Skip to main content

Town Planning in Britain: The Flight from the Judicial Model

Stadtplanung in Großbritannien: Die Flucht vor dem Entscheidungsmodell „Rechtsstaat“

Commentary to the papers of Bohne and Hucke

Kommentar zu den Beiträgen von Bohne und Hucke

  • Chapter
Organisation und Recht

Part of the book series: Jahrbuch für Rechtssoziologie und Rechtstheorie ((JRR,volume 7))

  • 181 Accesses

Summary

With respect to large development projects town planning in Britain has abandoned the judicial model—based on relatively objective application of rules in the grant or refusal of planning permission—in favour of a contract model—a model based upon dealing and negotiation. Planning permissions are thus bargained for. The permit is granted in “. planning gain”.—which can take the form of a community building or the grant of housing.

The reason for this shift away from rules is based not only on the lack of clear standards to guide development but also upon the structure of the decision-making situation (diadic or tryadic) and also upon factors involving the political and administrative culture of Britain. Factors here involve hostile attitudes to law and lawyers, and new “corporate” methods of public administration that avoid the legal control of official discretion.

Zusammenfassung

Bei großen Entwicklungsplanungen hat die Stadtplanung in England das Modell der gerichtlichen Nachprüfbarkeit (das auf einer objektiven Anwendung von Vorschriften bei der Baugenehmigung beruht) zugunsten eines Vertragsmodells verlassen. (Ein Modell, das auf Verhandeln und Kompromiß beruht) Die Genehmigung wird erteilt „im Austausch“ für „Planungsgewinne, die in der Realisierung eines öffentlichen Gebäudes oder der Finanzierung von Bauvorhaben bestehen können“. Die Gründe für das Abgehen von regel gebundenem Verwaltungshandeln liegen nicht nur im Mangel klarer Entscheidungsregeln, sondern auch in der Struktur der Entscheidungssituation, sowie in generellen Einstellungen innerhalb der politischen und Verwaltungs-Kultur Großbritanniens. Feindselige Ablehnung von Recht und Rechtsanwälten herrscht vor; neue „korporative“ Formen der Verwaltungsentscheidung, die rechtliche Kontrolle vermeiden, werden bevorzugt.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Anmerkungen

  1. P. Hall, Urban and Regional Planning, (1975), p. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  2. L. Fuller, The Morality of Law, (1959), p. 106.

    Google Scholar 

  3. The words of John Burns, President of the Local Government Board, introducing the Housing, Town Planning, etc. Act, 1909. See J. B. Cullingworth, Town and Country Planning in Britain (1976), p. 16.

    Google Scholar 

  4. D. Foley, Controlling London’s Growth: Planning the Great Wen 1940–60, (1963), p. 53.

    Google Scholar 

  5. “. The Future of Development Plans”, Report of the Planning Advisory Group, HMSO, (1965).

    Google Scholar 

  6. See P. Drucker, The Concept of the Corporation (1946), R. Titmuss, “. Welfare ‘Rights’, Law and Discretion”(1971) 42 Political Quarterly, p. 113.

    Google Scholar 

  7. K. C. Davis, Discretionary Justice. A Preliminary Inquiry (1969). For my discussion of the judicialisation and legalisation of administrative decisions see J. Jowell, Law and Bureaucracy (1975). See also J. Jowell, “. Judicial Decision-making and Administrative Tasks” Zur Soziologie des Gerichtsverfahrens, Jahrbuch für Rechtssoziologie und Rechtstheorie, Band 4, ed. L. Friedman und M. Rehbinder, 1976, pp. 185-205.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Town & Country Planning Act, 1971, s. 6, 7.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Town & Country Planning (Structure and Local Plans) Regulations S. I. 1974 No. 1486, (1) and Schedule 1.

    Google Scholar 

  10. s. 29 (1) of the Town & Country Planning Act, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Town & Country Planning (Structure and Local Plans) Regulations s. I. 1974 No. 1486, 9 (1) and Schedule 1.

    Google Scholar 

  13. See e.g. Hall v. Shoreham-by-sea U.D.C. [1964] 1 W.L.R. 240, Fawcett Properties v. Bucks C. C. (1959) 2 All E.R. 321, R. v. London Borough of Hillingdon ex. p. Royco Homes [1974] 2 W.L.R. 805.

    Google Scholar 

  14. See O. Marriott, The Property Boom (1967) and S. Elkins, Politics and Land Use Planning (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  15. The power was introduced by s. 34 of the Town & Country Planning Act, 1934, and was contained in s. 10 of the Town & Country Planning (Interim Development) Act, 1943, s. 24 of the Town & Country Planning Act, 1947, and s. 37 of the Town & Country Planning Act, 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  16. The sample comprised 106 of 370 English local authorities, and included all the London authorities, all the metropolitan authorities (counties and districts), and the non-metropolitan districts containing the 30 largest towns outside London and the metropolitan areas. The research was supported by a grant from the Social Science Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 87 of the 106 questionnaires were completed. The figures and percentages below will refer to these completed questionnaires.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Interviews were conducted with the planning or legal officers (or both) and lasted between 11/2 and 5 hours.

    Google Scholar 

  19. This research has been reported in the Journal of Planning and Environmental Law, July 1977, pp. 414–433.

    Google Scholar 

  20. See cases cited at note 13 above.

    Google Scholar 

  21. V. Aubert, “. Competition and Dissensus: Two Types of Conflict and Conflict Resolution” (1963), J. of Conflict Resolution, p. 26, and “. Courts and Conflict Resolution” (1967), J. of Conflict Resolution, p. 40.

    Google Scholar 

  22. C. Lindblom, The Intelligence of Democracy (1965).

    Google Scholar 

  23. V. Aubert, op. cit. Supra.

    Google Scholar 

  24. L. Fuller, “Collective Bargaining and the Arbitrator” (1963) Wisconsin L. Rev. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  25. See M. Eisenberg, “Private Ordering Through Negotiation: Dispute-Settlement and Rulemaking” (1976) Harvard L. Rev. 637.

    Google Scholar 

  26. See R. Pahl and J. T. Winkler, “Corporatism in Britain: Why Protecting Industry Need Not Mean More Bureaucracy” The Times, March 26, 1976, p. 14, cols. 1-5; J. T. Winkler, “. Law State and Economy: The Industry Act 1975 In Context” (1976) Brit. J. of Law & Society, p. 103.

    Google Scholar 

  27. A. V. Dicey, The Law of the Constitution (1885).

    Google Scholar 

  28. W. Ivor Jennings, The Law and the Constitution (1933).

    Google Scholar 

  29. See K. C. Davis, Discretionary Justice: A Preliminary Inquiry (1969), ch. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  30. R. Titmuss, supra, note 6.

    Google Scholar 

  31. See J. B. McLoughlin, Urban and Regional Planning: A Systems Approach (1969).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Erhard Blankenburg Klaus Lenk

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1980 Westdeutscher Verlag GmbH, Opladen

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jowell, J.L. (1980). Town Planning in Britain: The Flight from the Judicial Model. In: Blankenburg, E., Lenk, K. (eds) Organisation und Recht. Jahrbuch für Rechtssoziologie und Rechtstheorie, vol 7. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-83669-4_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-83669-4_4

  • Publisher Name: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-531-11536-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-322-83669-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics