Landownership in Britain and the Quest for Town Planning

Abstract

In this paper I endeavour to show that town planning in Britain, although placed within the ‘public domain’, is largely operating in accordance with the principles of private law. I also argue that town planning is an integral part of the land and property market which itself is conditioned by the definition of the rights in land and property. These rights are shown to be grounded in the traditions of the private land law as evolved over centuries from the feudal system of land and property relations. I therefore begin with an examination of development under the leasehold system in London during the 18th and 19th centuries and find that landowners, in their efforts of maintaining the value of their estate, conducted a form of environmental control very similar to what planners do nowadays as part of their activities in development control. It is then shown how the old system was unable to cope with the pressures of industrialisation and rapidly expanding urban areas. Politicians, royal commissions, and expert committees sought to adapt the leasehold system and to reform existing property rights to accommodate a newly emerging property market. These efforts finally culminated in the 1925 Property Statutes. At the same time governments pursued efforts of devising new structures of urban governance. However, these measures generally were piecemeal and their implementation was fraught with difficulties. A new approach, recognising the interdependence between market processes, market regulation, and ‘public improvement’, were championed by the radical Liberals towards the end of the 19th century. This philosophy is reflected in the enactment of the first planning statutes of 1909 and 1919. Both Acts made provisions for the retainment of development value for reasons of social justice and the funding of urban infrastructure. Subsequent enactments have tended to isolate town planning not only from housing but also from the land market and the issue of betterment, and thus from urban governance. The reason, it is argued, is that property as well as planning legislation are still hemmed in the strait-jacket of the private land law. I conclude that the isolation of town planning within a fragmented ‘public domain’ bodes ill for the future of our cities.