controlling urban sprawl: some experiences from liverpool

Cities, Vol. 23, No. 5, p. 353–363, 2006

� 2006 Elsevier Ltd.

*Correspoch@livjm.

All rights reserved.

0264-2751/$ - see front matter

www.elsev

doi:10.1016/j.cities.2006.05.003

Controlling urban sprawl: Someexperiences from LiverpoolChris Couch * and Jay KarechaSchool of the Built Environment, Liverpool John Moores University, Peter Jost Centre, Byrom Street,Liverpool L3 3AF, UK

Received 10 August 2005; received in revised form 28 February 2006; accepted 22 May 2006

ier.com/locate/cities

Available online 7 August 2006

The control of urban sprawl is one of the key issues challenging planners in many countries.Whilst a substantial discourse has developed in North America, it is also a matter of key con-cern for British and European planners, although here the debate is often expressed in termsof urban containment and the search for compact cities. This article considers the develop-ment of policies for the control of urban sprawl within the British planning system and exam-ines their implementation and effectiveness within one city region: the Liverpool conurbation.Despite the considerable achievements of British policy in controlling urban sprawl andencouraging urban regeneration over the last two decades, there remain some doubts as tohow much further market forces can be directed towards the production of more compact cit-ies. In particular, a number of commentators, notably Breheny [Urban compaction: feasibleand acceptable? Cities 14 (1997) 209–217], have raised doubts about the feasibility and accept-ability of urban compaction to populations whose main housing location aspiration is for sub-urban living. Evidence in this paper is drawn from the analysis of secondary data for theLiverpool conurbation as well as the results of surveys of recently moving households carriedout by the authors. This evidence suggests that despite recent progress, these market forcescontinue to represent a major challenge to policy makers in promoting the compact city.� 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Urban sprawl, compact city, Liverpool

Introduction

This paper considers the success of contemporaryEnglish policies for the control of urban sprawland the extent to which further urban containmentmay be possible or desirable without detrimental so-cial impacts. After a brief discussion of the evolutionof policy, the success of policies to control urbansprawl within England and the Liverpool conurba-tion in particular is considered. This is followed bypresentation and discussion of findings from a studyof the Liverpool conurbation, which suggests thatthe scope for further urban containment may be lim-ited and with more social consequences than have sofar been acknowledged by policy makers.

nding author. Tel.: +44-151-231-2810. e-mail: c.r.couac.uk.

353

Much of the literature and debate on urban sprawlhas been based upon experience in the United States(Galster et al., 2001; Peiser, 2001; Squires, 2002; forexample). In this debate urban sprawl has been de-fined as:

‘‘a pattern of land use in an urbanised area thatexhibits low levels of some combination of eight dis-tinct dimensions: density, continuity, concentration,

clustering, centrality, nuclearity, mixed uses andproximity’’ (Galster et al., 2001, p. 685).

Or as Peiser (2001, p. 278) suggests:

‘‘the term is used variously to mean the gluttonoususe of land, uninterrupted monotonous development,

leapfrog discontinuous development and inefficientuse of land’’.

However, urban sprawl is not exclusively a NorthAmerican phenomenon. As Richardson and Bae(2004) suggest, many of the trends observed in the

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Controlling urban sprawl: Some experiences from Liverpool: C Couch and J Karecha

USA, such as the growth of suburban lifestyles, canalso be seen in Europe. Furthermore, many NorthAmerican policies, such as the renaissance of citycentres, mixed-use urban regeneration programmesin the inner cities and growth boundaries to controlsprawl, find their equivalents in European, and par-ticularly, British planning policy. Notions of thecompact city and the control of urban sprawl arethe subject of a substantial and growing discourseamongst British and European commentators onplanning. Much of this debate is summarised in thework of Williams et al. (2000), Adams and Watkins(2002), Houghton and Counsell (2004), Dielemanand Wegener (2004) and Couch et al. (2005). But ur-ban sprawl may be regarded not simply as a patternof urbanisation, but as the process of urban changethrough which the urban area is extended and den-sity gradients reduced (Couch et al., 2005). Diel-eman and Wegener suggest that causes of urbansprawl can be grouped into two categories: the gen-eral drift of socio-economic change in developedsocieties and government spatial planning policiesand conclude that in the absence of strong planningintervention at the regional and local level furtherurban deconcentration is likely (Dieleman and We-gener, 2004, pp. 316–320).

Controlling this process of urban sprawl has beena major concern of town planning in Britainthroughout the 20th century (Williams, 2004). How-ever, the success of early legislation was limited asbetween 1922 and 1939 there was a 40% increasein the total urban area of the country (Ward, 1994,p. 49). In the post-war period urban sprawl contin-ued: urban populations fell as cleared areas were re-built at lower densities and many cleared householdswere moved out to new peripheral council estates,expanded towns and new towns. At the same timeeconomic growth combined with low interest ratessupported a boom in speculative building for owneroccupied suburban development.

By the 1970s urban sprawl was not only seen as aninefficient pattern of urbanisation but also as a phe-nomenon that damaged the inner cities and there-fore needing to be brought under stronger control(DOE, 1977). This new tougher policy linking thecontrol of urban sprawl with urban regenerationwas typified by Merseyside County Council, thenresponsible for strategic planning of the Liverpoolconurbation, who proposed to:

Concentrate investment and development within theurban county and particularly in those areas withthe most acute problems, enhancing the environmentand encouraging housing and economic expansion

on derelict and disused sites. It would restrict devel-opment on the edge of the built-up areas to a mini-mum. There would be a reciprocal effort to

enhance and conserve the natural features of thecounty’s open land. . . (Merseyside County Council,1975, p. 8, quoted in Couch, 2003).

354

Despite its commitment to urban regeneration,throughout the 1980s, the Government continuedto require local planning authorities to ensure afive-year supply of developable housing land. This‘predict and provide’ method of determining theamount of land for housing had the effect of requir-ing constant additions to the amount of rural landzoned for future urbanisation on the periphery ofcities whilst putting no pressure on developers toconsider previously developed urban sites: it encour-aged urban sprawl, particularly in areas without‘green belt’ protection (DOE, 1980 and 1984).

In response to the emerging environmental agen-da, by the end of the 1980s policy began to change(Cabinet Office, 1990). The Government publisheda series of Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs).One of the most important affecting urban sprawlwas PPG3 ‘Housing’. First published in 1988 andmodified in 1992 this document retained the ‘predictand provide’ approach in order to ensure ‘a contin-uous supply of housing land which addressed marketdemand’ but in a concession to the environmentalagenda there was the ‘encouragement of localauthorities to make optimum use of brownfieldsites’. By the mid-1990s this policy was strengthenedwhen the Government declared a target of at least50% of all new housing being built on previouslydeveloped urban land.

But it was the ‘new’ Labour Government, electedin 1997, that was to go furthest in strengthening pol-icy. The Government commissioned a report, ‘To-wards an Urban Renaissance’ (Urban Task Force,1999) which called for the development of ‘compactcities’ characterised by higher density, more mixeduse, development. Many of these ideas were takenup in the ‘Urban White Paper’ (DETR, 2000a).A revised PPG3 ‘Housing’ published in 2000 movedaway from ‘predict and provide’ to a more sophisti-cated approach to housing land allocations and re-lease known as ‘plan, monitor and manage’. Thenew policy called for a ‘sequential’ approach to therelease of housing land in which local planningauthorities were provided with housing supply tar-gets and asked only to ‘provide sufficient land, givingpriority to re-using previously developed land withinurban areas. . .. in preference to the development ofgreenfield sites’. New housing schemes were also ex-pected to achieve higher net residential densitiesthan hitherto and by 2008, 60% of additional hous-ing should be provided on previously-developedland (DETR, 2000b).

However, there are regional differences that affectthe feasibility of meeting this target. In the northernregions, including the Liverpool conurbation, thereis a legacy of industrial decline that has provided alarge amount of previously developed urban landcapable of redevelopment for housing. At the sametime the anticipated growth in households is modest.In contrast, the South East of England, outside Lon-don, has not experienced significant urban decline


and has relatively little previously developed landavailable, whilst population is expected to increaseby 12.8% between 1996 and 2021 (ODPM, 2006).

Success in controlling urban sprawl?

So, how successful have been recent Governmentpolicies to control urban sprawl and create morecompact cities in conurbations such as Liverpool?The Liverpool (Merseyside) conurbation in NorthWest England was, at the beginning of the 20th cen-tury, the second most important port in England.Population reached a zenith of around 1.8 millionin mid-century but from the 1960s economic declineand urban restructuring brought about a dramaticreversal of fortune and a fall in the population ofthe conurbation to a low point of around 1.4 millionin 2001. Despite these economic changes, the urbanarea continued to sprawl until, in the 1980s, a com-bination of stronger restrictions on peripheral devel-opment (see the changes in national policy above)and the implementation of vigorous policies for ur-ban regeneration, brought this decline under control(Couch, 2003; Munck, 2003). Since the millenniumthere have been some signs of recovery in the localeconomy, and some stabilisation in populationchange (Liverpool City Council, 2005a; Office forNational Statistics, 2005). Today virtually all housingdevelopments occur within the existing urban areaand in this sense urban sprawl is under control.

Figure 1 The Liverpool conurbation.

The conurbation therefore provides an interestingcase study of urban sprawl.

Three indicators are helpful in measuring success incontrolling urban sprawl. Green Belts have been animportant planning policy instrument since the mid-1950s. Where they have been applied they seem tohave been quite effective in limiting urban sprawl(DOE, 1993). Retention of land in Green Belts givesan indication of commitment to maintaining urbanboundaries. Measuring the proportion of new dwell-ings built on previously developed land (i.e. withinexisting urban areas) indicates the success of policyin achieving a ‘sequential’ approach to the release ofland for development. The third indicator – the den-sity and type of new dwellings – provides a measureof success in achieving more compact urban areas.

Data for the Liverpool conurbation are presentedby local authority area, divided into a core area,comprising those authorities contained within theformer Merseyside County area, and an outer ringof adjoining authorities (see Figure 1).

Historically, the inner areas of Liverpool, southSefton and east Wirral have been those most af-fected by economic restructuring and populationloss. North Sefton, Knowsley, St. Helens, west Wir-ral, Ellesmere Port & Neston, Halton and West Lan-cashire all saw substantial population growth andurban sprawl during the second half of the 20th cen-tury, although more recently this has been broughtunder tighter control.

355

Table 1 The size and loss of land from Green Belts

Area Green Belt 1997 (ha) Green Belt 2003 (ha) Gain or loss of land (ha)

Liverpool conurbation (core)Liverpool 540 540Knowsley 4660 4660St. Helens 8880 8880Sefton 8110 8110Wirral 7490 7330 �160

Outer ringEllesmere Port & Neston 3450 3450Halton 2500 2500West Lancashire 32,100 32,090 �10

North West Region 255,760 260,610 +4850England 1,652,300 1,671,600 +19,300

Source: ODPM (2003, Table 2), ODPM (2005).

Table 2 The percentage of new dwellings on previously devel-oped land

Area 1996–99 (%) 2000–03 (%)

Liverpool conurbation (core)Liverpool 89 92Knowsley 77 74St. Helens 73 80Sefton 89 97Wirral 87 85

Outer ringEllesmere Port & Neston 29 66Halton 38 51West Lancashire 59 70

North West Region 61 70England 55 65

Source: ODPM (2005, Tables 2 and 3).

Table 3 Density of dwellings built per hectare (dph) (Netresidential density)

Area 1996–99 (dph) 2000–03 (dph)

Liverpool conurbation (core)Knowsley 26 29Liverpool 35 44St. Helens 26 25Sefton 28 29Wirral 31 31

Outer ringEllesmere Port & Neston 17 26Halton 23 22West Lancashire 18 24

North West Region 25 29England 25 28

Source: ODPM (2005, Tables 6 and 8).


Table 1 shows national and local trends in themaintenance of Green Belt land. Nationally, thearea of land included in Green Belts has increasedslightly as local planning authorities have strength-ened the protection of open land when reviewingtheir development plans in line with advice con-tained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2. ‘GreenBelts’. This guidance states that the essential charac-teristic of Green Belts is their permanence and thatonce the general extent of a Green Belt has been ap-proved it should be altered only in exceptional cir-

Table 4 Proportion of new dwellings by size (no. of bedrooms) and y

1997/98 1998/99 199

% of all dwellings built as houses 88 85 84% of all dwellings built with 1 bedroom 5 6 82 bedrooms 22 23 263 bedrooms 49 43 394 or more bedrooms 24 28 28

Source: ODPM Housing Statistics, Table 252, 2005.NB: The data refers to housing completions in all housing tenures. Numbin England. Unlike many other European countries, in England no coavailable.

356

cumstances (ODPM, 2001). Despite minor localvariations within the Liverpool conurbation, mostlocal authorities have taken a strong line in main-taining the amount of land designated as Green Belt.However, the picture is not quite a simple as mightappear, for despite strong control, some land withinGreen Belts has been developed. Between 1998 and2001 in the North West Region and in England,respectively, 15% and 11% of all development ofpreviously undeveloped land occurred within GreenBelts (ODPM, 2003, Table E.4). Furthermore, be-

ear, North West England 1997–2004

9/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05

80 75 80 73 617 6 3 5 6

26 24 21 26 3839 28 36 34 3028 42 39 36 27

er of bedrooms represents the best proxy indicator of dwelling sizemprehensive data on dwelling floorspace or plot area are easily


tween 2000 and 2003 in England around 270 ha ofGreen Belt land was developed for residential pur-poses each year (ODPM, 2005, Table 6). The seem-ing incompatibility between these two pieces of datais explained partly by the fact that some develop-ment has occurred within existing buildings withinGreen Belts, e.g. conversion of farm buildings to res-idential use; and in some other cases mitigation hasoccurred whereby land lost to development has beenreplaced by other land added to the Green Belt.

Table 2 provides an indication of the success ofpolicy in encouraging the re-use of urban land. Manyurban areas in the North West Region have experi-enced industrial restructuring that has left a legacyof vacant urban land. As indicated above the poten-tial for the control of urban sprawl is greater in thenorthern regions than in the South and South Eastof the country. Hence, the performance of the NorthWest region is significantly better than the nationalaverage. The Liverpool conurbation illustrates oneof the most extreme cases where the availability oflarge amounts of vacant and derelict land has coin-cided with a relatively weak housing demand to en-able a very high proportion of new residentialdevelopment to be directed to previously developedland (Couch, 1988).

The third indicator of the effectiveness of compac-tion policy is the density of development. PPG3 setsout density targets for new housing development ofbetween 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare net(DETR, 2000b, para 58).

Table 3 shows good progress in raising densitiesboth locally and nationally. There has also been achange in the type of dwellings built as many devel-opers are building a lower proportion of houses andan increasing proportion of flats. Table 4 showstrends in the North West region.

Recent years have seen a steady decline in theproduction of traditional 3-bedroomed houses asdevelopers have moved in two directions. Some pro-duction has moved ‘upmarket’, increasing the pro-portion of houses built with 4 or more bedrooms,in response to consumer demand for ‘trading up’within the housing market to bigger and moreexpensive dwellings. The second trend has been anincrease in the proportion of flats being built ashouseholds continue to get smaller (from 3.42 per-sons per household in 1961 to 2.34 pph in 2001 inLiverpool (Census of Population)), with a growingnumber of single and two person adult households.A significant proportion of this change has been cre-ated through a growing demand amongst some smal-ler households for ‘living in the city’. Since the mid1990s this trend has seen the population of LiverpoolCity Centre rise from 2340 in 1991 to around 12,000today, mainly accommodated in new one or twobedroomed flats (Liverpool City Council, 2005a,b).

In combination these indicators show good pro-gress, both nationally and especially within the Liv-erpool conurbation. Today the rate at which urban

sprawl is occurring in Britain is more constrainedby policy than at any time over the last century.However, an important issue is whether these poli-cies can remain effective into the future and whetherthey should be strengthened to reduce urban sprawlstill further and encourage more of the compact ur-ban development that the Government now favour.This issue is explored in the next section.

Can and should urban sprawl be restrictedfurther?

Despite the apparent acceptance of a prima facierelationship between more compact cities and sus-tainable development, there are some who haveraised doubts. Adams and Watkins (2002) summa-rise the arguments of those such as Lock (1991),Troy (1996) and the Town and Country PlanningAssociation (1997) who are sceptical about therobustness of the arguments in favour of more com-pact cities, the feasibility of their achievement andtheir acceptability. Breheny (1997) in particularhas raised doubts about the feasibility and accept-ability of urban compaction. Using evidence fromHedges and Clemens (1994) and Green et al.(1996) he suggests that in relation to housing loca-tion and form: ‘people aspire to the very oppositeof the compact city. . . there is a clear clash betweenthe high-density aspirations of the compactionistsand the desires of local communities to protect theirquality of life’ (Breheny, 1997, p. 216). Williams(2004, pp. 45–51) provides further evidence of a lim-ited demand for urban renaissance: a gap in attitudesto urban living between planners and households.Not only does the presence of such attitudes makecompaction difficult to achieve, it also raises ques-tions about the validity of a government policy that‘forces’ a particular urban form on a reluctant pub-lic. On the other hand, Jenks (2000, pp. 242–250)suggests that intensification can be acceptable butonly in certain situations and with solutions thatare responsive to local circumstances and stake-holder concerns.

Burton (2001) has concluded that higher densityurban form (the compact city) could have negativeimpacts on four aspects of social equity includingless domestic space, lack of affordable housing, in-creased crime levels and lower levels of walkingand cycling, but can offer benefits in improved pub-lic transport use, reduced social segregation and bet-ter access to facilities. Using a very differentapproach, our own analysis below also considers, in-ter alia, the impact of sprawl or compaction on manyof these same issues.

This section provides some further evidence onthese issues. A survey was carried out in a sectorof the Liverpool conurbation, stretching from the in-ner urban core to the periphery of the conurbation.The objective of this survey was to find out whetherthere were any differences in the influences on housing

357

Table 5 The reasons for moving from the previous address

All moversto/withinthe urban core

All moversto/within thesuburbs/periphery

Home too small 15.3% 24.4%Home too large 4.8% 13.2%No garden/gardentoo small

10.5% 13.2%

Crime levels 22.6% 15.6%Quality of schools 10.5% 9.3%Noise or air pollution 16.9% 10.7%Traffic intrusion 16.1% 9.3%Lack of greenery 10.5% 7.3%Neighbours/social problems 26.6% 14.6%Change in place of work 14.5% 8.8%Wish to change tenure 16.9% 6.8%Wish to ‘trade-up’ in thehousing market

10.5% 27.8%

Wish to set up first home 22.6% 12.2%Relationship breakdown 20.2% 5.4%Change in household size 11.3% 21.5%

n = 124 n = 203

Source: Author’s survey.NB: For clarity the table only shows the percentage of times afactor was ‘very important’ or ‘crucial’. The top three factors ineach column are in bold.


location decisions, and the housing satisfaction ob-tained, between people moving to the higher densityurban core (or ‘compact city’) and those moving tothe lower density suburban and peripheral areas(or ‘urban sprawl’).

Within the Liverpool conurbation the Borough ofWirral was selected as the research location becauseboth higher density inner areas and lower densityareas of sprawl could be found within the same localauthority, thereby removing from the location deci-sion any potential influence of differences in localtaxation, public spending policies or regulations.A secondary reason was the availability, from thelocal authority, of robust data on residential devel-opment in recent years. The Borough of Wirral hasa population of 312,000 (Census of Population,2001). The east side of the Borough facing the riverMersey and including the older industrial towns ofBirkenhead and Wallasey (the ‘urban core’) can becontrasted with the west side that faces the Deeestuary and comprises a number of attractive com-muter settlements such as Heswall, Hoylake andWest Kirby (the ‘suburbs and periphery’).

The survey covered a stratified sample of allhouseholds that had moved into newly constructeddwellings in selected wards over the period 1997–2001. The wards selected form a continuous sectorfrom the inner core of the conurbation to the periph-ery. A postal questionnaire was addressed to allheads of household in the 1195 new dwellings thathad been completed between 1997 and 2001. In all327 completed questionnaires were returned: a re-sponse rate of 27.4%.

Social influences on urban sprawl

Table 5 summarises the reasons for moving: whyhouseholders left their previous address. Respon-dents were asked to weight the importance of eachfactor on a scale: 1 = irrelevant, 2 = of slight impor-tance, 3 = fairly important, 4 = very important,5 = crucial. The table shows the percentage of timesa factor was weighted very important or crucial tothe location decision.

Table 6 summarises the factors influencing thechoice of location. Respondents were asked toweight the importance of each factor on a scale:1 = irrelevant, 2 = of slight importance, 3 = fairlyimportant, 4 = very important, 5 = crucial. The tableshows the percentage of times a factor was weightedvery important or crucial to the location decision.

In combination these two tables illustrate theemergence of two quite different pictures. House-holds are tending to move into or within the urbancore in order to move away from bad neighbours, so-cial problems or crime. There is also a tendency tomove at a time of setting up a first home or on thebreakdown of a relationship. On the other handhouseholds moving into or within the suburbs andperiphery have a greater tendency to cite changing

358

household size, the inadequate size of the existinghome or garden and a desire to ‘trade-up’ to a moreexpensive home as reasons for moving. This presentsa different picture of more affluent households mak-ing housing life-cycle decisions in which the dwellingis, in part, perceived as an investment good.

It can be seen that most movers in both areas re-gard a low crime and quiet neighbourhood as beingone of the key influences on their location decision.Proximity of friends or family is also an importantinfluence, as are good road connections. Movers tothe suburbs and periphery also point to the proxim-ity of the countryside or coast as an important influ-ence, whereas movers to the inner areas place moreimportance on the affordability of housing and theproximity of convenience shopping.

Life cycle also has an important influence onchoice of location. Whilst all age groups sought quietand low crime neighbourhoods, movers under 34years showed more concern for housing affordabil-ity, whereas many of those over 60 years identifiedgood road connections, the proximity of shops,countryside/coast, friends or family, as importantconsiderations.

These findings have consequences for the processof urban sprawl. If the suburbs and urban peripheryare perceived as being lower in crime and quieterthan the urban core, this suggests that housingdemand in the Liverpool conurbation contains alocational preference for the outer areas. The impor-tance of the investment motive suggests thatpurchasers are likely to have a preference for prop-erties with the most potential for future price in-

Table 6 Factors influencing the choice of location

Factor All movers to/withinthe urban core

All movers to/within thesuburbs/periphery

Movers aged under34 years: all areas

Movers aged over 60years: all areas

Near place of work 28.2% 12.2% 31.3% 6.6%Near food shopping places 41.9% 29.3% 22.5% 56.0%Near other shopping places 26.6% 18.5% 18.8% 34.1%Near to leisure places 17.7% 14.1% 20.0% 16.5%Near to areas of countryside/coast 18.5% 53.2% 23.8% 52.7%Having good road connections 41.1% 43.4% 31.3% 57.1%Near a railway station 30.6% 33.7% 26.3% 42.9%In an area with good bus links 39.5% 32.7% 22.5% 54.9%In a low crime neighbourhood 58.1% 72.2% 60.0% 70.3%In an area with good schools 23.4% 27.8% 28.8% 9.9%Near to friends or family 43.5% 40.5% 37.5% 51.6%In a quiet neighbourhood 54.8% 69.3% 52.5% 68.1%In an affordable housing area 58.1% 41.0% 52.5% 42.9%Near to a park 16.9% 14.1% 15.0% 18.7%

n = 124 n = 203 n = 80 n = 91

Source: Authors’ survey.NB: For clarity the table only shows the percentage of times a factor was ‘very important’ or ‘crucial’. The top three factors in each columnare in bold.


creases and profit. There is evidence to suggest thatsuch properties are more likely to be found in theouter areas (see below). Contrasting pressures canbe found in changes to the traditional family life-cy-cle. With falling average household size and agrowth in single adult households there is an emerg-ing counter-trend towards re-urbanisation. Our sur-vey found over 40% of movers to the inner areaswere single adult households compared with only16% of movers to the suburbs and urban periphery.

As the conurbation sprawled through the 20thcentury, so the spatial segregation of social classesincreased. Despite some counteracting policies thistrend towards increased segregation seems to becontinuing. The proportion of social housing (allo-cated according to need) is in long term decline,

Table 7 House price changes: percentage increase in the averageprices of semi-detached houses in Wirral wards, 1995–2004

Postcode district 1995 2004 % Increase1995–2004

Urban coreCH41 Birkenhead £30,378 £74,851 +146%CH42 Tranmere/Prenton £37,892 £107,743 +184%CH43 Noctorum £53,540 £147,285 +175%CH44 Wallasey £41,174 £106,482 +159%CH45 New Brighton £53,852 £142,628 +165%

Suburbs/peripheryCH46 Moreton £42,544 £118,044 +177%CH47 Hoylake £66,509 £214,092 +222%CH48 West Kirby £63,145 £191,780 +204%CH49 Greasby/Upton £46,819 £128,322 +174%CH60 Heswall £70,048 £193,486 +176%CH61 Irby/Pensby £52,044 £150,164 +189%CH62 Bromborough £45,692 £118,938 +160%CH63 Bebington £53,369 £149,687 +180%

Source: Land Registry Data.

whilst the proportion of housing allocated throughthe market, particularly for sale to owner occupiers,has steadily increased. Owner occupation in the Liv-erpool conurbation [former County of Merseyside]increased from 52% of all households in 1981 to65% of all households in 2001 (Census of Popula-tion, 2001). Furthermore, it is in the sprawling subur-ban and perpheral wards of west Wirral, such asThurstaston (87.3%), Royden (90.2%) and Heswall(90.4%) where owner occupation is at its highest,and in some parts of the urban core, such as Birken-head (33.2%) and Tranmere (44.9%), where owneroccupation is at its lowest. In consequence, overthe last thirty years, the ability to pay has graduallybecome a more important determinant of householdlocation.

Using data from the Land Registry and taking astandardised dwelling type (semi-detached houses1),an analysis of variations in the increase in value ofhousing between postcode districts (neighbour-hoods) is given in Table 7.

Even at the beginning of the period the highesthouse prices were found in the peripheral postcodedistricts of CH47 Hoylake, CH48 West Kirby andCH60 Heswall, making it difficult for those on thelowest incomes to access private housing in theselocations. Looking at the last decade, the lowestprice rises are found in the heart of the urban corein CH41 Birkenhead and Ch44 Wallasey. The some-what higher prices rises in CH42 Tranmere/Prentonand CH43 Noctorum probably reflect the fact thatthe boundaries of these districts include mature

1Using a standardised dwelling type enables comparisons to bemade between districts. Median prices across the whole stockwould give a distorted picture as the mix of dwelling types variesbetween districts and changes over time.

359

Table 9 Social contact and social life

Urbancore

Suburbs/periphery

Proportion of respondents who couldname a next-door or same-floorneighbour

87.2% 94.8%


sought-after inner-suburbs. Price rises in the major-ity of the suburbs and periphery are higher thanthose found in the urban core. The notable excep-tion is CH62 Bromborough. The explanation forthe low rise shown here may be connected to thelarge numbers of semi-detached houses available inthe district and the high proportion of former socialhousing within that market sector. The general con-clusion from this data is that over the period 1995–2004 those on lower incomes are likely to havebecome more excluded from those postcode districtswith high initial prices and higher than average pricerises, particularly CH47 Hoylake and CH48 WestKirby.

Having established that neighbourhood character-istics (quietude, environmental quality and low lev-els of crime) were an important influence on thechoice of location, a second survey was undertakento find out what these recent movers felt about theirnew environment, i.e. whether it met their expecta-tions. This survey covered the same stratified sampleand yielded 290 completed questionnaires: a re-sponse rate of 24.3%.

The first issue to be considered was the extent towhich living in the urban core might be less pleasantthan the suburbs and periphery. Respondents wereasked to rate the extent to which certain matterswere problematic. Table 8 gives the results.

None of these social or environmental problemsappear to be very serious problems for residentsanywhere in the survey area. Nevertheless, suburbanand peripheral residents reported a lower level ofproblems than those in the urban core in every cat-egory. It is notable that the most problematic fea-tures of living in the urban core are drug abuse(the most serious), the other ‘crime’ categories andtraffic noise. This confirms the logic of householdsjustifying their moves to the suburbs and peripheryon the basis that ‘peace and quiet’ and a ‘low crimearea’ were important criteria.

The second issue was whether the lower densitysuburbs and periphery would be ‘less friendly’ and

Table 8 Local social and environmental problems

Problem or intrusion Urban core Suburbs/periphery

Noise from traffic 2.0 1.6Noise from industry 1.3 1.1Noise from neighbours 1.8 1.3Car crime 1.9 1.4Burglary 2.1 1.4Vandalism 2.0 1.5Personal safety 2.3 1.3Drug abuse 2.7 1.4Poor air quality 1.9 1.5Light pollution 1.7 1.2Neighbour disputes 1.5 1.2

Source: Authors’ survey.NB: The data record the mean response for the area on a five-point scale. 1 = no problem, 2 = minor problem, 3 = moderateproblem, 4 = serious problem, 5 = very serious problem.

360

more socially isolating than the higher density innerarea. It has been suggested that areas of urbansprawl do not foster a sense of community. It is ar-gued that here there is less opportunity for socialcontact and interaction. Power suggests that at cur-rent suburban densities car use becomes essential,thereby minimizing social contact (Power, 2001,p. 735). Respondents were asked whether they couldname their neighbours, how many acquaintancesthey had in the neighbourhood and the extent towhich their social life was based upon their neigh-bourhood, work, personal interests or family (seeTable 9).

The overwhelming majority of respondents fromall areas knew at least one neighbour by name.Regarding the question of knowing people withinthe wider neighbourhood the difference betweenthe urban core and suburbs is greater with strongerevidence of community coming from the suburbanand peripheral area. The data also show that in boththe urban core and suburban areas family and per-sonal interests are more important bases for sociallife than are work or the neighbourhood. This sug-gests that the neighbourhood, its location, densityand form do not appear to be the most importantdeterminants of community or social life.

Finally, residents were asked if they thought thattheir neighbourhood was improving, staying thesame or getting worse. The answers are given inTable 10.

Urban core residents were more likely than resi-dents in the suburbs and periphery to say that theirneighbourhood was changing but were quite dividedas to whether the area was improving or getting

Respondents knowing less than 10acquaintances within approximately200 m of their home

67.5% 49.7%

Respondents knowing between 11 and 20acquaintances within approximately200 m of their home

26.5% 33.9%

Respondents knowing more than 20acquaintances within approximately200 m of their home

6.0% 16.4%

Social life mainly based around theneighbourhood

2.0 2.4

Social life mainly based around work 2.1 1.9Social life mainly based around personalinterests

2.9 3.0

Social life mainly based around the family 3.8 3.6

Source: authors’ survey.NB: Responses were on a five-point scale with 5 being the mostpositive response and 1 being the most negative. Hence theresponse of 3.8 is the strongest response shown here and 1.9 theweakest.

Table 10 Perceptions of future prospects for neighbourhoods

Proportion of residentssaying their neighbourhood is:

Urban core Suburbs/periphery

Improving 28.2% 17.2%Staying the same 53.0% 74.6%Getting worse 18.8% 8.3%

Source: Authors’ survey.


worse. This may have been influenced by the moreheterogeneous range of neighbourhoods in the ur-ban core. It may be that whilst regeneration policiesand investments are having a positive effect on someneighbourhoods, other are feeling negative conse-quences or are simply being by-passed by improve-ments. Confidence in the future stability orimprovement of an area is a vital underpinning tothe market for housing as an investment good. Theevidence here is that the suburbs and peripheryare perceived as a more secure place than the urbancore in which to make a housing investment.

Conclusions

There is little doubt that urban sprawl in Britain isbeing brought under strong planning control andthat this has been particularly effective in the largenorthern conurbations such as Liverpool. Whetherpolicy can go much further in promoting compactand contained cities without adverse social conse-quences depends in part upon the extent to whichthis ambition coincides with changes in housingdemand.

The problem is that much housing demand seemsto favour urban sprawl. Our research suggests thatbeing in a low crime and quiet neighbourhood wereamongst the most frequently cited influences onhousehold location decisions in all areas and acrossall age groups. So long as the suburbs and peripheryare perceived as lower in crime, quieter and nearerthe countryside than other areas, demand for sprawlwill continue. Age and household structure clearlyhave implications for urban sprawl. The elderlyidentified many more very important or crucial influ-ences on household location decisions than youngerage groups. Only smaller adult households seemlikely to favour the urban core.

Housing cost appears to be a key influence on thedemand for urban sprawl in two ways. Firstly, partic-ularly in the urban core, being in an area of afford-able housing was a frequently cited influence onchoice. On the other hand, amongst movers to thesuburbs and periphery, ‘trading-up’ was the most fre-quently cited reason for moving. This conforms withthe notion of owner occupied housing being, at leastin part, an investment good and suggests that theexpectation of future price rises may well stimulatedemand in the suburbs and urban periphery. Whilst

we acknowledge that this finding might, in part, beinfluenced by the changing economic status or sizeof some households and that the situation in Liver-pool might be different from elsewhere, we wouldnevertheless argue that it is a sufficiently strongpoint that it justifies further research.

Many suburban and peripheral areas, and espe-cially some of the most sought after areas of sprawl,have become more dominated by private housingallocated through market mechanisms rather thanhousing need. According to our analysis, houseprices have risen faster in these areas. Thus, in theface of continuing strong demand, contemporaryGovernment policies that limit housing supply inthese most favoured peripheral locations are likelyto have the effect of accelerating dwelling price in-creases in those areas ahead of those in the rest ofthe conurbation. The natural consequence of thesetrends, if they continue, will be increased spatial so-cial segregation. Burton (2001, p. 1986) found thatwhere there was a large proportion of high densityhousing, segregation tended to be low. Densityseemed to be a key factor in limiting segregation,i.e. segregation would be less across the whole of amore compact city. Our point is slightly different:what we are suggesting is that, if present trends con-tinue, in the Liverpool conurbation at least, therecould be growing social segregation between thecompact urban core and the sprawling suburbs/periphery.

Although we found no serious social or environ-mental problems identified by residents in any loca-tion, there were some problematic features of livingin the urban core, notably traffic intrusion and cer-tain types of crime. This confirms the logic ofhouseholds justifying their moves to the suburbson the basis that ‘peace and quiet’ and a ‘low crimearea’ were important criteria. This is compatiblewith Burton (2001, p. 1985) who also found that de-spite arguments that higher population densities in-crease surveillance and reduce vulnerability tocrime, home contents insurance rates (a powerfulindicator of risk of crime) were higher in morecompact cities.

The overwhelming majority of suburban residentsthought their neighbourhood would stay the same orimprove in the future. Residents of the urban corewere more divided in their opinions about the fu-ture, which may reflect the more heterogeneous nat-ure of the urban core. There is no evidence from oursurveys to suggest that urban sprawl or the location,density, or form of the neighbourhood, are the mostimportant determinants of community or social lifein the Liverpool conurbation. This presents a some-what different perspective to that expressed byPower (2001, p. 735) who suggests that current den-sities minimise social contact and undermine socialinstitutions. The impact of sprawl upon social segre-gation and social life is clearly an area where furtherexploration would be useful.

361


Policy implications

Our findings support the views of Breheny (1997)and others that many households find it very attrac-tive to live in lower density sprawling peripherallocations and are unlikely to find many of the fea-tures that they value within the inner urban core.However, in addition to this we would argue thatthe perception of owner occupied housing as botha consumption good and an investment good addsanother dimension to the equation that has yet tobe adequately considered in national and regionalplanning policy.

This view of owner-occupied housing partially asan investment good and the greater financial gainsto be made from the purchase of housing insought-after peripheral locations is also likely tolead to continued increases in housing demand andfurther price rises in those locations and encouragedevelopers to increase supply. This puts pressureon the planning system and makes implementationof restraint policies more difficult to achieve. How-ever, as we have indicated, the Government is verystrongly committed to the restriction of urbansprawl. In consequence this increasing demand forhouse purchase at the periphery is more likely tolead to further price rises within the existing stockthan to any significant increase in that stock. Thiscan only further fuel the processes of spatial socialsegregation as these locations become home to anever narrower social elite at the top end of theincome scale.

If the Government wishes to continue promotingthe compact city, policies will have to come to termswith the fact that many sections of the populationhave a clear preference for the type of living experi-ence and neighbourhood satisfaction that is found insuburbs rather than the inner areas. Furthermore,these preferences will be reinforced if it transpiresthat the profits from owner occupation remain higherin the suburbs than the urban core. Thus, not only willpolicies have to provide residents of the urban corewith living experiences as good as those found in thesuburbs but policies will also have to ensure a levelof individual profit from home ownership in the urbancore equivalent to that obtainable in the suburbs.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful for the assistance of AndyWallis and Richard Lewis of Wirral MetropolitanBorough Council for providing various data usedin this paper.

References

Adams, D and Watkins, C (2002) Greenfields, Brownfields andHousing Development. Blackwell, Oxford.

Breheny, M (1997) Urban compaction: feasible and acceptable?Cities 14, 209–217.

362

Burton, E (2001) The compact city: just or just compact? Apreliminary analysis. Urban Studies 37(11), 1969–2001.

Cabinet Office (1990). This Common Inheritance: Britain’s Envi-ronmental Strategy, Cmnd 1200. HMSO, London.

Couch, C (1988) Aspects of structural change in speculativehousing production. Environment & Planning A 20, 1385–1396.

Couch, C (2003) City of Change and Challenge: Urban Planningand Regeneration in Liverpool. Ashgate, Aldershot.

Couch, C, Karecha, J, Nuissl, H and Rink, D (2005) Decline andsprawl: an evolving type of urban development – observed inLiverpool and Leipzig. European Planning Studies 13(1), 117–136.

Department of the Environment (DOE) (1977). Policy for theInner Cities, Cmnd 6453. HMSO, London.

Department of the Environment (DOE) (1980 and 1984) Circu-lars 9/80 Land for Private Housebuilding and 15/84 Land forHousing. HMSO, London.

Department of the Environment (DOE) (1993) The Effectivenessof Green Belts. HMSO, London.

Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions(DETR) (2000a) Our Towns and Cities: the Future – Deliv-ering an Urban Renaissance (The Urban White Paper). TheStationary Office, London.

Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions(DETR) (2000b) Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 (PPG3):Housing. The Stationary Office, London.

Dieleman, F and Wegener, M (2004) Compact City and UrbanSprawl. Built Environment 30(4).

Galster, G, Hanson, R, Ratcliffe, M R, Wolman, H, Coleman, Sand Freihage, J (2001) Wrestling sprawl to the ground: definingand measuring an elusive concept. Housing Policy Debate12(4).

Green, H, Thomas, M, Iles, N and Down, D (1996) Housing inEngland 1994/5. HMSO, London.

Hedges, B and Clemens, S (1994) Housing Attitudes Survey.HMSO, London.

Houghton, G and Counsell, D (2004) Regions, Spatial Strategyand Sustainable Development. Routledge, London.

Jenks, M (2000) The acceptability of urban intensification. InAchieving Sustainable Urban Form, (eds.) K Williams, EBurton and M Jenks. E&F N Spon, London.

Liverpool City Council (2005a). Liverpool Economic Bulletin, athttp://www.liverpool.gov.uk/Business/Economic_develop-ment/Key_statistics_and_data/Liverpool_economic_data/index.asp.

Liverpool City Council (2005b). City Centre Living, at http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/Business/Economic_development/Area_or_site_specific_regeneration/City_living/index.asp.

Lock, D (1991) Still nothing to gain by overcrowding. Town andCountry planning 60, 337–339.

Munck, R (ed.) (2003) Reinventing the City?: Liverpool inComparative Perspective. Liverpool University Press,Liverpool.

Office for National Statistics (2005). Mid-year estimates ofpopulation change, at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STAT-BASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=9082.

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2001). Green Belts.Planning Policy Guidance Note 2. Office of the Deputy PrimeMinister, London.

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), R (2003) LocalPlanning Authority Green Belt Statistics. The Stationary Office,London.

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2005). Land UseChange in England, No 20. Office of the Deputy PrimeMinister, London.

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2006). Livingplaces: urban renaissance in the South East: backgroundreview, at http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index. asp?id=1144887#.

Peiser, R (2001) Decomposing urban sprawl. Town PlanningReview 72(3), 275–298.

Power, A (2001) Social exclusion and urban sprawl: is the rescue ofcities possible? Regional Studies 35(8), 731–742.

http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/Business/Economic_development/Key_statistics_and_data/Liverpool_economic_data/index.asp



http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/Business/Economic_development/Area_or_site_specific_regeneration/City_living/index.asp



http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=9082

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=9082

http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1144887#


Richardson, H W and Bae, C-H B (eds.) (2004) Urban Sprawl inWestern Europe and the United States. Ashgate, Aldershot.

Squires, G D (ed.) (2002) Urban Sprawl: Causes, Consequencesand Policy Responses. The Urban Institute Press, Washington,DC.

Town and Country Planning Association (1997) Living within thesocial city region. Town and Country Planning 66, 80–82.

Troy, P (1996) Urban consolidation and the family. InThe Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form?, (eds.)M Jenks, E Burton and K Williams. E&F N Spon,London.

Urban Task Force (1999) Towards an Urban Renaissance. E&F NSpon, London.

Ward, S V (1994) Planning and Urban Change. Paul ChapmanPublishing, London.

Williams, K, Burton, E and Jenks, M (eds.) (2000) AchievingSustainable Urban Form. E&F N Spon, London.

Williams, K (2004) Reducing sprawl and delivering an urbanrenaissance in England: are these aims possible given currentattitudes to urban living? In Urban Sprawl in Western Europeand the United States, (eds.) H W Richardson and C B Chang-Hee. Ashgate, Aldershot.

363

controlling urban sprawl: some experiences from liverpool

Documents