BENVGPL5

Critically appraise the concept and principles of

spatial planning

Spatial Planning Essay

Candidate Number: STWD7

Introduction:

“What?” is the usual response when I tell people I’m studying spatial planning. The term,
which is also the title of my MSc degree course, is an insider concept familiar only to
those who have some relation to the planning profession.
“It’s planning jargon,” I reply. “A fancy way of talking about managing future land use.”

Initially I dismissed the term as merely the latest fashion, a new label in planning’s
technocratic parlance. I understood the idea: making planning ‘spatial’ meant it was
supposed to go beyond traditional land use planning to take into account economic,
social and environmental factors. But I was sceptical about how much difference it made
in practice.

This essay has forced me to critically examine my assumption.

The task is to provide an appraisal of the concepts and principles of spatial planning.
Like many academics before me, I start with the European Spatial Development
Perspective, considered the genesis of the term in the UK. I then look critically at how
academics, professional bodies and government departments in the UK understand
spatial planning.

Examining all the different interpretations is beyond the scope of this essay. I will
however attempt to tease out some general underlying principles and examine how
they have been adopted in one specific context: the 2004 National Planning Framework
for Scotland. To understand the impact of that document, I have compared the first and
second versions of the Glasgow City Plan, published before and after the first national
document.

Has my research changed my mind about spatial planning? I’ll leave the answer for the
conclusion.

ESDP

Analyses of spatial planning trace the British origins of the term to the ESDP. Legally,
because it was signed at a so-called “informal council” of ministers, the text is non-
binding. It is intended as “a framework for policy guidance”
(http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/regional_policy/management/g24401_en.ht
m).

EU countries have a habit of interpreting EU policy in ways that suit them and as the
ESDP was never intended to be a “masterplan” (Faludi&Waterhout 2002 pg1) it leaves
plenty room for different interpretations.

According to Cullingworth and Nadin (2006), it is “a generic term to describe all

planning systems” as well as being a “literal translation or close approximation to the
name of planning systems in other countries” (pg90). They also note it is often used as
“a synonym for land use of physical planning.” It was intended to be “a neutral umbrella
term which embraces all the varying national approaches to managing spatial
development but does not equate precisely to any one of them.” (Bishop et al. 1999
p312).

“The very idea of 'spatial planning', or even 'plan', will differ from one country or region
to another” (Shaw et al 1995 p390).

From a Brussels-based perspective, the ESDP is about giving a “geopolitical vision” to

European planning and the “conceptualization of European space” (Faludi&Waterhout
2002 pgx, 10). Britain may have adopted it for different reasons.

Spatial Planning in the UK

Two possible reasons present themselves why the UK – normally a reluctant European
with an aversion to EU territorial claims - might have signed onto the process. The first
is quite simply money. Certainly in Scotland, the government was aware that spatial
planning frameworks would “provide a context for resource allocation in an enlarged
EU” when the focus of structural funding was moving East (Scottish Government 2004
pg1).

A second reason was that in 1999 Britain devolved power to newly created or re-
established governments of Scotland and Wales, creating new spaces for decision
making or new arrangements for control over space.

The Royal Town Planning Institute notes (2003, pg328) that EU influence on UK
planning has been greatest at a local rather than a national level. In England, there was
never a national spatial plan but rather a single tier strategy called Regional Spatial
Strategies, now being abolished. Scotland took a different approach, introducing a
national plan to suit its new devolved status (Allmendinger, Haughton 2007 pg2-3).

Definitions

A 2007 study by UCL and Deloitte sought to address the problem that eight years after
the ESDP was adopted “there is little common understanding what this [spatial
planning] means in practice” (pg1). This was preventing spatial planning from being
effective, the report said. It therefore set out five principles for spatial planning: it
should be broad-ranging, visionary, integrating, deliverable, and participative (pg11).
None of these principles, however, help create a common vision. Take visionary for
example. The report defines it as opening “up planning to a range of participants” and
relating “processes of planning policy-making to notions of place.” Visionary, already a
rather nebulous concept, it is not.

The RTPI says that spatial planning is the “underlying discipline” which gives planners
“the right to claim professional status” (2003 pg1). That sounds serious, but then they
go on to classify spatial planning as “critical thinking about space and place as the basis
for action or intervention” which is one of the most imprecise definitions around. They
also note it “does not replace earlier concepts” but “develops them.” In other words,
spatial planning is the latest way of looking at planning.

Another aspect academics ascribe to spatial planning is the move away from ‘top-down’
prescription. Healey (2007 pg3) says that planning is “moving beyond an analysis of
spatial patterns of activities as organised in two-dimensional space" to take account of
the interplay of economic social and environmental factors.

But what does this mean in practice? Not much, according to some. “The reality of
spatial planning is that it is producing better quality paper plans whilst still delivering
poor quality physical development on the ground” (Haughton et al 2010 inside jacket).

Scotland

The 2004 National Planning Framework for Scotland has been criticised for being a
somewhat timid document (Haughton et al 2010 pg115), lacking concrete targets for
example over housing delivery. Defenders would claim it was only ever intended as a
“perspective, not a prescriptive masterplan or blueprint” (NPF foreword). It has now
been replaced with the 2009 NPF2, a harder-edged statutory document which, for
example, designates key strategic infrastructure projects as national developments.

The 2004 document is an analysis of the trends and challenges facing Scotland. It lists
three key aims for Scotland's spatial development to 2025: improved economic growth
and competitiveness; social and environmental justice; and sustainable development
(pg86). That mirrors the ESDP’s three goals of economic and social cohesion,
conservation, and more balanced competitiveness.

The EU influence can also be seen not only in references to EU structural funds, but also
to sustainability, the first item in the key issues and drivers for change section. The
maps are also interesting to examine. Transport links (pt34) stop at the English border,
although ferry services to elsewhere in Europe are marked. The external links map
(pt119) connects Scotland to Rome, Reykjavik and Stockholm, but bypasses England
completely. The Scottish government is perhaps “using the concepts and tools of spatial
planning as part of interpreting and writing about their territorial identities” (Haughton
et al 2010 pg51).

The EU fashion for polycentric developments – multiple city regions for which joined-up
planning makes sense – is recognised, although research has shown it doesn’t quite
work for Scotland’s two main cities, only 45 minutes apart by train. Bailey (2001) says
that although Edinburgh and Glasgow physically appear to be geographically
polycentric, they operate as more or less separate urban centres in terms of
connectivity. NPF says “viewing the two cities as complementary will benefit the Central
Belt and the Scottish economy as a whole” (pt147) although the city regions are
separate in its development strategy.

In terms of impact on Glasgow, it could be argued that with City Plan 1 (2003), Glasgow
was ahead of Scotland and as such NPF had little influence. For example, NPF mentions
waterfront regeneration in both Edinburgh and Glasgow, but thanks to the City Plan and
better joined-up policy making, the Glasgow scheme is much further ahead (Haughton
et al 2010 pp124-125).

Conclusion
Spatial planning, like many Brussels concepts, is a term designed to mean all things to
all people. As such, it is open to manipulation by policy-makers. Spatial planning
documents do appear to pay lip service to the EU policy guidelines of sustainability, for
example, but the impetus may come from the wider environmental movement rather
than because someone in Brussels coined the term. The link to EU regional funds is
significant enough to appeal particularly to smaller countries and academics (regional
policy accounts for 35 percent of the EU budget, or €348 billion over the period 2007-
2013) meaning the term is unlikely to die out. But in England at least, with a Eurosceptic
party the largest partner in government, spatial planning and its territorial (pro-EU,
pro-devolution) and anti-market connotations may get limited if any traction. That
won’t of course effect Scotland, where planning is a function that is entirely devolved.

As to whether I have changed my mind, I still think ‘spatial planning’ is a label although I
now attribute its lack of meaning to the fact that it means so many different things to
different people. I appreciate the effort behind it in the UK to encourage joined-up
government, forcing planners to think about broader issues of land management, such
as health and even happiness. And I recognise the desire to go from an aloof ‘this-
should-happen’ prescription method to a ‘let’s-see-how-we-can-involve-people-and-
encourage-them-to-make-good-things-happen’ approach. However I think a more
effective method of trying to improve the planning system would be to stop worrying
about what it is called, and start focussing on actual results.

Word count: 1579

.
References consulted

1. Adams N, Alden J, Harris N (2006), “Regional development and spatial planning

in an enlarged European Union Aldershot, Hants, England
2. Allmendinger, P. (2002), “Planning under a Scottish Parliament: A missed
opportunity?”, European Planning Studies 10(6): 793-98.
3. Allmendinger P, Haughton G, 2007, "The fluid scales and scope of UK spatial
planning" Environment and Planning A 39(6) 1478 – 1496
4. Allmendinger, P and Tewdwr-Jones, M (2000) Spatial dimensions and
institutional uncertainties of planning and the 'new regionalism'. Environment
Planning C 18 (6) , 711 – 726
5. Bailey N and Turok I (2001), Central Scotland as a Polycentric Urban Region:
Useful Planning Concept or Chimera?,” Urban Studies 38, no. 4: 697 -715
6. Batchler, J. and Turok, I. (eds.) (1997), The Coherence of EU Regional Policy,
Jessica Kingsley Publishing, London.
7. Bishop, K., Tewdwr-Jones, M. and Wilkinson, D. (1999), "From spatial to local:
The impact of the EU on local authority planning in Britain", Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management
8. Boddy M, Parkinson M (2004), City matters: competitiveness, cohesion and
urban governance. Bristol The Policy Press
9. Bodoni S (2010) Google Street View Shows Need for New Privacy Rule, Reding
Says Bloomberg Nov 30. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-
30/google-street-view-shows-need-for-new-privacy-rule-reding-says.html.
[Accessed Dec 14 2010]
10. Collinge C (1996), Spatial articulation of the state: reworking social relations and
social regulation theory,” Birmingham: Centre for Urban and Regional Studies.
11. Committee on Spatial Development (1999), European Spatial Development
Perspective, Final Conclusions issued by the German Presidency at the close of
the Informal Council of EU Ministers responsible for Spatial Planning held in
Potsdam on 10-11 May 1999.
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/reports/pdf/conc
l_en.pdf [Accessed Nov 5 2010]
12. Cullingworth B and Nadin V (2006) Town and Country Planning in the UK,
London Routledge
13. DATAR
http://www.datar.gouv.fr/fr_1/datar_partenaires_44/datar_241/missions_2789.
html [Accessed Dec 5 2010]
14. ESPON website http://www.espon.eu/ [Accessed Dec 5 2010]
15. ESPON 2010 First EPSON 2013 Synthesis Report, European Union, Luxembourg.
16. Europa website on ESDP
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/regional_policy/management/g24401_
en.htm [Accessed Dec 5 2010]
17. Europa website on Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund
18. http://europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/structural_cohesion_fund_en.htm
[Accessed Dec 16 2010]
19. European Commission (1997) The EU compendium of spatial planning systems
and policies: Luxembourg Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities Associates.
20. Foresight Land Use Futures Project (2010)Executive Summary.The Government
Office for Science, London.
http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/bispartners/foresight/docs/land-
use/luf_report/8614-bis-land_use_futures_exec_summ-web.pdf [Accessed Nov
10 2010]
21. Faludi A (2008), The learning machine: European integration in the planning
mirror, Environment and Planning A 40, no. 6, Environment and Planning A
(2008): 1470-1484.
22. Faludi, A. and Waterhout, B. (2002), The Making of the European Spatial
Development Perspective, Routledge, London
23. Glasgow City Plan 1 (2003)
24. Glasgow City Plan 2 (2009) http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/en/Business/CityPlan/
[last accessedDec 17 2010]
25. Hall, P. anmd Pain, K. (2006), The Polycentric Metropolis, Earthscan, London.
[Accessed Dec 7 2010]
26. Hall P (2007), Cities of tomorrow: an intellectual history of urban planning and
design in the twentieth century (Wiley-Blackwell).
27. Haughton G, Allmendinger P, and Counsell D (2009), The New Spatial Planning
Oxon Taylor & Francis.
28. Healey, P. (2007), Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies, Routledge, London
29. INTERREG IVC website,http://i4c.eu/.[Accessed Dec 5 2010]
30. Izzard E (1998) Dress To Kill [DVD]
31. Keating, M. (1997), “The invention of regions: political restructuring and
territorial government in Western Europe”, Environment and Planning C:
Government and Policy 15: 383-98.
32. Marshall T (2010) Scotland working paper, part of ESRC research fellowship on
Infrastructure and Spatial Planning. Published online at
http://www.brookes.ac.uk/schools/be/about/planning/projects/tmarshall.html
[Accessed Dec 15 2010]
33. ODPM (2005), PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development, Stationery Office,
London.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/plannin
gpolicystatement1.pdf. [Accessed Nov 10 2010]
34. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2006), Competitive
cities in the global economy, OECD Publishing, Paris.
35. Purves G (2006) 'Quality and Connectivity: The Continuing Tradition of Strategic
Spatial Planning in Scotland' in Adams, N., Alden, J. & Harris, N (2006), Regional
Development and Spatial Planning in an Enlarged European Union, Ashgate, pp.
107 - 127.
36. Purves G (2010) Delivering territorial Cohesion through the National Planning
Framework. Address to the ECTP Conference, Edinburgh, 21 May 2010
37. RTPI (2003) Education Commission Final Report
http://www.rtpi.org.uk/download/236/Education-Commission-Final-
Report.pdf. [Accessed Dec 5 2010]
38. RTPI (2007) Shaping and Delivering Tomorrow's Places: Effective Practice in
Spatial Planning - Report, Findings and Recommendations,
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/shapingdel
ivering. [Accessed Dec 6 2010]
39. RTPI Scotland (2010) Issue 137 Scottish-Planner Oct 2010
 http://www.rtpi.org.uk/download/10302/Issue-137-101022-Scottish-Planner-
Oct-2010-e-version-final.pdf [Accessed Dec 5 2010]
40. Scottish Government (2004) National Planning Framework for Scotland,
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/04/19170/35317 [Accessed
Dec 11 2010]
41. Shaw, D, Nadin, V and Westlake, T (1995) 'The compendium of European spatial
planning systems', European Planning Studies, 3: 3, 390 — 395
42. Smith N (1996), The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City,.
London, Routledge.
43. Swain C (2010) Improving Spatial Awareness in policy-making. In Town &
County Planning November 2010. Pg481-485
44. Tewdwr-Jones, M. and Allmendinger, P. (eds), (2006), Territory, Identity and
Spatial Planning, Routledge, London.
45. Tewdwr-Jones, M (2004) Spatial planning: principles, practices and cultures,
Journal of Planning & Environment Law 55 (5)
46. Tewdwr-Jones, M (2001) Grasping the Thistle: The Search for Distinctiveness in
the Devolved Scottish Planning System, International Planning Studies 6, no. 2 (5,
2001)