ARTICLE_ london planning after localism act

QUARTERLY MAGAZINE OF THE

THE VOICE OF THE MEMBERSHIP NO. 290, 2013 ISSUE 2

Issn: 1367-3882

GOVERNING METROPOLITAN REGIONS

r

$BQJUBM DJUJFT BOE UIF DIBMMFOHF PG MPDBMJTN

r

4PDJBM OFUXPSLT JO VSCBO QMBOOJOH

r

&VSPQFBO DSPTT CPSEFS DPPQFSBUJPO

Regional Survey

LONDON PLANNING AFTER THE LOCALISM ACT: A COMPARISON WITH THE EXPERIENCE OF THE TUSCANY REGION, ITALY Francesco Berni, Milan Polytechnic University, Italy Introduction The Localism Act has challenged the planning agenda in London. In this article, the possible impacts and opportunities have been analysed through the eyes of the Italian decentralization process, which encouraged local level planning after the reform of the national constitution in 2001. A critical analysis of the application of the Localism Act in Greater London was carried out on the basis of the experience of the Tuscany Region which, over time, has adopted a planning model particularly oriented toward the empowerment of the local authority. In particular, the analysis of the Tuscan case is useful in bringing up some key issues to reflect upon in regard to the new localist agenda in the framework of London’s strategic planning. The case study has focused on two key concepts: coherence and coordination. These have been identified as useful principles to set a framework for interpreting the Localism Act in the Greater London context.

Considering the profound diversity in the two cases analysed, the aim is to examine the new structure of the London planning system following the Localism Act and to recognise a number of critical issues as key nodes of discussion.

England and Italy, different approaches to spatial planning and governance In 2011, the Localism Act introduced major changes to the British planning system in local government to promote a better democratic, transparent and efficient environment according to the new coalition government’s vision.

Briefly, the new regulation produced two main transformations in the field of planning: the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) and the introduction of the Neighbourhood Plan. Greater London is the only English region that has survived after the reform where the critical issue under the Localism Act is the relations between regional, local and neighbourhood levels in terms of governance and planning.

Italy, on the other hand, has opened a new season of reform mainly focused on curtailing the waste of public money during the global crisis. In this scenario, the local dimension seems to be weakened by central government in comparison to the British reform.

In short, the decentralisation process in Italy has been ongoing since 1971 with the establishment of a new level of government: the Region. In 2001, the reform of the national constitution determined that spatial planning be an issue shared by central and regional government1. In summary, the Italian constitution recognizes the right to

regulate spatial planning at a regional level. This modif ied the national planning law which is an old regulation dating from 1942 whose structure is still in effect and has been partially updated by other specific regulations.

The renewal of spatial planning in Italy has been driven by each region independently, without a strong national framework. This has produced varying experiences across the country.

In November 2 011, Professor Mario Monti became Prime Minister and coordinator of the new technical government. One of the main proposals was introduced in July 2012 by Minister Patroni Griffi for enacting structural changes in the national administrative system by reducing the number of provinces through new criteria: a population of at least 350,000 and a land area of 2,500 square kilometres. In 2012, Minister Catania wrote a new bill focused on protecting greenfield sites against urbanization, by setting a national target of a maximum quantity of rural land that can be used for urban development in each region every 10 years.

Neit her reg u l at ion m ay enter into force after the recent fall of the Monti government but it is important to observe a ‘centrifugal tendency’ at the national level which tries to centralise power at the upper level of decision-making although, in practice, no significant changes have yet been produced.

Parco Agricolo della Piana, Design Workshop, 2010. © Francesco Berni.

21

Regional Survey, pp. 11-24

Coherence and coordination: the experience of the Region of Tuscany, Italy Looking at the situation at a regional level, Tuscany was chosen as a case study due to its long experience of decentralization in the field of spatial planning which began with the law n°1 approved in 2005. Indeed, differently from other Italian regions, the principle of subsidiarity provided by the national constitution in 2001, was amply applied with regard to the relations between governance and spatial planning.

The regional law provides for a relat ionsh ip of equa l impor tance between the Region, the Province and the Municipality. This supersedes the previous top-down approach to planning policy and takes a different approach than the one established in the national law of 1942. The Tuscan law is founded on the principle of sustainable development of the territor y and in particular, on a cooperative model without a concentration of decision-making power at the top in the relationship between the three public administrations in the processes of planning. In other words, a local plan does not need the express approval of the Region or the Province but it should comply with the general policies set forth in regional and provincial plans2.

This innovative model of governance, when put into practice, shows some weaknesses, especially a lack of a coordinated and integrated vision among local authorities in strategic planning issues. Also, in many cases, their selection of proposals for spatial transformation at local level are based on short-term reasoning. Therefore, this model could generate ineff icient wastefulness of opportunities and territorial resources (i.e. greenfield land). Also, the regional government does not have the power to coordinate local authorities on strategic transformations.

Considering the above-mentioned problems, a new political vision is emerging in Tuscany which aims to strengthen the role of the Region in terms of spatial planning. All of this has produced two results: On the one hand, a review of the law n°1 of 2005 has been initiated, which is still being written by the Region. On the other hand, the experimentation of new forms of cooperation have been enacted with the public administrations through a 22

Regions No 290 Summer 2013 series of strategic projects coordinated by the Region as a form of integration between local plans, such as the project of the Parco Agricolo della Piana Firenze-Prato (the Agricultural Park of Florence-Prato) 3.

The Localism Act in the London planning context; key discussion points Returning to the position in England, a potential consequence of the Localism Act is a lack of integration and coordination among the local plans in the wake of the abolition of the Regional Spatial Strategies and considering the radical decentralizing of power toward a local level of planning.

Looking at Greater London, the problem is different since the emphasis shifts to the relationship between regional and local planning with particular consideration of the introduction of neighbourhood plans. These can represent a positive challenge for London as an expression of democracy and efficiency, but there are critical points to discuss. Generally, there are a series of issues yet to be clarified, such as the def inition of a neighbourhood area in the urban structure of London and how the neighbourhood forum could truly represent the local community4.

However, following the Tuscan case study, some reflections on two key issues have been taken into consideration.

They are linked to the new structure of London planning and can be traced back to two principles to pursue in the course of applying the Localist reform. The key issues are: coherence and coordination.

Coherence: the neighbourhood plan must show consideration of the National Planning Policy (N PPF ) and be in general conformity with the L ondon Pla n a nd the L oca l Development Framework but the problem is how? This opens up a larger issue. According to the Localism Act, a neighbourhood plan might include interesting matters (i.e. the quality of public space) but also gives ‘the right to build’ to the community5. In this case, the ‘coherence’ between plans seems to be driven from a top-down philosophy because the neighbourhood forum can propose more housing than the Local Plan but not less. This point is in confl ict with the general aims of the Localism Act though, because, in more realistic terms, neighbourhoods do not have the

power to refuse housing provisions from the highest level of planning.

Coord i nat ion: the relat ionsh ip between the neighbourhood plan and the London plan is not fully clear. The neighbourhood plan should guarantee social inclusion, economic equalities, the qualit y of urban development and public space by assessing the wider impacts of its transformations avoiding any situations of competition or imbalance among the various parts of the city. Therefore, the Greater London Authority and Boroughs should coordinate the integration between various neighbourhood forums. As seen in the Parco Agricolo della Piana project in the Tuscan case, a possible solution could be to strengthen cooperation using the Opportunity Area Planning Framework as a tool. This framework, set up by the Mayor of London, could be an interesting occasion for experimentation where local authorities and neighbourhood forums could work together with Greater London on strategic planning issues. In this case, the GLA should have a strong coordinating role and guarantee the integration of policies and actions between the local and neighbourhood plans.

Endnotes 1 In Italy there are three planning authorities: Region, Province and Municipality.

2 Parco Agricolo della Piana is a strategic project coordinated by Tuscany Region with the collaboration of Florence and Prato Provinces and another 10 local Municipalities. (www.parcodellapiana.it) 3 For further information: Francesco Berni, Londra: una metropoli al “verde”, Strategie e azioni per la rigenerazione della città contemporanea, Florence University Press, Florence (book in progress, supported by the University of Florence).

4 London Assembly (2012), Beyond consultation. The role of neighbourhood plans in supporting local involvement in planning, Greater London Authority, London.

5 Department for Communities and Local Government (2011), A plain English guide to the Localism Act, DCLG Publications, London (www.communities.gov.uk).

Francesco Berni, planner and urban designer, works for the Tuscany Region and collaborates as Assistant Professor with the University of Florence. He was admitted to the PhD programme at the Polytechnic of Milan in 2011 and has been developing research focused on London planning. bdesign24@googlemail.com

Regions THE VOICE OF THE MEMBERSHIP Metropolitan regional governance in many capital city regions is being challenged by an increased focus on decentralization, localism and neighbourhood governance.

The papers in the Regional Survey of this issue examine these issues as they impact on three cities: London, Paris and Berlin. Our Guest Editor (Duncan Bowie) draws together five papers based on presentations given at the RSA Research Network, Governing Metropolitan Regions within a Localist Agenda, hosted at the University of Westminster, London in September 2012. This initial seminar focused on the experience of London, where a form of regional government has survived the Coalition Government’s abandonment of regional planning in the rest of England but where the relationships with the wider metropolitan region have become more problematic within London, with tensions also growing between the strategic planning level, the local council planning and the new neighbourhood planning initiatives enabled by the 2011 Localism Act. The selection of papers includes new work by scholars from Paris, Berlin and Florence, contrasting developments in London with responses to the localist approaches within these three cities. The papers focus on the spatial impacts of localism and the challenges presented to metropolitan governance, especially in the fields of housing and regeneration, and raise fundamental concerns as to whether the new localism increases rather than reduces spatial social polarization.

Our Comment and Debate article (Brendan O’Keefe, Chris van Egeraat and Seán Ó’Riordáin) also examines reform of regional and local government, in this instance, in Ireland.

In our In Depth section, Nicolas Douay reflects on how advances in ICT have affected the way in which people engage with what is happening in their urban environment.

This issue also contains reports on four RSA Research Network events, reflective of our very active membership.

Regional Studies Association, PO Box 2058, Seaford, East Sussex BN25 4QU, UK Tel: +44 (0)1323 899 698, Fax: +44 (0)1323 899 798 info@regionalstudies.org, www.regionalstudies.org Registered Charity No: 1084165 Registered Company, Limited By Guarantee In England No: 4116288 Typesetting and Printing by Sussex Living Ltd 128 High Street, Hurstpierpoint, Hassocks, West Sussex BN6 9PX. Tel: +44 (0) 273 835355 Email: studio@sussexliving.com