My latest reflections on charrettes on this blog have been given impetus by an excellent recent article by Nick Wright, drawing on the experiences of Niall Murphy of Pollockshields Community Council. Both argue that the key challenges in the charrette process extend beyond the events themselves, asking important questions about what happens to deliver the vision and projects arrived at. In particular, the buy in of the local council is a crucial one.
While the days of local authorities having millions to spend on supporting local regeneration and other place shaping initiatives are likely a thing of the (distant?) past, many community groups are well equipped to drive charrette outcomes forward on their own initiative at the local level. In this respect, some of the most recent practice based research into charrettes and other co design processes points to the imperative that the community takes ownership of this delivery phase. However, 'community' as defined here, is not necessarily restricted to individuals and organisations, but also to local networks and partnerships.
As some of my previous articles have referred to, partnership has become an increasingly more uncertain term in the lexicon of planning and regeneration. Perhaps the most powerful such organisations, the Urban Regeneration Companies, with the exception of Clyde Gateway have now been wound up. However, it could be argued what is the purpose of a charrette if not create a new vision and partnership for how a local place will grow? In any partnership however, there are 'Big Players' that hold the resources necessary to effect change. Amongst these players, the support of the Council is still crucial, even if this is only in the form of a commitment to recognise the outcomes in policy. Yet, as the experience in Pollockshields attests to, securing such a commitment is not a process which always moves quickly.
These potential difficulties are of even more relevance given the Planning (Scotland) Bill, introduced to Parliament in December. The bill tables the ability for communities to create their own 'local place plans', of which the overarching local development planning process must take account. If these are to avoid frustration and disappointment on behalf of local people, the procedures by which LPP's and LDP's relate to each other must be clearly set out in any Secondary legislation following from the Bill. A spirit of partnership is after all, only as strong as the assurances on behalf of all the partners that they will pull together in reaching for their goals.
