寻求确定性:在英国和欧洲经验中将分区引入自由裁量制

IF 0.7 Q3 GEOGRAPHY
S. Dembski, P. O’Brien
{"title":"寻求确定性:在英国和欧洲经验中将分区引入自由裁量制","authors":"S. Dembski, P. O’Brien","doi":"10.14512/rur.1695","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The critique of planning and new proposals to reform the English planning system and “rethink planning from first principles” have led to the introduction of rules-based principles into what is regarded as the paradigm of a discretionary planning system, culminating in a recent White Paper, which it is claimed will create a faster and better planning system than the existing discretionary approach. But are these proposals based on an oversimplified understanding of the differences between discretionary and regulatory models, neglecting, for example, the negotiation between stakeholders and the flexibility which also exists in regulatory planning systems? Our contribution will review some of the recent changes of the English planning system and reflect on experiences with zoning in European countries to bust the myth that the planning reform claims to address: the possibility to combine faster decision making with better place making and less interference from local planning authorities.","PeriodicalId":45221,"journal":{"name":"Raumforschung und Raumordnung-Spatial Research and Planning","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The quest for certainty: Introducing zoning into a discretionary system in England and the European experience\",\"authors\":\"S. Dembski, P. O’Brien\",\"doi\":\"10.14512/rur.1695\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The critique of planning and new proposals to reform the English planning system and “rethink planning from first principles” have led to the introduction of rules-based principles into what is regarded as the paradigm of a discretionary planning system, culminating in a recent White Paper, which it is claimed will create a faster and better planning system than the existing discretionary approach. But are these proposals based on an oversimplified understanding of the differences between discretionary and regulatory models, neglecting, for example, the negotiation between stakeholders and the flexibility which also exists in regulatory planning systems? Our contribution will review some of the recent changes of the English planning system and reflect on experiences with zoning in European countries to bust the myth that the planning reform claims to address: the possibility to combine faster decision making with better place making and less interference from local planning authorities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45221,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Raumforschung und Raumordnung-Spatial Research and Planning\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Raumforschung und Raumordnung-Spatial Research and Planning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.1695\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Raumforschung und Raumordnung-Spatial Research and Planning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.1695","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

对规划的批评以及改革英国规划体系和“从第一原则重新思考规划”的新提议,导致了基于规则的原则被引入到被视为自由裁量规划体系的范式中,最终在最近的一份白皮书中达到了顶峰,据称,这将创造一个比现有的自由裁量方法更快、更好的规划系统。但是,这些建议是否基于对自由裁量模式和监管模式之间差异的过于简单的理解,忽视了利益相关者之间的谈判和监管规划系统中也存在的灵活性?我们的贡献将回顾英国规划系统最近的一些变化,并反思欧洲国家的分区经验,以打破规划改革声称要解决的神话:将更快的决策与更好的选址和更少的地方规划当局干预相结合的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The quest for certainty: Introducing zoning into a discretionary system in England and the European experience
The critique of planning and new proposals to reform the English planning system and “rethink planning from first principles” have led to the introduction of rules-based principles into what is regarded as the paradigm of a discretionary planning system, culminating in a recent White Paper, which it is claimed will create a faster and better planning system than the existing discretionary approach. But are these proposals based on an oversimplified understanding of the differences between discretionary and regulatory models, neglecting, for example, the negotiation between stakeholders and the flexibility which also exists in regulatory planning systems? Our contribution will review some of the recent changes of the English planning system and reflect on experiences with zoning in European countries to bust the myth that the planning reform claims to address: the possibility to combine faster decision making with better place making and less interference from local planning authorities.
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
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
28.60%
发文量
54
审稿时长
29 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信