In Namibia, where I started my career as an environmental economist, there was a Strategic EIA approach. In other words the government would do one on an area in advance - and then produce a list of conditions for anybody operating in that area. It achieves the same outcome except with massively more certainty.
e.g. You could say - 'you can built on a brownfield site without any further environmental assessment as long as you make a £10,000 per hectare contribution to this biodiversity fund'
An important element of the Dutch system is masterplanning. Municipalities have been compelled to allocate sufficient land for housing demand since the early 20th century (UK local authorities only acquired this obligation in the late 2010s IIRC).
The masterplans are usually much better worked out than their UK local plan equivalent and create a clear mandate for the form and density of housing (compared with 'numbers superimposed vaguely on a map' style UK local planning). The planning question of 'can you build a tower block there' is much less contested because if it's in the masterplan, the question is already settled.
I've long thought that a local plan in the UK ought to be more detailed, and have the status of something like outline planning. Historically the UK housing people like — London suburbs for example — was buildable without significant development control but quite tightly specified in terms of form and look. There's got to be a way to square the circle of more housing / not all of it Deano boxes.
Great article. I enjoy reading your work. I do have a observation.
I have family in the UK in East Essex in a pretty country town with a 1hr direct train commuter link to London. There are lots of planning proposals going through but lots of opposition to them. The local rationale for the opposition is that roads are not fit for purpose, the local Dr's surgery, primary school and secondary schools are over prescribed as is the local area hospital. I am often surprised why this aspect of the planning process and opposition to projects are not noted. I feel strongly that if there was a commitment to develop school/healthcare/road expansions alongside new build planning there would be a less opposition from the public who generally understand the countries need to build.
In Namibia, where I started my career as an environmental economist, there was a Strategic EIA approach. In other words the government would do one on an area in advance - and then produce a list of conditions for anybody operating in that area. It achieves the same outcome except with massively more certainty.
e.g. You could say - 'you can built on a brownfield site without any further environmental assessment as long as you make a £10,000 per hectare contribution to this biodiversity fund'
An important element of the Dutch system is masterplanning. Municipalities have been compelled to allocate sufficient land for housing demand since the early 20th century (UK local authorities only acquired this obligation in the late 2010s IIRC).
The masterplans are usually much better worked out than their UK local plan equivalent and create a clear mandate for the form and density of housing (compared with 'numbers superimposed vaguely on a map' style UK local planning). The planning question of 'can you build a tower block there' is much less contested because if it's in the masterplan, the question is already settled.
I've long thought that a local plan in the UK ought to be more detailed, and have the status of something like outline planning. Historically the UK housing people like — London suburbs for example — was buildable without significant development control but quite tightly specified in terms of form and look. There's got to be a way to square the circle of more housing / not all of it Deano boxes.
Great article. I enjoy reading your work. I do have a observation.
I have family in the UK in East Essex in a pretty country town with a 1hr direct train commuter link to London. There are lots of planning proposals going through but lots of opposition to them. The local rationale for the opposition is that roads are not fit for purpose, the local Dr's surgery, primary school and secondary schools are over prescribed as is the local area hospital. I am often surprised why this aspect of the planning process and opposition to projects are not noted. I feel strongly that if there was a commitment to develop school/healthcare/road expansions alongside new build planning there would be a less opposition from the public who generally understand the countries need to build.