Is 'Planning Gain' Really A Loss?

"As usual in these cases, the project's developer will point out the benefits to the public that will come with its scheme. At the foot of the towers will be an open space nearly triple the area of Parliament Square and £1.5 million will go to improving nearby Jubilee Gardens. An additional £100,000 will go towards transforming the adjacent roundabout with the Imax at its centre. The undecorated side wall of the Victory Arch entrance to Waterloo Station will be beautified. There will be affordable housing, albeit at 20 per cent of the total built rather than the Platonic ideal of 50 per cent that the last mayor sought but rarely achieved."

"Such benefits are standard with large developments, and are called 'planning gain'."

"On the face of it planning gain is reasonable enough. It is a quid pro quo whereby developers pay back to the public some of the profit made from expanding into the city's airspace. It suits everyone: the site gains value from the improvements around it, so the developer gets at least some of its money back."

"Much of the time, planning gain pays for perfectly reasonable improvements. The problem comes when it is connected to large and controversial projects. At this point, combined with all the other vaguenesses and variables of the planning system, it becomes a recipe for mud."

"Eventually planners and the public are presented with a choice. The towers have to be built, argues the developer, who has invested much in the project, or he'll shoot the swimming pool/new public space/new bus stops. In the case of the Three Sisters, planners must either accept the hefty wall of development they present to the river, or the improvement of Jubilee Gardens will be shelved. Two separate issues are conflated: the local one of planning gain, and the Londonwide question of the impact on important views."