Oxford and Canterbury, 2 historic cities among several others in the UK who are developing policies to introduce a 15-minute city approach to their future development plans, are running into a barrage of criticism from conspiracy theorists who claim that such proposals amount to ‘environmental lockdown’ designed to confine people to within a certain distance from their homes, and a plot to attack personal freedoms.

Furthermore, it is claimed that the introduction of Ultra Low Emission Zones or Low Traffic Neighborhoods will come with greater surveillance and restrictions on people moving around between city neighborhoods. In Canterbury, the plans there have been described as having all the makings of a ‘digital open-air prison’.

In Oxford the opportunity to make these claims seems to stem from a conflation of 2 local government policies, one proposed by the City Council to develop 15-minute neighborhoods across the whole city over the next 20 years, and the other a traffic reduction policy being pursued separately by Oxford County Council within which the City of Oxford is located.

The City Council in Canterbury proposals are to improve traffic management and reduce traffic in the historical medieval city centre area around the Cathedral by requiring traffic to use a new ring road around the city centre rather than go through it. The city local development plan to 2045 intends to promote ‘living locally’ by ensuring community infrastructure provided as part of up-coming development should be accessible to all residents preferably within 15 minutes walking time.

How can cities respond?

It is of course, virtually impossible to challenge statements which are matters of belief, not founded on any acknowledgement of what is actually written in the planning policy documents, and impervious to any official statements of the issues which policies are intended to address.  Council leaders in both Oxford and Canterbury have strongly rebutted the misinformation and erroneous claims of the conspiracy theorists on social media and elsewhere and point to the wide consultation processes which are in place in both cities.

The exchanges in both cities illustrate the many tensions which are raised by proposals for major change such as the 15-minute city and associated mobility issues. In an earlier post I outlined narratives which underlie the 15-minute city concept. All are potentially divisive. Here are some suggested steps which might be taken to reduce the risk that prejudice and misinformation cause the overall aims and objectives being lost.

Co-ordination

Where more than one authority is involved in delivering different aspects of policy both need to share the same narrative about overall policy objectives and outcomes.

Avoid artificial zoning

Policies for the creation of ‘complete neighborhoods’ for the purposes of the 15-minute city and improved mobility strategies should not be based on arbitrary lines on a map but rather on recognized communities with some sense of place and identity. Take time to understand how residents ‘use’ their place, and where else they go to access services and facilities.

Start with community infrastructure

The creation of 15-minute neighborhoods will likely involve the establishment of some key infrastructure within communities such as service hubs, public spaces, expanded cycle ways and improved access to public transport.  Such features can help throw a positive light on the feasibility and benefits from localization before any negatives of traffic restrictions come to dominate the agenda.

Community empowerment rather than consultation

Consultation with communities can involve many different levels of community involvement from merely providing information and inviting comments through to jointly produced planning, empowering the community by implementing its priorities and suggestions.  It is suggested that progress to the development and delivery of 15-minute city policies is pursued as far as possible towards the community empowerment end of the spectrum.

Community learning and community cohesion

The possibilities for ‘living local’ need to be supported by opportunities for community members to come together to learn how neighborhood is relevant to bigger issues facing wider society, and to explore the possible new ways of going about daily living provided by the proximity of local services and amenities.

The local changes also provide opportunities for promoting events to encourage community participation and community cohesion such as festivals, sports events or other social and cultural activities.

Community champions

Identify and support prominent residents active in the neighborhood to act as community champions.

Discussion

I am sure you will have more ideas and suggestions.  Let me know what you think.

Policies for Places | JOHN TIBBITT | Substack. Subscription is free.