Does Planning Make A Difference To Urban Form? Recent Evidence From Central Scotland

Environment and Planning A 2005, volume 37, pages 355 ^ 378
DOI:10.1068/a3619
Does planning make a difference to urban form? Recent

evidence from Central Scotland
Glen Bramley, Karryn Kirk
School of Built Environment, Heriot-Watt University, Riccarton, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, Scotland;
e-mail: g.bramley@sbe.hw.ac.uk, k.kirk@sbe.hw.ac.uk
Received 20 January 2003; in revised form 15 May 2004
Abstract. Urban form is changing in Britain, with new patterns of development reflecting economic,
technological, and transportation conditions in an increasingly competitive framework. Changes in
urban form have implications for the environmental sustainability, integration and cohesion, and
longer term quality of life in and around cities. Britain has a comprehensive planning system with a
strong rhetoric of policies towards these goals. In this paper the authors draw on evidence from
recent research, primarily in central Scotland, to assess how far planning actually does make a
difference to urban form rather than simply passively responding to demand. They consider some
of the systematic tendencies in decentralised planning decisionmaking, some selected evidence of
development outcomes, and some insights from major development case studies. The conclusions
highlight the differential influence of planning between different development sectors and the
obstacles to achieving a more sustainable pattern.
1 Introduction
Casual observation suggests that urban form is changing in Britain, with new patterns
of development reflecting changing economic, technological, and transportation conditions. It is widely believed that changes in urban form have important implications for
environmental sustainability, particularly in relation to patterns of travel and also for the
integration and cohesion of urban society (Barton, 2000, Breheny, 1992, Jenks et al,
1996, Williams et al, 2000). For these reasons urban form has attracted renewed policy
attention, and land-use planning is in the forefront of implementing policies to shape
these changes (DETR, 1998b; 1998c; 2000; ODPM, 2003a; Scottish Executive, 2002).
The planning process is subject to reform in both England and Scotland (DTLR, 2001;
ODPM, 2003b; Scottish Executive, 2004a) but nevertheless these objectives remain
central. However, can planning significantly influence urban form outcomes, and does
it in practice? How far does planning actually make a difference to urban form rather
than simply passively respond to demand? This is the central question addressed in this
paper.
This paper grows out of a larger research initiative, sponsored by the Economic and
Social Research Council (ESRC), concerned with the role and development of cities,
structured around the themes of `competitiveness' and `cohesion'. Within this research
programme four ìntegrative cities studies' (ICSs) have been commissioned with the aim
of drawing out the connections between different aspects of city performance and
governance. This paper derives from work undertaken on planning, infrastructure,
and urban form within one of these ICSs, looking at the cities of Edinburgh and
Glasgow and their subregions, located within the central belt of Scotland (Turok
et al, 2003).
The paper proceeds in the following way. We start by looking, in section 2, at what
we mean by urban form, and how this may relate to the central themes of contemporary planning policy, particularly sustainability. We draw on policy documentation
and a wider literature underpinning this or, in some cases, providing a critique of
356
G Bramley, K Kirk
current orthodoxies. We conclude section 2 by setting out some general hypotheses

about urban form trends and outcomes.
In section 3 we look at the implementation of planning policy, revisiting a theme
strongly featured in literature of the 1980s but going on to consider this in the context of
planning in the 1990s and beyond. This involves consideration of the policy context,
including themes of change, commitment, and ambiguity as well as the organisational
context, characterised by fragmentation, and a consideration of the tools and leverage
of planning. Given these characteristics, and the pervasive discretion of the British
planning system, this inevitably raises questions about the local political economy
of planning and possible biases arising from this.
In sections 4 and 5 we present some empirical evidence bearing on the interactions
between planning and development outcomes in central Scotland. In section 4 we look
at systematic quantitative measures of these relationships and outcomes, concentrating
on aspects of housing and business development. Section 5 complements this, as we
look at evidence from case studies of major developments in the retail, industrial, and
office sectors in Central Scotland. Discussion in both of these sections is informed by
wider evidence from interviews with key actors. Finally, in section 6 we draw conclusions from this empirical work in the light of the earlier conceptual and literature
review to address the overarching question of how far planning makes a difference
to urban form in practice.
The distinctive contribution of this paper is to marry quantitative and case-study
approaches to an assessment of the impact of planning on urban form outcomes in a
particular regional context. We build on earlier work on the implementation of planning policy as well as drawing on more recent modelling of housing development and
market outcomes as a function of planning. We provide contemporary evidence on the
effectiveness and limitations of planning at a time when the system is subject to major
scrutiny and reform.
2 The significance of urban form
2.1 Definition and scope of urban form
By ùrban form' we mean the size, shape, and intensity of urban settlements and the
spatial organisation of different types of land use within them. As such this must be
seen as a preeminent concern of planning, if not its only concern. For example,
planning may also deal with more micro issues of design, layout, and activity within
particular zones or neighbourhoods, but we do not address these concerns here.
A number of key themes characterise contemporary concern about urban form and
the ways it may be changing. These include:
1. population decentralisation and counterurbanisation (Champion et al 1998), versus
the possibility of consolidation and reurbanisation urged by the Rogers Urban Task
Force (DETR, 1999);
2. an emphasis on the redevelopment of previously used (`brownfield') urban land,
versus the development of greenfield land, which extends the urban footprint (Adams
and Watkins, 2002);
3. a decentralisation of business activity and jobs away from their traditional focus on
city centres to suburban nodes, èdge-city' locations, satellite towns, or rural settings
(Breheny, 1999);
4. the continuance of traditional urban containment practices symbolised by greenbelt
rings, versus alternative models such as sectoral or corridor development and `green
wedges' (RTPI, 2002);
5. an interaction between forms of urban development and transport infrastructure,
affecting degrees of car dependence, traffic generation, and congestion, on the one hand,
Does planning make a difference to urban form?
357
and the viability of public transport services, on the other (DETR, 1998a; Ecotec, 1993;
RCEP, 1995; Scottish Executive, 2004b);
6. patterns of segregation versus integration of different socioeconomic and demographic
groups living in different parts of the urban area;
7. the continued practice of zoning separation between different land uses, versus the
promotion or evolution of more mixed uses.
2.2 Sustainability and planning policy
During the 1990s planning policy in Britain came to be informed, some would say
reinvigorated, by the concept of `sustainable development', most commonly defined as
``development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs'' (WCED, 1987, page 43; see also Barton,
2000; Blowers and Evans, 1997; DETR, 1998a; 1998b; 1998c). Such a perspective is
argued to require a radical change away from established trends in urban settlement,
particularly the dispersal of population and activities (Stead, 2000). One central issue is
how far planning can and should promote the `compact city' (Jenks et al, 1996), which
Breheny (1996) saw as the latest chapter in a long-standing debate between `centrists' and
`decentrists'. However, the arguments have broadened to include a wider range of urban
form options, including the reshaping of greenbelts around cities (for example, involving
wedges and networks), town expansion and new settlements, and the development of
transport corridors and nodes.
The contemporary arguments for compact urban form focus first and foremost on
transport patterns, with lower density, dispersed development believed to contribute to
more and longer car journeys and hence to greater pollution, emissions of carbon
dioxide (CO2), and global warming. The work of Newman and Kenworthy (1989;
1992), linking petrol consumption and public transport viability to urban density across
a large international sample of cities, is frequently cited. Ecotec (1993) provided some
British evidence in support. This work has prompted considerable debate on how
strong this relationship is in practice, relative to the influence of other aspects of urban
form (Anderson et al, 1996; RCEP, 1995), the role of congestion, or the influence of
incomes and fuel costs and taxation (Breheny, 1996; Gordon and Richardson, 1989).
A second strand of the compact cities argument is that urban sprawl adversely
affects the quality of life within cities, through a combination of social exclusion, fiscal
effects, and the decline of traditional town centres (Carley, 1996; Danielsen et al, 1999;
Downs, 1997; Katz, 2002; Quercia and Galster, 1997). The ùrban villages' movement
(a British expression of the wider `new urbanism' movement) is in part a response to
these concerns but also relates to the promotion of mixed use rather than the traditional
zoning of activities (Aldous, 1992; Breheny et al, 1993; UVF, 1995). Counterarguments
here relate to the dangers of `town cramming', such as the loss of urban open-space,
which may make compact cities less attractive, although Llewellyn Davies (1997),
DETR (1998b) and Lord Rogers's Urban Task Force (DETR, 1999) counter that
good design can overcome these problems.
Planning policy has taken the sustainability theme on board to a considerable
degree, as expressed through planning policy guidance (PPG) and other policy documents. This is seen most clearly in Planning Policy Guidance 13 (PPG,13 DoE, 1994)
and National Planning Policy Guidance 17 (NPPG17, Scottish Office, 1999) (Transport)
supported by the DETR (1998a) Transport White Paper, and other quasi-official
advisory commissions (RCEP, 1995; UKRTSD, 1997), which all explicitly exhort planning to seek higher urban densities particularly around public transport nodes, as well
as emphasising measures to promote public transport, walking and cycling (see also
Scottish Executive, 2004b). Planning Policy Guidance 3 (PPG3, Housing) in England
358
G Bramley, K Kirk
in its current version (DETR, 2000) promotes higher densities and a sequential
approach favouring urban brownfield development (equivalent Scottish guidance
points in the same direction, although less stridently; see Scottish Executive, 2002).
National Planning Policy Guidance 1 (NPPG1) in Scotland places sustainability as a
key criterion for development planning of equal status with promoting economic
development and social inclusion. Policies towards new settlements urge the avoidance
of small scale settlements in rural areas. Good practice guidance on how to plan for
more compact sustainable cities is provided by the Department of Environment,
Transport and the Regions (DETR, 1998c; 2000). Retail guidance Planning Policy
Guidance 6 (PPG6, DoE, 1993) has been radically revised to discourage out-of-town
superstore development, again emphasising sequential testing.
Overall, as this brief review indicates, the concept of sustainability has come to
exercise a pervasive influence on planning ideology and on the more detailed guidance
on policy and practice provided to planners. Key prescriptions for urban form derived
from this perspective tend to reinforce some of the longer established presumptions of
British planning, particularly policies of urban containment, while modifying others,
notably in respect of mixed uses.
3 The implementation of planning policy
It is one thing to have a clear policy on the kind of urban form that planning seeks to
promote but another to have effective mechanisms to implement such policies. Academic
literature on planning, alongside other aspects of public policy, took a particular
interest in implementation from the early 1980s onwards (Barrett and Fudge, 1980;
Ham and Hill, 1984; Hill and Bramley, 1986; RCEP, 1995). Some of the main themes
of that literature were the importance of clarity rather than ambiguity of policy,
multiple, overlapping policies, variable policy durability, and the crucial component
of commitment of resources (Healey et al, 1985; 1988). Overlaying this has been the
continuing shift from publicly promoted development to market-led development,
with planning cast in a regulatory rather than a proactive role (Lambert and Bramley,
1998; Tewdwr-Jones, 1999). Most of the evidence in this earlier work derived from
locality case studies and may be regarded now as rather dated. It is interesting to
examine more contemporary evidence to see how far these conclusions still hold
and also to attempt to triangulate the picture by bringing in quantitative measures and
models as well as more recent case studies.
It is widely observed that changes in governance have contributed to an institutional
fragmentation of planning in Britain, and this is clearly observable in our central
Scotland case-study area. Higher tier regional authorities have been disbanded, contributing to a degree of balkanisation of the statutory planning process. (Hayton 1993,
1996; Johnston, 1995). The structure planning function in central Scotland rests with
voluntary cooperation arrangements between unitary authorities, which rely upon an
arguably weak basis of consensus, and a similar situation pertains with respect to regional
transport planning (Bramley et al, 2001). Some functions critical to the provision of
development infrastructure have been `hived off ' from general purpose local government
into specialist sectoral agencies, and in some cases these have been privatised and subject
to regimes of competition. A consequence of this is that, where there are disputes or
difficulties in reaching agreement, central government (in Scotland, the Scottish Executive)
will have to step in and make the decisions, for example via the planning call-in and
appeal mechanisms, although it may still lack positive powers and resources to make
things happen. In any event, this central intervention can create delay and can be ad
hoc in character, lacking an overall spatial planning framework to inform it (Bramley
et al, 2001; Scottish Executive, 2001).
359
Planning is still implemented primarily through elected, general-purpose local

government. This means that, notwithstanding ever-more detailed national guidance
(Tewdwr-Jones, 1996), it remains subject to local political pressures and preferences.
Indeed, one strand of guidance, dealing with consultation and participation, urges
that planning should be responsive to local communities. Also, the proliferation
of guidance in some ways gives more reign to local choicebecause there is so much
guidance, one has to choose which bit to follow. This is the local corollary of policy
ambiguity and competing policies mentioned earlier. In addition, this is overlaid on a
British planning system of which the fundamental characteristic is `discretion' (Booth
1996; Grant, 1992). Discretion and local choice within a complex policy menu by
overtly political local agencies means that, inevitably, the local implementation of
planning will be influenced by a local political economy (Pennington, 2000).
We would go on to argue that this allows certain systematic tendencies to operate
across the system as a whole as well as more individual or even idiosynchratic
approaches to develop in particular localities. Among the more systematic tendencies
are those whereby more affluent and attractive localities adopt more restrictive planning controls, including controls that lead to more restrictions on housing development
than on economic development, because, crudely, housing is seen as benefiting outsiders whereas economic development boosts prosperity and job prospects for locals
(Bramley, 1998; Bramley and Lambert, 2002).
The principal tools of planning are, of course, development plans and development
control. Logically, these belong together but there is a surprising extent to which in
practice both parts are not equally operative. Lack of local plan coverage was a major
feature of the 1980s and, even in the 1990s, with a rhetoric of a plan-led system, we have
found many gaps in the Scottish system (Scottish Executive, 2001; SPH, 2001). Other
planning tools may in practice become quite significant in certain circumstances:
supplementary planning guidance; planning briefs; masterplans for major schemes;
and the use of planning agreements and conditions. The direct implementation of
development by local authorities and other public bodies is much less significant
than in the past (Lambert and Bramley, 1998) but this is partly offset by the rise of
joint and partnership ventures.
Implementation theory often emphasises the processes of negotiation between agencies and groups, within which notions of resources and bargaining power are central.
Thus it is useful to reflect briefly on the resources and consequent leverage that
planners and planning authorities have. The most important lever of planning is the
power to withhold planning permission. This is much more powerful in high-demand
localities with limited land-development opportunities. In low-demand areas of economic decline, where local politicians are desperate for any development and investors
can easily walk away and choose somewhere else, the bargaining power is limited. But
even where local politicians are willing to sanction a refusal, the local planners' power
is constrained by the potential operation of the appeal system, where, in particular, any
contravention of national planning policy guidance could be used as grounds for
overriding the local decision.
A negotiative approach to governance features strongly in what Healey et al (1997)
described, based on European experience, as the emergent `project-based' development
approach involving public ^ private partnership and tending to bypass established
plans, strategies, and regulatory processes. Such a project approach was argued to be
more flexible and responsive but was open to criticism in terms of the lack of certainty
and equity for groups other than the favoured partners, the wider cumulative effects, and
transaction costs. The case studies in section 5 arguably illustrate this approach rather
clearly.
360
G Bramley, K Kirk
From this discussion of the implementation of planning it is possible to put

forward a number of hypotheses about the likely character and effectiveness of
attempts by planning to influence urban form in contemporary Britain.
(a) Planning exerts more influence over urban form in high-demand areas than it does
in areas of weak demand.
(b) Planning tends to exert more control over housing development and least control
over industrial and business development.
(c) Decentralised decisionmaking (for example, through the removal of regional tiers)
reinforces these tendencies and creates greater scope for central decisions selectively to
override local decisions.
(d) Key past decisions (for example, regarding new towns and trunk roads) exert a
long-standing influence over urban form.
(e) Resulting tendencies are to facilitate the decentralisation of business (for example,
towards edge-city and motorway-oriented locations) and to reinforce the consolidation
of housing development within urban areas.
(f ) New greenfield housing may be allowed where local authorities are anxious about
competing for population, where infrastructure costs can be recouped or where there
are other financial benefits (for example, from sale of land), and where environmental
or NIMBYist lobbies are less strong.
(g) Subject to the above, planning can steer more housing development onto brownfield land, but it cannot always make it happen if demand is weak and costs are high.
(h) Institutional fragmentation and public resource shortages, together with an accommodating stance towards new business development, mean that quality public transport
infrastructure rarely accompanies new (business) developments.
(i) The combination of these factors creates high levels of car dependence for new
developments, with second-order effects on lifestyles and expectations.
4 Some systematic empirical evidence
4.1 Local variations in planning stance towards housing
It may be argued that if planning is to make a difference it must first have a discernible
policy stance or direction in which it is trying to influence development. Insofar as
one can generalise about planning stances towards housing in Britain, how would one
characterise them? Evans (1991) provides an eloquent and entertaining account of the
tendency of the British planning system to restrict the total amount of land allocated to
housing and in particular to seek to prevent the development of isolated or scattered
dwellings in the countryside and generally to constrain urban expansion. This `containment' policy has been well understood and documented since the work of Hall et al
(1973). Evans questions the logic and motives of this whole policy, yet it is clear from
recent policy developments that in some respects it is becoming even more entrenched,
at least in the south of England (DETR, 1998b; 1999; 2000; Lambert and Bramley,
1998).
In an examination of statistical determinants of planning stance as measured by
structure plan `provision' levels (Bramley et al, 1995, pages 141 ^ 142) limited evidence
of demand effects relating to prices and employment conditions was found but rather
more evidence was found for the influence of broad environmental constraints, local
political control, and the `momentum' effects of past development. Perhaps the most
striking finding from this study, however, was the ìmplementation' gap, whereby
planned housing provision was a poor guide to actual development in the 1980s. This
was particularly associated with limited local plan coverage and high reliance on
windfalls characteristics expected to change in the 1990s.
361
In a later paper (Bramley, 1998) formal (particularly greenbelt) constraints were

distinguished from less formal constraint policies, which were seen as a `second line of
defence', most often invoked in high-demand or high-pressure areas but not particularly effective relative to formal constraints. Overall, these discretionary policies were
found to be most restrictive in areas with a recent history of high growth and an
overheated economy, such as in Berkshire, and in tightly constrained historic towns,
such as Oxford and Canterbury. Least restriction and greatest promotion of housing
development were found in areas of long-run economic decline and low-income areas
such as northeast Lancashire, together with some new and expanding towns that still
promoted growth, such as Peterborough. This pattern strongly supports the first of the
general hypotheses listed in section 3 [hypothesis (a)].
All of the above refers to patterns in England. Evidence from Scotland (SPH, 2001)
suggests some similarities with the above, but with less emphasis on extreme restraint
and containment.
In table 1 we show annual `takeup rates' of available private sector land, summarising values from central Scotland districts over the past two decades. Values below
10% might be considered low, whereas values above 20% may be considered high (20%
corresponding notionally to the `five-year land-supply' criterion relative to new building
rates). It should be noted that these takeup rates divide the flow of new completions by
the stock of effectively available land. Some of the completions may be on land that was
not previously in the available stockso-called `windfall land'. Windfall land has been
very significant in some areas (for example, Edinburgh), and indeed the highest takeup
rates would not have been feasible without it.
Takeup rates have, unsurprisingly, been higher in periods of higher demand (in the
late 1980s and late 1990s). Three of the Lothian districts had high takeup rates over
the period as a whole, unlike any of the Clyde Valley districts. Edinburgh has notably
high takeup rates, averaging 32% and reaching 40% in the most recent period. In particular periods some districts in the west showed higher takeup rates, including Eastwood
and Strathkelvin in the 1980s, and Bearsden, Clydebank, and Monklands in the 1990s.
This descriptive analysis provides further support for a picture of generally constrained supply confronting high demand in Edinburgh and the Lothians, with this
situation seen only intermittently in certain districts in the west, particularly the higher
status suburbs.
For the argument developed in this paper, three conclusions stand out. First
housing land supply is held on a fairly tight leash in most areas. A five-year supply
Table 1. Summary of takeuup rates (expressed as percentages) of private housing land by the
former districts of Strathclyde and the Lothian region in the 1980s and 1990s (sources: Housing
Land Audit Data; Scottish Executive housing completions data).
Area or district
Strathclyde
average
minimum
maximum
Lothian
average
minimum
maximum
Takeup rate (%)

1980 85
1986 90
1991 94
1995 97
Whole period
(1980 97)
13
5
31
14
7
21
11
7
19
16
8
39
13
11
16
21
9
30
27
15
37
17
8
24
23
16
40
20
32
12
362
G Bramley, K Kirk
is not a generous allowance for the development pipeline (average sites in Edinburgh
take six years from allocation or permission to completion; in Greater Glasgow it is
seven years). Data to be presented below confirm that these takeup ratios are far
tighter for housing than for business land. This means, crudely, that planning has
more immediate control over the location and phasing of housing development, partly
because it has more bargaining power with developers. Second, the tightness of this
control varies, generally in a systematic fashion correlated to economic prosperity and
the environmental character of the area. These two conclusions suggest, in short, that
planning (and its associated local political economy) makes a difference, but the third
conclusion modifies this. Partly because of the tightness of planned land release there
is a heavy reliance upon the `safety valve' of windfall land release. Windfall bypasses
the forward planning part of `planning' but still falls within the regulatory control net.
So, planning in the fuller sense of the word (a forward-looking and deliberately
designed urban development) is less effective at determining outcomes in a direct and
conscious way, although paradoxically it may have more influence at the `coalface' of
regulation, insofar as the tight supply situation increases the bargaining power of the
planning authority.
4.2 Land release, housing output and location
Is it possible to demonstrate a systematic relationship between plan policy, land

release, and actual housing output, both in terms of simple volume (completions) and
in terms of key characteristics such as density? Attempts at modelling new housing
supply responses as a function of planning in England at the locality (district) level
have been reported (Bramley et al, 1995; see also Bramley, 1998). These models show
that output is driven mainly by land availability and its interaction with house prices.
More recent work with a panel dataset for districts in Central Scotland (Leishman and
Bramley, 2004) shows that completions are driven mainly by variables describing the
land supply, site size, and lagged house prices, with land supply the most important.
More micro evidence from Central Scotland has been explored but is not reported in
detail here to save space. This confirms that the amount of land available has a strong
although less than proportionate effect on housing output and also suggests some
differences in response patterns between higher demand and lower demand city-regions
(Edinburgh compared with Glasgow).
This evidence on the systematic determinants of aspects of housing development
suggests that planning makes quite a strong difference, particularly through the overall
amount of land released. Some of these effects are again indirect, mediated, for
example, through the responses of developers. The evidence broadly supports the
contention that planning can `steer' housing development, especially in higher demand
areas, and that it is not totally misguided to seek to promote inner-city and brownfield
regeneration, but at the same time underlines that planning cannot completely dictate
the location, volume, and timing of development.
4.3 Land availability and business development
We turn now to consider a different but still key sector of developmentland for
industrial and business (and hence employment generating and traffic generating) uses.
We are aware that much contemporary employment (and particularly its growth sectors)
does not equate with ìndustry'. However, there are reasons for believing that èconomic
land' is still significant. First, manufacturing industries and associated sectors tend to be
`basic' (export oriented) and to that extent independent rather than population-led activities.
Second, a good deal of service activity (warehousing, distribution, repair and maintenance,
research and development, ancillary office and administration functions, and bulk retailing)
has similar requirements in terms of premises to modern manufacturing and ends up
363
located on the same kinds of trading estates. Third, changes to the planning Use Classes
Order in the early 1990s led to the introduction of a general `business use' class (Class 4 in
Scotland) that substantially blurred the boundaries between industry and offices (CRU,
1994; Wootton-Jeffreys, 1991). A high proportion of total office development and associated job creation now takes place on `business parks'. In addition, with the pressure
for retail development it is likely that a good deal of land originally zoned for industry
has been developed for retail purposes.
In table 2 we look at a similar indicator to that considered in table 1 for housing
the development takeup rate for industrial and business land in Central Scotland.
The conurbations are divided into concentric rings and into east ^ west sectors for the
purposes of this comparison. The table also shows absolute takeup (in hectares).
One of the most important figures in the table is the overall rate of takeup the
final figure in numerical columns 2 and 4. This shows that, on average, only 4% to 5%
of available industrial and business land is taken up each year. Comparable figures for
housing summarised in table 1 showed a very different picture, with typical takeup
rates of 13% in the west and 20% in the east, and rising up to 40% in individual cases.
This provides strong evidence in favour of the proposition that the supply of industrial
and business land in general is pretty generous and not likely to be a major constraint
on development. It is consistent with other qualitative evidence that local planning
authorities are generally quite concerned to promote economic development and take
steps to ensure that supplies are more than adequate. A further corollary of this
situation is that the actual pattern of industrial development is likely to be dictated
and constrained by demand and by the locational and property strategies of businesses
themselves rather than by the planning system. In other words, as a first take, it may
be reasonable to argue that the planning system does not make much difference to
urban form outcomes insofar as these are driven by business development.
However, this overall picture may mask shortages and relatively high takeup rates
in particular zones. Table 2 suggests that this contrasting situation of shortage and
pressure may be a characteristic of the western side of Edinburgh and to some extent
Table 2. Industrial (1991 ^ 99) and business (1993 ^ 98) land takeup in Greater Edinburgh and
Greater Glasgow, by concentric ring and sector (sources: land-supply monitoring data (site-level)
of the GCV and Lothian Joint Structure Plan teams).
Ring and direction
Glasgow
takeup (ha)
Central
Inner ring
east
west
Outer ring and edge
east
west
Intermediate ring
east
west
Landward area
east
west
Total
a
b
Edinburgh
a
takeup (%)
takeup (ha)a
takeup (%)b
1.4
7.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
3.0
3.5
9.2
1.0
5.4
2.5
11.1
4.3
6.2
2.6
4.0
1.0
1.4
3.1
35.0
31.8
7.1
6.2
4.1
0.7
0.4
1.2
0.3
3.2
5.4
6.3
8.3
0.2
10.9
0.9
3.0
66.2
5.3
28.2
3.9
Annual amount.
Takeup rate as a percentage of marketable supply.
364
G Bramley, K Kirk
the city centre of Glasgow. At a finer grain, within Glasgow takeup is high relative to
supply in the northwest sector as well as the city centre. The northwest sector is
adjacent to the higher status West End and includes the high quality Strathclyde
Science Park.
4.4 Modelling business development
From the data compiled in this exercise, including a wider range of geographical and
census indicators, it is possible to undertake some exploratory statistical modelling of
land takeup. We use the standard technique of regression analysis applied to the set
of postcode district units in Central Scotland (giving up to 120 observations). The
purpose of these models is to measure the extent to which planning decisions, in the
form of allocations of land for business purposes, actually influence the location of
development. However, we expect takeup to be influenced by a range of other factors
and include, where possible, measures of these factors in the model in order to control
for their effects. Among other factors we expect to be relevant are the existing
economic structure, location and accessibility relative to central business districts
(CBDs) and key transport infrastructure, other development activity (for example,
housing), and the general character of the urban environment in physical terms
(for example, in terms of density) and socially (for example, in terms of poverty).
The influence of these other variables is of interest in its own right, particularly in the
wider discourse about urban competitiveness and cohesion (Begg, 2002; Turok et al,
2003), but our primary focus is on the influence of planning, directly through land
release and indirectly through its influence on infrastructure and other development.
In table 3 we show the result of the most useful models derived for the absolute
and percentage rate of takeup of industrial and business land. These models are quite
promising, with the first achieving a relatively good fit to the data and explaining 70%
of the variation; the model for rates fits less well, but this is partly because scale has
Table 3. Regression model for takeup of industrial and business land by postcode district in
Central Scotland, 1993 ^ 98: hectares per year and percentage rate of takeup (weighted least
squares regression, weighted by relative employment in district).
Explanatory variable
Model 1
Model 2
coefficient
t-statistic
coefficient
(takeup rate)
t-statistic
Constant
Population density
Distance to centre
In central area
Distance east
Accessibility index (airports)
Presence of motorway
Structural job growth
Poverty index
New housing
Land supply
7.62
0.029
0.0042
1.88
0.020
0.45
1.25
0.0073
0.12
0.015
0.23
0.92
0.77
0.05
1.28
1.08
1.44
1.05
0.07
1.59
3.56
9.67
4.91
0.033
0.043
1.22
0.034
0.13
2.12
0.087
0.020
0.011
0.062
0.72
1.06
1.06
1.00
2.16
0.51
2.13
0.99
0.31
3.27
3.20
Adjusted R 2 statistic
F ratio
N
0.700
26.8
111
3.2
111
0.167
Note: model 1 relates to the total amount of land available for development; model 2 relates to
the percentage take up rate of the available land.
365
been taken out of the model. The models provide evidence on a number of aspects of
urban form and the interaction of this with business development.
Relationships with density and location are not particularly significant. Zones with
a motorway presence have a significantly higher rate of takeup, and the positive impact
on absolute takeup volume is also significant in a model where the land-supply variable
is total marketable supply rather than `quality' supply (this may be because the quality
rating partly picks up this accessibility factor). This finding confirms a widespread
impression from qualitative and survey evidence relating to business-location preferences for locations near motorways. However, rather surprisingly the measure of access
to airports has an apparently negative effect, although this is not quite statistically
significant in either model (and the measure is crude, being only a local-authority-level
indicator).
The amount of land available for industrial development has a positive effect on
absolute development volume, as expected, and this is stronger when `quality' supply
rather than total marketable supply is used. An extra 100 quality hectares available
would, at the margin and allowing for other factors, increase development by 23 ha
over 5 years or 4.6 ha per year. Using total marketable supply, this effect would be only
2.4 ha per year. This partially confirms the argument earlier that development is not
predominantly land-supply driven. The second model shows that increased supply
(of good-quality land) would actually depress the takeup rate.
Measures of structural job growth potential, poverty, and predominant house type
are not significant in the model. However, a very interesting relationship revealed by
the model is that the amount of new build housing sold in an area is positively related
to the amount of new business development.
It would be possible to develop the modelling of business land takeup further by
conducting the analysis at the level of individual sites. This would enable the influence
of particular quality and locational attributes, some more precisely measured using
GIS techniques, to be tested more directly.
4.5 Land availability and job growth
Planning may make some difference to where business land development occurs,
although the evidence just presented suggests that this influence is fairly weak. But
does this make much difference to where jobs are located, given the much wider set of
influences on job change?
Tables 4(a) and 4(b) (over) present similar models for the absolute and percentage
rates of employment change, respectively, across postcode districts in Central Scotland
for two periods, 1992 ^ 98 and 1998 ^ 2001. The model is deliberately similar in terms of
the variables included, to bring out what differences exist between the patterns in job
change and land development. We would expect there to be considerable differences,
given the importance of job changes ìn situ' within given premises and the jobs in
sectors that do not typically utilise industrial or business land.
The first difference to point out is that the model does not fit so well for absolute
changes (45% of the variance being explained in the first period, about 16% in the second
period), although the model for percentage change is rather better than the land-takeup
model. There is a possible technical reason for this differencesampling errors in the
employment data. One expected determinant of job growth is job structure (`structural
job growth')areas well represented in high-growth sectors might be expected to
perform better. Surprisingly, in the model for the first period the opposite is the
case; favourable job structure seems to predict less favourable job-growth performance.
However, a possible explanation could be that more dynamic sectors actually created
366
G Bramley, K Kirk
Table 4. Regression models for employment change by postcode district in Central Scotland,
1992 ^ 98 and 1998 ^ 2001, for (a) absolute change and (b) percentage change: weighted least
squares regression, weighted by relative employment in district.
Explanatory variable
(a)
Constant
Population density
Distance to centre
In central area
Distance east
Poverty index
New housing
House price
Land supply
Quality land share
F ratio
N
(b)
Constant
Percentage job growth, 1992 98
Population density
Distance to centre
Distance squared
In central area
Distance east
Poverty index
New housing
House price
Land per jobs
Quality land per jobs
Other land per jobs
F ratio
N
Coefficient
1992 98
t-statistic
Coefficient
1998 2001
t-statistic
2298
21.2
5.90
2480
2.60
31.1
796
128
97.2
5.89
0.71
1.74
0.25
5.31
0.41
0.33
2.19
3.86
3.08
4.44
1.92
1.12
0.38
0.17
8111
70.7
130
327
2.53
65.6
882
77.1
15.6
0.0038
0.009
8.74
1.47
3.45
3.24
0.42
0.24
0.41
1.46
1.56
0.30
0.46
0.36
1.00
0.452
7.53
111
13.94
0.196
3.19
117
0.57
0.003
0.107
0.03
0.59
11.93
0.008
1.12
3.10
1.75
0.444
0.021
0.00003
3.36
0.17
1.57
1.15
6.97
1.87
2.51
0.25
0.098
1.12
0.451
7.50
111
2.30
0.17
41.77
0.186
0.275
3.08
0.755
18.5
6.87
1.69
2.50
3.95
3.27
3.68
1.147
2.98
0.007
0.25
0.160
4.26
120
more pressure to relocate in the first period. In the second period this variable reverted
to its expected positive effect.
The relationship with distance from CBD (`distance to centre') is positive in the
first period but negative in the second period. The effect of CBD location itself (ìn
central area') is strongly positive in the first period but insignificant or negative in the
second. This reinforces the descriptive evidence of the strong performance of Glasgow
city centre in service sector employment during the 1990s. The relationship with
distance east is not significant. Airport access seems to have a positive impact on
percentage job growth in the first period. Although motorway presence appears also
to exert a positive influence, it is not significant in the second model and is marginal
in the first model in the second period. This suggests that the `motorway magic'
367
that appears to work for business land development may be less important for other
job-generating sectors.
The poverty variable is negative and significant in the first period. The difference
between typically more affluent areas and poorer areas (around 25% points on this
index) could alter job growth rates by 2% per yeara sizeable effect. This might be
taken as some evidence relevant to arguments about the connection between social
exclusion and cohesion, and economic performance. Poorer areas may be less attractive for business expansion, for a number of reasons, including lack of local demand
for products and services, labour-supply quality, environmental quality, or risk of
crime. The fact that this factor appears in this model but not in the business-land
model suggests that it may be more in the service sector that this relationship with
job growth is found. House price is tested in some models but is not generally
significant. There is still a significant effect from new housebuilding in the first period,
but this is not significant in the second period.
The amount of business land available does appear to have some positive effect on
percentage employment growth in the first period, but this factor is not significant in
the absolute change model or in either model for the second period. This reinforces the
earlier messages about the limited scope for planning to influence outcomes through
land supply.
Analysis at the zone and direction level indicates that in Edinburgh the predominant direction of shift, for all zones except the central one, was westwards. In Glasgow
there was a semi-mirror-image pattern of a westward shift in the central and inner
areas but an eastward shift in the outer and intermediate zones.
Do these data support a general proposition of `decentralisation' of jobs in either or
both cities? The strong performance of Glasgow's city centre suggests that this may not
have been the overall pattern in this period for that city, but the impression for
Edinburgh is one of net decentralisation. This is confirmed by calculations of the
average distance of a job from the CBD in each city region for 1997/98 compared
with 1992. This shows that in Glasgow the average distance fell noticeably (by 0.27 km
or 2.9%). However, in Edinburgh the average distance increased by 0.38 km (4.5%).
This is not a dramatic rate of decentralisation, implying an increase of 1.26 km or 15%
over twenty years. The employment `centre of gravity' of Edinburgh shifted west by
0.51 km in this period (equivalent to 1.7 km over twenty years), whereas there was only
a small shift of 0.14 km west in Glasgow. Although the scale of change is not dramatic,
the direction of change is as would be expected for Edinburgh given the scarcity and
cost of space in the city and the factors attracting jobs to the west.
This evidence suggests that planning is making a difference, but that this is to
some extent just an indirect, negative kind of influence. It is probably damping down
the extent of decentralisation of jobs, as well as housing, insofar as there are still
restrictions on the supply of business land in some of the locations that would be
most attractive to business (for example, the greenbelt). But planning has certainly
not stopped the development of major employment and activity-generating èdge cities'
notably in the west of Edinburgh, around the Edinburgh City bypass, and in the case of
west central Scotland in Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire.
4.6 Greenbelt restrictions
It is particularly interesting to look at evidence on the development in greenbelts,

because these are perhaps the best known, longest established, and strongest examples
of spatial planning policy in Britain. Recent work reviewing Scotland's greenbelts has
entailed an attempt to analyse development pressure and planning responses in some
areas of Central Scotland. In the period 1999 ^ 2003 Edinburgh City Council determined
368
G Bramley, K Kirk
seventeen applications for major housing development (of more than 10 dwellings) in the
greenbelt; 47% of these were approved, although none of these was a `departure' from
policy (for example, they typically involved redevelopment of brownfield sites). In the same
period twenty-one applications for major business development were determined in
Edinburgh's greenbelt, and 62% of these were approved. Most of these applications
were in the Edinburgh Airport area. The largest approval was for a new bank headquarters
to employ 3500 people on a former hospital site in parkland.
In North Lanarkshire over the two-year period 2000 ^ 02, 151 nonhouseholder
applications were determined, with an approval rate of 71% in terms of applications,
or 60% in terms of land area. Nearly half were housing applications and these had an
approval rate of 58% in terms of applications, 46% in terms of housing units, but only
25% in terms of land area. Of sixteen business applications, all bar one were approved.
This evidence is selective but does focus on two interesting case-study areas. It
suggests that there is considerable development pressure in greenbelt areas and that the
planning system does not represent a rigid barrier preventing any development in these
zones. It provides further evidence to support two contentions of this paper: that more
prosperous areas (such as Edinburgh) are more restrictive, and that the restriction of
housing development is stronger than the restriction of business development.
5 Some case-study evidence
5.1 Choice and focus of case studies
In this section we draw on evidence from three major development case studies in
Central Scotland. These cases are all large-scale èconomic' developments involving
substantial amounts of employment and activity and interactions of regional significance. They were selected as essentially the largest developments of this kind in the
relevant period (late 1990s) in Central Scotland, outside the central city areas: one is
predominantly office development, one is predominantly industrial, and the other retail
with leisure. In section 4 we argued that planning appears to exert relatively little
influence over industrial and business development, in contrast to housing where
the influence is strong. Other evidence suggests that retail and office development
may be intermediate between these two extremes. Thus, it is most interesting to examine
cases of economic developments from these different sectors. Major economic developments such as this are also arguably important for the future evolution of urban form,
by creating precedents and new nodes of attraction and in some cases extending the
urban footprint.
In looking at these cases we are interested in certain key questions:
(1) How far were these developments `planned'?
(2) What is the significance of landownership and type of developer?
(3) What are the economics of the developments (that is, how have costs or subsidies
affected development and planning gains)?
(4) What is the impact on key aspects of urban form?
(5) What is the impact on transport and sustainability?
Wider impacts on economic competitiveness and social cohesion are also of interest
but rather beyond the scope of this paper.
Evidence on these case studies (including quotations below) is derived mainly from
interviews with key actors, supported in some cases by documents.
5.2 Edinburgh Park
The new Edinburgh Park business park is functionally separate from but adjacent to
the Gyle Industrial Estate and the Gyle Shopping Centre. These three entities are
located in the west of Edinburgh close to the A720 city bypass at its interchange with
369
the A8 at the Gogar roundabout and underpass. The sites are bounded to the north
and south by railway lines and to the west by the A720. Edinburgh Park has been
developed as a `leading-edge' business park and was masterplanned by internationally
renowned architects Richard Meier & Partners. The overall concept was to ensure that
the city of Edinburgh `ìs placed in a position where it is an attractive location not only
for firms already within Edinburgh, but to create inward investment and new jobs.''
The development was promoted by EDI, a development company owned by the
City of Edinburgh, in partnership with a private developer and a financial institution.
The park is managed by Edinburgh Park Management on behalf of the developer
vehicle [New Edinburgh Limited (NEL)] and occupiers, each of which pays a service
charge. Occupiers buy rather than rent their sites from NEL. The park is at present
only partially built (58.28 ha), and further expansion is planned. By 2001, almost
85 000 m2 of office space was occupied, with an additional 8000 m2 becoming available
in Summer 2001. The site has planning permission for 220 000 m2 gross of offices. The
park, together with neighbouring developments (for example, Gyle and Hermiston
Gait retail, and Royal Bank of Scotland) represents the fourth largest concentration
of employment in Scotland and it is estimated that at least 20 000 employees will be
located here.
It is hard to argue that Edinburgh Park was planned in terms of the provisions and
land allocations of the preexisting structure and local plans, which emphasised mainly
industrial and high-technology development. However, a permissive general policy
(OP5) supported office development on suitable sites in the outer areas of Edinburgh
subject to various criteria and ``where public transport accessibility is high and supporting local services are available.'' A masterplan approach was used within the
development and, in this sense, it is clearly (and visibly) `planned'. Nevertheless, despite
having been promoted by an arm's-length subsidiary of the local authority, it appears
to have been relatively detached from the statutory planning process.
The masterplan emphasises the public realm and overall design quality. This was
reinforced in the course of development, as the proposed density was revised down
from 300 000 m2 to 220 000 m2 as development at a higher density would have been
``detrimental to the high standards of building, design, layout and landscaping envisaged.'' However, no attempt whatever was made to introduce `mixed uses' such as
housing, or local retailing and services, within the early phases of the scheme. Such
ideas were common currency in late-1990s planning orthodoxy but were not part of
thinking in the late 1980s when this scheme was conceived.
The role of a particular developer with an ambitious and long-term vision, as
expressed through the masterplan, was significant in this case. Given the location
and the buoyancy of the Edinburgh economy, the development has proved to be
extremely profitable, with the city council sharing in much of these profits (having
owned half of the land prior to the development). There were no exceptional site
development difficulties or infrastructure costs, other than in the area of transport,
and arguably the development could have carried much more onerous requirements
(for example, in respect of public transport infrastructure) if these had been planned in
from the start.
The development is quite significant for Edinburgh's urban form. The land was
previously greenbelt but exposed to obvious development pressure following the building of the city bypass in the 1980s. It may be regarded as an èdge city' (Garreau 1990),
but a quite deliberate one rather than the outcome of incremental market-led decisions.
As already noted, it is well set to become a major, regionally significant employment
node. This was clearly the vision of the developers; whether it was the vision of the city
council, let alone the former regional council, is unclear, although it should be noted
370
G Bramley, K Kirk
that in this instance there is no jurisdictional boundary issue involved, as Edinburgh's

western boundary lies well away from the city edge.
The main criticism that can be made of this development, particularly given the
current policy framework, is that high-quality public transport has not been available
since the early stages of occupation. The site was planned to take advantage of heavy
and light rail transport and other public transport systems `às they become available''.
The site was to have a City of Edinburgh Transit System (CERT) guided busway
running through the site (en route from city centre to airport) and a dedicated railway
station on the main Edinburgh ^ Glasgow line. However, CERT was subject to delay
and collapse and the original successful bidder withdrew. Subsequent proposals for a
tramway link with the city centre and airport are being taken forward but remain
somewhat uncertain because they are partly contingent on a contentious road-user
charging scheme. The railway station opened in 2003 with local but not intercity
services, and the tramway will not open before 2009. Thus, although these initiatives
should eventually bear fruit, a period of over ten years will have elapsed from first
occupation of the park to provision of quality public transport
Early-phase developments were not subject to `green travel plan' requirements and
involved large-scale provision of surface car-parking. Given the location, this inevitably
meant high levels of car-based commuting, contributing to severe traffic congestion on
the western approaches to Edinburgh. Most of the newer developments are now subject
to `green commuter plan' requirements as a planning condition, and parking standards
for new buildings are now set as maxima that permit approximately half the employees
at a workplace to park onsite. The later phases are designed to be at higher densities
with a more ùrban' feel, and hence accessibility by public transport will become more
significant and may impact on the commercial success of the site. Members of a task
group consisting of employers set up to address these issues have expressed frustration
over the difficulties of getting public transport operators to service the site and more
generally with the fact that development had been encouraged without the necessary
prior investment in transport infrastructure.
5.3 Braehead
The Braehead retail and leisure centre is promoted as being the focal point of a major
regeneration project but has provoked controversy, being described as an `ùnsustainable monster''. Braehead's planning history extends over a period of twenty years and
represents one of the biggest out-of-town retail centres to be approved in Scotland.
The centre sits within a major urban conurbation and its location on the M8 places
it in the enviable position of being accessible to almost 50% of Scotland's population
within a 45-minute drive. The site consists of 115 ha and sits astride the boundary
between Glasgow City Council and Renfrewshire Council, bounded to the north by
the River Clyde (the boundary has since been revised to place the entire site in
Renfrewshire). The site was previously derelict land with some industrial activity
concentrated towards its western end.
Braehead was described as ``the largest privately funded waterside regeneration
project in the country.'' It was claimed that the development was undertaken as a
``straightforward commercial exercise'' and, as a result, received no public subsidy.
Phase 1 (44 ha) costing 285 million is complete and includes:
(a) retail componentsa shopping mall (50 760 m2 of retail floorspace and 5500 m2
storage space) and a retail warehouse park (35 000 m2 );
(b) leisure components (16 000 m2 )a 4000-seat multipurpose arena, an ice complex
(eight-lane curling pad and free ice area), and a maritime heritage centre (1000 m2 );
(c) quayside treatment of riverside;
371
(d) a main road system serving the site (consisting of a new motorway junction, a
new eastern link road connecting with the A8 dual carriageway, and roundabout
improvements at another motorway junction);
(e) a bus station (860 buses per day), a coach park, a taxi rank, 600 cycle spaces, cycle
routes (as part of the `green transport plan'), and subsidised bus tickets for staff;
(f ) the first building within the Hi Tech Business Park (Titanium, 3000 m2 of proposed
8500 m2 );
(g) access roads, car parking (6540 spaces), and landscaping.
It is stated that improvements to the site and the surrounding area alone cost
35 million. The associated redevelopment of the riverside walkway and Maritime
Heritage Centre were secured under `planning gain'. There are 3000 jobs in the shopping
centre, which receives 300 000 visitors per week.
Phase 2 (65 ha, under construction) will include an IKEA store (25 000 m2 ),
30 000 m2 more office space on the Shields Business Park, with consent for a further
7000 m2 and a hotel on Braehead Business Park. It is estimated that phase 2 could
result in another 2500 jobs.
The developers own a further 67 developable hectares. A masterplan has been
developed and an outline planning application has been made for land to the west
and southwest of the shopping centre. It is suggested that this could provide over 800
new homes, 30 000 m2 business space adjacent to the River Clyde, a 11 000 m2 second
phase of Braehead Business Park, 3.5 ha of public open space, and 41 000 m2 of leisure
uses.
The site was previously owned by Clyde Port Authority and a private developer. An
outline application was submitted in 1987. The site, however, lay undeveloped from the
mid-1980s as a result of the recession in the retailing industry and changes in landownership. The application was called in by the former Strathclyde Regional Council
and was subsequently refused as breaching the strategic retail policies of the structure
plan.
Outline consent for the scheme was granted by the Secretary of State for Soctland
on appeal in June 1990 following a public local inquiry. Both Renfrewshire Council and
Glasgow Council opposed the scheme on the grounds that it would undermine the
structure plan policy of sustaining and improving existing shopping centres by directing investment towards them. The scheme could thus be fairly described as `flying in
the face' of local and regional plans and planning policies, but supported by overriding
national intervention. Although not recognised within the former structure plan, Braehead
figures prominently within the new structure plan as a `flagship' or `gateway' development
in proposals to promote the Clyde corridor as an area of growth. This is clearly an
example of ex poste accommodation by the statutory planning system to facts created
on the ground by private developers supported by the appeal system. Paradoxically,
although this scheme gained approval only because of ministerial intervention, it would
not be compatible with the current (post-1998) national planning policy guidance on
retail development.
In December 1992 the site was purchased by two major retailers. A masterplan was
prepared in January 1994 in accordance with conditions outlined within the secretary
of state's decision letter. The associated redevelopment of the riverside walkway and
Maritime Heritage Centre were secured as `planning gain', along with the construction
of some light industrial units in Govan. In December 1994 detailed consent was
granted for the original scheme. The site was then purchased by specialist developers
Capital Shopping Centres (CSC) Ltd in January 1995, acting in partnership with the
major retailers. In March 1997 planning consent for changes to the approved scheme
372
G Bramley, K Kirk
was obtained. Construction commenced in July 1997 using `fast-track' methods, and
phase 1 opened in September 1999.
Once the development was in place, both councils began to address transportation
issues and linking social inclusion partnership (SIP) areas with areas of opportunity.
The focus of public sector activity has been in the recruitment and training of jobready staff and in accessing opportunities for residents within nearby regeneration
areas. In the end, only 2% of jobs were taken up by the long-term unemployed, a
`very disappointing' outcome, and only 13.6% of people registering an interest in
employment and training opportunities at Braehaed came from the two neighbouring
SIP areas.
Consultants for the original scheme used an area development framework (as used
by urban development corporations) to ``reflect a mixed use, sustainable approach
responding positively to the waterfront and the nearby [Paisley] town centre'' and to
``create a vision which can change [the then] current perceptions of the Renfrewshire
Riverside as an investment location''. It was argued that the emphasis on creating a
mixed-use development was not a cynical ploy used to secure acceptance for out-oftown locations but arose from experience of shopping centres acting as a catalyst for
other activities. As one respondent explained: `èveryone else reaped the benefits from
our investment [in the past]; therefore we saw this as an opportunity to create our own
added value and to keep control'' as well as coinciding with trends in retailing.
There were concerns at the time that the development would ``clog the motorway''
but the consensus seems to be that the motorway network seems to have coped
adequately so far (phase 2 may increase pressure). However, the centre's dependence
on car-borne shoppers is established (Halden et al, 2000). Although well served by bus,
connections can only be accessed from Glasgow via the city centre. There were
proposals to integrate the development with water taxis linked to the underground
system and Glasgow's prosperous West End and to re-establish rail connections by
using the nearby bulkhead previously used for industrial traffic. It was estimated that
extending the line would cost 2 million to 3 million and would fit with proposals for
a rail link to the airport (the subject of a jointly funded study with Strathclyde
Passenger Transport). Some argue that the airport rail link will be sustainable only if
it can cross Glasgow, and progress on this wider front is dependent on national
political decisions. The extra cost involved in implementing these other transport
options is therefore unlikely to yield the increase in trade and rents to motivate
the lead developer to pay for them now (it might have been a different matter if the
original planning consent had been conditional on this infrastructure).
So Braehead was a privately promoted development that was not compatible with
either the then local and regional planning framework or the current national policy
orthodoxy. Local planning and service provision has had to adapt to its arrival. It was
planned in the sense of utilising masterplanning techniques, however, and it encompassed an element of mixed use. The private lead developer has ensured a focus on
rapid development and opening of the facility. It is clearly a viable and profitable
development that has required no public subsidy despite location in a relatively
depressed city-region. Again, one can argue that a stronger element of planning gain
in terms of contribution towards the upfront provision of quality public transport (rail
access) could have been achieved, although there was more provision for bus access.
Its impact on urban form may be less dramatic than that of Edinburgh Park in that it
provides an additional regional attractor to a corridor that already contained major
nodal features such as Glasgow Airport, Hillington trading estate, and Paisley town
centre. It utilised brownfield land and opens up riverside regeneration opportunities
that may link to other initiatives along the Clyde.
5.4 Eurocentral
373
Eurocentral is a large (325 ha) industrial and business development site (formerly
known as Newhouse West) in North Lanarkshire, adjacent to the A8 Glasgow ^
Edinburgh Road 4 km east of the M73 ^ A73. In the period since 1991 the site has
been partially developed, including part under enterprise zone (EZ) designation including a large single industrial user, an international rail freight terminal and associated
`freight village', and other areas of industrial and business development. Of the developable part of the site (about 63% of the total) less than half (about 70 ha) had been
taken up by 2001, despite EZ incentives and much effort at marketing and promotion.
This site has more of a planning history, insofar as part of it (100 ha) was reserved ìn
the national interest' as a large-scale single-user (manufacturing) site from 1981, and the
1990 Strathclyde Structure Plan review identified the need for further studies of aspects of
bringing the site forward. Nevertheless, it was in the greenbelt and the former Regional
Council clearly had some reservations about its redesignation, albeit reservations that were
overridden by the pressing need for economic development initiatives in Lanarkshire in the
early 1990s associated with the closure of Ravenscraig steelworks.
The site was à blob on a map' in the local plan, but much more work was needed
really to define the parameters for the development. This involved a sequence of
`concept plan', `draft strategy', further investigations of market potential, traffic impact,
mineral stability and potential, utilities and drainage, and environmental assessment
involving a whole raft of consultants. Although there is a masterplan, this has been used
as a flexible tool to examine the implications of slotting different possible developments
in at different stages.
A number of issues had to be addressed to bring the site to realisation. There were
200 000 tons of coal on site and, earlier on, it was expected that this would be extracted
as an integral part of the remediation. In practice, this was not done because of the
negative ìmage' of coal-working and the weak market for this type of coal. Large
volumes of material still had to be moved around to create level, stable platforms
and appropriate landscaping. The site (with its freight specialism) was premised on
motorway access, and a motorway junction was provided at a cost (to central government) of 6 million, but, bizarrely, this junction is still not on a motorway, owing to
long-running delays around the issue of upgrading the `missing link' in the M8 motorway. Some, but not all, of the businesses on the site make use of the rail freight facility.
The EZ provided fiscal benefits (for example, rating and capital gains tax relief ) and
avoidance of planning controls, but it has still not proved particularly attractive to
businesses and will soon be time-expired. One large warehouse and business unit
has recently been developed successfully as a speculative venture by a joint company
involving the local enterprise company (LEC).
The LEC (formerly the local development authority, now Scottish Enterprise
Lanarkshire) has acted as the lead developer, buying the land from private owners
and organising its remediation, servicing, and parcelling up. It involved a partner in
the process to access more finance, but a lot of the costs incurred have been publicly
subsidised. The large inward investor attracted a very large regional selective assistance
grant. Much effort (and repeated consultancy fees) has been expended on plans and
impact assessments relating to potential inward investors, most of whom have not
materialised.
This development has hinged on the bringing together of a number of elements and
different players, including different arms of central government. For example, it depended
upon the selection of Mossend over other potentially competing sites for the European
rail freight terminal, the approval of the site as suitable for a large-scale single user,
access to regional selective assistance, and the building of the motorway junction.
374
G Bramley, K Kirk
Efforts to bring public passenger transport onto the site have not been successful,
although some private works bus services are operated. Notably few employees were
recruited from the deprived Easterhouse area on the adjacent edge of Glasgow.
In the end, the development has been less successful than some had hoped. Total
employment on the site was around 2200 in 2001, and subsequently the major singleuser inward investment has closed down. There are probably a number of reasons for
this; the Asian economic recession and international competition, which affected the
level and sustainability of inward investment in electronics; the very large volume of
marketable industrial and business land already available in Lanarkshire; and the
failure to complement the motorway junction with an actual motorway.
Planning made some difference to the outcome here but was dependent upon
substantial injections of subsidy, appropriate supporting decisions by central government, and an activist local implementation agency. Masterplanning and a range of
impact analyses have been essential planning tools in the process, but these have had to
remain flexible and responsive. At the end of the day, the weakness of demand for
industrial space and the context of oversupply and competition has limited what can be
achieved. In the longer run, the site will presumably be developed more fully towards
its capacity and, as such, will contribute to reinforcing the pattern of development
along the motorway corridors of the central belt.
6 Conclusions
To ask whether land-use planning makes a difference is to be concerned with policy
implementation in a broad sense. Previous policy implementation literature sounds a
number of cautionary notes; perhaps especially important here are the problems of
policy ambiguity, multiple and overlapping policies, the low durability of policies, and
the temptations of symbolic policies not backed by resources. The potential for consistent planning and implementation, particularly at the regional and strategic level,
has been weakened by local government reforms and other changes that have fragmented responsibilities. Although the rhetoric of the 1990s has reemphasised the
importance of having a `plan-led' system, the reality falls short of this.
Local planning policies will vary for at least two general reasons: because of
the exercise of local discretion reflecting local political preferences, and because of the
differential bargaining power of planning authorities with would-be developers in different
situations. Certain broad propositions about general tendencies in local planning
policies and decisions can be derived from this perspective, and these receive considerable
empirical support.
As expected, evidence from both England and Scotland indicates that the planning
system maintains quite a tight control over new housing. The housing evidence also
shows that the degree of restraint correlates with economic conditions. So planning
makes a strong difference to urban form outcomes here. But we should note the paradox
of tight control going with an overreliance on `windfall' land, in some ways the antithesis of a planned approach, reflecting in part the continuing difficulties with operating
a fully plan-led system but also to some degree the realities of managing land supply
in a brownfield regeneration context. Despite the generally tight, proconsolidation stance,
there is still a gradual net decentralisation resulting from new housing development.
There is clear evidence in central Scotland of an oversupply of business land relative
to takeup. This implies weak control by planning over which bits of land actually get
developed when, and statistical modelling of business development and job growth
support this interpretation. So this is arguably an example of planning making little
difference. Perhaps, in a way, planning is a victim of having taken èconomic development' too seriously since the early 1980s. Although aspects of actual development
375
patterns may be argued to be not very sustainable for example, with an emphasis on
sites at the edge of the cities or along the motorway networkthe measured rate of job
decentralisation is actually not that dramatic in Edinburgh, and in Glasgow it was
matched in the 1990s by a job revival in the city centre.
When we look at some of the most important developments going on in Central
Scotland, one of the most striking features is that these were often not previously in
statutory development plans. This surely raises a question about the role of development plans as presently constituted. It partly reflects their relatively short time horizon
and a tendency to adopt a flexible, accommodating stance towards economic developments, which are perceived as unpredictable, and a corresponding lack of clear spatial
vision for future urban development.
This is not to say that these developments did not themselves require planning.
Masterplanning and a range of allied tools (for example, various kinds of impact
assessments) were key tools used in these cases, but they were commissioned by the
scheme promoters rather than by the local planning authority, although in some cases
the authority was some sort of partner in the development. Nevertheless, the spatial
strategy and vision embodied in the preexisting development plans generally did not
include these major schemes. A major challenge in the coming period will be to see the
reformed city-region strategic plans in Scotland playing a more proactive role in
the location and shape of major economic developments (Scottish Executive, 2001;
2004a).
Large-scale economic developments of this kind inevitably do have a significant
impact on urban form. Two of the three case-study developments, for example, were
built on former greenbelt, and two have created new edge-city rivals to the central
cities. All three of these cases could be seen as at least reinforcing if not creating
particular corridors of activity, and hence future development pressure, adjacent to
and beyond the core city. Two of the three did not entail `mixed use'.
The major developments considered, all located on noncentral sites, do appear
to have a major impact on travel patterns and traffic levels, including congestion
levels. They remain car or road oriented, despite some efforts at pulling in public
transport, and all to varying degrees squandered the opportunity to ensure that
high-quality public transport was present from day one. Perhaps the proposed àction
plan' component of the reformed Scottish planning system will help in future to
improve the coordination of infrastructure investment with development (Scottish
Executive, 2004b).
British central government has always had a key say in major urban form decisions,
but the institutional fragmentation of planning has arguably increased this role, whether
or not ministers and civil servants are willing always to grasp it. Our case studies show
the impact of particular central decisions: the approval of Braehead on appeal, and
approval and funding of a number of elements of the Eurocentral package. More
generally, evidence from case studies and statistical analysis shows the significance of
key transport infrastructure (motorways and airports) for the location of economic
development, and these are essentially central government decisions. Current reforms
to the planning system create new channels for central influence, via regional spatial
strategies in England and the national planning framework in Scotland (Scottish
Executive, 2004a).
The built environment is more durable than some policies. Our case studies illustrate this rather clearly. Braehead was approved at a time when central government was
still concerned with deregulation, competition, and encouraging private development
initiatives and before the current sustainability-oriented transport policy had been
adopted. Edinburgh Park partially predated car restraint, green transport plans, and
376
G Bramley, K Kirk
the vogue for mixed-use development. Eurocentral similarly predated these. The problem
is that we are always in danger of implementing projects planned and conceived in a
different àssumptive world' of policy.
Overall, the evidence presented suggests that current development patterns are only
partially consistent with the agenda of sustainability and its associated visions of
desirable urban form. Three broad reasons for this can be identified. First, the long
timescales of urban development mean that current patterns are still strongly a product
of earlier times and policies. Second, planning remains predominantly reactive and
lacks strong tools and resources for positive, coordinated implementation. Third, the
decentralised and politicised processes of planning decisionmaking end up exerting
stronger influence on urban form in some sectors (for example, housing) and areas
(for example, prosperous growth areas) than in other sectors (for example, business)
and areas (for example, rundown industrial areas).
Acknowledgements. This paper is one output from a major research project, the Integrative Cities
Study (ICS) of Central Scotland supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)
under its ``Cities: Competitiveness and Cohesion'' programme (Grant number L130 251040). The
ICS also received co-funding support from Scottish Enterprise, Communities Scotland (formerly
Scottish Homes), the Scottish Executive, and a number of the constituent local authorities. Data on
greenbelt development have also been incorporated from a recent research contract for the Scottish
Executive. Some of the work underlying this paper utilises data supplied by the local planning
authorities and/or the joint structure planning teams. The authors gratefully acknowledge the
assistance of all of these organisations, and particular individuals involved, as well as the assistance
and insights provided by other members of the ICS research team. However, responsibility for the
views and interpretations presented in this paper, together with any errors or misinterpretations,
rests with the authors.
References
Adams D, Watkins C, 2002 Greenfields, Brownfields and Housing Development (Blackwell Science,
Oxford)
Aldous T, 1992 Urban Villages: A Concept for Creating Mixed-use Urban Developments on a
Sustainable Scale (Urban Villages Group, London)
Anderson W P, Kanaroglou P S, Miller E J, 1996, `Ùrban form, energy and the environment''
Urban Studies 33 7 ^ 36
Barrett S, Fudge C (Eds), 1980 Policy and Action (Open University Press, Milton Keynes, Bucks)
Barton H (Ed.), 2000 Sustainable Communities: The Potential for Eco-neighbourhoods
(Earthscan Publications, London)
Begg I, 2002 Urban Competitiveness: Policies for Dynamic Cities (Policy Press, Bristol)
Blowers A, Evans B, 1997 Town Planning into the 21st Century (Routledge, London)
Booth P, 1996 Controlling Development: Certainty and Discretion in Europe, the USA and Hong Kong
(UCL Press, London)
Bramley G, 1998, ``Measuring planning: indicators of planning restraint and its impact on housing
land supply'' Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 25 31 ^ 57
Bramley, G, Bartlett, W, Lambert C, 1995 Planning, the Market and Private Housebuilding (UCL
Press, London)
Bramley G, Lambert C, 2002, ``Managing urban development: land use planning and city
competitiveness'', in Urban Competitiveness: Policies for Dynamic Cities (Policy Press, Bristol)
pp 283 ^ 310
Bramley, G, Kirk K, Russell J, 2001, ``Planning central Scotland: the role of infrastructure, urban
form and new development in promoting competitiveness and cohesion'', Economic and Social
Research Council, Central Scotland Integrative Cities Study Policy Discussion Paper,
Department of Urban Studies, University of Glasgow, Glasgow
Breheny M (Ed.), 1992 Sustainable Development and Urban Form (Pion, London)
Breheny M, 1996, ``Centrists, decentrists and compromisers: views on the future of urban form'', in
The Compact City Eds M Jenks, E Burton, K Williams (E & F N Spon, London) pp 13 ^ 35
Breheny M (Ed.), 1999, ``The people: where will they work?'', Report of Town and Country Planning
Association (TCPA) research into the changing geography of employment, 17 Carlton House
Terrace, London SW1Y 5AS
377
Breheny, M, Gent T, Lock D, 1993 Alternative Development Patterns: New Settlements (The
Stationery Office, London)
Carley M, 1996 Sustainable Transport and Retail Vitality: State of the Art for Towns and Cities
(Historic Burghs of Scotland and Donaldsons, Edinburgh)
Champion A J, Atkins, D, Coombes, M, Fotheringham S, 1998 Urban Exodus (Campaign to
Protect Rural England, 128 Southwark Street, London SE1 0SW)
CRU, 1994 A Review of the Use Classes Order Central Research Unit, Scottish Office (The
Stationery Office, London)
Danielsen, K, Lang, R, Fulton W, 1999, ``Retracting suburbia: smart growth and the future of
housing'' Housing Policy Debate 10 513 ^ 540
DETR, Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, Eland House, Bressenden
Place, London SW1E 5DU
1998a A New Deal for Transport: better for Everyone White Paper on the Future of Transport,
Cm 3950 (The Stationery Office, London)
1998b Planning for the Communities of the Future (The Stationery Office, London)
1998c Planning for Sustainable Development: Towards Better Practice (The Stationery Office,
London)
1999 Towards an Urban Renaissance Report of the Urban Task Force chaired by Lord Rogers
of Riverside (The Stationery Office, London)
2000 Planning Policy Guidance. Note 3: Housing
DoE, Department of the Environment, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London SW1E 5DU
1993 Planning Policy Guidance 6: Town Centres and Retail Developments
1994 Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport
Downs A, 1997, ``Challenge of our declining cities'' Housing Policy Debate 8 359 ^ 408
DTLR, 2001, ``Planning: delivering a fundamental change'', green paper, Department of Transport,
Local Government and the Regions, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London SW1E 5DU
Ecotec, 1993 Reducing Transport Emissions through Planning Report to the Department of
Transport by Ecotec Research & Consulting Ltd in association with Transportation Planning
Associates (The Stationery Office, London)
Evans AW, 1991,``Rabbit hutches on postage stamps: planning, development and political economy''
Urban Studies 28 853 ^ 870
Garreau J, 1990 Edge City: Life on the New Frontier (Doubleday/Anchor, New York)
Gordon I, Richardson R, 1989, ``Gasoline consumption and cities: a reply'' Journal of the American
Planning Association 55 342 ^ 345
Grant M, 1992, ``Planning law and the British land use planning system'' Town Planning Review
63(1) 3 ^ 12
Halden D, McGuigan D, Nisbet A, McKinnon A, 2000, `Àccessibility: review of measuring
techniques and their application'', Central Research Unit, Scottish Executive,
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/cru/kd01/blue/accessibility-02.asp
Hall P, Thomas H, Gracey R, Drewett R, 1973 The Containment of Urban England (George Allen
and Unwin, London)
Ham C, Hill M, 1984 The Policy Process in the Modern Capitalist State (Harvester Wheatsheaf,
Hemel Hempstead, Herts)
Hayton K, 1993, ``Scottish enterprise: the death of statutory land use planning'' Planning Practice
and Research 8(2) 5 ^ 9
Hayton K, 1996, ``Planning policy in Scotland'', in British Planning Policy in Transition: Planning
in the 1990s Ed. M Tewdwr-Jones (UCL Press, London) pp 78 ^ 97
Healey P, Doak P, MacNamara P, Elson M, 1985 The Implementation of Planning Policies and the
Role of Development Plans (2 volumes), Department of Town Planning, Oxford Polytechnic,
Oxford
Healey P, Doak P, MacNamara P, Elson M, 1988 Land Use Planning and the Mediation of Urban
Change: The British Planning System in Practice (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
Healey P, Khakee A, Motte A, Needham B, 1997 Making Strategic Spatial Plans: Innovations in
Europe (UCL Press, London)
Hill M, Bramley G, 1986 Analysing Social Policy (Blackwell, Oxford)
Jenks M, Burton E, Williams K (Eds), 1996 The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form? (Spon,
London)
Johnston B, 1995, ``Strategic planners look forward to last century'' Planning number 1143,
(November) 8 ^ 9, 25
378
G Bramley, K Kirk
Katz B, 2002, ``The new metropolitan agenda'', presentation to CASE Seminar, London School
of Economics, 6 February, http://www.brookings.edu/urban
Lambert C, Bramley G, 1998, ``Regulation entrenched: the case of housing'', in British Planning
and the New Right Eds P Allmendinger, H Thomas (Routledge, London) pp 87 ^ 113
Leishman C, Bramley G, 2004, `À local housing market model with spatial interaction and land
use regulation'' submitted to Environment and Planning A 36
Llewellyn Davies, 1997, ``Review of urban capacity studies'', UK Round Table on Sustainable
Development, Floor 23, Portland House, Stag Place, London SW1E 5DF
Newman P, Kenworthy J, 1989 Cities and Automobile Dependence: An International Sourcebook
(Gower, Aldershot, Hants)
Newman P, Kenworthy J, 1992, `Ìs there a role for physical planners?'' Journal of the American
Planning Association 58 353 ^ 362
ODPM, 2003a, ``Sustainable communities: building for the future'', Office of the Deputy Prime
Minister, 26 Whitehall, London SW1A 2WH
ODPM, 2003b, ``Sustainable communitiesdelivering through planning'', Planning Policy
Statement (PPS), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 26 Whitehall, London SW1A 2WH
Pennington, M, 2000, ``Public choice theory and the politics of urban containment: voter-centred
versus special-interest explanations'' Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 18
145 ^ 162
Quercia R, Galster G, 1997,``Threshold effects and the expected benefits of attracting middle-income
households to the central city'' Housing Policy Debate 8 409 ^ 435
RCEP, 1995 Transport and the Environment 18th Report to Parliament, Royal Commission on
Environmental Pollution (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
RTPI, 2002,``Modernising green belts. A discussion paper'', Royal Town Planning Institute, London
Scottish Executive, Development Department, Planning Services, Edinburgh
1999 National Planning Policy Guidance 17: Transport and Planning
2000 National Planning Policy Guidance 1: The Planning System
2001 Review of Strategic Planning consultation paper
2002 Scottish Planning Policy 3: Housing
2004a Making Development Plans Deliver consultation paper, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/
consultations/planning/mdpdc-00.asp
2004b, ``Scottish planning policy: consultation draft SPP 17: planning for transport'',
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/consultations/planning/spp17-00.asp
SPH, 2001, ``The role of the planning system in the provision of housing'', research report,
School of Planning and Housing, for Scottish Executive Central Research Unit, Edinburgh
Stead D, 2000, `Ùnsustainable settlements'', in Sustainable Communities: The Potential for
Eco-neighbourhoods Ed. H Barton (Earthscan Publications, London) pp 29 ^ 45
Tewdwr-Jones M, 1996 British Planning Policy in Transition: Planning in the 1990s (UCL Press,
London)
Tewdwr-Jones M, 1999, ``Reasserting town planning: challenging the representation and image
of the plannnig profession'', in Planning Beyond 2000 Eds P Allmendinger, M Chapman
(John Wiley, Chichester, Sussex) pp 123 ^ 149
Turok I, with others, 2003, ``Twin track cities? Linking prosperity and cohesion in Glasgow and
Edinburgh'', research report, Department of Urban Studies, University of Glasgow, Glasgow
UKRTSD, 1997 Housing and Urban Capacity UK Round Table on Sustainable Development;
Department of the Environment, London, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London SW1E 5DU
UVF, 1995 The Economics of Urban Villages (Urban Villages Forum, London)
WCED, 1987 Our Common Future Brundtland Report, World Commission on Environment and
Development (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
Williams K, Burton E, Jenks M (Eds), 2000 Achieving Sustainable Urban Form (Spon, London)
Wootton-Jeffreys, 1991, `Àn examination of the effects of the Use Classes Order 1987 and the
General Development Order 1988'', Wootton-Jeffreys Consultants Ltd and Bernard Thorpe
(HMSO, London)
2005 a Pion publication printed in Great Britain

Does Planning Make A Difference To Urban Form? Recent Evidence From Central Scotland

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Does Planning Make A Difference To Urban Form? Recent Evidence From Central Scotland

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Environment and Planning A 2005, volume 37, pages 355 ^ 378

Does planning make a difference to urban form? Recent

current orthodoxies. We conclude section 2 by setting out some general hypotheses

Does planning make a difference to urban form?

Does planning make a difference to urban form?

Planning is still implemented primarily through elected, general-purpose local

From this discussion of the implementation of planning it is possible to put

Does planning make a difference to urban form?

In a later paper (Bramley, 1998) formal (particularly greenbelt) constraints were

Takeup rate (%)

Is it possible to demonstrate a systematic relationship between plan policy, land

Does planning make a difference to urban form?

Does planning make a difference to urban form?

Does planning make a difference to urban form?

It is particularly interesting to look at evidence on the development in greenbelts,

Does planning make a difference to urban form?

that in this instance there is no jurisdictional boundary issue involved, as Edinburgh's

Does planning make a difference to urban form?

Does planning make a difference to urban form?

Does planning make a difference to urban form?

Does planning make a difference to urban form?

2005 a Pion publication printed in Great Britain

Você também pode gostar