Checks and Balances in Planning Decentralization: Lessons from Ontario

Chapter

Abstract

Recent discourses on planning reform have been characterized by a shift from centralized hierarchies and rigid tools to decentralized networks and “softer” tools. However, reforms have not been unidirectional, either because of pluralist decision-making, or of conscious attempts to assure checks and balances in the system. Understanding explicit and implicit checks and balances is crucial in the evaluation of planning systems and in assessing steps towards rescaling of planning powers. The analysis of the Ontario (Canada) planning system, consisting of a comprehensive overview and tracking several residential projects, identifies checks and balances that have accompanied decentralization of powers to local government. These consist of an effective provincial appeal board, binding provincial planning documents, municipal official plans approved by the province, and high quality planning bureaucracies at the local government level (benefitting from past municipal amalgamations), in a system not infested by endemic corruption. The provincial appeal system and the use of ad-hoc density bonusing as a major flexible planning tool are subjects of substantial controversy, but the Ontario system demonstrates checks and balances that involve the central state, local state and an autonomous appeal system, and a balance between elected decision makers and qualified professional bureaucracy.

References

  1. Allmendinger, P., & Haughton, G. (2009). Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries, and metagovernance: The new spatial planning in the thames gateway.Environment and Planning A, 41, 617–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allmendinger, P., & Haughton, G. (2010). Spatial planning, devolution and new planning spaces.Environment and Planning C, 28, 803–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alterman, R. (2012). Land use regulations and property values: The “windfalls capture” idea revisited. In N. Brooks, K. Donaghy, & G.-J. Knaap (Eds.),The Oxford handbook of urban economics and planning (pp. 755–786). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Boudreau, J.-A., Keil, R., & Young, D. (2009).Changing Toronto. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  5. British Columbia. (2014).Community amenity contributions: Balancing community planning, public benefits and housing affordability. Victoria, BC: Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development.Google Scholar
  6. Burgess, G., Monk, S., & Whitehead, C. (2011). Delivering local infrastructure and affordable housing through the planning system: The future of planning obligations through Section 106.People Place & Policy Online, 5(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chipman, J. G. (2002).A law unto itself: How the Ontario municipal board has developed and applied land use planning policy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cullingworth, B., Nadin, V., Hart, T., Davoudi, S., Pendlebury, J., Vigar, G., Webb, D., & Townshend, T. (2015).Town and country planning in the UK (15th ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Elinbaum, P., & Galland, D. (2016). Analysing contemporary metropolitan spatial plans in Europe through their institutional context, instrumental content and planning process.European Planning Studies, 24, 181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Faludi, A. (2010). European spatial planning: Past, present and future.Town Planning Review, 81, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Filion, P. (2010). Reorienting urban development? Structural obstruction to new urban forms.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fischler, R., Meligrana, J., & Wolfe, J. M. (2004). Canadian experiences of local government boundary reform: A comparison of Quebec and Ontario. In J. Meligrana (Ed.),Redrawing local government boundaries: An international study of politics, procedures, and decisions (pp. 75–105). Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
  13. Galland, D. (2012). Is regional planning dead or just coping? The transformation of a state sociospatial project into growth-oriented strategies.Environment and Planning C, 30, 536–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Getimis, P. (2012). Comparing spatial planning systems and planning cultures in Europe: The need for a multi-scalar approach.Planning Practice and Research, 27, 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Haughton, G., Allmendinger, P., & Oosterlynck, S. (2013). Spaces of neoliberal experimentalism: Soft spaces, postpolitics, and neoliberal governmentality.Environment and Planning A, 45, 217–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hess, P. M., & Sorensen, A. (2015). Compact, concurrent and contiguous: Smart growth and 50 years of residential planning in the Toronto region.Urban Geography, 36, 127–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Knieling, J., & Othengrafen, F. (Eds.). (2009).Planning cultures in Europe: Decoding cultural phenomena in urban and regional planning. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  18. Levine-Schnur, R. (2013).Law, contracts and urban planning, legal aspects of development agreements between local authorities and private developers. Floersheimer Studies (Hebrew): Jerusalem.Google Scholar
  19. Macdonald, S., & Keil, R. (2012). The Ontario greenbelt: Shifting the scales of the sustainability fix?The Professional Geographer, 64, 125–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Metrolinx. (2008).The big move, transforming transportation in the greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. Greater Toronto Transportation Authority.Google Scholar
  21. Millward & Associates. (2013).Securing cultural benefits: Approaches to the use of Section 37 for arts and culture facilities. Submitted to City of Toronto Cultural Services. Toronto: R.E. Millward.Google Scholar
  22. Moore, A. A. (2013a).Planning politics in Toronto, the Ontario municipal board and urban development. Toronto: Toronto University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Moore, A. A. (2013b).Trading density for benefits: Section 37 agreements in Toronto, IMFG perspectives 2/2013. Toronto: IMFG, Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  24. Nadin, V., & Stead, D. (2014). Spatial planning in the United Kingdom, 1990–2013. In M. Reimer, P. Getimis, & H. Blotevogel (Eds.),Spatial planning systems and practices in Europe (pp. 189–214). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. NAI. (2012). Open-ended planning (‘Startbeeldplanning’). Netherlands Architecture Institute. Retrieved fromhttp://en.nai.nl/platform/studio/item/_pid/kolom2-1/_rp_kolom2-1_elementId/1_1287557
  26. Olesen, K. (2012). Soft spaces as vehicles for neoliberal transformations of strategic spatial planning?Environment and Planning C, 30, 910–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ontario, Ministry of Infrastructure. (2013).Growth plan for the greater golden horseshoe 2006, office consolidation June 2013. Queen’s Printer for Ontario.Google Scholar
  28. Ontario, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2005a).Greenbelt Plan. Queen’s Printer for Ontario.Google Scholar
  29. Ontario, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2005b).Provincial policy statement 2005. Toronto.Google Scholar
  30. Ontario, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2014).Provincial policy statement 2014, under the planning act. Toronto.Google Scholar
  31. Ontario, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2016).Review of the Ontario municipal board, public consultation document. Queen’s Printer for Ontario.Google Scholar
  32. Pagliaro, J. (2017, 17 February). Planning power and politics.Toronto Star.Google Scholar
  33. Razin, E. (2005). Determinants of residential sprawl in Canadian metropolitan areas. In O. Atzema, P. Rietveld, & D. Shefer (Eds.),Regions, land consumption and sustainable growth (pp. 59–77). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  34. Razin, E. (2015). District plans in Israel: post-mortem?Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 33, 1246–1264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Razin, E., & Rosentraub, M. (2000). Are fragmentation and sprawl interlinked?Urban Affairs Review, 35, 821–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reimer, M., Getimis, P., & Blotevogel, H. (Eds.). (2014).Spatial planning systems and practices in Europe. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Relph, E. (2014).Toronto, transformations in a city and its region. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  38. Rosen, G., & Walks, A. (2014). Castles in Toronto’s sky: Condo-ism as urban transformation.Journal of Urban Affairs, 37, 289–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sancton, A. (2008).The limits of boundaries, why city-regions cannot be self-governing. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Siegel, D. (2009). Ontario. In A. Sancton & R. Young (Eds.),Foundations of governance: Municipal government in Canada’s provinces (pp. 20–69). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  41. Sorensen, A., & Hess, P. (2015). Building suburbs, Toronto-Style: Land development regimes, institutions, critical junctures and path dependence.Town Planning Review, 86, 411–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stead, D. (2012). Best practices and policy transfer in spatial planning.Planning Practice and Research, 27, 103–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. UN-Habitat. (2009).Planning sustainable cities, global report on human settlements 2009. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  44. Van Der Horst, H. (2016).The low sky: Understanding the Dutch. Schiedam: XPat Scriptum.Google Scholar
  45. Vogel, R. K., & Imbroscio, D. (2013). Governing metropolitan regions in the United States. In E. Slack & R. Chattopadhyay (Eds.),Governance and finance of metropolitan areas in federal systems (pp. 290–323). Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. White, R. (2007).The growth plan for the greater golden horseshoe in historical perspective. Toronto: Neptis.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Urban and Regional StudiesThe Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations