planning Guidance

Many of the problems identified above are institutional and can only be rectified by central government action. The English government is in the process of restructuring the planning system, albeit, not for the purpose of enabling equalities mainstreaming, but rather in order to ‘streamline’ the system. In parallel, national policy guidance documents on the operation of the planning system, that is the Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs)), are being revised, and have been renamed Planning Policy Statements (PPSs). Under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the strategic development planning role of the existing county and urban authorities is being replaced with new regional-level spatial planning authorities that will produce ‘Regional Spatial Strategies’ as outlined in the new PPS11 (ODPM, 2004a). Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) will now constitute the ‘planning’ documents for delivering the spatial planning strategy for a local area, replacing previous local plans, as outlined in PPS12 (ODPM, 2004b).

The nature of national planning guidance is a major institutional constraint as it sets out central government parameters on the scope and role of planning. Its composition is informed and constrained by underlying conceptual assumptions about the nature of planning and ‘who’ and ‘what’ should be planned for; aspatial (social) values shape the guidance to be given on spatial planning matters (Foley, 1964). Therefore, it is extremely important that the new Policy Statements include guidance on gender mainstreaming in order to assure local authority planners that it is a legitimate component of statutory planning. The rewriting of national planning guidance, potentially, offers a long-awaited opportunity for institutional direction to be given on ‘where’ minority issues, including gender, should be inserted ‘horizontally’ into forward-planning documentation, alongside other policy topics.

There was very little reference to the needs of specific minority groups or social issues in the ‘old’ Planning Policy Guidance (CRESR, 2003; Greed, 2003b) (Table 2). In contrast, the Planning Policy Statements give the impression they are now more concerned with social issues, such as community, social inclusion and equality, but they rarely mention gender. For example, PPS1, entitled, Creating Sustainable Communities (ODPM, 2004c, 2005a) replaces PPG1 General Principles and Policies (DETR, 1997). It is accompanied by an explanatory document Community Involvement in Planning. This puts considerable emphasis upon social issues (ODPM, 2004d). However, gender is not mentioned at all in these new documents. Women are mentioned (once) along with ‘other disadvantaged groups’, as follows, “planning policies should take into account the needs of women, young people, children and the elderly, as well as disabled people, black and minority ethnic groups and other disadvantaged groups” (ODPM, 2004c, p. 9, para 1.19).

PPS11 gives guidance on producing the new Regional Spatial Strategies (ODPM, 2004a). Much is made of the public's involvement in the plan-making process (such as on p. 12, para 2.17). All the PPSs highlight the importance of ‘the community’ in the planning process (for example pp. 16–18 of PPS12 (ODPM, 2004b, and throughout PPS1). But examination of these texts suggests a very generalised meaning of ‘community’ (Greed, 2003c) (see Table 2). The word ‘diversity’ is included many times in the revised Policy Statements, which suggests an acknowledgment that society is composed of a range of different sectoral groups, including those based on gender.

Arguably, stressing the importance of the community ‘unit’ as a vehicle for achieving effective public consultation does not allow space for the acknowledgment of the diverse viewpoints and groupings within society, or the differential levels of power among members of the community. There is a lack of acknowledgement of the unresolved dualism inherent in “promoting community cohesion” in PPS1 (para 1.18, p. 9, ODPM, 2004c), whilst ‘diversity’ (and difference) are exalted in the same national policy guidance document. Critics of the new PPSes have argued that “celebrating diversity and putting the emphasis upon difference cannot be a basis for [community] cohesion” and have questioned “the vacuous nature of the cohesion agenda” (Zeki, 2004, p. 19). It would seem that the ODPM expects local communities to put their internal differences aside, rally together, and ‘ speak as one’, during the consultation and participation stages. However, the needs of women and men might be quite different within ‘the community’.

PPS12 gives guidance on the production of the new local plans but does not mention gender at all (ODPM, 2004b, 2004f). According to Chapter 3 of PPS12, a ‘statement of community intent’ must be provided to show that the local population is happy with the proposed plan (pp. 16–22, ODPM, 2004b). Although Section 1.39 of PPS1 (ODPM, 2004c, p. 16) highlights the importance of ‘front loading’, that is contacting the community at an early date in the planning process, much of the guidance in PPS12 gives the impression that community involvement is likely to be limited to the final stages of plan choice, to give it the stamp of approval (ODPM, 2004f). In fact, the community input is only one small component, outnumbered by a long list of official consultees in the Appendices to PPS 1, 11 and 12. Those listed comprise a preponderance of representatives from industry, sport, professional institutions and construction bodies. Only one women's group (Women's National Commission), two disability groups, and one ethnicity group are included.

The word ‘community’ has crept back into all sorts of ODPM policy documents in the mid-2000s, presumably because it is seen as the ultimate inclusive buzzword, ostensibly including everyone (see Table 2). There is no attempt by the ODPM to cast a gender lens upon the concept of community promoted within the new Planning Policy Statements. Many women are wary of the word ‘community’, because of the cosy patriarchal studies of working-class communities and new towns undertaken 40 years ago. Many such studies ascribed very limited roles to women as housebound ‘Mums’, and assumed the family unit was the main building block of ‘community’ (Greed, 1999; cf Young & Willmott, 1957). The reintroduction of the word ‘community’ overlooks an entire new generation of social geography, which affirms that geographical space and social space are not the same thing for women and men (Massey, 1984; Rose, 1993). There is a fear that the emphasis upon ‘community’ will smother the diversity that has developed between and among women and men, and that women will lose out (Valentine, 2003).

Although ‘community’ is highlighted, the new planning guidance documents all contain much longer sections on well-established, traditional planning topics such as minerals, transport and sustainability, compared with the small, and intermittent references to community, equalities and diversity. The main body of PPS1 is chiefly concerned with implementing sustainability policy and related appraisals at regional level. References to community and diversity appear mainly in the introduction, as an add-on to this central focus. Although para 2.36 of PPS11 stresses the importance of sustainability overarching all aspects of regional policy, and para 2.37 highlights the importance of developing ‘social progress’ and recognising the needs of everyone to be involved (also stated in PPS1, p. 8, para 1.13), only superficial linkages are made between the diversity and sustainability agendas.

The emphasis on traditional planning topics and consultation with predominantly male-dominated national organisations comes out even more strongly in the ancillary documentation. There are no commensurate sections on, say, childcare, cultural diversity or healthy environments. Additional guidance, given in the TCP (Regional Planning) (England) Regulations 2004, p. 4, Section 2(1) only refers briefly to the need to include bodies representing disability, religion and ethnicity matters (ODPM, 2004 g). However, gender is not mentioned, and women's issues are only broadly referred to in respect of the role of ‘general consultation bodies’ (as against official consultee bodies).

The Problem of Planning Law

Whilst the Planning Policy Statements provide policy direction for local planning authorities, planning law provides the institutional means to enforce planning decisions. Therefore its role is central in supporting or undermining the inclusion of gender considerations within planning policy and practice. It was found in the RTPI survey that planning law has not offered support to those local authorities seeking to take gender into account in determining planning decisions.

Historically and conceptually, planning law has been primarily concerned with physical land-use matters. The consideration of social factors usually only takes place, on appeal, when a local authority is challenged, for seeking to use ‘planning gain’ (developers' contributions) to obtain community facilities from a developer. The imposition of such ‘social’ requirements are likely to be seen as ultra vires (that is outside the legal remit of the planning authority because they are not strictly land-use matters) and therefore not a material (valid) consideration in the planning process (Greed, 1999, p. 252). Whilst social requirements, such as crèche provision, can be achieved through negotiation between the planners and the developers, there is no regulatory requirement that such factors must be taken into account in the way that environmental factors must now be considered through Sustainability Appraisals (see the last two items in Table 2 on sustainability appraisals and planning obligations). Draft guidance on planning ‘obligations’, the term used in recent years in England for developers‘ contributions, includes a section on ’equity and fairness' which mentions race and disability: but not gender (ODPM, 2004e, p. 48, section 6).

PPS1, which sets out the general principles of the planning system, is ambiguous on the matter of whether equality and diversity issues are ‘material’ (valid) considerations in the planning process or ultra vires (ODPM, 2004c). PPS1, p. 19, Annex B, para 12 states (citing case-law precedent from Stringer v MHLG, 1971) that “in principle any [material] consideration which relates to the use and development of land is capable of being a planning consideration”. However, it adds, (as clarified in R v Westminster CC ex parte Monahan, 1989), that this must be “a genuine planning consideration, related to the development and use of land in the public interest”. Since no further clarification is given on this matter, the issue of whether diversity considerations (including gender) count as ‘genuine’ enough to be of material relevance remains unresolved.

Significantly, Section 39 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 defines the purpose of planning as being concerned with the creation of sustainable development. Presumably, therefore, the case for inclusion of social issues within planning considerations has been strengthened by this new statute law, because, as explained above, ‘social equity’ may be seen as a valid component of ‘sustainability’. But this principle is yet to be established by case law. Because social policies, including those related to gender, are not legally part of the remit of planning, although they definitely have physical developmental implications, they are likely to be legally challenged if inserted into development plan documents. Creating a ‘special’ chapter on ‘women’ in the development plan used to be a popular strategy (GLC, 1986), but such an approach was subsequently judged unacceptable because of the ‘over-emphasis’ upon ‘social issues’ that were deemed to be ultra vires (Greed, 2001).

For example, there is no specific section in the Greater London Plan on gender (or on other equalities issues) (Greed & Reeves, 2005). Instead, the Greater London Authority has put all the diversity policies and advice, including gender matters, into Supplementary Planning Guidance, that is into ‘Supplementary Documents’ accompanying the main policy document. According to para 3.15 of PPG12 Development Plans (DETR, 2000) “SPG may be taken into account as a material planning consideration” although, somewhat confusingly, PPG12 advises that such supplementary guidance is not to be seen as a substitute for the policies in the main plan document (Booth, 2001; ODPM, 2004b, p. 23). This might be seen as a positive, creative way of ensuring minority issues are incorporated in the planning documents, but inclusion within the main body of the plan document would give greater authority and status to such issues.

There is no mention of the Amsterdam Treaty or gender mainstreaming requirements in the new Planning Policy Statements. These omissions may be a reflection of the weak legal status of women and gender considerations as valid sectoral groupings within UK equality legislation (Greed & Reeves, 2005). The Race Relations Amendment Act 2000 (the RRAA) and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 are cited in national planning guidance (ODPM, 2003a, 2003b), as factors that must be taken into account. These Acts have put a proactive duty upon the local authority to prevent institutional racism and to provide disabled access respectively, but the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 is not mentioned at all in the PPSs. Presumably this is because this Act contains no proactive powers. It has a reactive role in dealing with individual acts of discrimination that have already taken place, and is not suitable for dealing with institutional gender discrimination within the planning system.

An emphasis upon ‘sex’ rather than ‘gender’ discrimination as the more valid equality issue impacts upon the shaping of legislative change, and arguably, reduces the chances of overarching gender considerations (‘institutional genderism’) being targeted in public policy law. For example, as a result of Britain being a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, under Article 14 a public authority may not treat an individual differently because of race, religion, sex or political views (but not ‘gender’ by name), unless this can be justified objectively. This EU requirement has been instrumentalised through UK statute by means of the 1998 Human Rights Act. Commentators have observed that this legislation creates confusion as to whether ‘gender’ (as against ‘sex’ or sexuality) is a valid consideration in public policy making (Kirton & Greene, 2003, p. 127). Likewise, the Gender (Recognition) Act 2004, is concerned with biological ‘reassignment’ [sex change], not, as the title suggests, with tackling societal gender inequality (Mahendra, 2005). Proactive and precisely-worded legislation is needed to address institutionalised ‘gender’ inequality. Such legislation would be more pertinent and applicable to tackling gender bias within spatial planning policy and practice than existing sex discrimination legislation. The 2006 Equality Act offers such a promise. This act will introduce a ‘gender duty’ on local authorities from April 2007 that will require them more proactively to consider the relative effects of their policies on women and men.

Concluding Comments: Unfinished Business

This review underlines that the barriers to gender mainstreaming in English local authority practice are both conceptual and institutional. The problems that need to be tackled are not superficial but deep-seated. Fundamental changes in conceptual perspective and major institutional restructuring are required to facilitate effective gender mainstreaming within the British spatial planning system.

The Need for Conceptual Change

Conceptually, confusion, ambivalence, equivocation, even incredulity, as to the importance and status of gender, were in evidence in the survey for the RTPI. National guidance makes frequent reference to the concepts of diversity, equality and community, and, ostensibly, appears to be concerned with creating a more inclusive approach to spatial planning. But these terms are used in a manner and context that suggests there is limited understanding of the potential conflicts, conceptual ambiguities and unresolved dualisms inherent in such terminology. There is limited explanation of how such concepts might impact upon substantive spatial policy matters or as to how they intermesh with gender considerations.

Since gender is one of the largest, most important demographic divisions, affecting the entire population, one would have expected it to be given a greater emphasis in English planning policy guidance. Yet the national government has stated that “the interests of all groups must carry equal weight. It would be quite wrong for any group either to predominate or be marginalized” (Cabinet Office, 2003, para 8.12). It has been argued that current definitions of ‘gender’ rightly put emphasis upon the needs of women, who comprise over 52% of the population (Panelli, 2004). Therefore, quantitatively, one might have imagined there was a case for greater attention to be given to women's needs. One would have expected more attention to how gender qualitatively affects the lives of everyone. Gender might provide a central organising spine around which to arrange the myriad of other diversity factors, which so often have overwhelmed and defeated those trying to keep all the ‘equalities’ balls in the air at once. Instead, emphasis is put in government statements upon an ill-defined diversity agenda which detracts from substantive gender considerations and over-complicates the whole process. Greater attention has been given to race than gender. For example, the ODPM has recently produced a Draft Race Equality Scheme consultation paper, but not one on gender (ODPM, 2005c). So clearly, conceptually and institutionally, all groups do not carry ‘equal weight’. Gender is not even mentioned in this consultation document.

Responding to criticism over the lack of guidance on equalities issues in national planning guidance, the ODPM commissioned a Diversity and Equality in Planning: A Good Practice Guide (Herriot Watt, 2004; ODPM, 2005b). In feedback on the draft document from invited respondents, concern was expressed that the terms ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’ were frequently and interchangeably used, with little understanding of the differing implications for policy making. Respondents opined that too much emphasis upon ‘difference’ and ‘diversity’ could lead to inequalities and injustices remaining unaddressed. Ethnic minority professionals were more concerned that ‘in the wrong hands’ the diversity guide might be seen as justification for the view that minority communities did not ‘need’ or ‘expect’ the same quality of life as found in white middle class areas. A colleague, who is concerned with racial inequality in British society, commenting on the draft ODPM diversity paper (Heriot Watt, 2004), stated, “if diversity is based upon ‘treating everyone differently‘ this cannot be fair either”.

A similar lack of understanding of ‘difference’ was found among senior planning officers, who during interviews for the research study, voiced the opinion that their department had no need for gender mainstreaming as they already had equality in that they said they ‘treated everyone the same’ (as white middle-class males presumably), suggesting that ‘differences’ were not important, and dwelling on them might even be ‘unfair’. A fine line needs to be trodden in these matters, and precise, rather than generalised, guidance needs to be given on how to overcome the dualistic manner in which diversity and equality appear to be set against each other in the plan-making process (Murdoch, 1997).

This suggests that there is a need for greater attention to be given to the question of how to reconcile the issues of equality and difference within the planning process. The ODPM Good Practice Guide (on diversity and equality in planning) states that diversity is “a recognition that society is made up of many different people with cross-cutting bases for identity”, and that “the aim of equality is promotion of fairness”, and so “an understanding of diversity promotes equality, recognising people have different needs” (Herriot Watt, 2004, p. 9 in the Glossary of Terms; ODPM, 2005b: Introduction). This fairly mild definition exudes a British sense of ‘fair play’, with the ‘planner as umpire,’ hardly reflective of the problems facing the ‘referee’ when dealing with a multiplicity of diverse teams playing on the same pitch at once, all trying to get their voice heard (Dunleavy & O'Leary, 1988, p. 6; Keeble, 1969, p. 5).

Whilst such dilemmas may seem insurmountable, they are addressed in the ‘toolkit’ methodology developed to assist RTPI members to mainstream gender into their planning activities (Reeves & Greed, 2003). To overcome such dualistic tensions, not only should statistics be collected and broken down by gender, but such data should be further disaggregated in respect of age, class, ethnicity and so forth. By undertaking this process, not only would gender stereotypes be challenged, but also the intersection of different diversity characteristics within individuals' lives would be revealed. For example, black women planners and architects have expressed concerns that gender considerations are being given a lower priority than ‘ethnicity’ within the diversity agenda. The two factors inter alia interact in individuals' daily lives in terms of how they are perceived and treated when dealing with providers of education, health, childcare and professional services (De Graft-Johnson et al., 2003; Hull et al., 1982; LWPF, 2003). A lack of gender disaggregation of unemployment levels among ethnic minority communities particularly disadvantages males, as it may result in lack of adequate attention to the much higher incidence of male unemployment among black Afro-Caribbean men (Onouha & Greed, 2003).

There is also a need for attitudinal change within the subculture of the planning profession, in order to raise the status and validity of gender considerations within decision-making processes. The ‘world view’ of the profession determines which conceptual ideas are seen as valid and which are irrelevant. Those concepts and values accepted by the professional subculture as ‘valid’ in turn, inform and shape the institutional structures and priorities of British spatial planning (Greed, 2000a). The British planning system tends to regard some activities as ‘spatial’, such as employment, sport and housing, but neglects others, such as childcare. This mentality blocks out consideration of the human needs and social factors that generate demands for land use and development in the first place (Greed, 1996). This is not a culture conducive to giving gender mainstreaming a high priority.

Planners need to develop expertise in the field of qualitative methodology, along with a greater social awareness of the different needs of the people for whom they are planning. Much decision making and policy-formulation within the British planning system, such as the new sustainability appraisal techniques, still uses positivistic and quantitative methodologies. Yet the diversity agenda values the importance of minority experiences, which, in some cases, are bound to be very small in number, and therefore, potentially ‘statistically insignificant’. Instead, research resources might be better used investigating how minority groups tackle the challenge of getting around the built environment in their daily lives. Planners might make greater use of qualitative methodologies, such as ethnography to achieve this end (Greed, 1994b; Hammersley & Atkinson, 2002).

For example, research currently being undertaken on creating accessible city centres is based upon building up a range of cameo personae of ‘types’ of people who share similar life experiences. The study seeks to investigate how the different types use the built environment, and what problems they encounter, thus making a direct link between the built environment and its users (Hanson et al., 2004). Composite personae are built up, which are not ‘average’ in the statistical sense, but they are taken as ‘representative’ and ‘practical’ in terms of highlighting problems key user groups share. Attempting such action research, even on a small project basis, would be far more relevant to spatial decision making, than requiring students and practitioners simply to learn a somewhat impersonal, ‘disembodied’ equal opportunities script.

Institutional Change

Whilst conceptual change is likely to be a long-term, and a somewhat arcane process dependent on personal transformation, prosaic institutional change might be achieved more rapidly by legislative and organisational reform. The lack of legal clarity as to whether ‘gender’ is a ‘material’ consideration in determining planning decisions is a major barrier to progress. The ambiguous legal status of ‘gender’ (as against ‘sex’) is not only a problem for spatial planning systems, but one of national concern, affecting all areas of public policy making. The government has declared its intention to amend sex discrimination legislation to bring it into line with other equality legislation, such as on race and disability, which contain proactive powers to tackle institutionalised discrimination (Herriot Watt, 2004, Section 3.4.2). A new Commission of Equality and Human Rights (CEHR) is being set up to replace the existing equalities commissions, and will incorporate gender on more equal terms alongside other equalities issues, which is good news (Herriot Watt, 2004, Sections 3.1–3.8; Home Office, 2004; Mahendra, 2005).

However, there is also a need for clear national planning guidance on how the diversity and community agenda might be integrated into planning at the coal-face level of daily planning practice when dealing with substantive spatial policy. The Good Practice Guide (on diversity and equality in planning) is to be commended in giving a few examples of how diversity might reshape urban space as no such examples exist in the Planning Policy Statements (ODPM, 2005b). The Guide suggests that an urban structure based upon high-density housing along public transport corridors might arise from taking into account the needs of those without cars, implicitly acknowledging that less women than men have access to a car (Herriot Watt, 2004, Section 6.2.1). Effective gender mainstreaming would result in links being made between aspatial (social) considerations and spatial (physical) planning, resulting in changes in policy direction. From the research, it appeared that many local planners were baffled as to how to make this link.

A matrix approach, which links social objectives to spatial policy outcomes, is one possible solution as pioneered in Plymouth (Table 3). Plymouth, a port on the South Coast of England, stood out, in the research study for the RTPI, as having one of the most innovative organisational approaches to integrating gender into planning policy using a matrix approach (Fitzgerald, 2000; Plymouth, 2001). A matrix approach provides a means of linking spatial policies and gendered human activities together. Typically, the following issues run along the top of the table/matrix, namely: employment, training and education, childcare, enterprise, access, work/family balance. A range of policy priorities is put along the left side, related to land use, development, transport and urban design inter alia and then the gender implications of each policy area is filled in on the matrix. For example, under the column ‘transport’, the need for improved participation of women in urban planning and decision making is featured. Under urban design, improved safety and accessibility is emphasised, and under work/family balance, the relationship between childcare provision and employment policy is highlighted.

Table 3. A simplified version of the matrix principle

Planning Policy or Proposal	Relevant gender specific data gender	Ongoing community feedback	Gender implications	Planning implications	Policy recommendations
Employment: Relocate office development beside motorway outside town boundaries	60% of office workers are female and 80% of public transport users are female, with only 30% of women having daytime use of car	Existing complaints about journey times, lack of support facilities and more children suffering from asthma	Lack of access to new site for those without cars Reduces female employees job opportunities so affects economic viability of town	New scheme not linked to schools, shops, public transport Reduces proximity for trip- chaining of journeys, increases time travelling Acts as magnet for further decentralisation and inconvenience for all	Ideally do not proceed with this proposal, seek alternative locations in negotiation with developers If other factors require progression, then improve public transport links and seek to co-ordinate future policy on adjacent location and access to schools, shops, housing, local centres Implement by means of tariff system and planning agreement
Transport: Pedestrianise key central area streets as part of urban design programme	Survey gender composition of pedestrian users, street crime rates, 24 hour patterns of use, and reasons for using cross-centre routes	Check feedback on what local people, want as well as asking official consultants, consult users, that is shoppers, workers, residents	Decrease in access, and reduction in safety, longer distances to bus stops, major problems for disabled access	Check that scheme meets user needs Avoid anti- social design such as lumpy paving stones, blind corners, and steps	Specify detailed requirements, possibly back up by revised Central Area Design Guide Allow cars back in during evenings to increase surveillance Provide better lighting, public toilets and safer bus stops, by means of liaison with other departments
And so forth …
Source: adapted from Plymouth, 2001 with thanks to Plymouth City Planning Department.

The new planning system purports to go beyond mere land-use planning and to promote a new approach to ‘spatial planning’ which seeks to deal with the spatial allocation of facilities, amenities and services to meet the needs of the community as a whole, as is found in some other European Union states (Hull, 1998, p. 328). Publicity launching the new planning system has hailed ‘spatial planning’ as the means of co-ordinating the work of other departments (such as those responsible for the provision of schools, health facilities and transport systems) in order to deliver ‘sustainable communities’ by means of the more integrated collaborative ‘stakeholder’ approach as already found within [smaller] urban regeneration programmes. Interestingly ODPM representatives speak of ‘mainstreaming planning’ [itself] into local government. Thus, it is envisaged that local authority leaders (chief executives and council chairs) will see the new planning system as an ‘instrument of urban governance’ to create sustainable urban development (Mythen, 2005).

However, planners have incomplete control over the built environment at the physical planning level, as many aspects are under the control of other technical departments (Bichard et al., 2004; Greed, 2003c). Many of the amenities and design components that are central to women's use of the city, such as public toilets, street-lighting, access and safety considerations, do not come under the jurisdiction of the planning department (Greed, 2003d). They are fragmented across, and administered by, a range of technical departments, such as Highways, Building Control, Parks and Gardens, Refuse Disposal and Street Cleaning (Greed, 2003d, p. 235–237; GLA, 2003d). Therefore, it is essential that a more corporate approach to decision making is adopted in which the actions and decisions of technical and routine staff activities are investigated from a gender perspective ( Greed & Reeves, 2005).

There is also a need for socially aware departments to be more involved in the plan-making process (such as Health and Social Services), and for the planning department to liaise with the more technical departments (such as Highways and Street Maintenance) to achieve implementation. To carry through a gender issue, ‘from problem to policy’ requires a reconfiguration of departmental structures and duties, which, so far, has proved extremely difficult to achieve (Greed, 2003b). The government has initiated major restructuring at the regional and local levels but more attention is needed to how linkages are made with grassroots community groups. However, there has been little ODPM guidance on how local authorities might be better organised ‘horizontally’ to enable the integration of all the community and diversity issues that have been prioritised in the new Planning Policy Statements.

Nevertheless, the ODPM gives the impression that the new spatial planning system is to be based upon all other local government departments co-operating with, and accepting the leadership of, the planning department. In spite of well-intentioned, high-level aspirations, collaboration with, say, social services, education or health departments will have to be based upon goodwill among departments. There are no new legal powers to make such change take place, either within the recent planning acts or other local government legislation. The image of a new responsive, streamlined planning system promoted in recent policy guidance contrasts with the uncertainty, fragmentation, juggling of competing demands and resourcing difficulties that, from the research for the RTPI, appear to characterise the work of local planning departments.

This raises wider issues about the management of local authorities generally. The establishment of effective policy networks between managers in different areas of administrative control within local authorities is certainly needed to facilitate change (Callon et al., 1986; Kickert et al., 1997). However, these too need to take up the challenge of gender mainstreaming. This would mean that the composition of managers, including senior planners and local politicians, would reflect the diversity of the population for whom they are making decisions, and thus the infusion of senior women managers working in the fields of social services, education and health would be beneficial in improving the gender balance at policy-making levels (Brownill, 2000).

There is a need to develop enabling networks and creative partnerships that result in cross-boundary working between departments, which might result in joint strategies and shared delivery systems (Goss, 2001, pp. 97–99). This new gendered corporatism cannot be a temporary ad hoc arrangement or become like the ‘tangled hierarchies’ of the past (Friend & Jessop, 1976). Rather, it would embody a post-Fordist system of social regulation (Little, 1999, pp. 53–54) that would, hopefully, facilitate a more collaborative and inclusive approach to planning (Healey, 1997). Such an approach would be more sensitive to the gender dimensions of planning policies, but the intractability of departments will prove a major barrier to holistic policy making (Davoudi, 2001, p. 280; cf. Innes & Booher, 1999), and to community involvement (Brinkerhoff & Goldsmith, 2003). However, if effective gender mainstreaming were facilitated, it would result in the exposure of the gendered assumptions underpinning planning practice and a re-appraisal of the spatial policy requirements of men and women, and thus better planning for everyone.

Final Comment

This article has highlighted the strong commitment towards gender mainstreaming emerging at central government and European Union levels. However, this intention has not been matched by commitment at local government level in England for a variety of reasons. There is a gap between high-level policy ambitions and the reality ‘at the coalface’ in respect of local government planning practice. Overall it would seem that gender issues are not holding their ground, but have slipped off the planning agenda. The research has shown that there is a lack of understanding of the extent to which gender mainstreaming might reshape statutory planning in England. Whilst many local planning officers lack the knowledge, skills and motivation to undertake gender mainstreaming, those that are committed are likely to find progress prevented by an ambiguous planning law context, and inadequate central government policy guidance. Furthermore there are so many other equality, diversity and sustainability issues for the planner to take on board nowadays that gender takes a back seat. Therefore, this article provides a clarion call to bring gender issues back into focus within planning policy making and practice.