Emerging SDS Geographies: An Economic Development Perspective

Maps of the proposed Spatial Development Strategy geographies have been doing the rounds recently, charting existing devolved areas, those areas preparing to receive devolution deals, proposed SDS geographies that don’t map to any existing or emerging devolution footprints, and the areas where there is very little clarity on their geography.

Many in the latter two groups are facing the prospect of creating Spatial Development Strategies across new areas, with sometimes limited prior experience of working together.

I’m sure for many others, like me, the introduction of a layer of strategic planning is evoking memories of past attempts (need I mention Regional Spatial Strategies). For all their faults, they did at least enable consideration of strategic matters, so I am all for the re-introduction of planning at a strategic level. We are at a more sub-regional scale this time round, with a somewhat better connection to democratic processes, and therefore the people that will be impacted by change.  Although whether the average person on the street recognises the geographies for which an SDS is being proposed for them is something to ponder.

I’ve noted some key considerations for Spatial Development Strategy preparation from an economic development perspective below. Having been involved in preparing employment and economic development evidence for Regional Spatial Strategies, Local Plans, and various voluntary attempts at sub-regional or larger-than-local working, I can see both opportunities and threats.

Strategic by name, strategic by nature

A potential problem arises here for geographies yet to be defined (and may already be embedded in some of the currently proposed areas). Genuinely ‘strategic’ areas should be based on functional economic market areas (which often relate fairly closely to housing market areas). Defining these relies on evidence such as travel-to-work areas and local economic analysis. In reality, it is likely that political influence will determine the remaining geographies.  If that is the case, dealing with truly strategic matters is going to require collaboration across these strategic areas, and whether there is the appetite, resource and structures to do this seems pretty uncertain to me.

Making the most of existing evidence

The newly proposed NPPF requirement to make use of existing evidence is understandable but also poses an array of potential issues for the preparation of Spatial Development Strategies. Newly created areas are likely to have a mismatch of underpinning economic evidence, potentially covering different timescales, using different methods and drawing on different forecasts.  Without a standard method for economic needs, there isn’t an ‘off the shelf’ figure to use across constituent areas.  Something will be required to plug this gap, even with a focus on strategic matters.

The updated standard method for housing results in increased housing requirements across many local authority areas in England, albeit affecting some local authorities more than others. For areas bestowed with higher housing requirements, existing local economic needs assessments and similar evidence may no longer depict an accurate picture of future demand.

A separate issue arises when considering strategic matters. Will the amalgamation of evidence from each underlying area sufficiently account for strategic level potential? There is a risk that major gaps may be left unplugged on cross local authority matters.

So, the question remains, will it be possible to work with existing evidence given these concerns? Can an additional ‘wrapper’ of strategic evidence sufficiently address the gaps and challenges, or will there need to be something more substantial to inform the economic elements of emerging strategies?

I reiterate that I am very much an advocate of planning at the strategic level, as long as it’s undertaken effectively across a truly functional geography. There is hope that if issues can be addressed, Spatial Development Strategies could facilitate more sensible planning for strategic requirements across functional areas, as opposed to forced attempts to perfectly balance jobs and homes at the individual local authority level, and major challenges in dealing with strategic matters with unwilling partners to the duty to cooperate.

How will SDS’s fit with Local Growth Plans?

In the not-too-distant past there were often challenges in aligning the ambition set out in Strategic Economic Plans (SEPs) put together by Local Enterprise Partnerships (often as a tool to catch the eye of Whitehall when funding was being allocated), and the mandated evidence expectations required for Local Plan preparation in order to meet the tests of soundness in NPPF and requirements of PPG.

We now have Local Growth Plans, which have been prepared for some areas, which also set significant levels of ambition. If these are to set the economic vision for Spatial Development Strategies, will they meet the new tests of soundness?  And, as above, will the existing economic needs evidence and the labour supply arising from future housing growth be aligned.  And for areas that haven’t yet prepared a Local Growth Plan, how will the timing align?

All in all, I’m keen to see further clarification on the evidence that will be relied upon in the preparation of SDS’s, and will await further news on the final geographies.