Change, Rigidity & Delay in the UK System of Land-use Development Control

The British system of development control is time-consuming and uncertain in outcome. Moreover, it is becoming increasingly overloaded as it has gradually switched away from being centred on a traditional ‘is it an appropriate land-use?’ type approach to one based on multi-faceted inspections of projects and negotiations over the distribution of the potential financial gains arising from them. Recent policy developments have centred on improving the operation of development control. This paper argues that more fundamental issues may be a stake as well. Important market changes have increased workloads. Furthermore, the UK planning system's institutional framework encourages change to move in specific directions, which is not always helpful. If expectations of increased long-term housing supply are to be met more substantial changes to development control may be essential but hard to achieve.

Housing Supply and Planning Delay in the South of England

There is growing international interest in the impact of regulatory controls on the supply of housing The UK has a particularly restrictive planning regime and a detailed and uncertain process of development control linked to it. This paper presents the findings of empirical research on the time taken to gain planning permission for selected recent major housing projects from a sample of local authorities in southern England. The scale of delay found was far greater than is indicated by average official data measuring the extent to which local authorities meet planning delay targets. If these results are representative of the country as a whole, they indicate that planning delay could be a major cause of the slow responsiveness of British housing supply.

Future Cities in the Making: overcoming barriers to information modelling in socially responsible cities

Building and City Information Modelling (BIM and CIM) could potentially facilitate better planning outcomes, more efficient service provision, and more inclusive community engagement. In doing so, these technologies could help deliver on some of the goals common amongst aspiring smart cities, using data to improve efficiency, services and quality of life. However, information modelling uptake has been slow, and most cities do not incorporate information modelling in their planning processes. Looking beyond information modelling, planning systems worldwide have been slow to adapt to the digital future: most planning systems have not yet digitalised, and lack the tools and incentives to help local authorities and planners make use of emerging technologies. This research explores the barriers to and opportunities for using information modelling in planning in the UK, and probes the ethical questions around how cities and local authorities can use data while protecting citizens’ right to privacy. The project approaches its analysis through three case studies in two UK nations, relying on stakeholder interviews, document analysis, and a questionnaire. We selected three case studies, Bristol, Cambridge and Scotland, to reflect areas with different socioeconomic profiles, planning systems, local authority sizes, and governance structures. The project identified that organisational, data-related, technological, human resource, financial and legal barriers are interrelated. Solutions for overcoming these barriers are themed around enhancing collaboration, leadership, resource management, technology and the planning system at larg

Perspectives on the Role of UK Planning in Land and Property Markets 1

Abstract There is a popular view that land use planning regulations ('planning') is hostile to both development and the development industry. Part of the reason for the prominence of this view is the homogenising of the notion of 'planning' and its reduction to development control. This paper argues that panning controls in the UK are far more sophisticated and, drawing upon empirical evidence of key property interests proposes a more complex and nuanced view of planning controls that, in large part, has the support of the developers and others. 1 This paper is based on a research funded by the UK Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Our thanks to David Adams, Steve Tiesdell and Michael White for their comments and input, the respondents to the questionnaire and those who came to the focus group

Europeanizing Territoriality - Towards Soft Spaces?

This paper explores the coexistence of relational and territorial spaces—soft spaces—through the experiences of EU integration and territorialization. First, we seek a better understanding of EU integration through an engagement with the literature and research on soft spaces. We propose that EU integration is best understood as involving an interplay between territorial and relational understandings and approaches that vary through time, a variation that can be categorized as involving pooled territoriality, supraterritoriality, and nonterritoriality. Second, we seek to add to the current research and literature on soft spaces by focusing upon the changing character of soft spaces and their temporalities. We approach these two dimensions through an exploration of two ex post case studies, the development of which typically shows different stages of softening, hardening, and of differing degrees of Europeanization. With the focus on Europeanization, the paper concludes with three findings: the new spaces of European territoriality are characterized by, first, temporal dynamics, second, their parallel existence with ‘hard’ spaces, and, finally, they can be employed as a political tool

Resisting the 'Long‐Arm' of the State? Spheres of Capture and Opportunities for Autonomy in Community Governance

Efforts to promote community empowerment within regeneration management have been persistently critiqued. Particular concern regards the potential capture of civic organizations into the sphere of influence of more powerful governance stakeholders, leaving communities marginalized and frustrated. Although such ‘capture’ is a discernible threat, this article presents a more nuanced perspective demonstrating the scope for community‐based organizations to dissent from seemingly inexorable regimes of power. The article details a series of tensions that emerged across the evolution of a community‐led regeneration partnership. It then outlines how civil society organizations challenge ‘partnership orthodoxies’, seeking autonomy albeit nested within—and relative to—formal bureaucratic and administrative regimes. Community partners can therefore assume a hybridity of capture and autonomy—or a mutuality—that is rarely acknowledged by accounts that critique regeneration governance