THE PLANNING POLITY The RTPI Library Series Editors: Cliff Hague, Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland Robin Boyle, Wayne State University, Michigan, USA Robert Upton, RTPI, London, England Published in conjunction with The Royal Town Planning Institute, this series of leading-edge texts looks at all aspects of spatial planning theory and practice from a comparative and international perspective. Planning in Postmodern Times Philip Allmendinger The Making of the European Spatial Development Perspective Andreas Faludi and Bas Waterhout Planning for Crime Prevention Richard Schneider and Ted Kitchen The Planning Polity Mark Tewdwr-Jones Shadows of Power Jean Hillier Forthcoming: Sustainability, Development and Spatial Planning in Europe Vincent Nadin, Caroline Brown and Stefanie Dühr Planning and Place Identity Cliff Hague and Paul Jenkins Public Values and Private Interests Heather Campbell and Robert Marshall Urban Planning and Cultural Identity William J.V. Neill THE PLANNING POLITY Planning, Government and the Policy Process MARK TEWDWR-JONES [l Routledge ~ ~ Taylor & Francis Group LONDON AND NEW YORK First published 2002 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2002 Mark Tewdwr-Jones Typeset in Akzidenz Grotesk by Wearset Ltd, Boldon, Tyne and Wear The Open Access version of this book, available at www.taylorfrancis.com, has been made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 license. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN 13: 978-0-415-28654-1 (hbk) ISBN 13: 978-0-415-28655-8 (pbk) CONTENTS List of Tables vii Preface ix Acknowledgements xv List of Abbreviations xix 01 Introduction 1 PART 1: POLITICAL IDEOLOGY, POLICY RELATIONS AND THE PLANNING PROCESS 23 02 A Theoretical Context of Planning Policy 25 03 The Politics of Planning Policy: The Major Era 40 04 The Politics of Planning Policy: The Blair Era 53 05 National, Regional and Local Planning Policy Relationships 83 PART 2: PLANNING POLICY CONFLICTS IN GOVERNMENT RELATIONS 107 06 National Consistency in the Planning Policy Process 109 07 Regional Certainty and Compatibility in the Planning Policy Process 122 08 Local Discretion in the Planning Policy Process 151 09 National Agendas and Planning Policy Variation: Wales vs. England 185 PART 3: DEVOLUTION, DISTINCTIVENESS AND PLANNING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 231 10 National Planning Policy and Devolution in Wales After 1999 233 11 Devolution and Planning Policy Development in Scotland After 1999 247 12 Planning Policy Within New Forms of Governance 265 13 Conclusions 283 References 297 Index 323 TABLES 1.1 Academic critiques of British planning 2 1.2 The principal state agencies of British planning; the planning polity 4 2.1 The micro-political and macro-political theoretical contexts discussed within the book 26 5.1 National planning policy in England 92 5.2 Regional planning policy in England 93 5.3 National planning policy in Scotland 94 5.4 National planning policy in Wales 95 6.1 Satisfaction with national planning policy 111 6.2 Adequacy of national planning policy 112 6.3 Perceptions towards the priorities of national planning policy 113 6.4 The scope for further national planning policy 114 6.5 The significance of central government intervention in local planning 115 6.6 The extent of central government intervention in local planning 116 6.7 Perceptions of the plan-led system for local planning 117 6.8 Detailed perceptions of the plan-led system 118 6.9 Adequacy of central government’s explanation of the plan-led system 119 6.10 Perceptions of policy priority in the event of conflict between national and local planning policies 120 7.1 Local plan procedure checklist used by government regional offices 129 7.2 The adequacy of existing regional planning arrangements 139 7.3 The effectiveness of existing regional planning guidance 140 7.4 Optimism expressed towards new devolved institutions in strengthening regional policy formulation 142 7.5 Perceptions towards the scope for increased accountability of regional economic development institutions 144 7.6 The scope for further fragmentation of the national approach to strategic policy formulation 146 8.1 Timing of West Dorset’s local plan research 158 viii Tables 8.2 Categorisation of comments and objections from central government to West Dorset on local plan 159 8.3 Total number of objections made by central government to West Dorset’s plan 161 8.4 Central government’s objections to West Dorset’s plan by category 162 9.1 Design comparison, England and Wales 206 9.2 Transport and Infrastructure comparison, England and Wales 207 9.3 Housing comparison, England and Wales 209 9.4 Conservation of the Natural and Built Environment comparison, England and Wales 211 9.5 The Coast comparison, England and Wales 212 9.6 Green Belts comparison, England and Wales 213 9.7 Economic Development comparison, England and Wales 215 9.8 Control of Outdoor Advertisements comparison, England and Wales 217 9.9 Tourism, Sport and Recreation comparison, England and Wales 218 9.10 Energy comparison, England and Wales 220 9.11 Waste Treatment and Disposal comparison, England and Wales 220 9.12 Land Reclamation, Unstable Land, Contaminated Land and Flood Risk comparison, England and Wales 221 9.13 Pollution comparison, England and Wales 223 9.14 National policy statements identified within Wales but not England 226 10.1 Possible issues for the Wales Spatial Plan 242 PREFACE As a student of planning in the mid- to late 1980s, I was fascinated by the way in which the political process shaped, manipulated and implemented spatial planning decisions. Within education, I had been taught that town and country planning was predominantly a scientific process, utilising technical expertise, professional values and rational judgement. I had long felt uneasy about these parameters. I knew that public sector planning occurred through the democratic process, and that there was a partnership between professional planners and elected political representa- tives. I also acknowledged that the public had reasonable rights of consultation within both plan-making and development control. But I was nevertheless intrigued, possibly even bewildered, by the extent to which politics impinged on planners’ work, and how planning affected the attitudes, behaviour and actions of political actors. As far as I could identify from my own observations of the town and country planning process, assisted by deep reading of the theoretical contributions that existed at this time, planning was actually in the crucible of a contested arena that involved the creation of winners and losers. On the one hand, planning seeks to involve and attract developers and prop- erty companies to specific areas of land that are suitable for development or rede- velopment. On the other hand, planning is also answerable to local people and seeks to involve the public in the policy- and decision-making aspects that form part of the determination, scrutiny and analytical processes within government. It did not seem feasible to me that these were mutually compatible exercises. Profes- sional planners, advising political actors of the ‘most appropriate’ form of action, would inevitably have to make judgements about right or wrong, environmental pro- tection and development, public versus private interests, the interests of local and strategic concerns, and so on. Although Patsy Healey is right in remarking that it is not helpful at all to look at the world in terms of dualisms, my educational – and later professional practice – experience only consolidated this perspective. Plan- ning, for me, equated to political choice, and it was not only within local environ- ments that these decisions had to be framed and resolved. I learned quickly that while a planner may resolve a contested matter locally, there was the added com- plication of taking on board the political preferences and planning stances of other tiers of government. Planning was therefore not only attempting to reconcile so many varying interests horizontally between local actors arguing over specific sites or policy proposals, it was also attempting to reconcile local versus regional and x Preface national interests. Associated with these two axes, there was a third dilemma: how to deliver varying economic, social and environmental sectoral (and ultimately polit- ical) objectives. Could the town and country planning system, as it had evolved in the UK in the decades after the post-war period, really be expected to deliver everything it was being asked to do? Planners were increasingly being told from varying quar- ters to deliver or facilitate economic growth, environmental protection, social and community justice, sustainable development, private sector developments, public consultation and participation, local political objectives, to make strategic and regional contributions, and to reflect national (and even European) interests. And planners were being encouraged to act as both judge and jury, encouraging the public to get involved locally in the planning system but reminded that they had a duty to approve development schemes where they could; the final decision on the small matter of in which direction to plump for, ultimately, would