Tag Archives: planning policy

‘Agent of Change’ protects music venues from noise complaints, but won’t stop them from closing

Posted on by

This guest blog was written by Marion Roberts, Professor of Urban Design, University of Westminster.

A Conservative minister for housing, a grey-haired Labour MP, ageing icons of rock and creative young people have formed an unlikely alliance in support of the Agent of Change (Planning) Bill. The proposed law, which will be discussed for the second time in the House of Commons on March 16, makes developers responsible for dealing with noise issues when they build new homes near music venues.

This all came about because people were worried about the high number of live music venues that were closing across the UK. The Greater London Authority (GLA) asked for a report on London’s grass roots music venues, only to find that 35% of them had been “lost” since 2007. Cities across the nation – from Glasgow to Manchester – have similar stories to tell, even though the government has recognised how important the music industry is for the economy.

So how did this happen? Many different governments since around the year 2000 have tried to get more flats and houses built in cities, because there aren’t enough for everyone who wants to live there. Many homes have been built on “brownfield” sites – where there used to be factories or warehouses, which are now used less or not at all. These types of places also offered spaces where creative entrepreneurs could set up new clubs, or take over existing venues and attract new customers with the offer of live music.

Buyer beware

But as people move into the new flats built on these sites (which they often pay a lot of money for) some inevitably complain about the noise coming from the venues. Venue owners in Shoreditch (one of London’s hip neighbourhoods) actually put up signs warning would-be buyers that there are live music venues in the area.

Up until now, these complaints caused big problems for music venue owners, because planning principles were not on their side. The onus was on them to ensure their neighbours weren’t disturbed by music and loud noises. But putting in proper soundproofing or keeping customers quiet can be difficult and expensive.

This doesn’t just affect the kind of places run on a shoe string on the outskirts of town. Even London’s mighty Ministry of Sound – which has been a mecca for House music lovers since 1991 – was caught up in a lengthy planning application for a tower block of flats nearby – a case which eventually ended in the flats having to be soundproofed.

A matter of principle

The way the planning system works, is that local authorities in England and Wales produce their own development plans, which must align with national policy as set out in a 2012 document called the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This document made a small move to protect venues, by saying that if they wanted to expand, then there should be no unreasonable restrictions. But it didn’t address the situation described above.

Some local authorities have already started to draw up their own policies, which put the burden of noise reduction measures firmly on the developer who is making the change – whether it’s for flats or other uses. This is the legal principle, known as the “Agent of Change”. The bill, now supported by government, will ensure that the principle is embedded in the NPPF – so all local authorities will have to follow it. It will also carry more weight in appeals against planning decisions.

Although the “Agent of Change” principle will help prevent live music venues from closing, it won’t be enough on its own. Sadly, it would not address other issues such as rising rents, hikes in rateable values and property owners preferring to redevelop their buildings into flats. For example, consultancy firm Nordicity estimated that a revaluation of business rates would cause a fifth of London’s grass roots venues to close. And London’s oldest LGBTQ venue, the Royal Vauxhall Tavern, is still engaged in a battle to save it from redevelopment, by way of a community buy out.

Yet past examples show that people can save their local pubs from closure, whether through local campaigning or by taking ownership of the buildings. And to see creativity and culture, especially for young people, supported through the dusty corridors of parliament, is truly heart warming.

Marion Roberts is Professor of Urban Design, University of Westminster.

This article was originally published on The Conversation website and has been republished with permission under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

If you enjoyed this blog, why not read some of our other blogs:

Scottish planning … on the long road to modernisation

Posted on by

Rural_Urban Landscape_iStock_000004526499MediumPlanning, and more specifically ensuring the delivery of new housing, has probably never had a higher profile on the political agenda in recent years. The focus on the performance of planning authorities is, of course, happening within a context of ongoing resource constraints and the wider Brexit-related uncertainties.

Within Scotland, there also appears to be a renewed debate and potential conflict between the plan-led system versus ‘planning by appeal’. And so its timely to look at some key recent developments which suggest the priorities in 2017.

Moving forward on the recommendations of the Independent Review

Work to take forward the reform of the Scottish planning system is ongoing, and six themed working groups are now in place in order to inform the preparation of a White Paper expected to be published for consultation at the end of 2016.

The themes covered by the working groups are:

  • Strong and flexible development plans
  • The delivery of more high quality homes
  • An infrastructure first approach to planning and development
  • Efficient and transparent development management
  • Stronger leadership, smarter resourcing and sharing of skills
  • Collaboration rather than conflict – inclusion and empowerment

Our August issue of SPEL Journal contained a number of articles commenting on the Planning Review.

Scottish Government plans for the year ahead

In addition to this, the Programme for Government published on 7 September included announcements in a number of areas of interest to planning and environmental law.

Legislation which will be promoted during 2016-2017 include a Forestry Bill which will complete the devolution of forestry to the Scottish Government. Early 2017 should see proposals for a new Climate Change Bill which will sit alongside a Climate Change Plan and accompanying Energy Strategy expected to be published this winter. These will outline the Scottish Government’s intention to reduce Scottish emissions by 80% between 1990 and 2050 and “represents a bold statement of Government’s priorities for the coming decades”. The Programme for Government also reiterates the continuing commitment to the target of supplying 100% per cent of electricity demand by renewables by 2020.

There is mention of a Circular Economy and Zero Waste Bill. This is due to be introduced in the second half of the parliamentary session. This Bill sits under the 2016 Circular Economy Strategy, Making Things Last, which, among other things, establishes Europe’s first food waste prevention target. No detail is given as to what this Bill will contain but it is mentioned alongside a commitment to continue working with local authorities on improving recycling rates and to consider the role of deposit return schemes, which perhaps gives some clues.

The key planning-related news in the Programme is that a Planning Bill is to be brought forward early in the parliamentary session (this was subsequently clarified to mean autumn 2017). This follows the recent independent review of planning.

The recommendation for Simplified Planning Zones, which came out of this review, is also to be implemented. This will be done ahead of the proposals for legislative change in the Bill. The purpose of these Simplified Planning Zones is to encourage housing development, and ties in with a commitment to deliver 50,000 new affordable homes over the next five years with 35,000 of them being available for social rent.

Indeed, on 13 October, the Scottish Government published further details of the SPZ pilots – Scottish Ministers have committed £150,000 to support 3 or 4 SPZ housing pilots and are inviting authorities to apply. They suggest that SPZ could be used to support housing in a variety of contexts, for example to:

  • support town centre living
  • support urban regeneration
  • promote diversification of housing types and supply, and innovative housing delivery.

The Programme for Government also suggests that we should see interim measures to modernise compulsory purchase orders so that vacant and derelict land can be brought back into use in communities. The Scottish Law Commission submitted a report at the end of  September to the Scottish Government on proposals for an overhaul of compulsory purchase, following consultation.

Finally, moves continue to be made in the controversial area of land reform following the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016. During this programme, the Scottish Government will be taking steps to implement the 2016 Act, including recruitment of the new Scottish Land Commissioners and consulting, in the autumn, on a Land Rights and Responsibilities Statement. There is also an ongoing consultation about proposals for a register of controlling interests in Scotland’s land to improve transparency in the ownership of land, with regulations to go before the Scottish Parliament in 2017.

Environmental Impact Assessment reform

In August the Scottish Government began a consultation about implementing reforms to the environmental impact assessment (‘EIA’) procedure. This relates to how Scottish Ministers propose to bring the requirements of European Directive 2014/52/EU (known as the ‘EIA’ Directive) into Scottish legislation, which must be done by 16 May 2017.

The consultation paper is accompanied by draft regulations in relation to town and country planning and electricity works, with parallel adjustments to be made to the other regimes where EIA applies, including forestry, trunk roads and marine licensing. A separate consultation will be held on ports and flood management. The consultation closes at the end of October 2016.

As Professor Colin Reid of the University of Dundee notes in the most recent issue of SPEL Journal “The overall goal of EIA remains that of ensuring that projects likely to have significant adverse environmental effects are identified and approved only after undergoing a thorough and open assessment procedure. The precise procedural formalities can go much of the way to ensuring that this is done effectively and efficiently, but ultimately it is how well the developers, authorities and public engage with the process that will determine how far it succeeds.”

Conclusion

As can be seen, the next year looks like it could bring some significant changes to the planning system in Scotland. The Scottish Planning and Environmental Law Conference, and SPEL Journal, provide much-needed channels for the planning community in Scotland to consider these challenges, and stay up-to-date.

Further reading

A Plan for Scotland: The Government’s Programme for Scotland 2016-2017. S King, Scottish Planning and Environmental Law Journal, Issue 177 Oct 2016, p102

Environmental Impact Assessment reform. C Reid, Scottish Planning and Environmental Law Journal, Issue 177 Oct 2016, pp102-103

An annual subscription to SPEL Journal is £145. For further details or a sample copy, please contact Christine Eccleson, SPEL Journal’s Advertising Manager, on 0141 574 1905 or email christine.eccleson@Idoxgroup.com

Delivering the value of planning: new report says stronger planning authorities will create better places

Posted on by

plan drawing

This month, the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) has published a significant report suggesting ways in which good planning can deliver sustainable economic growth and tackle the country’s housing shortage.

Delivering the Value of Planning argues that properly resourcing councils’ planning teams, improving respect for planners and strengthening their influence, will lead to more and better development.

The challenges facing planners

The report contends that thirty years of almost continual changes in planning policy and regulation, along with cuts to local government budgets, has left the UK “incapable of consistently delivering good quality new places.”

The researchers also express concern about the widespread perception that planners act as a brake on new housing, economic growth and entrepreneurial activity:

“Many changes have been informed by the flawed notion that planning has held back an otherwise efficient, self-regulating market that, if increasingly freed from its constraints, would be able to more rapidly deliver development.”

The impact of these challenges on planners themselves may be seen in the results of an RTPI survey, which found that:

  • nearly three-quarters (73%) think that constant changes to planning have hindered their ability to deliver good places;
  • more than half (53%) think that these changes have hindered housing development;
  • nearly 70% think that they are less able to deliver the benefits of planning compared to 10 years ago.

The report’s focus is on England, and the authors note that the policy debate around planning in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has generally been more positive and constructive. But they observe that here too planning in many ways “remains under valued, under resourced and under used as a positive enabler and facilitator for development.”

Where planning works well

Throughout the report, the authors argue that effective and proactive planning can deliver considerable economic, social and environmental benefits for society, including:

  • providing clarity and confidence for investments;
  • improving the quantity and quality of land for development and construction;
  • delivering more and better housing development;
  • lowering the cost of overall development and opening up opportunities for new development.

To demonstrate the contribution of planning to the creation of successful places, the report showcases five award-winning developments in the UK:

  • Cranbrook in East Devon – a new community created by proactive planning set to provide 7,500 homes over the next 20 years;
  • Brindleyplace in Birmingham – an urban renewal development which has preserved the area’s heritage whilst revitalising it to attract new business and leisure uses;
  • Upton in Northampton – a high quality urban extension comprising 1,350 homes, with a commitment to exemplary urban design and environmental sustainability;
  • Norwich Riverside – a large regeneration project which has transformed a former industrial site into a successful major residential, retail and leisure development;
  • Fairfield Park in Bedfordshire – where the local authority has played a crucial role in shaping a high quality, attractive development with a strong sense of community and good facilities.

Rising to the challenge: what needs to be done

Delivering the Value of Planning says there is an urgent need to take stock of the UK’s planning systems, and to debate alternative futures that might produce better results. It advocates three key steps in this direction:

  • planners need to raise greater awareness about how better economic as well as social and environmental outcomes can be delivered through well-planned development;
  • national and local government needs to consider the particular powers, resources and expertise that planning services require;
  • in both research and policy, the value of planning needs to be analysed to understand how its economic, social and environmental benefits can be maximised.

The report argues that planning authorities are in a good position to exercise leadership, and to think about places in ways that the private sector often cannot:

  • bringing together agencies, government bodies and service providers, to identify and deliver the best long-term outcomes across different policy areas;
  • setting and enforcing high standards of building design;
  • providing for public and green spaces to enhance the attractiveness of an area to residents, businesses and visitors;
  • removing risks and obstacles to development, such as contaminated land.

In the midst of a national housing shortage, the report calls for a stronger role for public sector-led developments, pointing to examples of good practice in Manchester, Norwich and Birmingham which have delivered more and better housing and development.

Realising the potential of planning

The RTPI report reinforces the planning profession’s strong conviction that planning is a solution, rather than a problem.

 “If the full benefits of planning are truly to be realised, we need reforms that exploit its true potential to reconcile economic, social and environmental challenges through positive and collective action, and which confront those sectoral interests that seek only short-term, self-interested solutions.”

Idox continues to support council planning departments through its land and property solutions.

We are also sponsoring three of the RTPI’s Awards for Research Excellence this year – the Sir Peter Hall award for Wider Engagement, the Planning Consultancy award and the Student award. The results will be announced on Wednesday 7 September 2016.

English Planning in Crisis: new ideas to recapture the purpose of planning in England

Posted on by

Housing estate iStock_000004526499Medium

“Essentially, the values of planning have been stood on their head, to the point where we have to ask whether the system remains fit for purpose.”

This is the stark assessment from the authors of a new book from Policy Press. In English Planning in Crisis, Hugh Ellison and Kate Henderson reflect on planning reforms since 2010, and argue that “the rich Utopian tradition that underpinned the town planning movement in England is dead, and needs wholesale recreation.”

The importance of planning

English Planning in Crisis highlights how essential planning is to the quality of life, noting that some of its key achievements have included securing mixed-use developments, the provision of social and genuinely affordable homes and protecting some of England’s most important landscapes. At its best, the authors contend, planning can provide for rich habitats and green space, good quality design, inclusion and resilience. But now, they argue, the once visionary town planning movement has become “little more than a residual form of land licensing.”

Reform and decline

The authors acknowledge that the decline of planning in England did not start in 2010. But they reserve particular criticism for the deregulation of policy on planning, housing and the built environment introduced under the coalition and Conservative governments.

Among the reforms in their sights are the withdrawal of the Code for Sustainable Homes, which had allowed councils to adopt their own sustainability levels as a planning requirement for new residential development, and the Deregulation Act 2015, which removed local planning authorities’ powers concerning construction, layout or energy performance of new dwellings.

There is also concern about extending the Right to Buy to 1.3 million housing association tenants, which the authors say has the potential “to transform socially and economically diverse communities into exclusively wealthy ones.” Similarly, they contend that the Conservative government’s Starter Homes policy (offering new-build houses at a price below their market value) will largely be of help to high earners.

Taken together, according to the book’s authors, reforms introduced since 2010 have resulted in a planning system that delivers poor-quality places, badly-designed dwellings, houses that are affordable only to middle and high-income earners, and ignores the challenges of climate change and an ageing population.

Planning beyond England

Before putting forward their ideas for rethinking the planning system in England, the authors look at planning systems elsewhere. They suggest that approaches adopted in Wales and Scotland provide pointers to how the English planning system can get back on track. They are particularly complimentary about Scotland’s framework for the spatial development of the country as a whole, which they suggest provides certainty and long-term thinking about planning. The authors also praise two regeneration initiatives in the city of Hamburg which have transformed derelict land into sources of renewable energy.

Ten steps to rebuild planning

The second half of English Planning in Crisis sets out a collection of evidence-based ideas for rebuilding England’s planning system. These include:

  • Replacing the current fragmented approach to planning for the future with a clear vision
  • Establishing a government department for spatial planning
  • Engaging with communities and individuals to develop solutions to the nation’s problems
  • Transforming the planning profession from an “old boys club” into a new generation of diverse and inclusive placemakers
  • Reform of planning education
  • A framework of equal rights in planning decisions
  • A national debate on house-building
  • Ensuring new homes are accessible for the elderly and disabled
  • Delivering sustainable homes, including a new zero-carbon policy
  • Fair taxation of land values.

The authors stress that these proposals are underpinned by the values of the Utopian tradition that inspired examples of planning at its best, including garden cities and the 1947 Town Planning Act. These values include social justice, fair rights to participate in decisions, and the fair distribution of resources arising from the development of land and primary resources.

In conclusion, the authors of English Planning in Crisis argue that only by reclaiming those essential values can England’s planning system recapture its purpose:

“Our future depends on the discovery of those democratic and altruistic qualities that once formed the ethos of town planning.”

The Idox Information Service has introduced an exclusive offer for RTPI members to help them with their evidence needs.

iApply logo colour 72dpi RGB

Idox’s iApply is leading the way with its integrated application system for planning and building control that has been built to grow with the future in mind.

Visit www.iapply.co.uk to learn more.

Idox sponsors RTPI research excellence awards

Posted on by

research_awards_2016_logo__2__500x308

Idox is pleased once again to be supporting the RTPI Awards for Research Excellence for 2016.

The awards are intended to:

  • recognise the best spatial planning research from Royal Town Planning Institute accredited planning schools
  • highlight the implications of academic research for policy and practice
  • recognise the valuable contribution of planning consultancies to planning research
  • promote planning research generally

Submitted research and its potential implications for planning policy and practice can relate to anywhere in the world (not just the UK and Ireland).  The five award categories are:

  • Academic Award
  • Early Career Researcher Award
  • Student Award
  • Sir Peter Hall Award for Wider Engagement
  • Planning Consultancy Award

As the UK’s leading provider of planning and building control solutions to local authorities, Idox actively engages with issues affecting the planning profession. Here at the Idox Information Service, we see our core mission as improving decision making in public policy, by improving access to research and evidence, and we are proud to be playing a part in these awards to promote academic, researcher and student excellence in this area.

This is the second time that Idox has given its support to the RTPI Awards for Research Excellence. In 2015, we sponsored the Student Award, won by Emma Thorpe, a student in the School of Planning and Geography at Cardiff University. Idox also sponsored the Sir Peter Hall Award for Wider Engagement Award, won by Dr Paul Cowie from Newcastle University’s School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape. Next month, Paul Cowie will be making a guest contribution to our blog to describe the impact of winning the RTPI award.

This year, Idox will again be sponsoring the Student and Wider Engagement awards, as well as the Planning Consultancy award.

The closing date for applications to the awards is 31 May 2016. Further information and application forms are available here.

The Idox Information Service is the first port of call for information and knowledge on public and social policy and practice. For 40 years the service has been saving its members time and money, and helping them to make more informed decisions, improve frontline services and understand the policy environment. For more information see: http://informationservice.idoxgroup.com

In partnership with RTPI, the Idox Information Service has introduced an individual membership offer, which provides a 30% discount on the normal price.

Hot topics in Scottish planning and environmental law

Posted on by

spel feb headerThe Knowledge Exchange publishes a bi-monthly journal covering all aspects of planning and environmental law in Scotland. SPEL Journal (Scottish Planning & Environmental Law) launched over 30 years ago and is one of the leading information sources on land use planning and environmental legislation across the country.

Our latest edition of SPEL includes articles focusing on:

  • Outcomes of the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference
  • The practical experience of delivering Planning Permissions in Principle
  • Wild land maps and their impact on planning law and policy
  • Hut development and the planning system – a significant shift.

Key court cases examined in the February edition include:

  • Sally Carroll v Scottish Borders Council – A wind turbine case which has clarified the role of Local Review Boards.
  • Stewart Milne Group Ltd v The Scottish Ministers – An appeal against refusal for residential development, which further consolidates the position adopted by the Supreme Court in Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council [2012].
  • The John Muir Trust v The Scottish Ministers – Wind farm consent has been reduced, as a result of the processes followed in the case for consideration of responses from consultative bodies.

SPEL was launched in 1980 as ‘Scottish Planning Law & Practice’, to be a journal of record of Scottish planning. When it became apparent that the emerging field of environmental law was strongly linked to land use planning, the name of our journal changed to reflect this.

Written by a wide range of subject experts, SPEL Journal includes accessible commentary on topical subjects and current issues; details of new legislation and significant court cases; expert comment on key planning appeal decisions, government circulars and guidance; as well as notes about ombudsman cases and book reviews.

SPEL Journal is read by decision makers in Scottish planning authorities, planning law practices, planning consultancies, architects, surveyors, civil engineers, environmental managers and developers across Scotland. It is also valued by many practitioners outside of Scotland who need to keep abreast of developments.

An annual subscription to SPEL Journal is £145. For further details or a sample copy, please contact Christine Eccleson, SPEL Journal’s Advertising Manager, on 0141 574 1905 or email christine.eccleson@Idoxgroup.com.

Who decides and interprets planning policy … planners or lawyers?

Posted on by
Image from Flickr user Sebastian Niedlich, licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons License

Image via Flickr user Sebastian Niedlich, licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons License

By Morwen Johnson

Nathalie Lieven QC, barrister at Landmark Chambers, spoke at the RTPI’s 2015 Planning Convention on the shifting relationship between planners, policymakers and lawyers. Nathalie regularly appears at public inquiries and planning challenges in the High Court, appearing for both developers and local authorities.

Discussing the massive upsurge in litigation in planning, personified in the creation of the Planning Court in 2014, Nathalie suggested there had been a power grab by lawyers over the planning system in the last few years. She highlighted two main reasons: the decision of the Supreme Court in Tesco v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13, and the introduction in England of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘NPPF’).

Recent shift in power

Prior to the Tesco case, interpretation of planning policy was seen as the task of the decision-maker. Cases only went to court if this interpretation was seen as ‘unreasonable’. This approach makes sense if you consider that planning policy tends not to have the level of semantic detail that is expected in law, and is also a recognition that application of policy can be different in different contexts.

The Supreme Court ruling however was that interpretation of policy in the case was a matter for the court and policy should be interpreted objectively. The aim may have been to create intellectual clarity and better decision-making, but the ruling has coincided with the introduction of NPPF, which is in some parts obscurely worded and also contradictory. With many development plans out of date, NPPF has become the critical determining document in planning appeals.

Particularly in residential housing appeals, the system now relies on both the interpretation of words in the NPPF and also previous rulings by High Court judges as to what the words mean. In respect of development planning, plans now get limited scrutiny and the role of the court also becomes more important. In the short-term therefore, power over planning decisions has shifted to the centre, in marked contrast to the Westminster government’s support for localism and devolution.

The role of the court is creating, in Nathalie’s words “a straitjacket for decision-makers, which limits their ability to apply policy flexibly”.

How local authorities can regain the balance of power

She suggested however that it is worth remembering that in the Tesco case, the Supreme Court was careful to say that the issue related to the application of policy to a given set of facts, rather than interpretation of policy generally.

Planning authorities can therefore turn the ruling to their advantage by drafting planning policies in a hard-edged way. As policies need to be applied in a consistent and objective way, the clearer the development plan, the less room for appeal.

Morwen Johnson is Managing Editor of the Scottish Planning and Environmental Law Journal, which is published by Idox.

More information on the journal and how to subscribe can be found here.

Knowledge Insider: a Q&A with Michael Harris from the RTPI

Posted on by

rtpiIn the latest of our series of Q&As with leading advocates of the use of evidence in policymaking and practice, we talk to Michael Harris, Deputy Head of Research at the Royal Town Planning Institute. The RTPI holds a unique position in relation to planning as a professional membership body, a charity and a learned institute. They have a responsibility to promote the research needs of spatial planning in the UK, Ireland and internationally. They add to the evidence base through in-house research and policy analysis, for example their Policy papers. We interviewed Michael about the research issues facing the planning profession.

Michael, how do you think planners benefit from developing their knowledge and use of evidence?

I think all professions need to be evidence based, it’s the core of being a professional, and it enables you to perform your role, not just on a judgement but an expert professional one. This is the first way planners can benefit; keeping on top of what’s the best available evidence ensures you are effective. All professions have innovators, those who get things done and make changes, and learning from them and using their experience through case studies, best practice and collaboration ensures their good practice gets pushed out to the whole profession and that’s the core benefit of using evidence.

The second benefit is getting the bigger picture, ensuring you understand the major economic, social and environmental challenges. Such as how to create growth, achieve sustainable development, and understand the impact of aging and climate change. All these need new thinking, innovation, and cross discipline knowledge – the best way to do this is through evidence and research.

I work with policy makers to inform policy, and I constantly challenge the perception that planners are an inhibitor of growth. Evidence of the impact and the value which planners add to the growth of places, helps me challenge this perception and benefits the profession as a whole.

What are the main issues facing planners in the next 5 years? What evidence will they need?

The main challenges are:

  • Resources, having less and less and being asked to do more and more. How do we deal with those demands – evidence and sharing of best practice can play a critical role, we can learn from others, and other professions. How do you move from just evaluating what you do based on efficiency and cutting costs to ensuring effectiveness, and improving the impact and outcome of what you are doing? Evidence can help you stop just thinking about efficiency and also take account of effectiveness.
  • Demonstrating the value of planning – we need to make a stronger case for the economic, social and environmental role of planners, and not be characterised as processors. Planners carry out a key role in shaping the world around us, not simply managing a process, and the challenge is to continue to demonstrate this.
  • Ensuring local participation and being more strategic, operating across boundaries, especially for issues such as flooding. It’s difficult for planners to act strategically if the political support isn’t there. There needs to be a will there to enable planners to be truly effective. None the less, a key duty of a professional is to promote understanding; the only way we can do this well, is to work more effectively across boundaries.

My sense is that practitioners value examples of where other authorities have achieved more. Where strategic planning has worked and how you can make it work, or where someone has dealt with limited resources or sustainable development. Case studies are a core strand of accessible evidence, but many are buried in academic research or journals and the RTPI / Idox Information Service are really good at finding them and making them easier to access. This need will only grow greater as more and more information is produced.

In terms of data needs for the future, what we are increasingly seeing potential from is “Big Data”, for example we can make connections between health, social mobility and environment. In the next 5 or 10 years we will be able to draw on these big data sets, which will be a very powerful tool for planners in making decisions about places, and having a strategic, holistic approach to development.

When people talk to you about evidence, research or knowledge, what do they most frequently raise as issues?

The big challenge is time – planners haven’t got time to go looking for evidence – and accessibility of research papers, which are buried in academic journals. The academic language is a barrier, and its timeliness. Often it’s interesting to read but doesn’t relate to the current policy context, so research needs to be more timely and more practical and applied. Alongside time, support from their organisations to look at evidence – the access to evidence resources and time or budget to attend CPD is frequently raised as an issue.

Not enough research is accessible; academic incentives aren’t about applicability; it’s driven by the need to be of a high standard, set by other academics and journals. It is possible to do academic work which is useable and there are lots of good examples, but there are barriers for the academic to deal with. There is good academic research which is relevant but it’s difficult to find. There are also issues about the subjects covered and academic’s interest versus policy maker’s priorities – sometimes there are overlaps but often they are very different.

For example Value of Planning is a key policy issue at the moment – what is the economic impact of planning – but academics don’t see this as an issue as they are already positive about planning. They take for granted that planners have an impact, so don’t see the need to investigate the nature and form of that impact.

What are the hard-to-spot mistakes when it comes to developing your knowledge, things you which you really need to avoid?

Two things I would highlight. Given what the constraints are, it’s easy to rely on an old body of evidence, what you were taught when you were being trained, and not keeping it up to date. That’s why Idox Information Service and RTPI research, especially practice notes which are aimed at helping practitioners refresh knowledge and keep up to date, are essential.

There is also a danger of being too narrow, and not looking at wider areas and topics which affect planning. This creates a narrower perspective on development. Briefing services are really helpful to overcome this, looking at a variety of reports and papers – you can look at the areas you are interested in directly, but you can also scan the broader perspective. Planning should be about not thinking in silos, but how does ‘this’ affect ‘that’ – how can people travel to work, access jobs or get outdoors and you need to think about and be exposed to broader ideas to understand these issues.

Thinking ‘economically’ is something we are trying to promote, not just the traditional way, but our argument is that planning is critical to the economic success of places; it can make them more attractive, livelier, sustainable, and environmentally appealing, so it’s the broader contribution to success that is important. Every planning decision contributes to the success of a place.

How do you think people will be doing evidence, research and knowledge development in 5 years’ time?

I would like to see a profession known for its evidence-based practice, with practitioners able to find, and understand, in an accessible way, the latest evidence.

The future should be where academic research is more and more accessible and applicable to practice having a real impact on delivery. Collaboration between practitioners and researchers makes research more relevant. Projects which have come out of these partnerships have real impact and RTPI will be supporting these projects in the future.

If you had a list of ‘best-kept secrets’ about research, evidence and knowledge you would recommend, what would you include and why?

So much stuff out there, how do you find out what’s going on? Social media and twitter is an incredibly useful research tool – following research organisations, following blogs, can be really useful. Knowledge isn’t static any more, and things you read only 5 years ago can be quite out of date now, and planners need to continually keep up to date. The RTPI and Idox blogs are good in terms of wide-ranging coverage and highlighting latest research but there are plenty out there.

What led you to a role in research and evidence development? 

I did a PhD in politics and public policy, was always more interested in how you can make research more relevant and of interest to policy makers, but I am also aware of the barriers for academics doing this.

I have always sat in organisations that do this bridging. RTPI, as a learned society is doing this for its members. Research is important, but only important if it’s communicated and people can act on it, otherwise it is lost and never read. I see myself as facilitating its use and contribution to change and improvement in practice.

Academic research being read is vital, but academics need to understand the policy constraints, and the importance of making a compelling argument to change practice and policy today.

 

The Idox Information Service has introduced an exclusive offer for RTPI members to help them with their evidence needs.

This year Idox is also sponsoring the RTPI Research Excellence Awards, recognising and promoting high quality spatial planning research.

Find out more about our work supporting planners on our website.

Loosening the belt: the debate over building on green belt land

Posted on by

By James Carson

“The green belt has been exalted as sacrosanct in a way in which almost no other policy area has been indulged, and any attempts to have a serious conversation about its development have been swiftly stifled with the same kind of force as would usually be reserved for suggestions to entirely dismantle the NHS.”

So said Andrew Carter, the Acting Chief Executive of Centre for Cities, writing on the Conservative Home website earlier this month. It’s true that green belts have long been regarded as untouchable. But there are signs that the bulletproof shield protecting them could be breaking down.

In September, the Wolfson Economics Prize went to regeneration consultancy Urbed for its proposal to create a city of 400,000 people by doubling the size of an existing town and building on the surrounding green belt. The following month, Rowan Moore, The Observer’s architecture critic, considered the arguments for and against green belts and concluded:

“…it is no longer good enough to insist that green belts must, at all costs, never change.”

Meanwhile, defenders of green belts have been voicing their concerns. “A weakening of protection for green belts would lead to urban sprawl over precious countryside and farmland,” said the Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE), launching its campaign for a stronger commitment from government to review the latest threats to the green belt. And after the Wolfson prize winner was announced, architect Richard Rogers spoke out against Urbed’s proposal to take a bite out of the green belt, calling it “a ridiculous concept.”

The idea of curbing urbanisation is not new. During the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, a three-mile wide belt around London was proposed in order to stop the spread of the plague. More recently, the garden city movement’s ideas about urban and rural areas, led to the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act, which allowed local authorities to include green belts in their town plans.

Today, there are 14 green belts in England, 10 in Scotland, 30 in Northern Ireland and one in Wales. They exist as buffers between towns and countryside, and successive governments have ensured that they are maintained. The UK government’s latest National Planning Policy Framework sets out the green belt’s five purposes:

  • to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
  • to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
  • to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
  • to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
  • to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

Historically, green belts have been regarded as one of Britain’s great planning successes. But there has been growing criticism of the costs of the green belt, typified by Rowan Moore’s observation:

“It stops cities expanding, which had previously done so for centuries. It contributes to the scarcity and cost of decent homes in large parts of the country. It encourages bizarre and wasteful patterns of commuting. It often fails in its original aim of providing accessible recreational space for city dwellers. It is enforced with a rigidity that makes little sense, except as a sign of mistrust.”

Britain’s housing crisis has amplified calls for the green belt to be breached.  Government projections suggest that the UK needs six million new homes in the next 30 years. Proponents of building on green land contend that existing urban and brownfield areas alone cannot cater for the housing demand, an argument underlined by Urbed in its submission to the Wolfson competition.

Centre for Cities has claimed that building on 5.2% of green belt land within and around Britain’s least affordable cities would deliver 1.4 million new homes.

Their opponents disagree. This month, the CPRE reported that a minimum of 976,000 new homes could be built on identified brownfield sites in England, and that the supply of these sites is steadily increasing. The organisation has also suggested that housebuilders are “sitting on huge areas of land with planning permission which could provide over 280,000 new homes.”

With a general election on the horizon, the main political parties have been drawing up their battle lines. The Labour Party is showing signs of greater flexibility on the green belt issue. In October, Sir Michael Lyons published the final report of his independent review of housing for the Labour Party. One of his recommendations included allowing more homes to be built on parts of the protected green belt if the land has little “environmental or amenity value”. In response, the Conservative Party has reiterated its commitment to protecting the green belt.

Perhaps most interestingly, it’s at the local level that changing policies on green belts can be most clearly seen. Councils in England are responding to the housing crisis by using localism powers granted to them by the coalition government to de-designate or swap greenbelt land in the context of making a local plan. Figures published in August by Glenigan planning and construction consultants revealed that 5,600 new homes were approved to be built on green belt land last year, a 148% increase on the 2,260 green belt homes in 2009/10.

The debate now seems to be moving towards a recognition that some infringement of green belt land is inevitable, which is perhaps why a recent commentary on the subject by an academic from the London School of Economics was not titled, “Why should we build on the green belt?” Instead, it was headlined: “Where should we build on the green belt?”.

Further reading

The Idox Information Service has a wealth of research reports, articles and case studies on planning. Items we’ve recently summarised for our database include:

Delivering change: building homes where we need them

Utopias that work: how to create tomorrow’s garden city

Removing obstacles to brownfield development: how government can work with communities to facilitate the re-use of previously developed land (Foresight paper no 2)

Uxcester garden city (second stage submission for the Wolfson Economics Prize 2014)

Greenbelt under development: special report

Green belts: a local way forward for the twenty first century

N.B. Abstracts and access to subscription journal articles are only available to members of the Idox Information Service.

August issue of SPEL Journal (Scottish Planning & Environmental Law) out now

Posted on by

Law and Legislation shutterstock_90378226The Knowledge Exchange publishes a bi-monthly journal covering all aspects of planning and environmental law in Scotland. SPEL Journal (Scottish Planning & Environmental Law) launched over 30 years ago and is one of the leading information sources on land use planning and environmental legislation across the country.

The latest edition of SPEL includes articles focusing on:

Key court cases examined in the August edition include:

An Ombudsman complaint against Highland Council (SPSO case no 200903131) is also covered.

SPEL was launched in 1980 as ‘Scottish Planning Law & Practice’, to be a journal of record of Scottish planning. When it became apparent that the emerging field of environmental law was strongly linked to land use planning, the name of our journal changed to reflect this.

Written by a wide range of subject experts, SPEL Journal includes accessible commentary on topical subjects and current issues; details of new legislation and significant court cases; expert comment on key planning appeal decisions, government circulars and guidance; as well as notes about ombudsman cases and book reviews.

SPEL Journal is read by decision makers in Scottish planning authorities, planning law practices, planning consultancies, architects, surveyors, civil engineers, environmental managers and developers across Scotland. It is also valued by many practitioners outside of Scotland who need to keep abreast of developments.

An annual subscription to SPEL Journal is £145. For further details or a sample copy, please contact Christine Eccleson, SPEL Journal’s Advertising Manager, on 0141 574 1905 or email christine.eccleson@idoxgroup.com.