What a waste of space: Can spatial planning add value to managing the environmental change agenda?

Dr Alister Scott

Propositions

1. Institutional silos and past divides are hindering effective management of the natural environment

2. Current policy and academic reliance on the ecosystems approach are questionable.

3. Spatial planning has a contribution to managing environmental change

Talk outline:

1. The planning: environment divides

2. Critical review of spatial planning theory and practice a. Planning peatlands

(IUCN)b. Rural urban fringe

(RELU)

3. A way forward: Adapting spatial planning practice

4. Reflections : reconnecting the divides; interdisciplinary work and social learning.

Planning and Environment: LURNing from past divides

• Fragmented environmental governance– Urban vs Rural (Curry, 1994; 2008)– Landscape vs Nature Conservation (MacEwen +MacEwen

1982 • Institutional/professional separation: – Nature Conservancy vs National Parks Commission– DEFRA vs CLG – Academic

• Separate paradigms to guide theory and practice • Limited communication and understanding across the

divides

Planning views of the RUF?

• Misunderstood space (Gallent et al 2006)

• A transition phase/edge which is largely placeless? (Qvistrom, 2005)

• Metaphor of the fringe as a ‘weed’ (Cresswell 1997)

• Battleground between urban and rural uses (Hough, 1990)

• “Landscape out of order” (Qvistrom 2007)

Planning views of peatlands • Misunderstood place• Protected space: strong policies

of restraint (Curry 1994) • Vulnerable spaces for recreation

and tourism (Scott 1998) • Spaces requiring EU

‘appropriate assessments’ outside boundaries (Cannock Chase District Council 2010)

• BUT potential resource for infrastructure

• Landscape out of mind: limited planner education

Spatial planning unplugged (Biesbroke et al 2009)

Spatial Planning theory

• As an active/driver agent of societal, economic and environmental change

(Albrechts 2004; Harris and Hooper, 2004; Tewdwr- Jones et al , 2010; Vigar, 2009).– From place to interactions and flows – From urban/rural to whole system

interdependencies – From control/restraint of place to

planning opportunity spaces – From top down to inclusive and

participatory planning

Key ‘problem’ areas in SP practice

“The spatial planning project has failed” (Scott, 2010)“Theory practice disjuncture” (Scott et al, 2009) • Uncertainty • Proactivity • Long Termism • Integration • Governance • Evidence • Transparency

Uncertainty

• Planning for uncertain futures

• Adaptive management • Role of learning from

doing• Role of SEA : alternative

approaches • Role of experiments and

exemplars and pilots

Proactivity FROM• Policies of environmental

constraint unless economic and social considerations override

• Development control as reactionary

• Limited public involvement• Vulnerability of non designated

space • Lack of positive management

/planning(Allemendinger and Haughton,

2009)

TO • Enable • Visions • Facilitate • Collaborate • Opportunity spaces

Long termism • Why cant planning embrace

100 year periods (Low 2002)• Environmental system

rooted in long term processes

• Planning system legally rooted in short term (eg EA)

• Forsinard Reserve – Peatland restoration

projects 1994-2006 LIFE – Strategy 2005-2015

• Birmingham Big City Plan– 50 year vision

Integration

Spatial Planning • it is the desire for

horizontal integration of public policy that has largely driven the concept of spatial planning in the UK

(Harris and Hooper, 2004).

BUT • Institutional myopia and

sovereignty• Sectoral thinking • Comfort zones • Partnerships and power

imbalances (Keating and Stevenson,

2006)

Governance: making connections

• Regulatory framework and legislation at international, national and regional and neighborhood levels

• Transparent and open processes for decision-making, and should be based on scientific knowledge.

• Voluntary mechanisms, for example, funds, certification, payments

BUT

• Too many actors .......• Lengthening timescales• Lowest Common

denominator approaches

• Stifles innovation (congested state; Stoker 2002) + risk taking

• Plethora of non statutory plans

Evidence • Planning on Presumption

(Curry and Pack, 1992)• SEA and LDF requirements;

questions of quality • void between ecological

knowledge and spatial planning Opdam et al 2002)

• Kettunen et al, (2007) more attention to the ecosystem wholeness of areas and aspects of ecological connectivity.

• Need to use more perceptual/value laden data

Adapted ideas for RUF and Peat

• Concept of betterment and compensation • Linking ideas of visitor payback, community infrastructure

levy and habitat banking into ONE planning process.– Role of voluntary partnerships to support environmental projects– Link with business, visitors, environment and local communities – Provide a strategic reserve for funding needed activities.

• Joint community understanding and prioritisation of needs (community strategies and parish plans)

• Separation of planning development from payback type investments (eg limits of S106) .

Spatial Planning (CLG) MUST connect with Ecosystem Services (Defra)

• Two paradigms of space management• Soup bowl not a salad bowl • Interdisciplinary opportunity spaces

Spatial Planning lens ?

• “The fringe is not just the place where town meets country but a collection of dynamic and productive environments set in inspiring cultural landscapes, meeting the needs of both the present and helping to change the way we live in the future”.

• Spedding 2004:1

Spatial planning lens

• “Peatlands are a collection of dynamic and productive environments set in inspiring cultural landscapes, meeting the needs of both the present and helping to change the way we live in the future”.

• Spedding 2004:1 adapted

• Evans et al 2010

Cannock Chase to Sutton Park

Legend

Cannock Chase AONB

Former extent of heathland - Yates's 1775Lowland Heathland Inventory Sites

Heatland SSSIs

The Chase To Sutton Park Area

• Formerly extensive area of heathland - 86% loss in last 200 years

• Landscape shaped by extraction, manufacturing industries and agriculture

• Landscape scale : remote rural → urban fringe → urban

Core areas• Cannock Chase SSSI & SAC

– AONB: 1.5 million visitors annually• Chasewater Heaths

– 250,000+ visitors annually• Sutton Park SSSI s35 NNR

– 2.5 million visitors annually

Cannock Chase to Sutton Park Project• 4 years under development • Regional pilot to develop

policy implementation and to provide demonstrations of good practice

• Partnership between Natural England, Staffordshire County Council and Lichfield District Council

• Stakeholder Workshops - support for project objectives and development path

• Decision rules (toolkit) for habitat creation developed

• Shaping LDF policies through Local Planning Authority consultations

Critical Reflections • Interdisciplinary

research/practice as new lens• Promoting exchange and doing

joint working across all boundaries

• Role of key individuals and buy in

• Integrated packages linking people place environment and interactions

• Learning from past and present practice to inform theory

• Landscapes out of our order