Home, R (2017) Deregulating planning control over britain's housing stock. International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, 9(3), pp. 193-206. ISSN 1756-1450
Abstract
Purpose To apply path dependence theory and analysis to the regulatory framework for private-rented housing in Britain, especially affecting houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) and addressing the increased involvement of the planning system through planning use classes, permitted development rights and Article 4 directions. Design/methodology/approach This paper identifies critical junctures in primary and secondary legislation for housing and planning and analyses individual local authority responses in planning policy documents and tribunal decisions. Findings The rise of the HMO reflects wider changes in society leading to new forms of household and inter-generational inequalities. Local authority discretion and locked-in responses have resulted in different regulatory regimes for housing and planning, recently favouring existing communities of owner-occupiers against HMO residents, seen as transient populations not committed to the neighbourhood. Research limitations/implications Potential for further research on demographics and household formation, and on reviewing planning and appeal decisions involving HMOs. Originality/value The research is apparently the first specifically addressing planning regulation of the HMO from a path dependence perspective, in the context of planning protection of the single-family dwelling house and marginalization of other forms of housing.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | regulation; planning; deregulation; dwelling house |
| Index terms: | regulation, documents, population, methodology, housing, society, legislation, local authority, housing stock, occupation, deregulation, household, inequality, demographics, planning policy, tribunal, dwelling house, owner |
| Subjects: | public policy, legal systems, construction type, dispute resolution, demography, sociology, communities and social development, regulatory law, industry analysis, political science, research methods, professional development |
| Topics: | Ethics, Legal Issues, Urban Studies, Research Practice, Information Management, Business Strategy, Construction Technology, Governance, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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