Planning Rights: Toward Normative Criteria for Evaluating Plans

Administrative or judicial plan review raises the question: When is a plan too bad to be implemented? This demands substantive plan evaluation and is linked to the issue of planning rights. What are planning rights? Who hold planning rights? How can planning rights be enforced? Procedural and substantive planning rights are defined as institutional rights based on socially adopted political-normative principles: due process, participation, reason, human and civil rights, property rights and the public interest, which are reviewed. The authorities that are the sources for planning rights are identified, and six practically applicable normative criteria are proposed for substantive plan evaluation.     

Land,property rights,and planning in Japan: institutional design and institutional change in land management

Although clearly a key institutional framework that structures planning systems, there has been remarkably little attention by planning historians to the comparative study of institutions of property rights in land as a factor shaping approaches to urban planning. Conversely, planning has clearly functioned as a key site of institutional innovation shaping the evolution of property rights. This relationship between planning and property rights deserves greater attention. Although property rights are often entrenched in written constitutions as is the case in both Japan and the USA, and do exhibit considerable continuity over time, they are in fact seldom static, being subject to evolving interpretations and constraints. This paper employs a historical institutionalist approach in the examination of the evolution of institutions of property rights in Japan during the modern period, from just before the Meiji Revolution of 1867–1868 to the early twenty‐first century. The paper shows that the strong protection of landed property rights in Japan is a product of the Meiji period, not the post‐Second World War occupation, and argues that institutional choices in framing landed property rights have multiple and varied long‐term impacts that may have little to do with the original policy goals.     

公权与私权博弈视角下的城市规划建设

本文将城市规划建设置于公权与私权博弈的分析框架下,揭示了城市规划建设以公权干预私权的合法性--维护公共利益.同时,文章客观地分析了当前我国城市规划建设中面临的公权力异化问题,并指出未来完善城市规划建设行使公权力及其对私权领域干预方式的基本方向.     

Planning and Public Empowerment: Third Party Rights in Development Control

Public protest surrounding development control decision-making is an increasingly significant aspect of the planning process and raises important questions about future legitimacy of the system. This article seeks to address the central question of what role the third party rights might play in defining the relationship of the public to the planning process. The discussion explores the nature of rights and their role in the UK's planning system before examining the views of key players in the development process to both the motivation for rights and their reactions to the prospect of their introduction. The article concludes by noting the compelling case for equal rights in planning and the apparent failure of recent government policy reviews to acknowledge their importance.     

规划局工作的社会满意程度分析

通过参与式研究与访谈 ,分析了规划局工作社会满意程度较低的内部和外部原因 ,认为其根本原因是每个与问题有关的组织和个人在规划管理中的责任、权利和利益关系不明确 ;接着指出规划管理实践中遇到的困难与规划工作性质和规划学科发展状况有关 ;最后提出规划局工作改进的基本思路是 ,通过引进管治思想 ,优化治理结构 ,建立各相关组织与人员的责任、权利、利益相互统一的管理体制 ,建立与市场经济相适应的包括规划编制、规划审批、规划实施、规划保障等方面内容的规划管理系统。     

人民代表大会在规划公众参与中的角色——兼议规划公众参与中权力、权利、公共利益的冲突

城乡规划的本质是制定和实施调控城乡空间资源的公共政策,如何在民主与法治轨道上引导规划公众参与,并平衡权力、权利与公共利益的冲突,是规划部门面临的最大难题.对此,应分析权力、权利与公共利益的关系及其冲突的处理原则,坚持和完善人民代表大会制度,充分发挥其在规划公众参与中的作用,正确处理国家权力与公民权利的辩证关系.     

“Fight the towers! Or kiss your car park goodbye”: How often do residents assert car parking rights in Melbourne planning appeals?

At around 20 square metres per space and occupying over 30% of the ground area of many cities, car parking is an expected but unnoticed land use - pulling the proverbial devil's trick of “convincing the world it doesn't exist”. Recent poster slogans in Melbourne calling to “fight the towers! Or kiss your car park goodbye” imply that frustration over a lack or perceived future lack of parking space carries weight in planning conflicts over intensifying Australian cities. The research in this paper was motivated by a suspicion that fears expressed by existing residents about parking are a frequent and prominent but rarely examined planning issue in Victoria. The paper interprets residents' claims made about inadequate parking as conflicts over asserted rights, and their allocation and reallocation through planning. It is based on a content analysis of four months (325 cases) of published Victorian planning appeals from 2012. It is found that over half the appeals featured car parking as a significant issue, and that of these, nine out of ten involved third party objectors. The planning system is called upon to respond to issues arising from car rather than land use, and to do so by making further allowances for cars. This asserted “folk legality” of individual car parking rights is difficult to reconcile with growing literature offering critical perspectives on aggregate costs from “predict and provide” car parking policies. Differences between public and planning interpretations of the role of planning in balancing car parking rights and common good are observed. Ultimately, conflict over asserted parking rights in planning draw out fundamental tensions around who – or what – has the right to occupy space.     

公益性规划申诉制度的困局与消解——以规划督察制度为视角

城市公共利益是城市规划的核心议题之一。然而在快速城市化进程中,城市公共利益因其权利主体模糊性往往成为易受侵犯的对象。在我国现行城市规划体系中,第三方公益性救济制度的缺失导致城市公共利益的权利救济困难重重。本文通过对我国现状问题和域外经验的剖析,试图破解这一制度困局,并提出基于社会监督权理论的城市公共利益行政救济制度建构设想,包括增强规划督察制度的相对独立性,进行规划督察程序的司法化建设,引入第三方公益性诉权等。     

政府的规划权与公民的不动产物权

城市规划的公共政策属性决定了城市规划是政府公权力意志的表现。在城市规划编制与实施过程中,公民私有的财产权尤其是不动产物权可能会受到妨碍甚至被剥夺。公权和私权的冲突在所难免。因此如何处理好公权和私权的关系成为《物权法》颁布后社会关注的焦点。本文借鉴发达国家处理政府规划公权与公民不动产物权关系的经验,认为政府规划公权的行使应当遵循合宪原则、合法原则、合理原则,使公共利益与私人利益实现互动,达到公权与私权的相互制约与平衡。     

Planning Appeals: Are Third Party Rights Legitimate? The Case Study of Victoria, Australia

One of the contemporary debates in urban policy is the question of public participation in planning processes. In some jurisdictions, demands for greater public participation have impacted planning processes through a widening of appeal rights to allow third party appeals. However, in many jurisdictions both in Australia and overseas third party appeals are still not recognised or permitted only in very limited circumstances. This article explores the debate surrounding third party appeals and, in the context of a case study of Victoria, examines the arguments for and against a widening of planning appeal rights.     

Planning Appeals: Are Third Party Rights Legitimate? The Case Study of Victoria,Australia

One of the contemporary debates in urban policy is the question of public participation in planning processes. In some jurisdictions, demands for greater public participation have impacted planning processes through a widening of appeal rights to allow third party appeals. However, in many jurisdictions both in Australia and overseas third party appeals are still not recognised or permitted only in very limited circumstances. This article explores the debate surrounding third party appeals and, in the context of a case study of Victoria, examines the arguments for and against a widening of planning appeal rights.     

集体留用地的土地发展权：国土空间规划背景下的思考

农村集体留用地是我国征地补偿过程中形成的一种特殊补偿制度,在保障失地农民长期收益、带动集体经济发展、促进乡村振兴方面发挥着重要作用。然而,由于集体土地权能的缺陷与模糊,留用地土地发展权受到一定程度的抑制,不利于乡村地区的可持续发展。以土地发展权为视角,首先从城乡土地二元制度、传统法定规划空间管制、开发利用模式三方面分析了集体留用地土地发展权受抑制的表现和原因。然后进一步深入分析了留用地开发利用与“总规-详规-实施”多层次国土空间规划的关系,总结出各层次国土空间规划中留用地开发利用存在的核心问题。最后通过借鉴厦门、杭州、广州等城市多元化的留用地开发利用模式,提出国土空间规划管制与开发利用模式的联动创新是推动新时期乡村振兴,促进城乡融合高质量发展的关键路径。     

Planning Rights in Theory and Practice: The Case of Israel

Planning rights in theory means the abstract concept of planning rights (PRs): here this concept is defined and the status of real PRs–positive or potential–is explained. Real PRs are always related to a particular context; thus any discussion must be context-specific. A pilot study researched the Israeli planning system: this paper presents the resulting inventory and status of PRs in Israel. A selective review details positive and potential PRs under participation, non-discrimination, human dignity and social justice, and evaluates their effectuation in Israel, compared to some other planning systems. The conclusions summarize the pilot study's findings and recommendations, and develop its implications for research methodology, planning theory and practice.     

基于权利救济制度缺陷的城乡规划申诉机制构建初探

城乡规划作为政府对空间资源配置的公共政策,在形成与实施的过程中必然对不同利益主体的权利进行再分配,强势公权力对弱势私权利的侵害不可避免.因此,当代城乡规划应该重视对私权利的保护和救济,积极构建城乡规划申诉机制,弥补城乡规划权利救济制度存在的缺陷,保障公民权利,妥善处理好城乡规划工作公平与效率之间的关系.     

Democracy on the Margin: Architectural Means of Appropriation in Governmental Alteration of Space

A recurrent dilemma of democracy—how to accommodate the marginal—is addressed here in relation to the possibility for citizens to contribute to changes in urban space. This study investigates the preparatory phase of the architectural renewal of a square, looking at both the general issue of equal rights to space and the more particular question of participation in planning processes. Although official procedures for the inclusion of opinions and rights are in place, marginalisation is seen to ensue from the planning authorities' response to the opinions of the community and individuals concerned. The study presents a theoretical basis for suggesting how an extended categorisation of the delegation of agency in planning policy—possibly also embracing a modification of the architect's role—could influence the borderline between what is regarded as marginal and what is not.     

基于部门协调的区域规划法制管理探讨

区域规划在我国不只是一项技术工作,更是一项政治过程、一种政府行为.针对区域规划"条块分割"严重影响区域协调发展的情况,在分析国外区域规划实施绩效、困难、经验的基础上,结合强弱调控模式讨论改善区域规划法制管理的途径,提出我国现阶段切实可行的办法是立足于建立一套适合于我国国情的、用于明晰区域规划各部门权责的法制管理体系.     

阳光权法律二重性在城乡规划管理中的界定

从《物权法》出发,讨论了阳光权的相邻权和地役权法律二重性在城乡规划管理中的界定。通过逻辑分析、实证分析及比较研究,指出日照标准只有下限没有上限,无法对二重性进行有效界定;政府行政自由裁量缺乏上限,受到广泛质疑;法院对阳光权的行政程序判决无助于二重性的实体界定;城乡规划实质界定了二重性,但其法律效力存疑。提出二重性界定不但要注重分界点,还要从三个方面入手共同操作:市民以事实相邻关系作为阳光权的相邻权的上限,通过民主参与和司法诉讼影响二重性界定;政府应当在控制性详细规划编制中以现实相邻关系为下限、规划相邻关系为上限,在此范围内的自由裁量推定有效;法院依据衡平原则对阳光权进行最终判决,实质决定二重性的界定。     

土地使用权制度与城市规划发展的思考

城市规划的任何调整或安装 ,其本质是对土地权利的分割、分配与交易 ,因此城市规划与土地使用制度之间有着密切的关系。国有土地出让方式的不同会对城市规划产生重大影响 ,规划编制和规划实施管理需要在体制、机制及相应的方式方法等方面应有重大改进     

规划管理的经济利益和物权问题漫议

规划管理的各个环节 ,无不影响着土地使用和工程建设中的经济利益 ,实质上影响的是土地使用权和房屋产权。土地利用和各项建设中的“权利”问题 ,应是规划管理研究的重要内容。在引介了民法学中的物权法原理及其在市场经济法制体系中的地位和作用后 ,作者对市场经济下我国城市规划体制的结构性、革命性变革提出了几点看法     

The Actions of Discontent: Tea Party and Property Rights Activists Pushing Back Against Regional Planning

Problem, research strategy, and findings: The Tea Party's effects on local and regional planning efforts, given the movement's fierce support of property rights and equally fierce opposition to sustainability goals in regional planning efforts, have received little study. I wanted to understand how Tea Party and fellow property rights advocates became involved in regional planning efforts in the San Francisco Bay Area and Atlanta, GA, and how planners perceived and dealt with their objections and tactics. Interactions between the two groups were marked by philosophical differences over the role of government and the necessity and value of regional planning. However, these actors were also deeply divided on plan content and the authenticity of the public outreach process. Tea Party and property rights activists were not the only ones with substantive and procedural concerns about regional planning efforts; tactical -coalitions of unexpected allies emerged, aligning on plan viability, finance methods and funding, project costs, impacts, and process. My research shows that common ground can be negotiated between -opposing groups on matters of content and process. The concerns of the various stakeholders involved parallel questions often addressed by scholarly planning research, providing evidence of continuing challenges and flaws in planning.

Takeaway for practice: The planning community should not dismiss the opposition of Tea Party and property rights advocates; these activists could catalyze new coalitions of opponents if planners do not attend to the substantive and procedural concerns of participants.