Advertisement

Journal of Transatlantic Studies

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 45–67 | Cite as

Dirigiste and Smart Growth approaches to urban sprawl: lessons from Scotland and British Columbia

  • Tony JacksonEmail author
  • Deepak Gopinath
  • John Curry
Article

Abstract

Two communities operating under diverse planning systems, St. Andrews in Scotland and Prince George in British Columbia (BC), provide case studies for examining how planning tools are used in these jurisdictions to address urban containment issues. The dirigiste planning powers available under Scottish planning along with the institutional arrangements for funding Scottish local government facilitate greater containment than the community-centred approach favoured in BC, but at the expense of restricting local engagement in the process. BC’s application of Smart Growth concepts suffers from more limited enforcement powers but offers its municipalities greater involvement in shaping their communities.

Keywords

green belts Smart Growth St. Andrews Scotland Prince George British Columbia urban containment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    J. B. Cullingworth and V. Nadin, Town and Country Planning in Britain (London: Routledge, 13th ed. 2000).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Scottish Government, Scottish Planning Policy (Edinburgh: Scottish Government Planning Directorate, 2008), paras. 11 and 13.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Aves, ‘The green belt: Aspects of development control’, Journal of Planning Law 2 (2009): 146–60.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. G Lloyd and D. Peel, ‘Green belts in Scotland: Towards the modernisation of a traditional concept?’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50, no. 5 (2007): 639–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Scottish Executive Development Department, Scottish Planning Policy 21: Green Belts (Edinburgh: Scottish Executive, 2006).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Department of Communities and Local Government, Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belts (London: DCLG, 2001), para.1.4.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    See P. Hall, H. Thomas, R. Gracey, and R. Drewett, The Containment of Urban England (London: Allen & Unwin, 1973); andGoogle Scholar
  8. 7a.
    M. J. Elson, Green Belts: Conflict Mediation in the Urban Fringe (London: Heinemann, 1986).Google Scholar
  9. 8.
    See Royal Town Planning Institute, Modernising Green Belts: A Discussion Paper (London: RTPI, 2002)Google Scholar
  10. 8a.
    Town and Country Planning Association, Policy Statement: Green Belts (London: TCPA, 2002)Google Scholar
  11. 8b.
    M. J. Elson, ‘Modernising green belts — Some recent contributions’, Town and Country Planning 6, (2002): 266–7Google Scholar
  12. 8c.
    A. Prior and J. Raemakers, ‘Is green belt fit for purpose in a post-Fordist landscape?’, Planning Practice and Research 22, no. 4 (2007): 579–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 8d.
    N. Gallent and D. Shaw, ‘Spatial planning, area action plans and the rural-urban fringe’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50, no. 5 (2007): 617–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 9.
    See Campaign to Protect Rural England, Green Belts: Fifty Years On (London: CPRE, 2005)Google Scholar
  15. 9a.
    T Jackson, ‘Tightening the belt? Scotland gets a community-based green belt alliance’, Scottish Planner 103 (2005): 8Google Scholar
  16. 9b.
    J. Hecimovich, ‘Greenbelts or Green Wedges?’, Journal of the American Planning Association 74, no. 3 (2008): 40–3.Google Scholar
  17. 10.
    P. Allmendinger, Planning Theory (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002).Google Scholar
  18. 11.
    Fife Council Planning and Building Control Service, St. Andrews Local Plan (Glenrothes: Fife Council, 1996).Google Scholar
  19. 12.
    Fife Council Planning and Building Control Service, A Future St. Andrews: St. Andrews Strategic Study (Glenrothes: Fife Council, 1998).Google Scholar
  20. 13.
    David Tyldesley & Associates, A Green Belt for St. Andrews: A Report on the Justification for and Potential Boundaries of a Green Belt for the Royal Burgh of St. Andrew, Fife (St. Andrews, Fife: St. Andrews Preservation Trust, 1997).Google Scholar
  21. 14.
    T Jackson, Old Codgers and New Golf Courses: EIA in St. Andrews (Auckland, NZ: Department of Planning University of Auckland Impact Assessment Research Unit Occasional Report Series, 2003).Google Scholar
  22. 15.
    Scottish Executive, Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 Replacement Fife Structure Plan Annex A: Fife Structure Plan January 2001 Modifications (Edinburgh: Scottish Executive, 2001).Google Scholar
  23. 16.
    R. P. Malloy, ed., Private Property, Community Development, and Eminent Domain (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008).Google Scholar
  24. 17.
    Government of Ontario, Greenbelt Act and Places to Grow Act (Ottawa: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing; Government of Ontario, 2005).Google Scholar
  25. 18.
    M. Carter-Whitney, Ontario’s Greenbelt in an International Context: Comparing Ontario’s Greenbelt to its Counterparts in Europe and North America (Toronto: Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy, 2008).Google Scholar
  26. 19.
    Government of British Columbia, Agricultural Land Commission Act (Victoria, BC: Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, 1973).Google Scholar
  27. 20.
    C. Campbell, Forever Farmland: Reshaping the Agricultural Land Reserve for the Twenty-First Century (Vancouver: David Suzuki Foundation, 2006).Google Scholar
  28. 21.
    D. Curran, Protecting the Working Landscape of Agriculture: A Smart Growth Direction for Municipalities in British Columbia (Vancouver: West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation, 2005).Google Scholar
  29. 22.
    P. Krueger and G. Maguire, ‘Protecting speciality cropland from urban development: The case of the Okanagan Valley, British Columbia’, Geoforum 16, no. 3 (1985): 287–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 23.
    Government of British Columbia, Agricultural Land Commission Act (Victoria, BC: Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, 2002).Google Scholar
  31. 24.
    Campbell, Forever Farmland.Google Scholar
  32. 25.
    T Jackson and J. Curry, ‘Peace in the woods: Sustainability and the democratisation of land use planning and resource management on Crown Lands in British Columbia’, International Planning Studies 9, no. 1 (2004): 27–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 26.
    T Jackson, B. M. Illsley, J. Curry, and E. Rapaport, ‘Amenity migration and sustainable development in remote resource-based communities: Lessons from northern British Columbia’, International Journal of Society Systems Science 1, no. 1 (2008): 26–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 27.
    Curran, Protecting the Working Landscape of Agriculture.Google Scholar
  35. 28.
    See, for example, G. Halseth, ‘Community and land-use planning debate: An example from rural British Columbia’, Environment and Planning A 28 (1996): 1279–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 28a.
    S. Markey, G Halseth, and D. Manson, ‘Contradictions in hinterland development: Challenging the local development ideal in North British Columbia’, Community Development Journal 44, no. 2 (2009): 209–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 29.
    B. M. Illsley, T Jackson, J. Curry, and E. Rapaport, ‘Community innovation in the soft spaces of planning’, International Planning Studies 14, no. 4 (2010): 303–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 30.
    K. S. Hanna, A. Dale, and C. Ling, ‘Social capital and quality of place: Reflections on growth and change in a small town’, Local Environment 14, no. 1 (2009): 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 31.
    See, for example, R. Boyle and R. Mohamed, ‘State growth management, smart growth and urban containment: A review of the US and a study of the heartland’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50, no. 5 (2007): 677–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 31a.
    J. W Scott, ‘Smart growth as urban reform: A pragmatic recoding of the new regionalism’, Urban Studies 44, no. 1 (2007): 15–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 31b.
    W A. Kellog, ‘Ohio’s balanced growth program: A case study of collaboration for planning and policy design’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 52, no. 4 (2009): 549–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 31c.
    T Van Dijk, ‘Who is in charge of the urban fringe? Neoliberalism, open space preservation and growth control’, Planning Practice and Research 24, no. 3 (2009): 343–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 32.
    Curran, Protecting the Working Landscape of Agriculture, 10Google Scholar
  44. 33.
    Social Planning and Research Council of BC, Evaluation of Smart Growth on the Ground (Vancouver: SPARCBC, 2007).Google Scholar
  45. 34.
    City of Prince George (CPG), Official Community Plan (Prince George, BC: CPG, 2001), 4.Google Scholar
  46. 35.
    T Jackson, ‘The Scottish Client Group approach: Indicators of need or discretionary variations in expenditure?’, Journal of Public Policy and Administration 4, no. 2 (1989): 35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 36.
    M. Lyons, Inquiry into Local Government: Place-shaping, a Shared Ambition for the Future of Local Government (London: The Stationery Office, 2007).Google Scholar
  48. 37.
    T Jackson, ‘The diagnosis and treatment of disparities in United Kingdom regional economic performance: A critique’, International Journal of Sustainable Society 1, no. 3 (2009): 270–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 38.
    T Allen, ‘Controls over the use and abuse of eminent domain in England: A comparative view’, in Private Property, Community Development, and Eminent Domain, ed. R. P. Malloy (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008), 75–100.Google Scholar
  50. 39.
    H. Kitchen and E. Slack, ‘Providing public services in remote areas’, in Perspectives in Fiscal Federalism, ed. R. M. Bird (Herndon, VA: World Bank, 2006), 123–40, 131.Google Scholar
  51. 40.
    J. F. Meligrana, ‘Developing a planning strategy and vision for rural-urban fringe areas: A case study of British Columbia’, Canadian Journal of Urban Research 12, no. 1 (2003): 119–41, 119.Google Scholar
  52. 41.
    See, for example, A. C. Nelson, ‘Demand, segmentation, and timing effects of an urban containment program on urban ring land values’, Urban Studies 22, no. 5 (1985): 439–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 41a.
    A. C. Nelson, ‘An empirical note of how regional urban containment policy influences an interaction between greenbelt and ex-urban land markets’, Land Economics 54 (1988): 78–184Google Scholar
  54. 41b.
    R. Pendall, J. Martin, and W. Fulton, Holding the Line: Urban Containment in the United States (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 2002)Google Scholar
  55. 41c.
    E. G. Irwin, K. Bell, and J. Geoghegan, ‘Modelling and managing urban growth at the rural-urban fringe: A parcel-level model of residential land use change’, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 32, no. 1 (2003): 83–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 41d.
    E. G. Irwin and N E. Bockstael, ‘Land use externalities, open space restrictions, and urban sprawl’, Regional Science and Urban Economics 34, no. 6 (2004): 705–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 41c.
    R. Mohamed, ‘The economics of conservation sub-division: Price premiums, improvement costs, and absorption rates’, Urban Affairs Review 41, no. 3 (2006): 376–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 42.
    See, for example, M. J. Elson, S. Walker, and R. Macdonald, The Effectiveness of Green Belts (London: Department of the Environment Planning Research Programme, 1992)Google Scholar
  59. 42a.
    G Bramley, C. Hague, K. Kirk, A. Prior, J. Raemakers, and S. Smith with A. Robinson and R. Bushnell, Review of Green Belt Policy in Scotland (Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Social Research, 2004).Google Scholar
  60. 43.
    Recent key publications include K. Barker, Barker Review of Land Use Planning: Final Report. (London: H.M.Treasury, 2006)Google Scholar
  61. 43a.
    P. C. Cheshire and C. A. L. Hilber, ‘Office space supply restrictions in Britain: The political economy of market revenge’, Economic Journal 118 (2008): F185–F211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 43b.
    P. Cheshire, Urban Containment, Housing Affordability and Price Stability — Irreconcilable Goals (London: London School of Economics Spatial Economics Research Centre Policy Paper 4, 2009).Google Scholar
  63. 44.
    See Lyons, Inquiry into Local Government; and Allen, ‘Controls over the use and abuse’.Google Scholar
  64. 45.
    As discussed by M. J. Elson, C. Steenberg, and N. Mendham, Green Belts and Affordable Housing: Can We Have Both? (Bristol: Policy Press, 1996); andGoogle Scholar
  65. 45a.
    A. C. Nelson, R. Pendall, C. J. Dawkins, and G J. Knapp, The Link Between Growth Management and Housing Affordability: The Academic Evidence. (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 2002).Google Scholar
  66. 46.
    A. W Evans, Economics and Land Use Planning (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 47.
    Allen, ‘Controls over the use and abuse’, 95.Google Scholar
  68. 48.
    See, for example, A. Hull, ‘Evaluation in area-based regeneration: Programme evaluation challenges’, in New Principles in Planning Evaluation, ed. A. Khakee, A. Hull, D. Miller, and J. Woltjer (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008), 185–200.Google Scholar
  69. 49.
    Evans, Economics and Land Use Planning, 64.Google Scholar
  70. 50.
    Curran, Protecting the Working Landscape of Agriculture.Google Scholar
  71. 51.
    Irwin and Bockstael, ‘Land use externalities’.Google Scholar
  72. 52.
    R. Lewis, G.-J. Knaap, and J. Sohn, ‘Managing growth with priority funding areas: A good idea whose time has come’, Journal of the American Planning Association 75, no. 4 (2009): 457–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 53.
    Irwin and Bockstael, ‘Land use externalities’.Google Scholar
  74. 54.
    Ibid., 721.Google Scholar
  75. 55.
    Ibid., 724.Google Scholar
  76. 56.
    B. P. Clifford and C. R. Warren, ‘Development and the environment: Perception and opinion in St. Andrews, Scotland’, Scottish Geographical Journal 121, no. 4 (2005): 355–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 57.
  78. 58.
    J. Ross, ‘Home of golf host to most expensive seaside houses’, The Scotsman (2009): 11.Google Scholar
  79. 59.
    Fife Council Development Services, St. Andrews Design Guidelines for Buildings, Streets and Shop Fronts in St. Andrews Conservation Area and on the Main Approaches (Glenrothes: Fife Council, 2008).Google Scholar
  80. 60.
    Fife Council Development Services, Finalised St. Andrews and East Fife Local Plan 2009: Plan Statement (Glenrothes: Fife Council, 2009), Policy R1.Google Scholar
  81. 61.
    Ibid., Policy E1.Google Scholar
  82. 62.
    Fife Council Planning and Building Control Service, A Future St. Andrews.Google Scholar
  83. 63.
    D. Gopinath and T. Jackson, ‘A pragmatist lens on local planning practices: The case of the St. Andrews community-driven green belt’, Planning, Practice and Research 25, no. 2 (2010): 183–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 64.
    Clifford and Warren, ‘Development and the environment’.Google Scholar
  85. 65.
    Fife Council Development Services, Fife Structure Plan Consultative Draft: Fife Matters — A Land Use Framework for the Next Twenty Years (Glenrothes: Fife Council, 2004), para.1.14.Google Scholar
  86. 66.
    Fife Council Development Services, St. Andrews and East Fife Draft Local Plan: Plan Statement (Glenrothes: Fife Council, 2005), para.1.8.Google Scholar
  87. 67.
    Fife Council Development Services, Fife Structure Plan Consultative Draft, para.1.14.Google Scholar
  88. 68.
    David Tyldesley & Associates, A Green Belt for St. Andrews.Google Scholar
  89. 69.
    Fife Council Development Services, Finalised St. Andrews and East Fife Local Plan 2009: Plan Statement (Glenrothes: Fife Council, 2009), Policy E17.Google Scholar
  90. 70.
    Ibid., 108–10.Google Scholar
  91. 71.
    Scottish Executive, Town and Country Planning.Google Scholar
  92. 72.
    Gillespies, Fife Masterplans Handbook Final Report (Glenrothes: Fife Council, 2007).Google Scholar
  93. 73.
    City of Prince George, Official Community Plan, 16.Google Scholar
  94. 74.
    Ibid., 41.Google Scholar
  95. 75.
    See, for example, A. E. LePage, G. D. Hamilton & Associates Ltd., D. Parker & City of Prince George Planning Department, Central Business District Study: Vol.1 Goals and Issues (Prince George, BC: City of Prince George, 1980).Google Scholar
  96. 76.
    Smart Growth on the Ground, Downtown Prince George Concept Plan (Prince George, BC: The City of Prince George: 2009), 4.Google Scholar
  97. 77.
  98. 78.
  99. 79.
    E. Razin, ‘Policies to control urban sprawl: Planning regulations or changes in the rules of the game?’ Urban Studies 35, no. 2 (1998): 321–40, 330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 80.
    Scottish Government, Scottish Planning Policy, para.12.Google Scholar
  101. 81.
    Smart Growth on the Ground, Downtown Prince George Concept Plan, 3.Google Scholar
  102. 82.
    City of Prince George, Official Community Plan.Google Scholar
  103. 83.
    Irwin and Bockstael, ‘Land use externalities’.Google Scholar
  104. 84.
    Smart Growth on the Ground, Downtown Prince George Concept Plan, 2.Google Scholar
  105. 85.
    Scottish Parliament, Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 (asp 17) (Edinburgh: Scottish Parliament, 2006).Google Scholar
  106. 86.
    Scottish Executive Development Division, Community Engagement: Planning with People — Planning Advice Note 81 (Edinburgh: Scottish Executive, 2007).Google Scholar
  107. 87.
    T Jackson and B. M. Illsley, ‘An analysis of the theoretical rationale for using strategic environmental assessment to deliver environmental justice in the light of the Scottish Environmental Assessment Act’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27, no. 7 (2007): 607–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 88.
    Jackson et al., Amenity migration and sustainable development.Google Scholar
  109. 89.
    D. Peel and G. Lloyd, ‘A new town for the Highlands’, Town and Country Planning 10, (2007): 411–4.Google Scholar
  110. 90.
    Scottish Government, Scottish Sustainable Communities Initiative: Charrette Main-streaming Programme (Edinburgh, Scottish Government, 2011).Google Scholar
  111. 91.
    City of Prince George, Official Community Plan.Google Scholar
  112. 92.
    Gopinath and Jackson, A pragmatist lens on local planning practices’.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Board of Transatlantic Studies 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of the EnvironmentDundee UniversityDundeeScotland
  2. 2.School of Environmental PlanningUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaPrince GeorgeCanada

Personalised recommendations