Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Liverpool University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Town Planning Review
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 01:48:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
TPR, 79 (6) 2008
Mark Tewdwr-Jones
Commentary
The complexity of planning reform: a search
for the spirit and purpose of planning
Planning in the UK has changed beyond all recognition over the last 20 years and has broadened out
from its regulatory core. It is now charged with coordinating the spatial aspects of a range of policy
agendas at the local and regional levels and providing a mediation forum for various interests that is
responsive to changing conditions. The reformed planning system reflects both continuities with and
radical departures from the past. Planning can no longer be understood as a single entity, but as turbulent,
fluid and adaptable processes. This paper charts the evolution of planning reform, and suggests that what
we have today are diverse activities of intervention, coordination and delivery that vary geographically
and politically. Planning has been strengthened, but within an increasingly complex and demanding
environment that only serve to question its purpose and activity
Over the last two decades at least, local government functions have diversified from
direct service provision to a much broader range of activities involving regulation,
leadership and enabling. Governments globally have promoted an agenda of state
infrastructure revitalisation, decentralisation and local responsiveness, cooperation
and partnership with civil society, together with social responsibility. The planning
reforms introduced since 2001 are set within this wider and fluid context. These
planning activities are not deterministic, but rather embrace flexibility and differ
ence; these qualities are strengths of planning, but can also serve as an ongoing uncer
tainty for planning's purpose. Change within planning is not new; planning in the
UK has endured in various guises since its modern statutory inception in the Town
and Country Planning Act 1947. Planning possessed an elevated status as a modern
forward-thinking and visionary discipline and practice in an era of the comprehen
sive redevelopment of cities during the period 1945-1970 (Reade, 1987), reflecting its
ideological status as part of modernity and social reform.
Over the years, planning has accommodated the agendas of divergent political
administrations as well as major shifts in the national and international economy
(Hall, 2002). By the 1980s, successive governments had politically reduced the profes
sional purpose and activity of planning to little more than an administrative exercise
dominated by neo-liberal agendas (Thornley, 1991), this in turn reflecting a new politics
and market primacy over planning. The Utopian ideals in the post-war period associ
ated with the professional experts' desire to create more beautiful places (Fishman,
1977) appeared increasingly archaic in the Thatcher era, as the purpose and status of
Mark Tewdwr-Jones is Professor of Spatial Planning and Governance* at the Bartlett School of Planning, University
College London, Wales House, 22 Gordon Street, London WCiH oQBjcmail: m.tewdwr-jones^ucl.ac.uk.
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 01:48:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
674 Mark Tewdwr-Jones
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 01:48:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Commentary 675
For those of us who have been within planning for some years, the scale of change in
planning during the maelstrom of reform can often seem bewildering. But, I contend,
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 01:48:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
676 Mark Tewdwr-Jones
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 01:48:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Commentary 677
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 01:48:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
678 Mark Tewdwr-Jones
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 01:48:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Commentary 679
eleventh hour contention over development proposals that often delayed planning
application determination.
The third term of the Labour government (2005 onwards) and the change i
Prime Minister from Blair to Brown in 2007 can be characterised by an increa
emphasis upon delivery. Housing affbrdability, economic competitiveness, energy
supply, infrastructure needs and climate change, set within a declining economy,
became the priority needs and underpinned proposals for yet further reforms. Thes
included the provision of three new planning-related Bills (the Planning Act 2008,
the Climate Change Act and, at the time of writing, the Local Democracy, Econom
Development and Construction Bill) and a range of secondary legislative and pol
changes that will change the landscape and practices of planning further over the
next 10 years.
The Government launched its Planning White Paper in May 2007 with the inten
tion of streamlining the planning system (DCLG, 2007). The period 2004-200
was characterised by a growing debate within and outside Government about t
economic impacts of land use planning, with debate becoming increasingly led and
shaped by the Treasury rather than the Department for Communities and Loc
Government. The Treasury had commissioned two major reports from Kate Barker
concerning housing and planning (Barker, 2004), and land use planning and economic
(Barker, 2006). The tone was somewhat familiar, with an assertion that planning wa
an impediment to economic growth, frustrated land release for housing developmen
and was inflexible.
Many aspects of the Barker reports provided balanced and reasoned accounts of
the problems, but some commentators identified an entrenched monetarist - almo
anti-planning - viewpoint behind the focus. The Royal Town Planning Institute, in
particular, attempted with some degree of success to debunk a few myths surround
planning. What was noticeable, however, was the lack of acknowledgement to t
array of local government and planning reforms that had recently been put in
place after 2000 and 2004. Indeed, one could be forgiven for assuming that two ver
different perspectives of planning now co-existed within Government: one concerne
a broader role for planning, with a reliance on strategic and local planning too
spatial planning, and enhanced public involvement methods; the other concerned a
focus on land use planning, land values and land release, and enhanced development
opportunities.
The subsequent proposals for planning to some extent reflected the two different
perspectives for planning. Ruth Kelly, the then Communities Secretary, characterise
the proposals of the 2007 White Paper as delivering 'a planning system fit for the
twenty-first century'. In the year of the 60th Anniversary of the Attlee Governmen
creation of modern planning, the 2007 reforms introduced radical changes to t
spirit, purpose and process of planning. The White Paper was translated into t
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 01:48:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
680 Mark Tewdwr-Jones
Planning Bill 2007, which was enacted a year later as the Planning Act in Novem
2008 and whose contents can be headlined as follows.
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 01:48:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Commentary 681
planned be pinned down and defined? And how different is it from previous forms
of planning?
The fact was that there was not simply one way of doing things, not just one sense of
action for the future, but a variety. A pluralist society implied that there are alternative
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 01:48:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
682 Mark Tewdwr-Jones
solutions to a particular problem and these depend on the different assumptions and
values held by the groups concerned, and the way that problem is perceived.
1 Interestingly enough, this list o?* objectives had to be derived from various statements contained on the Commu
nity and Local Government website, since there is no definitive overview o? planning's purpose; in one single
document at the present time.
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 01:48:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Commentary 683
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 01:48:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
684 Mark Tewdwr-Jones
and sub-regional models, an idea not that far away from the late 1960s attem
reorganise local government boundaries. These continuities and differences
setting out, and a summary of the differences and changes between the pos
world of planning, through the 1980s, to the process as it exists today are illu
in Table 1.
Much contention remains in academic and professional debate as to whether some
of the post-1997 characteristics are present or remain wishful thinking when compared
to changes actually occurring (or not) on the ground. However, the government does
possess clear expectations on planning today. Planning is increasingly complex, and
this suggests the need for a much more critical discussion about the distinctions and
tensions within planning as a governmental, public, private and participatory set of
processes. There needs to be a distinction between planning policy, planning regula
tion and spatial planning, on the one hand, and, on the other, the relationships, inter
locking and co-dependencies between European, national (UK-wide), national (four
countries), regional, sub/city-regional, and local levels of government and policy
making, each with its own planning level and discretionary judgement. A considerable
literature is already available on the varying forms and trajectories of UK planning,
where planning is:
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 01:48:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Commentary 685
Planning is now concerned with efficient and integrative planning decisions, and is
most effective when it utilises a range of tools and processes and harnesses actors and
resources to deliver outcomes. It remains a regulatory mechanism, but is also a fluid
supportive and facilitating process. It remains a function of the state and of the market,
intended to bring about sustainable development. Encompassing its democratic roots,
it operates in the interests of a range of public and private concerns, and is achieved
through negotiation and partnership. Above all, planning is concerned with managing
the externalities arising from taking sustainable development decisions. A variety of
activities may be labelled 'planning', and so we should not be obsessed about using
the planning label all the time to describe all these processes and styles. Planning has
indeed cast off its modern socialist era trappings and is a twenty-first century activity,
but equally it can never be static.
Planning has always had to face considerable challenges and difficulties in
addressing the problems of today and the burdens of tomorrow and has always been
adapted to meet those needs. The problems for planning today are how to resolve
problems within a complex environment on issues that are rarely discrete in nature.
The increased number of purposes of planning may stretch it to the point that it
deals with everything and solves nothing. Take the environment, for example: the
government provides planning policy guidance on issues such as flood risk and climate
change, but these are policy advisory tools and take their place alongside a range of
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 01:48:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
686 Mark Tewdwr-Jones
Conclusions
A renaissance of policy- and strategy-making in planning is occurring across the UK
and is being mirrored at the local level too in local planning processes and in commu
nity involvement, although, naturally enough, this optimism remains patchy at the
moment. Should people be concerned about whether this is called spatial planning,
good planning, or just integrative governance? The fact of the matter is that these
processes are occurring today in a fragmented and very diverse state. A final tension
in this landscape of planning and one to watch concerns the relationship between the
formal planning system (government policy making at all tiers and their associated
plans and strategies) and shadow or ad-hoc strategy and delivery bodies.
There is much evidence of governments being more than willing to parachute in
delivery mechanisms that stand outside elected tiers of government and indeed the
formal planning tools in order to provide expedited arrangements for change. The
Thames Gateway is one obvious example, but so were the new towns, the urban
development corporations, enterprise zones, urban regeneration companies, business
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 01:48:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Commentary 687
improvement districts, LSPs, and so on. These are set up with a specific purpose
and do not necessarily fall under the remit of taking into account national planning
policy (or, for that matter, in the interests of sustainable development), since, under the
planning legislation, they may not be technically 'planning bodies'. As a consequence,
since they are outside the system, there is a danger that they fail to address the broader
suite of policy issues that planning authorities are required to.
The spirit and purpose of planning is in danger of collapsing from its remark
able ability to transform itself and take on so many divergent policy expectations; it
is in danger of having too many bolt-ons added to its agenda caused by governments
not willing to provide strong direction for fear of upsetting political forces. This is
particularly evident in the context of the spatial planning agenda that is supposed to
be more about balancing and integrating competing agendas and policy, but is also
increasingly locally shaped. Places need to renew, to be economically buoyant, to be
efficient in transport networks and infrastructure, to be sustainable, to be secure, to
provide sufficient and quality housing, accessible to all, and to be above all exciting
places for people.
Planning has always been associated with making difficult choices between
competing demands on the land, but those choices - and more significantly the impli
cations of those choices - have escalated over the last 20 years, taking into account
democratic necessities, in addition to national, regional and local interests, economic,
environmental and social needs, infrastructure provision, protection of the best
landscapes, and the provision of new homes and sustained economic growth. It could
be argued that we have arrived at the present form of planning - integrating, negoti
ating, compromising between scores of vested interests and overlapping and contra
dictory policy expectations - directly as a result of 60 years of government and policy
steer and the planning system's ability to adapt to changing circumstances.
Facing so many directions simultaneously is a useful planning trick, but it is in
danger of undermining its own credibility. Sooner or later, priorities for action need
to be set. And this prioritisation process is bound to have implications for democratic
involvement in planning, for directions for change, and for levels of responsibility. The
questions of who decides in future, for what sort of planned future, within an agreed
and shared set of planning principles, are bound to become increasingly pertinent
ones.
References
allmendinger, P. (2006), 'Zoning by stealth? The diminution of discretionary planning', Inter
national Planning Studies, ii, 137?43.
barker, K. (2004), Review of Housing Supply ? Delivering sustainability: Securing our future housing needs,
London, HMSO.
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 01:48:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
688 Mark Tewdwr-Jones
barker, k. (2006), Barker Review of Land-Use Planning: Final Report - Recommendations, London,
HMSO.
BiANGiNi, M., GALLENT, N. and GREATBATGH, i. (20o6), 'The changing geography of subregional
planning in England', Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 24, 317-30.
BRINDLEY, t., RYDiN, y. and stoker, G. (1989), Remaking Planning, London, Unwin Hyman.
bruton, M. j. (ed.) (1974), The Spirit and Purpose of Planning, London, Hutchinson.
bruton, M. j. and Nicholson, d. j, (1987), Local Planning in Practice, London, Hutchinson.
Buchanan, g. D. (1972), The State of Britain, London, Faber & Faber.
cherry, g. e. (1974), 'The development of planning thought', in: Bruton (ed.), 66-84.
gross, D. T. and bristow, m. r. (eds) (1983), English Structure Planning: A Commentary on Procedures
and Practice in the Seventies, London, Pion.
dglg (department of COMMUNITIES and LOCAL government) (2007), Planning for a Sustainable
Future (Planning White Paper) (Cm 7120), London, DGLG.
detr (department of the environment, transport and the regions) (1998), Modernising
Planning: A Statement by the Minister for Planning, Regeneration and the Regions, London, DETR.
DTLR (DEPARTMENT FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS) (200l), Planning:
Delivery a Fundamental Change (Planning Green Paper), London, DTLGR.
eddington, sir rod (2006), Transport's Role in Sustaining the UK's Productivity and Competitiveness: The
Case for Action (The Eddington Transport Study: Main Report), London, HMSO.
FiSHMAN, R. (1977), Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century: Ebenezer Howard, Frank Lloyd Wright and
Le Corbusier, New York, Basic Books.
hall, P. (2002), Urban and Regional Planning, 4th edn, London, Routledge.
healey, p. (2007), Urban Complexify and Spatial Strategies: Towards a Relational Planningfor our Times.
London, Routledge.
healey, P., MGNAMARA, P., ELSON, M. and DOAK, a. (1988), Land Use Planning and the Mediation of
Urban Change, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, sir michael (2007), Place-shaping: A Shared Ambition for the Future of Local Government (The
Lyons Inquiry into Local Government: Final Report), London, TSO.
MCKiNSEY institute (1998), Driving Productivity and Growth in the UK Economy, London, McKinsey
Institute.
MORPHET, j. (2007), Modernising Local Government, London, Sage.
reade, E. (1987), British Town and Country Planning. Buckingham, Open University Press.
stern, sir Nicholas (2006), The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, London, HM
Treasury.
Tewdwr-Jones, M., gallent, N. and morphet, j. (2009), An anatomy of spatial planning:
coming to terms with the spatial element in UK planning', European Planning Studies, 18
(forthcoming).
thornley, a. (1991), Urban Planning Under Thatcherism, 2nd edn, London, Routledge.
urban task force (1999), Towards an Urban Renaissance, London, E & F N Spon.
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 01:48:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms