land-use regulations. Although the regional level in the Netherlands does not at present have
this competence, the province does have considerable indirect influence on the legal
regulation of land use, namely by means of the approval competence of the local land-use
plan. However, in the proposed changes this approval competence will disappear. If this will
really happen is still the question, since it is a rather controversial part of the proposed
legislation In Flanders, the province has also had this approval opportunity of the municipal
binding plans available to it since 2000. In the English system there are no binding plans; that
system is in any case directed to development control. The revision of the system has not
changed this characteristic.
With respect to the strategic planning, little has changed in the Netherlands. The province had
and retains the competence to make strategic plans. In Flanders, the provinces have had the
competence to make strategic plans since 1996. In 2000, the competence to approve local
strategic plans was added. The changes in England now concern strategic plans. At regional
level, a special Regional Planning Body that will draw up the strategic plans has been
appointed.
The situation from which the three systems were parting is naturally strongly decisive for the
path followed in the changes. For example, the fact that the English region is not (yet)
democratically elected determines the type of competences that can be assigned to such a
level. The development of a strategic spatial vision and integration with other policy fields is
the more obvious path to follow than the assignment of competences that are more directed to
spatial implementation, such as the drawing up of local land-use plans.
Conformity to higher-level plans
But to what extent are the regional competences restricted to paper plans? Will the regional
spatial policy also be implemented? This conformity particularly concerns the strategic plans.
In Flanders the conformity is the most strictly regulated in the system. Flanders has a clear
planning hierarchy, which means that legally binding plans are drawn up for the
implementation of the strategic plans. Practice will tell whether frequent use will also be made
at provincial level of the opportunity to draw up binding plans. In the strategic plans, lower
level government authorities can be requested to take over certain planning tasks. Via the
system of approval of plans by the next government level, this is well cared for.
In the Dutch proposed system there will also be an opportunity for provinces to draw up
binding plans. With that provision, the system offers good opportunities for conformity. In
contrast with Flanders, there will be no direct conformity in the strategic plans. Government
authorities are not required to make strategic plans, and they do not have to keep to the
content of the strategic plans of other government levels. The plans are form- and also
procedure free. The possible abolition of the provincial retrospective validation competence
of local legally-binding land-use plans is less obvious from the conformity philosophy.
In England, the policy freedom in the granting of planning permission is of importance for the
conformity to binding regulations. Ultimately the local authority is concerned here and, as one
of the material considerations, the local development framework plays a part in the decision.
But the Regional Spatial Strategy must also be taken into account: “Under section 38(3) of
this Act, the RSS is part of the statutory development plan. Under the plan-led system, this
means that the determination of planning applications will be made in accordance with the
RSS and the relevant DPD (Development Plan Document) or DPDs, unless other material
considerations indicate otherwise” (ODPM, 2004). Since the Regional Assembly can be
characterized as an extension of local government in which local authorities participate, it will
22