Urban Planning Under Thatcherism

The Challenge of the Market

Andy Thornley

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN:
  9781138488229
• eBook ISBN:
  9781351036245
• Topic: Physical Sciences
• Subtopic: Geography
• Index: Geography

Originally published in 1991, Urban Planning Under Thatcherism links theory and practice to assess the changes to the planning system since 1979. It analyses the major trends by investigating the individual modifications in the legislation and the new initiatives which have introduced procedures to by-pass the normal system. Such changes are fundamental not only to the built environment but to the quality of urban life and ultimately to the nature of society. The book argues that this orientation is the result of a policy shift from local democracy to centralisation and from the criteria of the public interest to those of the market.

Chapter one

Introduction

Thatcherism has had a major impact on British society. There is no doubt that in some fields, such as education, housing or local government finance, Mrs Thatcher has pursued a long-term strategy to overhaul previous traditions and practices. This book explores the influence of Thatcherism on planning. Ministers are often stating their support for the planning system while simultaneously introducing initiatives such as Urban Development Corporations or Simplified Planning Zones, which undermine it. This book shows that these initiatives are not minor experiments but amount to a reorientation of the planning system through a strategy of consistent incremental erosion. It explores the way planning has had to respond to the challenge of a more market-oriented ideology. As alternatives to Thatcherism become an increasing matter of debate it is important to gain a thorough understanding of what has happened since 1979. The future has to build on the foundations of the past.

A major element of the ideological rhetoric of the 1979 election campaign was an attack on post-war Welfare State values. The comprehensive town planning system was established in this post-war setting – does this mean that an attack on the values of this period undermines the basis of planning? The Nuffield Report on Town and Country Planning (1986) concluded that a variety of views on the proper role of planning existed and that, as a result, planning cannot place itself outside political controversy. The report identified trends in recent years that have led to ‘the planning system being harnessed to ideological ends’ (1986, p. 30). This has created more uncertainty than was experienced under the ‘post-war’ consensus. This book examines the implications for planning of the collapse of this consensus and the rise of Thatcherism.

In her much-quoted comment, Mrs Thatcher has claimed that ‘there is no such thing as society; there are only individuals, and families’. Under Thatcherism the language of politics has shifted from ‘public good’ to ‘individual choice’ and ‘entrepreneurial flair’. Bureaucrats and professionals, whether they be teachers, social workers or even solicitors, are not held in particularly high regard. The implications of these individualistic and anti-bureaucratic attitudes for the role of professional planners are considerable. Under the post-war consensus planners usually saw their role as guardians of the public or community interest but this goes against the grain of Thatcherism. A study of the interrelationship between the political ideology and practice of the Thatcher governments is needed to illuminate such issues. There is much theoretical debate about the exact nature of Thatcherism and this also needs to be taken on board. Before outlining the approach taken in this book some comments will be made on the reactions of planners to the advent of Thatcherism.

In many policy fields there have been strong reactions condemning the adverse effects of Thatcherism. However, planning has always been closely linked to market processes through its regulatory function. The attack on state intervention implicit in Thatcherism has revived the longstanding debates over the appropriate role of planning versus the market. Confusions over the purpose of planning reflect its position caught in the ambiguity between the egalitarian aims of the Welfare State and the individualistic attitudes implicit in the capitalist market economy. Given this position it is not surprising that the reactions of planners to Thatcherism have been varied and often confused. Some have tried to retreat into an apolitical and technical mode but this has proved difficult to do in an increasingly politicised environment. Others have swum with the tide and adopted the dominant values of central government, often joining or setting up private consultancies. Then there are those who have retained a belief in some kind of community or social purpose and have sought employment in the ever-diminishing sympathetic organizations.

The impact of Thatcherism has been interpreted in a number of ways. Although it creates rather artificial distinctions, these interpretations can be broadly divided into three categories emphasising either continuity, consolidation or change. The first category points out that despite the rhetoric very little has changed in practice. Here the emphasis is on the value of planning to society and the constraints that prevent any major overhaul of the planning system. The second category suggests that although the post-1979 situation may create changes in planning these simply reinforce and consolidate aspects that have always existed and therefore the changes are only a matter of increased emphasis on certain attributes of planning. The third category claims to identify certain features since 1979 that are significantly different from those of the past, thus generating a new position for planning.

The first kind of interpretation was widely held in the early years of the Thatcher administration when it was thought that much of the ideological rhetoric would be abandoned when the new government faced up to the difficulties and limitations of power. Such a view was reinforced by the government’s seemingly incremental and pragmatic approach to changes in planning. There was no major new planning Act to overhaul the system and the Local Government, Planning and Land Act of 1980 was made up of odds and ends. The ministerial statements stressed that the government was supportive of the planning system and this therefore lent weight to the ‘continuity’ interpretation. Changes seemed to be confined to making the system more streamlined and efficient rather than changing its role (see Healey, 1983, p. 269). Most early writing assumed that the more radical measures would be watered down under the pressure of government (Cox, 1980).

The ‘consolidation’ view accepts that there has been a change since 1979 but emphasises that this change is an extension and reinforcement of past trends. The central theme is that the economy has always been a capitalist one and hence market processes have always dominated. Planning has inevitably assisted and reinforced these market processes. Thus the nature of the planning system since 1979 is basically the same as before although there may have been some increases in the power of the development industry. In other words the role of planning in aiding the market has been consolidated. Whereas before 1979 this role may not have been popular and was often obscured, since that date its true nature has been exposed and made ‘acceptable’ (Griffiths, 1986).

Another dimension of the ‘consolidation’ view is that the beneficiaries of the planning system have always been the middle classes and therefore a Conservative government will see no value in dismantling it. Lawless (1983) suggests that the changes brought about in Thatcher’s first term had little effect. The reason he gives for this is that planning practice in the past has favoured suburbia, owner occupation and the middle classes and that Thatcher will want to continue this support. This line of argument is also pursued by Reade (1987) who sees planning as having kept up market values in expensive residential areas, kept working-class housing and other undesirable development out of ‘commuter country’ and protected rural villages. He concludes that the attack on planning is purely symbolic and an attack on the ‘word’ rather than the practice. Writers adopting the ‘consolidation’ position often refer to a shift in the interests served by planning from support for conservation before 1979 to greater support for development interests. Thus these writers generally accept that within the ‘consolidation’ of planning purpose there have been shifts in the relative strengths of different interests (Healey, 1986; Reade, 1987).

The third perspective gives more emphasis to the new dimensions brought about by Thatcherism. It suggests that the movement towards a greater reliance on the market carries with it other significant changes. McAuslan (1981, 1982) highlights some of these changes in his analysis of the legislation and circulars of the early years of the Thatcher administration. He suggests that since 1979 we have witnessed a shift in the whole approach to planning. The postwar period was dominated by what he calls the ‘bargaining policy-oriented model of planning’ epitomised by a process of mutual negotiation between planners and developers. This model incorporated an important role for a policy framework. Since 1979 this has been superimposed by a ‘limited physical control model’ whose primary aim is to facilitate development and which excludes social objectives. He sees these two models continuing alongside each other and creating tension because local authorities favour the bargaining model while central government favours the physical control model. He also sees the actions of central government leading to increased centralisation and reduced opportunities for participation. Thus from this perspective the changes since 1979 are not just a consolidation of the market supportive role of planning but also a significant shift in the ability of local authorities and the general public to take part in the development process. It could be said that this represents the separation of planning from its roots in the post-war Welfare State consensus which embodied an acceptance of social criteria in decision-making.

The degree of coherence in the changes to planning since 1979 also requires discussion. Healey refers to ‘the incoherent and indiscriminate grapeshot which the 1979 government directed at the planning system’ (1983, pp. 263–4). Any consistency of approach is limited by the contradictory pressures on the government. Healey gives an example of these contradictions when she points to the desire to relax regulations but at the same time the need to intervene to support certain development in a period of economic crisis. Perhaps the most coherent programme for change comes from groups, such as the Adam Smith Institute, that have been lobbying the government. The extent to which such ideas have influenced government and provided a longer-term hidden agenda behind the incremental initiatives will be another question addressed in this book. Evidence that some senior civil servants are working to an overall direction sometimes surfaces, for example in the suggestion that the simplified planning regimes could replace the 1947 development control system.

The extent to which the Thatcher governments have generated a radical change in the approach to planning and the degree of coherence embodied in the changes are central issues to be explored.

The approach adopted in the book

So the rise of Thatcherism has had the effect of highlighting the relationship between political ideology and planning. But, as Healey has said, the ‘debates about the present state and future possibilities for land policy are still characterised by simplistic connections between political philosophies and legislative tools’ (1983, p. 264). The problem with the current literature on changes to planning over the last decade is that it does not provide a thorough analysis of the new ideological context. An improvement in the quality of understanding about the relationship between Thatcherism and planning can be obtained only through a detailed investigation of both the ideology and its implementation. The approach adopted in this book will be outlined.

First there is the question of focusing on ideology. Changes to planning are caused by a complex interaction of economic, political, ideological and social factors and there is a vast body of theoretical literature exploring the relative importance of these factors. The work which emphasises ideology often draws on Habermas or Gramsci (for a review of these debates see for example, Abercrombie, et al. 1980; S. Hall, 1988; for an application to planning, Hajer, 1989). There is not the scope here to address these interesting theoretical debates but brief mention is made of how ideology is viewed in relation to the broader picture.

The most compulsive force operating in society in recent times is that of economic crisis. This had led to the need for a reorientation of the economy and the related structure of power in society. However such a reorientation requires both the backing of the population, or at least a sizeable proportion of it, and the tools to implement the necessary changes. A political ideology which is conducive to the changes required in the economy needs to be developed and ‘sold’ to the population. This new ideological context allows the appropriate reorientation of the role of the state and the passing of new legislation. Once these facilitating moves have been made on the ideological and legislative terrain then the opportunities are open for economic interests to restructure and changes to be made to power relations. For example the inter-war economic crisis was ‘resolved’ after the Second World War by a new approach to economic affairs involving an interventionist stance by the state but this had to be preceded by considerable debate and propaganda over the acceptability of economic planning. In the context of 1979 one of the obstacles to a radical reorientation of economic strategy was the value system that had evolved under the post-war Welfare State and there was a need for an ideological attack on this value system as a precondition of the economic restructuring. Thus economic forces play the dominant role in determining the nature of the crisis and shaping the parameters of the political response. However, ideology provides an essential mechanism for the implementation of this response and a vehicle for shifting the ground rules within which economic interests operate. It should also be mentioned that the elements of any ideology have usually been in existence for a long time but come forward only when they can play a significant role in relation to other material conditions. Ideology is therefore seen as having an important role in influencing change. It is particularly important in establishing a new framework, such as that provided by planning legislation, within which subsequent action can take place.

Planning is a very broad and vague field and so it is necessary to draw boundaries around the topic if a detailed analysis is to be made. The focus in this book is the planning system, that is the legislation, Circulars and other material that determine the basis of the development plan and development control procedures. The book examines the content of these documents in order to assess the way in which they shape the scope, purpose and form of planning. It must be stressed that this emphasis on the legislation and procedures of the planning system can be only a partial investigation of planning activity as a whole. It is not the intention in this study to explore how far the changes in legislation and procedures have affected the operation of planning on the ground. To pursue this dimension research would have to be undertaken, for example, on the way in which the legislative and procedural changes have altered the manner in which planners operate from day to day, especially in their relationship with the private sector, and case studies mounted on the implementation of development schemes (see for example, Healey et al., 1989; Brindley et al., 1989).

The focus on the planning system means that many aspects related to planning practice have been excluded. These include legislation on other subject areas such as housing or transport and on specific smaller areas within the system such as inner city grants or Green Belts. Other dimensions not incorporated are regional planning, purely rural issues such as controls on agriculture or wildlife, and initiatives that apply only to Scotland. Having made this initial distinction it has to be accepted that it is difficult to draw exact boundaries. For example reference is made in the book to the debate over the allocation of land for housing and considerable coverage is included on Urban Development Corporations. The criteria for drawing such material into the study is its impact on the mainstream planning system itself rather than a wish to enter the particular debates on housing land or inner city policy. Pressures for more housing land and relaxation of controls in the Green Belt are issues that have created considerable controversy in the last decade, and have been very well discussed elsewhere (see Elson, 1986; Rydin, 1986). The implications of these topics for Thatcherism will be encompassed in the conclusions of this book.

Thus, within the limits set, the approach is to explore in detail all the changes that have been made to the legislation of the planning system. These changes have not been dramatic ones and there is therefore a need to draw together the implications from a wide range of smaller initiatives. Patterns of repeated phenomena are detected and related to the main themes of Thatcherism. Clear trends are identified from this process and conclusions made about the impact of the ideology. These conclusions can be applied to a wider range of planning issues and future developments and at the end of the book some broader observations are made.

The structure of the book

The aim of the first part of the book is to identify the precise nature of Thatcherism and draw out those aspects that are likely to have the greatest impact on planning. In the book the label ‘Thatcherism’ has been used to describe the ideology put forward by the Thatcher governments or particular ministers and discussed by political analysts. The label ‘New Right’ has been used to describe the broader range of ideas from which the government draws its inspiration, for example those emanating from academics such as Hayek or bodies such as the Adam Smith Institute.

The study of Thatcherism has to be put in historical context to judge the degree of change and to assess the extent to which the period can be regarded as a radical departure from the past. Chapter Two provides this context giving particular attention to the establishment of the post-war consensus. This consensus has been the subject of attack from within the Thatcherist ideology and so it is important to establish its nature and relationship to planning. As already mentioned, the Nuffield Report (1986) shows how different political ideologies imply different attitudes to the ‘proper’ purpose of planning. The chapter therefore also reviews the debates over the purpose of planning in the post-war period as a bench-mark against which later to judge the significance of Thatcherism.

Chapter Three sets out the principal characteristics of Thatcherism, discusses the extent to which it can be regarded as coherent and the extent to which it represents a break with the conservative thinking of the past. In exploring these issues the debates and controversies over the interpretation of Thatcherism will be reviewed. Chapter Four continues this process through an examination of how the state is viewed by influential New Right academics and the way their ideas have been taken up in the political arena. As the planning system has always operated as a state activity that intervenes in the processes of land use and development, attitudes regarding the acceptability of state intervention are crucial to understanding potential changes. Particular attention is given to the views of Keith Joseph and Margaret Thatcher herself.

The analysis of ideology and the investigation of the planning legislation have to be synthesised. The linkage is developed in a number of ways. The coverage of planning purpose, already mentioned, is one way ideology and practice are brought together. In addition a framework of the key attributes of the Thatcherite ideology is constructed drawing upon the analysis in Chapters Three and Four. This framework is then used to structure the subsequent discussions about the changes to planning. The themes drawn from the analysis of the political ideology are thus integrated into the detailed accounts of planning legislation and procedures and the concluding chapter focuses on the integration of the various strands.

Chapter Five provides another bridge between discussions of political ideology and the details of the planning system. It reviews the work of authors who have written about planning from a New Right perspective. Their views challenge those embodied in the post-war consensus analysed in Chapter Two. The material covered in Chapter Five has been chosen because of its explicit influence on the Thatcher governments. It includes important influences from the USA, the work of organizations such as the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Department of Land Economy at Cambridge, the Adam Smith Institute and certain key individuals.

The second half of the book explores in detail the changes to the planning system during the first decade of Thatcherism focusing on the legislation, Circulars and ministerial statements. Howeve...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• #Table of Contents
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction
• 2 The post-war consensus and the purpose of planning
• 3 The nature of Thatcherism
• 4 Re-orienting the state
• 5 New Right thinking; planning under siege
• 6 Modifications to the planning system: 1 Development plans
• 7 Modifications to the planning system: 2 Development control
• 8 By-passing the planning system
• 9 Towards a simplified planning system
• 10 Conclusions: the re-orientation of the planning system
• Bibliography
• Index