This photograph of Crookbarrow Hill on the edge of Worcester is taken from Wood Hall Farm to the east of the M5 Motorway, which bisects the apparently rural scene. M5 Junction 7 is just out-of-sight. Nevertheless, this remains a high quality landscape and “open country” of the kind that green belt planning is designed to conserve, a subject to which I shall return shortly.

As it happens, both these groups are based in the former South West region, in the same M5 motorway corridor as Worcester, which fell into the former West Midlands region. Strategic planning in Worcester and the West Midlands was less advanced than further south, and, as it also happens, the local South Worcestershire Joint Core Strategy has been scrapped along with the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy.

From the Worcester and environs perspective, SWJCS was, in fact, just as much of a problem as WMRSS because of a presumption of development around the city of the kind which has aroused so much opposition further south. SWJCS is due to be replaced by a “South Worcestershire Development Plan” – see www.swjcs.org  The very title of the proposed new local plan suggests that the presumption in favour of development is likely to continue. Indeed, it may well be that South Worcestershire will be expected to absorb development pressures from further south.

This is precisely why a higher tier of strategic planning is important and the abolition of regional spatial strategies – which offered the potential for tackling strategic environmental issues such as the protection of existing green belts and the designation of new ones, around places like Worcester  - must not be allowed to encourage large-scale speculative development, as is currently happening around Worcester.

My submission to the CLG Committee therefore proposes the replacement of RSSs with a “Standing Conference” of local authorities, government agencies and non-government organisations, similar to that of SERPLAN (the South East Regional Planning Conference) which existed before the introduction of heavy-handed regional planning and development bureaucracies by the previous government. These forums would work with Government Regional Offices, also a precursor of New Labour structures, to maintain the body of useful strategic research to emerge from the RSS process, such as data on the backlog of brownfield employment land in the West Midlands region.

Insititution of Civil Engineers Headquarters, London

The subject of “Peak Oil” has been in the news again recently – http://peakoiltaskforce.net – reminding us again of the resource pre-occupations which characterised much of the 1970s, along with power cuts and economic malaise in the UK.

However, whilst some cities and regions learnt the lessons of that time, it’s probably fair to say that no single nation has, to the extent necessary to tackle the similar problems of today.

Unfortunately, a good example of this failure to learn comes from a supposed global centre of excellence for learning in this country : the University of Cambridge.

The following extract comes from an article from Sir Peter Hall in Regeneration & Renewal, 6 July 200 which refers to “a group of urban researchers, led by Professor Marcial Echenique of Cambridge University, who have spent three years seeking to understand the relationships between urban development, transport and sustainability” :

“The Solutions project, conducted in five universities and funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, found virtually no relationship between urban form and travel…They looked at three alternative scenarios: a Richard Rogers-style compact city; market-led dispersal, US-fashion; and planned expansion on the garden city model….Until now, such arguments have come from free-market think-tanks or the Treasury, in Kate Barker’s report on planning policies. But the new research, coming from top university departments of planning and transport, will re-ignite the debate. The Department for Communities and Local Government, working frantically on new housing policy options, needs urgently to take heed.”

This is interesting because a report recently published by the “Institution of Civil Engineers” – Entering the Ecological Age: The Engineers Role – strongly suggests that it is precisely “a Richard Rogers-style compact city” of the kind advocated in his Urban Task Force Report “Towards an Urban Renaissance” in 1999 which holds the key to sustainability.

Since the publication of this report, the main problem has been lack of investment in a whole range of sustainable transport measures, as distinct from unwelcome public exhortations. Implementing such measures will be a key challenge for the next administration.

However, the contention made in my previous post – No Need for Endless Replication – still stands ie that employment land availability in Droitwich, which has relatively good infrastructure, justifies its pre-existing status as a sub-regional employment centre (rather than site !).

I do, incidentally, find the Panel’s distinction between a “Strategic”  and “Sub-Regional” designation to be helpful, and this might be more widely applied to other “Centres”.

Returning to Droitwich, I do not, however, propose substantial new greenfield site release here to accommodate further development, but instead support a strategy for South Worcestershire which maximises the use of previously developed land, including Throckmorton Airfield.

At the rather more fast transit Examination of the proposed West Midlands Regional Spatial Stategy (WMRSS) phase 2 Revision currently underway, I am again reminded of the strong tendency of development promoters to replicate facilities that already exist.

In this instance, the issue is whether Worcester and environs should accommodate a so-called “Manufacturing” and/or “Regional Investment Site”, as defined by the Regional Development Agency, Advantage West Midlands. Incidentally, an RIS is assigned to Longbridge, on the border between North Worcestershire and the West Midlands Conurbation.

In addition, a combined MIS/RIS already exists a relatively short distance to the  north of Worcester and is called Droitwich, although this appears to have escaped the attention of the South Worcestershire Joint Core Strategy (SWJCS), for some reason.

@ Smart Limits to Growth we are looking for precisely the opposite to this Government’s policy on money supply with regard to the supply of development land. Also in this week’s media has been much comment on the many stalled regeneration projects around the country. We do not need a large-scale release of  greenfield development sites.

Thank you for your letter and email of last week, together with the minutes of the WMRSS Proposed Phase 2 Revision Pre-Examination Meeting and enclosed notes for guidance.

Below is the Draft List of Matters which I propose to cover in my Examination-in-Public Submission :

Matter 1. Context of the Phase 2 Revision

• Do proposed changes constitute a Review ?
• Sustainability Appraisal and SEA issues
• Separation of Phases 2 and 3

Matter 2. Level of Growth in Region 2006-2026

• Indicators of Dysfunctional Growth
• The Real Economy (as distinct from speculative)
• The Housing Market

Matter 3. The Spatial Strategy

• Existing RSS likely to cope with “real” growth to 2016
• Difference between  “spatial strategy” and “development scenario”
• Proposed Phase 2 Revision needs more “nuanced” approach

Matter 4. The Sub-Regional Dimension (Worcestershire)

• Importance of Urban Renaissance at sub-regional level
• Legacy of previous regional planning policy ie dispersion
• Transport issues eg proposed Worcestershire Parkway
• Issues for South Worcestershire Joint Core Strategy

Matter 5. Housing

• Causes and consequences of the “Credit Crunch”
• Level of empty property in the region
• Definitions of housing need and “affordability”
• Issue of “new settlements” eg scale/location

Matter 6. Employment Land

• “Investment Locations”  & sustainable regeneration
• Proposals for “Regional Logistics Centres”
• Employment land & sustainable development
• Town centre, retail and office policies

Matter 7 . Waste

• Need for sustainable, balanced and flexible policies

Matter 8. Transport

• Demand management and modal shift issues
• Transport investment priorities and relationship to RSS
• Strategic park and ride (including  parkway stations)

Matter 9. Implementation, Monitoring and Review

My primary interests relate to :

• SA/SEA and use of project environmental impact assessments
• Quantum, phasing and type (brown/greenfield) of land supply
• Links to RES and RHS and related delivery mechanisms

Re  : Proposed WMRSS Phase 2 Revision Examination-in-Public

I am writing to you following last week’s Pre-Examination Meeting at the the Molineux Stadium in Wolverhampton.

As previously indicated, I would like to attend the second Pre-Examination Meeting and the Technical Seminar on Strategic Environmental Assessment/Habitats Regulation Assessment and “Water Issues” on 18 March.

Should there be a further seminar on “Implementation Issues”, particularly with regard to housing, I should also be interested in attending this.

I intend to provide a written submission on a number of issues identified in the draft List of Matters, and look forward to receiving the final version of this.

With regard to Matter 1, at last week’s meeting I raised the issue of whether the changes proposed to the current West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy constitute a Review rather than a Revision. I suggest this issue should be addressed when the “procedural soundness of the RSS Revision” is considered and I would, therefore, welcome the opportunity to participate in the appropriate Examination hearing.

My wider interest in the Proposed WMRSS Phase 2 Revision Examination process might be summarised as follows :

The quantum and phasing of land supply for housing, employment  and associated physical and social infrastructure, and the implications of these for the environment, including landscape and built heritage, as well as for sustainable regeneration and urban renaissance at the regional and sub-regional levels.

Therefore, Matters 4  (The Sub-Regional Dimension, particularly with regard to the Remainder of South HMA/Worcestershire) and 9 (Implementation, Monitoring and Review) are also of considerable interest to me.

My comments are the draft Phase 2 Revision are as follows.

I fundamentally question the phasing of the WMRSS Revisions, and, in particular, the separation of major regional development issues (ie Phase 2) and major environmental issues, including flood risk (ie in Phase 3). 

I suggest that is a basic miscomprehension of land economy  and management underlies much of the work on which the WMRSS Phase 2 and 3 Revisions are based, and a fundamental reality check is needed over the next couple of years. The property market and nature (notably, through flooding) are now providing this : policy makers please take note

* These comments apply to the work of both the West Midlands Regional Assembly/?Development Agency and the GOWM Housing Consultant’s Report.

“3. Development of the West Midlands : A Fundamental Change of Direction

3.1 The RPG (Regional Planning Guidance) process has provided the opportunity to fundamentally reassess the nature of the West Midlands and the different circumstances, threats and opportunities that each place within it faces. In doing so, the continued decentralisation of population and investment from the Major Urban Areas (MUAs) and the need to create balanced and stable communities across the Region have been identified as key issues. Sustainable communities: building for the future (a national plan of action) and the Regional plan (Sustainable communities in the West Midlands) mark a step change in the Government’s approach to sustainable communities through, among other things, setting in place lasting solutions to reverse decline and regenerate deprived areas.

3.2 An important factor in the trend of decentralisation from the MUAs has been the availability of development land in the settlements close to them. This has contributed to the loss of investment, abandonment and environmental degradation in the MUAs and increased development and environmental pressures in other parts of the Region. The dispersal of population and activities under-uses the social and physical resources of the MUAs and contributes to unsustainable development patterns that lead people to make more and longer journeys, more often than not by the private car.

3.3 At the same time some rural areas have suffered from insufficient economic activity and suitable housing development to support a balanced population. This has resulted in people either leaving or needing to travel greater distances access services and job opportunities….”

The following policy priorities are then identified :

“Urban Renaissance – developing the MUAs in such a way that they can increasingly meet their own economic and social needs in order to counter the unsustainable outward movement of people and jobs facilitated by previous strategies.

Rural Renaissance – addressing more effectively the major changes which are challenging the traditional roles of rural areas and the countryside;

Diversifying and modernising the Region’s economy – ensuring that opportunities for growth are linked to meeting needs and that they help reduce social exclusion; and

Modernising the transport infrastructure of the West Midlands – supporting the sustainable development the Region.”

Unfortunately, the draft Phase 2 Revision of the Strategy, as well as GOWM’s own consultant’s report on housing, threatens the “Smart Limits to Growth” described above with patently unsustainable development.