Is there a relationship between planning culture and the value of planning gain? Evidence from England

Town Planning Review (2019), 90, (4), 453–471.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2019.29
Language: English
Pages: 19

Abstract

To what extent does the value of a development determine the value of planning gain? The correlation between the two is not as straightforward as one might expect. Variations in the behavioural and heuristic norms that define context-specific practices have refreshed long-standing interests in ‘planning cultures’. We explore the degree to which variations in planning culture might shed explanatory light on variations in local planning authorities’ capacity to exact developer contributions. Using a case study of English local planning authorities, we provide evidence of the limited explanatory power of traditional variables in explaining the value of developer contributions and present qualitative evidence of the effects of localplanning-authority culture and practices.

FormatArticle

£25.00

If you have private access to this content, please log in with your username and password here

References

ADAMS, D. and WATKINS, C. (2014), The Value of Planning (RTPI research report no. 5), London, Royal Town Planning Institute. Google Scholar

BOOTH, P. (2007), ‘The control of discretion: planning and the common-law tradition’, Planning Theory, 6, 127–45. Google Scholar

CAI, H., HENDERSON, J. V. and ZHANG, Q. (2013), ‘China’s land market auctions: evidence of corruption?’, Rand Journal of Economics, 44, 488–521. Google Scholar

CAMPBELL, H., ELLIS, H., HENNEBERRY, J. and GLADWELL, C. (2000), ‘Planning obligations, planning practice, and land-use outcomes’, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 27, 759–75. Google Scholar

CAMPBELL, H. and HENNEBERRY, J. (2005), ‘Planning obligations, the market orientation of planning and planning professionalism’, Journal of Property Research, 22, 37–59. Google Scholar

CATNEY, P. and HENNEBERRY, J. (2019), ‘Change in the political economy of land value capture in England’, Town Planning Review, 90, 339–58. Google Scholar

CHRISTOPHERS, B. (2016), ‘Wild dragons in the City: urban political economy, affordable housing development and the performative world making of economic models’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38, 79–97. Google Scholar

CLAYDON, J. (1998), ‘Discretion in development control: a study of how discretion is exercised in the conduct of development control in England and Wales’, Planning Practice & Research, 13, 53–62. Google Scholar

CLAYDON, J. and SMITH, B. (1997), ‘Negotiating planning gains through the British development control system’, Urban Studies, 34, 2003–22. Google Scholar

COIACETTO, E. J. (2000), ‘Places shape place shapers? Real estate developers’ outlooks concerning community, planning and development differ between places’, Planning Practice and Research, 15, 353–74. Google Scholar

CORKINDALE, J. (2004), The Land Use Planning System: Evaluating Options for Reform (discussion paper), London, Institute of Economic Affairs. Google Scholar

CROOK, T. (2016), ‘Planning obligations policy in England: de facto taxation of development value’, in A. D. H. Crook, J. Henneberry and C. Whitehead (eds), Planning Gain: Providing Infrastructure and Affordable Housing, Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell, 63–114. Google Scholar

CROOK, A., HENNEBERRY, J., ROWLEY, S., WATKINS, C. and WELLS, J. (2006), Valuing Planning Obligations in England, Final Report, London, Department of Communities and Local Government. Google Scholar

CROOK, T., HENNEBERRY, J. and WHITEHEAD, C. (2016), ‘Introduction’, in Crook et al. (eds), 1–19. Google Scholar

CROSBY N., McALLISTER, P. and WYATT, P. (2013), ‘Fit for planning? An evaluation of the application of development viability appraisal models in the UK planning system’, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 40, 3–22. Google Scholar

CULLINGWORTH, J. B. (1980), Environmental Planning 1939–1969, Volume 4: Land Values, Compensation and Betterment (Peacetime History), London, HMSO. Google Scholar

DUNNING, R. J. (2017), ‘Competing notions of search for home: behavioural economics and housing markets’, Housing, Theory and Society, 34, 21–37. Google Scholar

DUNNING, R., FERRARI, E. and WATKINS, C. (2016), ‘Spatial variation in the incidence and value of planning obligations’, in Crook et al. (eds), 175–200. Google Scholar

DUNNING, R. J. and KESKIN, B. (2019), ‘Contesting public valuation of land and development’, Town Planning Review, 90, 329–37. Google Scholar

ENNIS, F. (1997), ‘Infrastructure provision, the negotiating process and the planner’s role’, Urban Studies, 34, 1935–54. Google Scholar

FERRARI, A., HENNEBERRY, J., LAUGHLIN, D. L., TAIT, M., WATKINS, C. and McMASTER, R. (2011), Behavioural Change Approach and the Housing Sector: Scoping Study, London, Department of Communities and Local Government. Google Scholar

FOX-ROGERS, L. and MURPHY, E. (2015), ‘From brown envelopes to community benefits: the co-option of planning gain agreements under deepening neoliberalism’, Geoforum, 67, 41–50. Google Scholar

FRANZSEN, R. C. D. (2009), ‘International experience with land value taxation’, in R. F. Dye and R. W. England (eds), Land Value Taxation: Theory, Evidence, and Practice, Cambridge, MA, Lincoln Institute of land Policy, 27–50. Google Scholar

GIELEN, D. M. and TASAN-KOK, T. (2010), ‘Flexibility in planning and the consequences for public-value capturing in UK, Spain and the Netherlands’, European Planning Studies, 18, 1097–131. Google Scholar

GOZALVO ZAMORANO, M. J. and MUÑOZ GIELEN, D. (2017), ‘Non-negotiable developer obligations in the Spanish land readjustment: an effective passive governance approach that “de facto” taxes development value?’, Planning Practice & Research, 32, 274–96. Google Scholar

GRABHER, G. (2004), ‘Temporary architectures of learning: knowledge governance in project ecologies’, Organization Studies, 25, 1491–514. Google Scholar

HEALEY, P. and BARRETT, S. M. (1990), ‘Structure and agency in land and property development processes: some ideas for research’, Urban Studies, 27, 89–104. Google Scholar

HEALEY, P., PURDU, M. and ENNIS, F. (1995), Negotiating Development: Rationales and Practice for Development Obligations and Planning Gain, London, E. & F. N. Spon. Google Scholar

HENNEBERRY, J. and PARRIS, S. (2013), ‘The embedded developer: using project ecologies to analyse local property development networks’, Town Planning Review, 84, 227–50. Google Scholar

JACKSON, C. and WATKINS, C. (2008), Retail Property Investment Behaviour and Planning Policy, London, Investment Property Forum. Google Scholar

JOWELL, J. (1977), ‘Bargaining in development control’, Journal of Planning and Environmental Law, 27, 414–33. Google Scholar

KNIELING, J. and OTHENGRAFEN, F. (2009), Planning Cultures in Europe, Farnham, Ashgate. Google Scholar

KNIELING, J. and OTHENGRAFEN, F. (2015), ‘Planning culture—A concept to explain the evolution of planning policies and processes in Europe?’, European Planning Studies, 23, 2133–47. Google Scholar

LORD, A. D. (2012), The Planning Game: An Information Economics Approach to Understanding Urban and Environmental Management, Oxford, Routledge. Google Scholar

LORD, A., DUNNING, R., DOCKERILL, B., BURGESS, G., CARRO. A., CROOK, A. D. H., WATKINS, C. and WHITEHEAD, C. (2018), The Incidence, Value and Delivery of Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy in England 2016–17, London, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Google Scholar

LORD, A. D. and GU, Y. (2018), ‘Can the market be tamed? A thought experiment on the value(s) of planning’, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 51, 11–24. Google Scholar

McALLISTER, P. (2017), ‘The calculative turn in land value capture: lessons from the English planning system’, Land Use Policy, 63, 122–29. Google Scholar

McALLISTER, P., SHEPHERD, E. and WYATT, P. (2018), ‘Policy shifts, developer contributions and land value capture in London 2005–2017’, Land Use Policy, 78, 316–26. Google Scholar

McALLISTER, P., STREET, E. and WYATT, P. (2016), ‘Governing calculative practices: an investigation of development viability modelling in the English planning system’, Urban Studies, 53, 2363–79. Google Scholar

MHCLG (MINISTRY OF HOUSING, COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT) (2018), National Planning Policy Framework, London, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Google Scholar

MONK, S. and CROOK, T. (2016), ‘International experience’, in Crook et al. (eds), 227–68. Google Scholar

ODPM (OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINSTER) (2005), Circular 05/2005 Planning Obligations, London, ODPM. Google Scholar

PAYNE, S. (2013), ‘Pioneers, pragmatists and sceptics: speculative housebuilders and brownfield development in the early twenty-first century’, Town Planning Review, 84, 37–62. Google Scholar

PAYNE, S. (2015), ‘Exploring the impact of the recession on British volume housebuilders: a behavioural analysis’, Built Environment, 41, 271–88. Google Scholar

SANYAL, B. (2005), Comparative Planning Cultures, New York, Routledge. Google Scholar

TAYLOR, Z. (2013), ‘Rethinking planning culture: a new institutionalist approach’, Town Planning Review, 84, 683–702. Google Scholar

TURK, S. S. (2018), ‘Comparison of the impacts of non-negotiable and negotiable developer obligations in Turkey’, Habitat International, 75, 122–30. Google Scholar

WHITEHEAD, C. (2016), ‘The economics of development value and planning gain’, in Crook et al. (eds), 20–36. Google Scholar