The Research Cases - Local Authority Selection Process

The objective of this section is to explain the selection process for the LPA research ‘cases’. The first central decision in the process was to focus on the case study of the English planning system for the practical reason that this study does not seek to present a comparative account of planning systems and practices across the UK; which would need to evaluate the similarities and differences between the (increasingly) devolved political, legal and (planning) policy contexts of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (Morphet and Clifford, 2014, Clifford and Morphet, 2015, MacKinnon, 2015, McKee et al., 2017).

This research project had the advantage that all LAs in England have been subject to national policy reforms and austerity measures, albeit to differing extents and with strong geographical variations.

Therefore, the potential pool of cases was extensive. There are 353 LAs in England. These are comprised of 27 county councils, 201 district councils, and 125 single-tier authorities (House of Commons Briefing Paper, 2017, No.07104). However, not all of these LAs have responsibility for planning and development functions, and so a number would not be suitable for this study. For example, county councils have responsibility for health and social care, education and waste planning, but not planning services.

Instead, planning departments sit within the remit of second-tier district council functions or single-tier unitary authorities that encompass all LG functions. The next decision was to exclude London because of its unique economic, political and governance status compared to the other eight regions of England.

This meant that, after excluding the 27 county councils and 32 London Boroughs, the study could potentially include the remaining 294 district and single-tier LAs that carry out planning services from across the eight regions in England. These decisions set the initial parameters for the LPA case selection.

Figures 7-8 below outline the administrative structure and geography of local government in England.

From these figures it is worth noting three points: firstly that the Coalition Government abolished the former regional government structures covering England in 2010; secondly that the electoral wards relate to the boundaries for voting activity for local and national elections which are not relevant to this study; and thirdly parish councils, often referred to as ‘community’ or ‘town’ councils, sit below the

‘primary’ county, unitary and district councils because they do not have the same statutory powers or functions. Parish councils are also only found in certain parts of the country and so are not part of the study. It is sufficient for the purposes here to note that the objects of the study are district councils and unitary authorities because they control planning services within their bounded administrative territory:

100

Figure 8 – Administrative Structure of Local Government in England:

(ONS Online – UK Administrative Geography).

101

Figure 9 – United Kingdom Local Authority Districts, Counties and Unitary Authorities (2017)

(ONS, 2018).

102

The case selection method was based on a blend of judgement/purposive and quota sampling (Farthing, 2015) that sought to ensure a relatively balanced mix of characteristics between regional distribution, rural-urban classification, relatively higher and lower ‘values’ in terms of local economic conditions (GVA), demographic and social pressures, administrative structures and size, etc. which together are termed here as LPA ‘contextuality’ as a shorthand for their specific mix and combination of these factors.

In practice this activity relied on LG website desktop research and circling areas on a hard copy map to filter through the potential case candidates on a region-by-region basis (e.g. starting in the south-east).

Where one targeted council was unresponsive to a request to participate in the study, the next LPA considered most suitable based on achieving a mix of contexts were contacted, and so on (and so also influenced by the characteristics of the LPAs that had already agreed to participate within a region).

This sampling method also extended to the specific individuals that were contacted to participate in the study (discussed in section 3.3). Despite these criteria defined by the researcher leading to which cases were invited to participate in the study, this was balanced in practice by pragmatic issues of gaining ‘access’ to LPAs and key informants. Overall, the majority of councils were responsive to the study, with approximately 90 requests for participation translating into 40 research interviews. At this point, the researcher ceased inviting local councils to participate in the study in order to avoid collecting

‘too much data’ than could be reasonably managed within the resource/time constraints of the project.

In deciding on which cases to contact, the researcher utilised three main sources to review the ‘practice landscapes’ of local (planning) authorities. The first source was official reports and briefing papers from professional bodies such as the Local Government Association (LGA), Local Government Information Unit (LGIU), New Local Government Network (NLGN), Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) and Town and the Country Planning Association (TCPA). The second source was information from the national government Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and individual LG websites.

The third source was through the practice-based industry magazines ‘Planning’ and ‘Local Government Chronicle’. Together these sources provided unfolding ‘real time’ practice-based insights that assisted the research design, case selection process, preparation for the interviews and served to supplement the academic literature and theoretical framework (Chapter 2). The sampling method and sources also addressed the concern to avoid the potential biases of only presenting ‘novel’ cases of responding to policy and austerity reforms on the one hand, and on the other presenting a ‘purely random’ selection.

The ONS Rural-Urban Classification (RUC) of Local Authority Districts in England, based on data from the 2011 National Census, was used to classify councils for selection and into groupings for analysis

103

(See figure 10). Six are categorised as ‘Mainly Rural’ (West Oxfordshire and Cotswolds, Uttlesford, Derbyshire Dales, Huntingdonshire, Ryedale, Ribble Valley). Three as ‘Largely Rural’ (Aylesbury Vale, County Durham, Suffolk County). Five are categorised as ‘Urban with Significant Rural’ (Taunton Deane, Stafford, Wyre Forest, Cherwell and South Northants, Cheshire East). Sixteen are categorised as ‘Urban with City and Town’ (Arun, Bracknell, Leicester, Exeter, Guildford, Lincoln, Rugby, Oxford, Warwick, Middlesbrough, Wakefield, Hull, Blackburn with Darwen, Preston, Norwich, Bristol). One was categorised as ‘Urban with Minor Conurbation’ (Sheffield), and nine as ‘Urban with Major Conurbation’

(Birmingham, South Tyneside, Gateshead, Salford, Trafford, Newcastle, Wirral, Wigan, Rochdale).

Figure 10 – Local Authority 2011 Rural-Urban Classification in England (ONS, 2011)

(source: ONS, 2017).

The RUC for each LPA case has been slightly simplified here to assist categorisation and comparison throughout the analysis. The nine LAs that fall under the classifications ‘Mainly Rural’ and ‘Largely Rural’

have been classified as ‘Rural’. The five LAs that come under ‘Urban with Significant Rural’ have been classified here as ‘Mixed’. The sixteen LAs designated ‘Urban with City and Town’ have been classified as ‘Urban’. The final ten LAs designated as ‘Urban with Minor Conurbation’ and ‘Urban with Major Conurbation’ respectively are classified here as ‘Major Urban’. Across the total 40 LPAs, 65% represent Urban and Major Urban places and 35% represent Mixed and Rural places across England. It can therefore be argued that the data set represents a fairly diverse and mixed set of urban and rural LG cases, albeit with a slightly stronger urban bias (See figure 11).

104

Figure 11 – Research Cases Numbers and Percentage by Rural-Urban Classification (ONS, 2011)

Source: Authors own data.

Mainly Rural Largely Rural Urban with Significant Rural (Mixed)

Urban with City and Town

Urban with Minor Conurbation

Urban with Major Conurbation 6

3

5

16

1

9

LOCAL AUTHORITY CASES BY 2011 RURAL-URBAN CLASSIFICATION IN ENGLAND

22%

13%

40%

25%

Percentage Rural and Urban Research Cases

Rural

Mixed

Urban

Major Urban

105

In terms of the regional coverage of the total 40 LG cases that participated in the research, there is a slight over-representation of the North West and South East, and underrepresentation of the South West and East Midlands regions respectively. The original intention was for an exact distribution of 40 LAs comprising five cases from across each of the eight regions in England. However, as a result of LG response rates and access, the lowest representation is three cases each in the South West and East Midlands, and the highest of nine cases in the North West. Figure 12 demonstrates the percentage regional distribution of the LA cases. The data set comprises 7 located in the South East (17.5%); 3 in the South West (7.5%); 4 in the East of England (10%); 3 in the East Midlands (7.5%); 5 in the West Midlands (12.5%); 4 within Yorkshire and the Humber (10%); 5 in the North East (12.5%); and 9 in the North West (22.5%) respectively. Overall it was felt this still provided LA regional ‘representativeness’.

Figure 12 – Regional Distribution (Coverage) of Research Cases across England (%)

Source: Authors own data.

Despite the slight imbalances between regional coverage, there is still a good degree of representation from all eight regions across England (excluding London). This is important because the claim is not that these cases are representative of all LAs across England, but rather to demonstrate that a diverse range of geographically located places have been considered when drawing tentative interpretations and conclusions from the qualitative empirical data collected. The 40 LG ‘senior practitioners’ (herein SPs)

17%

7%

10%

7%

13%

10%

13%

23%

Local Authority Coverage by Region in England (%)

South East South West East of England East Midlands West Midlands

Yorkshire and the Humber North East

North West

106

interviewed can therefore provide a diverse picture of the responses to planning under austerity and policy reforms since 2010 from a number of rural-urban and geographical regions across England.

In addition, the state of the local economy across each of the research cases provides an important antecedent condition when examining incentivised/pro-growth policy reforms and responses to budget pressures. The average Gross Value Added (GVA) produced by local economies (NUTS3 areas) in 2015 provided a rough initial benchmark to assess the economic context for each case in relation to the UK average (See figure 13). These NUTS3 areas did not necessarily fit neatly with the cases and often represented their wider local economies that masks the economic variations at the scale of local councils. However, the researcher was not attempting to determine an exact or scientific definition of

‘high’ and ‘low’ value councils. Rather the intention was to provide a cursory overview, with the specific LG positions clarified through the research interviews. Therefore, the high or low economic ‘value’

status attributed to the LG cases was simplistically inferred from the performance of the broader local economy to provide context for the research case selection process and preparation for interviews.

Figure 13 - Average Gross Value Added (GVA) 2015 for NUTS3 Local Areas in England

Source: Authors own graph (data sourced from ONS.GOV.UK).