Regional Devolution and Environmental Planning

  • David Eversley


The purpose of this chapter is to examine the scope for devolution of powers from central government to regional authorities in the field of environmental planning. It is not proposed, for this purpose, to re-examine the great majority of the topics which the Kilbrandon Commission regarded as essential elements in the present situation and which led them to come to the conclusions which were published at the end of 1973. They were concerned principally about the growth in the volume of government activity and its increasing complexity, dissatisfaction with the remoteness of the London decision-making process, and the rise of a new nationalism. Nor is it necessary to discuss again the merits of the various patterns of separatism, federalism, and partial devolution which have been canvassed on political or functional grounds. We can take it for granted that any constitutional reform resulting in the emergence of regional government, whether only in Scotland and Wales or also in the English regions, will include some form of financial provision which will continue to attempt to equalise living standards by redistributing revenues both on capital and on current account.1


Local Authority Central Government Regional Authority Urban Renewal County Council 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 3.
    N. Dennis, People and Planning: the sociology of housing in Sunderland (Faber, 1970 ).Google Scholar
  2. J. G. Davies, The Evangelistic Bureaucrat: a study of a planning exercise in Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Tavistock Publications, 1972).Google Scholar
  3. 6.
    D. McKie, A Sadly Mismanaged Affair (Croom Helm, 1973 ).Google Scholar
  4. 7.
    West Sussex County Council (and the county councils of Berks., Bucks., Herts. and Surrey), The London area airports and their environment: The future without Maplin (typescript, June 1974 ).Google Scholar
  5. 8.
    For a review of changes in regional policies since the time of the Barlow report see D. Eversley, ‘Four out-dated assumptions’, Built Environment (Sep 1974).Google Scholar
  6. 11.
    J. Vaizey, History of British Steel (Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1974 ).Google Scholar
  7. 14.
    D. Eversley, ‘Old cities, falling populations and rising costs’, Quarterly Bulletin, GLC Intelligence Unit (Mar 1972).Google Scholar
  8. 17.
    A. V. Dicey, Law and Public Opinion in England, 2nd ed.(Macmillan, 1924 ).Google Scholar
  9. 19.
    Kilbrandon Report paras 746–55. See also N. Johnson, ‘The Royal Commission on the Constitution’, Public Administration (spring 1974) 1–12.Google Scholar
  10. 27.
    J. B. Cullingworth, Report to the Minister of Housing and Local Government on proposals for the transfer of GLC housing to the London boroughs (MHLG, 1970) vol. 1.Google Scholar
  11. 29.
    D. Eversley, ‘Land — The Next Steps’, Socialist Commentary (Dec 1974) 10–12.Google Scholar
  12. 31.
    D. Eversley, ‘Britain and Germany: local government in perspective’, The Management of Urban Change, ed. R. Rose (Sage Publications, 1974 ) pp. 229–67Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Centre for Studies in Social Policy 1975

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Eversley

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations