Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:47:02.739Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

British Town Planning Ideology and the Welfare State

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2009

M. L. Harrison
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper relates the nature of planning thought to the administrative and legal context, and to possible welfare objectives. The question is raised as to whether town planners have become concerned with specific social benefits. An analysis of the preoccupations of planners is made, using data available in Royal Town Planning Institute literature. From branch meetings data, conclusions are drawn as to changing areas of interest. It is noted that planners did not develop a very strong preoccupation with specific social issues over the 1947–71 period. Factors that may have influenced the evolution of professional thought are then examined. In particular, a hypothesis is put forward that the nature of the planning machinery has been such as to deter discussion about specific welfare implications. Other factors have included traditions, alternative preoccupations, and a lack of coherent attempts to link theoretical analyses with implementation. The paper comments briefly upon the town planning approaches that would be necessary if a more definite welfare outcome were desired. Town and country planners have thought in terms of physical development standards mainly because of the character of the land use planning system.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , July 1975 , pp. 259 - 274
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See in particular: Glass, R., ‘The evaluation of planning – some sociological considerations’, U.N. Seminar on Regional Planning, Tokyo, in International Social Science Journal, Vol. XI, no. 3, 1959Google Scholar; Reade, E., ‘Contradictions in planning’, Oficial Architecture and Planning, Vol. 32, no. 10, 1969Google Scholar; Faludi, A., ‘The planning environment and the meaning of planning’, Regional Studies, Vol. 4, no. 1, 05 1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Carr-Saunders, A. and Wilson, P., The Professions, 1933, London: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar, Preface.

3 Halmos, P., The Personal Service Society, London: Constable, 1970, p. 54.Google Scholar

4 See Harrison, M. L., ‘Development Control – The Influence of Political, Legal and Ideological Factors’, Town Planning Review, Vol. 43, no. 3, 07 1972, p. 268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Report of the Town and Country Planning Summer School, 1957, p. 106.Google Scholar

6 Report of the Town and Country Planning Summer School, 1956, p. 40.Google Scholar

7 Report of the Town and Country Planning Summer School, 1959, p. 61.Google Scholar

8 Report of the Town and Country Planning Summer School, 1950, p. 122.Google Scholar

9 Report of the Town and Country Planning Summer School, 1959, pp. 62–3.Google Scholar

10 Ibid., pp. 65, 67.

11 See, for example, Heap's authoritative view, in Report of the Town and Country Planning Summer School, 1961, p. 87.Google Scholar

12 Friction may occur between architects and other professional groups. See, for example, Orlans, H., Stevenage. A Sociological Study of a New Town, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1952, pp. 212–13.Google Scholar

13 See Keeble, L., ‘Town Planning at the Crossroads’, London: The Estates Gazette, 1961, pp. 54–6.Google Scholar

14 See notice of forthcoming branch meeting, Journal of the Town Planning Institute, Vol. 51, no. 9, 11 1965.Google Scholar

15 Traffic in Towns. Report of the Steering Group and Working Group, Ministry of Transport, London: HMSO, 1963.Google Scholar

16 See, for example, report of branch meeting of 11 February 1955, Journal of the Town Planning Institute, Vol. 41, no. 5, 04 1955.Google Scholar

17 Report of the Town and Country Planning Summer School, 1967, pp. 100, 106.Google Scholar

18 See People and Planning. Report of the Committee on Public Participation in Planning, Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Scottish Development Department and Welsh Office, London: HMSO, 1969.Google Scholar

19 The decreasing relative importance of surveyors and engineers is relevant here.

20 See, for example, Report of the Town and Country Planning Summer School, 1964, pp. 82–3.Google Scholar Note especially the revealing phrase, ‘so as to prepare him for his pre-defined role’

21 Land Commission Act 1967.

22 Report of branch meeting of 11 December 1969, Journal of the Town Planning Institute, Vol. 56, no. 2 02 1970.Google Scholar

23 Report of branch meeting of 4 November 1969, Journal of the Town Planning Institute, Vol. 55, no. 10, 12 1969.Google Scholar

24 This distinction is implicit in some of the legislation and in much of the advice provided by central government. Research also indicates that the distinction is accepted, for example, by the Inspectorate. Different aspects of physical environment are considered to be areas where specialized training is relevant, but hardship and welfare matters may be understood and taken into account by any inspector, without any special expertise being required.

25 See Harrison, , op. cit.Google Scholar

26 A. Carr-Saunders and Wilson, P., op. cit., p. 497.Google Scholar

27 This separation of theory and implementation may also take place in planning offices. See, for example, a comment by Pooley, F. B., in ‘Development Initiative by Local Government: Scope and Powers’, a paper given at the National Conference of the Town and Country Planning Association, 12 1972, p. 2.Google Scholar

28 HMSO, Development Control Policy Note 8, ‘Caravan Sites’, 1969.Google Scholar

29 Political and Economic Planning, Planning, no. 56, 07 1935, pp. 14–15.Google Scholar

30 See the Highlands and Islands Development Act 1964, and the Agriculture Act 1967.Google Scholar