2015 Definite Space – Fuzzy Responsibility, Prague, 13-16th July
Permanent URI for this collection
Browse
Browsing 2015 Definite Space – Fuzzy Responsibility, Prague, 13-16th July by Author "Askew, Janet"
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Publication Open Access Conformance and performance in Taiwan and England: pragmatism in approach?(AESOP, 2015) Askew, Janet; Chao, Tzuyuan StessaThere are two distinct planning systems: the discretionary system, such as that of the United Kingdom and the zoning system, typical of Taiwan and Europe. Askew and Chao (2012) have previously compared Taiwanese and English planning systems with regard to advertisement controls, using the conformance and performance models of planning (Steele and Ruming, 2012). Rivolin (2012) and Buitelaar (2010) submit that these distinctions are being broken down across Europe. There is a view that the UK discretionary system (performance) is flexible, whilst the European (and Taiwanese) conformance model, offers certainty to developers, albeit very rigid. This inflexibility might result in development occurring outside the legal plan (Buitelaar, 2010), and probably means that the Dutch planning system does not provide the legal certainty it purports to do. The discretion of the UK system is becoming more attractive to countries with a conformance system, and vice-versa. In Taiwan, the zoning system prevails in urban areas. However, in rural areas, the system is more discretionary (Chen and Shih, 2010). In the UK, developers are suggesting that the allocation of land in a local plan, for, say, housing, should remove the need for further planning permissions – in other words, to create a legally binding plan (UK Treasury, 2014). In comparing planning systems, there appears to be more similarity than there was. Whilst Rivolin (2012) considers that the mixture of systems is not good for Europe, can it be shown to be a useable and pragmatic option for Taiwan and the UK?Publication Open Access Conformance and performance in Taiwan and England: pragmatism in approach?(AESOP, 2015) Askew, Janet; Chao, Tzuyuan StessaThere are two distinct planning systems: the discretionary system, such as that of the United Kingdom and the zoning system, typical of Taiwan and Europe. Askew and Chao (2012) have previously compared Taiwanese and English planning systems with regard to advertisement controls, using the conformance and performance models of planning (Steele and Ruming, 2012). Rivolin (2012) and Buitelaar (2010) submit that these distinctions are being broken down across Europe. There is a view that the UK discretionary system (performance) is flexible, whilst the European (and Taiwanese) conformance model, offers certainty to developers, albeit very rigid. This inflexibility might result in development occurring outside the legal plan (Buitelaar, 2010), and probably means that the Dutch planning system does not provide the legal certainty it purports to do. The discretion of the UK system is becoming more attractive to countries with a conformance system, and vice-versa. In Taiwan, the zoning system prevails in urban areas. However, in rural areas, the system is more discretionary (Chen and Shih, 2010). In the UK, developers are suggesting that the allocation of land in a local plan, for, say, housing, should remove the need for further planning permissions – in other words, to create a legally binding plan (UK Treasury, 2014). In comparing planning systems, there appears to be more similarity than there was. Whilst Rivolin (2012) considers that the mixture of systems is not good for Europe, can it be shown to be a useable and pragmatic option for Taiwan and the UK?Publication Open Access Law and disorder: permitted development rights and the loss of proportionate control(AESOP, 2015) Sheppard, Adam; Askew, JanetThe Conservative led coalition government in the UK identified regulation management as a key priority and intended to simplify and address the complexity in the system. From the perspective of Development Management a paradox has emerged however; the more the Government attempts to simplify the decision making system and facilitate development, the more complex the system has become. This can be clearly seen in the manner in which the Permitted Development rights planning permission arrangements have been revised and the application of decision making mechanisms extended. This paper will explore how new Permitted Development rights have been created, existing rights extended (some permanently some temporarily), the prior approval process has increased in prominence and usage, and the use of Local Development Orders extended. The paper will present the impact of these changes, including the unintended consequences and potential to undermine the effective management of the built and natural environment, Issues of regulation density and complexity will be highlighted, together with how some of these changes are potentially disrupting the fundamental principle of proportionality and justified local planning authority intervention in the public interest.