The United Kingdom Land Use Planning System - Case Study Example

MANAGING CHANGE IN RURAL AREAS: THE PLANNING SYSTEM’S APPROACH IS FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED Introduction The main objective of the United Kingdom landuse Planning System is to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest, while using processes which are consistent with the principles of sustainable development. The planning system concurrently promotes competitiveness as well as protects the environment (PPG1: 2). Rural areas, though they are integral parts of wider territories, have their distinctive economic, social and environmental challenges. The concept of “spatial planning” attempts to replace the earlier idea of “town and country planning”, so that planning is not just a regulator of land and property uses, but is at the centre of the spatial development process, coordinating policy with implementation based on sustainable development. (Gallent et al, 2008). Thesis Statement: The purpose of this paper is to investigate fundamental flaws in the planning system’s approach to managing change in rural areas. Discussion Some of the most important factors which have shaped the United Kingdom Planning System are: the strong ethics towards land preservation which is epitomized in the work of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, and its Scottish and Welsh counterparts. and the agriculture and breeding of livestock of the land owning class. Additionally, popular attitudes to the preservation of the countryside and the containment of urban sprawl are related to the early industrialization of the United Kingdom, the small size of the country, the long history of parliamentary government, the power of the civil service in central government, and the professions in local government (Cullingworth & Nadin, 2002). Weaknesses in the Planning Systems from 1947 to 2004 Fundamental flaws are present in the planning system’s approach to managing change in rural areas, partly because of the following reasons: the United Kingdom planning system has been highly effective in stopping development, rather than in facilitating it. There are serious weaknesses in anticipating needs, and in acquisition and allocation of land, and in integrating the planning of infrastructure with new development. The powers which the system has for such important planning actions are inadequately used because of insufficient relationship between the public planning process and the largely private development process. Though the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 envisaged the undertaking of positive planning by the public sector, this was not adopted due to lack of feasibility; and alternative mechanisms remain underdeveloped (Cullingworth & Nadin, 2002). Another shortcoming of the planning system is the most difficult issue facing any policy, that is, defining the right questions. Current United Kingdom debates are focused on the wrong questions, with excessive attention given to how the needs are to be met rather than why they should be met. Debating on reasons for meeting the needs would provide a stronger basis for policy than what exists at present. The third flaw is that planning deals with a highly complex series of inter-related processes which are insufficiently understood. Hence, planning must proceed on the belief in the effectiveness of some over-riding political or economic philosophy. This would involve debating on how far the planning process should associate itself to socio-economic trends (Cullingworth & Nadin, 2002). Land use planning is “the process by which the government resolves disputes about land uses” (Cullingworth & Nadin, 2002: 2). This is because politics, conflict and dispute are at the centre of land use planning, based on the competing demands for the use of land and the uneven distribution of the benefits of development. At every level of planning, from the national to the local and site level, alternatives emerge regarding all procedures from plan making to development control. The planning system is the machinery by which these levels of choice are managed, through the determination of objectives, policy making, consultation and participation, formal dispute resolution, development control, implementation, and the evaluation of outcomes. From its inception in 1947, the Planning System has been modified and updated several times, the most recent system being the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (PCPA) 2004; to help planning authorities transform the increasingly complex raft of planning legislation into local policy. Essentially planning’s focus has narrowed, rapid social and economic changes in the post-war era also undermined the system’s potential to coordinate reconstruction and economic growth (Gallent et al, 2008: 17). The system failed to coordinate or influence these agendas; and as the development control function of planning became comparatively more important, the dominant element of planning became reactivity, and people no longer considered the system to be forward looking or thinking. The planning systems from 1947 to 2004 are well-known to be negative systems, with deteriorating influence, and increasingly bureaucratic in nature. Initially, with dominance of public sector development and the opening up and control of land for this purpose, the planning system was established. Planning was not basically meant to be associated with policy control, but this became its prime concern as public sector development was edged out by private sector development. With reduced development programming and master planning activities tied to public sector development, development control activity escalated in response to private development. Planning was retrenched into statutory duty. With increasing concern with the control of land, the planning system became gradually less strategic. In spite of attempts to correct the trend, it has become increasingly bureaucratic and narrow in scope over the last sixty years (Gallent et al, 2008). The updated Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (PCPA) 2004, promotes spatial planning which includes the statutory system, along with other programmes, projects, actions and public, private or community-led interventions, in order to develop rural areas. Hence, planning and managing change in rural areas focuses on the 2004 Planning System and its governance context; and on patterns of rural change to which planning responds to and directs, in the context of England (Gallent et al, 2008). Spatial Planning Control of land use remains an important component of the statutory planning system in England. Planning continues to play a vital role in regulating the development and use of land in the public interest. From the year 2004 a much wider purpose has been added, to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. Following the United Nations Summit on Sustainable Develpoment in 2002, the UK Government Framework for Sustainable Consumption and Production was launched in 2004. Sustainable development was defined as “continuous economic and social progress that respects the limits of the earth’s ecosystems, and meets the needs and aspirations of everyone for a better quality of life, now and for future generations to come” (DEFRA, 2004: 10). The emphasis was on better coordination of the social, economic and environmental dimensions of development. Planning systems’ shift away from land-use concept to spatial planning is based on the need for coordination of the different policies, programmes and projects which influence the nature of places and how they function. Spatial planning works towards meeting objectives agreed by a range of different partners, relating to communities, environment and local economies. It is the responsibility of a wide range of agencies, unlike land-use planning. However, land-use control remains important, though it is only one means of delivering against local ambitions (ODPM, 2004). The new system of spatial planning has yet to yield beneficial results in terms of complete regional spatial strategies, local development frameworks, or outcomes on ground (Gallent et al, 2008). Since 2004, planning has not moved away from its statutory duty to control the use of land but has taken on a wider focus, with a more central coordinating role in the functioning of governance. Spatial planning is believed to be an enabling force which mobilises wider support from community and interest groups which share visions of what places might look like and how they might function in the future. Further, spatial planning is not public sector driven, but is built on strategic and local partnerships, and significantly, spatial planning also plays a central role in reconciling competing interests and resolving conflicts. More than controlling the use of land, it uses management theory and vision statements and aims at collaboration, consensus and community-centred action. This means that “the land-use control function has been relegated behind a corporate agenda focused on the coordination of policies and programmes delivered by different sectors and agencies, that shape places” (Gallent et al, 2008: 18). Arguments regarding more planning or less planning fail to recognize that a different approach may need to be identified, that focuses across a range of needs rather than sticking persistently to its limited emphasis on the release of land. It has failed to co-ordinate the interests of local communities with a wider economic strategy, or to link the needs of existing rural residents with the desires of new incomers. Its focus on control has often pitted one group against another, and this lack of coordination and failure to see the larger picture in the best interests of all stakeholders, has caused a range of other rural issues. For example, developments in agriculture and forestry have, despite their exemption from planning regulation, have been governed by several uncoordinated United Kingdom and European Union policies (Gallent et al, 2008). The Importance of Multifunctional Planning The planning system needs to have played a bigger role in integrating policies towards these primary rural industries at regional and local levels, with other socio-economic and environmental interventions. “More fundamental than the extent of planning intervention, whether it is pervasive or adopts a light touch, has been its failure to provide a comprehensive system and to look across the different policies and interventions that shape the rural scene” (Gallent et al, 2008: 22). The environment is a multi-functional space, where a range of different requirements have to be met, for the farms, region and society. According to Brandt et al (2000), policy makers should recognize the multifunctional nature of the spaces which planning must manage. These spaces are inevitably areas of “production” with an economic function, besides being “living spaces” not only for people but for plants and wildlife which must share the environment. They are also spaces of “consumption” for recreation and leisure, and space is also a socio-historical region. In order meet its aspiration for a rural policy that de-emphasizes the role of farming, the United Kingdom government especially in England, has committed to a more rural model of multifunctionality, through the adoption of modulation. However, the government has been unable to plan and develop rural areas on the basis of multifunctional activities. By continuing to support various interests such as agriculture, industry, retail, post-productivist, environmental and amenity interests, competitively organized projects and schemes are being set up. Legislation should incorporate activities that add income to agriculture, development of a new agriculture sector that corresponds to the needs of a wider society, and plans the use of rural resources for wider rural development benefits (Marsden & Sonnino, 2008). Conclusion This paper has investigated the fundamental flaws in the planning system’s approach to managing change in rural areas, the possible effectiveness of spatial planning, and the significance of multifunctional planning. Policies which coordinate the multifunctional purposes of the rural area with the requirements of all stakeholders, and support spatial management, while taking environmental sustainability into consideration, are needed to be formulated by the planning system. Thus, the basic weaknesses in the planning system’s approach can be corrected, for sustained social, economic and environmental development and change management in rural areas. References Brandt, J., Tress, B., & Tress, G. (Eds.). (2000). Multifunctional landscapes: inter- disciplinary approaches to landscape, research and management. Conference material for the international conference on multifunctional landscapes, Centre for Landscape Research, University of Rosekilde, Denmark, 18-21 October, 2000. Retrieved on 24th April, 2009 from: http://www.geo.ruc.dk/vlb/ML-contents.pdf Cullingworth, J.B. & Nadin, V. (2002). Town and country planning in the UK. Edition 13. London: Routledge. DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). (2004). Changing patterns: UK government framework for sustainable consumption and production. DEFRA & Departments for Trade and Industry (DTI), London. Gallent, N., Juntti, M., Kidd, S.M. & Shaw, D. (2008). Introduction to rural planning. London: Routledge. Marsden, T. & Sonnino, R. (2008). Rural development and the regional state: Denying multifunctional agriculture in the UK. Journal of Rural Studies. 24: 422-431. ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister). (2004). Planning policy statement 11: regional spatial strategies. ODPM, London. Retrieved on 23rd April, 2009 from: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/147423.pdf PPG 1. (1997). Planning Policy Guidance 1: General policy and principles. Retrieved on 23rd April, 2004 from: http://www.leics.gov.uk/ppg01_general_policy_and_principles_1997.pdf Read More