Policy & Planning Brief

0 downloads 0 Views 84KB Size Report
May 1, 2012 - de Roo, G. & Schwartz, M. (2001) Inleiding “Omge- vingsplanning naar de volgende ronde” [Introduc- tion: Comprehensive planning to the next ...
This article was downloaded by: [Erasmus University] On: 09 May 2012, At: 03:44 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Planning Theory & Practice Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rptp20

Policy & Planning Brief a

b

Lasse Gerrits , Ward Rauws & Gert de Roo

c

a

Governance of Complex Systems, Erasmus University Rotterdam

b

Department of Planning, University of Groningen, the Netherlands

c

Department of Planning, University of Groningen, the Netherlands

Available online: 01 May 2012

To cite this article: Lasse Gerrits, Ward Rauws & Gert de Roo (2012): Policy & Planning Brief, Planning Theory & Practice, DOI:10.1080/14649357.2012.669992 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2012.669992

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Planning Theory & Practice, iFirst article, 2012, 1–6

Policy & Planning Brief Dutch spatial planning policies in transition

Downloaded by [Erasmus University] at 03:44 09 May 2012

Introduction Traditionally, Dutch spatial planning practices are comprehensive within a centrally imposed frame of conditions. However, these conditions are steadily eroding, partly because of societal changes, partly due to a growing plurality of planning issues and partly because of an ideological reorientation resulting in changes in planning legislation and routines. The leading role of Dutch planners in planning spatial interventions has transitioned towards a more facilitating position in which societal changes are supported rather than initiated. In addition, various institutional and policy reforms have taken place and are on-going, resulting in an increased neoliberal and decentralized planning system. Reforms on-going today are strongly driven by the notion “small is beautiful”, which refers to the desire to reduce planning institutions and simplify their procedures as these have become a complexity in themselves. Here an overview is given of most prominent changes in Dutch planning policies during the last decade, and subsequently the key questions in the debate on the future of spatial planning in the Netherlands are explored. Beyond the Modern Rationale Dutch spatial planning policies were built on a modern rationale. Due primarily to the struggle against the water and the immense efforts that were needed to rebuild the Netherlands after World War Two, the Dutch planning system has evolved into a comprehensive, functional-

ist, well-structured and dominant doctrine (Boelens, 2009; de Roo, 2003; Van der Cammen & de Klerk, 2003); internationally this planning doctrine is also referred to as procedural (Faludi, 1987). We will briefly summarize the roots of Dutch planning before discussing its recent transformation. For decades functionality was the key criteria in the Dutch planning system and its policies and spatial planners were judged on their technical, instrumental and procedural expertise (de Roo & Rauws, 2011). Spatial developments were hierarchically coordinated and policymakers were expected to be able to oversee all the consequences of planned interventions. Consequently, planning became not only institutionalized in governmental structure but also in advisory boards, and as such gained a central role in society. The successful integration of various ambitions and interests in comprehensive national plans guided by a strong set of planning concepts, such as the Green Heart or the Flevopolder, provided Dutch planning with the title of “planning paradise” (Faludi & Van de Valk, 1994; see also Alterman, 1997; Hall, 1997; Mori, 1998). Typical for the Netherlands was its focus on legal protection compared to, for example, the UK or USA (Janssen-Jansen & Woltjer, 2010). An extensive set of regulations provides robust certainties for property owners but is also used to protect open space and maintain the urban – rural divide (Koomen et al., 2008; van Rij et al., 2008). Therefore, regulations and zoning plans were not implemented for stimulating spatial development but as a means through which generic conditions could be disseminated throughout the country. At the end of the century these conditions

1464-9357 Print/1470-000X On-line/12/020001-6 q 2012 Taylor & Francis

2

Policy and Planning Brief

were felt to be unnecessarily restrictive to spatial initiatives. The Dutch planning discourse started to shift during the 1990s, which slowly transformed planning policies and structure (see e.g. D’Hondt, 2002). The idea of a mouldable society, in which planners could control and design spatial developments in order to change society, came under intense pressure. Several well-documented trends contributed to this shift: Globalization and the importance of networks. It was not until the Fifth National Policy Paper on spatial development (2000; but never ratified) that national borders were no longer seen as natural demarcations of spatial developments and policies (Zonneveld, 2005a). This was already clear with national assets such as the port of Rotterdam but it now transcended the local level through developments such as the creation of a European common market, the globalization of financial markets and increased international mobility. Such developments had and still have spatial impact but are mostly relegated outside national authority (Faludi, 2010). . Changing modes of delivery. Much of the post-war planning effort was geared towards reconstruction of destroyed areas and industries and guidance for managing the fast-growing population, increasing productivity and wealth, and securing a sound tempo-spatial structure for future developments (Van der Cammen & De Klerk, 2003). To some extent, these tasks were fulfilled and as population growth diminished and (heavy) industries moved to Central Europe and Asia, the governmental delivery mode that facilitated the growth became obsolete (Haartsen & Venhorst, 2010). Comprehensive national visions were replaced by more fragmented, regional strategies. . Democratization and societal protest. Whereas facilitation of growth and

Downloaded by [Erasmus University] at 03:44 09 May 2012

.

associated planning regimes was unquestioned after the wartime devastation, it became more controversial to maintain such policies in the face of changing societal demands. Firstly, continuous democratization meant that people were less inclined to accept that planners decided for them rather than with them (Boelens, 2009). Secondly, continuous post-materialization meant that people questioned expansion of infrastructures, business districts and residential areas at the expense of open spaces and cultural assets (Hooimeijer et al., 2001). Consequently, the artificially shaped spatial environment became synonymous with bureaucratic dreaming (de Roo & Rauws, 2011) In response to these trends, there was a growing interest in open planning processes. This resulted in area-oriented approaches which focused on horizontal and vertical cooperation, and community involvement (Hajer & Zonneveld, 2000; Woltjer, 2000, Priemus, 2007). Uncertainties were countered by tailor-made process architectures and creating “collective” certainties through communicative and collaborative processes. The focus shifted from the content of planning to the process of planning with an emphasis on “governance” rather than “government” (Hajer & Wagenaar 2003, de Roo & Porter 2007). An approach based on area-specific policy and shared responsibility became complementary to the traditional coordinative and procedural approach. Triggered by Wetenschappelijke Raad voor Regeringsbeleid (WRR) report Ruimtelijke Ontwikkelingspolitiek (Wetenschappelijke Raad voor Regeringsbeleid, 1998), this was followed by a governmental change towards proactive development planning instead of reactively testing to what extent initiatives of others fitted within the determined plans. It signalled a first and cautious shift of responsibilities from the national level towards decentralisation and

Downloaded by [Erasmus University] at 03:44 09 May 2012

Policy and Planning Brief increased cooperation with private actors. Regional authorities started to cooperate in informal and formal ways. And the vertical integration was slowly replaced by a focus on a horizontally layered government with each authority being responsible for its own issues. As a result, planning was no longer used to determine spatial developments. Rather, it was deemed better to let planning policies follow autonomous spatial developments. The legal framework and zoning policies are still in place, and developers still have to submit to stringent legal procedures, but more freedom is given to the market and private initiatives than before. It also means that the ambition of equally distributed economical development fades away. Reorganizing the Planning System It is against this background that Dutch spatial planning is shifting fundamentally. Area-development and the integration of area-specific characteristics and local stakeholders are becoming increasingly important in planning (de Roo & Schwartz, 2001; de Zeeuw, 2007). Consequently, planning policy and strategy making is transferred to regional authorities (Ministerie van Economische Zaken [MEZ], 2004; MVROM, 2005; Regeerakkoord, 2010). These changes coincide with two particular developments: a neo-liberal discourse that gained political momentum, and increased attention for the role of regional actors. The neo-liberal discourse holds that the government had become too invasive and that its involvement in society should be cut back. More room ought to be given to private initiatives from companies, developers and individual citizens. Co-housing is still promoted and social housing agencies are less restricted in their tasks and are given the freedom to also develop speculative non-social housing projects (Zonneveld, 2005b, p. 431). With respect to the second development, the regional level is increasingly identified as

3

the most appropriate level for coordinating spatial planning (see for example, the Tielrooij Committee (Tielrooij, 2001) and the Geelhoed Committee (Geelhoed et al., 2002)). This became most prominent in the Randstad conurbation where cities had grown together to the extent that they are effectively one city. But even less urbanized regions such as the Arnhem-Nijmegen region are developing more clout. A number of concrete policy measures that cemented these changes are: Revision of the Law on Spatial Planning. In 2006 parliament approved a major revision of the Law on Spatial Planning that had been in place since 1965 (including amendments since then). The revision features a delegation of tasks from the national level to decentralized governments: provinces, metropolitan areas (a follow-up on Wet Gemeenschappelijke Regelingen Plus [WGR] þ areas) and municipalities. The main motto behind the revision was: local when possible, national if necessary (Zonneveld, 2005b). It replaces the powerful instrument of appointing projects to be in the national interest Planologische Kernbeslissing [PKB], through which the national government could enforce certain projects, with a so-called “structuurvisie”, in which the national government designates which areas are available for development, and which areas are protected because of environmental concerns. Although the instrument of “inpassingsplannen” has been developed to (partly) counter the loss of national authority, provinces and national government are required to take on a more proactive role, since they can no longer test local plans ex post. Furthermore, the legal revision specifies which decentralized authority has decision-making powers in a certain area. . Decentralization of spatial policy and strategy making. Most power, responsi.

Downloaded by [Erasmus University] at 03:44 09 May 2012

4

Policy and Planning Brief

bility and accountability is now delegated to the provinces and the metropolitan areas, developing regional spatial plans that outline the conditions for local development plans. The national Structuurvisie (not yet ratified) is structured around infrastructure, which fits the current trends in the policy debate (see below). It is left up to regional authorities to further specify the given areas. Policy coordination between regions (who does what and where) is abandoned. Consequently, the national parks are also abandoned. However, this is somewhat off-set by EU regulations such as Natura 2000 and the Water Framework Directive, which determine the protection of green areas. The main ports, such Amsterdam Airport and Port of Rotterdam remain a national responsibility. . Simplification of regulations. The new law also arranges practical affairs such as the shortening of procedures. In 2010 a special provisional Crisis and Recovery Law was ratified to support recovery from the economic crisis, cutting down possibilities to object against, mainly, infrastructure projects with the aim of limiting delays. The Minister intends to change the provisional law into a permanent one (Letter to the Parliament, 28 June 2011) [Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu, 2011]. In the same year another law was implemented, the Wet Algemene Bepalingen Omgevingsrecht (WABO), which integrates 25 permits into one. This law is also meant to speed up spatial development processes. As well as these regulative simplifications, planning authorities have become obligated to make all plans available digitally. Despite the quest for decentralization, all these plans have to be submitted to one central organization and have to be kept up to date continuously. . Reorganization of the national level. Traditionally, spatial development was the responsibility of three ministries: the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning

and Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, and the Ministry of Public Works and Infrastructure. This stable division of tasks has been transformed as of 2010. The three ministries merged into two: the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment, and the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation. This is more than just a merger for practical purposes. It signals an ideological shift where “spatial planning” as a main policy field has been abandoned in favour of a focus on infrastructure. The effort to integrate various sectoral demands, which is key to planning, is now seen as a responsibility of regional governments. Discussion Time will tell whether the Netherlands is still the proverbial “planner’s paradise”. However, it is clear that spatial planning has changed profoundly in terms of ideology, structure, process and orientation. There are a number of issues that need to be considered. First, can the regions cope with the additional tasks that are bestowed upon them by the national level? More power is delegated but this is not matched with additional funding and with relatively little concrete policy instruments. Will they be able to coordinate scarce resources among them and will the regions be able to develop their own profile complementary to others? Second, one of the advantages of spatial planning is that it can mediate between developments and externalities, and shape quality of life through its integrated approaches. The current policies are almost exclusively aimed at transport infrastructure development with relatively little attention for the development of other aspects, such as nature. Such aspects are often protected by national or European legislation, but further innovation and integration of these sectors is limited under the current conditions. Third, to what extent will the new

Downloaded by [Erasmus University] at 03:44 09 May 2012

Policy and Planning Brief law become practice? A series of interviews carried out for this brief showed that 11 out of 12 provinces had recently established additional arrangements (such as preparatory meetings) that were aimed at maintaining the old situation and circumventing the new law. Such arrangements are not illegal but show that regional authorities are struggling with the implementation of new procedures and a new way of thinking. The most recent proposal put forward by the government is to further simplify procedures and to merge all existing laws into one major law governing space and infrastructure. It signals the perception that the planning system has become “too complex”. Whether that is true, and whether the merging of laws will counter that perceived complexity remains to be seen. The challenge for Dutch spatial planning is to co-evolve with social, economical and political demands while maintaining the systemic qualities and expertise that has been developed during past decades.

References Alterman, R. (1997) The challenge of farmland preservation: Lessons from a six nation comparison, Journal of the American Planning Association, 63, pp. 220–243. Boelens, L. (2009) The Urban Connection: An ActorRelational Approach to Urban Planning, Rotterdam, 010). de Roo, G. (2003) Environmental Planning in the Netherlands Too Good to be True- From Command-andControl Planning to Shared Governance (Aldershot, Ashgate). de Roo, G. & Porter, G. (2007) Fuzzy Planning- The Role of Actors in a Fuzzy Governance Environment (Aldershot, Ashgate). de Roo, G. & Rauws, W.S. (2012) Positioning planning in the world of order, chaos and complexity on perspectives, behaviour and interventions in a nonlinear environment, in: J. Portugali, H. Meyer & E. Stolk (Eds) Complexity Theories of Cities Have Come of Age. An Overview with Implications for Urban Planning and Design (Berlin, Springer). de Roo, G. & Schwartz, M. (2001) Inleiding “Omgevingsplanning naar de volgende ronde” [Introduction: Comprehensive planning to the next level], in: G. de Roo & M. Schwartz (Eds) Omgevingsplanning,

5

een innovatief proces; Over integratie, participatie, omgevingsplannen en de gebiedsgerichte aanpak, [Comprehensive Planning, an Innovative Process; About Integration, Participation, Comprehensive Plans and the Area-Oriented Approach] (The Hague, Sdu Uitgevers). D’Hondt, F. (2002) Discourse at work in the planning of the Benelux countries, Planning Theory & Practice, 3, pp. 361–363. Faludi, A. (1987) A Decision-Centered View of Environmental Planning (Oxford, Pergamon Press). Faludi, A. & van de Valk, A. (1994) Rule and Order: Dutch Planning Doctrine in the Twentieth Century (Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic). Faludi, A. (2010) Cohesion, Coherence, Cooperation; European Spatial Planning Coming of Age? (London, Routledge). Fifth National Policy Paper on spatial development (2000) Ruimte Maken, Ruimte Delen. Vijfde Nota over de Ruimtelijke Ordening (Den Haag, Ministerie van VROM). Geelhoed, L.A., Rinnooy Kan, A.H.G., Woerkom, G.H.N.L. van, Rosenthal, U., Cerfontaine, G.J., Donk, W.B.J.H. van de, Geel, P.L.B.A. van Noordanus, P.G.A., Kraaijeveld, A., Beukema, G. (2002) Op Schaal Gewogen: Regionaal Bestuur in Nederland in de 21e Eeuw (Den Haag, Interprovinciaal Overleg). Hajer, M. & Zonneveld, W. (2000) Spatial planning in the network society—Rethinking the principles of planning in the Netherlands, European Planning Studies, 8, pp. 337– 355. Haartsen, T. & Venhorst, V. (2010) Planning for decline: Anticipating on population decline in the Netherlands, Journal of Economic and Social Geography, 101, pp. 218–228. Hajer, M.A. & Wagenaar, H. (2003) Introduction, in: M.A. Hajer & H. Wagenaar (Eds) Deliberative Policy Analysis. Understanding Governance in the Network Society (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). Hall, P. (1997) The future of the metropolis and its forms, Regional Studies, 31, pp. 211–220. Hooimeijer, P., Kroon, H. & Luttik, J. (2001) Kwaliteit in meervoud. Conceptualisering en operationalisering van ruimtelijke kwaliteit voor meervoudig ruimtegebruik, [Quality in Plural. Conceptualizing and Operationalizing Spatial Quality for Multifunctional Land Use] (Gouda, Habiforum). Janssen-Jansen, L.B. & Woltjer, J. (2010) British discretion in Dutch planning: Establishing a comparative perspective for regional and local development in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, Land Use Policy, 27, pp. 906–916. Koomen, E., Dekkers, J. & Van Dijk, T. (2008) Effectiveness of open space preservation: Assessment by comparison of planning regimes within the Netherlands, Land Use Policy, 25, pp. 361–377. MEZ (2004) Pieken in de Delta (Den Haag, Ministerie van Economische Zaken) [Ministry of Economic Affairs].

Downloaded by [Erasmus University] at 03:44 09 May 2012

6

Policy and Planning Brief

Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu [Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment, or MIenM] (2011) Eenvoudig Beter. Beleidsbrief aan het Parlement no. 2011047517. MVROM (2005) Nota Ruimte. Ruimte voor ontwikkeling (Den Haag, Ministerie van VROM). Mori, H. (1998) Land Conversion at the Urban Fringe: A Comparative Study of Japan, Britain and the Netherlands, Urban Studies, 35(9), pp. 1541–1558. Priemus, H. (2007) System innovation in spatial development: Current Dutch approaches, European Planning Studies, 15, pp. 991–1006. Regeerakkoord (2010) Vrijheid en Verantwoordelijkheid. Regeerakkoord VVD-CDA [Freedom and Responsibility. Coalition Agreement VVD-CDA] (Den Haag, VVD-CDA). Tielrooij, F. (2001) Van Ordenen naar Ontwikkelen. Provincies investeren in de kwaliteit van de ruimte [From Structuring to Developing: Provincial Plan for Investments Promoting Spatial Quality] (Den Haag, Interprovinciaal Overleg). van der Cammen, H. & de Klerk, L. (2003) Ruimtelijke Ordening. Van Grachtengordel tot Vinex-wijk (Houten, Het Spectrum). van Rij, E., Dekkers, J. & Koomen, E. (2008) Analysing the success of open space preservation in the Netherlands: the Midden-Delfland case, Journal of Economic and Social Geography, 99, pp. 115–124. Wetenschappelijke Raad voor Regeringsbeleid (1998) Ruimtelijke Ontwikkelingspolitiek [Spatial

Development Policy]. Rapport aan de regering no 53. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers. Woltjer, J. (2000) Consensus Planning: The Relevance of Communicative Planning Theory in Dutch Infrastructure Development (Aldershot, Ashgate). Zeeuw, F. de (2007) De engel uit het marmer. Reflecties op gebiedsontwikkeling [The Angel of Marble, Reflections on Area-Oriented Development] (Delft, Delft University of Technology). Zonneveld, W. (2005a) The Europeanization of Dutch national spatial planning: An uphill battle, DisP, 163, pp. 4–15. Zonneveld, W. (2005b) In search of conceptual modernization: The new Dutch “spatial planning strategy”, Journal of Housing and Built Environment, 20, pp. 425–443.

Lasse Gerrits Governance of Complex Systems Erasmus University Rotterdam q 2012 Lasse Gerrits Ward Rauws Department of Planning University of Groningen, the Netherlands q 2012 Ward Rauws Gert de Roo Department of Planning University of Groningen, the Netherlands q 2012 Ward Rauws