Written evidence from Janet Mackinnon
MA (ARSS 31)
SUMMARY AND
RECOMMEDATIONS—A "LESS
IS MORE"
APPROACH TO
STRATEGIC PLANNING
This memorandum recommends the establishment of local
authority-led regional forums, possibly based on the former SERPLAN—South
East Regional Planning Conference—model to replace the former
Leaders' Boards. The main purpose of these would be to advise
the Secretary of State on the contents of Regional Planning Guidance
(RPG). It also recommends the retention of Government Offices
for the Regions to manage the RPG process and monitor the compliance
of local plans with this and national policies. A "less is
more" approach to strategic planning is called for at the
present time, rather than the complete dismantling of regional
policy infrastructure implied in the Coalition Government's current
proposals. Incentives should encourage location appropriate sustainable
development and area regeneration in particular. A continuing
role for House of Commons Regional Committees is also identified.
Introduction and context
My name is Janet Mackinnon. I have worked in area
regeneration for 25 years, with a particular interest in sustainable
development, and have an MSc in Urban and Regional Planning Studies.
Earlier this year, I submitted a memorandum to the
House of Commons West Midlands Committee for their inquiry into
"Planning for the Future".
My submission to the present inquiry by the Communities
and Local Government Select Committee broadly covers those issues
set out in the terms of reference:
Implications of the abolition of regional targets
house building.
Proposals to incentivise local communities to accept
new development.
Future management arrangements for matters formerly
covered by RSSs.
Adequacy of proposals put forward by the Government,
including role of LEPS.
Arrangements to ensure effective management and updating
of strategic research.
However, I would first like to put these issues in
a wider context as set out below:
A key plank of the previous New Labour administration's
approach to spatial and wider economic planning might best be
described as "demographic determinism": ie trend-based
planning based on population-based growth was strongly encouraged.
There is now increasing evidence that such an approach
does not deliver sustainable development for the economy and society,
as well as for the environment. Instead it encourages large-scale
investment speculation, notably in the housing sector, as happened
for much of the noughties.
In a free market-based economy, it is not a proper
function of government policy to seek to construct domestic economies
of scale for a private construction sector, thereby potentially
undermining not only the cost and general competiveness of this
sector, but also other parts of the economy. Instead, there must
be an adjustment to the current market conditions.
Nevertheless, appropriate government intervention
in spatial development and housing provision is clearly of the
greatest importance, and I very much welcome this opportunity
to contribute to the Communities and Local Government Committee's
present inquiry.
Implications of the abolition of regional targets
house building
It is important to stress that regional planning
pre-dates New Labour, and existed—albeit with a rather "lighter
touch"—during the Conservative governments of the 1980s
and 90s. Moreover, many of us welcomed, in principle, the creation
of the Department for Communities and Local Government's predecessor,
a Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when
New Labour was elected in 1997.
Unfortunately, the later "regionalism"
agenda proved unwieldy, subject to excessive "quangoisation",
and the positive aspects of regional planning were subsumed by
a central government fixation with house-building targets. The
culmination of this fixation co-incided with the "Credit
Crunch" which began in 2007—and notwithstanding this
reality check—continued apparently unchecked through the
subsequent financial crisis and economic recession, until the
recent change of government.
Needless to say the house-building targets set by
the former administration have not been fulfilled, proof—it
any were needed—that planned targets in themselves do not
necessarily deliver outcomes, even in the former Soviet Union,
and particularly in a market economy.
Indeed, I would argue that unsustainable regional
targets for housing development actively work against the delivery
of house-building, and become instead a vehicle for large-scale
speculative land-banking and planning applications which cannot
be implemented due to unaffordable—for both the public and
private sectors—infrastructure requirements.
It should also be remembered that the previous government
"Proposed Changes" to a number of RSSs, with the aim
of increasing house-building targets, provoked successful legal
challenges by some local authorities on grounds of the non-compliance
of the revision/review process with the European Strategic Environmental
Assessment Directives.
This was, in effect, the "state of play"
when the Coalition Government came into office and may have encouraged
the rather precipitative response - which is also currently subject
to legal action—to dismantling regional policy. Whatever
the outcome of the latest challenge, it is undoubtedly the case
that regional planning is more in need of reform than complete
revocation, albeit that the withdrawal of undesirable and undeliverable
house-building targets is in itself to be welcomed.
Proposals to incentivise local communities to
accept new development
The Treasury appears to have already called in to
question whether funding would be available to the extent implied
in DCLG's proposals. However, some other basic caveats need to
be set against such incentive schemes.
Most communities do not completely identify their
interests with those of local government, and, in some cases,
regard these to be at odds with organisations whose bureaucratic
targets may be perceived as detrimental, and in some cases disastrous,
for their localities.
Plans and programmes involving the large-scale demolition
of housing and business premises illustrate this predicament very
well. For it must be remembered that whilst the last government
was extremely pious about the need for new housing, a great deal
of money was spent on demolishing neighbourhoods which provided
precisely the kind of affordable property, both residential and
business, about which there continues to be so much political
pontificating.
Where there is local opposition to new development
in green field areas, this may be precisely because communities
are aware of the availability of major brown field sites not far
away, where such development would be extremely welcome. This
is particularly true of the West Midlands, whose major urban areas
have a strategic backlog of unutilised employment land, as evidenced
in the Planning Inspectorate Report on the proposed Regional Spatial
Strategy Phase 2 Revision.
DCLG should, therefore, focus on incentive schemes
which encourage development of the right type and scale for a
particular location, and which maximises regeneration opportunities,
rather than attempt to bribe local communities to accept inappropriate
proposals.
There also needs to be a resurgence of community-based
planning, given the preponderance of top-down bureaucratic programmes
in recent years. The adoption of this approach by the former Greater
London Council in the 1980s ultimately enabled consensus to be
reached on strategic transport planning and the acceptance of
new development as a consequence of this.
Future management arrangements for matters formerly
covered by RSSs "Standing Conference" arrangements of
the kind formerly used by local authorities in London and the
South East, but with a wider membership, is suggested for areas
covered by the RSSs. The main purpose of these forums would be
to advise the Secretary of State on the contents of Regional Planning
Guidance (RPG). It also recommends the retention of Government
Offices for the Regions to manage the RPG process and monitor
the compliance of local plans with this and national policies,
as well as and where appropriate, House of Commons Regional Committees.
Adequacy of proposals put forward by the Government,
including role of LEPS
These appear to risk repeating the mistake of the
previous Government's proposals for Single Regional Strategies,
led by Regional Development Agencies, in having an inherent conflict
of interest between economic development and other planning objectives.
Arrangements to ensure effective management and
updating of strategic research
This is a particularly important issue for two main
reasons:
1. It is essential that a high-quality research
base is maintained and updated
2. Strategic research should not be confused
with "playing to the music"
To address the second matter first, much research
of a strategic nature conducted during the New Labour administration
by a range of organisations, including universities, private consultancies,
and governmental bodies, might best be described as "playing
to the music": ie researchers knew very well what major public
sector and commercial interests wanted to hear and delivered data
interpretations accordingly.
One consequence of this was that the need for economic
adjustment—which many people, and notably the present Secretary
of State for Business, Innovation and Skills knew existed by the
mid-noughties—was not acknowledged by government until,
effectively, it was almost too late. This lesson must be learnt
by those who made the mistakes.
However, I am not yet convinced that this has happened,
something which has important implications for managing the strategic
planning research base, both at the central and local government
levels. It should be noted that the latter also tends to have
strong vested interests.
I therefore tend to favour some new regional arrangement,
possibly involving a partnership between the Government Regional
Offices and the Standing Conferences already proposed. A key role
of this would be to develop data sets for different growth scenarios
and development options at the sub-national, regional and sub-regional
levels to inform local planning, rather than impose Soviet-style
targets on the latter.
House of Commons Regional Select Committees might
oversee this process, and provide organisations and people outside
it with the opportunity of challenge.
September 2010
| 
