This paper explores the relationship between the increasing emphasis on the integration of social, economic, democratic and environmental objectives within planning practice and the emergence of new forms of networked governance. Using a framework which stresses the hybridity and tensions that characterise current governance arrangements, the article investigates attempts to create `sustainable communities' in the Thames Gateway, England. The analysis reveals the tensions and contradictions arising from governing the Gateway, including those between the conflicting goals of economic competitiveness and social and environmental sustainability, between horizontal, networked governance and forms of and requirements for hierarchical direction and between a focus on delivery and participatory governance. The paper concludes by reflecting on the implications of the hybridity and complexity in governance forms for the search for sustainable communities and the forms of governance `fit for purpose' in their realisation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ABI (Association of British Insurers) (2005 ) Submission from ABI: South East Plan consultation. ABI , London, April.
2.
Allmendinger, P. and Haughton, G. (2007a) The fluid scales and scope of UK spatial planning , Environment and Planning A, 39(6), pp. 1478-1496.
3.
Allmendinger, P. and Haughton, G. (2007b) `Soft spaces'in planning, Town and Country Planning, September, pp. 306-308.
4.
Amin, A. (1999) An institutional perspective on regional economic development, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research , 23, pp. 365-378.
5.
Boddy, M. and Parkinson, M. (2001) City Matters: Competitiveness, Cohesion and Urban Governance. Bristol: Policy Press .
6.
Brenner, N. and Theodore, N. (2002) Spaces of Neoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in North America and Western Europe. Oxford: Blackwell.
7.
Brownill, S. (1993) Developing London's Docklands: Another Great Planning Disaster?, 2nd edn. London: Paul Chapman.
8.
Brownill, S. (2007) New Labour's evolving regeneration policy: the transition from the Single Regeneration Budget to the single pot in Oxford , Local Economy, 22(3), pp. 261-278.
9.
Buck, N., Gordon, I. , Harding, A. and Turok, I. (Eds) (2005) Changing Cities: Rethinking Urban Competitiveness, Cohesion and Governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
10.
BURA (British Urban Regeneration Association) ( 2005) Delivering in the growth areas. BURA , London.
11.
CAG Consultants (2006) In depth review of sustainable communities policy: report of the area based assessment of London Thames Gateway-London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. CAG, London.
12.
Carley, M., Chapman, M., Kirk, K. et al. (2000) Urban Regeneration through Partnership: A Study in Nine Urban Regions in England, Scotland and Wales. Bristol: Policy Press.
13.
Catney, P., Henneberry, J. and Dixon, T. (2006) Navigating the brownfield maze: making sense of brownfield regeneration policy and governance. Paper presented at the SUBR:IM Conference, Imperial College London, March.
14.
CESI (Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion) and DTZ Pieda Consulting (2005) Thames Gateway skills audit . Learning and Skills Council, London.
15.
Cooke, P. and Morgan, K. (1998) The Associational Economy: Firms, Regions, Innovation . Oxford: Oxford University Press .
16.
Corry, D. and Stoker, G. (2002) New localism: refashioning the central-local relationship . New Local Government Network, London.
17.
Davis, J. (2001) Partnerships and Regimes: The Politics of Urban Regeneration in the UK. Aldershot: Ashgate.
18.
DCLG (Department for Communities and Local Government) (2006a) Thames Gateway interim plan: policy framework . DCLG, London.
19.
Dclg (2006b) New chief executive for Thames Gateway announced. News Release 2006/0081, DCLG, London.
20.
Dclg (2007) Thames Gateway: the delivery plan. DCLG, London.
21.
Deas, I. (2005) Synchronisation, salesmanship and service delivery: governance and urban competitiveness, in: N. Buck, I. Gordon, A. Harding and I. Turok (Eds) Changing Cities: Rethinking Urban Competitiveness, Cohesion and Governance, pp. 204-222. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
22.
DETR (Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions) (1997) Building Partnerships for Prosperity: Sustainable Growth, Competitiveness and Employment in the English Regions. Cm 3814. London: The Stationery Office.
23.
DoE (Department of the Environment) (1995) The Thames Gateway Planning Framework. RPG9a. London: HMSO.
24.
Dowding, K., Dunleavy, P., King, D. et al. (1999) Regime politics in London local government , Urban Affairs Review, 34(4), pp. 515-545.
25.
Egan, J. (2004) The Egan review: skills for sustainable communities . ODPM, London.
26.
Every, L. and Foley, J. (2005) Managing water resources and flood risk in the South East. Commission on Sustainable Development in the South East, London.
27.
Filkin, G., Stoker, S., Wilkinson, G. and Williams, J. (2000) Towards a new localism. Institute for Public Policy Research , London.
28.
Fuller, C., Bennett, R.J. and Ramsden, M. (2004) Local government and the changing institutional landscape of economic development in England and Wales, Environment and Planning C, 22(3), pp. 317-347.
29.
Gonzalez, S. and Healey, P. (2005) A sociological institutionalist approach to the study of innovation in governance capacity, Urban Studies , 42(11), pp. 2055-2069.
30.
GLA (Greater London Authority) (2006) Sub-regional development framework: East London. GLA, London.
31.
Hall, S. and Mawson, J. (1999) Challenge funding contracts and area regeneration: a decade of innovation in policy management and coordination. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.
32.
HM Government (2005) Securing the Future: Delivering UK Sustainable Development Strategy. London: HMSO.
33.
Hornagold and Hills (2006) Thames Gateway: laying the blue line. Hornagold and Hills, London.
34.
Hornagold and Hills (2007) Thames Gateway: running the blue line. Hornagold and Hills, London.
35.
House of Commons Public Accounts Committee ( 2007) The Thames Gateway: laying the foundations. HC 693, Sixty-second report, session 2006-07 (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmpubacc/693/693.pdf ).
36.
Imrie, R. and Thomas, H. (1999) British Urban Policy: An Evaluation of the Urban Development Corporations, 2nd edn. London: Sage.
37.
IPPR (Institute for Public Policy Research) ( 2006) Gateway people: the aspirations and attitudes of prospective and existing residents of the Thames Gateway. IPPR, London.
38.
Jessop, B. (2000) Governance failure, in: G. Stoker (Ed.) The New Politics of British Local Governance , pp. 11-32. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
39.
Jones, M. (2001) The rise of the regional state in economic governance: `partnerships for prosperity' or new scales of state power?, Environment and Planning A, 33, pp. 1185-1211.
40.
Jones, P. and Evans, J. (2006) Urban regeneration, governance and the state: exploring notions of distance and proximity, Urban Studies, 43(9), pp. 1491-1509.
41.
Keith, M. (2005) Diversity and social cohesion in new and expanding communities. Paper presented at the British Urban Regeneration Association Conference `Growth! Meeting the Challenge', Peterborough, September.
42.
Lees, L. (2003) Visions of `urban renaissance': the Urban Task Force Report and the Urban White Paper, in: R. Imrie and M. Raco (Eds) Urban Renaissance? New Labour, Community and Urban Policy, pp. 61-82. Bristol : Policy Press.
43.
Llewelyn Davies, Steer Davies Gleave, Roger Tym & Partners and Atkins (2003) Relationship between transport and development in the Thames Gateway . Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London.
44.
Local Futures Research Group and Binks, J. ( 2005) Knowledge economy audit for the Thames Gateway Directorate of the Learning and Skills Council. Local Futures Research Group, London.
45.
London Assembly Environment Committee (2005 ) Down the drain: London's water usage and supply. Greater London Authority.
46.
Lovering, J. (1999) Theory led by policy: the inadequacies of the `new regionalism' (illustrated from the case of Wales), International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 23, pp. 379-396.
47.
Miliband, D. (2005) Thames Gateway: greenfields for innovation. Speech given to the Thames Gateway Forum, 23 November.
48.
Morgan, K. (2002) The new regeneration narrative: local development in the multi-level polity, Local Economy, 17(3), pp. 191-199.
49.
NAO (National Audit Office) (2007) The Thames Gateway: Laying the Foundations. London: The Stationery Office.
50.
Newman, J. (2001) Understanding Governance. Bristol : Policy Press.
51.
ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) ( 2003a) Sustainable communities: building for the future. ODPM, London.
52.
Odpm (2003b) Sustainable communities: an Urban Development Corporation for the London Thames Gateway. ODPM, London.
53.
Odpm (2004) £100 million for Gateway of opportunity. News Release No. 2004/0268, ODPM, London, November.
Odpm (2005b) National evaluation of local strategic partnerships-issues paper: local strategic partnerships, multi-level governance and economic development. ODPM, London.
56.
Oxford Brookes University (2006) Thames Gateway evidence review. DCLG, London.
57.
Peck, J. and Tickell, A. (2002) Neoliberalising space, Antipode , 34, pp. 380-404.
58.
Power, A. (2004) Sustainable communities and sustainable development: a review of the Sustainable Communities plan. Sustainable Communities Commission, London.
59.
Raco, M. (2005a) A step change or a step back? The Thames Gateway and the re-birth of the UDCs, Local Economy, 20(2), pp. 141-153.
60.
Raco, M. (2005b) Sustainable development, rolled-out neoliberalism and sustainable communities, Antipode, 37(2) p. 324-347.
61.
Raco, M. (2007) Building Sustainable Communities: Spatial Policy and Labour Mobility in Post-war Britain. Bristol: Policy Press.
62.
Regeneration and Renewal (2005) Rogers returns, 18 November, pp. 18-19.
63.
Regeneration and Renewal (2006a) Thames Gateway plan a damp squib, 1 December, p. 2.
64.
Regeneration and Renewal (2006b) Rail doubt remains for Barking homes, 14 April, p. 19.
65.
Regeneration and Renewal (2007) Thames Gateway chief executive leaves project, 14 December, p. 2.
66.
Regeneration and Renewal (2008) Housing super-agency set to take Gateway reins, 11 January, p. 5.
67.
Rhodes, J., Tyler, P., Brenna, A. et al. (2002) Lessons and evaluation evidence from ten Single Regeneration Budget case studies: mid term report. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London.
68.
Rhodes, R. (1997) Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.
69.
Roger Tym and Partners and Rita Hale & Associates Ltd (2005) South East counties: the cost and funding of growth in South East England. Roger Tym & Partners, London.
70.
Stoker, G. (2004) Transforming Local Governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
71.
Stone, C. (1989) Regime Politics: Governing Atlanta 1946-1988. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press .
72.
Storper, M. (1997) The Regional World: Territorial Development in a Global Economy. New York: Guilford Press.
73.
Swyngedouw, E. (2005) Governance innovation and the citizen: the Janus face of governance-beyond-the-state, Urban Studies, 42(11), pp. 1991-2006.
74.
TGKP (Thames Gateway Kent Partnership) (2002 ) Area investment framework. TGKP, London.
75.
TGLP (Thames Gateway London Partnership) ( 2001) Going east: Thames Gateway: the future of London and the South East: the economic strategy of the Thames Gateway London Partnership . TGLP, London.
76.
TGSEP (Thames Gateway South Essex Partnership) ( 2003) Draft strategic framework document. Working papers for further discussion. Delivering the future. TGSEP.
77.
Thornley, A., Rydin, Y., Scanlon, K. and West, K. (2005) Business privilege and the strategic planning agenda of the Greater London Authority, Urban Studies, 42(11), pp. 1947-1968.
78.
Urban Forum (2006) Research report on the impact of local area agreements on community empowerment. Urban Forum, London.
79.
Urban Taskforce (2005) Towards a strong urban renaissance. Urban Taskforce, London.
80.
While, A., Jonas, A. and Gibbs, D. (2004) Unblocking the city? Growth pressures, collective provision, and the search for new spaces of governance in Greater Cambridge , England, Environment and Planning A, 36(2), pp. 279-304.
81.
Whitehead, M. (2003) `In the shadow of hierarchy': meta-governance, policy reform and urban regeneration in the West Midlands, Area, 35(1), pp. 6-14.
