I’ve
mentioned the BBC show “The Planners” several times. The show is English reality television,
showing land use permitting processes on the other side of the pond. In those earlier mentions, I expressed the
hope of learning something about land use entitlement under a different set of
rules and complained that I couldn’t find the show on my cable system or on the
BBC website.
Eventually, a reader took pity on my naiveté
and emailed me that all the episodes were available on YouTube. He was right.
Nuts.
So I was
finally able to begin watching the show.
As I had expected, there were differences between the land use processes
in England and California.
But what was
more striking was the similarity between the personalities on both sides of the
Atlantic Ocean. For nearly every person I
watched on “The Planners”, from self-righteous applicants to dowdy planners to haughty
planning councilors to unhappy neighbors, I’d seen their parallels during my
years in land use.
Starting today
and continuing occasionally, I’ll provide links and comments about episodes. If your time permits, I recommend watching
the show. It’s not necessarily great
television. If you have fun social plans
on your calendar, I wouldn’t cancel them to watch the show. But if you were planning on watching “Big
Brother” or another of its ilk, I’d encourage you to try “The Planners”
instead. You might gain some insight to
land use planning, and to the personalities that populate the land-use world.
The most
significant storyline was about 540 homes proposed for open fields near a
town. The proponents argued that more
housing was needed and that the economy needed a boost. (I can think of North Bay parallels.) The opponents were looking for every argument
possible to stop the project, including flailing about in the mud looking for
great-toed newts, hoping to prove that the land was critical wildlife habitat. (Once again, the North Bay parallels are too obvious
to be missed.)
To me, I
think the issue came down to two points that were seen only as flashes on the
screen. The site plan, seen only in
passing, seems sprawling. Perhaps the homes
were modest in size, but they were sited on large lots that were unlikely to be
walkable. In another passing moment, an
opponent outside the hearing was carrying a placard calling for “Infill, not
Fields”. Even in England, urbanism is
fighting an uphill battle.
One interesting
comment was the suggestion that the Planning Council would be liable for
damages if they rejected a project that was later approved at a higher
level. I truly hope that the comment was
wrong because that type of rule would have a chilling effect on the permitting
process.
Other
storylines included a neighbor peevishly complaining that a proposed dining
room addition next door would block too much of her sun and an applicant peevishly
complaining that it was too hard to park her BMW station wagon in the parking
yard off the alley and that she should be allowed to park in her front yard
like many of her neighbors. No matter
where you go, peevishness has a role in land-use planning.
The latter
tale included an official suggesting that it might be “churlish” to deny the
applicant the right to park in her front yard when so many of her neighbors had
seemingly established a precedent. I
live for the day when I hear “churlish” used in an American land use hearing.
But the best
story of the episode was a married pair of retired doctors, both in their
eighties, who wanted to put solar panels on their roof. They knew that they likely wouldn’t live long
enough to garner the economic benefits, but thought they owed it to the next
generation to reduce their carbon footprint.
The highlight
was when they confronted the town historical preservation officer who was
opposing the application because of the conflict with the adjoining town wall
that dated to the Roman era. The woman pertly
advised the historical officer that he was on the wrong side of history and that
within a decade solar panels would be as ubiquitous as bicycles. It might have been the best single moment of television
I saw this year.
The biggest
story in the second episode was the proposed expansion of an egg farm near the
Scottish border. Unfortunately, it was a
story that depended on competing scientific studies about whether chicken dung
particles could be airborne during handling and whether the particles would
pose a health risk. As well “The
Planners” is produced, it was a difficult storyline to squeeze into the format
and became very forgettable.
A second
storyline, about a proposed home of modern architecture in an older
neighborhood, also fell short when it ended in an anticlimax. (Thankfully, English reality television folks
don’t feel a need to pump drama into every situation.)
But there
were a couple of stories that redeemed the episode. There was a code enforcement officer, who a
citizen from an earlier enforcement action described as being like “a terrier
at a trouser leg”, effectively resolving a rubbish-filled backyard.
And there
was the story of the Lemon Field, a one-acre stone-walled site on the edge of a
village, that had been vacant for 300 to 400 years. The applicant was proposing a private
cul-de-sac with seven homes of undistinguished architecture. (Side note: Even on the other side of the
Atlantic, planners prepare renderings of “walkable” communities with the most
dominant feature being a car driving into a cul-de-sac.)
Not surprisingly,
the village preferred to retain their little bit of the countryside. A local dairywoman described the proposal as”knocking
Gloucester Cathedral to put up a multi-story car park”. However, the eventual decision seemed to
focus more on the architecture than on the preservation of the open field.
If time
permits, I hope you enjoy “The Planners”.
In my next
post, I’ll write about the beginning of the election season.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment