Urban Planning Perspectives - Essay Example

? Urban Planning Perspectives “Community' is one of those words that feels good: it is good 'to have a community', 'to be in a community'. And 'community' feels good because of the meanings which the word conveys, all of them promising pleasures, and more often than not the kind of pleasures which we would like to experience but seem to miss. …Community' stands for the kind of world which we long to inhabit but which is not, regrettably, available to us. Today 'community' is another name for paradise lost but for a paradise which we still hope to find, as we feverishly search for the roads that may lead us there.” Bauman, Z., 2001, Seeking Safety in an insecure world, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp.1-3 1. Discuss with reference to recent Labour and current Liberal/ Conservative coalition policy initiatives in the fields of neighbourhood regeneration and planning. The property-led urban regeneration that has dominated urban policy during the Thatcher governments was characterised by the removal of many constraints to corporate investment in cities, including the minimisation of local government and community involvement in planning and other regulatory controls. Despite the decades of urban policy, a prominent feature of British cities appeared the stark inequalities between rich and poor neighbourhoods with significant differences in terms of deprivation, levels of mortality, crime, educational attainment, or per capita income; which have particularly been in relation to ethnic and other, geographically segregated and socially excluded groups (Imrie and Raco, 2003, pp. 3-4). Not surprisingly therefore, the Labour came to power in 1997 with a highly ambitious bid “to regenerate Britain’s cities by recourse to social inclusion, neighbourhood renewal and community involvement” (Imrie and Raco, 2003, p.4). A real split in policy terms was characteristic of the ‘New’ Labour period – the community-led policies which were generally labelled ‘renewal’ and the changes to physical infrastructure broadly referred to as ‘regeneration’. The idea of a separate discourse of community/social renewal has come out of the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit (NRU) – set up in 2001 (Jones and Evans, 2008, p.19). While the associated Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF) provided nearly 3 billion pounds to some of the most deprived authorities in England, perhaps the most significant initiative operated by the NRU became the New Deal for Communities (NDC). The idea behind the NDC partnerships has been to produce a local response to five key indicators of social deprivation – unemployment, educational under-achievement, crime, poor health and housing, and the physical environment, although the NDCs were lacking major resources for large-scale rebuilding programmes (Jones and Evans, 2008, p.20). The critical reception NDCs have received was due to intentions and actions being at cross purposes – as the targets have been set locally, the locally agreed targets were subsequently rejected at national level. The creation of Local Strategic Partnerships (LSP) – being run by representatives from partner organisations, like local authorities, local police authorities, alongside health and education sectors, etc. - is believed to have further reinforced the tension in community policy; while the NDCs are targeted to specific areas, the LSPs take a larger-scale overview. On the other hand, being considered a low profile and with tendency to take credit away from elected politicians, the local community-led initiatives have been overshadowed by prestigious projects like the ‘Northern Way’ - a strategy for regional development in the North of England, published in 2004 (Goodchild and Hickman, 2006, pp.121-133). During the economic downturn in 2008, a gradual reduction in resource for and attention on policy initiatives has been compounded, and reached its peak at the announcement of the Comprehensive Spending Review in October 2010 (Broughton, K., Berkeley, N. and Jarvis, D., 2011, pp.85-86). The dramatic change in the field of neighbourhood regeneration and planning, however, has taken place after the election of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government in 2010. The change is characterised by previous ‘flagship’ area-based initiatives coming to an end, property-led development slowed down and new policies and strategies being introduced. While the key drivers remained the same - the inequalities across and within neighbourhoods, as well as the need for ‘sustainable’ development - the major strategies and key stakeholders appeared as follows: disassembling of former infrastructure/frameworks for development of new leaner frameworks focused on local agencies, with local government responsibilities expanded, and private and voluntary (community) sectors encouraged to replace public sector roles; along with the central government role to oversee strategic dimensions. The social content comprises localism, as well as emphasis on VCS and private sector for community self-help, with minimal state support (Broughton, K., Berkeley, N. and Jarvis, D., 2011, p.93). 2. Discuss whether and how liberal and neo-liberal, free market attacks on the state and on central planning, generally accept the case for town planning. Leach (1995, p.14) writes that “Public policy proceeds on the basis of ideological assumptions, even though these may not be clearly articulated, or even consciously recognised.” Therefore, the way in which any public policy problem is identified and interpreted, inevitably reflects preconceived ideas belonging to respective political subjects. There are two concepts that have shaped urban policy and decision-making in Britain - the ideology of liberalism, based on the notion of individualism, which generally contradicts the very essence of town planning as practice of public-sector control and intervention in private interests concerning land and property by collective interests; and the principle of welfare state, enshrined in the foundations of planning discipline, which became especially popular during and after the WW II, until the 1970s. During the 1970s, however, a dire picture - increases in unemployment and inflation, child poverty, inner-city deprivation, homelessness, and scandals in long-stay hospitals (Leach, 1995, p.25) - appeared to take shape, signalling the failure of the main pillar of the post-war consensus – the welfare state. Conservatism, as the only successfully survived political creed (whether by its innate pragmatism or flexibility), was summoned to fill the vacuum and to carry out what some called “the radical break” (Ball et al., 1989, p.4). In the field of urban policy this change meant new principles and new institutions, the first represented by the competitive bidding introduced to determine the level of funding for local authorities’ urban redevelopment schemes (Jones and Evans, 2008, p.10), and the latter – by the establishment of Urban Development Corporations, with the first two UDCs – London Docklands and Merseyside - set up in 1981, and eventually 11 others put in place, as arms’ length executive agencies which wielded considerable power and answered to the relevant minister (Cherry, 1988; Jones and Evans, 2008). The Local Government, Planning and Land Act of 1980 enabled the introduction of Enterprise Zones (in two rounds – 1981 and 1983 respectively); while the Urban Development Grant had been introduced in 1982 as a lever to private investment (Cherry, 1988, p.178). Alongside the number of out-of-town development schemes requiring competitive bidding-based proposals, an urban housing renewal programme had been launched in 1985 (later renamed ‘estate action’) aimed to provide assistance to local authorities in renovating their properties and to supplement existing finance by drawing in new private sector funds and urban regeneration grants; on the other hand, local authorities had been enabled to sell off whole estates to developers in order to hasten the pace of renovation. The programme of Large Scale Voluntary Transfer (LSCT), first introduced in 1988, is believed to have reduced the overall size of council housing stock by encouraging tenants to purchase their homes at significant discount. Under LSCT local councils had been encouraged to transfer both management and ownership of their remaining housing stock to housing associations – private sector non-profit bodies regulated by the public sector and eligible for public sector grants, being simultaneously allowed to borrow private finance (Jones and Evans, 2008, p.13). Whilst the 1980s policies are generally thought to have laid great emphasis on a radical improvement in the physical infrastructure and economic activity within an area, the 1990s – under John Major – signalled a turn towards more integrated treatment and comprehensive solutions, including social, economic and environmental projects. A key Conservative policy introduced in 1994, was the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) – intended to draw together a series of different funding strands, with the idea of simplifying the system (Jones and Evans, 2008, p.12). As it’s seen from above, even the most market-orientated urban policy and policy objectives couldn’t afford to ignore town planning as introduced and outlined from the 1940 onwards; as far as urban development itself produces environmental externalities, nuisances and loss of amenities, which are well out of range of the supply and demand mechanism. 3. Discuss the view that concepts of ‘sustainable development’ are too broad and too open to dispute to provide an adequate basis for environmental planning. Jones and Evans point out (2008, p. 83) that the term ‘sustainable development’ is ‘notoriously ill-defined’ and therefore requires additional clarification before being put in the context of urban regeneration and development. One of the definitions is given by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED): ‘that which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs’ (Jones and Evans, 2008, p. 83). Another meaning - in policy terms - is considered to link economic, social and environmental concerns, represented by three overlapping circles, where sustainable development occurs in the overlapping zone (Jones and Evans, 2008, p. 84). Having officially committed to the goals of sustainability at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development Earth Summit held in 1992, the UK Government signed a series of major treaties on climate change, biodiversity conservation and principles on forests, as well as signed up to the Rio Declaration and Local Agenda 21, which set out the procedures through which sustainability should be put into practice more generally. Since Rio Earth Summit, three strategies have been issued by the Labour Government: Sustainable Development: the UK Strategy (Department of the Environment, 1994); A Better Quality of Life: Strategy for Sustainable Development for the UK (DETR, 1999) and Securing the Future: UK Sustainable Development Strategy (ODPM, 2005c) (Jones and Evans, 2008, pp. 85-86). The key elements that run through these documents have been the social cohesion and inclusion, protection of the natural environment, prudent use of natural resources, and sustainable economic growth; as well as tackling climate change as far as more recent strategy is concerned. The goals of these strategies have further been developed in the Urban White Paper, Our Towns and Cities: the Future, which aimed to ‘bring together economic, social and environmental measures in a coherent approach to enable people and places to achieve their economic potential; bring social justice and equality of opportunity; and create places where people want to live and work’ (DETR, 2000). Within the overall policy for sustainable development, the emphasis has been placed upon the idea of sustainable communities, accompanied, and perhaps exemplified by, the transformation of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (OPDM) into the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). The Sustainable Communities Plan (SCP) was launched in 2003, setting out a long-term programme for delivering sustainable development in both rural and urban areas (Jones and Evans, 2008, p. 89). The following twelve principles within SCP defined the sustainable communities, which later reinforced the principles set out in PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development: a flourishing economy; strong leadership; effective engagement and participation by local people, groups and businesses, and active voluntary and community sector; a safe and healthy local environment (public and green space); sufficient size, scale and density, and right layout, minimising the use of resources (including land); good public transport and other transport infrastructure; a well-integrated mix of decent homes of different types supporting a range of household sizes, ages and incomes; a diverse, vibrant and creative local culture, encouraging pride in the community; a ‘sense’ of place; and the right links with the wider regional, national and international communities (Jones and Evans, 2008, p. 90). Though the concept of ‘sustainable development’ to some degree or another overlap with the main elements of present-day environmental planning, namely the social and economic urban and regional development, natural resource management, integrated land use, infrastructure systems, governance, and etc., there are areas within the sustainable development concept, as envisaged in the relevant government documents, which are likely to result from a bit more laudable rhetoric, rather than a real response to particular planning and communities’ needs. References 1. Ball, M. in Ball M., Gray, F. and McDowell L., 1989, The Transformation of Britain: Contemporary Social and Economic Change, London: Fontana Press, p. 4 2. Bauman, Z., 2001, Seeking Safety in an insecure world, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp.1-3 3. Broughton, K., Berkeley, N. and Jarvis, D., 2011, Where next for neighbourhood regeneration in England? Local Economy: The Journal of the Local Economy Policy Unit 2011 26: 82 [online] Available at < http://lec.sagepub.com/content/26/2/82.full.pdf> [Accessed 14 April 2011], pp. 85-86, 93 4. Cherry, G. E., 1988, Cities and Plans: the Shaping of Urban Britain in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, London: Edward Arnold, p. 178 5. DETR, 2000, Urban White Paper, Our Towns and Cities: the Future, HMSO, London 6. Goodchild B. and Hickman P., 2006, Towards a regional strategy for the north of England? An assessment of 'The Northern Way’, Regional Studies 40 (1), pp. 121-133 7. Jones P. and Evans J., 2008, Urban Regeneration in the UK, London: SAGE Publications ltd, pp. 10-12, 19-20, 83-86, 89-90 8. Imrie R. and Raco M. eds., 2003. Urban Renaissance? New Labour, community and urban policy, Bristol: The Policy Press, pp. 3-4 9. Leech in Mullard, M., ed., 1995, Policy Making in Britain, An Introduction, Part I: The context of public policy-making, London: Routledge, pp.14, 25 10. ODPM, 2005c, Securing the Future: UK Sustainable Development Strategy, HMSO: London Read More