Discretionary planning supports the provision of public benefits when changes in zoning create additional value on private development sites. This paper draws on two case studies in Toronto, exploring how discretion shapes the broader political and planning policy context in which public benefits are secured from private development. The cases show that even within the same city planning department, variations exist in the application of discretion in planning decisions, which lead to different approaches to securing public benefits. Discretionary planning tools, such as density bonuses, are of consequence for political conflicts over local priorities, democratic accountability, and the built environment.
AltermanRachelle. 2010. Takings International: A Comparative Perspective on Land Use Regulations and Compensation Rights. Chicago: American Bar Association.
2.
BaarveldMarlijnSmitMarnixDewulfGeert. 2015. “Negotiation Processes in Urban Redevelopment Projects: Dealing with Conflicts by Balancing Integrative and Distributive Approaches.” Planning Theory & Practice16 (3): 363–84.
3.
BalzVerena Elisabeth. 2018. “Regional Design: Discretionary Approaches to Regional Planning in The Netherlands.” Planning Theory17 (3): 332–54.
4.
BoothPhilip. 1996. Controlling Development: Certainty and Discretion in Europe, the USA and Hong Kong, vol. 9. London: Psychology Press.
5.
BoothPhilip. 1999. “From Regulation to Discretion: The Evolution of Development Control in the British Planning System 1909-1947.” Planning Perspectives14 (3): 277–89.
6.
BoothPhilip. 2002. “A Desperately Slow System? The Origins and Nature of the Current Discourse on Development Control.” Planning Perspectives17 (4): 309–23.
7.
BoothPhilip. 2007. “The Control of Discretion: Planning and the Common-Law Tradition.” Planning Theory6 (2): 127–45.
8.
BuitelaarEdwinGalleMaaikeSorelNiels. 2011. “Plan-Led Planning Systems in Development-Led Practices: An Empirical Analysis into the (Lack of) Institutionalisation of Planning Law.” Environment and Planning A43 (4): 928–41.
9.
CampbellHeatherEllisHughHenneberryJohnGladwellCaroline. 2000. “Planning Obligations, Planning Practice, and Land-Use Outcomes.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design27 (5): 759–75.
10.
CatneyPhilipHenneberryJohn. 2012. “(Not) Exercising discretion: Environmental Planning and the Politics of Blame-Avoidance.” Planning Theory & Practice13 (4): 549–68.
11.
ChiodelliFrancescoMoroniStefano. 2015. “Corruption in Land-Use Issues: A Crucial Challenge for Planning Theory and Practice.” Town Planning Review86 (4): 437–55.
City of Toronto. 2007. Implementation Guidelines for Section 37 of the Planning Act and Protocol Negotiating Section 37 Community Benefits. Toronto: Toronto City Planning.
ClaydonJim. 1998. “Discretion in Development Control: A Study of How Discretion is Exercised in the Conduct of Development Control in England and Wales.” Planning Practice & Research13 (1): 53–62.
19.
CliffordBen. 2016. “‘Clock-Watching and Box-Ticking’: British Local Authority Planners, Professionalism and Performance Targets.” Planning Practice & Research31 (4): 383–401.
20.
CookRobert S.1980. Zoning for Downtown Urban Design: How Cities Control Development. Lanham: Lexington Books.
21.
CullingworthJ. Barry. 1978. Ontario Planning: Notes on the Comay Report on the Ontario Planning Act. Toronto: Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Toronto.
22.
CullingworthJ. Barry. 2017. Urban and Regional Planning in Canada. Abingdon: Routledge.
23.
CullingworthJ. BarryCavesRoger. 2013. Planning in the USA: Policies, Issues, and Processes. Abingdon: Routledge.
24.
CullingworthJ. BarryNadinVincent. 2006. Town and Country Planning in the UK. Abingdon: Routledge.
25.
DevineP.2009. Section 37: An Update on ‘Let’s Make a Deal Planning.’Toronto: Fraser Milner Casgrain.
ForsythAnn. 1999. “Administrative Discretion and Urban And Regional Planners’ Values.” Journal of Planning Literature14 (1): 5–15.
30.
Fox-RogersLindaMurphyEnda. 2015. “From Brown Envelopes to Community Benefits: The Co-Option of Planning Gain Agreements under Deepening Neoliberalism.” Geoforum67:41–50.
31.
GallentNickKimKwang Sik. 2001. “Land Zoning and Local Discretion in the Korean Planning System.” Land Use Policy18 (3): 233–43.
32.
GielenDemetrio MuñozLenferinkSander. 2018. “The Role of Negotiated Developer Obligations in Financing Large Public Infrastructure after the Economic Crisis in The Netherlands.” European Planning Studies26 (4): 768–91.
33.
GielenDemetrio MuñozTasan-KokTuna. 2010. “Flexibility in Planning and the Consequences for Public-value Capturing in UK, Spain and The Netherlands.” European Planning Studies18 (7): 1097–131.
GondimLinda M.1988. “Planning Practice within Public Bureaucracy: A New Perspective on Roles of Planners.” Journal of Planning Education and Research7 (3): 163–72.
36.
GoodinRobert E.1988. Reasons for Welfare: The Political Theory of the Welfare State. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
37.
GrantJill. 2000. “Planning Canadian Cities: Context, Continuity and Change.” In Canadian Cities in Transition: The Twenty-First Century, edited by BuntingTrudi E.FilionPierre, 443–61. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
38.
HarrisNeil. 2010. “Discretion and Expediency in the Enforcement of Planning Controls.” Town Planning Review81 (6): 675–700.
39.
HealeyPatsyPurdueMichaelEnnisFrank. 1996. “Negotiating Development: Planning Gain and Mitigating Impacts.” Journal of Property Research13 (2): 143–60.
40.
HirtSonia A.2015. Zoned in the USA: the Origins and Implications of American Land-Use Regulation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
41.
Janssen-JansenLeonie B.WoltjerJohan. 2010. “British Discretion in Dutch Planning: Establishing a Comparative Perspective for Regional Planning and Local Development in The Netherlands and the United Kingdom.” Land Use Policy27 (3): 906–16.
42.
KaydenJerold S.1991. “Zoning for Dollars: New Rules for an Old Game: Comments on the Municipal Art Society and Nollan Cases.” Urban Law Annual: Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law39:3.
43.
KeenanEdward. 2013. Some Great Idea: Good Neighbourhoods, Crazy Politics and the Invention of Toronto. Toronto: Coach House Books.
KwokMelanieJohnsonLaurelPojaniDorina. 2018. “Discretion and the Erosion of Community Trust in Planning: Reflections on the Post-Political.” Geographical Research56 (4): 382–92.
LipskyMichael. 1980. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
49.
MakuchStanley M.SchumanMatthew. 2015. “Have We Legalized Corruption—The Impacts of Expanding Municipal Authority without Safeguards in Toronto and Ontario.” Osgoode Hall Law Journal53:301.
50.
MargalitTaliaAlfasiNurit. 2016. “The Undercurrents of Entrepreneurial Development: Impressions from a Globalizing City.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space48 (10): 1967–87.
51.
McClymontKatie. 2011. “Revitalising the Political: Development Control and Agonism in Planning Practice.” Planning Theory10 (3): 239–56.
52.
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 2001. Municipal Act. SO. 2001. C.25, s.11.
53.
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 2005, SO. 2005, c.13. Toronto: Queens Printer for Ontario.
54.
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Provincial Planning Policy Branch. 2009. Height and Density Bonusing (s. 37). Building Blocks for Sustainable Planning. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
55.
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 2014. Provincial Policy Statement. Toronto: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
56.
Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal. 2006. Places to Grow—Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Toronto: Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal.
57.
MooreAaron A.2013a. Planning Politics in Toronto: The Ontario Municipal Board and Urban Development. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
58.
MooreAaron A.2013b. Trading Density for Benefits: Toronto and Vancouver Compared. Toronto: Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance.
59.
MooreSusan. 2015. Researching local development cultures: Using the qualitative interview as an interpretive lens. International Planning Studies, 20 (4): 390–406.
60.
Ombudsman Toronto. 2018. Enquiry into Section 37 Agreement for the Historic Mimico Train Station.
61.
PattonMichael Quinn. 1987. How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
62.
RubinJeffrey I.SenecaJoseph J.1991. “Density Bonuses, Exactions, and the Supply of Affordable Housing.” Journal of Urban Economics30 (2): 208–23.
63.
RumingKristian. 2012. “Negotiating within the Context of Planning Reform: Public and Private Reflections from New South Wales, Australia.” International Planning Studies17 (4): 397–418.
64.
RumingKristian J.2010. “Developer Typologies in Urban Renewal in Sydney: Recognising the Role of Informal Associations between Developers and Local Government.” Urban Policy and Research28 (1): 65–83.
65.
SagalynLynne B.1997. “Negotiating for Public Benefits: The Bargaining Calculus of Public-Private Development.” Urban Studies34 (12): 1955–70.
66.
SearleGlen. 2016. “Strategic Planning and Land Use Planning Conflicts: The Role of Statutory Authority.” In Situated Practices of Strategic Planning, edited by AlbrechtsLouisBalducciAlessandroHillierJean, 333–46. Abingdon: Routledge.
67.
AnnekeSmitValianteMarcia, eds. 2015. Public Interest, Private Property: Law and Planning Policy in Canada. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
68.
SorensenAndreHessPaul. 2015. “Building Suburbs, Toronto-Style: Land Development Regimes, Institutions, Critical Junctures and Path Dependence.” Town Planning Review86 (4): 411–36.
69.
StakeRobert E.1995. The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
70.
TangBo-SinChoyLennon H. T.WatJoshua K. F.2000. “Certainty and Discretion in Planning Control: A Case Study of Office Development in Hong Kong.” Urban Studies37 (13): 2465–83.
71.
Tasan-KokTuna. 2008. Changing interpretations of ‘flexibility’in the planning literature: From opportunism to creativity?International Planning Studies, 13 (3): 183–195.
72.
Tewdwr-JonesMark. 1999. “Discretion, Flexibility, and Certainty in British Planning: Emerging Ideological Conflicts and Inherent Political Tensions.” Journal of Planning Education and Research18 (3): 244–56.
ValtonenEeroFalkenbachHeidiViitanenKauko. 2017. “Development-Led Planning Practices in a Plan-Led Planning System: Empirical Evidence from Finland.” European Planning Studies25 (6): 1053–75.
75.
ValverdeMariana. 2012. Everyday Law on the Street: City Governance in an Age of Diversity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
76.
WhiteJames T.2016. “Planning as Placemaking? The Case of the East Bayfront Precinct Planning Process.” In Planning Canada: A Case Study Approach, edited by ThomasRen, 280–90. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
77.
YehAnthony Gar-OnWuFulong. 1999. “The Transformation of the Urban Planning System in China from a Centrally-Planned to Transitional Economy.” Progress in Planning51 (3): 167–252.
78.
YinRobert K.2013. “Validity and Generalization in Future Case Study Evaluations.” Evaluation19 (3): 321–32.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
