• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Disintegrated development in the rural-urban fringe
 

Disintegrated development in the rural-urban fringe

on

  • 712 views

Alister Scott (BCU) discusses the messy and contested rural-urban fringe (or perhaps urban-rural fringe?) and the effect of the contradictory policies relating to space and place.

Alister Scott (BCU) discusses the messy and contested rural-urban fringe (or perhaps urban-rural fringe?) and the effect of the contradictory policies relating to space and place.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
712
Views on SlideShare
710
Embed Views
2

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 2

http://www.slashdocs.com 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • My talk focuses on 3 main components of the rural urban fringe. Drawing on an 18 month proejct funded by the Research Councils UK under the Relu programme. Connections Disintegrated policy and decision making 3. New opportunity spaces. Taken images out as too clattered / busy background. This then also standardises the videos with none having a front image
  • Use of the word fuzzy signifies soft and fluid boundaries of the RUF Important addition to many definitions by looking at the people who shape the area. See RUF defined by nature/interests of people who live there as much as land uses. This brings into RUF zone commuter areas in what might have been seen as previously rural.
  • Range of terms that characterise the fringe. Positive and Negative but reflecting its important status as the key zone of land use change and contestation. Key role of greenbelt tends to dominate debates however.
  • The academic literature has been notably silent on the URF and RUF but these snapshots seeing some important contributions that reinforce the negative and positive aspects conveying both potential and urgency in sound planning and policy responses.
  • So I want to briefly unpack our conceptual approach regarding the convergence of spatial planning and ecosystems approaches. Currently pursued as separate paradigms with their own institutional champions and policy responses.
  • Having built a team uniting academics and policy practitioners we effectively Our starting point involved individual reflective pieces drawing on experiences of Spatial Planning and the Ecosystem Approach. Despite their different foundations and philosophies the rhetoric has remarkable convergence   . These terms emerging from a contents analysis of the reflective pieces form the starting point from which our resultant framework was produced   .”
  • So I want to briefly unpack our conceptual approach regarding the convergence of spatial planning and ecosystems approaches. Currently pursued as separate paradigms with their own institutional champions and policy responses.
  • The natural environment is based on reward   , whilst the built environment is based on restraint and control. 2. The natural environment is driven by the Natural Environment White Paper whilst   the built environment is being driven by the emerging National Planning Policy Framework with limited connection between the two. 3. The natural environment is focussed at the habitat and landscape scale whilst   the built environment is currently moving towards a local scale. 4. The natural environment is overseen by Defra with its delivery agencies (Natural England, Environment Agency and Forestry Commission) whilst   the built environment is over seen by the Department for the Communities and Local Government with its delivery agencies being local authorities. 5. The natural environment champions the ecosystem approach   whilst the built environment champions spatial planning. 6. The natural environment classifies habitats and species   whilst the built environment zones and orders using land use plans. 7. The natural environment uses the UK National Ecosystem Assessment   whilst the built environment uses Sustainability Assessments incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment. 8. The natural environment currently uses the umbrella of Integrated Biodiversity Delivery Areas   whilst the built environment uses the umbrella of Development plans. 9. The natural environment is promoting Nature Improvement Areas for environmental funding   whilst the built environment is promoting enterprise zones for economic funding. 10. The natural environment is developing Local Nature Partnerships whilst   the Built Environment has developed Local Enterprise partnerships.  
  • “ However, it’s important to realise that every part of the GI network doesn’t have to deliver against each one these benefits. For example in a SSSI, biodiversity conservation and enhancement may take priority, whereas in new residential development climate change resilience, sustainable transport and community cohesion may come to the fore. “ Many of the actions that would result from effective Green Infrastructure planning also support the ecosystem approach, whether or not this is factored into the decision-making process. “ Take for example a watercourse. Watercourses are an obvious linear feature which can thread through and link up urban and rural areas, making them a natural part of the Green Infrastructure network. The Green Infrastructure led management of the watercourse could include influencing appropriate management of the floodplain or the re-naturalisation of the watercourse, protecting or restoring its natural functions. This is good for the environment and good for nearby communities. “ It is here that the inherent multifunctionality of Green Infrastructure immediately takes it beyond just planning, or just ecology. However, to make Green Infrastructure happen, a wide range of partners need to work together. “ The Green Infrastructure approach is gaining popularity in town and country planning because it integrates different environmental themes, such as biodiversity and the historic environment, in a way which provides a holistic understanding of the natural and built environment. And then puts this into a format which can be applied i ncluding being used proactively by planners in policy development, masterplans and informing their decisions on development. “ The key point is that the sum value of the Green Infrastructure network is greater than its constituent parts.”

Disintegrated development in the rural-urban fringe Disintegrated development in the rural-urban fringe Presentation Transcript

  • Disintegrated development in the rural urban fringe Alister Scott BA PhD MRTPI Claudia Carter, Richard Coles, David Collier, Chris Crean, Rachel Curzon, Bob Forster, Nick Grayson, Andrew Hearle, David Jarvis, relu Miriam Kennet, Peter Larkham, Karen Leach, Mark Middleton, Nick Morton, Mark Reed, Rural Economy and Hayley Pankhurst, Nicki Schiessel, Benrelu Use Programme Land Stonyer, Ruth Waters and Keith BuddenRural Economy andLand Use Programme
  • Plan 1. Rediscovering the rural urban fringe 2. Interdisciplinary Investigations 3. Narratives: disintegrated development 4. Narratives: opportunity spaces 5. ReflectionsreluRural Economy andLand Use Programme
  • Rediscovering the rural urban fringe. • Research team perspectives • (1.04-3.23 )reluRural Economy andLand Use Programme
  • Rediscovering the rural-urban fringerelu Building interdisciplinarity across theRural Economy and rural domainLand Use Programme
  • Gallent et al 2006 • a multi-functional environment, but often characterised by essential service functions; • a dynamic environment, characterised by adaptation and conversion between uses; • low-density economic activity including retail, industry, distribution and warehousing; • an untidy landscape, potentially rich in wildlife.reluRural Economy andLand Use Programme
  • Defining the rural-urban fringe  It is the ‘fuzzy’ and dynamic space where town (built environment) and countryside (natural environment) intersect  Beyond urban centric  Beyond land uses  Includes values and interests OECD (2011)reluRural Economy andLand Use Programme
  • Different Faces of the Fringe  Innovative  Ad-hoc  Edge  Diverse  Transition  Dynamic  Fuzzy  Neglected  Messy  Valued  Reactionary  ContestedreluRural Economy and Building interdisciplinarity across the rural domainLand Use Programme
  • relu Building interdisciplinarity across theRural Economy and rural domainLand Use Programme
  • Differing perceptions from URF to RUF (Collier and Scott 2012)relu Building interdisciplinarity across theRural Economy and rural domainLand Use Programme
  • Academic commentary  Dominant space of 20C (Mckenzie 1996; OECD 2011)  Collection of dynamic and productive environments (Spedding 2004)  Misunderstood space (Gallent et al. 2006)  Fringe as a ‘weed’ (Cresswell 1997)  Battleground for urban and rural uses (Hough 1990)  Landscape out of order (Qvistrom 2007)reluRural Economy andLand Use Programme
  • Interdisciplinary InvestigationsreluRural Economy andLand Use Programme
  • Crossing academic, policy, practice and scalar divides  Forest Research  Birmingham City University -  National Farmers Union Birmingham School of the  David Jarvis Associates Built Environment  Natural England  University of Aberdeen -  Localise West Midlands Aberdeen Centre for  Green Economics Institute Environmental Sustainability  Birmingham Environment Partnership  West Midlands Rural Affairs Forum  Worcestershire County Council  West Midlands Regional AssemblyreluRural Economy andLand Use Programme
  • Developing Interdisciplinarity • Team produced their own reflective ‘pieces’ on • Spatial Planning • Ecosystem Approach • Rural Urban Fringerelu Building interdisciplinarity across theRural Economy and rural domainLand Use Programme
  • Developing Interdisciplinarity • Papers acted as boundaries • PI Assembled individual pieces into 2 working papers • (1) Critical explorations of SP and EA to define common principles. • (2) RUF reviewrelu Building interdisciplinarity across theRural Economy and rural domainLand Use Programme
  • Developing Interdisciplinarity • Synergies of SP and EA • Selection of key concepts • Shaped the subsequent methodological lens to view the rural urban fringe.relu Building interdisciplinarity across theRural Economy and rural domainLand Use Programme
  • Interdisciplinary InvestigationsreluRural Economy andLand Use Programme
  • Seeking out new evidence • Visioning exercises • Workshops (Team led) • Hampton Peterborough and N WorcestershirereluRural Economy andLand Use Programme
  • Narratives of disintegrated development • Exposing the built and natural environment divide • Whose Authority are you? • Building sustainable communities?relu Building interdisciplinarity across theRural Economy and rural domainLand Use Programme
  • ‘Disintegrated’ development.relu Building interdisciplinarity across theRural Economy and rural domainLand Use Programme
  • Natural Environment lens Built Environment lens 1. Incentives 1. Control 2. Natural Environment White Paper 2. National Planning Policy Framework 3. Habitat and Landscape 3. Local 4. DEFRA 4. DCLG 5. Ecosystem Approach 5. Spatial Planning 6. Classifying and Valuing 6. Zoning and Ordering 7. National Ecosystem Assessment 7. Sustainability Assessments 8. Integrated Biodiversity Development Areas 8. Development/Neighbourhood Plans 9. Nature Improvement Areas 9. Enterprise Zones / Green Belts 10. Local Nature Partnerships 10. Local Enterprise PartnershipsreluRural Economy andLand Use Programme
  • Natural Environment lens Built Environment lens 1. Incentives 1. Control 2. Natural Environment White Paper 2. National Planning Policy Framework 3. Habitat and Landscape 3. Local 4. DEFRA 4. DCLG 5. Ecosystem Approach 5. Spatial Planning 6. Classifying and Valuing 6. Zoning and Ordering 7. National Ecosystem Assessment 7. Sustainability Assessments 8. Integrated Biodiversity Development Areas 8. Development/Neighbourhood Plans 9. Nature Improvement Areas 9. Enterprise Zones / Green Belts 10. Local Nature Partnerships 10. Local Enterprise PartnershipsreluRural Economy andLand Use Programme
  • Natural Environment lens Built Environment lens 1. Incentives 1. Control 2. Natural Environment White Paper 2. National Planning Policy Framework 3. Habitat and Landscape 3. Local 4. DEFRA 4. DCLG 5. Ecosystem Approach 5. Spatial Planning 6. Classifying and Valuing 6. Zoning and Ordering 7. National Ecosystem Assessment 7. Sustainability Assessments 8. Integrated Biodiversity Development Areas 8. Development/Neighbourhood Plans 9. Nature Improvement Areas 9. Enterprise Zones / Green Belts 10. Local Nature Partnerships 10. Local Enterprise PartnershipsreluRural Economy andLand Use Programme
  • Natural Environment lens Built Environment lens 1. Incentives 1. Control 2. Natural Environment White Paper 2. National Planning Policy Framework 3. Habitat and Landscape 3. Local 4. DEFRA 4. DCLG 5. Ecosystem Approach 5. Spatial Planning 6. Classifying and Valuing 6. Zoning and Ordering 7. National Ecosystem Assessment 7. Sustainability Assessments 8. Integrated Biodiversity Development Areas 8. Development/Neighbourhood Plans 9. Nature Improvement Areas 9. Enterprise Zones / Green Belts 10. Local Nature Partnerships 10. Local Enterprise PartnershipsreluRural Economy andLand Use Programme
  • Natural Environment lens Built Environment lens 1. Incentives 1. Control 2. Natural Environment White Paper 2. National Planning Policy Framework 3. Habitat and Landscape 3. Local 4. DEFRA 4. DCLG 5. Ecosystem Approach 5. Spatial Planning 6. Classifying and Valuing 6. Zoning and Ordering 7. National Ecosystem Assessment 7. Sustainability Assessments 8. Integrated Biodiversity Development Areas 8. Development/Neighbourhood Plans 9. Nature Improvement Areas 9. Enterprise Zones / Green Belts 10. Local Nature Partnerships 10. Local Enterprise PartnershipsreluRural Economy andLand Use Programme
  • Natural Environment lens Built Environment lens 1. Incentives 1. Control 2. Natural Environment White Paper 2. National Planning Policy Framework 3. Habitat and Landscape 3. Local 4. DEFRA 4. DCLG 5. Ecosystem Approach 5. Spatial Planning 6. Classifying and Valuing 6. Zoning and Ordering 7. National Ecosystem Assessment 7. Sustainability Assessments 8. Integrated Biodiversity Development Areas 8. Development/Neighbourhood Plans 9. Nature Improvement Areas 9. Enterprise Zones / Green Belts 10. Local Nature Partnerships 10. Local Enterprise PartnershipsreluRural Economy andLand Use Programme
  • Natural Environment lens Built Environment lens 1. Incentives 1. Control 2. Natural Environment White Paper 2. National Planning Policy Framework 3. Habitat and Landscape 3. Local 4. DEFRA 4. DCLG 5. Ecosystem Approach 5. Spatial Planning 6. Classifying and Valuing 6. Zoning and Ordering 7. National Ecosystem Assessment 7. Sustainability Assessments 8. Integrated Biodiversity Development Areas 8. Development/Neighbourhood Plans 9. Nature Improvement Areas 9. Enterprise Zones / Green Belts 10. Local Nature Partnerships 10. Local Enterprise PartnershipsreluRural Economy andLand Use Programme
  • Natural Environment lens Built Environment lens 1. Incentives 1. Control 2. Natural Environment White Paper 2. National Planning Policy Framework 3. Habitat and Landscape 3. Local 4. DEFRA 5. Ecosystem Approach 4. DCLG 6. Classifying and Valuing 5. Spatial Planning 7. National Ecosystem Assessment 6. Zoning and Ordering 8. National Character 7. Sustainability Assessments Areas/Catchment Management 8. Development/Neighbourhood Plans Plans 9. Enterprise Zones / Green Belts 9. Nature Improvement Areas 10. Local Nature Partnerships 10. Local Enterprise PartnershipsreluRural Economy andLand Use Programme
  • Natural Environment lens Built Environment lens 1. Incentives 1. Control 2. Natural Environment White Paper 2. National Planning Policy Framework 3. Habitat and Landscape 3. Local 4. DEFRA 5. Ecosystem Approach 4. DCLG 6. Classifying and Valuing 5. Spatial Planning 7. National Ecosystem Assessment 6. Zoning and Ordering 8. National Character 7. Sustainability Assessments Areas/Catchment management 8. Development/Neighbourhood Plans Plans 9. Enterprise Zones / Green Belts 9. Nature Improvement Areas 10. Local Nature Partnerships 10. Local Enterprise PartnershipsreluRural Economy andLand Use Programme
  • Natural Environment lens Built Environment lens 1. Incentives 1. Control 2. Natural Environment White Paper 2. National Planning Policy Framework 3. Habitat and Landscape 3. Local 4. DEFRA 5. Ecosystem Approach 4. DCLG 6. Classifying and Valuing 5. Spatial Planning 7. National Ecosystem Assessment 6. Zoning and Ordering 8. National Character 7. Sustainability Assessments Areas/Catchment management 8. Development/Neighbourhood Plans Plans 9. Enterprise Zones / Green Belts 9. Nature Improvement Areas 10. Local Nature Partnerships 10. Local Enterprise PartnershipsreluRural Economy andLand Use Programme
  • relu Building interdisciplinarity across theRural Economy and rural domainLand Use Programme
  • Narrative 2: Whose Authority?reluRural Economy andLand Use Programme
  • Narrative 3: building sustainable communities?reluRural Economy andLand Use Programme
  • Opportunity Narratives • Learning and applying lessons • Securing multifunctionality • Maximising public engagement.relu Building interdisciplinarity across theRural Economy and rural domainLand Use Programme
  • Narrative 1 : Learning and Applying Lessons • “Path to excellence is paved with failures” • More critical examination of things that go wrong • Legacy – rural-urban fringe work by Countryside Agency – Regional Planningrelu Building interdisciplinarity across theRural Economy and rural domainLand Use Programme
  • Applying lessons Concept Plans via Worcestershire GIPreluRural Economy andLand Use Programme
  • 9 piece Jigsaw Birmingham City Council The 9 piece jigsaw – Key Partners GIA Partnership Climate Risk Contingency Water Risk Mapping Planning Green Infrastructure Health & Well Being Biodiversity The LEP Future Proofing Community Resilience Transport & InfrastructurereluRural Economy andLand Use Programme
  • Narrative 2: Securing multifunctionalityrelu Building interdisciplinarity across theRural Economy and rural domainLand Use Programme
  • Hamptonrelu Building interdisciplinarity across theRural Economy and rural domainLand Use Programme
  • Narrative 3: Maximising public engagement in the fringereluRural Economy andLand Use Programme
  • Reflections • Rethink urban and rural polarisation • Rural urban fringe as the key battleground for development • Disintegrated development inhibits full realisation of its potential as a rural urban fringe • Start dialogue of key role the RURAL –urban fringe can play • Imposition of order may remove the very essence that makes the fringe uniquerelu Building interdisciplinarity across theRural Economy and rural domainLand Use Programme
  • Conclusions • Start of a research, policy and practice journey • Disciplinary silos can inhibit progress in the fringe • We need to experiment and take risks • We need better engagement with publics over kind of fringe they wantreluRural Economy andLand Use Programme
  • Questions? http://www.bcu.ac.uk/research/- centres-of-excellence/centre-for-environment-and-society/projects/rerelu Building interdisciplinarity across theRural Economy and rural domainLand Use Programme