ABSTRACT
The main objective of spatial planning is integrated delivery and this marks the major difference between land-use planning and spatial planning. Land-use planning has become synonymous with a regulatory, policy-based approach which is interpreted on each site as development comes forward. Land-use planning does allow more pro-active approaches but these have generally been pursued by developers and local delivery vehicles set up to promote regeneration or renewal. Spatial planning goes beyond this. The objective of spatial planning is achieving delivery which is rooted in an integrated approach to working between all sectors and agencies. It is also evidence based and programme managed. The legacy of nearly 20 years of Thatcherism had left land-use planning in a passive mode. Spatial planning is an active approach to places and one that is not fulfilled until the programme identified as being required for the people and places of the area is delivered. Spatial planning in England sits within the governance structure of the LSP and has to deliver the vision for the place as set out in the SCS. It is possible to anticipate a convergence between the SCS and the Core Strategy over time, as the LDF becomes the capital delivery programme for the SCS. This might be a difficult position to take for more traditional land-use planners, where the primacy of the development plan and its processes, particularly the EiP, set it apart from other local strategy documents. The ability of the spatial plan to deliver is examined through the ToS and the transition from passive land use to proactive delivery approaches marks out the key differences and challenges of spatial planning. Spatial planning implies an active approach. In this chapter, the way in which delivery can be developed through spatial planning is discussed and a more detailed approach to achieving the delivery strategy and outcomes through the LDF are set out. These may require planners to obtain some new knowledge and skills but spatial planning’s effectiveness lies at the heart of this. In the past, the development plan was frequently the only plan available for the whole area and the quasi-legal processes associated with its adoption gave it an authority among users. It no longer retains that unique role (Prior 2005). The LDF clearly has a legal force but this cannot be exerted unless it is part of the local governance architecture. The LDF cannot stand alone.
