IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v109y2021ics0264837721003306.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Outcome-focused plan discretion for facilitating residential intensification: Exploring the insights and experience of property developers and planners

Author

Listed:
  • Liu, Wen
  • Beattie, Lee
  • Haarhoff, Errol

Abstract

Globally, many planning systems demonstrate the coexistence of characteristics that fall between regulatory zoning and underlying discretion. However, few empirical studies have examined how this combination is perceived an exercised, in particular in the practices of property developers. This study explores the role of the policy framework in development activities, the tactics developers adopt in response, and their perceptions and experience of its influence and effectiveness for realising intended outcomes. This is critically examined through scrutinizing the statutory plan in Auckland (the Auckland Unitary Plan), which employs a combination of prescriptive- and discretionary- approaches in addition to a range of activity-based zones, targeted at delivering a greater proportion of medium to higher density housing. The study explores developers and planners’ understandings of this policy framework, the influence and effectiveness of the hybrid approach, and how they respond to this approach. The contradictory results reported in this paper question whether hybrid approaches achieve the outcomes anticipated, in particular, developers may not understand or value the stated policy outcomes. Developers perceive the statutory planning instruments as just one consideration, or a tool for assisting in assessing project feasibility. The hybrid policy-outcome-based-approach therefore remains limited in affecting developers’ practices towards achieving the intended policy outcomes. Further, our findings highlight the need to consider market actors as diverse in both their views on the plan’s discretionary aspects and their approaches and strategies for adapting to this approach. The findings also shed light on the relationship between the plan quality characteristics of the hybrid approach and the realization of desired outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Liu, Wen & Beattie, Lee & Haarhoff, Errol, 2021. "Outcome-focused plan discretion for facilitating residential intensification: Exploring the insights and experience of property developers and planners," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:109:y:2021:i:c:s0264837721003306
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105607
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837721003306
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105607?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kristian Ruming, 2012. "Negotiating Within the Context of Planning Reform: Public and Private Reflections from New South Wales, Australia," International Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(4), pages 397-418.
    2. Patsy Healey, 2004. "The Treatment of Space and Place in the New Strategic Spatial Planning in Europe," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 45-67, March.
    3. Eero Valtonen & Heidi Falkenbach & Kauko Viitanen, 2017. "Development-led planning practices in a plan-led planning system: empirical evidence from Finland," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(6), pages 1053-1075, June.
    4. Nick Gallent & Claudio de Magalhaes & Sonia Freire Trigo & Kath Scanlon & Christine Whitehead, 2019. "Can ‘Permission in Principle’ for New Housing in England Increase Certainty, Reduce ‘Planning Risk’, and Accelerate Housing Supply?," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(5), pages 673-688, October.
    5. Lucie Laurian & Maxine Day & Michael Backhurst & Philip Berke & Neil Ericksen & Jan Crawford & Jenny Dixon & Sarah Chapman, 2004. "What drives plan implementation? Plans, planning agencies and developers," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(4), pages 555-577.
    6. Gallent, Nick & de Magalhaes, Claudio & Trigo, Sonia Freire & Scanlon, Kathleen & Whitehead, Christine M E, 2019. "Can ‘permission in principle’ for new housing in England increase certainty, reduce ‘planning risk’, and accelerate housing supply?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 102124, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Philip Catney & John Henneberry, 2012. "(Not) Exercising Discretion: Environmental Planning and the Politics of Blame-Avoidance," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(4), pages 549-568, December.
    8. Chris Webster & Lawrence W.-C. Lai, 2003. "Property Rights, Planning and Markets," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2625.
    9. Harvey, David, 2007. "A Brief History of Neoliberalism," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199283279.
    10. Nicole Gurran & Peter Phibbs, 2013. "Housing supply and urban planning reform: the recent Australian experience, 2003–2012," International Journal of Housing Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(4), pages 381-407, December.
    11. Wendy Steele & Kristian Ruming, 2012. "Flexibility versus Certainty: Unsettling the Land-use Planning Shibboleth in Australia," Planning Practice & Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(2), pages 155-176.
    12. Nicole Gurran & Peter Phibbs, 2013. "Housing supply and urban planning reform: the recent Australian experience, 2003–2012," European Journal of Housing Policy, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 13(4), pages 381-407, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Oliveira, Eduardo & Hersperger, Anna M., 2018. "Governance arrangements, funding mechanisms and power configurations in current practices of strategic spatial plan implementation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 623-633.
    2. Korthals Altes, Willem K., 2019. "Planning initiative: Promoting development by the use of options in Amsterdam," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 13-21.
    3. Murray, Cameron K., 2020. "Time is money: How landbanking constrains housing supply," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    4. Niedziałkowski, Krzysztof & Beunen, Raoul, 2019. "The risky business of planning reform – The evolution of local spatial planning in Poland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 11-20.
    5. Julie Pollard, 2023. "The political conditions of the rise of real-estate developers in French housing policies," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 41(2), pages 274-291, March.
    6. Khandakar Farid Uddin & Awais Piracha, 2023. "Neoliberalism, Power, and Right to the City and the Urban Divide in Sydney, Australia," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-18, February.
    7. Laurence Murphy, 2016. "The politics of land supply and affordable housing: Auckland’s Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 53(12), pages 2530-2547, September.
    8. Alex Lord & Philip O’Brien, 2017. "What price planning? Reimagining planning as “market maker”," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(2), pages 217-232, April.
    9. Peter Phibbs & Nicole Gurran, 2021. "The role and significance of planning in the determination of house prices in Australia: Recent policy debates," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 53(3), pages 457-479, May.
    10. Taha H Rashidi & Milad Ghasri, 2019. "A competing survival analysis for housing relocation behaviour and risk aversion in a resilient housing market," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 46(1), pages 122-142, January.
    11. Murray, Cameron, 2019. "The Australian housing supply myth," OSF Preprints r925z, Center for Open Science.
    12. Easthope, Hazel & Palmer, Jasmine & Sharam, Andrea & Nethercote, Megan & Pignatta, Gloria & Crommelin, Laura, 2023. "Delivering sustainable apartment housing: New build and retrofit," SocArXiv z6yn4, Center for Open Science.
    13. Katrina Raynor & Severine Mayere & Tony Matthews, 2018. "Do ‘city shapers’ really support urban consolidation? The case of Brisbane, Australia," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 55(5), pages 1056-1075, April.
    14. Antoine Paccoud & Markus Hesse & Tom Becker & Magdalena Górczyńska, 2022. "Land and the housing affordability crisis: landowner and developer strategies in Luxembourg’s facilitative planning context," Housing Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(10), pages 1782-1799, October.
    15. Brendan Murtagh & Peter Shirlow, 2012. "Devolution and the Politics of Development in Northern Ireland," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 30(1), pages 46-61, February.
    16. Donald Leffers & Gerda R Wekerle, 2020. "Land developers as institutional and postpolitical actors: Sites of power in land use policy and planning," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 52(2), pages 318-336, March.
    17. Ji, Qiang & Marfatia, Hardik & Gupta, Rangan, 2018. "Information spillover across international real estate investment trusts: Evidence from an entropy-based network analysis," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 103-113.
    18. Claude Lacour & Sylvette Puissant, 2007. "Re-Urbanity: Urbanising the Rural and Ruralising the Urban," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 39(3), pages 728-747, March.
    19. Jamie Redman, 2020. "The Benefit Sanction: A Correctional Device or a Weapon of Disgust?," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 25(1), pages 84-100, March.
    20. Han, Wenjing & Zhang, Xiaoling & Zheng, Xian, 2020. "Land use regulation and urban land value: Evidence from China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:109:y:2021:i:c:s0264837721003306. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.