Comparing Urban Planning Systems
Knowing the core elements or components in a planning system provides a basis for understanding the way in which specific planning systems work within particular jurisdictions. Two important reference points for modern regulatory planning systems are the approaches which have evolved in the UK and the USA. These are very different systems—one characterised by highly codified land use controls through zoning and detailed local ordinances (the USA) and the other by a discretionary system which evaluates most development proposals on their merits (the UK). However, as shown in Table 2.1, planning systems in both the UK and USA differ in important ways to the other jurisdictions considered in Part II of this book. Both Ireland and Australia combine elements of the UK and the US models, employing land use zones as a foundational form of development control whilst also enabling discretionary assessment of
|
UK/England |
USA |
Ireland |
Hong Kong/China |
Australia |
|
|
Source of power/ legislation |
National/local (also subject to EU) |
State/local |
National/local (also subject to EU) |
National/local |
State (including the territories)/ local |
|
Decision maker |
Local (elected) authority (subject to oversight of independent Planning Inspectorate). |
Varies—from elected officials to independent planning commissions |
Local authority (in the context of national and regional planning guidance) |
Town Planning Board (authority appointed by the Hong Kong executive) |
Local authority (local matters); subject to state oversight & (increasingly) panels of appointed experts |
|
Land use plans |
Guiding spatial policy—local plans and neighbourhood plans (if adopted) must be consistent with the national planning framework |
Zoning ordinances and development controls Some states have comprehensive spatial plans, implemented by local authorities |
Spatial plans, zones, development controls |
Spatial plans, zones |
Spatial plans, zones, detailed development controls |
|
Development assessment |
Discretionary |
Limited/no discretion |
Mixed (fixed controls, some discretion) |
Mixed (fixed controls, some discretion) |
Mixed (fixed controls, some discretion) |
(continued)
|
UK/England |
USA |
Ireland |
Hong Kong/China |
Australia |
|
|
Participation rights |
Participation when plans are made and proposals assessed 21 days exhibition/ consultation for development proposals No third party appeal rights |
Varies (minimum includes exhibition/ submission of draft planning regulations and proposed development |
When plans are made and proposals assessed Third party appeal rights |
When plans are made and proposals assessed |
When plans are made and proposals assessed Limited third party appeal rights (Victoria) |
|
Infrastructure funding/Value capture |
Planning 'gain' Fixed levy and provision for negotiated contributions from developers (viability of development considered) |
Varies between jurisdictions— 'impact fees' commonly required—must be 'nexus' between development and impact fee Value capture enabled in some jurisdictions |
Development contributions required as a condition of development approval |
N/A (development profit finances infrastructure) |
Mixed (from minimal requirements to full cost of local infrastructure provision and some regional items) No direct value capture schemes |
(continued)
|
UK/England |
USA |
Ireland |
Elong Kong/China |
Australia |
|
|
Timeframes |
8 weeks (local planning decisions, 13 weeks for major development) Development must commence within 3 years (after which need to reapply). |
Varies between state/local jurisdictions |
2 months (development assessment) |
2 months (development assessment, including consultation) |
20-40 days (development assessment) Permissions expire within 2-5 years but able to be extended |
|
Provisions for affordable housing |
Yes, through infrastructure funding mechanism ('s106') in England |
Most states allow local authorities to impose 'inclusionary' housing requirements or incentives, or require them to accept affordable housing development |
Provision to require affordable homes as part of new development projects ('Part V') |
Public housing developed as part of government driven land and housing development process |
Minimal, states impose strict limits on extent to which local authorities can use planning mechanisms for affordable housing |
Sources'. The authors proposals on merit. Nevertheless, under the Irish system, local authorities maintain autonomy over planning decisions whilst in Australia this autonomy is curtailed by state and territorial governments who can and do intervene in processes of plan-making and development assessment.
All jurisdictions shown use the planning process to coordinate and help deliver local infrastructure and facilities needed to support development, although the approach to determining contribution requirements differs. The UK is distinct in recognising ‘value capture’ as inherent to the development contributions framework. In enabling only limited mechanisms to support affordable housing through the planning process, Australia appears unique amongst the countries compared here, although practice differs across the Australian states and territories.
