|
Policy arrangements
Utrecht
1. How would you shortly
describe your case?
This case is about
greenstructureplanning in the city of Utrecht. This is also
one of the cases in the European project "Communicating
Urban Growth and Green" (GREENSCOM).
The city of Utrecht is
located in the centre of the Netherlands. It has 234.000
inhabitants (2000). In Utrecht, demographic growth and
economic objectives with related consequences for mobility
and the need to find construction sites, continue to put
pressure on green space in and around the city. A
greenstructure plan was drawn up towards the end of the
1980s. A different approach to green was applied in relation
to the large new building development of Leidsche Rijn. This
case draws on experiences with both approaches.
2. What is/are the most
important discourse(s) in relation to urban planning and
greenstructures in your case? Did these discourses change
over time? In what way?
Discours-transformation
1: from management and maintenance of green to integrated
urban development (technical ý design, sectoral
ý integrated).
Greenstructureplanning
in Utrecht in the 1980s had a strong emphasis on management
and maintenance of green areas. In that time, urban
development and 'green'-related issues were taken up in
separate sectors of the municipal government. The municipal
officials involved with green tried to cope with budget cuts
by incorporating the most important green areas in a
coherent greenstructure. This would then give a clear
overview of the costs of management and maintenance. In
addition, the articulation of green in a structureplan was
expected to be taken over by the urban development sector
and thereby influence new building initiatives.
However, the
greenstructureplan faded away and remained only of use for
the management and maintenance people for whom it was
originally made. Its ambitions to have a broader impact
failed. Connected to the focus on management and
maintenance, quantitative green standards played an
important role (greenspace shortage and surpluses were
determined on the basis of greenspace surface areas in m2
per inhabitant). Greenstructureplanning was mainly a
technical business. Nowadays, the plan still exists but does
not have the impact desired by the involved municipal
personnel and so they have questions about the future
relevance of the plan.
A discours-shift can be
observed when the above is compared with the way green is
dealt with in a major new urban development of Utrecht. The
new district is called Leidsche Rijn, which plan projected
the development of 30.000 houses, 700.000 m2 offices and 280
hectares of commercial area.
Since the
greenstructureplan of the existing city of Utrecht bears no
reference to Leidsche Rijn the latter had to choose its own
approach. A separate 'projectbureau' was established. The
course adopted for Leidsche Rijn involves a
multi-disciplinary planning process. In contrast with the
Utrecht greenstructureplan, green was incorporated in the
development vision. It was considered part and parcel of the
districts' quality. A comparison of the spatial effects of
both approaches remains interesting.
Analyses of the
greenstructure in Leidsche Rijn show that the most important
green elements are located precisely where other functions
are not feasible. This means that there will be little
pressure from other functions. The spatial repercussion of
the new, 'integrated urban development'-discours , similar
to the 'traditional', more sectoral approach remains
unclear. There are for example strong discussions about a
300 hectares park in the centre of Leidsche Rijn, which was
a green 'cornerstone' of the new district in its plan. Too
many functions (sports, water, etcetera) are projected in
the park so that more hectares are needed to give a place to
all wishes, and finances are lacking for management and
maintenance of the area.
Discours-transformation
2: from closed to more open planning processes.
The planning vocabulary
used in the 1980s greenstructureplan hardly included the
involvement of citizens. This changed considerably in recent
years. The work on the 'greenplan' Overvecht took citizen
involvement as point of departure. The maintenance
department pays more attention to selfmanagement. The same
department has established a consultationgroup (MAGIE).
Agenda's are open and accessible to citizens. That the
transformation process is still accompanied by hesitations
is shown by a new initiative from the municipal organisation
to put limits to the openness about the agenda. This
initiative came after succesfull attempts of citizens to
enforce greater 'green' sectoral input in the Leidsche Rijn
project team.
3. What
actors(-coalitions), resources and rules of the game went
along with these discourses?
Actor
coalitions
The main changes in
actor coalitions were described in the above. In summary:
The discours transformation from management to development
based greenstructure planning involved a transition from
monodisciplinary cooperation in a sectoral department of the
municipality to multidisciplinary cooperation in the
Leidsche Rijn project team. What is remarkable is that the
two 'systems' still exist, each with their own
dynamics.
The discours
transformation from closed to more open planning processes
involved a broadening of the actors involved with the
discours (the question is still to what extent this is
really a discourscoalition). At first, management and
maintenance of green was limited to professional people.
Nowadays these professionals try to involve citizens. The
'right to initiative' of the city of Utrecht tries to lay
down first responsibilities with the citizens. The
hesitations described above to be open about agenda's and
thereby create a direct interface between the official
circuit and the citizens, show that one can perhaps not
speak yet of strong discours coalitions.
Power and
Resources
Resources can be
financial, knowledge, property rights, legitimacy, etcetera.
The focus on management and maintenance in the 1980s
greenstructureplan went along with a lack of financial
resources. Technical and quantitative knowledge prevailed.
Professionals would determine what green areas were valuable
and what number of hectares would be good for citizens. The
less sectoral, more integrated approach used in Leidsche
Rijn required the capacity to talk 'beyond' the own
discipline and gave the person responsible for green a say
in the urban development process.
The right of initiative
and the selfmanagement contracts can be seen as new
resources for citizens to have more influence on their own
environment. A similar conclusion can be drawn with regard
to the 'open agenda's': it provided citizens with the
opportunity to exercise power in relation to the composition
of the multidisciplinary designteam of Leidsche Rijn. The
future will show whether the new responsibility relations,
with the government in a facilitating rather then an
executive role, lead to a greater legitimacy of government.
At the beginning, the selfmanagement contracts were seen as
a budgettary measure. Nowadays government employees start to
realize that the establishment of the contracts, the follow
up and the guidance of enthousiastic citizens, requires as
much or more time than maintenance by the municipal services
themselves. As becomes clear in the above, money is often a
driving force behind choices in relation to Utrecht
greenstructure planning. It is of course a resource, but one
may perhaps look at it as a discours.
Rules of the
game
In the above it gets
clear that in Utrecht, the rules of the game in relation to
urban planning and greenstructure are rather diffuse.
Different rules of the game exist next to each other. The
open agenda for instance provided power to citizens and
environment groups to influence decision making on
greenstructures, but it was not consolidated as a formal
rule of the game. The integrate approach can be called a
'rule of the game' in the project organisation of Leidsche
Rijn, but in the traditional government structure of Utrecht
the situation is quite different.
4. What other dimensions
do you consider of influence on urban planning and
greenstructures in your case.
…
Munich
The river Isar as the
backbone of the greenspace policy
Bettina Oppermann and
Stephan Pauleit, Germany
In my case the most
influential discours(es) in relation to green structure
planning is / are*:
The backbone of the
green structure system of the city and region of Munich is
shaped by the natural "design" of an alpine river, the river
Isar. During different historic periods the bed of the river
and the banks in the city are formed more and more by the
needs and means of flood management. In medieval times the
city structure followed natural borders, but in the new
times technical solutions with dams and dikes (in the
mountains) cope with the danger of floods and allow the
management of water flows and quality. Since the modern
times also the possibility to gain energy from the river
became more and more important. In the city centre the banks
and the river are designed very artificially as an urban
space with architectonical high-lights, bridges, pathways,
views etc. The pavement and fortification was an issue for
the Munich citizens since the beginning of the 20th century.
The river is also
perceived as an important natural force that can be enjoyed
for bathing, biking and other recreational functions. In the
80ies a new discourse occurred with the growth of the
ecological movement. The issue at stake was, how much
maintenance is necessary to provide green structures for
recreation and does a low budget for building and
maintenance of new structures force the planners to think
about new green strategies. A low budget management possibly
meets the need of ecological functions as well as aethetical
and recreational functions better than the traditional park
planning and building procedures. Is the river Isar a model
for green structure planning in general or a very special
gift of nature to the Munich citizens?
Today new challenges for
flood-management evolve with the debate about the changing
of climate, the increase of strong rains and the need to
rebuild and build up the capacity of the dams of the river.
This is primarily an economic need but can also be
understood as an occasion for the reconstruction of the bed
of the river in the town and especially in the centre of the
city with the parts that are used for recreation in a very
intensive way. A competition for landscape architects and
water-engineers looks for solutions to fulfil recreational,
ecological and technical functions at the same time and
improve the ecological capacity of the river. First
rebuilding measurements should be presented in the year 2005
at the German garden exhibition in Munich. This event, with
its great visibility for everybody helps to accelerate the
planning and building process and tends to gain money from
the municipality and the Bavarian state budget.
To reach a good outcome
it is also absolutely necessary to cooperate with the cities
in the region and with the institutional body of the
Bavarian state responsible for rivers of the first level of
the rivers in the German system (?). This cooperation is
driven by the target to rebuild the river banks. A
win-win-solution must be found because it is not longer
possible to force cooperation by law or money.
Some municipalities in
the upper course of the river have to take their share to
build up cleaning technologies. The bathing quality of the
water in Munich today is good but not optimal. Also the
municipalities in the lower course need regional help to
cope with the problems of an industrialised regional area
(northern part of the city) and provide facilities for a
good living quality including natural recreation facilities.
The quality of the water decreases after running through the
city and taking all the cleaning functions a river has to
take. Because much of the water is taken to gain energy, the
river is only a "rest river" and controlled 100 % by the
water management. In order to integrate the different
functions of the river in a better way the flood management
must change and give more dynamics to the river again.
The discourses in key
words:
ß city shape
follows nature,
ß river shape
follows technical targets,
ß river banks are
subject of cultural, aesthetical discourses,
ß technical nature
serves recreational policy,
ß new challenges
of flood management and city shape,
ß strategy for
quality by an international architectural
competition,
ß planning
enforcement by international garden exhibition Munich 2005,
ß Cooperation with
the municipalities of the region, forming the new
institutional body of the region of Munich and cooperation
with other institutions (Bavarian state, Technical
"Deutsches Museum")
Argumentation: The
driving force is the fear that the flood-management is not
sufficient any more. But this is not mentioned in the
public. The planners try to reframe the need with green
space arguments to integrate different targets and functions
of the river: ecological, social and also economic
functions.
What actor (coalitions),
rules of the game, tools, and resources go along with this /
these discourses?
Actors:
Different departments of
the City of Munich,
Different Departments of
the Bavarian State
Different Municipalities
along the river in the south (winners now) and in the north
(loosers now)
Professionals of the
landscape department and the water management department of
the Universities of Munich (Weihenstephan, Nohl
etc…)
Munich
politicians
Munich
citizens
Munich
newspapers?
Rules of the
game:
How to gain money or
concentrate money of the Land bank system on a big
project?
How to conduct an
international competition for planners and
designers?
How to accelerate the
planning and decision process with the time line of the
BUGA?
How to win partners for
the project and integrate their interests for the reputation
of an international event?
Ressources:
Money with good effects
(to build a new museum and maintain it, is much more
expensive)
Time of the
Professionals (Knowledge to understand the ecological system
of the river and the wishes of the people and ideas for the
integration of different interests and
perspectives)
Resonance in the
professional public
International and city
wide Resonance for politicians (the project produces many
photos of "V.I.P.s with a spade")
Items that you miss in
the above description that you think of relevance but have
not been discussed:
Sheffield,
UK
NOTE
: FIRST DRAFT -note this will be revised after it has been
checked by local staff
The role of the
Sheffield Wildlife Trust in regenerating Sheffield's city
parks and open spaces
© Carolyn Harrison,
2003, UCL
Region/town/city: City
of Sheffield, Yorkshire, England
1. How would you briefly
describe your case?
The case is about the
policies, processes and practices being developed by
Sheffield City Council to regenerate their inner city parks
and informal open spaces and the active role played by the
Sheffield Wildlife Trust (SWT). As a city Sheffield has more
public parks and open spaces per head of population than
other cities in England &endash; 49.3 sq m/head in Sheffield
(UDP built up area - excluding the agricultural and
wilderness land withing the Sheffield MDC boundary) compared
with 21.3 sq m/head in Bradford; 25sqm/head in Dudley and an
average of 36.2sqm/head for all metropolitan authorities
(CIPFA Statistics). Successive rounds of public expenditure
cuts inspired by central government throughout the late
1980s and early 1990s saw Sheffield City Council reduce its
expenditure on parks as a percentage of net sport and
recreation expenditure from 68% in 1982-3 to 32% in 1991-2.
This latter figure represents an expenditure of £8.38
per head of population &endash; one of the lowest figures
recorded among metropolitan authorities outside London. In
the early 1990s the poor condition of the inner city parks
and open spaces became a cause of concern for the City
Council and residents alike. The case study examines the
City Council's approach to regenerating inner city parks and
open spaces in the period since 1993. In this period a new
Sheffield Parks Regeneration Strategy was adopted and
several urban regeneration projects associated with derelict
and informal open spaces were undertaken to improve the
local economy and social welfare of city residents. The
study focuses in particular on the formative and
instrumental role of the Sheffield City Wildlife Trust (a
voluntary sector organisation) as a major partner in all
these projects.
2. What is/are the most
important discourse(s) in relation to urban planning and
greenstructures in your case? Did these discourses change
over time ? In what way?
The Parks Regeneration
Strategy marks a shift in thinking and practices in several
ways. Its principal message is that lack of public
investment in Sheffield's parks and open spaces had led to a
'spiral of neglect' to the point where parks no longer
proved attractive to local users and served as disincentives
to much needed urban regeneration. It sought to address this
'spiral of neglect' through a new partnership approach to
park renewal and urban regeneration that would:
- secure additional
financial resources
- work with new partners
and local communities to review and determine service
standards
- enable groups and
individuals to actively contribute to the parks
service
- develop a ranger
service to support activities in parks and
- improve management for
people, wildlife and heritage.
This partnership
approach represents a move away from traditional,
quantitative (technocratic) approaches to park/open space
provision to one that is concerned with the specific
qualities of individual spaces and management standards and
practices that better reflect the range of benefits and
functions modern society expects. In brief the new approach
sought to be place and user orientated.
In Sheffield,
traditional approaches to park planning and provision were
based on normative, spatial models that linked park size
with the spatial catchments from which users are drawn. It
is a supply based approach that reflects national Planning
Policy Guidance of that time (PPG 17) and in terms of
planning practice used standards of supply based on the
National Playing Fields Association (NPFA) &endash; 6 acres
standard. The NFPA recommends a minimum standard of 2.4
hectares (6 acres) of outdoor playing space per 1000
population. In recognition of the size of the public estate,
especially large areas of informal green space in the city,
this standard was raised to 6ha (14.4 acres) /1000
population in 1993.
Whilst recognising that
the spatial supply of accessible parks is important, the new
strategy emphasises a user-orientated approach to
management. It recognises that park use reflects qualitative
attributes of the resource and changing expectations of
society. A user-orientated approach recognises that the
standard and range of facilities provided, the qualities of
natural environments present in the park, and the role of
park staff all influence the range of pleasurable
experiences each park provides. In this way the new strategy
sought to respond to changing social trends including
changing attitudes to health and the environment.
Importantly it also
sought to involve local people directly in discussions about
how the parks and informal open spaces should be managed.
This more collaborative approach involved the most extensive
public consultation exercise the Parks Department had ever
undertaken.
In terms of planning
discourse, any review of parks as a legitimate land use
identified in the Unitary Development Plan together with
policies for their protection and management, would normally
be regarded as the responsibility of professionals employed
by the local state &endash; often officers in the Leisure
Services Department. However, in Sheffield this review was
prepared by a partnership between the local state (The
Leisure Services Department of Sheffield City Council) and
the voluntary sector (Sheffield City Wildlife Trust). It was
funded from The Urban Programme &endash; a national fund
designed to assist economic regeneration of disadvantaged
areas. With high unemployment and structural decline in
local industries such as the steel industry, Sheffield
benefited from this new funding programme. As a result the
City Council with the Sheffield City Wildlife Trust were
joint sponsors of an Urban Programme funded scheme to
produce a Parks Regeneration Strategy. They employed a
specialist parks consultant to undertake this review - Alan
Barber ( Past President of the Institute of Leisure and
Amenity Management)
The partnership approach
underpinning the Sheffield Parks Regeneration Strategy is
consistent with dominant national discourses
(meta-discourses) promoted by central government. These
discourses emphasised the 'rolling back of the state' as
public services were opened up to market competition e.g.
Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT) of park maintenance
services, and a partnership approach to urban regeneration
that required 'cash-strapped' local authorities to work with
other partners if they were to secure national funding for
urban regeneration projects. However, it is also a
distinctive local manifestation of these discourses. In
particular, the direct involvement of the Sheffield City
Wildlife Trust - rather than an amenity group for example,
or private sector partner - as the co-sponsor of the Parks
Strategy is a local response to these meta discourses and is
one that reflects the distinctive commitment of the SWT to
community-based, environmental regeneration.
The key local discourse
became 'economic and social regeneration through open space
improvement projects that are community-led.'
The discourse(s) in key
words
Pre 1990
- Single sector approach
to land used for sport and children's play separate from
other land-uses
- Open space
standards
- Supply based
approach
- Technocratic
- Normative
- State provision
&endash; public provided and managed
Post 1993:
-
User-centred
- Place
specific
- Multi-functional
&endash; including wildlife conservation, heritage,
health,
- Multi-sector &endash;
improving the quality of open spaces as an integral part of
economic and social renewal
- Collaborative
management as a means of empowering local people
- Partnership sponsored
and delivered
- Cost
efficient
Argumentation:
Improvements to urban parks and open spaces are an integral
feature of economic and social renewal programmes and
public-voluntary sector partnerships are an important means
of empowering local people.
What actor (coalitions),
rules of the game, tools and resources go along with
this/these discourses?
Chief actors
are:
- The City Council
&endash; elected councillors/politicians
- Professional Officers
of the Leisure Department
- Officers and members
of Sheffield Wildlife Trust
- Independent Consultant
&endash; Alan Barber
- The Universities of
Sheffield and Sheffield Hallam
- Volunteers
- Private sector
developers
The main coalition
involved the City Council building on its partnership with
the Sheffield Wildlife Trust to co-sponsor urban
regeneration projects and to take forward the Parks
Strategy.
Rules of the
game:
- How to establish a
"Parks Investment Programme" that might permit the sale of
some open spaces and receive public support?
- How to work with park
users as both customers and stakeholders?
- How to enable the
voluntary sector to contribute more effectively to the
regeneration of parks, open spaces, woodland and
countryside?
- How to implement the
Sheffield Nature Conservation Strategy and give priority to
areas identified by the Sheffield Bio-Diversity Action Plan?
- How can maintenance
standards better reflect the needs of local communities and
the distinctiveness of local spaces?
- How to maintain and
develop the partnership between the City Council, Sheffield
Wildlife Trust, the Universities of Sheffield and others to
develop a city-wide strategy and regeneration plans for all
major parks?
- How to develop a
Ranger Service that actively involves individuals,
volunteers and community organisations?
Resources:
Political resources: A
change in the political composition of the Sheffield City
Council in 1997 from one which had been consistently
dominated by a strong, socialist base to one that had a more
liberal complexion is important for taking forward the Parks
Strategy and regeneration projects.
The strong tradition of
socialism in the City and its electors in part explains the
size of the public green estate (another major reason being
local topography and the river system which results in much
land being unbuildable)and over time opened up as public
greenspace). Public ownership of land was regarded as an
important goal in its own right and as a means of protecting
attractive landscape. The cost of maintaining this large
public green estate however meant that during the economic
recession of the late 1980s and early 1990s the quality of
the maintenance suffered as the Leisure budget was
repeatedly cut by the City Council. With its strong
socialist base the City Council prioritised the economy,
housing, education and social welfare. As a discreationary
area of expenditure, the financial and professional
resources available to the Leisure Services Department
declined substantially.
The absence of any
political champion for Parks and open spaces on the City
Council also meant that the active and potential role of
open spaces in economic and social renewal never came under
scrutiny.
Financial resources:
Funding for the Parks Strategic Review was linked to the
Urban Programme &endash; a national source of funding that
required public/private/voluntary sector partnerships to be
in place. The City already had some experience with
partnership work for, as a deprived area the South Yorkshire
region benefited first from Objective 1 funding &endash;
much of this provided funding for land reclamation projects
associated with the demise of the coal industry. But it also
benefited from Objective 2 Funding from Europe ( this ended
in 2002).
The Five Weirs Trust
(another voluntary sector organisation) had been set up in
1986 to manage several urban renewal projects on former
industrial sites along the river Don in the inner city. This
Trust had involved members of the Leisure Dept and the
Sheffield City Wildlife Trust who worked alongside the
Development Corporation &endash; an independent organisation
set up by central government to acquire land for urban
development projects.
In other words, during
the 1980s new funding streams designed to assist areas
experiencing economic and social deprivation provided an
opportunity for voluntary sector trusts to work on
environmental projects associated with re-development
schemes.
For example: the River
Don together with other rivers and canals had been
identified in statutory Development Plans as corridors to be
protected &endash; much as had been the case with
Abercrombie's original plan for the city in the 1930s. The
rivers had been identified as wildlife corridors and sites
of wildlife importance and the Five Weirs Trust built on
this assessment to promote landscape and wildlife
enhancement schemes associated with industrial renewal of a
number of inner city sites.
In practice these early
urban renewal projects permitted only cosmetic, landscape
improvements rather than providing opportunities for
significant habitat creation and renewal. However, they
provided important experience for the SWTrust not only in
partnership working but also in mobilising and managing
local volunteers who worked on these projects. In other
words these new funding opportunities increased the
SWTrust's local knowledge base and capacity to promote
qualitative improvements in the local environment through
the active involvement of local people. Empowering local
people to take charge of their local environment provided
the mechanism for ensuring that environmental improvement
became integral to processes of economic renewal and
community development.
Cultural resources: The
pro-active approach taken by the Sheffield Wildlife Trust to
community involvement in these projects has proved
instrumental to the emergence of the Trust as a major player
in discussions about policy development and delivery.
Through their experience with a wide range of
community-based projects undertaken in a variety of open
spaces, the Trust gained authority and legitimacy. It is now
a major player in strategic discussions: about the
trajectory of urban renewal, the strategic development of
park and open space renewal, urban green space planning, and
in the practical delivery of community-based projects that
provide employment and training opportunities and
educational services.
For example, the recent
report of the government's Urban Green Spaces Task Force
(2002) recommended that the Deep Pits/Manor Fields Park and
Play Area, Sheffield, be used as a demonstration site for
implementing good practice in the improvement of green
spaces. The project is located in one of the most deprived
housing estates in the UK and The Sheffield Wildlife Trust
is a founding member of a collaborative partnership between
the local authority, Manor and Castle Development Trust, the
housing associations and the private sector. The partners
fund an Environmental team whose members are located on the
housing estate. Their task is to take forward proposals for
a park with local people that followed extensive community
consultation.
The Sheffield Wildlife
Trust now has an annual turnover of 2.5 million pounds and
employs 75 people &endash; in other words it is a small to
medium sized enterprise (SME) typical of the growing number
of SMEs nationally and with a very strong local
base.
The strong social
commitment of the SWT to community&endash;led environmental
renewal meshes closely with the political culture of the
region and with the core values of the urban wildlife
conservation movement in the UK as a whole. However, this
pro-active approach does not find favour with all its
members who would prefer to see the Trust concentrate its
activities on protecting and conserving sites of high nature
conservation value.
In practice the Trust
has to compete for members with over 40 other campaigning
environmental groups in the region and in future their role
in community development will also be shared with a new
Groundwork Trust in Sheffield. The Groundwork Trusts are
central government 's preferred means of delivering their
new funding programme 'Building Sustainable Communities'
(2003). These trusts receive grant-in- aid directly from
Central Government and require a formalised partnership with
the local authority and other private sector and voluntary
groups. The Wildlife Trust does not receive grant-in-aid
directly from central government and it would compete with
Groundwork for other national funding such as Heritage
Lottery Funds.
How to explain the
success of the SWT as a major player in urban renewal and
green structure planning? The success of SWT as a major
player cannot be attributed to one set of factors but rather
to a combination or factors some national, some local.
However, there can be little doubt that the drive and
persistence of local officers in the Trust has been very
important. In some ways it seems that the SWT is founded on
the social commitment of its professional staff who
themselves have been employed ( are employed ) in the public
sector, for example, in local government, universities,
education, museums. This experience and commitment has
played an extremely important role in developing a vision
for the Trust as key motivators of community development
through the direct involvement of local people in
environmental renewal projects.
What are the rules of
the game as far as partnership approaches to urban
regeneration and green space improvement are
concerned?
Changing roles of the
state and other sectors:
The role of the state
has changed from being that of sole provider of green space
to that of enabler. However, as elected representatives of
the public, the local state is still expected to work in the
'public interest' rather than just pursuing market forces.
Professional staff generally set the ground rules for
determining what the public interest is guided by
Parliamentary Planning Guidance Notes but politicians
interpret these rules locally and will prioritise different
arenas of local activity when allocating resources or in
strategic planning &endash; economic, social, education,
environment. Economic and social arenas are still dominant
ones for the local state but 'Sheffield's green estate'
became incorporated in the urban regeneration programme once
a partnership approach to regeneration positioned the local
state as an enabler and not as the sole provider.
The role of the
private sector: in partnership approaches to
development is key because the private sector is asked to
take financial risks &endash; especially in the reclamation
of derelict/polluted land. In Sheffield the financial
returns on development are not high - hence the special
mechanism implemented by central government &endash; the
Development Corporation. This designation by-passed existing
planning regulations to some extent and offered developers
preferential rates for development - it was the mechanism
used to successfully regenerate the Lower Don Valley
District of the city in the 1980s. In terms of environmental
improvement however, outcomes can tend to be cosmetic,
piecemeal and un-related to other environmental goals.
The voluntary
sector: groups can often be seen as 'single interest'
groups unless their legitimacy to represent local peoples'
views is achieved &endash; membership size, advocacy style,
and participative ways of working all help to build
legitimacy and trust. SWT has gained in standing and clout
because it has succeeded in recruiting a large membership,
has high professional standards and delivers results on the
ground.
Financial
resources: partnership is a response to structural
changes in funding streams and to the reduced income of
local authorities under Thatcher cuts on public services
that required local authorities to open up these services to
the market place. The discretionary nature of leisure
service provision and management has always meant that
within central and local government green space planning
tended to be a technical and normative exercise rather than
a pro-active programme for improvement or the development of
a service that could be responsive to residents needs.
Partnerships
requirements especially when linked to urban renewal
projects seldom provide more than cosmetic opportunities to
improve green space, and are often opportunistic projects
that are not guided by strategic thinking about green
spaces/structures. The Sheffield Parks Regeneration Strategy
is extremely unusual in this respect because it provides a
mechanism for prioritising parks as part of urban renewal
initiatives, including informal open space associated with
some very disadvantaged housing estates. Local Trusts
provide a means of channelling funding that would otherwise
not be available to independent organisations but these
Trusts require knowledgeable individuals with key skills if
they are to be accepted as legitimate by local people and
the short-term funding cycle means that their future is not
always very secure.
Knowledge and
competences
Partnership requires all
partners to work in different ways &endash; authority and
knowledge can be challenged. For example, officers in local
authorities often feel their own professional competence is
questioned, voluntary sector organisations find their core
values &endash; ways of working &endash; may be challenged,
private sector organisations often take the biggest
financial risks but as 'outsiders' are mistrusted by local
people.
Power
Throughout the Thatcher
period (1980s) planning and urban re-development followed
the ideology of the market and outcomes tended to favour
developers. Since property rights determine the extent to
which other parties can effectively object to development
proposals, partnerships are always likely to be unequal
ones. Hence any environmental benefits/gains associated with
re-development are likely to be small and cosmetic.
Development of some of
the most disadvantaged public sector housing estates in
Sheffield through a partnership approach that also delivered
environmental benefits challenges this traditional view. Its
success owes something to the political culture of the local
state in Sheffield and the community involvement culture of
the officers of the Sheffield Wildlife Trust and many of its
members
Transparency, social
inclusiveness, …. Less clear how these urban renewal
projects 'work'. Certainly they have targeted areas that are
socially very disadvantaged. As a result raising the
capacity of local communities to eventually take over the
management of new green spaces has to be built into the
renewal programme. Remains to be seen how effectively this
can be achieved without continuing support.
A customer or
stakeholder approach?: current government changes in the
planning system and local government are trying to ensure
that local authorities are more responsive to local people's
needs. 'Best Value Initiatives' reward local authorities
financially when services meet high standards as agreed by
external audit. Local authorities are still trying to find
ways of establishing what local people want, as opposed to
single interest groups. Park Users Forums such as those
established in Sheffield, are one means of taking this more
community-responsive approach forward and Open Space
Strategies are another. As yet however, little attention is
given to the framing of the questions to be debated as part
of the process of public engagement or to the conduct of
this process. If public consultation is to move away from
the traditional one of 'plan-reveal-defend' that favours the
norms of professional planners, additional skills and
resources will need to be invested in the process of public
engagement and the implementation of its findings. As yet
these additional resources are not forthcoming. In Sheffield
a general policy that would permit the sale of open space
'surplus to requirements' has not found favour with the
public or politicians. However, the use of Section 106
Agreements through which developers are required to make a
financial contribution as part of the development process so
that improvements identified in Open Space Strategies can be
funded, has found some support. The use of 106 Agreements
for this purpose however, depends much on the legitimacy of
the Open Space Strategy as a representation of local
peoples' views.
|