Governmental Logics in Commercialised Planning Practices. The Case of Local Authority Pre-Application Negotiations in the English Planning System

Figures & data

Table 1. Key planning interests as ‘audiences’ and the driving logics

Interest/Audience	Aligning Logics (primary, secondary)
Development industry/applicants	Efficiency, Growth
Public	Quality, Participation
Planning profession	Quality, Growth
Local Planning Authority	Commercialisation, Efficiency
National Government	Main four logics sustained concurrently to serve wider political/governance objectives while ‘quality’ remains implicit – Growth as the primary logic

Table 2. Planning tools, logics and audiences in the English planning system

Planning tool	Stage in system (Time)	Regulatory Source/Space	Logics/Assumptions	Audience Costs/Benefits
Pre-apps	Before formal planning application	Discretionary/Informal Fuzzy/Soft	Efficiency – Improve speed, clarity and participation in the planning permission process Commercialisation – public sector financial self-sufficiency	Local authorities – gain much needed additional incomes Public – opportunity to feed into development proposals at inception
Development Viability Assessment	Various – pre and post planning application	Discretionary/Informal Semi-formalised	Growth – Economic Test and review the economic viability of development schemes	Local Authority – Reduced developer contribution to S106 Developer – Delivery of much needed development
PDRs -permitted development (post 2013)	Instead of planning application	Formal -GPDO relaxations 2013	Efficiency + Growth – Delivering housing through GPDO	Public – Issues over quality of PD Developer – Increased delivery of housing
Local Plan + Site allocations/designations	Early in local plan process	Statutory/Formal	Growth + Efficiency – Certainty of acceptable land-use development Quality – Improved sustainability and design of local area	Developer – Reduced planning risk/costs Local Authority – greater control over development in area
Neighbourhood Planning	Parallel to local planning	Discretionary/Semi-formalised	Participation + Growth – Promote localism as a form of state governance but with growth as overarching goal	Public – Community participation BUT uneven access/resources + co-option
NPPF/NPPG	Throughout planning system	Formal/Material Consideration	Efficiency + Growth – Streamline and simplify national planning policy	Local Authority – Ambiguous/Interpretivist frame to develop local policy Developer – Flexible framework
Section 106 / CIL	During the application consent process	Formal – legal contract/charge	Quality – Public interest and land value capture from public to private ownership	Local Authority – Funds social provision of development schemes Developer – Policy can be negotiated/revisited

Figure 1. Central government funding for LPAs via Revenue Support Grant (2010–2019)

Source: Local government finance reports 2011–2020.

Figure 2. English local planning authority pre-app income (reported and estimated)

Light bars are actual reported figures, dark bars are estimated income. Reported amounts: £8.061 m (2016–17); £8.996 m (2017–18), and £10,615,039 (2018–19). Estimated amounts are: £36.106 m (2016–17); £40.292 m (2017–18); £47.543 m (2018–19).