Contracting in the Public Interest? Re-examining the Role of Planning Obligations in Contemporary Town Planning Processes

IF 1.4 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Edward Mitchell
{"title":"Contracting in the Public Interest? Re-examining the Role of Planning Obligations in Contemporary Town Planning Processes","authors":"Edward Mitchell","doi":"10.1093/clp/cuae005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article investigates how local authorities in England seek to compel property developers to mitigate the impact of property development on local communities and on local infrastructure needs through the use of planning obligations made by agreement with developers pursuant to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. I pose three important new questions about these ‘section 106 agreements’. How do these agreements contribute to a development culture in which private developers do not always perform their public policy obligations? How does the presence of ostensibly binding promises in these agreements facilitate the exercise of regulatory decision-making in planning and property development processes? How do local authorities manage the implementation of novel developer obligations designed to shape broader community relations? I answer these questions by examining two case study development projects. In doing so, I highlight the limited role that these agreements have as an instrument for ordering the ‘private’ relations between a local authority and a developer. I then look outside the private ordering function of these agreements to scrutinise the public-facing work they do. Here, I highlight how a section 106 agreement carries a powerful expressive force, despite its weakness as a private ordering device, that developers and local authorities can use to justify contentious development proposals involving coercive compulsory purchase powers and potentially adverse equalities implications. The article thus adds to what is already known about the use and implementation of planning obligations, and sketches a research agenda that would inform debate about the future of this area of planning practice.","PeriodicalId":45282,"journal":{"name":"Current Legal Problems","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Legal Problems","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/clp/cuae005","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article investigates how local authorities in England seek to compel property developers to mitigate the impact of property development on local communities and on local infrastructure needs through the use of planning obligations made by agreement with developers pursuant to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. I pose three important new questions about these ‘section 106 agreements’. How do these agreements contribute to a development culture in which private developers do not always perform their public policy obligations? How does the presence of ostensibly binding promises in these agreements facilitate the exercise of regulatory decision-making in planning and property development processes? How do local authorities manage the implementation of novel developer obligations designed to shape broader community relations? I answer these questions by examining two case study development projects. In doing so, I highlight the limited role that these agreements have as an instrument for ordering the ‘private’ relations between a local authority and a developer. I then look outside the private ordering function of these agreements to scrutinise the public-facing work they do. Here, I highlight how a section 106 agreement carries a powerful expressive force, despite its weakness as a private ordering device, that developers and local authorities can use to justify contentious development proposals involving coercive compulsory purchase powers and potentially adverse equalities implications. The article thus adds to what is already known about the use and implementation of planning obligations, and sketches a research agenda that would inform debate about the future of this area of planning practice.
公共利益的契约?重新审视规划义务在当代城市规划过程中的作用
本文探讨了英格兰地方政府如何根据 1990 年《城乡规划法》第 106 条的规定,通过与开发商达成协议,利用规划义务来迫使房地产开发商减轻房地产开发对当地社区和当地基础设施需求的影响。关于这些 "第 106 条协议",我提出了三个重要的新问题。这些协议是如何促成一种私人开发商并不总是履行其公共政策义务的开发文化的?这些协议中表面上具有约束力的承诺是如何促进在规划和房地产开发过程中行使监管决策的?地方政府如何管理旨在塑造更广泛社区关系的新型开发商义务的履行?我通过研究两个案例研究开发项目来回答这些问题。在此过程中,我强调了这些协议作为地方政府与开发商之间 "私人 "关系的排序工具所发挥的有限作用。然后,我跳出这些协议的 "私人 "排序功能,对其面向公众的工作进行审查。在此,我强调了尽管第 106 条协议作为一种私人排序工具存在缺陷,但它仍具有强大的表达力,开发商和地方政府可以利用它来证明涉及强制购买权和潜在不利平等影响的有争议的开发提案的合理性。因此,这篇文章补充了人们对规划义务的使用和执行的了解,并勾勒出一个研究议程,为关于这一规划实践领域未来的辩论提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
期刊介绍: The lectures are public, delivered on a weekly basis and chaired by members of the judiciary. CLP features scholarly articles that offer a critical analysis of important current legal issues. It covers all areas of legal scholarship and features a wide range of methodological approaches to law.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信