IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v29y2002i1p129-139.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nationalising Development Rights: The Feudal Origins of the British Planning System

Author

Listed:
  • Philip Booth

    (Department of Town and Regional Planning, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, England)

Abstract

The planning system that was formalised in Britain in the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act is distinctive for the way in which it explicitly nationalised the rights to future development and distinguished between physical development and land-use change. Contingent causes for these characteristics can be found in the experience of planning in the first half of the 20th century which in turn was developed from sanitary legislation of the 19th century. There are, however, more fundamental reasons for the way in which the British planning system was constituted. In this paper I argue that the nationalisation of development rights and the separation of land use from building have their conceptual roots in medieval property law. As a colonial state in the period after the Norman Conquest, England saw the imposition of feudal law in its purest form. In such a system, owners of land were denied absolute rights to property of the kind available under Roman law and its derivatives. Legal theorists developed the doctrine of the estate which gave concrete existence to the limited rights of all those with an interest in a given parcel of land (those with tenure ). Present and future rights to use could be distinguished. This conceptualising of property interest was to have profound consequences not only for property relations but also for the emerging planning system in the 20th century. It created a system which gave the state unprecedented control over changes to land, but which also had some significant disadvantages.

Suggested Citation

  • Philip Booth, 2002. "Nationalising Development Rights: The Feudal Origins of the British Planning System," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 29(1), pages 129-139, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:29:y:2002:i:1:p:129-139
    DOI: 10.1068/b2769
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/b2769
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/b2769?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:29:y:2002:i:1:p:129-139. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.