IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envira/v39y2007i7p1676-1698.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Planning Appeal Processes: Reflections on a Comparative Study

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen Willey

    (Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Curtin University of Technology, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA 6845, Australia)

Abstract

The author reflects on a recent comparative study of the planning appeal systems in England and three Australian states. A range of issues relating to the processes by which appeals are heard, issues of expert evidence, and the composition and expertise of the appeal body are examined. A number of areas where appeal processes might be improved are highlighted and it is concluded that although each of these systems is unique, they are all confronted by similar challenges. In a theoretical sense, the author observes that there is currently a significant lacuna in planning knowledge with respect to understanding planning-appeals processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen Willey, 2007. "Planning Appeal Processes: Reflections on a Comparative Study," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 39(7), pages 1676-1698, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envira:v:39:y:2007:i:7:p:1676-1698
    DOI: 10.1068/a38315
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/a38315
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/a38315?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Geraint Ellis, 2004. "Discourses of Objection: Towards an Understanding of Third-Party Rights in Planning," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 36(9), pages 1549-1570, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhang, Xiang & Xu, Jian-gang & Ju, Yang, 2018. "Public participation in NIMBY risk mitigation: A discourse zoning approach in the Chinese context," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 559-575.
    2. Wolsink, Maarten, 2007. "Planning of renewables schemes: Deliberative and fair decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of non-cooperation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2692-2704, May.
    3. Díaz, Paula & Adler, Carolina & Patt, Anthony, 2017. "Do stakeholders’ perspectives on renewable energy infrastructure pose a risk to energy policy implementation? A case of a hydropower plant in Switzerland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 21-28.
    4. Keiron Bailey & Benjamin Blandford & Ted Grossardt & John Ripy, 2011. "Planning, Technology, and Legitimacy: Structured Public Involvement in Integrated Transportation and Land-Use Planning in the United States," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 38(3), pages 447-467, June.
    5. Katrina Raynor & Tony Matthews & Severine Mayere, 2017. "Shaping urban consolidation debates: Social representations in Brisbane newspaper media," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 54(6), pages 1519-1536, May.
    6. Andy Inch, 2012. "Creating ‘a Generation of NIMBYs’? Interpreting the Role of the State in Managing the Politics of Urban Development," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 30(3), pages 520-535, June.
    7. Jones, Christopher R. & Eiser, J. Richard, 2009. "Identifying predictors of attitudes towards local onshore wind development with reference to an English case study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(11), pages 4604-4614, November.
    8. Atkinson-Palombo, Carol & Kuby, Michael J., 2011. "The geography of advance transit-oriented development in metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona, 2000–2007," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 189-199.
    9. Sarah Armstrong, 2014. "Siting Prisons, Sighting Communities: Geographies of Objection in a Planning Process," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 46(3), pages 550-565, March.
    10. Eero Valtonen & Heidi Falkenbach & Kauko Viitanen, 2017. "Development-led planning practices in a plan-led planning system: empirical evidence from Finland," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(6), pages 1053-1075, June.

    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:sae:envira:v:39:y:2007:i:7:p:1676-1698. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.