Direkt zum Inhalt

UK-German Perspectives on Integrated Spatial Strategies

Joint RTPI-ARL Workshop, Hanover, 28th October 2011


Click on highlighted names in this report to download each presentation.

Bernhard Heinrichs, President of ARL, welcomed participants from the United Kingdom and Germany and participants introduced themselves. Richard Summers, President of RTPI, acknowledged the importance of sharing experience of principles and practice in integrated spatial planning in the United Kingdom and Germany, noting that European nations could learn from each other.


The role of planners in challenging times

Richard Summers’ presentation opened with recognition that we live in times of economic recession, social inequality and climate change. Cuts in public expenditure were already a significant problem, but spatial planning could play a role in overcoming the problem. Planners needed to find truly sustainable ways of guiding urbanisation, tackling poverty and inequality and reducing carbon emissions.

Richard Summers argued that it was not just planners who worked on spatial planning in pursuit of these goals. Increasingly, planners strive to involve the local community, business, and politicians with the aim of giving equality ‘round the table’ to ensure that there was wide approval for the plan resulting in ‘buy-in’ and willing co-operation. Integrated spatial strategies were vital to the process of achieving the shared goals and at the regional level they could foster sustainable development. Richard Summers noted that regional strategic planning was disappearing in England but survived elsewhere in the United Kingdom. In contrast the regional approach to integrated planning was strong in Germany and in other European countries as would be demonstrated later in the session. At the same time, Richard Summers noted, the shift from ‘land use’ to ‘spatial planning’ was evident in the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act; the planning system was being further modified to reduce perceived obstacles to economic growth in the recession.


Political relevance of strategic planning

The next speaker, Katharina Erdmenger, Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development, described the political relevance of strategic planning with regard to the coordination of European and member state politics. Spatial development should not be considered by each European country individually. Europe was to be a common space, so there should be common goals.

The short EU policy paper ‘Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020’, adopted in 2007, offers recommendations for integrated spatial development. The major intention is to mobilise the potential of European regions and cities for sustainable economic growth and creation of additional jobs. The agenda lists territorial priorities for the development of the European Union:

  • Promote polycentric and balanced territorial development,
  • Encourage integrated development in cities, rural and specific regions,
  • Bring about territorial integration in cross-border and transnational functional regions,
  • Ensure global competitiveness of the regions based on strong local economies,
  • Improve territorial connectivity for individuals, communities and enterprises,
  • Manage and connect ecological, landscape and cultural values of regions.

Reaching territorial cohesion is one of the major goals of the European Union, and the guidelines set out in the policy paper are intended to help achieve this. For this, a continuous process of Member State cooperation is needed, for example via meetings of National Territorial Cohesion Contact Points (NTCCP), meetings of Directors-General and Informal Ministerial Meetings. Katharina Erdmenger observed that the process of reaching goals should be done in an integrated way, considering as many sectoral policies as possible. Additionally, in her view, cohesion policy could be a template for other sectoral policies.

Spatial planning in the United Kingdom – then and now

Kelvin MacDonald, visiting professor at the University of Cambridge, gave an overview of the history of integrated strategic planning and presented the new English strategic system. He began by explaining the beginning of the town planning in the United Kingdom and Ireland and focused then on the 20th Century development of planning. At the turn of the 20th century, strategic thinking had already begun with Ebenezer Howard. His intention was to create ‘Garden Cities’ as a response to miserable housing and living conditions as well as rising land values in large cities. One feature of this kind of city was supposed to be spatial separation of habitation and employment, meaning that differing uses should be separated from each other by green belts. Examples are Letchworth Garden City (founded in 1903, first garden city in United Kingdom) and Welwyn Garden City (founded in 1920) and suburban garden cities north of London. Moreover, Hellerau Garden City, a district in the city of Dresden, was founded in 1909 as the first garden city in Germany. The Barlow Report of the Royal Commission on the Distribution of Industrial Population (1940) advised that most of the population of Great Britain should not be concentrated within the area twenty to thirty miles from central London.

More recently regional spatial strategies (RSS) had been adopted, e.g. ‘The North East of England Plan’, ‘North West of England Plan’, ‘Regional Spatial Strategies for the West Midlands’ and ‘The South East Plan’ but  the current Coalition Government elected in May 2010 announced the abolition of RSS and their associated bodies. Regional spatial strategies were to be abolished rapidly and decision-making powers on housing and planning returned to the local authorities. Communities and Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles said that the central government planning system and spatial strategies had failed, because they were too expensive and too time-consuming. Government Offices for the Regions would close by the end of March 2011. Finally, the government proposed to introduce further sweeping amendments to the planning system. Kelvin MacDonald emphasised that the peremptory abolition of regional spatial strategies would create a hiatus in the planning framework and lead to damaging inertia. He then described the new strategic planning system in England, which includes:

  • National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
  • Duty to co-operate
  • Local Enterprise Partnerships
  • Regional Growth Funds
  • Community Infrastructure Levy
  • The ‘New Homes Bonus’.


As an example, Kelvin MacDonald highlighted one statement of the Communities and local Government Committee, which states that:

‘The Community Infrastructure Levy allows local authorities to choose to charge a levy on new development in their area in order to raise funds to meet the associated demands placed on the area and to enable growth. The money raised must be used to provide infrastructure to support the development of the area, for example by providing new roads and local amenities such as a park’. 

He then set this in the context of other strategic spatial programmes of the European Union and the United Kingdom:

  • The EU Lisbon Treaty
  • EU Regional Development Aid
  • UK land use policy
  • UK infrastructure
  • UK government spending.


Kelvin MacDonald finished his presentation with statistics of public expenditures in 2009/2010 and noted that some regions in England will profit less from public expenditure per head than London. The huge investment in the London area could be explained with the Olympic Games will take place in London in 2012. The following discussion concentrated on the question as to what extent the government influences that the work of the RTPI. Kelvin MacDonald explained that the RTPI was able to show independence from the Government (despite receiving government support for its Planning Aid Service) and had done so recently so successfully that the Daily Telegraph (one of the four main UK national newspapers) was campaigning for spatial planning. Katharina Erdmenger emphasised the importance of the spatial aspect of sectoral policies, adding: ‘Spatial planning is important, for example, sustainable energy use energy change is a spatial thing, too’. We will need more planning, not less, she said.


Presentation of the model of Region Hannover

Axel Priebs, deputy chief executive of Region Hannover, presented the project and idea of Region Hannover, founded in 2001. The Region Hannover combines Hanover as the core city and its 21 surrounding municipalities. After giving an introduction to the establishment of the Region, Axel Priebs presented an overview of the duties of the Region Hannover:

  • business and employment promotion
  • regional planning and regional development
  • public transport and regional highways
  • recreation areas and the zoo
  • vocational schools
  • public health services and hospitals
  • nature conservation and environmental protection
  • waste management
  • youth and social welfare
  • public safety.


He identified a group of companies which cooperate with the Region Hannover and assist in the performance of the institution, e.g. public transport organisations, climate protection agency, business development agency.

In addition, Axel Priebs referred to the planning guidelines and visions of the Greater Hanover Association which – since 1965 – have covered not just physical planning, but also fostering regional development. Since the 1960s, industrial sites have been developed, recreation areas improved and public transport coordinated. Beyond that, regional planning guidelines have been created and finally the first regional plan was finished in 1967. ‘Unity of housing and transport’ has been one of the primary strategies.

Before the Region Hannover was founded in 2001, there would have been a political and administrative division between core city and surrounding municipalities. However, the Greater Hannover Association (KGH) was a common institution. Axel Priebs noted that this Association had tackled four important tasks until 2001: planning; public transport; economic development and recreation; and played a leading role in doing the groundwork for the new ‘Region Hannover’ between 1996 and 2001. Additionally, he listed new explored opportunities since 2001 with new emphasis on integrated political and administrative approaches and extension to a wide range of duties and competences.

One of the first major tasks for Region Hannover was to develop a regional plan (Regionales Raumordnungsprogramm, RROP), completed in 2005. Its guiding principles included setting goals and priorities such as integration of housing and transport; protection of natural resources and open spaces; and the shaping of ‘metropolitan region Hannover-Braunschweig-Göttingen’ had been included into the plan which will be revised in 2016. Axel Priebs added that the creation of the regional plan includes the collection of achievable goals and the consideration (by the planners) of new policies which will guide the regional plan.

Axel Priebs then briefly described the role of regional planning in the German planning system. The countermovement principle (Gegenstromprinzip) is fundamental to German planning, requiring regional policies to be in accordance with the national planning policies (Landes-Raumordnungspläne) and vice versa. He then outlined  the strategic themes of Region Hannover’s regional planning, notably the principle of ‘decentralised concentration’, aiming for a strong core city with strong cities in the surrounding areas as well as promoting climate protection and the use of sustainable energy technologies. In addition, a regional plan could set priority areas for housing and industrial areas and areas for recreation. Flood protection was also included in regional planning.

Finally, Axel Priebs assessed regional planning in Region Hannover. It was well established and had successfully connected topics like housing and public transport development. But other issues could have been resolved better, he said: until recently there had not been regular monitoring; some links between regional planning and local policies were absent; and planning had been more physical than strategic.

In discussion Evelyn Gustedt, ARL Headquarters Hannover, observed that planners are entrusted with tasks which call for integrity. Therefore, planners should start by thinking: ‘What do we want?’ and then ‘How do we achieve that?’ They must then set out the course of action to stakeholders. It has the potential to be a stimulating exchange leading to the best possible solution. Planners can gain information about local character from other stakeholders such as local residents: vital in the creation of a sense of space and place, in turn essential for good planning.

The UK guests were clearly intrigued by ‘Region Hannover’. However, as Bernhard Heinrichs pointed out, this kind of exemplary regional planning exists only in Hannover and Stuttgart. Axel Priebs added that ‘Region Hannover’ lies within Niedersachsen (Lower Saxony), one of the 16 federal Counties (Länder) of Germany. Planners need to align the regional with the national planning in Germany, Axel Priebs explained. In addition, the municipal level plays an important role in the planning system. Each County may organise its planning differently and the territorial units of spatial plans are not uniform across the Country.


Spatial Strategy: Cork Area Strategic Plan (CASP)

David Counsell, University College Cork, presented the spatial strategy of the Cork Area Strategic Plan (CASP) as a case study from Ireland. He noted that planners in Ireland and the United Kingdom were particularly interested in the emergence of informal scales of planning, which are termed soft spaces which often have fuzzy boundaries. Examples of soft spaces include:

  • mega-regions
  • sub-regions
  • city-regions
  • cross border regions
  • areas of growth.


If planners work in this way, the real geographies of problems and opportunities will be better reflected, because human activity does not stop at artificial boundaries. David Counsell reported that in Wales the Assembly Government had defined its planning sub-areas with fuzzy boundaries though over time these are becoming more defined.

David Counsell then presented on the CASP in more detail, which is a non-statutory plan for the Cork City Region (area within a radius of 45-minute drive from the centre) and was agreed in 2001 (revised 2008) based on the work of a joint committee of Cork City and Cork County Councils. Key proposals of CASP included compact high-density development in the city focusing on Docklands and rebalancing growth to the North and East. CASP had been influential in policy terms, despite being a non-statutory plan. The plan has had an impact on the National Spatial Strategy of Ireland, the Regional Planning Guidelines for the South West Region and the basic policy framework for the County and City development plans. He added that it was widely acknowledged by the Irish Government as a model for integrated spatial planning at the city-region scale. That said, David Counsell noted that the implementation of spatial strategies remained vexed.

Additionally, he emphasised that the CASP strategy is not currently being fully achieved, as proposed in the 2008 revision. Too much growth had been permitted outside the metropolitan area, notably in surrounding rural areas. Growth should have been concentrated within the city (Docklands) and along the rail corridor. As a consequence, the city has continued to decline.

In David Counsell’s assessment, the City and County could reach consensus at a strategic visionary level. But if it is more detailed, decisions will be sometimes at odds with this, so more formalised institutional arrangements might be needed for city-regions. Moreover, the joint City-County committee lacked authority.

Finally, he noted again that reliance on informal scales of planning is growing. There would not be one single new model, but rather a series of experiments about how planning operates within constantly evolving governance systems for place-making at all scales. But this experimentation would be held back by recession and changes in the political landscape.

In the following discussion, there was wide acceptance of David Counsell’s thesis that boundaries are fuzzy and soft. Dirk Vallée held the view that such boundaries were only to be found in the abstract – not in the minds of the people who would mostly think only in terms of administrative boundaries. It would be necessary to reconsider what kind of thinking is adequate for each region or local level.


Changes in planning – strategic regional planning becomes more important

Dirk Vallée, Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen, then presented an overview of the changes in spatial planning, which had replaced traditional regional planning and made strategic regional planning necessary in the light of increasing diversity and a rise in the number of stakeholders in spatial planning. Communication and public dialogue would be needed to bring about better acceptance of implementation so that balanced and sustainable concepts were not blocked by individual interests and actions. Moderation in planning should become more important. As an example, Dirk Vallée mentioned the project ‘Stuttgart 21’, where people want to be involved in the planning process, noting the rise of the ‘Wutbürger’ (angry citizen) in this context. He foresaw an possible increase in direct democratic legitimation in future, implemented as part of the planning process, which Dirk Vallée described in the future-model for ‘strategic regional planning and development‘ in his presentation. Furthermore, regional economic development would play a larger role, which would sometimes win out over environmental and social issues. Balance and protection would be necessary but the goals of economic development should be achieved with the aid of strategic partnerships and networks. Additionally, spatial planning should be updated; readjusted and monitoring, e.g. SWOT-analyses. Integrated, coordinated and process oriented steering of development will eventually result in guiding principles, action concepts and development goals. Dirk Vallée described the basis of strategic regional planning in binding rules and guiding boards for housing as well as technical and social infrastructure. In addition, safeguarding the environment and quality of leisure would be necessary. He added that implementation projects are needed and that conflicts can be attenuate by combination of regulation, incentives and balancing elements (e.g. area pools, financial transfers, regional self-funding, etc.).

Some of these aspects are not fully integrated in traditional regional planning but will come about through strategic regional planning as demonstrated by Dirk Vallée in his presentation.

Finally, he briefly presented case-studies from Germany and abroad notable for their particular approaches. One case study demonstrated a combination of firm rules and flexible guidance with financial incentives for infrastructure investment. The study also involved traditional planning tools in development areas for housing, open-space and infrastructure with a strong focus on projects and master-plans. A Stockholm case-study in particular included broad visions, goals and strategies, consultation with formal and informal organisations and opportunities for voluntary cooperation alongside formal participation and active involvement of stakeholders. Financial incentives and support were offered to stakeholders and investors in the event of their support and cooperation. In addition, in some cases, concepts were part of structural plans or binding regional plans.

In the ensuing discussion Kelvin MacDonald emphasized the role of the planner in linking spatial plans with implementation.  Partnerships could be helpful, but there would be several ways to achieve this. For Dirk Vallée, mediation was the key to implementation: planners must mediate and find a way through to implementation. As many stakeholders as possible should be involved and projects needed ‘faces’ to get strategic regional plans implemented. An important aspect will be to appoint a manager who is qualified for the job. Evelyn Gustedt drew participants’ attention to the successful ‘Baltic Climate’ project while noting that not everyone can be the manager on the same job!

Glasgow and the Clyde Valley City-Region: An institutional capacity approach to integration

Grahame Buchan, Glasgow & Clyde Valley Strategic Development Planning Authority, referred first to the spatial planning system in Scotland and then to an institutional capacity approach to integration in the city-region of Glasgow and the Clyde Valley. The context was a highly centralised Scottish Government with a high level of organisational fragmentation. Local government, which comprises 32 municipalities, would not have a big stake. Moreover, there is no regional or metropolitan level. Grahame Buchan emphasised that no ‘ring-master’ of integration exists and considered whether integrated spatial development planning could be a default ‘ring-master’ role.

Next Grahame Buchan described the national planning framework in Scotland and set out the basis of strategic development planning for the eight municipalities making up the ‘Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Strategic Development Planning Authority’ (GCVSDPA):

  • East Dunbartonshire
  • East Renfrewshire
  • Glasgow City
  • Inverclyde
  • North Lanarkshire
  • Renfrewshire
  • South Lanarkshire
  • West Dunbartonshire.


The major task for the GVCSDPA was to create and maintain an up-to-date strategic development plan for the area.  He looked next at the institutional capacity for integration in the Glasgow and Clyde Valley city-region. It was noted that equality of power and of cost was necessary and that membership should be voluntary. The ‘long view’ and a ‘vision’ were fundamental. Spatial planning should be strategic and sustainable. Political leadership was vital, but so were a professional network (e.g. joint management team, cross-departmental leadership) and an external network (e.g. strategic futures group, focus groups, thematic groups, expert groups). Soft skills such as mediation, trust, respect, communication and building relationships played an important role too.

A collegiate approach and a long-term strategy have been achieved; partnerships and urban regeneration companies (URCs) have been established including the Clyde Waterfront Partnership, ‘Clyde Gateway’ URC, ‘Riverside Inverclyde’ URC and the Green Network Partnership. The scope of integrated spatial planning covered place creation, economic development, environment, health and biodiversity; leading for example to the establishment of the Glasgow Centre for Population & Health in 2004.

It had not been easy to take this institutional capacity approach to integration, as it was time-consuming and costly. The attitude of key partners was crucial. Leadership was fundamental if the ambition was to achieve more than the lowest common denominator. Key strategies included encouraging leadership in a key partner and forging a network.

There were now new challenges to this approach: cuts in public expenditure and the risk of ‘a culture of fear’ leading to organisational retrenchment, opportunism and protectionism. To counter these, a balance would have to be struck between priorities and expediency, while respect and communication remained fundamental to spatial planning.

Two key points in the final discussion were green belts and infrastructure. Kelvin MacDonald noted that the long tradition of green belts in the UK (a feature of the Greater London Plan as early as 1944) meant that there was considerable public affection for them; Grahame Buchan responded that Scottish plans would consider green belts but that they were not always beneficial for development. Christian Albert, Leibniz University of Hanover, referred to growing interest in infrastructure issues and noted that ARL would be organising a state working group meeting of Hessen, Rhineland-Palatinate and Saarland, on infrastructure and demographic change in Frankfurt on 11 November 2011, looking at both technical and social infrastructure issue. Another key topic in the future would be resilience of ecosystem services in spatial planning.


Conclusion of the joint RTPI-ARL workshop

The joint RTPI-ARL workshop reached these conclusions:

  • Planning should be refocus away from combating myths towards accentuating the positive aspects (e.g. rather than defend the green belt, promote green networks, green infrastructure, ecosystem services) and ‘sell’ planning not as a way of preventing bad things but managing good things (e.g. development, transition, change).
  • If the political climate is not conducive to the necessary vision, long view or integrated approach, planners will still have to do it but ‘behind the sofa’ (out of sight of the politicians).
  • The people who design the strategy should also implement it or at least it should be badged the same/under the same logo: they then have a stake in the implementation. It is worthwhile asking all stakeholders to quantify their stake in the implementation, e.g. number of jobs delivered or investment returned.
  • INTERREG is worth learning from: it works at the local level, needs support from the national level and is EU-financed to serve EU integration objectives.
  • Marine spatial planning (MSP) is a model and an inspiration: MSP has to be an integrated spatial strategy because the environment in which it works (water) does not have easy boundaries. MSP can live with fluid boundaries, so can terrestrial spatial planning.

There was a clear preference for looking next at issues of infrastructure and the resilience of ecosystem services in a further joint RTPI-ARL workshop. One issue would be to consider new and better ways of delivering infrastructure planning, especially energy.


Participants

Christian Albert (Leibniz University of Hanover), Grahame Buchan (Glasgow & Clyde Valley Strategic Development Planning Authority), David Counsell (University College Cork), Katharina Erdmenger (Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development), Judith Eversley (RTPI), Evelyn Gustedt (ARL), Bernhard Heinrichs (President of ARL), Kelvin MacDonald (University of Cambridge), Moritz Plachta (Student of Geography, trainee at the ARL), Axel Priebs (Region Hannover), Pia Steffenhagen (Leibniz University of Hannover), Richard Summers (President of RTPI), Dirk Vallée (Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen).

 

Moritz Plachta, Judith Eversley, Marek Dreissig
(Evelyn Gustedt)