The quest for certainty: Introducing zoning into a discretionary system in England and the European experience




Planning systems, legal certainty, flexibility , England , Europe


The critique of planning and new proposals to reform the English planning system and “rethink planning from first principles” have led to the introduction of rules-based principles into what is regarded as the paradigm of a discretionary planning system, culminating in a recent White Paper, which it is claimed will create a faster and better planning system than the existing discretionary approach. But are these proposals based on an oversimplified understanding of the differences between discretionary and regulatory models, neglecting, for example, the negotiation between stakeholders and the flexibility which also exists in regulatory planning systems? Our contribution will review some of the recent changes of the English planning system and reflect on experiences with zoning in European countries to bust the myth that the planning reform claims to address: the possibility to combine faster decision making with better place making and less interference from local planning authorities.


Download data is not yet available.


Adam Smith Institute (1983): Local Government, Planning and Housing. London.

Airey, J.; Doughty, C. (2020): Rethinking the Planning System for the 21st Century. London.

Allmendinger, P. (1997): Thatcherism and Simplified Planning Zones. An implementation perspective. In: Planning Practice and Research 12, 2, 147–160. DOI:

Allmendinger, P. (2016): Neoliberal Spatial Governance. London. DOI:

Ball, M. (2011): Planning delay and the responsiveness of English housing supply. In: Urban Studies 48, 2, 349–362. DOI:

Barker, K. (2008): Planning policy, planning practice, and housing supply. In: Oxford Review of Economic Policy 24, 1, 34–49. DOI:

BBBBC – Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission (2020): Living with Beauty Promoting health, well-being and sustainable growth. London.

Berisha, E.; Cotella, G.; Janin Rivolin, U.; Solly, A. (2021): Spatial governance and planning systems in the public control of spatial development. A European typology. In: European Planning Studies 29, 1, 181–200. DOI:

Booth, P. (1995): Zoning or discretionary action. Certainty and responsiveness in implementing planning policy. In: Journal of Planning Education and Research 14, 2, 103–112. DOI:

Booth, P. (2003): Planning by Consent. The Origins and Nature of British Developmental Control. London. DOI:

Booth, P. (2007): The control of discretion. Planning and the common law tradition. In: Planning Theory 6, 2, 127–145. DOI:

Bradley, Q. (2021): The financialisation of housing land supply in England. In: Urban Studies 58, 2, 389–404. DOI:

Bradley, Q. (2022): The accountancy of marketisation. Fictional markets in housing land supply. In: Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 54, 3, 493–507. DOI:

Breach, A. (2019): Capital Cities. How the Planning System Creates Housing Shortages and Drives Wealth Inequality. London.

Buitelaar, E.; Galle, M.; Sorel, N. (2011): Plan-led planning systems in development-led practices. An empirical analysis into the (lack of) institutionalisation of planning law. In: Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 43, 4, 928–941. DOI:

Buitelaar, E.; Sorel, N. (2010): Between the rule of law and the quest for control. Legal certainty in the Dutch planning system. In: Land Use Policy 27, 3, 983–989. DOI:

Cheshire, P. (2018): Broken market or broken policy? The unintended consequences of restrictive planning. In: National Institute Economic Review 245, R9–R19. DOI:

CLG – Department for Communities and Local Government (2012): National Planning Policy Framework. London.

Clifford, B.; Canelas, P.; Ferm, J.; Livingstone, N.; Lord, A.; Dunning, R. (2020): Research into the quality standard of homes delivered through change of use permitted development rights. London.

Clifford, B.; Madeddu, M. (2022): Turning shops into housing? Planning deregulation, design quality and the future of the high street in England. In: Built Environment 48, 1, 123–140. DOI:

Crow, S. (1996): Development control. The child that grew up in the cold. In: Planning Perspectives 11, 4, 399–411. DOI:

Davies, H.W.E. (1998): Continuity and Change. The Evolution of the British Planning System, 1947-97. In: Town Planning Review 69, 2, 135–152. DOI:

Dembski, S. (2020): ‘Organic’ approaches to planning as densification strategy? The challenge of legal contextualisation in Buiksloterham, Amsterdam. In: Town Planning Review 91, 3, 283–303. DOI:

Faludi, A. (1987): A Decision-Centred View of Environmental Planning. Oxford. = Urban and Regional Planning Series 38. DOI:

Feiertag, P.; Schoppengerd, J. (2023): Flexibility in planning through frequent amendments. The practice of land use planning in Germany. In: Planning Practice and Research 38, 1, 105–122. DOI:

Ferm, J.; Clifford, B.; Canelas, P.; Livingstone, N. (2021): Emerging problematics of deregulating the urban. The case of permitted development in England. In: Urban Studies 58, 10, 2040–2058. DOI:

Ferm, J.; Raco, M. (2020): Viability planning, value capture and the geographies of market-led planning reform in England. In: Planning Theory and Practice 21, 2, 218–235. DOI:

Foye, C. (2022): Framing the housing crisis: How think-tanks frame politics and science to advance policy agendas. In: Geoforum 134, 71–81. DOI:

Gallent, N.; de Magalhaes, C.; Freire Trigo, S.; Scanlon, K.; Whitehead, C. (2019): Can ‘permission in principle’ for new housing in England increase certainty, reduce ‘planning risk’, and accelerate housing supply? In: Planning Theory and Practice 20, 5, 673–688. DOI:

Gallent, N.; de Magalhaes, C.; Freire Trigo, S. (2021): Is zoning the solution to the UK housing crisis? In: Planning Practice and Research 36, 1, 1–19. DOI:

Goodchild, B. (2010): Conservative Party policy for planning: caught between the market and local communities. In: People, Place and Policy 4, 1, 19–23. DOI:

Gunder, M. (2008): Ideologies of certainty in a risky reality. Beyond the hauntology of planning. In: Planning Theory 7, 2, 186–206. DOI:

Hall, P.; Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2011): Urban and Regional Planning. Abingdon. DOI:

Haughton, G.; Allmendinger, P. (2016): Think tanks and the pressures for planning reform in England. In: Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 34, 8, 1676–1692. DOI:

Hengstermann, A.; Hartmann, T. (2021): Grund zum Wohnen. Das Baulandmobilisierungsgesetz aus internationaler Perspektive. In: PND – Planung neu denken 1, 30–41.

Hirt, S. (2007): The devil is in the definitions. Contrasting American and German approaches to zoning. In: Journal of the American Planning Association 73, 4, 436–450. DOI:

Janin Rivolin, U. (2008): Conforming and performing planning systems in Europe: An unbearable cohabitation. In: Planning Practice and Research 23, 2, 167–186. DOI:

Janssen-Jansen, L.B.; Woltjer, J. (2010): British discretion in Dutch planning. Establishing a comparative perspective for regional planning and local development in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. In: Land Use Policy 27, 3, 906–916. DOI:

Lai, L.W.C. (1999): Hayek and town planning. A note on Hayek’s views towards town planning in the Constitution of Liberty. In: Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 31, 9, 1567–1582. DOI:

Lord, A.; Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2014): Is planning “under attack”? Chronicling the deregulation of urban and environmental planning in England. In: European Planning Studies 22, 2, 345–361. DOI:

MHCLG – Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (2020): Planning for the Future. London.

Moroni, S. (2007): Planning, liberty and the rule of law. In: Planning Theory 6, 2, 146–163. DOI:

Moroni, S.; Buitelaar, E.; Sorel, N.; Cozzolino, S. (2020): Simple planning rules for complex urban problems. Towards legal certainty for spatial flexibility. In: Journal of Planning Education and Research 40, 3, 320–331. DOI:

Moroni, S.; Chiffi, D. (2022): Uncertainty and planning. Cities, technologies and public decision-making. In: Perspectives on Science 30, 2, 237–259. DOI:

Muñoz Gielen, D.; Taşan-Kok, T. (2010): Flexibility in planning and the consequences for public-value capturing in UK, Spain and the Netherlands. In: European Planning Studies 18, 7, 1097–1131. DOI:

O’Brien, P. (2021): Planning reform. A zonal future? In: Stephens, M.; Perry, J.; Williams, P.; Young, G.; Fitzpatrick, S. (eds.): UK Housing Review 2021. Coventry, 27–35.

Parker, G.; Street, E.; Wargent, M (2018): The rise of the private sector in fragmentary planning in England. In: Planning Theory and Practice 19, 5, 734–750. DOI:

PAS – Planning Advisory Service (2018): Local Development Orders. Case study research and analysis. London.

Place Alliance (2020): A Housing Design Audit for England. London.

Popelier, P. (2008): Five paradoxes on legal certainty and the lawmaker. In: Legisprudence 2, 1, 47–66. DOI:

Rauws, W.; De Roo, G. (2016): Adaptive planning: generating conditions for urban adaptability. Lessons from Dutch organic development strategies. In: Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 43, 6, 1052–1074. DOI:

Rydin, Y. (2013): The Future of Planning. Beyond Growth Dependence. Bristol. DOI:

Satsangi, M.; Hoolachan, A.; O’Brien, P.; Dembski, S.; Dunning, R.; Lord, A. (2020): Housing Land Allocation, Assembly and Delivery. Lessons from Europe. Inverness.

Shahab, S.; Hartmann, T.; Jonkman, A. (2021): Strategies of municipal land policies. Housing development in Germany, Belgium, and Netherlands. In: European Planning Studies 29, 6, 1132–1150. DOI:

Steele, W.; Ruming, K.J. (2012): Flexibility versus certainty. Unsettling the land-use planning shibboleth in Australia. In: Planning Practice and Research 27, 2, 155–176. DOI:

Tennekes, J. (2018): Negotiated land use plans in the Netherlands. A central instrument in Dutch ‘active’ and ‘passive’ land policy. In: Gerber, J.-D.; Hartmann, T.; Hengstermann, A. (eds.): Instruments of Land Policy. Dealing with Scarcity of Land. Abingdon, 101–113. DOI:

Tewdwr-Jones, M. (1999): Discretion, flexibility, and certainty in British planning. Emerging ideological conflicts and inherent political tensions. In: Journal of Planning Education and Research 18, 3, 244–256. DOI:

Van den Hoek, D.; Spit, T.; Hartmann, T. (2020) Certain flexibilities in land-use plans. Towards a method for assessing flexibility. In: Land Use Policy 94, 104497. DOI:

Van der Krabben, E.; Jacobs, H.M. (2013): Public land development as a strategic tool for redevelopment. Reflections on the Dutch experience. In: Land Use Policy 30, 1, 774–783. DOI:

Walker, P. (2020): Theresa May leads Tory rebellion against planning changes. In: The Guardian, 8 October 2020. (16.06.2023).

Whiteley, P. (2021): Six reasons why the Tories lost the Chesham and Amersham byelection. In: The Conversation, 21 June 2021. (16.06.2023).



How to Cite

Dembski, S. and O’Brien, P. (2023) “The quest for certainty: Introducing zoning into a discretionary system in England and the European experience”, Raumforschung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Planning. DE. doi: 10.14512/rur.1695.



Research Article