One tale of property, in my own words
The power of the State to alter the conditions of land use through planning laws continues to attract theorisation at the possible intersection between planning and property. As planning laws become more complex, and by needs responsive to environmental degradation - including the consequences of cl...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Griffith law review 2018-03, Vol.27 (1), p.157-169 |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | The power of the State to alter the conditions of land use through planning laws continues to attract theorisation at the possible intersection between planning and property. As planning laws become more complex, and by needs responsive to environmental degradation - including the consequences of climate change - landowners will arguably suffer loss of market value of their land despite broader community benefit. This article analyses the contention that land planning regulation is itself property - a claim made by Paul Babie in this journal in 2016. It does so in four parts, focusing on the law’s own construction of both real property and planning permissions. It analyses the nature, content and source of the estate in fee simple in Queensland, followed by analysis of Penner’s ‘bundle of rights’ argument to ascertain whether planning laws might be comprehended within this conception of property. It goes on to assess planning permissions in terms of Honore’s incidents of property before establishing the nature, content and source of planning rights. Finally, it clarifies how planning law responds to climate change, suggesting that downstream liabilities rather than front-line environmental protection is at stake. In conclusion, it posits a conceptualisation of property alternative to that of Babie. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1038-3441 1839-4205 |