Planning, Practice & Research, Vol. 22, No.
1,
pp. 43 – 62, February 2007
PRACTICE FORUM: SPATIAL PLANS IN PRACTICE
The Emergence of the Spatial Planning
Approach in England
VINCENT NADIN
Downloaded by [University College London] at 12:45 30 September 2014
Introduction
After lengthy debate about the need for change,
the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase
Act introduced substantial reforms to system of
town and country planning in England.1 The
changes have most impact on the status and
form of regional and local planning policy
instruments but reform is also seeking a deeper
‘culture change’ in planning. (See the article by
Shaw and Lord in this issue.) A central theme
is the promotion of ‘the spatial planning
approach’. This is set out in the government’s
policy guidance for the preparation of local
development frameworks (ODPM, 2004a) but
was first explained in guidance for the prepara-
tion of regional spatial strategies in 2004.
The new system of regional spatial
strategies and local development
documents should take a spatial
planning approach. Spatial planning
goes beyond traditional land use
planning to bring together and
integrate policies for the develop-
ment and use of land with other
policies and programmes which
influence the nature of places and
how they can function. That will
include policies which can impact
on land use, for example by influen-
cing the demands on or needs for
development, but which are not
capable of being delivered solely
or mainly through the granting or
Vincent Nadin, School of Planning and Architecture, University of the West of England, Bristol,
BS16 1QY, UK. Email: Vincent.Nadin@uwe.ac.uk
ISSN 0269-7459 print/1360-0583 online/07/010043–20 Ó 2007 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/02697450701455934
refusal of planning permission and
which may be implemented by other
means. (ODPM, 2004b, para. 30)
Thus, the spatial planning approach widens the
scope of what had become a rather narrowly
defined purpose of planning in England. The
impact of the reforms at the level of local
government is the subject of evaluation through
the major government sponsored research project
on Spatial Plans in Practice (which is explained
in the introduction to this collection of papers). In
this article I draw on a literature review on The
Role and Scope of Spatial Planning, conducted
for this project2 to review the origins of the idea
of spatial planning, in so far as it applies to
England.3 I use this explanation to suggest how
a plan prepared under ‘the spatial planning
approach’ may differ from a traditional land
use or local plan. I also discuss issues that the
spatial planning approach raises for the delivery
of reform of the planning system in relation to
local development planning.
The goals of planning reform, as expressed by
government4 and other stakeholders, are very
ambitious. They are to put planning at the centre
of the spatial development process, not just as a
regulator of land and property uses, but as a
proactive and strategic coordinator of all policy
and actions that influence spatial development;
and to do this in the interests of more sustainable
development. Numerous reviews of the planning
system (discussed below) are positive about the
potential of a reinvigorated planning system, but
also recognize the difficulties that reform will
43
 Vincent Nadin
entail and the depth of change that is needed.
The reality of spatial planning will be built and
defined in practice through the creation of
regional spatial strategies and local development
frameworks, and in the way these tools are used
in decision making.
The rationale for the article is that those who
are charged with putting ‘the spatial planning
approach’ into practice will be assisted by an
understanding of what the planning reforms are
expected to achieve, and an appreciation of the
reasoning that went into making them.
Downloaded by [University College London] at 12:45 30 September 2014
The Need for Reform
Review and reform are constant features of the
English planning system. We should expect no
less. In an open society where the planning
system allocates far-reaching costs and benefits,
regular reworking of the machinery so as to
influence outcomes (or perhaps give the im-
pression of influencing outcomes) is inevitable.
Much of this reworking is incremental but the
‘2004 reforms’5 result from the most extensive
discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of
the form and scope of planning instruments
since the mid-1960s (Planning Advisory Group
1965; Allmendinger, 2003). The 2004 reforms
in England discussed here reflect a continuing
political struggle over the planning system,
but it is without doubt that they are also
informed by considerable reasoned debate over
the fitness for purpose of the system in the face
of vastly changing conditions and higher
aspirations.
At the end of the 1990s there was wide
agreement that the system was falling far short
of meeting its objectives and that it had failed
to adapt in the face of social and economic
change (Cullingworth, 1997). The sweeping
modernization of government during the 1990s
tended to affect planning much less than
other services and devolution was more
important in Scotland and Wales (Allmendinger
et al. 2005). In England, reorganization accen-
tuated the fragmentation of competences for
planning across counties, districts and unitary
authorities. This drew attention to the need for
better strategic planning, though coordination
across boundaries and policy sectors remained
difficult.
44
Planning was not an immediate priority for
fundamental reform under the Labour adminis-
tration from 1997, though it did agree a Planning
Concordat with the Local Government Associa-
tion to address underperformance in some local
authorities (LGA, 1999). It acted quickly on
strengthening regional planning in line with its
regionalist agenda (Marshall, 2003) but other-
wise promoted only incremental change with the
overriding aim to speed decision making in the
context of the alleged failure of planning ‘to
keep pace with improvements in other council
services’ (Audit Commission, 2002, p. 7).
Elsewhere, there was a flood of initiatives, yet
few mentioned the planning system, let alone
accepted that it might have some policy
coordinating role. The view expressed by the
1999 Environment, Transport and Regional
Affairs Committee that government intervention
in urban areas is ‘confused and badly coordi-
nated’ would have applied to planning more
generally. The deficiencies of development
planning were all too apparent in the context of
increasing fragmentation of public action affect-
ing spatial development, and included:
the failure to tackle issues lying at
the boundaries between authorities
and between policy sectors; the
‘weight’ of local planning policy
arising from too much attention to
comprehensive coverage and not
enough concentration of effort
where change was anticipated or
needed; an unwillingness of politi-
cians and communities to accept
new development and make difficult
decisions; the questionable qualities
of the eventual outcomes of new
development from the planning
process; and poor management of
the system. (Cullingworth & Nadin,
2006, pp. 116 – 117)
We should recognize here that some of these
problems were created by previous reforms; that
the plan-making process is generating more
effective opposition from interest groups; and
that some planning authorities managed these
inevitable challenges well. Thus, not everyone
agreed that radical reform was needed. In his
 Emergence of Spatial Planning in England
submission to the 2002 Transport Local Govern-
ment and Regions Committee inquiry into the
reform of planning on behalf of the Town and
Country Planning Association, David Lock
argued that though the system had been ‘terribly
slow, very expensive and unsatisfactory in many
ways’ that adjustments rather than wholesale
reform were needed (HC 476 III 24/04: para.
519). But Ministers were frustrated. The ‘old’
planning system’ was not delivering on political
imperatives (particularly house building), and
more radical reform was mooted.
Downloaded by [University College London] at 12:45 30 September 2014
The 2001 Green Paper Planning: Delivering a
Fundamental Change (Department for Trans-
port, Local Government and the Regions,
2001a)6 met with numerous commentaries on
the need for and preferred directions of change
(Town and Country Planning Association, 2000;
CBI-TUC Investment Group, 2001; Local
Government Association, 2001; Christie et al.,
2002, for the Royal Society for the Protection of
Birds; Royal Commission on Environmental
Pollution, 2002). Given the very different
interests contributing, there was an unusual
measure of agreement. The discussion about
reform centred on five main topics:
. more timely plan- and decision-making
processes that enable planning authorities
to positively shape rather than report on
outcomes;
. a more inclusive and effective process of
participation and consultation that lends
more public confidence to plans and deci-
sions;
. more effective collaboration with policy-
makers in other sectors and stakeholders
that leads to integrated objectives and
joined-up policy;
. more positive, evidence-based reasoning in
the formulation of strategies and policies,
and in managing change;
. a focus on the delivery of wider priority
outcomes defined at national, regional and
local levels, so that planning can contribute
more effectively to wider government
objectives.7
The next section briefly reviews the perfor-
mance of the planning system under these
headings.
Preparing and Adopting Plans
The difficulties experienced by planning
authorities in adopting planning policy in good
time and then keeping it up-to-date are well
known. In 2002 central government reported on
progress: 13% of local planning authorities
had not yet managed to adopt a local or unitary
development plan (the local planning system
had been in operation for 34 years) and
more than half of those adopted were now
more than five years old and considered to be
‘out of date’ (ODPM, 2002). Similar pro-
blems had been experienced at the regional
level with considerable delay in central govern-
ment’s decision making on regional planning
guidance (the forerunner of regional spatial
strategies).
The reasons for ‘delay’ in adopting plans
have been debated for many years (Coon,
1988; Steel et al., 1995; Baker & Roberts,
1999). Practitioners tended to blame the
apparent complexity of the procedures
(Roberts, 1998; Royal Town Planning Institute,
1999), but the form of the plan has been a
critical factor. The effect of the requirement to
prepare only ‘district-wide’ plans introduced
by the 1991 Planning and Compensation Act,
and other advice in the early 1990s to include
all policies in local plans that might be used to
reject planning proposals, led to very long and
complex documents. Such plans were bound to
generate much opposition and many local
planning authorities struggled to carry them
through consultation and adoption procedures
(Cardiff University & Buchanan Partnership,
1997; Royal Town Planning Institute, 2000a,
2001).
Variation in the performance of authorities is
striking. Numerous studies showed that some
authorities have been able to deliver plans whilst
others continually struggle. Specific local fac-
tors, often political, play a part, but the critical
difference was often the quality of project mana-
gement of the plan process (Steel et al., 1995;
Hillier Parker et al., 1998). The performance in
plan making compared poorly with other ser-
vices in the context of increasing attention to
performance management in local government
(Audit Commission, 2002; Carmona & Sieh,
2004).
45
 Vincent Nadin
To meet expectations of improved perfor-
mance in leading development through up-to-
date plans, a much more selective and strategic
approach to plan making, was recommended. It
would be targeted at coordinating critical spatial
development issues (Royal Town Planning
Institute, 2000a) through a combination of inter-
linked plan documents in a local development
framework that might be prepared, adopted and
amended more easily.
Community Engagement 8
Downloaded by [University College London] at 12:45 30 September 2014
Planning has a longer history of community
engagement than other public policy sectors, but
by the 1990s the system was struggling to
effectively cope with increasing active involve-
ment in (and often opposition to) development
proposals (Davies, 2001; Bedford et al., 2002;
Coulson, 2003). Local planning authorities
tended to follow traditional and defensive
approaches, making use of exercises based on
draft plans with limited discussion of alterna-
tives and options (De Montfort University and
University of Strathclyde, 1998; Rydin, 1999).
The turn to new public management and against
planning in the 1980s had left a legacy of a
concern for private interests and reducing delay
(Thomas, 1996; Higgins & Allmendinger,
1999). Elected members have not always been
engaged effectively and lack of local ownership
of the plan has contributed to contrary planning
decisions (Burley, 2005)
Fresh ideas about collaborative planning
(Healey, 1997) have provided direction for
change, and there has been evidence of innova-
tion, especially in relation to informal commu-
nity and village planning and visioning (Wates,
2000; Murtagh, 2001; Owen, 2002; Carmona
et al., 2003; Owen & Mosely, 2003). Never-
theless, planning was unfavourably compared
with progress on community engagement in
other areas of public policy such as neighbour-
hood action and the New Deal for Communities
(Carley, 1999; Carley & Kirk, 1999; Chanan,
2003; Reeves, 2004). Thus, the emphasis on the
need for change from some quarters centred on
more effective community engagement, espe-
cially with ‘hard to reach groups’, and the
potential to link spatial plans to the emerging
new forum for the expression of local interests:
46
the community strategy (Entec, 2003; Lambert,
2006).
Coordination and Integration
The role of the planning system in coordinating
policies and actions that deliver spatial devel-
opment is widely promoted in principle (Healey,
1997, 2006) and is liberally expressed in
planning policy at all levels. But at the end of
the 1990s, policy integration through planning
was at a low point, especially in contrast to the
role of planning in some comparable countries
where there has been considerable innovation in
strategic spatial planning (Healey et al., 1997;
Salet & Faludi, 2000). Indeed, the significance
of sectoral strategies and action for spatial
development often went unrecognized in
England, and this applies to the transport
and environment sectors as well as less obvious
ones such as health and education (Stead
et al., 2003; Stead & Meijers, 2004). The Royal
Commission on Environmental Pollution’s
report on Environmental Planning concluded
thus.
There is a multiplicity of often over-
lapping and sometimes conflicting
plans and strategies. Nowhere is the
whole picture brought together and
the respective responsibilities of
all the different bodies clearly
assigned. (2002, p. 1)
Whilst there were positive examples of co-
ordination through planning, for example in
area-based regeneration and coastal zone mana-
gement, planning has not been prominent in
initiatives to ‘join up’ policy in local govern-
ment since the 1970s. Instead the development
plan was, in the words of the Local Government
Association, ‘marginalized’.
The more prolonged the deve-
lopment plan process the more
divorced it becomes from the main-
stream of local authority policy.
Rather than being the principal
vehicle for linking local authority
policy with other public and private
investment decisions, development
 Emergence of Spatial Planning in England
plans are seen as unwieldy statutory
documents and the preserve of spe-
cialists. (Local Government Asso-
ciation, 2001, p. 2)
The proliferation of disparate government in-
itiatives has tended to exacerbate the difficulties
of coordination and contributed to ‘partnership
fatigue’, confusion about the purpose of partner-
ship and lines of accountability (Wilkinson &
Appelbee, 1999; Cowell & Martin, 2003; Dais,
2006). Urban policy alone, was described by the
Downloaded by [University College London] at 12:45 30 September 2014
then Minister, Lord Rooker, as ‘a bowl of
spaghetti’ (quoted in Johnstone & Whitehead,
2004, p. 5). The local planning process had not
been taking on a leadership role in joining-up.
Case studies reveal that ‘the system’s practices
fostered the neglect of the promotion of place
quality and made little contribution to integrat-
ing policy initiatives . . .’ (Vigar et al., 2000,
p. 275). The potential of planning to play a more
decisive role in integration and thus assist in the
government’s joining-up agenda became a major
topic in the debate on reform, as explained
further below.
Evidence Base
Despite the enduring legacy of the notion of
‘survey-analysis-plan’, the analytical underpin-
ning of planning policy in the 1980s and 1990s
was weak. Davoudi explains how planning was
dominated by
a bureaucratic regulatory routine
largely preoccupied with procedural
rather than substantive issues. Pro-
ject-by-project conflict mediation
and negotiation and detailed knowl-
edge of regulatory rules became
planners’ new stock in trade. (2006,
p. 21)
From the 1980s there has been little use of
formal analytical methods of policy analysis,
and arguably, few planning policy documents at
regional or local level effectively analysed
and explained the spatial development charac-
teristics and trends of their territories or the
factors that drive them. Planning disputes have
been more about numbers and amounts of
development than about spatial structure or
quality. Decision making has been dominated
by a local political negotiation process, turning
on the merits of individual projects and land
allocations rather than a broader understanding
of spatial development.
Numerous factors have worked against analy-
tical enquiry and method, including the general
shift from a technocratic to an interactive and
collaborative approach to plan making (Healey,
1993, 1997); the challenge to professionalism in
planning and its claims to objective expertise
(Reade, 1987; Evans & Rydin, 1997); the
increasing politicization of planning; the weak-
ness of regional planning institutions and plan-
ning (Baker, 1998; Counsell & Haughton, 2003)
and the accent on efficiency and speed in the
planning process. The result is a substantial skills
and knowledge deficit in analytical methods.
Elsewhere, there has been an ‘evidence-base
turn’ in government (Healy, 2002; Davoudi,
2006) with a much stronger emphasis on the
effects of policy through evaluation, monitoring
indicators and analysis (Faludi & Waterhout,
2006; Wong, 2006). This is not to suggest that
there is any simple relationship between evi-
dence and policy, but in the planning field,
debate on critical issues has been relatively
poorly informed and too open to political
manipulation or spin. This is well illustrated
by the title of the Campaign to Protect Rural
England’s response to the Policy Exchange’s
claims (Evans & Hartwich, 2006) about the
causes of unaffordable housing: Policy-based
Evidence Making (CPRE, 2006).
The reforms build on existing requirements for
sustainability appraisal and strategic environ-
mental assessment, to require more substantial
analysis to underpin strategy and policies. They
introduce a ‘test of soundness’ of plans that
requires ‘a robust and credible evidence base’
and systematic consideration of alternatives and
options.
Delivery and Outcomes
Many of the criticisms previously noted arise
because of fundamental dissatisfaction with the
role of planning in delivering outcomes. There
have been few substantial studies on the effects
of planning since the seminal works by
47
 Vincent Nadin
Hall et al. (1973) and Healey et al. (1988).
Numerous authors have lamented the lack of
attention to understanding the effects of plan-
ning intervention (Reade, 1987; Simmie, 1993),
although there are obviously difficulties in
measuring the contribution of planning to broad
goals such as sustainable development or
economic competitiveness, especially isolating
the effect of planning from other factors.
The critical question here is what is the
planning system meant to achieve? A previous
(and more fundamental) reform of the system in
Downloaded by [University College London] at 12:45 30 September 2014
1968 widened the scope of planning arguing
that it ‘could not be undertaken satisfactorily in
isolation from the social and economic objec-
tives which it served’ (Cullingworth & Nadin,
2006, p. 129). These broad ambitions did not
last. The scope of planning was curtailed during
the 1980s when the content of plans was limited
to primarily land allocation (Healey, 1983;
Thornley, 1993). Local distinctiveness and
strategy was lost in the face of overriding
national policies. Plans have since tended to
pursue a narrow purpose, seeking to control
development outputs in terms of housing
numbers or employment land rather than
broader goals or outcomes in terms of more
sustainable development or economic growth.
Whilst broader aspirations might have been
claimed in plans, their content reflected ambi-
guity over purpose and the accent on regulating
the supply of land and property uses (Healey,
1983; Poxon, 2000). Weaknesses in the form
and content of plans have tended to inhibit their
contribution to delivering wider outcomes: the
vague expression of goals which are not locally
distinctive; extensive decision rules or perfor-
mance criteria in plans that create ambiguity and
inconsistency; insufficient flexibility in plans to
address novel or changed circumstances so as to
arrive at more sustainable solutions; diffuse
approaches without strategic direction or suffi-
cient attention to influencing those responsible
for delivery; and perhaps most telling, little
spatial content.
The Labour administration from 1997 con-
centrated from the outset on organizing govern-
ment around the delivery of priority outcomes,
and these have been expressed subsequently in
shared public service agreements. Like all parts
of government the planning system must help
48
to deliver on these goals, which means more
collaborative working across the fragmented and
‘congested’ governance system of multiple
stakeholders and policy tools. Thus, the reforms
reflect much less the role of planning in
controlling the decisions of others or dictating
solutions, and more the role of planning in
shaping attention to particular opportunities and
threats (Mastop & Faludi, 1997; Faludi, 2000;
Healey, 2006). In this view, the central problem
for the planning system is not to find more
effective means of regulation, but to find ways of
engaging and exerting influence over other
actors—the points of intervention or levers that
will enable planning to facilitate more sustain-
able spatial development. The emphasis there-
fore turns from detailed land allocations to
making spatial frameworks to encourage the
formulation of complementary sectoral strategies
and action. Following much lobbying, added
impetus to a goal-oriented planning approach has
provided by the incorporation of the statutory
purpose of sustainable development into the
2004 Act.9 This is a considerable step in a system
that has fought shy of the expression of policy
goals in law.
Positive Expectations of Planning
The catalogue of criticisms previously listed
may give the wrong impression. Planning has
undoubtedly performed well in some areas and
the reforms represent very positive expectations
of the system. Practitioners, academics and other
observers have canvassed for a planning system
that has greater ambitions and achieves more;
one that takes a much more positive and
proactive role in managing spatial development
through a territorially based strategy influencing
the policies and actions of other sectors. The
Royal Town Planning Institute has been at the
forefront of promoting positive change through
its New Vision for Planning (2000) and
Manifesto (2004) calling for a more spatial,
integrative and action-oriented system. (See also
Tewdwr-Jones, 2004.)
Also, the problems may appear as indepen-
dent when they are closely interrelated.
Many incremental amendments have been made
over the years, but the ‘2004 reforms’ are more
substantial seeking to address the ‘tensions’
 Emergence of Spatial Planning in England
between demands for more timely production of
plans at the same time as more effective com-
munity engagement and increased intersectoral
working. Whilst much of the fundamental
superstructure of the system remains intact, the
reforms have sought to redefine the role of
planning and restructure policy instruments so as
to allow for this redefinition.
Inspiration for the direction of change has
come from many sources—from political de-
mands for better delivery on policy; from
academic debate on the nature of planning; from
Downloaded by [University College London] at 12:45 30 September 2014
the challenge of achieving more sustainable
development; from recognition of the increasing
complexity of spatial development; and espe-
cially from the wider discussion on the nature
of spatial planning arising in the European
arena. Awareness of these wider debates should
help to clarify the role and scope of spatial
planning and what the reforms are expected to
achieve.
Influences on the Planning Reforms
The drivers for change in government are the
broad forces of globalization and shifting rela-
tions between the state and the market. Econom-
ic and political dynamics stimulate changes in
the way government intervenes in all spheres
including spatial development. At a practical
level it is senior government officials who red-
esign the system influenced by demands from
political actors. Many factors may come into
play in this process, providing sources for
rethinking the role and scope of spatial planning.
Four interlinked factors seem to have been
particularly important in shaping the nature of
reform in England:
. the increasing complexity of spatial rela-
tionships;
. the political shift to New Labour priorities;
. the policy goal of more environmental
sustainability;
. the European discourse on spatial planning.
Complexity of Spatial Relationships
Underlying consideration of reform of the plan-
ning system is wide recognition of the changing
reality of spatial development patterns and
processes in which it seeks to intervene. The
nature of spatial development is changing radi-
cally because we travel more often and further;
because economic activity and investment are
much less tied to particular places; and because
communications and media technologies have
opened up the world in our homes. At the root of
this is the changing geography of social and
economic (capitalist) relations, which gives
rise to the network society (Albrechts &
Mandelbaum, 2005) and demands a rescaling
of the territories of government intervention
(Brenner, 2003).
The network society refers to the way
extensive mobility has created strong intercon-
nections between (sometimes distant) places;
extensive flows among them and the creation of
new enlarged and layered functional regions
within which markets operate and citizens’
lives are played out. These concerns of spatial
relations are not new to planning—the city-
region concept based on commuting flows was
first developed in the 1930s (Wannop, 1995)
but they are now more intense and complex.
There are no simple conclusions for planning,
for example, there is more freedom of move-
ment but proximity is still important; firms are
very mobile but people much less so; spatial
clustering of some activities is accompanied by
lower accessibility. Nevertheless, the increasing
complexity of spatial relations does raise
questions for policy and the organization of
the planning system; not least it raises ques-
tions about attention to relations across bound-
aries at different scales (Richardson & Jenson,
2003).
The implications for planning are emerging
(or perhaps reemerging) in the definition of new
‘functional territories’ (such as the reemergence
of city-regions) and wider use of spatial policy
concepts (particularly at the European level as
explained later) such as urban networks, devel-
opment corridors and polycentricity (Davoudi,
2005; Zonneveld, 2005; Meijers, 2006). In con-
trast, the typical plans or strategy is presented in
its administrative space or ‘island’ disconnected
from the reality of networks. Statutory obliga-
tions aside, this reflects a view of planning as a
regulatory activity to be administered and
contained within the areas of jurisdiction, rather
than one that seeks to understand the nature
49
 Vincent Nadin
and drivers of spatial development for the
authority.
There are two key messages for the planning
system. First, a stronger focus on the significant
spatial relationships and drivers that cut across
boundaries calls for policy processes, planning
instruments and policy communities that reflect
those relationships. This will require review of
the spatial impacts of sectoral strategies or
‘spatial policy’ as explained below. This
approach is already evident in Wales (Harris &
Hooper, 2004). Second, the interconnectedness
Downloaded by [University College London] at 12:45 30 September 2014
of places and the effect of sometimes distant
factors on spatial development within a plan
area, lends weight to the argument that the role
of plans in prescribing or controlling change
within that area is limited. It draws attention
instead to the role of plans in explaining the
drivers of spatial development; the part played
by other public strategies and policies in creating
outcomes; and the ‘generative role’ of planning
in shaping the attention of a wider range of
players and building joint capacity to act and
innovate (Healey, 2004, p. 50).
The 2004 reforms enable and encourage
approaches that reflect the reality of spatial
relationships with more attention to spatial
strategies, building evidence of spatial develop-
ment patterns and trends, and joint working
across boundaries.
New Labour Priorities
The New Labour Administration of 1997
carried forward and accelerated the ‘moder-
nization’ of government in pursuit of the goals
of social justice, inclusion and community
empowerment whilst seeking to strengthen
economic competitiveness and productivity
(Department of Environment, Transport and
the Regions, 1999; Allmendinger & Tewdwr-
Jones, 2000). Of particular significance to
planning in the late 1990s were the emphases
on joining up government to deliver progres-
sive outcomes, and democratic renewal
(Morphet, 2004).
The emphasis on joining-up government
challenges the traditional ‘functional orientation’
of policy ‘deeply embedded in departmental
structures and areas of professional expertise’
(Richards et al., 1999, qtd in Sullivan &
50
Skelcher, 2002, p. 210). It also raises questions
about the contribution of departmental policy
and action (including planning) to the delivery of
the fundamental goals of economic competitive-
ness and environmental sustainability, and parti-
cular policy objectives such as reducing child
poverty, raising educational attainment, or
improving the health of the population.
The government’s commitment to fundamen-
tal change was evident in the Comprehensive
Spending Review which required all govern-
ment departments and services to explain how
were assisting to deliver a fairer distribution of
services and opportunities that meet the needs of
all community sectors. Also, the ‘democratic
renewal’ agenda forced government bodies to
review their commitment to, and methods of,
engaging communities in policy making.
Ministers pressed for more cross-departmental
working in coordinating the effects of sectoral
policies, and made changes to realize this (whilst
maintaining central control), for example, in
strengthening the (integrated) government
offices for the regions (Musson et al., 2005).
This was followed up by public service agree-
ments, community strategies, area agreements
and measures that freed up local authorities to
work more actively with other partners (Cirell,
2003).
As explained earlier, although a coordination
role and social outcomes were at the centre of
the planning system in its formative years
(Cullingworth, 1975), aside from some structure
planning in the 1970s (Cross & Bristow, 1983)
and area-based initiatives, an integrating role for
planning and social goals had virtually disap-
peared by the 1980s. Some progress had been
made in reestablishing links between planning
and other sectors, especially transport, but the
New Labour priorities opened up opportunities
for (and indeed required) a more fundamental
rethink of the role of planning in coordinating
efforts to achieve wider government goals and
how planning could assist in democratic renewal
through engaging communities. There is also a
strong spatial dimension to these issues of
fairness, opportunity and engagement is evident
in, for example, the problems of areas of
concentrated deprivation and regional disparities.
Although the idea of a ‘spatial dimension’ was
not stressed by politicians it has been implicit in
 Emergence of Spatial Planning in England
area-based initiatives for more than 40 years, and
these were strengthened by New Labour, by for
example, the New Deal for Communities
(Lawless, 2006) and the regional devolution
agenda.
Environmental Sustainability
The wide interest in ‘joining-up’ government
and to some extent devolution has been driven
primarily by concerns about social cohesion and
economic competitiveness, but similar concerns
Downloaded by [University College London] at 12:45 30 September 2014
arise from concerns about environmental sus-
tainability and how it can be achieved within
the wider notion of more sustainable develop-
ment. It requires a shift in thinking for many
sectoral interests towards collaborative working
and approaches that cut across traditional
disciplinary, professional and administrative
boundaries (Cowell & Owens, 1998). It helps
to expose contradictory public policies (Meyer-
son & Rydin, 1996) and demands more holistic,
integrated policy and action, and evaluation of
outcomes (Davoudi, 2001). This approach was
promoted very strongly by environmental lob-
bies such as the Royal Commission on
Environmental Pollution (2002), which sup-
ported a change in methods and principles to
challenge well established and compartmenta-
lized ways of working (Evans & Rydin, 1997).
The 2005 revision of the UK Sustainable
Development Strategy: Securing the Future,
identifies planning as a key lever in making
the necessary changes in other policy sectors to
meet emission and energy targets. Subse-
quently, persuasive arguments have been made
to strengthen the role of planning in mitigating
climate change, particularly in relation to energy
(Kellet, 2003) and flood risk (Howe & White,
2004).
So although the sustainable development
agenda, and particularly the notion of environ-
mental sustainability, has not been prominent in
the government’s rhetoric about planning, it has
had important indirect influence through other
organizations’ proposals. In the meantime,
sustainability appraisal is now firmly established
in the plan making process and has, almost by
default, has become the principal means of
policy integration for sustainability (Regional
Futures, 2004; Stead & Meijers, 2004).
The notion of territorial plans (or place-based
strategies) as tools for wider policy integration
was most strongly voiced in wider European
debates.
European Spatial Planning
The extensive debate about spatial development,
planning and territorial cohesion among the EU
member states and institutions has been an
important inspiration and source of ideas for
planning reform in England.10 It should be
stressed that the European debates do not
provide a specific model for a new approach to
planning, but they have infused and penetrated
the planning discourse in England and
elsewhere.
The growing interest in ‘spatial planning’ in
the institutions of the EU is evident in the
European Commission’s Europe 2000 studies of
spatial development trends at the European
scale in the early 1990s (CEC, 1991, 1994).
This began a long debate among member states
on spatial development that culminated in the
publication of the European Spatial Develop-
ment Perspective (ESDP) in 1999 (CEC, 1999;
Faludi & Waterhout, 2002). These initiatives
represent a process of mutual learning: a
sharing and reshaping of ideas that continues
through the unprecedented extent of cooperation
through the Community initiative INTERREG
and other means (Faludi, forthcoming). The
learning process has a quite different starting
point here to the land-use orientation that has
tended to dominate planning in the member
states, and on which the Community has little
interest (Nadin & Shaw, 1999), It centres on the
spatial impacts and coordination of Community
sectoral policies such as cohesion (regional)
policy, environment, agriculture and transport
policy.
It is important to note here the broad notion of
‘development’ that flows from the Community’s
fundamental goals of economic competitiveness,
social cohesion and sustainable development.
The Community is obviously concerned not
only with the distribution and quality of built
and natural features and human activity, but
social and economic change and its impact on
the life experiences of citizens, such as access to
opportunities in education and employment
51
 Vincent Nadin
(Nadin & Dühr, 2006a). The introduction of
the notion of territorial cohesion into the
Constitutional Treaty is the latest step in this
debate about European spatial development,
which is posed to counter the ‘destructuring
effects’ of globalization and ‘the territorial
incoherence of EU sectoral policies’ (Robert,
2007, p. 28; see also Davoudi, 2005; Nadin &
Dühr, 2006b).
Williams (1996, p. 7) introduced the notion of
spatial policy to explain the spatial effect in
practice of Community sectoral policies
Downloaded by [University College London] at 12:45 30 September 2014
‘whether or not they are designed to be’. Spatial
effects of sectoral policy may arise directly, for
example, targeting funding to designated areas,
or indirectly, for example, the spatial implica-
tions of research and development funding.
European spatial planning is concerned with
the costs of non-coordination of these ‘spatial
policy’ impacts, avoiding contradictory actions
with perverse outcomes, and the potential of
improving policy delivery and adding value
through more coordinated action (Robert et al.,
2001). These ideas owe much to cultures of
governance and planning that are far more
proactive and interventionist in seeking to
manage spatial development than in the UK.
The ESDP explains the role of territorial or
place-based strategies as a mechanism for policy
integration in three dimensions:
. horizontal coordination of largely indepen-
dent EU sectoral policies such as regional
policy, environment, transport and research
and development, particularly in the
way they impact together on particular
territories;
. vertical coordination among jurisdictional
levels, the need for which is particularly
evident in the EU context with tensions
between EU, national and regional actions,
and which in turn draws attention to the
subsidiarity principle requiring justification
for decisions to be ceded to higher jurisdic-
tional levels; and
. joint working across administrative bound-
aries in a cross-border or interregional
fashion to address problems as they occur
in their ‘functional regions’ such as cross-
border infrastructure or environmental
catchments.
52
The European debate on spatial planning and
particularly the publication of the ESDP in 1999
provided a timely contribution to the formula-
tion of reform in England, and to some extent,
its subsequent implementation (Tewdwr-Jones
& Williams, 2001; Shaw & Sykes, 2003, 2005).
Cross-national comparisons have also played
a role. Although (aside from France)
‘sectoralized’ planning systems addressing pri-
marily the regulation of land use change are the
norm (Nadin et al., 1997; Seaton & Nadin,
2002), there are examples of more robust
approaches to sectoral policy coordination in
other countries. These make more use of spatial
strategy and vision building to create practical
integration of policy and action around common
goals. The contributions from the European
debate (aside from the term ‘spatial planning’)
has been to bolster and provide a simple and
clear rationale for the idea of planning as a
method of securing ‘convergence and co-
ordination between various sectoral policies’
(Bastrup-Birk & Doucet, 1998). The European-
level concerns with spatial equity and terri-
torial cohesion are likely to figure also in
the future. And for these ideas to take root
there needs to be, as Faludi (2007) explains
‘a parallel process of unlearning of basic
concepts’.
Other Factors
I have chosen to discuss four sources of
positive ideas on the reform of the planning
system that were discussed in the context of
great frustration with its operation at the end of
the 1990s. This is not the full story and it could
not reflect the reality of debate in the govern-
ment working group that formulated the
detailed proposals (and which involved many
non-governmental interests); it represents what
was said at the time in the literature and reports
from some of those involved in bringing
forward reform.
The principal factor that others might point to
and that has not been mentioned so far is the
influence of economic actors within and outside
government. At the end of the 1990s the
CBI-TUC Investment Group (2001, p. 31) raised
questions (or more accurately repeated ques-
tions) about the ability of the planning system to
 Emergence of Spatial Planning in England
deliver ‘the speed certainty and responsiveness
that businesses need’ and pointed to various
specific problems, particularly in the delivery of
infrastructure. It was not until the first Barker
Review of 2004, commissioned by the Treasury
in collaboration with the Office of the Deputy
Prime Minister, that more substantial proposals
for the planning system came forward on the
basis of its effects on the economy (Barker,
2004). This report was concerned with the
broader economic impacts of the operation of
the housing market. A second report on
Downloaded by [University College London] at 12:45 30 September 2014
Land Use Planning (Barker, 2006) examined
the link between planning and economic
growth. The 2004 reforms were underway and
the spatial planning approach promoted well
before these reports were published. At the time
of writing proposals for further reform are
anticipated, but concentrate on speeding plan-
ning decisions.
How Does Spatial Planning Differ from Land
Use Planning?
The planning reforms comprise both changes to
the framework of planning tools and a more
fundamental shift in the way those tools are
used. The substantial changes to the framework
of policy instruments and procedures are not
rehearsed here. But the formal guidance on the
meaning of the spatial planning approach is
limited. The previous discussion on the widely
shared concerns about the limitations of plan-
ning at the end of the 1990s, and the four
influential sources on the thinking behind reform
are strongly reinforcing. They suggest five
interconnected themes in the spatial planning
approach:
. to focus on spatial development outcomes
and make more effective use of the planning
system to help achieve the goals of other
sectors;
. to influence and integrate the delivery of
spatial policy—the spatial impacts of other
sectoral policies;
. to inject a spatial or territorial dimension
into sectoral strategies and policy;
. to create new policy communities that reflect
the realities of spatial development and its
drivers;
. to use planning as a learning process—
promoting understanding and argument in a
collaborative political process.
These points are elaborated in Table 1, which
presents the practice of land use planning and
spatial planning as ideal types. The content of
the table is derived from the preceding discus-
sion of how planning shapes up to aspirations
for the system, and the broader influences and
discussion about the nature of spatial planning
that have helped shape reform. The comparison
goes much further than government guidance,
but, like the rest of the article, it is not pres-
ented as a model, but as a guide to provoke
thinking about how planning might change
and what the implications are for practice. They
are ideal types, positioned at extremes. The
local development framework will be to some
extent a combination of these ideal types,
and most local plans will fall somewhere
between them.
If there is one common theme in all this, it
is policy integration. This is reflected in what
the professional bodies say about spatial
planning and the government’s interpretation.
We should note here that the integration and
engagement challenge is not new; it has been
visited many times and was part of the
original elaboration of the modern planning
system in 1947. However, the context is very
different and there is no suggestion of a return
here to comprehensive rational planning. Ideas
about spatial planning are beginning to take
shape within professional practice (Planning
Officers’ Society, 2005a, 2005b) and some
planning authorities take the opportunity to
develop innovative solutions tailored to local
conditions.
Broad policy statements are one thing, appli-
cation of these principles is another. It is
unlikely that anyone will underestimate the
integration task. The planning system has no
special rights or position to act as an integrative
focus for sectoral policy, indeed, much pro-
gress has already been made in ‘working across
boundaries’ in and outside government that
barely refers to the planning system. Planning’s
particular claim for the joining-up task is in the
significance of place or territory as an organi-
zing device for joining up policy and action.
53
 Downloaded by [University College London] at 12:45 30 September 2014
TABLE 1. Comparison of ideal type land use plan and spatial plan
Land use plan
Purpose Regulating land use and development through designation
of areas of development and protection, and application
of performance criteria.
Form Schedule of policies and decision rules to regulate land use
for the administrative area.
Mapping of designation of areas and sites for development
purposes and protection.
Process Discrete process leading to adoption of final blueprint
plan.
Confrontational process, instigated through consultation
on draft plans and political negotiation.
Stakeholders using the process to protect and promote their
interests.
Ownership and policy A document of the planning authority providing guidance
community to other professional planners promoting and regulating
development.
Procedural safeguards Final plan determined through adversarial inquiry on parts
of plan subject to objections.
Methods Mapping of constraints and collection of sectoral policy
demands.
Bargaining and negotiation with objectors and other
stakeholders, informed by broad planning principles.
Checking of proposals through sustainability appraisal/
strategic environmental assessment.
Spatial plan
Shaping spatial development through the coordination of
the spatial impacts of sector policy and decisions.
Strategy identifying critical spatial development issues and
defining clear desired outcomes across functional areas.
Visualisation of spatial goals, and key areas of change.
Principles and objectives that will guide coordinated
action.
Continuous process of plan review and adjustment.
Mutual learning and information sharing, driven by debate
on alternatives in collaborative political process.
Stakeholders using the process to achieve their own and
mutual goals.
A corporate document of the local authority in shared
ownership with communities and other stakeholders,
partnerships and NGOs.
Final plan determined by inquisitorial examination of the
soundness and coherence of the whole plan.
Building understanding of critical spatial development
trends and drivers, market demands and needs, and
the social, economic and environmental impacts of
development.
Analysis of options through visioning and strategic
choice approaches.
Generation of alternatives and options assisted by
sustainability appraisal/strategic environmental
assessment.
(continued)
 Emergence of Spatial Planning in England

joint ownership of the strategy and a range of incentives

and other mechanisms including land use regulation and
Seeks to influence decisions in other sectors by building
But political and professional boundaries and

Data informs understanding of spatial development and

Measures performance of the plan in influencing sector
allegiances are very firmly established along

Regular adjustment of components of plan around a

different lines—in sectoral policy communities,
in the professions, and in political constitu-
encies. All this raises considerable questions
for the application of the spatial planning
approach.

the application of the strategy.

policy and decision making. Implications for the Local Development
Framework: Challenges and Tensions
planning agreements.

This final section considers two major

Downloaded by [University College London] at 12:45 30 September 2014

consistent vision. practical implications of these ideas about

Note: These are ideal types—local plans and development documents in practice will exhibit characteristics of both.
‘the spatial planning approach’ for the con-
struction of spatial planning practice at the
Spatial plan

local level.

Applying the Spatial Planning Approach

Planning reform in England is about reshaping
ideas on the role and scope of the land use
planning system. The new spatial planning
Measures conformance of the plan’s policies and proposals
TABLE 1. (Continued)

Data provides portrait of plan area as general context for

Seeks to direct change and control investment activity in

approach is expected to grow from the old and

mitigating local externalities through conditions and

apparently, according to government advice,

replace it. The assumption here is that it is
land use through prescriptive regulation, whilst

indeed necessary and possible to do this. Is the

Periodic but infrequent review of whole plan.

spatial planning approach a change in emphasis

for the land use planning system or an additional
and complementary form of planning? If the
with planning control outcomes.

former, then we have to ask if sufficient

attention has been paid to the land use regulation
implementation of proposals.

function of planning—development control.

This is ‘sectoral planning’. It will remain criti-
planning agreements.

cally important, not least in being a principal

lever to encourage more positive collaboration
around spatial development.
Land use plan

On the basis of the previous discussion, I

would opt for a different understanding, one that
sees the spatial planning approach as an addi-
tional and complementary approach to land use
regulation. Spatial planning is a corporate cross-
sectoral exercise of policy integration and
strategy development with wide ownership
(recognizing that this will also be happening at
Monitoring and review

the regional level). The development control

implementation

function (including regulation and some planning

guidance, enforcement etc.) will remain as a
Delivery and

sectoral land-use planning activity belonging to

the planning service, but, like other sectors,
helping to deliver the spatial strategy. Changes
are needed to regulation (though only incremental

55
 Vincent Nadin
changes are proposed so far). There will be less
prescription and a move away in regulation from
working with a ‘set of rules’ to working more to
objectives. There should be more positive action
in ‘development management’ and a widening of
scope in decision making.
At present the implications of the reforms for
development control/management are uncer-
tain. An approach that separated out ‘the spatial
planning approach’ from the equally valuable
‘sectoral development management approach’
could be useful in providing more clarity.
Downloaded by [University College London] at 12:45 30 September 2014
Some authorities have long since separated
out the broader strategic function from the
regulation task. The reform documentation
gives little guidance on these issues (and that
may be a good thing) but planning authorities
will need to recognize and address the transi-
tion in terms of organizational structures and
competences, taking into account the broader
principles.
Whether we see the spatial planning approach
as an additional complementary task or a new
objective for the existing system, a very sub-
stantial shift in thinking (learning and unlearn-
ing) and practice is needed if it is to be realized.
There is considerable pressure on most autho-
rities to drive ahead with the adoption of local
planning policy. Presenting the notion of ‘the
spatial planning approach’ as a reengineering of
the existing system may be one reason why early
experience in practice reflects a tendency to
adjust existing practices rather than to undertake
the fundamental reforms that are suggested
earlier. It may take some years and further itera-
tions of development documents before real
fundamental change is realized even where bold
approaches are being taken. Is the planning
profession taking a longer term view of the
challenge, especially in developing the skills,
experience and confidence needed to address
this opportunity? Central government has re-
cognized this dimension of the challenge of
reform with its equal emphasis on culture
change and the support to new capacity building
initiatives.11
The Integration Challenge
Notions of comprehensive policy integration
need to be rejected outright, partly because of
56
the benefits of working in sectors, but also for
practical reasons. Separating out government
activity into sectors is an inevitable and bene-
ficial approach to government. It allows specifi-
cation and concentrated pursuit of more detailed
objectives and it encourages beneficial compe-
tition among sectors. This is why the sectoral
organization of policy making is relatively
robust. Attempts at working across sectors or
intersectoralism may often be no more than a
reorganization of the compartments (Degeling,
1995). We should remember too that town and
country planning is itself a sector, or at least this
is the way it is perceived by many other sectors,
including, perhaps, those where there are rela-
tively close relationships such as transport and
environment. Moreover, other policy sectors
such as education and health are already engaged
in cross-sectoral collaborative activity that does
not involve planning. All this may tend to dis-
courage potential collaborators from more active
involvement in the planning process.
On the positive side, the statutory nature of
the development documents and the potential to
deliver infrastructure and other benefits through
planning agreements is a positive inducement to
collaborate. How can planners encourage deeper
collaboration among stakeholders through the
planning process and joint ownership of the
planning strategy? How can other sectors be
motivated to collaborate through the planning
process and are incentives and sanctions being
put in place to encourage this?
There is much literature explaining the forms
of integration and mechanisms developed else-
where in government from which planners can
learn (Sullivan & Skeltcher, 2002). Integration is
an open and abstract concept—we should ask
with whom and how and for what purpose?
Government policy lists those organizations
with whom some measure of collaboration is
expected, though developing meaningful colla-
boration with them all would certainly become
complex and very difficult to handle. An
approach needs to be devised that guides efforts
on collaboration and integration to local condi-
tions and priorities. Planning authorities will
need to be very explicit about the direction and
depth of integration.
The direction for integration (following a
learning spatial planning approach) can be
 Emergence of Spatial Planning in England
informed by the analysis of the critical spatial
development challenges facing the area, but this
rarely exists. There is, thus, a strong link with
the development of a robust evidence base. This
has been given some attention in the reforms
but in the context of the discussion of the
principles of a spatial planning approach the
advice appears to be overly sectoral and geared
towards land use outputs rather than outcomes.
The obvious example is the attention to how
many new houses are built, rather than the
relative accessibility to good quality affordable
Downloaded by [University College London] at 12:45 30 September 2014
housing. There is also a distinct lack of
analytical methods and skills to investigate
the combined territorial impact of sectoral
policies.
New organizational arrangements will be
needed for building collaboration and carrying
forward joint policy and action, though the new
joint committee arrangements for development
document adoption have not proved at all
popular. It may involve a reorganization of
sectoral compartments and mechanisms to work
across them that address the varying demands
within sectors. It will draw new players in but
also leave some out. Internal integration (within
a department or sector, including planning) may
be as important as working with external bodies.
We should not assume either that there is a
single voice from other ‘sectors’, or that they
will speak different ‘languages’.
The viewpoints of politicians, policy-makers
and other interests are deeply embedded in
existing administrative and sectoral arrange-
ments. So the integration challenge for planning
cannot be met without also successfully ‘enga-
ging’ stakeholders in building new ‘policy
communities’ around issues defined in a new
cross-sectoral and territorial way. Policy inte-
gration through a spatial planning approach will
require an understanding of how the other
sectors work and, critically, how they interrelate
to produce development outcomes. What is the
contribution of the education sector to spatial
development in a district? What steps are being
taken to build this sort of knowledge? Similar
questions need to be asked of the sectors too,
and all studies point to the critical issue of
leadership and commitment to collaborative
activity at the highest level. The principal
integrating tool is the sustainability appraisal,
which can play a central role in analysis of the
integration of policy and action, though it is not
always seen in this light.
Above all, if the argument that the territorial
dimension (over which planners claim some
expertise) is a valuable integrating mechanism,
then the plan must surely be able demonstrate a
good knowledge of the territorial or spatial
consequences of sectoral activity. It is in the
presentation of the evidence base and its
visualization that the existing mindset of officers
and politicians can be challenged, and a strategic
and spatial understanding of development can be
encouraged. Is the importance of this job
recognized? Will others be interested in a spatial
planning approach if the vision and strategy do
not explain and present the reality and distinc-
tiveness of spatial development patterns and
trends?
Conclusion
The emergence of the planning reforms and ‘the
spatial planning approach’ have been influenced
by many factors. There is no simple equation
showing how the factors came together. The
perceived marginalization of the planning sys-
tem from wider decision making and outcomes,
and particularly its limited influence on the
factors that are shaping spatial development
provide the context. The spur for change comes
from awareness of the need for a spatial dimen-
sion in the task of joining-up government in
order to achieve critical economic and social
outcomes and to avoid the costs of non-
coordination. This is strongly supported by
advocacy for a renewed approach to planning
in support of sustainable development. In that
context, the European spatial planning discourse
and emerging or renewed understanding of
spatial development patterns and relationships
have provided some inspiration for the direction
of change. All this leaves many questions for the
application of the spatial planning approach in
practice.
Acknowledgements
I am very grateful to Kim Seaton who led on the
literature review of integration in planning
(which will be the subject of a separate paper).
57
 Vincent Nadin
The review was supplemented by interviews
with key personnel involved in the planning
reforms. Numerous people have read drafts of
this paper and given valuable comments. I am
particularly grateful to Mike Ash, Tony Baden
and John Hack, all formerly with the ODPM;
Leonora Rozee of the Planning Inspectorate, and
Andreas Faludi of Delft University of Technol-
ogy. The perceptive comments of the SPIP
Expert Panel have also been helpful.
Downloaded by [University College London] at 12:45 30 September 2014
Notes
1. The 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act
made other reforms in England (as the title
implies) and also in Wales, including the intro-
duction of the statutory spatial plan for Wales.
2. An earlier summary of the literature review is
presented on the website of the Department for
Communities and Local Government (http://www.
communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id¼1143238).
3. The four countries of the United Kingdom have
separate systems of planning. In England, law is
made by the UK Parliament and policy by the UK
Department of Communities and Local Govern-
ment (formerly the Office of the Deputy Prime
Minister). In Scotland law is made by the Scottish
Parliament and policy by the Scottish Executive.
In Wales, the legal basis is mostly shared with
England, although it is becoming more separate
with distinctive sections of Acts relating specifi-
cally to Wales. Welsh planning policy is made by
the Welsh Assembly Government. In Northern
Ireland law is made by the UK Parliament and
policy by the Northern Ireland Executive and
Planning Service whilst the Northern Ireland
Assembly is suspended.
4. The name of government department responsible
for town and country planning in England has
changed over recent years. Those referred to in
this article are the Department of Environment,
Transport and the Regions (1997 – 2000), The
Department of Transport, Local Government and
the Regions (2001), the Office of the Deputy
Prime Minister (2002 – 2006) and the Department
for Communities and Local Government (2006 –
on). See Cullingworth and Nadin (2006, Chapter 3
and Figure 3.3, p. 45).
5. The term ‘2004 reforms’ is used here, though
some important changes predated 2004 (particu-
larly in regional planning) and others are still
being implemented.
6. The Green Paper was accompanied by four
daughter documents with proposals for change
58
on procedures for dealing with major infrastruc-
ture projects, planning obligations (planning gain),
compulsory purchase and the Use Classes Order
(DTLR, 2001b, 2001c, 2001d, 2001e).
7. These five categories have been used to structure
the core research questions of the Spatial Plans in
Practice project, as explained in the Inception
Report (Baker Associates et al., 2006).
8. See the article by Baker, Coaffee and Sheriff in
this issue.
9. Section 39 of the 2004 Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act requires those operating the plan-
ning system ‘to exercise the function with the
objective of contributing to the achievement of
sustainable development’.
10. The influence of the European debate and parti-
cularly the ESDP was confirmed in interviews
with civil servants at the former Office of the
Deputy Prime Minister.
11. For example, the Department for Communities
and Local Government has sponsored the creation
of a new continuing professional development
course in spatial planning for practising planners
and others provided by the University of the West
of England (see www.built-environment.uwe.ac.
uk/spatialplanning/).
References
Albrechts, L. & Mandelbaum, S. (Eds) (2005) The
Network Society: A New Context for Planning
(London, Routledge).
Allmendinger, P. (2003) From New Right to New Left
in UK planning, Urban Policy and Research,
21(1), pp. 57 – 79.
Allmendinger, P., Morphet, J. & Tewdwr-Jones, M.
(2005) Devolution and the modernisation of local
government: Prospects for spatial planning,
European Planning Studies, 13(3), pp. 349 – 370.
Allmendinger, P. & Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2000) New
Labour: New planning: The trajectory of planning
in Blair’s Britain, Urban Studies, 37(8),
pp. 1379 – 1402.
Audit Commission (2002) Development Control and
Planning (London, Audit Commission).
Baker Associates, Terence O’Rourke Associates,
Liverpool University, Manchester University and
University of the West of England (2006)
Spatial Plans in Practice: Inception Report
(London, Department for Communities and Local
Government).
Baker, M. (1998) Planning for the English regions: A
review of the secretary of state’s regional plan-
ning guidance, Planning Practice and Research,
13(2), pp. 153 – 169.
 Emergence of Spatial Planning in England
Baker, M. & Roberts, P. (1999) Examination of the
Operation and Effectiveness of the Structure
Planning Process: Summary Report (London,
DETR).
Barker, K. (2004) The Barker Review of Housing
Supply (London, HM Treasury).
Barker, K. (2006) The Barker Review of Land
Use Planning: Final Report (London, HM
Treasury).
Bastrup-Birk, H. & Doucet, P. (1997) European spatial
planning from the heart, Built Environment, 23,
pp. 307 – 314.
Bedford, T., Clark, J. & Harrison, C. (2002) Limits to
Downloaded by [University College London] at 12:45 30 September 2014
new public participation practices in local land
use planning, Town Planning Review, 73(3),
pp. 311 – 332.
Brenner, N. (2003) Metropolitan institutional reform
and the rescaling of state space in contemporary
Western Europe, European Urban and Regional
Studies, 10(4), pp. 297 – 324.
Burley, K. (2005) Probity and professional conduct in
planning: A personal perspective, Planning
Theory and Practice, 6(4), pp. 526 – 535.
Campaign to Protect Rural England (2006) Policy-
based Evidence Making (London, CPRE).
Cardiff University & Buchanan Partnership (1997)
Slimmer and Swifter: A Critical Examination of
District-wide Local Plans and UDPs (London,
Royal Town Planning Institute).
Carley, M. (1999) Neighbourhoods: Building blocks
of national sustainability, Town and Country
Planning, 68(2), pp. 61 – 64.
Carley, M. & Kirk, K. (1999) City-wide Urban
Regeneration, Scottish Executive Central
Research Unit (Edinburgh, The Stationery Office).
Carmona, M., Carmona, S. & Gallent, N. (2003)
Delivering New Homes: Processes, Planners and
Providers (London, Routledge).
Carmona, M. & Sieh, L. (2004) Measuring Quality in
Planning: Managing the Performance Process
(London, Spon Press).
CBI-TUC (2001) Planning for Productivity: A Ten
Point Action Plan (London, CBI).
CEC (1991) Europe 2000: Outlook for the Develop-
ment of the Community’s Territory (Luxembourg,
OOPEC).
CEC (1994) Europe 2000þ Cooperation for European
Territorial Development (Luxembourg, Office
for the Official Publications of the European
Communities).
CEC/Committee on Spatial Development (1999) The
European Spatial Development Perspective
(Luxembourg, OOPEC).
Chanan, G. (2003) Searching for Solid Foundations:
Community Involvement in Urban Policy
(London, ODPM).
Christie, I., Southgate, M. & Warburton, D. (2002)
Living Spaces: A Vision for the Future of
Planning (Sandy, Royal Society for the Protection
of Birds).
Cirell, S. (2003) The Modernisation of Local Govern-
ment and its Impact on Planning, Journal of
Planning and Environmental Law Occasional
Papers, 13, pp. 1 – 14.
Coon, A. (1988) Local plan provision: The record to
date and prospects for the future, The Planner,
74(5), pp. 17 – 20.
Coulson, A. (2003) Land-use planning and community
influence: A study of Selly Oak, Birmingham,
Planning Practice and Research, 18(2),
pp. 179 – 195.
Counsell, D. & Haughton, G. (2003) Regional
planning tensions: Planning for economic growth
and sustainable development in two con-
trasting English regions, Environment and
Planning C: Government and Policy, 21(2),
pp. 225 – 239.
Cowell, R. & Martin, S. (2003) The joy of joining
up: Modes of integrating the local government
modernisation agenda, in: Environment and
Planning C: Government and Policy, 21(2),
pp. 159 – 179.
Cowell, R. & Owens, S. (1998) Suitable locations:
Equity and sustainability in the minerals planning
process, Regional Studies, 32(9), pp. 797 – 811.
Cross, D. & Bristow, R. (Eds) (1983) English
Structure Planning (London, Pion).
Cullingworth, B. & Nadin, V. (2006) Town and
Country Planning in the UK (London,
Routledge).
Cullingworth, J. B. (1975) Reconstruction and Land
Use Planning 1939 – 1947: Environmental Plan-
ning 1939 – 1969, Volume 1 (London, HMSO).
Cullingworth, J. B. (1997) British land-use planning:
A failure to cope with change?, Urban Studies,
34, pp. 945 – 960.
Cullingworth, J. B. (Ed.) (1999) British Planning: 50
Years of Urban and Regional Policy (London,
Athlon).
Dais, I. (2006) The contested creation of new state
spaces: Contrasting conceptions of regional
strategy building in North West England, in:
M. Tewdwr-Jones & P. Allmendinger (Eds)
Territory, Identity and Spatial Planning,
pp. 83 – 105 (London, Routledge).
Davies, A. R. (2001) Hidden or hiding? Public percep-
tions of participation in the planning system, Town
Planning Review, 72(2), pp. 193 – 216.
Davoudi, S. (2001) Planning and the twin discourses
of sustainability, in: Layard et al. (Ed.) Planning
for a Sustainable Future, pp. 81 – 93 (London,
Spon).
59
 Vincent Nadin
Davoudi, S. (2005) Understanding territorial cohesion,
Planning Practice and Research, 20(4),
pp. 433 – 441.
Davoudi, S. (2006) Evidenced-based planning, Disp,
165(2), pp. 14 – 24.
De Montfort University and University of Strathclyde
(1998) Enhancing Public Participation in Local
Government (London, DETR).
Degeling, P. (1995) The significance of ‘sectors’ in
calls for urban public health intersectoralism: An
Australian perspective, Policy and Politics, 23(4),
p. 289.
Department for Transport, Local Government and the
Downloaded by [University College London] at 12:45 30 September 2014
Regions (2001a) Planning: Delivering a Funda-
mental Change (DTLR, London).
Department for Transport, Local Government and the
Regions (2001b) New Parliamentary Procedures
for Processing Major Infrastructure Projects
(London, DTLR).
Department for Transport, Local Government and
the Regions (2001c) Reforming Planning
Obligations: A Consultation Paper (London,
DTLR).
Department for Transport, Local Government and the
Regions (2001d) Compulsory Purchase and
Compensation: The Government’s Proposals for
Change (London, DTLR).
Department for Transport, Local Government and the
Regions (2001e) Possible Changes to the Use
Classes Order and Temporary Use Provisions
(London, DTLR).
Department of Environment, Transport and the
Regions (1999) Modernising Planning: A Pro-
gress Report (London, DETR).
Entec (2003) The Relationships between Community
Strategies and Local Development Frameworks.
Final Report (London, ODPM).
Evans, A. W. & Hartwich, O. M. (2006) The Best
Laid Plans: How Planning Prevents Economic
Development (London, Policy Exchange).
Evans, B. & Rydin, Y. (1997) Planning, profession-
alism and sustainability, in: A. Blowers &
B. Evans (Eds) Town Planning into the 21st
Century (London, Routledge).
Faludi, A. (2000) The performance of spatial planning,
Planning Practice and Research, 15(4),
pp. 299 – 318.
Faludi, A. (Ed.) (2007) Territorial Cohesion and the
European Model of Society (Cambridge, MA,
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy).
Faludi, A. (forthcoming) The learning machine:
European integration in the planning mirror,
Environment and Planning B.
Faludi, A. & Waterhout, B. (2002) The Making of the
European Spatial Development Perspective
(London, Routledge).
60
Faludi, A. & Waterhout, B. (2006) Introducing
evidenced based planning, Disp, 165(2), pp. 4 –
13.
Hall, P., Gracey, H., Drewett, R. & Thomas, R. (1973)
The Containment of Urban England (London,
Allen & Unwin).
Harris, N. & Hooper, A. (2004) Rediscovering the
‘spatial’ in public policy and planning: An
examination of the spatial content of sectoral
policy documents, Planning Theory and Practice,
5(2), pp. 147 – 169.
Healey, P. (1983) Local Plans in British Land Use
Planning (Oxford, Pergamon).
Healey, P. (1993) The communicative work of
development plans, Environment and Planning
B, 20, pp. 83 – 104.
Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning (London,
Macmillan).
Healey, P. (2004) The treatment of space and place in
the new strategic spatial planning in Europe,
International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research, 28(1), pp. 45 – 67.
Healey, P. (2006) Territory, integration and spatial
planning, in: M. Tewdwr-Jones & P. Allmendinger
Territory, Identity and Spatial Planning: Spatial
Governance in a Fragmented Nation, pp. 64 – 79
(London, Routledge).
Healey, P., Khakee, A., Motte, A. & Needham, B.
(1997) Making Strategic Spatial Plans: Innova-
tion in Europe (London, UCL Press).
Healey, P., McNamara, P., Elson, M. & Doak, A. (1988)
Land Use Planning and the Mediation of Change
(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
Healy, A. (2002) Evidence-based policy: The latest
form of inertia and control?, Planning Theory and
Practice, 3(1), pp. 97 – 98.
Higgins, M. & Alllmendinger, P. (1999) The changing
nature of public planning practice under the
New Right: The legacies and implications of
privatisation, Planning Practice and Research,
14(1), pp. 39 – 47.
Hillier Parker et al. (1998) Review of Development
Planning in Scotland, Development Department
Research Programme Research Findings No. 50
(Edinburgh, The Scottish Office).
Howe, J. & White, I. (2004) Like a fish out of water:
The relationship between planning and flood risk
management in the UK, Planning Practice and
Research, 19(4), pp. 415 – 425.
Johnstone, C. & Whitehead, M. (Eds) (2004) New
Horizons in British Urban Policy: Perspectives
on New Labour’s Urban Renaissance (Aldershot,
Ashgate).
Kellett, J. (2003) Renewable energy and the UK
planning system, Planning Practice and
Research, 18(4), pp. 307 – 315.
 Emergence of Spatial Planning in England
Lambert, C. (2006) Community strategies and spatial
planning in England: The challenges of inte-
gration, Planning Practice and Research, 21(2),
pp. 245 – 255.
Lawless, P. (2006) Area-based urban interventions:
Rationale and outcomes: The New Deal for
Communities programmes, Urban Studies,
43(11), pp. 1991 – 2011.
Local Government Association (1999) Planning
Concordat (London, LGA).
Local Government Association (2001) Reforming
Local Planning: Planning for Communities,
Report of a Working Group chaired by Nicky
Downloaded by [University College London] at 12:45 30 September 2014
Gavron (London, LGA).
Marshall, T. (2003) English regional planning: Recent
progress and current proposals, Planning Practice
and Research, 18(1), pp. 81 – 93.
Mastop, H. & Faludi, A. (1997) Evaluation of strategic
plans: The performance principle, Environment
and Planning B: Planning and Design, 24,
pp. 815 – 832.
Meijers, E. (2006) Synergy in Polycentric Urban
Regions: Complementarity, Organising Capacity
and Critical Mass (Delft, Delft University Press).
Meyerson, G. & Rydin, Y. (1996) Sustainable devel-
opment: the implications of the global debate for
land use planning, in: S. Buckingham-Hatfield &
B. Evans (Eds) Environmental planning and
Sustainability, pp. 19 – 34 (London, Wiley).
Morphet, J. (2004) RTPI Scoping Paper on Integrated
Planning, Unpublished RTPI paper, [Online].
Available at: http://www.rtpi.org.uk/resources/
policy-statements/morphet.pdf (accessed Jul. 2005).
Murtagh, B. (2001) City visioning and the turn to
community, Planning Practice and Research,
16(1), pp. 9 – 10.
Musson, S., Tickell, A. & John, P. (2005) A decade of
decentralisation? Assessing the role of the
government offices for the English regions,
Environment and Planning A, 37(8),
pp. 1395 – 1412.
Nadin, V. & Dühr, S. (2006a) Some help with Euro-
planning jargon, Town and Country Planning,
74(3), p. 82.
Nadin, V. & Dühr, S. (2006b) Territorial cohesion and
the UK presidency, Town and Country Planning,
74(3), pp. 113 – 115.
Nadin, V. & Shaw, D. (1999) Subsidiarity and
Proportionality in Spatial Planning Activities in
the European Union (London, DETR).
Nadin, V., Shaw, D., Hawkes, P., Cooper, S. and
Westlake, T. (1997) The EU Compendium of
European Planning Systems and Policies: Over-
view Volume (Luxemborg: OOPEC).
ODPM (2002) Press Release: Planning Bill Puts
Community First, 4 Dec. (London, ODPM).
ODPM (2004a) Planning Policy Statement 12: Local
Development Frameworks (Norwich, HMSO).
ODPM (2004b) Planning Policy Statement 11:
Regional Spatial Strategies (London, The
Stationery Office).
Owen, S. (2002) From village design statements to
parish plans: Some pointers towards community
decision making in the planning system in England,
Planning Practice and Research, 17(1), pp. 81 – 89.
Owen, S. & Moseley, M. (2003) Putting Parish Plans
in their place: Relationships between community-
based initiatives and development planning in
English villages, Town Planning Review, 74(4),
pp. 445 – 472.
Planning Advisory Group (1965) The Future of
Development Plans (London, Ministry of Hous-
ing and Local Government).
Planning Officers’ Society (2005a) Policies for Spatial
Plans: A Guide to Writing the Policy Content of
Local Development Documents, Unpublished,
[Online] Available at: http://www.planningofficers.
org.uk/article.cp/articleid/66 (accessed Aug. 2005).
Planning Officers’ Society (2005b) Core Strategies
and What Goes Where, Unpublished meeting
notes 23/05/05 from POS LDF project, [Online]
Available at: http://www.planningofficers.org.uk/
page.cp/pageid/102 (accessed Sept. 2005).
Poxon, J. (2000) Solving the development plan puzzle
in Britain: Learning lessons from history,
Planning Perspectives, 15(1), pp. 73 – 89.
Reade, E. (1987) British Town and Country Planning
(Milton Keynes, Open University Press).
Reeves, D. (2004) Planning for Diversity: Policy and
Planning in a World of Difference (London,
Routledge).
Regional Futures (2004) Spatial Planning in the
Regions Research Report, [Online] Available
at: http://www.regionalfutures.org.uk/newsdigest/
SPintheregions_page1953.aspx.
Richards, S., Barnes, M., Coulson, A., Gaster, L.,
Leach, B. & Sullivan, H. (1999) Cross-cutting
Issues in Public Policy and Public Services
(London, DETR).
Richardson, T. & Jensen, O. B. (2003) Liking
discourse and space: Towards a cultural sociology
of space in analysing spatial policy discourses,
Urban Studies, 40(1), pp. 7 – 22.
Robert, J. (2007) The origins of territorial cohesion
and the vagaries of its trajectory, in: A. Faludi
Territorial Cohesion and the European Model of
Society (2007) (Cambridge, MA, Lincoln Institute
of Land Policy).
Robert, J., Stumm, T., de Vet, J. M., Reincke, C. J.,
Hollanders, M. & Figueiredo, M. A. (2001)
Spatial Impacts of Community Policies and Costs
of Non-coordination (Luxembourg, OOPEC).
61
 Vincent Nadin
Roberts, T. (1998) The statutory system of town plan-
ning in the UK: A call for detailed reform, Town
Planning Review, 69(1), pp. iii – vii.
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (2002)
Environmental Planning (London, The Stationery
Office).
Royal Town Planning Institute (1999) Radical Review
of the Development Plan System in England:
Process and Procedures (London, Royal Town
Planning Institute).
Royal Town Planning Institute (2000a) Fitness for
Purpose: Quality in Development Plans (London,
Royal Town Planning Institute).
Downloaded by [University College London] at 12:45 30 September 2014
Royal Town Planning Institute (2000b) A New Vision
for Planning: Delivering Sustainable Commu-
nities, Settlements and Places: Mediating Space –
Creating Place (London, RTPI).
Royal Town Planning Institute (2004) A Manifesto for
Planning (London, RTPI).
Rozee, L. (2006) Meet the challenges of the local
development framework system, Journal of
Planning and Environment Law Occassional
Papers, No. 34, pp. 48 – 58.
Rydin, Y. (1999) Public participation in planning, in:
J. B. Cullingworth (Ed.) British Planning: 50 Years
of Urban and Regional Policy (London, Athlone),
pp. 184 – 197.
Salet, W. & Faludi, A. (2000) The Revival of Strategic
Spatial Planning (Amsterdam, Edita Knaw).
Seaton, K. & Nadin, V. (2002) An Update on the EU
Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and
Policies (London, DETR).
Shaw, D. & Sykes, O. (2003) Investigating the appli-
cation of the European Spatial Development
Perspective (ESDP) to regional planning in the
UK, Town Planning Review, 71(1), pp. 31 – 50.
Shaw, D. & Sykes, O. (2005) European spatial develop-
ment policy and evolving forms of territorial
mobilisation in the United Kingdom, Planning
Practice and Research, 20(2), pp. 183 – 200.
Simmie, J. (1993) Planning at the Crossroads
(London, UCL Press).
Stead, D., Geerlings, H. & Meijers, E. (2003)
Integrated Land Use Planning, Transport and
Environmental Policy-Making: An International
Comparison, Volume 1 (Delft, OTB Research
Institute for the Built Environment, Delft Uni-
versity of Technology; Rotterdam, Erasmus
Centre for Sustainable Development and Manage-
ment, Erasmus University Rotterdam).
62
Stead, D. & Meijers, E. (2004) Policy Integration in
Practice: Some Experiences of Integrating Trans-
port, Land-Use Planning and Environmental
Policies in Local Government, Paper presented
at the conference on the Human Dimensions of
Global Environmental Change: Greening of
Policies – Interlinkages and Policy Integration,
Berlin.
Steel, J., Nadin, V., Daniels, R. & Westlake, T. (1995)
The Efficiency and Effectiveness of Local Plan
Inquiries (London, HMSO).
Sullivan, H. & Skelcher, C. (2002) Working Across
Boundaries, Collaboration in Public Services
(Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan).
Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2004) Spatial planning: Principles,
practices and cultures, Journal of Planning and
Environment Law, May, pp. 560 – 569.
Tewdwr-Jones, M. & Williams, R. H. (2001) The
European Dimension of British Planning
(London, Spon).
Thomas, H. (1996) Public participation in planning, in:
M. Tewdwr-Jones (Ed.) British Planning Policy
in Transition (London, UCL Press), pp. 168 – 188.
Thornley, A. (1993) Urban Planning under Thatcher-
ism: The Challenge of the Market, 2nd edn
(London, Routledge).
Town and Country Planning Association (2000) Your
Place and Mine: Reinventing Planning (London,
TCPA).
Vigar, G., Healey, P., Hull, A. & Davoudi, S. (2000)
Planning Governance and Spatial Strategy in
Britain: An Institutionalist Analysis (London,
Macmillan).
Wannop, U. (1995) The Regional Imperative: Regio-
nal Planning and Governance in Britain, Europe
and the United States (London, Routledge).
Wates, N. (2000) The Community Planning Hand-
book: How People Can Shape their Cities, Towns
and Villages in any Part of the World (London,
Urban Design Group, South Bank University).
Wilkinson, D. & Appelbee, E. (1999) Implementing
Holistic Government (Bristol, Policy Press).
Williams, R. H. (1996) European Union Spatial
Policy and Planning (London, Paul Chapman).
Wong, C. (2006) Indicators for Urban and Regional
Planning: The Interplay of Policy and Methods
(London, Routledge).
Zonneveld, W. (2005) Multiple visioning: New ways
of constructing transnational spatial visions,
Environment and Planning C, 23(1), pp. 41 – 62.