A Future With No Direction - The Regional Economy of Metro Vancouver

In a recent post I talked about how in the absence of a dominant industry, Vancouver has become obsessed with real estate.  This theme has been excellently, but worryingly, developed by Frances Bula in the current edition of Vancouver Magazine (see here).  In her article, Bula struggles to define the Vancouver economy in contrast to other Canadian cities.  If Toronto is finance, Calgary is oil and Ottawa is politics - what is Vancouver?  She settles on three possibilities - freight movement, tourism and technological entrepreneurs.  But in my mind all three have inherent problems in taking the bigger step to dominating the Metro Vancouver economy.

• Freight - with rail freight close to capacity do we want more trucks on our roads?
• Tourism - an unstable industry that can be impacted by external factors.  Hasn't the city already become a resort-type environment in parts of Downtown?
• Technological entrepreneurs - does the city have the necessary business support structure (and suitable workspace) to upscale small enterprises?  

Enterprise Zones - how can planning help?

There is an assumption behind public sector budget cuts that the private sector will pick up the slack. Yet for this to occur businesses of all sizes require assistance from Government. Unfortunately the so-called 'Growth Agenda' has yet to materialise from the Coalition Government. The outgoing head of the Confederation of Business Industry, Sir Richard Lambert, has been particularly scathing of the lack of progress regarding job creation and business support (see here). Lambert has described a series of vague policy ideas instead of a coherent vision of how the private sector can support Britain's attempts at economic recovery. With a new Budget soon to be announced, the pressure is on the Chancellor to focus on growth and job creation (see here).

Despite the long history of borrowing policy ideas from across the Atlantic, it has still come as a surprise that the Government's growth agenda is being driven by Enterprise Zones. Made famous under Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, EZs were seen as a way of overcoming Local Authority inertia and parachuting in ready-made schemes from Central Government. Whilst London Docklands is perhaps the most famous EZ, the policy was mostly tested in the North where industrial decline was greatest.


Think-tank Centre for Cities has just published this report that looks into how EZs can play a role in stimulating growth. The key point they pick up on is that EZs no longer need to focus on physical regeneration. Whereas in the 1980s, UK cities required massive investment in housing, infrastructure and public services, this is less pressing now due to the large levels of investment (often through complicated Private Finance Initiative deals) by New Labour. As Centre for Cities rightfully highlight, the current private sector requirement is for business support and the re-skilling of the workforce (so-called softer factors).

So what can planning do? Centre for Cities suggest 'rapid planning zones' to speed-up planning permissions with 6 week decision deadlines (currently 8 weeks) and schemes to only be refused if there are critical concerns. Good ideas in theory but hard to see how they can work. Local Authority planning departments are currently having budgets cut meaning less money for staff and the all-important training. With planning officers currently struggling to meet 8 week deadlines I fail to see how shorter deadlines can be met without impacting other proposals or hiring more qualified staff.

The second proposal may have more scope for success. Up until now the policy of deemed consent has proved unworkable, as shown when the Conservative Party dropped the proposal for automatic consent for 'sustainable development' from the Localism Bill (here). Despite the legal hurdles I am tempted by the radical idea of hyper-relaxed planning consents in identified EZs. Key criteria must be met, but following this it is up to the applicant to have a free reign. This could also help engage a wider audience with planning and help people understand what planning should and should not do in EZs and non-EZ areas. It may also allow David Cameron to recognise that planners can be 'enablers of enterprise' and not 'enemies of enterprise'.

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.

Impact of the Comprehensive Spending Review

Reasons for hope

• The Regional Growth Fund has been established with £1.4 billion set aside to stimulate economic growth in areas impacted by public sector cuts.
• The CSR recognised the importance of infrastructure spending.
• Crossrail has been kept.
• The planning system is to be reformed (again) to support economic development.
  

Reasons to be fearful

• CABE has been axed, leaving a large gap in design and architectural guidance to the development sector.
• Cities with a strong dependence on public sector employment will be most impacted.
• Local Authorities must slash budgets and will take resources away from Planning Departments, harming the potential for growth.