Spatial Planning: effective spatial planning criteria, and their application in England
an analysis of the necessary criteria for an effective spatial planning system in any national context, and an exploration of the extent to which these criteria have been achieved in the planning system in England
MSC Urban Design Strategies 2019/2020
Spatial Planning (D41SP)
Assignment 1 - Report on effective spatial planning criteria and the planning system of England
Jonathan Fisher (student No. s1796040)
MSC Urban Design Strategies 2019/2020: D41SP Spatial Planning assignment, by Jonathan Fisher (s1796040)
Spatial Planning: effective spatial planning criteria, and their application in England
an analysis of the necessary criteria for an effective spatial planning system in any national context, and an exploration of the extent to which these criteria have been achieved in the planning system in England
Title Part page no.
1.0 Introduction 03
1.1 Critical Criteria #1 04
1.2 Critical Criteria #2 05
1.3 Other criteria 06
1.4 To what extent do you consider that these criteria have been achieved in the planning 07 system in England
1.5 Bibliography 09
1.6 Guidance Notes 10
MSC Urban Design Strategies 2019/2020: D41SP Spatial Planning assignment, by Jonathan Fisher (s1796040)
Spatial Planning: effective spatial planning criteria, and their application in England
an analysis of the necessary criteria for an effective spatial planning system in any national context, and an exploration of the extent to which these criteria have been achieved in the planning system in England
1.0 Introduction
Spatial planning and management is political…
The urban realm is integral to how society functions; without space in which to engage in all aspects of life, life cannot happen; people must live and work in buildings (whether they be on land or water). The political sphere determines how we own, distribute and use land and therefore all spatial planning and spatial management systems are political also (Cuthbert, 2007). For the purposes of this essay it is assumed that the political goal of an effective spatial planning and spatial management system is to facilitate the creation of an urban realm that provides a variety of building typologies and public spaces that enables society to function smoothly (1), e.g. in a capitalist society, spatial management will enable the creation of an urban realm that facilitates opportunity for private and national wealth creation and social stability.
The simple rationale for this position is that the organisation of cities reflects the organisation of society. Social spaces and form is our fundamental object of concern. Abstract exercises in spatial form must weld to the demands of social process.
Cuthbert, A. (2007) Urban design: requiem for an era - review and critique of the last 50 years
Two main players, two main agendas…
The structure, power and agenda of spatial planning and management systems will therefore naturally change as the prevailing governing political agenda that designs it changes, but the two main players in the system remain constant in any given country; the state and the private sector. Broadly, the state is pursuing a political/social agenda (2), seeking to fashion a system of urban development that accords with its ideology, (and of course, it also designs, administers and regulates the system); and the private sector is engaged in an business/economic agenda (3), pursuing profit via the system (and it also lobbies and engages with the political establishment to augment the system to further its aims).
The relationship between these two players and their dominant political leanings will skew spatial planning and management systems to serve primarily either a social (2) agenda or an economic (3) agenda. In order that both agendas are served equitably, (and it is a given that they must as social gains in the urban realm can not be made without money to fund them, nor can economic gains be made if society is unstable), then a
careful balance must be struck to ensure one agenda does not overwhelm the other.
Long term-ism…
In order create equilibrium between social and economic agendas, any spatial planning system must be able to make independent decisions based on long term, legally binding, social and economic objectives, over a period of time that is intentionally out of synch with the political and economic cycle. This deliberate mismatch in cycles should protect the planning system from overt political interference and private sector led lobbying, providing the chance for long term urban ideas and mechanisms to bed in before the next change of government. The aim of this is to create a framework in which long term planning and investment is desirable to private developers and the state sector, while simultaneously disincentivising short term economic and political thinking. This should allow space to think creatively about how to tackle big, long term problems, such as climate change, urban mobility and housing need.
Equitable power structures…
In addition, if it is agreed that the state’s role is political (2) and the private sector’s role is economic (3), then any effective spatial planning system must provide a role for both players, i.e. the state must be able to raise funds and procure and build urban fabric for itself. If the state is forced to depend on the private sector for all its needs, it is vulnerable to being held hostage to the private sector’s economic agenda at the expense of its social and political obligations. Therefore, the state’s role needs to be at least equal in power and reach to the private sector, in order that the social concerns of society at large are considered equitably with the concerns of business.
Well
designed,
well funded…
Transparency and accountability of decision making, integrated departmental and governmental working, inclusivity and consultation of all sections of society in the process, clear information and drawings, and a wider societal understanding of the process itself, are additional desirable criteria for an effective spatial planning system, and will protect it against corruption and capture by vested interests. However, this complex collective of criteria is potentially bureaucratic and expensive; at best this is a necessary inconvenience, but at worst a drag on delivery. It is therefore critical that any system is also smart, efficient and flexible.
Urban Design Strategies 2019/2020: D41SP Spatial Planning assignment, by Jonathan Fisher (s1796040)
Spatial Planning: effective spatial planning criteria, and their application in England
1.1 Critical Criteria #1 - Ensure long term collective societal goals are prioritised over the short term competing economic agendas of individuals and private companies
Sustainability…
Buildings and the public realm physically endure longer than any political or economic cycle, e.g. much of Britain’s urban fabric was constructed more than 100 years ago but is still used today. Moreover, buildings and public realm should last for many years. To design buildings that last only a few months, or a few years would be wasteful of materials, labour and energy and ultimately damaging to the environment and the social condition (constant restructuring of the urban fabric would be disorientating and unpleasant to inhabit). Therefore, the long term success of any development project should be considered as a priority on every spatial planning decision
One way of assessing long term viability of a decision is to ask how sustainable (4) it is, i.e. does investment of money, energy, labour, materials, now, yield dividends (of all kinds) for future generations or will it impact adversely on them?
The answer to this question can be measured in several different ways, the most obvious of which is to ask will the cost of the development in monetary terms be a financial burden to future generations or will it yield a profit now for the individual or private company investing in the development. However, in addition to the financial sustainability of development, we also need to consider the environmental and social sustainability of a project, i.e. will the development lead to a detrimental impact on air quality, food production, or quality of life (or happiness).
Our priority for any development has to be the long term sustainability of a healthy, biodiverse environment, capable of meeting our food, housing and energy production needs and those of our wildlife, and our physical and mental well being.
It is of course important that any development project should also not waste or lose money, so profit has to be a consideration. But short term profit on any development has to be on an equal footing with long term sustainability. If either of these two considerations automatically assumes dominance it will create instability. Without long term sustainability (4) society cannot function smoothly or equitably (2)
Necessary public infrastructure takes decades to plan for, design and create, (transport, energy production, food production, housing) and therefore it needs to lead the decision making process from a social perspective, rather than from a short term economic perspective.
If necessary infrastructure does not happen simply because it is not profitable then things that are needed will not materialise. This is known as a market failure(6)
Some projects will of course be needed and profitable, in which case, the private sector is well placed to step in and provide. However, market failures are inevitable as not all projects can be profitable, some things are just needed, no matter what; housing is a good example. If market failures are inevitable, then a second critical criteria for an effective spatial planning system is essential.
This Changes Everything by Naomi Klein
The book advocates for wide ranging political change based on long term goals and agendas and the rejection of short term economic thinking if we are to survive climate change.
Strategies 2019/2020:
1.2 Critical Criteria #2 - Embed in law, a role for the state (8) to procure and shape the urban realm, and a mechanism for the return of land value increases created by the state, to the state
Remuneration…
If private profit led development happens in a stateless vacuum, and it is successful at providing the necessary spaces for society to function, i.e. enough houses, schools, roads, transport links, hospitals etc. then there is a good argument that the state deserves nothing in return when private development yields a profit.
However, it is empirical that the state always plays some role in the profitable success of private development. The state provides infrastructure, roads and street lighting etc. It also provides legal frameworks and institutions to protect property rights of landowners, and national security and economic stability to ensure speculative profit seeking can be fruitful. Furthermore, it provides the market with an educated workforce, capable of contributing to and assisting the private sector in its endeavours, and this in turn provides a buoyant consumer base ready and willing to buy the products (houses, offices etc.) on offer.
this is the failure to build enough new homes.
The argument that development (5) happens in a free market and therefore any profit accrued is owed exclusively to the private sector is nonsense. The state exists and it contributes, therefore it is owed. The state and the private sector are symbiotic, one cannot exist without the other. There must therefore be a mechanism for the state to capture any profit whose creation it has contributed to.
The structural nature of this mechanism should be directly related to the development’s turnover and profit,
and
The number of households in England is projected to grow by 221,000 a year from 2011 to 2021 by the government.14 The Barker Review (Barker 2004) recommended that we needed to build 245,000 private sector homes per annum if we were to contain house price inflation within reasonable levels.15 The Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research calculate we will need to build 270,000 new homes a year for the next twenty years to meet housing demand.16 The TCPA estimate we will need to produce 275,000-280,000 new homes each year17. Whilst the National Housing and Planning Advice Unit (NHPAU) projected nearly 280,000 per year in England would be necessary to restrain the
We are currently not close to meeting any of these projections of housing need. In 2011 total new housing completions by private house builders, housing associations and local authorities stood at just over 114,000. Total completions by private house builders stood at 86,000 (CLG LiveTable 244).
in
This is not just a recessionary phenomenon: housing supply has failed to respond adequately to high levels of demand for decades. England has a long record of failing to produce enough new houses to meet market demand. Since 1981, total new private housing supply has only once produced over 200,000 homes per year and averaged just over 150,000.19
Griffith, M. and Jeffreys, P. (2013) Solutions for the housing shortage. How to build the 250,000 homes we need each year. London: Shelter (page 15) Figure 1.
14. Department of Communities and Local Government, Household Interim Projections 2013
15. This number of new private market houses were seen as needed if we were to bring down real house price inflation to the European average of 1.1% per annum (Barker 2004).
IPPR also estimate that demand will outstip supply by 750,000 homes by 2025 if current supply and demand trajectories continue (IPPR, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly Katie Schmuecker 2011)
Mind the Gap: Housing Supply in a Cold Climate, A Discussion Paper by David Pretty CBE and Paul Hackett for the Smith Institute, the Town and Country Planning Association, and PricewaterhouseCoopers 2009
rather than indirectly through taxation. It should also be transparent and accountable, the precise calculation of which can be seen and understood by anyone. The reason for this criteria is to make explicit the value and role of the state as a contributor to the private sector’s endeavours (rather than just simply a passive regulator), and hopefully go some way to counter the damaging accusation that the state is merely a drain on the private sector’s entrepreneurialism.
NHPAU (2008) Meeting the housing requirements of an aspiring and growing nation: taking the medium and long-term view, London: NHPAU
13 Getting Serious About the Housing Shortage June 2013
Parity…
Furthermore if it is a given that the private sector’s stated aim, (and legal obligation in the case of public limited companies of PLC’s) is to maximise profit (Bakan, 2005), and the state’s aim is political (2), then the state must have a role in providing the spaces to meet its political obligations that the private sector will or can not. This scenario is known as market failure(6) E.g. if, despite a high level of demand, the profit to be returned from building houses is increased by restricting the number of houses on the market, then logically, the private sector will restrict supply, and therefore not enough houses will be constructed to meet demand. In this scenario, the state must be able to step in. There must be a legally binding, active role for the state to provide the houses that the private sector will not.
In addition, if it is agreed that the private sector needs state intervention in order to be able to act and the state needs to be able to rectify market failure, it then follows that state has to act before the private sector. In order to do this, the state must have legal right to accrue revenue commensurate with its responsibilities to provide for society’s (and the private sector’s) needs and there must be no cap or limit on its revenue creating abilities that could jeopardise its political obligations.
in
1.3 Other criteria
All local authority regulatory departments need to work together to deliver necessary infrastructure, in order to do it efficiently and not duplicate or prohibit each other’s work. If their primary role is political (2) and they are public servants, then they need to work collaboratively to defend the public realm and the public interest against any detrimental effects of private profit seeking while at the same time effectively opening up opportunities for new business ventures while not suffocating existing ones (1). This requires a high degree of inter departmental and intergovernmental integration.
In a national context, due to the sheer scale of geography and numbers of people, administration of any governmental service needs to be delegated out from the centre to where it is applied. The extent to which this happens, the degree of autonomy over decision making at each level in the hierarchy, and the scope of services of each administrative region is for debate. However, the principle of delegating power out from a central authority is not only ideological, but practical. The alternative, administering everything from the centre, is likely to be ineffective as decisions would be made by people and institutions who are removed from the people and places those decisions affect and are therefore much more likely to be poorly judged.
It is important that each department and each layer of administration has a clear scope of responsibility and autonomy over its decisions, i.e. decisions made at a local level must only ever be over ridden by a decision at a higher level if there is a good case for doing so, i.e. when a national project needs to take precedence over local concerns, e.g. an airport or railway or energy plant.
Therefore, there needs to be absolute clarity and a good degree of democratic accountability to assure people that their concerns and local institutions are not being ignored. And in order to ensure decision making bodies are accountable to the people over which they administer services, there needs to be a high degree of transparency so that ordinary people can see how the decision has been arrived at. This requires some sort of democratic control over the people in power and an easy to understand process of decision making.
An effective spatial planning system requires a degree of consultation and inclusivity at an early stage in the decision making process, with all those likely to
Strategies 2019/2020: D41SP
be affected by changes in land use, to allow them to shape the development and mitigate any adverse effects before any consideration of the development or legally binding decision is made by the authorities. The extent of the degree of consultation is relative to the size, impact and type of development and needs to be determined through democratic means. In addition, a powerful, state led, regulatory and enforcement system must also be in place as an objective party, to ensure that what is agreed upon is built, and all the time, money, and faith invested in the process, is not wasted.
Buildings, self evidently, are not real until they are built and quite often, an early stage drawing does not accurately reflect the reality of that building. Producing drawings and visualisations, maybe even virtual reality environments, to describe the building or urban space before it is built, is time consuming, costly and can be misleading as the final built product is prone to change during the process of construction due to unforeseen circumstances. In addition to this, those people not familiar with architectural drawings and documentation find it difficult to understand exactly how a development may or may not impact on their lives, and consequently many people, leading busy lives anyway, simply do not bother engaging in the process.
Therefore an effective spatial planning system also requires clear, easy to understand information and procedures at the level of the lay person and a good degree of public engagement and understanding of construction processes. This in turn requires that these aspects of civic life need to be taught and made integral to the responsibilities of the citizen, in much the same way as jury service is, to ensure there is wide ranging views, opinions and engagement.
Spatial Planning: effective spatial planning criteria, and their application in England
in England
The English system of development control and management was formalised by the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, which was intended as a response to the post-Second World War need for large-scale rebuilding and planning of towns and cities, as well as to help reorganise industry. The Act effectively nationalised development by requiring formal permission from the state before any development could be undertaken; i.e. ownership of the land no longer automatically conferred development rights to the owner.
In addition, the Act also required all private developers to pay a development charge, (Cullingworth and Nadin, 2006), to the state, amounting to 100% of the increase in the value of the land resulting from development, and the Act reduced the number of local authorities who would have jurisdiction over the process and gave them wide ranging powers over the redevelopment of land, including the power to compulsory purchase and preserve woodlands and areas of historic or national interest. This fundamental change in the concept of land ownership and land value sought to address the two fundamental criteria of long term thinking and land value capture.
The Labour government of 1945-51 had envisioned that the majority of development would be driven by the state sector for socialist ends, i.e. housing , schools, hospitals, factories, which had a long term objective
of a stable, prosperous country, (although admittedly they also had one eye on the election cycle). This long term view was coupled with greater power vested in the state to purchase land at pre-development values and to benefit from any land value uplift in any private development through the development charge.
However, these two principles have been been systematically undermined and altered since the implementation of the 1947 Act. Most notably in 1953/4 when the Conservative government abolished the development charge and handed all land value increases back to the developer, and again in 1961 with the Land Compensation Act (legislation.gov.uk, 2019), which enshrines in law that hope value (7) is paid to a landowner should their land be subject to a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO). The Land Compensation Act has subsequently suceeded in distorting all land prices. It encourages land speculation, land hoarding and land banking, and reduces revenue for local authorities (and the private sector) who all have to pay inflated prices for any land they want to develop, contributing to the likelihood of market failure (6) (Griffith, M. and Jeffreys, P. 2013)
Subsequent limitations on the purchasing power and role of local authorities (legislation.gov.uk, 2019) by the Conservative, New Labour and coalition governments in the proceeding years (such as the Local Government Act 1985 which abolished metropolitan counties such as the Greater London Council and Greater Manchester Council; the Housing Act 1980 introduced by the Conservatives which provided council tenants with the right to buy their homes from the local authority but then forced all revenue raised from council house sales back to central government thus removing incentives for local authorities to build any new council housing; the introduction of Private Finance Initiatives
1.4 To what extent do you consider that these criteria have been achieved in the planning systemLabour leader Clement Atlee celebrates victory in the 1945 general election source: The New Statesman (online) Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher celebrates victory in the 1979 general election source: www.bbc.co.uk (online)
Spatial Planning: effective spatial planning criteria, and their application in England
an analysis of the necessary criteria for an effective spatial planning system in any national context, and an exploration of the extent to which these criteria have been achieved in the planning system in England
and Public Private Partnerships in public service provision introduced by the Major government but then enthusiastically embraced by the Blair/Brown New Labour governments, and the cap on local authority borrowing introduced by the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition government in 2012), have resulted in the English planning system in 2019 elevating short term, private developer led, for-profit development to the conceptual epicentre of the development planning and management system in England.
2006, (Katherine Barker), the Killian Pretty Review of the English Planning System 2008 (Joanne Killian and David Pretty), both offering solutions to the problems in the English planning system, in particularly the low levels of housing and a dysfunctional land market.
However, it is revealing that both these reports, which were commisioned prior to the economic near meltdown in 2008, seek solutions to the English system’s faults predominantly through market measures, reflecting the political ideology of the new Labour government, that the state should act only as an enabler, not as an active participant.
The Barker Report does in fact advocate a modest Planning Gain Supplement (PGS), (Barker, 2006 –Chapter 7, pg 149), but more pertinently it highlights the limited powers and/or use of tax raising powers in local government in comparison to other nations, such at France or the Netherlands as one of the critical problems within the system.
These parliamentary, and therefore political acts, have gradually reduced the role of the state to that of a regulatory facilitator; i.e. someone not actively involved in the procurement of urban fabric. This has simultaneously de-skilled the state in their capacity to procure development, and has arguably psychologically bullied local authorities for the last 40 years into believing they are not only incapable of procuring buildings but that it is ideologically bizarre for them to do so.
Consequently, the two critical criteria for an effective spatial planning system of long term thinking and an active state sector are left severely wanting under the English system. The state’s (8) role is unequal to the private sector and it has strictly controled revenue raising powers limiting its ability to think and plan for its political obligations.
The last twenty years have seen a handful of notable reports and recommendations from economists, private sector leaders and politicians. E.g. the Barker Review
After 2008, the governments priorities were focused on the aftermath of the economic crisis although the recommendation for a Community Infrastructure Levy has been enabled, with a view to replacing the Section 106 agreements. But in 2010 new Labour lost power to a coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, who then sought new reviews and reports on the English planning system, presumably to align with their own political agendas, and so by 2014, we have the Lyon’s Review covering much the same ground as Barker and Killian Petty. However, it is useful to note that Lyon’s states:
The evidence is that confusion and policy change have made it very hard to assess the success of CIL. We have concluded that neither the evidence nor the timing is right to abolish the current arrangements, however CIL should be subject to a comprehensive review and there are a number of changes which should be considered to ensure it can better support delivery of the infrastructure and the viability of schemes.
(Lyons, M. 2014 – pg 74)
It is clear that constant political meddling in the system to suit specific political agendas is one of the key reasons why the system in England is so flawed, (see fig 1 page 5 of this report). NGO’s like Shelter and Friends of the Earth, who are concerned primarily with homelessness and environmental damage, have issued responses to these reports and again find them wanting. In their opinions, the key critical criteria of long term thinking (environmental sustainability and housing) is placed second after economic growth and maintaining the position of key economic players.
Urban Design Strategies 2019/2020: D41SP Spatial Planning assignment, by Jonathan Fisher (s1796040)
Spatial Planning: effective spatial planning criteria, and their application in England
…focussing on some further liberalisation of the existing planning system is unlikely to release enough new land to loosen the de-facto monopoly power of existing developers and landowners.
(Griffith, M. and Jeffreys, P. 2013 - Shelter)
The other stated criteria, of departmental and intergovernmental integration, hierarchical autonomy, democratic accountability, procedural simplicity and transparency, community inclusivity, effective regulatory and enforcement bodies, and information clarity, are addressed to differing degrees within the English planning system, but again are all affected by constant political meddling providing the system with regular changes of incentive and regulation.
Barker Review 2006 (commisioned by the Labour government) (source: www.barkerreview.org.uk (online)
The key problem of short term objectives embedded within the system and a limited role for local government with limited revenue raising powers is compounded further by restless interference form the prevailing political ideology which is incentivised to meddle as its cycle of power is aligned with the cycle of the planning management system. The Barker Report itself recognises this and called for an Independent Planning Commission
The English planning system is systemically flawed, prioritising political interference for short term gain and market led private developer dominance. Until these two issues are address directly then the system will continue to fall short of what is needed socially.
2019/2020: D41SP
Spatial Planning: effective spatial planning criteria, and their application in England
an analysis of the necessary criteria for an effective spatial planning system in any national context, and an exploration of the extent to which these criteria have been achieved in the planning system in England
1.5 Bibliography
Bakan, J. (2005)
The corporation: the pathological pursuit of profit and power London: Constable & Robinson Ltd
Barker K (2006) Barker Review of Land Use Planning London, HM Treasury
Cullingworth, B. and Nadin, V. (2006) Town and country planning in the UK 14th ed. London: Routledge
Cuthbert, A. (2007)
Urban design: requiem for an era - review and critique of the last 50 years The University of New South Wales
Department for Communities and local Government (2007) Planning for a Sustainable Future White Paper, Cm 7120, HM Government.
Friends of the earth (2005) Implementing the Barker Report. Or how to wreck the environment and ignore the homeless London: Friends of the earth
Griffith, M. and Jeffreys, P. (2013) Solutions for the housing shortage. How to build the 250,000 homes we need each year London: Shelter
Killian Pretty Review (2008)
Planning applications: a faster and more responsive system – Final Report London, CLG.
Home Builders Federation (2014) Barker review: a decade on London: HBF
Legislation.gov.uk. (2019) legislation.gov.uk. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/
Lyons, M. (2014)
The Lyons Housing Review Digital Creative Services (London) Ltd.
Shelter (2019)
The cap is scrapped! Where next for council housebuilding?
Available at: https://blog.shelter.org.uk/2018/10/cap-is-scrapped/ Another step towards land market reform
Available at: https://blog.shelter.org.uk/2018/09/another-step-towards-land-market-reform/
MSC Urban Design Strategies 2019/2020: D41SP Spatial Planning assignment, by Jonathan Fisher (s1796040)
Spatial Planning: effective spatial planning criteria, and their application in England an analysis of the necessary criteria for an effective spatial planning system in any national context, and an exploration of the extent to which these criteria have been achieved in the planning system in England
1.6 Guidance Notes
(1) an effective spatial planning system is one that enables the creation of an urban realm that provides a variety of building typologies and public spaces that enables society to function smoothly
(2) political agenda, social agenda – to lead and organise society to minimise social unrest and create opportunity for wealth creation and personal security
(3) economic agenda, business agenda – to prioritise capital accumulation, profit and growth above all other considerations
(4) sustainable – sustainable in all forms, economically, environmentally, socially
(5) development – construction of buildings, public realm, infrastructure (transport, energy, utility etc)
(6) market failure – whereby the private sector fails to provide a commodity, despite it being in high demand, normally due to the fact that provision of the commodity is either not sufficiently profitable, or it would adversely affect existing profits and turnover of their business venture
(7) hope value - is the value that land would have if, at some point in the future, it might receive a planning permission it does not currently have.
(8) the state – taken here to mean local authority government institutions, councils; not central government
MSC Urban Design Strategies 2019/2020: D41SP Spatial Planning assignment, by Jonathan Fisher (s1796040)