Iain White

Flooding and the Role of Planning in England and Wales: A Critical Review

In this paper the authors raise some important questions about the extent to which planning is fostering an environment susceptible to flooding. They argue that severe UK flooding incidents in recent years should result in the government re-examining the planning system to ensure relevancy and effectiveness in dealing with such problems in the future. They identify where the current policy and practice weaknesses lie in planning to limit both flood source and flood impact areas and suggest ways in which the government and the profession could take remedial steps to increase local and regional sustainability.

Water and the city : risk, resilience and planning for a sustainable future

Section 1: The Past, Present and Future Context 1. Nature, Climate and Hazard 2. Drivers for Change Section 2: The Problems of Water in the City 3. Too Much Water in the City 4. Too Little Water in the City Section 3: Towards A Conceptual Framework 5. Risk, Resilience and Spatial Planning 6. Principles of Intervention Section 4: Planning for a Sustainable Future 7. Hazard and Resilience in the City 8. Exposure and Resilience in the City 9. Vulnerability and Resilience in the City 10. Towards a more Sustainable City Bibliography

From rhetoric to reality: : Which resilience, why resilience, and whose resilience in spatial planning?

This paper analyses contrasting academic understandings of ‘equilibrium resilience’ and ‘evolutionary resilience’ and investigates how these nuances are reflected within both policy and practice. We reveal that there is a lack of clarity in policy, where these differences are not acknowledged with resilience mainly discussed as a singular, vague, but optimistic aim. This opaque political treatment of the term and the lack of guidance has affected practice by privileging an equilibrist interpretation over more transformative, evolutionary measures. In short, resilience within spatial planning is characterised by a simple return to normality that is more analogous with planning norms, engineered responses, dominant interests, and technomanagerial trends. The paper argues that, although presented as a possible paradigm shift, resilience policy and practice underpin existing behaviour and normalise risk. It leaves unaddressed wider sociocultural concerns and instead emerges as a narrow, regressive, technorational frame centred on reactive measures at the building scale.

Environmental planning and management in an age of uncertainty: The case of the Water Framework Directive

Scenario planning is one of the most prominent methods applied by organisations to assist long-term decision making. This paper uses a case study method to demonstrate how scenarios can be operationalised to inform future strategies and to challenge rigid silo-based decision making approaches. The WaterProof Northwest scenarios developed by the authors in collaboration with a range of stakeholders, and described within this paper, offer a platform for considering the future of the water environment. The scenarios were developed in the context of meeting the goals of the European Water Framework Directive. This Directive has the core aim of improving the chemical and ecological status of Europes water bodies. The scenarios highlight that water bodies in the case study area (the region of Northwest England) are impacted directly by a wide array of driving forces which will affect the state of the water environment over the coming decades. This analysis demonstrates that organisations responsible for creating and implementing long-term plans and policies to manage water are often far removed from the forces that will influence the effectiveness of the exercises that they are engaged in. The WaterProof Northwest scenarios highlight that organisations need different decision making approaches in order to adapt to modern environmental challenges. They also raise questions over whether environmental legislation such as the Water Framework Directive should incorporate a futures perspective in recognition of the wide ranging forces influencing their implementation.

POLICY AND PRACTICE: Planning and the European union water framework directive

This paper is concerned with stimulating debate amongst land-use planning practitioners and researchers in relation to the possible consequences of the European Union Water Framework Directive. The potentially far-reaching ramifications for the Town and Country Planning system in England and Wales are examined in detail, presenting the case that planning, at all spatial scales, may have to give both water and environmental concerns greater consideration than has hitherto been the case. Furthermore, in the imminent future the planning system will need to begin the process of formulating policies in line with the aspirations of the Directive.

The Potential Implications of the European Union Water Framework Directive on Domestic Planning Systems: A UK Case Study

The transformation of planning across Europe in recent years has been characterized by new processes at different spatial scales that reach across traditional boundaries. This Europeanization of planning processes is reflected in the emergence of cross-border initiatives, new spatial relationships and the enhancement of regional policy-making. In using the case of the UK this article analyses the possible ramifications of adopting the European Water Framework Directive (WFD). It is demonstrated that the WFD, despite its apparent focus on water regulation, is symptomatic of wider European Spatial Planning processes that are seeing a reshaping of attitudes, witnessing the emergence of new networks and challenging traditional sovereignties of planning.

Deconstructing Resilience: Lessons from Planning Practice

‘Resilience’ has emerged to become a notion that imbues academic research and policy discourse. But, the term’s prolificacy is matched neither by certainty regarding its definition nor by agreement regarding its application through policy and practice. Like ‘sustainability’ or ‘progress’ the concept, at least from a superficial perspective, is one that is rather agreeable and ‘fuzzy’ and difficult to contest. It seems counter-intuitive to argue that we should not become more resilient, particularly in the face of economic, environmental and social shocks or stresses that can prove to be deeply disruptive—even devastating—to everyday life. The passive reception of the term, as well as the considerable ambiguity regarding its articulation and application, has only assisted to catalyse the cascade of resilience through a broad variety of policy and practical agendas. Resilience has been heralded as a prime mobilizing concept upon which a host of strategies may converge to help society and cities better prepare for a range of risks across regional, national and global scales (e.g. Conservative Party, 2010; Cabinet Office, 2011; United Nations Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability, 2012). Resilient systems—be they cities, infrastructures, communities or commerce—are generally thought to support ‘business as usual’ (London First, 2003), or even business that is better than usual in the face of a threat. Resilience thus promises to be able necessary to carve order from chaos and to construct a capacity to respond (and adapt) to uncertain risks, ultimately fostering the circumstances necessary to support an efficient recovery from their impacts. Indeed, some interpretations of resilience make a discernible effort to treat the potential consequences of risk, not only as threats, but also as opportunities that may be capitalized upon so long as a certain predisposition to respond positively has been adequately accumulated or anticipated in advance (see, e.g. Bulkeley & Betsill, 2005; Shaw & Theobold, 2011).

Planning policy and flood risk: The translation of national guidance into local policy

Scientists and policy-makers generally agree that the likelihood of flooding in the UK will increase as a result of climate change. It is also accepted that sensible land use and development planning plays an important role in the management of flood risk, while allowing necessary development to continue (Evans et al., 2004; Department of Communities and Local Government – DCLG, 2006a; Thorne et al., 2007). As the planning system operates on different spatial scales, it can be used to integrate flood risk management measures at the strategic planning scale and deliver these in practice at the individual site level (White & Howe, 2004; Richards, 2005). Indeed, it is worth noting that the planning system may actually be the most sustainable method to manage flood risk, in that not only can it provide for risk management, it can also avoid or even reduce risk, due to its ability to influence factors such as the location, type, design and function of development. Progress with regard to planning policy and practice has been made, but it is acknowledged that the rapidly evolving flood risk management policy framework may take time to effectively translate into the local planning practice arena (Richards, 2005; White 2005; White & Howe, 2005; Wynn, 2005). This implementation gap between policy and practice was also recently identified by the then planning minister, Keith Hill:

Planning and the European Union Water Framework Directive

This paper is concerned with stimulating debate amongst land-use planning practitioners and researchers in relation to the possible consequences of the European Union Water Framework Directive. The potentially far-reaching ramifications for the Town and Country Planning system in England and Wales are examined in detail, presenting the case that planning, at all spatial scales, may have to give both water and environmental concerns greater consideration than has hitherto been the case. Furthermore, in the imminent future the planning system will need to begin the process of formulating policies in line with the aspirations of the Directive.

Flooding: are we ignoring the real problem and solution

The damage of the recent storms has been well documented, but arguably, the reasons for the level of devastation and possible future solutions have not. This article critically examines both the areas accused of causing, or contributing, to the flooding and the solutions mentioned so far. It then suggests an alternative solution, which could be the answer to our recent problems.