Changes to the way building use is decided could have a bearing on future arts spaces, argues Paul Kelly.
How did the arts organisation you work for get planned? No, I dont mean who was the architect, or who lobbied for it to be created or planned in terms of how the money was raised or even who decided the organisational structure, procedures and responsibilities. But how did the building you work in be it a theatre, an arts centre, a concert hall, an office, a temporary converted structure or even your own front room come to be where it is? Yes, were talking spatial planning here, the preserve of that professional species which attracts more confusion, irritation, frustration, dissatisfaction and even sheer disbelief than probably any other: the local authority planning officer.
It is planning officers who decide what is built where, what we can display on the outside of our buildings and, in general, the shape and natures of our villages, towns and cities. On the one hand, these are detailed, technical issues. On the other, the layered succession of planning decisions stretching back, in some cases, hundreds of years, make our villages, towns and cities what they are today. Their decisions help make Brighton different from Bridlington and Walsall different from Worthing. And planning, in the wider scheme of things, is a deeply cultural issue. Planning can create, preserve or deny public facilities and public spaces.
Rampant consumerism has already altered the shape of our urban centres both through large private shopping complexes and through out of town developments that have threatened to leave little but charity shops in their wake. Now, a new government-commissioned report could change things further. On the surface, the just-published Barker Review of Land Use Planning is as straight, sensible and no-nonsense as its Ronseal-like title. Commissioned by Gordon Brown and John Prescott, its purpose has been to review how, &in the context of globalisation, planning policy and procedures can better deliver economic growth and prosperity alongside other sustainable development goals.
The reports key recommendations are about making the planning system more efficient by reducing policy guidance, reducing the length of time taken on public enquiries, making better use of greenbelt land, and reducing the cost of planning both to business and to local government. So far, so good. But within the recommendations lurks a worrying policy proposal. Up til now, commercial developments have had to fulfil a needs test: planning permission will only be granted if it can be demonstrated that there is a need for the proposed use. Barker proposes abandoning this and letting market forces determine the need. And The Observer recently reported that rival supermarket chains are already making plans that could lead to the development of hundreds of new stores.
New supermarkets? Whats this got to do with the arts? Its very simple. Because we are currently in a time of capital drought, we are not really thinking much about new arts buildings or provision. But in the future that may change. As the population rises (and it will), we will need new arts facilities if we are to retain the cultural offer, as we currently conceive it, at the current level of access and provision. Some of those will probably still need to be in urban centres, where land availability is scarce and land value is high. Public capital, even when it is available, moves very slowly. In contrast, private developers can raise the capital and commission the designs before public sector bodies have managed to hold preliminary discussions. If Barkers recommendations are accepted and the determination of need rule is abandoned, the chances of available land, especially in large enough parcels for new cultural facilities close to key transport nodes, could become greatly reduced as planners are forced to surrender land to the highest bidder. And if this happens, our notions of urban centres as mixed use environments balancing culture and commerce may be put at risk. Barkers report may contain phrases like no likelihood of demonstrable harm, and environmental and social needs. But without a needs test, it is going to take a brave planning officer to turn down significant commercial proposals in favour of a public realm interest. More importantly, Barkers report seems to be based on a false premise. Planning, she says, is a set of regulations aimed at correcting market failure. Surely not! Planning is a set of regulations designed to balance market interests with those of the citizen. Perhaps someone should persuade the very excellent National Campaign for the Arts to add this to their policy list and raise this matter with the Treasury before the Planning White Paper emerges?
Paul Kelly is Secretary, nalgao and Principal Arts Officer, Plymouth City Council