Search

Considerable debate has taken place in England around the concept of the city-region. While there is contestation over the terminologies and interpretations of city-regionalism, this paper considers the extent to which it can offer a more integrative set of arrangements for community planning practices in England. Community planning is concerned with securing institutional efficiencies and sustainable development gains in the context of local service provision and integration. Attention is drawn to the extent to which the convergence of these two parallel processes may either exacerbate or ameliorate the institutional barriers to securing efficient and effective community planning. The paper argues that the effective translation of city-regionalism into practice is influenced by (i) variance in the territorial imaginaries/operational boundaries of local institutions and the impact on city-regional governance structures; (ii) the consistency of approach to city-regionalism that is evident within central government and the impact of national policy guidance on the establishment of functional city-regions and (iii) a lack of vertical integration between community planning and city-regional working. These impinge on the extent to which an effective 'spatial fix' can be secured locally and the ability of community planning to act as a 'decongestant' within an increasingly congested state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The reformed planning system introduced in England in 2004 weakens the position of counties and unitary authorities. Regional bodies and central government have a larger say on the future shape of localities under these arrangements. In particular sub-regional strategies have a much bigger role within the new Regional Spatial Strategies. This paper examines the prospects for the influence of this new tier of planning, based on government guidance about sub-regional planning and on the evidence on emerging practice, particularly in the southern regions of England. The balance of influence of different actors is changing, both between government tiers and in wider governance relations. The prospects for integrated action in spatial terms are changing, as are the relationships to implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]