Land use policy responses to economic restructuring

Land use policy responses to economic restructuring

CD. Adams, L. Russell and C.S. Taylor-Rusself

The process of economic restructuring, which accelerated during the 198Os, led to much higher levels of unemployment in the UK and caused many local authorities to take a keen interest in economic development. Earlier land use policies often proved unable to meet changing economic circumstances and new responses had to be devised. This article concentrates on one important part of the North-West of England and explores how employment land policies were reformulated in the 1980s. As the article demonstrates, such policy reformulation can bring central and local government into conflict. C.D. Adams lectures in the Department of Planning and Landscape, University of Manchester, Manchester, Ml3 9PL, UK. C.S. Taylor-Russell and L. Russell are former Research Officers in the Department. This paper is based on research funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (Award No R000231427). The support of the Council is gratefully acknowledged.

‘J.A. Chandler and P. Lawless, Local Authorities and the Creation of Employment, Gower, Aldershot, UK, 1985; L. Mills and K. Young, ‘Local authorities and economic development: a preliminary analysis’, in V.A. Hausner, ed, Critical tssues in Urban Economic ~evefopment, Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK, 1986; J.M.A. Sellgren. ‘The changing nature of economic development activitie&: a longitudinal analysis of local authorities in Great Britain 1981 to 1987’. Environment and Planning C. Government and Policy, Vol 9, 1991, pp 341-362. ‘Sellgren, op tit, Ref 1.

0264~8377/93/020151-22

The expansion of economic development has been among the most innovative areas of activity for many local authorities during the 1980s sparking off a host of literature and finding explicit recognition as a mainstream local authority function in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.’ Local authorities are now empowered, under Section 33 of this Act, to undertake a wide range of activities to promote the economic development of their areas. This section is subject to one geographical restriction. Local authorities can only award grants, loans and financial guarantees in areas with above-average unemployment or in those already recognized as government priority areas. Most economic development activities had previously been financed under the powers of Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 or, in some cases, under particular local acts. Local authorities wishing to make use of the new powers are required to produce a local economic development strategy. This document is subject to local consultation and, for research purposes, provides a valuable insight into the particular authority’s activities and intentions for economic development. The muIti-faceted nature of economic development is reflected in Sellgren’s definition of the activity as any action taken deliberately by a local authority to alleviate what it perceives to be a local economic problem.* Not surprisingly, a wide variety of activities comes within this definition. Sellgren provides a useful classification of these activities, dividing them into four broad areas. These areas are promotion and business support, planning and property, transport and mobility, and employment and training. This article concentrates on the second of these areas, that of planning and property. Sellgren identifies 24 different types of action within the broad category of planning and property. These range from the provision of different types of land and buildings to relaxing development-control policy and providing key-worker housing. The two most popular types of action within the category were, according to the authorities contacted by Sellgren, those of identifying sites for development and of keeping registers of vacant property. The most effective action was considered to be development of new units under 2000 sq ft (186 m2) including those designed as nursery or starter units.

0 1993 Butterworth-Heinemann

Ltd

151

Land

use policy

responses

Figure 1. The research

lo economic

restrucluring

location.

‘P. Hobbs, ‘The response of local planning activity to economic change: the case of Coventry’, in V. Nadin and J. Doak, Town Planning Responses to City Change, Avebury, Aldershot, UK, 1991.

152

As Hobbs has argued, such activities do not take place in a political vacuum, but as a response to wider economic change.’ Hobbs reveals, with particular reference to Coventry, how planning activities are continually restructured to accommodate changing economic circumstances. Unemployment rates at the local level are close to the hearts of many councillors and, over a period of time, have a noticeable impact on local political priorities. This article focuses on a wider geographical area. It examines four administrative districts in the North-West of England (see Figure 1) and seeks to discover how local policies for the development of employment land, as one important component of the broad area of planning and property identified by Sellgren, have responded to widespread economic restructuring. The four districts are the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral and the Cheshire districts of Chester, Ellesmere Port & Neston and Crewe & Nantwich (see Figure 2). These four districts form a corridor approximately 20 miles (32 km) each side of Chester, along the M53 to Birkenhead and Wallasey in the north-west and along the A.51 to Crewe and Nantwich in the south-east (referred to hereafter as the Cheshire-Wirral corridor).

LAND USE POLICY

April 1993

Land use policy responses to economic resfruc~uring

Figure 2. The four administrative districts in the Cheshir+Wirral Corridor.

Local and national policy The

articulation

by the national

of land policy

use policy

framework

at the local and is capable,

level

is both

over

time,

conditioned of influenc-

ing the direction of that framework. When the Conservative government was first elected in 1979, it quickly abandoned the attempts of its predecessor to pursue a local industrial strategy and sought instead to minimize or eliminate what it considered to be unnecessary planning constraints on business activity. In 1980, for example, the government emphasized that ‘Local planning authorities should be sensitive to the large number of jobs and the large quantity of economic activity which is locked up in planning applications and should settle their priorities Subsequently a series of circulars and other forms of accordingly.‘” government guidance issued during the mid-1980s urged local planning authorities to facilitate industrial development through speed and flexibility in development control and by the allocation of sufficient land in development plans.” These themes were brought together in 198X in Planning Policy Guidance 4 (PPG4), which stated that:

4Department of the Environment, Circular’ 22/80, Development Control - Policy and Practice, HMSO, London, 1980, paragraph 11. ‘Department of the Environment, Circular 16184, Industrial Development, HMSO, London, 1984; also Circular 14/85, Development and Employment, HMSO, London, 1985; and Circular 2/86, Development by Small Businesses, HMSO, London, 1986. ‘Department of the Environment, Planning Policy Guidance 4: Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms, HMSO, London, 1988, paragraphs 1.2 and 7.

LAND USE POLICY

April

1993

Industrial and commercial development is vital to expansion of the economy and of employment. In particular the Government wishes to help small firms to start up and grow. Local planning authorities should respond constructively to informal enquiries from firms both large and small, handle their applications promptly, and take a positive attitude to development control decisions affecting them. Development should be prevented or restricted only where this serves a clear planning purpose and the economic effects have been taken into account. Development control must avoid placing unjustifiable obstacles in the way of any development especially if it is for industry, commerce, housing or any other purpose relevant to economic prosperity When reviewing and framing development plan policies and land allocations local planning authorities should aim to ensure that there is sufficient land available for industry and commerce and that the variety of sites is sufficient to meet the differing practical needs of the user.’ From the mid-1980s onwards, authorities in rural as well as towards employment uses. In redundant farm buildings in

central government urged local planning in urban areas to show greater flexibility 1984 central government suggested that the green belt could provide suitable

153

Land use policy responses to economic restructuring

accommodation for small firms or tourist activity.’ In 1988 the government issued more general guidance intended to promote rural enter-

prise and development.* guidance stated that:

On subsequent

revision and expansion,

this

The range of industries that can be successfully located in rural areas is expanding. Many commercial and light industrial activities can be carried on in rural areas without causing unacceptable disturbance. There are attractions to the firms and their staff in a clean and healthy environment, and there are benefits to the local economy and employment. These firms also help bring new life and activity to rural communities and so are generally welcomed and quickly assimilated.’

7Department of the Environment, Circular 741’84,Green BeIfs, HMSO. London. ~, 1984. ‘Dep~~ment of the’Environment, Planning F~licy Guidance 7: Rural ~ffrerprise and Deve/opmenf, HMSO, London, 1988. ‘Department of the Environment, Planning Policy Guidance 7 (Revised): The Countryside and the Rural Economy, HMSO, London, 1992, paragraph 2.12. “Department of the Environment, Planning Policy Guidance 11: Strategic Guidance for Merseyside, HMSO, London, 1988. “Chester City Council, Economic Development Strategy Statement, Department of Development and Technical Services, Chester City Council, Chester, UK, 1990.

154

Although PPG4 encouraged local planning authorities to provide a variety of employment sites to meet differing practical needs, specific government guidance on the allocation of land for industrial development has never been as detailed as that for housing development. Even at a subregional level, strategic planning guidance for Merseyside, for example, merely suggested that local authorities should allocate sufficient industrial and commercial land to provide a wide choice of size, type and location of site. I0 A more profound central government influence upon the allocation of land for industrial development was the revision of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order in 1987. Most office, light industrial and research and development activities were merged into a single use class known as B 1. Activities must be capable of location in a residential area without creating nuisance in order to qualify within B 1. This is commonly known as the amenity test. The introduction of the Bl Use Class has far-reaching implications for the planning and development of employment uses. In the first instance, planning permission is no longer required to change a light industrial building to offices, provided that the amenity test is passed. The distribution of employment space between these two uses is consequently a matter for the market. Secondly. there is little point in development plans making a distinction between land for light industrial buildings and land for offices. Many plans now simply identify land for employment uses. Thirdly, local planning authorities have much less control over the decentralization of office uses from town and city centres. It is also easier to redevelop older industrial sites for high-technology and office use. Finally, developers of employment land are no longer protected by the certainty of rigid planning. They need to show ingenuity and flexibility to take advantage of the Bl Use Class. Each of these implications has been evident in the Cheshire-Wirral corridor, where in recent years both the local planning authorities and speculative developers have promoted peripheral business parks on sites which may previously have been considered suitable for traditional industrial estates. Although the article concentrates on planning and property, and especially on industrial land development policy, it is worth noting that each of the local authorities involved had gained substantial experience in the other areas of activity identified by Sellgren. Specialist economic development officers are employed in Chester, Crewe & Nantwich and Wirral, but in Ellesmere Port & Neston this function is handled primarily by estates officers. The Economic Development Strategy of Chester City Council, published in 1990, covers training, job creation and retention, and environmental and infrastructure issues.” Although

LAND USE POLICY

April 1993

Land use policy responses to economic reslruclurirzg

a similar document for Crewe & Nantwich shows the bulk of economic development expenditure devoted to planning and property, it does earmark more limited sums for a loan guarantee scheme and for promoting the attractiveness of the borough.12 Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council has also entered into a series of partnerships with other public and private sector organizations in order to revitalize the local economy. For example, it provides administrative support to the Crewe Development Agency which brings together local industrialists, trade unions and the local authorities in order to oversee a fl million fund established for the town in 1988 by British Rail. Nevertheless, the pattern within the four districts confirms the view of Sellgren that ‘the growing involvement of local authorities in economic development has served to maintain and even to intensify existing trends with a strong emphasis upon activities relating to statutory duties for planning’. I3 Many local authorities see the provision of employment land and its promotion for development as probably the most effective contribution they are able to make towards the creation or retention of employment. Planning and property-related activities were undoubtedly the most important aspect of economic development throughout the Cheshire-Wirral corridor. Indeed their importance was underlined by Inward, whose report on the availability of strategic sites and premises in the North-West of England concluded that one of the most important factors in locational decisions being lost to the North-West was the lack of suitable premises or sites.” As this article demonstrates, employment land policy in the Cheshire-Wirral corridor has been articulated at a local level not only in the context of national policy guidance but often as an attempt to challenge such guidance or in anticipation of its revision. This illustrates how the relative balance of power between local and national policy makers may determine the way in which local land use policy responds to economic restructuring. For as local economic conditions in the Cheshire-Wirral corridor deteriorated during the early to mid-198Os, the relevant local authorities developed a more sophisticated understanding of the processes of land supply, land exchange and land development which was subsequently used to produce new policy responses. These, in turn. affected development trends in the boom years of the late 1980s. This article will now examine in detail changes in the local economy and in the planning and policy framework in the Cheshire-Wirral corridor during the 1980s. It will then explore how employment land use policy in the corridor was reformulated around the answers to five key questions, namely: 0 0 0 0 0 “Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council, Economic Development in Crewe & Nantwith Consultative Document 1991/92, Economic Development Division, Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council, Crewe, UK, 1992. ‘%ellgren, op tit, Ref 1, p 359. ‘%ward ‘Strategic Sites and Premises in North W&t England’, unpublished report, Inward, Chorley, UK, 1988.

LAND USE POLICY

April 1993

What quantity of land should be allocated? What quality of land should be allocated? Where should land be allocated for development? How should the development of allocated land be promoted? What response should be made to pressure for rural economic diversification?

The changing local economy The fundamental restructuring of the UK economy which occurred during the 1980s affected the Cheshire-Wirral corridor disproportionately, owing to its over-dependence on manufacturing employment and particularly on large-scale employers. Early signs of the three

155

Lund use policy

responses

to economic

restructuring Table 1. Manufacturing

Source: Department of Employment rounded to nearest 100).

Table 2. Unemployment

(figures

rates (January 1989). Rate (%)

WiK4 Brrkenhead Bromborough Heswall Wallasey District as a whole

27.1 15.1 6.8 10.3 14.7

Hesmere Port & Neston Ellesmere Port Neston District as a whole

12.3 7.5 10.8

Chester Greater Chester Chester Rural District as a whole

11.1 5.1 9.1

Crewe & Nanfwich Crewe Urban Nantwich Crewe Rural Distnct as a whole

6.8 5.2 4.0 7.7

Merseyside Cheshire North West Great Britain

16.1 8.3 11.2 8.1

Source: Cheshire County Council (figures refer to those out of work and claiming benefit).

“II.

Massey

and

R. Meegan, The AnaLondon, 1982.

tomy of Job Loss, Methuen,

156

employment change, 1981-87. 1981

1987

Change, 1981-87

Wirral Ellesmere Port & Neston Crewe & Nantwich Chester

25 800 17500 16 200 3 500

20 15 15 3

900 200 000 900

- 19.0% -13.1% -7.4% +11.4%

Total

63 000

55 000

- 12.7%

types of production reorganization (intensification, rationalization and investment and technical change) identified by Massey and Meegan were clearly evident during the 1970~.‘~ In that decade, the two districts most heavily reliant on the manufacturing sector, Wirral and Ellesmere Port & Neston, witnessed reductions in total employment of 13 200 and 10 800 respectively. In contrast, total employment for the same period grew by 2200 in Crewe & Nantwich and by 4700 in Chester. Unemployment rates for Cheshire and Wirral. however, approximately doubled between 1971 and 1979 and doubled again between 1979 and 1981. Between 1981 and 1987, total employment in the Cheshire-Wirral corridor fell by a further 10 000 jobs. A more substantial decline occurred between 1981 and 1984, with signs of some recovery between 1984 and 1987. As elsewhere in the UK this recovery was primarily generated by part-time employment and by the service sector. In contrast, manufacturing employment was particularly hard hit during the 1980s. As Table 1 shows, between 1981 and 1987 manufacturing employment declined by 19% in Wirral, by 13% in Ellesmere Port & Neston and by 7% in Crewe & Nantwich. In contrast it grew by 11% in Chester. By 1987, manufacturing accounted for 47% of total employment in Ellesmere Port & Neston, 36% in Crewe & Nantwich, 23% in Wirral but only 8% in Chester. In fact, only Chester has experienced intense pressure for employment development in recent years. The pressure has been primarily for office and for warehouse units rather than for traditional manufacturing development. Unemployment rates at the beginning of 1989, shown in Table 2, demonstrate the disproportionate impact of recent economic change on the older urban parts of the Cheshire-Wirral corridor. Unemployment rates in Birkenhead, for instance, were more than five times higher than those for the rural parts of the Chester and Crewe districts. Current economic circumstances in each of the four districts within the Cheshire-Wirral corridor clearly reflect contrasts in patterns of historical development. This is illustrated by the traditional dependence of several parts of the Cheshire-Wirral corridor on those industries in which employment has been most susceptible to the processes of economic restructuring of the last two decades. The decline of shipbuilding in Birkenhead, for instance, provides a dramatic example of how over-reliance on a single employer can adversely affect the economic fortunes of a whole town. In 1966 Cammell Laird employed 16 000 persons. Several subsequent changes of ownership (including almost a decade in the public sector) together with the global restructuring of the shipbuilding industry saw employment fall to 2500 by the end of the 1980s. In 1990 the whole future of the yard was under threat and an intensive local campaign was launched to save the remnant of a once great local employer. One half of all those working in Ellesmere Port & Neston are

LAND USE POLICY

April 1993

Land use policy

responses

to economic

restructuring

employed directly in petrochemicals and in vehicle manufacturing. Taking account of indirect employment. the borough council estimates that 90% of all jobs in Ellesmere Port & Neston are dependent on these two industries. The two largest companies, Vauxhall and Shell, employ 5000 and 2000 people respectively. In Crewe & Nantwich, 35% of all jobs in 1981 were provided either by British Rail or by Rolls Royce. Although for many outsiders, British Rail may be synonymous with Crewe, its employment in the borough has fallen from a high of 20 000 to under 5000 today. The rationalization of the British Rail estate has left approximately 20-25 ha vacant within close proximity to the town centre. Rising unempfoyment in Chester during the 1980s reflected the closure of the nearby Shotton steelworks and associated industries immediately across the Welsh border in Deeside. The strong service sector in Chester has, however, further expanded in recent years. Marks & Spencer and NWS Bank (a subsidiary of the Royal Bank of Scotland) both took substantial space on the Chester Business Park in the late 1980s in order to house UK-wide administrative operations. More limited manufacturing development has also occurred. For example, the Thomson newspaper group has constructed a very substantial printing hall on the Chester West Employment Park, where it now employs 450. Two US printing companies have also moved into the Chester area, adding to manufacturing employment in the town. According to Cheshire County Council, The recession [of the early 198Os] had a tmumatic effect on Cheshire’s major manufacturing industries such as vehicles and chemicals. Nevertheless, Cheshire’s economy has shown considerable resilience bearing in mind the challenges it has had to face. Technological change, competitive international trading conditions, increased energy costs and increased growth in its labour force have all resulted in much greater unemployment. Even in this situation job

growth has continued in certain sectors. ” While traditional industries such as petrochemicals, vehicle manufacture and engineering have all shed labour, evidence points to the small-scale growth within certain parts of Cheshire of sunrise industries such as electronics, fibre-optics and biotechnology. Much of this growth appears to be centred around Chester, presenting the local authorities with the dilemma of whether to release previously protected green-belt land to promote local economic regeneration. No local authority in the corridor is seeking to rely on the industries of the past to provide the jobs of the future. Rather, determined efforts are being made to strengthen and diversify local economies, by supporting and attracting newly emerging economic activity. As a result the local authorities began to reformulate land use policy in the Cheshire-Wirral corridor both in order to overcome the corridor’s economic problems and to attempt to take full advantage of its locational opportunities.

The pIanning framework “Cheshire

County Council, Cheshire County Structure Plan, including the First Alteration, Explanatory Memorandum and WrittenStatement, County Planning Department, Cheshire County Council, Chester, UK, 1985, paragraph 5.6.

LAND USE POLICY

April 1993

Within Cheshire, eight districts (including Chester, Ellesmere Port & Neston and Crewe & Nantwich) are generally responsible for local planning and for development control, while Cheshire County Council has responsibility for structure planning and for economic development on a county-wide basis. Until April 1986, the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral, along with the four other districts in Merseyside (Liverpool,

Lund use policy responses to economic restructuring Table 3. Dominant

Note: In each case, Table 3 identifies the party with the largest number of seats. Where no single party enjoys an overall majority, the largest party is shown in brackets.

political

representation

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council Ellesmere Port & Neston Borough Council Chester City Council Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council Cheshire County Council

on the local authorities. 1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

con Lab Con (Con) (Lab)

Con Lab Con (Con) (Lab)

(Con) Lab

(Con) Lab (Con) (Con) (Lab)

(Lab) Lab (Con) (Con) (Lab)

I;::; (Lab)

Knowsley, St Helens and Sefton) formed the lower tier of local government below Merseyside County Council. This higher tier was dominated by the Labour Party from 19X1 onwards. When Merseyside County Council was abolished on 1 April 1986, each of the five districts, including Wirral, became a unitary planning authority. Table 3 shows the political control of the five local authorities during the late 1980s. Only Ellesmere Port & Neston Borough Council. with its dominant Labour majority, enjoyed political stability. The Conservatives lost their control of both Wirral and Chester in 1987 and in lY89 were replaced by Labour as the majority part in Wirral. Throughout the period, the Conservatives consistently enjoyed a majority of one or two seats over Labour on Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council. However, the balance of power was held first by the old Alliance and subsequently by the Liberal Democrats. While Labour remained the largest single party on Cheshire County Council throughout the period, it required the support of the Alliance/Liberal Democrats in order to secure a majority. Except in Ellesmere Port & Neston, the late 19XOs were therefore a time of political turbulence in the Cheshire-Wirral corridor. This heightened the political importance of such factors as local unemployment and ensured greater prominence for the promotion of local economic development. Furthermore the uncertain nature of local politics in Cheshire, coupled with the experience of recession in the 1980s, made its politicians reluctant to turn investment away to support the regeneration policies in the adjoining conurbations of Merseyside and Greater Manchester. Rather, the reverse was true: for as the 19XOs progressed, both Cheshire County Council and the three district councils became increasingly determined to attract and retain employment. For example, both central and local government tended in the past to give strong support to the Merseyside and North Cheshire Green Belts, which restricted development in the western half of Wirral. in the Chester area and generally north of the A51. More recently, however, Cheshire County Council, Chester City Council and Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council have all attempted to pursue less restrictive policies to greenfield development in order to encourage new economic development. As discussed later in the article, this initiated a far-reaching debate during the recent preparation and consideration of the Cheshire Replacement Structure Plan, which led the Secretary of State for the Environment to uphold more protectionist plans than the local authorities would have wished. It could be argued that the main opportunities to promote the economic development of the Cheshire-Wirral corridor arise from its perceived environmental advantages. Indeed many inward investors appear to regard Cheshire as the most environmentally attractive county in the North-West. Although this may provide the local authorities with a distinct opportunity, the picture in reality is rather different. Parts of

158

LAND USE POLICY

April 1993

Land use policy responses to economic restructuring

17Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council, Crewe Local Plan, Department of Technical Services, Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council, Crewe, UK, 1990; Crewe & Nantwith Borough Council, Nantwich Local P/an, Department of Technical Services, Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council, Crewe, UK, 1990. ‘%hester City Council, Greater Chester Disfrict f/an, Department of Development and Technical Services, Chester City Council, Chester, UK, 1983. “Chester Citv Council. Greater Chester Draft Local Plan, Department of Development and Technical Services, Chester City Council, Chester, UK, 1988. 2oEllesmere Port & Neston Borough Council, Ellesmefe Porf & Nesfon Deposif Local f/an (excluding Mersey Marshes), Borough Environment Services Department, Ellesmere Port & Neston Borough Council, Ellesmere Port, UK, 1990. 2’Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council, Unitary Development Plan: Issues and Draft Part One Policies, Department of Planning and Economic Development, Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council, Wallasey, UK, 1990; Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council, Unitary Development Plan: Issues and Draft Part One Policies: Appendices, Department of Planning and Economic Development, Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council, Wallasey, UK, 1990.

LAND USE POLICY

April 1993

Ellesmere Port, for instance, share many of the depressing inner urban characteristics of nearby Birkenhead. Away from the inner urban area, the western half of Wirral enjoys similar environmental quality to much of Cheshire. This does not prevent inward investors associating Wirral more readily with some of the negative headlines achieved by other parts of Merseyside than with the positive ones achieved by much of Cheshire. Perceptions can therefore be influential in marketing terms. Much more important in reality is the ease of access by motorway into and out of the corridor. The M53 and M56 motorways connect Wirral, Ellesmere Port & Neston and Chester directly with Manchester Airport and with the national motorway network. The M6 skirts the borders of Crewe & Nantwich district, and with the recent construction of the Barthomely Road Link, these two towns now enjoy a direct connection to the motorway. A bypass for Nantwich has recently been completed and a number of other road construction schemes are currently programmed throughout the whole of the corridor, including a major new trunk road to the south of Crewe and a series of planned improvements to the A51. Although land for employment development may first come to the notice of local planning authorities when an application is made for planning permission, the specific allocation of development land in statutory plans has played an important role in the Cheshire-Wirral corridor. Table 4 identifies the relevant plans. For those adopted after 1974, the date of adoption is given. Plans in preparation in 1991 are also listed. As Table 4 shows, attention in the years immediately following local government reorganization in 1974 focused primarily on strategic plan-making. Structure plans for Cheshire and Merseyside were approved in 1979 and 1980 respectively. While Cheshire County Council has since made particular efforts to review the structure plan and keep it up to date, the three district councils in Cheshire have turned their attention to the process of local plan-making during the 1980s. Progress, however, has been patchy. By 1990, only Crewe & Nantwich could claim to have recently adopted local plans.” In Chester the city council adopted a district plan in 1983. lx Although a revised and updated Greater Chester Local Plan was due to be adopted by the city council in 1990, a holding direction issued by the Secretary of State for the Environment on 28 March 1990 has prevented the City Council taking any further steps towards its adoption.” Preparation of a new local plan for Ellesmere Port & Neston (excluding the Mersey Marshes) commenced in 1989 and it was placed on deposit in 1990.2” A local plan inquiry was held in 1991. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council showed little interest in statutory local plan preparation during the lifetime of Merseyside County Council. However, following the abolition of the county council, Wirral MBC has been required to commence work on a new unitary development plan. An Issues and Draft Part One Policies Report appeared in 1990.*’ In due course, when adopted, the unitary development plan will replace the Merseyside Structure Plan, so far as it applies to the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral. The urban and regional development policies pursued by successive governments have sought to promote the regeneration of Merseyside, including Birkenhead, Wallasey, Bromborough and Ellesmere Port. For many years these locations have been designated as development areas eligible for regional assistance. In 1984 most of the Chester district

159

1982 Merseyslde Green Belt Subject Plan

1983

“Informal plans which were never statutorily adopted

Cheshire

Draft Nantwich Town Map” Nantwich Town Centre Policy Map’

Crewe Inner Areas District Plan

1981

Crewe & Nantwich

Cheshire Structure Plan

1980 Merseyside Structure Plan

Greater Chester District Plan

Ellesmere Port Town Map Neston Town Mapa Green Belt Boundariesa Green Belt Subject Plana

1979

corridor. -

Chester

Ellesmere Port & Neston

Boiough of Wirral

Birkenhead Town Map Wallasey Town Map Bebington Town Map Heswall Town Map Hoylake Town Map

Pre-I 974

Table 4. Development plans in CheshirbWirral

1984

Cheshire Structure Plan. First Alterations

Chester Rural Areas Local Plan

1985

Mersey Marshes Local Plan

1986

1987

1966

1969

Nantwrch Local Plan

Crewe Local Plan

1990

Cheshire Replacement Structure Plan (approved 1992)

Greater Chester Local Plan

Ettesmere Port & Neston Local Plan

Wlrral Unitary Development Plan

Under preparation in 1991

f 3 m

Lnnd use policy responses

to economic

resrrucruring

was also accorded development area status, in recognition of the high unemployment rates in the Chester Travel-to-Work Area (TTWA) resulting from the Shotton steelworks closures. The main financial assistance available from central government to the private sector in development areas is in the form of regional enterprise grants or regional selective assistance. Companies in the Chester district received approximately $1.3 million in regional grants and assistance in the financial year 1987-88 and f3.8 million in the financial year 1988-89. English Estates are also involved in the provision of industrial land and property in the development areas. European Community funding is available in the development areas in the form both of low-interest loans for the public and private sectors from the European Investment Bank and infrastructure grants to local authorities from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). Ellesmere Port & Neston Borough Council has been particularly active in taking advantage of ERDF funding. ERDF funding in Wirral now comes through the Merseyside Integrated Development Operation. The Merseyside Development Corporation is actively promoting the development of former dockland areas in Wirral adjacent to the river Mersey. The inner parts of Birkenhead and Wallasey enjoy inner-urban area status and are eligible to receive assistance under the urban programme. which is 75% funded by central government. Private-sector development projects in these areas have been eligible for City Grant since 1988, when this replaced the earlier Urban Development and Urban Regeneration Grants. The Merseyside Task Force covers both Wirral and Ellesmere Port and provides direct central government encouragement to regeneration projects. A separate task force has been established by the Department of Trade and Industry to promote training within the inner part of Wirral, selected for special City Challenge funding. Throughout the whole of the Cheshire-Wirral corridor, Derelict Land Grant is available for approved schemes on a 100% basis to local authorities and (excluding the inner parts of Birkenhead and Wallasey, where it has been incorporated within City Grant) on an 80% basis to the private sector. A wide variety of other minor grants are also available within parts of the Cheshire-Wirral corridor, most notably those intended to promote rural diversification in the South Cheshire Rural Development Area. During the 198Os, the local authorities in the Cheshire-Wirral corridor were thus able to draw on a variety of policy mechanisms in seeking to counteract the detrimental effect of economic restructuring on their localities. The remainder of this article will therefore explore five specific aspects of employment land development policy in order to evaluate the contributions of planning and property policies to local economic development.

What quantity of land to allocate? At the beginning of the 1980s the strategic policy framework in the Cheshire-Wirral corridor sought to support the regeneration of such older urban areas as Birkenhead and Wallasey by containing pressure for new greenfield development elsewhere. Although the Merseyside Structure Plan undertook a detailed analysis of likely future changes in the labour force, it avoided basing the quantity of industrial land

LAND USE POLICY

April 1993

161

Land use policy responses to economic resfrucfuring

allocation on probable future job needs. Instead, the structure plan aimed to ‘ensure that shortage of land does not impede industrial development’. It went on, ‘An adequate supply of sites, in a range of sizes, tenures and locations, must be available for industry likely to settle or grow in Merseyside.‘** The plan proposed that 720 ha of land (in addition to land already held by firms for expansion) be made available for industrial development in the period 197946, of which 120 ha would be in Wirral. In contrast, Cheshire County Council retained an explicit needsbased approach to the allocation of employment land up to and including the first alteration to the county structure plan in 1985. According to the first alteration: Cheshire

aims to make enough

employment land available to meet its residents’ of land are likely to be needed in the next 12 years from 1979 to 1991. On past trends, about half the land will be re-used derelict or vacant land. Apart from Warrington and Runcorn New Towns which are established as regional economic growth points, development is aimed at providing jobs for the people of Cheshire and not attracting further inmigration, particularly from Merseyside or Greater Manchester.‘j

needs for jobs. Over 1000 hectares

‘“Merseyside County Council, Merseyside Structure Plan, County Planning Department, Merseyside Cokty Coun%l, Liverpool, UK, 1980, paragraph 7.13. kheshire County C&r&l, op cif, Ref 16, paragraph 5.8. *%hester City Council, op cif, Ref 18, paragraph 11 .17. %hester County Council, Cheshire 2007: A Strategy for the Future, County Strucfure Plan, Submitted Second Alterations Explanatory Memorandum, Environmental Planning Service, Cheshire County Council, Chester, UK, 1990, p 19.

162

As the decade progressed, however, the practical limitations of such an approach became all too apparent. It was not always possible to distinguish between inward investment which created local jobs and that which simply transferred jobs into Cheshire from elsewhere. Furthermore there was no guarantee that investment turned away from Cheshire would gravitate towards Merseyside or Greater Manchester rather than to the South-East of England or to other parts of the European Community. As the impact of economic restructuring spread throughout Cheshire in the lY8Os, district councils became increasingly reluctant to support a restrictive employment strategy. In 1983 Chester City Council sought to adopt ‘an aggressive policy towards the promotion of employment . to encourage new or expanded industrial, office and shopping developments’ within the area covered by the Greater Chester District Plan.‘” The draft local plan for Crewe, published in 1988, sought to promote higher levels of employment development in order to reflect Crewe’s increasing importance as an employment centre. In Ellesmere Port & Neston, the borough council published a draft local plan in 1989. According to the council, one of the major economic challenges faced by the borough was to take full advantage of the economic opportunities offered by its good communications, development area grant incentives, range of housing, and accessibility to leisure and other facilities, in order to attract new inward investment. By the end of the lY8Os, opportunity had also replaced need as the key word for employment land allocation in the Cheshire Structure Plan. The second alterations to the plan that were submitted summarized this change of emphasis succinctly: Previously the scale of land allocated was related to need for jobs: it is clear that providing land of itself will not create jobs and that the supply of land should be more closely related to the demand from firms, and the opportunities to encourage new investment in the region. For this to happen increasing emphasis is needed on providing a readily available stock of land based on opportunities for new employment development.” The county council thus abandoned any attempt to relate employment land provision to job needs. Rather, the Cheshire Replacement Struc-

LAND USE POLICY

April 1993

Land use policy responses to economic resfructuring Table 5. Employment land allocations

Wirral Ellesmere Port & Neston Chester Crewe & Nantwich

Document

Period

ha

Document

Period

ha

Merseyside Structure Plan Cheshire Structure Plan - First Alteration II

1979-86

120

Wirral Issues and Draft Part One Policies Cheshire Replacement Structure Plan I,

1966-2001

175

1979-91

100

II

I,

110

I,

,/

I,

80

Notes: Figures for Ellesmere Port & Neston, Chester and Crewe & Nantwich for the period 1986-2001 to approximate to the nearest 5 ha.

140

I,

100

,I

200

are intended to refer to land to be made available and

ture Plan, approved in 1992, proposes that sufficient land be allocated both to allow development rates in the immediate past to be doubled and to take advantage of any special opportunities likely to arise in the future. In Wirral, while the principle of urban regeneration is likely to be retained in the draft unitary development plan, the borough council has recognized the potential conflict between economic promotion and urban regeneration. Sites within inner urban areas may not always be capable of fulfilling the specific requirements of all types of firms. The draft Part One policies aim to allocate enough land to provide a diversity of site types, sizes and locations. It is recognized that this may involve new allocations beyond the existing built-up area. Greater attention is also being given to the requirement of particular submarkets. The borough council has identified five geographical submarkets and has suggested that allocated land may not always be in the geographical location favoured by potential developers. Table 5 compares the quantity of employment land allocation in the early or mid-1980s with that allocated in the late 1980s. In Cheshire the figures shown in Table 5 for Chester and Crewe & Nantwich represent a substantial scaling down of those originally proposed by the county and district councils. The second alterations submitted to the Structure Plan had, in fact, proposed 210 ha for Chester (to take full advantage of its locational attractiveness) and 250 for Crewe & Nantwich (to include 100 ha for Channel Tunnel-related development). The Secretary of State for the Environment reduced these figures to those shown in Table 5 in the modifications he made when approving the Cheshire Replacement Structure Plan in January 1992. This effectively overturned any plans that either county or district council may have had to establish Chester as a sub-regional growth point. In Crewe, however, the quantity of employment land to be made available between 1986 and 2001 is, on an annual basis, still more than double that allocated between 1979 and 1991. As far as Wirral is concerned, the annual equivalent allocation for the period 1986-2001 appears to be lower than that for 197946. In fact industrial development commenced on only 56 ha of land between 1980 and 1986 in comparison with the allocated figure of 120 ha for the period 1979-86. The local planning authority therefore argues that Past rates alone, however, are not a reliable indicator of future land needs in

2”Wirral fvletroDolitan Unitary Development op tit, Ref 21, p 52.

Borouah Council, Plan: ippendices;

LAND USE POLICY

Wirral. The unstable conditions that gave rise to them, including a period of deep recession, make it difficult to quantify the level of new development the Borough would ‘normally’ support, or the levels future demand would bring and settle at if sustained growth were to occur throughout the ulan ueriod.26 1 1

Although

April 1993

the

allocation

of too little

employment

land

may

militate

163

Land use policy responses IO economic restrucrwing

against economic development, certain dangers exist with the allocation of too much land. If any surplus exists, it becomes much easier for owners of sites allocated for employment development to argue, at planning appeals, for permission to be granted for higher-value uses such as housing development. Land speculation may thus result in less rather than more land actually being developed for employment uses. In Cheshire, where land or buildings allocated for employment purposes are likely to make an important contribution towards implementing the structure plan, a presumption against their development for other purposes has been introduced. An excessive land supply in any one location may also convince property developers and investors that little potential exists for rental growth. Property development finance may therefore switch away from areas with an excessive supply of land to areas with a much more restricted land supply. This is recognized by Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council, which is seeking ‘to avoid creating another situation of over-supply which would lead to a fall in attainable rent levels and a consequent reduction of incentives for private sector property investment’.27 In Cheshire, however, the county council remains adamant that the quantity of employment land made available needs to be increased markedly in order to provide choice and attract investment. As the next section explores, some sites may appear more attractive to developers and investors than others.

What quality of land to allocate? Economic problems within the Cheshire-Wirral corridor are concentrated in areas of outmoded urban fabric, often previously dominated by traditional industry. At a subregional level, planning policy previously sought to direct new industry to such locations in order to tackle the worst concentrations of unemployment. At a local level, however, the best sites were often allocated for residential or commercial activities, with industry confined to left-over or unwanted sites in less attractive locations. This may have been because of the traditional view that industrial activity is noisy, dirty and best kept out of sight. Alternatively, the viewpoint may have been that if any activity had to put up with poor-quality land, it might as well be industrial development. In fact, such policies have helped create a mismatch between the land available to industry and the land on which it might wish to locate, given free choice. Cheshire County Council acknowledges that: There is a growing need to make efforts to improve the quality of Cheshire’s provision [of land] in terms of range, location and availability to meet the changing demands. At present the County suffers from land which offers little choice, and some land is dogged by development constraints and poor locations The past ten years have seen a dramatic change in types of employment . development and investment demand, with more selective requirements for land, Special attention needs to be focused on accommodating small firms, high technology industries, and the changing needs of service industries a significant proportion of Cheshire’s employment land is unlikely to prove attractive to inward investors.” conclusions have been reached by Wirral Borough Council, which recognizes that manufacturing industry is increasingly seeking better-quality locations. Such sites may, according to the council, account for only a small proportion of land already allocated for employment use in Wirral. The Council therefore acknowledges that:

Similar ‘7fbid, p 56.

‘%hester County Council, land for Jobs 1990, Environmental Planning Service, Chester County Council, Chester, UK, 1990, p 9. 164

LAND USE POLICY

April 1993

Land use policy responses to economic resrructuring

As companies become more discerning about their operating environments, providing land and premises for industry requires a more careful and tailored approach. It may initially need public funding to facilitate important new development to meet the strong demand for a new quality of site and building that cannot be met from the current supply.*”

Indeed concern about the quality of industrial land was first expressed in the Merseyside Structure Plan in 1980. While urban development land as a whole is known to suffer from a variety of site constraints, that allocated for industrial use often appears to be the most problematic. At that time, many allocated sites were not immediately available for use because they suffered from deficiencies in essential services or access, from legal impediments or from such obstacles to development as derelict buildings. Site constraints are, however, not confined to inner urban areas. Dereliction associated with mineral workings is prevalent in parts of the countryside. Such sites, even if allocated, cannot usually be developed without substantial treatment. In 1990, of the 175 ha of land allocated for employment uses in the Wirral Unitary Development Plan: Issues and Draft Part One Policies, only 65 ha were considered readily available. Many of these sites were already under offer while others were considered to be unattractive locations, in market terms. The other 110 ha were constrained by such factors as ownership restrictions, ground conditions and access difficulties. The great majority of these sites were in private ownership. In Cheshire an employment land audit was first prepared by the county council in 1987, in order to assess the quality of all allocated employment sites over 0.1 ha. Five specific criteria were used to evaluate each site. These were the length of time that the site had remained undeveloped; the level of investment required to allow development to proceed; the development potential and adaptability of the site; the level of commitment from the public sector to, for instance, derelict land reclamation; and finally, the level of market demand. On this basis, sites were identified either as attractive, potentially attractive or unattractive. Subsequently, Cheshire County Council had refined this approach and now identifies six categories of undeveloped employment land: Sites immediately available and on the market. Sites having no constraints which are expected to become available within two years. Sites with no serious constraints which are expected to become c3 available within five years. Sites with serious physical or other constraints which could bec4 come available before 2001. land which is likely to be developed within five OS1 Owner-specific years. land which could be developed by 2001. OS2 Owner-specific

Cl c2

ZgWirral Metropolitan Unitary Development op tit, Ref 21, p 56.

Borough Council, Plan: Appendices,

LAND USE POLICY

April 1993

Table 6 shows how, in mid-1990, the employment land supply of 762 ha in Ellesmere Port & Neston, Chester and Crewer & Nantwich was divided between these categories. The petrochemical industry accounted for a very substantial proportion of owner-specific land in Ellesmere Port & Neston and about half of that in Chester. The 200 ha shown for Chester is now likely to be reduced as a result of the Secretary of State’s recent modifications to the Structure Plan.

165

Land USCpolicy respon.ses lo economic restructuring Table 6. Employment land supply in hectares,

Source: Cheshire County Council, Land for Jobs 1990, Environmental Planning Service, Chester County Council, Chester, UK, 1990.

Ellesmere Port & Neston Chester Crewe & Nantwich Total

In Ellesmere

mid-1990.

Cl

c2

c3

c4

OS1 & 2

Total

60 57 47 164

14 2 29 45

113

1

59

_

30 202

_

250 a2 16 350

430 200 124 762

Port & Neston

the borough

1

council

recognized

that:

The quality and attractiveness of employment land is just as important as quantity if the Borough is to attract economic investment Of the 386 acres proposed in the Local Plan . 87% has some kind of development constraint and is not immediately available the Borough had the second highest concentration of unattractive employment land among Cheshire’s eight Districts due to development constraints and poor location or market potential?” Cheshire County Council has expressed the view that success in diversifying the local economy of Ellesmere Port & Neston from its existing narrow range of industries will depend on providing highquality employment sites. According to Inward, the quality of employment land is critical to the attraction of inward investment.3’ Good-quality land can usually be developed quickly. Of the enquiries received by Inward between mid-1985 and 1989, 70% expressed a requirement to be operational within nine months. Irrespective of the quantity of allocated employment land, job opportunities may well be lost if its quality is poor. Assessments of employment land quality have therefore become an integral part of the allocation process within the Cheshire-Wirral corridor. Where an undue proportion of allocated land is considered to be of poor quality, three types of action have been taken. First, poor-quality land has been removed from the allocated totai. Cheshire County Council, in the submitted second alterations to the Structure Plan, suggested that land previously allocated for employment development which was economically incapable of development between 1986 and 2001 or which was highly constrained should be reallocated to another use or should be phased for development after 2001 and given an acceptable temporary use? Secondly, action has been proposed to improve the quality of allocated land. In Wirral. the borough council has argued that. since green-belt boundaries will remain unaltered, an extensive programme for the remedial treatment of constrained sites is essential to maintain an adequate supply of employment land. Finally, where constrained land appears to deter employment growth, a rapid and effective way to overcome this may be to allocate further unconstrained and usually greenfield land for employment development. When such allocations have been made, however, they have generated considerable local controversy. This is illustrated by two cases, one at Upton and the other at Chester, discussed in the next 30Ellesmere Port & Neston Borough Council, Ellesmere Port & Nesfon Draft Local Plan (excluding Mersey Marshes), Background Paper NO 4, Borough Environment Services Denartment Ellesmere Port & Neston Boroigh Council, Ellesmere Port, UK, 1989, paragraph 7.1. 3’lnward, op tit, Ref 14. %heshire County Council, op tit, Ref 25.

section.

Where to allocate? During

the

1980s the priority accorded to urban concentration and in the Cheshire-Wirral corridor was an important influon the location of allocated industrial land. This influence was

regeneration

ence

LAND USE POLICY

April 1993

Land use policy responses to economic restructuring

much stronger at the beginning of the decade than instance, the Merseyside Structure Plan (1980) aimed

at the end. to

For

encourage investment and employment within existing urban and industrial areas. Where possible, vacant and derelict urban land will be used; this will also have the effect of minimising the amount of good quality agricultural land taken for industry . . In future, more industrial development must be in or near inner areas and other areas of highest unemployment.”

33Merseyside County Council, op tit, Ref 22, paragraphs 7.14 and 7.15.

LAND USE POLICY

April 1993

Throughout the 1980s the Cheshire Structure Plan generally sought to concentrate employment development within, or adjacent to, the main settlement areas. However, in order to promote economic diversification and growth in Cheshire during the 199Os, the county council proposed, in the second alterations submitted to the County Structure Plan, to release a series of substantial greenfield sites for business park development. A number of locations in the Mersey Belt and M6 Corridor were specified as suitable, including Ellesmere Port, Chester and Crewe. Although this particular policy was subsequently deleted by the Secretary of State, the possibility of such business park development remains open. Indeed, whereas the first alterations to the Cheshire Structure Plan, approved in 1985, expected half the county’s employment needs between 1979 and 1991 to be satisfied by reused derelict or vacant land, the Replacement Structure Plan, approved in 1992, implicitly allows for a higher proportion of future employment development in the county to take place on greenfield sites at the edge of existing settlements. If prestige sites are made available for business park development in parts of Cheshire, they may help overcome the widely recognized regional shortage of sites for inward investors. Cheshire may therefore be well placed to take full advantage of such investment opportunities, as and when they arise. Whether employment development on greenfield sites undermines or underpins the economic prospects of nearby towns and conurbations is, of course, a matter for fierce debate. What is clear, however, is the determination of the local planning authorities in Cheshire not to allow their own economic prospects to be put at risk by any further attempt to steer investment from Cheshire towards Greater Manchester or Merseyside. Such a policy would, in the view of authorities in Cheshire, be likely to run the risk of losing the investment altogether from the North-West to, for example, the South-East or elsewhere in Europe. Cheshire’s determination to allocate employment land where it appears to be wanted by developers and investors reflects the county’s own experience of recession in the early 1980s. Land use policy has attempted to respond to economic change. In Wirral, greenfield development is limited by the tightness of green-belt boundaries. An earlier attempt to release 20 ha of greenfield land for high-technology development at Upton proved a salutary experience for the local planning authority. In 1981 a science park was proposed on land owned by the local planning authority and known as Upton Meadows. The proposal generated very considerable local opposition and this, combined with unsuccesful marketing, resulted in the subsequent withdrawal of the proposal. Since so much controversy was generated at Upton Meadows, which is outside the green belt, it is not surprising that the Wirral Unitary Development Plan: Issues and Draft One Policies proposed no significant deletions to the green belt itself. Although the council acknowledges that sites within inner areas cannot always fulfil the needs of industry, the draft plan itself is likely to

167

Land use policy

responses

to economic

restructuring

avoid substantial land released in the western half of the Wirral (which economic development officers would have been willing to support) and to emphasize measures to promote the recycling of urban land. The greatest controversy over land release has, however, been generated by the Greater Chester Local Plan.34 As already mentioned, the controversy subsequently gained strategic significance during consideration of the Cheshire Replacement Structure Plan. The local plan, published in draft in 1988 and intended to update an earlier version approved in 1983, attempted to remove 400 ha of land from the green belt to provide housing and employment land on the edge of Chester. The reasons for this were complex. On the one hand. the city council wished to relieve pressure on the historic centre of Chester and on the attractive environment of many surrounding villages. On the other hand, the council clearly wished to meet local employment needs by taking advantage of Chester’s potential for economic growth, arising from its location and, since 1984, from the availability of regional development grants. Two strategic employment sites were proposed at the edge of Chester: approximately l(7 ha at Mannings Lane at the end of the MS3 and approximately 41 ha opposite the Chester Business Park at Wrexham Road on the southern fringes of the city. The Greater Chester Local Plan generated substantial controversy both locally and nationaly. Some 498 formal representations were received, most of which were objections. The Council for the Protection of Rural England, which described the plan as a flagrant breach of national green-belt policy, despatched its national planning officer to argue at the local plan inquiry that Chester City Council had seriously overestimated future development land needs. In contrast, a pamphlet published by Aims of Industry argued that, without further land, the city council’s success in stimulating economic development in an area of high unemployment and improved business activity would be halted.‘5 Support for the conservation lobby came from the inquiry inspector, who recommended substantial modifications to the plan, including the deletion of the proposed strategic employment sites at Mannings Lane and at Wrexham Road. When the city council refused to accept these recommendations, it caused controversy. In 1990 the Secretary of State for the Environment ordered Chester City Council not to proceed further with the local plan until he had had an opportunity to consider the outcome of the Examination-in-Public into the Cheshire Replacement Structure Plan. When, in approving the Replacement Structure Plan, the Secretary of State reduced the quantity of employment land to be made available at Chester from 210 to 100 ha. he effectively eliminated the proposed developments at Mannings Lane and Wrexham Road?” Such uncompromising national involvement in local land use policy is, of course, unusual. Nevertheless it indicates that the freedom of local planning authorities to adjust local land use policy to local economic circumstances is limited by how far such actions might conflict with national planning guidelines and national political priorities. khester City Council, op tit, Ref 19. 35Aims of Industry, Government v Governmenf: The Chester Case, Aims of Industry, London, 1989. 36Department of the Environment, Cheshire Replacement Structure Plan: Modifications and Notice of Approval, DOE Regional Office, Manchester, UK, 1992.

168

How to promote the development of allocated land? The allocation of employment land is no guarantee of its actual development. Considerable sums often need to be invested in services and infrastructure, and in many cases development constraints will also

LAND USE POLICY

April 1993

Land use policy responses ta economic restructuring

need to be overcome. The private sector will only undertake such investment if justified by maket demand. Demand is, however, often difficult to estimate in advance. In boom times, therefore, the supply of serviced employment land can quickly dry up. Considerable commitment is often required over a lengthy period of time before the supply is replenished. If demand for serviced employment land cannot be satisfied with the minimum of delay, then the investment opportunities which arise in prosperous times may well be lost from that particular town, city or region. The private sector is, however, rarely interested in speculative investment in infrastructure unless there is evidence of immediate market demand. AH the local authorities in the CheshireWirral corridor have taken action, either on their own or in partnership with the private sector, to help ensure that allocated employment land is actually developed. This has complemented similar activity by other public sector bodies such as English Estates and Merseyside Development Corporation. Such action has involved both the provision of services and infrastructure and the construction of industrial units. All four district authorities in the Cheshire-Wirral corridor were involved in these activities during the 1980s. Wirral has maintained a small factory building programme, concentrated in the inner urban areas, where it has drawn on the urban programme and other sources of public finance. However, resources became increasingly tight in the late 1980s and the programme was scaled down. The local authority reclaimed 60 ha of derelict land between 1982 and 1989, but this still left 62 ha to be reclaimed. Ellesmere Port Br Neston Borough Council acquired and serviced approximately 75 ha of industrial land between 1976 and 1986. The council also owns 150 industrial premises, mostly in the form of nursery units and small factories, and has developed an industrial estate at Clayhill in Neston. It has made particular use of funds from both the Merseyside Task Force and the European Community to promote the reclamation of derelict land and its servicing for employment purposes. One major area of derelict land now in the ownership of Eilesmere Port & Neston Borough Council is the 48 ha known as the Burmah-Castro1 site. The local authority had spent f1.8 million of Derelict Land Grant up to the middle of 1989 and required a further 51.9 million of grant to complete reclamation and servicing. In Chester, both the business park and the orbital park are we11 located for the regional highway network and have been sponsored by the private sector. The City Council itself opened up the 34 ha Chester West Employment Park, of which approximately 11 ha is actually just across the Welsh border. A total of 24.5 million has been spent on reclaiming, servicing and laying out the park, much of which has come from the European Regional Development Fund. In Crewe & Nantwich, the borough council has had a long history of promoting the development of industrial estates, and has thereby lessened the town’s dependence on its two main employers, British Rail and Rolls Royce. Before 1982 the local authority had access to limited urban programme funds to help construct small workshops on former railway sidings, whose purchase and reclamation was supported by Derelict Land Grant. Thereafter, in the absence of Urban Programme or European Community funding, the council has had to rely on its own resources or enter into partnership with others. One recent joint venture has been undertaken in partnership with Cheshire County

LAND USE POLICY

April 1993

169

Lund use policy

I

3 lo economic

restrucluriflg

Council. This has involved the opening up and servicing of some 35 ha for the Crewe Business Park, part of which has subsequently been developed by AMEC developments Ltd. This is a good example of where site preparation by the public sector before a boom has been followed by private sector construction in response to market demand during the boom. As highway authority, Cheshire County Council has played a vital role in promoting better access to employment areas. This is recognized as a key priority of its transport policies. Major current proposals include the AS34 Haslington bypass, which will open up substantial new areas for employment development in and around Crewe. On a smaller scale, funds can be made available from the county council’s employment access scheme for much-needed minor highway improvements in and around the county’s employment areas. In the Wirral, where the borough council is also the highway authority, much greater emphasis is given to public transport’s accessibility to proposed development sites. The mixed-use nature of much of the borough also requires that particular attention be given to the impact of heavy goods vehicles on local environments when assessing industrial development proposals. One of the major development constraints in the Cheshire-Wirral corridor has been the widespread existence of passive land ownership. Although certain industrial sites are specifically reserved for the expansion of existing factories, some non-owner-specific sites have simply been held off the market. For policy reasons, however, Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council is not prepared to take compulsory purchase action. Compulsory purchase orders are seen by the council as ‘very heavy-handed’ and therefore to be avoided. A similar view is held by Ellesmere Port & Neston Borough Council, which is again unwilling to take compulsory purchase action to promote employment development. It is argued that such action would be likely to upset the council’s long-established and solid relationship with the major employers in the borough, such as Shell and Vauxhall. In Chester, the approach to compulsory purchase action is slightly more pragmatic. While compulsory purchase orders are considered very much a matter of last resort, the city council is prepared to sanction such action provided that the cost is fully justified and that the action does not undermine the prospects for cooperation between the public and private sectors in employment development. Crewe Bi Nantwich Borough Council was found to be the local authority in the CheshireWirral corridor with the most recent experience of using compulsory purchase to promote employment development. The borough council did not oppose compulsory purchase on principle but preferred to acquire land by negotiation since this method was usually much quicker. Although each of the local authorities has therefore taken action to promote the development of allocated land, attention has been concentrated on overcoming physical and infrastructure constraints rather than those concerned with ownership.

How to respond to pressure for rural diversi~cation The response of local planning authorities to pressures for rural economic diversification has been a key policy issue in the late 1980s. Almost 45% of the land area of Wirral is within the green belt. Planning policy in this location, expressed in the Merseyside Green Belt Subject

170

LAND USE POLICY

April 1993

Land use policy responses to economic re.stru:twing

37MerseysideCountyCouncil,

Merseyside Green Belt Local P/an, Department of Development and Planning, Merseyside County Council, Liverpool, UK, 1983. 38Chester City Council, Chester Rural Areas Local PI& Depa~ment of Development and Technical Services, Chester City Council, Chester, UK, 1985. 3gCheshire County Council, op tit, Ref 25. 40Department of the Environment, op tit, Ref 36.

LAND USE POLICY

April 1993

Plan, has sought primarily to contain pressure for urban expansion rather than promote rural development.~’ Apart from acknowledging recent changes in national policy on green belts, the Wirral Unitary Development Plan: Issues and Draft Part One Policies seeks to maintain the earlier policy stance. In fact, the truly rural parts of the Cheshire-Wirral corridor fall within the districts of Chester and Crewe & Nantwich. Since the mid-1980s, much more flexible policies have been adopted towards the development of rural enterprise in these districts, whether in new or refurbished accommodation. In Chester, for example, the Rural Areas Local Plan, adopted in 1985, helped signa! this change of emphasis.‘” This plan sought to expand rural employment by designating seven areas within the green belt as employment insets and by allocating a further four rural sites, outside the green belt, for the expansion of existing firms and the establishment of new businesses. Also, a presumption was introduced in favour of allowing redundant nonresidential buildings to be converted to light industrial use. The southern part of the area covered by the plan is officially recognized as a Rural Development Area, in which grants towards the construction or refurbishment of small-scafe industrial premises have been made avaifable by the DeveIopment Commission. English Estates have also been active, as agents of the Commission, in building units for sale or to let. Much of the new thinking towards rural economic development was brought together in the second alterations submitted to the Cheshire Structure Plan.“” These aimed to take account of the likely estimate of 1000 agricultural job losses in rural Cheshire in the 1980s. While retaining the North Cheshire Green Belt, it was intended to operate a much more flexible approach towards employment development within the green belt. A more sympathetic attitude towards the expansion or development of existing firms was proposed, in order to help boost the rural economy. The conversion of redundant farm buildings for employment or tourist uses was to be allowed and indeed given priority over conversion to other uses. The Secretary of State for Environment, in approving the Cheshire Replacement Structure Plan in 1992, deleted these more flexible policies, preferring that, instead, the county council rely on the flexibility recently introduced into national green-belt policy. Outside the green belt, the Secretary of State agreed with the county council that new employment development should be encouraged within villages provided that the scale and nature of such development was appropriate.~‘~ Another notable issue in rural Cheshire concerns the likely disposal of a number of redundant hospitals. The county council considers that the reuse or, in exceptional cases, the redevelopment of such buildings for employment or tourism purposes offers particular benefits. Although rural Cheshire is therefore no more likely to witness the development of major employment sites in the future than in the past, small-scale industry will very probably find it much easier to Iocate and expand in the rural areas in the future.

Conclusions Deteriorating economic circumstances in the Cheshire-Wirral corridor in the 1980s have forced the relevant local authorities to focus much

171

Lnnd use

policy responses to economic

restrucfuring

more sharply on the impact of local land use policy on economic development. The quality and location of employment land, and its market potential, have each required as much attention as the overall quantity of land allocated. Local authorities have had to discover new approaches, at a time of diminishing powers and resources. Greater reliance has, as a result, been placed on exploiting opportunities than on solving problems. Whether or not opportunity-based planning has helped attract new investment, it has at times proved highly controversial. Indeed, as the Chester case shows, local enthusiasm has been tempered by central direction. This highlights a critical point. The response of land use policy to economic change in the Cheshire-Wirral corridor has been very much locally driven rather than a centrally directed shift. Although central government maintained a stream of policy advice in the 1980s including guidance notes on industrial and commercial development and on the rural economy, such guidance often reflected rather than predated local initiative. Modifications made by the Secretary of State for the Environment in approving the recent Cheshire Replacement Structure Plan have, in fact, restricted the ability of the relevant local authorities to attract inward investment. Whether or not this is justified on wider grounds is, of course, another matter. A more important influence on local policy has been the impact of local unemployment upon local councillors. This has helped stimulate widespread interest in local economic development and should be seen as the true context for the land use policy responses discussed above. Indeed such policy responses should be considered not purely as a matter of land use and land allocation, but rather as the planning and property component of a wider local economic strategy.

172

LAND USE POLICY

April 1993