- Email: [email protected]
Local planning in practice
Book expected to minlmtse the problem of falling clerg) numbers. On the other hand. the revival m eucharistic worship during the last century and the present century has served to mcreabe the problem. as an ordained priest has to be present at such worship. Russell paints a rather graphic contrast betueen the unlettered parish clerk intoning evensong In the eighteenth centur). hhen absentee cler?? prevailed, and congregations of graduates unable to otflciate at the now mandatory Holy Commumon services of the 19SOs. If the liturgical revolution and the impulse to live in the countryside are squall) linked to Victorian sensibilities and values (a link which Russell himself does not make) then the irony is completed. The rest of the book provides a broad-brush account of the history of the village and of the sociology of village communities today. including separate chapters on the village as a community. farmers. old villagers, and new villagers. Russell has clearly read widely and sifted and weaved together an account drawing on some of the evidence emerging from the revival In rural studies in Britam in the last decade or so as well as more traditional sources such as the communltv studies of the 1960s. That being the case. it is a great pity that a bibliography was chosen rather than fully attributable footnotes. The reader needs to be able to trace ideas to source. especially in a book which will essentially be used by many as an introductory and a learning test.
375
RevieLvs
cation. The acknowledgements do not record a single debt of gratitude to an academic involved in rural research! This may be an indictment of the academic community as much as of the publishers or author. The rural studies community is surely failing If sharp and lively minds from outslde academia do not feel the need to dtrectly consult its members. For the devotees of rural studies. the lack of consultation will be as glaring In the omissions as in the occasional errors or misinterpretations. An account of rural my.th and nostalgia is constructed without the aid of Martin Wiener’s seminal work: the discussions of ‘the village’ cry out for an infusion of Marilyn Strathern’s ideas: the use of Lowe and Goyder’s work on environmental groups would have sharpened the discussion on environmental awareness. In conclusion this IS an ambitious book with two main purposes: first to provide an account of the hlstory and sociology of the village. and secondly to examine the role for the church in a changing countryside. On both counts the book makes a useful contribution to the literature. If it IS successful in prompting rural sociologists to think a little more about the rural church and rural churchmen. to think a little more about social change. then it will have been a worthwhile venture indeed. My fear, and I state It with professional regret. is that it will be read by more churchmen than rural sociologists. MICHAEL
His account of change in the village and of the new/old villager contrast is carefully written and informative. Indeed. in view of how few recent sociological studies of village communities are avaIlable (in contrast to the attention from social scientists to agricultural, environmental and planmng issues), these chapters provide a very useful descriptive summary of the characteristics of village life and key areas of social change. Russell seeks to avoid undue romanticism and wishes to present the village as a dynamic entity. His attempts are largely successful. and 1 would have only a few reservations about recommendins the central chapters of the book as a fair general account of rural life in England today. Clearly there are simplifications when painting on such a broad canvass and. as an Inhabitant of a Devon village. I would detect some bias towards the Midlands and the South-east of England. In a book of this kind there are inevitably some weaknesses of emphasis. omission or error. Mercifully. gross examples of the latter are relatively rare, but in a number of cases, data or tendencies are presented in a misleading manner and are given neither sufficient explanation nor qualification. Examples include exaggerating the contribution of tourism to farm incomes. a misleading use of statistics on changes in farm size and the farm labour force, and an exaggerated emphasis on the business sophistication of the average farm, especially in terms of office practice. More seriously. in a few instances. Russell has entered a minefield with scant awareness of the complexity of the issues involved. This is particularly striking in his histoe. which faithfully reproduces Alan Macfarlane’s iconoclastic account of the origins of cnpltalism in the countryside. with no reference to countervailing accounts or critiques. hlany of these weaknesses would surely have been cleared up, and other useful sections of the book enhanced. if the author (or publishers) had followed the usual path of seeking critical refereeing and comment prior to publl-
WINTER
Dqmrtment of Sociology Utlir,ersity of Bath, U.K.
Local Planning in Practice, ivl. Bruton and D. Nicholson, 452 pp., 19S7, Hutchinson Education, The Built Environment Series, London, f12.95
It is ironic that, just as the expert analysis and advice to calibrate and improve the current land use planning system in Britain is beginning to emerge, the current government has already set out on a course of ideologically based CK! hoc-ery and tinkering. All the more Ironic that a maturing of texts on planning is becoming all too evident now, with recent efforts by Heale) (1983). Elson (1956) and. I would venture, this excellent book. The main aim of the book is ‘to review local planning in practice. primarily in England and Wales. in a way which makes it comprehensible to students and practitioners concerned with planning and the development process’. I am not sure whether the authors ultimately succeed in this laudable goal, but in trying to, they have produced a formidable and scholarly record of the current state of local planning in practice. The book is not without problems. many of which would appear to stem from attempting too much and desiring a gloss of theory which ill-becomes these two primarily empirical researchers. In an attempt to provide an allembracing view of the system and its problems, the authors elect to establish a theoretical model of the system by which to judge the evidence they assemble. As such, the book takes on a difficult structure, part factual. part theoretical, part inventory and part report on research findings. Much of the material used is available elsewhere, but that does not detract from the value of gathering it all
376
Book
together in one place. I have little doubt that. because of this. it will prove a great favourite of both htudents and tutors. The book starts with an evolution of the statutory planning system and a history of the current position of local planning in it. This is folloued by a rather cumbersome theory chapter which. in the event, presents little that is novel or revealing. Purporting to review the varying theoretical perspectives which might assist the understanding of planning and the generation of improvements to the system. we are told that the problems planners face are interconnected and subject to various intercomplex. pretations, dynamic contextual changes and uncertainty. To overcome these problems. \ve are advised to, first. recognise that planning is distributional and therefore political, and. second. move towards a planning system that is simultaneously flexible and robust. and capable of subtly matching the complesity of the real world with which it deals. Planning systems must present the opportunity for discretion to tackle contingencies. yet be capable of framing local divergencies within strategic goals. The current system of development plans is felt to only partially achieve this aim. and the invention of multifarious new tools of planning oouidance is but one manifestation of the inadequacies of the current approach. For all the (rather uncritical use of a selective range of) theory, there is littlc to surprise a practising planner here. In contrast to some of the problems of Chapter 2, the next four chapters show the authors at their best. reviewing in detail the workings of the planning system at large. Notwithstanding a great deal of repetition. these chapters catalogue the formal administrative contest which intlucnccs the production of local planning guidance. stimulating discussion of how provide an estremcly statutory local plans attempt to fulfil their prescribed roles. and assess how able such plans are to fulfil the theoretical requirements of a plannine system as described earlier. A useful inventory of other formal (i.e. central government prescribed) plans is provided and this is followed by a republication of the authors’ own substantial research into the .prowth of non-statutory or informal planning guidance. The formal system is seen as caught in the trap whereby it is required to give some form of physical/developmental articulation to national and regional social and economic policies but yet is not properly informed of their nature by a reticent central (rovernment which nonetheless increasingly uses its 3
Reviews
muscles. through the provibion of resource programmrs for sectoral policies (like housing. transport. and inner city), to esrrt its own influence. The result is a plethora of innovative forms of local planning tool to fill the gaps between the horizontalkmd and vertical:socioeconomic policies that remain disa,,ouregated in the current situation. Chapters 7 and S consecutively review the interrelationship between the local planning system and the development control and land development processes. Again. the authors have provided an interestinp synthesis of current work in these areas. but there is little new here and I am not altogether sure how well the extensive reviews of their contemporaries’ work. which form a substantial part of both chapters, will be received. The final chapter reiterates rather than builds on the findings of the earlier chapters. noting that the system has the parts to potentially match the variety of problems it faces. but they are seen as largely compartmentalised and operatiny without an overriding framework. In terms of practice. planners are exhorted to face. rather than ignore. uncertainty, and adopt the most appropriate tools for a given situation. Again. there is little that is new here, but the message for those charged with producing an adequate and sensitive planning system must. through the increasing evidence now being presented in texts like this. be building to a roar. Systematisins and standardising approaches to planning is counter productive. There is nothing of especial importance in the text for researchers in the field of rural studies. However. there is sufficient in the book to help frame the correct questions that should be asked about local planning in rural areas. Little work has been completed to date in rural areas ivhich might act as a comparator to this primarily urban research. For those with such researches in mind. this text will prove an excellent entry to a complex yet underestimated field. PAUL
F. McNAMARA
Depnrrttzent of Estute rllanagetnen~ Oxford Polyrechic, U. K. References M.J. (19S6) Green Bells: Conflict .Medirrriotlotl the Urhrrn Fringe. Heinemann. London. Healey. P. (19Si) Lord Plates itz Brirish Lrd Use Phtzit~g. Pergamon. Osford.
Elson.
Book Reviewers If you would like your name to be added to the book review roster for Journal of Rural Studies please write to the Editor providing your name, address and a resume of your fields of interest.
375
RevieLvs
cation. The acknowledgements do not record a single debt of gratitude to an academic involved in rural research! This may be an indictment of the academic community as much as of the publishers or author. The rural studies community is surely failing If sharp and lively minds from outslde academia do not feel the need to dtrectly consult its members. For the devotees of rural studies. the lack of consultation will be as glaring In the omissions as in the occasional errors or misinterpretations. An account of rural my.th and nostalgia is constructed without the aid of Martin Wiener’s seminal work: the discussions of ‘the village’ cry out for an infusion of Marilyn Strathern’s ideas: the use of Lowe and Goyder’s work on environmental groups would have sharpened the discussion on environmental awareness. In conclusion this IS an ambitious book with two main purposes: first to provide an account of the hlstory and sociology of the village. and secondly to examine the role for the church in a changing countryside. On both counts the book makes a useful contribution to the literature. If it IS successful in prompting rural sociologists to think a little more about the rural church and rural churchmen. to think a little more about social change. then it will have been a worthwhile venture indeed. My fear, and I state It with professional regret. is that it will be read by more churchmen than rural sociologists. MICHAEL
His account of change in the village and of the new/old villager contrast is carefully written and informative. Indeed. in view of how few recent sociological studies of village communities are avaIlable (in contrast to the attention from social scientists to agricultural, environmental and planmng issues), these chapters provide a very useful descriptive summary of the characteristics of village life and key areas of social change. Russell seeks to avoid undue romanticism and wishes to present the village as a dynamic entity. His attempts are largely successful. and 1 would have only a few reservations about recommendins the central chapters of the book as a fair general account of rural life in England today. Clearly there are simplifications when painting on such a broad canvass and. as an Inhabitant of a Devon village. I would detect some bias towards the Midlands and the South-east of England. In a book of this kind there are inevitably some weaknesses of emphasis. omission or error. Mercifully. gross examples of the latter are relatively rare, but in a number of cases, data or tendencies are presented in a misleading manner and are given neither sufficient explanation nor qualification. Examples include exaggerating the contribution of tourism to farm incomes. a misleading use of statistics on changes in farm size and the farm labour force, and an exaggerated emphasis on the business sophistication of the average farm, especially in terms of office practice. More seriously. in a few instances. Russell has entered a minefield with scant awareness of the complexity of the issues involved. This is particularly striking in his histoe. which faithfully reproduces Alan Macfarlane’s iconoclastic account of the origins of cnpltalism in the countryside. with no reference to countervailing accounts or critiques. hlany of these weaknesses would surely have been cleared up, and other useful sections of the book enhanced. if the author (or publishers) had followed the usual path of seeking critical refereeing and comment prior to publl-
WINTER
Dqmrtment of Sociology Utlir,ersity of Bath, U.K.
Local Planning in Practice, ivl. Bruton and D. Nicholson, 452 pp., 19S7, Hutchinson Education, The Built Environment Series, London, f12.95
It is ironic that, just as the expert analysis and advice to calibrate and improve the current land use planning system in Britain is beginning to emerge, the current government has already set out on a course of ideologically based CK! hoc-ery and tinkering. All the more Ironic that a maturing of texts on planning is becoming all too evident now, with recent efforts by Heale) (1983). Elson (1956) and. I would venture, this excellent book. The main aim of the book is ‘to review local planning in practice. primarily in England and Wales. in a way which makes it comprehensible to students and practitioners concerned with planning and the development process’. I am not sure whether the authors ultimately succeed in this laudable goal, but in trying to, they have produced a formidable and scholarly record of the current state of local planning in practice. The book is not without problems. many of which would appear to stem from attempting too much and desiring a gloss of theory which ill-becomes these two primarily empirical researchers. In an attempt to provide an allembracing view of the system and its problems, the authors elect to establish a theoretical model of the system by which to judge the evidence they assemble. As such, the book takes on a difficult structure, part factual. part theoretical, part inventory and part report on research findings. Much of the material used is available elsewhere, but that does not detract from the value of gathering it all
376
Book
together in one place. I have little doubt that. because of this. it will prove a great favourite of both htudents and tutors. The book starts with an evolution of the statutory planning system and a history of the current position of local planning in it. This is folloued by a rather cumbersome theory chapter which. in the event, presents little that is novel or revealing. Purporting to review the varying theoretical perspectives which might assist the understanding of planning and the generation of improvements to the system. we are told that the problems planners face are interconnected and subject to various intercomplex. pretations, dynamic contextual changes and uncertainty. To overcome these problems. \ve are advised to, first. recognise that planning is distributional and therefore political, and. second. move towards a planning system that is simultaneously flexible and robust. and capable of subtly matching the complesity of the real world with which it deals. Planning systems must present the opportunity for discretion to tackle contingencies. yet be capable of framing local divergencies within strategic goals. The current system of development plans is felt to only partially achieve this aim. and the invention of multifarious new tools of planning oouidance is but one manifestation of the inadequacies of the current approach. For all the (rather uncritical use of a selective range of) theory, there is littlc to surprise a practising planner here. In contrast to some of the problems of Chapter 2, the next four chapters show the authors at their best. reviewing in detail the workings of the planning system at large. Notwithstanding a great deal of repetition. these chapters catalogue the formal administrative contest which intlucnccs the production of local planning guidance. stimulating discussion of how provide an estremcly statutory local plans attempt to fulfil their prescribed roles. and assess how able such plans are to fulfil the theoretical requirements of a plannine system as described earlier. A useful inventory of other formal (i.e. central government prescribed) plans is provided and this is followed by a republication of the authors’ own substantial research into the .prowth of non-statutory or informal planning guidance. The formal system is seen as caught in the trap whereby it is required to give some form of physical/developmental articulation to national and regional social and economic policies but yet is not properly informed of their nature by a reticent central (rovernment which nonetheless increasingly uses its 3
Reviews
muscles. through the provibion of resource programmrs for sectoral policies (like housing. transport. and inner city), to esrrt its own influence. The result is a plethora of innovative forms of local planning tool to fill the gaps between the horizontalkmd and vertical:socioeconomic policies that remain disa,,ouregated in the current situation. Chapters 7 and S consecutively review the interrelationship between the local planning system and the development control and land development processes. Again. the authors have provided an interestinp synthesis of current work in these areas. but there is little new here and I am not altogether sure how well the extensive reviews of their contemporaries’ work. which form a substantial part of both chapters, will be received. The final chapter reiterates rather than builds on the findings of the earlier chapters. noting that the system has the parts to potentially match the variety of problems it faces. but they are seen as largely compartmentalised and operatiny without an overriding framework. In terms of practice. planners are exhorted to face. rather than ignore. uncertainty, and adopt the most appropriate tools for a given situation. Again. there is little that is new here, but the message for those charged with producing an adequate and sensitive planning system must. through the increasing evidence now being presented in texts like this. be building to a roar. Systematisins and standardising approaches to planning is counter productive. There is nothing of especial importance in the text for researchers in the field of rural studies. However. there is sufficient in the book to help frame the correct questions that should be asked about local planning in rural areas. Little work has been completed to date in rural areas ivhich might act as a comparator to this primarily urban research. For those with such researches in mind. this text will prove an excellent entry to a complex yet underestimated field. PAUL
F. McNAMARA
Depnrrttzent of Estute rllanagetnen~ Oxford Polyrechic, U. K. References M.J. (19S6) Green Bells: Conflict .Medirrriotlotl the Urhrrn Fringe. Heinemann. London. Healey. P. (19Si) Lord Plates itz Brirish Lrd Use Phtzit~g. Pergamon. Osford.
Elson.
Book Reviewers If you would like your name to be added to the book review roster for Journal of Rural Studies please write to the Editor providing your name, address and a resume of your fields of interest.