Opportunities to Enhance Impacts

  • Chris De GruyterEmail author
Part of the Springer Theses book series (Springer Theses)


The aim of this chapter is to identify and assess opportunities for enhancing the implementation and subsequent impacts of travel plans for new residential developments. This is achieved through the application and integration of implementation and planning enforcement theories.


Enforcement Officer Residential Development Travel Plan Systematic Enforcement Planning Requirement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Addison & Associates. (2008). Delivering travel plans through the planning process—Research report. London, UK: Department for Transport and Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
  2. Burby, R., May, P., & Paterson, R. (1998). Improving compliance with regulations: Choices and outcomes for local government. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(3), 324–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Department for Communities and Local Government. (2012). National planning policy framework, London, UK.Google Scholar
  4. Department for Transport. (2005). Making residential travel plans work: Guidelines for new development, London, UK.Google Scholar
  5. Department for Transport. (2009). Good practice guidelines: Delivering travel plans through the planning process. London, UK: Department for Transport.Google Scholar
  6. Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure. 2014. A guide to the planning system, viewed 25 September 2014.
  7. De Gruyter, C., Rose, G., & Currie, G. (2014). ‘Securing travel plans through the planning approvals process: A case study of practice from Victoria, Australia’, Cities, 41 part A, 114–122.Google Scholar
  8. De Gruyter, C., Rose, G., & Currie, G. (2015). ‘Enhancing the impact of travel plans for new residential developments: Insights from implementation theory’, Transport Policy, 40, 24–35. Google Scholar
  9. Elmore, R. (1978). Organizational models of social program implementation. Public Policy, 26(2), 185–228.Google Scholar
  10. Enoch, M. (2012). Sustainable transport, mobility management and travel plans. Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  11. Enoch, M., & Ison, S. (2013). Travel plans: A way forward? Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Urban Design and Planning, 166(DP2), 126–135.Google Scholar
  12. Gunn, L. A. (1978). Why is implementation so difficult? Management Services in Government, 33, 169–176.Google Scholar
  13. Harris, N. (2010). Discretion and expediency in the enforcement of planning controls. Town Planning Review, 81(6), 675–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harris, N. (2011). Discipline surveillance, control: A foucaultian perspective on the enforcement of planning regulations. Planning Theory & Practice, 12(1), 57–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Llewellyn, R., Paton, D., & Tricker, R. (2014). After the downturn: Where now for travel plans in Scotland? Paper presented to Scottish Transport Applications & Research (STAR) conference, Glasgow, Scotland.Google Scholar
  16. Mazmanian, D., & Sabatier, P. (1981). Effective policy implementation. US: Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Company.Google Scholar
  17. McKay, S. (2003). Sheriffs and outlaws: In pursuit of effective enforcement. Town Planning Review, 74(4), 423–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Morris, D., Enoch, M., Pitfield, D., & Ison, S. (2009). Car-free development through UK community travel plans. Urban Design and Planning, 162, 19–27.Google Scholar
  19. O’Toole, L. (2007). Interorganizational relations in implementation. In B. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public administration (pp. 142–152). London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  20. Parsons, W. (1995). Public policy: An introduction to the theory and practice of policy analysis. Glos, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Planning Enforcement Officers Association Inc. (2007). A guide to planning enforcement in Victoria, PEOA, Victoria, Australia, viewed 25 September 2014.
  22. Prior, A. (2000). Problems in the theory and practice of planning enforcement. Planning Theory & Practice, 1(1), 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pülzl, H., & Treib, O. (2007). Implementing public policy. In F. Fischer, G. Miller & M. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics and methods. US: Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  24. Rye, T., Green, C., Young, E., & Ison, S. (2011a). Using the land-use planning process to secure travel plans: An assessment of progress in England to date. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(2), 235–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rye, T., Welsch, J., Plevnik, A., & de Tomassi, R. (2011b). First steps towards cross-national transfer in integrating mobility management and land use planning in the EU and Switzerland. Transport Policy, 18, 533–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sabatier, P. (1986). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: A critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 6(1), 21–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Transport for London. (2011). Travel planning for new development in London—incorporating deliveries and servicing. UK: Transport for London.Google Scholar
  28. Victorian Auditor-General. (2008). Enforcement of planning permits. Australia: Victoria.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of Transport StudiesMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations