Spatial planning, area action plans and the rural-urban fringe

Abstract

The rural-urban fringe has been called 'planning's last frontier', and it is a frontier that is now receiving greater attention from policy makers. This is partly a result of ongoing reforms of the planning system—through the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and potentially through further legislation in 2007 or 2008—and the apparent opportunities that have been created to manage the inherent complexities of these near-urban interstitial landscapes through 'spatial planning'. This may include landscape enhancement and the provision of green infrastructure to meet community needs, which past green belt policy has tended to overlook according to the recent Barker Review of Land-Use Planning. This paper examines how spatial planning delivered at the local level, through area action plans (AAP), provides the potential to carry forward a new set of objectives at the rural-urban fringe, essentially, to reflect the 'multi-functional' nature of the fringe to a greater extent than past land-use planning with its emphasis on policy control. Existing green belt policy has been, for the past 50 years, an expression of this policy control focus. But what potential now exists to do more than merely control and respond to development pressure? Do AAP offer a means of enhancing the rural-urban fringe for the benefit of nearby communities and the wider environment? Can they 'bridge the gap' between the ideas of spatial planning and the need for transformative and integrative projects on the ground? These questions are asked in the context of a recent project at St Helens, in the north of England, which has aimed to carry forward a more holistic approach to the planning and management of the rural-urban fringe through area action planning rolled out by a local strategic partnership of public and private bodies.

Peri-urban farmland conservation and development of alternative food networks: Insights from a case-study area in metropolitan Barcelona (Catalonia, Spain)

“…This causes a blurred landscape that is neither urban nor rural (Gant et al, 2011;Bomans et al, 2010;Gallent and Andersson, 2007;Gallent and Shaw, 2007;Bengston et al, 2004;Robinson, 2004;Bryant et al, 1982). The literature has also focused on land-uses located on the fringe that are not usually found elsewhere, such as bulkretail, warehousing and rubbish tips (Gant et al, 2011;Gallent and Andersson, 2007;Gallent and Shaw, 2007). This range of land-uses is referred to in Spanish or Catalan as 'peri-urban' (Abadia, 2002;Garcia-Ramon et al, 1995); henceforth, in this paper 'peri-urban land-uses' will adopt this meaning.…”

“…Gallent and Shaw (2007) showed how classical land-use policies such as greenbelts lack specific governance provisions and consequently fail to manage the complexities of fringe lands. It is evident that physical land-use plans do not prevent urban intrusion and are not sufficient if productive farmland is to be preserved.…”

Auckland’s Urban Sprawl, Policy Ambiguities and the Peri-Urbanisation to Pukekohe

“…Urban sprawl has been discussed mainly in terms of population growth, suburban inertia and improvements to transport infrastructure [1]. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that urban sprawl is not merely an outcome of population growth and improvements in transportation, but also the expression of conceptual and instrumental planning ambiguities that do not acknowledge the environmental assets situated at the peri-urban space, and their value in preventing the impacts of sprawl or modifying its unsustainable character [2].…”

Planning the rural-urban interface under sustainable principles: a methodological proposal

“…Another point of view over the rural-urban interface is provided by Gallent and Shaw [5] that they have seen these areas more as an opportunity for planning rather than as problems, since they offer a bridge between the urban and the rural or as an entrance and exit to the city. This space can be planned in order to establish health centers, education facilities, recycling and renewable energy production centers, productive landscapes, cultural or historical heritage, a space for the preservation of natural resources, spaces for recovery and regeneration, as well as housing and industry spaces.…”