< Previous | Contents | Next >

The Development of a Policy on Architecture for Scotland: Report on the Public Consultation

15.0 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

15.1 Respondents noted that there were three principal ways in which the public could currently engage with matters affecting building design and the built environment. These were: through direct participation in community-based design projects; through involvement in the statutory development control process, particularly the planning process; and through the involvement of amenity and other built environment pressure groups in development issues. Respondents suggested that there were a number of benefits to be gained from public involvement in building design and development matters and that these benefits were common to all three types of participation. It was suggested, for example, that public involvement and community participation:

• strengthened local democracy;
• contributed to a sense of citizenship;
• developed a sense of place and local identity;
• developed knowledge and understanding of design and development processes; and
• helped combat social exclusion.

15.2 A number of respondents pointed to the work of the community-based housing and residents’ associations in the west of Scotland as a demonstration of the benefits that can accrue from direct community participation in the design of both new-build and refurbishment projects. It was suggested that communities had been empowered by these initiatives and that, through partnerships with the architectural profession, design outcomes had been improved. It was noted that these kinds of community driven projects needed support, advice and resources at an early stage in their development if they were to succeed. The Designs on You scheme run by SHARE (which provides design education for housing association members) and the Scottish Community Projects Fund (which provides seed-corn funding for community-based feasibility studies for architectural and environmental projects) were cited as examples of helpful initiatives. Respondents noted that community-based housing projects tended to adopt an incremental, bottom-up approach and that, for this to be feasible and effective, particular approaches to procurement were required. Respondents suggested that other social building types, such as schools, could benefit from similar community participation. It was noted, however, that a commitment to PFI/PPP as a procurement route tended to preclude any such form of community involvement.

15.3 Respondents noted that the first point of contact between any given development proposal and the general public was usually through the development control process, in particular the planning system. Respondents were of the view that the planning system provides the key opportunity for public participation in decisions affecting design and the built environment. Respondents noted that, in addition to engagement with individual projects, the planning system also offers an opportunity for public involvement in strategic matters such as the development of local and structure plans. However, it was suggested that planning committees often neglected to take sufficient notice of public opinion and that ways should be sought to strengthen community involvement in the planning process. Respondents suggested, for example, that public participation could be encouraged by the preparation of local area action plans, formulated and presented in an accessible format. It was also suggested that all development proposals over a certain value should be presented by their designers at open public meetings. Several respondents suggested that all relevant information was not always available in planning applications because of applicants’ commercial priorities. It was also noted that information was not always available in an accessible format. Respondents suggested that planning applications should, as a matter of routine, be available on the Internet and that greater use should be made of computer modelling techniques to present proposals in a format that was accessible to the general public.

15.4 There was a division of opinion amongst respondents with regard to the role of amenity, heritage and similar special interest groups in local development decision-making. Respondents from such groups suggested that their purpose was to give local communities a collective voice in matters affecting development in their area and to ensure the preservation of what was of value in their local built environment. Other respondents, however, from the development side, suggested that such groups did not always reflect the views of the general public in an area and that their representation was often fragmented and unco-ordinated. One such respondent argued that implicit in amenity groups’ representations was a claim to communal ownership of the public facets of buildings. This respondent suggested that limits needed to be defined for community involvement and that where a community claimed a special level of "design ownership", then that community had attendant obligations to invest its own or public resources in the project.

< Previous | Contents | Next >