IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jnlpup/v8y1988i01p81-99_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Hearing Objections? Evaluating Energy Planning Procedures in Scotland and Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Clement, Keith

Abstract

The planning of major energy facilities in Western Europe has met with increasing opposition in the last 15 years. In Scotland formal objections to such developments are considered in public inquiries; in Germany the equivalent institution is the hearing. These two institutions differ fundamentally in scope and in the means of presenting and examining evidence. The involvement of the courts has been greater in Germany, where lengthy cases examining procedural and substantive issues have developed a new field in legal administration. Developers, objectors and administrators find fault with the planning and legal systems, but outcomes invariably favour the developers. Of the two institutions examined, the British public inquiry offers objectors considerably more scope than does the German hearing.

Suggested Citation

  • Clement, Keith, 1988. "Hearing Objections? Evaluating Energy Planning Procedures in Scotland and Germany," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 81-99, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jnlpup:v:8:y:1988:i:01:p:81-99_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0143814X00006863/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jnlpup:v:8:y:1988:i:01:p:81-99_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/pup .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.