Tettenhall
Neighbourhood Plan Evaluation
In this Evaluation The Tettenhall plan in context, Evaluation methodology, and Assessment/recommendations Alex Gaio; 1610 7479
25 April 2016
Tettenhall Plan
Context in policy framework.
Fig 1 • The relationship of the Tettenhall Neighbourhood Plan to the broader policy framework.
UK Priorities
Economy
Heritage
Transport
Growth & Housing
Sustainability
Act (2011)
International & Trade Agreements
Planning Regulations
Neighbourhood
Unitary Development Plan & Policies
Sympathetic Planning
Community Involvement
Historic Preservation
Land Use
Pub Preservation
Local Business & Shopping
Open & Natural Spaces
View Preservation
Conservation
Tettenhall
Legacy Development Plans
Local Character
Local Transport Infrastructure
Localised Issues
Community Facilities
Neighbourhood Plan
Localism
EU Planning Policy
Neighbourhood
!
Development Plan & Scheme
Urban Structure
Common Goals
Regional Plan
Black Country Core Strategy
Wolverhampton
Inter-municipal
NPPF Local & Regional
Relationship to Broader Policy Framework The overall framework of planning policy in England is a interconnected hierarchy of plans and legislation that govern spatial planning at different levels (Fig 1). These pieces of legislation ultimately determine how built forms evolve in cities and is carefully determined starting at the macro (international) scale which has a ripple effect to the micro (local/neighbourhood) scale. In the instance of the Tettenhall neighbourhood plan, the macro level starts at the international scale with European planning policy and, nationally, across England with the National Planning Policy Statement (NPPF). With the publication of the NPPF, the consolidation of multiple policy statements made planning policy more streamlined (RTPI 2012). Although the NPPF acts as an overarching statutory framework for plans in its jurisdiction, the Wolverhampton Development Plan looks at a smaller scale and lays out the “strategic context in which the Tettenhall Neighbourhood Plan will sit� (Tettenhall District Community Council 2014). Although this plan is designed to influence a smaller scale, it is closely connected to other plans that sit on a level below it. For example, a plan that deals with overarching goals is the
How the plan is connected to other policy in the UK & EU.
Black Country Core Strategy (inter-municipal affairs). Additionally, the legacy Unitary Development Plans (UDP) that previously governed regional planning between councils and are in the process of being superseded (Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council ND) sit alongside the Tettenhall Neighbourhood Plan in planning local and neighbourhood affairs. By allowing for a hierarchy of interconnected plans that influence each other laterally and providing the opportunity for citizens to play a role in determining the future built form of their own environments, it makes referenda on neighbourhood planning issues an engaging and meaningful process. Instead of having planning documents that are unanimated and inaccessible because they concern themselves with issues outside a local context it helps to realise these upper level policies in local legislation. High-level policies do not directly affect a typical resident and until they are made accessible in lower-level policy, people will be unlikely to engage in the process. The way that the hierarchy of plans work in England emphasizes a value in and around public engagement in an effort to ensure that plans are reflective of the communities that they govern. In this way, the Tettenhall Neighbourhood plan can be closely tied to the common goals of the Black Country Core Strategy and other broader contexts while still maintaining a emphasis on micro-level issues and respecting the former UDP documentation.
Tettenhall
Neighbourhood Plan Evaluation
Evaluation Method In order to evaluate a plan, it is important to look at a wide range of principles to measure its effectiveness. These principles need to be relevant and widely accepted as good principles in the planning community and supported by professional practice. Interdisciplinary As planning evolves, it becomes evermore important to take a holistic, multisectoral, and interdisciplinary approach. By taking this approach, and by collaborating across disciplines, plans can take the shape of a more informed and complete set of guidelines that resonate with far more people than if they were developed in solitude. Planning as a practice has evolved from a siloed profession to an incredibly wide-ranging discipline that, as the result of policy change when ministers pushed for more better cross-departmental working (Nadin 2006), has resulted in “more effective collaboration with other policy makers in other sectors and stakeholders that leads to integrated objectives and joined-up policy” (Nadin 2006). Kidd noted that “it is now widely accepted that integration is one of the central features of spatial planning” (Kidd 2007). Without this kind of “broadranging [planning], concerning the assessment of the spatial dimensions of various activities and sectors, and interactions between them” (Morphet, Tewdwr-Jones et al. 2007), the planning profession would not have the resources or the knowledge to create plans that work for everyone. There is generally widespread agreement that spatial planning needs to work across disciplines and it was particularly evident as the evolution of the planning profession in the UK continues.
The criteria that were used in evaluation.
Evidence-based Due to the fact that planning is playing a bigger role in cities as the world continues to urbanise and redefine uses in rural areas, it is of the utmost importance that planning is rooted in evidence so that everything can be rationally justified. Especially as planning becomes more transparent and publicly oriented, it is important to justify anything that appears in a plan. As North Devon and Torridge have indicated, local plans need to be supported by robust evidence. The respective councils involved in the planning process have kept the majority of evidence up-to-date and have made sure that any policies are reflective of the updated evidence (Torridge District Council, North Devon Council 2013). This kind of approach is the right approach and instils confidence that plans are not a set of partisan agendas but actually grounded in fact. North Devon and Torridge are not the only councils who think this, in fact the RTPI, RSPB, and IEEM state in a report that “plans and projects should be based on up-to-date and scientifically robust evidence, including evidence on the value of the natural environment” (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Royal Town Planning Institute et al. 2013) which also links back to looking at things through a sustainability lens.
Transparent Planning is a public service. With this notion in mind, it is critical to maintain transparency and participation-- and not simply token participation, but the kind of engagement that sits high on the ladder of citizen participation. And as spatial planning becomes a proactive agent of positive social, environmental, and economic change (Scott, Carter et al. 2013) it is critical, as Healy coined in 2010, that spatial planning needs to be “[committed] to open, transparent government processes, to open processes of reasoning in and about the public realm” (Healy 2010).
Long-term/visionary Inevitably, planners need to manage and develop on strategies for large-scale and complex projects. With this notion in mind,
in order to achieve their goals, they need to encompass a high degree of long term vision. In examples of regional development plans, urban areas do not evolve in the short-term. With the recent Paris Climate Conference, plans that deal with large urban populations that, collectively, have an impact on climate change. “Long-term processes such as [those
that deal with] climate change require longterm planning strategies and policy decisions� (Biesbroek, Swart et al. 2009). Not only when managing the future of a changing climate, but when dealing with urban containment and the urban-rural fringe, we need to follow a planning paradigm that takes a long-term view (Scott, Carter 2011).
Tettenhall
Neighbourhood Plan Evaluation
Assessment & Recommendations The Tettenhall Neighbourhood Plan is a deeply communityoriented plan that was made by the community, for the community. It has won the support of its residents through a referendum and has been reviewed by independent parties. While the plan has been cross-examined (Edge 2014), there are some criteria that are essential to the plan-making process that should be adhered to. Based on current spatial planning practice and best-practice case studies from around the world, Tettenhall’s plan should aspire to be interdisciplinary, sustainable, transparent, and long-term/visionary. By taking these criteria into account, plans can generally develop a holistic, robust, and informed approach to neighbourhood and community evolution.
Interdisciplinary Tettenhall’s Neighbourhood plan adequately mentions the different components that heed a variety of concerns: the economy, housing and development, conservation and green space, and transport. The neighbourhood plan was developed in conjunction with a wide variety of people from city council, politicians, other government agencies, and consulting firm Burton Knowles. While professionals were extensively consulted in the development process, it was vastly restricted to the government and public administration industry. This approach that the plan takes is not ineffective, but could be improved by taking on issues from an angle that include more than a few narrow disciplines. This can be accomplished in several different ways. One way could be to invite subject-matter experts on to the committee and have each of them contribute to areas outside their expertise. By using this kind approach,
The Tettenhall Neighbourhood Plan’s strengths, weaknesses, and connection to case-studies.
they are able think about an issue that is outside of their area of expertise, but from an angle that wouldn’t normally be considered. In a practical sense, it would be beneficial to have health professionals look at transportation policy because of the role that particulate emissions and active transportation play in the health of the public. When the plan was getting developed, it would have been useful to consult people that work in fields not directly related to planning or local citizens. For example, healthcare professionals could provide valuable input to building a healthy community (as mentioned in the plan on multiple occasions). This approach is becoming more prevalent in North American cities as public health officials realise how interdisciplinary the planning profession is. Policies introduced in Toronto’s Official Plan (City of Toronto 2006) that address healthy transportation modes are becoming more common in official planning documents in Canada and the US. Similarly, land use and transportation are often discussed in tandem in planning documents because of the close relationship in how one leads to another. This interdisciplinary approach could lend itself to the Tettenhall Plan and further strengthen arguments like Pub Preservation and how it relates to fostering community cohesion, social lifestyles, and improved mental health-- as an example.
Evidence-based The Tettenhall Neighbourhood plan is thoroughly researched and informed with facts. After each policy listed in the plan, adequate justification is given. The plan draws on the current state of affairs as well as other relevant information like what national policies are applicable in each circumstance. For example, Policy TNP 1 Diverse Local Economy, is specifically mentions the needs of the area and desirable qualities as well as the nec-
essary other policies at different levels that need to be satisfied (Tettenhall District Community Council 2014). By providing this information in a succinct and glanceable way, it makes it easy for readers and policymakers to understand that the policy in the plan is rooted in fact and connects with the wider evidence and policy from the surrounding area. An even better approach to providing evidence is to include a ‘what we heard’ section. While this kind approach is easier for larger-scale plans that host many public consultations, it is a great example of how plans can demonstrate to citizens that their input is being interpreted correctly, being taken into account, and even adds a level of credibility to planning documentation because of the kind of evidence it provides for anyone to see. TransLink in Vancouver reports feedback in this way and it is a very effective way of providing evidence in documentation that they produce (TransLink 2011). Tettenhall informed its planning with surveys but did not directly quote any feedback in the plan from those surveys.
Transparent The way that the Tettenhall neighbourhood plan was developed is a model of how transparent planning can happen. The neighbourhood plan was entirely developed by volunteers who are members of the community and it underwent extensive public consultation followed by a community-wide referendum. The level of transparency (e.g. using the web and mailouts) and accountability of this plan was highly effective and lended itself to its widespread acceptance. According to Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation (Arnstein 1969) the Tettenhall Plan sits very high as a result of the grassroots and citizen-oriented authoring. Around the world, it is rather unique to hear of official planning documentation being written exclusively by citizen volunteers. In the case of the tettenhall plan, it would serve as an excellent case study for future engagement for the plan making process on an international scale. The suitability of the volunteer committee was adequate for a small area like Tettenhall, but could encounter significant challenges
if the scale of the plan were to be taken to a larger scale, especially if it involved cooperation with other groups. In developing the plan, it would have been beneficial to include subject-matter experts early in the process to gain more insight into what issues can be solved in ways that might have worked well in other parts of the UK, or in other countries. By drawing on best-practices, there can be lots of good learnings and mistakes to avoid.
Long-term/visionary A critical piece in planning for the long term and having vision for the future is identifying and working towards community goals. While upper-tier policy was brought into the plan and taken into account in a section called ‘Aims’ there are no specific community goal to achieve. While the plan does an excellent job of demonstrating how each recommendation relates to the aims of the plan, its own ambitions could be further developed. An example of how this goal setting process is used is in the Greenest City 2020 plan (City of Vancouver 2012). Instead of structuring the plan on the specific issues that relate to policy, it follows a format where the goals are treated as the sections and each issue is tied into accomplishing a goal, which makes planning for the long-term significantly more deliverable when plans are geared towards ambitions instead of policy. By taking this kind of approach, it also makes the plan more accessible to a typical resident who might not have a background in planning.
Takeaways
Current state of Tettenhall’s Plan.
The Tettenhall Neighbourhood Plan is a detailed, well thought out, and complete document that takes into account public and government input. The strengths and weaknesses identified in this report are the result of looking at bestpractice case studies from the UK and abroad as well as informing the evaluation with current spatial planning publications. For a neighbourhood the size of Tettenhall, the approach and approach worked well. By having the plan developed in-house by a group of volunteers on the steering group, the plan could
take a uniquely local and in-depth approach to shaping the future of the neighbourhood. Moving forward, if the plan were to be reviewed in the future Tettenhall could benefit from including different kinds of stakeholders in the development/drafting process from an interdisciplinary standpoint. Furthermore, by including direct quotes from citizen input and continuing to keep the public informed in the plan-making process, it can continue to be grounded in sound evidence and remain transparent. With the consistently evolutionary process of planning, establishing overarching SMART goals that can be achieved and benchmarked will be invaluable to working towards a plan that all stakeholders can see is truly long-term and visionary.
Tettenhall
Neighbourhood Plan Evaluation
References ARNSTEIN, S., 1969. A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), pp. 216-224. BIESBROEK, G.R., SWART, R.J. and VAN DER KNAAP, WIM G.M, 2009. The mitigation–adaptation dichotomy and the role of spatial planning. Habitat International, 33(3), pp. 230-237. CITY OF TORONTO, 2006. Toronto Official Plan. Toronto: Planning and Development Dep. CITY OF VANCOUVER, 2012. Greenest City 2020 Action Plan. Vancouver, BC: . DUDLEY METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL, ND, Unitary Development Plan. Available: http://www. dudley.gov.uk/resident/planning/planning-policy/unitary-development-plan/ [Accessed 21 February. 2016]. DUDLEY METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL, SANDWELL METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL, WALSALL COUNCIL WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL and WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL, 2011. Black Country Core Strategy. Black Country: Black Country Core Strategy. EDGE, J., 2014. Our Place Our Plan Examination Version. HEALY, P., 2010. Making better places : the planning project in the twenty-first century. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. KIDD, S., 2007. Towards a Framework of Integration in Spatial Planning: An Exploration from a Health Perspective. Planning Theory & Practice, 8(2), pp. 161-181. MORPHET, J., TEWDWR-JONES, M., GALLENT, N., HALL, B., SPRY, M. and HOWARD, M., 2007. Shaping and Delivering Tomorrow’s Places Effective Practice in Spatial Planning. London: Royal Town Planning Institute. NADIN, V., 2006. The Role and Scope of Spatial Planning: Literature Review. ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS, ROYAL TOWN PLANNING INSTITUTE and CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2013. Planning Naturally: Spatial planning with nature in mind: in the UK and beyond. RSPB. RTPI, 2012-last update, National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Available: http://www.rtpi.org. uk/briefing-room/briefing-notes/national-planning-policy-framework-(nppf)/ [Accessed 21 February. 2016]. SCOTT, A. and CARTER, C., 2011. The rural-urban fringe - forgotten opportunity space? Town and Country Planning, 80(5), pp. 231-234. SCOTT, A.J., CARTER, C., REED, M.R., LARKHAM, P., ADAMS, D., MORTON, N., WATERS, R., COLLIER, D., CREAN, C., CURZON, R., FORSTER, R., GIBBS, P., GRAYSON, N., HARDMAN, M., HEARLE, A., JARVIS, D., KENNET, M., LEACH, K., MIDDLETON, M., SCHIESSEL, N., STONYER, B. and COLES, R., 2013. Disintegrated development at the rural–urban fringe: Re-connecting spatial planning theory and practice. Progress in Planning, 83, pp. 1-52. TETTENHALL DISTRICT COMMUNITY COUNCIL, 2014. Neighbourhood Plan for the Tettenhall Wards 2014 - 2026. Wolverhampton City Council. TORRIDGE DISTRICT COUNCIL and NORTH DEVON COUNCIL, 2013. Draft North Devon and Torridge Local Plan. TRANSLINK, 2011. UBC Line Rapid Transit Study.