Why Control Development - Research Paper Example

?You are required to participate in active learning with creative research, review and analysis of planning theory and philosophy to determine a response to the question “Why Control Development?” 1. Introduction The forms of urban planning used worldwide are not standardized. Local social, political and economic structures and beliefs are likely to influence the principles of urban planning within international community. Thus, the explanation of failures of urban planning can be a challenging task. However, it has been proved that the use of certain frameworks and schemes can help towards the improvement of the performance of urban planning even if the characteristics of the above process are not fully explored – a task that would require a significant amount of time. Control development is such a scheme. Emphasis is given on answering the following question: ‘Why control development?’, meaning the reasons for the superiority of control development towards other concepts and mechanisms of similar role. Through the review of the literature published in the particular field it has been proved that control development can significantly help towards the improvement of urban planning; however, it would be necessary for certain terms to be met. In the long term, the effectiveness of control development cannot be guaranteed, being influenced by the social and economic trends that are likely to change overtime. In any case, control development is the most credible process for securing the quality of urban planning and for this reason it should be preferred by urban planners when having to address various social, economic or spatial challenges. 2. Planning Theory Various approaches have been used in the literature for describing the role and the value of planning, as a theoretical concept with important implications on town planning worldwide. In accordance with Lichfield (1998) the theory of communicative planning best reflects the context of planning as the basis for the design of cities and communities worldwide. The above theory is based on realities, as the main element of planning; it is explained that these realities are depended on the life of people within a particular community and the needs of this community. It is implied that planning, as a theory, is a reflection of daily human needs – referring to people as members of a community. From a similar point of view, Sorensen (1999) notes that the first signs of town planning and control development can be identified in the academic movement based on the views of 19th century philanthropists; it is explained that the academic writers who based on these views emphasized on the need for ‘rational public control for urban development’ (Sorensen 1999, p.147). The above theory is characterized as socialist aiming to achieve the following targets: protection of the interests of the working class, of ensuring the expansion of public housing and ‘the increase of the power of citizens to participate in urban management’ (Sorensen 1999, p.147). The above theory was opposed by the revisionists, who emphasized on the value of privatization of public assets and the limitation of public housing – highlighting the importance of private capital for defining the terms of housing and the urban planning in modern cities (Sorensen 1999). This trend is reflected in Cities for Sale of Sandercock; in the above book reference is made to the power of the state to set the rules for urban planning and to prevent the private sector from highly intervening in the town planning process (Sorensen 1999). However, concerns are developed regarding the effects of the limitation of private funding in various public projects. The revisionist approach in town planning has been opposed by the idealism, a theoretical trend that has been partially based on socialist and revisionist theories for explaining the context and the value of town planning. In accordance with the idealism approach on town planning, ‘planning should be based on a ‘postmodernist’ approach, influenced by social reality, at least up to a point’ (Sorensen 1999, p.147). This means that town planning should be aligned with the local social structure and ethics, reflecting the social and cultural values of locals, as members of a particular community. After comparing three different planning models, ‘the communicative model, the new urbanism and the just-city model’ (Fainstein 2000, p.451), Fainstein comes to the conclusion that the latter, the just-city model, reflects the most effective form of planning in accordance with the needs and the characteristics of people in modern cities (Fainstein 2000). The above assumption is based on the fact that the social and economic needs and characteristics of people in cities worldwide are different compared to the past, where other social and economic trends were used as the basis for urban and economic planning. On the other hand, Hudson (1979) noted that understanding planning can be a challenging task, mostly because the specific activity/ process has many different aspects, being able to refer to different sectors, for instance business, scientific research, urban management and so on. Reference is made specifically to ‘the rational comprehensive planning or synoptic planning’ (Hudson 1979, p.388), which is characterized as the basis of the theories focusing on planning as part of different social or economic activities. The synoptic planning is based on three rules/ principles: the existence of specific objectives, the existence of capital for the realization of these objectives and the restriction of expanding the objectives or, else, of focusing on other targets than those clearly incorporated in the objectives on which a particular planning process is based (Hudson 1979). Another theoretical approach of planning, similar to the synoptic planning described above, is the incremental planning, which is based on the following view: the objectives of planning cannot be achieved without the intervention of centralized institutions supporting the relevant initiatives (Hudson 1979). Moreover, the transactive planning focuses on the value of human experiences and beliefs for the success of planning process. It is explained that each planning process has limited chances to succeed unless it takes into consideration ‘the needs and the experiences of people within a particular community’ (Hudson 1979, p.389). In other words, planning is not established for serving the needs of a community of anonymous people but it needs to be formulated after ‘face – to – face contact with people affected by decisions’ (Hudson 1979, p.388). Another planning theory is the advocacy planning, an approach used for supporting the interests of weak members of the society against the interests of ‘strong-community groups’ (Hudson 1979, p.389), as for example in the case of disputes over environmental issues or economic activities which threaten the interests and the rights of weak members of the community. Planning, as explained above, has many different aspects. In the context of urban management and town development, planning needs to be appropriately designed, ensuring that interests all stakeholders are equally addressed and that the scope of town planning, as a tool for facilitating the life of people within a particular region is served. In practice, town planning has a series of failures, as reflected in the increased density of houses, the lack of effective water management or disposal systems, the limitation of green areas within cities and the high level of traffic/ industrial activity that results to severe environmental problems in modern cities and their surrounding areas. For this reason, control development appears as the most effective solution for ensuring the quality of town planning and urban planning processes in countries with different social and economic characteristics. 3. Control development – role and value The need for the establishment of rules related to urban planning was made clear since the appearance of town planning, as a theoretical and practical concept, in Britain in the mid 19th century. It was at that period that the first signs of urbanisation appeared – referring to urbanization in its current form as reflecting in big cities worldwide. Urbanisation, as combined with industrialisation led to the expansion of town planning, as a framework for developing functional cities – meaning their structure/ facilities – in the context of the international community. Despite its importance, town planning had to face a series of challenges, a result of the intervention of industrialisation in the development of the relevant rules. The lack of control on the construction sites and the rights of landowners has caused severe problems to cities around the world. In this way, the high number of houses within a limited space, the lack of plan on the water network or the disposal of rubbish in a particular region are aspects of this problem. On the other hand, the development of strong oppositions with landowners and other stakeholders has been, traditionally, related to significant consequences for the politicians that would take such initiatives (Brown and Salt 1998). As a result, the control on development has become problematic, a phenomenon which has been expanded through the decades. In accordance with Ratcliffe, Stubbs and Miles (2009) ‘development control is a process by which society, represented by locally elected councils, regulates changes in the use and the appearance of the environment’ (Audit Commission 1992, in Ratcliffe, Stubbs and Miles 2009, p.29). Through the decades, a series of suggestions has been made for improving the role of control on the development process, aiming to increase the quality of town planning improving the image of cities internationally. In order to understand the structure and the scope of these measures it would be necessary to refer to the problems that control development has asked to face. Reference should be made to examples of cities and regions where the lack of control development led to severe failures in town planning. Since the mid of 19th century, the lack of effective town planning rules in Perth and Western Australia led to a series of problems, such as the high density of houses, the deterioration of public health – appropriate sanity measures could not be promoted due to the lack of space, a problem that led to the expansion of diseases, such as cholera and typhoid (lecture notes). The response of the government was rather delayed. It was just in 1928 that appropriate legislative rules were introduced – meaning the Town Planning and Development Act of 1928 (lecture notes). Especially in Western Australia, the promotion of effective town planning, including control on development, did not start before the end of WWII; all rules that had established before WWII and which issued increased powers to the local authorities to control the town planning process, remained inactive up to the end of the WWII (lecture notes). Even after the end of WWII the promotion of these rules faced obstacles mostly because of the lack of skills and funds but also because of the lack of public interest on the particular problem. In Perth, a part of the WA, town planning was mainly promoted through the Seminal Plan for the Metropolitan Region Perth and Fremantle 1955. The importance of control development as part of the town planning process has been evaluated through a research programme developed in UK in 2004; the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister funded the programme. A series of case studies was used in order to check whether the control development through design codes could be effective – and under what terms. It was revealed that under certain terms, ‘design codes can be valuable tools in delivering a range of benefits in respect of quality, certainty, coordination, land and property values’ (Syms 2010, p.276). The value of control development, as part of the planning process, is also revealed through the explanations given by legislators when developing the relevant rules. For example, in regard to the control process as part of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, it is noted that ‘the above process can ensure that planning permission is refused in vulnerable areas’ (Higgitt and Mark, 2001, p.261). In London, ‘the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008’ (Ratcliffe, Stubs and Miles 2009, p.29) ensures that the Mayor of London can intervene in all critical issues related to town planning, having the power to suggest changes and to cancel projects that do not serve the interests of the public or those that are against the principles of sustainability. It is through this process that the scope of control development, as described above, is mostly promoted. 4. Conclusion In the context of a particular urban environment, the success of planning process is not guaranteed. The existence of various factors that negatively affect the relevant efforts cannot be ignored. Due to these factors - such as the lack of skills, funds, political power – the quality of urban planning can be severely deteriorated. Control development is a framework offering to the people of each community the power to intervene in the urban planning related to their region. However, the effectiveness of this framework is depended on certain criteria, especially the level of cooperation and understanding among the members of the community, the funds available for supporting the suggested interventions and the mechanisms focusing on the monitoring of all phases of urban planning. In cities like London, where the funds available for the realization of such efforts are high and where infrastructure/ skills can respond to the needs of the relevant projects, the effectiveness of control development is expected to be higher compared other regions where social and economic barriers do not allow the extensive participation of people in urban planning. In any case, the value of control development cannot be ignored being the only framework allowing the active participation of people in a key community aspect/ activity: the urban planning process. References Brown, Henry and Adrian, Salt. Planning applications: the RMJM guide. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 1998. Fainstein, Susan. “New directions in planning theory”. Urban Affairs Review 35.4(2000): 451-478 Higgitt, David and Mark, Lee. Geomorphological processes and landscape change: Britain in the last 1000 years. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2001. Hudson, Barclay. “Comparison of current planning theories: Counterparts and Contradictions”. APA Journal (1979): 387-398 Lichfield, Nathaniel. Evaluation in planning: facing the challenge of complexity New York: Springer, 1998. Ratcliffe, John, Stubbs, Michael and Miles, Keeping. Urban planning and real estate development. Oxon: Taylor & Francis, 2009. Sorensen, Tony. “Theory and Practice in Planning”. Australian Planner 36.3(1999): 146-149 Syms, Paul. Land, Development and Design. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons, 2010. Read More