Improving City Centre Project Delivery in Small Cities: Developer Perspectives on Public Authority Conduct

Abstract

Urban development through property development in central parts of cities rather than through sprawl is key to achieving sustainable future cities. However, realising desired projects in complex city centre environments is challenging and risky due to the involvement of numerous actors. This paper offers novel insights into developers’ perspectives on how the conduct of public authorities influences city centre zoning plan processes. Based on interviews with 11 employees of property development firms, working on mixed-use city centre projects ranging from 1100 to 112,000 m² Gross Floor Area in small and medium-sized Norwegian cities, the study identifies key challenges developers experience in their interactions with public authorities across sectors and administrative levels during planning processes and analyses how these challenges relate to goals, knowledge and power among key actors. The study finds that public authorities can improve the efficiency of zoning plan processes and enhance city centre project delivery by altering their conduct. First, by more explicitly clarifying that the realisation of desired city centre property developments is a primary policy objective, maintaining this focus throughout the processes and taking responsibility for reconciling conflicts in ways that enable feasible projects. Second, by improving their knowledge of the fundamental need for projects to be profitable in order to be realised, and the impact of authorities’ requirements on project viability. Third, by exercising their agenda-setting power more constructively and flexibly throughout the zoning plan process. The paper examines underexplored perspectives in planning research and yields actionable recommendations for planning practice.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

Urban development through densification and transformation in and near city centres rather than through sprawl is key to attaining various societal goals, contributing to future cities becoming more sustainable, liveable and attractive. These goals include vital city centres, active and sustainable mobility, centrally located housing opportunities and reduced traffic, land-take and GHG emissions [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20]. In line with these goals, Norwegian national white papers, central government planning guidelines and other steering documents mandate that land use development should mainly occur as transformation and densification in central parts of cities rather than at the urban periphery [21,22,23,24,25,26,27]. Similar policy directions have been adopted in other European countries [6,16,18,28,29,30,31,32,33], and international organisations have increasingly called for actions to limit or halt urban sprawl [34,35,36,37,38].

To achieve the aforementioned goals, municipal authorities in many small and medium-sized Norwegian cities have established objectives and strategies within their overarching municipal and land use plans to direct the majority of new property development towards areas in and near their city centres [39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54]. However, these authorities report persistent difficulties in getting development realised in these areas [52,53,54].

City centres are typically the most complex and value-laden environments in cities [16,55,56,57,58,59], and zoning plan processes aimed at facilitating transformation and densification in these areas will often be more conflict-ridden and difficult than in other parts of cities due to the multiple actors with interests in, and involvement in, the processes [18,31,60,61]. These actors include public authorities across administrative levels and sectors, and this paper focuses on how their conduct in city centre zoning plan processes is perceived by property developers.

Property developers are essential in urban development, since ‘In market economies the built environment is largely the product of private sector property development’ [62] (p. 306), which is also the case in the Norwegian context. Several papers have emphasised the importance of plans also taking developers’ needs and perspectives into account, if desired property development is to be accomplished [6,31,62,63,64,65,66,67].

For property developers, the aforementioned difficulties increase the risks of prolonged and cumbersome zoning plan processes, and of plans that do not allow economically feasible property developments. Consequently, planned developments may be postponed or stopped, or property developers may avoid city centres, leading to development occurring through sprawl in the outer parts of cities rather than through densification and transformation in and near city centres [52,53,54].

For municipal and other public authorities aiming to facilitate property development in the urban core instead of through sprawl, a better understanding of the developers’ perspectives can help them alter their conduct in ways that result in more efficient zoning plan processes, zoning plans allowing feasible projects and the realisation of desired property development in and near city centres.

The aim of this paper is to contribute to such understanding by investigating developers’ perspectives on the conduct of public authorities in city centre zoning plan processes. The findings are based on analyses of in-depth interviews with project leaders employed by property developers, who have recent and extensive experience in leading zoning plan processes in and near city centres of small and medium-sized Norwegian cities. The interviews and analyses in this study focused on their experiences of key challenges in their dynamic interaction with public authorities across administrative levels and different sectors in city centre zoning plan processes, and how this has influenced the processes and resulting plans.

A key strength of this paper is that it solely takes the property developers’ perspectives into account and focuses on the specific goal of realising property development in the city centres of small and medium-sized cities, which provides analytical clarity on key challenges that may impede the achievement of this objective in a highly complex planning context. However, this focus also represents a limitation. It does not capture the full complexity of the planning processes and excludes other relevant perspectives, most notably those of the public authorities being critiqued, as well as citizens and the wider public.

In this paper, the term city centre refers to the primary administrative and economic centre of a city. Geographically, it encompasses both the central business district, the historic core and adjacent dense and mixed-use areas, extending beyond Statistics Norway’s definition of centre cores. The boundaries are context-dependent and often fluid. It is worth noting that most small and medium-sized Norwegian cities are experiencing population growth, and that this growth is projected to continue [68].

1.2. Literature Review

Recent studies on the use of strategic plans to influence development in city centres of larger cities have highlighted the complexity of the collaboration required between diverse actors involved [6,16,31]. Other works have illuminated how master plans, as tools for city centre development, have evolved over time in their character and implementation [69], and how land policies can result in centrally located plots with high economic value and development potential remaining underdeveloped for decades [28]. Studies focusing specifically on these issues in small and medium-sized cities appear to be limited. However, research on how city plans have responded to the decline in historic city centres [58], and on how public authorities have responded to retail decentralisation in these contexts [56,57], has helped to illuminate relevant challenges.

Research on the interaction between property developers and public authorities in zoning plan processes aimed at densification in parts of urban areas other than city centres has provided valuable insights for this study. These include how the legal complexity, overlapping responsibilities and value conflicts in densification processes contribute to long land use planning processes [70,71], the similarities and differences of actors engaged in land use policy in different European countries [67], and power and public participation in densification processes [30]. Recent studies in the Norwegian context identified the quality of the collaboration and dialogue between the actors and the lack of clarity regarding the actors’ roles as significant contributing causes of prolonged zoning plan processes [54,72], though these studies did not specifically examine city centres. A related study on transformative resilience in the regeneration of former industrial areas near city centres of medium-sized Norwegian cities highlighted different approaches to managing uncertainty [61].

Despite the importance of enabling property development in city centres, the zoning plan processes through which this is facilitated have received surprisingly little scholarly attention. No studies on this matter in the context of small and medium-sized cities have been found. Furthermore, the perspectives of property developers in planning processes aimed at facilitating such development seem underexplored in planning literature and research [31,62,63].

This paper contributes to urban planning research in three main ways. First, it studies zoning plan processes in city centres of small and medium-sized cities. Second, it adopts the underexplored perspective of property developers, focusing on their experiences of the conduct of multiple public authorities involved in these processes. Third, it contributes to the scarce literature regarding planning processes in small and medium-sized cities. The study also yields highly relevant recommendations for planning practice.

The study’s results are particularly relevant for researchers and practitioners working within comparable land use planning systems to that of Norway, as well as for those working with small and medium-sized cities.

1.3. The Norwegian Planning System

In Norway, as in most European countries, the national Planning and Building Act (PBA) establishes a hierarchical and multi-tiered land use planning system [21,24,29,65,73,74]. Municipal councils make decisions on land use policy and plans, and their decisions must comply with national white papers, central government planning guidelines and other policy documents, as well as with non-binding regional plans. National and regional authorities may submit formal objections if a proposed plan conflicts with prioritised regional or national interests or guidelines. The final decision on such objections rests with the national minister.

Municipal planning authorities prepare comprehensive and binding municipal land use plans that regulate land use in the municipality, and these are approved by the municipal councils. A zoning plan that complies with the binding municipal land use plan must be approved before a building permit can be granted. While municipal authorities may prepare zoning plans, in the Norwegian context, these plans are typically prepared by the landowner or property developer. This practice contrasts with those in Sweden and Denmark, where developers cannot formally initiate zoning plans. A Norwegian zoning plan includes a legally binding land use map, associated planning provisions and a plan description, and it specifies how a site may be developed, conserved and designed.

The PBA mandates public participation and consultation during the preparation of a zoning plan. These processes invite input from public authorities across administrative levels and sectors, as well as from landowners, businesses, organisations and the general public. This paper focuses on the dynamic interactions within these processes between property developers and multiple public authorities at various administrative levels and across different sectors responsible for issues like land use, architectural quality, housing, cultural heritage, nature, public health and mobility. In the complex environments of city centres, a greater number of actors typically engage to safeguard their respective objectives, responsibilities and interests. This renders these processes more demanding than those in other parts of cities.

1.4. Theoretical Framework

A central assumption underpinning the analyses in this paper is that the goals, knowledge and power of the actors involved in the zoning plan processes are factors influencing the processes and the resulting plans [18,60,64,66,67,75,76,77,78,79,80,81].

Goal conflicts are naturally embedded in city centre zoning plan processes, as actors enter the processes to pursue different objectives. Developers initiate the processes with the aim of securing a zoning plan that enables a feasible project. Public authorities across different administrative levels and sectors engage to safeguard their responsibilities and objectives. The objectives of the different actors often conflict with one another, resulting in goal conflicts that must be addressed during the planning processes.

Actors also bring diverse forms of knowledge into the processes, shaped by their professional backgrounds and roles. Their knowledge influences how they understand problems and assess which solutions are acceptable and desirable. Diverging knowledge and understandings, along with limited insight into the knowledge of other actors, may create difficulties in communication among those involved in the processes.

Furthermore, the actors possess and exercise different forms of power to influence the processes and the resulting plans. Lukes’ [82] three dimensions of power provide a useful framework for analysing power dynamics in land use planning processes. Structural power defines the order of things and the actors’ roles in this order. Direct power is exercised to win in open conflicts and to make decisions. Agenda-setting power is exerted to influence which issues and aspects are given prominence and how problems and potential solutions are understood. How different actors exert their power has a strong potential to influence processes and resulting plans.

Zoning plan processes can thus be understood as arenas where goal conflicts are addressed, priorities are negotiated, knowledge is shared and decisions are made. These processes do not necessarily result in consensus or in plans and developments that effectively achieve the stated goals [16,18,60,66,76,77,78,80,81,83,84,85].

While these dynamics apply to planning processes more generally, they tend to be particularly pronounced in complex city centre contexts. These environments are typically rich in values and interests, and the number of actors engaged is often larger than in other areas. This increases the potential for conflict and tends to complicate the planning processes [18,31,60].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Collection

The study employs a qualitative research design inspired by Flyvbjerg’s [86] reflections on methods for phronetic planning research, which emphasise the importance of engaging with planning practice, getting close to actors and reality, asking how-questions and emphasising little things and thick descriptions to understand the issue at hand and what could be done about it.

Data were collected through semi-structured individual and group interviews with a total of 11 project leaders employed by property developers. These individuals held overall responsibility for leading zoning plan processes for property development in the city centres of small and medium-sized Norwegian cities. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were chosen as a method to enable participants to reflect relatively freely on the topics based on their own experiences and to raise issues they considered relevant. This approach facilitates the generation of rich and nuanced data and can yield novel insights and understandings [86,87,88].

The rationale for interviewing only representatives of property developers was to gain insight into key challenges believed to impede desired city centre developments. Planning processes in city centres are complex and often opaque. By focusing exclusively on the developers’ perspective, the study sought to capture a broad range of issues as perceived by actors who play a crucial role in city centre development, yet whose perspectives have received limited scholarly attention.

The criteria for selecting interviewees were that they were or had recently been project leaders in zoning plan processes for property development in the city centres of small and medium-sized Norwegian cities (20,000–60,000 inhabitants), and that they represented diversity in both the types of developers and the size of the development projects. Interviewee selection was also influenced by the organisation of the larger research project of which this study forms a part, and by interviewees’ willingness to participate. The list of interviewees is provided in Appendix A. The interviews were conducted between June 2022 and January 2025. Interviewees referred both to specific processes and their general experience with zoning plan processes in the city centres of small and medium-sized cities.

Five interviews were conducted with six project leaders involved in zoning plan processes in Tønsberg, Arendal, Kongsberg and Lillehammer, all of which were partner municipalities in the broader project. The interviewees represented a range of developers, from local landowners to national-scale enterprises. All zoning plan processes concerned mixed-use development on vacant or underutilised land in city centres, with projects varying in size from 1100 to 65,000 m² Gross Floor Area. The interviews were conducted digitally, lasted approximately 1.5 h, and were recorded. Researchers summarised the interviews according to the structure of the interview guide, and summaries were returned to interviewees for review and comments. The interview guide is provided in Appendix B.1.

Two rounds of semi-structured group interviews were also conducted with five project leaders employed by Bane NOR Eiendom, the state-owned enterprise that owns the railway stations in Norway and extensive adjacent land [89]. Significant portions of this land remain vacant or underutilised. Bane NOR Eiendom’s mission includes creating value for both the state and society through property development on this land, most of which is located in city centres. These interviewees were selected because they represent a major property developer with much experience in large-scale property development in the city centres of small and medium-sized Norwegian cities. Initial contact was made with project leaders of zoning plan processes in the city centres of two partner municipalities (Lillehammer and Tønsberg), who then suggested inviting project leaders with similar experience in three other cities (Hamar, Ski and Porsgrunn). They also proposed to conduct group interviews for mutual sharing of experiences between them.

In the first group interview, the project leaders presented a zoning plan process in which they were or had recently been involved, following a pre-defined structure developed by the researchers (the interview guide is provided in Appendix B.2). All processes concerned mixed-use development on vacant or under-utilised land adjacent to railway stations in the city centres, with projects varying in size from 18,000 to 112,000 m² Gross Floor Area. This session was conducted digitally and lasted 2 h. The guide for the next group interview was based on an analysis of the first and aimed to explore selected key themes in more depth. The interview guide is provided in Appendix B.3. It was conducted in person and lasted 3.5 h. The participants discussed the questions relatively freely based on their own experiences. Both group interviews were recorded and transcribed automatically. The researchers summarised the interviews according to the structure of the interview guide and sent them to the interviewees for review and comments.

The interviews concentrated on the interviewees’ experiences from working with zoning plan processes aimed at property development in city centres. Similar questions were asked in all interviews, with emphasis on:

• the process and dialogue between the property developers and the different authorities involved, including key challenges experienced by developers
• how goals, goal conflicts, knowledge and power among the different actors influenced the process and dialogue
• how the process and dialogue influenced whether the resulting zoning plan allowed for a feasible project (if the plan had been approved)
• what public authorities across administrative levels and sectors, as well as developers, can do to ensure more efficient processes and feasible plans
• how the PBA and the PBA system might be improved to become a better tool in city centre zoning plan processes

The full interview guides are provided in Appendix B.

2.2. Analyses

Interview data were analysed in two stages. First, a systematic thematic analysis was conducted [87,88,90]. Using an inductive approach, answers from all interviews to similar questions were compiled, and two researchers jointly analysed the data to identify key themes and issues raised across interviews. Once these key themes were established, the data were further examined to identify patterns in how interviewees reflected on these themes, as well as similarities and differences in their understandings. The results of this analysis are presented in Section 3.1, structured around eight identified key themes. Given the limited prior research on how developers experience the dynamic interactions with multiple public authorities in city centre zoning plan processes, and following the advice of emphasising little things and thick descriptions to understand the issue at hand [86], the findings are presented in a nuanced and detailed manner.

Second, to develop deeper and more general explanations of the underlying causes of the challenges experienced by developers in the zoning plan processes, the same two researchers applied a more deductive approach [87,88]. They jointly analysed the results of the thematic analysis through the lens of goals, knowledge and power of the involved actors. These factors were identified in Section 1.4 as key variables influencing planning processes and their outcomes.

In conducting this analysis, the themes and issues identified as significant in the thematic analysis were first examined with the aim to determine whether the challenges reported by developers related to one or more of the analytical variables’ goals and goal conflicts, differences in knowledge and understanding or the possession and exercise of power between key actors involved. Subsequently, the researchers analysed the specific aspects associated with each of these variables with the aim of identifying which aspects appeared most influential and of developing a clearer understanding of the underlying causes relating to the specific aspect and the reported challenges. The assumptions outlined in Section 1.4 served as important guidance during this phase of the analysis. Based on a clearer understanding, more general explanations were derived, which formed the foundation for the recommendations for planning practice. The results of this analysis are presented in Section 3.2.

The findings from this second analysis formed the basis for developing recommendations on how public authorities across sectors and administrative levels can alter their conduct to improve the efficiency of zoning plan processes and increase the likelihood that desired property developments in city centres of small and medium-sized cities are realised. These recommendations are presented in Section 3.3.

3. Results

3.1. Results from Thematic Analysis

3.1.1. Developers’ Projects Contribute to Prominent Societal Goals

One theme raised across all interviews, despite not being prompted, concerned how the developers’ projects would contribute to the prominent goal of promoting land use development in central parts of cities rather than through urban sprawl. Interviewees referred to central government planning guidelines and regional and municipal plans supporting this objective.

Related to this, interviewees explained that projects in and near city centres involve greater risks than those located elsewhere due to the complex environment and the many actors with interests in the area. These factors often result in lengthy and costly processes before construction and sales can start, sometimes leading to projects being postponed or stopped. To ensure that the projects are realised, interviewees emphasised the need for goodwill and flexibility from all actors involved.

As one developer put it: ‘It is generally more troublesome to build in the city centre than elsewhere. We want to build in the city centre; it provides strong rental yields and contributes to the city, and it is important that all actors demonstrate goodwill to help make that happen’.

3.1.2. The Characteristics of Overarching Land Use Plans

Another theme raised across interviews was the characteristics of the overarching land use plans. When asked in follow-up questions to describe the ideal planning situation for initiating a zoning plan process, the responses can be summarised to: an overarching plan that provides clear guidelines concerning what can be built, has been clarified with relevant public authorities and allows flexibility to develop economically feasible projects. As one interviewee noted: ‘An overarching plan like that would be the best poster for attracting property developers to build in your city’.

This reflects the perennial tension between predictability and flexibility in land use planning. When asked what the plans should clarify and what should be left more flexible, developers emphasised clarifications of prioritisation among goals, structural issues like heights, volumes, land use purpose and transport solutions, and procedural requirements clarifying what issues should be addressed at different planning levels. Guidelines on architectural style and cultural heritage were seen as helpful, but overly detailed requirements could undermine project feasibility. Insufficient clarification with consultative bodies risks protracted discussions during the zoning plan process, delaying projects and increasing costs.

Developers acknowledged the municipalities’ need for overarching plans that reflect public interests and allow for the rejection of unsuitable proposals. However, they stressed that some room for manoeuvre and risk should be left for the zoning plan process. They also acknowledged that the municipalities cannot clarify all issues, given that they cannot predict who will build, what will be built or when. Consequently, it is neither realistic nor efficient to resolve all issues in advance for every site.

When reflecting on different types of overarching plans, interviewees noted that all have their pros and cons. A recent, strong overarching municipal land use plan was seen as beneficial. A binding municipal plan for the entire city centre could balance detail and flexibility, defining strict requirements in some areas and broader transformation zones elsewhere. However, a key concern was that municipalities might leave difficult issues unresolved, postponing them to the zoning plan process. Area zoning plans prepared by municipalities were viewed as useful for clarifying complex issues and securing early consultations, but they risk becoming overly detailed and rigid. This is especially problematic given the long timeframes between plan adoption and project implementation, and that changes to the plan often require formal amendments.

3.1.3. Lack of Understanding That Projects Need to Be Profitable to Be Realisable

A third theme, highlighted by all interviewees, was the authorities’ lack of understanding that projects must be economically feasible to be realisable. All developers stressed that they would not initiate a project expected to cause financial loss or yield only marginal profit. One developer remarked: ‘We did not enter this project to lose money or for idealistic reasons’. Profitability depends on factors such as site characteristics, land acquisition, planning, construction and capital costs, as well as future sales and rental income. These, in turn, are partly shaped by the overarching land use plan, the zoning plan process and the requirements of the zoning plan. Uncertainty and risk are inherent to all these factors, especially in complex city centre environments.

Across interviews, developers argued that public authorities often failed to recognise the need to balance project requirements against allowable site utilisation, rendering projects economically unviable. Instead, municipal planning authorities and sector authorities across administrative levels focus on safeguarding particular qualities or sector objectives, without fully considering the cumulative economic impact of their demands. This, developers warned, can lead to project cancellations or compromises in other quality aspects. Developers also found it easier to discuss infrastructure contributions than to explain how site utilisation limits and design requirements affect economic feasibility—topics that often lead to disputes and delays.

Interviewees called for authorities to gain a better understanding of the costs of their requirements and prioritise what matters most. As one interviewee put it: ‘If their demands are too expensive, then we cannot build’. Long planning processes also increase capital costs and can reduce project quality or halt projects entirely.

Several interviewees noted that authorities sometimes overestimate developers’ profit margins and underestimate financial risks, particularly in small and medium-sized cities. Construction costs are largely consistent across locations, but revenues from sales and rentals are much lower outside major urban areas.

3.1.4. Recurring Topics Causing Discussions and Disagreements

An important theme in the interviews was the topics and requirements that caused problematic discussions and disagreements during zoning plan processes. Developers identified several recurring areas of contention.

One central topic was balancing adaptation to the existing built environment with site utilisation. This tension led to debates over issues like height, volume, façade design and ground-floor activities. Nearly all developers emphasised height and volume as critical for making projects feasible, claiming that some authorities were overly conservative and favoured designs resembling historic buildings. Developers stressed that low site utilisation undermines the vibrancy of the city centre and threatens project feasibility. In this context, high utilisation typically refers to buildings of four to eight storeys. As one interviewee put it: ‘Central government planning guidelines and municipal plans say development should happen in and around the city centre and with high utilisation. But this means nothing when cultural heritage authorities insist new projects must not conflict with existing built environment—meaning low buildings and low utilisation’.

A closely related topic was the preservation of historic buildings on development sites. While developers generally valued historic buildings, they noted that the extent to which historic buildings could be adapted was crucial in regeneration projects. Requirements of preservation, including small backyard structures, often limit efficient site use.

A third topic regarded housing quality, including aspects such as the organisation, layout and size of flats, as well as requirements related to noise, daylight, private and shared outdoor areas, parking and site access. Some developers argued that housing quality standards were originally intended for single-family homes and greenfield developments and are difficult to apply in dense city centre contexts, where they increase costs and reduce revenue potential.

A fourth topic concerned developers’ need to respond to the dynamic demands of tenants when developing commercial buildings, and how this can be accounted for in zoning plan processes. These demands included ensuring building flexibility and adapting parking and access for deliveries. Prolonged zoning plan processes were seen as particularly problematic for commercial developments. Developers emphasised the need to secure tenant contracts before construction begins, noting that extended planning timelines risk the loss of tenants who operate with short planning horizons.

A fifth topic involved accessibility, mobility and transport infrastructure. Interviewees reported that some transport authorities, at various administrative levels, prioritised road designs over street designs in city centres, reducing the usable size of the site and diminishing the urban character and attractiveness of the area.

A sixth topic was related to off-site contribution requirements. Authorities sometimes demanded that developers fund infrastructure upgrades, such as traffic-related improvements or pedestrian bridges to improve site access. Developers warned that if these requirements became too costly, projects would no longer be economically viable.

3.1.5. Inefficient Dialogue and Lengthy Processes

A fifth theme, raised in all interviews, was the view that the conduct of public authorities engaged in zoning plan processes contributes to often unnecessarily inefficient, resource-intensive and prolonged processes.

A recurring complaint was that despite numerous meetings, developers often experienced a lack of constructive dialogue. Instead, they encountered increasingly bureaucratic procedures. Sector authority representatives were often unwilling to listen to developers and engage in problem-solving discussions, or they lacked the mandate to provide clear answers. Issues were frequently taken back to their organisations, with responses delivered later via formal letters. Answers were sometimes simply ‘no’, without explanations of what needed to change, or it was requests for yet another study before a decision could be made.

Developers acknowledged that authorities are cautious about making statements in direct dialogue that could later be interpreted as binding and conclusive. Nonetheless, they missed arenas where different actors could meet, discuss challenges and work collaboratively toward solutions, fostering mutual understanding of key concerns. As one developer remarked: ‘It would have saved time and reduce costs if there was open dialogue about the topics in the planning process’.

Developers noted that lengthy processes caused additional delays because political leadership, key personnel within authorities and overarching plans changed during the process. This sometimes meant restarting negotiations or adapting to new policy directions, particularly after elections or staff turnover. Several interviewees described situations where it felt as though they had to begin the process anew, despite years of prior work.

Such delays increased costs and project risks, but developers felt authorities were unaware or unconcerned about these consequences. As one interviewee put it: ‘I find that neither time nor money matters to the authorities’. Another noted that drawn-out processes also consumed public sector resources and wondered why this inefficiency did not raise more concern among the authorities themselves.

3.1.6. Many Sector Interests and a Lack of Coordination

Another theme, identified by all interviewees as a major reason for lengthy and resource-intensive zoning plan processes, was the multitude of sector interests involved. Various sector authorities at different administrative levels oversee areas such as cultural heritage preservation, housing quality, mobility and nature conservation. Developers described how their inputs and requirements were often poorly coordinated.

They linked this to a fragmentation of responsibilities both across and within sectors and administrative levels. Developers explained that they often were required to address the demands of each sector authority separately, as case officers typically focused solely on their own area without coordinating with colleagues before engaging with developers. County authorities, which hold diverse sectoral responsibilities, were described by some interviewees as particularly fragmented. Several developers argued that county authorities should coordinate internally before meeting with developers and expressed a wish that county authorities were more development-oriented, seeing their role as supporting the realisation of projects aligning with municipal goals.

Interviewees emphasised that accommodating all sector interests within a zoning plan is often impossible, noting that these interests often conflict, especially in complex city centre environments. They argued that balancing and prioritising between sector interests should be the responsibility of the public authorities. Instead, developers described a fragmented process in which they repeatedly submitted revised proposals, with each authority responding independently. This, they argued, underscores the need for collaborative discussions to develop workable solutions.

Developers linked these practices to what some termed a never-ending demand for surveys, studies and assessments. While developers acknowledged that many studies were necessary and valuable, they questioned the relevance of others. Some suggested that certain studies appeared to be required mainly to satisfy the individual case officer and ensure that they had covered their backs. Developers argued that sector specialists should possess the competence and confidence to make independent decisions, rather than repeatedly requiring new consultancy studies.

As one interviewee put it: ‘There are many and extensive investigation requirements. It costs time and money, and it is sometimes difficult to understand their benefit—or whether anyone uses them for anything. Are all of these really necessary?’ Another said: ‘This can overturn a plan, delaying development or putting it on hold’.

There was broad agreement that the authorities’ narrow focus on their sector objectives, combined with a lack of coordination and shared arenas for dialogue, diverted attention from the overall planning goal: enabling sustainable densification and transformation in city centres to limit urban sprawl. Developers warned that a consequence of these practices could be lengthy processes and plans that are unprofitable and unrealisable, leading to project postponements or cancellations.

3.1.7. Leadership and Management

The theme of leadership and management was raised in several interviews. The interviewed project leaders, who had experience across different municipalities and contexts, highlighted the importance of leadership and coordination within public authorities. Efficient processes were linked to public authority leaders who take responsibility for coordinating input and making timely decisions. Leadership quality was seen as dependent not only on individual capacity but also on organisational culture.

Some developers had positive experiences where municipal authorities assumed part of the responsibility for liaising with other authorities, allowing the developer to take a step back. Municipalities, they said, have greater legitimacy in these discussions and better knowledge of the local context, stakeholders and history. Developers felt they were often viewed as solely profit-driven actors, which made it harder to gain trust. When developers were not present in meetings, they believed that authority representatives felt freer to engage in open, constructive dialogue and problem-solving.

Some developers referred to zoning plan processes where municipal or county authorities had appointed an internal coordinator for a process, which they strongly recommended. This role improved coordination and efficiency. Others highlighted the use of planning programmes that help structure zoning plan processes and align different authorities on what should be required and assessed at each stage. These were seen as helpful tools for reducing misunderstandings and delays.

3.1.8. How Developers Can Contribute to More Efficient Processes

A theme brought up by the researchers in the interviews was how project leaders employed by the property developer themselves might help make zoning plan processes more efficient. Developers acknowledged that they, too, bear responsibility for how the process unfolds. In response to the suggestion that projects might run more smoothly if they simply followed existing plans, most developers argued this was often impossible. They explained that plans may be outdated or generally unfeasible, or they might contain detailed requirements that developers cannot meet. There was agreement that even when they tried to align their proposals with overarching plans to speed up the process, lengthy discussions with authorities were still unavoidable.

Nonetheless, they saw room for improvement on their side. For example, they could do more to clearly explain why their projects diverged from existing plans and what positive contributions their projects aimed to make to the city. They could also show greater understanding of the responsible authorities’ need for careful consideration and deliberation. In some cases, they acknowledged the value of being more flexible and strategic, and ‘picking their battles’, as one interviewee put it. They could also invest more effort in learning about the local planning context and understanding how authorities and organisations operate. Some noted the importance of staying informed about other plans and projects in the area to identify synergies that could benefit both their own project, other projects and the wider city.

A few interviewees reflected on the importance of earning trust. They acknowledged that some authorities were cautious because they had encountered developers in the past who initiated projects that generated significant public-sector involvement but ultimately failed to deliver. Others suggested that scepticism sometimes stemmed from dissatisfaction with the quality of previous developments, whether locally or in other cities. Developers recognised the need to demonstrate that they were serious, competent and financially capable partners in order to build credibility and foster more constructive relationships with public authorities.

3.2. Results of the Analysis of How Challenges Were Related to Goals, Knowledge and Power

To develop deeper and more general explanations of the underlying causes of the challenges developers experienced in zoning plan processes, the results of the thematic analysis were further analysed through the lens of goals, knowledge and power among the actors involved. These were identified in the theoretical framework in Section 1.4 as key factors expected to influence the planning processes and their outcomes.

3.2.1. Goals and Goal Conflicts

The analysis found that goals and goal conflicts were key factors explaining the challenges in zoning plan processes reported by the developers. It also revealed that the absence of clear prioritisation of societal goals among public authorities further complicated these processes.

Developers perceived their city centre property developments as supporting the widely stated societal goal of promoting land use development in central parts of cities to limit urban sprawl, a goal they understood to be shared by the public authorities involved in the processes. However, during the concrete zoning plan processes, they had observed that sector authorities tended to focus narrowly on objectives related to their own sectoral responsibilities, causing the processes to lose sight of the overarching goal.

While developers acknowledged that sector authorities have a legitimate duty to safeguard objectives within their respective domains, they argued that when each authority concentrates solely on its own requirements, without assuming responsibility for facilitating efficient processes and zoning plans that enable feasible projects, this dynamic can, ultimately, undermine the more prominent goal of promoting land use development in city centres.

According to the developers, this lack of strategic prioritisation was particularly evident in conflicts related to site utilisation. Developers cited central government planning guidelines that call for the high utilisation of sites in central parts of cities. They stressed that high utilisation, typically referring to buildings of four to eight storeys in this context, is often necessary to make projects profitable, and that profitability is a prerequisite for realising projects. However, they had experienced that various authorities frequently argued that high utilisation of specific sites conflicted with objectives related to issues like adaptation of projects to the existing built environment, cultural heritage, housing quality or mobility.

Given the strong and persistent emphasis from national authorities on promoting land use development through transformation and densification in central parts of cities, one might expect central government planning guidelines to clearly prioritise this objective. However, a closer reading suggests that, rather than providing such clarity, the guidelines appear to introduce further ambiguity. For example, they state that development mainly should occur in and near city centres and with high site utilisation, while simultaneously requiring that new developments be adapted to the existing built environment (for instance, §§ 4.3 and 4.7) [24]. In small and medium-sized Norwegian cities, these statements are conflicting, since high site utilisation typically means that new buildings will differ from the existing built environment. By failing to establish clear prioritisation between these often mutually exclusive objectives, the central government planning guidelines leave municipalities with the challenging and resource-intensive task of balancing them through lengthy dialogues and consultations with various authorities.

Developers have experienced that discussions in zoning plan processes often revolved around conflicts between the goals and requirements of different authorities. They argued that it should be the responsibility of the public authorities to discuss and clarify how these conflicting interests and objectives are to be balanced and to find solutions that enable realisable projects. They reported that such discussions and clarifications were too often left to the zoning plan processes, resulting in resource-intensive, protracted and frustrating processes, as well as demands for costly studies and assessments. These dynamics, they argued, increased costs, risks and uncertainties, potentially leading to projects not being realised.

Developers’ frustrations with implied goal conflicts and a lack of clear prioritisation between goals were reflected in their call for overarching municipal land use plans that provide clear guidelines on what can be built on relevant sites, have been clarified with all public authority consultative bodies and provide flexibility and economically viable projects. This also illustrates the well-known tension between the goals of predictability and flexibility in land use planning.

One might argue that there is an inherent tension between the goals of effectiveness and efficiency in the zoning plan processes, assuming that lengthy processes (low efficiency) are necessary to ensure that projects contribute to attaining prioritised goals (high effectiveness). However, based on the experiences reported by the developers, one might instead argue that a result of low efficiency in planning processes might be that projects effectively contributing to attaining prominent goals might not be realised.

3.2.2. Knowledge and Understanding

The analysis illuminated that knowledge is also a significant factor in explaining the challenges developers experienced in city centre zoning plan processes. Developers attributed key difficulties to what they perceived as a lack of relevant knowledge and understanding amongst public authorities. However, some also recognised that their own limited knowledge of local contexts could contribute to these difficulties.

Developers emphasised that public authorities’ lack of knowledge and understanding regarding the need for projects to be profitable in order to be realisable caused challenges in dialogues, processes and plans. They pointed to a lack of understanding of developers’ need for high site utilisation to ensure sufficient revenue, limited awareness of how the various authorities’ requirements influence project costs and revenues and a lack of recognition that prolonged zoning plan processes elevate capital costs.

They argued that this lack of knowledge and awareness leads to increased costs, risks and uncertainties, and may ultimately result in projects not being realised.

Discussions concerning what constitutes architectural quality and appropriate adaptations to the existing built environment, and how these standards are defined and by whom, were also identified as sources of frustration.

Some developers also suggested that the regrettable lack of clear answers during zoning plan processes might stem from a lack of competence and confidence regarding the issues at hand within sector authorities.

Developers’ own lack of sufficient knowledge about local contexts—such as the physical environment, visions, plans, actors and key individuals—was also identified as contributing to the challenges they encountered in dialogues and processes. This included their limited awareness of the time required by responsible authorities for thorough consideration and deliberation.

Developers also emphasised the importance of establishing trust, demonstrating that they are credible actors capable of executing complex projects and genuinely committed to contributing positively to the city.

3.2.3. Power Distribution and Exertion

The analysis of how the distribution of power and the ways in which different actors exerted their power influenced the processes and the plans, structured around Lukes’ [82] three dimensions of power, found that these were substantial factors in explaining the challenges developers reported in zoning plan processes.

Developers’ accounts illuminated the interplay between the two structural powers that most strongly shape ‘how things are’ in city centre planning and development: the PBA and the market economy. The PBA defines the roles and responsibilities of the actors involved in land use planning and decision-making. The PBA system also provides guidelines for where, what and how to build, potentially serving as a powerful tool for prioritising between goals. The market economy requires that projects be profitable to avoid developers going bankrupt. Although the market economy must operate within the framework set by the PBA, property development will not be implemented unless the requirements set by the market economy are met. Thus, property development realisation can be understood as the outcome of these structural powers interacting to produce intended results. However, this interplay also creates goal conflicts, leading to challenging zoning plan processes and potentially resulting in postponed or halted projects.

Both developers and authorities possess the direct power to stop projects. Developers can exercise this direct power by deciding not to proceed with projects. Under the PBA, municipal councils hold the direct authority to approve or reject proposed plans by majority vote. Furthermore, national and regional authorities have the power to file formal objections, which, if upheld by the minister, can halt plans and developments. As found in Section 3.2.1, national authorities have not exerted their powers to promote land use development through transformation and densification in central urban areas by clearly prioritising these objectives in central government planning guidelines.

Within the framework of these structural and direct powers, public authorities across different sectors and administrative levels exercise agenda-setting power in zoning plan processes, influencing whether and how projects are realised. Developers’ descriptions of challenges in zoning plan processes highlighted how public authorities may deploy this agenda-setting power in ways that lead to inefficient, resource-intensive and prolonged processes. Examples included authorities’ reluctance to engage in constructive dialogue, opting instead for bureaucratic, letter-based communication; sector authorities focusing narrowly on their specific objectives; demands for repeated studies; and poor coordination within and between authorities.

Developers emphasised significant variation in how authorities exercise their agenda-setting power, attributing differences to leadership, management, individual personalities or organisational culture. These findings underscore that authorities, case officers and leaders also can—and do—exercise their agenda-setting power constructively to facilitate efficient processes in which actors collaboratively develop feasible solutions.

Developers also recognised their own capacity to exercise agenda-setting power in ways contributing to more efficient planning processes by improving their understanding of local contexts and demonstrating flexibility.

As this analysis is based solely on interviews with developers, it inevitably reflects a one-sided perspective. Developers are undeniably influential actors in zoning plan processes, actively exercising agenda-setting power to advance their objectives. Their expressions of frustration over the lack of more collaborative dialogue with public sector authorities partly reflect dissatisfaction with limited opportunities to shape planning processes in ways that facilitate project realisation and profitability.

Nonetheless, this does not preclude the possibility that many developers are genuinely motivated to deliver projects that contribute positively to the city. This may be particularly true for those who choose to undertake property developments in the complex and challenging contexts of city centres of small and medium-sized cities.

3.3. Recommendations for Planning Practice

The analyses presented in Section 3.1 and Section 3.2 illuminated the challenges experienced by developers in their dynamic interactions with the multiple public authorities involved in city centre zoning plan processes and offered explanations for why these challenges occur. Drawing on these insights from the developers’ perspectives, this section outlines recommendations for how public authorities can alter their conduct to improve the efficiency of zoning plan processes and increase the likelihood that desired property developments in city centres of small and medium-sized cities are realised.

First, public authorities across administrative levels and sectors can play a pivotal role by more explicitly clarifying and articulating that the realisation of desired city centre development is a primary policy objective. This entails clearly and consistently emphasising the realisation of city centre property development as a central goal, maintaining focus on it throughout zoning plan processes and assuming responsibility for reconciling conflicting objectives in ways that enable feasible property developments.

National authorities can support this by more explicitly prioritising city centre development in guiding documents such as central government planning guidelines. Municipal authorities can contribute by intensifying coordination among the various authorities involved in zoning plan processes. Furthermore, by ensuring recently approved overarching land use plans that provide clear guidance on what can be developed, are clarified with all consultative bodies and support feasible projects.

Crucially, all public authorities can strengthen their focus on keeping the objective of densification and transformation in city centres central, ensuring it is not overshadowed by conflicting sectoral objectives and priorities. A more constructive dialogue focused on resolving goal conflicts in ways that enable feasible projects, combined with greater flexibility and goodwill where necessary and possible, is essential for increasing the likelihood of realising desired city centre developments.

Second, public authorities can improve their knowledge and awareness of the conditions necessary for developers to realise projects, particularly the fundamental necessity of projects to be profitable. This demands a clearer recognition of how regulatory demands and planning requirements directly influence project costs, revenues and overall financial feasibility.

A stronger understanding of the need for site utilisation levels that often exceed those of the existing built environment is also essential, as such utilisation is critical for ensuring economic viability. Moreover, public authorities can more fully acknowledge that protracted planning processes impose substantial capital costs on developers, increasing the risk of project delays or cancellations.

Greater clarity regarding the acceptable adaptation of new developments to the existing built environment and architectural quality is necessary to reduce uncertainty and improve the efficiency of planning processes.

Third, public authorities across sectors and administrative levels can exercise their agenda-setting power more constructively and flexibly throughout the zoning plan process. This requires more actively engaging in constructive and solution-oriented dialogue in which relevant actors engage collaboratively, listening to differing perspectives and working together to address challenging issues.

Public authorities can also critically assess their own requirements for studies and analyses. Importantly, they can improve both their internal coordination and their coordination with other authorities before presenting various requirements to developers.

4. Conclusions

Urban development through densification and transformation in city centres rather than through sprawl is essential for achieving a range of societal goals contributing to more sustainable future cities. This has been articulated as a prominent goal by national authorities in Norway as well as in other European countries. Authorities in many small and medium-sized Norwegian cities aim to promote property development on vacant and underutilised land within their city centres. However, they report persistent difficulties in getting property developments realised in these areas. One assumed explanation for this is that property developers perceive development in the complex and value-laden contexts of city centres as cumbersome and risky, due to lengthy and resource-intensive zoning plan processes involving multiple public authorities, each pursuing distinct objectives and responsibilities. These dynamics also increase the risk of producing plans that do not enable feasible developments. As a result, planned developments may be postponed or stopped, or property developers may avoid city centres.

The aim of this paper was to contribute knowledge and insights concerning what challenges property developers experience in their interactions with the multiple public authorities involved in city centre zoning plan processes. This can help public authorities alter their conduct in ways that lead to more efficient zoning plan processes, zoning plans allowing feasible projects and, ultimately, the realisation of desired property development in city centres of small and medium-sized cities.

Data were collected through in-depth interviews with project leaders employed by property developers, focusing on their experiences of key challenges in the dynamic interaction with multiple public authorities during relevant city centre zoning plan processes, and how these interactions influenced both the processes and the resulting plans. The data were analysed in two stages: first, through a thematic analysis identifying key themes raised across interviews; and second, through an analytical lens focusing on the goals, knowledge and power of the involved actors to develop more general explanations of underlying causes.

These results illuminated the complexity of the interplay between actors involved in city centre zoning plan processes and contributed explanations for why challenges occur. The findings align with previous studies on the use of strategic plans to influence city centre development in larger cities [6,16,31,69] and on the interaction between property developers and public authorities in zoning plan processes [30,54,67,70,71,72]. They also underscore the importance of including the perspectives and needs of property developers in plans to ensure the realisation of desired developments, as emphasised in earlier studies [6,31,62,63,64,65,66,67].

Based on the analyses of the challenges experienced by developers in their interactions with the multiple public authorities involved in city centre zoning plan processes, actionable recommendations on how public authorities can alter their conduct to improve the efficiency of zoning plan processes and improve city centre project delivery in small and medium-sized cities were outlined.

First, public authorities across administrative levels and sectors can play a pivotal role by more explicitly clarifying and articulating that the realisation of desired city centre development is a primary policy objective, maintaining this focus throughout the zoning plan processes, and taking responsibility for reconciling conflicting objectives in ways that enable feasible property development.

Second, public authorities can improve their knowledge and awareness of the conditions necessary for developers to realise projects. In particular, this regards the fundamental necessity for projects to be profitable in order to be realisable, and how authorities’ requirements impact project viability. Third, public authorities across sectors and levels can exercise their agenda-setting power more constructively and flexibly throughout the zoning plan process.

This paper contributes to urban planning research through its examination of three underexplored perspectives. First, it offers novel insights into how the dynamic interactions between key actors involved in complex city centre zoning plan processes in small and medium-sized cities influence the processes and the resulting plans, and ultimately the realisation of desired property development. Second, by studying these dynamics from the property developers’ perspective, the paper contributes to a limited body of research addressing an actor group that plays a key role in urban development yet remains understudied. Third, by applying goals, knowledge and power amongst actors involved in the zoning plan processes as analytical variables, the study contributes a novel perspective that may advance the academic understanding of the mechanisms impeding city centre development.

The approach also yielded highly relevant results for planning practitioners seeking to facilitate the realisation of projects in city centres of small and medium-sized cities. The rare, nuanced descriptions of developers’ experiences of how the practices of various authorities create challenges that impede the implementation of desired projects may enhance authorities’ understanding of developers’ needs and stimulate critical reflections on their own practices. The paper also provides actionable recommendations that can support public authorities in altering their conduct and practices in ways that improve the delivery of city centre property developments.

The findings of this study are particularly relevant and valuable for researchers and practitioners working within comparable land use planning systems to that of Norway, as well as for those working with small and medium-sized cities. While the role of property developers in zoning plan processes varies across countries, they remain essential actors in urban development within market economies [62]. Insights into their perspectives and needs are therefore pertinent to planning practice, even in contexts where developers cannot formally initiate zoning plan processes, but where their willingness to implement projects is nonetheless crucial to the realisation of development goals set by public authorities. Moreover, as many cities and countries pursue similar urban development objectives, and given that the challenges associated with development in the central parts of cities share similarities across contexts, the results and insights of this study may also be of value for researchers and practitioners working within different planning systems and contexts. Finally, while larger cities differ from smaller ones in various respects, the insights generated here may also prove useful for those involved in similar planning processes in larger cities.

This paper specifically focused on the goal of realising property development in city centres of small and medium-sized cities, adopting solely the developers’ perspective to examine how relevant public authorities might alter their practices in zoning plan processes to achieve this goal. This narrow analytical perspective is both a strength and a limitation. Its strength lies in providing greater clarity on specific challenges impeding the realisation of desired projects in city centres, as outlined in Section 1.1. Given the complexity of the physical context and the multitude of actors and interests involved, city centre zoning plan processes are almost imperviously complex. Focusing on a single actor group allowed for the inclusion of a broad range of issues from their perspective, here limited to the interactions between developers and public authorities.

However, this narrow focus also entails limitations. One is the bias resulting from the exclusion of other crucial perspectives, most notably those of the public authorities whose conduct is critiqued and those of citizens and the wider public. Another weakness is that this narrow perspective does not capture the full complexity of the dynamic interactions among the various actors involved.

Including the perspectives of more actors would have provided a more comprehensive and balanced understanding of the conduct of both developers and public authorities in such processes; however, this lies beyond the scope of this paper.

Further research is needed to fully understand the complex city centre planning processes. This paper is part of a broader research project aimed at generating knowledge to support authorities in small and medium-sized cities in planning and developing their cities and city centres in ways that promote more attractive and vibrant city centres.

Supplementing the perspective presented in this paper, two additional studies in progress examine the interplay between actors in city centre zoning processes through case studies conducted from the perspectives of municipal planning authorities and cultural heritage authorities, respectively. A third paper investigates overarching city centre land use plans, while a fourth explores how the PBA, the broader planning system and planning practices under the PBA could be improved to better facilitate the development of desired city centre projects. Further, three other studies within the project investigate how the physical urban structure of cities and the qualities of their city centres influence residents’ use of and appreciation for these areas.

Collectively, these contributions address important but still limited aspects of the complex and multifaceted topic of city centre planning and development. Substantial further research is warranted, both in the Norwegian context and in the context of other countries, to advance understanding of the various perspectives and dynamics shaping city centre transformation.