“The Planners” Keeps Hitting the Mark

I’ve previously offered praise  for the BBC show “The Planners”.  I find my enthusiasm continues to grow with every episode I watch.  Nor am I alone in my approval.  Writing in CityLab, Feargus O’Sullivan expresses similar feelings about the show, noting the captivating conundrums presented by the producers and the insights to English land-use philosophy.

Some readers may remember the U.S. television show “Picket Fences” from the mid-1990s.  The well-constructed scripts made it perhaps my favorite show ever.  The writers would select a potentially controversial aspect of everyday life, whether personal privacy, May-December romances, or school busing, construct a scenario that evenly balanced the points on both sides of the equation, and then allow the characters to become emotionally invested in arguing the pros and cons.

Many episodes ended at the courthouse, where Judge Bone would hand down his gruff, but Solomonic judgments, neatly cutting through the Gordian knots that had entwined the adversaries.  Although reality rarely plays out as neatly as Judge Bone would have it, “Picket Fences” still provided an introduction to ethics and morality in the modern era.

“The Planners” is the reality equivalent of “Picket Fences”, reaching similar heights in the land-use issues that are selected for the show.  Whether the balancing the rights of homeowners to mount solar panels on slate roofs versus the rights of historians to preserve medieval vistas or comparing the rights of farmers to build a new chicken facilities with the rights of neighbors to be free of chicken aromas, the land-use decisions to be made are neatly positioned on the blades of knives.

If there is a place where “The Planners” falls short, it’s the absence of a Judge Bone to rule with wisdom and curt certitude.  Although many of land-use decisions are ultimately reasonable, the planners often seem overly confined by the rule book and the planning councils (what we call planning commissions in California) often seem arbitrary, perhaps beholden to political interests that we don’t see.  But that’s often the nature of land-use reality.

Episode three of season one meets the standards established in the first two episodes, and perhaps even raises the show to a new level.  I highly recommend enjoying it while awaiting sandwiches of leftover turkey and dressing.

The four stories in the episode are summarized below, although you’ll have to watch the video for the decisions.

A family-owned development company owns a small brownfield site about a mile from an English village.  On several earlier occasions, they proposed a small housing project and renovation of the abandoned pub on the site.  The planning council rejected the earlier proposals because of a lack of transportation options to the village except for driving on the busy highway.  The council argues that the absence of a bicycle/pedestrian alternative makes the development “unsustainable”, a very different definition of sustainable than is typically found in the U.S., but one that I endorse.

The family is now proposing the same project, but with a mile-long footpath along the highway.  Rejection might cost the family their business and home.  Confounding the situation further, several national builders are proposing residential subdivisions on greenfields closer to the village.

An overcrowded mosque is proposing a major expansion.  But the addition would be architecturally banal and only provide three parking places compared to the 115 required under the code.  The members of the mosque argue that their use is primarily evenings and weekends when the adjoining industrial uses are quiet, so shared street parking would work fine.  The planner responds that the mosque could sell the building to another user who would need daytime parking.

A mechanical hobbyist has built, without planning approval, a backyard shed for his overly large toys.  Some neighbors are convinced that he must be running a truck repair business in his backyard, which is forbidden under the code.

A homeowner has replaced a four-foot high hedge with a two-foot tall picket fence to better contain his rambunctious toddler.  A by-the-book neighbor notes that fences are prohibited under the rules governing the homes.

All four are good planning conundrums.  And all four offer compelling television, at least for land-use geeks.  Enjoy.  There are lessons to be learned that can be applied to arguing effectively for urbanism.

Next time, I’ll talk about a holiday season plan to explore the best streets in the North Bay.

As always, your questions or comments will be appreciated.  Please comment below or email me.  And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)

“The Planners”: Getting Underway

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.

Season 1, Episode 1

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.

Season 1, Episode 2

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)