Delivering growth? Planning and growth management in the South East

1. Delivering growth? Planning and growth management in the South EastDave Valler (Oxford Brookes) & Nick Phelps (UCL) • RTPI SPIRE funded research which builds on previous research funded by RICS Education Trust on Science Vale UK and British Academy on South Hampshire • Valler, D.C., Phelps, N.A. and Wood, A.M. (2012) ‘Planning for growth: the implications of localism in Science Vale, Oxfordshire UK’, Town Planning Review 83: 457-488 • Valler, D.C. Phelps, N.A. and Radford, J. (forthcoming) ‘Soft space, hard bargaining: planning for high-tech growth in Science Vale UK‘, Environment & Planning C • Phelps, N.A. (2012) An Anatomy of Sprawl. Routledge, London. • Specifically adds in the case of the Gatwick Diamond Initiative • ‘Soft planning spaces’ had emerged in SE oriented to ‘unblocking’ growth under the New Labour RSS process. BUT what is the lasting legacy of these in planning terms?

2. Delivering growth? Planning and growth management in the South East Dave Valler (Oxford Brookes) & Nick Phelps (UCL) Overall Aim: To assess the relative effectiveness of 3 diverse planning spaces in delivering growth in the South-East region: namely South Hampshire, the Gatwick Diamond and South-central Oxfordshire/Science Vale UK. Objectives: 1. To describe the respective governance scales, organisational forms and patterns of leadership across 3 sub-regions. 2. To examine the status and operation of such new spaces in setting planning policy, given the developing context of localism. 3. To compare and contrast the efficacy of these diverse arrangements in delivering growth.

3. Basic Facts and Figures...

4. Partnership for Urban South Hampshire Solent Local Enterprise Partnership

5. The Gatwick Diamond Coast to Capital LEP

6. Science Vale UK, Oxfordshire

7. GOVERNANCE CAPACITY…

8. GOVERNANCE CAPACITY… Marks out of 5!

9. SVUK Key points… Image evolving? Evident spatial metaphor, sites/facilities individually well known, but ‘SVUK’? Growth plan fairly clear. Employment growth accepted across the 3 sites. EZ in place. LEP on-board. County largely supportive. Local plans potentially out of sync? Clear list of priorities over transport investment, but ability to deliver? Less a question of priorities within SVUK (which is small) than of influencing priorities of the LEP, SPiP and the County. Political influence strong, but relatively narrow. Real impact on major infrastructure delivery? Overall… Clear direction, inherent strength. But delivery?

10. Gatwick-Diamond Key points… Simple spatial metaphor that influenced SEEDA, resonates with business community if not residents Strategy that involves no numeric or spatial detail on housing and employment land allocations, hampering delivery. Also, LEP configuration? And limited access to City-Deals, RGF, EZs etc. Ability to prioritise impacted by (a) lack of agreement on 2nd runway at Gatwick and (b) lack of spatial detail? Business initiated G-D and retains strong input alongside some measure of public consultation Overall… A strong initial idea, becoming diluted?

11. PUSH… Key points… PUSH has no spatial metaphor, the Solent divides the LEP area. PUSH does not refer to Solent …. ‘Solent city’! A high level of numeric and spatial detail regarding housing and employment land allocations PUSH meetings and sub-regional spatial strategy closed to public and business though now opened. Wellbourne community planning more open. Contrasting outcomes of localism on two proposed SDAs – in Fareham housing concentrated in one SDA (Wellbourne), in Eastleigh now scattered across several smaller sites Overall… A co-ordinated, detailed plan. Consistency, credibility, consensus.

12. Conclusions, themes… Key empirical findings ‘Soft spaces’ (partly based on hard foundations in previous RSS and RPG) have subtle but important - and sometimes forceful - impacts… on overall mindsets, for example. Sub-regional strategies have stayed largely in place – in PUSH and SVUK these have a level of numeric and spatial detail… a yardstick against which a duty to cooperate can be judged? Despite a lack of clear image, PUSH has the largest evidence base and organisational coherence of the three – likely to be the most effective in delivering growth agenda?

13. Conclusions, themes… Broader implications for practice and policy Maintaining momentum … has it been easier to establish soft spaces and governance arrangements than to maintain them? Resourcing … no accident that the largest public sector-led initiative has been the best resourced with implications for the efficacy of planning for growth? The extent to which planning for growth should re-balance detail for internal consumption locally and nationally when set against external projection The limits of existing settlement pattern to accommodate housing and employment growth are being reached – the discussion regarding new settlements in SE needs to be had!

14. Conclusions, themes Theory The reach and impact of the governance implied in soft spaces can be overstated? Government not governance! The entrenched nature of political and bureaucratic conflict that prevents communication/collaboration in governance arrangements Local planning cultures versus politics in planning for growth – which is the main constraint?

15. Questions, questions… & Many thanks! RTPI report available: http://www.rtpi.org.uk/media/1049721/rtpi_research_report_oxford_brookes_and_ucl_full_report_6_july_2014.pdf dvaller@brookes.ac.uk n.phelps@ucl.ac.uk