7 Making and executing regional spatial plans
7.5 Scales of planning
There is always, from a ‘rational’ point of view, a principled discussion to be had, about what is the most appropriate scale at which to lay down spatial pol- icies. Every country and every period resolves the issue in its own way, depend- ing on numerous factors – many far from simply rational, but much more about power battles and values. Here, this issue is examined in the current English case, by asking about the decisions on, first, national versus regional, and then regional versus local. Many underlying debates in recent years have been about these questions, and they are likely to rumble on for many years to come.
7.5.1 The national level versus the regional
National level planning is well established in several countries around the world – France, Netherlands, Japan have been examples (Alterman 2001).
Sometimes this has consisted of complete physical or spatial plans or frame- works, sometimes it has had a more sectoral character, for transport, housing, water or the environment. Such a spatial plan has never existed in any developed form in England, and even sectoral plans have been very limited, at least any with strong spatial dimensions. Whatever is behind this aversion to national plans, it is long lasting and has so far been little altered by calls by planning bodies since about 2000 for the making of a national spatial frame- work. This was first made by the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI), asking for such a framework for the UK as a whole (Wonget al. 2000). Later, the RTPI commissioned further work (RTPI 2006), examining analytically functional relations, including transport links nationally and housing and employment pat-
terns. In 2006 a commission appointed by the TCPA extended this proposal, though only dealing this time with England, recommending the government to make a Development Framework for England (TCPA 2006).
In both cases these bodies have argued that the absence of an explicit spatial plan or framework means that spatial decisions by government are taken either without thinking about spatial impacts and connections, or without being open about this. It can be argued, for example, that since the 1980s all governments have had a hidden pro south east England investment and policy agenda, in the absence of any clear regional policy. But none have admitted this, even though a whole range of policies, expenditure and fiscal measures work this way (Allen et al. 1998; RSA 2001; TCPA 2006). A recent example has been the absence of a national ports policy. In 2005–2006 several important planning applications for port developments were given permission in the south east, without, critics argued, the effect on northern ports being considered. The TCPA pressed for such a national policy to be made, for this to be linked up with stronger or new policies on rail, road and airports, and for this to be tied in with the links to Europe, extensively worked on since the 1990s in the mega-region studies sup- ported by the EU. Their recommendations went wider than this, covering some of the major development decisions facing England.
The TCPA Commission sought a ‘light touch’ framework, and one worked up from below, with the co-operation of the regions. To some extent their call mirrored the suggestions of the RDAs, which have been forming a strong lobby through their chairmen’s group, pressing government for infrastructure improve- ments for their regions. How should this call be viewed? Is there a potential conflict between empowering regions, as presumably regional planning’s strengthening since the 1990s was meant to do, and putting together a national framework? There is some force in the TCPA position, in which certain limited matters are best decided nationally, but on the basis as far as possible of work coming up from the regions. Where regions are effectively in competition, only the national government can decide – this will apply to the major national transport infrastructure. The same applies to the overall policy on the spatial support or restraint of economic activity. While governments since the 1980s have tried to claim that market forces must rule this issue, in reality there have always been many public policies which affect the decisions of private investors.
At least the broad trend of such policies is a matter for government.
The final report of the Barker planning review (HM Treasury 2006a) argued for the creation of a National Planning Commissionto decide on major projects, on the basis of clear government positions on the overall sectors within which these are set (for example, within a national energy framework, or a national ports strategy). At the time of writing it remains to be seen how far this will impinge on regional and local prerogatives. One risk lies in the closeness of large corpora- tions and governments, since the privatisation of most provision of infrastructure scope may exist increasingly for secret deals and imposition of private invest- ments on localities which will fight to resist them. Whether a Planning Commis- sion will improve governance of this issue will probably now be tested.
Making and executing regional spatial plans 135
Up to the present, governments have been thoroughly averse to any explicit national framework, certainly for political reasons: to be seen to say that certain areas would be prioritised over others will always be seen as politically very risky. Whether this reason will be overcome by the rationality of planning argu- ments remains to be seen. If it is not, then national planning will remain covert, implemented by a number of means, including sectoral decisions of numerous kinds, and decisions on each RSS as it is made and finalised by government. In the end these nine RSSs (including London, not approved by, but strongly influenced by government) will make a jigsaw puzzle whose com- bined picture will be an unadmitted framework for all England. No doubt a civil servant will have an implicit national schema somewhere in a filing cabinet in the planning ministry!
7.5.2 The regional level versus the local (and sub-regional) level
The 2004 planning reforms broke open the scalar settlement of the previous 30 years (an agreement to leave sub-regional planning to counties), bringing more regional and national force to bear on sub-regional planning. The principle behind the reforms was that too much of the country was covered by too many plans. It was said that many areas needed little more than what was set in the general principles of PPGs/PPSs. RPGs should not repeat these unnecessarily.
RSSs needed to set policies which applied in most of their territories, obviating the need for detailed sub-regional policies in most places. Local plans (LDFs) would be able then to detail these all-regional policies. It was accepted by government that in some places there would be a strategic policy deficit, requir- ing sub-regional strategies to be prepared. These, it was argued, would be for functional areas, not counties. How has this schema worked out in the first round of RSSs?
Effectively two models have emerged. The model in the three southern regions has meant sub-regional detailing of varying degrees for identified growth areas, in the South East and East of England, or for virtually all urban regions, in the South West (see the South East sub-regions on Figure 7.3). These sub- regional parts of the RSSs have set housing targets and policies on greenbelts, as well as giving indications on infrastructure requirements. In addition all RSSs have to allocate housing numbers by district, so in that very important sense they cover all their regions sub-regionally. Other components of planning, as we will see in more depth in Chapters 8–11, are covered in less detail, with region-wide policies often being seen as sufficient.
In the northern regions and the East Midlands, the model has been to include all, or nearly all parts of the regions within sub-area planning, although, in the case of the North East this meant simply a split between the two main city regions, and the more rural rest (Figure 7.4 shows the Yorkshire sub-areas).
The results appear quite variable, with again the main urban areas detailed much more than the other parts of the regions (effectively the RSSs become, in this dimension, bundles of city regional plans for the six big city regions). This
NEWPORT COWESGosport RYDE SHANKLINTotlandIsle of Wight
EASTLEIGH
Winchester TOTTONSouthampton
Cherwell
Milton Keynes BICESTER AYLESBURY
BANBURYMILTON KEYNES Aylesbury Vale KIDLINGTON
West Oxfordshire WITNEY Oxford ABINGDON DIDCOTVale of White Horse West Berkshire NEWBURY Basingstoke and Deane BASINGSTOKE ANDOVER Test Valley WINCHESTER PETERSFIELD ChichesterHorshamMole Valley CRAWLEY
DartfordMedway CHATHAMSevenoaks Maidstone TENTERDEN CROWBOROUGH
SEVENOAKS Shepway
FOLKESTONE
HERNE BAYRAMSGATE
GRAVESEND Gravesham Swale Canterbury
Thanet DEAL DOVER
DoverMAIDSTONE WealdenRother Hastings
Tunbridge WellsHORSHAM Mid Sussex HAYWARDS HEATH BURGESS HALL Lewes
Wokingham
Bracknell Forest Surrey Heath
Reading
South Oxfordshire
Chiltern MARLOWSouth Bucks Spelthorne Elmbridge Woking Rushmoor Hart ALDERSHOT ALTON East Hampshire Waverley HASLEMERE Guildford GUILDFORD STAINES RunnymedeEpsom and Ewell
Wycombe HIGH WYCOMBE BOGNOR REGIS
ROYAL TUNBRIDGE WELLS Havant PortsmouthFarehamNew ForestRingwood New Milton
MAIDENHEAD Windsor and Maidenhead
Slough Arun Worthing
AdurBrighton & Hove
Tonbridge and Malling ASHFORD Ashford Eastbourne
TONBRIDGE
Reigate and Banstead REIGATE 10
1
8 6 54 9
3 2
7
1 South Hampshire 2 Sussex Coast 3 East Kent and Ashford 4 Kent Thames Gateway 5 London Fringe 6 Western Corridor and Blackwater Valley 7 Central Oxfordshire 8 Milton Keynes and Aylesbury Vale 9 Gatwick Area
Sub-regional Strategy AreasSpecial Policy Area 10 Isle of Wight County/Unitary boundary District/Borough boundary Built up area Motorway Trunk road A road Railway Rail station Figure 7.3Sub-regions in the SEP. (Source:Draft, as submitted to government March 2006.)
perhaps represents a compromise, going a bit further than the government was recommending, in that virtually all parts of all these regions (rural Lincolnshire may be an exception) will have sub-regional detailing.
In all the regions then, there is detailing of all the key areas of change, effectively around all or most urban areas, even though the northern model goes further with this. We would see this as inevitable, given the 2004 reform. Two major questions remain as to how this will work out. First, will this detailing provide a sound platform for the emerging local area planning? At present it is very hard to answer this question, as RSSs are being finalised at precisely the same time that LDFs are going through the statutory process. The interaction of the two levels, in the absence of the ‘missing link’ of structure planning, will eventually become clear, but it will take some years for this to work itself out (assuming there is no more reform of the system). Second, will the imbalance in sectoral treatment caused by the detailing of housing numbers everywhere allow integ- rated approaches to local planning? There must be a real doubt here, given that one factor has been selected in advance of more detailed analysis. In the 1990s it was agreed by government that such numbers needed to be ‘tested’ locally, and therefore might be changed. In the absence of generalised sub-regional planning, such a provision for such subsequent amendment might be sensible.
There are strongly held differences of opinion on the appropriate levels of planning.
Many local authorities resent the removal of decisions to higher levels, here representing a significant degree of localism still in many areas, often also sup- ported by such groups as the CPRE. Government and many business groupings see decisions made higher up the scale as likely to be more in line with their priorities – more freedom for the profitable development of land, higher levels of housebuilding. So the decision on appropriate scales of planning is always in part a political one, based on the struggles between these different groups – as will be explored further in Chapter 12.
For the moment, in the absence of another radical reform of the system, the division of powers is likely to settle down with the current balance, although two changes may be predicted as quite likely in the coming years. First, there
1 6
2 7
4 5
Leeds City Region South Yorkshire Humber Estuary York
Coast
Vales and Tees Links Remoter Rural 3
7 2
3 4 5 6 7 1
Figure 7.4 Sub-areas in the Yorkshire and Humber Plan. (Source:Draft, as submitted to government in December 2005.)
may be some strengthening of the national spatial dimension, depending on the decisions after the Barker 2006 review. Second, the practice of sub-regional planning may well be given a more standard form, as the first round of RSSs emerges, as counties accept the loss of their planning powers, and assemblies become adept at steering asymmetrical sub-area and sub-regional frameworks within their RSSs. Whether either of these shifts will begin to deliver a really
‘appropriate’ scalar architecture for English planning remains a thoroughly open question.