Memorandum by Environmental Services—London
Borough of Harrow (UWP 69)
TOWARDS AN URBAN RENAISSANCE
The report is to be welcome for its breadth
and scope in examining the nature of our town and cities and how
they can be rejuvenated. There is, inevitably, a concentration
on the decline and regeneration of urban areas, which will be
the focus for action and investment, but there are also many general
conclusions and recommendations with widespread application. There
is, perhaps, not enough recognition that different areas need
different approaches, and disappointment at the undercurrent within
the report which suggests that "suburban" is as much
a part of the problem as part of the solution. The development
of suburbia is seen as in some way responsible for the decline
of the city resulting in a less acceptable and sustainable form
of development.
While the suburbs may not be as exciting or
demonstrate all the many desirable attributes of city centre living,
there is no denying their popularity. Areas like Harrow have not
suffered the problems associated with the inner city "cycle
of decline"—people want to live here and need no incentives
to do so. Some examination and analysis of the successes and popularity
of suburban areas could well have been useful if only to recognise
that as an urban form, they possess qualities that many appreciate
and aspire to. However, we cannot be complacent about the future
of the suburbs and the report fails to come to terms with the
dynamics of suburbia as an integral part of the wider urban agenda.
What part can the suburbs play in an urban renaissance?
Over four million of the 6.8 million Londoners
(1991 OPCS) live in Outer London. While "Outer London"
and "Suburbia" may not be exactly synonymous, the lack
of references to such a significant area in the report is surprising.
Recent work by LPAC, Civic Trust and the Town and Country Planning
Association on the suburbs clearly points to alternative models
for sustainability which need to be recognised and developed.
This is particularly relevant in the Outer London Context where
the layout and design of suburban development was very much the
product of the inter-war and immediate post-war years when car-ownership
and usage were the exception rather than the rule: they were certainly
not designed around the car and car dependency.
On a more positive note, there are many recommendations
in the Report which are to be welcomed. These include:
— Placing Local Authorities in the
lead role in urban management and regeneration, within a partnership
framework.
— The emphasis on urban design and
density as planning mechanisms towards sustainability and revitalising
urban areas, providing they are flexible enough to accommodate
local variations based on locally agreed policies.
— Statutory Transport Plans, which
should complement statutory development plans.
— Measures to redress the balance between
public transport, walking, cycling and the use of the car including
public expenditure commitments and allowing for workplace parking
charges.
— Recommendations for the upgrading
of the public realm, including a strategic role for Local Authorities,
increases in Central Government funding for the Urban Environment,
Town Improvement Zones and strengthened enforcement powers.
— More flexibility in CPO powers, lower
Council taxes, fiscal incentives, regeneration companies etc.
which can be implemented at a local level, giving Local Authorities
a wider range of regeneration tools. Fiscal measures and particularly
tax breaks could play a key part in regeneration and are a tool
currently missing within existing structures.
— Simplifying Development Plans and
strengthening Supplementary Planning Guidance to deliver more
flexible planning policies, particularly to deal with area based
regeneration in the context of a more positive planning ethos.
— The broader use of planning agreements
to achieve regeneration objectives and the possibility of a system
of planning impact fees.
— Stronger mechanisms for the delivery
of affordable housing, mixed tenures and mixed use schemes.
— Moves towards the harmonisation of
VAT on new build and conversions/repairs.
— Proposals to encourage private sector
investment in regeneration, specifically institutional investment,
particularly where this would result in partnerships between public
and private sectors to deliver regeneration objectives.
— Revised public expenditure controls
which would provide greater local determination of expenditure
levels and priorities. Reform of the Business Rate, locally agreed
special funds such as BIDS and specific recognition of the Urban
Renaissance in the Comprehensive Spending Review are all to be
welcomed, providing they give real local choice rather than merely
redistribution from Central Government.
All these recommendations are to be welcomed
but there are reservations regarding:
— Setting national standards for, eg,
densities and car parking, which would override locally agreed,
locally based solutions.
— The recommendation to remove or review
local rules, standards, procedures and detailed site-level policies,
which are seen as stifling development. A clear national policy
which can then be interpreted locally to meet local circumstances,
often at a detailed level, can clarify and speed up decision making
in response to the local communities' aspirations.
January 2000
|
