The stormy relationship between growth and planning

It was Eric Pickles who coined the term ‘drag anchors’ suggesting that planning was an unnecessary regulatory burden  which spiked the engine of growth.  In the context of the poor economic climate and the publication of the national planning policy framework (NPPF), growth and planning have enjoyed a stormy relationship, positioned as adversaries rather than allies.

But how does the relationship between growth and planning, the engine and the drag anchor operate in practice?  During the summer I did a bit of research, as part of my PhD, exploring the relationship between economic growth and planning in different types of places.  These are some of my conclusions:

• Using planning policy to create growth is a bit like alchemy:  In places where growth is happening, the key jobs of the planner are to help regulate the process in order to maximise the benefits for people living in an area and tackle the negative externalities that growth creates, such as congestion and the lack of affordable housing.  In places where growth is elusive, the planner’s job is different, it’s about creating the conditions for growth, enabling, support, and cajoling growth so that it can eventually start to take root.  But regardless of whether you’ve got it or not, growth is the key outcome for economic and spatial policy.

• If growth is the answer to the challenges that a place is experiencing, what is the question?  Economic growth is often seen as the solution to the challenges an area is experiencing whether it be high unemployment, poor physical environment, health inequalities, deprivation and poverty.  But in the areas I looked at, the  relationship between growth and positive outcome in the labour market or wider society’s is fuzzy.  Growth, when it comes, doesn’t always impact on the challenges the way that decision makers expect, nor does it provide all the answers a place is seeking.

• Achieving economic growth is not the end, but only the beginning.  Whilst documents like the NPPF suggest that the ultimate goal of planning policy is to achieve growth, growth is not the end of the story.  In places where economic growth has been achieved with new jobs and business development, rapid inward investment and high land values, the need for planning becomes even greater.  Growth, when it comes, unleashes a whole set of new challenges, particularly the physical consequences of that growth. While people want the jobs that growth creates, they rarely want the physical consequences of new houses and construction.

• Growth is about change both positive and negative. Growth as a goal for place is portrayed as an intrinsic good.  A cursory glance through documents like the NPPF or the rhetoric from the political conferences illustrates this point.  While I’m not saying we don’t need growth, what I am saying is that we’ve got to understand the limitations of growth, as well as the advantages.

• The institutional cords that bind us to growth.  If you are a place which is interested in a different path, other than the standard growth approach, for example, you want to try a steady state growth path or a shrinking cities approach, there isn’t  an option for you. Let’s imagine that a council wants to pursue a planning strategy which is based on a non growth model of development.  It is very unlikely this will comply with national policy and you’ll probably get hauled over the coals by the planning inspectorate (even if your democratically elected council has approved it).

• What’s the alternative to the language of growth or decline?  In the realms of planning and growth, there is a dearth of language which we can used to discuss and explore place-shaping other than that of growing or decline.  Planning can actually be a highly creative process which can allow us to do this by understanding the strengths and weaknesses of a place, beyond its propensity to grow.