© Nova univerza, 2018 DIGNIT AS Revija za človekove pravice Slovenian journal of human rights ISSN 1408-9653 Citizen involvement in Slovenian spatial planning system: What can we learn from the New Labour planning reform in England? Miha Vrabec, Alenka Temeljotov Salaj Article information: To cite this document: Vrabec, M, Temeljotov Salaj, A. (2018). Citizen involvement in Slovenian spatial planning system: What can we learn from the New Labour planning reform in England?, Dignitas, št. 55/56, str. 302-350. Permanent link to this doument: https://doi.org/ 10.31601/dgnt/55/56-15 Created on: 07. 12. 2018 To copy this document: publishing@nova-uni.si For Authors: Please visit http://revije.nova-uni.si/ or contact Editors-in-Chief on publishing@nova-uni.si for more information. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. 302 DIGNITAS n Razprave 1. Preface 1 2 As far as research carried out so far is concerned, we may con- clude that public participation in various fields of governance has in the last two or three decades increasingly become the subject of intense scientific investigation. 3 This is partly due to the reco- gnition that the historical gap between scientific/expert argumen- tation and democratic discourse where the broader (lay) public may participate more or less on equal terms must be closed. 4 By adhering to scientific/expert argumentation, the modernist appro- ach has become obsolete as it creates a gap between theory and practical implementation and is therefore incapable of offering acceptable solutions in the long term. Moreover, it often produces conflicts in social relationships. 5 The emergence of the post-mo- dernist paradigm of participation partly results from a crisis in the legitimacy of democratic institutions and partly from tapping into the essence of prevailing political paradigms of the 20th century (the participative model of democracy for example as proposed in 1989 by Held in his Models of Democracy, as overcoming the division and deficiencies of existing models of the then new left and new right political wings). According to Lavtar, the globalisa- tion process has caused a drop in the authority and competence of national government while at the same time supra-national en- 1 Miha Vrabec, doctoral student at the European Faculty of Law in Nova Gorica, Slovenia (EU), miha. vrabec@gmail.com. 2 Alenka Temeljotov Salaj, Ph.D. GEA College – Faculty of Entrepreneurship, alenka.temeljotov-salaj@ gea-college.si. 3 Cliff Hague and Paul Jenkins, Place Identity, Participation and Planning (Routledge 2005); Susan Brownill and Gavin Parker, ‘Why Bother with Good Works? The Relevance of Public Participation(s) in Planning in a Post-collaborative Era’ (2010) 25(3) Planning Practice & Research 275; Drago Kos, ‘Postmoderno prostorsko planiranje?’ (2003) 40(4) Teorija in praksa 647. 4 Mojca Golobič, ‘So vetrne elektrarne problematičen projekt?’ 2005 16(1) Urbani izziv 42. 5 Ibid. Citizen involvement in Slovenian spatial planning system: What can we learn from the New Labour planning reform in England? Miha Vrabec 1 , Alenka Temeljotov Salaj 2 303 DIGNITAS n Citizen involvement in Slovenian spatial planning system: What can we ... tities e.g. the European Union are gaining power. By virtue of the high level of bureaucratisation, people are becoming alienated from decision-making centres. On the other hand, the rise of edu- cational backgrounds and the growing influence of consumerism in society have increased individualisation which in turn contri- butes largely to non-politicisation and reduces interest in the com- mon good (bonum comune). 6 This trend was also established by the Council of Europe in its Green Book of 2004 (The Future of Democracy in Europe: Trends, Analyses and Reforms) forecasting a decrease in voter turnout by 2020 to 55% in Eastern and Central Europe and 35% in Western Europe. This could very well compro- mise the legitimacy of decisions taken by elected bodies. 7 Just like governing the country, the democratic participation of citizens in decision making on public matters is important at the local level. One of the most significant books on political science Making Democracy Work by Robert Putnam, which defines citi- zen participation as the foundation of the development of social trust, reciprocity and cooperation (social capital) and thereby of the strengthening of democracy, was the result of research into Italian regional institutions, i.e. at the local level. 8 According to Brezovšek, with an important role in creating social capital becau- se it deals with issues of common interest and is capable of mobi- lising a considerable number of participants, local administration is at the same time at least in principle more accessible to citizens. 9 The significance of participative decision making at the local level is discussed in more detail under item 5 herein. Spatial planning is a key issue relevant to local communities. The legal framework for spatial planning in Slovenia has quite frequently been modified in the last few years 10 , yet conflicts ari- 6 Roman Lavtar, Sodelovanje prebivalcev v slovenskih občinah: participacija prebivalcev pri odloča- nju o javnih zadevah na lokalni ravni v Sloveniji (Inštitut za lokalno samoupravo in javna naročila 2007). 7 Council of Europe, ‘The Future of Democracy in Europe: Trends, Analyses and Reforms – a Green Paper for the Council of Europe’ (Green Paper, Council of Europe 2004). 8 Robert D Putnam, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton University Press 1993). 9 Marjan Brezovšek, ‘Pojmovno-teoretični okvir razvoja lokalne demokracije’ in: Marjan Brezovšek and others (eds.), Lokalna demokracija II (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences 2005). 10 Spatial Management Act (Official Gazette of RS, Nos. 110/2002 (8/2003 corr.), 58/2003, 33/2007, 108/2009, 79/2010 and 80/2010 (106/2010 corr.)); hereinafter referred to as ZUreP-1; Spatial Plan- ning Act (Official Gazette of RS, Nos. 33/2007, 70/2008, 108/2009, 80/2010 (106/2010 corr.), 43/2011, 57/2012 and 57/2012); hereinafter referred to as ZPNačrt; The Act Regarding the Sitting of Spatial Ar- rangements of National Significance in Physical Space (Official Gazette of RS, Nos. 80/2010 (106/2010 corr.) and 57/2012); hereinafter referred to as ZUPUDPP. 304 DIGNITAS n Razprave sing in the related procedures are growing and as a result civil ini- tiatives opposing development planning interventions have been increasing. This has often been emphasised by the professional and scientific communities as well as by non-governmental organi- sations and other representatives of civil society. The seriousness of the situation is further proven by an initiative of the Chamber for Architecture and Spatial Planning launched in February 2010 and entitled “It is time for changes in spatial planning” and by a conference in the National Council of the Republic of Slovenia with the same name organised in the same month. The insufficient participation of citizens is frequently mentio- ned among the many challenges facing Slovenian spatial planning. The difficulties have a structural nature and range from the legisla- tion covering spatial planning to administrative procedures and local governance. This paper analyses some of the deficiencies and substantiates the assumption about why citizen participation is a sine qua non for the quality of spatial planning at the national and local levels and for more sustainable public governance that is less burdened by conflict. Further, some of the most important reform measures by the new Labour party in Great Britain are presented which in the first decade of the 21st century have radically changed the English sy- stem of spatial planning and introduced significant novelties in the field of citizen participation. In spite of numerous historical, cultural and economic differences between Slovenian and British society, coupled with the differences in the spatial planning sy- stems (for more details, see item 7 below), we believe that an over- view of some changes in the English system of spatial planning, being one of the most developed and democratic in the world, offers a good basis for considering the directions and priorities of possible amendments in legislation in Slovenia. Becoming acqua- inted with the difficulties that impeded the success of the reforms and even led to the withdrawal of some of them may be as useful as an examination of the actual contents of the reforms. A few suggestions for improving Slovenian legislation are given in the conclusion, but only after we have discussed a few theoretical fo- undations of the participative paradigm of decision making. 305 DIGNITAS n Citizen involvement in Slovenian spatial planning system: What can we ... 2. The professional/scientific or democratic approach to argumentation and the legitimacy of public decision making Ever since Antique (Greek) times, society has known two main forms of argumentation and seeking solutions: democratic deba- te and science. Spatial planning and making decisions on spatial intervention function in the area where the two overlap, whereby in the course of time the influence of each has been changing ac- cording to the circumstances in society. Thus, in modern times science has effectively been put forward by means of the concept of integral and rational planning, 11 yet by doubting the legitimacy of all traditional institutions pluralistic post-modern society has put the role of science into question. 12 In the concept of the so-called risk society, 13 scientific recognitions are increasingly necessary but, on the other hand, they are less and less a sufficient condition for adopting decisions. As rightly pointed out by Golobič, referring to a profession and professional criteria is convincing and effective only as long as we believe that we may make decisions about our actions on the basis of our knowledge of reality as enabled by science. Veneris labels such an approach »co- hesive« planning where solutions to technical problems are being sought within a societal consensus on values. 14 Quite a few spati- al planning problems are at least apparently easy to resolve pro- fessionally. In such cases, decisions based more or less exclusively on professional knowledge may prove to be entirely as legitimate even though they in fact mean a shift of decision making towards professionals. 15 A professional approach should ensure an expert solution, i.e. a quality solution and at the same time the non-invol- vement of (private) interests which, in turn, means an objective solution. However, on the other hand each spatial planning issue can be seen from different viewpoints and therefore referring to professionalism as a single aspect of decision making is in princi- ple wrong since it often leads to conflicts and thereby impedes the 11 John T Lyle, Design for Human Ecosystems (Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. 1985). 12 Golobič (n 4) 2. 13 Beck, 1992 as cited in ibid. 14 Yannis Veneris, ‘Reliable Design under Conflicting Social Values’ (1993) 20(2) Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 145. 15 Golobič (n 4) 3. 306 DIGNITAS n Razprave adoption of solutions. 16 Moreover, the rhetoric and argumentation required by open procedures (that include citizens) place experts in a different, less influential position. At the same time, it requires more open decision making and different styles of communication which most experts are not used to. That is why in practice incorpo- rating expert knowledge often proves to be inefficient and triggers conflicts. Since such conflict will often present itself as a disagree- ment over facts, decision makers will be induced to demand newer, more ‘professional’ and more ‘objective’ knowledge. 17 Individuals often do not possess expert knowledge about a certain spatial planning issue, but know the situation in the local environment very well. 18 As Marot states, they may be able to con- vey a lot of practical knowledge about the characteristics of the areas, of particular difficulties, their possible solutions and of the practical influence of applicable regulations and policies. 19 Besi- des being a source of information, involving the public in decisi- on making also means establishing confidence and increasing the legitimacy of solutions which are more custom-made for the local community. 20 Rationality and knowledge are important but, according to our modern understanding, we know three categories of knowledge: personal, social and positive. Personal knowledge embodies our subjective internalised experiences and provides the root of indi- vidual competence. It is also the source of innovation. Through knowledge we are aware of the self and our relationship with the existential world. 21 Social knowledge emerges as a social construc- tion of reality. 22 Positive knowledge will be acquired on the basis of deductive reasoning, empirical observation and experimenta- tion. 23 It represents universal knowledge whose function is object appraisal, prediction and control and is a popularly accepted “sci- 16 Ivan Marušič, ‘Planiranje’ in Marko Polič and others (ed.), Spoznavni zemljevid Slovenije (University of Ljubljana, Scientific & Research Institute of Faculty of Arts 2002). 17 Golobič (n 15). 18 Patsy Healey, ‘Building Institutional Capacity through Collaborative Approaches to Urban Planning’ (1998) 30(9) Environment and Planning A 1531. 19 Naja Marot ‘Presoja vloge prostorske zakonodaje v slovenskem sistemu prostorskega planiranja’ (DPhil thesis, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering 2010). 20 Healey (n 18). 21 Dewey, 1929, 1938; Heidegger, 1949; Jaspers, 1949 as cited in Clyde Weaver and others, ‘Rationality in the Public Interest: Notes Toward a New Synthesis’ in Michael Breheny and Alan Hooper (eds.), Critical Essays on the Role of Rationality in Urban & Regional Planning (Pion 1985) 146. 22 Berger, Luckman, 1966 as cited in ibid. 23 Ayer, 1956; Werkmeister, 1937; Poincare, 1905 as cited in Clyde Weaver and others (n 21). 307 DIGNITAS n Citizen involvement in Slovenian spatial planning system: What can we ... entific method”. 24 In planning, the rationality connected with po- sitive knowledge and abstract reasoning applies objectively to the external world, i.e. functional rationality of the Ends-Means calcu- lus. Human reasoning is also influenced by social conditions and then resultant assumptions and beliefs, requiring the exercise of substantive rationality. 25 However, it seems that comprehension of the human world lies beyond behaviourism and structuralism and requires a multidimensional rationality that balances different epi- stemologies and various realms of experience. Marot thinks that a one-dimensional description of social events does not suffice for a satisfactory presentation of all relationships and connections as the course of events in society is not linear and does not have one single cause to enable the creation of a sufficient explanation of such events. 26 That is why, according to her, it is absolutely neces- sary to disclose all aspects of a phenomenon and the knowledge of planners alone does not suffice in spatial planning. 27 Therefore, the public, investors and politicians should be familiar with the basic principles of spatial planning and management as well. The formal restrictions in spatial planning are often conside- red as a final, unchangeable fact and we tend to forget that they result from an agreement in the context of specific values which in turn are defined by historical, economic, social and professio- nal circumstances. They may as such, according to Golobič, in the changed conditions be legitimately faced with different starting points and their validity checked. 28 Apart from the criteria defined in formal documents, a number of other value categories validated in professional circles only or not even there will enter the deci- sion-making procedure. The majority of criteria depend on what individuals perceive as value and how in their opinion the space should be utilised. The views of individuals and groups differ, the- re are also significant differences in views depending on whether people are market- or professionally-oriented. Therefore, in spite of applying the top-level expertise it often happens that solutions designed exclusively on the basis of professional knowledge are 24 Clyde Weaver and others, Rationality in the Public Interest: Notes Toward a New Synthesis’ in Mi- chael Breheny and Alan Hooper (eds.), Critical Essays on the Role of Rationality in Urban & Regional Planning (Pion 1985) 146. 25 Ibid. 26 Marot (n 19) 21. 27 Ibid. 28 Golobič (n 4) 5. 308 DIGNITAS n Razprave unacceptable to the public and we cannot come much closer to solutions by means of improving the quality of information. 29 Already in the 1960s, the theory started to point to several defi- ciencies in decision making based solely on expert argumentation. According to Golobič, the criticising of technocratic planning and the growing awareness of the individual’s rights, especially the right to a healthy environment, have slowly led to the idea of planning as a procedure of cooperation between the public (users), the professi- on (planners) and politicians (decision makers) all the way through to the introduction of various forms of participative approaches and the so-called communicative theory of planning. 30 The paradigm of participative planning as a communication process 31 has contribu- ted one of the most powerful criticisms of the technocratic planning procedure. 32 Thus, in his theory on the crisis of legitimacy Habermas maintains that people may in the profane as well as the cosmic en- vironment be located with a dynamic mechanism of identification, called a self-reflective symbolism of identity. 33 This represents the sy- stem of beliefs in self-identity, collective identity and social function in a legitimate social system. According to Habermas, the link betwe- en the interpretative system and realities of social existence legitimise the structure of any social system. Habermas designed this theory on the basis of an analysis of several riots in the second half of the 1960s , which continued in numerous countries of Western Europe and in the USA and were strongly connected with the social economic cir- cumstances of the time. Nevertheless, the key findings of this theory may be applied to the field of spatial planning today. The concept of place identity that most frequently underpins planning and design, the genus loci view of place, is derived from the same assumption about human identity, which is relational by nature. 34 The participative model of democracy is a theoretical concept which emerged as a response to challenges 35 several democratic 29 Ibid. 30 Golobič (n 4) 4. 31 A propos, according to Weber, a planner is above all a civil servant who has to act rationally, imparti- ally and equitably (Max Weber, The Sociology of Religion (translation Ephraim Fischoff, introduction Talcott Parsons, Beacon Books 1964). 32 Jürgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volumes 1 and 2 (Beacon Press 1984, 1987). 33 Jürgen Habermas, Legitimation Crisis (Beacon Press 1975) 49. 34 Christian Norberg-Schulz, Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture (Academy edi- tions 1980). 35 It is above all a crisis of the legitimacy of power. Seeking a new paradigm or a new democratic model is very much a consequence of the crisis of the political left in European democracies in the second half of the 1980s when a neo-liberal model in Europe often called “Thatcherism” was on the march. 309 DIGNITAS n Citizen involvement in Slovenian spatial planning system: What can we ... countries (primarily Western) of Europe faced towards the end of the 1980s, when the social democratic model of governing appe- ared to be exhausted and attempts were made to re-define the welfare state. According to Lavtar, the participative model in rela- tion to representative democracy was particularly intensely and zealously developed by Benjamin Barber. In his model of strong democracy, he maintains that politics in a participative form can develop the ways of turning private interests to the public good by moulding political tolerance. 36 However, the participative form of governance is not a concept that is only useful in the field of national politics. It also finds a place precisely in the system of local self-government, where local communities take over control of their destinies by means of effective and open institutions and a high level of political participation. This will be further discus- sed in item 5 of this paper. 3. What is participation after all? Participation, or the involvement of the public in the broader sense of the word, can be defined as an activity where an indi- vidual is together with others involved in some social processes. Political participation can be described as active engagement in the process of governing and is an opportunity for individuals to become involved in policy designing in the same way as civil servants and elected representatives. The authorities in modern countries have to respond to the requests and wishes of their ci- tizens. Thus, participation is first of all a communication process where citizens convey their views, suggestions and objections to power holders. It is an attempt, a tendency, an effort of ordinary people in any political system to influence the activities of the go- vernment and its institutions. Here the authors point out that it is normatively neutral and can range from debates and usual polling to riots. The criteria with which we define an activity as participa- tion are the following: • that the participants are individuals; • that it is a voluntary activity; • that it refers to a specific activity; and • that this activity is directed to influencing the authorities. 36 Barber, 1984 as cited in Lavtar (n 6) 10. 310 DIGNITAS n Razprave It is an eminently politically directed activity and not only a political activity which is intended for political positioning, i.e. an activity which refers to the struggle for power and exercising it. 37 In the literature, a more precise definition of participation is often given regarding the share of power delegated to the public in a particular case. 38 The lowest level of transfer is informing 39 and consulting (the public is invited to present opinions or re- marks through questionnaires, focus groups, public hearings and similar). A two-way communication between the public and those in power is the next level. Here, besides the term participation, the literature often uses the terms “active involvement”, “active partici- pation” and others. 40 Many definitions and classifications of different forms of par- ticipation can be found in the literature. However, this paper is limited to the participation of individuals and groups according to the definition given in the previous paragraph. Opinions vary as to the level where ‘real participation’ begins, yet the present paper is based on a definition of participation which in the vast majority of cases also includes the procedures of informing but goes upwards from the level of consultation. 4. Spatial planning as a public affair and a subject of public interest, participation and sustainable development Spatial planning including utilisation, maintenance and rene- wal are a public issue and therefore a subject of common interest and public policies in several areas. Spatial solutions are, on the other hand, a reflection of individual as well as common needs. Ac- 37 Marjan Brezovšek, ‘Politična participacija, Prispevek k analizi »participativne demokracije«‘ Teorija in praksa, (1995) 32(3-4) 202. 38 See Sherry R. Arnstein, ‘A Ladder of Citizen Participation’ (1969) 35(4) Journal of the American Planning Association 216; Dorothy Nelkin and Michael Pollak, ‘Public Participation in Technological Decisions: Reality or Grand Illusion?’ (1979) 81(8) Technology Review 55.; Peter M Wiedemann and Susanne Femers, ‘Public Participation in Waste Management Decision Making: Analysis and Manage- ment of Conflicts’ (1993) 33(3) Journal of Hazardous Materials 355; Gene Rowe and Lynn J Frewer, ‘A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms’ (2005) 30(2) Science, Technology & Human Values 251; James L Creighton, The Public Participation Handbook: Making Better Decisions Through Citizen Involvement (Jossey Bass 2005) and others. 39 Public officials inform the public with press releases and briefings etc. 40 Yorck von Korff, ‘Re-focusing Research and Researchers in Public Participation’ (2007) research paper, accessed 2 September 2011. 311 DIGNITAS n Citizen involvement in Slovenian spatial planning system: What can we ... cording to the modern understanding of rationality as a multidi- mensional phenomenon, it is necessary to associate personal expe- rience, social and historical conditions and objective reality and that is why public participation in spatial planning is inevitable. Decisions concerning spatial planning influence relationships since planners, the users, the administration, investors, politicians and in certain cases the public are confronted with problems they perceive differently. In spatial planning we can still speak of a clear delimitation between the so-called professional/scientific approach and the democratic approach (see above). In addition, conflicts be- tween private and public interests tend to arise frequently. The par- ticipative approach enables us to avoid such conflicts or to resolve them more quickly if they occur and sustainable spatial planning is thereby ensured. The aim is active public participation at various stages of decision making which in certain conditions can contri- bute considerably to the democratic legitimacy of spatial planning decisions. With this paradigm we can move beyond the classic divi- sion into professional and democratic approaches and at the same time put limits on the prevalence of private over public interests. More intensive research of the possibilities of citizen parti- cipation in decision making on environmental and spatial mat- ters was, among others, stimulated by recognition of the fragility of our biosphere, the growing intensity of climate change and of the reasons that spawn them which are connected to human activities. Recognition of the inevitability of sustainable develo- pment emerged and has turned into a regular mantra of the 21st century. It has led to the realisation that natural resources are not infinite and that a global change in their management is needed, above all in limiting their exploitation. Physical space is a limited and non-renewable resource and spatial planning is a system of rules and conditions for spatial development and land use that humankind has known forever. In the last two decades, the bo- dies of the United Nations, the European Union and several na- tional governments and non-governmental organisations have elaborated numerous reports, plans and strategies for long-term sustainable environmental and spatial management. Dredge also notes that it is possible to approach the ideal of sustainable development through involvement, participation and cooperati- 312 DIGNITAS n Razprave on. 41 By adopting the global action programme Agenda 21 and, within it, Local agenda 21, the conference of the United Nations on Environment and Development in 1992 (also known as the Rio conference) acknowledged the strong significance of citizen participation in decision making at a local level. 42 It stipulates su- stainable development as a central objective that the signatories implement at a local level with horizontal and decentralised net- works of local actors above all of civil society, economic groups, citizens, politicians and holders of power. These groups should be included by local authorities in the programme of ensuring sustainable development by means of counselling them and sti- mulating them to supply incentives. Agenda 21 stipulates the ac- tive participation of civil society in designing and implementing policies or programmes as a precondition for the shift to susta- inable development. 43 5. Citizen participation in spatial planning and local governance The participation of citizens in decision making on public af- fairs is important for the quality and acceptability of decisions at all levels of administration but particularly in decision making at the local level. Some theorists, e.g. Dahl and Tufte, consider the local level to be the natural democratic venue for citizen partici- pation. 44 The local level offers citizens the unique possibility to realise their freedom and express their local identity. 45 Barber also sees such powerful democracy in local communities which ever more frequently take control over their destinies with efficient and open institutions and a high level of political participation. 46 Baker, Van de Walle and Skelcher similarly emphasise the provi- sions of the Council of Europe’s European Charter of Local Self- Government that citizen participation is an essential democratic 41 Dianne Dredge, ‘Networks, Conflict and Collaborative Communities’ 14(6) 2006 Journal of Susta- inable Tourism 562. 42 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, June 3-14, 1992, ‘Agenda 21 Pro- gramme of Action for Sustainable Development’ U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151/26. 43 Ibid., chapter 28. 44 Robert A Dahl and Edward R Tufte, Size and Democracy, The Politics of the Smaller European De- mocracies (Stanford University 1973). 45 Bogomil Ferfila, ‘Upravljavska sposobnost in koalicijsko povezovanje v slovenskih občinah’ (rese- arch report, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences – Institute for Social Sciences, Centre for Political Science Research 2008). 46 Barber, 1984 as cited in Lavtar (n 6) 10. 313 DIGNITAS n Citizen involvement in Slovenian spatial planning system: What can we ... principle which can be most directly exercised at the local level. 47 Similarly, in the White Paper on European Governance the Euro- pean Commission strives to stimulate participation at the local level as one of the ways of solving the crisis of legitimacy of Eu- ropean institutions. 48 According to Smith, smaller territorial units are more suitable for the development of democratic values and innovative forms of democratic decision making. 49 Even though the latter statement may be considered as too generalised, 50 the local level is at least theoretically more accessible to citizens, it is capable of mobilising a larger number of participants and at the same time it is the level where decisions are often made with a direct impact on the life of the population. 51 Above all, decisions from the field of sustainable development and from the closely connected field of spatial planning (see the previous item) also belong to them. These decisions are the su- bject of the present paper. At the local level, some of the most im- portant processes of spatial planning take place which, according to the Local Self-Government Act, 52 is one of the biggest compe- tencies of Slovenian municipalities. 53 Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 47 Keith Baker and others, ‘Citizen Support for Increasing the Responsibilities of Local Government in European Countries: A Comparative Analysis’ (2011) 9(1) Lex Localis – Journal of Local Self-Go- vernment 1. 48 Commission ‘White Paper on European Governance’ COM (2001) 428 final. 15-20. 49 Bryan C Smith, The Territorial Dimension of the State (George Allen 1985). 50 As emphasised by Bherer, such an explanation might lead to a (wrong) conclusion that local authorities in decision making automatically introduce participative mechanisms (Laurence Bherer, ‘Successful and Unsuccessful Participatory Arrangements: Why is There a Participatory Movement at the Local Level?’ (2010) 32(3) Journal of Urban Affairs 287). In practice however, their introduction is often subject to other factors which are independent from the level of public administration. Some research studies even established a negative correlation: the development of participative mechani- sms of decision making is stronger in larger local communities as they have more resources (human, financial and others). Similarly, Oliver (Eric J Oliver, Democracy in Suburbia, (Princeton Univ. Press 2001)) determines that in smaller local communities we may find numerous civil initiatives but very few activities of the local authorities which would enable institutionalised citizen participation. 51 Brezovšek (n 9) 11. 52 The tasks of municipalities are stipulated in paragraph 2 of Article 21 of the Local-Self Government Act. Regarding the discussed subject, the most important are indents 2 ,3, 4, 12, 13 and 20 of the said paragraph and Article, and of these the most important are: - providing the conditions for the economic development of the municipality; - planning spatial development, carrying out tasks in the areas of activities affecting the physical space and the construction of facilities in accordance with the law and ensuring the public service of building land management; - creating conditions for the construction of housing and providing for an increase in rent (social welfare housing fund); - being responsible for preserving cultural heritage in its territory in accordance with the law; - constructing, maintaining and regulating local public roads, public ways, recreational and other pu- blic areas, regulating traffic in the municipality and performing tasks of municipal public order; - adopting the statute of the municipality and other general acts. 53 Local Self-government Act (ZLS-UPB2, Official Gazette of RS, Nos. 72/1993, 6/1994, 45/1994, 57/1994, 14/1995, 20/1995, 63/1995, 73/1995, 9/1996, 39/1996, 44/1996, 26/1997, 70/1997, 10/1998, 68/1998, 314 DIGNITAS n Razprave 1 of ZUreP-1 define spatial planning as the performance of spatial planning and enforcement of implementation measures for plan- ned spatial arrangements and ensures the development of buil- ding land and the maintenance of a spatial data system. ZPNačrt largely repealed ZUreP-1, above all the part related to spatial planning, and defines the latter as an interdisciplinary ac- tivity whereby interventions in space and spatial arrangements are planned on the basis of development policies which take into account the public benefits of environmental protection, nature conservation, the protection of animals and natural goods, the protection of property and cultural heritage (indent 19 paragraph 1 of Article 2). In the present paper, we focus on citizen participa- tion in spatial planning as the adopting of plans for interventions in space and spatial arrangements (development planning) and where explicitly stated also in making decisions on interventions in physical space (development control). As mentioned, spatial planning is one of the most important competencies of local communities and, as a rule, their imple- mentation will have a decisive influence on their economic and social development. According to paragraph 2 of Article 11 of ZPNačrt, the local self- governing communities (hereinafter communities) are responsi- ble for: 1. determining references and guidelines for the spatial develo- pment of the municipality; 2. determining the use of space and conditions for placing in- terventions in space; and 3. planning spatial arrangements of local importance. Paragraph 2 of Article 12 (indents 6 and 8) of ZUreP-1 stipula- tes the following as competencies of the municipality: 1. keeping databases on spatial issues within their competence; 2. following the situation in the field of spatial planning and ta- king care to maintain legitimacy and order in physical space; and 3. preparing and adopting reports on the situation in the field of spatial planning. We should not overlook the fact that municipalities play an exceptional role by determining and protecting the public interest 74/1998, 12/1999 (16/1999 corr.), 36/1999, 59/1999, 70/2000, 94/2000, 100/2000, 28/2001, 87/2001, 16/2002, 51/2002, 108/2003, 77/2004, 72/2005, 100/2005, 21/2006, 14/2007, 60/2007, 94/2007, 27/2008, 76/2008, 100/2008, 79/2009, 14/2010, 51/2010, 84/2010 and 40/2012); hereinafter referred to as ZLS. 315 DIGNITAS n Citizen involvement in Slovenian spatial planning system: What can we ... in spatial development. This is achieved by means of implemen- ting the relevant laws, spatial acts (spatial plans and other spatial acts at the municipal level) and of active land use, or spatial policy (backed up by tax, financial, market and urban planning instru- ments). According to Rebernik, the precise, efficient and consi- stent execution of spatial laws and planning documents as well as of active land use policy measures is crucially significant when it comes to implementing the public interest and thereby sustaina- ble land development. 54 6. Citizen participation in the Slovenian system of spatial planning – significant room for improvement Municipalities face a series of challenges while carrying out the tasks within their competence in the field of spatial manage- ment. One of the vital challenges for quality spatial development is the timely and well planned involvement of the public (see above). In the Slovenian professional and scientific literature the prevailing position is that the existing way of including the public in spatial planning procedures in Slovenia has a host of deficiencies. 55 As a result, the level of citizens’ participation in planning as well as in public life generally is low. 56 , 57 Similarly, the position of representatives of different stakeholders in spati- al planning and spatial management (citizens, local and national governmental level, investors and professionals) has often been 54 Dejan Rebernik, ‘Teorija in praksa prostorskega načrtovanja prostorski razvoj mest in širših mestnih območij v Sloveniji’, (2010) 9(33) Dela 111. 55 Naja Marot, ‘Upravljavska sposobnost slovenskih občin na področju prostorskega načrtovanja’(2010) 50(1) Acta geographica Slovenica 155.; Golobič (n 4); Maja Simoneti, ‘Izobraževanje za sodelovanje v urejanju prostora’ (2007) 51(2) Geodetski vestnik 366; Andrej Klemenc, ‘Krepitev participativne kultu- re v Sloveniji’ (Civil society consultation in the National Council of the Republic of Slovenia, Ljubljana, February 2011); Drago Kos, ‘Krepitev participativne kulture v Sloveniji’ (Civil society consultation in the National Council of the Republic of Slovenia, Ljubljana, February 2011). 56 Haček and others, Upravljavska sposobnost in koalicijsko povezovanje v slovenskih občinah (Uni- versity of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences 2008); Stane Vlaj, ‘Lokalna samouprava - demokracija od spodaj navzgor’ (Mednarodni inštitut za bližnjevzhodne in balkanske študije IFIMES, 18 October 2011) ˂http://www.ifimes.org/default.cfm?Jezik=si&Kat=10&ID=632˂ accessed 28 October 2011; Marot (n 55); Centre for Political Science Research, ‘Stališča o lokalni demokraciji’ (research report, Univer- sity of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences – Institute for Social Sciences Centre for Political Science Research 2003). 57 The widely held position is that Slovenia lags behind similar foreign practice in this field and, in the opinion of Simoneti (Maja Simoneti, Participativna kultura in prostorsko načrtovanje (Institute for Spatial Policies 2011)), Slovenia is even lagging behind its own practice from the earlier times of its “self-management” social system. 316 DIGNITAS n Razprave expressed publicly. 58 This is also confirmed in the conclusions of a recent conference on strengthening the participative culture 59 attended by 70 participants – representatives of civil society, go- vernmental and local level administration and of professionals from the area of spatial planning. The conference was held in the National Council of the Republic of Slovenia. Like with the participants of a seminar called “Promotion of participation in spatial decision making at the local level” (organised by the In- stitute for Spatial Policies on 29 January 2009 in the framework of the PoLok project 60 ) and the round table on the role of civil society in urban planning, which took place at the Faculty of Ar- chitecture at the start of April 2009, the conference held on the premises of the National Council largely confirmed and partly also expanded the findings of Slovenian urbanism science and spatial sociological science, as summarised here: a) inadequate regulation of public participation in spatial ma- nagement in the relevant laws (ZPNačrt, ZUPUDPP, Law on En- vironment Protection, Construction Act 61 ) – above all, the large deviations of norms in various laws referring to public partici- pation, inconsistent use of terms in different laws, inconsistent legal implementation of the Aarhus Convention and the non-exi- stence of the responsibility of authors of spatial planning docu- ments and of decision makers in spatial planning procedures to prepare a so-called process plan that clearly defines how the pu- blic is to be included in the planning procedure. The legislation should provide for the public’s involvement in early stages of the procedures and stipulate longer terms for conveying any com- 58 The stakeholders are enumerated as examples only as they may differ according to the nature of a specific spatial planning procedure. This is true for the term “citizens” who may concern all the peo- ple in the area subject to a certain planning document (area of planning), owners of the adjacent real estate in cases of siting interventions in certain areas. The general public and organised civil society (often by acting through non-governmental organisations) may often be important factors. 59 The conference took place on 3 February 2011. It was organised by the Regional Centre for Enviro- nment in the framework of the project Civil Society under auspices of the French Cultural Institute Charles Nodier in Ljubljana. 60 From October 2008 to November 2009, the project was managed by the Institute for Spatial Policies (IPoP) in partnership with the Trajekt institute (www.Trajekt.org) and a Norwegian partner CBNRM Net (www.cbnrm.net). It was supported by a subsidy from Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway throu- gh the Financial Mechanism of EGP and by the Norwegian Financial mechanism. 61 Environment Protection Act (Official Gazette of RS, Nos. 41/2004, 17/2006, 20/2006, 28/2006, 39/2006, 49/2006, 66/2006, 112/2006, 33/2007, 57/2008, 70/2008, 108/2009, 48/2012 and 57/2012); hereinafter referred to as ZVO-1; Construction Act (Official Gazette of RS, Nos. 110/2002, 97/2003, 41/2004, 45/2004, 47/2004, 62/2004, 102/2004 (14/2005 corr.), 92/2005, 93/2005, 111/2005, 120/2006, 126/2007, 57/2009, 108/2009, 61/2010 (62/2010 corr.), 20/2011 and 57/2012); hereinafter referred to as ZGO-1. 317 DIGNITAS n Citizen involvement in Slovenian spatial planning system: What can we ... ments or proposals. It is necessary to stipulate in detail that such comments and proposals be considered and that the obligation of the relevant authority is to define in detail any rejection of such comments or proposals. It is precisely the (too) late invol- vement of the public, which in most cases is merely a formality as the decisions have already been made without any real influ- ence of the public, that triggers the emergence of numerous civil initiatives. This is a clear indicator of growing conflictive situati- ons in physical space and that significant changes are called for in this field. The spatial and environmental legislation in Slove- nia provides for the involvement of the public no earlier than in the stage when draft acts have already been prepared and only then does the public have a certain time (usually 30 days are provided for in ZPNačrt, but the period is evidently too short when a more complicated issue is in question) to submit any comments and proposed modifications or amendments. Spatial planning document producers in most cases have to examine those comments and proposals and take a position which has to be made public, but the absence of stringent legal provisions allows the comments or proposals to be frequently ignored or rejected without any real substantiation. The early involvement of the public, which enables more active participation at an early stage of preparing draft spatial planning documents, has been a mantra of numerous authors for more than a decade but the legislature has not decided to apply it when preparing the rele- vant laws. ZUPUDPP is partly an exception since in preparing the national spatial plan it foresees the participation of the pu- blic (public announcement, possibility of submitting comments, directions and opinions; organising a consultation is unfortuna- tely simply a possibility and not obligatory) already at the stage of the initiative to adopt a plan (Article 21). Likewise, the rele- vant legislation needs to be modified or amended to enable the more active engagement of non-governmental organisations. A recommendation to the competent ministry as well as to the Slovenian government to ensure more openness to the “broader interested public” when relevant spatial planning documents are being prepared, was adopted on the basis of Articles 272 and 111 of the Standing Orders of the National Assembly 62 by the same 62 Standing Orders of the National Assembly (Official Gazette RS, 92/07 - Officially Consolidated Text, 2007). 318 DIGNITAS n Razprave National Assembly in a session on 29 January 2009 while discus- sing the annual report of the Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia. b) The next set of deficiencies refers to the functioning of the government and municipal administration. They often observe citizens’ participation as a nuisance. 63 Although the relevant legi- slative framework, as already mentioned, contains numerous im- perfections, it does not prevent the application of various infor- mal methods of involving the public. In the last decade, several extensive studies have been conducted in the areas of executing the spatial legislation and of the analysis of the functioning of the administration connected with it. In 2001, a research study was ca- rried out by the Environmental Law Institute by means of a questi- onnaire. 64 The research aimed to collect information on problems or difficulties the municipalities and administrative units 65 enco- unter when carrying out procedures to find solutions related to spatial planning and management. Here we must also mention the 2003 study by Ravbar and Bole who focused on systemic aspects of spatial planning. By means of analysis and a critical cross-secti- on of the legislative starting points, the study aimed to investigate the possibility of introducing a system of spatial planning. A com- parative analysis was also used to design various possibilities for the institutional organisation of the system. 66 As far as the analysis of the municipal administration’s functioning is concerned, we should mention the research carried out in 2007 by the Faculty of Social Sciences called “Administrative capacity and coalition buil- ding in Slovenian municipalities” (project manager Bogomil Fer- fila, PhD) within the framework of the targeted research program- me “Competitiveness of Slovenia 2006–2013”. The research was conducted by using a questionnaire for the target population of 63 Jože Kos Grabar ‘Urejanja prostora v Sloveniji na zacetku XXI. stoletja’ (press conference of Slove- nian Evaluation Society, Ljubljana February 2009). 64 Dušan Blagajne and Borut Šantej, ‘Študija izvajanja prostorske zakonodaje o urejanju naselij, stavb- nih zemljišč in graditve objektov’ (study, Environmental Law Institute 2001). 65 Administrative units are territorial offices of the state administration subordinated to a given minist- ry, with their own area of operation and tasks. Their basic responsibility is to decide on administrative matters at first instance, while the competent ministry or body or organisation within the framework of the ministry is competent for deciding on appeals against the decision of the administrative unit. In addition, they supervise the legality of local authorities’ performance of their competencies and the expediency of local authorities’ performance of delegated state functions. Supervision of spa- tial development activities is mainly performed through building permits issued by administration units. 66 Marjan Ravbar, ‘Sistem urejanja prostora’ (final report, University of Ljubljana, Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts – Anton Melik Geographical Institute 2003). 319 DIGNITAS n Citizen involvement in Slovenian spatial planning system: What can we ... municipal administration directors. 67 The questionnaire consisted of five sections with the following topics: personnel-organisatio- nal and financial aspects, the aspect of cooperation among muni- cipalities, introducing entrepreneurial principles to municipal ad- ministration, and aspects of administrative-political relationships in the framework of the municipal system. 68 The latest research from this field was carried out by Marot in 2010. Using a questio- nnaire and an analysis of secondary sources she investigated the planning governance capacity of Slovenian municipalities. She defined 13 indicators 69 and used them to produce the typology of management capacity in the field of planning, i.e. the capacity of municipalities to implement spatial planning legislation. 70 The questionnaires were distributed to all 210 municipalities and 55 responses were received. The questionnaires were filled in by re- presentatives of municipalities responsible for spatial planning: heads of departments of the environment and spatial planning, advisors, directors of municipal administration and others. 71 The findings of the abovementioned studies are very similar. The main common points refer to the personnel, financial and organisational ‘shortages’ of institutions performing spatial plan- ning. Ravbar points out the need for specialised (interdisciplina- rily conceived) public research – an applied institution capable of preparing the expertise to implement modern, ever changing me- thodologies in spatial planning which would perform advising, various auditing tasks and give opinions on the contents and tech- nical questions of spatial planning (see our proposal in the Con- clusion). He further suggests the introduction of regional plan- ning and strengthening of the quality and number of personnel, while improving the financing of municipal administrations and conferring more autonomy on larger municipalities (according to the alleged cases from Europe of “supralocal” spatial manage- 67 The questionnaire was addressed to the directors of 193 municipal administrations (the question- naire was not sent to the administrations of 17 newly founded municipalities since, in the opinion of the researchers, they lacked the necessary experience and development in administration to be able to participate relevantly in the survey. 118 administrations (61.1%) returned completed questi- onnaires. 68 Haček and others (n 56) 113-132. 69 The indicators used measure the adequacy of the criteria for founding a municipality and the fo- unding of a municipality by separation from an existing one, the adequacy of the personnel, and the demand for new staff available funding, difficulties in understanding the legal framework, which all influence the execution of the ‘project’ and, most importantly for the subject of this paper, the level of public participation, its influence, frequency and quality. 70 Marot (n 55). 71 Ibid. 320 DIGNITAS n Razprave ment to which the spatial management system is subordinated, with municipalities having the common instrumentation of deci- sion making on land use management according to its purpose). 72 In spite of the said limitations, the central government continues to burden local communities with an increasing amount of obli- gations, thereby significantly reducing their governance capacity. Beside the deficient legal framework, Haček, Brezovšek and Bačlija emphasise poor human resources (management) and limi- ted funding as the key management hurdles to be cleared by Slo- venian municipalities. 73 They argue that the majority of municipal administrations are relatively small in size and lack legal profes- sionals and technically educated personnel (mostly engineers). 74 Heads of municipal administrations are also disinclined to intro- duce entrepreneurial principles and good business practices to the municipality’s operations. On top of that, they use an inef- fective reward system. Interestingly, however, according to the said research the directors consider the municipal administration accepting the proposals of the citizens as (the only) acceptable entrepreneurial principle. This is promising as it points to at least a partial awareness of the deficiencies in public participation in the administration of local communities and to the perception of the public’s involvement as a positive value. Marot also notes the problem of personnel and funding and the inadequate legal framework for the operation of local admi- nistration in the spatial management field (ZPNačrt for instance, as opposed to ZUreP-1, does not require a municipality to employ an urban expert although, on the other hand, it demands that a municipality acts rapidly and efficiently with regard to spatial in- terventions (see below)). 75 She argues that staff deficiencies are associated with the problem of a unified (without internal divisi- ons) municipal administration (most of the surveyed municipa- lities) and stresses the changed role of planners in the modern system of spatial planning, which exceeds the mere elaboration of plans. She also identified the poor interdisciplinary cooperation 72 Marjan Ravbar (n 66). 73 Haček and others (n 56) 113-119. 74 Similarly, Vlaj (n 56) points to inconsistencies of some solutions in force in Slovenian local self-go- vernment (as an example he mentions the problem of sources of financing the local communities) with the European Charter of Local Self-government (MELLS), ratified by Slovenia in 1996, which is considered one of the basic documents in the field of democracy in Europe. 75 Marot (n 55) 157. 321 DIGNITAS n Citizen involvement in Slovenian spatial planning system: What can we ... of departments and cooperation of stakeholders in general and, in particular, the public. The ability of Slovenian municipal administrations to execute spatial legislation is according to her findings therefore relatively low, which is also evident in the field of public participation whi- ch is, as shown by the research, at a very low level. Municipal ad- ministrations on average use consultation (second lowest level as measured by the five-point scale of the International Association for Public Participation – IAP2). 76 It consists of giving information to the public about plans and of inviting the written/oral transmis- sion of their views and wishes during the period of public hearin- gs (see item 3). In second place by frequency is the lowest level – information – where the public will only be given information on spatial development plans and projects and provided with expla- nations of the problem and possible alternatives. 77 Only six muni- cipalities have opted for more active public participation through workshops at the very beginning of the planning process or thro- ugh the establishment of partnerships with the community. 78 The abovementioned deficiencies in the functioning of the Slovenian local government system, which has important compe- tencies in the field of spatial management, are closely related to the level of the so-called administration culture and the concept of local governance. During the last 20 years, traditional local go- vernment systems in countries of Western Europe and in the USA have been transformed into systems of local governance. Concepts like technocracy, hierarchical structure and political monopolism have, at least on the declarative level, been replaced by participati- on, consensus building and legitimacy, efficiency, responsiveness and impartiality. 79 , 80 76 Ibid. 77 Umanotera, ‘Umanotera poroča – Ogledalo vladi 2006, praksa in značilnosti sodelovanja s civilno družbo’ (Umanotera and Legal-informational centre for NGOs Slovenia 2007). 78 Marot (n 55) 155. 79 John Graham and others, ‘Principles of Good Governance in the 21st Century’ (Policy Brief No. 15, Institute on Governance 2003). 80 In modern democracies it is quite difficult to set a dividing line between administration and politics: the political and administrative processes are intertwined. To find new solutions which would assist in improving the efficiency and rationality of administration, developed countries have ever since the 1980s been introducing extensive reforms under a common denomination “new public management (NPM)”, putting a stress on the organisational (not only in terms of personnel) division of designing and executing of politics, disaggregation and introducing of principles of private sector management. In the literature, we also come upon the term new public governance. These two terms will mostly be used as synonyms. Yet some authors (Stephen Osborne, The New Public Governance? (Routledge 2010)) think that the term new public management represents a transitional stage from the traditio- nal, bureaucratic model of administration to the term new public governance. 322 DIGNITAS n Razprave These concepts are closely connected with public participa- tion in spatial and public decision making in general since it is almost impossible to imagine good governance without active ci- tizen participation. The trends with regard to planning legislation and public administration and their impact on the position of the public in the English spatial planning system – which the previo- us British government had sought to change by emphasising the motto “Let us change the planning culture!” – will be discussed in the following sections. 7. Slovenia and England: Comparable spatial planning systems? When England is mentioned in connection with the system of spatial planning and management most of us think of common law – a legal tradition and discretionary system of development control which due to cultural, social, legal and economic circum- stances has developed differently than in countries of continental Europe, including Slovenia. The latter belongs to the continen- tal legal tradition and its system of spatial planning is classified among regulatory planning systems. 81 According to Carmona and Sieh, regulatory systems are based on fixed legal frameworks and administrative decision making, while discretionary systems distinguish between law and policy, and are based on ‘guiding’ plans and political decision making. 82 For Dimitrovska, Andrews and Ploštajner, regulatory or plan-oriented systems (such as the Slovenian spatial planning system) are target-oriented, with ‘like to achieve’ ideal development schemes, pre-planned and determi- ned in advance, with prescribed land uses, design standards and regulations. 83 Such systems are inflexible as there is no place for discretion. There is a plan and accompanying regulations and the- re is a clear divide between what is and what is not allowed. 84 81 A division into predominantly either regulatory or discretionary systems of development control is made by Booth (Philip Booth, ‘Zoning or Discretionary Action: Certainty and Responsiveness in Implementing Planning Policy’ (1995) 14 (2) Journal of Planning Education and Research 103). The terms plan-led systems versus discretional systems are also well recognised. Some authors (Kaliopa Dimitrovska-Andrews and Zlata Ploštajner, ‘Local Effects of Transformation Processes in Slovenia’ 2000 7(8) Inf.Raumentwicklung 435) distinguish between “plan-oriented” and “project-oriented” sy- stems. Today, the elements of both systems in numerous countries are intertwined and the division into the two mentioned above is, due to convergence, less and less distinctive. 82M atthew Carmona and Louie Sieh, Measuring Quality in Planning (Taylor & Francis 2007) 28. 83 Dimitrovska-Andrews and Ploštajner (n 81) 445. 84 Eric Reade, British Town and CountryPlanning (Open University Press 1987). 323 DIGNITAS n Citizen involvement in Slovenian spatial planning system: What can we ... On the positive side, regulatory systems offer greater certainty and less delay in decision making because provisions in the plan are binding upon the decision maker and confer a right upon the landowner. On the negative side, plan making is slower, there is little potential for negotiation and the system is unresponsive to development and community needs. In contrast, discretionary systems allow responses to develo- pment proposals to reflect the circumstances that exist at any time, without having to revise entire policy framework if circumstances change. Flexibility is therefore achieved and decisions on develo- pment can continue to be made in the absence of an up-to-date policy framework without necessarily incurring any loss in rigour. On the negative side, discretion can create uncertainty for deve- lopers, an overemphasis on the efficiency rather than the quality of the process, and inconsistency in decision making based on values that are not always fully articulated. 85 From 1947 86 until the 1990s, the English spatial planning system was perhaps the most typical representative of the group of discre- tionary systems. Before 1991, when the Planning and Compensati- on Act was adopted, the role of a plan in development control had been less defined and in most local communities no local plans had been adopted. The 1991 Act amended the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act (Section 54A) to introduce a plan-led system in En- gland. This signified an important shift from the past practice and an attempt to increase predictability in spatial decision making. Sieh states that the move to a plan-led system in Britain effectively gave primacy to plan policy in the making of planning decisions; howe- ver, the system continued to be discretionary as the plan remains just one of a range of material considerations (including central go- vernment planning policy) that authorities need to consider. 87 That is why in planning theory today the majority opinion prevails that the English system can be designated as a plan-led discretionary sy- stem with elements of both regulatory and discretionary systems. 88 85 Carmona and Sieh (n 82) 30. 86 The year when the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 was adopted in England, a law which marked the beginning of modern spatial planning in England (see above). 87 Carmona and Sieh (n 85). 88 Allmendinger emphasises that contradictory tendencies were intertwining in English planning policy of the mid-1990s but the planning-oriented model which is alluded to by the meaningful title of the article has a better chance of prevailing: Zoning by Stealth? The Diminution of Discretionary Planning (Philip Allmendinger, ‘Zoning by Stealth? The Diminution of Discretionary Planning’ (2006) 11(2) International Planning Studies 137). 324 DIGNITAS n Razprave However, the special features of different planning systems are not without an impact on the position and role of public partici- pation and the characteristics of these connections should clearly be researched in depth. Yet an analysis of the characteristics of such connections exceeds the aim and subject of this paper. We instead focus on those examples of the English planning system reforms (emphasising the participation of the public) that are not connected to the particularity of the English, i.e. discretionary, sy- stem and can therefore, in our opinion, also be instructive for the continental point of view. 8. Spatial planning in England in the light of social and political changes This section discusses the reformed system of spatial planning in England. Before the extensive governmental reforms (2001– 2009) in England, town and country planning was based on a land use planning system. The term ever more frequently used in Europe and England to define the activity is spatial planning, and it is also used in this paper. The UK government defines spatial planning as “beyond traditional land use planning to bring toge- ther and integrate policies for the development and use of land with other policies and programmes which influence the nature of places and how they function”. 89 The main English professional association for spatial planning, the Royal Town Planning Institu- te (RTPI), advocates an even broader definition: “critical thinking about space and place as the basis for action or intervention”. 90 How the change in definition is reflected in English legislation and politics will be explained in the following chapters. The modern-day planning system in England is a post-war in- vention, with roots that may be traced to the enactment of the Town and Country Planning Act in 1947. It introduced a compre- hensive and universal approach to land use control, which meant ‘nationalisation’ of the right of private individuals to develop land by stipulating that planning permission would be required for certain types of development. In return, these ‘applications’ were 89 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Develo- pment (2005) 12. 90 Royal Town Planning Institute, ‘Education Commission Final Report’ (report, Royal Town Planning Institute 2003). 325 DIGNITAS n Citizen involvement in Slovenian spatial planning system: What can we ... afforded the automatic right of appeal (to a planning inspector or to the Secretary of State) should consent be refused. The newly created system of town and country planning sought to secure the interests of the community in cases where amenity would be harmed. “Amenity” itself was never defined and from 1947 to date it has been interpreted in many ways (usually by virtue of legal interpretations in the courts). 91 , 92 The public interest would, there- fore, take precedence over the private right to develop land and use property. 93 Rights of (private) land ownership would, therefo- re, not offer a carte blanche for ignoring matters of public law or policy. 94 Nevertheless, the private interest should not be unduly restricted or fettered, and in a variety of circumstances various freedoms, such as the right to extend a dwelling within a certain level of tolerance, would be deemed to fall outside planning con- trol. Today, such freedoms from the need for planning permission are granted by subordinate (i.e. laid before Parliament) legislation (such as contained in the General Permitted Development Order or Use Classes Order which permit certain building works and changes of use without planning permission). 95 In spite of that, political aims to be implemented by the plan- ning system changed. In 1947, it was post-war reconstruction and in the first decade of the 21st century it was the sustainable development, 96 for the assurance of which the spatial planning system has developed strategies for adapting to climate changes and reducing the consequences thereof. Growing awareness 91 John Ratcliffe and others, Urban Planning and Real Estate Development (Routledge 2009) 3. 92 It is an expression characteristic of the English common law legal system in which some concepts are not legally stipulated but can be of decisive importance for a court’s judgement in a particular case. It is a term taken from the planning practice whose contents will in an individual case consi- dering the relevant circumstances be stipulated by the court. Or, as Booth puts it: “... the practice of deriving general concepts from practice, which in turn may be applied to cases in the future, has run the risk of obscuring rather than exposing the value systems that underpin an approach to spatial planning. In this respect a catch-all concept like amenity is classic: it has covered, variously, aesthetic values, environmental protection and the rights of people to be shielded from the activities of their neighbours” (Philip Booth, ‘The Control of Discretion: Planning and the Common-Law Tradition’ (2007) 6(2) Planning Theory 143). And further: “...application is the same: we recognize amenity or material considerations when we see them and successive examples allow decision-makers, be they administrative or judicial, to re˂ne and indeed modify the initial concept” (Ibid., 142). 93 Malcolm Grant, ‘Planning Law and the British Planning System’ (1992) 63 Town Planning Review 3. 94 Barrie Needham, Planning Law and Economics: An Investigation of the Rules We Make for Using Land (Routledge/RTPI 2006). 95 Ratcliffe and others (n 91). 96 Such a case is, for instance, a yearly objective of the government that at least 60% of new buildings are built in developed areas (Department for Communities and Local Government, Planning Policy Statement: Planning Policy and Climate Change (Supplement to Planning Policy Statements 1, COM 05006, 2006)). 326 DIGNITAS n Razprave of the significance of sustainable development in England has emerged inter alia from the recognition by governments at four summit conferences organised under the auspices of the Uni- ted Nations: in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro (the so-called Rio confe- rence), in 1998 in Kyoto, in 2002 in Johannesburg (the World Summit on Sustainable Development) and in 2007 in Bali (Cli- mate Change Conference). Recognition of the threat posed by climate change to life on Earth and of its anthropogenic causes triggered the adoption of a series of legally binding objectives 97 concerning the reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases by the Government of the United Kingdom (hereinafter called the government). Likewise, the government identified a number of even more ambitious but legally non-binding tasks in order to reduce harmful influences on the environment to, as Flannery states, achieve stabilisation of the climate sufficient to prevent extreme weather and associated population movements across the planet. 98 This governmental policy is clearly reflected in the planning field. 99 In 2005, in Planning Policy Statement 1 the go- vernment presented a set of guidelines and principles on natio- nal spatial policy which clearly indicate the priority given by the government to the struggle against climate change as compared to other objectives of land development policy. 100 , 101 This com- mitment is clearly reflected in the wording of one of the most important laws in the field of spatial planning in England: the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, which in Chapter 39 97 For instance, a commitment based on Kyoto Protocol 1998 (Framework Protocol on Climate Chan- ge) to reduce the national production of greenhouse gases by a figure of 12.5 percent so that by the period 2008–2012 the volume of such emissions would be reduced to 1990 levels. 98 Tim Flannery, The Weather Makers: The History and Future Impact of Climate Change (Allen Lane 2006). 99 Local government is responsible for the day-to-day implementation of the public interest in spatial planning by means of the production of local policy and determination of planning applications. The national government dictates the overall structure and direction of the system by enacting legislation that dictates exactly what needs consent and how local policy shall be produced as well as produ- cing national policy guidance to set out more detail on acceptable forms of development. Thus, the national government enjoys a detailed level of intervention to set up the system (by legislation) and influence its outcomes (by planning policy statements; (PPS)). National government departments, in particular the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, hold responsibility for the policy outcomes of the planning system. The Secretary of State issues Planning Policy Statements and Circulars containing the views of the Secretary of State on a wide variety of political areas. These documents constitute important material considerations and must be taken into account in decisions on planning applications and appeals. 100 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Develo- pment (2005). 101 The objective of a long line of measures is, according to Ratcliffe and others (n 91) 25, among others the stabilising of carbon emissions from development (mitigation) and take the unavoidable consequences of climate change (adaptation) into account. 327 DIGNITAS n Citizen involvement in Slovenian spatial planning system: What can we ... provides that spatial planning must at the regional and local le- vel contribute to sustainable development. 102 Ensuring sustainable development and a reduction of the detri- mental impact of climate change are not the only reasons for the government’s decision to initiate fundamental reforms of the Engli- sh planning system. In December 2001 Stephen Byers, the then Sec- retary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions 103 assessed in the Green Paper “Planning: Delivering and Fundamen- tal Change” 104 the previous English system of spatial planning as unsatisfactory and exposed its following deficiencies: - planning is complex, remote, hard to understand and difficult to access; - the planning process is too often perceived to be a set of rules aimed at preventing development rather than making sure good development goes ahead. Communities frequently feel detached from the process and suffer from planning blight. Business fin- ds planning delays frustrating and potentially damaging to their competitiveness; - planning is not customer-focused and local planning depart- ments are overstretched; and - there are too many inconsistencies. Too often local plans are inconsistent with policies set out at the regional or national le- vel, they are too long, inflexible and slow and expensive to pre- pare. 105 Based on the said findings, the Green Paper announced an extensive reform 106 of the spatial planning system with the follo- wing objectives: 102 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 103 As far as the name of the government department competent for spatial management is concer- ned, there were three major modifications in 2001 and 2002: from the Department of the Enviro- nment, Transport and the Regions the competence for spatial management was transferred to the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions and then from this to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Today, the competence lies with the Department for Communities and Local Government. 104 The Oxford English Dictionary gives the following definition for a green paper: “(in the UK) a preliminary report of government proposals, published to stimulate discussion”. A broader definition may be found: a Green Paper is a government publication that details specific issues and then points out possible courses of action in terms of policy and legislation. It is commissioned from the relevant department, if the government feels that there is an area where new legislation is required or existing legislation needs to be renewed. Crucially, a Green Paper contains no commitment to action, it is more a tool of stimulating discussion, but it is often the first step towards changing the law. 105 Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, Planning: Delivering a Fundamental Change (Planning Green Paper, 01PD 0785, 2001). 106 Also the expressions used e.g. “fundamental change” and “radical overhaul” reflect the great ambi- tions of the UK government in planning the spatial management system’s renewal. 328 DIGNITAS n Razprave • to simplify the plan hierarchy, reducing the number of tiers and clarifying the relationships between them; • to deliver shorter, better focused plans at the local level, whi- ch can be adopted and revised more quickly; • to engage the community more closely in the process of plan preparation; and • to improve integration with other local strategies and plans. 107 A similar orientation is set out in a planning policy statement from July 2002 entitled “Sustainable communities: Delivering thro- ugh planning”. The document was prepared by the office of the Deputy Prime Minister, then responsible for spatial planning and management, and includes the five criteria from the Green Paper the renewed system should fulfil to meet the objectives of spatial planning renewal in England: • to deliver in a sustainable way the key to the government’s objectives such as housing, economic development, transport in- frastructure and rural regeneration whilst protecting the enviro- nment; • to create and sustain mixed and inclusive communities; • to be transparent so that the right decisions are taken more quickly, with a set of rules that everyone can understand; • to enable local communities to be involved much more posi- tively than before; and • to deliver a higher quality and better respected public servi- ce. 108 Two years later, in 2004 the UK parliament adopted the Plan- ning and Compulsory Purchase Act which, according to Allmen- dinger and Tewdwr-Jones, is the most significant element of planning reform in the first ten years of Labour, which complete- ly reformed the planning policy and strategy-making function at national, regional, sub-regional, and local levels. 109 This law intro- duced a two-stage system of “Regional Spatial Strategies” 110 (RSSs) which replaced the former Regional Planning Guidance and 107 Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions (n 105) 15. 108 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Sustainable Communities: Delivering Through Planning (Po- licy Statement, 02PD 00393, 2002) 2. 109 Phil Allmendinger and Mark Tewdwr Jones, ‘Embracing Change and Difference in Planning Re- form: New Labour’s Role for Planning in Complex Times’ (2009) 24 (1) Planning Practice & Research 75. 110 Hereinafter referred to as RSSs. 329 DIGNITAS n Citizen involvement in Slovenian spatial planning system: What can we ... the “Local Development Frameworks”, 111 (LDFs) which in turn replaced the former “Structure Plans”, “Local Plans” and “Unita- ry Development Plans”. The so-called Regional Planning Bodi- es 112 are competent for the preparation of RSSs, whereas local authorities are responsible for the preparation of LDFs making sure that the guidelines from RSS are properly observed. LDF re- presents an umbrella term, covering a raft of local development documents. 113 It must contain Development Plan Documents, 114 a Statement of Community Involvement, an Annual Monitoring Report and a Sustainability Appraisal. Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) are not part of the statutory plan, but will provide more detail on policies contained in LDDs. They are not subject to examination, but are subject to public consultation and a sustainability appraisal. SPDs replace the Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) of the old system. 115 The government recommendations in the field of spatial planning – Planning Po- licy Guidance Notes – were replaced by Planning Policy State- ments. 116 Further changes in the spatial planning system in England with a special emphasis on public participation will be discussed next. 111 Hereinafter referred to as LDFs 112 Until 31 March 2010 there were eight regional assemblies indirectly elected from among members of the county and district councils and unitary authorities in each region, while the remaining one- third were appointees from other regional interest groups. The regional assemblies were abolished on the said date. The competence for preparation of RSSs are, except for the City of London (their sui generis regional and local authorities act on the basis of the applicable provisions of the Grea- ter London Authority Act 1999 and the competence for preparing RSSs is with the Greater London Authority), shifted to Regional Development Agencies under the guidance of a new Local Authority Leaders’ Board. 113 Ratcliffe and others (n 91) 7. 114 These include Core Strategy, Site Specific Allocations of land, a Proposals Map and it may also contain other Development Plan Documents such as Area Action Plans. 115 Hull City Council – HDF Planning Services, ‘Briefing Note 1: The New Development Plan System’ (briefing note, Hull Development Framework 2007) 5. 116 Planning Policy Guidance notes, and their replacements Planning Policy Statements, are prepared by the Government after public consultation to explain statutory provisions and provide guidance to local authorities and others on planning policy and the operation of the planning system. They also explain the relationship between planning policies and other policies which have an important bearing on issues of development and land use. Local authorities must take their contents into acco- unt when preparing plans. The guidance may also be relevant to decisions on individual planning applications and appeals. 330 DIGNITAS n Razprave 9. New Labour, a planning system overhaul and citizen participation In 1997, the UK government was for the first time in 18 years in the hands of the Labour Party. The New Right narrative that had underpinned policy thinking during previous governments had stressed the importance of the market, the role of the indivi- dual, and had consequently underplayed the role of participati- on in public policy delivery and decision making. 117 In contrast, much of New Labour’s discourse in all policy arenas emphasi- sed the renewal of democracy by empowering communities to be involved in decision making about services that affect their lives. 118 From 1997 to 2010, the New Labour government empha- sised its commitment to involving citizens in a wide range of policy decisions relating to health, education, employment and urban regeneration. Further, some authors such as Albrechts even suggest that participation has become integral to the deli- very of public services, as governments attempt to involve citi- zens in decision making through processes of consultation and engagement. 119 , 120 The Green Paper of 2001 inter alia emphasises the need for the stronger involvement of citizens in decision making procedu- res on spatial development. It already asserts in the introduction: “People feel they are not sufficiently involved in decisions that af- fect their lives. So it is time for change”. 121 Later it is admitted that 117 Andrew Thornley, Urban Planning under Thatcherism: The Challenge of the Market (Routledge 1993). 118 Robert Imrie and Mike Raco (eds.), Urban Renaisance? New Labour, Community and Urban Policy (Policy Press 2003); Juliet Carpenter and Susan Brownill, ‘Approaches to Democratic Involvement: Widening Community Engagement in the English Planning System’ (2008) 9(2) Planning Theory & Practice 227. 119 Louis Albrechts, ‘The Planning Community Reflects on Enhancing Public Involvement’ (2002) 3(3) Planning Theory & Practice 332. 120 In respect of the green paper of the conservative party (The Conservative Party, Open Source Planning Green Paper, Policy Green Paper No. 14 (Conservative Party 2010)) of February 2010 – a few months before the parliamentary elections in which the party won the majority and formed a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats – Haseltine’s position (see Michael Haseltine, ‘Cities Renaissance: Creating Local Leadership’ (submission to the Shadow Cabinet, Cities Taskforce of the Conservative Party 2007) that commitment to public participation has become a permanent feature of English politics, might be confirmed. The said document entitled Open Source Planning contains an outline of the system of spatial planning as conceived by the Conservative Party, namely it specifies community involvement and collaborative design as one of the essential elements of spatial planning. It is stated in the introductory chapter that “to establish successful democracy, we need participation and social engagement” and “our conception of local planning is rooted in civic engagement and collaborative democracy...” (Ibid.). 121 Department of Transport, Local Government and The Regions (n 105) 1. 331 DIGNITAS n Citizen involvement in Slovenian spatial planning system: What can we ... the previous spatial planning system had been “very consultative, but had despite that, too often failed to engage the communities”. It further concludes: “The result of all this is that the community feels disempowered”. 122 The governmental appraisal of the situa- tion, according to Kitchen and Whitney, makes an important dis- tinction between the existence of the quantity of public participa- tion exercises and the ability of those exercises to engage people effectively in planning decision making. 123 In respect of this, the said government document defines three deficiencies of the then system: • procedures that lead to the adoption of a plan can be so pro- tracted that few community organisations or businesses with an interest can afford to sustain their involvement. There is a percep- tion that the system favours those with the deepest pockets and the greatest stamina; • planning committees can make decisions on planning appli- cations without the applicants or significant objectors having an opportunity to present their case; • some planning procedures are legalistic and effective par- ticipation tends to demand at least some specialist knowledge. People who are inexpert in the workings of the system find this difficult and sometimes community organisations can find it hard to present their case without access to professional advice. 124 Based on these findings, the government promises in the Gre- en Paper to deliver a “system, which better engages communities. We propose real community participation…”. 125 The Planning Poli- cy Statement of 2002, which sets stakeholder participation in plan- ning as one of the priority objectives of the planning reform, 126 also announces some concrete changes in planning legislation such as the introduction of a Statement of Community Involve- ment. 127 122 Ibid. 123 Ted Kitchen and David Whitney, ‘Achieving More Effective Public Engagement with the English Planning System’(2004) 19(4) Planning Practice & Research 396. 124 Ibid. 125 Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions (n 105) 6. 126 “...better community involvement which takes into account the needs of all those with a stake in the system” (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (n 108) 2). This designation is more definite than in the majority of other governmental documents on reform of the spatial planning system as it does not speak of communities but of the stakeholders. What is important here is the interest that an individual or a group of individuals or any other subject (e.g. enterprises or non-governmental organisations) have in a certain plan or construction. 127 “...Statement of Community Involvement... will set out benchmarks for community participation in the preparation of LDF documents and significant planning applications” (ibid). 332 DIGNITAS n Razprave Before the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act entered into force, the government published another programming document in February 2004 entitled “Community Involvement in Planning: The Government’s Objectives”. As the introduction to the docu- ment, setting out the government’s objectives for community in- volvement in planning, states: “Planning shapes the places where people live and work. So it is right that people should be enabled and empowered to take an active part in the process. Strengthe- ning community involvement is a key part of the Government’s planning reforms”. 128 Further on in the text, the government presents the reasons for its endeavours for more participative spatial planning: • involvement leads to outcomes that better reflect the views and aspirations and meet the needs of the wider community in all its diversity; • public involvement is valuable as a key element of a vibrant, open and participatory democracy; • involvement improves the quality and efficiency of decisions by drawing on local knowledge and minimising unnecessary and costly conflict; • involvement educates all participants about the needs of communities, the business sector and how local government works; and • involvement helps promote social cohesion by making real connections with communities and offering them a tangible stake in decision making. 129 The reforms set out a number of ways through which greater involvement is to be achieved: • Through the preparation and implementation of Statements of Community Involvement 130 by all local planning authorities. 131 These set out each LPA’s policy on involvement in plan making and development control which meet the statutory requirements as well as setting out proposals to meet the needs of particular areas. • Through other regulations and guidance on consultation on planning documents, e.g. regional plans and LDFs. 128 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Community Involvement in Planning: The Government’s Objectives (04PD 01989, 2004) 1. 129 Ibid 4. 130 hereinafter referred to as SCIs. 131 hereinafter referred to as LPAs. 333 DIGNITAS n Citizen involvement in Slovenian spatial planning system: What can we ... • Through “joining up” 132 with other relevant strategies, in par- ticular the Sustainable Community Strategy. • Through capacity building, including investment in the Plan- ning Aid service to ensure the engagement of previously exclu- ded groups. • Through culture change amongst all parties (planners, de- velopers and community leaders) to promote greater involve- ment. 133 In 2004 another government document was published. It amended and defined in detail the planned government measu- res referring to the overhaul of the normative framework and po- licies in the field of participation in spatial planning. It was called “Planning Policy Statement 12” which, among others, introduced the principle of so-called front loading. 134 The argumentation un- derlying this term is that if a strong emphasis is placed upon work in the early stages of the plan making process, the later stages will run more smoothly. This involves a local authority ensuring that a robust evidence base is collected. It also requires the early and effective involvement of key delivery stakeholders and the com- munity. This should ensure there are fewer objections to the plan or issues arising at a late stage. Front loading should also offer people and organisations an opportunity to influence plan con- tent by sharing their knowledge and views with planners. Whe- re consensus is difficult to achieve, front loading should allow the maximum opportunity for participants to understand each 132 “Joining up” is a term that Tom Ling (‘Delivering joined-up Government in the UK: Dimensions, Problems and Issues’ (2002) 80(4) Public Administration 617) defines as a group of responses to the perception that services had become fragmented and that this fragmentation was preventing the achievement of important goals of public policy. This perception grew in prominence in the mid- 1990s and has remained an important part of the thinking behind public sector reform. It is based on the view that important goals of public policy cannot be delivered through the separate activities of existing organisations but neither can they be delivered by creating a new “super agency”. It there- fore seeks to align the activities of formally separate organisations towards particular goals of public policy. Therefore, joined-up working aims to coordinate activities across organisational boundaries without removing the boundaries themselves. These boundaries are inter-departmental, central–lo- cal, and sectoral (corporate, public, voluntary/community). To join up, initiatives must align orga- nisations with different cultures, incentives, management systems and aims. Therefore, “joined-up government” is an umbrella term describing various ways of aligning formally distinct organisations in pursuit of the objectives of the government of the day. 133 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Community Involvement in Planning: The Government’s Objectives (04PD 01989, 2004). 134 The said document substantiates the principle with the words: “Local planning authorities should take key decisions early in the preparation of local development documents. The aim will be to seek consensus on essential issues early in the preparation of local development documents and so avoid late changes being made” (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Planning Policy Statement 12: Local Development Frameworks (2004) 1). 334 DIGNITAS n Razprave other’s positions and to negotiate. This means that any issues are clearly understood by the time documents are subject to examina- tion. While this increases the workload in the early stages of plan making, it should, however, increase the overall efficiency of the process and the quality of plans a local authority produces. 135 Besides front loading, the document also classifies the prin- ciple of continuing involvement, the principle of transparency and accessibility and the principle of planning the participation already at the beginning of preparation of a spatial plan or of the development approval process as the most important principles regarding the participation of the public in spatial planning. Here the need is emphasised to adapt the level of intensity and public involvement methods to the nature of the particular decision ma- king process and the circumstances in which it is carried out. The document contends that it is impossible to speak of ‘one size fits all’ solutions. Whilst seeking an adequate method and te- chnique for an individual case, the document advises that deci- sion makers should contact an agency such as Planning Aid (see below for more details). 9a. Planning Aid Writers have long recognised that participation in planning is influenced by structural inequalities in power, along the lines of class, income, ethnicity, gender and other dimensions of diversity. Therefore, any efforts to increase participation need to address existing inequalities. The ways in which participation processes can themselves influence the construction of groups within the “public” such as “the hard to reach” 136 or “usual suspects” have been a further area of attention. 137 The government was obviously 135 Planning Advisory Service, (2009) ‘CLG Plan Making Manual’ (Planning Advisory Service, 2009) accessed 17 August 2011. 136 Many terms are used in government documents and the relevant literature to designate such gro- ups and individuals. The most frequent of these are: “hard to reach”, “excluded”, “disadvantaged”, “underrepresented” and “marginalised”. As one can see in the present paper, the definition of these groups by the former English government is comparatively wide as the criterion inter alia takes gender, race, physical mobility, age and social background into account. Accordingly the Royal Town Planning Institute (hereinafter referred to as RTPI) defines “disadvantaged groups” as “people on low incomes, unemployed people, minority ethnic communities, women and women’s groups, disabled people and disability groups, older people, children and young people, tenants groups, community groups and voluntary organisations” (Royal Town Planning Institute (n 90) 6). 137 Yasminah Beebeejaun, ‘What’s in a Nation? Constructing Ethnicity in the British Planning System’ (2004) 5(4) Planning Theory and Practice 437; Robert Imrie, Disability and the City (Paul Chapman 1998). 335 DIGNITAS n Citizen involvement in Slovenian spatial planning system: What can we ... aware of the said debates as Community Involvement in Planning: The Government’s Objectives of 2004 Concerning Marginalised Groups states: “Our aim is that planning should provide opportu- nities for people irrespective of age, sex, ability, ethnicity or back- ground... to make their views known and have their say in how their community is planned and developed”. 138 Already a year be- fore, by ensuring public financing of the Project Aid Service, the government had indicated it was adamant to stimulate, with conc- rete measures by providing necessary funding for their fulfilment, the stronger involvement of marginal groups and individuals in the spatial planning system. In 1973, the Town and Country Planning Association commen- ced carrying out the Planning Aid Project with the aim to “em- power local communities by helping them to effectively engage with the planning process and influence decisions that affect their neighbourhood”. 139 The users of this service should above all be “people who would otherwise be excluded from participating in local decision making”. 140 In the 1990s, the management of this in- dependent organisation was assumed by the RTPI. 141 The English government announced it would join the funding of Planning Aid services in the abovementioned Green Paper. In 2003 the gover- nment allocated £3.8 million for a period of a further three years, for the years from 2006 to 2008 funding amounted to £3.3 million, for 2007 and 2008 to £1.7 million, although for 2008 and 2009 £3.2 million. In 2009 and 2010 the sum contributed by the Department for Communities and Local Government already amounted to £4.1 million, while in 2010 and 2011 the sum rose to £4.5 million. This funding continued until March 2011 when the new coalition government abolished the financing of such services. 142 The operations of Planning Aid England may be divided into two main fields. The first one covers free of charge counselling 138 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (n 128). 139 Royal Town Planning Institute, ‘What planning does’, (Royal Town Planning Institute Official Web- site)) accessed: 1 March 2011. 140 Ibid. 141 For the area of London a separate independent charity is in charge of the project. In the present paper we focus on Planning Aid England only, even though the service is performed separately by organisations in Scotland, Ireland and Wales. Planning Aid England has professional staff and volun- teers in all nine regions of England and in London. 142 From now on, the RTPI must put up a candidature at yearly invitations to apply for funding from budget to proceed with the Planning Aid England project. Thus, on 14 April 2011 the RTPI released information that it had been granted funding in the amount of one million pounds by the Depart- ment for Communities and Local Government in partnership with Planning Aid for London to carry out the project for a period of one year (Royal Town Planning Institute (n 139)). 336 DIGNITAS n Razprave to disadvantaged individuals and groups on their possibilities of participating in spatial planning processes. For this purpose, RTPI has a special phone line served by expert volunteers. For those individuals or groups that cannot afford to pay, the counselling is cost-free. Planning Aid England follows individual cases over longer periods of time and assists users with expert advice and by representing their interests in specific decision-making pro- cedures. Another field is so-called community planning. This is defined by the RTPI as “...the strategies, techniques and capacity building required to encourage and enable communities to take a full and active role in both the statutory and non statutory plan- ning processes”. 143 In this area, Planning Aid has a proactive, chie- fly emancipatory role since by strengthening bonds and building partnerships with communities its environmental and spatial edu- cation and training stimulates often excluded groups and indivi- duals to more actively participate in planning processes. Accor- ding to Reeves and Burley, the objective of such activities is that “... communities and individuals become empowered to act in their own best interests, acknowledging their own perceptions and va- lues rather than those of the professional planners”. 14 4 9b. Statement of community involvement The Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) is probably one of the most important new institutes for ensuring the public’s better involvement in spatial planning. It requires local planning authorities to set out their intentions and procedures regarding participation in the local plan-making process and development control. This is one of the ways of pursuing the principle of frontloa- ding, as a form of consensus-seeking; overcoming differences ear- ly on the planning process. The Planning and Compulsory Pur- chase Act of 2004 had until the legislative changes in 2008 provi- ded that the Statement of Community Involvement is the subject of independent review by a person appointed by the Secretary of State. According to Moore, as a rule this would have been an In- spector drawn from the Planning Inspectorate (see below). 145 143 Ibid. 14 4 Dory Reeves and Ken Burley, ‘Public Inquiries and Development Plans in England: The Role of Planning Aid’ (2002) 17(4) Planning Practice & Research 413. 145 Victor Moore, A Practical Approach to Planning Law (11th edition, Oxford University Press 2010). 337 DIGNITAS n Citizen involvement in Slovenian spatial planning system: What can we ... The government recommendation in Planning Policy State- ment 12 of 2008, among others, defines more in detail the purpo- se and foreseen contents of the Statement of Community Involve- ment: • To clearly explain the process and methods for community involvement for different types of local development documents and for the different stages of plan preparation. This needs to in- clude details of how the diverse sections of the community are engaged, in particular those groups which have been underrepre- sented in previous consultation exercises. • To identify which umbrella organisations and community groups need be involved at different stages of the planning pro- cess, with special consideration given to those groups not normal- ly involved. • To explain the process and appropriate methods for effecti- ve community involvement in the determination of planning ap- plications and, where appropriate, refer to Planning Performance Agreements. • To include information on how the SCI will be monitored, evaluated and scrutinised at the local level. • To include details of where community groups can obtain more information on the planning process, for example, from Planning Aid and other voluntary organisations. • To identify how landowner and developer interests will be engaged. 146 The introduction of the Statement of Community Involvement and the extensive recommendations shows the efforts on the part of the government for early and planned involvement, with the active participation of civil society organisations such as non-go- vernmental organisations and Planning Aid. Similar goals were undoubtedly pursued by the other changes of policies and of the normative framework. How successful these endeavours prove to be, which obstacles still have to be overcome and what changes in the field of participation lay ahead will be discussed in the next chapter. 146 Department for Communities and Local Government, Planning Policy Statement 12: Local Spatial Planning (2008) 15. 338 DIGNITAS n Razprave 10. Public participation, competitiveness and speed – a meta-narrative against the pragmatic approach Some analysts of the English spatial planning system reform be- lieve that it actually represents the transition from a representative model of democracy to a deliberative representative participative model. 147 This is also maintained by the British government which in its programming document of 2004 called Community Invol- vement in Planning: The Government’s Objectives talks about “… vibrant, open and participatory democracy…”. 148 The participative model of democracy has emerged in the field of spatial planning in the framework of communicative and collaborative theories of spatial planning. 149 Both concepts, based on the principles of Habermas’ “ideal speech situation” attribute considerable signi- ficance to dialogue, the search for consensus and involvement of stakeholders. However, the position of some theorists 15 0 who point to hybri- dity as one of the key characteristics of New Labour politics seems to be more convincing. In the area of planning, this is manifested in a combination of governmental strategies, incentives and legi- slative changes based on different, sometimes contradictory prin- ciples. Thus, for instance, the majority of performance indicators determined by the English government as criteria for granting funding to local planning authorities within the framework of the Planning Delivery Grant fund and the Best Value programme re- late to the speed of decision making and quality of design. 151 With regard to participation, there are no incentives or rewards for the activities of local authorities exceeding the preparation of the Statement of Community Involvement. 15 2 However, this changed 147 For example, Marian Barnes and others, ‘The Micro Politics of Deliberation: Case Studies in Public Participation’ (2004) 10(2) Contemporary Politics 93. 148 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (n 128). 149 Patsy Healey, Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies (MacMillan 1997). 150 Kitchen and Whitney (n 123); Brownill and Carpenter (n 118); Mike Raco, ‘Sustainable Develo- pment, rolled out Neoliberalism and Sustainable Communities’ (2005) 37(2) Antipode 324; Janet Newman, Modernising Governance: New Labour, Policy and Society (Sage 2001). 151 Emphasising the speed of decision making is, according to the appraisal of numerous represen- tatives of local planning authorities, a huge barrier to successful participation procedures. Kitchen and Whitney (n 121) carried out a survey among representatives of five English planning authorities and the opinion of 71 percent of the respondents was that it is “not very easy” or “not easy at all” to implement the government requirements to accelerate the procedures of decision making and increase the participation of the public in them. 152 Hereinafter referred to as SCI. 339 DIGNITAS n Citizen involvement in Slovenian spatial planning system: What can we ... with the adoption of Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, Section 138 of which requires that councils “embed a culture of engagement and empowerment” and ensure consultation with – and the involvement of – representatives of local persons across all authority functions. This so-called duty to involve is a legal foundation for granting funding in the frame- work of the Best Value programme also according to the quality of assuring public participation. Yet in April 2011 the coalition go- vernment announced it was repealing the duty to involve. More- over, the Labour governmental documents on one hand promote more active public participation while on the other they let the rate of participation conform to “particular local circumstances” (the “what works” approach) which, as Leach and Wingfield warn, provides an opportunity for authorities which do not accept the importance of public participation to marginalise it or pay it lip- service. 15 3 Instead of more specific instructions to the local plan- ning authorities, the documents promote the exchange of good practices. The lack of more detailed requirements referring to SCI in the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, according to Brewer and Alexander who performed extensive research on im- plementation of the SCI, resulted in varying performances betwe- en the local communities. 15 4 Some local planning authorities are committed to more intensive, high quality consulting procedures, although many of them will be satisfied with the SCI prepared in accordance with minimal legal requirements. Such oscillations are, according to Brownill and Carpenter, enhanced by the 2006 legislative changes which did away with the requirement for an independent review by the competent Planning Inspector. 15 5 Another main focus of the English planning reform is so-called frontloading, which should mean the earliest possible involvement of the public in the procedures to prepare planning documents. This is how the (virtual?) contradiction between speed and partici- pativeness in spatial planning, the two most often emphasised aims of the said reform, should be bridged. With early participation, dif- 153 Steve Leach and Melvin Wingfield, ‘Public Participation and the Democratic Renewal Agenda: Pri- oritisation or Marginalisation?’ Local Government Studies (1999) 25(4) 47. 15 4 Kate Brewer and David Alexander, ‘Accessing the Emerging SCIs’ (2007) 75(2) Town and Country Planning 47. 155 Susan Brownill and Juliet Carpenter, ‘Increasing Participation in Planning: Emergent Experiences of the Reformed Planning System in England’ (2007) 22(4) Planning Practice & Research 619. 340 DIGNITAS n Razprave ferences in opinions should be ironed out and a consensus sho- uld be sought at the very beginning of the procedure to make sure that it can then run more quickly. A case study carried out by the Oxford Brooks University in 2004 on the basis of a Cowley Road Matters project that took place for six months and where, with a substantial subsidy from the Department of Transport 15 6 some in- novative mechanisms of public involvement were tested (e.g. par- ticipatory video, planning for real, workshops with marginalised groups), shows that frontloading may in practice have unwanted effects. Individuals and groups with more social power, above all local entrepreneurs, waited for the official stage of preparation of spatial documents and only then presented their views and succe- eded to assert their solutions that they had never mentioned at the introductory consultation with the public. Representatives of the community later admitted they had paid less attention to the sta- tutory elements, thinking their views had already been taken into account through the extensive early consultation. 157 Here we encounter a frequent difficulty where participative decision making collides with restrictions represented by power and hierarchy. Similar barriers are faced by Planning Aid, whose data show that the share of representatives of ethnic minorities and of coloured people who turn to this supportive office is com- paratively small (approximately 1 percent). 15 8 The reasons for this cannot be found on the part of Planning Aid, but with the exclu- ded groups themselves. Beebeejaun points out that: “…encoura- ging greater participation of marginalised groups without consi- deration of power relations between and within groups does not safeguard values of equality, nor should it be presumed to do so. Participation does not offer a panacea for embedded racial and ethnic inequalities. These inequalities are interwoven into the fa- bric of our societies”. 15 9 156 The aim of the project was to harmonise the opposing interests concerning the use of a road in Oxford by means of the modern innovative mechanism of participation. The accent was, similarly as with the new spatial legislation in England, on frontloading, seeking the consent of all stakeholders and in involving marginalised groups and individuals (for more on the project, see Oxford Broo- kes University, ‘Interim Evaluation of Cowley Road Matters’ (Report to East Oxford Action, Oxford Brookes University 2005) and Oxford Brookes University, ‘Final Evaluation of Cowley Road Matters’ (Report to East Oxford Action, Oxford Brookes University 2006)). 157 Ibid. 158 National Planning Aid Unit ‘Year 4 National Quarterly Monitoring Report April 2006–March 2007’ (report, NPAU 2007). 159 Yasminah Beebeejaun, ‘The Participation Trap: The Limitations of Participation for Ethnic and Racial Groups’ (2006) 11(1) International Planning Studies 15. 341 DIGNITAS n Citizen involvement in Slovenian spatial planning system: What can we ... As in the case of many Slovenian municipalities (see above), one of the difficulties faced by many English LPAs is “culture chan- ge”. The change in fixed views on the part of spatial planners is not an easy task which is inter alia shown by the research of Durning and Glasson. 160 In their research, 24 percent of the surveyed repre- sentatives of local authorities attribute difficulties in cooperation with the community to a lack of knowledge and skills on the part of authorities’ planning staff. Carley and Bayley also maintain that one of the biggest challenges is that the organisational culture of local authority bureaucracies is seldom receptive to genuine par- ticipation and that elected councillors may view systematic parti- cipation as a threat to their role. 161 The above clearly shows the contradictions inside the objec- tives and policies in the field of spatial planning in the time of New Labour governments. These contradictions are also visible in other fields of governance and reflect the dynamics of the times we live in. The developmental challenges and ever more burning question of climate change are causing increased poli- tical requirements for speed and efficiency in planning proce- dures. 162 This trend is also reflected in some recent changes to planning legislation for major infrastructure of national impor- tance. Thus, the British Parliament passed the Planning Act of 2008 which contains a number of changes in the field of public participation in spatial planning of nationally significant infra- structure projects such as ports, energy systems, airports and ro- ads. Cotton argues that the Act was developed within the politi- cal context of government concerns over the lengthy and costly arrangements for approving Terminal 5 at Heathrow airport, which was opened in 2008, following the longest planning inqui- ry in UK history. 163 The law established a special independent Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC), 164 , 165 which would 160B ridget Durning and John Glasson, ‘Skills Base in the Planning System’ (literature review, Local Government Association 2004). 161 Michael Carley and Rosalind Bayley, ‘Urban Extensions, Planning and Participation: Lessons from Derwenthorpe and other New communities’ (research project report, Joseph Rowntree Foundation 2009) 29. 162 Phil Allmendinger and Mark Tewdwr Jones, ‘Embracing Change and Difference in Planning Reform: New Labour’s Role for Planning in Complex Times’ (2009) 24(1) Planning Practice & Research 71. 163 Matthew Cotton, ‘Public Participation in UK Infrastructure Planning: Democracy, Technology and Environmental Justice’ (Flexnet, 12 May 2010) accessed 28 September 2011. 164 Hereinafter referred to as the IPC. 165 The coalition government announced they were to abolish the IPC in April 2012 as the commission is composed of non-elected members and is therefore considered not democratic by the coalition 342 DIGNITAS n Razprave be competent for examining applications for development con- sent for nationally significant infrastructure projects and for deciding on such applications when a relevant national policy statement would be in force. This procedure was previously a competence of local governments. There would also have been a public examination, with the cross-examination of witnesses and the Secretary of State would take the final decision after ha- ving assembled all the information and did not have to accept the recommendations made by the planning inquiry as the in- spector, provided they gave good reason. In the new system, evidence is considered by the IPC primarily in writing, unless it chooses to hold an oral evidence session. The introduction of the IPC clearly shows the government’s renewed emphasis on delivery. The new system should save time and costs and ena- ble a clear distinction between policy making and decision ma- king. These changes mean, according to numerous authors 166 , the prevalence of the technocratic views on spatial planning and giving priorities to economic competitiveness before the demands of social involvement and environmental protection and placing the will of the central government before the will of local communities. Further changes in the English spatial planning system were commenced by the coalition government upon taking over office in spring 2010. Already soon after elections the new British gover- nment announced radical changes to planning legislation. The most significant change is the Localism Bill, which (at the time of writing) is in the final stage of parliamentary procedure, and will abrogate regional spatial planning and transfer some spatial planning competencies from the government to local communities. It extends the possibilities of local referendum, which previously could only be issued under very strict condi- tions. Further, it offers some new possibilities for public partici- pation in spatial planning at the local level such as, for instance, neighbourhood planning, intended for the population of nar- rower parts of municipalities. 167 In view of the fact that the legal changes of the coalition government have only recently been government. It is proposed that the acceptance and examination of applications for development consent will be dealt with by a new unit within the Planning Inspectorate. 166 Cotton (n 163); Allmendinger and Tewdwr Jones (n 162); Phil Allmendinger and Graham Haugh- ton, ‘Critical Reflection on Spatial Planning’ (2009) 41(11) Environment and Planning A 2544. 167 Royal Town Planning Institute (n 139). 343 DIGNITAS n Citizen involvement in Slovenian spatial planning system: What can we ... made and no detailed scientific debates and studies regarding its impacts have been completed, it will only become clear over time if they signify a step forward in the direction of better qua- lity public participation. 11. Conclusion Maja Simoneti, a planning expert from the Institute for Spatial Policies and one of the outstanding authors on citizen participati- on in spatial planning in Slovenia, concluded the abovementioned conference in the National Council of the Republic of Slovenia in February 2010 with the following words: “It is time for changes to spatial planning” (see above) “… we appeal to those responsible to act at a different level to include citizens in spatial planning affairs in Slovenia both formally and informally and to thereby open a public discourse to such a critical degree that it prevents the situa- tion in spatial planning that we have now”. 168 At least in the professional public this discourse is continuing and demands for changes to both the regulatory framework and the functioning of the public administration are growing ever lou- der. They stem from scientists and other spatial planning experts as well as from the local government level. Thus, Vlaj sees the failu- re to ensure the participation of citizens in decision making con- cerning local public affairs as one of the major reasons for the crisis of Slovenian self-government. 169 One of the basic challenges posed to us by the ever more unpredictable and rapidly changing economic circumstances in the country as well as abroad is the implementation of two apparently incompatible goals: a higher degree of democracy in decision making and sustainable deve- lopment on one hand and economic efficiency and competitive- ness on the other. The above review of the reform processes in the field of citizen participation in spatial planning in England, which according to the rate of democracy in spatial planning is considered one of the most developed in the world, clearly de- monstrates that responses to these challenges are not at all simple and are even less unambiguous. The uncritical trans-positioning of institutes from different bodies of legislation or social and eco- 168 National Council of the Republic of Slovenia, ‘Čas je za spremembe v urejanju prostora’ (Bulletin of the National Council of Slovenia, 2010-04, NCSB 2010) 6. 169 Vlaj (n 56). 344 DIGNITAS n Razprave nomic systems will often fail to produce good solutions. However, knowledge of how these other systems work will direct us to the right path in seeking improvements that suit our demands. And, obviously, there is a lot of space for improvement. If we commence at the top, one of the first conditions sine qua non for successful development of the spatial planning system is recognition of its significance at the level of national policy. In- stead of listening more carefully to their suggestions, of attracting the public and thereby forming a modern legal framework which would last longer than each single government or parliament, the numerous and insufficiently deliberated amendments to the legal framework create unnecessary confusion among planning stake- holders. As emphasised by Marot, if it wishes to ensure successful implementation of the law, the legislator must consider the situati- on of the system – the way it currently functions and the values of the stakeholders, the broader institutional environment, the diffe- rent logics governing how the various regulatory tools and strate- gies work – and changes to any individual part of the system. 170 For instance, the recent legislative interventions were adop- ted without a thorough analysis of the existing spatial planning system. The examination herein of some English legal solutions shows that the former Labour and current coalition government’s opinion is that spatial planning and citizen participation in it are relatively important for economic development and the develo- pment of a democratic culture and its institutions. The legislation itself as well as the guidelines and programmes issued by the com- petent ministries point to this. In spite of the assumed increased significance of governmental guidelines and instructions in the discretionary decision-making system, the fact remains that the Slovenian government is comparatively passive. 171 Also more fun- ding should be assigned to non-governmental organisations, pri- marily for projects of education and stimulating the development of a spatial planning culture. A programme such as Planning Aid which in the spatial planning field offers free of charge assistance 170 Marot (n 19) 37. 171 On the website of the Ministry for Environment and Spatial Planning of the Republic of Slovenia we find only one publication with the subject of public participation in spatial planning and even this one is highly superficial without concrete recommendations to the parties concerned (stakeholders). The British government, on the other hand, regularly publishes recommendations and their contents are much more concrete, providing clear guidelines to the civil servants who implement legislation concerning spatial procedures. 345 DIGNITAS n Citizen involvement in Slovenian spatial planning system: What can we ... to users who are underprivileged is a good example of how inde- pendent professional institutions may on the government’s initia- tive be involved in improving the situation of spatial planning cul- ture. A similar programme as carried out by the Royal Town Plan- ning Institute may, with adequate funding, be carried out by the Urban Planning Institute of the Republic of Slovenia, the Institute for Spatial Policies and others. Perhaps we should go even further and transfer some of the mandates in spatial planning from gover- nment to professional bodies, e.g. to the Urban Planning Institute of the Republic of Slovenia or, as proposed by Simoneti, to form a similar body at the government level. 172 At the level of specific legal arrangements, it would certainly be sensible to oblige the producers of spatial planning documents to take a more active approach in involving citizens in the planning procedure. While some of the provisions of the Act Regarding the Siting of Spatial Arrangements of National Significance in Physical Space (above all in terms of the early involvement of citizens and of its planning in advance) are a step in the right direction, 173 it is probably necessary to introduce a similar institute as the State- ment of Community Involvement, however on the condition that at the same time a system of stimulations be introduced for those (especially at the local level) who demonstrate more innovative- ness in choosing mechanisms for including the public and who also otherwise practice approaches which go beyond meeting the minimal legal requirements and who see in public participation possibilities for improving the quality of decisions and not only a troublesome formality that needs to be fulfilled and left behind as soon as possible (the ‘tick box’ approach). Such stimulative me- chanisms are subject to another set of difficulties facing the Slo- venian spatial planning system. This concerns the government’s attitude to local community governance and the attitude of the latter towards spatial management issues. Even though the present paper does not deal specifically with the English local government reform (which took place in 1999 while a new one whose normative essence is the said Localism 172N ational Council of the Republic of Slovenia (n 168). 173 English law, which regulates this subject, the Planning Act 2008 (see above), adopted only two years before our counterpart law ZUPUDPP, is – contrary to Slovenian law – according to the prevailing opinion of the British professional public a step backwards in terms of public participation, which reminds us of the famous Italian philosopher Gienbattista Vico and his thought on corsi e ricorsi storici. 346 DIGNITAS n Razprave Bill is on the way), based on the above we may draw the conclu- sion that in order to improve the quality of spatial planning in Slovenia we must first improve the quality of local governance. Instead of centralisation, more funding should be allocated to the local communities to ensure they are capable of properly fulfil- ling their tasks. A much greater emphasis should be placed upon devolution and decentralisation. The spatial planning legislation namely often requires local communities to carry out activities which exceed their personnel, financial and organisational capa- bilities. One of the difficulties faced by the current planning staff is the lack of professional knowledge and the fact they are not required to employ at least one municipal town planner. Here we must again mention the possibility that support with knowledge and experience might be offered to the local communities by an independent agency, (co)funded by the central government. We also propose the comprehensive training of planning personnel in contemporary approaches to spatial planning with special at- tention to public participation and stakeholder cooperation. The British government is aware of this and stimulating a so-called culture change. According to some researchers, this is happening (too) slowly even among urban experts themselves. 174 For the more rapid implementation of principles of good governance, the government might do more by following the example of new lo- calism in England. Like in Slovenia where there is more and more criticism of the country’s exaggerated centralisation, 175 similar re- proaches were often addressed to Tony Blair’s government. That is why, when reforming local government, they gave priority to the principle of subsidiarity. With the said programmes, the cen- tral government started to more generously reward the activities of local institutions (Best Value or Planning Delivery Grant in the field of spatial planning). Based on these facts, we may conclude that improving the situ- ation in the field of citizen participation in spatial planning calls for an integral approach. As the example of England shows, the legislative activity does not suffice to ensure a substantial move in the desired direction and to change culture. A lot of attention and funding will have to be allocated to public institutions as well as 174 Kitchen and Whitney (n 123) 411. 175 Vlaj (n 56); Zdravko Mlinar, ‘“Glokalizacija” ali getoizacija lokalne demokracije: Koper, Slovenska Istra in država’ (2000) 37(3) Teorija in praksa 413. 347 DIGNITAS n Citizen involvement in Slovenian spatial planning system: What can we ... to civil society as the change is necessary at all levels. The appro- ach based on greater citizen participation in decision making is usually referred to as the bottom-up approach, but the support for such efforts and the examples of it are rightly to be expected in the top-down direction. BiBliogrAPhy Albrechts L, ‘The Planning Community Reflects on Enhancing Public Involvement’ (2002) 3(3) Plan- ning Theory & Practice 332 Allmendinger P and Haughton G, ‘Critical Reflection on Spatial Planning’ (2009) 41(11) Environment and Planning A 2544 — — and Tewdwr Jones M, ‘Embracing Change and Difference in Planning Reform: New Labour’s Role for Planning in Complex Times’ (2009) 24(1) Planning Practice & Research 71 — — ‘Zoning by Stealth? The Diminution of Discretionary Planning’ (2006) 11(2) International Plan- ning Studies 137 Arnstein SR, ‘A Ladder of Citizen Participation’ (1969) 35(4) Journal of the American Planning Asso- ciation 216 Baker K, Van de Waller S, Skelcher CK, ‘Citizen Support for Increasing the Responsibilities of Local Government in European Countries: A Comparative Analysis’ (2011) 9(1) Lex Localis – Journal of Local Self-Government 1 Barnes M, Knops A, Newman J, Sullivan H, ‘The Micro Politics of Deliberation: Case Studies in Public Participation’ (2004) 10(2) Contemporary Politics 93 Beebeejaun Y, ‘What’s in a Nation? Constructing Ethnicity in the British Planning System’ (2004) 5(4) Planning Theory and Practice 437 Beebeejaun Y, ‘The Participation Trap: The Limitations of Participation for Ethnic and Racial Groups’ (2006) 11(1) International Planning Studies 3 Bherer L, ‘Successful and Unsuccessful Participatory Arrangements: Why is There a Participatory Movement at the Local Level?’ (2010) 32(3) Journal of Urban Affairs 287 Blagajne D and Šantej B, ‘Študija izvajanja prostorske zakonodaje o urejanju naselij, stavbnih zemljišč in graditve objektov’ (study, Environmental Law Institute 2004) Booth P, ‘Zoning or Discretionary Action: Certainty and Responsiveness in Implementing Planning Policy’ (1995) 14 (2) Journal of Planning Education and Research 103 — — ‘The control of Discretion: Planning and the Common-Law tradition’ (2007) 6(2) Planning Theory 127 Brewer K and Alexander D, ‘Accessing the Emerging SCIs’ (2007) 75(2) Town and Country Planning 47 Brezovšek M, ‘Politična participacija, Prispevek k analizi »participativne demokracije«‘ Teorija in prak- sa (1995) 32(3-4) 202 Brezovšek M, ‘Pojmovno-teoretični okvir razvoja lokalne demokracije’ in: Marjan Brezovšek and others (eds.), Lokalna demokracija II. (Fakulteta za družbene vede 2005) Brownill S and Carpenter J, ‘Increasing Participation in Planning: Emergent Experiences of the Refor- med Planning System in England’ (2007) 22(4) Planning Practice & Research 619 — — and Parker G, ‘Why Bother with Good Works? The Relevance of Public Participation(s) in Plan- ning in a Post-collaborative Era’ (2010) 25(3) Planning Practice & Research 275 Carley M and Bayley R, ‘Urban Extensions, Planning and Participation: Lessons from Derwenthorpe and other New Communities’ (research project report, Joseph Rowntree Foundation 2009) Carmona M and Sieh L, Measuring Quality in Planning (Taylor & Francis 2007) Carpenter J and Brownill S, ‘Approaches to Democratic Involvement: Widening Community Engage- ment in the English Planning System’ (2008) 9(2) Planning Theory & Practice 227 Centre for Political Science Research, ‘Stališča o lokalni demokraciji’ (research report, Universitiy of Ljubljana, Faculty of social sciences – Institute for Social Sciences, Centre for Political Science Research 2003) Commission ‘White Paper on European Governance’ COM (2001) 428 final Council of Europe, ‘The Future of Democracy in Europe: Trends, Analyses and Reforms -a Green Paper for the Council of Europe’ (Green Paper, Council of Europe 2004) 348 DIGNITAS n Razprave Creighton JL, The Public Participation Handbook: Making Better Decisions Through Citizen Involve- ment (Jossey Bass 2005) Dahl RA and Tufte ER, Size and Democracy, The Politics of the Smaller European Democracies (Stan- ford University 1973) Dimitrovska-Andrews K and Ploštajner Z, ‘Local Effects of Transformation Processes in Slovenia’ 2000 7(8) Inf.Raumentwicklung 435 Dredge D, ‘Networks, Conflict and Collaborative Communities’ 14(6) 2006 Journal of sustainable tourism 562 Durning B and Glasson J, ‘Skills Base in the Planning System’ (literature review, Local Government Association 2004) Ferfila B, ‘Upravljavska sposobnost in koalicijsko povezovanje v slovenskih občinah’ (research report, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of social sciences – Institute for Social Sciences, Centre for Political Science Research 2008) Flannery T, The Weather Makers: The History and Future Impact of Climate Change (Allen Lane 2006) Golobič M, ‘So vetrne elektrarne problematičen projekt?’ 2005 16(1) Urbani izziv 42 Graham J, Amos B, Plumptre, ‘Principles of Good Governance in the 21st Century’ (Policy Brief No. 15, Institute on Governance 2003) Grant M, ‘Planning Law and the British Planning System’ (1992) 63 Town Planning Review 3 Habermas J, Legitimation Crisis (Beacon Press 1975) Habermas J, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volumes 1 and 2 (Beacon Press 1984, 1987) Haček M, Brezovšek M, Bačlija I, Upravljavska sposobnost in koalicijsko povezovanje v slovenskih občinah (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences 2008) Hague C and Jenkins P, Place Identity, Participation and Planning (Routledge 2005) Haseltine M, ‘Cities Renaissance: Creating Local Leadership’ (submission to the Shadow Cabinet, Cities Taskforce of The Conservative Party 2007) Healey P, Collaborative planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies (MacMillan 1997) — — ‘Building Institutional Capacity through Collaborative Approaches to Urban Planning’ (1998) 30(9) Environment and Planning A 1531 Hull City Council - HDF Planning Services, ‘Briefing Note 1: The New Development Plan System’ (briefing note, Hull Development Framework 2007) Imrie R, Disability and the City (Paul Chapman 1998) Imrie R and Raco M (eds.), Urban Renaisance? New Labour, Community and Urban Policy (Policy Press 2003) Jones M, ‘The European Landscape Convention and the Question of Public Participation’ (2007) 32(5) Landscape Research 613 Kitchen T and Whitney D, ‘Achieving More Effective Public Engagement with the English Planning System’(2004) 19(4) Planning Practice & Research 393 Klemenc A, ‘Krepitev participativne kulture v sloveniji’ (civil society consultation in the National Council of the Republic of Slovenia, Ljubljana, February 2011) Kos Grabar J, ‘Urejanja prostora v Sloveniji na zacetku XXI. stoletja’ (press conference of Slovenian Evaluation Society, Ljubljana February 2009) Kos D, ‘Postmoderno prostorsko planiranje?’ (2003) 40(4) Teorija in praksa 647 — —‘Krepitev participativne kulture v Sloveniji’ (civil society consultation in the National Council of the Republic of Slovenia, Ljubljana, February 2011) Lavtar R, Sodelovanje prebivalcev v slovenskih občinah: participacija prebivalcev pri odločanju o jav- nih zadevah na lokalni ravni v Sloveniji (Inštitut za lokalno samoupravo in javna naročila 2007) Leach S and Wingfield M, ‘Public Participation and the Democratic Renewal Agenda: Prioritisation or Marginalisation?’ Local Government Studies(1999) 25(4) 46 Ling T, ‘Delivering joined-up Government in the UK: Dimensions, Problems and Issues’ (2002) 80(4) Public Administration 615 Lyle JT, Design for Human Ecosystems (Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. 1985) Marot N, ‘Presoja vloge prostorske zakonodaje v slovenskem sistemu prostorskega planiranja’ (DPhil thesis, Universizy of Ljubljana, Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering 2010) — — ‘Upravljavska sposobnost slovenskih občin na področju prostorskega načrtovanja’(2010) 50(1) Acta geographica Slovenica 148 Marušič I, ‘Planiranje’ in Marko Polič and others (eds.), Spoznavni zemljevid Slovenije (University of Ljubljana, Scientific & Research Institute of Faculty of Arts 2002) Mlinar Z, ‘“Glokalizacija” ali getoizacija lokalne demokracije: Koper, Slovenska Istra in država’ (2000) 37(3) Teorija in praksa 413 Moore V, A Practical Approach to Planning Law (11th edition, Oxford University Press 2010) 349 DIGNITAS n Citizen involvement in Slovenian spatial planning system: What can we ... National Council of the Republic of Slovenia, ‘Čas je za spremembe v urejanju prostora’ (Bulletin of the National Council of Slovenia, 2010-04, NCSB 2010) National Planning Aid Unit ‘Year 4 National Quarterly Monitoring Report April 2006- March 2007’ (report, NPAU 2007) Needham B, Planning Law and Economics: An Investigation of the Rules We Make for Using Land (Routledge/RTPI 2006) Nelkin D and Pollak M, ‘Public Participation in Technological Decisions: Reality or Grand Illusion?’ (1979) 81(8) Technology Review 55 Newman J, Modernising Governance: New Labour, Policy and Society (Sage 2001) Norberg Schulz C, Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture (Academy editions 1980) Oliver JE, Democracy in Suburbia (Princeton Univ. Press 2001) Osborne S, The New Public Governance? (Routledge 2010) Oxford Brookes University, ‘Interim Evaluation of Cowley Road Matters’ (Report to East Oxford Ac- tion, Oxford Brookes University 2005) — —‘Final Evaluation of Cowley Road Matters’ (Report to East Oxford Action, Oxford Brookes Uni- versity 2006) Putnam RD, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton University Press 1993) Raco M, ‘Sustainable Development, rolled out Neoliberalism and Sustainable Communities’ (2005) 37(2) Antipode 324 Ratcliffe J, Shepherd M, Stubbs M, Urban Planning and Real Estate Development (Routledge 2009) Ravbar M, ‘Sistem urejanja prostora’ (final report, University of Ljubljana, Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts – Anton Melik Geographical Institute 2003) Reade E, British Town and Country Planning (Open University Press 1987) Rebernik D, ‘Teorija in praksa prostorskega načrtovanja prostorski razvoj mest in širših mestnih območij v Sloveniji’, (2010) 9(33) Dela 111 Reeves D and Burley K, ‘Public Inquiries and Development Plans in England: The Role of Planning Aid’ (2002) 17(4) Planning Practice & Research 407 Rowe G and Frewer LJ, ‘A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms’ (2005) 30(2) Science, Tech- nology & Human Values 251 Royal Town Planning Institute, ‘Education Commission Final Report’ (report, Royal Town Planning Institute 2003) — —‘Planning Aid Main Programme Delivery Plan October 2003–March 2006’ (paper presented to National Planning Aid Programme Board, 1 August, Royal Town Planning Institute 2006) Simonetti M, ‘Izobraževanje za sodelovanje v urejanju prostora’ (2007) 51(2) Geodetski vestnik 366 — — Participativna kultura in prostorsko načrtovanje (Institute for Spatial Policies 2011) Smith BC, The Territorial Dimension of the State, (George Allen 1985) The Conservative Party, Open Source Planning Green Paper, Policy Green Paper No. 14 (The Con- servative Party 2010) Thomas AH, Race and Planning (UCL Press 2000) Thornley A, Urban Planning under Thatcherism: The Challenge of the Market (Routledge 1993) Veneris Y, ‘Reliable Design under Conflicting Social Values’ (1993) 20(2) Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 145 Vlaj S, ‘Lokalna samouprava - demokracija od spodaj navzgor’ (Mednarodni inštitut za bližnjevzhodne in balkanske študije IFIMES, 18 October 2011) ˂http://www.ifimes.org/default. cfm?Jezik=si&Kat=10&ID=632˂ accessed 28 October 2011 Vrabec M, ‘Sodobni modeli demokracije’ (graduate thesis, Faculty of Law, University of Ljubljana 2007) Weaver C, Jessop J, Das V, ‘Rationality in the Public Interest: Notes Toward a New Synthesis’ in M Breheny and A Hooper (eds.), Critical Essays on The Role of Rationality in Urban & Regional Planning (Pion 1985) Weber M, The Sociology of Religion (translation Ephraim Fischoff, introduction Talcott Parsons, Be- acon Books 1964) Wiedemann PM and Femers S, ‘Public Participation in Waste Management Decision Making: Analysis and Management of Conflicts’ (1993) 33(3) Journal of Hazardous Materials 355 Web references Cotton M, ‘Public Participation in UK Infrastructure Planning: Democracy, Technology and Envi- ronmental Justice’ (Flexnet, 12 May 2010) accessed 28 September 2011 350 DIGNITAS n Razprave Planning Advisory Service, (2009) ‘CLG Plan Making Manual’(Planning Advisory Service, 2009) accessed 17 August 2011 Royal Town Planning Institute, ‘What Planning Does’, (Royal Town Planning Institute Official Website) accessed: 1 March 2011 Schipper ELF, ‘Climate Change Adaptation and Development: Exploring the Linkages’, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental Sciences of the University of East Anglia Working Paper 7/2007 accessed 1 February 2011 von Korff Y, ‘Re-focusing Research and Researchers in Public Participation’ (2007) research paper,https:// www.newater.uni-osnabrueck.de/caiwa/data/papers%2520session/J2/ refocusingResearchYvK3. pdf> accessed 2 September 2011. legal references Local Self-Government Act – official consolidated text (ZLS-UPB2, Official Gazette of the RS, Nos. 72/1993, 6/1994, 45/1994, 57/1994, 14/1995, 20/1995, 63/1995, 73/1995, 9/1996, 39/1996, 44/1996, 26/1997, 70/1997, 10/1998, 68/1998, 74/1998, 12/1999 (16/1999 corr.), 36/1999, 59/1999, 70/2000, 94/2000, 100/2000, 28/2001, 87/2001, 16/2002, 51/2002, 108/2003, 77/2004, 72/2005, 100/2005, 21/2006, 14/2007, 60/2007, 94/2007, 27/2008, 76/2008, 100/2008, 79/2009, 14/2010, 51/2010, 84/2010 and 40/2012) Construction Act (ZGO-1, Official Gazette of the RS, Nos. 110/2002, 97/2003, 41/2004, 45/2004, 47/2004, 62/2004, 102/2004 (14/2005 corr.), 92/2005, 93/2005, 111/2005, 120/2006, 126/2007, 57/2009, 108/2009, 61/2010 (62/2010 corr.), 20/2011 and 57/2012) Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, Planning: Delivering a Fundamental Change (Planning Green Paper, 01PD 0785, 2001). Department for Communities and Local Government, Planning Policy Statement: Planning Policy and Climate Change (Supplement to Planning Policy Statements 1, COM 05006, 2006). Department for Communities and Local Government, Planning for a Sustainable Future (White Paper, Cm 7120, 2007) Department for Communities and Local Government, Planning Policy Statement 12: Local Spatial Planning (2008). Environment Protection Act (ZVO-1, Official Gazette of the RS, Nos. 41/2004, 17/2006, 20/2006, 28/2006, 39/2006, 49/2006, 66/2006, 112/2006, 33/2007, 57/2008, 70/2008, 108/2009, 48/2012 and 57/2012) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (2004) Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, Strong and Prosperous Communities (The Local Government White Paper, Cm 6939-I, Cm 6939-II, 2006) Planning Act 2008 (2008) Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (2007) Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Sustainable Communities: Delivering Through Planning (Policy Statement, 02PD 00393, 2002). Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, The Relationship between Community Strategies and Local Deve- lopment Frameworks (Final Report, 2003). Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Community Involvement in Planning: The Government’s Objec- tives (04PD 01989, 2004) Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Planning Policy Statement 12: Local Development Frameworks (2004) Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Best Value Performance Indicators 2005/06: Guidance Document (2005). Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Diversity and Planning: A Good Practice Guide (04PD02692, 2005) Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (2005) Spatial Management Act (ZUreP-1, Official Gazette of the RS, Nos. 110/2002 (8/2003 corr.), 58/2003, 33/2007, 108/2009, 79/2010 and 80/2010 (106/2010 corr.)) Spatial Planning Act (ZPNačrt, Official Gazette of the RS, Nos. 33/2007, 70/2008, 108/2009, 80/2010 (106/2010 corr.), 43/2011, 57/2012 and 57/2012) The Act Regarding the Sitting of Spatial Arrangements of National Significance in Physical Space (ZU- PUDPP, Official Gazette of the RS, Nos. 80/2010 (106/2010 corr.) and 57/2012) United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, June 3–14, 1992, 'Agenda 21 Programme of Action for Sustainable Development' U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151/26 Tranzicija, utrjevanje in krize slovenske demokracije