Reaney, M; Griffith, A; Watson, P A and Ellis, C (2000) Optimizing functional relationships for new residential developments. In: Akintoye, A (ed.) Proceedings of 16th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6-8 September 2000, Glasgow, UK.
Abstract
The acquisition of land and planning permission on favourable terms is the crucial first stage in any construction project; essentially determining what might be built, where and how profitably. The research project on which this paper is based takes as its starting point the negotiations around the conditions and obligations accompanying grants of planning permission. The process has been criticised on grounds of moral and legal validity. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence suggests that this may be the root cause of a typically adversarial relationships between Town Planners and Developers. The existence of the problem may be acknowledged, if not the causes, and the conviction shared that any improvement must be sought within the framework of existing legislation and resources. But how and to what extent might this change be achieved? In an ongoing project it is hypothesised that aspects of the development process can be deconstructed into their component activities. Furthermore, their rationale and allocation to stakeholders can be critically examined to enable a conceptual model of a better optimised process to be synthesised based on the partnering philosophy. This paper will explore the background to the problem, outline first thoughts on solutions and a method of completing the research.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | agreement; obligation; partnership; planning; process; residential development |
| Index terms: | validity, town planner, construction project, land, negotiation, philosophy, evidence, residential development, partnership, legislation, partnering, acquisition |
| Subjects: | partnership management, philosophical studies, profession, conflict resolution, business, real estate economics, production management, legal systems, economic development, evaluation and assessment methods |
| Topics: | Project Management, Business Strategy, Urban Studies, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Legal Issues, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here