计划法的不连贯和不相容

E. Lees, E. Shepherd
{"title":"计划法的不连贯和不相容","authors":"E. Lees, E. Shepherd","doi":"10.1108/IJLBE-07-2014-0019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyse the obligations imposing localism and the presumption in favour of sustainable development in English planning law. Design/methodology/approach – The paper uses doctrinal analysis to examine section 38 PCPA 2004 and the NPPF to assess whether the obligations are coherent when considered as stand-alone obligations, and whether they are compatible when combined. Case law and the statutory provisions are examined to assess this. Planning theory is also examined to bring a multidisciplinary focus to the analysis. Findings – The paper concludes that there are problems with these legal obligations when considered as stand-alone obligations. There is imprecision over the meaning of key terms; the “presumptions” established do not operate as true presumptions; and there is an ambiguity as to the hierarchy of norms and the allocation of decision-making control. When combined, the incoherence increases. It is argued that this occurs thanks to underlying disagreement...","PeriodicalId":158465,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law in The Built Environment","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Incoherence and incompatibility in planning law\",\"authors\":\"E. Lees, E. Shepherd\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/IJLBE-07-2014-0019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyse the obligations imposing localism and the presumption in favour of sustainable development in English planning law. Design/methodology/approach – The paper uses doctrinal analysis to examine section 38 PCPA 2004 and the NPPF to assess whether the obligations are coherent when considered as stand-alone obligations, and whether they are compatible when combined. Case law and the statutory provisions are examined to assess this. Planning theory is also examined to bring a multidisciplinary focus to the analysis. Findings – The paper concludes that there are problems with these legal obligations when considered as stand-alone obligations. There is imprecision over the meaning of key terms; the “presumptions” established do not operate as true presumptions; and there is an ambiguity as to the hierarchy of norms and the allocation of decision-making control. When combined, the incoherence increases. It is argued that this occurs thanks to underlying disagreement...\",\"PeriodicalId\":158465,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Law in The Built Environment\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Law in The Built Environment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLBE-07-2014-0019\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Law in The Built Environment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLBE-07-2014-0019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

摘要

目的-本文的目的是分析英国规划法中实施地方主义的义务和有利于可持续发展的推定。设计/方法/方法-本文使用理论分析来检查PCPA 2004第38条和NPPF,以评估这些义务在作为独立义务时是否一致,以及它们在合并时是否兼容。判例法和法定条款进行审查,以评估这一点。规划理论也被检查带来多学科的重点分析。调查结果-本文的结论是,将这些法律义务视为独立义务时存在问题。关键术语的含义不精确;建立的“假设”不能作为真正的假设运作;规范的层级和决策权的分配也存在歧义。当两者结合时,不相干性增加。有人认为,这是由于潜在的分歧造成的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Incoherence and incompatibility in planning law
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyse the obligations imposing localism and the presumption in favour of sustainable development in English planning law. Design/methodology/approach – The paper uses doctrinal analysis to examine section 38 PCPA 2004 and the NPPF to assess whether the obligations are coherent when considered as stand-alone obligations, and whether they are compatible when combined. Case law and the statutory provisions are examined to assess this. Planning theory is also examined to bring a multidisciplinary focus to the analysis. Findings – The paper concludes that there are problems with these legal obligations when considered as stand-alone obligations. There is imprecision over the meaning of key terms; the “presumptions” established do not operate as true presumptions; and there is an ambiguity as to the hierarchy of norms and the allocation of decision-making control. When combined, the incoherence increases. It is argued that this occurs thanks to underlying disagreement...
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Measures in curbing poor compliance to building control regulation among renovated terrace houses When enforcement fails: Comparative analysis of the legal and planning responses to non-compliant development in two advanced-economy countries Factors influencing land title registration practice in Osun State, Nigeria Liability in negligence for building defects in Ireland, England and Australia: Where statute speaks, must common law be silent? Deregulating planning control over Britain’s housing stock
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1