Ripped the heart out of Stellenbosch.”“Changed the urban structure of Stellenbosch completely.” “We opposed Jamestown at risk of losing our jobs.”“There was money on the table with this one…at municipal and provincial levels. Once the shopping center was built, it turned its back on Jamestown.”Trust
Re-imagining Rural Land Use Policy: Perspectives from the ‘Edge’ Professor Alister Scott BA PhD MRTPI Working Party on Territorial Development Policies in Rural Areas OECD Paris 6th December 2012
An Interdisciplinary Perspective Focus on ‘edge’ spaces working across rural and urban land uses where they intersect and connect Applied academic with a focus on proportionate evidence-based research and policy leading to deliverable outcomes.• Concern with the process by which policy, practice and decisions are enabled as much as outcome.
4 Quick Narratives of Land Use Problematics• Fire Breathing dragon• The Urban-Rural divide• Rural fringe gentrification• Illegal Low Impact Development
Fire Breathing LessonsLack of vision within which solution fitted.Expert-led solution imposed without evidence.Beware any expert (especially academics) offeringgifts or solutions.Lack of human and physical responses to managesolution.Lack of translation and application of solution tothe local context
Natural Environment lens Built Environment lens Incentives Control Natural Environment White Paper National Planning Policy Framework Habitat and Landscape Scale Local Scale DEFRA Government department DCLG Government Department Ecosystem Approach Spatial Planning Classifying and Valuing Zoning and Ordering National Ecosystem Assessment Sustainability Assessments Catchment Management Plans Development/Neighbourhood Plans Nature Improvement Areas Enterprise Zones / Green Belts Local Nature Partnerships Local Enterprise PartnershipsreluRural Economy andLand Use Programme
Rural-Urban Divide LessonsForgotten space as place in its own right.No body with strategic oversight across urbanand rural domains.Separate institutional frameworks, goals, toolsand designations. create disjointed andcontradictory responses.Separate spatial foci and institutional silos limitresponse to connected problems; e.g. Climatechange, flooding, energy & transport.
Lessons• Gentrification conflicts with post-apartheid vision.• Investment of foreign capital and wealthy migrants.• Gated communities versus informal settlements (Highest Gini index coefficient in the world).• Loss/Sale of farmland due to inflated land market pressures and price.• Impotence of plans for rural planning due to inward investment on golf courses, business parks and vineyards.• Loss of trust with large investors not delivering community benefits
LessonsBoth sides (National Park Authority and Brithdir Mawr) claimsustainable development is on their side.Planning system seen s negative obstacle to low impactlifestyle resulting in a ‘let’s just do it attitude ’.Planning quest for order inhibits new ideas that do not fit in.Planners have tools to encourage the new and the bold buttheir use is limited by risk averse attitudes.Contradiction in scales of decision making: national exemplar(Welsh Assembly Government vs. Demolish order (NationalPark/Local Authority)Out of date (1987) development plan for decision makingOut of date (1947/1990) definitions of productivist agriculture
Common Response Fallacies• Develop new academic concept• Creeping incrementalism• More evidence• More Regulation• More Localism• More Free market• Institutional reform• Behaviour change• Black and white ‘media’issues
‘Journey’ to land use integration• Path to success is littered with failures• Path to success is illuminated by individuals going beyond convention in spite of the system (Scott, 2011)• Path to success is enabled through using improved interdisciplinary glasses
3 Journeys into Land Use Experiments• TAYPLAN land use plan• Rewilding• Garden Cities
Ingredients• Engaging local communities in high level plan at earliest stages and thereafter.• Local Authority planners from each area working on joint strategic plan reinforces scalar connections.• 8 policies and 24 pages ensures maximum exposure and engagement (people read it!)• Indicators identified for each of the plan policies• Action plan developed along clear lines of accountability, priority and timing.
Ingredients• NGOs/charities have the capacity and agenda to instigate land use experiments.• It may not be popular, but it is possible to develop a bold vision underpinned by robust evidence.• Exploit new markets to finance & justify managing land for public goods e.g. emerging markets for carbon and clean water.• Traditional forms of land management may lose out; is managing the land for carbon and wildlife compatible with farmer’s identity and motives?
Ingredients• Set within a national spatial plan and vision for growth rather than an isolated idea.• 21st century re-interpretation of Ebenezer Howards ideals incorporating climate change.• Town Countryside integral to the model; not a bolt on extra.• Stakeholders involved across built and natural environment (from idea to evaluation).• New models of community governance and private public partnerships.• New Financial tools e.g. Tax Incremental Financing.
Concluding Recipe• Learn by making mistakes• Experiment with new ideas collectively within agreed visions• Use effective evidence to support ideas and decisions• Use a mix of regulatory, incentive and engagement tools within new models of land use governance.• Do not overcook!