|
|
European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research - COST Action C11 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Spatial Planning in England National
data on planning systems Spatial
Planning England Carolyn
Harrison UK The English
Planning System (note since
devolution different planning regulations have
developed in Scotland and Wales) Since
devolution under the Labour Government separate
systems now operate in England, Wales, Scotland and
Northern Ireland, although the basic procedures are
similar. The current
planning system There are two
elements to the planning system: plans and
development control. 1.Plans:
National
tier: There
is no National Plan although national legislation
and Planning Policy Guidance notes issued by
central government provide the national framework
for other plans and planning procedures. There are
25 Parliamentary Planning Guidance Notes to assist
local planning authorities in carrying out their
planning duties including development control
&emdash; these include advice on Green Belts
(PPG2), Housing (PPG3), Nature Conservation (PPG 9)
and Sport, Open Space and recreation (PPG 17) and
etc. Regional
Planning:
Central government also provides Regional Planning
Guidance that is the context for planning over a 20
year period. Regional planning fell into disfavour
during the Thatcher period of the late 1980s and
1990s. As part of its devolution agenda, the Labour
government has set up eight Regional Development
Agencies that are expected to provide a similar
framework and based on a membership that is more
representative of the region it serves..
County
level: at
the level of the English counties Strucutre Plans
provide a planning framework for a 15 year horizon.
Minerals and Waste Plan are mandatory at this
tier. Local authority
level: District or Local Plans apply at the local
authority level and cover a 10 year time
horizon. Unitary
Development Plans (UDP) are equivalent to the Local
and District plans for Metropolitan District
Councils, the London Boroughs and the Isle of White
. Part 1 of the UDP is a framework of general
policies. Part 2 includes detailed policies and
proposals to guide development control for a 10
year horizon or longer in the case of green belt.
The Government Act for London 1999 re-established a
single governing authority for the
capital. Commentary: In
drawing international comparisons the UK is unusual
in several respects. 2.
Development control is the process that
determines the outcome of planning applications
&emdash; including major infra-structure projects
like airports and road schemes as well as
applications by householders etc. Development
control has been a responsibility of all Local
Planning Authorities since 1947. National Park
Authorities prepare National Park Plans and
exercise development control over developments with
the Park. Development control in Green Belts is
exercised at the local level. Empirical studies
show that where, as in London and the south-Eats
development pressures are high, successive
administrations have attempted to extend the area
under green belt control even though effectiveness
of development control at the local level varies
from one authority to the next. Overall however
Green belts are regarded as having been successful
at containing urban growth but poor at promoting
positive land uses. Since 1991
development control activities have been plan led.
&emdash; in most urban areas this means being
guided by the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) or
Local Plan. In London the Mayor prepares a Spatial
Development Strategy &emdash; known as 'The London
Plan' - with which the London boroughs UDPs will be
expected to conform. Commentary: A
number of commentators have observed that during
the 1980s and 1990s under the Thatcher government,
central government policies favoured market-led
development and local planning policies came to
reflect these priorities. This marked a shift from
earlier periods in which local planning authorities
were expected to act 'in the public interest' in
their efforts to protect local communities ' from
the excesses of development' and to protect
environmental quality. As noted above social goals
have seldom been a strong feature of the UK
planning system. At the same
time central government imposed financial cuts on
local authorities so that partnership approaches to
re-development were encouraged. In other words,
development came to favour private property
interests and the 'public interest' and 'public
participation' &emdash; the other two foundational
ideologies of the British Planning system were
subordinated. The return of a
Labour Government to pwer in 1997 has not really
changed things. However, at the time of writing
(February 2002), the planning system as a whole is
being reviewed and a consultation document
Planning: delivering a fundamental change DTLR 2001
has been put out to public consultation. Environmental
planning Nature
conservation and landscape planning at the national
scale. The main
difference as far as the environment is concerned
is that in England, nature conservation and the
protection of fine landscape are duties that reside
in separate statutory agencies. These duties are
the responsibility of single agencies in Scotland
(Scottish Natural Heritage SNH) and in Wales (The
Countryside Council for Wales CCW). In England
responsibility for nature conservation resides with
English Nature (EN). English Nature designates,
manages and sometimes owns some 200 National Nature
Reserves (NNRs) and also designates and monitors
the condition of over 6000 Sites of Special
Scientific Interest (SSSIs). EN also has powers to
designate Local Nature reserves (LNRs) in
association with land owners or other authorities
with an interest in land ( Local Authorities).
There are about 700 LNRs in the UK today, several
of them in urban or adjacent to areas. Nationally the
responsibility for designating National Parks and
other protected landscapes such as Areas of
Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) resides with the
Countryside Agency (CA). Pollution
control: The Environment Agency has statutory
responsibility for integrated pollution control
(air, water and land) throughout the UK and a duty
to promote conservation. Green belts
Since 1995 Green Belt legislation designed to
contain urban development around cities applies in
England and Scotland. There is no formal green belt
policy in Wales.. Government
departments In England the
relevant government department for rural policies
is now the Department of Rural Affairs (formerly
DETR - The Department of Environment Transport and
the Regions). Planning and urban issues are now the
responsibility of the Department of Local
Government and the Regions (DTLR) This change took
place in 2001. Comprehensive policies for the rural
and urban areas have been issued by central
government as Rural and Urban White Papers
respectively. Conservation and biodiversity
concerns are addressed prominently in the Rural
White Paper but are virtually absent from the Urban
White Paper. Green
structure and greenspace planning at the local
level including metropolitan areas Local Plans
have sections on the environment, the landscape,
and nature conservation but the content and
policies of each plan differ from one Local
Planning Authority to the next. Provision of
public open space for recreation remains a separate
function addressed in most local plans and is not
necessarily related to nature conservation or
landscape policies. This high
variability in policy and content partly stems for
the nature of the advice offered through Planning
Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs). These are strong on
procedural advice &emdash; indicating the kind of
things the LPAs should be doing - but offering
little in the way of good practice advice about
what can be done. In terms of
open-space provision for example, existing PPG
suggests several approaches based on proportion of
green space to built-area, or a specified number of
acres of public open space per thousand population.
Guidance notes guidelines on play-space provision
offered by the National Playing Field Association
(NFPA 1992) employ distance and time criteria.
Distances of 100 metres, 400 metres and 1000 metres
and their equivalent walking times (I minute; 5 and
15 minutes) are recommended for Local Areas for
Play, Local Equipped Areas for Play, and
Neighbourhood Equipped Areas of Play respectively.
The provision
of public open space for recreation including
formal parks, commons, areas of encapsulated
countryside, squares and gardens, is largely based
on the concept of a spatial hierarchy of sites that
recommends provision of local, district and
metropolitan parks based on size and increasing
distance from the home. The precise pattern and
standard of open space provision based on
acres/head of population is highly
variable. Recent
initiatives Current
criteria designed by central government to promote
Best Value Indicators for urban green spaces among
'Beacon' or Lead Authorities, bring together
criteria associated with a more ecological approach
to planning, provision and management with a
greater appreciation of user expectations and
increased potential for community involvement. The
criteria include: Viewed in terms
of outcomes this approach would favour: Nature
conservation and biodiversity planning
Site
protection: In terms of putting in place nature
conservation policies, the performance of
metropolitan authorities in England is better than
their rural district authorities. Most authorities
have nature conservation policies designed to
protect sites of nature conservation importance
from development. International and Nationally
important sites &emdash; Special protection Areas,
National Nature Reserves and SSSIs are given the
strongest protection through local
policies. Locally
important sites or second tier sites (SINCs) are
given lesser protection but are nevertheless
identified in most local plans. Second tier sites
are identified by the local authority and may be
included in Supplementary Guidance prepared by the
local authority and used as material considerations
in the development control process. The criteria
used for identifying nationally important sites are
primarily scientific criteria although many local
authorities also use social criteria ( aesthetic
appeal; access; area of wildlife deficiency) to
reflect the urban context of second tier sites and
Local Nature Reserves. For example,
the London site appraisal system (developed by the
former London Ecology Unit now absorbed into the
Greater London Authority ) identifies a spatial
hierarchy of metropolitan, borough and local level
sites of importance for nature conservation
designed to ensure that every resident has access
to a quality wildlife site within reasonable
walking distance of the home (300-500 metres).
Areas without easy access to a wildlife site are
identified as 'areas deficient in wildspace'. Key
targets for the Mayor's Biodiversity strategy are
to lessen the extent of neighbourhoods 'deficient
in wildspace' and to ensure that there is 'no net
loss in quality wildlife sites'. Green
corridors: Many local plans include policies for
Green Corridors based on their importance for
shaping urban form, providing recreational
opportunities and conduits for the movement of
wildlife. Some of these will be based on natural
features, such as existing waterways while others
are abandoned railway lines, canals or greenways
that are a historical legacy of former route ways.
The London Plan identifies the Thames as 'Blue
Corridor.' UK
national strategy for urban
biodiversity.
Tree
preservation Orders:
on individual and blocks of trees can also be
applied. Biodiversity
plans:
national, regional and local biodiversity plans are
being promoted by central government though the
Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The
national government has a statutory duty to have
regard to conserving biodiversity in the course of
their functions but this duty does not extend to
Local Planning Authorities. Biodiversity
Plans are taken forward by setting up a
Biodiversity Partnership of local organisations to
undertake habitat and species audits as a basis for
habitat and species action plans. Most activity has
focused on the biodiversity plans for the
countryside. Attention to
urban areas depends on the level of activity and
commitment already associated with nature
conservation planning. Uniquely among metropolitan
authorities London's Mayor has a statutory duty to
prepare a Biodiversity Strategy, this is available
in draft as 'Connecting with London's nature'. This
strategy is supported by a separate Biodiversity
Plan led by a local partnership that includes the
Greater London Authority, other statutory agencies
such as English Nature and the Environment Agency;
private sector members such as Thames Water, The
London Underground and voluntary sector partners
such as the London Wildlife Trust, London Natural
History Society and University College London. This
cross-sector approach is regarded as an important
means of ensuring that all sectors take their
responsibility for protecting biodiversity
seriously However,
ensuring that habitat and species action plans are
implemented and biodiversity targets met will
depend critically on the extent to which local
plans and development control functions protect and
promote them. At the moment local planning
authorities will continue to exercise discretion..
The need for
change: At the time of
writing (Feb 2002) central government is revising
several Planning Policy Guidance Notes relevant to
green structure and green space planning &emdash;
PPG 17 Sports and Recreation; PPG 9 Nature
Conservation and PPG 1 General Policy and
Principles. This latter will be informed by
responses to a consultation paper Planning:
delivering a fundamental change issued at the end
of 2001 . What follows is
a brief resume of the reasons for change and some
of the government's main proposals. Reasons
for change Complexity
&emdash; the system is complex, remote, hard to
understand and difficult to access: Speed and
complexity &emdash; rules prevent rather than
encourage good development; and delays mean
businesses suffer because: Community
engagement: the system is 'consultative' but does
not engage local communities because: Customer focus
and standards of service: the system is not 'in
touch' with local peoples' concerns. As a
result: Enforcement:
effective control is not always taken against those
who wilfully avoid planning controls Report
of the UK Urban parks task
force
(May 2002) UK backgrouns
data - The
government's proposals Aim
to: New efficiency
targets will speed up the decision process
Commentary Much of what is
proposed will depend on the details of
implementation and the extent to which Planning
Policy Guidance includes good practice guidance.
When added to policies for Best Value that now link
government block grant to LAs with the need to
demonstrate that local authorities are delivering
services and functions that meet local peoples
needs, the overall approach has merit. But, there are
inevitable tensions between achieving effective
public engagement in the planning process &emdash;
in the production of Local Development Frameworks
and in the development control process - and the
need to speed up these processes to assist
businesses. In terms of
green structure and green space the criteria
identified in Planning Policy Guidance for
promoting policies and practices will be very
important. Public consultation on PPG 17 Sport,
Open Space and Recreation suggests that the revised
PPG need to be more explicit about: Consultation on
the revision of PPG 9 Nature Conservation has
focussed on whether it is desirable to achieve
greater conformity amongst the various local
systems used to designate second tier wild life
sites (SINCs). Proposals currently favour
separating scientific criteria from social
criteria. The philosophy and experience of urban
wildlife conservation has always favoured an
integrated approach that is sensitive to local
context but with minimum standards of spatial
provision and access. For example English nature
favours a minimum standards approach in its
guidance to local authorities: 2 ha wildspace
within easy waking distance of the home; and 1ha of
designated Local Nature Reserves per thousand
population. Only two urban local authorities met
this latter target in 1993 and only four exceeded
the target in 19979Box and Barker Delivering
Sustainability through Local Nature Reserves, Town
and Country Planning 67 1998 360-363) On a national
level, there is likely to be considerable
opposition to the proposal that parliament decides
the outcomes of large infra-structure projects.
Designed to speed up decisions, these proposals
will be opposed by many activists who will not
accept that parliament provides an arena in which
the complexity of these projects can be effectively
debated. Direct action &emdash; partly a function
of the lack of constitutional rights - may well
escalate. Update Feb
2002 Report
of the UK Urban parks task
force
(May 2002)- this is the report of the governmental
investigation into the state of the parks and
greenspaces in British towns. Sheffield University
have been involved in this and their research paper
will soon be online too. UK
national strategy for urban
biodiversity.
Updated May
2002 All
rights reserved - © C. Harrison & COSTC11,
2001 To add your own definitions or ideas just email Anne Beer. |
Meetings Background Meetings Background |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Click button
to return to COST C11 - WG1B home page
