Planning in a short-term world

Working as a long-range planner I am no stranger to the roadblocks caused by other people or agencies adopting a more short-term approach.  This is not to say that a healthy tension is created between differing attitudes, but it can often feel as though the commitment to long-term planning can suddenly be shelved for short-term benefit.  Often this is found when planning locks horns with political strategy and no better example can be found than a few weeks back when the Premier of British Columbia rejected the local Mayor's calls for a new tax to pay for transit improvements (see here).  With a by-election to win and a Provincial election around the corner, the Premier does not want to be associated with any new tax rises, whatever the long-term benefits they may obviously bring.  So it was with relief that I read Chris Shepley's thoughtful article in a  recent UK planning magazine on the vital role of long-term strategy.  

Front Pages News - Planner Sacked!

I have quickly understood that the planning profession is more high profile in Vancouver compared to other cities I have lived and worked in.  But the sacking last week of Director of Planning Brent Toderian really emphasized the point.  The news that Mayor Gregor Robertson had sacked Toderian was just that – it was news.  Lead story on the CBC radio news.  Front page of the Vancouver Sun.  What would it take for the Director of Planning in London to make the front page of the Evening Standard?  More to the point, who is the Director of Planning in London?

Partly this situation stems from the differing governance structures, where in the UK the head of planning is less visible in articulating a vision for the city and it is normally the lowly ‘case officer’ who presents development schemes to Council.  In a discretionary system I would argue the UK planner has less influence on proactively setting policy compared to the US and Canada where land is actively zoned and rezoned. 

The other reason Toderian’s firing got such extended media coverage was the emphasis placed on city planning in Vancouver.  The city likes to take planning very serious, as shown by the premium placed on urban design reviews, substantial amenity contributions and the development of a ‘Vancouverism’ model.  Because the city lacks a longstanding urban form (especially compared to European cities), Vancouver has seen significant change over the last 25 years.  This has allowed the planning department to masterplan large tracts of brownfield land, including Coal Harbour and South East False Creek.  It should also be remembered that Toderian has followed in the footsteps of Larry Beasley who raised the profile of planning both locally and internationally through a sustained branding of what Vancouver urbanism entails.  This has meant that real estate and development are highly visible to locals on a day to day basis and, by association, the Director of Planning is hard to escape from.

Either this or it was just a slow news day.

Guernsey Development Plan Review - Places, Spaces & People

I like to keep an eye on land use and transport planning back in my home island, so it was good to see the States of Guernsey committing to some long term policy development through the review of the two island Development Plans - the Rural Area Plan and the Urban Area Plan.  Consultation is currently ongoing on a series of Topic Papers which cover a range of issues and can be found here.  The deadline for responses is 16 March 2012.  


I have read through one of the overarching Topic Papers ('A Sustainable Approach') and have put together a few thoughts on the issues it raises below.  Not surprisingly I have focused on transport, which I think is the most important issue facing the island over the next 10 and 20 years.

'Spacing Vancouver' - Book Review of Making Healthy Places

You can read my review of the book Making Healthy Places here.  The book introduces some important connections between the disciplines of urban planning and public health. 

Lecture Review - Patsy Healey on Progressive Planning

Reading a lecture script on planning theories and governance structures is not easy.  But the hard work can be worth it, as it is for Patsy Healey's recent RTPI Nathanial Lichfield Annual Lecture (full script available here).  Healey is Emeritus Professor at Newcastle University and through her work on strategic spatial planning has received the RTPI Gold Medal and become a fellow of the British Academy.  I have always found her work engaging with its ability to mix both abstract planning and public policy theories with the everyday reality of city life and the role of the planning profession.  

Her RTPI Lecture captures the current enthusiasm for localism but instead of critiquing the Conservative Government's Localim Bill she digs deeper to deconstruct what form local political action should take.  This is wise because the fundamental issues of governance and civic capacity must be understood before exploring the types of planning controls needed.  Healey's main concern is the way in which debates over governance often break down into shouting matches between polarised sides calling for either less or more Government.  She categorizes these sides as either market idealists or idealised communitarianism.  Instead, Healey proposes a form of 'network governance' that blurs the boundaries of state, economy and cicil society.  This allows for a more flexible state of governance that retains some Government safeguards but permits experimentation and capacity building at the local level.  It is only within this networked governance does Healey believe true local planning can emerge.

Viewing Planning as a Public Health Tool

The origins of planning, in particular in the UK, can be closely traced to increasing public health concerns.  The growing industrialization of nineteenth century cities created specific health impacts, from the air pollution generated by factories to the overcrowded housing for workers.  Early urban planning models were therefore partly driven by a desire to address the worsening state of public health.  Most notably, Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City Movement referred to a utopian town where the air and water were pure and smoke and slums had been eliminated.  Even the urban renewal of the 1960’s was loosely justified as a tool to eliminate overcrowding and the associated negative health conditions.  Yet reading most current city plans it would be easy to forget the close connections between health and the built environment.  Health issues may crop up in relation to environmental impacts, but very rarely is public health fully considered as a topic to which planning can effectively contribute.

It was therefore refreshing to attend the Walk21 conference held in Vancouver in early October to reconnect the health and planning professions. 

Planning for the Nation - England's attempt at a National Planning Policy Framework

The saying goes that if you are receiving criticism from all sides, then you must be doing at least something right.  This phrase came to mind when I was reviewing the initial reactions to the publication of the draft National Planning Policy Framework (found here).  To summarise, some commentators believe the draft NPPF is a pro-development charter that will permit unfettered development across the countryside.  Yet others continue to complain that planning will remain a drag on development and the NPPF does little to overcome the cumbersome and restrictive nature of English planning policy.  The truth, unsurprisingly, lies somewhere in the middle.

I have long been a supporter of a national planning strategy for England (and the wider UK).  At university I studied the experience of a national spatial strategy in the Netherlands and found the approach to be a positive one (see here).  England is geographically small enough to warrant a national strategy that can articulate the key infrastructure requirements and distill the key guiding principles for new development.  From experience, the existing Planning Policy Statements have ballooned in number and breadth, resulting in guidance that is so generic it becomes obsolete. 


Some of the key reactions to the recent draft include:

• Royal Town Planning Institute - concern that economic interests could override other (environmental, social etc) interests and unclear about the relationship between national policy and local policy.
• National Trust - warns that the deletion of the 'brownfield target' will result in urban sprawl similar to Los Angeles!
• British Chamber of Commerce - supportive of the approach as planning policy has historically been an obstacle to growth.
• Home Builders Federation - strongly welcomes the pro-growth emphasis towards house building but still wary that Local Authorities could use the ambiguity to delay development.
• Centre for Cities - dismayed at the lack of reference to cities and believes the NPPF lacks a 'big picture' approach to the economic role of cities.

The future of England if the National Trust are to be believed!

In my view, alot of the reaction to the draft NPPF has been alarmist (though this should not come as a surprise).  The framework is NOT a charter to concrete over the countryside as a number of safeguards are still in place to protect important habitats and avoid inappropriate development.  Groups such as the National Trust and CPRE state that previous planning policy has encouraged growth so why does it need to be drastically altered.  I would argue that previous planning policy may have encouraged economic growth but has not sufficiently supported housing growth. England still has an under-supply of housing stock which is not being sufficiently addressed. This should be the resounding focus of the framework.


Secondly, I agree with the Centre for Cities and RTPI that the draft NPPF lacks a true spatial approach to planning. Where is the recognition that England is a network of urban areas that support economic growth?  Many of the references in the framework are to rural areas and the countryside which shifts the emphasis away from development towards protectionism.  The final NPPF must articulate what kind of cities the country requires and whether growth will be focused in some areas and not others.  Currently the NPPF lacks a spatial dimension which would aid economic and housing growth and give weight to what truly is 'sustainable development'. 
 

Tightening One's Belt: The Future of the Green Belt

Planners.  You can't live with them and you can't live without them.  Rarely does the media present a news story expanding on the benefits of the UK planning system.  Often planning, and by association planners, receives criticism for being overly bureaucratic and frustrating economic development.  Indeed, the Prime Minister went as far as calling the profession an 'Enemy of Enterprise'.  Yet there are times when the detailed oversight and collaborative nature of planning combine to create a positive reaction in the general pubic.  The longstanding Green Belt policy is one such example.

The rolling hills of a cherished Arcadia

Britain has an undoubted historic connection to the rolling green hills of Albion.  The countryside presents a purer version of the nation in contrast to the supposed dirt and grime of the growing cities.  This imagination may have been formed in the Industrial Revolution but still holds sway today and explains the popularity of Green Belt policy. Put simply, this policy safeguards rural land around cities from inappropriate development and contains urban sprawl.

It is no surprise therefore that a proposed relaxation of Green Belt policy has caused outrage among the chattering classes.  Geoffrey Lean, writing in the Daily Telegraph, was one who suddenly shone a light on the unrecognised benefits of planning's supposed 'boring' work in protecting quality of life (see here).  He was frustrated not just by the proposed concreting over of the countryside, but also by the way the Tories have conducted a volte face on the issue of planning.  In opposition the Tories published a Green Paper entitled Open Source Planning which extolled the benefits of Localism.  However, Lean is angered by how the Tories have moved from a policy of Localism in opposition (which he implies would protect the Green Belt) to greater central control since in Government.

This move to greater central control should not come as a surprise.  Firstly, many political parties preach about greater local powers when in opposition and then quickly forget it when in power.  Once in Government the Tories, like many others before them, realise they must keep wayward local governments in line and this requires a degree of central control.  Secondly, economic growth is stalled in Britain.  Despite the efforts of Eric Pickles MP the concept of Localism, like the Big Society, has floundered and has not convinced the Treasury it can deliver the required growth.  This explains why central government is now issuing policy regarding a relaxation of development in the Green Belt to stimulate much needed growth.

Containing the beast

I will be interested to see how the National Planning Policy Framework and presumption in favour of sustainable development progresses and the impact on the much cherished Green Belt protection.  I have always thought that Green Belt policy is too rigid and fails to take account of the dynamic nature of rural areas.  The countryside should be a diverse area that includes small industry and affordable housing.  Unfortunately the Green Belt has a mythical status that local planners and politicians can easily use to prevent required development.  The debate needs to move beyond vague conceptions of the countryside and understand that the country requires more housing.  This doesn't mean that the countryside has to be concreted over.  A more sophisticated debate would look to places such as Copehagen where the Green Belt forms a more wedge-like design (dubbed the 'Finger Plan').  This allows transport corridors to develop out from the city and higher density housing to complement the urban form.  


While it is good to see planning praised for once, let us not fall back on a dated assumption of what the Green Belt is and the purpose it fills.

Listed Buildings in the News

Over the past week a number of media stories have centred on Listed Buildings and the opportunities and challenges that heritage preservation creates.  Here are three examples:

Broadgate Square

The Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt MP, has today announced that Broadgate Square will not be listed despite recommendation by English Heritage (see here).  This now paves the way for Ken Shuttleworth's new office scheme which requires the demolition of two buildings in the Broadgate Estate.  Christine Murray provides an excellent editorial on English Heritage's worrying behaviour in this case (see here).  If Broadgate Square was such an important example of 1980s architecture, why did English Heritage only become vocal after planning permission had been granted?  Surely if they felt so strongly that the area warranted Grade II* listing, noises should have been made much earlier in the process.  The belated recommendations by English Heritage make them appear reactive and go against the principle of front-loading in the planning system. 



BBC Television Centre

The BBC have finally confirmed that Television Centre at Wood Lane will be sold, as reported here.  This follows the Corporation's relocation of many its services to Salford and the recent redevelopment of Broadcasting House in central London.  The move is also a reaction to the BBC's requirement to cut costs, including cutting property holdings by 20%.  Parts of Television Centre are Grade II-listed which will have to be incorporated into any redevelopment proposal.  While there has been talk about a museum or creative studios on the site, it is likely that residential development will allow the BBC to maximise their returns.  Shepherds Bush has excellent transport links and with Westfield shopping centre opposite the site is a prime housing spot.  The bidding war begins. 


Park Hill, Sheffield

Finally, The Independent reports today on the Grade II*-listed Park Hill estate in Sheffield.  The estate was the subject of a recent documentary that traced English Heritage's involvement in the redevelopment of the estate by Urban Splash.  The article questions whether the regeneration of the estate will price out working families and turn it into a 'yuppie paradise'.  As Europe's largest listed structure it is fascinating to see how the estate has been redeveloped while retaining the original concrete structure.  Whether the original social structure remains is another question.

Magazine Review: Planning versus The Architects’ Journal

As a regular reader of both Planning and The Architects’ Journal (AJ), I thought it would be informative to compare the respective magazines.  Both for what they say about the individual professions, as well as the relationship (or not) between the two.  With the economic slump, both magazines no longer act solely to advertise jobs as many trade journals do.  Gone are the days when late home on Friday I would head straight to the jobs page and instead all that is left now is to read the copy!

Planning

Since the recent re-brand, Planning magazine has incorporated Regeneration & Renewal magazine and therefore covers a much broader subject area.  Not that the previous version of Planning was narrow in scope, but the current approach does not shy away from the multiple aspects of planning.  This is the key difference between Planning and AJ.  Whilst in my view AJ is just concerned with the built form, Planning embraces economic development, regeneration and the environment whilst making connections to the built environment.

The key strength of Planning is that it captures the diversity of the planning profession.  Whilst one could argue that planners are the archetypal ‘jack of all trades, master of none’, this is no bad thing.  It is instructive to be aware of how omnipresent planning is – even with the growth of permitted development rights!  When I was a student I thought that Planning was too wide ranging and not focused enough.  However, having worked in planning for six years I now understand that the profession, like life itself, is messy and must be aware of how it connects with other facets of everyday life. 

This point is reinforced in the current edition (21 April 2011) with Jenny Crawford’s summary of the latest edition of Planning Theory and Practice.  The journal contains an article which is critical of ‘narrow-mandate’ government agencies that have a fragmented planning vision.  These agencies would do well to pick up an issue of Planning to understand that a blinkered approach to the profession is doomed to failure.

Where the magazine falls down is its lack of appreciation for architecture and design.  And no, I don’t mean adding more pretty pictures of buildings!  The days of in-house architectural advisers have long disappeared from Local Authorities, so it is vital that planners have greater design awareness.  From my experience, the level of knowledge within the planning profession with regard to urban design and architectural form is embarrassing.  Planning could therefore do the profession a favour and introduce a regular double-page spread on this specific issue.  This feature should not just present ‘best practice’ in the architectural field, but instead critically describe issues faced by the architectural profession.  This should include discussions on cost issues, how architects have worked with Local Authorities to deliver a scheme, and innovations in design.  The feature need not be too long, but it at least exposes planners to architectural debates that previously may have fallen under the radar.

The Architects’ Journal

AJ is not meant for people like me – especially at nearly double the cover price of Planning!  I could never imagine planners having the confidence in their profession to include satirical columnists (i.e. Ian Martin in AJ) in their trade journal.  Far too much humour for the RTPI.  Yet AJ is a much easier read than Planning.  It has 10-page case studies to really get to grips with the project.  It makes greater connections to the outside world and includes international projects as well as ‘The Critics’ section which ties the profession to wider happenings in society.  It even has gossip on in-fighting in RIBA!

But it will come as no surprise that I feel AJ should include greater content on planning.  As a planning consultant my main frustration is how the planner/architect relationship only truly kicks in at a late stage in the project.  Often this leaves the planner (whether this be consultant or Local Authority) asking for changes to the drawings at a late stage in order to accord with policy or regulations.  This can be as minor as asking for a change in the red line boundary or as major as knocking 5 storeys off a tall building.  Either way, it shows that planners and architects should speak more and earlier.

AJ should help this process by including more articles on how the planning process operates in practice.  This does not mean a review of government policy or new regulations being dreamt up by Eric Pickles, but instead the harsh realities of how planning decisions are taken.  Articles could focus on the pressures faced by Local Authority planners – times pressures, lack of resources, lack of knowledge, political pressures etc.  My main gripe with AJ is that the case studies focus too much on the design vision and the technical/engineering achievements.  How did the architect, and the wider project team, turn the original sketch on a note pad into a planning permission?  AJ needs to include a greater awareness of how decisions are made and why.

This would benefit young architects the most as they may not be aware of the messy business of post-submission.  A planner would be well placed to describe the reasons behind multiple revisions to the submission drawings and even why a Design and Access Statement is still required for a telephone mast!  Whilst Paul Finch and some of the columnists do make helpful connections between architecture and planning, a regular feature that reports back from the coalface would benefit the profession.

Read all about it.......

Unsurprisingly, I suggest that Planning needs more architecture and AJ needs more planning.  This simple conclusion proves that both professions approach the development sector differently.  Yet with clients feeling the squeeze and wanting to get more for less, it is vital that the professions improve their communication with each other.  Perhaps the respective magazines can start the process for us?

Planning can be found here

The Architects' Journal can be found here

No short term answers in planning reform

It was no surprise that planning played a noticeable part in last week's Budget. In the weeks leading up to George Osbourne's announcement, a number of ministers, including the PM himself, had identified the planning system as a drag on growth that was ripe for reform. The language used by Osborne, Pickles, Cable et al typifies the Coalition's approach to the public services, where town hall bureaucracy is supposedly stifling economic growth.



The Budget therefore included a number of measures to reform the planning system and align it with the new growth agenda. This included:

- a presumption in favour of 'sustainable development'
- a new National Planning Policy Framework
- changes to permitted development rights, including the ability to change offices to residential use without planning permission.
- prioritising growth and jobs in local planning policies
- land auctions
- involving businesses in the shaping of Neighbourhood Plans
- 21 Enterprise Zones where planning restrictions would be removed

Despite the rhetoric, none of this is radically new and has appeared in a previous Green Paper on Planning written by the Conservatives when in Opposition. Much has since been written in reaction to the announcements and I direct you to excellent articles by Jamie Carpenter (here) and the Centre for Cities (here).

Overall, I am positive about any initiative to align planning with economic aspirations and, if undertaken correctly, the Enterprise Zones can help new initiatives be trialed (as I have discussed previously - see here). The Royal Docks in London will be a good test case. Over the last 15-20 years the area has seen significant development, with commercial schemes, the Excel Centre and a number of Ballymore-led residential towers. The onus is therefore less on physical improvements and more on business incentives and attracting jobs. Whether this just shifts existing jobs from elsewhere will be interesting to see.


My main gripe with the Budget is the unrealistic timetable for these reforms. The presumption in favour of 'sustainable development' was originally suggested in the Conservative Green Paper but failed to make it into the Localism Bill. Why has this policy been discarded but now held up to be the saving grace for economic growth? If it is to be re-inserted into the Localism Bill, this will take time and further debate in the House of Commons. Furthermore, the policy in favour of sustainable development must be aligned with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Nobody has yet seen the NPPF, so it is unrealistic to see this being adopted before the end of 2011. So, for both the Localism Bill to be adopted and the NPPF to be in force, it will be a further 18 months at least. In the meantime the Government will be under pressure to increase growth above 2%, reduce unemployment and build more homes. It is hard to see if any of the Budget announcements can make any difference in the short term. Whilst I commend the proposed reforms, why weren't they made Government policy 18 months ago?

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'.

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!

A Time for Reflection?

It is sometimes easy to think that planning stops with the issuing of a permission. Job done. Case closed. After that the drawings are handed over to the construction team and we move onto the next job. But the recent publicity of how the Shard is sitting behind St Paul's Cathedral demonstrates that more reflection is required on what was promised during planning compared to what gets built.

Londoners could not have failed to notice the speed at which the Shard is redefining London Bridge and the wider skyline. The development will finally reach 72 storeys and provide a mix of apartments, restaurants, offices and a hotel. Yet it made news in last weeks Evening Standard following criticisms by English Heritage, a vocal objector at the time of the planning application. The Mayor of London has a range of strategic planning powers and most notably he issues directions on which views require protection (outlined here). Of all the viewing corridors he has established, St Paul’s Cathedral has the most historic interest. Up until 1962 St Paul's was the tallest building in London and its iconic silhouette famously stood untouched during the Blitz. Undoubtedly, St Paul’s has great historic and cultural value to the city.

The problem is that during the planning process, a great deal of imagination is required. Architectural sketches and 3D models can only go so far in presenting a mock-up of how the tall building will sit in the skyline. There is even a question as to how accurate these techniques are. I’ve not seen the plans submitted on the Shard so can’t comment on how they compare to what has been built – in particular the relationship with St Paul’s. But what it does make me realise is the need for greater reflection in planning. Research should be undertaken comparing the photo montages submitted during planning and the actual photos of the completed scheme. This can act as a sense check and give greater confidence to decision-makers, especially on high profile sites such as the Shard.

But this shouldn’t end with visual assessments. Whilst planning is awash with guidance, it is poorly served by simple data on how development schemes have been used in practice. This could relate to demography (how many people live in a certain type of building, what age ranges etc), socio-economics (how many jobs were created during construction) and public space (how do people physically move around the streets and spaces). Currently the profession relies too much on generic formulas that fail to take account of various building types and uses or Census data which is dated and inflexible. Clearly, at a time of public sector budget cuts it is hard to see how local planning departments will have the time and resources to commission this research. So I propose that universities step in and play a greater role in analysing how finished development schemes compare to the assumptions made pre-planning. This would provide excellent training and know-how to graduates and be of huge benefit to the profession as a whole.

In order to move forward perhaps we need to look back just a little.

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.

Book Review: The Trouble with City Planning (Kristina Ford)

With the UK planning system going through another round of structural reforms, it makes sense to look abroad and see how other countries and cities are tackling contemporary issues. Kristina Ford draws on her experience as the Director of City Planning in New Orleans to provide a broad critique of current planning practice in 'The Trouble with City Planning'. Ford argues that 'the plan' has failed to act as a useful and relevant document for the city's many inhabitants. Taking a historical overview, she traces how US planning has changed little from the Plan of Chicago, written in 1909. The result is that planning continues to focus too much on visioning, to the expense of everyday issues that 'really matter'. With specific reference to the problems in New Orleans, Ford argues that planning has excluded the poorest sections of society who often fail to fit into the visioning exercise each city undertakes.

I would respond that this situation should not preclude the visioning exercise being undertaken, as Ford appears to argue. One of the strengths of the book is that it made me appreciate certain elements of the UK planning system which previously I may have undervalued. The 'spatial strategy', when carried out well, presents a clear picture on how an area should develop over the next twenty years. Visioning should not be discarded, though in the US it is much harder to square with the zoning system which requires finer site detail.

So what is the trouble with city planning. Through a few excellent examples, Ford identifies the problems as: politicians overruling planning officers; confusing plans and regulations; a lack of engagement from the public; and consultation fatigue. All this is summed up neatly when she describes a typical planning meeting to gather input for the future of New Orleans and only 12 people turn up. Yes, TWELVE. This should set alarm bells ringing for the profession (in the UK as well). How can a profession that deals with such substantive issues only appeal to 12 people? Solving this requires systematic changes and unfortunately Ford only tinkers around the edges, at one point suggesting bigger maps are brought to the meetings! Similarly, offering more development options during the consultation events will not increase engagement or alter the identity of the profession. Planning will only become more visible if it gains a bigger profile from national and local government taking it serious. In the UK, planning is all too often seen as small fry, whether in DCLG or within Local Authorities.


The most troubling aspect I found of Ford's book is her description of the political influence in the US. Again, this made me grateful for the quirks of Town and Country Planning at home. Ford provides a number of examples where developers would cut deals directly with the Mayor and Councillors. This just doesn't happen in the UK, at least to this extent. Developers may get strategic reassurances from elected members, but the fine detail of a development is still required to go through the arduous process of planning approval. Ford paints a picture of schemes being waved through without being tested against policy, a dangerous precedent indeed!

Whilst the book provides some insightful examples I would have preferred greater recognition of the benefits that a development can offer an area. All too often Ford gave the impression that new development only benefits a locality through increased tax receipts. Whilst this is clearly important, especially in US cities where tax is devolved and public sector budgets are under strain, the book would have benefited from a description of development schemes that have been successful and the lessons to learn from them. How about schemes that introduce excellently designed housing or improved public spaces? Surely something good must have happened under Ford's watch!

Overall, the book was accessible for non-planners - no mean feat in itself. Ford is able to crystallise the problems with city planning well, but falls down in her suggestions for addressing the concerns. I felt she could have gone much further and been bolder in her recommendations for how New Orleans could progress in the period since Katrina.

The Musing Urbanist score: 7/10

Learning from Paris.....

Behind the unfortunate language used by Boris Johnson, there is a serious debate being waged about the Coalition policy on housing. Whilst the debate specifically stems from the proposed cuts to housing benefit, the argument draws out interesting questions on what we want our cities to look like.

In cities with high rents such as London, the danger is that the poor could be pushed to the outer suburbs and beyond, creating a 'doughnut-effect'. London is rightfuly proud of its mixed-communities, which have developed more through chance than direct intervention, and it would be a mistake to ignore the role they play in social cohesion and economic diversity. Labour MP Chris Bryant is cleverly evoking the dystopian image of the 'banlieue' in Paris to warn against segregation. Reference is also being made to the block-booking of B&Bs in Hastings as a way for London councils to rid themselves of unwanted residents.

As house prices show, London operates in some-what of a bubble and it is wrong to have a standard cap on housing benefit across the country that ignores this anomaly. Whilst housing benefit has got out of hand, much to the benefit of private landlords, it serves a purpose and must support mixed communities. Areas in Hackney and Islington have gentrified over the years precisely because they are mixed communities and poorer residents should not suffer from the associated price rises. Boris has tried to make these points, but unfortunately his argument has been derailed by unhelpful language.

The argument about housing benefit cannot be decoupled from issues surrounding the ever-worsening housing shortage. House building is at a record low and with schemes on hold and significant applications being refused in light of the removal of targets, the future looks no brighter. The Coalition harks on about reforming the planning system, but the New Homes Bonus is not due until April 2011. Plus, where is the evidence that localism will change the mind-set of local Councillors who often campaign on a stance of no development? If growth is to be accepted in key areas of the country, the benefits must be better articulated.



A complete reform of the Green Belt is required to increase land supply and stimulate house-building. I am not advocating endless sprawl that is dominated by road transport, but calling for a public transport based spatial planning. Unfortunately in the rush towards localism, a gap in strategic planning has been left which we may come to regret.

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.