1. Understanding community participation in planning through theatre UK-Ireland Planning Research Conference 2015 Dr Paul Cowie Newcastle University

2. The Town Meeting  Context for the show  The process of combining theatre and research  The experience of the show  Initial thoughts on the results

3. Context for the play  Previous research into neighbourhood planning has raised significant research questions:  How do groups engage in the process?  How do communities represent themselves in the planning process?  Particularly interested in Neighbourhood Forums. Self-organising and self- defined community groups  At same time Cap-a-pie sent round an invite to work on the co-production of a play as a research method

4. Designing the play  The play was designed to compress 18 months+ of planning process into 2 hours!  The design was informed by Pitkins (1967) ‘forms of representation’ and Saward’s (2010) concept of a ‘representative claim’.  Close collaboration between the theatre company and myself to design and produce the play.  Designed so that the audience are co- investigators in the research not subjects  Based around real life example of Kiruna, Sweden  PO of the performances and an after-show debate

5. Finally on the road  2 weeks of intensive rehearsals and 2 shows to invited audience to fine tune the play  The play was performed in 6 venues across the North of England  A variety of venues from formal and informal theatre spaces to community venues.  Advertised as any play would be.  A very, very strong reaction by audience to the show!

6. The audience/research collaborators

7. Not all places are the same

8. Thoughts on the results 1 – Place matters a lot!  The play is set in Little Rikjord a fictitious town in Greater Doggerland, however… ..everyone drew a map of their own town during the icebreaker exercise.  Those areas affected by mining drew heavily on this experience.

9. Thoughts on the results 2 – Fairness and due process matter more the representation  Two acts in the play:  Act 1 the community has a say  Act 2 the decision is taken away from them.  In act 1 it’s a 50/50 split in what the future should be.  In act 2 overwhelming majority against the decision to the point of physical opposition.  The lack of fairness and due process tip the balance against authority  The nature of representation was more often than not an afterthought.

10. Thoughts on the results 3 – The role of the planner  The character Benjamin Renolds, the Planning Officer seeks to facilitate the evening.  However he becomes the focus of opposition  Brad the actor is a skilled facilitator but a real life planning officer may not have such skills.  Despite the fictitious nature of the situation and Brad’s skills as a facilitator the end is always chaos.

11. Next steps  Further tour of the play in the Autumn and Spring. More venues and different audiences, School Groups and Professional Planners!  Fieldwork notes and feedback from performances now need to be analysed and written up.  The co-investigators are still involved and we’ll be following up with them to see what, if any, impact the play has had.  The robustness and validity of the play as a research tool need to be investigated.  Developing a more useful version of the play to assist community groups engage in neighbourhood planning and with local authorities in the development of their LDF.