Abstract
The critique of planning and new proposals to reform the English planning system and “rethink planning from first principles” have led to the introduction of rules-based principles into what is regarded as the paradigm of a discretionary planning system, culminating in a recent White Paper, which it is claimed will create a faster and better planning system than the existing discretionary approach. But are these proposals based on an oversimplified understanding of the differences between discretionary and regulatory models, neglecting, for example, the negotiation between stakeholders and the flexibility which also exists in regulatory planning systems? Our contribution will review some of the recent changes of the English planning system and reflect on experiences with zoning in European countries to bust the myth that the planning reform claims to address: the possibility to combine faster decision making with better place making and less interference from local planning authorities.
Subject
Geography, Planning and Development
Reference61 articles.
1. Adam Smith Institute (1983): Local Government, Planning and Housing. London.
2. Airey, J.; Doughty, C. (2020): Rethinking the Planning System for the 21st Century. London.
3. Allmendinger, P. (1997): Thatcherism and Simplified Planning Zones. An implementation perspective. In: Planning Practice and Research 12, 2, 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459716617
4. Allmendinger, P. (2016): Neoliberal Spatial Governance. London.
5. Ball, M. (2011): Planning delay and the responsiveness of English housing supply. In: Urban Studies 48, 2, 349–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098010363499
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献