The Delivery of Planning Policy in Great Britain: Explaining the Implementation Gap. New Evidence from a Case Study in Rural England

The authors outline the reasons why an implementation gap, between policy and practice, occurs and discuss three theoretical and methodological approaches to explaining and assessing the significance of this gap. From these approaches a participant-observation methodology is chosen to examine the policy-implementation process, with particular reference to the decisionmaking process over applications to erect agricultural dwellings in the local government district of North Devon in England. It is found that a few councillors with agricultural or rural connections were able to overturn policies and the recommendations of planning officers. The authors conclude with a discussion of the implications of the findings for the British planning system, which still treats each application for development on its own merits rather than in the more mechanistic zoning system practised elsewhere.

[1]  M. Tewdwr-Jones.  The Development Plan in Policy Implementation , 1994 .

[2]  Patsy Healey,et al.  A Planner's Day: Knowledge and Action in Communicative Practice , 1992 .

[3]  N. Curry.  Controlling development in the national parks of England and Wales , 1992 .

[4]  J Sellgren,et al.  Development-Control Data for Planning Research: The Use of Aggregated Development-Control Records , 1990 .

[5]  Jonathan Murdoch,et al.  The Spatialization of Politics: Local and National Actor-Spaces in Environmental Conflict , 1995 .

[6]  John Rennie Short,et al.  Conflict and Compromise in the Built Environment: Housebuilding in Central Berkshire , 1987 .

[7]  J. Barlow.  Landowners, property ownership and the rural locality , 1986 .

[8]  Roy Preece,et al.  Development control studies: scientific method and policy analysis , 1990 .

[9]  D I Brotherton,et al.  On the Control of Development by Planning Authorities , 1992 .

[10]  M. Pacione.  Private profit and public interest in the residential development process: a case study of conflict in the urban fringe , 1990 .

[11]  Mark Tewdwr-Jones,et al.  Development control and the legitimacy of planning decisions , 1995 .

[12]  L. Mazza.  Technical knowledge, practical reason and the planner's responsibility , 1995 .

[13]  D I Brotherton,et al.  On the Quantity and Quality of Planning Applications , 1992 .

[14]  John Rennie Short,et al.  Committee Rules OK? An Examination of Planning Committee Action on Officer Recommendations , 1984 .

[15]  Margaret A. Anderson.  PLANNING POLICIES AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL IN THE SUSSEX DOWNS AONB , 1981 .

[16]  M. Pacione.  Development pressure and the production of the built environment in the urban fringe , 1991 .

[17]  Beth Moore Milroy,et al.  Into Postmodern Weightlessness , 1991 .

[18]  Yvonne Rydin,et al.  Residential development and the planning system: A study of the housing land system at the local level , 1985 .

[19]  P. Healey.  Researching planning practice , 1991 .

[20]  Gene Bunnell.  Planning gain in theory and practice — Negotiation of agreements in Cambridgeshire , 1995 .

[21]  I. Brotherton.  Development Pressures and Control in the National Parks, 1966-1981 , 1982 .

[22]  B. Pearce.  The effectiveness of the British land use planning system , 1992 .

[23]  A. Gilg,et al.  The analysis of development control decisions: a position statement and some new insights from recent research in south-west England , 1996 .

[24]  B. Warf.  CAN THE REGION SURVIVE POST-MODERNISM? , 1990 .

[25]  I. Brotherton.  The interpretation of planning appeals , 1993 .

[26]  Peter J. Larkham,et al.  Development control information and planning research , 1990 .

[27]  J. Blondel,et al.  Conflict, Decision-Making and the Perceptions of Local Councillors , 1967 .