Obstacles and solutions to maximising biodiversity in major urban development schemes

The current rate of global biodiversity loss led many governments to sign the international agreement ‘Halting Biodiversity Loss by 2010 and beyond’ in 2001. The UK government was one of these and has a number of methods to tackle this, such as: commissioning specific technical guidance and supporting the UK Biodiversity Acton Plan (BAP) targets. However, by far the most effective influence the government has upon current biodiversity levels is through the town planning system. This is due to the control it has over all phases of a new development scheme’s lifecycle.There is an increasing myriad of regulations, policies and legislation, which deal with biodiversity protection and enhancement across the hierarchical spectrum: from the global and European level, down to regional and local levels. With these drivers in place, coupled with the promotion of benefits and incentives, increasing biodiversity value ought to be an achievable goal on most, if not all development sites. However, in the professional world, this is not the case due to a number of obstructions. Many of these tend to be ‘process’ barriers, which are particularly prevalent with ‘urban’ and ‘major’ development schemes, and is where the focus of this research paper lies.The paper summarises and discusses the results of a questionnaire survey, regarding obstacles to maximising biodiversity enhancements on major urban development schemes. The questionnaire was completed by Local Government Ecologists in England. The paper additionally refers to insights from previous action research, specialist interviews, and case studies, to reveal the key process obstacles.Solutions to these obstacles are then alluded to and recommendations are made within the discussion.

Institutional change and the challenge of policy coordination in the English regions

By contrast to major constitutional reforms elsewhere in the UK, in England's eight regions beyond London New Labour has favoured administrative decentralisation. This paper examines these institutional arrangements and assesses their capacity to develop a more integrated approach to territorial development. It confirms a growing awareness of the need to ensure greater coherence between policies to promote economic, social and environmental wellbeing. Nonetheless, a complex regional institutional architecture, inconsistent sector-based strategies, a lack of strategic leadership and blurred accountabilities hamper moves towards policy integration and the delivery of joint outcomes. Moreover, despite ongoing reforms, the absence of a clear regional agenda in a functionally designed Whitehall raises fundamental questions about the ability of sub-national bodies to work collectively to develop and implement a more coherent approach to regional policy.

The challenges of delivering climate change policy at the sub-national level

It is asserted that sub-national government has a key role in responding to climate change. Drawing on a case study of metropolitan authorities in the English Midlands, this article examines the contribution of local authorities and their partners in delivering climate change targets agreed upon with central government. Rather than achieving fundamental change, actions were hampered by competing priorities, fragmented responsibilities, limited resources and difficulties in measuring outcomes. Nevertheless, in light of public expenditure cuts and the current coalition government's commitment to free councils from central targets, gaining support for local climate change actions will become even more challenging.

Land use change and the planning process in historic town centres

DUE TO COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS ONLY AVAILABLE FOR CONSULTATION AT ASTON UNIVERSITY LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICES WITH PRIOR ARRANGEMENT