London’s Spatial Plan

A lot of discussion in planning circles at the moment is about the upcoming ‘Auckland Spatial Plan’. There’s even an article in today’s NZ Herald about the Spatial Plan and its importance:

Dr Blakeley said work was “full speed ahead” on preparing the draft Auckland Plan, and was on target for June next year, despite some views that such a big task would take three to five years.

“It starts with future land use but it goes beyond that to look at social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing of the city.”

He said the draft plan was based on evidence, including the work available in a stack of documents and studies done by Auckland’s previous eight councils, on providing transport and other infrastructure, environmental protection, heritage management and boosting economic and social growth.

London has been doing “spatial plans” for quite a while now, with the first plan coming out in 2004 – with updates through to 2008. A second spatial plan (known as the “London Plan”) is currently going through the process of becoming operative – reflecting the new priorities of Boris Johnson, the current London mayor.

Reading through the London Plan, I was somewhat surprised by its form. I had been expecting a whole heap of maps and lists of infrastructure projects with their timelines for implementation, but the Plan in London goes much further than that – and does things much more cleverly I think.

Perhaps most importantly, the London Plan is based on a lot of background research – it is very much based on evidence rather than conjecture. The legislation requiring Auckland to produce a spatial plan also asks for this level of research – though I worry that the short timeline for completing the plan will make this an impossibility. If we look at the London Plan, there are background documents on the following topics:

1. Economic evidence
2. Flood risk
3. Housing land availability and housing capacity
4. Impact of energy policies
5. Housing design guide
6. Industrial land analysis
7. Habitat regulation
8. Retail street markets
9. Small shops study
10. Inner London context analysis
11. Housing technical paper

A lot of technical papers, research reports and other documents and studies have obviously been undertaken by the various councils in Auckland over the past few years. I guess that the short timeframes for implementing the Auckland Plan means that this plan is more likely to be an amalgamation of that previous work – with the twist that the current council wants to apply – rather than a ‘ground-up’ new approach in the way that London’s plans seem to be.

Looking at the London Plan itself, I find it very interesting how the whole plan is put together and also how compatible Boris Johnson’s vision for London seems to be with Len Brown’s vision for Auckland – despite the fact that Boris Johnson is from the Conservatives. Here are a couple of sections from the foreword of the London Plan:

We can all think of small cities that are lovely to live in – tranquil and green and blessed with efficient public transport.

And then we can think of big cities that are global economic powerhouses – teeming with the noise, energy and ambition of millions of people.

I want London to have the best of both worlds.

I want London to be the best big city on earth.

That means a place that brims with opportunity and talent and economic activity of all kinds, but also one where the pace of life can suddenly slow from one street to the next; where children can grow up in safety – where people can be seen walking or cycling with no purpose other than enjoyment.

And…

To understand what needs to be done, try Googling our city with one of those satellite maps. Zoom in and out of London from on high. You will see how the world beneath you is divided into two categories. There is private space – that is, homes and gardens occupied by individuals and their families.

But more than half of the London landscape – by area – is shared space: roads, parks, canals, rivers, squares, shops, piazzas, malls, stations, monuments and museums. This shared space is a vast and complex environment in which millions of perfect strangers must move, meet and negotiate.

What is it like in that shared space? Are people stressed, tense, crowded, unhealthy, unhappy, snappy or even downright hostile?

Or are they relaxed and good-humoured, surrounded by things of beauty both natural and man-made?

The genius of a big city lies in the way it organises that shared space, for the benefit of visitors and inhabitants alike.

We want to make that shared space ever safer, so that it is always pleasant to visit a park, and so that public transport is never threatening.

We need to bridge the gap between rich and poor, to fight illiteracy and youthful poverty of ambition – not just because they are evil in themselves, but because they lead to the criminal disorder that affects everyone.

To make that shared space safer, we need to make it more beautiful. That is why we are seeking a world reputation for new and improved public spaces that Londoners will cherish for decades to come.

We will tackle stress and overcrowding by building houses that once again have decent sized rooms, and we will insist on architecture that once again delights the eye.

London is now poised to lead the world in new green technology – from electric cars to home insulation to a new low-carbon bus to a bike hire scheme – that will help reduce CO2, sweeten the air, generate jobs and save consumers money at the same time.

Wherever we can we want to plant more trees, protect green space and push ahead with the expansion of an efficient and world-beating public transport system. These plans set out the fundamental economic and environmental importance of these transport investments for the whole of the Greater London area.

I can easily imagine Len Brown writing something along these lines. I can’t quite imagine Steven Joyce envisaging an Auckland Plan that has this for a foreword.

It’s not just the foreword that makes the London Plan interesting reading though – it’s the high-level vision it creates for the city and then the way in which it seeks to have this vision implemented through ensuring the spatial plan strongly influences land-use planning ‘at the coal face’. In terms of the vision – this is spelled out clearly by the Mayor: This is supported by six main principles: The growth and development of London, plus the infrastructure necessary to support that, is summarised in what’s known as the “Key Diagram”. In some respects this diagram is the Spatial Plan, though for me it’s the words behind it that make all the difference:
The major rail infrastructure projects (CrossRail 1&2, Thameslink and the East London Line) are in there, the areas of intensification: both broad and specific are noted. Along some corridors (Thames Gateway and up to Stanstead Airport) a level of new development is proposed, though specifically for “Sustainable Communities”.

This is a useful diagram, and I look forward to seeing what Auckland’s version of this diagram looks like. But where the London Spatial Plan really shines is in the details of how the broad visions of the Spatial Plan will make a difference to life ‘on the ground’ when it comes to proposed developments. Unlike Auckland, London has a large number of relatively small councils, each of which is responsible for planning. All their planning documents need to be consistent with the London Plan, and when they consider applications they must take into account what the London Plan says. It seems reasonably likely that the Resource Management Act will be amended this year along somewhat similar lines. Hopefully this will lead to a better alignment between planning and infrastructure provision (otherwise known as the “avoiding the St Lukes mess again” provision).

The need to ensure alignment between transport and land-use outcomes is clearly central to the London Plan. The section on transport highlights integration as an essential strategy:
Ensuring maximum parking standards in all local plans (their equivalent of District Plans), ensuring minimum cycling standards, only allowing high-trip generating development around public transport nodes, improving connections between different types of transport, increasing use of ferries along the Thames River and so forth: this is exactly how you integrate planning and development. I certainly hope that Auckland’s Plan comes up with similar measures – particularly in relation to only supporting high trip-generating development in areas with high public transport accessibility.

This is detailed further later in the plan (paragraphs 6.14-6.15 on page 149):

Allowing development, either individually or cumulatively, that would place an unacceptable burden on either the public transport network and/or the road network would be contrary to the objective of sustainable development. Phasing development (where this is appropriate), the use of travel plans and addressing freight issues may all help reduce the impact of development on the transport network and reduce emissions of gases that contribute to climate change.

In practical terms, this means ensuring that new developments that will give rise to significant numbers of new trips should be located either where there is already good public transport accessibility with capacity adequate to support the additional demand or where there is a realistic prospect of additional accessibility, or capacity being provided in time to meet the new demand. This principle should be reflected in the documentation submitted by applicants and in decisions on planning applications, with appropriate use made of planning conditions, planning obligations and, in due course, the Community Infrastructure Levy to ensure a joined-up approach to transport demand and availability of capacity.

It may sound draconian to limit development in areas without good public transport accessibility, but in the end that is probably the only sure fire way of limiting future congestion. Auckland has failed on this issue over and over again, with the most obvious example being letting so much development happen east of the Tamaki River with absolutely no dedicated public transport infrastructure. But smaller mistakes continue to be made every day: the poor location of Massey University in Albany, the poor design of Stonefields making it nigh on impossible to serve with public transport, the ongoing development of Flat Bush without any dedicated PT infrastructure and so on. The granting of planning permission for St Lukes to double in size, even though it’s not even on a proper bus route, is just the latest example of Auckland’s ongoing failure to integrate land-use and transport planning. Let us hope that Auckland’s plan includes similar measures to the London Plan on this issue – so that we can hopefully not continue to make these mistakes in the future.

I could go on forever about the London Plan, and as Auckland’s Spatial Plan develops I imagine that I will make regular comparisons. But needless to say, having read through a fairly decent chunk of London’s Spatial Plan I think it’s an excellent model for what the “Auckland Plan” should look like. In fact, the more Auckland’s plan is like the London Plan the better I reckon.

Share this