Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Mahon and Zoning
The two words are inextricably linked. The Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters & Payments aka The Mahon Tribunal delivered its final report on 22nd March. Now that the dust has settled on the findings of the Tribunal, it’s about the right time to think what good has it done for planning? It is notable that one of the only recommendations Mahon J. came up with, was that there should be an independent planning regulator.
If there is one thing planning is not short-on, its regulations and regulators. But it fails to hit the obvious point. All the controversy surrounding allegations of political corruption and impropriety concern zoning.
Zoning is such a simple concept, that even politicians (not all!), who haven’t a clue or a care about what good planning means for their constituents(present and future), are able to understand it. A local Council decision can change the development rights on a piece of land from grazing cattle to building houses. Apart from capital gains tax, the landowner walks away a lottery winner every time.
The ‘zoning’ of land became such a momentous a decision, that in an overly simplistic construction industry, too much importance has been associated with it, and therefore too much monetary value attributed to it. Zoning created hope value, which created land-banking. It fundamentally skewed the real value of land, what it is worth, and what it can produce (either for farmers or developers). It feeds speculation, not investment.
Land Use Zoning is not a good planning tool. It is an unhappy marriage of post-war modernism and garden-city utopianism. Its clumsy, it doesn’t allow towns to grow organically, street by street or square by square. It is comprehensive and not incremental. It creates mono-use suburban areas, with a paucity of services, variety, interest and beauty, served and segregated by over-engineered distributor roads. This is not a personal opinion. People like Leon Krier, Jane Jacobs, Christopher Alexander, INTBAU , Congress for New Urbanism, Congress for European Urbanism and 'A Vision of Europe' have explained it much better, and in more detail.
The introduction of Core Strategies in the 2010 Planning Act (with de-zoning) and Strategic Environmental Assessment provide for a much improved regulatory environment. However, in many ways Development Plans are still focussing on ‘what use, where?’. When a Council seeks to provide jobs it’s solution has been to zone land for industrial or commercial use – build a business park for the IDA. For urban growth – zone fields for housing and retail parks. Census 2011 shows Ireland is still growing. Zoning doesn’t provide answers to fundamental questions of how a place should grow, how will it look and feel, and who will live there. Government (both central and local) should place zoning to one side. The focus should be on creating an enabling environment for small scale/low cost interventions to take place. Perhaps we need a regulator for de-regulation?
If there is one thing planning is not short-on, its regulations and regulators. But it fails to hit the obvious point. All the controversy surrounding allegations of political corruption and impropriety concern zoning.
Zoning is such a simple concept, that even politicians (not all!), who haven’t a clue or a care about what good planning means for their constituents(present and future), are able to understand it. A local Council decision can change the development rights on a piece of land from grazing cattle to building houses. Apart from capital gains tax, the landowner walks away a lottery winner every time.
The ‘zoning’ of land became such a momentous a decision, that in an overly simplistic construction industry, too much importance has been associated with it, and therefore too much monetary value attributed to it. Zoning created hope value, which created land-banking. It fundamentally skewed the real value of land, what it is worth, and what it can produce (either for farmers or developers). It feeds speculation, not investment.
Land Use Zoning is not a good planning tool. It is an unhappy marriage of post-war modernism and garden-city utopianism. Its clumsy, it doesn’t allow towns to grow organically, street by street or square by square. It is comprehensive and not incremental. It creates mono-use suburban areas, with a paucity of services, variety, interest and beauty, served and segregated by over-engineered distributor roads. This is not a personal opinion. People like Leon Krier, Jane Jacobs, Christopher Alexander, INTBAU , Congress for New Urbanism, Congress for European Urbanism and 'A Vision of Europe' have explained it much better, and in more detail.
The introduction of Core Strategies in the 2010 Planning Act (with de-zoning) and Strategic Environmental Assessment provide for a much improved regulatory environment. However, in many ways Development Plans are still focussing on ‘what use, where?’. When a Council seeks to provide jobs it’s solution has been to zone land for industrial or commercial use – build a business park for the IDA. For urban growth – zone fields for housing and retail parks. Census 2011 shows Ireland is still growing. Zoning doesn’t provide answers to fundamental questions of how a place should grow, how will it look and feel, and who will live there. Government (both central and local) should place zoning to one side. The focus should be on creating an enabling environment for small scale/low cost interventions to take place. Perhaps we need a regulator for de-regulation?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)