Infrastructure is an essential element of making places. It is delivered through spatial, territorial and strategic planning. It supports all aspects of life through existing and new infrastructure. Infrastructure delivery planning is concerned ensuring that this investment is focused on achieving sustainability, equity and economic objectives. As shown in Box 12.1, spatial planning is about place-shaping and placemaking. The use of infrastructure is central to achieving these ends.

In this book, infrastructure delivery planning has been considered by types of infrastructure – physical, environmental/green and social/community and by scale of governance. There has also been a consideration of the methods used in these process of accessing existing infrastructure needs and those of the future. It has also been concerned with the funding that can be applied to infrastructure delivery. In this last chapter, the key principles of effective infrastructure delivery planning are discussed.

When engaging in infrastructure delivery planning, specific negotiations of development applications or pressures from providers can narrow the consideration of infrastructure requirements. Developers may offer infrastructure that appears attractive, creating new facilities, whereas providers will argue the case for investment based on their own criteria and priorities. These factors are important in spatial planning but they also need to be set into a wider context to ensure that infrastructure decision-making is not within silos or taken in isolation from the rest of the infrastructure investment for the scale of territory under consideration. Modes of transport, for example, may be delivered separately but unless they work together their investment will be underutilised.

Green infrastructure is used as a generic term to identify practices and investment that support the environment (CEC, 2013i). Green infrastructure ranges in scale and type from major flood alleviation schemes to small open spaces. In this chapter, rural and larger scale green land uses are discussed as environmental infrastructure while the term green infrastructure is used for urban settings. Tzoulas et al (2007) define green infrastructure as comprising ‘of all natural, semi-natural and artificial networks of multifunctional ecological systems within, around and between urban areas, at all spatial scales’ (p 169) and can include all types of formal and informal spaces including gardens (Cameron et al, 2012).

Linkages between environmental and green infrastructure are an important consideration in their provision and the associated value that they generate. Together they are a major contributor to the resilience of any locality, its people and economy as well as its environment. Environmental and green infrastructure also support biodiversity and contribute to the visual impact of places acting as an important component of health and well-being.

Environmental and green infrastructure has a core role in the protection and support of biodiversity as it operates vertically and horizontally through ecosystems (Duffy et al, 2007). While biodiversity is important in specific locations, this is within the construct of wider governance and regulatory systems. The EU has had a long-standing interest in biodiversity although this has primarily been through legislation on specific aspects (Jordan, 2008) until 2012 when a more integrated approach was introduced (CEC, 2012c).

Infrastructure is fundamental to all functional economic areas (FEAs) and sub/ city regions within their defined geographies and in relationship with their peripheries, hinterlands and markets. FEAs are of global policy interest (Krugman, 1991, 2011; Gurria, 2014) and the subnational geographic scale of choice for considering growth in national GDP, innovation, specialisation, sustainability and public service provision (Antikainen, 2005; Brezzi et al, 2011; Marsan and Maguire, 2011). FEAs promote policies for ‘filling in’, densification and the creation of compact cities based on public transport systems.

City subregions produce a high proportion of the world’s GDP and also are more successful in attracting talent and investment than other places (Dobbs et al, 2011). While Europe has many cities, there are only three large cities or city areas that feature in world rankings – London, Paris and Rhein-Ruhr – although three cities in Norway in the European Economic Area – Oslo, Trondheim and Jönköping – all have the highest GDP per head (Dobbs et al, 2011). These findings suggest that the role of cities in the US and Europe will decline in their global role and economic contribution as they are outpaced by growing cities in the energising economies of China, India, Pakistan and some African nations.

FEAs have sustainable attributes through historic or sunk investment in infrastructure that now defines locations for businesses and people. The growth of governance institutions that align administrative and economic boundaries is apparent in cities across the world (Katz and Bradley, 2013; Bunker, 2014).

Infrastructure delivery planning is contextualised within wider state policy and institutional settings within FEAs.

Infrastructure policy has been a core priority within the EU from its creation (CEC, 1957). Since then, it has developed as a central component in the framework of institutional, geographical and economic development. Infrastructure forms an active policy arena at all spatial scales and across EU competencies. The EU framework for infrastructure policy includes managing the single market and its responsibilities for open competition in public services on behalf of the WTO. Infrastructure delivery planning in the EU encompasses social, economic and environmental dimensions that create frameworks for all member states. Infrastructure policies that are pooled within the EU include transport, energy, environment, water and digital networks. Through the single market, the EU is also concerned with cultural policy, including tourism and heritage. For practitioners, understanding the EU’s policy trajectories and engaging with them particularly during their formulation can be critical in the consideration of strategic and local infrastructure delivery planning.

EU policies and programmes derive from treaties and are delivered through multi-annual programmes. The Lisbon Treaty was the last to be agreed, in 2007. Programmes range over six to seven years and deliver policy priorities, legislative programmes and targets for each member state. In the period 2010 onwards, these are set out for each state in Economic Convergence Agreements (2010 onwards) and the Partnership Agreements for Cohesion policy (CEC, 2013b). EU policy is implemented through legislation as Directives or Regulations. Directives indicate the objectives of specific policies and legal frameworks for member state interpretation with implementation deadlines.

The development of infrastructure policy and delivery is a matter of state policy and budgetary frameworks, set within an international policy context. This can include financial contributions, incentives or conditions that shape the delivery and management of infrastructure. Some international organisations, including the World Bank, the OECD, the IMF and the UN, set the contextual policy priorities and reinforce policy adoption through a variety of means. In this chapter, the role of the international bodies in framing infrastructure policy and legislation will be considered.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) forms treaties that determine competition between state and non-state providers. The European Union (EU) is a membership organisation, established through treaties between states that pool specific policy and compliance requirements. In this role, the EU regulates the implementation of WTO competition agreements and sets its own infrastructure policies that are agreed and implemented by member states as part of economic and social policy (Meunier, 2005; Woolcock, 2010; Morphet, 2013a).

International organisations each play a specific role and these may overlap or cause tensions. Environmental and equity principles are set within the policy leadership of the UN. The economic framework is influenced by the OECD (Mahon and McBride, 2009), a membership organisation that examines the performance of the economies of its members. The OECD advises on ways to improve components of national economies including transport, infrastructure, training, skills, education and working practices (Woodward, 2009; Martens and Jakobi, 2010). At times, economic, social and environmental objectives may be in competition and conflict particularly when there is a global economic downturn or an environmental disaster related to economic practices.

Infrastructure delivery planning at the local level is of significant importance to communities and their daily lives, including access to jobs health and facilities. It is a central responsibility of spatial planning to assess the quality, future adequacy and resilience of infrastructure in localities using plans, policies, regulation, development and direct delivery (Storbjörk, 2007; Bruton and Nicholson, 2013). This is also an important scale for climate change mitigation and adaption through the use of existing and new infrastructure (Measham et al, 2011).

In England, local plans are the only scale where infrastructure delivery planning is a statutory part of the plan’s formulation and test of its deliverability (DCLG, 2012). Local plans are required in all English local authorities and since 1970, a series of methodologies and approaches have been applied (Bruton and Nicholson, 2013; Cullingworth et al, 2014). The 2004 Planning and Compensation Act introduced the deliverability test and this has subsequently been confirmed by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (DCLG, 2012). The local plan coincides with the administrative boundary of the local authority area and this means that urban and rural areas may be contained within it. The local plan has to be in conformity with any national planning policies and will be subordinate to any Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) in its area. Where there are neighbourhood plans made under the 2011 Localism Act, these will have to be in conformity with the local plan.

Local plans adopt a vision, identify deficits or gaps and then apply policies and programmes to meet them.

Infrastructure planning at neighbourhood and community levels is concerned with local services and social infrastructure. Some communities are also the location of infrastructure that serves the needs of wider areas and sometimes of nations. This chapter discusses infrastructure planning and delivery at the community level and then considers associated processes and institutional arrangements. The methods of neighbourhood and community infrastructure planning are discussed, including similarities and differences with other spatial scales.

The approach to neighbourhood and community infrastructure delivery planning varies according the roles of each scale of governance in the state. In each of the UK nations these operate through different legal and institutional mechanisms, with different degrees of influence and delivery capability. The role of community-based planning in France has a longer legacy and has a different approach to relating to the wider institutional settings though on a ‘contractual’ basis (Le Galès, 2002). Further, the French system has adopted a different approach to working with communities where infrastructure which has regional or national significance is being delivered locally. This includes offering some financial compensation to communities and individual house owners. This approach was suggested in England but has not been adopted (DCLG, 2014a).

Neighbourhoods and communities are identified as being important in their contribution to local and national economic growth and the roles of community culture, work practices and entrepreneurship have all been identified as significant (HMT, 2003; Broughton et al, 2011). However, these contributions to national economic growth will also be dependent on the quality of the local infrastructure and the institutional processes available for its improvement and development.

Physical infrastructure is primarily fixed and delivered through networks and nodes. It is focused on transport, water, waste, energy and telecommunications. One of the defining features of physical infrastructure is its interoperability within each mode although not necessarily between modes. Physical infrastructure has primarily an economic role but also makes contributions to social and environmental well-being.

Governments take a strong interest in infrastructure provision, investment and the coordination of agencies to reduce and manage risks (Gordon and Dion, 2008). Physical infrastructure is defined as critical by states when considering national security and resilience (McDaniels et al, 2008; Schmitt et al, 2013). This role defines the investment in and management of networks, and their use, as well as climate change (Corfee-Morlot et al, 2012) and security of energy supply. The main approach to effective infrastructure delivery is integration. It is important to understand how this integration works in practice through implementation timescales and delivery mechanisms before considering how networks, modes and nodes can be brought together at different spatial scales.

Transport can be considered as a single integrated set of infrastructure that supports economic and social activities and the achievement of environmental objectives. However, in practice, planning and programming of transport infrastructure is undertaken within different sectoral organisations, on different timelines and spatial scales (Akerman et al, 2000; Marshall and Banister, 2007). The planning approaches for the provision of transport infrastructure are managed by the state although each state may vary the extent they coordinate and incentivise particular types of investment.

Transport planning integrates transport modes and land uses.

Infrastructure is a means and not an end. Societies rely on infrastructure for all that they do – how they live, generate economic activity, safeguard the environment and manage risks. Infrastructure implementation represents a major financial commitment and is funded as capital investment for periods of 30 years or more. Much infrastructure is provided directly by the state or within state-managed regulatory frameworks. Spatial planning, with its emphasis on delivery, is central to the adequate provision of infrastructure that is a core component of the social, economic and environmental functioning of society.

The provision and use of infrastructure is contextualised within the objectives for any place and the plans that are made to achieve them. These objectives are primarily set by local democratic leaders and the wider community. They will be framed by the priorities that have been adopted by governments concerned with strategic infrastructure provision such as energy security and transport networks. Some strategic plans will also be made by infrastructure providers, managing their own investment and future capacity whether for water or school places. Infrastructure delivery planning brings together the sectoral demands of providers with the locality’s priorities and needs. It identifies the gaps between supply and demand and how these can be managed and mitigated within a sustainable context. This is an essential feature of the spatial planning process.

Infrastructure delivery planning requirements will vary between different spatial scales and territories. Functional economic areas (FEA) or subregions, whether urban or rural, may be focused on physical infrastructure such as transport and telecommunications and major social and community provision such as universities, theatres and hospitals.