CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN SLOVENIAN SPATIAL PLANNING SYSTEM: WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE NEW LABOUR PLANNING REFORM

IN ENGLAND
Miha Vrabec, Alenka Temeljotov Salaj, Ph.D. Miha Vrabec, doctoral student on European faculty of Law in Nova Gorica, Slovenia (EU) Miklosiceva 6 Ljubljana Slovenia Phone 00386 31 326 267 e-mail: miha.vrabec@gmail.com Alenka Temeljotov Salaj, Ph.D. GEA College - Faculty of Entrepreneurship, Dunajska 156, Ljubljana Slovenia Phone 00386 31 761 930, fax. 00386 1 5881 333 e-mail: alenka.temeljotov-salaj@gea-college.si

Summary Ever louder demands to change the legislation and policies in the field of spatial planning have been emerging above all among Slovene professional public. As concluded by the conference which took place in the National Council of the Republic of Slovenia in February 2011, part of the problems of Slovene spatial planning is also a result of modest citizen participation. This paper deals with the question of how to improve the situation and how much we may here be assisted by the experiences of the extensive reform of the English system of spatial planning introduced in the first decade of the new millennium where considerable attention was paid to strengthening of the citizen participation. The first part of this paper is dedicated to the theoretical argumentation of why the citizen participation in decision making should be enhanced particularly in the field of spatial planning. Special attention is devoted to the significance of citizen participation for sustainable development and the development of local self-government. We proceed to analyse some of the major weaknesses in Slovene spatial planning legislation and governance at the national and local level respectively. The second part of this paper is focused on the reform of the English spatial planning system in the time of the new labour governments with special attention to the changes in the field of citizen participation. We present various challenges the reform is facing, above all in the light of seeking balance between ensuring higher level of democracy on one hand and of economic efficiency and competitiveness on the other hand. The paper is concluded with the discussion of how the English experience in the relevant field may be instructive for Slovenia while considering the different cultural, historical, social and economic backgrounds of both countries.

Key words Participation, spatial planning, sustainable development, Slovenia, English planning reform 1. Preface As far as the researches carried out so far are concerned, we may conclude that the public participation in various fields of governance has in the last two or three decades become more and more the subject of intense scientific investigations (Vrabec, 2007; Hague and Jenkins, 2005; Brownill and Parker, 2010, Kos, 2003). This is partly due to recognition that the historical gap between the scientific expert argumentation and democratic discourse where the broader (laic) public may participate more or less on equal terms must be surpassed (Golobi, 2005). The modernistic approach by adhering to the scientific expert argumentation has become obsolete as it creates a gap between theory and practical implementation and is therefore not capable to offer solutions acceptable in a long-term. Moreover, it often produces conflicts in social relationships (ibidem). The emergence of post-modernistic paradigm of participation is partly a result of a crisis in legitimacy of democratic institutions and partly of tapping the essence of prevailing political paradigms of the 20th century (the participative model of democracy for example as proposed by Held in his Models of Democracy of 1989, as surpassing of division and of deficiencies of the existing models of the then new left and new right political wing). According to Lavtar (2007) the process of the globalization caused the drop of authority and competence of national government, at the same time the supra- national entities e.g. European Union are gaining power. By means of a high rate of bureaucratizing, people are becoming alienated from the decision making centres. On the other hand, the growth of the educational background and the growing influence of the consumerism in society have increased individualization which in turn contributes largely to non-politicization and reduces interest in common good (bonum comune). This trend was established also in European Council in the green book of 2004 (The Future of Democracy in Europe: Trends, Analyses and Reforms, A Green Paper for the Council of Europe) forecasting the decrease in election poll by 2020 to 55 % in Eastern and Central Europe and 35 % in Western Europe. This could very well compromise the legitimacy of decisions taken by elected bodies (A Green Paper for the Council of Europe, 2004). Same as in governing the country, the democratic participation of citizens in decision making on public issues is important at the local level. One of the most significant books on political science Making Democracy Work by Robert Putnam (1993) which defines the citizen participation as the foundation of the development of social trust, reciprocity, and cooperation (social capital) and thereby of the strengthening of democracy, was the result of the research of Italian regional institutions i.e. at local level. According to Brezovek (2005), the local administration, which has an important role in creating the social capital because it deals with issues in common interest and is capable of mobilizing a considerable number of participants, is at the same time at least in principle more accessible to citizens. The significance of participative decision making at the local level is discussed in further details under item 5 herein.

Spatial planning is one of the most important issues which are relevant for the local communities. Legal framework of spatial planning in Slovenia has quite frequently been modified in the last years (ZUreP-1, ZPNart, ZUPUDPP. The acronyms are explained later), but conflicts arising in the procedures concerning it are growing and as a result thereof the civil initiatives opposing the interventions in development planning have been multiplying. This has often been emphasized by the professional and scientific communities as well as by the non-governmental organizations and other representatives of civil society. The seriousness of the situation is further proved by the initiative of Chamber for Architecture and Spatial Planning organized in February 2010 entitled It is time for changes in spatial planning and by the conference in National Council of RS with the same motto, which was organized in February 2010. The insufficient citizen participation is frequently mentioned among numerous challenges of Slovene spatial planning. The troubles are of structural nature and range from the legislation covering the spatial planning to the administrative procedures and local governance. This paper analyses some of the deficiencies and substantiates the assumption of why the citizen participation is a sine qua non for the quality of spatial planning at national and at the local level and for more sustainable and less conflict burdened public governance. Further, some of the most important reform measures by the new labour party in Great Britain are presented which in the first decade of 21st century radically changed the English system of spatial planning and introduced significant novelties in the field of citizen participation. In spite of numerous historical, cultural and economic differences between the Slovene and British society and also the differences in spatial planning system (for more on it see item 7 herein), we believe that an overview of some of the changes in English system of spatial planning, as one of the most developed and democratic in the world, offers a good basis for consideration in terms of defining the directions and the priorities for the possible amendments in legislation also in Slovenia. To get acquainted with the difficulties that impeded the success of the reforms and even caused withdrawal of some of them, may be as useful as the examination of the contents of reforms. A few suggestions for improvement of Slovene legislation are given in the conclusion but only after we have discussed a few theoretical foundations of the participative paradigm of decision making. 2. Professional respectively scientific or democratic approach to argumentation and legitimacy of public decision making The modern society has ever since the Antique (Greek) times known two main forms of argumentation and seeking solutions: democratic debate and science. Spatial planning and making decisions on spatial intervention function in the area where the two overlap whereby in the course of time, the influence of each of the two has been changing according to the circumstances in society. Thus in modern times, science has effectively been put forward by means of the concept of integral and rational planning (Lyle, 1985), the pluralistic post-modern society however has by doubting the legitimacy of all traditional institutions put the role of

science under question (Golobi, 2005). In the concept of the so called risk society (Beck, 1992), the scientific recognitions are increasingly necessary but on the other hand they are less and less a condition sufficient to adopt decisions. As rightly pointed out by Golobi, referring to profession and professional criteria is convincing and effective only as long as we believe that we may make decisions about our actions on the basis of our knowledge of reality as is enabled by science. Veneris (1993) calls such an approach a cohesive planning where solutions to technical problems are being sought within societal consensus about values. Quite a few problems in spatial planning are at least apparently professionally easy to resolve. In such cases the decisions based more or less exclusively on professional knowledge may prove to be entirely as legitimate though they actually mean the shift of decision making to professionals (Golobi, 2005). A professional approach should ensure expert solution i.e. a quality solution and at the same time noninvolvement of (private) interest which in turn means objective solution (ibidem). On the other hand however each spatial planning issue can be formed by different views and therefore according to Marui (2002) referring to professionalism as a single aspect of decision making is in principle wrong as it often leads to conflicts and thereby it impedes adoption of solutions. Beside rhetoric and argumentation required by open procedures (where citizens are included) place experts into a different less influential position, at the same time it requires a more open decision making and different communication to which most experts are not used. That is why in practice incorporating of expert knowledge will often prove to be inefficient and producing conflicts. As such conflict will often present itself as disagreement about facts, the decision makers will be induced to demand more new, more professional and more objective knowledge (Golobi, 2005). Individuals often do not possess expert knowledge on the phenomenon (Bryson, Crosby, 1992 in Healey, 1998), but know very well the situation in the local environment. As Marot (2010) has it, they may be able to convey a lot of practical knowledge of the characteristics of the areas, of difficulties, their possible solutions and of practical influences of the regulations and policies as adopted and implemented. Besides being a source of information the public involved in decision making also means the establishing of confidence and increasing of legitimacy of solutions which are more custom made for the local community (Healey, 1998). Rationality and knowledge are important, but according to the modern understanding we know three categories of knowledge: personal, social and positive. Personal knowledge embodies our subjective internalised experiences and provides the root of individual competence. It is also the source of innovation. Through knowledge we are aware of the self and our relationship with the existential world (Dewey, 1929, 1938; Heidegger, 1949; Jaspers, 1949 in Weaver, Jessop, Das, 1985, p. 146). The social knowledge emerges as a social construction of reality (Berger, Luckman, 1966 in ibidem). The positive knowledge will be acquired on the basis of a deductive reasoning, empirical observation and experimentation (Ayer, 1956; Werkmeister, 1937; Poincare, 1905 in ibidem). It represents universal knowledge whose function is object appraisal, prediction and control and is popularly accepted scientific method (Weaver, Jessop, Das, 1985). In planning, the rationality connected with positive knowledge and abstract reasoning applied objectively to the external world i.e. functional rationality of the Ends-Means calculus (Weaver, Jessop, Das, 1985 in Marot, 2010). Human reasoning is also influenced by social conditions and then resultant assumptions and beliefs, requiring the exercise of

substantive rationality (ibidem). It seems, however, that comprehension of the human world lies beyond behaviourism and structuralism and requires a multidimensional rationality that balances different epistemologies and various realms of experience. Marot (2010) thinks that one-dimensional description of social events does not suffice for satisfactory presentation of all relationships and connections as the course of events in society is not linear and does not have one single cause to enable to obtain a sufficient explanation of such events. That is why, according to her, it is absolutely necessary to disclose all aspects of the phenomenon and in spatial planning only the knowledge of planners does not suffice. Therefore the public, investors and politicians should be familiar with basic principles of spatial planning and management as well. Often the formal restrictions in spatial planning are considered as final, unchangeable fact and we tend to forget that they are a result of an agreement in a context of specific values which in turn is defined by historical, economic, social and professional circumstances. They may as such, according to Golobi (2005), under the changed conditions be legitimately faced with different starting points and their validity checked. Beside the criteria defined in formal documents a number of other value categories, validated in professional circles only or not even there, will enter the procedure of decision making. The majority of criteria depend on what individuals perceive as value and how according to their opinion the space should be utilised. The views of the individuals and groups are different, there are also significant differences in views depending on whether the people are market or professionally orientated. Therefore in spite of applying the top level expertise, it often happens that solutions designed on the basis of professional knowledge only are not acceptable for the public and we cannot come much closer to solutions by means of improving the quality of information (ibidem). Already in the sixties of the twentieth century, the theory started to point out to several deficiencies in decision making which is based solely on expert argumentation. According to Golobi (2005) the criticizing of technocratic planning and the growing awareness of individual's rights, especially the right to the healthy environment, have slowly led to the idea of planning as procedure of cooperation between the public (users), profession (planners) and politicians (decision makers) all the way to introduction of various forms of participative approaches and the so called communicative theory of planning. The paradigm of participative planning as communication process1 (Habermas, 1984, 1987) contributed one of the most powerful criticisms of the technocratic planning procedure. Thus Habermas (1975, p. 49) in his theory on crisis of legitimacy maintains that people may in the profane as well as in cosmic environment be located with a dynamic mechanism of identification, called a self-reflective symbolism of identity. This represents the system of beliefs in self-identity, collective identity and social function in legitimate social system. The link between the interpretative system and realities of social existence according to Habermas legitimize the structure of any social system. Habermas designed this theory on the basis of analysis of numerous riots in the second half of the sixties of the twentieth century, which kept turning up in numerous countries of Western Europe and in USA and which were strongly connected with social economic circumstances of the time. Nevertheless the essential findings of this theory may be applied to the field of spatial planning today. The concept of place identity that most frequently underpins planning and design, the genus loci view of place (Norberg-Schulz,

1980) is derived from the same assumption on human identity, which is by nature relational. The participative model of democracy is a theoretical concept which emerged as a response to challenges2 which several democratic countries (above all of Western) Europe faced towards the end of the eighties of twentieth century, when it came to exhaustion of the social democratic model of governing and of the attempts to re-define the welfare state. According to Lavtar, the participative model in relation to representative democracy was particularly intensely and zealously developed by Benjamin Barber. In his model of strong democracy he maintains that politics in participative form can develop the ways how to turn private interests to public good by moulding political tolerance (Barber in Lavtar, 2007, p.10). However the participative form of governance is not a concept, useful only in the field of national politics. Exactly the system of local self-government where local communities, which take over control of their destinies by means of effective and open institutions and high level of political participation, has a special place in it. This will be further discussed in item 5 of this paper. 3. What is participation after all? Participation, respectively involvement of public in broader sense of the word, can be defined as activity where an individual is jointly with others involved in some social processes. Political participation can be described as active engagement in the process of governing and is an opportunity of individuals to be involved in policy designing same as civil servants and elected representatives. The authorities in modern countries have to respond to the requests and wishes of their citizens. Thus, participation is first of all a communication process, where citizens convey their views, suggestions and objections to power holders. It is an attempt, a tendency, an effort of ordinary people in any political system to influence the activities of the government and its institutions. Here the authors point out that it is normatively neutral and can range from debates and usual polling to riots. The criteria with which we define an activity as participation are the following: that the participants are individuals, that it is a voluntary activity, that it refers to a specific activity and that this activity is directed to influencing the authorities

It is an eminently politically directed activity and not only political activity which is intended to political positioning i.e. an activity which refers to struggle for power and for exercising it (Brezovek, 1995, p. 202). In the literature, a more precise definition of participation is often given regarding to the share of power delegated to the public in a particular case (see Arnstein, 19693; Nelkin and Pollak, 1979; Wiedeman and Femers, 1993; Rowe and Frewer, 2005; Creighton, 2005 et al.). The lowest level of transfer is informing4 and consulting (the public is invited to present opinions or remarks with questionnaires, focus groups, public hearings and similar). A two way communication between the public and those in power is the next

level. The literature often uses here beside the term participation the terms active involvement, active participation and others (von Korff, 2006). There are many definitions and classifications of different forms of participation in literature (Lavtar, 2007)5. This paper is limited to the participation of individuals and groups according to definition given in the previous paragraph. Opinions vary as to the level where real participation begins, yet present paper is based on a definition of participation which in vast majority of cases includes also the procedures of informing but goes upwards from the level of consultation. 4. Spatial planning as public affair and a subject of public interest, participation and sustainable development Spatial planning including utilization, maintaining and renewal are a public issue and therefore subject of common interest and public policies in several areas. The spatial solutions are on the other hand a reflection of individual's as well as of the common needs. According to the modern understanding of rationality as multidimensional phenomenon, it is necessary to associate personal experience, social and historical conditions and objective reality and that is why public participation in spatial planning is inevitable. The decisions concerning the spatial planning influence the relationships as the planners as well as the users, administration, investors, politicians and in certain cases the public are confronted with problems of which they have different perceptions. In spatial planning we can still speak of clear delimitation between the so called professional scientific and democratic approach (see above). Also the conflict situations between private and public interest tend to turn up frequently. The participative approach enables us to avoid such conflicts respectively to resolve them more quickly if they turn up and a sustainable spatial planning is carried out. The aim is active public participation at various stages of decision making which under certain conditions can considerably contribute to democratic legitimacy of the decisions in spatial planning. With this paradigm we can surpass the classic division to professional and democratic approach and at the same time we can put limits to prevailing of private over the public interests. A more intensive research of the possibilities of citizen participation in decision making in environmental and spatial decision making was among others stimulated by the recognition of the fragility of our biosphere, the growing intensity of climate change and of the reasons that spawn them and are connected to human activities. Recognition of inevitability of sustainable development emerged and has turned into a regular mantra of the twenty-first century. It led to the realization that natural resources were not infinite and that a global change in their management was needed, above all in limiting their exploitation. Physical space is a limited and non-renewable resource and spatial planning is a system of rules and conditions for spatial development and land use that man has forever known. In the last two decades the bodies of United Nations, European Union and numerous national governments and non-governmental organizations have elaborated numerous reports, plans and strategies for a long term sustainable environmental and spatial management. Dredge (2006) also draws attention to the fact that it is possible to

approach to the ideal of sustainable development with involvement, participation and cooperation. By adopting a global action programme Agenda 21 and within it of Local agenda 21 (Local Agenda 21, Chapter 28), the conference of United Nations on Environment and Development in 1992 (also known as the Rio conference) acknowledged a strong significance of citizen participation in decision making at a local level. It stipulates sustainable development as a central objective that the signatories implement at a local level with horizontal and decentralized networks of local actors above all of civil society, economic groups, citizens, politicians and holders of power. These groups should by local authorities be included in the programme of ensuring the sustainable development by means of counselling them and by stimulating them to supply incentives. Agenda 21 stipulates an active participation of civil society in designing and implementation of policies respectively programmes as a first condition for shift to sustainable development (United Nations General Assembly, 1992). 5. Citizen participation in spatial planning and local governance The citizen participation in decision making on public affairs is important for the quality and acceptability of decisions at all levels of administration but particularly in decision making at local level. Some theorists e.g. Dahl and Tufte (1973) consider the local level to be a natural democratic venue for citizen participation. The local level offers citizens the unique possibility of realization of their freedom and of expressing their local identity is (Ferfila, 2008). Barber also sees such powerful democracy in local communities which ever more frequently undertake control over their destinies with efficient and open institutions and high level of political participation (Barber, 1984 in Lavtar, 2007). Baker, Van de Walle and Skelcher (2011) similarly emphasize the provisions of The Council of Europe's European Charter of Local Self Government that citizen participation is an essential democratic principle and that it can be most directly exercised at local level. Similarly European Commission strives to stimulate the participation at local level in the White Paper on European Governance, as one of the ways of solving the crisis of legitimacy of European institutions (Commission of the European Union, 2001, p. 15-20). According to Smith (1985) the smaller territorial units are more suitable for development of democratic values and innovative forms of democratic decision making. Even though the latter statement may be considered as too generalised6, the local level is at least theoretically more accessible to citizens, it is capable of mobilizing a larger number of participants (Brezovek, 2005) and at the same time it is the level where decisions are often made with direct impact on life of population. Above all the decisions from the field of sustainable development and from the field of spatial planning which is closely connected to it (see the previous item) also belong to them. These decisions are subject of the present paper. At local level some of the most important processes of spatial planning take place which is according to the Law on Local Self-government (ZLS-UPB2, Official Gazette of RS, No. 94/2007; hereinafter referred as ZLS)7 one of the major competences of Slovene municipalities. Spatial Management Act (ZUreP-1, Official Gazette of RS, No. 8/2003; hereinafter referred to as ZUreP-1) in 1st and 3rd paragraph of article 1 defines the spatial planning as performance of spatial planning and the enforcement of implementation measures for the planned spatial

arrangements and ensures the building land development and the maintenance of a spatial data system. The ZPNart (Spatial Planning Act, Official Gazette of RS, No. 33/2007) that largely repealed the ZUreP-1, above all the part related to spatial planning defines the latter as an interdisciplinary activity with which interventions into space and spatial arrangements are planned on the basis of development policies, which take into account the public benefits of environmental protection, nature conservation, the protection of animals and natural goods, protection of property and cultural heritage (indent 19 paragraph 1 of the article 2). In the present paper, we focus on the citizen participation in spatial planning as adopting of plans for interventions into space and spatial arrangements (development planning) and where it is explicitly stated also in making decisions on interventions into physical space (development control). As mentioned, the spatial planning is one of the most important competences of the local communities and as a rule their implementation will have a decisive influence on their economic and social development. According to paragraph 2 of article 11 ZPNart the local self governing communities (hereinafter communities) responsible for: 1. determining references and guidelines for the spatial development of the municipality, 2. determining the use of space and conditions for placing interventions in space and 3. planning spatial arrangements of local importance. The paragraph 2 of the article 12 (indents 6, and 8) of ZUreP-1 stipulates the following as competence of the municipality: 1. keeping the data bases on spatial issues that are within their competence; 2. following the situation in the field of spatial planning and taking care to maintain legitimacy and order in physical space; 3. preparation and adoption of reports on situation in the field of spatial planning. We should not overlook the fact that municipalities play an exceptional role by determining and protecting the public interest in spatial development. This is achieved by means of implementing the relevant laws, spatial acts (spatial plans and other spatial acts at the level of municipality) and of active land use respectively spatial policy (backed up by tax, financial, market and urban planning instruments). According to Rebernik (2010) precise, efficient and consistent execution of spatial laws and planning documents as well as of the measures of active land use policy is of crucial significance for implementation of public interest and thereby of sustainable land development.

6. Citizen participation in Slovene system of spatial planning a lot of room for improvement Municipalities face numerous challenges while carrying out the tasks that are in their competence in the field of spatial management. One of the most important challenges for quality spatial development is timely and well planned involvement of public (see above).

In Slovene professional and scientific literature the prevailing position is that the existing way of including the public in the procedures of spatial planning in Slovenia has numerous deficiencies (Marot, 2010; Golobi, 2005; Simoneti, 2007; Klemenc, 2011; Kos, 2011). Due to them the level of citizens participation in planning as well as in public life generally is low (Haek, Brezovek, Balija, 2008; Vlaj, 2011; Marot, 2010; the Center za politoloke raziskave FDV Centre for Political Science at the Faculty for Social Sciences at the University of Ljubljana, 2003).8 Similarly the position of representatives of different stakeholders in spatial planning and spatial management (citizens, local and national governmental level, investors and professionals) has often been expressed publicly.9 This is also confirmed in the conclusions of the recent conference on strengthening of participative culture10 attended by 70 participants representatives of civil society, governmental and local level administration and of professionals from the field of spatial planning. The conference was held in the National Council of Republic of Slovenia. Similarly as the participants of seminar Promotion of participation in spatial decision making at the local level (organized by the Intitut za politike prostora (Institute for the Spatial Planning Policies) on 29th January 2009 in the framework of the project PoLok11) and the round table on the role of civil society in urban planning, which took place at the Faculty of architecture at the beginning of April 2009, the conference in the premises of National Council largely confirmed and partly also expanded the findings of Slovene urbanism science and spatial sociological science which are summarised hereinafter: a.) inadequate regulation of public participation in spatial management in the relevant laws (ZPNart, ZUPUDPP (Law on Siting of Spatial Arrangements of National Significance in Physical Space, Official Gazette of RS, No. 80/2010 (No. 106/2010 corr.); hereinafter referred as ZUPUDPP), ZVO-1 (Law on Environment Protection, Official Gazette of RS, No. 39/2006), ZGO-1 (Construction act, Official Gazette of RS, No. 102/2004 (No. 14/2005 corr.)) above all the high deviations of norms in various laws referring to the public participating, inconsistent use of terms in different laws, inconsistent legal implementation of Aarhus Convention and nonexistence of the responsibility of the authors of spatial planning documents and of the resp. of the decision makers in the procedures of spatial planning to prepare the so called process plan which would clearly define how the public is to be included in the procedure of preparation of planning documents and of decision making. The legislation should provide involving of public in early stages of procedures11 and stipulate longer terms for conveying the remarks and proposals. It is necessary to stipulate in detail that such remarks and proposals be considered and the obligation of the relevant authority to define in detail the rejection of such remarks and proposals. Exactly the (too) late involvement of public, which in most cases represents only a formality and the decisions have already been made without any real influence of the public, is a cause of sprouting of numerous civil initiatives. This is a clear indicator of growing conflict situation in the space and that significant changes are necessary in this field. The spatial and environmental legislation in Slovenia provides the involvement of public no earlier than in the stage when drafts of acts have already been prepared and then the public will have a certain time (usual 30 days are provided for in the ZPNart, but the period is decisively too short when a more complicated issue is in question) to submit the remarks and proposals of

modifications or amendments. Spatial planning document producers in most cases have to examine remarks and proposals and take a position which has to be made public, but absence of stringent legal provisions allows that the remarks or proposals are frequently ignored or rejected without essential substantiation. Early involvement of public, which enables a more active participation at an early stage of preparing the drafts of spatial planning documents, has been a mantra of numerous authors for more than a decade but the legislature has not decided to apply it when preparing the relevant laws. Partly ZUPUDPP is an exception, which in preparing the national spatial plan foresees the participation of public (public announcement, possibility of submitting remarks, directions, and opinions; organizing of a consultation is unfortunately just a possibility and is not obligatory) already at the stage of initiative for plan adoption (article 21). Likewise the relevant legislation needs to be modified or amended to enable a more active engagement of non governmental organizations. A recommendation to the competent ministry as well as to the government of RS to make sure that more openness to broader interested public be ensured, when the relevant spatial planning documents are prepared, was on the basis of the articles 272 and 111 of the Standing Orders of the National Assembly (Official Gazette RS, 92/07 Officially Consolidated Wording), adopted by the same National Assembly in the session of 29th January 2009, while discussing the annual report of the ombudsman of Republic of Slovenia. b.) The next set of deficiencies refers to the functioning of the government and municipal administration. They often observe the citizens participation as a nuisance (Kos- Grabar, 2010). Though the relevant legislative framework, as already mentioned, contains numerous imperfections, it does not prevent to apply various informal methods of involving the public. In the last decade a number of extensive studies have been elaborated in the field of executing the spatial legislation and of analysis of the functioning of administration connected with it. In the year 2001 a research was carried out by means of a questionnaire in the Institute for environmental law (Blagajne and antej). The aim of this research was to collect information on problems or difficulties which the municipalities and administrative units12 meet in executing the procedures of seeking solutions referring to the spatial planning and management. Here we must also mention the study of Ravbar and Bole of 2003 who focused on systemic aspects of spatial planning. The aim of this study was by means of analysis and critical cross-section of the legislative starting points to investigate the possibility of introducing a system of spatial planning. A comparative analysis was also used to design various possibilities of institutional organization of the system (Ravbar, Bole, 2003). As far as the analysis of functioning of municipal administration is concerned, we should mention the research carried out by the Faculty for Social Sciences called Administrative capacity and coalition building in Slovenian municipalities (Project manager Bogomil Ferfila, Ph.D.), in 2007 in the framework of targeted research programme Competitiveness of Slovenia 2006 2013. The research was carried out by using a questionnaire for the target population of municipal administration directors13. The questionnaire consisted of five sections with the following topics: personnel- organizational and financial aspect, aspect of cooperation among municipalities, introducing of entrepreneurial

principles to municipal administration, and the aspects of administrationalpolitical relationships in the framework of a municipality system (Haek, Brezovek, Balija, 2008)14. The latest research from this field was carried out by Marot in 2010. By means of a questionnaire and analysis from secondary sources she investigated the planning governance capacity of Slovenian municipalities. She defined thirteen indicators15 and used them to produce the typology of management capacity in the field of planning, i.e. capacity of municipalities for the implementation of spatial planning legislation (Marot, 2010). The questionnaires were distributed to all 210 municipalities and 55 responses were received. The questionnaires were filled in by representatives of municipalities responsible for spatial planning: heads of departments of the environment and spatial planning, advisors, directors of municipal administration and others (ibidem). The findings of the above mentioned researches are very similar. The common points are above all personnel, financial and organizational shortages of institutions performing spatial planning. Ravbar points out the need for specialized (interdisciplinarily conceived) public research applicative institution capable of preparing the expertise, to implement modern ever changing methodologies in spatial planning which would perform advising, various auditing tasks and would give opinions on the contents and on technical questions of spatial planning (see our proposal in the Conclusion). He further suggests introduction of regional planning and strengthening of the quality and number of personnel, while improving the financing of the municipal administrations and conferring more autonomy to larger municipalities (according to the alleged cases from Europe ofsupralocal spatial management to which the system of spatial management is subordinated, with municipalities having common instrumentation of decision making on land use management according to its purpose). In spite of the said limitations, the central government continues to burden local communities with increasing amount of obligations, hence significantly reducing their governance capacity. Beside the deficient legal framework Haek, Brezovek and Balija (2008) emphasize poor human resources and limited funding as key management obstacles of Slovene municipalities. They argue that the majority of municipal administrations are relatively small in size and lack legal professionals and technically educated personnel (mostly engineers).16 Heads of municipal administrations are also not inclined to introduce entrepreneurial principles and good business practices to the municipality operations. On top of that they use ineffective reward system. Interestingly, however, according to the said research, the directors consider accepting the proposals of the citizens by municipal administration as (the only) acceptable entrepreneurial principle. This is promising as it points to at least partial awareness of the deficiencies in participation of public in administration of local communities and to perception of public involvement as a positive value. Marot (2010) too points out the problem of personnel and funding and to the inadequate legal framework for operation of local administration in the field of spatial management (ZPNart for instance, as opposed to ZUreP-1, does not require of a municipality to employ an urban expert though on the other hand it demands that the municipality acts rapidly and efficiently about the spatial interventions (see below)). She argues that staff

deficiencies are associated with the problem of unified (without internal divisions) municipal administration (the majority of the surveyed municipalities) and emphasizes the changed role of planners in the modern system of spatial planning, which exceeds elaboration of plan itself. She also determined a poor interdisciplinary cooperation of departments and cooperation of the stakeholders in general and particularly the public. The ability of executing the spatial legislation by the administration of Slovene municipalities is therefore according to her findings relatively low, which is also evident in the field of public participation, which is, as proved by the research, at a very low level. Municipal administrations on average use consultation (second but lowest level as measured with five point scale of the International Association for Public participation IAP2 (ibidem). It consists actually of information to the public about the plans and of an invitation to the written/oral transmission of their views and wishes during the period of the public hearings (see item 3). In the second place as per frequency is the lowest level information, where the public will only be given information on plans and projects of spatial development and given explanations of the problem and possible alternatives (Umanotera, 2007). Only 6 municipalities have opted for a more active public participation through workshops at the very beginning of the planning process or through the establishment of partnerships with the community (Marot, 2010). The alone mentioned deficiencies in functioning of the Slovene local government system, which has important competences in the field of spatial management are closely related to the level of the so called administration culture and of the concept of local governance. During the last twenty years traditional local government systems in countries of Western Europe and in USA have been transformed into ones of local governance. Concepts like technocracy, hierarchical structure and political monopolism have, at least on the declarative level, been replaced by participation, consensus building and legitimacy, efficiency, responsiveness and impartiality (Graham, Amos, Plumptree, 2003).17 These concepts are closely connected with the public participation in spatial and public decision making in general as it is almost impossible to imagine good governance without active citizen participation. The trends in the field of amendments to legislation and of improving public administration and their impact on the position of public in the English system of spatial planning, for the changes of which the previous British government emphasised exactly the motto: Let us change culture of planning!, will be discussed in the following chapters.

7. Slovenia and England: comparable systems of spatial planning? When England is mentioned in connection with the system of spatial planning and management most of us will think of common law legal tradition and discretionary system of development control which due to cultural, social, legal and economic circumstances has developed differently than in countries of continental Europe of which also Slovenia is part. The latter belongs to continental legal tradition and its system of spatial planning is classified among regulatory planning systems18. According to Carmona and Sieh (2007), regulatory systems are based on fixed legal frameworks and

administrative decision-making, while discretionary systems draw a distinction between law and policy, and are based on guiding plans and political decision-making. For Dimitrovska, Andrews, and Plotajner (2000), regulatory or plan-oriented systems (such as Slovenian spatial planning system) are target oriented, with like to achieve ideal development schemes, pre-planned and determined in advance, with prescribed land uses, design standards and regulations. Such systems are inflexible as there is no place for discretion. There is a plan and accompanying regulations and there is a clear divide between what is and what is not allowed (Reade, 1987). On the positive side regulatory systems offer greater certainty and less delay in decision making, because provisions in the plan are binding upon the decision maker and confer a right upon the landowner. On the negative side, the plan making is slower, there is little potential for negotiation and the system is unresponsive to development and community needs. Discretionary systems on the other hand allow responses to development proposals to reflect the circumstances that exist at any time, without having to revise entire policy framework if circumstances change. Flexibility is therefore achieved and decisions on development can continue to be made in the absence of an up to date policy framework without necessarily any loss in rigour. On the negative side, discretion can create an uncertainty for developers, an over-emphasis on the efficiency rather than quality of the process, and inconsistency in decision-making based on values that are not always fully articulated (Carmona, Sieh, 2007). English system of spatial planning was from 194719 until the nineties of the twentieth century perhaps the most typical representative of the group of discretionary systems. Before 1991 when the Planning and Compensation Act was adopted the role of a plan in development control had been less defined and in most local communities no local plans had been adopted. The 1991 Act amended the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act (Section 54A) to introduce the plan-led system in England. This signified an important shift from the past practice and an attempt to increase predictability in spatial decision making. Sieh (2007) states that the move to a plan-led system in Britain effectively gave primacy to plan policy in the making of planning decisions; however, the system continued to be discretionary as the plan remains just one of the range of material considerations (including central government planning policy) that authorities need to consider. That is why in planning theory today the majority opinion prevails that English system can be designated as plan-led discretionary system with elements of regulatory as well as discretionary systems.20 The specialities of different planning systems are however not without impact on the position and role of public participation and the characteristics of these connections should by all means be researched in depth. It is necessary to point out that an analysis of characteristics of such connections exceeds the aim and the subject of this paper. We focused rather on those examples of English reforms of the planning system (emphasizing the participation of public) that are not connected to the particularity of English i.e. discretionary system and can therefore, in our opinion, also be engaging for the continental point of view.

8. Spatial planning in England in the light of social and political changes This item concentrates on discussion about the reformed system of spatial planning in England. Before the extensive governmental reforms (2001 2009) in England, town and country planning was based on land use planning system. The term, which in Europe as well as in England is ever more frequently used to define the activity, is spatial planning, which is also used in this paper. The government of the United Kingdom defines the spatial planning as beyond traditional land use planning to bring together and integrate policies for the development and use of land with other policies and programmes which influence the nature of places and how they function (ODPM, 2005, para. 30). The main English professional association for spatial planning the Royal Town Planning Institute advocates an even broader definition: critical thinking about space and place as the basis for action or intervention (RTPI, 2003). How the change in definition reflects in English legislation and politics will be explained in the following chapters. The modern-day planning system in England is a post-war invention, with roots that may be traced to the enactment of Town and country planning Act in 1947. It introduced comprehensive and universal approach to the land use control, which meant nationalization of the right of private individuals to develop land by stipulating that planning permission would be required for certain types of development. In return these applications were afforded the automatic right of appeal (to a planning inspector or to the Secretary of State) should consent be refused. The newly created system of town and country planning should secure the interests of the community, in cases where amenity would be harmed. Amenity itself was never defined, and since 1947 to the present it has been interpreted (usually by virtue of legal interpretation in the Courts) in many ways21 (Radclife, Stubbs, Keeping, 2009, p. 3). The public interest would, therefore, take precedence over the private right to develop land and use property (Grant, 1992). Rights of (private) land ownership would, therefore, not offer a carte blanche for ignoring matters of public law or policy (Needham, 2006). Nevertheless, the private interest should not be unduly restricted or fettered, and in a variety of circumstances various freedoms, such as the right to extend a dwelling within a certain volume tolerance, would be deemed to fall outside planning control. Today, such freedoms from the need for planning permission are granted by subordinate (i.e. laid before Parliament) legislation (such as contained in General Permitted Development Order or Use Classes Order, which permit certain building works and changes of use without planning permission) (Radclife, Stubbs, Keeping, 2009, p.3). In spite of that, political aims to be implemented by the planning system changed. In 1947, it was a post-war reconstruction and in the first decade of 21st century it was the sustainable development,22 for the assurance of which the system of spatial planning has developed strategies of adapting to climatic changes and abetment of the consequences thereof. The growing awareness of the significance of sustainable development in England has emerged inter alia from the recognition by the governments in four summit conferences, which were organized under the auspices of United Nations: in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro (the so called Rio conference), in 1998 in Kyoto, World summit on sustainable development in 2002 in Johannesburg and Climate Change Conference in 2007 in Bali. The recognition of the threat posed by climate change to life on the planet and of its

anthropogenic causes triggered the adoption of a series of legally binding objectives 23 concerning the reducing of emissions of greenhouse gases by the Government of United Kingdom (hereinafter called the government). Likewise, the government set a number of even more ambitious but legally non-binding tasks in order to reduce harmful influences on environment to, as Flannery (2006, Tyndall Centre 2007) has it, achieve a stabilization of the climate sufficient to prevent extreme weather and associated population movement across the planet. This governmental policy is clearly reflected in the field of planning24. In the year 2005, in Planning Policy Statement One the government presented a set of guidelines and principles on national spatial policy which clearly indicate the priority given by the government to the struggle against climate change as compared to other objectives of land development policy (ODPM, 2005)25. This commitment is clearly reflected in the wording of one of the most important laws in the field of spatial planning in England: The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004), which in chapter 39 provides that spatial planning must at the regional and local level contribute to sustainable development. Ensuring a sustainable development and reducing of detrimental impact of the climate change are not the only reasons for the government's decision to initiate fundamental reforms to the English planning system. In December 2001 Sthephen Byers, the then Secretary of State for transport, Local Government and the Regions26 assessed in the Green Paper, Planning: Delivering and Fundamental Change27 previous English system of spatial planning as unsatisfactory and exposed its following deficiencies: planning is complex, remote, hard to understand and difficult to access, the planning process is too often perceived to be a set of rules aimed at preventing development rather than making sure good development goes ahead. Communities frequently feel detached from the process and suffer from planning blight. Business finds planning delays frustrating and potentially damaging to their competitiveness, planning is not customer focused and local planning departments are overstretched, there are too many inconsistencies. Too often local plans are inconsistent with policies set out at regional or national level, they are too long, inflexible and slow and expensive to prepare (DTLR, 2001).

Based on the said findings the green paper announced an extensive reform28 of the system of spatial planning with the following objectives:

simplify the plan hierarchy, reducing the number of tiers and clarifying the relationships between them; deliver shorter, better focused plans at the local level, which can be adopted and revised more quickly; engage the community more closely in the process of plan preparation and improve integration with other local strategies and plans (ibidem).

Similar orientation is set out in the Planning Policy Statement from July 2002, entitled: Sustainable communities: delivering through planning. The document was prepared by

the office of Deputy Prime Minister, then responsible for spatial planning and management, and is with the five criteria from the green paper that the renewed system should fulfil the superstructure to the objectives of spatial planning renewal in England: deliver in a sustainable way the key to the government objectives such as housing, economic development, transport infrastructure and rural regeneration whilst protecting the environment; create and sustain mixed and inclusive communities; be transparent so that the right decisions are taken more quickly, with a set of rules that everyone can understand; enable local communities to be involved much more positively than before and to deliver a higher quality and better respected public service (ODPM, 2002, p. 2). Two years later in 2004, the parliament of the United Kingdom adopted the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004), which, according to Allmendinger and Tewdwr-Jones (2009, p. 75), is the most significant element of planning reform in the first ten years of Labour, which completely reformed the planning policy and strategy-making function at national, regional, sub-regional, and local levels. This law introduced a double-stage system of Regional Spatial Strategies (hereinafter RSS), which replaced the former Regional Planning Guidance and the Local Development Frameworks (hereinafter designated LDF), which in turn replaced the former Structure Plans, Local Plans and Unitary Development Plans. The so called Regional Planning Bodies29 are competent for preparation of RSS, whereas local authorities are responsible for preparation of LDF making sure that the guidelines from RSS are properly observed. LDF represents an umbrella term, covering a raft of local development documents (Ratcliffe, Stubbs, Keeping, 2010). It must contain Development Plan Documents,32 Statement of Community Involvement, Annual Monitoring Report and Sustainability Appraisal. Supplementary Planning Documents33 provide additional guidance to policies and proposals contained in Development Planning Documents, but are not part of the statutory development plan. The government recommendations in the field of spatial planning Planning Policy Guidance Notes replaced Planning Policy Statements34. Further changes in the system of spatial planning in England with a special emphasis on the public participation will be discussed next. 9. New Labour, planning system overhaul and citizen participation In 1997, the government in United Kingdom was for the first time in eighteen years in hands of labour party. The New Right narrative that had underpinned policy thinking under previous governments had emphasised the importance of the market, the role of the individual, and consequently had underplayed the role of participation in public policy delivery and decision making (Thornley, 1993). In contrast, much of New Labour's discourse in all policy arenas has emphasized renewing democracy by empowering communities to be involved in decision making about services that affect their lives (Imrie & Raco, 2003; Carpenter & Brownill, 2008). From 1997 to 2010, The New Labour Government had emphasized it's commitment to involving citizens in a wide range of policy decisions, relating to health, education, employment and urban regeneration. Furthermore some authors, as for Albrechts (2002), even suggest that participation has

become integral to the delivery of public services, as governments attempt to involve citizens in decision making through processes of consultation and engagement30. Green paper of 2001 inter alia emphasizes the need for stronger involvement of citizens in procedures of decision making on spatial development. In the introduction already it assets: People feel they are not sufficiently involved in decisions that affect their lives. So it is time for change. (DTLR, 2001, p. 1). Later it is admitted that the previous system of spatial planning had been very consultative, but had despite that, too often failed to engage the communities. It further concludes: The result of all this is that the community feels disempowered (ibidem). The governmental appraisal of the situation, according to Kitchen and Whitney, makes an important distinction between the existence of the quantity of public participation exercises and the ability of those exercises to engage people effectively in planning decision making (Kitchen & Whitney, 2004, p. 396). In respect of this, the said government document defines three deficiencies of the then system: procedures that lead to the adoption of a plan can be so protracted that few community organisations or businesses with an interest can afford to sustain their involvement. There is a perception that the system favours those with the deepest pockets and the greatest stamina; planning committees can make decisions on planning applications without the applicants or significant objectors having an opportunity to present their case; some planning procedures are legalistic and effective participation tends to demand at least some specialist knowledge. People who are inexpert in the workings of the system find this difficult and sometimes community organisations can find it hard to present their case without access to professional advice (ibidem).

Based on these findings the government promises in the green paper to deliver a system, which better engages communities. We propose real community participation (DTLR, 2001, p. 6). The Planning Policy Statement of 2002, which sets stakeholder participation in planning as one of the priority objectives of the planning reform,31 also announces same concrete changes in planning legislation such as introduction of Statement of Community Involvement32. Before Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act entered into force, the government published another programming document in February 2004, entitled Community Involvement in Planning: The Governments Objectives. As the introduction to the document, setting out the government's objectives for community involvement in planning, states: Planning shapes the places where people live and work. So it is right that people should be enabled and empowered to take an active part in the process. Strengthening community involvement is a key part of the Government's planning reforms. (ODPM, 2004a, Introduction). Further in the text, the government presents the reasons for its endeavours for a more participative spatial planning:

Involvement leads to outcomes that better reect the views and aspirations and meet the needs of the wider community in all its diversity; Public involvement is valuable as a key element of a vibrant, open and participatory democracy; Involvement improves the quality and efficiency of decisions by drawing on local knowledge and minimising unnecessary and costly conict; Involvement educates all participants about the needs of communities, the business sector and how local government works; Involvement helps promote social cohesion by making real connections with communities and offering them a tangible stake in decision making. (ODPM, 2004a, p. 4)

The reforms set out a number of ways through which greater involvement is to be achieved: Through the preparation and implementation of Statements of Community Involvement (SCIs) by all local planning authorities (LPAs). These set out each LPAs policy on involvement in plan making and development control which meet the statutory requirements as well as setting out proposals to meet the needs of particular areas; Through other regulations and guidance on consultation on planning documents, e.g. regional plans and LDFs; Through joining up33 with other relevant strategies, in particular the Sustainable Community Strategy; Through capacity building, including investment in the Planning Aid service to ensure the engagement of previously excluded groups; Through culture change amongst all parties (planners, developers and community leaders) to promote greater involvement (ODPM, 2004a). In 2004 another government document was published, which amended and defined in detail the planned government measures referring to the overhaul of the normative framework and policies in the field of participation in spatial planning. It was called Planning Policy Statement 12, which among others introduced the principle of the so called front loading34. Argumentation is hidden behind this term that if strong emphasis is placed upon work at the early stages of the plan making process, later stages will run more smoothly. This involves a local authority ensuring a robust evidence base is collected. It also requires the early and effective involvement of key delivery stakeholders and the community. This should ensure that there are fewer objections to the plan or issues arising at a late stage. Front loading should also offer people and organisations an opportunity to influence plan content by sharing their knowledge and views with planners. Where consensus is difficult to achieve, front loading should allow the maximum opportunity for participants to understand each others positions and to negotiate. This means that any issues are clearly understood by the time documents are subject to examination. While this increases the workload in the early stages of plan making, overall it should increase the efficiency of the process and the quality of plans a local authority produces (Planning Advisory Service, 2009).

Besides the front loading, the document also classifies the principle of continuing involvement, the principle of transparency and accessibility and the principle of planning the participation already at the beginning of preparation of spatial plan respectively of the development approval process, as most important principles regarding the participation of public in spatial planning. Here the need for adaptation of the level of intensity and of public involvement methods to the nature of the particular decision making process and circumstances, in which it is carried out, is emphasized. The document points out, it is impossible to speak of one size fits all solutions. Whilst seeking an adequate method and technique for an individual case, the document advises that the decision makers should contact an agency such as Planning Aid (more about it hereinafter). 9a. Planning Aid Writers have long recognised that participation in planning is influenced by structural inequalities in power, along the lines of class, income, ethnicity, gender and other dimensions of diversity. Therefore, any efforts to increase participation need to address existing inequalities. Ways in which the processes of participation can themselves influence the construction of groups within the public such as the hard to reach 35 or usual suspects have been a further area of attention (Beebeejaun, 2004; Imrie, 1998). The government was obviously aware of the said debates as the Community Involvement in Planning: The Governments Objectives of 2004 concerning the marginalized groups states: Our aim is that planning should provide opportunities for people irrespective of age, sex, ability, ethnicity or background... to make their views known and have their say in how their community is planned and developed (ODPM, 2004, p. 4). Already a year before, by ensuring public financing of the Project Aid Service, the government indicated that it is adamant to stimulate with concrete measures by providing necessary funding for their fulfilment, a stronger involvement of marginal groups and individuals in the system of spatial planning. In 1973, Town and Country Planning Association commenced carrying out the Planning Aid Project with the aim to empower local communities by helping them to effectively engage with the planning process and influence decisions that affect their neighbourhood (RTPI, 2009). The users of this service should above all be people who would otherwise be excluded from participating in local decision making (ibidem). In the nineties of the twentieth century, the management of this independent organization was assumed by RTPI36. The English government announced to join the funding of the Planning Aid services in the above mentioned green paper. In 2003 the government allocated 3.8 million for the period of further three years, for the years from 2006 to 2008 funding amounted to 3.3 million, for the years 2007 and 2008 1.7 million, for the years 20082009 however 3.2 million. In the years 2009 and 2010 the sum contributed by the Department for Communities and Local Government amounted already 4.1 million, in 2010 and 2011 the sum rose to 4.5 million. This funding went on all the way to March 2011 when the new coalition government abolished financing of this type of services37.

The operations of the Planning Aid England may be divided into two main fields. The first one covers a free of charge counselling to disadvantaged individuals and groups on their possibilities of participation in spatial planning processes. For this purpose RTPI has a special phone line served by experts volunteers. For those individuals or groups that cannot afford to pay the counselling is free of charge. The Planning Aid England follows individual cases through longer periods of time and assists the users with expert advice and with representing of their interests in concrete decision making procedures. Another field is the so called community planning. This is defined by RTPI as ...the strategies, techniques and capacity building required to encourage and enable communities to take a full and active role in both the statutory and non statutory planning processes (RTPI, 2007). In this area, Planning Aid has a proactive, above all emancipatory role, as with strengthening of bonds, building of partnerships with communities, their environmental and spatial education and training stimulates the often excluded groups and individuals to more active participation in planning processes. According to Reeves and Burley, the objective of this type of activities is that ...communities and individuals become empowered to act in their own best interests, acknowledging their own perceptions and values rather than those of the professional planners. (Reeves, Burley, 2002, p. 413). 9b. Statement of community involvement Statement of Community Involvement is probably one of the most important new institutes of ensuring better involvement of public in spatial planning. It requires from local planning authorities to set out their intentions and procedures towards participation in the local plan making process and development control. This is one of the ways of pursuing the principle of frontloading, as a way of consensus seeking; overcoming differences early on the planning process. Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 had until the legislatorial changes in 2008 provided that the Statement of Community Involvement is a subject of independent review by a person appointed by the Secretary of State. As a rule this would have been, according to Moore (2010), an Inspector drawn from the Planning Inspectorate (see below). The government recommendation in the Planning Policy Statement 12 of 2008 among others defines more in detail the purpose and the foreseen contents of the Statement of Community Involvement: Explain clearly the process and methods for community involvement for different types of local development documents and for the different stages of plan preparation. This needs to include details of how the diverse sections of the community are engaged, in particular those groups which have been underrepresented in previous consultation exercises. Identify which umbrella organisations and community groups need be involved at different stages of the planning process, with special consideration given to those groups not normally involved. Explain the process and appropriate methods for effective community involvement in the determination of planning applications and where appropriate refer to Planning Performance Agreements.

 Include information on how the SCI will be monitored, evaluated and scrutinised at the local level. Include details of where community groups can get more information on the planning process, for example, from Planning Aid and other voluntary organisations. Identify how landowner and developer interests will be engaged. (DCLG, 2008) The introduction of Statement of Community Involvement and extensive recommendations show the efforts on the part of the government for early and planned involvement, with active participation of civil society organizations such as nongovernmental organizations and Planning Aid. Similar goals were undoubtedly pursued by the other changes of policies and of normative framework. How successful the said endeavours prove to be, what obstacles will still have to be surpassed and what changes in the field of participation lay ahead, will be discussed in the next chapter. 10. Public participation, competitiveness and speed a metanarrative against the pragmatic approach Some analysts of the reform of English system of spatial planning believe that it actually represents the transition from representative model of democracy to deliberative resp. participative model (e.g. Barnes et al. 2004). This is also maintained by the British government, which in its programming document of 2004 called the Community Involvement in Planning: The Governments Objectives (see above) speaks of vibrant, open and participatory democracy (ODPM, 2004, p. 4). The participative model of democracy has emerged in the field of spatial planning in the framework of communicative and collaborative theories of spatial planning (Healey, 1997). Both concepts, based on the principles of Habermass ideal speech situation attribute considerable significance to dialogue, search for consensus and involvement of stakeholders. However, the position of some of theorists (Kitchen, Whitney, 2004; Brownill, Carpenter, 2008; Raco, 2005, Newman, 2001) who point out to the hybridity as one of the important characteristics of the new labour politics, seems to be more convincing. In the field of planning, this is manifested in combination of governmental strategies, incentives and legislational changes, which are based on different, sometimes contradicting principles. Thus for instance, the majority of performance indicators, determined by the English government as criteria for granting of funding to local planning authorities in the framework of the Planning Delivery Grant fund and the Best Value programme relate to speed of decision making and quality of design38. With regards to the participation, there are no incentives or rewards for the activities of local authorities exceeding the preparation of the Statement of Community Involvement - SCI. This however, changed with the adoption of Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, which in section 138 requires that councils embed a culture of engagement and empowerment (HMSO, 2007) and ensure consultation with - and involvement of representatives of local persons across all authority functions. This so called duty to involve, is a legal foundation for granting of funding in the framework of Best Value programme also according to the quality of assuring the public participation. However in

April 2011 the coalition government announced the repeal of the duty to involve. Moreover the labour governmental documents e.g. ODPM (2004), ODPM (2005) on one hand promote a more active public participation and on the other hand they let the rate of participation to conform to particular local circumstances (what works approach), which, as Leach and Wingfield (1999) warn, provides an opportunity to the authorities who do not accept the importance of public participation to marginalise it or pay lipservice (p. 47). Instead of more specific instructions to the local planning authorities, the documents promote the exchange of good practices. The lack of more detailed requirements referring to SCI in 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, according to Brewer and Alexander (2007) who had performed an extensive research on implementation of SCI, resulted in variable performance between the local communities. Some local planning authorities are committed to more intensive, high quality consulting procedures, many among them however will be satisfied with SCI, prepared in accordance with minimal legal requirements. Such oscillations are, according to Brownill and Carpenter (2007), enhanced by the 2006 legislation changes, which repealed the requirement for an independent review by the competent Planning Inspector. One of the main focuses of English planning reform is also the so called frontloading, which should mean an earliest possible involvement of public in the planning documents preparation procedures. This is how the (virtual?) contradiction between speed and participativeness in spatial planning, the two most often emphasizedaimes of the said reform, should be bridged. With early participation the differences in opinions should be ironed out and a consensus should be soughtat at the very beginning of the procedure, to make sure that it can then run more quickly. The case study carried out by the Oxford Brooks University in 2004 on the basis of a Cowley Road Matters project that took place for six months and where, with substantial subsidy of the Department of Transport,39 some innovative mechanisms of public involvement were tested (e.g. participatory video, planning for real, workshops with marginalized groups) shows that frontloading may in practice have unwanted effects. Individuals and groups with more social power, above all the local entrepreneurs, waited for the official stage of preparation of spatial documents and only then presented their views and succeeded to assert their solutions that they never mentioned at the introductory consultation with the public. Representatives of the community later admitted they payed less attention to the statutory elements, thinking their views had already been taken into account through extensive early consultation (ibidem). Here we come upon a frequent trouble where participative decision making collides with restrictions represented by power and hierarchy. Planning Aid whose data (National Planning Aid Unit, 2007) show that the share of representatives of ethnic minorities and of coloured people who turn to this supportive office is comparatively small (approx. 1 percent) faces similar barriers. The reasons for it cannot be found on the part of Planning Aid, but with the excluded groups themselves. Beebeejaun (2006, p. 15) points out that: encouraging greater participation of marginalized groups without consideration of power relations between and within groups does not safeguard values of equality, nor should it be presumed to do so. Participation does not offer a panacea for embedded racial and ethnic inequalities. These inequalities are interwoven into the fabric of our societies.

As in the case of many Slovene municipalities (see above), one of the difficulties numerous English LPAs are facing is culture change. The change in fixed views on the part of spatial planners is not an easy task which inter alia is shown by the research of Durning and Glasson (2004). In this research, 24 percent of the surveyed representatives of local authorities attribute the difficulties in cooperation with the community to lack of knowledge and skills on the part of authorities' planning staff. Carley and Bayley (2009, p. 29) too, maintain that one of the biggest challenges is that the organisational culture of local authority bureaucracies is seldom receptive to genuine participation and elected councillors may view systematic participation as threatening to their role. The above clearly shows the contradictions inside the objectives and policies in the field of spatial planning in the time of new labour governments. These contradictions are also visible in other fields of governance and reflect the dynamics of the time we live in. The developmental challenges and ever more burning question of climate change cause the increased political requirements for speed and efficiency in planning procedures (Allmendinger, Tewdwr-Jones, 2009). This trend is also reflected in some of the recent changes to planning legislation for major infrastructure of national importance. Thus the British Parliament passed The Planning Act in 2008, which contains a number of changes in the field of public participation in spatial planning of nationally significant infrastructure projects as for instance ports, energy systems, airports and roads. Cotton (2010, p. 3) argues that the Act was developed within the political context of Government concerns over the lengthy and costly arrangements for approving Terminal 5 at Heathrow airport, which was opened in 2008, following the longest planning inquiry in UK history. The law established special independent Infrastructure Planning Commission (hereinafter called IPC),40 which would be competent for examining applications for development consent for nationally significant infrastructure projects and for deciding on such application, when a relevant national policy statement would be in force. This procedure was prevoiously a competence of local governments. There would also have been a public examination, with cross examination of witnesses and the Secretary of State would take the final decision after having all the information in front of them and did not have to accept the recommendations, made by the planning inquiry as the inspector provided, they gave good reason. In the new system, evidence is considered by the IPC primarily in writing, unless it chooses to hold an oral evidence session. The introduction of IPC clearly shows government's renewed emphasis upon delivery. The new system should save time and costs and enable a clear distinction between policy making and decision making. This changes mean, according to the numerous authors (Cotton, 2010; Allmendinger and Tewdwr-Jones, 2009; Allmendinger and Haughton, 2009), the prevalence of the technocratic views of spatial planning and giving priorities to economic competitiveness before the demands of social involvement and environment protection and placing the will of the central government before the will of local communities. Further changes in English system of spatial planning were commenced by coalition government with taking over of the office in spring 2010. Already soon after elections the new British government announcesd radical changes in planning legislation. The most significant change is the so called Localism Bill, which is in the last stage of parliamentary procedure, and will abrogate the regional spatial planning and transfer some of the spatial planning competences from the government to local communities. The

law extends the possibilities of local referendum, which previously could only be issued under very strict conditions. Furthermore it offers some new possibilities for participation of public in spatial planning at local level as for instance neighbourhood planning, intended to the population of narrower parts of municipalities (RTPI, 2011). In view of the fact that the legal changes of the coalition government have only recently been made and no detailed scientific debates and researches on it's impacts have been completed, it will only become clear in time if they signify a step forward in the direction of better quality of public participation. 11. Conclusion Maja Simoneti (DSRS, 2010, p. 6), an urban expert from the Intitut za politike prostora (Institute for the Physical Space Policies) and one of the outstanding authors in the field of citizen participation in spatial planning in Slovenia, concluded the above mentioned conference in the House of National Council of Republic of Slovenia in February 2010 with the following words: It is time for Changes of Spatial Planning (see above) we appeal to those responsible to act at a different level to include citizens in spatial planning affairs in Slovenia both formally and informally and thereby opening a public discourse to such critical degree that it prevents the situation in spatial planning that we have now. At least in the professional public this discourse is going on and the demands for changes in both the regulatory framework as well as in functioning of the public administration are getting louder and louder. They originate among scientists and among other experts in spatial planning as well as from the local government level. Thus e.g. Vlaj (2011) sees the failure to ensure the participation of citizens in decision making concerning the local public affairs as one of the major reasons for the crisis of Slovene self-government. One of the basic challenges raised before us by the ever more unpredictable and rapidly changing economic circumstances in the country as well as abroad is the implementation of two apparently incompatible goals: higher degree of democracy in decision making and sustainable development on one hand and economic efficiency and competitiveness on the other. The above review of the reform processes in the field of citizen participation in spatial planning in England, which is according to the rate of democracy in spatial planning considered one of the most developed in the world, demonstrated clearly that responses to these challenges are not simple at all and are even less unambiguous. Uncritical trans-positioning of institutes from different legislations or social and economic systems will often fail to produce good solutions. The knowledge of how these other systems work however will direct us to the right path in seeking improvements that will suit our demands. And obviously, there is a lot of space for improvements. If we commence at the top, one of the first conditions sine qua non for successful development of the system of spatial planning is recognition of its significance at the level of the national policy. Instead of listening more carefully to their suggestions, of attracting the public and thereby forming a modern legal framework which would last longer than each single government or parliament, numerous and not sufficiently deliberated amendments of the legal framework create unnecessary confusion among the planning stakeholders. As emphasised by Marot (2010), the legislator, if wishing to ensure successful implementation of the law, must, when preparing it, consider the

situation of the system the way of its functioning and the values of the stakeholders, the broader institutional environment, the different logic of how the various regulatory tools and strategies work and the changes of any single part of the system. The recent legislative interventions for instance were adopted without a thorough analysis of the existing system of spatial planning. The examination of some of English legal solutions shows that the former labour and the actual coalition governments opinion is that spatial planning and citizen participation in it are rather important for economic development and development of democratic culture and its institutions. The legislation itself as well as guidelines and programmes issued by the competent ministries point at it. In spite of the assumed increased significance of governmental guidelines and instructions in the system of discretionary decision making, a fact remains that Slovene government is comparatively passive41. Also more funding should be assigned to NGOs, above all for the projects of education and stimulation of development of spatial planning culture. The programme as for instance Planning Aid which in the field of spatial planning offers a free of charge assistance to the users among the underprivileged persons is a good example of how independent professional institutions may on the government's initiative be involved in the improving of the situation in spatial planning culture. A similar programme as carried out by Royal Town Planning Institute may on the basis of adequate funding be carried out by the Urbanistini intitut RS (Urban Planning Institute of Republic of Slovenia), Intitut za politike prostora (Institute for the Physical Space Policies) and others. Perhaps we should go even further and transfer some of the mandates in spatial planning from government to professional bodies e.g. to Urbanistini intitut or as proposed by Simoneti (DSRS, 2010) to form a similar body at government level. At the level of specific legal arrangements, it would certainly be sensible to bind the producers of spatial planning documents to take more active approach in involving citizens in the planning procedure. Though some of the provisions of The act regarding the siting of spatial arrangements of national significance in physical space (above all in terms of early involving of citizens and of its planning in advance), are a step in the right direction,42 it would probably be necessary to introduce a similar institute as the Statement of Community Involvement, under the condition however that at the same time a system of stimulations be introduced for those (above all at the local level) who demonstrate more innovativeness in choosing mechanisms of including public and who also otherwise practice approaches which exceed meeting the minimal legal requirements and who in public participation see the possibilities of improving the quality of decisions and not only a troublesome formality that needs to be fulfilled and left behind as soon as possible (tick box approach). Such mechanisms of stimulations are subject of another set of actual difficulties of Slovene spatial planning system. It concerns the attitude of the government to local communitys governance and the attitude of the latter towards spatial management issues. Even though the present paper does not deal specifically with English local government reform (the reform took place in 1999 and a new one of which the normative essence is the said Localism Bill, is on the way), we may, based on the above, draw a conclusion that in order to improve the quality of spatial planning in Slovenia we must first improve the quality of local governance. Instead of centralization, more funding should be

allocated to the local communities to make sure that they are capable of properly fulfiling their tasks. Much more emphasis should be placed upon devolution and decentralisation. The spatial planning legislation namely often requires the local communities to carry out activities, which exceed their personnel, financial and organizational capabilities. One of the difficulties the current planning staff are facing is lack of professional knowledge and the fact that they are not required to employ at least one municipal town planner. Here we must point out again to the possibility that support of knowledge and experience might be offered to the local communities by an independent agency, (co)funded by the central government. We also propose comprehensive training of the planning personnel in contemporary approaches to spatial planning with special attention to public participation and stakeholder cooperation. The British government is aware of it and stimulates the so called culture change. According to some researchers (Kitchen and Whitney, 2004) even there with many stakeholders, among them urban experts themselves, it is happening (too) slowly. For a more rapid implementation of principles of good governance, the government might do more by following the example of new localism in England. As in Slovenia where there is more and more criticism of exaggerated centralization of the country (Vlaj, 2011; Mlinar, 2000), similar reproaches were often addressed to the Tony Blair's government. That is why, when reforming the local government, they gave priority to the principle of subsidiarity. The central government started to reward more generously with the said programmes the activities of local institutions (Best Value resp. Planning Delivery Grant in the field of spatial planning). Based on these facts, we may draw a conclusion that the improvement of the situation in the field of citizen participation in spatial planning calls for an integral approach. As the example of England shows, the legislative activity does not suffice to make a substantial move in the desired direction and to change culture. A lot of attention and funding will have to be allocated to public institutions as well as to civil society as the change is necessary at all levels. The approach, based on a greater citizen participation in decision making is usually referred to as the bottomup approach, but the support to such efforts and the examples for it are righteously to be expected in the top-down direction.

Notes:

11

A propos, acording to Weber (1964), a planner is above all a civil servant who has to act rationally, impartially, and equitably.
2

It is above all the crisis of power legitimacy. Seeking new paradigm respectively a new democratic model is very much a consequence of crisis of the political left in European democracies in the second half of eighties of twenty-first century when a neo-liberal model in Europe often called thatcherism was on march.
3

Maybe the most influential work in this field is the monograph by Sherry R. Arnstein, Participation.
4

A Ladder of Citizen

Public officials inform the public with press releases and briefings etc.

Let us mention for instance from the standpoint of topics discussed in the present paper significant division, which particularly for the local level delimitates participative and deliberative democracy (Greer, Murphy and Ogard, 2005, in Lavtar, 2007). The said authors stipulated the division of the models of democracy which differs from the Held's definition of models by the fact that different sorts of citizen participation are classified in groups, the criterion however is form and not contents. They include among others the system of vouchers, the supervision of users of public services, complaints, supervision of population, public meetings, public hearings, panels, city or city quarter' s debates, questions and answers of the executive bodies of local authorities. To deliberative democracy hearings, public meetings and cyber respectively edemocracy are classified. If we compare individual characteristics of the described models we may get the impression that they are often same forms with different names. The authors define the differences between the participative and deliberative models by ascribing elements of direct democracy to the first which offer people the possibility to express their positions and to contribute to decision making either collectively or individually. The deliberative model however is focused on discussion on local problems in open, sincere and tolerant atmosphere. The procedure itself is what enables it to surpass the first model.

As emphasized by Bherer (2010), such explanation might lead to a (wrong) conclusion that local authorities in decision making automatically introduce participative mechanisms. In practice however is their introduction often subject to other factors which are independent from the level of public administration. Some researches established even a negative correlation: development of participative mechanisms of decision making is stronger in larger local communities as they have more resources (human, financial and others) (Berry, Portney & Thompson, 1993 in Scavo,1993). Similarly Oliver (2001) also determines that in smaller local communities we may find numerous civil initiatives but very few activities of the local authorities, which would enable institutionalized citizen participation.
7

The tasks of municipalities are stipulated in 2nd paragraph of article 21 of the Law on Local Governance; regarding the discussed subject the most important are the second, third, fourth, twelfth, thirteenth and twentieth indent of the said paragraph and article, among them the most important are: - providing the conditions for the economic development of the municipality; - planning of spatial development, carrying out tasks in the areas of activities affecting the physical space and the construction of facilities in accordance with the law and ensuring the public service of building land management; - creating of conditions for the construction of housing and providing for an increase in the rent (social welfare housing fund); - being responsible for preserving cultural heritage in its territory in accordance with the law; - constructing, maintaining and regulating local public roads, public ways, recreational and other public areas, regulating traffic in the municipality and performing tasks of municipal public order; - adopting the statute of the municipality and other general acts.

The well spread position has it that Slovenia lags behind the similar foreign practice in this field and according to the opinion of Simoneti (2011), Slovenia is even behind its own practice from the times of self governing social system.
9

The stakeholders are enumerated as examples only as they may differ according to the nature of a specific spatial planning procedure. This is true for the term citizens who may concern all the people in the area which is subject of a certain planning document (area of planning), owners of the adjacent real estates in cases of siting of interventions into certain areas. Often general public and organized civil society, (the latter above all by acting through NGO (non governmental organizations) may represent important factors.
10

The conference took place on 3rd February 2011. It was organized by the Regional Centre for Environment in the framework of the project Civil Society under auspices of French Institute Charles Nodier in Ljubljana.
11

From October 2008 to November 2009, the project was managed by Institute for Space Policies (IPoP) in partnership with the institute Trajekt (www.Trajekt.org) and a Norwegian partner CBNRM Net (www.cbnrm.net). It was supported by a subsidy of Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway through the Financial Mechanism of EGP and by Norwegian Financial mechanism.
11

12

Administrative units are territorial offices of the state administration, subordinated to a given ministry, with their own area of operation and tasks. Their basic responsibility is to decide on administrative matters at a first instance, while the competent ministry or body or organisation within the framework of the ministry is competent for deciding on appeals against the decision of the administrative unit. In addition, they supervise the legality of local authorities' performance of their competencies and the expediency of local authorities' performance of delegated state functions. The supervision over spatial development activities is mainly performed through building permits, issued by administration units.
13

The questionnaire was addressed to the directors of 193 of municipal administrations (the questionnaire was not sent to the administrations of 17 newly founded municipalities as in the opinion of the researchers these lack the necessary experience and development in administration to be able to participate relevantly in the survey. 118 administrations (61,1%) sent the filled in questionnaires.
14

The monograph Administrative capacity and coalition building in Slovenian municipalities by Haek, Brezovek and Balija is based on the findings of this research survey (2008).
15

The indicators were used, which measure the adequacy of criteria for founding a municipality and the founding of a municipality by separation from an existing one, adequacy of personnel, and the demand for new staff available funding, difficulties in understanding the legal framework, which all influence the execution of the project and what is most important for the present article the level of public participation and influence, frequency and quality of participation.
16

Similarly Vlaj (2011) too points out to inconsistencies of some of the solutions in force in Slovene local self- government (as an example among others gives the problem of sources of financing the local communities ) with European Charter of Local Self-government (MELLS), ratified by Slovenia in 1996, which is considered one of the basic documents in the field of democracy in Europe.
17

In modern democracies it is rather difficult to set a dividing line between administration and politics: the political and administrative processes are intertwined. To find new solutions, which would assist in improving efficiency and rationality of administration, the developed countries have ever since the eighties of twentieth century been introducing extensive reforms under a common denomination new public management (NPM), putting stress on organizational (not only in terms of personnel) division of designing and executing of politics, disaggregation and introducing of principles of private sector management. In the literature we will also come upon the term new public governance. These two terms will mostly be used as synonyms. Some of the authors (Osborne, 2010) however think that the term new public management represents a transitional stage from traditional, bureaucratic model of administration to the term the new public governance.

18

Division on predominantly either regulatory or discretionary systems of development control is made according to Booth (1996, 1999). Also the terms plan led systems versus discretional systems are well recognised (European Communities, 1997). Some authors (Dimitrovska-Andrews & Plotajner, 2000) distinguish between plan-oriented and projectoriented systems. Today the elements of both systems in numerous countries are intertwined and the division into the two mentioned above is, due to convergence, less and less distinctive.
19

The year when the Town and Country Planning Act was adopted in England , a law which actually meant the beginning of modern spatial planning in England (see above).
20

Allmendinger (2006) emphasizes that contradictory tendencies have been intertwining in English planning policy of the mid nineties of twentieth century but planning oriented model which is alluded by this meaningful title of the article has a better chance to prevail: Zoning by Stealth? The Diminution of Discretionary Planning
21

It is an expression characteristic for the English common law legal system in which some concepts are not legally stipulated but can be of decisive importance for court judgement in a particular case. It is a term taken from the planning practice the contents of which will in individual case considering the relevant circumstances be stipulated by the court. Or, as Booth has it: ... the practice of deriving general concepts from practice, which in turn may be applied to cases in the future, has run the risk of obscuring rather than exposing the value systems that underpin an approach to spatial planning. In this respect a catch-all concept like amenity is classic: it has covered, variously, aesthetic values, environmental protection and the rights of people to be shielded from the activities of their neighbours (Booth, 2007, p. 143). And further: ...application is the same: we recognize amenity or material considerations when we see them and successive examples allow decision-makers, be they administrative or judicial, to rene and indeed modify the initial concept. (Booth, 2007, p. 142).
22

Such case is, for instance, a yearly objective of the government that at least 60% of new buildings are built in developed areas (DCLG, 2006).
23

For instance, a commitment, based on Kyoto Protocol (Framework Protocol on Climate Change), to reduce national production of greenhouse gases by a figure of 12.5 percent, so that by the period 2008-2012 the volume of such emissions would be reduced to 1990 levels.
24

Local government is responsible for the day-to-day implementation of public interest in spatial planning by means of production of local policy and determination of planning applications. National government dictates the overall structure and direction of the system by enacting legislation that dictates just exactly what does need consent and how local policy shall be produced as well as producing national policy guidance to set out more detail on acceptable forms of development. Thus, the national government does enjoy a detailed level of intervention to set up the system (by legislation) and influence its outcomes (by planning policy statements-PPS). National government departments, in particular the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, have responsibility for the policy outcomes of the planning system. The Secretary of State issues a Planning Policy Statements and Circulars containing the views of the Secretary of State on a wide variety of political areas. These documents constitute important material considerations and must be taken into account in decisions on planning applications and appeals.
25

The objective of a long line of measures among others is according to Ratcliffe, Stubbs and Keeping (2009), the stabilizing of carbon emissions from development (mitigation) and take into account the unavoidable consequences of climate change (adaptation).
26

As far as the name of the government department competent for spatial management is concerned, there were three major modifications in 2001 and 2002: from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions the competence for spatial management was transferred to the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions and then from this one to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Today the competence is in the Department for Communities and Local Government.

27

The Oxford dictionary for English language gives us the following definition for a green paper: (in the UK) a preliminary report of government proposals, published to stimulate discussion. A broader definition may be found: a Green Paper is a government publication that details specific issues and then points out possible courses of action in terms of policy and legislation. It is commissioned from the relevant department, if the government feels that there is an area where new legislation is required or existing legislation needs to be renewed. Crucially, a Green Paper contains no commitment to action, it is more a tool of stimulating discussion, but it is often the first step towards changing the law (according to: http://www.guardian.co.uk).
28

Also the expressions used e.g. fundamental change and radical overhaul reflect great ambitiousness of the government of UK in planning the spatial management system renewal.
29

Until 31st March 2010 there were eight regional Assemblies indirectly elected from among the members of the county and district councils and unitary authorities in each region, the remaining one-third were appointees from other regional interest groups. Regional Assemblies were abolished on the said date. The competence for preparation of RSS are, except for City of London (their sui generis regional and local authorities act on the basis of the applicable provisions of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and the competence for preparing the RSS is on Greater London Authority), shifted to Regional Development Agencies, under the guidance of a new Local Authority Leaders Board.
30

In respect of the green book of the conservative party of February 2010 (a few months before parliamentary elections in which the party won the majority and formed a coalition government with liberal democrats) Haseltine's position (2007) that commitment to public participation has become a permanency of English politics, might be confirmed. The said document entitled Open Source Planning containing an outline of the system of spatial planning as conceived by the conservative party, namely specifies community involvement and collaborative design as one of the essential elements of spatial planning. In the introductory chapter there are statements that to establish successful democracy, we need participation and social engagement and our conception of local planning is rooted in civic engagement and collaborative democracy... (Open Source Planning, green paper, 2010).
31

...better community involvement which takes into account the needs of all those with a stake in the system. (ODPM, 2002, p. 2). This designation is more definite than in the majority of other governmental documents on reform of the spatial planning system as it does not speak of communities in general; most often these are local communities) but of the stakeholders. What is here important is the interest that an individual or a group of individuals or any other subject (e.g. enterprises or non governmental organizations) have in a certain plan or construction.
32

...Statement of Community Involvement... will set out benchmarks for community participation in the preparation of LDF documents and significant planning applications (ibidem).
33

Joining up is a term that Ling (2002, p. 617) defines as a group of responses to the perception that services had become fragmented and that this fragmentation was preventing the achievement of important goals of public policy. This perception grew in prominence in the mid-1990s and has remained an important part of the thinking behind public sector reform. It is based on the view that important goals of public policy cannot be delivered through the separate activities of existing organizations but neither could they be delivered by creating a new super agency. It therefore seeks to align the activities of formally separate organizations towards particular goals of public policy. Therefore, joined-up working aims to coordinate activities across organizational boundaries without removing the boundaries themselves. These boundaries are inter-departmental, central- local, and sectoral (corporate, public, voluntary/community). To join up initiatives must align organizations with different cultures, incentives, management systems and aims. Therefore, joined-up government is an umbrella term describing various ways of aligning formally distinct organizations in pursuit of the objectives of the government of the day.
34

The said document substantiates the principle with words: Local planning authorities should take key decisions early in the preparation of local development documents. The aim will be to seek consensus on essential issues early in the preparation of local development documents and so avoid late changes being made.(ODPM, 2004b, p. 1).

35

There are many terms which are used in government documents and in the relevant literature to designate such groups and individuals. The most frequent among them are: hard to reach, excluded, disadvantaged, underrepresented and marginalized. As one can see in the present paper the definition of these groups by the former English government is comparatively wide as the criterion inter alia takes into account gender, race, physical mobility, age and social background. Accordingly the Royal Town Planning Institute defines the disadvantaged groups as people on low incomes, unemployed people, minority ethnic communities, women and women's groups, disabled people and disability groups, older people, children and young people, tenants groups, community groups and voluntary organisations (Royal Town Planning Institute (hereinafter RTPI), 2003, p.6).
36

For the area of London a separate independent charity is in charge of the project. In the present paper we focus on Planning Aid England only, even though the service is performed separately by organizations in Scotland, Ireland and Wales. Planning Aid England has professional staff and volunteers in all nine regions of England and in London.
37

From now on RTPI must put up a candidature at yearly invitations to apply for funding from budget to proceed with the project Planning Aid England. Thus on 14th April RTPI released information that they were granted funding in the amount of one million by Department for Communities and Local Government in partnership with Planning Aid for London to carry on the project for a period of one year (RTPI, 2011).
38

Emphasizing the speed of decision making is, according to the appraisal of numerous representatives of local planning authorities, a huge barrier for successful participation procedures. Kitchen and Whitney (2004) carried out a survey among the representatives of five English planning authorities and the opinion of 71 percent of the respondents was that it is not very easy resp. not easy at all to implement the government requirements to accelerate the procedures of decision making and increasing the participation of public in them.
39

The aim of the project was by means of modern innovative mechanism of participation to harmonize the opposing interests concerning the use of one of Oxford roads. The accent was similarly as with the new spatial legislation in England on the frontloading, seeking of consent of all stakeholders and in involvement of marginalized groups and individuals (more on project in Oxford Brooks University, 2005, 2006).
40

The coalition government announced they were to abolish the IPC in April 2012, as a commission is composed of nonelected members and is therefore considered not democratic by the coalition government. It is proposed that the acceptance and examination of applications for development consent will be dealt with by a new unit within the Planning Inspectorate.
41

On the web site of the Ministry for Environment and Spatial Planning of RS we will find one publication only with the subject of public participation in spatial planning and even this one is highly superficial without concrete recommendations to parties concerned (stakeholders). The British government on the other hand regularly publishes recommendations and their contents are much more concrete, providing clear guidelines to civil servants who implement legislation concerning spatial procedures.
42

English law, which regulates this subject, the Planning Act (see above), adopted only two years before our counterpart law ZUPUDPP, is - contrary to Slovene law - according to the prevailing opinion of British professional public, a step back in terms of public participation, which reminds us of the famous Italian philosopher Gienbattista Vico and his thought on corsi e ricorsi storici.

References Albrechts, L. (2002) The planning community reflects on enhancing public involvement, Planning Theory & Practice, 3(3), pp. 332-347. Allmendinger, P. & Haughton, G. (2009) Critical Reflection on Spatial Planning, Environment and Planning A, 41(11), pp. 2544-2549. Allmendinger, P. & Tewdwr Jones, M. (2009) Embracing Change and Difference in Planning Reform: New Labours Role for Planning in Complex Times, Planning Practice & Research, 24(1), pp. 71-81. Allmendinger, P. (2006) Zoning by Stealth? The Diminution of Discretionary Planning, International Planning Studies, 11(2), pp. 137-143. Arnstein, S. R. (1969) A Ladder of Citizen Participation, Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), pp. 216-224. Baker, K., Van de Walle, S. & Skelcher, C. K. (2011) Citizen support for increasing the responsibilties of local government in European countries: A comparative analysis, Lex Localis Journal of Local Self-Government, 9(1), pp. 1-21. Barnes et al. (2004) The micro politics of deliberation: Case studies in public participation, Contemporary Politics, 10(2), pp. 93-110. Beebeejaun, Y. (2004) Whats in a nation? Constructing ethnicity in the British Planning System, Planning Theory and Practice, 5(4), pp. 437-451. Beebeejaun, Y. (2006) The Participation Trap: The Limitations of Participation for Ethnic and Racial Groups, International Planning Studies 11(1), pp. 318. Bherer, L. (2010) Successful and unsuccessful participatory arrangements: why is there a participatory movement at the local level?, Journal of Urban Affairs, 32(3), pp. 287303. Blagajne, D., antej, B. (2001) tudija izvajanja prostorske zakonodaje o urejanju naselij, stavbnih zemlji in graditve objektov, elaborat, Intitut za pravo okolja (Ljubljana: Intitut za pravo okolja). Booth, P. (1995) Zoning or Discretionary Action: Certainty and Responsiveness in Implementing Planning Policy, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14 (2) ,pp. 103-112. Booth, P. (2007) The control of Discretion: Planning and the Common-Law tradition, Planning Theory, 6(2), pp. 127-145. Brewer, K. & Alexander, D. (2007) Accessing the emerging SCIs, Town and Country Planning, 75(2), pp. 47-54. Brezovek, M. (2005) Pojmovno-teoretini okvir razvoja lokalne demokracije, In: Brezovek, M., Haek, M., in Kraovec, A. (ed.), Lokalna demokracija II. (Ljubljana: Fakulteta za drubene vede). Brownill, S & Carpenter, J. (2007) Increasing Participation in Planning: Emergent Experiences of the Reformed Planning System in England, Planning Practice & Research, 22(4), pp. 619-634. Brownill, S. & Parker, G. (2010) Why Bother with Good Works? The Relevance of Public Participation(s) in Planning in a Post-collaborative Era, Planning Practice & Research, 25(3), pp. 275282. Carley, M. & Bayley, R. (2009) Urban extensions, planning and participation: Lessons from Derwenthorpe and other new communities (York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation). Carmona, M., Sieh, L. (2007) Measuring quality in planning (London, New York, Taylor & Francis). Carpenter, J. & Brownill, S. (2008) Approaches to Democratic Involvement: Widening Community Engagement in the English Planning System, Planning Theory & Practice, 9(2), pp. 227-248. Center za politoloke raziskave (2003) Stalia o lokalni demokraciji (Ljubljana:Fakulteta za drubene vede). Cotton, M. (2010) Public Participation in UK Infrastructure Planning: Democracy, Technology and Environmental Justice (unpublished).

Council of Europe (2004) Green paper on The future of Democracy in Europe, Trends, analyses and reforms, (Strasbourg: COE). Creighton, J. L. (2005) The Public Participation Handbook: Making Better Decisions Through Citizen Involvement (San Francisco: Jossey Bass). Dahl, R., Tufte, E.R. (1973) Size and Democracy, The Politics of the smaller European democracies (Stanford CA: Stanford University) Dimitrovska-Andrews, K. & Plotajner, Z. (2000) Local effects of transformation processes in Slovenia, Inf.Raumentwicklung 7(8), pp. 435-449. Dredge, D. (2006) Networks, Conflict and Collaborative Communities, Journal of sustainable tourism 14(6), pp. 562-581. Dravni svet Republike Slovenije (DSRS) (2010) as je za spremembe v urejanju prostora, Zbornik referatov in razprav, t. 4/2010 (Ljubljana: DSRS). Durning, B. & Glasson, J. (2004) Skills Base in the Planning System, Vol.1, literature review for LGA (London: Employers Organisation and Office of Deputy Prime Minister). European Commission (2001) White Paper on European Governance, (Brussels: COM). Ferfila, B. (2008) Upravljavska sposobnost in koalicijsko povezovanje v slovenskih obinah, konno poroilo (Ljubljana: Fakulteta za drubene vede, Intitut za drubene vede, Center za politoloka raziskovanja). Flannery, T. (2006) The Weather Makers: The History and Future Impact of Climate Change (London: Allen Lane). Golobi, M. (2005) So vetrne elektrarne problematien project?, Urbani izziv, 16(1), pp. 42-49 Graham, J., Amos, B., Plumptree, T. (2003) Principles of good governance in the 21st century (Ottawa: Institute on Governance). Grant, M. (1992) Planning Law and the British Planning System, Town Planning Review, 63, pp. 3-12. Habermas, J. (1975) Legitimation Crisis (Boston: Beacon Press) Habermas, J. (1984,1987) The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society; Vol. 2: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason (Boston: Beacon Press). Haek, M., Brezovek, M., Balija, I. (2008) Upravljavska sposobnost in koalicijsko povezovanje v slovenskih obinah, (Ljubljana: Fakulteta za drubene vede). Hague, C. & Jenkins, P. (2005) Place identity, participation and planning (London and New York: Routledge) Haseltine, M. (2007) Cities Renaissance: Creating Local Leadership, Submission to the Shadow Cabinet Cities Taskforce (London: Conservative Party). Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative planning. Shaping places in fragmented societies (London: MacMillan). Healey, P. (1998) Building institutional capacity through collaborative approaches to urban planning Environment and Planning A 30(9), pp. 1531 1546. Hull City Council-HDF Planning Services (2007) Briefing Note 1: The New Development Plan System (Hull:Hull Development Framework). Imrie, R. (1998) Disability and the City (London: Paul Chapman). Jones, M. (2007) The European Landscape Convention and the question of public participation, Landscape Research, 32(5), pp. 613-633. Kitchen, T. & Whitney, D. (2004) Achieving More Effective Public Engagement eith the English Planning System, Planning Practice & Research, 19(4), pp. 393-413. Klemenc, A. (2011) Krepitev participativne kulture v sloveniji (Ljubljana: Regionalni center za okolje Slovenija). Kos Grabar, J. (2010) Urejanja prostora v Sloveniji na zacetku XXI. stoletja, zapis in nadgradnja ustnega prispevka, ki ga je avtor podal na novinarski konferenci Slovenskega drutva evalvatorjev dne 25. 2. 2009 v Centru Evropa v Ljubljani (Ljubljana: Slovensko drutvo evalvatorjev). Kos, D. (2003) Postmoderno prostorsko planiranje?, Teorija in praksa, 40(4), pp. 647-657 Kos, D. (2011) Krepitev participativne kulture v Sloveniji prispevek na posvetu, (Ljubljana: Dravni svet RS). Lavtar,R. (2007) Sodelovanje prebivalcev v slovenskih obinah : participacija prebivalcev pri odloanju o javnih zadevah na lokalni ravni v Sloveniji (Maribor : Intitut za lokalno samoupravo in javna naroila Maribor). Ling, T. (2002) Delivering joined-up government in the UK: dimensions, problems and issues, Public Administration 80(4), pp. 615-642. Lyle J. T., (1985) Design for Human Ecosystems (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.).

Marot, N. (2010) Presoja vloge prostorske zakonodaje v slovenskem sistemu prostorskega planiranja, doktorska disertacija (Ljubljana: Fakulteta za geodezijo in gradbenitvo Univerze v Ljubljani). Marui I. (2002) Planiranje, In: Poli M. et al. (ed.), Spoznavni zemljevid Slovenije (Ljubljana: Znanstveni intitut Filozofske fakultete). Mlinar, Z. (2000) Glokalizacija ali getoizacija lokalne demokracije: Koper, Slovenska Istra in drava, Teorija in praksa, 37(3), pp. 413-436. Moore, V. (2010) A practical approach to planning law (eleventh edition) (Oxford: Oxford University Press). National Planning Aid Unit (2007) Year 4 National Quarterly Monitoring Report April 2006- March 2007 (unpublished). Needham, B. (2006) Planning Law and Economics: An Investigation of the Rules We Make for Using Land (London: Routledge/RTPI). Nelkin,D. & Pollak, M. (1979) Public participation in technological decisions:Reality or grand illusion? Technology Review 81(8), pp 55-64. Newman, J. (2001) Modernising Governance: New Labor, Policy and Society (London: Sage). Norberg-Schulz, C. (1980) Genius loci : towards a phenomenology of architecture (London: Academy editions). Oliver, J. E. (2001) Democracy in suburbia, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.). Oxford Brookes University (2005) Interim Evaluation of Cowley Road Matters, Report to East Oxford Action (Oxford: Oxford Brookes University). Oxford Brookes University (2006) Final Evaluation of Cowley Road Matters, Report to East Oxford Action (Oxford: Oxford Brookes University). Putnam, D. R. (1993) Making democracy work: civic traditions in modern Italy (Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press). Raco, M. (2005) Sustainable development, rolled out neoliberalism and sustainable communities, Antipode, 37(2), pp. 324-347. Ratcliffe, J., Stubbs, M., Keeping, M. (2009) Urban Planning and Real Estate Development, (London: Routledge). Reade, E. (1987) British town and country planning (Buckingham: Open University Press). Rebernik, D. (2010) Teorija in praksa prostorskega nartovanja prostorski razvoj mest in irih mestnih obmoij v Sloveniji, Dela, 9(33), pp. 111127. Reeves, D. & Burley, K. (2002) Public inquiries and development plans in England: the role of Planning Aid, Planning Practice & Research, 17(4), pp. 407-428. Rowe, G. & Frewer, L.J. (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 30 (2), pp. 251-290. RTPI (2003) Education Commission Final Report (London: Royal Town Planning Institute). RTPI (2003) Planning Aid Main Programme Delivery Plan October 203-March 2006, paper presented to National Planning Aid Programme Board, 1 August. Schipper, E. L. F (2007) Climate Change Adaptation and Development: Exploring the Linkages, working paper (Norwich: Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia). Simoneti, M. (2007) Izobraevanje za sodelovanje v urejanju prostora, Geodetski vestnik 51(2), pp. 366-376. Simoneti, M. (2011) Participativna kultura in prostorsko nartovanje (Ljubljana: Intitut za politike prostora). Smith, B. C. (1985) The territorial dimension of the state, (London: George Allen). Thomas, H. (2000) Race and Planning (London: UCL Press). Thornley, A. (1993) Urban Planning under Thatcherism: The Challenge of the Market (London: Routledge). United nations General Assembly (1992) Earth Summit: Agenda 21, (Rio de Janeiro: United Nations Programme of Action) Veneris Y. (1993) Reliable design under conflicting social values, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 20(2), pp. 145-162. Vlaj, S. (2011) Lokalna samouprava - demokracija od spodaj navzgor (Ljubljana: Mednarodni intitut za blinjevzhodne in balkanske tudije IFIMES). Vrabec,M. (2007) Sodobni modeli demokracije, diplomska naloga (Ljubljana: Pravna fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani).

Weaver, C., Jessop, J., Das, V. (1985) Rationality in the public interest: notes toward a new synthesis, In: Breheny, M., Hooper, A. (ed.), Critical Essays On The Role Of Rationality In Urban & Regional Planning (London: Pion). Wiedemann, P.M.; Femers, S. (1993), Public Participation in waste management decision making: analysis and management of conflicts, Journal of Hazardous Materials 33(3), pp. 355368. Web references: Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) (2007, 2009, 2011) RTPI: http://www.rtpi.org.uk/what_planning_does/ (last accessed: 1.3.2011). Planning Advisory Service (2009): http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/core/page.do?pageId=109798 (last accessed: 17. 8. 2011). Legal references: (2007) Act on Local Self-Government - official consolidated text (ZLS-UPB2), Official Gazette of the RS, Nos. 94/2007. (2002) Construction Act (ZGO-1), Official Gazette of the RS, Nos. 110/2002, 47/2004, 126/2007, 108/2009. (2001) Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR), Planning: Delivering a Fundamental Change, Planning Green Paper (London: HMSO). (2006) Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), Planning Policy Statement: Planning Policy and Climate Change Supplement to PPS1 (London: DCLG). (2007) Department for Communities and Local Government, Planning for a Sustainable Future, White Paper (London: DCLG). (2008) Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), Planning Policy Statement 12: Local Spatial Planning (London: DCLG). (2004) Environment protection act (ZVO-1), Official Gazette of the RS, Nos. 41/2004, 108/2009, 70/2008. (2004) Her Majestys Stationery Office, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (London: HMSO). (2006) Her Majestys Stationery Office, Strong and Prosperous Communities: The Local Government White Paper (London: HMSO). (2008) Her Majestys Stationery Office, Planning Act 2008 (London: HMSO). (2007) Her Majestys Stationery Office, Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (London: HMSO). (2002) Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), Sustainable Communities: Delivering Through Planning (London: ODPM). (2003) Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), The Relationship between Community Strategies and LDFs (London: ODPM). (2004a) Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), Community Involvement in Planning: The Governments Objectives (London: ODPM). (2004b) Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), Planning Policy Statement 12: Local Development. (2005) Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), Best Value Performance Indicators: Guidance Document (London: ODPM). (2005) Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), Diversity and Planning: A Good Practice Guide (London: ODPM). (2005) Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (London: ODPM). (2010) Open Source Planning Green Paper, Policy Green Paper No. 14 (London: Conservative Party). (2002) Spatial Management Act (ZUreP-1), Official Gazette of the RS, Nos. 110/2002. (2007) Spatial Planning Act (ZPNart), Official Gazette of the RS, Nos. 33/2007, 108/2009. Frameworks (London: ODPM).

(2010) The act regarding the sitting of spatial arrangements of national significance in physical space (ZUPUDPP), Official Gazette of the RS, No. 80/2010 (No. 106/2010 corr.).