Planning gain: there must be a better way

Abstract

Much of the practice by which planning gain is obtained from developers is bad practice, violating the fundamental principle that planning permissions cannot be bought and sold. After reviewing government policy and the law related to the practice of 'planning gain', this paper offers a de nition of 'planning gain' which covers most discussion of the subject. It then continues by distinguishing between the products of planning gain practice and its processes. Six strands of product are then distinguished, and their legitimacy analysed, following which the paper turns to process, explaining how the practice of negotiating planning obligations and agreements has predominated over the simpler method of imposing conditions on permissions. Finally, some measures for the improvement of practice are suggested and reviewed, in the hope that a way may be found to end the abuse that is bringing planning into disrepute.The paper is based on lengthy experience in planning practice, supplemented by study of current literature and sources and informal discussions with practitioners.

Moral Obligations, Planning, and the Public Interest: A Commentary on Current British Practice

“…This has long been a matter of controversy but the problematic nature of gain in relation to acceptable standards in public affairs has heightened in recent years (CSPL, 1997). Planning gain is now increasingly perceived by developers as a normal element in development costs (Campbell et al, 1999;Crow, 1998). More problematic still, if less universal, are the issues raised by partnership arrangements between the public and private sectors in the form of a company in which both parties have a financial stake.…”

Information is Power: Public Disclosure of Information in the Planning Decision-Making Process

“…There are also 'conflicting pressures', for example the development industry's desire for clarity and speed in decision-making and the government seeking to 'empower' people to become involved in the process (Ellis, 2000, p. 203). Furthermore, the extent to which the system has been 'opened up' to meaningful public involvement is limited by the manner in which some forms of information is managed, potentially reducing the extent to which communities can reach informed decisions upon development proposals (Crow, 1998). Therefore, despite the growth and evolution of public participation and engagement in planning, there are still challenges that call into question the intended purpose of that wider public involvement and 'what its ultimate objectives and limits might be' (Ellis, 2000, p. 203).…”

Securing public objectives in large-scale urban development: Comparison of public and private land development

“…If the decisions are combined with negotiable contributions from the landowner to public infrastructure provision -in money or in kind -the legitimacy of the decisions can be questioned (Mäntysalo and Saglie, 2010). This can lead to a situation where the public authority appears to be selling the planning decisions in exchange for the contributions offered in those non-public negotiations (Crow, 1998;Campbell and Marshall, 2000;Fox-Rogers and Murphy, 2015). On the other hand, it can also be argued that such negotiable contributions allow landowners to compensate for the externalities caused by their developments (Webster, 1998).…”