Tag: governance

Some reflections on learning on the job …

Author Centre for Sustainable Planning and Environments | Posted on

by Hannah Hickman

I teach a module on our postgraduate distance learning course – Planning and Urban Leadership – called “Managing Strategic Growth”.  It is framed around encouraging students to think at scale, and critically evaluate the role of planners and planning in growth management, with a focus on population, household and economic growth and the resultant demand for more homes. At its heart it’s about just that, growth.

I inherited this module from an excellent former colleague, and over time I have re-oriented and shaped the module in response to some of the more recent developments in policy and practice.  However, full disclosure, over the Summer I reflected that I hadn’t previously encouraged students to do enough critical engagement with the concept of growth. I’m not saying we didn’t do any but perhaps an acceptance of the growth orthodoxy in planning was subliminal, somehow inadvertently built-in to the module’s design.

What prompted this reflection? I’m not sure I can pinpoint a precise moment, but I was immediately irked by the repeated statements that emerged very quickly from the incoming Labour Government, that put planning and growth facilitation, particularly economic growth, front and centre of its reform agenda. This is just one example of many:

“The Government has made clear that sustained economic growth is the only route to improving the prosperity of our country and the living standards of working people … Nowhere is decisive reform needed more urgently than in our planning system”[1].

Ascribing this role to planning is of course, neither new, nor a surprise. Many planning scholars have written engagingly about the growth fixation “inscribed in planning instruments” and “the often‐unquestioned growth bias in spatial planning that is institutionalized at all scales of land‐use planning”[2].

However, the disappointment I felt at the lack of wider narratives emerging from the new Government about both planning and growth, led me to both re-engage with some of the important existing scholarship in this area, but also to read some recent literature for the first time. In short, in preparing for this module, I went down an utterly engaging rabbit hole. Amongst other things:

  • I read the excellent piece by Jin Zue on de-growth, challenging ‘smart-growth’ (the apparently false win-win scenario to support growth), and encouraging “subversion of planning’s commitment to growth … and resuscitation of utopianism” [3], anddipped into Savini’s volume on Cities beyond the market economy [4];
  • I looked beyond planning, to see what scholars in politics and public policy have been saying. In short, questioning the economic growth paradigm is happening across disciplines[5];
  • I listened to the economist, Kate Raworth, talk engagingly about her book ‘doughnut economics’, in which she questions whether governments “are right to think that the solution to their economic problems lies in more growth” [6]; and 
  • I explored the many and various ways of measuring growth that go beyond GDP, and here I would give a massive shout out to UCL’s citizen prosperity index [7].

I also did a very cursory piece of research to look at the national planning policy statements of the UK’s devolved nations, and I was surprised at what I found. Scotland’s National Planning Framework 4, makes 104 references to growth, although in many and varied ways, including  ‘compact growth’,‘green growth, ‘greener growth’, and ‘inclusive growth’.  Future Wales: The National Plan 2040, containsa whopping 296 references to growth, including ‘sustainable growth’, ‘inclusive growth’, ‘nationally important growth’, ‘clean growth’, ‘green growth’, and ‘inclusive growth’. The Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Irelandhas 42 references to growth, but with an overwhelming focus on economic growth. The idea of growth – in all sorts of guises – is the undoubtedly orthodoxy in these statements, paralleling the English narrative.

So, what did I do when I climbed back out of the rabbit hole? Well, initially at least I’ve shared a few observations (for what they are worth!) with the Planning and Urban Leadership students and asked them to think about where they sit on the pro-growth, de-growth axis, and to reflect upon what role they think planning (and planners) should take in this.

But why have I decided to write about this here, albeit very briefly? There were two motivators. The first, was to highlight the value of ‘learning on the job’ (as well as the privilege of being able to do so) and the fundamental importance of ensuring that as educators we are striving, as far as is possible, to keep up-to-date (accepting – by the way – that this is almost impossible in such a fast moving area of policy and practice!). Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, is the need to continue to encourage critical thinking in our students. In sharing my insights, I have not said that they should be anti-growth, or that there isn’t an inter-relationship between planning and growth that needs to be understood, but I have encouraged them not to accept things just as they are. This now feels like an omission in my previous teaching on this module.

Finally, and another shout-out, this time to the international student who spontaneously shared (today!) that their favourite part of the Managing Strategic Growth module so far had been the lecture and wider reading on ‘challenging the growth orthodoxy in planning’. That was enough to post-hoc justify the rabbit hole down which I went!

Featured image credit: https://www.growthforce.com/blog/5-stages-business-growth

[1] Ministry for Housing Communities and Local Government (2024). Proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/proposed-reforms-to-the-national-planning-policy-framework-and-other-changes-to-the-planning-system

[2] Lamker, C. and Terfrüchte, T., (2024). Post-growth ambitions and growth-based realities in sustainable land-use planning. Urban Planning, 9, 1-16.

[3] Xue, J (2022). Urban planning and degrowth: a missing dialogue, Local Environment, 27 (4), 404-422.

[4] Savini, F., Ferreira, A. and von Schönfeld, K. eds., (2022). Post-growth planning: Cities beyond the market economy. Routledge.

[5] Warner, S., Newman, J., Diamond, P. and Richards, D., (2024). The challenge of devolved English governance and the rise of political spatial inequality. Parliamentary affairs, 77 (4) 735-764.

[6] Raworth, T. (2018). A healthy economy should be designed to thrive, not grow. https://www.ted.com/talks/kate_raworth_a_healthy_economy_should_be_designed_to_thrive_not_grow/transcript?subtitle=en

[7] UCL Institute for Global Prosperity. (2024). The Citizen Prosperity Index. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/igp/research/citizen-prosperity-index

Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects – the value in understanding implementation

Author Centre for Sustainable Planning and Environments | Posted on

by Hannah Hickman

‘There is very little pre-existing research on project implementation and the impact that a planning consent has on this stage. Our research fills an important knowledge gap and is not only of significance to the planning profession, but to those in Government currently focused on the infrastructure planning reform process, and to project promoters and their consenting and delivery teams’.1

Described as ‘the most far-reaching legislation of its kind since 1947’2, the 2008 Planning Act in England introduced a new system for the consenting of infrastructure projects deemed in the national interest – nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPS). At the time of its inception, this legislation was seen as a ‘genuine revolution’3 in the handling of consents for large scale infrastructure developments.

The so called ‘revolutionary’ aspects of the new system included: the removal of infrastructure projects over a certain threshold from local authority decision making, with decisions taken following prescribed timescales by ministers of central government following the advice of independent inspectors; the combination of most – although not all – consents, including planning permission and compulsory purchase acquisition powers into one document to enable development to proceed, known as a Development Consent Order (DCO); and, critically, the expression of need for development in sector specific National Policy Statements, such that debate about the need for infrastructure takes place during parliamentary scrutiny of NPS preparation rather than on a project basis at examination.

Certainty and speed of decision were the defining logics of the new system and there is evidence to suggest that speed of decision making has been a positive outcome of the new system for many projects. However, speed and certainty of decision making, do not necessarily result in a faster or easier delivery process (presumably the ultimate intent of the new system …) or do they?

In 2023, the National Infrastructure Planning Association published research commissioned from UWE and the University of Sheffield to explore the relationship between consent and delivery – the journey from consent, construction and through to ongoing operation – framed by the question, ‘how can the Development Consent Order process be strengthened to better support the delivery of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects‘?

This research specifically focused on practitioner’s experiences of this post-consent delivery phase and involved detailed survey work, six in-depth case studies, and discussion with a wide range of bodies engaged in the NSIP process, including statutory environmental bodies and local authorities.

Hornsea II Wind Farm (Courtesy of Ørsted)

As a research team, it was fantastic to have the opportunity to talk to such a wide- range of professionals involved in the delivery of major infrastructure projects, from those in construction project management and contracting, to lawyers, environmental specialists, and of planners across both the public and private sectors. This experience left two lasting impressions on the team. Firstly, and maybe self-evident to those in the industry, the delivery of major infrastructure projects is a truly cross-sectoral endeavour. Those projects with a relatively smooth delivery phase demonstrated a clear commitment by all those involved, to understand the remit, constraints, and perspective of all the disciplines involved. Secondly, understanding the effectiveness of planning (a consent as granted) demands the insights derived from delivery: it materially effects not just the ultimate design of projects, but the delivery phase as well.

Key recommendations from the project included:

i. The importance of continuing to extend the opportunities for disseminating, sharing and reflecting on the experience of project delivery and implementation – this has been an overlooked area of practice;

ii. The need to ensure that any further reforms to the DCO process that focus on speed of decision making do not pass on problems to the delivery and implementation stage – speed of consent does not necessarily result in a smoother delivery phase;

iii. The need for a review of the further consents and licences required post consent – most infrastructure projects still require a number of additional consents before delivery can commence, causing uncertainty and delay;

iv. to consider a more supportive approach to post consent change management – the DCO post-consent change process is highly constrained and is both time-consuming and expensive;

v. The need for significant ongoing support for local authority and statutory body engagement in delivery and operation as well as examination – these organisations play significant roles at delivery yet face considerable resources constraints in doing so effectively;

vi. The need for greater consistency at project examination stage in how flexibility within consents can be justified and achieved – lack of flexibility to vary a scheme’s design, or deploy alternative construction methods, post-consent can cause delivery challenges; and

vii. The value in capacity building – across professions – to support delivery.

The project report, and detailed case studies, are available from:

https://nipa-uk.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/NIPA_Hindsights_Final_Report.05.07.2023.pdf

NIPA Insights III Supplementary Report (Case Studies) (05.07.23) (nipa-uk.org)

  1. https://www.rtpi.org.uk/policy-and-research/research/planning-research-matters/infrastructure-planning/practitioner-s-experiences-of-development-consent-order-implementation/ ↩︎
  2. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/jul/15/quango-fast-tracks-controversial-projects ↩︎
  3. https://www.jplc.org/files/pdf/attaining%20the%20age%20of%20consents.pdf ↩︎

Feature image: Tilbury2 in construction (Courtesy of Tilbury Port)

The challenge of delivering affordable housing in the South West

Author Centre for Sustainable Planning and Environments | Posted on

by Dannielle Sinnett, Hannah Hickman, Katie McClymont, Stephen Hall, Cat Loveday, Jessica Lamond and Rebecca Windemer

We were commissioned by Homes for the South West, a consortium of housing associations, to examine the factors affecting housing affordability in the region and provide an estimate of future housing needs. To do this, we drew on Government data, a survey of local authorities, interviews with housing associations, local authorities and private developers, and a review of planning policies in the region.

Mulberry Park, a new development by Curo in Bath (credit Andrew Sykes and Curo)

How affordable is housing in the South West?

The South West faces acute problems of housing affordability. The region is conspicuously less affordable than England as a whole, and the North and Midlands in particular. In 2021, median house prices were approximately ten times greater than the median earnings. These inter-regional disparities are also becoming progressively more pronounced; in 1997 house prices were around four times greater than earnings.

Three quarters of local authority areas have affordability ratios (the ratio between house price and individual earnings) higher than that for England as a whole, and all have affordability ratios higher than those for the North of England. There is also substantial diversity in affordability ratios within local authority areas in the South West. The ten least affordable neighbourhoods in the region have median house prices more than 28 times median earnings. Even in the most affordable neighbourhoods median house prices are still more than three times median earnings.

Which factors impact housing affordability?

Property prices in the South West are markedly higher than England as a whole, and have risen nearly fourfold – faster than the national average rate of increase – in the past 25 years. However, the region has lower than average earnings, which have failed to keep up with house price increases. This has significant implications for local people, especially younger households or first-time buyers.

House prices are often higher in places with a high environmental quality and good access to local amenities and services. We found that, within a local authority area, neighbourhoods closer to the coastline are less affordable, as are those in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In general, more rural places are less affordable than towns and cities, but within these rural areas, those with better transport and broadband connectivity were even less affordable. Stakeholder reported that the high land values in the region undermine the viability of affordable housing.

Furthermore, these locations are also popular retirement and tourist destinations. It appears that local authorities in the South West with a greater proportion of second homes are less affordable and in-migration is dominated by arrivals from elsewhere in the UK (as opposed to international migration). This suggests, perhaps, the existence of a distinctive residential ‘offer’ in the region, one that attracts retirees, people working from home and those commuting to London and the South East, further increasing demand for new homes.

Finally, we looked at the supply of new homes compared with projected household formation since 1997. Over this period, the supply of new homes in the South West has not kept pace with demand, with an estimated deficit of 99,978 homes. This shortfall does not account for holiday lets or second homes, so is likely to be much greater. Most local authorities’ assessments of housing need will not address this shortfall by 2032.

Planned affordable eco-homes by Bromford Housing Association in Moreton-in-Marsh

What is the impact of Right to Buy?

Housing providers in the South West report that Right to Buy has had a detrimental impact on housing affordability in the region, particularly in respect of its role in the depletion of the overall stock of affordable housing. Since 1997, some 33,220 local authority-owned homes were sold through Right to Buy, whereas local authorities in the South West delivered only 2,320 new homes. The impact of Right to Buy appears to be particularly acute in small rural communities where a handful of sales locally might equate to a high proportion of total stock and may be difficult to replace given the higher unit costs of construction on small rural sites. In addition, development viability and funding challenges make it difficult for local authorities to replace social housing on a one-to-one basis.

What is the impact of national and local policy?

Regional stakeholders were critical of the complexity created by multiple definitions of affordable housing observed in planning policies. More importantly, they argued that these definitions do not equate to genuinely affordable housing.

The under-resourcing of planning was identified as a significant impediment to timely decision-making and on-site delivery.

Assessing future affordable housing need

To assess future housing need we estimated the number of new homes needed for each local authority in the South West from 2022 to 2039, and the proportion of new households that would need to spend more than 40% of their monthly income on mortgage repayments (i.e. unaffordable housing).

We estimated that around 28,337 homes need to be delivered in the region each year between 2022 and 2039, of which 17,282 would need to be affordable for those on median incomes – around 60%. These proportions are far greater than the thresholds in many planning policies.

Despite these challenges, stakeholders detailed how collaboration and partnership working between housing associations, local authorities and SME housebuilders was able to deliver affordable homes. They also highlighted that the delivery of affordable homes was intrinsic to other priorities, including ensuring high quality homes and responding to climate and ecological emergencies. Such practices provide opportunities on which to build to ensure that housing is delivered in the region which is affordable and sustainable.

The full report can be found here: https://homesforthesouthwest.co.uk/home/affordability-report/

The key to post COVID-19 recovery: community leadership

Author Centre for Sustainable Planning and Environments | Posted on

By Robin Hambleton….

As well as causing appalling suffering and misery, the COVID-19 pandemic is opening up new possibilities for the future.  An uplifting feature of the way that communities have responded to the COVID-19 calamity has been the spectacular expansion of self-organising community groups working at neighbourhood, or village, level to help the vulnerable and the needy.

While researching my new book, Cities and communities beyond COVID-19. How local leadership can change our future for the better, I encountered many heart-warming stories of how local communities have responded with great imagination to the disruption of local food supply chains, taken steps to protect the most vulnerable in society, and engaged in all manner of creative, problem-solving activities at the local or hyper-local level.

My research suggests that cities and localities across the world now face four major challenges at once: 1) The COVID-19 health emergency, 2) A sharp, pandemic-induced economic downturn, 3) The climate change emergency, and 4) The disastrous growth of social, economic and racial inequality in many countries.

The good news is that many cities and localities are already developing and delivering progressive strategies that address these four challenges at one-and-the-same time.

An example of good civic leadership – Freiburg, Germany

The photographs in this piece are from one of the cities now leading the way in responding to current societal challenges.  Freiburg is, of course, very well known for pioneering high quality city planning and urban design. 

For example, the Academy of Urbanism joined with the City of Freiburg in publishing The Freiburg Charter for Sustainable Urbanism in 2011.The Academy wanted not just to recognise the achievements of civic leaders and city planners in Freiburg, but also to spread the word about their approach to an international audience.

What is not so well known is that Martin Horn, the young and energetic politician, who was elected as Mayor of Freiburg in 2018, is stepping up the progressive ambition of Freiburg’s policy making.  For example, he is insisting that, as well as meeting very high environmental standards, over 50% of new housing in the city must be affordable. Yes, that’s 50%. 

Detailed plans for Dietenbach, a new eco-friendly neighbourhood for 15,000 people, deliver on this objective.  Submitted to Freiburg City Council last month, these plans also provide open space, schools, sports facilities, day-care centres and local shopping opportunities.  

Meanwhile, the imaginative Freiburg holds together (Freiburg halt zusammen) digital network bundles together numerous citizen-oriented information services and activities for residents struggling with COVID-19 pressures.

Freiburg is just one of the progressive cities featured in my book.  Other cities discussed include Bristol, Copenhagen, Dunedin, Mexico City and Portland.

Children enjoying outdoor space in Vauban, Freiburg, Germany. (Source: the author).

Lessons for UK policy, practice and research

Three lessons for UK policy, practice and research emerge. 

First, the government’s 2020 White Paper, Planning for the Future, needs to be discarded as quickly as possible.  It contains proposals that will not just destroy effective approaches to local planning but also weaken councillor and citizen involvement in local decision-making.[i]   

The evidence from Freiburg, and other enlightened cities, demonstrates that high quality urban development designed to address the climate emergency, provide housing opportunities for the less well off in society, and build liveable communities requires more planning, not less.[ii]

Second, councillors in Freiburg, like all those in Germany, have the constitutional protection to do what they think is right for the people living in their locality.  German local authorities have, then, the freedom to do things differently.  This is not the case in the UK and it is essential to rebalance power within our country via a constitutional convention.  Comparative research can help to make the case for giving local power a major boost.

Third, researchers studying how to create sustainable cities and localities need to give much more attention to power relations.  Advancing our understanding of what needs to be done to co-create liveable cities and towns is vital.  However, just as important, research needs to explore how to bring about progressive change in society. 

What is the power system that is leading to unsustainable urban development?  How can this power system be changed?  What lessons can we learn from cities that are already delivering sustainable development?  These are the kinds of questions that deserve more active consideration by researchers studying modern urban, rural and regional development.

Robin Hambleton is Emeritus Professor of City Leadership at the University of the West of England, Bristol.

Film of book launch

Robin Hambleton’s new book, Cities and communities beyond COVID-19, was published in October 2020.  The book launch, organised by the Bristol Festival of Ideas, includes contributions from Marvin Rees, Mayor of Bristol, who has written a Foreword to the book, and Professor Sheila Foster, University of Georgetown, Washington DC.  This discussion, which was chaired by Andrew Kelly, Director of the Bristol Festival of Ideas, is available here: https://www.ideasfestival.co.uk/events/cities-and-communities-beyond-covid-19/

References

[i] Hambleton R. (2020) ‘Strong place-based leadership is instrumental in the battle against COVID-19’ The Planner, 19 October.

[ii] The key suggestion here is that public policy needs to advance caring in modern society – meaning caring for others and caring for the natural environment on which we all depend.  See Hambleton R. (2020) ‘COVID-19 opens a new political window’, Town and Country Planning, November/December, 89, 11/12, 366-370.

Back to top