Debating the West End - do we always have to go for growth?

Yesterday there was an interesting discussion at the UCL Bartlett School of Planning about the report from the West End Commission (see last blogpost). One thing that came up was the way that always pursuring growth in a locality was seen as almost inevitable. The West End is undoubtedly commercially successful. Employment growth and new development has continued throughout this recessionary period. Indeed many of the difficulties that it faces could be argued to come from too much growth. And yet there is such resistance to planning for less growth of this area and diverting some of this activity to other areas across London. Why is growth of the Westfields seens as a threat rather than a spreading of economic activity? But seen as a threat it is. The argument is made that the West End is part of the growth machine that is London and that is at the heart of the UK economy. Thus any shifts that might reduce this growth are resisted. Indeed changes are currently being implemented to local government finance that will create greater incentives for local authorities to pursue economic growth. In London it seems likely that the report from the Travers Commision on London's finance (commissioned by the Mayor of London) will recommend greater tax raising power for the Mayor and the principle that a larger proportion of the tax-take from Londoners and London businesses being retained by the Greater London Authority. This will ramp up the growth machine of London yet further. Perhaps this machine works well in London but as a model for local government more generally it can create problems. How will the income of local authorities in low growth areas fare? Will there be less redistribution given that the totality of local government finance is unlikely to grow? This suggests again the need to think again how to plan in areas where growth - and now it seems enhanced central government funding - is not the norm.