Building the Capacity of the Planning System to deliver Public Interest in Northern Ireland. A Scoping Paper
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A planning system’s key function is to ensure that development does not damage public interests. These interests are not only economic but also environmental and social and can conflict with each other. Therefore definitions of ‘public interest’ are always being contested. At the same time, planning systems also seek to increase public benefit from the development process. Major debates exist around achieving fair, equitable processes and optimising outcomes: what decision-making structures, frameworks and resources can best deliver for local communities and/or the region as a whole? Recent reviews of planning systems in the UK and the Republic of Ireland have revealed major public concerns about their capacity to meet public needs and expectations. Despite the implementation of important reforms aimed at improving the accountability and local responsiveness of the system in Northern Ireland, a survey of stakeholders carried out by the authors of this report indicates that it shares key challenges, including: • Low levels of trust in the planning system to deliver in the public interest • Ineffective engagement with key community and environmental interest • Lack of transparency and accountability in decision-making processes • The need for a broad range of environmental and social issues to be far better addressed by planning, including climate change and the provision of accessible green space. In responding to these challenges, key considerations will be: • The incorporation of a strengthened framework of rights for citizens and community-based organisations into planning and environmental legislation: rights to information; rights to participate and rights to challenge in development decision-making. • The integration of community-led plans (e.g. ‘place plans’) into the development planning process. This includes support and recognition for community 4 planning processes and clear links with the production and role of local development plans. • More effective and accountable delivery of the well-being needs of local residents in planning decisions, including access to green space, play space, safe mobility, local services and affordable housing. • A closer link between planning and environmental protection and responses to climate change. • Enhanced training and support for local decision-makers at both the local authority and community level. • Strengthened checks and balances that ensure transparency and build public trust. • A clear monitoring and review structure for the planning system, based on explicit rights, goals and reporting (see e.g. national planning performance coordinator (Scotland) and planning regulator (Republic of Ireland)). Addressing these challenges will require, above all, political leadership, in both Stormont and local authorities, that highlights the significant role that the planning system, harnessing the energies of all stakeholders, is expected to play in the future development of Northern Ireland and its communities.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,055 | 0,070 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,013 |
| Communication savante | 0,021 | 0,018 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,014 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».