Debate Review - Creating Tomorrow's Liveable Cities

The Musing Urbanist was fortunate to be in attendance at The Economist's recent conference, Creating Tomorrow's Liveable Cities - Urban Planning in a Cold Climate. Whilst the conference title suggests the role of planning in the Arctic North, the focus was actually on how cities could and should develop without having any money!



In the first discussion group I was most impressed by Sir Jeremy Beecham, Labour member in the House of Lords. Sir Jeremy identified how the forthcoming Localism Bill will remove strategic leadership with the dissolution of regional planning. In the drive towards localism, he argued that parochial interests could dominate and fail to reflect the national interest. Renewable energy is a good case in point. Few local communities are choosing to support wind farms, but there is an overriding national demand for them. In the context of cities, Sir Jeremy raised concerns over how a vision for the whole city could develop under the new localism. If power is to be devolved to the neighbourhood level, as proposed in the Localism Bill, it will be a mammoth task joining up the varying interests to create a city vision.

The Chief Executive for the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA) struggled to justify localism and was left relying on general cliches surrounding the garden city movement. I can't help feeling that skills and resources are not available at the neighbourhood and community to deliver the utopian ideas presented by the TCPA. In addition, if cities are to grow in a cold climate, extra layers of bureaucracy cannot be helpful.

Keynote speaker and Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles MP put in a performance heavy on anecdotes but light on detail. If localism really is the guiding force for the Conservative Party, it is alarming that Pickles, as key enforcer, still talks in such generalities. The speech was polished and would no doubt please the Tory faithful, but it failed to get too many at the conference excited. Pickles made constant reference to establishing a 'Chamberlain Plus' system. This referred to Joseph Chamberlain who as Mayor of Birmingham in the 1870s was able to use public and private money to introduce libraries, swimming pools, schools and other civic buildings to the city. Pickles has the notion that once you free cities from central control they will gain new energy. But too much of his speech just assumed that by rolling back the state, growth will appear in its place. He talked about the planning system being a drag anchor on growth, but failed to articulate how planning has the power to create a vision for a city or city-region, such as Birmingham.

When questioned on cycling and architecture, Pickles cleverly danced around the questions with reference to neighbourhood planning in Germany and the Netherlands. If it can work there, then surely it can work here? But this argument fails to account for the differing tax raising powers, and the lack of locally-based taxation in the UK (a point made by Centre for Cities here). The cities of today will only be able to follow the path of 'Chamberlain Plus' if they can back it up with the relevant economic powers.


The Economist saved the best until last with the closing keynote given by Jan Gehl, the Danish architect. Gehl travels the world espousing the benefits of public space and why cities should 'be sweet to homo sapiens'. Whilst Pickles looked to the distant past for lessons on urban life, Gehl is refreshingly current. In the space of 20 minutes he was able to tease out lessons from Barcelona, Lyon, Vejle, New York and, most importantly, Copenhagen. Gehl's presentation can be seen here and is inspirational for anybody working within the development sector. Whilst many architects talk about a 'human form' of development, Gehl has put this into practice with his research reports for a number of international cities. Being from Copenhagen, he focused mainly on cycling and the additional benefits it can bring to a city. For every 1km cycled the economy benefits by 30p, but if that same 1km is travelled by car the economy will lose 20p. Food for thought - though not for Eric Pickles who had left by this time!

The Pitfalls of Localism - an agenda for 2011

With the Localism Bill finally sneaking onto the parliamentary agenda before the Christmas break, we can now look forward to how localism will evolve in 2011. This has become the defining principle of the Coalition Government and Pickles, Shapps et al have been wheeled out to extol the shift in power from central Government to local communities. Up until the now the Tories have been able to talk in generalities and avoid the policy detail. This has to end. References to the ‘Big Society’ and ‘Neighbourhood Planning’ have been defined more by what they are not as opposed to what they truly are. This article in The Economist excellently sets out how the direction of travel is clear but the details of the journey are both lacking and potentially unworkable.

The benefits of local empowerment are easy to describe on the election campaign trail. Faceless bureaucrats can be painted as bogey-men wasting taxpayers money and communities can save the day by making more informed decisions. But I see two problems. Firstly, how powerful can localism be without true fiscal autonomy? Cities can only make independent decisions if they raise their own taxes and then choose how to spend the money. If regional cities are to have elected Mayors then they also need greater independence from the Treasury. Cities such as Newcastle, Leeds and Manchester require the power to make decisions on economic development, including control over business rates. With the removal of Regional Development Agencies and the cuts in public sector assistance to local businesses, Local Authorities must have the tools to be bold enough in their strategy for economic development. Localism without fiscal autonomy is a bugger’s muddle.

The second problem I see is the tendency of political parties to suddenly realise the benefits of central power once in Government. Giving away power to local people is easy to support when in opposition, but when in Government politicians quickly see the pitfalls of trusting local people over central departments. One reason is that unsuccessful local policies easily rebound up to the national level. To avoid this occurring local governments are therefore kept on a tighter leash, both through centrally controlled budgets and policy. For localism to work the Government must accept the risks in devolving power. It will involve unwelcome stories of local authorities who depart from what the Tories may naturally advocate. But, and more importantly, localism could include inspiring stories of where Local Authorities have grasped independence to involve the community on how public services should be operated.

Urban planning will be a key test area and I have no doubt some Local Authorities will resist any attempt to build more homes locally. This should be expected. It therefore leaves a clear opportunity for other towns and cities to welcome new development and reap the benefits. Until now architects, planners and politicians have been weak on selling the benefits of development, in particular housing. This must change, as outlined in a recent editorial in the Architects’ Journal. Again, this will be risky and it will take time for development levels to pick up to match demand. But hopefully it will encourage some cities to gain greater individual identity and avoid the ‘urban renaissance’ path which has characterised urban redevelopment since 1997 (and excellently critiqued in this book by Owen Hatherley).

Clearly there are risks, but politicians must overcome their safety-first instincts to avoid the centralising forces once again scuppering the potential of localism and local empowerment.

Path to nowhere?

Two big stories in the news this week centred on housing in the UK. Firstly, the Government signaled it would scrap the remaining phases of the Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder scheme (here). This was a policy much trumpeted by John Prescott in the early days of New Labour as a way to regenerate huge swathes of Northern cities. The Pathfinder scheme identified 9 areas where the housing market had seemingly failed and large-scale government intervention was required to kick-start it. The scheme was specifically tied to the North of England and neighbourhoods struggling to cope with the loss of manufacturing employment.

The normal practice was for the Council to produce a map to identify those premises earmarked for demolition, usually red-brick terraces. Owners would then be compensated and plans drawn up for the replacement housing. But the process rarely went smoothly and Council (and national Government) delays often left residents in limbo - unsure whether to invest in their home or not (see here). Some people moved out the area, whilst others (and often the most vulnerable) were left isolated in a community devoid of life and services.

However, this should not be a reason to finish the Pathfinder scheme through to the conclusion. I agree with Owen Hatherley, writing in The Guardian, that the scheme acts as gentrification and fails to serve the original working-class communities. Large-scale demolition and Government incentives have allowed developers to enter these neighbourhoods to produce housing far too expensive to the local community. The impact is that the local community is split up and dispersed across the city as they search for replacement accommodation, as described by Anna Minton in her excellent book Ground Control. The Pathfinder scheme was too quick to condemn neighbourhoods as blighted and the Government must look closer into whether the existing stock could be refurbished first.


The other housing story in the news was the decision by the High Court to quash the move taken by Eric Pickles MP to revoke Regional Spatial Strategies. In layman's terms, Labour imposed housing targets on Councils whilst the Conservatives want to scrap the targets and allow Councils to decide their own housing levels, as part of the drive towards localism. Therefore not long into his job as Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Pickles revoked the regional tier of planning. However, he didn't. Because to revoke regional planning requires primary legislation, as stated by the High Court last week.


The end result? Planning, like the Pathfinder residents, is once again in limbo. Should Councils use the old targets or devise their own (lower) targets?

This episode raises two points about the Government's approach to housing. Firstly, Pickles has an arrogance towards the planning profession where he thinks he can make major changes without going through the due process. Secondly, housing targets will be scrapped eventually and many Councils across the country will use this as an excuse to stop any house building in their area. Most local Councillors are elected on the basis of promising less development. So, will the incentivised approach favoured by the Conservatives work instead? The Localism Bill is due out next week so stay tuned for a review. In the meantime, get your planning applications submitted now, who knows when things will change again!!