Town and Country Planning paper

1. the rural-urban
fringe – forgotten
opportunity
space?
Planning policy has consistently struggled to adapt to
the multiple demands and rapidly changing nature of
development within the rural-urban fringe; but
Alister Scott and Claudia Carter argue that marrying
the ecosystem approach with spatial planning provides
a useful means of managing such spaces effectively
The spaces where countryside meets town are master, acting as a repository for an ever-increasing
often among society’s most valued places, yet set of demands, such as housing, retail
these ‘fringe’ or ‘edge’ spaces are, arguably, development, recreation, and waste management,
insufficiently well understood and usually lack any all the while constrained by the rigid application of
kind of integrated management as places in their green belt policy. Accordingly, a patchwork spatial
own right. For many the fringe is synonymous with structure has developed, driven by macro-scale,
the green belt; yet this only forms a constituent part rapidly implemented drivers of change such as
of this ‘messy’ space. Its ‘fuzzy’ boundaries are housing requirements, transport, retail and industrial
elusive and dynamic, and uncertainty, diversity, parks, and other large-scale infrastructure. Such
neglect, conflict and transition typify the rather developments often generate significant land use
negative sentiment directed towards it. There is an conflict and community protest, representing
urgent need to think more imaginatively about how contested visions of the kinds of urban-rural spaces
we can manage environmental change in such that are desired and needed.
places more effectively. Planning for the fringe has been characterised by
Crucially, these rural-urban fringe spaces have its urban-centricity, reactivity and piecemeal
largely escaped planning and policy concern. Given approach, with little, if any, attention given to the
the speed, scale and focus of current changes to needs of the place itself – particularly from the
the planning system, there is a risk that the perspective(s) of those people who live, work and
considerable potential for positive change in these engage with it on a daily basis. Essentially, the rural-
spaces will not be realised. urban fringe is a passive and reactive space waiting
Squaring the need for better strategic for something better to happen (as illustrated in the
management with the emerging localism agenda cartoon overleaf). This runs counter to the spirit and
presents a significant planning conundrum. In most purpose of spatial planning, which seeks to marry
cases the rural-urban fringe has no clear lines of multi-scalar and multi-sectoral considerations within
demarcation; it represents a ‘fuzzy’, ‘messy’, a visionary and positive strategic framework in
‘transitory’ and dynamic edge to urban and rural which the potentiality of space is maximised.
areas. Commonly it is subservient to an urban Furthermore, viewing these spaces through a
Town & Country Planning May 2011 231

2. Used with kind permission, http://phil-sllvn.co.uk
Left
The rural-urban
fringe is seen as
‘a passive and
reactive space
waiting for
something better
to happen’
different but complementary lens of the ecosystem therein. Problems are further compounded by the
approach offers new interdisciplinary insights into transitory nature of such places, with a single
the wide range of ecosystem services provided by fringe area often being shaped by multiple local
the rural-urban fringe for society. authorities, each with different local development
At its simplest, the ecosystem approach provides policies and working with limited cross-boundary
a framework for the integrated management of land, communication. The Regional Spatial Strategies
water and living resources. What, then, does nature (RSSs) helped to cross such boundaries, but there
do for us in the rural-urban fringe? Ecosystem was widespread concern over their perceived top-
services represent the academic and policy construct down imposition on local authorities, leading to their
where nature provides a diverse range of goods and ‘Pickling’ under the new administration. Now
services from within the rural-urban fringe, ranging moving towards a localism imperative, many
from the air filtration function of trees, aesthetics authorities will simply be working with Unitary
from the parkland landscape, and the flood Development Plans and Local Development Plans
attenuation capacity of neglected scrubland. with limited spatially-specific national policy or
Moving to an assessment of the environment in strategic frameworks to guide them.
relation to the goods and services that nature While the formation of Local Enterprise
provides for humans, the Millennium Ecosystem Partnerships offers some potential, their role is
Assessment1 groups ecosystem services under the seemingly constrained by their business sectoral
following headings: remit; a lack of environmental representation
q supporting services (necessary for the production signifies a shift away from integrated perspectives.
of other ecosystem services – for example soil However, one can chart some real opportunities –
formation, photosynthesis, and nutrient cycling); as, for example, in the approved Greater
q provisioning services (ecosystem products – for Birmingham and Solihull Local Enterprise
example food, fibre, and water); Partnership, which is enabling, for the first time,
q regulating services (including processes such as rural and urban authorities and agencies to
climate stabilisation, erosion regulation, and collaborate in the name of sustainable economic
pollination); and development. Here, the prevailing space of the rural-
q cultural services (non-material benefits from urban fringe could represent key opportunity spaces
ecosystems – for example spiritual fulfilment, for new-style development activity.
cognitive development, and recreation). Nevertheless, serious challenges to improved and
holistic management of such spaces remain. With
However, whatever lens is used to view the rural- contesting land uses (for example between energy
urban fringe, policy has consistently struggled to and food production, commercial/ industrial
adapt to the rapidly changing nature of development development, and greenspace preservation), it is
232 Town & Country Planning May 2011

3. becoming apparent that the rural-urban fringe and accountability, where the key challenge is
struggles to fit within the rigid, quasi-legal structure about reconciling the differing views and priorities
of the current land use planning system. Indeed, for the future of the rural-urban fringe and the
Qviström2 has usefully identified the fringe as power relations involved. Planning tools such as
representing ‘landscapes of disorder’. In a challenge Strategic Environmental Assessment and
to spatial planners, he argues that planners seek to Environmental Impact Assessment value the
transform places into a specific order through landscape in a policy context, but often at the
zoning and other planning functions. This expense of socio-cultural and other hidden
‘manicured’ spatial landscape therefore might economic values. Participation is still very much a
initially exclude different, innovative and creative box-ticking exercise, with professional groups at
developments unless they are mainstreamed the forefront of decision-making.
through public support and protest (for example,
‘guerrilla gardening’ and permaculture fail to
conform to extant definitions of agriculture and
allotments). ‘In theory, the Localism Bill
Indeed, the current research3 on which this article should result in fringe areas
is based challenges the way we do planning and the
simple urban-centric view of its potential – hence
being moulded more explicitly
the characterisation throughout this article as ‘rural- to the needs of the local
urban’ rather than ‘urban-rural’. For example, the community... However, there is
‘Incredible Edible’ initiative at Todmorden captures
this well, highlighting through ‘localism-style’ a danger that localism will
activity how local-scale food production can occur in empower well-off communities,
fringe locations.4 Such land uses do not fit within
our conventional land use classes, nor with current while hard-pressed, deprived
planning rules. However, if we combine spatial communities may struggle to
planning and ecosystem approaches to re-assess
the contribution and potential of such schemes, we
have an impact’
can adopt a new maxim of planning for what we
value rather than simply valuing what we plan.
This new way of seeing and deriving meaning and q Community and environmental governance:
potentiality from the rural-urban fringe can be used Ecosystem services are anthropocentric and
as a framework in planning to connect the majority emphasise human dependency upon the
of the human population, living in urban environment. As a result, well designed
environments, with their wider (natural) stakeholder consultation is required to establish a
environment. It also resonates strongly with spatial collective and communitarian approach. This
planning theory, which moves away from the philosophy fits well with the rural-urban fringe,
regulatory fix of traditional land use systems to plan where multiple land uses and stakeholders can be
spaces and places in a more integrated manner, affected by management and development
connecting planning issues across different scales proposals, and it has potential resonance within
and different sectors to develop more proactive and the Government's localism agenda.
positive policies. However, these ideas have yet to Assuming that the Localism Bill is enacted,
percolate through much planning practice, as many greater incentives for community consultation and
planners remain either trapped or secure in ‘sectoral involvement in key planning decisions should have
bondage’. a positive impact on the evolution of the rural-
If we rethink places and spaces in terms of the urban fringe. In theory, the Localism Bill should
multiplicity of services and uses that they are able result in fringe areas being moulded more
to provide, we might start to assess the rural-urban explicitly to the needs of the local community,
fringe opportunity spaces in new ways, and so allowing local groups to bid for public assets such
maximise services and production through as recreational facilities and community groups to
innovative new planning policies and plans. take a more active role in land management.
However, there are key challenges to be manage: However, there is a danger that localism will
q Contested values and decision-making: As a empower well-off communities to actively
contested resource hosting multiple land uses, influence use and development (or no
the rural-urban fringe inevitably holds different development as the case may be), while hard-
meanings for its various user groups. Power over pressed, deprived communities may struggle to
decision-making then becomes crucial in the use have an impact, potentially resulting in an rural-
to which such places are put. This raises issues of urban fringe characterised by inequality and yet
inclusiveness, representativeness, transparency more fragmentation.
Town & Country Planning May 2011 233

4. q Long-term planning for the rural-urban fringe:
The current spatial planning system rarely looks
beyond 20-year timeframes, and is seriously
affected by delays in plan-making so that evidence
used in support of a plan is long out of date
before the plan is implemented. As a society we
need to follow a more radical planning paradigm
that takes a long-term view and uses adaptive
planning and management processes. The rigidity
that characterises the current planning processes
should give way to flexible plans built on learning
gained through alternative pathways using the
ecosystem philosophy. This would enable a more
proactive stance which can more quickly respond
to unforeseen circumstances and pilot new ideas.
Such an approach would also allow us to plan
whole areas rather than a series of iterative
edges with no resilience and little in the way of
connectivity.
The rural-urban fringe is a unique space, with
values that are important to users from both urban
and rural areas. However, the current planning
system seems unable to manage these values in
an effective way. Incorporating ecosystem service
criteria into spatial planning frameworks seems a
useful way forward, offering many potential
benefits – and when better to do this than when
the current planning system is undergoing an
overhaul?
q Professor Alister Scott is Professor of Spatial Planning
and Governance, and Claudia Carter is Lecturer in
Environmental Management and Policy, in the School of
Property, Construction and Planning, Birmingham City
University. The views expressed here are personal.
Notes
1 Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for
Assessment. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA).
Island Press, Washington, DC, USA, 2003.
www.maweb.org/en/Framework.aspx
2 M. Qviström: ‘Landscapes out of order: studying the
inner urban fringe beyond the rural-urban divide’.
Geografiska Annaler, Series B, Human Geography,
2007, Vol. 89 (3), 269-82
3 ‘Managing Environmental Change at the Rural-Urban
Fringe’. Research Project, ESRC/Rural Economy and
Land Use Programme. ww.relu.ac.uk/research/projects/
and www.bcu.ac.uk/research/-centres-of-
excellence/centre-for-environment-and-
society/projects/relu. The research team combines both
academics and policy-makers/practitioners who
collectively contribute to the development, method,
implementation and learning in the 18-month project.
Their joint expertise has shaped this thoughtpiece:
Mark Reed, Nicki Schiessel, Ben Stonyer, Ruth Waters,
Peter Larkham, Karen Leach, Nick Morton, Rachel
Curzon, David Jarvis, Andrew Hearle, Mark Middleton,
Bob Forster, Keith Budden, David Collier, Chris Crean,
Miriam Kennet, and Richard Coles
4 See the Incredible Edible Todmorden website at
www.incredible-edible-todmorden.co.uk/
234 Town & Country Planning May 2011