This new government
legislation indicates a significant shift in orientation. It sounds completely
different compared to a consultation document published by the previous
coalition only last summer.(2) That document was seen as a template for
sustainable urban and regional development, as well as building and planning
policies. In contrast, among other issues, the new legislation signals the
government’s intention to abandon its own and the European Union’s commitment to
significantly reducing land take. Of course, politics have changed since a new
coalition of Conservatives and Social Democrats took office in May. As part
of its political mission, the government claims to be accelerating development
to revive the economy, reduce bureaucracy, and increase housing production.
However, one might argue that this policy is akin to throwing out the baby with
the bathwater, as it could significantly harm planning.
The problem with the
Bauturbo as with related calls for deregulation and less intervention is fourfold at minimum. First, public debates have blamed planning and regulation for the
delay in development. According to some observers, the “bureaucracy” associated
with planning applications is the main reason for the lack of growth and
investment. This statement is one-sided, to say the least. Development is
usually composed of different elements and affected by various factors, such as
the supply and demand of land, investment capital, interest from future users,
speculation, and inflation. Therefore, the assessment that primarily blames
planning is not backed by empirical evidence. It seems as if the proponents of
this criticism have an issue with planning legislation and implementation, and
they point at bureaucracy while actually hitting at planning more generally.
Second, the Bauturbo decision is just one part of a larger trend that puts
enormous strain on planning. This trend undermines the practical relevance,
feasibility, and acceptance of planning by regulation, targeting particularly
legal procedures that are essential for land use planning, such as delineating
building perimeters, informing land use and development decisions, and
facilitating the preparation of development and building permits. However, the
sentiment critical of planning has gone far beyond and affects neighbouring
fields as well.(3) Rising political dissent is evident in areas such as
environmental policy (related to air quality, water policy, and nature
protection) and the long-contested field of mobility politics. Prominent cases
include environmental policy in the Netherlands, which has long struggled with
nitrogen depletion in groundwater and, as a result, earned a farmers’ party
joining the parliament after the last elections; the housing crisis in England,
which has given rise to another round of liberal planning reforms set to
diminish regulations; or the battleground made up by transport and mobility
controversies in many countries that seem extremely difficult to resolve. Not to
speak of the apparent “war on motorists” in the UK, which seems to divide cities
and societies. Numerous cases provide sufficient reason to believe that planning
is under threat, misused as a scapegoat for societal conflict that should be
accepted as normal in modern, pluralistic societies.
Third, the promise to build more houses through accelerated development—made possible by abandoning legal restrictions—needs to be discussed in light of the main forces that dominate the housing market, most notably property, private capital and financialization. Even further building activity will not resolve the main problems housing currently faces under market conditions, and given the current malaise on the construction market, which are pressing in terms of both quantity and affordability. Without cleverly regulating the housing market, additional deliveries are unlikely.
Fourth, it is clear that bypassing planning procedures will by far not automatically achieve the desired
outcomes of accelerating the development process and improving acceptance of the
results. Often, the opposite will happen. As long as neighbours and stakeholders
have legal recourse against development processes, little will change in
substance. The only difference will be that bad planning will shift the point of
contestation from within the planning process to the courts, potentially
resulting in lengthy (and costly) disputes. This will not be better, faster or
more effective. The risks are high that the big promise of acceleration ends up
in the quandaries of governance, finance and public opinion.
While terms and
labels such as Bauturbo have gained media coverage, the times are actually too
difficult for floppy ideologies. Planners are confronted with two interrelated
phenomena that are equally hard to resolve, affecting both urban and
non-urban areas: mounting pressure to develop land reserves on the one hand, and
a diminishing capacity to properly address the resulting conflicts on the other,
accompanied by opposition to plans and planning procedures almost everywhere.
These changes have
led to increased conflict, with planning and politics seemingly losing ground
compared to media and populist discourses. Against this backdrop, one might
argue that we need more planning, not less. This is indeed true. However, this
probably won’t achieve anything as long as there isn’t strong political will to
form a coalition of ambitious planners and political decision-makers who can
campaign for democratic planning on a large scale. In summarizing these
thoughts, planners need a new skill: the ability to articulate and
constructively deal with conflict. And they must emphasize the role of planning
in democratic societies.(4) This has nothing to do with bureaucracy. An
effective and efficient approach to dealing with private demands is required to
protect the public interest. In other words: Technocrats from all countries must
unite ... to combat paperwork, paragraphs and particular interest in order to plan
for the common good. This is the primary objective of planning institutions and
practitioners.
Markus Hesse
Index
(1) Bundesministerium für Wohnen,
Stadtentwicklung und Bauwesen (2025): Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Beschleunigung
des Wohnungsbaus und zur Wohnraumsicherung. Berlin. (Bearbeitungsstand 4.6.2025)
(2) Bundesregierung (2024): Transformationsbericht der Bundesregierung zum
Bereich Nachhaltiges Bauen und Verkehrswende – Herausforderungen und Wege der
Transformation mit Blick auf die Stadtentwicklung, den Bau- und Bauwerksbereich
und die nachhaltige Gestaltung der Mobilität. BT-Ds 20/12650 v. 28.08.2024.
Berlin.
(3) The latest issue of the online/OA-scholarly journal Urban Planning was devoted to the topic 'The Role of Planning in 'Anti-Democratic Times', which comes extremely timely. All papers available HERE.
(4) Town & Country Planning Association (2025): The end of
democratic planning? A briefing by the TCPA on the Planning and Infrastructure
Bill for the House of Lords. London: TCPA.
