Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Compensating regulation of land: UK and Singapore compared

Compensating regulation of land: UK and Singapore compared The paper aims to analyse and compare how UK and Singapore deal with compensation with respect to regulation of land (short of a physical taking). The purpose is to determine whether the non-compensation in each jurisdiction is justified.Design/methodology/approachA comparative method using case law, statutes and secondary material across both jurisdictions (as well as some US case law) is adopted.FindingsBoth the UK and Singapore do not provide compensation when land is affected by regulation, so long as a physical taking has not occurred. Partly because of the abolition of development rights in the UK since 1947, this position may be justified. Conversely, Singapore’s Master Plan seeks a great deal of public reliance and advertises development potential, and non-compensation is not defensible.Originality/valueThere is very limited analysis on regulatory effects of land in the UK, and virtually none in Singapore. This would also be the first attempt to compare this aspect of the UK and Singapore’s planning regime. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Property, Planning and Environmental Law Emerald Publishing

Compensating regulation of land: UK and Singapore compared

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/compensating-regulation-of-land-uk-and-singapore-compared-fR0TVoBN3K
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
© Emerald Publishing Limited
ISSN
2514-9407
DOI
10.1108/jppel-01-2019-0003
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The paper aims to analyse and compare how UK and Singapore deal with compensation with respect to regulation of land (short of a physical taking). The purpose is to determine whether the non-compensation in each jurisdiction is justified.Design/methodology/approachA comparative method using case law, statutes and secondary material across both jurisdictions (as well as some US case law) is adopted.FindingsBoth the UK and Singapore do not provide compensation when land is affected by regulation, so long as a physical taking has not occurred. Partly because of the abolition of development rights in the UK since 1947, this position may be justified. Conversely, Singapore’s Master Plan seeks a great deal of public reliance and advertises development potential, and non-compensation is not defensible.Originality/valueThere is very limited analysis on regulatory effects of land in the UK, and virtually none in Singapore. This would also be the first attempt to compare this aspect of the UK and Singapore’s planning regime.

Journal

Journal of Property, Planning and Environmental LawEmerald Publishing

Published: Jul 17, 2019

Keywords: Conservation; Planning

References