Search results

The paper aims to consider whether Neighbourhood Panning provides the appropriate output legitimacy for citizen engagement in the planning process. The Localism Act 2011 transformed the planning process by shifting decision-making powers away from the local institutions and transferring them to local people. Neighbourhood planning has created a new dynamic in planning by using “bottom up” governance processes which enables local people to shape the area where they live. Local referenda are used to inject output legitimacy in to neighbourhood planning, and this planning self-determination can be considered as “spatial sovereignty”, whereby the recipients of the planning decisions are also the primary stakeholders that have shaped planning policy.

This paper will examine how Localism, as an evolving concept of local governance, is enfranchising local communities to take control of planning and development in their area. The paper will draw upon the experience of the revised planning methodology introduced by the Localism Act 2011 and consider its impact on the delivery of broader public policy objectives contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Localism provides an alternative form of citizen engagement and democratic legitimation for planning decisions which transcends the traditional forms of participatory democracy, and recognises that other paths of democratic law-making are possible.

The paper argues that neighbourhood planning has created a paradigm whereby local planning preferences, as an expression of spatial sovereignty, do not necessarily align with the broader public policy objective to build homes in the right places.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how public law regulates the relationship between private landowners and users of town and village greens. It explores the scope of the public law which permits the exercise of customary rights of recreation over private property, and considers the limits that exist within the current regulatory framework. In particular the paper explores how subsidiary considerations such as protection of the environment have become increasingly relevant to the disputes involving town and village greens.

The analysis is based on a critical appraisal of recent judgments, academic literature and policy papers which address the regulation of town and village greens.

The paper determines that the current regulatory framework fails to sufficiently protect landowners against opportunistic claims for registration of a town and village green. Specifically the paper identifies that gaps exist both in the substance of the statute and the judicial application of these provisions, and that the Human Rights Act 1998 offers insufficient protection for landowners.

The paper examines recent case law where there is evident judicial conflict on the scope and application of the legislative provisions. The paper considers this judicial debate within the context of the DEFRA consultation document 2011 and the Growth and Insfrastructure Bill 2012.

This paper aims to examine the primary fundamental rights concerns related to biometrics and their use in automated border controls (ABCs), as well as how these issues converge in the European Commission’s Smart Borders proposal.

This paper draws on extensive background research and qualitative in-depth interviews conducted in 2013 for the European Union (EU) FP-7 project “FastPass – A harmonized, modular reference system for all European automatic border crossing points”.

The Smart Borders proposal not only compounds the individual concerns related to the use of biometrics in border controls and automatisation thereof, but also has serious issues of its own, premier among which is the imposition of a two-tier border control system.

The paper is a catalyst for open debate on the fundamental questions of how we got to this point and where do we want to go. It questions the process by which the increased use of IT in border controls has become the norm and policy trend in Europe, and discusses where the limits could be drawn from a fundamental rights perspective. In particular, it warns against the institutionalisation of a two-tier border control system among third-country nationals.

Little attention is given to the fundamental rights concerns raised for EU and non-EU citizens as related to biometrics and their use in ABCs, and how these issues are reproduced in the Smart Borders proposal. The paper fills this gap by taking a bottom-up approach: examining the implications of individual elements of the proposal to see their impact on the broader policy.