Governmental Logics in Commercialised Planning Practices. The Case of Local Authority Pre-Application Negotiations in the English Planning System

7Citations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The paper provides an empirical review of a widely used tool in the English planning system–pre-application discussions (‘pre-apps’) and a theoretical exposition of governmental ‘logics’ that underpin neoliberal-informed planning reforms. We present five logic frames of growth, efficiency, commercialisation, participation and quality, and apply these to pre-application negotiation practice, to highlight how Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) are faced with the challenge of reconciling a complex of multiple and often competing aims that appear irreconcilable in practice. We highlight that whilst ‘ordinary’ planning tools such as pre-apps may appear mundane, they can provide valuable instantiations where logics collide.

References Powered by Scopus

Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics

1260Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Governmentality

990Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Collaborative Planning in perspective

729Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Neighbourhood planning in England: A decade of institutional learning

7Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Words (in)action: the orchestration of participation in planning through Statements of Community Involvement in England

4Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The moral economy of localism in England: neighbourhood planning as neoliberal ‘apprentice piece’

4Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Parker, G., Dobson, M., & Lynn, T. (2022). Governmental Logics in Commercialised Planning Practices. The Case of Local Authority Pre-Application Negotiations in the English Planning System. Planning Theory and Practice, 23(1), 60–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2021.2011388

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

Professor / Associate Prof. 3

43%

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 2

29%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

14%

Researcher 1

14%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Business, Management and Accounting 3

50%

Social Sciences 2

33%

Energy 1

17%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free