Financial viability appraisals for site-specific planning decisions in England

In England, appraisals of the financial viability of development schemes have become an integral part of planning policy-making, initially in determining the amount of planning obligations that might be obtained via legal agreements (known as Section 106 agreements) and latterly as a basis for establishing charging schedules for the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Local planning authorities set these policies on an area-wide basis but ultimately development proposals require consent on a site-by-site basis. It is at this site-specific level that issues of viability are hotly contested. This paper examines case documents, proofs of evidence and decisions from a sample of planning disputes in order to address major issues within development viability, the application of the models and the distribution of the development gain between the developer, landowner and community. The results have specific application to viability assessment in England and should impact on future policy and practice guidance in this field. They also have relevance to other countries that incorporate assessments of economic viability in their planning systems.

The new localism, anti-political development machines, and the role of planning consultants: lessons from London's South Bank

This paper draws on a study of the politics of development planning in London’s South Bank to examine wider trends in the governance of contemporary cities. It assesses the impacts and outcomes of so-called new localist reforms and argues that we are witnessing two principal trends. First, governance processes are increasingly dominated by anti-democratic development machines, characterized by new assemblages of public- and private-sector experts. These machines reflect and reproduce a type of development politics in which there is a greater emphasis on a pragmatic realism and a politics of delivery. Second, the presence of these machines is having a significant impact on the politics of planning. Democratic engagement is not seen as the basis for new forms of localism and community control. Instead, it is presented as a potentially disruptive force that needs to be managed by a new breed of skilled private-sector consultant. The paper examines these wider shifts in urban politics before focusing on the connections between emerging development machines and local residential and business communities. It ends by highlighting some of the wider implications of change for democratic modes of engagement and nodes of resistance in urban politics.

Governing calculative practices: An investigation of development viability modelling in the English planning system

Over the last decade the English planning system has placed greater emphasis on the financial viability of development. ‘Calculative’ practices have been used to quantify and capture land value uplifts. Development viability appraisal (DVA) has become a key part of the evidence base used in planning decision-making and informs both ‘site-specific’ negotiations about the level of land value capture for individual schemes and ‘area-wide’ planning policy formation. This paper investigates how implementation of DVA is governed in planning policy formation. It is argued that the increased use of DVA raises important questions about how planning decisions are made and operationalised, not least because DVA is often poorly understood by some key stakeholders. The paper uses the concept of governance to thematically analyse semi-structured interviews conducted with the producers of DVAs and considers key procedural issues including (in)consistencies in appraisal practices, levels of stakeholder consultation and the potential for client and producer bias. Whilst stakeholder consultation is shown to be integral to the appraisal process in order to improve the quality of the appraisals and to legitimise the outputs, participation is restricted to industry experts and excludes some interest groups, including local communities. It is concluded that, largely because of its recent adoption and knowledge asymmetries between local planning authorities and appraisers, DVA is a weakly governed process characterised by emerging and contested guidance and is therefore ‘up for grabs’.

The take-up of Neighbourhood Planning in England 2011-2015

Exploration of how neighbourhoods and others have responded to the UK government’s localism agenda in England, and specifically towards Neighbourhood Planning (NP), is important given that NP is a prominent part of that policy agenda. It is also of interest as the ramifications emerge for planning practice in the formal introduction of statutory plans which are ostensibly led by communities (Parker et al, 2015; Gallent, 2013). There is a necessary task to provide critical commentary on the socio-economic impact of localist policy. The paper explores the issues arising from experience thus far and highlights the take-up of Neighbourhood Planning since 2011. This assessment shows how a vast majority of those active have been in parished areas and in less-deprived areas. This indicates that government needs to do more to ensure that NP is accessible and worthwhile for a wider range of communities.

The role of Planning Aid England in supporting communities’ engagement in planning

In considering the position of community engagement within planning in a time of neo-liberalism and a context of ‘neo-communitarian localism’ (cf. Jessop, 2002; DeFilippis, 2004), this paper reviews the role and relevance of Planning Aid in terms of its performance and aspirations in guiding and transforming planning practice (Friedmann, 1973; 1987; 2011) since its inception in 1973. In doing this we reflect on the critiques of Planning Aid performance provided by Allmendinger (2004) and bring the account up-to-date following on from past considerations (e.g. Bidwell and Edgar, 1982; Thomas, 1992; Brownill and Carpenter, 2007a,b; Carpenter and Brownill, 2008) and prompted by the 35 years since the University of Reading produced the first published work reviewing Planning Aid (Curtis and Edwards, 1980). Our paper is timely given renewed attacks on planning, the implementation of a form of localism and reductions in funding for planning in a time of austerity. Our view is that the need for forms of ‘neo-advocacy’ planning and community development are perhaps even more necessary now, given the continuing under-representation of lower income groups, minority groups and to allow for the expression of alternative planning futures. Thus further consideration of how to ensure that Planning Aid functions are sustained and understood requires the attention of policymakers and the planning profession more widely.