Planning on retreat, or: Have you ever heard of “Bauturbo”?

Last week, the German federal government released the so-called “Bauturbo”, a legislative initiative dedicated to improving development conditions.(1) The new legislation is supposed to facilitate development and construction in areas where previous regulations didn’t foresee that. The initiative’s main objective is to accelerate development, particularly housing production. Housing shortages are generally considered a significant societal problem throughout Germany, and complaints about the lengthy development processes have increased in intensity and frequency. In this respect, Germany’s situation seems largely comparable to that of many other countries in the Global North. 

    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.