Nurturing Families, Empowering Lives: TDP's Vision for Family Welfare in Andh...
Disintegrated planning
1. Disintegrated Planning: Exploring
and Crossing the Natural and
Built Environment Divide.
Alister Scott BA PhD MRTPI
Claudia Carter, Richard Coles, David
Collier, Chris Crean, Rachel Curzon, Bob
Forster, Nick Grayson, Andrew
Hearle, David Jarvis, Miriam Kennet, Peter
relu Larkham, Karen Leach, Mark
Middleton, Nick Morton, Mark Reed, Hayley
Rural Economy and Pankhurst, Nicki Schiessel, Ben
relu Use Programme Stonyer, Ruth Waters and Keith Budden
Land
Rural Economy and
Land Use Programme
2. 1. The lenses of spatial
planning and the
ecosystem approach
relu
Rural Economy and
Land Use Programme
3. 1. The lenses of spatial
planning and the
ecosystem approach
2. The
disintegrated
development of
the built and
natural
environment
relu
Rural Economy and
Land Use Programme
4. 1. The lenses of spatial
planning and the
ecosystem approach
2. The
3. Crossing
disintegrated
the divide:
development of
framework, to
the built and
ols and
natural
applications
environment
relu
Rural Economy and
Land Use Programme
5. 1. The lenses of spatial
planning and the
ecosystem approach
2. The
3. Crossing
disintegrated
the divide:
development of
framework, to
the built and
ols and
natural
applications
environment
4. Lessons for policy
and practice
relu
Rural Economy and
Land Use Programme
6. The purpose.....To boldly go…
• Beyond boundaries
• Beyond biodiversity
• Beyond planning
• Beyond the status quo
• Beyond OUR comfort
zones
relu
Rural Economy and
Land Use Programme
7. Carter 2012
“The divide of ‘built’ and ‘natural’ environment, is particularly evident
within the specialist focus on the ‘urban’ or the ‘rural’. It is deeply
engrained in academic disciplines and professional training paths.
Interdisciplinarity is much talked about but yet few truly practice it or use
it to structure research, degree courses or professional qualifications. So,
not surprisingly, we end up with rural specialists and urban specialists.
But this artificial separation is unhelpful and affects our understanding,
research, policy and practice. In reality, there are so many
interdependencies and linkages that ignoring one to focus on the other
only makes partial sense and only provides partial answers.”
relu Building interdisciplinarity across the
Rural Economy and rural domain
Land Use Programme
13. Disintegrated Development
• Natural Environment lens • Built Environment lens
1. Natural Environment White Paper 1. National Planning Policy Framework
2. Habitat and Landscape 2. Local
3. DEFRA 3. DCLG
4. Ecosystem Approach 4. Spatial Planning
5. Classifying and Valuing 5. Zoning and Ordering
6. National Ecosystem Assessment 6. Sustainability Assessments
7. Integrated Biodiversity 7. Development/Neighbourhood Plans
Development Areas
8. Nature Improvement Areas 8. Enterprise Zones / Green Belts
9. Local Nature Partnerships 9. Local Enterprise Partnerships
relu
Rural Economy and
Land Use Programme
14. Disintegrated Development
• 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 8. Development/Neighbourhood Plans
Development Areas
9. Nature Improvement Areas 9. Enterprise Zones / Green Belts
10. Local Nature Partnerships 10. Local Enterprise Partnerships
relu
Rural Economy and
Land Use Programme
15. 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
8. Integrated Biodiversity 7. Sustainability Assessments
Development Areas 8. Development/Neighbourhood Plans
9. Nature Improvement Areas 9. Enterprise Zones / Green Belts
10. Local Nature Partnerships 10. Local Enterprise Partnerships
relu
Rural Economy and
Land Use Programme
16. 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
8. Integrated Biodiversity 7. Sustainability Assessments
Development Areas 8. Development/Neighbourhood Plans
9. Nature Improvement Areas 9. Enterprise Zones / Green Belts
10. Local Nature Partnerships 10. Local Enterprise Partnerships
relu
Rural Economy and
Land Use Programme
17. 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
8. Integrated Biodiversity 7. Sustainability Assessments
Development Areas 8. Development/Neighbourhood Plans
9. Nature Improvement Areas 9. Enterprise Zones / Green Belts
10. Local Nature Partnerships 10. Local Enterprise Partnerships
relu
Rural Economy and
Land Use Programme
18. 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
8. Integrated Biodiversity 7. Sustainability Assessments
Development Areas 8. Development/Neighbourhood Plans
9. Nature Improvement Areas 9. Enterprise Zones / Green Belts
10. Local Nature Partnerships 10. Local Enterprise Partnerships
relu
Rural Economy and
Land Use Programme
19. 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
8. Integrated Biodiversity 7. Sustainability Assessments
Development Areas 8. Development/Neighbourhood Plans
9. Nature Improvement Areas 9. Enterprise Zones / Green Belts
10. Local Nature Partnerships 10. Local Enterprise Partnerships
relu
Rural Economy and
Land Use Programme
20. 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
8. Integrated Biodiversity 7. Sustainability Assessments
Development Areas 8. Development/Neighbourhood Plans
9. Nature Improvement Areas 9. Enterprise Zones / Green Belts
10. Local Nature Partnerships 10. Local Enterprise Partnerships
relu
Rural Economy and
Land Use Programme
21. 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
8. Integrated Biodiversity 7. Sustainability Assessments
Development Areas 8. Development/Neighbourhood Plans
9. Nature Improvement Areas 9. Enterprise Zones / Green Belts
10. Local Nature Partnerships 10. Local Enterprise Partnerships
relu
Rural Economy and
Land Use Programme
22. 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
8. Integrated Biodiversity 7. Sustainability Assessments
Development Areas 8. Development/Neighbourhood Plans
9. Nature Improvement Areas 9. Enterprise Zones / Green Belts
10. Local Nature Partnerships 10. Local Enterprise Partnerships
relu
Rural Economy and
Land Use Programme
23. 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
8. Integrated Biodiversity 7. Sustainability Assessments (SEA)
Development Areas 8. Development/Neighbourhood Plans
9. Nature Improvement Areas 9. Enterprise Zones / Green Belts
10. Local Nature Partnerships 10. Local Enterprise Partnerships
relu
Rural Economy and
Land Use Programme
24. The BCU Response
• New ways of doing
research and policy
• Building a new model
of interdisciplinarity
• Bridging the natural
and built environment
divide
relu
Rural Economy and
Land Use Programme
25. Is there a method in the madness? Uniting
Spatial Planning and the Ecosystem Approach
Alister Scott
Claudia Carter, Mark Reed, Peter Larkham, Nicki
Schiessel, Karen Leach, Nick Morton, Rachel Curzon
relu David Jarvis, Andrew Hearle, Mark Middleton,
Bob Forster, Keith Budden, Ruth Waters, David
Collier, Chris Crean, Miriam Kennet, Richard Coles
Rural Economy and
relu Use Programme and Ben Stonyer
Land
Rural Economy and
Land Use Programme
26. Building a Team
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 Assembly
relu
Rural Economy and
Land Use Programme
27. SP/EA Synergies
New ways of thinking Connectivity
Holistic frameworks Governance
Cross-sectoral Inclusivity
Multi-scalar Equity goals
Negotiating Regulatory
Enabling Market-orientated
Long term perspective
relu
Rural Economy and
Land Use Programme
29. Unpacked
• Time
– Long-termism
– Learning lessons from the past
• Connectivity
– Flows and linkages vs urban and rural
– Multi-scalar relationships and dependencies
• Values
– Core values and belief systems
– Professionals (Planner, Environmentalist) and Publics
relu Building interdisciplinarity across the
Rural Economy and rural domain
Land Use Programme
30. Crossing the Divide
1. Rufopoly
2. Green Infrastructure
3. Community
Infrastructure Levy
relu
Rural Economy and
Land Use Programme
31. RUFopoly
relu Building interdisciplinarity across the
Rural Economy and rural domain
Land Use Programme
32. relu Building interdisciplinarity across the
Rural Economy and rural domain
Land Use Programme
34. Benefits of GI network
• Stimulate economic growth
• Protect and enhance cultural heritage
• Protect and enhance the
landscape, geodiversity and the natural
environment
• Enhance and conserve biodiversity
• Aid climate change mitigation and adaptation
• Promote sustainable transport
• Promote lifelong learning; volunteering
relu
• Promote health and wellbeing
Rural Economy and
Land Use Programme
35. Concept Plans via Worcestershire GIP
relu
Rural Economy and
Land Use Programme
37. Concluding points for Policy and
Practice
• built and natural environment is part of one
connected system
relu Building interdisciplinarity across the
Rural Economy and rural domain
Land Use Programme
38. Key Points for Policy and Practice
• need to develop and use tools and methods
that cross the divide rather than perpetuate it
relu Building interdisciplinarity across the
Rural Economy and rural domain
Land Use Programme
39. Key Points for Policy and Practice
• Need inclusive partnerships across economy,
society and environment
– LEPS LNPS emphasize the disintegration although
some progress is being made.
relu Building interdisciplinarity across the
Rural Economy and rural domain
Land Use Programme
40. Questions
• ESRC grant award under the RELU programme award for
‘Managing Environmental Change at the Fringe’ -
ES/H037217/1
• Policy Brief Videos
1. Rediscovering the rural urban fringe here .
http://youtu.be/mCgGAt7V6c4
2. Reconnecting the built and natural environmental divide
http://youtu.be/9GD0hZ84Ws0
3. Enhancing connections by crossing boundaries in the
rural urban fringe. http://youtu.be/VA5ejBS3_jI
4. Managing Contested values in the rural urban fringe.
http://youtu.be/F1t1HP-LzUM
5. Long Termism http://youtu.be/TFA8wUrCks4
relu
Rural Economy and
Land Use Programme
Notas del editor
Slide 1Taken images out as too clattered / busy background. This then also standardises the videos with none having a front image
First, I will introduce the two contemporary lenses of spatial planning and the ecosystem approach which form the current building blocks for the built and natural environment Second, I locate these within the context of the artificial divide between the built and natural environment which in my view has led to disintegrated development.Third, I show how we have responded to this divide within our interdisciplinary research on the rural urban fringe. Specifically I will use three examples to suggest how we might navigate this divide.Finally, I consider the lessons for future biodiversity policy and practice
The goal of this talk is therefore set within the rhetoric of the spatial explorer ...to
As a spatial planner viewing this scene I would first focus on the process of planning. Set within the communities and businesses that operate in particualr places the planner would elicit views on needs and issues of concern. This would be linked with other evidence bases from key agencies such as Natural England, Environment Agency, the local authority as well as new players on the scene such as the Local Enterprise Partnerships. Analysis of this evidence base together with other strategies for the area would shape a collective development plan for the area. Crucial to this process would be the early engagement of stakeholders in the plan process so that conflicting positions could be heard, articulated and managed.
Second Spatial planning practice take a policy-led approach within a philosophy that seeks to get the right development in the right place. This area forms part of the West Midlands Green Belt. So its role in preventing Birmingham merging with Alvechurch is paramount. The M42 passes through the area as a corridor of movement - part of the national and regional network of connections. Apart from a motorway service area, it has not become a corridor of development so as not to compete with urban regeneration of the conurbation. However, it does increase rural accessibility and therefore has increased the viability of the surrounding rural communities as centres for commuting.“ “The challenge for the spatial planner is to assess the big picture via a landscape-scale approach within local scale issues. For example, agricultural diversification which may lead to proposals for sports pitches and golf courses (both acceptable in principle) would have a significant visual and recreational impact. Issues of farmhouse barn conversions and industrial sites will be important for small scale rural development but need to be carefully located. Pressures for canal-related development such as marinas would need to be assessed in a similar way, but treated sympathetically because of their potential contribution to biodiversity, flood storage and local economic diversification.“In essence the spatial planner works across scales (national to local ) and sectors (highways, health, environment, culture and economic development ) in pursuit of a virtuous circle between people, place, economy and environment.” Sldie 15
The ecosystem approach is the integrated approach tosustainable land and sea management for the benefit of people. It articulates the benefits in terms of ecosystem services such as food, water quality, carbon storage and recreation and these benefits can be valued (both in monetary and non-monetary terms) to inform decision making It recognises the need to consider the natural environment holistically, as a functioning ecosystem and operates at a range of spatial scales. It seeks to involve people in decision-making about the environment recognising that people who manage places and those who benefit to be relevant
Taking an ecosystem approach in decision making means that we have taken account of the functioning of the system, the value of the benefits and people’s views on changes. This leads to better integrated decision making and better sustainable management of our natural environment. The management of the countryside in this picture could be planned using an ecosystem approach. We could assess the benefits it currently provides to people such as recreation, bird watching, slowing the flow of water to help alleviate flooding, filtering our water, storing carbon, or providing goods such as food and wood. We need to consider a range of options. Do we want more or less of these services? What will be the impact of other drivers such as climate change on the functioning of this system? What changes are not desirable? Who will win or lose. How could we pay for these services? How can we make it happen? Working with the community and partners, we can consider all these aspects to develop a vision and a plan for this area that provides the benefits that people want and has a healthy functioning natural environment.
1. 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.
1. 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.
So each lens uses different institutional landscapes, vocabularies and approaches for its planning and management. The danger of using different geographies and approaches and stakeholders is that the planning and decisions do not match up leading to disintegrated planning and maximising conflict through lack of understanding
Talk focusses on the opportunity spaces within what we call the RUF. This is a interdisciplinary team project funded by the RELU programme . I am leading this presentation today
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 .”
“A simple classification of these points led to the identification of three themes which equip us with a conceptual bridge to cross the divide. Time Connectivity Values · Their selection was endorsed by discussions with stakeholders such as Defra and CLG who saw these as key challenges in the delivery of Spatial Planning and the Ecosystem Approach. · We also saw the need to develop terms which had wider resonance with the public and could therefore engage them and other professionals in ways that the two approaches previously had failed to do.
Slide 31 10:33Made text a bit slimmer so that we can see more of Dan’s drawing; also corrected a space error (not essential change but makes it look better)
“Green Infrastructure provides a bridge between the Ecosystem Approach and Spatial Planning. In essence a Green Infrastructure Plan is a strategic network of greenspaces which deliver multiple benefits, supporting ecosystem services and representing a key component of the development jigsaw of spatial planning. Collectively this can have a major impact on quality of life. “
“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 including 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.”
“A recent Scottish Natural Heritage survey showed that peat bogs were the second least likely place people would visit, second only to derelict land. And yet, we as a society depend on peatlands – 70% of our drinking water comes mainly from peatland catchments, they’re our biggest carbon store, helping to regulate our climate system, and they are a haven for unique and internationally important wildlife. But many of our peatlands are degraded, and are expensive to restore back to their original condition. Significantly in England many peatlands are adjacent to large urban centres such as Manchester, Sheffield, Exeter, Carlisle.“Although the planning system doesn’t usually influence decisions about how peatlands are managed, spatial planning offers positive mechanisms for funding peatland restoration. DEFRA’s Natural Environment White Paper and DCLGs National Planning Policy Framework both introduced the idea of habitat banking; where peatlands are compromised by development, new peatlands would have to be created elsewhere, and given that these take millenia to form, the easiest way to compensate would be to restore damaged peatland. So where a degraded peatland was affected by development, this might be a net gain for carbon and biodiversity. Alternatively, for developments near degraded peatlands, the emerging Community Infrastructure Levy offers a flexible mechanism to support peatland restoration, safeguarding the carbon, water and biodiversity – but also creating greater amenity value for local residents.“This is of course dependent on local communities realising the value and prioritising these resources. The linkage between planning and ecosystem services is key here as we believe that the public fail to appreciate the true value of such resources that all too often are taken for granted.“Each of these planning approaches explicitly values and then compensates for the benefits we get from peatlands, that may be lost due to development. This is exactly what the National Ecosystem Assessment recently tried to do – by putting a financial value on the benefits we derive from nature; we may be able to take this into account when we make decisions, so that we don’t have too great an impact on our natural environment. Spatial planning could provide us with off-the-shelf mechanisms to do exactly this.” Slide 36
Slide 39 Major error here - still has part of the previous slide in with the title. This whole slide needs to come in at 16:41 at present there is a huge continuity error with slides 38 and 39 jumbled.
Was a spacing error (double between ‘cross’ and ‘the’)And also slightly redistributed text to avoid divide on bottom line as plenty of space next to Alister
Slide 41 17:23Looked too bunched to the left so redistributed
