Hey Matt - discovered your stack today. I’m a planner based in London, and a UCL alumni. Really enjoyed your article. I did some reverse research this year for a symposium at work, and didn’t know before that that the UK is pretty much the only nation with a planning system that doesn’t use zoning. I was fascinated to explore the differences and merits of the two systems. There are always rumbles by UK govt wishing to deregulate, about moving to more of a zoning approach. As it is, as you say, every proposal is considered on its merits. This involves time and resources, but means a broader range of favourable outcomes can be reached, and a townscape that ends up being less homogeneous, perhaps. I love the way you referred to policies as goals - in effect though some of those policies are pretty restrictive. If you want to change use from one thing to another it’s often prevented, with strict exception criteria, for example 12-24 months of marketing evidence that an office use is longer viable, before you might get a favourable change of use. But when the objectives line up, there is a fruitful and creative range of outcomes to shoot for. Hope you continue to enjoy exploring London!
Hi Fiona, thanks so much for that comment. 12-24 Months is certainly not an insignificant period of time! The upper limit of that range would put it around the same time as a typical NYC re-zoning. I certainly don't know enough about comparative planning to say which system is better, but as someone steeped mostly in NYC planning the UK system is quite striking. I do think the legal mandate to create local comprehensive plans (which exists in European countries even with zoning) is a particularly strong feature of the UK system. Many American cities have no comprehensive plan and the private sector is largely able to do what they want. You're right to point out that considering every planning move on its merits takes significant time and resources. I had an interesting conversation with a UK planner who said the whole system only works when councils are well funded because it 1) means they can properly vet things, follow up on section 106 commitments, etc and 2) Underfunded councils who are desperate for revenue are pressured into granting permission to projects they think will create revenue regardless of if it helps meet the local plans goals or not. Anyway, so much to unpack between both systems. Appreciate you reading!
This is fascinating and made me think of adaptive reuse for urban outdoor spaces, like New York's Highline or Paris's Promenade Plantée. (You, old?-you're barely out of your twenties, kid, and you're going to change the world.
Hey Matt - discovered your stack today. I’m a planner based in London, and a UCL alumni. Really enjoyed your article. I did some reverse research this year for a symposium at work, and didn’t know before that that the UK is pretty much the only nation with a planning system that doesn’t use zoning. I was fascinated to explore the differences and merits of the two systems. There are always rumbles by UK govt wishing to deregulate, about moving to more of a zoning approach. As it is, as you say, every proposal is considered on its merits. This involves time and resources, but means a broader range of favourable outcomes can be reached, and a townscape that ends up being less homogeneous, perhaps. I love the way you referred to policies as goals - in effect though some of those policies are pretty restrictive. If you want to change use from one thing to another it’s often prevented, with strict exception criteria, for example 12-24 months of marketing evidence that an office use is longer viable, before you might get a favourable change of use. But when the objectives line up, there is a fruitful and creative range of outcomes to shoot for. Hope you continue to enjoy exploring London!
Hi Fiona, thanks so much for that comment. 12-24 Months is certainly not an insignificant period of time! The upper limit of that range would put it around the same time as a typical NYC re-zoning. I certainly don't know enough about comparative planning to say which system is better, but as someone steeped mostly in NYC planning the UK system is quite striking. I do think the legal mandate to create local comprehensive plans (which exists in European countries even with zoning) is a particularly strong feature of the UK system. Many American cities have no comprehensive plan and the private sector is largely able to do what they want. You're right to point out that considering every planning move on its merits takes significant time and resources. I had an interesting conversation with a UK planner who said the whole system only works when councils are well funded because it 1) means they can properly vet things, follow up on section 106 commitments, etc and 2) Underfunded councils who are desperate for revenue are pressured into granting permission to projects they think will create revenue regardless of if it helps meet the local plans goals or not. Anyway, so much to unpack between both systems. Appreciate you reading!
Loved this one
This is fascinating and made me think of adaptive reuse for urban outdoor spaces, like New York's Highline or Paris's Promenade Plantée. (You, old?-you're barely out of your twenties, kid, and you're going to change the world.