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

References

• Albrechts, L. (2020). Planners in politics: Do they make a difference? Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Alexander, E. (2000). Rationality revisited: Planning paradigms in a post-postmodernist perspective. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19(3), 242–256. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0001900303
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen, J. (2003). Lost geographies of power’. Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Allmendinger, P., Haughton, G., & Shepherd, E. (2016). Where is planning to be found? Material practices and the multiple spaces of planning. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 34(1), 38–51. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X15614178
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allmendinger, P., & Haughton, G. (2012). Post-political spatial planning in England: A crisis of consensus? Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37(1), 89–103. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2011.00468.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allmendinger, P., & Haughton, G. (2013). The evolution and trajectories of English spatial governance: ‘Neoliberal’ episodes in planning. Planning Practice & Research, 28(1), 6–26. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2012.699223
   Google Scholar
• Blanco, I., Griggs, S., & Sullivan, H. (2014). Situating the local in the neoliberalisation and transformation of urban governance. Urban Studies, 51(15), 3129–3146. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098014549292
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradley, Q. (2021). The financialisation of housing land supply in England. Urban Studies, 58(2), 389–404. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098020907278
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission. (2020, January). Living with beauty (Report). https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/building-better-building-beautiful-commission
   Google Scholar
• Cambridge Dictionary. (2021). The Cambridge English Dictionary online. Retrieved July 27, 2021, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/
   Google Scholar
• Clifford, B. (2016). Clock-watching and box-ticking’: British local authority planners, professionalism and performance targets. Planning Practice & Research, 31(4), 383–401. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2016.1178038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coaffee, J., & Healey, P. (2003). My voice, My place: Tracking transformations in urban governance. Urban Studies, 40(10), 1979–1999. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098032000116077
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conservative Party. (2010, February). Open source planning (Policy paper 14). London: The Conservatives.
   Google Scholar
• DCLG/MHCLG. (2011). ‘The Local Government Finance Report (England)’ from 2010/11 – 2020/2021. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/local-government-finance-reports
   Google Scholar
• DCLG. (2009). Development management: Proactive planning from pre-application to delivery.
   Google Scholar
• Dean, M. (1999). Governmentality: Foucault, power and social structure. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Dobson, M. (2019). Neoliberal business as usual or paradigm shift? Planning under austerity localism [Doctoral thesis]. University of Reading.
   Google Scholar
• Dobson, M., Lynn, T., & Parker, G. (2020). Pre-application advice practices in the English planning system. Town and Country Planning, 89(6–7), 196–201.
   Google Scholar
• Ferm, J., & Raco, M. (2020). Viability planning, value capture and the geographies of market-led planning reform in England. Planning Theory & Practice, 21(2), 218–235. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2020.1754446
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and power: Democracy in practice. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B. (1996). The dark side of planning: Rationality and realrationalität. In S. Mandelbaum, L. Mazza, & R. Burchell (Eds.), Explorations in planning theory (pp. 383–394). Center for Urban Policy Research Press.
   Google Scholar
• Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 87–104). University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grosvenor. (2019). Rebuilding trust. Discussion Paper. https://www.grosvenor.com/Grosvenor/files/b5/b5b83d32-b905-46de-80a5-929d70b77335.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Gunder, M. (2010). Planning as the ideology of (neoliberal) space. Planning Theory, 9(4), 298–314. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095210368878
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, N., & Thomas, H. (2011). Clients, customers and consumers: A framework for exploring the user-experience of the planning service. Planning Theory & Practice, 12(2), 249–268. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2011.580157
   Google Scholar
• Haughton, G., Allmendinger, P., Counsell, D., & Vigar, G. (2009). The new spatial planning: Territorial management with soft spaces and fuzzy boundaries’. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Healey, J. (2013). Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries and spatial governance in post‐devolution Wales. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(4), 1325–1348. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01149.x
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P., & Barrett, S. M. (1990). Structure and agency in land and property development processes: Some ideas for research. Urban Studies, 27(1), 89–103. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00420989020080051
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (2003). Collaborative planning in perspective. Planning Theory, 2(2), 101–123. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952030022002
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (2006). Urban complexity and spatial strategies: Towards a relational planning for our times. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Inch, A. (2018). ‘Opening for business’? Neoliberalism and the cultural politics of modernising planning in Scotland. Urban Studies, 55(5), 1076–1092. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098016684731
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, P., & Comfort, D. (2019). Commercialisation in local authority planning. Town and Country Planning, 88(1), 32–36.
   Google Scholar
• Local Government Association [LGA]. (2014). Pre-application suite. Retrieved July 23, 2020, from https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/10-commitments-effective–46b.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Local Government Association. (2017). Enterprising councils. Supporting councils’ income generation activity. LGA.
   Google Scholar
• Lord, A., & Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2014). Is planning “under attack”? Chronicling the deregulation of urban and environmental planning in England. European Planning Studies, 22(2), 345–361. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.741574
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A radical view. London: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government [MHCLG]. (2019). National planning policy guidance online.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government [MHCLG]. (2020, August 6). Planning for the future. Planning White Paper. MHCLG.
   Google Scholar
• National Audit Office [NAO]. (2020, March). Departmental review. Local Government.
   Google Scholar
• Newman, J. (2014). Landscapes of antagonism: Local governance, neoliberalism and austerity. Urban Studies, 51(15), 3290–3305. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098013505159
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NPG [National Planning Guidance]. (2019a). Before submitting an application. Retrieved November 14, 2019, from https://www.gov.uk/guidance/before-submitting-an-application
   Google Scholar
• NPG [National Planning Guidance]. (2019b). Enforcement and post-permission matters. Retrieved November 14, 2019, from https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ensuring-effective-enforcement
   Google Scholar
• Office of the Deputy Prime Minister [ODPM]. (2002). Sustainable communities: Delivering through planning.
   Google Scholar
• Parker, G., & Arita, T. (2019). Planning transparency and public involvement in pre-application discussions. Town and Country Planning, 88(2), 66–70.
   Google Scholar
• Parker, G., Dobson, M., & Lynn, T. (2021a). Community involvement opportunities for the reformed planning system: Frontloading and deliberative democracy. University of Reading. http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/98773/1/Community%20Involvement%20Report%20June_2021_FINAL.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Parker, G., Dobson, M., & Lynn, T. (2021b, October). ‘Paper tigers’: A critical review of statements of community involvement in England (Published report). Reading, UK: University of Reading. http://www.civicvoice.org.uk/uploads/files/SCI_Research_Final_Report_Oct21.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Parker, G., Street, E., & Wargent, M. (2019). Advocates, advisors and scrutineers: The technocracies of private sector planning in England. In M. Raco, and F. Savini (Eds.), Planning and knowledge: How new forms of technocracy are shaping contemporary cities (pp. 157–167). Bristol: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2017). Public management reform (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reay, T., & Hinings, C. (2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30(6), 629–652. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609104803
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reimer, M., Getimis, P., & Blotevogel, H. (2014). Spatial planning systems and practices in Europe: A comparative perspective. In Spatial planning systems and practices in Europe. A comparative perspective on continuity and changes (pp. 1–20). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Rivero, J., Teresa, B., & West, J. (2017). Locating rationalities in planning: Market thinking and its others in the spaces, institutions, and materials of contemporary urban governance. Urban Geography, 38(2), 174–176. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2016.1206703
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose, N., O’Malley, P., & Valverde, M. (2006). Governmentality. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 2(1), 83–104. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.2.081805.105900
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RTPI. (2019, July). Resourcing public planning. RTPI research paper. RTPI.
   Google Scholar
• Sager, T. (2011). Neo-liberal urban planning policies: A literature survey 1990–2010. Progress in Planning, 76(4), 147–199. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2011.09.0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Savini, F., & Aalbers, M. (2016). The de-contextualisation of land use planning through financialisation: Urban redevelopment in Milan. European Urban and Regional Studies, 23(4), 878–894. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776415585887
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Shaw, D., & Lord, A. (2007). The cultural turn? Culture change and what it means for spatial planning in England. Planning, Practice & Research, 22(1), 63–78. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/02697450601173538
   Google Scholar
• Shepherd, E. (2020). Liberty, property and the state: The ideology of the institution of English town and country planning. Progress in Planning, 135, 100425. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2018.09.001
   Google Scholar
• Slade, J., Tait, M., & Inch, A. (2021). We need to put what we do in my dad’s language, in pounds, shillings and pence’: Commercialisation and the reshaping of public-sector planning in England. Urban Studies, 004209802198995. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098021989953
   Google Scholar
• Tasan-Kok, T., & Baeten, G. (eds.). (2011). Contradictions of neoliberal planning: Cities, policies, and politics. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Venugopal, R. (2015). Neoliberalism as concept. Economy and Society, 44(2), 165–187. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2015.1013356
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verma, N. (1996). Pragmatic rationality and planning theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 16(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X9601600102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waldron, R. (2019). Financialization, urban governance and the planning system: Utilizing ‘development viability’ as a policy narrative for the liberalization of Ireland’s post‐crash planning system. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 43(4), 685–704. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12789
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wargent, M. (2021). Localism, governmentality and failing technologies: The case of Neighbourhood Planning in England. Territory, Politics, Governance, 9(4), 571–591. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2020.1737209
   Google Scholar
• Watson, V. (2003). Conflicting rationalities: Implications for planning theory and ethics. Planning Theory & Practice, 4(4), 395–407. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/1464935032000146318
   Google Scholar
• Watson, V. (2013). The ethics of planners and their professional bodies: Response to Flyvbjerg. Cities, 32, 167–168. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2013.04.003
   Google Scholar
• Yiftachel, O. (1998). Planning and social control: Exploring the dark side. Journal of Planning Literature, 12(4), 395–406. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/088541229801200401
   Google Scholar