provincial regulations must be approved by the Region. Although the Flemish planning
system has thus become less centralistic on paper, in practice the relationship between region
and province is still fairly hierarchic.
Since the decree of 2000, the provinces have acquired a supervisory role over local authorities
with respect to spatial policy. Local plans must be approved, as must local urban development
regulations. Officially, provinces also acquire an implementation role with respect to the
granting of urban development and land division permits should local authorities not take care
of matters according to the decree in good time, but the provinces did not feel competent to
carry out this role. In contrast with the Region, the province has no hierarchic tradition,
certainly not in the area of spatial planning. Provinces are still searching for their role; they
have neither the nature nor the inclination to take on a great deal. The provinces see
themselves now primarily as a party that can weigh up and balance spatial interests at the
supralocal level.
The Flemish planning system is rather complex. Three levels of government, with three levels
of planning competences and three types of instruments, two of which are binding on citizens,
lead to regulations for land use on paper that are not directly transparent. The “planning
register” that local authorities since 1999 must draw up at parcel level ought to make the state
of affairs clear; only in 25 of the 308 municipalities, however, has a register been drawn up
(state of affairs as of 1 December 2004, Vlaamse Regering, 2005). Furthermore, through the
long transitional period in addition to the new plans drawn up on the basis of the new decree a
large number of ‘old’ plans are still in operation. It is important to note that in the last few
years spatial planning policy has become considerably stricter in Flanders. From a context in
which construction permits were granted of unclear regulations and many exceptions, some of
which were in conflict with the official prescriptions, the planning practice is gradually
becoming much more standardized. This transformation process is, however, laborious:
compromises have been made many times in both legislation and policy. The implementation
of the new regulations is falling behind the planning.
7. England
7.1 The former planning system
The United Kingdom is a unitary state and includes four home countries (England, Wales,
Scotland, and Northern Ireland) and three legal systems ii. The country is a parliamentary
democracy but without a written constitution. Consequently, the rights of the public sector
and individual citizens are derived from separate laws adopted by parliament. Each of the four
parts of the country contains two formal administrative levels: national and local. There are
two structures of local government, depending on the type of area. In the metropolitan areas
of England there is a unitary structure; the rest of England has a two-tier structure with 34
county councils and 238 district councils. There are 33 unitary London boroughs, 36 unitary
metropolitan district councils, and 46 unitary authorities (EC, 2000).
Spatial legislation and the types of plan are legally derived from the Town and Country
Planning Act of 1990. Several other laws also have implications for spatial planning. Among
these are the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the Planning
(Hazardous Substances) Act 1990. All were amended in important respects by the Planning
and Compensation Act 1991. This Act was replaced after the Planning Reform (see 7.2). In
addition, there are many statutory instruments which make up secondary or subordinate
15