Social value is an increasingly prominent feature of the development process in England, yet the relationship between social value and planning obligations remains poorly understood and inconsistently practised. Despite the common objectives of planning and social value, their standards, practices and frameworks do not always align. For example, planning obligations have long been an important mechanism through which public goods are secured from development, often representing a significant source of social value.

However, a conceptual tension exists between mitigation (planning obligations required to address the negative impacts of development) and additionality (the genuine social benefits generated beyond core delivery requirements). Yet, there is not a clear and consistent methodology within social valuation processes to report the benefits which arise through this mechanism in social value terms. This creates a grey area where mitigation secured through planning obligations may be reported as additionality in social value assessments, creating inconsistency in reporting.

This paper presents and reflects upon emerging findings examining this tension. Drawing on document analysis, expert interviews with practitioners across England, and case study analysis of two large-scale mixed-use developments in London and the North West. The paper identifies current practices and practitioners' perceptions, and outlines progress towards a framework for attributing and reporting the social value secured through planning obligations, contributing to wider debates on planning's public value at a time of significant debate and potential reform to developer contributions in England.