My students have just completed a critical assessment of Birmingham Big City Plan. This forms part of a module called Policy and Plans and the challenge was to look critically at real live plans and assess whether they were effective or, as Baldrick would say, cunning plans. At the heart of the Big City Plan lies a vision to reposition Birmingham as a global city. This resonates with the current growth agenda pursued by the government and the creation of the Birmingham and Greater Solihull and Black Country Local Enterprise partnerships provide delivery vehicles to help achieve this. However, in all this talking and planning for economic growth, investment and regeneration one word is conspicuous by its absence; nature.

Following my blog last week on the impending publication of the NPPF we have had to wait a little while, but on a glorious sunny day on Tuesday 27th March the airwaves were alive with the sound of planning reform and intensive media debate and speculation. So we now have a finished 50 page document which simplifies and streamlines the existing 1000 pages of detailed planning guidance with the explicit aim of allowing a pro-growth agenda albeit with the public at the heart of the system. This document is now operational and, as such, produces one of the biggest changes to the planning system since its inception in 1947.

Later today we will get some detail into the long awaited final National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). As I sit typing I can hear the various protagonists preparing their verbal weaponry for whatever eventually emerges. It is a complex battleground with the future direction of planning at stake. However, with arguments raging on both sides about the possible positive or negative impacts of the NPPF, there has been one dimension to the NPPF debate that has escaped significant scrutiny. I refer to the process by which the NPPF itself has come into being.

This blog forms the last piece relating to my recent panel appearance on 26th January 2012 as part of the Great Regional Debate hosted by the Royal Town Planning Institute. This blog responds to two questions.

How do the panel feel the ordinary local voter can better make the connection between what we do as professions and the value we bring to the sub - region so that there is a greater appreciation of local skills and the potential of localism'

This blog is the second of four which relate to my recent panel appearance on 26th January in the Great Regional Debate sponsored by the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI). This brought together experts from RTPI, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Royal Institute of British Architects, Institution of Civil Engineers and the Landscape Institute. This blog focuses on a question put by Dan Roberts of Lichfield District Council
Do panel members feel that HS2 will contribute to or counteract a West Midlands 'brain drain'? And why?

This blog forms one of four which relate to my recent panel appearance on 26th January as part of the Great Regional Debate sponsored by the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI).

This brought together experts from RTPI, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Royal Institute of British Architects, Institution of Civil Engineers and the Landscape Institute.

Each blog captures my response to the question asked and collectively contributes to a key debate about the future of the West Midlands region.

Q1 Is there a brain drain from the West Midlands?

This question poses the idea that there is a brain drain. However, we need to be careful that we identify clear evidence of this before intervening in a policy sense. So set within this note of caution I offer the following points.

The HS2 decision today has generated a huge amount of controversy with passionate arguments for and against the development over the last few months.

Such is the stuff of planning. It is about making difficult decisions which will impact on people and the environment, but crucially should benefit us as a society.

Inevitably, not all people will be happy with the decision reached.

However within our decision making processes there should be sufficient clarity and transparency so that people can understand the decision set within a managed process of dialogue, consultation and listening.

In particular there should be a clear linkage with other policy approaches that allows people to see the big picture even if they disagree with the final decision.

So let's examine this in more detail.

Hark the Select Committee Angels Sing: Planning Reforms need significant rewriting

Christmas has come early for those of us who care about the planning system in England.

The Select Committee has published their report on the government proposed National Planning Policy Framework and in their 81 pages of critical analysis they confirm that the NPPF is not fit for purpose.

Specifically

1. The NPPF was short but vague leading to uncertainty and ambiguity


2. The definition of sustainable development presented was inadequate as it was based on economic development


3. The default answer to development being yes was misplaced.


4. The golden thread of sustainable development was not suitable for decision making as it was too vague


5. The lack of a town centre first and brown field first policies were leading to increased pressures on greenfield sites


6. The attacks on planners as the enemies of enterprise were found to be baseless with no evidence to support allegations that planning inhibited growth or development.

The recommendations focus attention on the local plan as the decision making tool for sustainable development with the ability to tweak and adapt this to the local situation where there is clear evidence to do so.

Two events this week marked Birmingham as a significant science centre.

The first was at two in the morning on 16 June when the spanking new Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham opened its doors for its first A&E patients. Much has been made of the facilities in the handsome building which dominates the Edgbaston-Selly Oak skyline, and rightly so. There's nothing new, however, in the world-class quality of the staff, both the clinicians and the researchers behind the scenes blazing their trail in the regional universities.

The second event was less dramatic, but significant nonetheless. It was the inaugural meeting of Science Capital, a not-for-profit organisation bringing scientists, business experts, policy makers and financial advisors together.

High Speed 2 presents great opportunities to redress the UK's North-South imbalance. But it can only capitalise on these opportunities if it's part of a bigger agenda than getting people from A to B.

In an article about High Speed 2 in Friday's London Evening Standard, Andrew Neather asserted that getting to the Bull Ring ("but hey! did you really want to go?") in less than an hour wasn't worth the £30bn ticket, echoing Paul Dale's blog though from a perspective much closer to St Pancras and HS1.

Kraft Chief Exectuive Irene Rosenfeld has sent a letter to Business Secretary Lord Mandelson insisting that the proposed takeover of Cadbury is "good news for British manufacturing" and promising to act with "respect for Cadbury's heritage, people and identity".

While it is a personal letter, and I don't believe it has been publicly released yet, it is in effect the promise Kraft is making to the British government and Britain as a whole.

Here is what it says:

Rt Hon Lord Mandelson
Secretary of State
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
1 Victoria Street
London
SW1H 0ET
19 January 2010

Dear Secretary of State:

Further to my letter to you of December 10th, you will know that this morning we announced the detailed terms of our Final Offer for Cadbury and that the board of Cadbury unanimously recommends Cadbury Securityholders to accept the terms of this Offer.

I am confident that the combination of Kraft Foods and Cadbury is good news for both companies. As we have said, the Offer reflects our view of the strength of Cadbury's business, its brands and the future potential for growth. I also believe that, over the long term, this is good news for British manufacturing and will enable us to accelerate growth beyond what the two companies could achieve alone.

I recognise the concerns of the UK government and I can again assure you of our intentions to proceed with sincere respect for Cadbury's heritage, people and identity.

Yours sincerely,

Irene B Rosenfeld

The Centre for Cities report : University Challenge: Growing the knowledge economy in Birmingham was published yesterday. It's a disconcerting read, shaking what the city believes about itself.

Manufacturing output static. The regional output gap at £15bn. 30% workless in the region, close to 40% in Birmingham.* Of the employed in 2008, only 15% in manufacturing, a figure which has fallen a further 11% this year. (see WMRO)

The seemingly relentless grip of old-style manufacturing on our psyche may shift at last.

Having raised the issue of food security (along with a low-cost, convivial alternative-style means of regeneration) as a topic for their Annual Conference last week with publication of Roger Levett's essay in Fit for Purpose (see blog entry), the WMRO appears to have promptly ignored it all.

Food after all, appears as if by magic. When the Conference delegates ate their lunch, I'll bet they thought little, if at all, about the fragility of the just-in-time systems that got it there, let alone where on earth it originally came from.

Or, as pertinently, where it all went to. This includes what the food companies chuck at source or in transit, the freegan stuff the supermarkets discard, the 30% we throw away, and the dung we produce.

There was on-line comment and a flurry of emails after last week's entry Green shoots of recovery. This was about Roger Levett's essay on guerrilla spud-growing in the WMRO publication West Midlands: Fit for the Future.

I was led to the eloquent and engaging talk by the architect Carolyn Steel at the 2009 TED Conference in Oxford. She wrote Hungry City: How food shapes our lives.

The WM Regional Observatory has published a 10-essay collection under the title West Midlands: Fit for the future: Positioning the region for economic recovery.

These essays are to be discussed at their Annual Conference on 20th October.

Only one contribution, however, adds something surprising, even startling to the debate. It is by Roger Levett.

But let's start with the Foreword by Ian Austin MP. I quote: we know what we need to do to make the region the workshop of the world again.

We know? Eh? Workshop of the world? Which century is this man in? Or is he merely pandering to some vague nostalgia about what went on in Matthew Boulton's time?