Delivering infrastructure though spatial planning

Transcription

1 Delivering infrastructure though spatial planning Professor Janice Morphet, UCL 4 th December 2015 Infrastructure and CIL RTPI South West, Guildhall Bath j.morphet@ucl.ac.uk

2 Outline of presentation Introduction Why is infrastructure planning an integral part of spatial planning? Spatial planning at different scales EU Spatial Investment plan for Europe ? National spatial plans Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland The new strategic planning - Functional Economic Areas and new economic geography LEPs, Citydeals, combined authorities Local plans and IDPs Neighbourhood delivery plans Can you have infrastructure delivery without spatial planning?

3 Introduction Continue consideration of infrastructure delivery planning by spatial scales Need to remember that sub-regional and local infrastructure planning and delivery sits within the EU and NSIP approaches This only deals with England See Morphet (2010) for rest of UK

4 Structure of transport policy in UK Multilevel government? EU UK nations FEA Local Neighbourhood

5 Why is infrastructure planning so important in the UK? UK currently 5 th largest world economy but 27 th in infrastructure league table (World Economic Forum 2015) Pressures for improvement at all levels What can be done in practice?

6 Pressure for UK infrastructure delivery improvements External OECD (2011) International Monetary Fund (2014)

7 1. EU Pooled policies and legislation Trans European Networks (TEN) transport and energy Economic policy pressure on the UK for infrastructure delivery EU ( ): Europe 2020; Growth and Stability Pact EU ( ): Energy Europe: TEN-T transport networks All are focussing on UK infrastructure, planning and housing performance Investment Plan for Europe

8 UK infrastructure policies pooled within the EU UK agrees and adopts EU policies and legislation at all spatial scales Transport all modes and scales Energy Water Air Habitats Waste Ports Rural/agriculture Public health Culture/heritage Regeneration policy

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 EU Spatial Investment plan for Europe ? Preparation for next EU programme Initial programme EU President's investment programme

17

18

19

20 2. National Spatial plans Northern Ireland Scotland Wales All in at least 3 rd iteration All include strategic infrastructure delivery

21 3. The new strategic planning and infrastructure Combined Authorities from 2007 Local Enterprise Partnerships from 2010 City Deals from 2011 Devo deals from 2015

22 Regional focus from Conservative manifesto 2015 To create Northern Powerhouse this will include elected metro mayors. To create Bristol/South Wales Powerhouse To crate Eastern Powerhouse (More combined authorities?) To devolve powers over economic development, transport and social care to large cities which choose to have elected mayors. To pilot allowing local councils to retain 100 per cent of growth in business rates. To devolve further powers over skills spending and planning to the Mayor of London. To agree more Growth Deals with local councils and back Local Enterprise Partnerships (nb will probably be changed following an EU ruling in 2014). English votes for English laws.

23 Emerging narrative of territory, economy and governance New economic geography Krugman, 1991/2011 New state spaces, Brenner, 2004 Spatiotemporal fixes, Jessup, 1997 Merging of space, economic and new governance models eg EU financial stability measures/2007 territorial cohesion Competitive and comparative benchmarking OECD, 2011; World Bank, 2011 Converging economic space and administrative boundaries of functional economic areas (FEA) OECD 2014

24

25 Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) Offered to local government in June 2010 but led by business and self selecting Despite all expectations, covered the whole of England after about a year - 39 in all No legal basis No public duty in declarations and appointments Expected to produce an Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) and European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) bid and programme SEPs included housing and transport proposals BUT no links with local plans required Awarded growth funding for infrastructure

26 LEPs run into problems ESIFs part of UK s commitment to meet 2013 EU Cohesion Regulation UK required to submit a Partnership Agreement (PA) in April 2014 By October 2014, UK Government advised that LEPs not recognised by EC October 2014, Chancellor commits to devolution in Manchester Feb 2015 Minister at DCLG writes to all LEPs to advise that they can t receive funding October 2015 Minster advises that no legal powers being sought for LEPs What is the status of the ESIFs and SEPs?

27 City Deals Introduced in 2011 after failed Government initiative to introduce directly elected mayors though city referenda Introduced in 2 waves the core cities and then a wave 2 Contract format both sides commit to same objectives Designed to be read as an agreement between equals Example of vertical integration or Multi Level Governance

28 City deals government requirements Agree appropriate and sound objectives and outcomes Identify resources to support the development of a City Deal, contribute to the overall fund and cover the cost of financing requirements Have effective governance that also fits in with the UK Government's agenda in terms of the devolution of powers to city regions Have an effective method of project prioritisation Have a functional economic geography consistent with effective decision making and ensuring the net impact can be optimised to reach its maximum potential Have an approach to risk which shows the commitment of partners

29 England 2012 Wave 1 Gtr Birmingham, Sheffield City Region, Bristol Region, Gtr Manchester, Leeds City Region, Liverpool City region, Nottingham City Region, Newcastle City Region All have infrastructure/transport and skills priorities In addition each has a specific individual priority eg town centres, health, public assets Each deal has specific outcomes defined All linked to the LEP Economic Plan All have defined governance structure

30 England 2014 Wave 2 (18) Black Country Thames Valley Berkshire Sunderland and South Tyneside Grt Ipswich Leicester and Leics Coventry and Warwickshire Plymouth and SW Peninsular Preston, Sth Ribble and Lancs Oxford and Oxfordshire Tees Valley Swindon and Wiltshire Stoke on Trent and Staffordshire Grt Norwich Southend on Sea Hull and Humber Southampton and Portsmouth Grt Brighton Gtr Cambridge

31 Wave 2 Citydeal characteristics Priorities: Planning 14 (78%) Housing 6 (33%) Infrastructure 11 (61%) Skills 13 (72%) Special priorities: flood defences, growth zones, public assets, maritime Gtr Cambridge and Oxford and Oxford City: all four priorities and no specific priority

32 What might we conclude from this? Wave 1 expected to be combined authorities when negotiated more strategic form of economic planning anticipated Wave 2 focus on existing planning system but without addressing issues such as the need for a strategic plan or the failure of the duty to cooperate

33 Citydeals Wave 1 criticised by the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee 11 November 2015 Criticisms: Not model for wider devolution No accountability for public funds Should be tied into current devolution arrangements Need to measure growth outcomes Government needs to have single point of contact with places

34 Devo deals Offered in June 2015 submissions by 4 th Sept 2015 Most areas submitted a deal Some government encouragements for specific arrangements First agreements announced NE, Teesside, D2N2, Liverpool, Birmingham More to come

35 Devo deals All AGREED devo deals have a directly elected mayor who has control over strategic planning and transport All likely to result in combined authorities All of England likely to be included London model closest equivalent

36 The new Strategic Planning what will it look like? How do we do it? Probably more like business planning that RSS Are there any examples? Strategic Development Plans in Scotland and soon in Wales Look at one example TAYPLAN in Scotland

37

38

39

40

41 Strategic planning methods? Vision and objectives Evidence SWOT Status quo projection Gap analysis Options development to meet gaps Options appraisal and selection Delivery programme Implementation using project management

42 3. Local plans and IDPs Now over 90% local authorities either have or preparing IDPs Majority based on same methodology committed capital projects over 5-10 year period Majority of funding from providing institutions eg utilities Means for creating confidence and opportunities for shared investment

43 Linking strategic and local planning Need to identify major or mission critical infrastructure projects? Capacity Growth Condition Government policy Need to identify dependencies both within the local authority and wider area What do we need to do to enable others? What do others need to do to enable us?

44 Neighbourhood planning Some neighbourhood plan are starting to prepare delivery plans as part of their process These can be used if CIL is made available through new schemes Gives some send of local priority Links planning and delivery See Winsford and Thame for examples

45 Key issues to consider for infrastructure planning Horizontal integration working across borders for all services economic, social. environmental Combined authorities Vertical integration Working through governance scales of local impact of an NSIP application/ Citydeals and other forms of territorial pacts Both might need legal or quasi contractual institutional structures to attract investment ie governance stability for delivery

46 Conclusion Infrastructure planning remains a high priority at all spatial scales Funding for infrastructure never been cheaper to obtain HOWEVER who decides about spatial strategies, investment and priorities? Can t have infrastructure investment without the new strategic planning