Development control by zoning

The use of zoning plans in landscape planning 

Zoning plans reserve areas for defined land uses, but fail when they are exclusive. Zoning laws were introduced in Germany in the late nineteenth century, to separate residential from industrial development. They produce what are now known as land use plans in Europe and as zoning plans in America . The existence of such a plan confers legal certainty and fairness on contextual decisions (Department of Environment, 1989:411). A development will be approved if it accords with the plan and rejected if it does not.

The watchmaker argument for the existence of planners, as explained above, leads to the demarcation of exclusive zones for housing, industry, commerce, public open space and other land uses. In theory, authority to develop land is given only to projects which comply with a land use zoning plan. Under this system, our Australian friend would certainly have been allowed to carry out his project, providing the zoning plan showed a church surrounded by a Eucalyptus forest. Not many do. At Marne La Valee, prior to the inception of Eurodisney, the local plan made no provision for the construction of a major theme park. Nor did the 1985 development plan for Sunderland in NE England show a site for a Nissan car plant. Both projects were granted permission, on green sites, in contravention of the approved local plans. In practice, since rich landowners often have ideas for non-conforming developments, zoning plans often change, which defeats their purpose.

Most of the large cities in Britain have been ringed by green belt zones since the 1950s. They have slowed the pace of development, driven up urban land prices, enriched some farmers and impoverished other farmers. But they have not halted the process of land development (Elson, 1986). Zoning plans fall into disrepute when they are subject to constant modification, and when powerful developers clutching fistfuls of gold can negotiate lucrative amendments. This is especially so when local people wanting to build apartments for their aging parents cannot do likewise.

Another regrettable consequence of zoning plans is that they restrict land use diversity. In a natural habitat there is a web of interaction between individual plants and animals. The community gains mutual protection and re-cycles its by-products. Interactions of this type cannot occur if there is only one species in the habitat. Monoculture is inefficient, both in natural and human communities. If a residential area has a single use and a fixed density it will be occupied by people in a single socio-economic group. At 30 persons/hectare, they will probably have high-incomes, two children and two cars. This is less efficient than a mixed-use area with shops, businesses, schools and smaller homes for young people and old people.

Flexible zoning, as an alternative to singular zoning, is much closer to the patterns formed by natural habitats. Each habitat tends to have a dominant species (eg oak in an oakwood) and a wide range of associated species (birds, insects, fungi etc). One then finds a zone of transition where one habitat shades into another. Examples of the landscape zones which should guide contextual decisions were given in the previous chapter. They include zones for waterspace development, landform enhancement, habitat creation, greenspace, climate and scenery.

With regard to the Australian, considered at the start of this chapter, a flexible zoning policy might accommodate his project, providing it would have a favourable impact on the local environment.