No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Hearing Objections? Evaluating Energy Planning Procedures in Scotland and Germany
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 November 2008
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.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988
References
REFERENCES
Albers, H. (1980) Gerichtsentscheidungen zu Kernkraftwerken, Villengen: Neckar Verlag.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. (1985) Sizewell Report: A New Approach for Major Public Inquiries, London: Town & Country Planning Association.Google Scholar
Barker, A. (1983) The Third London Airport and the Sizewell Pressurised Water Reactor: Public Inquiries and the Role of Parliament, Paper presented to the Political Studies Association Conference: Newcastle.Google Scholar
Barthelt, K. (1983) Blokieren Gerichte den Kraftwerkbau?, Siemens Zeitschrift, 57, 6, 32–35.Google Scholar
Bender, B. (1978) Der Verwaltungsrichtcr im Spannungsfeld zwischen Rechtsschutzauftrag und technischem Fortschritt, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 31, 1945–53.Google Scholar
Blair, P.M. (1981) Federalism and Judicial Review in West Germany, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Dobry, G. (1975) Review of the Development Control System: Final Report, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Götz, V. (1977) Zur Rechtssprechung der Verwaltungsgerichte in Kernkraftwerksprozessen, Atomwirtschaft, 22, 404–11.Google Scholar
Hawickhorst, W. (1983) Deterministik und Probabilistik bci der Bewertung nuklearer Risiken im Verwaltungsgerichtsverfahren, Energiewirtschqftliche Tagesfragen, 33, 844–9.Google Scholar
Kimminich, O. (1981) Public Participation in the Federal Republic of Germany, Town Planning Review, 52, 274–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitschelt, K. (1979) Justizapparate als Konfliktlösungsinstanz? Das Beispiel Kernenenergie, Demokratie und Recht, 7, 3–22.Google Scholar
Levin, P. (1979) Public Inquiries: The need for Natural Justice, New Society, 50, 371–2.Google Scholar
Lukes, R. (1980) Die Problematik des unbestimmten Rechtsbegriff und seiner Konkretisierung, in Lukes, R. (ed.), Sechtes Deutsches Atomrechts-Symposium, Cologne: Carl Heymanns Verlag.Google Scholar
Macrory, R. (1983) The Major Public Inquiry: Problems and Practice, Paper presented to the Political Studies Association Conference: Newcastle.Google Scholar
Mutschler, U. (1978) Umweltschutz und Verfahrensrecht, Energiewirtschaftliche Tagesfragen, 28, 505–8.Google Scholar
O'Riordan, T., Kemp, R. and Purdue, M. (1985) How the Sizewell B Inquiry is Grappling with the Concept of Acceptable Risk, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 5, 69–85.Google Scholar
OCPU (Outer Circle Policy Unit) Justice and the Council for Science and Society (1979) The Big Public Inquiry, London: OCPU.Google Scholar
Parker, R. (1983) The Major Inquiry – Evolution of the Present System, in Journal of Planning and Environmental Law (ed.), Planning Inquiries – The New Dimension, London: JPEL.Google Scholar
Pearce, D., Edwards, L. and Beuret, G. (1979) Decision-Making for Energy Futures – A Case Study of the Windscale Inquiry, London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Ronellenfitsch, M. (1982) Fachplanung–Errichtung von Kernkraftwerken, in Azizi, J. and Griller, S. (eds.), Rechtsstaat und Planung, Vienna: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Rose, R. (1974) Coping with Urban Change, in Rose, R. (ed.), The Management of Urban Change in Britain and Germany, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Rowan-Robinson, J. (1981) Some Legal Aspects of the Public Inquiry, in Salter, J.R. and Thomas, P. (eds.), Planning Law for Industry, London: International Bar Association.Google Scholar
Rowan-Robinson, J. and Edwards, L. (1981) The Special Inquiry, Town and Country Planning, 50, 79–80.Google Scholar
RTPI – Royal Town Planning Institute (1982) The Public and Planning: Means to Better Participation, London: RTPI.Google Scholar
Sommer, W. (1983) Aufgaben und Grenzen richtlicher Kontrolle atomrechtlicher Genehmigungen, Heidelberg: Müller Juristischer Verlag.Google Scholar
Town and Country Planning Association (1978) Energy Policy and Public Inquiries, Town and Country Planning, 46, 266–70.Google Scholar
Widdicombe, D. (1983) A New Approach, in Journal of Planning and Environmental Law (ed.), Planning Inquiries – The New Dimension, London: JPEL.Google Scholar
wildavsky, A. (1982) Doing More and Using Less: Utilisation of Research as a Result of Regime., Science Centre: Berlin.Google Scholar
de Witt, S. (1982) Neuere Entwicklung in der Atomrechtssprechung, in öko-Institut (ed.), Kläger Technik und Recht, öko-Institut: Darmstadt.Google Scholar
Wynne, D. (1979) Enviromental Politics: The Mossmorran Case, in Dundee University Department of Town and Regional Planning (ed.), The Implications of Large Scale Petrochemical Development, University of Dundee: Department of Town and Regional Planning.Google Scholar
Wynne, B. (1982) Rationality and Ritual: The Windscale Inquiry and Nuclear Decisions in Britain, Chalfont St. Giles: British Society for the History of Science.Google Scholar