The authors examine the role of development plans in managing spatial change, The impact of the enhanced status of the development plan in the UK context is assessed with the aid of research material drawn from detailed case studies in Lancashire and Kent. Two governance ‘episodes’ are highlighted: a highly structured game within the mainstream planning system; and an innovative private-sector-led approach to planning for an area with the potential for rapid change. By means of these two illustrations the authors indicate the importance of the processes of development-plan preparation in the local context, the political tensions inherent to the land-use planning system in managing growth, and explore notions of plans being a store of local consensus about future spatial change.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllmendingerPTewdwr-JonesM, 1997, “Post-Thatcherite urban planning and politics”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research21100–116.
2.
CritchleyPSmithE, 1995, “Lancashire Structure Plan 1991–2006, examination in public May 1995: Report of the panel”, Submitted to Lancashire County Council, County Hall, Preston, Lancs PR1 8QA.
3.
DearM, 1995, “Prolegemena to a post-modern urbanism”, in Managing Cities Eds HealeyPCameronSDavoudiSGrahamSMadani-PourA (John Wiley, Chichester, Sussex) pp 27–45.
4.
DBC, 1997, “Local plan review: main issues discussion paper”, Dartford Borough Council, Civic Centre, Home Gardens, Dartford, Kent DA1 1DR.
5.
DoE, 1992Planning Policy Guidance Note 1: General Policy and Principles, Department of the Environment (The Stationery Office, London).
6.
DoE, 1993, “Local Authorities urged to make positive plans for the future”, news release, 6 January, Department of the Environment, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London SW1E 5DU.
7.
DoE, 1994Regional Planning Guidance Note 9: Regional Planning Guidance for the South East, Department of the Environment (The Stationery Office, London).
8.
DoE, 1966Regional Planning Guidance Note 9a: The Thames Gateway Planning Framework, Department of the Environment (The Stationery Office, London).
9.
HBF, 1995, “Representations to the Lancashire Structure Plan 1991–2006 Examination in Public”, House Builders Federation, Bonds Farm, Bedfield, Woodbridge, Suffolk IP13 7HJ.
10.
HealeyP, 1983Local Plans in British Land-use Planning (Pergamon Press, Oxford).
11.
HealeyPMcNamaraPElsonMDoakJ, 1988Land Use Planning and the Mediation of Urban Change (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
12.
Herbert-YoungN, 1995, “Reflections on Section 54A and ‘plan-led’ decision-making”Journal of Planning and Environmental Law292–305.
13.
HollidayI, 1993, “Organised interests after Thatcher”, in Developments in British Politics Eds DunleavyPGambleAHollidayIPeeleG (Macmillan, Basingstoke, Hants) pp 307–320.
14.
KitchenT, 1997People, Politics, Policies and Plans (Paul Chapman, London).
15.
KTP, 1995, “Looking to the future”, Kent Thames-side Partnership, 307 London Road, Greenhithe, Dartford, Kent DA9 9JG.
16.
LCC, 1994Lancashire Structure Plan 1991–2006 Deposit VersionLancashire County Council, County Hall, Preston, Lancs PR1 8QA.
17.
MacgregorBRossA, 1995, “Master or servant? The changing role of the development plan in the British planning system”Town Planning Review6641–59.
18.
NewmanPThornleyA, 1996, “Urban governance and planning in London”, presented to the European Union and Regional Studies Conference, A Changing Europe in a Changing World, 11–14 June, Exeter; copy available from the authors, School of Urban Development and Planning, University of Westminster, London NW1 5LS.
19.
NWRA, 1993, “Greener growth”, Regional Planning Guidance Sub Group, North West Regional Association, PO Box 36, Library Street, Wigan WN1 1YN.
20.
Planning and Compensation Act1991Public General Acts – Elizabeth II, chapter 34 (The Stationery Office, London).
