Chapter 6
A CHRISTIAN PLANNER
AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
Chris Caddy
Introduction
I want to focus on the role of a
town planner in a bureaucracy and to see how a Christian standpoint influences,
or even governs the way he or she sees that role, particularly when development
control decisions have to be made.
First, I shall look at the nature
of bureaucracy and town planning as a bureaucratic activity. Secondly, I shall
sketch in the position of the town planner - the 'expert' within the
bureaucracy. Thirdly, I hope to describe how planning can be viewed from a
Christian perspective, and finally to see how a Christian perception can shape
the everyday work of a development control planner.
TOWN PLANNING AS A BUREAUCRATIC
ACTIVITY
It was Max Weber, the German
sociologist, who, in the early years of this century, made what is still an
outstanding critique of bureaucracy. His analysis was set within a broader
discussion of the nature of power and authority. He saw power as being derived
from three main sources of authority - traditional authority, such as one sees
in monarchies; charismatic authority, which is exercised by an outstanding
leader who attracts a personal following; and 'bureaucratic' authority, which
has become the notable feature of industrialised nation status.
Weber set out six main
characteristics of a bureaucracy, which are as follows:
1. A bureaucracy has a fixed area
of jurisdiction - the field within which it operates - generally ordered by
administrative regulations.
2. A bureaucracy is hierarchical,
with the opportunity for a person aggrieved by a decision to appeal upwards to
a higher authority.
3. Written documents form the basis
of management; these are totally independent of any official's personal
affairs.
4. The management of a bureaucracy
presupposes the expert training of its practitioners.
5. The bureaucracy requires the
full working capacity of the individuals within it.
6. The management of a bureaucracy
follows general rules which are more or less stable, exhaustive and which are
to be applied impartially.
Today, some of these features can
seem so obvious as hardly to require particular comment, but this, perhaps,
illustrates the extent to which the bureaucratic mode of government is so much
part of our way of life.
The town planning system is
undeniably part of contemporary bureaucracy, and in the way it is organised,
demonstrates the characteristics described by Weber. The field of town planning
is defined by statute and is bound by a plethora of administrative regulations.
It is undoubtedly hierarchical, with the Secretary of State for the Environment
at the top and the District Councils at the bottom. The core of the work of all
planning authorities is their files and policy documents.
A town planner is required to be
fully trained in the workings of the organisation, and he or she generally has
to work solely and full-time for it. The system itself is managed according to
general rules which are to be applied impartially and without discrimination -
based on land use principles and not, for example, influenced by the nature of
an individual or by particular land ownerships.
Creativity v. Bureaucracy
In one sense the existence of a
town planning bureaucracy is curious, and yet in another, perhaps inevitable.
Curious, because the origins of town planning were set entirely outside any
State bureaucratic system. Town planning started and gathered force from a
mixture of private enterprise, individual conscience, and utopian dreams for
the future.
Inevitably, though, once town
planning became seen as a practical means of ameliorating existing appalling
conditions and providing a rational means of building for the future, it became
absorbed into government. Like the provision of health and education before, it
became apparent that town planning was too important to be left to the vagaries
of the private sector or to the enthusiasm of individual visionaries.
There is, though, an essential
creativity in town planning which perhaps sits uneasily within a rigid
bureaucracy, and ever since the State embraced and enfolded town planning
within it, there has been a constant tension - a tension between creative
impulses which, by their nature, are unprecedented and unforeseen and can have
unknowable consequences, and the requirements of a State system for stability
and predictability.
Is not, then, the tendency of a
bureaucratic State machine to stifle the very essence of town planning? Is this
not why planning tends to have a dead-hand image?
If this contradiction has occurred
but is nevertheless tolerated, it is because it has been considered that the
value of a State-organised planning system outweighs any smothering effect it
may have. The reasons behind this view are not hard to discern. A free hand to
do what one likes with one's land or property may release a creative urge which
could have some dramatic and beneficial result - such as Ebenezer Howard's
vision of a Garden City, realised at Letchworth.
But there could also be a harmful
outcome. Some persons' 'creativity' might be a great loss to others - giving
rise to increased real costs, or the loss of some unquantifiable qualities of
amenity or tranquillity. It has therefore been thought right to place some curb
on individual freedom in order to safeguard the wellbeing of the majority, even
if a rather grey dullness is the price to pay.
And so, perhaps, although it may be
irksome to some, there is a purpose in having the town planning system largely
contained within the State, and subject to bureaucractic regulation.
Impartiality v. the Machinery of
Power
But things are never as simple as
that. In describing the essentials of a bureaucracy, Weber was fully aware that
he was cataloguing the ideal requirements, and not what actually happens. Any
bureaucracy is subject to influences - from individuals seeking power, from
pressure groups - and it also generates a self-perpetuating momentum of its
own.
The achievement of impartiality is
a chimera, even if one could agree on what the ground rules for impartiality
were. The town planning system operates to distribute benefits and costs, but
there is no consensus among the whole community as to what those benefits and
costs are or who should gain and who therefore has to lose.
The result is that benefits tend to
go to those who can best manipulate the levers of the system or who have
greater access to the sources of power and influence, while the costs are borne
by those to whom the town planning system is yet another example of an unapproachable
and remote organ of State. Moreover, it is the powerful who decree what are to
be classed as benefits.
Green Belts and private transport
are judged to be benefits by those who are powerful and such is their influence
that Green Belts and private transport are expected to be seen as benefits by
everyone. Those who conceivably might have a different viewpoint - those
without ready access to public transport or who are forced to travel great
distances across the Green Belt to work - do not often get listened to, and
what is worse, often have to pay double, for example by having to put up with a
new road routed through their neighbourhood.
The so-called impartiality of
bureaucracy, is in reality, nothing of the kind, and the town planning system,
as a bureaucratic organisation, is considerably less than fair in distributing
benefits and costs.
And so there is a double accusation
against current British town planning - first it stifles creativity, and
secondly, it fails as a mechanism for achieving fairness in the distribution of
the nation's resources in land and property. Little wonder that there are cries
for getting the system off people's backs, and assertions that we can now do
without a self-seeking and insensitive bureaucratic machine. Before taking up
this point, I would like to introduce the second part of this talk and look at
the planner as the 'expert official'.
THE TOWN PLANNER - THE EXPERT
WITHIN THE BUREAUCRACY
Once again I turn to Max Weber. He
described the official within a bureaucratic organisation in these terms:
First, he or she holds office as a
'vocation'. The official has to undergo training for a long period, and then,
when in the job, he or she is expected not to use office either as a means of
personal advancement or to be exploited for private gain.
Secondly, there are various
attributes which become attached to the office holder as a consequence of
holding that position. He or she will usually enjoy a distinct social esteem by
comparison with the government. He or she will be appointed to the post, rather
than elected, on the basis of competence for the task in hand. Normally the
official will enjoy tenure for life, in order to guarantee independence of
thought and action. He or she will receive a fixed salary, rather than payment
based on the quantity or quality of work, with the salary at a lower level than
could be commended outside the bureaucracy, as a reflection of the greater
security of the job.
Finally, the official is set for a
career in the hierarchy, working his or her way up as opportunity, competence
or luck enables them so to do.
Experts in retreat
Weber's typology of the official
was written over half a century ago, and clearly some aspects have worn less
well than others - such as guaranteed tenure, and absolute job security.
However, the principles are still widely believed to be applicable even if, in
practice, they are not universally upheld. The flavour which comes out of this
description is that of a competent, impartial administrator who, because of his
or her training and expertise, is entitled to make decisions on behalf of
others - on behalf of the government.
But this concept - the distillation
of the various principles mixed together - is more under challenge than the
principles looked at individually. Because there can be little doubt - the
'expert' is in retreat. Even in the old, well-established professions, such as
law and medicine, expert advice is less readily taken without question than
before. In the more upstart area of expertise of town planning, scepticism over
the value of the practitioner's advice is commonplace and has been for a long
time. This is partly because of the widespread suspicion of anyone who
professes to be an 'expert', particularly if he or she tries to outwit their
audience with esoteric and abstruse jargon, but partly also because, along with
successes, planners have been, rightly or wrongly, associated with some
spectacular disasters - such as high rise flats, thoroughly alien city centre
redevelopments, and a wholesale destruction of well-loved areas.
'Expert' or 'Umpire'?
Some twenty-four years ago,
Professor Peter Self, in his influential book, Cities in Flood, asserted
that the Local Government Town Planner's role was seen by many as that of an
umpire, arbitrating, on the basis of his or her expertise, between competing
land uses, and acting as a neutral co-ordinator. He claimed that this was a
negative and self-defeating view of town planning, born out of disillusionment
and lack of nerve.
Instead, the Town Planner should be
imposing policies upon the pattern of development and land use; co-ordination
is the means by which planning proceeds, but it is the means, not the end. One
could say that the umpire role is the bureaucratic stance par excellence, while
the active role, favoured by Peter Self, is the creative aspect of town
planning, and that in this distinction over the place of the town planner in
the scheme of things, we have returned to our earlier discussion on the
conflict between the creative impulse and the bureaucratic dead hand.
The Local Government Town Planner
is now caught in a real dilemma. He or she can, with renewed enthusiasm, adopt
the Self approach and try to become a dynamic force for change - only to find
their expertise doubted and their vision challenged. Or he or she can adopt the
umpire role, disavowed by Self, but encouraged by Government and find
themselves imprisoned in an unpopular and apparently unfeeling bureaucracy,
where he or she is at the behest of those with the most power.
Nerve Failure
It is hardly surprising that the
typical Planning Officer's response is one of nerve failure. He or she is
afraid to stick their neck out, either because they will not be believed, or
because they will be proved wrong - and that is the likely lot of anyone who
looks to the future- or they retreat into a narrow conception of their umpire
role, knowing that they are in an often false position, and betraying
idealistic impulses.
Planning, as practised by Local
Government, is in danger of being reduced to a catalogue of rules of thumb, a
few well-worn 'standards', and a predictably negative response to anything new.
We can summarise this rather gloomy
diagnosis thus. As an activity, planning is widely perceived as a brake on
creativity. This perhaps could be justified if in doing so it genuinely
prevents the bad while promoting the good. Since however it cannot even
guarantee that, then there must be considerable doubts over the value of the
whole bureaucratic edifice. Caught up in this, the Local Government Town
Planner is uncertain of his or her role; as a State bureaucrat, they are
committed to the machinery of planning, but if they stray beyond closely
defined parameters, they run the risk of losing what audience and credibility
they still retain.
This is a gloomy diagnosis - at any
rate, gloomy for those who believe that there is a genuine place in our society
for Town Planning. Is there a way of dispelling that gloom? I believe that
there is, and I find the means of doing so through Christian commitment. Not
everyone seeking a legitimate role for town planning will find it this way -
perhaps only a minority will - but I hope that what I am about to say will show
how at least one Christian is trying to work out his faith in his work, and in
doing so, trying to recapture an enthusiasm and commitment which many are,
regrettably, losing.
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING FROM A
CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE
Let us begin with doctrinal
assertions which I believe to be particularly relevant to land use planning:
1. This is God's world, in which He
has created an environment which is inherently beautiful and harmonious.
2. The essence of God is love, and
Jesus is the epitome and supreme example of that love.
3. Humankind is the highest form of
creation, but humankind has fallen. We, as humankind, can be saved through the
death and resurrection of Jesus. Humankind's nature, however, is essentially
sinful and continually requires the grace of God.
4. Each person is of equal worth to
God, and is capable of being saved.
If we apply these statements to the
work of a town planner, the following general principles emerge:
The home provided by God for
Humankind
Fundamentally, the environment is
worth caring for. It is not ours, but we are stewards for it while we live.
Humankind has changed it - sometimes for the better accommodation of ourselves
and the remainder of creation, and sometimes humankind has damaged it, so that
it is more difficult for later generations to support themselves. We can only
act within our own generation, but it ought to be a basic principle that we
hand it on in no less an advantageous state than it was in when we received it.
More than that, a Christian planner
should actually love the environment as being the home provided by God for
Humankind. Love implies passion, and a passionate care for the whole of
creation should be a motivating principle. Let us look briefly at both the
natural environment and that made by Humankind.
The natural environment, of course,
is only to a small extent unaffected by Humankind - we are not talking about a
pristine world of nature, but a habitat fashioned by Humankind over thousands
of years to suit what is regarded as our needs. Not all of it deserves an
equally passionate defence.
We should, though, treasure those parts
where it is clear that Humankind and the natural world are in harmony, where
people are not degrading the natural environment or taking known risks with its
ecological systems and structures. Similarly we should oppose practices where
it is reasonably demonstrated that long term damage is the likely result.
God's hand in landscape and
buildings
We should also not be afraid of
caring for what is beautiful. Beauty is partly subjective, but there is to a
large extent a shared consensus on what constitutes beauty, as witnessed by the
popularity of fine landscapes. A Christian planner will see in such landscapes
the hand of God, and will exert himself or herself to preserve its beauty.
This seems to be the right stance
for a Christian planner, even if they have little direct influence on the
shaping of the natural environment. With the made environment it is a different
matter - they do have some influence. It is possible to see everyone's
handiwork as imperfect, because men and women themselves are flawed, and
therefore not to care unduly what happens to it.
This would be wrong. Without
actually wishing to worship some fine building or buildings, when one sees
clear examples where what has been built has been the result of high
aspirations and noble ideals, then one recognises God's influence at work, and
one should not be ashamed of glorifying it.
One may look at one of our great
cathedrals and think of the hardships endured by the builders, of the endless
labour, the injuries and death which were part and parcel of its construction,
of the jealousies and prestige-seeking of those who commissioned it. But one
can also see in it a burning desire to give of one's best, to create something
which would inspire all who saw and entered it, and which would, perhaps,
enable them to draw nearer to God.
Looked at in that way, a Christian
planner can only be thankful and hope that he or she will be able, by their
actions and support, to be part of that tradition and even to contribute
worthily to the built environment which their successors will inherit.
Ugliness is an affront to God
Conversely, the Christian planner
ought to oppose resolutely all that is tawdry in the environment, all that is
planned with limited time horizons, all that denies the human scale and human
involvement, all that is indifferent to people's needs, all that is simply
ugly. The Christian planner is doing so, not just because it is spoiling the
environment, but because it is an affront to God, to treat God's creation with
contempt.
Care for People
Whilst we should care for the
environment, we should to an even greater extent care for people. In the course
of his or her work, the development control planner will come into contact with
four categories of people - applicants for planning permission, and their
agents, if they have them; councillors, especially members of the Planning
Committee; his or her own planning colleagues; and members of the public,
particularly those objecting to planning applications.
Some relationships are quite likely
to be stressful - especially those with applicants and objectors; others are
likely to be in terms of inequality - relationships with councillors, who are
the employers, and with colleagues, who may be in either superior or lower
positions in the hierarchy. There will be temptations to become arrogant with
members of the public, particularly if they are awkward; to try to overawe
applicants with a display of technical expertise; to be scornful of
councillors, who may give the impression of simply trying to score political
points off one another; to denigrate one's colleagues for their apparent
shortcomings.
We all face these temptations; the
Christian planner should, at any rate, always strive to overcome them - to look
upon others as children of God, to see them as of equal worth in God's sight.
This implies respect, humility and an appreciation of others' viewpoints. It
does not necessarily imply having to agree on all things with everyone; there
is a place in Christianity for pointing out what we believe to be errors in
other people. We have to tread a difficult path between a firm belief in one's
convictions and an unyielding self-righteousness.
Let us now see how we can work out
these principles in practice.
THE CHRISTIAN DEVELOPMENT
CONTROLLER
Let us envisage, for a moment, a
Christian Development Control Planner. He or she is part of a bureaucratic
machine, frequently regarded, as we have observed earlier, as an impediment to
creative thinking; he or she is part of a profession, unsure of its role, often
feeling that they are being used to prop up an unfair distribution of benefits
and costs.
However, he or she is also imbued
with a vision of a better world, of a world created by God, and a world
redeemed through Jesus Christ. What, then, can they do?
The first thing is that the
Christian development controller should be prepared to take a stand on the side
of justice and fairness - but be totally honest about it. When an application
is submitted, the questions to be asked are:
* Who will benefit and who will
lose, if it is approved?
* Whose needs are being met and are
any being ignored?
This questioning can apply to a
domestic extension or to a housing estate.
In the case of the former, the
answers may be simple - the owner benefits, and no-one will really suffer.
There will be borderline cases where an adjoining resident will suffer some
loss of privacy or amenity. This is where honesty comes in. If negotiations to
reduce the harmful effects fail, then the advantages and disadvantages have to
be spelled out to those who will make the decision - the elected councillors.
This ought not to be a let-out for
the planner - he or she ought to be prepared to recommend one course or
another. The principle, though, ought always to be to try to reconcile - either
by gaining agreement between the parties, or by explaining to the aggrieved
neighbour why permission ought to be granted.
Challenge unjust development
values
A new housing estate is a different
matter. There will be many costs and benefits. Clearly a major gainer will be
the fortunate landowner who reaps a windfall profit on the land. The
development control planner can do nothing about that, although I for one would
claim that it is fundamentally unfair and a crippling handicap to just planning.
The builder will be a gainer, and so will be his employees.
There will also eventually be
fortunate houseowners - but who are they? In the case of land around Oxford,
for example, sites can be sold at such high prices that builders are forced to
build lower density houses commanding prices which enable that land to be paid
for. The houses clearly meet a demand, but what about the people in the area
who need housing but cannot afford what is on offer? Are their needs never to
be met?
The best the development control
planner can do is to negotiate with the builder for as reasonable a mixture of
houses as can be obtained, but accept that the land market is a phenomenon over
which he or she can exercise little influence. There is not much to be gained
by stating that the value of land ought to be a reflection of the planning
permission, and if the latter specifies smaller houses with the consequence of
lower profits then the value of the land should be reduced accordingly. Such is
the competition for land in areas of high demand, that builders will bid up the
value and hope then to get the permission changed afterwards to cover their
costs and give them a profit.
This may not be fair or just to
those needing cheaper accommodation, but the planner can only do his or her
best in unpropitious circumstances. But there is no reason why he or she has to
be silent about the injustice in compiling the report.
So, as a first question, always
look for the benefits and costs, and seek a just decision. If that cannot be achieved,
use one's voice to press for changes. There is a passage in Paul's letter to
the Romans (chapter 13: 1-9) where he is apparently arguing that one should
always defer to those in authority. The Bible scholars would qualify this by
stating that Paul was assuming that those in authority are God's agents and are
motivated to do His will.
Where this cannot be assumed, then
one supposes that higher authority can be challenged. Perhaps this question of
land values and the injustices it gives rise to is a case where higher
authority should be challenged - and the Christian development controller,
seeing the effects of this, ought to lend his or her weight to the challenge.
Encourage God-given creativity
A second question concerns
creativity. A Christian development controller should always be supportive of
those who care for the environment and are clearly wanting to make a creative
contribution. Always look upon the designer or applicant in as positive and
optimistic a light as possible - as one who actually wants to produce something
of lasting value which will enhance its setting, either by being a good
unobtrusive neighbour, or by acting as a beacon of quality in an unremarkable
or mediocre area.
By acting in this way the Christian
development controller can help subdue the notion of the bureaucratic dead
hand, can encourage quality, and indeed, find a genuine role for himself or
herself. To glorify God, through the medium of another's efforts, may sound
pretentious and arrogant, but if done with humility and enthusiasm, it is a
worthy role.
In some cases, that is all that is
required. In others, though, a helping hand may be needed. A designer is
normally looking at a scheme from his or her client's interest. The development
controller is looking at the scheme from a wider perspective. To offer genuine
help to match the two perspectives is a valid position for the planner to
offer; indeed, it is a duty.
The development controller should
not be ashamed or defensive about this, but a Christian background should give
an added confidence over the motivation for doing so. There is, of course, an
implied give and take over this. If the applicant is unyielding, then, again,
the planner can only report his or her efforts to the councillors for their
decision, but before that, he or she ought always to seek to find a meeting of
minds.
Confess mistakes
First, to seek fairness; secondly,
to encourage creativity; thirdly, to be prepared to admit mistakes. We all err
but none of us likes owning up to our mistakes and losing face. Some people
feel diminished if they have been caught out and shown to be wrong. This is not
a Christian standpoint.
The Christian development
controller should never be ashamed to say that he or she was wrong - for
example, that a building that has gone up should, instead, have been refused.
The individual development controller is not, of course, responsible entirely
for planning decisions, but the bureaucratic tendency always to pass on
responsibility to someone else should not be part of the Christian planner's
habits.
The world may claim the admission
of error as a weakness of either the system or the individual, but equally it
may honour the honesty. No matter, a Christian has to do the right thing in the
sight of God, and confession is part of being Christian.
Accept your role
Fourthly, and finally, the
Christian development controller must accept that on one's own he or she is not
going to change the world. There will be some problems always beyond him or
her. We have considered the big problem of land valuation, in a different
context, but there are others at a development control level, where perhaps a
'correct' Christian approach is equally elusive.
Consider an application for a
betting office, or, say, a pornographic video shop. What should the Christian
development controller do, faced with one of these? Planning legislation
expressly forbids using moral judgements in making planning decisions.
Questions of conscience, however, are bound to raise themselves. They can arise
in other, perhaps less stark ways - an application for a cigarette factory, or
one for a private health hospital, will prick the conscience of some
Christians.
I regret that I cannot give any
answers to these kinds of problems, largely because I do not think that there
can be a Christian development control response - a Christian response, yes,
but a development control response, no.
Perhaps the only honest course for
a Christian placed in this position is to acknowledge that the problem is
beyond him or her, in this particular situation, to say that he or she is not
prepared to recommend one way or another, and leave it to others. But that
would be opting out, unless the Christian is prepared to press in other avenues
and at other levels, for changes in society's habits or legislations which
would render such applications unnecessary.
Conclusion
I have tried to show how a
Christian can work in the field of town planning. It is a subjective view, and
I would not expect everyone to agree with it. I am still left with wondering
what difference it actually makes being a Christian Planner, as opposed to,
say, a Humanist Planner. It is difficult to do so because I am not a Humanist,
and know only imperfectly what motivates the Humanist. Working alongside
non-Christians, there are many whom I respect and admire.
But in the end, I can only come
back to what I said earlier about the unease and gloom over the role of a
planner in a bureaucracy and a society which in some manifestations is unjust.
Some, perhaps many, will despair - at the system, at their lack of esteem.
This cannot be the standpoint of a
Christian and it is that which distinguishes him or her from the non-Christian.
I am reminded of those magnificent words of Paul in the Letter to the
Ephesians, chapter 6, from verse 10 onwards.
'Finally, then, find your strength
in the Lord, in his mighty power. Put on all the armour which God provides, so
that you may be able to stand firm against the devices of the devil. For our
fight is not against human foes, but against cosmic powers, against the
authorities and potentates of this dark world, against the superhuman forces of
evil in the heavens. Therefore, take up God's armour; then you will be able to
stand your ground when things are at their worst, to complete every task and
still to stand'.
'Still to stand'. Never to give up,
never to allow despair to take control, never to lose hope. All Planners should
have some sense of time, of things in the past, of things to come, of the
possibility of a better tomorrow, but it is often difficult to sustain that
vision.
It is the contribution of the
Christian planner to go beyond this - to perceive, behind the changing
environment, in the midst of conflicts and competition for resources, at the
heart of the struggles to achieve something worthwhile, the hand of a loving
God - a God who will always be there, who will never be defeated, and who will
unfailingly give reason for hope. The role of the Christian Planner is not to
develop just a sense of time, but a sense of the eternal.
From ACPA Newsletter No. 13
& 14, Winter 1988/89