In a previous post I was responsible for preparing a Highways Authority's comments on planning applications that had been submitted. These comments covered the importance of providing adequate parking arrangements and the adequacy of the highway network local to the development proposal; the need for highway alterations arising from the proposals were to be provided in order to ensure the free flow of traffic past the development. Other matters I had to consider were the safety of all highway users, not least that of cyclists and pedestrians. The object of this exercise was not to be obstructive but to explore ways in which particular development proposals could be safely accommodated. However, where this seemed impractical, my comments would normally lead to a rejection of an application.
Consequently, it is appropriate that I should present this themed issue on planning policy and urban regeneration, which contains six interesting papers on this subject matter. In the first paper, Emuze and Das (2015) review the need for a holistic approach that is underpinned by regenerative ideas to be the way to meet the challenge of urban development. They use the city of Bloemfontein in South Africa as a case study. In particular, they look at how smart mobility can be achieved using these means to ensure traffic safety in urban areas.
In the second paper, Afacan (2015) presents the results of a study into neighbourhood satisfaction undertaken in the Turkish city of Ankara. The urban environment in Turkey, as elsewhere, is being altered by a range of construction activities, but this paper illustrates the need for attention to be paid to user needs and expectations by developers in order for regeneration to be managed in a sustainable manner. The study confirms the multi-dimensional nature of sustainable urban development and the different dimensions, relationships and factors of neighbourhood satisfaction.
The Kang and Altes (2015) paper considers the question of public accountability in the planning of new housing areas and the need to balance varied interests in achieving this. They compare the workings of plan-led and development-led planning systems, using Keijzershof in the Netherlands and Cambridge in the UK as an example of each of these approaches to planning. The paper concludes that the context in which a planning system operates is very important in understanding the actual practice of accountability for planning decisions.
The paper by Zhu and Huang (2015) looks at the major challenge facing future inner city regeneration in China. The paper emphasises the need for strategies that integrate the improvement of residents’ living conditions with the conservation of the inner city historical image, improving public space and infrastructure, as dimensions of the need to adopt area-specific regeneration solutions.
The last two papers by Younger et al. (2015a; 2015b) cover the challenges currently faced by Greater Jakarta. The capital city of Indonesia, Jakarta, has 10 million permanent residents but it experiences a daily population increase of 2·5 million commuters. In part one of the paper, they explain the background to this situation and they list the many problems that Jakarta is grappling with for future environmental development of this city in terms of the technical, administrative and social problems that rapid urbanisation entails. The paper then concentrates on the key development of the city port and land-based transportation, which they list as being the key two challenges. Part two of the paper addresses serious flooding and subsidence challenges as well as problems concerning water supply, sanitation and municipal waste.
Collectively this issue highlights the multi-dimensional nature of the subject matter of planning policy and urban regeneration. It reveals the importance of detailed consideration of not only technical infrastructure problems but the wider arena of social problems and the need for social acceptability of whatever solutions to particular examples of urban regeneration are put forward for consideration.
On a final note, Professor John Parkin has served as Chairman of the Editorial Panel and Honorary Editor of Municipal Engineering for the last 3 years. During this time, he has overseen the development of the panel to become more international in its composition whilst also conscientiously and reliably fulfilling his roles. ICE Publishing and the panel members who have worked with Professor Parkin would like to warmly and sincerely thank him for his excellent service and for maintaining the ethos and activities needed to support the transfer of knowledge across the field of municipal engineering for the benefit of our societies – a function which is so central to the purpose of the Institution of Civil Engineers. We wish Professor Parkin well in his future endeavours.
