Just
yesterday, the Town & Country Planning Association (TCPA) of England
released a review of the English planning system, called "Planning 2020". The review
process was guided by the President of the TCPA, the former UK Minister of
Housing Nick Raynsford, and was supported by a Review Task Force
composed of professionals, representatives of related associations, and academics.
The review gives an excellent overview of the current state of the English
planning system, which was discussed against the background of its basic
commitment to co-ordinate land use decisions in a way that provides better
(sustainable) places for people. Over a total of 128 pages, the review
demonstrates how this commitment has become difficult to achieve, for reasons
that were situated both within the planning system and beyond, in framed in increasingly
difficult conditions, and embedded in messy politics.
Even
though the review assesses spatial planning in the rather specific English
context, readers can nevertheless learn about the current state of planning in places
characterised by deindustrialisation and rising services and tech economies,
resulting in uneven development (pressure of growth here, and emptiness there),
environmental degradation, a palate of mobility issues, and institutional
inertia and blockades. In the light of such developments, planning is not only
facing complexities of all sorts, but is also confronting massive lobbying and
political pressure from processes of deregulation and neoliberalisation that
has made planning officers appear as the "enemies of enterprises"
(according to the former UK Prime Minister David Cameron, who is quoted by the
report).
So,
while the report is rather specific as to the overly centralised (and massively
contested) political and institutional system of England, the review brings
together some striking assessments concerning how healthy (or unhealthy)
planning ought to be considered in more general terms. It is thus an exciting
read, and actually a "must read" for anybody interested in spatial
planning. For this purpose, the eight different sections of the report can also
be read separately, and the same applies to the background papers that are provided on TCPA's website as well. There is a lot to learn from this, and to reflect upon: the
fundamentals of planning (what is planning, and why should we care about it?);
the institutional background and its evolution (why do we have a planning
system? what went wrong with planning?); and, the kinds of recommendations that might make the planning system
more effective.
I have
already recommended this piece to the students of my planning class, as I
believe that it is definitely worth taking into account. One might wish such an
informed, fair and independent review
of planning systems and practices could also be undertaken in other countries, such
as some of those on the European Continent. (Any idea which one comes to my mind
first?).
Markus Hesse
No comments:
Post a Comment