This is an individual response to the ‘Planning for the Future’ White Paper from Simeon Shtebunaev, Doctoral Researcher in Urban Planning, Youth and Smart Cities at the Faculty of Computing, Engineering, and the Built Environment at Birmingham City University.
The response is based on an ongoing doctoral study entitled: Young people’s perceptions and awareness of the planning of the future ‘smart city’. Engaging and empowering the role of teenagers between fifteen and nineteen years of age in the planning of future cities in England, Spain and Bulgaria. The response therefore looks specifically at the impacts of the ‘Planning for the Future’ White Paper on the interplay between children and young people, technology, and democracy.
Simeon Shtebunaev
BA(Hons), MArch in Architecture and Town and Regional Planning
Doctoral Researcher and Visiting Lecturer in the Built Environment at Birmingham City University
Some of the information in this paper has been influenced by informal and formal conversations with other professionals in the field of child and youth friendly cities, especially a roundtable event coordinated by Playful Planet, as well as, extracts have been previously published in:
Shtebunaev, S. (2019) Including young people in the planning and design of our cities Academy of Urbanism Journal ‘ Here and Now, Issue 14, Accessible at: https://issuu.com/theaou/docs/here_now_autumn_2019__compressed/
Shtebunaev, S. (2020) 10 Reasons Giving young adults voice & power over what gets built: advocating for youth participation in planning, regeneration, and neighbourhood management. Essay Commissioned by Grosvenor Britain and Ireland, Accessible at: https://grosvenor.com/our-businesses/grosvenor-britain-ireland/giving-young-people-a-voice?fbclid=IwAR3ft7Q5cqy08K-Vr7z37brY2PydBObCxbYMTjzInrThB4BTqId_yzpSVO0
Introduction
Adultcentricsm denotes the bias that our society places on the views of adults in comparison to those of children and young people. In social practice, the term is closely related to the exaggerated egocentrism of adults in relation to youth. In a system where the adult’s views carry more weight, young people’s perspective is often dismissed or restricted. Youth are not passive recipients but active shapers of our urban environments, however, often seen as an external force to the planning process. Since the 1989, the United Nations[1] in Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which the UK is a signatory, stipulate:
“Children and young people have the right to say what they think should happen when adults are making decisions that affect them and have their opinions taken into account” (UN, 1989)
However, there has been almost no systematic progress in involving young people in urban planning, arguably the policy aspect of most relevancy to them. The 2020 White Paper on page twelve identifies young people as ‘those who stand to gain from development’ but whose voice is ‘not heard loudly enough’. Unfortunately, it fails to provide robust solutions to the issue of neglecting the views of children and young people. The paper tends to assume that technological advances will automatically engage with a supposedly digitally native demographic. From my own personal engagement and research in the perceptions of young people towards smart cities, there are a significant issues concerning the digital divide – children and young people are not a homogenous group, there are many who do not have access, skills or ability to connect digitally but no consideration appears to be given to this The proposals risk furthering current inequalities by simply suggesting technology and best practice as the answer.
Overall, the paper sets out a structure that I can agree with, a digitally-led planning system, with clear national policies applicable across the country, with local plans holding clear rules and specific local standards and requirements, supplemented by design codes, created in democratic manner with community consultation. However, the system hinges on the ability of national and local government to collaborate across different data standards, on the resourcing on local authorities and on the enforcement of the democratically created documents. Transparency, accountability, and resourcing have the potential to bring a very messy transitions and ultimately undermine the basic tenant of the White Paper’s proposals. Of particular worry is the ability to engage meaningfully with children and young people as meaningful participation would require further resourcing to engage with facilitators. Unfortunately, there is very little mentioned about the ‘how’ in the paper, which is worrisome.
The paper fails to answer a basic question: ‘Planning for whose future?’[2]. For whom and what for is the planning system. The housing delivery focus of the paper is very narrow and unfortunately damaging to the idea that we should plan for future generations in a sustainable, holistic and proactive manner. An overarching preamble in the legislation needs to be introduced that set out the answers to those questions and protects, encourages and stipulates the involvement of communities in particular children and young people[3].
Responses to specific questions from the consultation which bear relevance to the issues of youth, urban planning and technology.
There are unfortunately quite a few questions in the White Paper, whose framing and design is one catering more to a neighbourhood consultation with residents, rather than to official policy responses to a White Paper. A number of options and framing of many omitted here questions is counterproductive and misleading. As a social scientist I would not include such leading question in a serious consultation or a survey design which I would perform, as this risks simplifying complex issues and generating data which by design is biased and unreflective of the complexity of the issues at hand.
3. Our proposals will make it much easier to access plans and contribute your views to planning decisions. How would you like to find out about plans and planning proposals in the future? [Social media / Online news / Newspaper / By post /Other – please specify]
Other
A wide range of techniques and opportunities suited to the needs and abilities of all individuals and sections of the community is required. The planning notice in physical form, whilst needing reinvention is an immediate and visible source of information. There cannot be the thought of either or, but a wide range of outlets need to be considered and appropriated to the local area in which the consultations take place. Child and youth friendly communications, composed by specialists in the form, are particularly important to convey information to children and young people in ways they can understand and respond to.
A great example of how to communicate in a considered manner both physically, digitally and long-term can be seen in the Growing Up Boulder initiative in the city of Boulder, Colorado, USA[4]. Growing up Boulder’ is a partnership, since 2009, between the University of Colorado, the City of Boulder and Boulder Valley School District. The project aims to engage young people in the planning process and aims to transform Boulder in an exemplary child-and youth-friendly city. There are more than a dozen individual planning projects[5], in which young people under the age of 18 had been involved in the planning process through the definition of brief, assessment of planning application and, later, the dissemination of the final outcome. The innovation comes in the direct communication between groups of young people and city planners, facilitated by educators and researchers, specifically in the honest exchange of views and ideas. The young people are seen as co-creators in the process and given the opportunity of two-way feedback process, assessing final proposals against the brief they had co-developed. The direct engagement of planning authorities and decision makers from the City Council is key to a meaningful representation and participation.
Another very useful communication tool has been the ‘Plan Your Brisbane’[6] project led by Brisbane’s chief planner, Dy Currie, which has employed both the physical and digital possibilities of gamification to engage its citizens in the production of the new local plan. The traditional ways of engagement such as surveys, school activity sessions and forums have been complimented by a custom build online housing game which aims to demonstrate the complex balancing game a city planner engages in. The game had attracted more than 100,000 players of which the 18-34 demographic had been overrepresented, demonstrating the interest of younger people to engage in innovative ways of participating in urban planning.
4. What are your top three priorities for planning in your local area?[Building homes for young people / building homes for the homeless /Protection of green spaces / The environment, biodiversity and action on climate change / Increasing the affordability of housing / The design of new homes and places / Supporting the high street / Supporting the local economy / More or better local infrastructure / Protection of existing heritage buildings or areas / Other – please specify]
Other
Similarly, to the previous question, the design of question four is misleading and fails to be robust. It is indeed surprising that young people are seen here as actors in the housing market and nothing more. The average age of first-time buyers has risen from 31 to 33 over the same 10 years (2007-2017) according to the National housing survey 2017-2018. This is an average age which far surpasses most definitions of youth and young people across the world. It is concerning that young people are seen as a potential expansion of the market, and the context of their everyday existence – economic, cultural and educational is ignored under the provided priorities.
5. Do you agree that Local Plans should be simplified in line with our proposals? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]
No
Unfortunately, there is a lack of assurance that the proposed changes will result in a better planning system in meeting needs of children, young people, and their families. There are particular needs that should be considered in the design of zoning regulations when child and youth friendly planning movement is considered[7] [8]. Those often concern the design of public space as well as buildings. Unfortunately, in the paper there is little consideration about the impact of the proposed changes to the urban realm and to provisions for play, traffic, leisure and sports, youth provisions, sustainable and active transport, and access to green spaces. There needs to be a much more robust engagement with those issues and move away from the sole discussion of housing developments. The Local plan needs to be able to interact with existing supplementary guidance on such issues.
The move to a digital plan is welcome, however, there is a lack of assurance that digital inequalities will be considered in the design of the system. This needs to be remedied.
6. Do you agree with our proposals for streamlining the development management content of Local Plans, and setting out general development management policies nationally? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]
Not sure.
The move to introduce more automatic or fast-track planning permissions needs to be supplemented by a robust system which is able to consider all views and needs before a development is approved. Measures to introduce design codes at the local and national level could help to promote spaces and places that are better suited to the needs of children, young people and families. However, there is insufficient detail in the proposals to do anything other than reserve judgement. For example, there is no clarity on how communities (which must include children and young people) will be engaged in the production of local design codes and guidance. There is also no clarity around the formal/legal status of such codes, which raises concerns over compliance with, and the ability to enforce, such codes. Development management policies at both national and local level should offer clear support for the need to promote appropriate infrastructure to meet the needs of children, young people, and their families.
7(a). Do you agree with our proposals to replace existing legal and policy tests for Local Plans with a consolidated test of “sustainable development”, which would include consideration of environmental impact? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]
Not sure.
In the absence of any detail on a replacement, I cannot comment further beyond expressing our wish that a revised form of test pays sufficient regard to children, young people, and their families as a ‘critical unit of planning’. `However, I would point out that any sustainability test should consider the Student Strikes for Climate and the movement around zero carbon. The planning system must respect the views of young people and set in stone concrete requirements and targets for the completion of the now legal target of Zero Carbon Britain by 2050. The Royal Town Planning institute has produced guidance and is leading a campaign on achieving this aim.[9]
7(b). How could strategic, cross-boundary issues be best planned for in the absence of a formal Duty to Cooperate?
Some form of strategic planning needs to continue to exist, as there are many cross-county borders issues that affect children and young people, from travel to education facilities to family and play. If the Duty to Cooperate is abolished, there should be a return to strategic regional planning, with regional plans able to provide coordination between local authorities in a long-term manner, considering future generations.
9(a). Do you agree that there should be automatic outline permission for areas for substantial development (Growth areas) with faster routes for detailed consent? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]
No
Under the proposals, the success of Growth zones will reply on the comprehensive and meaningful community engagement at the Local Plan, as well as, at the rigorous enforcement of Design codes. I am afraid that in such processes the voice of children and young people has not been considered. In the absence of the duty to be heard, there will be very little opportunity for local communities to preserve local venues and activities they deem important such as youth centres, play areas and community centres, which often are situated in areas potentially to be designated as Growth zones. In a fast-tracked process for approval, I am afraid that such organisations that care for the needs of children and young people within the Growth designation will have little to no ability to object. This will particularly hurt young cultural organisations and start-ups which might have not existed and therefore been able to influence or be considered at the formation of the Local Plan. Additionally, freeholders who own land or buildings providing to those services in a Growth zone might prioritise housing over retaining the children and young people’s asset, which will be detrimental.
9(b). Do you agree with our proposals above for the consent arrangements for Renewal and Protected areas? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]No
The Renewal category is one of concern as it could potentially create a marketplace where piecemeal housing infills and developments are promoted, with little to no regard of the public realm around them. I am concerned that this will result in a deregulated built environment where provisions for children and young people will not be considered in the plan making process and no opportunity will be provided for communities to object to those.
There also has been little consideration given to the opportunities for communities to kick-start development.
Handlebar Café[10] is acafé and bike workshop at the Viaduct Cycle Path, near Winchester, England. The project has been created by young people attending creative workshops at the local charity SpudYouth and is managed by Bespoke Biking, a local Community Interest Company. The project has initiated a development from the ground up, where young people have been able to identify a need in the community, then design and develop a proposal for spatial intervention. Having presented the idea to Winchester City Council and to the Town Forum, Spud and the student participants were invited to develop the designs further and explore whether this was a feasible design. Ongoing construction for five years, the development opened doors in late 2019, providing a local amenity to the wider community of cyclists and other path users. The project has been supported by Winchester City Council, the University of Portsmouth, ArchitecturePLB and other commercial organisations who have developed the plans, designs, and business case more fully. The project demonstrates that if ideas generated by young people are listened to meaningfully, then they can generate built projects serving a wider community.
The Protect designation needs to be better considered, as there potentially could be a difficult interplay between all three zones, especially in dense urban neighbourhoods which might cover all three zones.
9(c). Do you think there is a case for allowing new settlements to be brought forward under the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects regime? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]
Not sure
I have no objection in principle to this proposal. However, in the absence of any detail on a replacement, I cannot comment further beyond expressing our wish that any such Development Consent Orders brought under the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects pay sufficient regard to the development of inclusive places, which consider the role of children and young people and allow for their consultation.
Euston Youth Panel 2040 [11] is a youth engagement project within the wider regeneration of Euston station in London, England. Initiated by Lendlease, facilitated by ZCD Architects with support by Fitzrovia Youth in Action, Bengali Workers Association and New Horizon Youth Centre, the project aims to engage 14 to 20-year-olds in the long-term management of a national transport asset. Importantly, participants in the panel received some payment. The project had embraced a co-design process, allowing for the young people to develop a future engagement programme based on their own engagement experience with the workshops, their knowledge of the area and their expertise as young people regarding the most successful methods of communication with their peers. The project showcases how engaging young people in long-term regeneration processes does not need to be a one-off event, and that sustained engagement can provide continuous insight.
10. Do you agree with our proposals to make decision-making faster and more certain? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]
Not Sure
I welcome many of the suggestions for a digitally led planning system, especially the standardisation of local plan provisions, the digital templates proposed for planning notices and the drive towards a more transparent and mutually exchangeable data. However, I am alarmed at the lack of recognition that bias plays part in the development of technological solutions and the lack of commitment to develop the digital planning system in a way that will respect the needs and goals of diverse sections of the population, in specific children and young people. I would urge you to add a safeguard to the proposals that will allow for such issues to be deliberated upon in the further development of any standard templates.
11. Do you agree with our proposals for accessible, web-based Local Plans? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]
Not Sure
I welcome the commitment to creating digital and graphically appealing Local plans, which can be accessed from different locations and the explicit mention of inclusivity in the paper. However, as we have seen with the COVID19 pandemic a blended approach is often the best one. When children and young people are considered, we must be able to provide a diversity of approaches in order to be able to engage with the community. I would argue that the Local Plan needs to have a physical expression in the city, compounded by the digital version which is widely accessible. I would urge you to look at the Urban Rooms[12] movement and consider integrating such proposal in every Local Authority as part of the new Design and Placemaking office.
12. Do you agree with our proposals for a 30-month statutory timescale for the production of Local Plans? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]
No.
I have no overall objections in principle to the creation of a more efficient and streamlined plan making process but I am concerned about the reduced time to consult with local communities and in particular with the ability to fully consider the full context of the local plan in a shorter time frame. I am concerned that issues of importance to children and young people might be overlooked in the drive to meet shorter timeframes or that youth organisations might not be able to mobilise and respond to the plan making process in the six months timeframe of initial consultation. I would welcome strengthening of the statutory duty to consider the needs of children and young people to be consulted in the plan making process, where those aim to enfranchise youth representative organisations.
I am concerned about the abolition of the ‘right to be hear’ which is often the sole opportunity for community members to voice their concern to the planning committee members. I would encourage this to be retained and not to be consigned solely to a planning official’s role.
17. Do you agree with our proposals for improving the production and use of design guides and codes? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]
Yes
In principle I am supportive of those proposals. However, I cannot judge how widely community consultation and engagement will be able to feed into those codes. If design codes are to assume greater importance in the ‘plan-making’ process, then local communities should be allowed sufficient opportunities to comment upon and influence their content. Design Codes will also need to consider inclusivity and the needs of children and young people, particularly in the Model National Design Code. Young people and children, as a term is currently largely absent from the National Design Guide. Furthermore, the white paper offers no clarity on the legal/formal status of such codes, and therefore the ability of local authorities to enforce compliance with them.
Young people have the agency to change their communities. In particular, young adults over the age of eighteen have the right to vote but may often lack key information to be able to meaningfully exercise their rights. As reported by a city-wide survey in Birmingham, England, young people feel short-changed by existing power structures[13] and would like to be involved in all stages of development of a built project. Furthermore, youth can challenge existing power relations[14] by transforming existing adult-to-adult exchanges, altering the status quo, and delivering new solutions. By actively seeking youth involvement, a private organisation or a public body can ensure a more transparent and democratic process of development[15], as well as tap into the underestimated potential and enthusiasm of a neglected demographic. A great example is the work of the charity ‘ A Place in Childhood’[16] in the development of the Scottish Place Standards for children and young people.
18. Do you agree that we should establish a new body to support design coding and building better places, and that each authority should have a chief officer for design and place-making? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]
Yes
I would welcome the introduction of such role; however, I want to stress the importance of such design officers in undertaking a facilitator role and engaging with children and young people and their needs. This should be a key part of the description of the role.
A very useful summary of theoretical models of youth participation employed since the 1960s has been compiled by Andreas Karsten[17], a researcher at Youth Policy Labs. Putting those models to practice, however, necessitates an understanding of the landscape of youth work and youth needs. The Grosvenor-led toolkit Voice.Opportunity.Power[18] seeks to plug that gap by providing practical advice how to conduct meaningful engagement linked to the RIBA Plan of Work.
20. Do you agree with our proposals for implementing a fast-track for beauty? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]
No
I am alarmed of the creation of a fast track system for developments which meet a specific set of physically defined parameters, as this risks the creation of a market which favours these developments to the detriment of others, such as functions housed in re-purposed buildings, which might not be meeting the definition of beauty. This is in direct contradiction to the commitment of carbon neutral UK by 2050. I am concerned that the paper only defines physical parameters of beauty and makes no mention of function or purpose of use. In many cases, developments that cater to the needs of children and young people (leisure and sport, cultural organisations, youth centres, open spaces and play areas, etc.) might be forced out of a neighbourhood if a fast-track system is created, which does not consider the function on an existing building or plot of land. I am alarmed especially in the case of further extending permitted development rights for ‘replicable and popular developments’, as this doesn’t instil confidence the diversity of use and users of any developments is considered. Expanding permitted development rights in this manner risks to prioritise easily replicable housing developments, thus in some cases creating potentially drab and unappealing environments.
22(a). Should the Government replace the Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 planning obligations with a new consolidated Infrastructure Levy, which is charged as a fixed proportion of development value above a set threshold? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]
Not sure
I have no objection in principle to this proposal. However, in the absence of any detail on a replacement, I cannot comment further beyond expressing our wish that any such new consolidated Infrastructure Levy sufficient regard to funding for children and young people’s needs (such as play, community infrastructure and green spaces) which currently originates either in Section 106 agreements or the current Community Infrastructure Levy. I would strongly encourage a system of funding cultural developments and of replacing any lost funding to be developed.
23. Do you agree that the scope of the reformed Infrastructure Levy should capture changes of use through permitted development rights? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]
Yes
Considering the potential for extended permitted development right throughout this paper and other ongoing consultations, I would encourage that any new Infrastructure Levy captures change of use development gain. I am particularly alarmed at the potential of such permitted developments to usher a change of use from uses that cater to children and young people towards housing use, especially under new proposals allowing for the demolition and rebuilding of light industrial buildings as homes, as well as the more streamlined routed to conversion of retail and commercial buildings into homes.
26. Do you have any views on the potential impact of the proposals raised in this consultation on people with protected characteristics as defined in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010?
Age is a protected characteristic in the section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. Under the current proposals, there can be no confidence that the future planning system proposed will engage with children and young people in a more meaningful manner than currently existing. In fact, abolishing the ‘Right to be Heard’ and the ability for individuals to comment on planning applications can further disable young people from participating, as their views might be filtered. There needs to be a comprehensive review about the impact of a digitally led planning system on children and young people from all backgrounds and demographics.
Young people have the right to be involved. The UK is a signatory several international conventions and treaties. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 1989)[19]aims to protect the human rights of people under the age of eighteen. Of particularinterest is Article 12, stipulating the rights of children to participate in decision-making processes that directly impact them. This human right of young people under the age of 18 is often ignored in design and planning processes. Furthermore, Article 7 of the Aarhus Convention on access to information (1998) requires public participation concerning plans, programmes and policies relating to the environment, strengthening the UNCRC’s Article 12. The New Urban Agenda, endorsed by UN Member States in 2016, places particular emphasis on ‘youth’ as one of the key demographics with which international, national, and local actors need to work in the context of urban development. Young people have also been identified as key demographic for the successful delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals, part of the leading UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, through the ‘Young leaders for the SDGs’ programme.[20] To substantiate and understand the statutory argument I recommend looking at the 2019 RTPI-led review about child-friendly planning in the UK[21], as well as Dr Jenny Wood’s 2015 review of the Scottish system[22].
I urge you to adopt a similar to the quoted below statement in the future legislation to safeguard and promote a local authority duty to consult and consider the views of children and young people in planning.
“Anyone who presents a planning proposal shall facilitate public participation. The municipality shall make sure that this requirement is met in planning processes carried out by other public bodies or private bodies. The municipality has a special responsibility for ensuring the active participation of groups who require special facilitation, including children and youth. Groups and interests who are not capable of participating directly shall be ensured good opportunities of participating in another way.”
Extract from the Norwegian Act of 27 June 2008 No. 71 relating to Planning and the Processing of Building Applications (the Planning and Building Act) (the Planning part) Date: 27/06/2008, Chapter 5. Public participation in planning, Section 5-1. Public participation
I would also urge a rethink of the Statement of Community Involvement to incorporate a duty of engaging with children and young people’s views, which should exist under the current Equality Duty.
Conclusion
The White Paper states that young people are a voice not heard loudly enough in the planning process, yet it fails to provide convincing solutions for overcoming this problem. The implicit suggestion that by introducing a digitally led system participation by underrepresented demographics will be improved is a contested one and needs to be further examined. In contexts of smart city planning, it can be seen that a mismatch between the issues that young people care about – justice, security, opportunity, and the issues which technological advances are trying to solve[23]. Digital Participation has its own downfalls and those need to be taken seriously.
I urge you to consider the role of children and young people in the planning process in a holistic manner and engage with the scholarship emerging around the digital participation of youth in democratic processes. Otherwise, the White Paper proposals risk widening inequality gaps.
[1] United Nations Convention on the rights of the Child (UNCRC), 1989, accessible at: https://www.unicef.org.uk/what-we-do/un-convention-child-rights/,
[2] For some answers, see: Wood,J., Bornat, D. and Bicquelet-Lock, A. (2019) Child Friendly Planning in the UK: A Review, RTPI publication, accessible at: https://www.rtpi.org.uk/practice/2019/november/child-friendly-planning-in-the-uk-a-review/,
[3] See the Norwegian Act of 27 June 2008 No. 71 relating to Planning and the Processing of Building Applications (the Planning and Building Act) (the Planning part) Date: 27/06/2008, specifically Chapter 5, Section 5-1, which mandates the right of children and young people to be involved in planning system. Accessible at: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/planning-building-act/id570450/
[4] See: Growing Up Boulder, Accessible at: http://www.growingupboulder.org/
[5] Victoria Derr & Emily Tarantini (2016): “Because we are all people”: outcomes and reflections from young people’s participation in the planning and design of child-friendly public spaces, Local Environment, DOI: 10.1080/13549839.2016.1145643
[6] See Plan Your Brisbane game summary, accessible at: https://jsacreative.com.au/projects/plan-your-brisbane/
[7] See European Network for Child Friendly Cities, Accessible at: https://playfulplanet.org.uk/child/
[8] See UNICEF, Child Friendly Cities Initiative, Accessible at: https://childfriendlycities.org/
[9] See RTPI’s research into climate change and planning: https://www.rtpi.org.uk/new-from-the-rtpi/?topic=Climate%20change%20and%20energy&contentType=Research
[10] More information about the project is available at: https://www.handlebar.cafe/about
[11] Read in full about the engagement project at Euston here: https://www.lendlease.com/articles/2019/08/20/21/23/eyp2040-young-people-at-the-heart-of-regeneration/
[12] See: http://placealliance.org.uk/working-groups/urban-rooms/
[13] ‘We can no longer make the excuse that young people do not want to engage with, participate in and contribute to society. The above reiterates that young people want a seat at the table, but our current methods and structures of civic, political, and societal participation leaves them without a chair, plate, or cutlery, let alone anything to eat.’ (pg 51.) Beatfreeks (2019) Brum Youth Trends, online report, pg. 51. Accessible on: https://www.beatfreeksyouthtrends.com/2019 , Accessed 15/08/2020
[14] Nordström, M., Wales, M., (2019). Enhancing urban transformative capacity through children’s participation in planning. Ambio 48, 507–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01146-5
[15] Read Commonplace’s Youtn Urban Panel views on engaging young people: https://www.commonplace.is/blog/young-people-as-the-driving-force-of-our-built-environment
[16] You can find out more about the work of ‘A Place in Childhood’ and child-led placemaking here: https://aplaceinchildhood.org/child-led-placemaking-2/
[17] See the full list of Youth Participation models from 1969 to 2012 on here: https://www.nonformality.org/2012/11/participation-models/
[18] https://voiceopportunitypower.com/
[19] United Nations Convention on the rights of the Child (UNCRC), 1989, accessible at: https://www.unicef.org.uk/what-we-do/un-convention-child-rights/, Accessed 15/08/2020.
[20] UN Sustainable Development Goals and Youth, Accessible at: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/youth/, Accessed 15/08/2020.
[21] Wood,J., Bornat, D. and Bicquelet-Lock, A. (2019) Child Friendly Planning gin the UK: A Review, RTPI publication, accessible at: https://www.rtpi.org.uk/practice/2019/november/child-friendly-planning-in-the-uk-a-review/, Accessed 15/08/2020
[22] Jenny Wood (2015) Children and Planning: To What Extent Does the Scottish Town Planning System Facilitate the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child? Planning Practice and Research, 30:2, 139-159, DOI: 10.1080/02697459.2015.1014222
[23] Michele Masucci, Hamil Pearsall & Alan Wiig (2019): The Smart City Conundrum for Social Justice: Youth Perspectives on Digital Technologies and Urban Transformations, Annals of the American Association of Geographers, DOI: 10.1080/24694452.2019.1617101
Youth City Futures 