THE WALES SPATIAL PLAN 2008 UPDATE SET IN CONTEXT FOR PLANNERS 

Workshop Summaries

9th April 2008, Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
10th April 2008, CAST Technium, Bangor

This is a summary of the discussions held at the events held in Cardiff and Bangor focusing the consultation on the Wales Spatial Plan (WSP) in the context of planning, attended by over 100 people working in the planning field.
The discussion groups focused on a number of questions. This is a summary of the main points recorded from the workshops.

 Vision
What are the issues and challenges from a planning context:
– at the National level?
– at the Regional level?
General
• The WSP should be encouraging, but it is not its place to regulate.
• It contains good words, but how does it filter down into action?
• The WSP is a cohesive study, but does it add up as a whole?
• The overarching approach is welcomed but the relationship to other plans and strategies cause concern. Connectivity between national and local level time scale could cause problems.
• What will the relationship be between the WSP and the National Policy Statements (NPS) proposed in the Planning Bill? This needs clarification.
• How will the WSP join with Planning Policy Wales (PPW)? WSP is not easy to implement in the planning context.
• There is a difference between government policy at Westminster and the Assembly Government e.g. energy where nuclear will not be considered at all.
• Is there involvement of private sector in the delivery mechanisms? (There has been a reluctance to be involved).
Local Development Plan (LDP)
• Why is the WSP not subjected to ‘tests of soundness’?
• The WSP is a jigsaw of regions; this means that it misses north-south connectivity as an issue, and also east-west corridors. This obscures some public transport solutions which could be promoted. North and south are detached.
• How can delivery through Local Development Plans (LDPs) be ensured? How will it fit within the local context, objectives and evidence? There is also a political dimension.
• LDPs need to fit with the WSP, this is important but not legal, and LDPs could be challengeable.
• The first testing will be done through the LDPs – this could lead to problems of competition between Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) and reversing market trends. There is currently no mechanism to guarantee the transparency or soundness of the regional projections.
• LDP policies are about efficiency in housing, but they should be set nationally within building regulations.
• There is an uneasy relationship with the WSP not being a development plan, and yet still relevant to tests of soundness.
• The focus on housing numbers could be to the detriment of other issues.
• There are challenges posed by time scales – different LDP stages; issues trying to tie in with the WSP Update and national / regional priorities. Political pressure creates competition between authorities against a need to work collaboratively.
• The traditional land use planning role has broadened e.g. climate change and broader engagement.
National
• Is growth the right objective across the board?
• The WSP is largely economic development focused – it now needs to accommodate more focused planning issues in the LDPs.
• More precision is needed on environmental targets – not just overall emissions.
• More is needed on evaluating processes eg Key Performance Indicators (KPI).
• The national strategy is weak.
• There are tensions between some of the recommendations / policy and objectives.
• The WSP is becoming too prescriptive and moving too far into strategy.
• There is a lack of emphasis on farming; agriculture is to become more important with climate change agenda – it is significant in land use / food production and employment. Food is currently a high contributor to the ecological footprint.
• The national maps are all different; there is no consistency. There is no overall checking to join them up.
Regional
• There is tension between regionalising and localising i.e. better services vs convenient, local services. Resilient settlements are needed.
• There is inconsistency between regions e.g. the Valleys Regional Park is in the South East, but not in the Swansea Bay.
• The evidence for the Strategic Areas of Opportunity (SAO) is weak – are they commitment driven or market pressure driven? Why are they only in the south east; there is inconsistency across regions?
• North-West Cardiff has not been a growth area for the past ten years, why now?
• There is disparity between the national strategy and with the regions e.g. the low carbon aim are evident at the national level but the regions do not reflect this.
• At the regional level, the WSP has adopted the work of the former Welsh development Agency (WDA); it needs to have regional consistency. Issues around the environment need to be developed beyond those that have been recognised; more depth needs to be added.
• There is a technical process behind the recommendations, but the evidence base is missing. There is no great explanation on why particular settlements are chosen, and why others are not.
• Low carbon regions – LPAs need national legislative framework to enforce standards.
• Regional links across borders e.g. possible issues with Wrexham LDP where the housing is spread out, while it could be better to concentrate more on the North West near employment i.e. centre of Chester, and therefore less commuting.
• Transport has been made a key, but lack of infrastructure across Wales. There is not much detail on improving transport in badly-linked towns / isolated areas outside the southeast.
• There is concern on the focus of the ‘hubs’ e.g. Amlwch / Pwllheli, where the WSP could limit the opportunities. The focus on the hubs makes it unequal.
• Feel that the economy leads planning. The sub-regional work appears to be founded on the former WDA strategies.
Are there any opportunities/issues that would strengthen the consultation document?
• There is a recognition that the WSP is still in its infancy; it will grow and strengthen with time.
• The WSP is inaccessible to the lay person – it is at too high a level and too complicated; this has implications in engaging at the local level e.g. through Citizens’ Panels.
• A better explanation is needed of the identification and omission of the settlements in the strategies. There is inconsistency in the impact and influence of key settlements e.g. in Central Wales
• Regional population and housing forecasts would help to give legitimacy and give assistance to the LDPs.
• Planning Inspectorate (PINS) is being given a ‘regional planning’ function, through its examination of the LDPs.
• A clarification of the timetable of the SOA study is needed.
• What are the links between Planning Policy Wales (PPW) and the WSP?
• Regional collaboration requires a lot of work and effort, and there are examples of where it is working.
• More information on key transport routes and links would be helpful.
• A greater acknowledgement and reference to cross-boundary issues and explanation in the WSP.
• There are opposing views on whether there should be housing figures in the WSP.
• The relationship with the rest of the UK needs to be emphasised and explored. How will Wales respond to global and UK development scenarios?
• Linkages with other regions outside Wales e.g. Bristol would help.
• Is there a focus on ‘old’ projects – not on future actions?
• Are the SOAs raised as projects / initiatives, or areas where they will be tested?
• Housing – is it demand vs affordability?
• There is a strong urge for a stronger steer and effective mechanisms for regional strategic planning.
• Need to use market housing for economic regeneration.
• There is an issue with the ‘hub’ approach – there is concern that the hubs may be so concentrated that it detracts from surrounding settlements.
• The WSP should make clear that sustainability is not just economic and environmental, but also social.
• Elected members’ awareness of WSP contents and process is key, further training is required in this respect.
• In the north there needs to be more identification of the weaknesses and strengths.
Process
How can planning contribute to the delivery of the Wales Spatial Plan update?
• Each area is to produce a delivery plan – but will this identify planning issues as opposed to just health and education etc.
• Each area needs to be clear on its vision. More work is needed to link strategic aspirations to local implementation.
• Planning is in a position to pull things together. Planning can coordinate stakeholders but difficulty to LPAs to provide the evidence base to support the WSP strategy. But how can LPAs challenge the WSP strategy? LPAs’ priorities may differ across boundaries. Planning has the ability to watch over communities.
• Planning is a process which is able to be impartial and can implement strategies. Planning is critical and is able to agree a way forward amongst different views.
• LDPs allow more detailed analysis of the evidence base at the local level, with the opportunity to feedback to the WSP process.
• Planning should coordinate collaborative working.
• What will be the link between the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and the implementation of the WSP, especially the SOA?
• Planning can provide certainty in conformity with the WSP.
• Planning can flesh out regional strategies.
• Planning can assist by engaging with communities in a way they understand.
• Planning can be a conduit between disciplines e.g. transport, economic development. Planning should play a greater role on the sub-regional groups; some areas are dominated by economic development departments.
• Planning can actively promote initiatives in the WSP corporately. Infrastructure needs to be taken account of early and bring in the providers at an early stage to get buy-in and commitment to ensure strategies are deliverable.
• It will ultimately depend of the strategy of an LDP and if it conforms to the vision of the WSP. Tensions could arise if it does not.
• How flexible will the marks on the maps be?
• It will be very important to get LDPs done quickly.
• LDPs need to take the opportunity provided by the evidence base to genuinely review the strategy in the WSP.
• Should there be SOAs outside the south east area?
• There may be too much emphasis on tests of soundness – this may lengthen the process.
• What is the status of the WSP in relation to LDPs? Guidance documents are needed.
• Should PINS call all the LDPs in together? – although this is probably impractical.
• Does planning have a role to facilitate development?

How can distinctiveness be promoted?
• Can distinctiveness be identified?  What is it?  Is it too loose a concept?  Is it a concept that can survive the scrutiny of the LDP process?
• Sustainability needs to be thought about differently in rural areas.
• The WSP is sensitive to the different regions.  However the distinctive features are not shown in the maps.
• There is concern over the identified hubs not reflecting the areas of dispersed communities.
• Design can influence distinctiveness.  Design used to be important, but environmental impact now carries more of a priority.
• Need to ask communities what is distinctive locally.  Distinctiveness is a bottom-up issue.
• The Welsh language needs to be explained / expanded upon / addressed in the WSP.   An assessment of impact is needed.
• Local distinctiveness can be discriminatory and misses the nub of the problem, e.g. rural decline (cultural decline), it may be more related to a lack of affordable housing.
• Planners know what the issues are and what is distinctive, but it is difficult to express this in a vision statement.  Distinctiveness is difficult to define in a city region with a dominant city (e.g. Cardiff); the WSP could assist in drawing out the distinctiveness of areas within the region outside the capital.
• How far should distinctiveness be encouraged or pushed or could it narrow an LDP’s focus?
• What of the future for agriculture?  This is unique to the regions and therefore will it have a role in the future?  It is important in terms of environmental protection, economy and a decrease in food miles.
• Should developments be phased to slow down change?  It is important to manage change; this is a key part of the LDP process.
• Tourism is not the only issue, but promoting local produce is important.   Also there is a need for greater advertising generally.

Note: The points recorded here are not necessarily those of RTPI Cymru; they are recordings from the discussions at the planning focused consultation events. They have however been considered by RTPI Cymru in developing its own response to the consultation.

Author:

Georgina Roberts

Publisher:

The Royal Town Planning Institute

Date:

17-Apr-08

Categories:

Nations & Regions 

This article has been read 652 times.