The present non-statutory London and South East Regional Planning Conference (SERPLAN) is likely to have increasing influence now that the GLC’s regional planning responsibilities have been swept away. It seems likely that the London boroughs will continue to support SERPLAN and to pay the GLC’s contribution towards its cost.
A swan-song report from the GLC on the future of London’s government points out, however, that it is going to be difficult for 33 SERPLAN voices to reach consensus at the regional level about London’s interests. For the same reason, it will be very difficult to adopt a consistent approach towards the structure and local plan policies and proposals of individual local planning authorities outside Greater London and towards the private sector’s specific development proposals.
There is a need for a central strategic body, the report suggests, to represent London’s interests on SERPLAN to consider structure and local plans for other parts of south-east England and to consider major development proposals beyond the Greater London boundary. Such an authority, the report states, could also provide an efficient means for ensuring that planning policies and proposals for London adequately reflect wider regional considerations.
A more radical option suggested in the report would be to replace SERPLAN by a more powerful regional body with an executive role in preparing and implementing a regional planning strategy for the whole of south-east England. With this option, the report says, it would be necessary to consider whether an area roughly corresponding to the present boundary of Greater London would still need a “structure” plan and the boroughs “local” plans, or whether an area more like the old County of London should become a large multi-purpose district on its own within which the boroughs would be reorganised on a more local or “decentralised” basis. The present outer London boroughs would then need to be reorganised into non-metropolitan districts.
There is general acceptance of the need for an overall planning policy framework for Greater London. One option would be to prepare a new plan which would be broadly similar to the Greater London Development Plan. An alternative option would be to prepare a simpler advisory plan, supported by systematic monitoring reports highlighting trends and indicating ways in which policies needed to be adjusted to meet changing circumstances. Advisory plans tend to carry little weight (the exception was the Abercrombie Plan) and the report therefore suggests a third option, which would be to abandon local land-use plans completely and rely on a metropolitan plan to be developed locally through a series of implementation programmes. This option would have the disadvantage of removing decision-making on planning further from the local level.
(*) The future of London’s government. Research and consultation project by the Greater London Council.
