Fit for planning? An evaluation of the application of development viability appraisal models in the UK planning system

The aim of this paper is to critically examine the application of development appraisal to viability assessment in the planning system. This evaluation is of development appraisal models in general and also their use in particular applications associated with estimating planning obligation capacity. The paper is organised into four themes: · The context and conceptual basis for development viability appraisal · A review of development viability appraisal methods · A discussion of selected key inputs into a development viability appraisal · A discussion of the applications of development viability appraisals in the planning system It is assumed that readers are familiar with the basic models and information needs of development viability appraisal rather than at the cutting edge of practice and/or academe

Changing direction on direction of fit

In this paper, I show that we should understand the direction of fit of beliefs and desires in normative terms. After rehearsing a standard objection to Michael Smith’s analysis of direction of fit, I raise a similar problem for Lloyd Humberstone’s analysis. I go on to offer my own account, according to which the difference between beliefs and desires is determined by the normative relations such states stand in. I argue that beliefs are states which we have reason to change in light of the world, whereas desires are states that give us reason to change the world. After doing this, I show how the view avoids various objections, including two from David Sobel and David Copp. The paper ends by briefly discussing the relevance of the view to the Humean theory of motivation.

Fit for policy? Some evidence on the application of development viability models in the UK planning system

This paper investigates the application and use of development viability models in the formation of planning policies in the UK. Particular attention is paid to three key areas; the assumed development scheme in development viability models, the use of forecasts and the debate concerning Threshold Land Value. The empirical section reports on the results of an interview survey involving the main producers of development viability models and appraisals. It is concluded that, although development viability models have intrinsic limitations associated with model composition and input uncertainties, the most significant limitations are related to the ways that they have been adapted for use in the planning system. In addition, it is suggested that the contested nature of Threshold Land Value is an example of calculative practices providing a façade of technocratic rationality in the planning system.

Comparing the fit between BREEAM assessment and design processes

This paper explores the mapping of the environmental assessment process onto design and construction processes. A comparative case study method is used to identify and account for variations in the ‘fit’ between these two processes. The analysis compares eight BREEAM projects (although relevant to LEED, GreenStar, etc.) and distinguishes project-level characteristics and dynamics. Drawing on insights from literature on sustainable construction and assessment methods, an analytic framework is developed to examine the effect of clusters of project and assessment level elements on different types of fit (tight, punctual and bolt-on). Key elements distinguishing between types include: prior working experience with project team members, individual commitment to sustainable construction, experience with sustainable construction, project continuity, project-level ownership of the assessment process, and the nature and continuity of assessor involvement. Professionals with ‘sustainable’ experience used BREEAM judiciously to support their designs (along with other frameworks), but less committed professionals tended to treat it purely as an assessment method. More attention needs to be paid to individual levels of engagement with, and understanding of, sustainability in general (rather than knowledge of technical solutions to individual credits), to ownership of the assessment process and to the potential effect of discontinuities at the project level on sustainable design.

From harmonisation to better, smart and fit food law

As the European Union (EU) approaches its 60th anniversary, it is worth assessing progress towards a key objective – the abolition of barriers to the marketing of food in the EU. Food has always created particular problems for the EU as national differences in diets, culture and geography make standardisation impossible. Early attempts focussed on direct measures to harmonise requirements or, later, to create an ‘internal market’. Subsequently a changed emphasis brought about the need to focus more clearly on the harmonisation of food safety. More widely, the recent recognition that too much legislation can itself create barriers has led legislators to attempt to consider more carefully the impact of their efforts. This paper reflects on the various stages in the creation of harmonised food controls and considers how case law has impacted the process. Today there are still differences and complete barrier-free trade seems some way off.