Earlier posts on this blog pointed to the current period of crisis as an opportunity for rethinking accepted ideas, policies and practices in relation to future planning and development in Ireland (for example here and here). The introduction of a new Government with a fresh mandate and (potentially) fresh ideas (see here for a critical perspective!) provides a further opportunity to critically reflect on the role of spatial development policy and practice in the current context.
Understood in its broad sense, spatial planning refers to a state-led interventionist activity that seeks to pursue particular objectives for society through a focus on the diversity and specific qualities of individual places and social and economic relations across space. In contrast to traditional forms of land-use planning, strategic spatial planning claims to provide a focus for the coordination of the spatial impacts of other sectoral policies and public sector investment decision-making processes. In this way the National Spatial Strategy and Regional Planning Guidelines should be expected to inform the proposed new National Development Plan (2012 – 2019) and the decision to progress a new technical university for the Southeast in agreed Programme for Government.
The ‘governance capacity’ of spatial planning strategies is however critically dependent on their capacity to steer the geographical distribution of development and provide a reliable indication of the intensity, quantity and type of development anticipated occurring over the period of the plan. If this capacity is absent then higher level objectives in terms of providing a spatial dimension to sectoral policies will remain aspirational. Unfortunately the record of the past decade indicates that the governance capacity of spatial plans in Ireland, at national, regional and local levels has been rather weak indicating a need to fundamentally rethink some of the basic premises of planning and development thinking in Ireland.
The pointers outlined below are intended as an initial contribution to progressing the debate rethinking planning and development in the current context:
1. Future planning and development policy and practice needs to make a clear distinction between development in its socioeconomic sense and spatial development. Potential economic benefits in terms of employment generation or commercial rates revenue cannot be the overriding factors in decision-making on spatial development, i.e. the future development of the built and natural environment.
2. Spatial planning needs to be founded on realistic assessments of projected future growth (or decline) in population, numbers of households, numbers in the labour force and of the economy more generally. Spatial planning decision-making should therefore be needs-based and forward looking, thus reducing the risks of both undersupply and oversupply as we have witnessed recent years.
3. Spatial planning policy and practice needs to be founded on acceptance that significant areas of the country most likely will not witness significant levels of development or employment creation and may need to plan for continued decline and population loss due to emigration. In this respect, Ireland has much learn from other parts of Europe and in particular parts of eastern Germany, where post-reunification expectations of rapid development have gradually given way to an acceptance of a need to plan for declining population, ‘shrinking cities’ and reduced economic circumstances.
4. Spatial policy needs to balance normative vision with a pragmatic orientation. The NSS and Regional Planning Guidelines have provided a valuable frame of reference in terms of outlining desirable future spatial development objectives and patterns. The laudable policy goals of balanced regional development and ‘physical consolidation’ of the Dublin metropolitan area need to balanced with an explicit recognition and readjustment of future spatial development prospects in light of the experience of recent development trends. These development trends are well documented and include extensive peri-urban development, ghost estates and a markedly variable performance of Gateway cities.
5. Spatial strategies should attempt to create a space for shared understanding and agreement among key stakeholders, including political representatives planning professionals, community development and environmental interests. Whether the proposed ‘democratically decided Regional or City Plan’ (Programme for Government, p. 27) with a significantly reduced role for City/County Managers is the best approach to this is of course another question.
Cormac Walsh
Ireland after NAMA 
March 9, 2011 at 12:43 am
There are too many hifalutin ideas and sound bites in this piece.
If there is no demand for it you don’t allow it to be built full stop and that includes the NAMA green fields. Even if some hot shot architect is calling for the usual landmark/iconic building. That was/is a fundamental flaw in the planning system.
Councils have to be weaned off planning contributions (ransom money) but they must radically reform their operations or find themselves put out of business. One planning authority for each province would be on my agenda.
March 9, 2011 at 6:43 pm
Robert,
The aim of this piece was to stimulate critical thinking on the role of spatial planning in local, regional and national governance in Ireland. What you term ‘hifalutin ideas and soundbites’ are is a conceptual approach based on extensive academic research. While I acknowledge the need for practical measures, I also believe an intependent critical and theoretically informed analysis is required, which of neccessity is at a more abstract level.
Your comment fails to distinguish in any way between the different roles of policy-makers, planning practitioners, elected representatives and other stakeholders in the planning and development system. Too much of the commentary on planning in Ireland has been based on anecdote and opinion rather than expert analysis and research.
March 9, 2011 at 9:36 pm
My experiences are based on face to face meetings with DCC to remind them of their legal responsibilities regarding the development plan. As for “stake holders” all citizens are stake holders in the proper planning of this country.
What is going on at the moment is people jockeying for more quango’s to replace the ones that were populated by friends of the ruling party and which are now destined for the chop. Our planning strategy should be driven by the green agenda and sustainability which links in to the wider goal of developing Ireland’s massive agricultural potential. At the moment we have to find a way to get rid of the blots on the landscape and somehow too the planners and politicians who put them there. That will be a start and if that does not happen which it probably won’t then we will just have to wait until the economic collapse puts manners eventually on these people.
I have had plenty of time to observe the abstractions not from a distance but right up close and personal. I have had private meetings with DCC planners and officials including the current city manager and assistant manager. I know from first hand experience the manner in which the democratically derived plan for the city, the DCDP 2005 – 2011 or the present one running to 2016 is constantly gerrymandered by officials who have their own private agendas and who on numerous occasions had to be called to account by the elected representatives. High rise is one area I am thinking of and the addiction to planning contributions.
Right now, Dublin is hoping the Vartry tunnel does not collapse. A replacement emergency pipe could be put in for 12 million euro but that will not be done because there is “no money” and the council is broke. Jim Barrett dormer Dublin City architect described the the 37 storey tower proposed by Henning Larsen for Ballsbridge as “the most elegant solution” to Sean Dunne’s little problem of having shelled out 450 million for a site. That development if it had gone ahead would have contained a quantum of retail space equivalent to all of Grafton street and all of Henry street combined. The best legal brains, the best conservation architects the best town planners the best experts in transport can be bought for a large cheque. DCC and many of the afore mentioned fought for that to happen. Only residents of Ballsbridge stopped them. Only for them, you would have a hole in the middle of Dublin 4 with a hoarding around it and money from NAMA being dumped into it.
I have qualifications from two Irish universities in systems analysis, BS and economics and I know something of academia as I have lectured.
I am not saying we don’t need academics, we do, but all too often the academics that get listened to are those whose views coincide with the political masters of the universe. The country is haemorrhaging talent and drowning in a sea of debt so please forgive me for my belief in practical solutions. Your post is peppered with the lingo of the university and it just puts me off maybe I have been around for too long. I am a firm believer in explaining things without lingo, plain talking. Finally, I appreciate where you are coming from.