THE LAND FETISH A Suitable Case for Dr Freud? Professor Sir Peter Hall UCL LSE Seminar 6 March 2006

Planning in Britain: A New Verdict (1) Andrew Gilg: Planning in Britain: Understanding and Evaluating the Post- War System (London: Sage 2005)

Where Are We Now? Gilg’s Verdict Middle-class bias Not always democratic Balances economic growth, conservation: a dilemma Increasingly market-driven No obvious alternative

Where Are We Now? Gilg’s Verdict Big Achievement: urban containment; preservation of countryside Big Failure: development not sustainable: work, homes separate Another Failure: transport not integrated; transport system overloaded Need: integrated development; New Towns Compare: Containment of Urban England (1973)!

Where Are We Now? Planning in Uncertainty Values and interests Essentially political Producers versus consumers Public action for private good Political cultures: very deep

Where Are We Now? The Barker Challenge Need for massive increase in housing completions Will need brownfield + greenfield “Political” attack by shires – “unholy alliance” with cities The architects’ crusade: “Barcelonise” our cities

A Continuing Issue? Brownfield, Greenfield and the Sequential Test Housing Completions: 1999, 2004 TotalBrownfieldGreenfield 1999 % s % s % change

A Continuing Issue? Brownfield, Greenfield and the Sequential Test Region Completions % change Brownfield % change Greenfield % change North North West Yorks Humber East Midlands West Midlands Eastern England London South East South West England

Housebuilding: Houses v Flats 1999, 2004 Dwellings: % of total HousesFlatsHousesFlats North East North West Yorks Humber East Midlands West Midlands*88* East of England*91* London South East South West England

What do people want? Home Alone (Hooper et al 1998): only 10% want a flat; 33% won’t consider a flat CPRE (Champion et al 1998): people want to live in/near country Hedges and Clemens (q. Breheny 1997): city dwellers least satisfied Conclusion: we hate cities!

Housing Preferences: MORI for CABE, 2005 Over half the population want to live in a detached house 22% prefer a bungalow 14% a semi-detached house 7% a terraced house Detached house most popular choice, regardless of social status or ethnicity Period properties (Edwardian, Victorian, Georgian) most desirable overall: 37%

Good and Bad Arguments Bad: we must save farmland Good: we should give people choice of access to public transport, shops, schools By public transport as well as car So: concentrate growth around transport interchanges And: raise densities there (“pyramids of density”)

Land Lying Idle… EU Set-Aside: June 2004, 476,000 hectares, almost 5.0% of England Greater SE: 100,270 hectares, 8.6% Essex 10.7% Hampshire 9.1% Oxfordshire 11.4% Bedfordshire 11.6% Far in excess of most generous estimates of land needed for housing!

New Households, New Homes 80% one-person But only about one-third “single never married” Will demand more space per household: Separate kitchens/bathrooms/loos, Spare rooms, Work spaces Land saving reduces as densities increase: 30 dw/ha yields 60% of all potential gains, 40 dw/ha 70 per cent So biggest gains from minimising development below 20 dw/h, not increasing 40 dw/ha+ So: go for dw/ha with variations: higher close to transport services (Stockholm 1952!) But won’t achieve same person densities as before!

Densification: Effects Land needed to accommodate 400 dwellings DensityArea required, ha. Dws./ha. Net Gross (with local facilities) Land Saved% %Land Saved% % TotalCumu-TotalCumu- Saving lativeSaving lative

Density Gradient (Rudlin+Falk)

Lessons from Land Use Public Transport needs minimum density: Bus: 25 dw/ha LRT: 60 dw/ha Exceed recent densities Big gain from dw/ha Plus “pyramids” up to 60 dw/ha round rail stations Urban Task Force Traditional – Stockholm, 1952! Or Edwardian suburbs!

The Challenge Building sustainable suburbs But: can be Garden Cities too! “New Towns”: seldom just that… More often: planned town expansions The need now: build sustainable urban places – linked along transport corridors A big challenge for us: equal to 1950s, 1960s They did it – so we can we!

Where Are We Now? A 3-Pronged National Spatial Strategy 3 key needs: “Grow SEE”: Better connections on Sustainable Community Growth Corridors “Shrinking the N-S Gap”: Bring North, Midland Core Cities/City Regions closer to London “Grow City Regions” around Core Cities

Where Are We Now? A New Geography of England… Towards an “English Spatial Strategy”? 4 SE Growth Areas Plus Northern Way

South East England: Global Mega-City-Region

Urban Clusters (Hall+Ward 1998)

Sustainable Communities Corridors: Growing the SE into the Midlands…

The Infrastructure Gap: Roger Tym Report

The North: Managed Decline? The great Pathfinder row How much to keep? How much to demolish? Are incentives perverse? YES: SAVE Britain’s Heritage NO: ODPM Family-Friendly Housing in Cities How much Greenfield? Issues: VAT, Infrastructure (Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool)

Shrinking the N-S Gap: Slowing Traffic, Speeding Trains…

Shrinking the N-S Gap: A New High-Speed Line?

Shrinking the N-S Gap: From Core Cities to City Regions Eight city regions: key to faster economic growth in North Build on renaissance of Core Cities 90% of population, more than 90% of economic activity/assets Most of North’s growth here 50% higher per capita GVA growth than rest of North

City Regions: Accessing the Core City… London Euston to Manchester Piccadilly Outward Journey on Fri 2 Sep 2005 Option123 Depart07:3508:0508:35 Arrive09:4810:2410:48 Duration2:132:192:13 Changes000

City Regions: …and Periphery (not quite, actually!) London Euston to Oldham Mumps Outward Journey on Fri 2 Sep 2005 Option123 Depart07:3508:0508:35 Arrive10:4411:3511:44 Duration3:093:303:09 Changes222

Making it happen: The 2004 Act Radical change – biggest for 35 years Working through at regional strategic level Still to work through at local level Planning Gain Supplement Can it solve the “infrastructure deficit”? The major issue in solving the housing crisis! But also: the NIMBY factor – will get worse?

Planning Gain Supplement v. S106 Planning Gain Supplement (i.e. development land tax) on windfall gains by developers Could vary locally: brownfield v. greenfield Can it meet the “infrastructure gap”? Or are existing mechanisms as effective? MK, Bedford… So retain “Section 106” as an alternative? Local versus regional investment: ‘local gain’ for ‘local pain’ (retention of PGS; higher proportion of Council Tax receipts from new housing) But problem of regional infrastructure: Bypasses v. new rail connections… Need for better integration ODPM/DfT! SE Orbirail, Manchester Metrolink, etc, etc…

Summing Up: Key Challenges Deliver the houses Defend the “balanced portfolio” Demonstrate its sustainability Resist vested interests Fund the infrastructure Coordinate development, transport Countryside – for people!