(In order given)
Does communicative planning theory influence New
Zealand
Michael Gunder
Department of Planning
The
Private Bag 92019
Email:
m.gunder@auckland.ac.nz
This paper explores the
discipline and profession of planning from the perspective of Foucault’s
post-structuralism. It suggests that planning is a human discipline of governmentality and biopower that
resides within its practices (Huxley 1997). Yet planning legitimates itself
through a narrative of modern rationality. As instrumental rationality has
become increasingly suspect under the post-modern critique (Allmendinger
2001), planning theorists such as Forester (1989), Innes
(1995) and Healey (1997) have sought to re-legitimatise planning with an
alternative narrative of modern rationality – that of Habermas
(1984, 1987) normatively focussed communicative rationality.
This paper explores current
practice in
Knowing and steering: planning and
democracy In
Alan March & Nicholas Low
Faculty of Architecture, Building
and Planning
The
Alan March: a.march@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au
Nicholas Low: npl@unimelb.edu.au
Habermas suggests that democracy is a society being able to
know itself and steer itself. This
article builds on Habermas’ conception that mediatisation is a central impediment to
the realisation of democracy, while recognising the locally particular
resolution of democratic dilemmas represented by any planning system. Using
The making of
urban ethnocracy: Jews and Palestinian-Arabs in
‘mixed’ urban spaces
Oren Yiftachel
Geography Department
Oren Yiftachel <yiftach@bgumail.bgu.ac.il>
The paper offers a critical analysis of planning and ethnic
relations in Israeli ‘mixed cities’. Similar to other sites shaped by the logic
of ethno-national expansion, the ‘mixed’ city is characterized by stark
patterns of segregation between a dominant majority and a subordinate minority,
as well as ethno-class fragmentation within each group. 'Mixed' spaces are both
exceptional and involuntary, often resulting from the process of ethnicization prevalent in contested urban spaces.
We theorize this setting as an ‘urban ethnocracy’,
where a dominant group appropriates the city apparatus to buttress its
domination and expansion. In such settings, conspicuous tensions accompany the
interaction between the city’s economic, governance and ethno-territorial
logics, producing sites of conflict and informality, and essentializing
group identities and ethnic geographies.
Empirically, the paper focuses on cities of Lod/Lydda
and Beer-Sheva/ Bir-Saba’a,
Moving sustainability from theory to practice within a
university.
Tony Watkins
Glendowie
t.watkins@auckland.ac.nz
A group of planning students
at the
Reflections on the ‘Plan First’ reforms in New South
Wales
Martin Payne and John Dee
Urban and Regional Planning
Disciplinary Group
The
John Dee: jdee@mailhost.arch.usyd.edu.au
This paper examines the proposed reforms to the NSW Planning Legislation. It explores background material leading up to the adoption of the Plan First White Paper, some principal concepts such the ‘whole of government approach’ - and where the reforms are at present in a legal sense. A central theme in this paper is reflect ion on some of the main ideas/influences that led to the Plan First reform package and problems that have emerged in relation to its implementation.
Planning for imageable urban
environments:
formulating a ground of general rules for spatial
strategies
Jagath Nandana Munasinghe
Department of Real Estate,
sdep0191@nus.edu.sg
Ever-changing socio-political
anticipations continually bring new questions to urban planners. Urban plans
necessarily indicate such anticipations of the era and planners’ attempts to
solve questions posed to them. Accomplishing places with ‘images’ is often
stated as a main objective of present day urban plans. The question before
planners in this regard is ‘how to make cities imageable?’
Out of a large body of research literature in environmental cognition, only a
few research attempts have addressed this methodological question, and these
few studies are too are limited in terms of the applicability of their findings
in the real ground.
A city can be imageable at different levels, amongst which the local level is important for community concerns. At this level, ‘imageability’ of can be understood as the ability of an urban geographic entity to evoke distinctly identified, topologically structured and highly meaningful cognitive schema of its physical environment in its inhabitant’s mind. Previous researches revealed that environmental images were largely shared by inhabitants in the urban contexts and therefore, a ground for a ‘public image’ can be scrutinized. It is on this ground that urban planners aspire to work. In spite of the ready admittance of the importance of imageability by planners and authorities, a major constraint in working towards its accomplishment is the absence of adequately developed spatial strategies adoptable by the planner. To overcome this constraint it is intended to identify the general rules for a strategy that can strengthen environmental imageability in a given local area. This paper presents a theoretical framework, within which such rules can be identified. It is formulated on two conceptual premises; the constituents of ‘place’ analyzed by Canter (1977) and the components of imageability as suggested by Lynch (1960). Interrelations between these two concepts show that the urban planner’s area of work to make a place imageable, is in the ‘structure’ of the physical environment. The identity and meaning components, integrated with other factors, form the ‘context’, within which the physical environment is inhabited by the community. Hence, the aim of the research is to find ‘what general rules of configuration of the physical structure of an urban environment give it a high probability of being imageable to its inhabitants, independent from the context that they are inhabited’ The method of research is the analysis of physical structures and cognitive structures of a number of urban areas as examples, selected from different contexts and correlate the findings of one with the other.
The exercise of influence within the planning system: Implications for education
David Hedgcock
Deputy Head,
GPO
d.hedgcock@exchange.curtin.edu.au
The local planning system can
increasingly be understood as a site of complex and contested power relations.
One component of this system and one player in the ‘power game’ is the local authority
planner. There is a distinct lack of ideological consensus on the role of a
local planner in influencing development outcomes and strong cases can be made
for a wide range of very different theoretical positions eg planner as
technocrat, planner as facilitator of local development, planner as protector
of community values etc.
This paper reports on
research undertaken on the local planning system in
The results of this research show that local planners in Western Australia have moved to embrace the ‘communicative turn’ in planning activity and as they have done so those, always elusive, planning principles have rapidly lost their status as a means of exercising influence over planning outcomes. In their stead planners have embraced the skills of facilitation, negotiation and conflict resolution within a planning and development knowledge framework that is integrated and non specialised. The implications of these findings on what we teach planners, how we teach planning as a discipline and where that education should take place will be speculated on as a basis for discussion.
'Plan to Plan': Promotion, profession and pedagogy in planning
Jenny Dixon and Elizabeth Aitken Rose
Department of Planning,
Address: Department of
Planning
Private Bag 92019
Many planning issues appear
in the public domain on a daily basis, but the connection of planning with its
profession is weak. For many the planning profession does not exist, and for
those who are aware of it, the image is often negative. The diffuse image of
planning, what it does and how it relates to its profession creates
difficulties for educators in promoting planning as a worthwhile career and an
academic discipline. This paper explores initiatives taken by the Department of
Planning at the
The “What is planning?” question is a thorny issue but underpins much professional uncertainty. We argue that the profession itself needs to take more responsibility in articulating what it is and what it does in order to attract and sustain high calibre people to the profession. This requires practitioners to become more active in taking a public stand on controversial issues. Equally the University needs to strengthen its role as critic and conscience informed by research and practice, thereby enhancing its intellectual contribution to the formation of a coherent image of the discipline.
Knowing Planning: urban change, knowledge and planning education
Jago Dodson
Jago Dodson <jago.dodson@ems.rmit.edu.au>
There can be little
disagreement that the pace and complexity of urban change has accelerated
during the past two decades. The extent
to which the effects of capital flows, economic shifts, social and cultural
transformations have impacted on urban form and function is dramati. There is also a likelihood that what
constitutes ‘knowledge’ in society will also be affected by these changes. and
we are still struggling in many ways with with the
conceptual tools to grapple with this shift.
Planning education must attend to this complexity and the nuances and
dynamics of practice it requires. This
paper examines recent attempts to accommodate contemporary issues of the
philosophy of knowledge in planning scholarship, particularly regarding the
theories of the communicative school.
The paper then connect this back to the pedagogical shifts that are
likely to be required in planning schools around Australia and New Zealand in
the coming years.
Planning education: reconnecting theory and practice. A survey of planning graduates and their employers
Peter Phibbs
and Nicole Gurran
G04 Wilkinson
Camperdown NSW 2006
peterph@arch.usyd.edu.au
Bridging the gap between the theory and practice of a
discipline is a perennial challenge for educators. This is particularly so for
professional fields like planning, where there is considerable pressure from
industry bodies to ensure that graduates are equipped with specific technical
knowledge and skills for the workplace. In this paper, initiatives to reconnect
planning theory and practice are discussed with reference to a recent survey of
employers and planning graduates, undertaken in October 2001. The main aim of
the survey was to identify strengths and weaknesses of the urban and regional
planning program taught at the
A performance based approach - mixing students and practitioners
Angus Witherby
School of Human and
Environmental Studies
Armidale NSW 2350
awitherb@metz.une.edu.au
Mixing experienced professionals and students together in the
same short course is not usually attempted. There are benefits for both. This
paper examines the short course in the performance based approach to
development control at the
Renewing Urban
and Regional Planning Program at the
Phil Heywood and Bhishna Bajracharya,
Recent merger of two Schools to form a new
The planning discipline reacted positively to the
challenge to re-think our directions and emphases. We recognized the importance
of involving present and past students as well as the Queensland RAPI/PIA
representatives in the process of restructuring the program. We organized a
series of meetings to meet fortnightly over a period of two months. This deliberative process contributed to
mutual learning by all staff, students and practising planners and played an
important role in the development of the new course structure.
As part of renewing the planning program at QUT, a number
of ideas linking the planning education and practice have been integrated into
the proposed structure of the program.
Some of the ideas include integration of six months of supervised
practice placement, problem based learning in studios, focus on sustainability,
collaborative and communicative planning, integration of information
technologies and flexible delivery of teaching.
A new Community Practice Unit
has been established by the Planning discipline to link education and
university activities with practice, and in so doing, with our local
communities.
We have also been able to meet the objectives of our new
Head of School for increased inter-disciplinary collaboration by producing a
block of 4 electives which will be largely taken from sister disciplines and
will produce Minors in Urban Design, Architecture, Landscape Architecture, GIS,
Land Administration, and possibly Interior Design. As a result of this process of collaborative
review, we have been able to reform the course structure, to reflect student
preferences, practitioner requirements and internal staff knowledge. The whole process has turned out
to be constructive and energising.
Papers
Does
Communicative Planning Theory Influence
Michael Gunder
In
So
far, the Habermasian communicative turn has failed
internationally to significantly revitalise the core of planning practice,
apart from providing a new set of narratives for academic theorising and,
perhaps, increasing the political acceptability of planning as a component of
‘third-way’ governance in the UK (Allmendinger, 2001;
Healey, 2000; McGuirk, 2001; Phelps and Tewdr-Jones, 2000). Tewdwr-Jones
and Allmendinger (1998) ironically observe that while
planners have considered themselves successful in instigating communicative
participatory processes, the processes that they have actually created have
failed to deliver practical outcomes, yet alone meet their communities’
expectations. As Tewdwr-Jones and Allmendinger
(1998, p.1987) conclude:
Collaborative
planning as a theory has caused a sea change in the parameters of how theorists
are considering planning, but the assertion that a shift is occurring in
planning practice seems to be an exaggeration.
This paper will explore current practice in
Habermas’s Communicative
Rationality and Communicative Planning Practice
Communicative
planning is considered by many planning theorists to be an important approach
for undertaking and understanding planning practice as we begin the
twenty-first century (Innes, 1995; 1997; Healey,
1996; 1997). The basis of this communicative planning approach is generally
attributed to the critical theory of the German intellectual Jürgen Habermas (Forester, 1989;
1993; 1999; Sager, 1994). Habermas’s (1984; 1987a;
1987b; 1990; 1993; 1996; 1998) theory seeks to identify a rationality beyond
that of instrumentality. A rationality that is based on communicative practices
between ourselves and others. As Habermas states the
goal of his communicative theory is that of ‘clarifying the presuppositions of
the rationality of processes of reaching understanding, which may be presumed
to be universal because they are unavoidable’ (Habermas
in Flyvbjerg, 1998b, p.212). Habermas
puts forward a communitarian ‘normative judgement that people should relate to
each other in ways that aim for comprehensibility, sincerity, legitimacy and
truth’ (Healey, 1996, p.219). He suggests coupling this moral and emotional
‘reason’ with critical methods capable of ensuring the removal of ideological
distortions from knowledge within public debate. Debate where all have an equal voice so that the
best argument prevails.
Indeed
over the last twenty years planning’s expert rational-insight as to what ‘ought
to be’ has often been replaced, according to some planning theorists, by the
role of planner as a ‘shaper of attention’ (Forester, 1989; 1993; 1999), or as
a facilitator of public normative
consensus as to what ‘ought to be’ (Innes, 1995;
Healey, 1997). This is a communicative turn in planning, where rationality
gives reasons for action, not just justifications for teleological actions
already imposed (Alexander, 2000). McGuirk (2001,
p.195) summarises this communicative turn by planning theorists as having a
‘core aim’ to effect change to achieve ‘the democratisation of planning
practice and the empowerment of discourse communities, forms of reasoning, and
value systems heretofore excluded from planning practice’ and this aim is to be
accomplished by the rejecting ‘the dominatory power
relations of instrumental rationality, the founding epistemology of modern
planning. As Tewdwr-Jones and Allmendinger
(1998) observe, the acceptance of Habermas’s work
requires an ideological perspective that rejects the concept of human
individuality and choice and seeks universal consensus which leaves no room for
the disagreeing ‘Other’ and cultural difference. Further, it has an embedded
assumption that favours participatory democracy over that of representative
democracy.
Communicative
planning is not so much a theory, rather it could be described as a ‘life view’
based on a participatory perspective of democracy and a dislike – or at least a
grave suspicion – of free-market economies (the basis of the demonised
instrumental rationality). (ibid, p.1978)
Yet
this paper suggests that planning still largely relies on the ‘plan’, or its
derivatives, such as ‘strategy’ or ‘policy.’ Indeed under the RMA, plans and
policy statements are required by statute to be produced in a manner that
considers the cost and benefits of the means deployed to achieve their
objectives (s32 of the RMA). They are means/end documents, or narratives, which
are still predicated on, and legitimated by, instrumental rationality with its
embedded metaphysical belief in the progress of Man [sic] to know universal
truth (Falzon, 1998), however normatively, or
scientifically, shaped.
In
Habermas’s theory, public debate seeks to create an
‘ideal’ speech situation subject to all participants having opportunity for
agreement. For Habermas ‘ideal agreement’ rests on
common convictions of what is optimally good for all where three conditions
apply:
(1)
all voices in any way relevant get a hearing, (2) the best arguments available
to us given our present state of knowledge are brought to bear, and (3) only
the unforced force of the better argument determines the “yes” and “no”
response of the participants. (Habermas, 1993, p.163)
Flyvbjerg
(1998b) identifies other requirements of
Habermas’s ideal when expanded into a model for
discourse ethics. These additionally include: all parties can present and
criticise validity claims; all parties must have empathy with the positions of
other participants; existing power relationships must be neutralised by all
parties; parties must be transparent and non-strategic in their actions; and,
somewhat tongue-in-cheek, time must be unlimited. Habermas’s
model of discourse ethics is an emancipatory ideal
where communicatively agreed actions can
occur which incorporates scientific ‘truth’ and moral, emotional and aesthetic
reasoning through empathy for others in one’s lifeworld.
This
communicative rationality ideal, though seldom, if ever achieved, is clearly
consistent with the desired outcomes of public participation within an
effective planning process (Lowry et al, 1997); if not perhaps desired by the
efficient performativity orientated bureaucratic
state itself (Gunder and Mouat,
2002; Tewdwr-Jones and Thomas, 1998). McGuirk (2001, p.198), drawing on the literature, summaries
the role of planner in communicative planning practice as a ‘critical friend’
whose task involves seeking the achievement of the above conditions for ‘ideal’
speech and discourse ethics by facilitating the process and addressing the
distorts created by the exercise of power. This includes: ‘shaping attention’,
‘guiding judgements on how claims are justified and validated’, ‘mediating and negotiating outcomes’, and
‘anticipating and counteracting misinformation, clarifying, elucidating policy
options and implications, and challenging misrepresentations and flawed appeals
to legitimacy.’
Hillier
(1998) identifies a set of principles for a procedurally just communicative planning
practice. She argues that a valid practice
will be comprehensive in regards to fair, open, and transparent
processes of participation and decision, including the availability of
information for all participants in non-technical language. The practice will
have legitimacy by providing an equitable
voice and feedback for all involved. The practice will control bias and
power imbalances, make impartial decisions based on the information debated, as
well as, ensure mechanisms for subsequent appeal. Above all, a just participatory communicative planning
practice will be predicated on social
interaction principles of respect, sincerity, honesty and legitimacy. While
this communicative planning practice may be a desirable and a just ideal, its
achievement is rather a hard ask for both planners and participants –
particularly, when the latter including both community members and development
interests -- as Hillier herself agrees.
As
McGuirk (2001), Forrester (1989, 1999), Flyvbjerg (1998a), Hillier (1998; 2002) and many others
have comprehensively demonstrated, effective communicative planning comprises
an impossible set of tasks for the planner to successfully achieve within the
real world. This is so even if it is possible for practitioners to shed their
ideological perspectives and the influence of their professional authority, and
approach these tasks in a ‘ideal’ value free, or unbiased, manner to create
agreed consensus between all parties! Nor do these potential frustrations of
the ‘ideal’ account for the wider constraints of institutional and statutory
expectations and requirements of the Plan (McGuirk,
2001; Tewdwr-Jones and Thomas, 1998); or the
‘back-room’ negotiations and agreements that often facilitate it (Flyvbjerg, 1998a; Hillier, 2002). The following section
further illustrates these frustrations and the impossibility of fair and
effective Habermasian communicative planning
practices under the RMA in
Participation under
Over the last decade planning
in
The RMA ‘ideal’, as interpreted by the then implementing Government, was to theoretically permit any human activity subject to adequate mitigation of its adverse environmental effects; with the latter including the buying-off of affected parties (ibid). This is subject to conformity with national policy statements (apart from coastal management, never drafted) and locally set community environmental objectives and standards as to what are considered acceptable adverse effects.
Consultation in District Plan Processes
The objectives, policies and methods to achieve each
community’s environmental norms are codified in the District Plan of each
territorial authority. Applications for resource consents are evaluated against
each District Plan, as is any subsequent objection to the
Gunder and Mouat
(2002) argued from a social justice
perspective, that this transformation of planning practice has permitted, and
even encouraged, adverse community consequences through the Act’s effects-based
reactive nature. Community change is not guided by planner, local government,
or even community, but by developers
within ‘community agreed’ environmental effects-based parameters. Local
government is left to act merely as facilitators and efficient administrators
of the process. Of course, planners still shape attention as to the issues
addressed within plans (Forester, 1999), but these are largely issues of
environmental maintenance, not those of prescriptive socio-economic
improvement. Further, these parameters for acceptable development are set by
the Operational District Plan, or formal Variations to it, for up to a ten year
period. This is through a process of local authority-lead public consultation
via written submission and subsequent public hearings, and, potentially,
external
As Gunder and Mouat (2002) went on to document; institutional and
corporate stakeholders with their financial resources, access to legal and
planning expertise and a focus on protection and enhancement of their strategic
interests, rather than average community residents; are best positioned to
effectively partake in this largely written submission lead participatory
process to establish accepted community standards. As observed by Grundy (1997,
p.6) and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (1996), claims are
being made ‘that consultation and participatory procedures are merely token –
that the participation procedures established by the resource management
legislation are being used to legitimate developments and policies favoured by
development interests’. Concomitantly, local authorities are seeking efficiency
and cost minimisation for completion of the District Plan process, especially
avoidance of expensive
Consultation in Non-Statutory Preparatory Processes
Local authorities can and do conduct less formal public consultation in relation to the RMA, but this is non-statutory and outside of any formal RMA process itself. A typical example is that of the Hamilton City Council who employed consultants to produce a structure plan for development of an urban fringe area of the city (Beca Planning, 2002). Consultation was undertaken with local iwi, community residents and interested parties, including the development sector, throughout the preparation of the plan; via open days, moderated community workshops and one-on-one meetings between stakeholders and the consultants. The consultations concluded:
While a number of concerns were raised in respect of
providing certainty to the community, there was a general consensus that
development in the area is appropriate, provided certain resources are
protected. A number of land use concepts were developed by the community to
ensure this occurred. These concepts formed the basis of a draft structure plan
that was released for comment in December 2001. Following an open day held at
the end of January 2002 to discuss the draft structure plan, comments and submissions
were received from landowners and other organisations. These submissions provided the basis for
further discussions and negotiations that have resulted in the final structure
plan concept presented to Council in April
2002. (Beca Planning, 2002, p.3)
The structure plan made recommendations to the Council regarding strategic financing for development of the area, further planning and engineering work necessary, and proposed the need for a plan variation in the District Plan to accommodate the proposed structured development.
While the above quote implies that the community prepared the plan, at best their concerns were addressed within it. The consultative process undertaken clearly strove to listen to the community, yet a comparison of the process undertaken in relation to Hillier’s (1998) criteria for just communicative planning would leave significant room for improvement. Particularly poignant are the last four lines of the quote were questions of transparency, equitable feedback for all, control of power bias and imbalances can be raised; as well, the only apparent avenue for participant appeal are the formal processes of the RMA during any subsequent plan variation.
The Auckland Regional Council [ARC] (2000, p.27) defines stakeholders for consultation in structure plan preparation as:
Persons or organisations which have a defined interest
in the development and implementation of a structure plan area, over and above
the general public.
The ARC
proposed actual exclusion of the general public from consultation in their Structure Plan: Regional Practice and
Resource Guide. Considering that the
Region comprises nearly a third of New Zealand’s population, this is a telling
indicator of the amount of trickle down that has occurred in this country in
regards to Habermasian predicated communicative
planning practice, even outside of formal RMA processes.
Consultation
in Resource Consent Processes
If a proposed project is a permitted activity under the
District Plan, no resource consent or public consultation is required, nor is
public consultation a mandatory requirement for any resource consent or a
designation (public work), apart from notification of the application seeking
written objection (Ministry for Environment [MFE], 1999). However, public
consultation is considered prudent for significant projects as established by
The buying of
consent agreement from adversely affected parties is seen as an efficient means
for streamlining the processing of resource applications under the RMA. This
can happen at any stage of the consent process prior to the final
that developers might wish to offer compensation for any of the
following reasons: to purchase silence; to obtains submissions in support under
section 96; to pre-empt consent conditions set by the council; to foster
goodwill between developer and affected party; to reduce the uncertainty of the
consent process; and to avoid or reduce costs.
Non-notification
under RMA s94, has its place in allowing the rationality and efficiency of the
majority of non-contentious resource consent applications to be approved. About
95 percent of all resource consents are not publicly notified because the
proposed activities comply with and are permitted in the plan (s139), or fall under
s94 of the RMA (Compton, 2000). Non-notification of a resource consent
application occurs under s94 when two tests can be passed: ‘first, the adverse
effects must be minor; and second, written approval has been obtained from all
those whom the council thinks will be adversely effected, unless [the latter]
is unreasonable’ (Gleeson, 2000: 118). Of cause, with non-notification there is
no public consultation.
Little Scope for a Communicative
Turn in the RMA
The
RMA purports to be a planning statute that facilitates public participation.
Yet this is a participation that is orientated to teleological and strategic
action, not Habermas’s communicative action. The
participation it permits is one that is purely administrative/ judicial with an
outcome of winning and asserting one’s property rights over those of another.
The RMA allows written input to the finalisation of District Plans and judicial
appeal. No mechanisms are available to encourage inter-subjective agreement in
drafting plans or to promote opportunities for communicative rationality and
undistorted, or ideal speech opportunities.
A similar lack of communicative planning is available for community
objection against undesired resource consent applications, at least the five
percent that are publicly notified for contestation. Even non-statutory
consultation prior to formal RMA processes tend to exclude equitable public
participation, as least as defined by criteria derived from Habermasian
communicative ideals. As Mouffle notes:
Consensus
in a liberal-democratic society is – and will always be – the expression of a
hegemony and the crystallizations of power relations. (2000, p.49)
From
the perspective of Foucault’s post-structuralism, public participation and
other mechanisms of collaborative planning are always subject to the effects of
power (Flyvbjerg, 1998a; Hillier, 2002; Pløger, 2001, Richardson, 1996). Planning is inherently a
human discipline of governmentality and biopower that resides within its practices (Huxley 1997),
where planning legitimates itself through a narrative predicated on modern
instrumental rationality. This paper concludes, as does Pløger (2001) in
The administrative/judicial structure of the RMA permits
little opportunity for Habermasian predicated
communicative planning. The RMA is an instrument of governmentality.
Governmentality is predicated on efficiently
producing a docile and productive
society (Dean, 1999), consistent with the achievement of Lyotard’s
(1984) performativity. Hence the RMA has little scope
for the achievement of outcomes predicated on rationality produced by the
inter-subjectivity agreement of Habermas’s ideal
speech situation. As such, while aspects
of public participation can be attributed to the RMA these attributes are
administrative and juridical in nature and favour dominant corporate and
institutional actors over community residents. The seeking of undistorted opportunities for communicatively
rationalised action through debate that aims to achieve Habermas’s
ideal speech situation does not occur in RMA predicated planning in
In
contrast to the RMA, major revision of the Local Government Act is ongoing by
References:
Alexander,
E.R. (2000) Rationality Revisited: Planning Paradigms in a Post-Postmodernist
Perspective, Journal of Planning
Education and Research, 19: 242-256.
Allmendinger, P. (2001) Planning
in Postmodern Times,
Baum,
H.S. (1995) Practising Planning Theory in a Political World, Explorations in Planning Theory, ed. by Mandelbaum, S.J., Mazza, L., Burchell, R.W., New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers,
365-382.
Beca
Planning: A Division of Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner Ltd. (2002) Rotokauri Structure
Plan, prepared for Hamilton City Council.
Bevan
J., and Jay, M. (1998) Compensation for Adverse effects, or Buying consent? Resource Management News, VI(1), 4-7.
Clifford,
M. (2001) Political Genealogy After
Foucault,
Dean, M.
(1999) Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society,
Falzon,
C. (1998) Foucault and Social Dialogue,
Fischler, R. (2000)
Communicative Planning Theory: A Foucauldian
Assessment, Journal of Planning Education
and Research, 19(4): 358-368.
Flyvbjerg
B. (1998a) Rationality and Power,
Flyvbjerg,
B. (1998b) Habermas and Foucault: thinkers for civil
society? British Journal of Sociology,
49(2): 210-233.
Forester,
J. (1989) Planning in the Face of Power,
Forester,
J. (1993) Critical Theory, Public Policy, and Planning Practice: Towards a
Critical Pragmatism,
Forester,
J. (1999) The Deliberative Planner,
Gleeson,
B.J. (1996) The perils of market environmentalism: The New Zealand
experiment, Environment and Planning A,
28: 1910-1916.
Gleeson, B. (2000) The politics of consent notification, in P.A. Memon & H. Perkins (Eds) Environmental Planning & Management in
New Zealand, pp115-122. Palmerston North:
Gleeson, B.J. and Grundy, K.J. (1997)
Grundy, K.J. (1997) Empty Promises? Public Participation under the RMA, Resource Management News, VI(2), 3-7.
Gunder, M. (2000) Urban policy formation under efficiency: The case of
Auckland City Councils’ Britomart project, in P.A. Memon & H. Perkins (Eds) Environmental Planning & Management in
New Zealand, pp294-308. Palmerston
North:
Gunder, M., Mouat, C. (2002) Symbolic Violence and Victimisation in
Planning Processes: A Reconnoitre of the New Zealand
Habermas,
J. (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol.1,
Habermas,
J. (1987a) The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol.2,
Habermas,
J. (1987b) The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, Trans. by
Habermas
J. (1990) Moral Consciousness and
Communicative Action,
Habermas,
J. (1993) Justification and Application: Remarks on
Discourse Ethics,
Habermas,
J. (1996) Between Facts and Norms:
Contribution to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy,
Habermas,
J, (1998) The Inclusion of the Other,
Healey,
P. (1996) The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for
spatial strategic formation, Environment
and Planning B, 23(6): 217-234.
Healey,
P. (1997) Collaborative Planning: Shaping
Places in Fragmented Societies,
Healey,
P. (2000) Place, Identity and Governance: transforming discourses and
practices, Plenary Paper, Habitus 2000: a sense of place,
Hillier, J.
(1998) Beyond Confused Noise: Ideas Towards Communicative Procedural Justice, Journal of Planning Education and Research,
Hillier, J. (2002) Shadows of Power: An Allegory of Prudence,
Hutching, J., Hogg, L. (2002) Planning Outside the Resource Management
Act, Planning Quarterly, 144: 4-7.
Huxley,
M. (1997) The ‘Hidden Injuries’ of Regulation: Land-Use Control, Social Control
and Environmental Justice, Environmental
Justice: Global Ethics for the 21st Century: International
academic conference of the University of
Innes,
J.E. (1995) Planning Theory's Emerging Paradigm: Communicative Action and
Interactive Practice, Journal of Planning
Education and Research, 14(3): 183 -
190.
Innes,
J.E. (1997) The Planner’s Century,
Journal of Planning Education and Research, 16: 227-228.
Lewi, H., Wickham, G. (1996) Modern Urban Government: A Foucaultian
Perspective, Urban Policy and Research,
14(1), 51-64.
Lowry,
K., Adler, P., Milner, N. (1997) Participating the Public: Group Process,
Politics, and Planning, Journal of Planning
Education and Research, 16: 177-187.
McGuirk,
P. (2001) Situating communicative planning theory: context, power, and
knowledge, Environment and Planning: A,
33(2): 195 –218.
Miller, C. (2000) Alternative Methods in Resource Management: a
Ministry
for the Environment. (1999) Striking a
Balance: A Practical Guide on Consultation and Communication for Project
Advocates,
Ministry for the Environment. (2000) Proposed
Plan Submission Analysis: A report and good practice guide on the assessment
and management of those submissions made under the Resource Management Act
having significant environmental effects,
Mouffle,
C. (2000) The Democratic Paradox,
Parliamentary
Commissioner for the Environment. (1996) Public
Participation in Environmental Decision Making: Discussion Paper,
Perkins,
H. and Thorns, D. (2001) A decade on: reflections on the Resource Management
Act 1991 and the practice of urban planning in New Zealand, Environment and Planning B, 28, 639-654.
Phelps,
N. and Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2000) Scratching the surface
of collaborative and associate governance: identifying the diversity of social action
in institutional capacity building, Environment
and Planning: A, 32(1): 111-130.
Pløger, J. (2001) Public participation and the art of
governance, Environment and Planning B,
28, 219-241.
Sager,
T. (1994) Communicative Planning Theory,
Tewdwr-Jones,
M. and Allmendinger, P. (1998) Deconstructing
Communicative Rationality, Environment
and Planning B, 25: 1975-1989.
Tewdwr-Jones,
M. and Thomas, H. (1998) Collaborative action in local plan-making: planners’
perceptions of ‘planning through debate, Environment
and Planning B, 25: 127-144.
Knowing
and Steering: planning and democracy In
Alan March and Nicholas Low
Introduction
This paper offers a critique
of planning viewed as an aspect of democratic governance. Habermas’s
insight on the way policy is formed by ‘steering media’ (for instance, law,
bureaucracy, money) that act to restrict normative input provides us with a way
of explaining the absence of ‘communicative planning’ in our case study. Our subject is the planning system of the
State of Victoria, Australia, focusing upon the institutions whereby local
planning schemes, including state and local policy dimensions, are prepared and
implemented. These ‘chronically repeated
acts’ of plan-making and implementation constitute a significant part of the
institutional apparatus through which society understands itself, defines
problems and collectively acts on them (Giddens, 1984: 376 and
passim). While metropolitan plans are
occasionally prepared by the Victorian state government, it is the
institutional practices of plan-making and implementation at local government
level that are most influential in shaping urban development on the ground (see McLoughlin, 1992).
In
We comment on this planning
system, employing Habermas’ interpretive categories
of ‘facts’, ‘norms’, knowing’, ‘steering’ and ‘mediatization’ to inquire
whether the institutions of governance
for planning could become more democratic, and if so, how. Finally, we draw
some conclusions for reform of the Victorian planning system with a view to its
further democratisation.
Planning and Mediatisation
Planning, which embodies
collective action, need not be democratic.
Urban plans can be prepared and implemented by elites, ignoring the
public. Likewise, a highly inclusive
democracy need not engage in planning.
But there are advantages of both democracy and planning — hence democratic
planning. Democracy embodies the principle of autonomy[1],
yet in drawing deeply from the pool of public knowledge, goes beyond the
individual to the good of society.
Planning embodies long-term and system-wide thinking and (ideally)
expresses the collective aspirations of citizens for the future of urban areas. Some outcomes (for example integrated
transport, equitable distribution, ecological rationality, socially fair
housing policy responsive to cultural diversity) only become possible with
planning. Any planning system can
therefore be considered according to its value as a democratic process by which
citizens individually and
collectively seek future outcomes.
Unfortunately democratic planning involving open debate according to the
principles of communicative ethics leading to the deliberative formation of
norms is rare and exceptional. Habermas helps explain why.
Habermas contends that to be democratic, a society must be
able both to ‘know itself’ and to
‘steer itself’ (Habermas, 1996 [1987]). To know itself a society must understand its
challenges and the options available and aim to plan using rational, inclusive and
empowering argument. To ‘steer itself’,
moreover, a society must have the capacity
to take action to deal with the challenges it faces in knowing itself. ‘Capacity building’ and ‘fairly high levels
of citizen activity’ are key elements of the social learning necessary for
effective environmental planning (Selman,
1999: 163).
Habermas considers ‘mediatisation’ the central impediment to
democratic knowing and steering, using the term in the scholarly footsteps of
Marx, Parsons, and Weber[2]. Despite the constant debate, governance
increasingly relies on steering mechanisms based on the logics of instrumental
reason, rather than on conscious collective deliberation (Habermas
1984: 187; Habermas 1996: 35). Instrumental reasoning leads to choices based
upon achieving success in a given sphere (Audi 1998: 674-5). For example, money instrumentally coordinates
action such that individuals act for economy or profit – the medium’s success
criteria. The medium of money tends to
‘steer’ society, as many individuals act according to the same logic, making
similar decisions.
In his early work, Habermas questioned the democratic value of the public
sphere due to its mediatisation according to mercantile values (Habermas, 1989 [1962]: 141-80, 231-2). In the Theory
of Communicative Action (1984) he contends that sub-systems, such as the
economy and the apparatuses of the state, mediatise public and private spheres
(Habermas, 1984: 196, 318-23, and passim; 1987:
Chapter 12). Mediatisation occurs when
openly debateable and discourse-based mechanisms for knowing and steering in
society are replaced with mechanisms based on instrumental logics which resist
open processes of deliberation.
As the logics of media, such
as law, bureaucracy, and economy are used in knowing and steering, a society’s
ability rationally to steer itself is diminished. For example, discourses within monetary
systems measure ‘rationality’ according to economy or profit and restrict
consideration to financial interests.
Performative actions are allowed on the basis of dollars and
understandings and practices develop around exchange, unevenly allocating the
ability for persuasion and coercion. In
contrast, ‘rational’ discourse would consider the individual interest within a
wider moral and ethical framework which includes the interests and
participation of others.
Between Facts and Norms (1996) focuses specifically upon the medium of law,
accepting as inevitable that communicative means of governing are often
replaced by media. The reasons for this
are obvious — for example the time necessary for deliberative will-formation on
all matters is simply not available, so law provides a stable basis for
‘decisiveness’ (Low, 1991: 274).
However, the ‘facticity’ of laws tends to
over-ride ‘norms’. Laws have facticity, in that they are socially accepted and thus
become social facts providing a basis around which people form understandings
and pursue interests. ‘Norms’ are
communicatively constructed standards that could provide the communicatively
rational basis for the acceptance of laws (Habermas, 1996: 29-30). A law
requires compliance (a fact – murderers are
gaoled or hanged); it also claims legitimacy (via a norm – murder ought to be punished). There is often tension between facts and
norms. This tension would dissolve if
everybody accepted the moral basis of laws all the time, as would occur in the idealised
realm of communicative action (ibid:
8). In practice, a law is often at odds
with its claim for acceptance.
Accordingly, if laws are the basis upon which society steers, they are
often imperfectly aligned with norms, or the manner in which society knows
itself.
In planning, it is not
difficult to find examples where norms do not match the fact of law. In
While Habermas
has explored only law in depth (Habermas, 1996), and bureaucracy and economy to a lesser extent (Habermas, 1984: 65, 214), a range of other media exist (Habermas, 1996/1987:
543-64). For example: a road-building
bureaucracy constructs ever more roads to cope with traffic problems, when open
debate might suggest other solutions; market principles encourage urban sprawl
when inclusive debate might suggest different forms. Accordingly, the various media (law,
bureaucracy, professionalism, markets) represent one pole of a dilemma: instrumental
steering versus the deliberative
formation of norms. Media both
facilitate democracy by making it effective, but also restrict it, by
preventing norm development and rational dialogue. Media distort the manner in which society
knows and steers itself, not necessarily by excluding deliberation, but by
restricting and modifying the form of knowing and steering (ibid: 357). Ideally, media would be modified with
societal expectations to match norms, but media impinge on the ongoing
development of norms themselves — the process of ‘colonisation’ (Habermas 1996 [1987]: 357-61; 1984: 185, 318-31, 355).
Attention to steering media
locates power relations centrally, viewing power as being interdependent
activity based on individual and collective steering. When the ‘best argument’ yields to power (Flyvbjerg, 1998: 36), power has not ‘mysteriously acted’ (Forester, 1999). Rather,
greater steering power has been allowed to certain parties, via the use of
particular media in a planning complex.
The question is then: is steering power matched by corresponding
norms? For instance, few would dispute
separating kindergartens and industry via statutory planning. However, in
Most governmental activity
contains a combination of media, and urban planning is no exception. Money disperses steering and knowing to
individual acts of land development, leaving government as a kind of umpire. Bureaucracy, used for steering, becomes a
blunt instrument reducing knowing to standardised categories and
processes. Professionalism concentrates
knowing, but typically steers only by aligning itself with money, bureaucracy,
or law. Representational politics allows
potential knowing via pluralistic
politics, but confers steering capacity upon politicians and the executive,
favouring certain dominant groups.
Additionally, the competing
logics of various media may further disrupt the potential for knowing and
steering (Habermas, 1996 [1987]: 360-61). Money, in dispersing steering to individuals
undermines professional and bureaucratic steering capacities. Political logics commonly ignore or push
aside professional or bureaucratic understandings. Legal logics commonly override political
deliberations.
Insights offered by
mediatisation suggest that Habermas’s project, while
using consensus as an ideal, admits non-consensus, and even accommodates
concepts such as ‘agonistic respect’ (see Hillier 2002: 120-4) within its wider
framework. If the steering media more closely
match norms, this represents a movement towards a practical, moral and ethical
justification for acting without complete consensus (Gutmann & Thompson,
1996: 43) and with uneven power. It
admits to practical concerns while suggesting direction for structural
change. To demonstrate this, we now turn
to the case study.
In
Politics
Liberal politics, the
contestation of ideas, interests and claims within institutional rules, is the
most discursive of the media in Victorian planning. While it encourages discourse removed from
communicative ideals, it does allow for varied voices to be heard and for some
norm development to occur. However, politics in plan-making and implementation
is generally limited to influencing Council meeting outcomes[3].
Elected Councils of local
authorities meet, on a regular basis, to make planning decisions. Accordingly, norm development occurs through
the processes of lobbying, local news coverage, mobilisation of action groups
and preparation of cases to put to Council.
However, no equivalent political decision-making body exists at State
level, where politics is limited to ministerial and executive decisions,
backroom deal-making typically with key business representatives, public
relations ‘spin’ and posturing by interest groups and opposition parties. There is no metropolitan authority where
wider issues of metropolitan planning might find a focus. The limited debate
occurring in newspapers lacks a ‘target’, since planning ministers are
distanced from political consequences by three-yearly elections which are rarely
fought on planning issues. The presence
of a deliberative forum only at local level allows little opportunity for norm
development at state or metropolitan level.
Locally developed norms
cannot be pushed ‘upwards’ to affect state planning since this is prevented by
the threat of review by VCAT. Councils,
using discretionary powers, commonly do not follow central planning policy, but
respond to local norms. This divergence
is typically overturned by VCAT, which disregards local sentiment, strictly
adhering to ‘planning policy’ formulated by the State, and not heeding local
opinion formation processes in decision-making.
Further, its decision is simply ‘passed down’ to the local level, with
no testing or deliberation about why ‘the centre’ must prevail over local
sentiment. Local communities continually
oppose ‘inappropriate development’ partly because they have not had the
opportunity to participate in any wider debate. Because of their narrow focus,
strategic orientation, and their situation within a centrally imposed system of
planning, locally developed norms are unable to contribute to wider equity or
rights considerations. In terms of
knowing and steering, any potential role for politics is undermined by its localism.
Bureaucracy
The medium of bureaucracy is
extensively used in formalised planning procedures. Implementation is reduced to testing of
proposals against predetermined standards, categories and processes stipulated
by the VPPs.
Discourse is allowed only within the bureaucratically provided
opportunities provided, including formal participation exercises such as
‘objections’ (P&EAct, 1987: 446: s57) and
submissions to the VCAT (P&EAct, 1987: 446:
s84B). Any public input not in line with
‘planning matters’ is ignored. Despite
any public input exercises, plan-making is mainly directed to choosing amongst
pre-given controls provided by the VPPs (P&EAct, 1987: 446: Part1A). Accordingly, dissatisfaction with urban
development is typically manifest in resident objections during implementation. Many concerns in these objections are
ignored, as they do not relate to what are defined as ‘planning matters’. Concerns regarding property devaluation, the
‘quality’ of future residents, neighbourhood character and various
site-specific concerns, are typically ignored.
Good reasons for limiting the rights of property owners over
neighbouring development may exist, and these could be debated and principles
decided at an earlier stage in plan making with a cross-section of the
population represented. As it is these matters are simply avoided without
debate or explanation.
Bureaucratic logics
constitute a severe impediment to norm development. In any situation, inclusion and ‘success’
requires acceptance and use of bureaucratic logics. Wealthy residents, versed in the ‘art’ of the
objection, use bureaucratic language and logics to achieve their goals. Couching their opposition in bureaucratic
planning terms (streetscape, setbacks, density, design etc) to encourage
refusal of marginal applications, their real concerns are property values or
simple snobbishness. Debate about the
real issues are curtailed, such as whether neighbouring land values should be
considered, whether existing well-serviced and attractive areas should be
allowed to exclude newcomers, and whether urban density is a meaningful test of
quality.
Bureaucracy represents a
highly centralising force, being standardised and imposed by the centre, with
little potential for local adaptation [4],
at the direction of an effectively technocratic minister (P&EAct,
1987: 446: Part1A, s4C). Despite occasional good intentions on the part of
individual ministers, concentration of power in a single ministerial office
with power over an executive and bureaucracy, with limited opportunity for
political censure, encourages technocracy.
This has led to repeated imposition of central bureaucratic logic upon
localities, imposing particular tradeoffs of political desiderata, with no
scope for discussion of these tradeoffs.
The favouring of utilitarian and libertarian ideals thus entailed
further reduces the potential for steering and knowing above the level of the
individual.
Law
Law as a steering medium provides ‘force’ to planning. In
Legally allowed inclusion in
VCAT is ostensibly on the principles of natural justice, allowing lay-people and lay-languages (VCAT Act,
1998: 447: s98(1)(b)). Residents
opposing development in their neighbourhood commonly present cases. However, only those matters already in the
planning scheme may legally be debated — an exclusive, centralising
effect. Residents questioning the merits
of urban consolidation for example, which is implicit throughout the Victorian
Planning Provisions, get short shrift.
They must choose between arguing honestly with little chance of success,
or of acting strategically to discover ‘planning reasons’, unrelated to their
real concerns, which offer potential success.
The encouragement of
strategic behaviour in VCAT reinforces a converse discouragement of norm
development. This favours liberty and
utility, as rights and equality require ongoing construction and development in
the public realm. However, the
legislation and planning schemes contain pre-determined measures of
rights. For example, rights to privacy
in backyards are protected: no window within nine horizontal metres may
overlook a yard (VPPs: c55.04-6). Residents are astounded that a window ten
metres away is then considered acceptable.
VCAT decisively and continuously re-imposes these centrally
predetermined facts on to the local without regard for local norms. The disparity between expectations and legal facticity in the nine metre rule provides a ‘stopping
point’ for privacy, so that development can occur - a utilitarian
rationale. Yet the mediative nature of
law does not allow it to respond to the ‘gap’ between facticity
and normative, societal expectations.
Money
Money is a fourth steering medium. Since actual urban processes are shaped both
by private interests and public collective interests we suggest they should be
considered together from a democratic viewpoint. The presumption of planning in
Divergence between market
logics (with money as its index) and norms is easily discerned in Victorian planning. For example, compare opinions and motivations
between residents and developers in inner city areas: residents seek
maintenance of amenity and neighbourhood character; developers seek financial
returns[5]. At regional level, the market logic can still
be discerned: low density at the outskirts meeting demand for cheap housing;
and medium density inner-city redevelopment meeting demand for quality housing
near employment, facilities and quality schools. Yet no means exist for developing
corresponding public norms to consider the implications of this. The predetermined formulations of the
planning scheme allow the imposition of the market over norms. Utility is favoured on the basis that overall
societal benefits (economic growth) will accrue only if minimal regulation
occurs. Similarly, liberty expressed via
aggregate individual desires, disallows equity considerations in the
distribution and use of resources throughout the metropolis of
The market excludes those without the ability to pay (to do something on a piece of land), while dispersing steering so that the potential for deliberative exercise of social choice is reduced. As a medium, the market reduces knowing to individual assessments of financial returns, allowing ignorance of wider social or environmental impacts. The ubiquitous market medium in Victorian planning prevents norm development.
Professionalism
Professionalism provides a
base of acceptable practices and values for planners, requiring conformance
(separately from politics) within the parameters of bureaucracy and law. Professional inclusion and advancement for
planners depends on qualifications and experience, but importantly upon shared
values. This highly non-reflexive trait
encourages imposition of the medium of professionalism and discourages
sensitivity to societal norms.
Planning professionalism is
strongly affiliated with other media, typically bureaucracy (government
planners), law (expert witnesses, Tribunal members) and the market
(consultants). This is exemplified in
disputes where various planners to take opposing positions according to
affiliation, particularly at VCAT. While
a case might be made that this exposes all of the arguments, allowing the
tribunal to make the ‘best’ decision, it highlights the fickle nature of
professional opinion. Importantly,
professionalism is respectively centralised, localised or dispersed according
to the affiliation of the individual (eg law and bureaucracy are centralised,
money – dispersed etc). This undermines
the potential for professionalism to play a role in democratic knowing and
steering. Planning professionalism in
Significant elements of the
Victorian planning system, particularly state policy, are embodied in a form
which disallows recognition of actual choices made. Decisions affecting the equality of
distribution, modal split between public and private transport, urban
containment or sprawl, and the measurement of ecological footprint are
obscured. We contend that obscuration is intimately entwined with mediatisation both as cause and effect
(see for example Latour, 1987, on the ‘black box’
effect). Obscuration allows
non-communicative logics to steer, corresponding to a lack of knowing. At the scale of the city-region, reliance
upon money logics to steer and know does not permit understandings of the
non-market implications of city growth.
Norms have little chance of being developed, as there are no public
forums in which understandings could be debated or social resistance
expressed. This planning system is thus
highly exclusive, denying opportunities to develop new norms.
Conclusions and
recommendations
Drawing this analysis of
Victorian planning together leads first to insights inspired by Habermas, and secondly to practical changes suggested for
Particular media in a
planning system have varying impacts upon norm development and upon a society’s
capacity for knowing and steering itself.
The use and ‘location’ of particular
media in the overall planning system have a discernable impact on the way the
other dilemmas of democracy are resolved, and upon the impacts of any
particular medium upon knowing and steering.
The arrangement and use of
media, in conjunction with other dilemmas, need to be considered in setting a
foundation for democratic and communicative planning.
This suggests changes to the
manner in which media relate to the resolution of dilemmas of democracy in the
Victorian case as starting principles for a more democratic planning system.
Most fundamentally, Victorian
planning must heed its primary role as a form of governance, and seek to
democratise itself. Current planning
strongly favours liberty and utility, within a centrally enforced and exclusive
framework, reducing the scope for democracy.
Citizens have limited potential to develop norms through contact with
the day-to-day practices of planning, leading to a culture of apathy, along
with self-seeking or oppositional behaviours which undermine democratic
values. The challenge, then, is to
develop a suitable mix of local and central control, societally
agreed upon tradeoffs between rights and utility, liberty and equity, and
inclusive forums which maintain the capacity for decisiveness. Provided a
decision rule is first agreed upon, there is no reason why deliberative forums
cannot be decisive.
The limited role of politics
in Victorian planning reduces its (albeit imperfect) potential to assist
overall knowing and steering. At the
local level, a clearly delineated role for politics must be defined, within
which local discretion cannot be overturned by higher authority. There is in fact a strong case for giving
local authorities a ‘general power’ and including the local level in a future
Australian constitution. If matters of purely local concern are dealt with at
this level, local norms will develop and more closely match both local plans
and decisions.
Above the local level,
political arenas must be developed to counter the depoliticising effect of the
current ‘executive control’ model. These
arenas, dealing with matters of regional and state concern, need to be
receptive to local input, yet be decisive, going beyond simple aggregations of
local interests and allowing regional norms to develop. This would enhance the capacity of the public
to know and steer in matters beyond self or local interest, sensitising the
centre (State level) and the local to each other. Importantly, clearly delineated political
arenas still allow for decisiveness, yet also allow for relatively higher
levels of inclusion than other media. In
the
While the interdependence of
the Dutch model must be taken into account when making comparisons with
The use of central
bureaucratic logic, which restricts norm development, needs modification. Within a defined scope allowed for local
discretion, municipalities must be allowed to prepare controls to achieve locally
determined goals, allowing greater local norm development, rather than
centrally-imposed mechanisms. Local
implementation is then more likely to match local norms. The requirement that local participation
occurs according to pre-set procedures favours certain media, tending to
privilege bureaucratic logics, and should be adapted to local circumstances,
within broad centrally-set parameters.
At higher tiers of planning,
bureaucratic approaches remain appropriate, as they offer the potential for
fair application of policy across many local areas, if these are matters which
cannot be dealt with by municipalities.
However, bureaucratic procedures and criteria must be developed and used
by a body that is both sensitive to local norms, yet able to impose these
decisively and fairly. While the content
and application of higher level plans will remain contested, a combination of
political, bureaucratic, executive and professional media are required in a
form that encourages plans to more closely match societal norms.
Many practices currently
obscure from view the actual choices made in Victorian planning. Legal and bureaucratic bases of current
planning schemes, on the one hand imply that ‘if it is not illegal, then it is
appropriate’; while on the other, they require the exercise of considerable
discretion by local authorities, on the basis of ‘rules’ which are centrally
designed and enforced. This leads to a
significant number of individual choices being made, with no corresponding
ability to heed the cumulative effects of these choices. This corresponds with the individualising
logics of the market, an unavoidable characteristic of Victorian planning. Accordingly, the effects of dispersed
individual choices need to be brought into public view as a first step in
knowing, and accordingly, steering.
Choices between rights and utility, and liberty and equity, must be made
apparent and publicly justified at each level of planning. Matters such as environmental and
intergenerational values, curtailment of individual land ownership rights,
equitable distribution of facilities and opportunity, and investment choices in
transportation infrastructure must be understood at local, regional and state
scales, in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity[6]. This would be undertaken in parallel with the
creation of appropriate discursive forums.
A final question remains
regarding the role of the professional planner.
Professional values in
Public participation can
improve the democracy of the planning system but simply pasting ‘participation’
exercises on to a highly mediatised system will simply lead to frustration all
round. The structural inadequacies of the system have first to be addressed and
participation introduced in such a way as to create a fair and equal process
which will lead to fair and equal outcomes. A structural form of governance has
to be created which will allow problems arising at the grass roots level to be
communicated to those with the authority to act on them collectively using the
power vested in the state.
References
Arendt, H. (1969). Crises
of the Republic. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
Flyvbjerg,
B. (1998). Rationality and Power:
Democracy in practice. London: University of Chicago Press (English
Edition).
Forester,
J. (1999). An Instructive Case Study hampered
by theoretical puzzles: critical comments on Flyvbjerg's
Rationality and Power. [e-mail]. Retrieved 22/12/99, 1999, from the World
Wide Web:
Giddens,
A. (1984). The Constitution of Society:
Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Gutmann,
A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy
and Disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Habermas,
J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative
Action V1 (T. McCarthy, Trans. Vol. One). London: Beacon Press.
Habermas,
J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative
Action V2 (T. McCarthy, Trans. Vol. Two). London: Beacon Press.
Habermas,
J. (1989[1962]). The Structural
Transformation of the Public Sphere (T. Burger, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity.
Habermas,
J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms:
Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (W. Rehg, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Habermas,
J. (1996/1987). Normative Content of Modernity. In W. Outhwaite
(Ed.), The Habermas
Reader. Cambridge: Polity.
Held,
D. (1995). Democracy and the Global Order: from the modern state to
cosmopolitan governance. Cambridge: Polity.
Hillier,
J. (2002). In P. Allmendinger & M. Tewdwr-Jones (Eds.), Planning
Futures: new directions for planning theory. London: Routledge.
Latour,
B. (1987). Science in Action.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Low,
N. (1991). Planning, Politics and the
State.
Low,
N. (1997). What Made it Happen? Mapping the Terrain of Power in Urban
Development. Planning Theory, 17,
88-112.
Mannheim,
K. (1940). Man & Society in an Age of
Reconstruction (E. Shils, Trans.). London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner &
Co. Ltd.
McCarthy,
T. (1978). The Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas. London:
Hutchinson & Co.
McLoughlin,
B. (1992). Shaping Melbourne's Future?
Town planning, the state and civil society. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Planning and Environment Act
(1987). Planning and Environment Act., 45/1987:
Government Printer for the State of Victoria.
Polanyi,
K. (1957 [1944]} The Great Transformation, The political and economic
origins of our time, Boston USA: Beacon Press
Selman,
P. (1999) ‘Three decades of environmental planning: what
have we really learned?’ in M. Kenny and J. Meadowcroft
(eds) Planning Sustainability, pp. 148-174
van
der Heiden, N., Kok, J., Postuma, R., & Wallagh, G.
(1992). Consensus Building as an Essential Element of the Dutch Planning
System. Planning Theory, 7-8,
116-134.
VCAT. (1998). Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act. Government Printer for the State of Victoria.
Victorian Planning Provisions.
In Department of Infrastructure: Government of Victoria Printer.
Moving the
from sustainability theory to
sustainable practice.
Leonard Anthony Watkins
All people observe and talk.
All people have opinions and dreams.
Planners are people who make things happen.
We began by looking at the meaning of sustainability.
The concept that it is possible for human activity to produce a
surplus, just as nature does.
The realisation that the era when human beings could simply live off
the surplus of nature is over.
We then turned our attention to sustainable settlement.
The concept that it is possible for settlement to produce a surplus.
The realisation that settlement which simply consumes will lead to
global ecological collapse.
We then turned our attention to the sustainable university
The concept that example rather than exhortation is the hallmark of a
leading university.
The realisation that a university should produce more than it consumes.
The understanding that a university which is not sustainable will
simply wither and die, leaving people who sought intellectual leadership glad
that it did so.
We identified a number of commitments which we considered the
We then invited individuals to ask themselves if they were willing to
make those commitments.
We believed that the first practical step towards implementation of
those commitments would be the purchase by the University of the Auckland
Railway Station.
**********
Politics is the art of timing, and so is effective planning.
From time to time in the course of history unique opportunities present
themselves. When those moments are grasped the course of history is changed.
When potential is allowed to slip by, un-noticed, it becomes extremely
difficult to ever recapture the opportunity.
Planners who attempt to bring about change through their own energy
often become bogged down in such a tedious and slow process that their plans
become self-defeating. Misunderstandings along the way cause alienation, until
finally visions of hope seem to be little different from the world they
promised to improve.
In contrast creative planners who recognise moments of potential change
are able to achieve great things with few resources. They simply manage energy
which comes from elsewhere, and with leverage bring it into focus.
Six events at that time presented the purchase of the Railway Station
as a unique planning opportunity.
First the
The University had decided that it wished to be a world-class
institution, but such ideals had little meaning if no strategic choices were
made to ensure that the University would first have a world-class built
environment.
Secondly the Auckland Railway Station was for sale.
The University could purchase the Railway Station immediately.
If it was sold to anyone else the University could be expected to pay a
premium to that person. If extensive alterations were made to convert the
Station into some other use the University would be expected to pay for this
wasted conversion. If any new use proved to be viable the cost of the Station
would almost certainly rise beyond the reach of the University.
The time to buy was immediately.
Thirdly
The dream that motorways would provide easy, fast and safe
transportation choices for all was over. Urban Design thinking however remains
locked into the impossible dream. The Britomart
proposal could have brought the entire network to a peak hour gridlock. A six
lane link along
The University may not be able to solve everyone else's transportation
problem, but through solving its own it can set an example.
Fourthly Maori political aspirations were being realised as never
before.
The
Fifthly the ideals of RMA were foundering as sustainability was
redefined.
RMA is idealistic, but idealism is a poor match for greed and the lust
for power. With the throwing out of decades of hard-won case law a void had
been created. That void had been filled with mediocrity. The University could
take a leadership position by demonstrating through its own campus what RMA set
out to achieve.
Sixthly the planning process had failed the
The
The synchronicity of this unique moment in history seemed to be
suggesting that the University should act without delay to secure the Railway
Station and the surrounding land to form the focus of a University Campus for
future generations.
**********
We concluded that a sustainable university may be
recognised by the same signs which indicate a sustainable settlement.
Sustainable settlement builds community.
Sustainable settlement creates a context for people to "fall in
love with nature once again".
Sustainable settlement is humane, friendly, peaceful and hospitable.
Sustainable settlement grows from within.
Sustainable settlement is culture-specific.
Sustainable settlement enhances mana.
Sustainable settlement minimises movement.
Sustainable settlement respects both public space and private space.
Sustainable settlement is in harmony with history.
Sustainable settlement reflects the values of society.
Sustainable settlement enhances sound which is desirable and reduces
sound which is undesirable.
Sustainable settlement is energy efficient.
Sustainable settlement utilises existing resources.
Sustainable settlement is dynamic.
Sustainable settlement grows peacefully from existing patterns.
Sustainable settlement is in harmony with place.
Sustainable settlement is functionally non-specific.
Sustainable Settlement focuses on critical issues.
Sustainable settlement reflects a clarity of vision.
Sustainable settlement respects water patterns.
Sustainable settlement has integrity of process.
Sustainable settlement is an integrative network.
Sustainable settlement is the visible expression of urban design.
Sustainable settlement enhances complex nodes.
Sustainable settlement dissolves the urban/rural interface.
Sustainable settlement welcomes children and families.
**********
Planning begins with commitment.
Commitment indicates a seriousness of purpose.
We considered that convincing the University to endorse the following
commitments would contribute to effective campus design action.
The
The
The
The
The
The
The
The
The
The
The
The
The
The
The
The
Recognising the rapidly changing nature of university
education the
The
The
The
The
The
The
The
The University commits itself to developing a campus
which will dissolve the rural/urban interface.
The
***********
The link between indicators and commitments was then developed in more
detail.
Space permits the presentation of only four examples, but the full text
is available in the booklet published at the time of the campaign.
Sustainable settlement builds community.
We are born, we live for a brief period and we die.
That is the way life is, and no fashionable focus on the importance of
the individual will bring about any change.
Cultures, civilisations and communities are also born. They, in our
historical experience, also live for a brief period, and then they too die.
Every community dreams, of course, that these harsh realities will
somehow be different for them.
Our communities are only doomed to die because they produce less than
they consume. The human race is a threatened species only because we have
chosen to make it so. There is no theoretical reason why individuals, cities,
or even universities, should not produce more than they consume.
Sustainability is theoretically possible. Sustainability is only a process of changing
the rules of the game of life.
Sustainability can equally be seen as a moral choice. We have been
given life, and committing cultural and community suicide, however much fun we
have doing it, seems like a breach of trust.
Sustainability can sometimes, sadly, be little more than an obsession
with immortality. Obsessive sustainabilityites are
afraid of death and decay. They cannot accept that everything they have lived
for and worked for will turn to dust.
Like Midas and other economists they narrow their focus so that they
can ignore the broader issues. They work harder to make work seem more
important. With a toast to fossil fuels and CO2 emissions, they farewell the
bodies of their dead friends by watching them drive off in a hearse down the
motorway, while they get on with life.
For some sustainability is an attitude. All around us we see harmony,
balance and beauty. Why should we deny our potential? To be fully alive is to
rise above cultural violence, selfishness and consumerism.
The
It is not only important for the University to have a clear policy
expressing its commitment to sustainability, but also for the University to set
in place the means of implementing that policy.
If it is to lead rather than follow the University needs to express its
commitment to sustainability through the sustainable design of the University
campus.
Sustainable universities foster a strong sense of community, because
they live on as communities, while individual cells grow and change.
A sense of belonging is possible only when a campus has all those
facilities which are necessary for a full life. A sustainable university is
concerned with the whole, rather than with core activities.
International students, for example, particularly from
Sustainable settlement is humane, friendly, peaceful
and hospitable.
The perception that life is hard, and that we all need to be tough,
does not bear close analysis. Why should life be hard? We are surrounded by
beauty, and we are given so many wonderful gifts. Why do we need to be tough?
The world nurtures us with great love.
An atmosphere of nurturing is fundamental to sustainability.
Life cannot be sustained by violence and aggression.
A university is an environment where knowledge is nurtured and
encouraged to grow. The physical environment of a university campus needs to
establish a nurturing context if a university is to realise its academic goals.
Cities also need to nurture their citizens. Our universities should set
an example and show how this ideal might be realised.
The
While this valuable international work was being done the trend for the
A culture of violence finds expression in iron grilles, emergency
phones, locked doors, and an obsession with security rather than the reasons
why that security might be needed.
Management structures have been introduced which encourage violence,
competitiveness, dishonesty, a loss of identity, a loss of a sense of
responsibility, and a loss of sense of place.
The violent de-humanised environments of
The Planning Department of the
Unfortunately the Departmental attitude to sustainability has now been
degraded by the centralised power structure, but it remains as an important
proof that quality can be achieved within existing budgets.
The
The Railway Station is noble and dignified. It is grand, and yet warm.
It represents a vision, worthy of its past and worth carrying on into the
future.
All these qualities are available at an astonishingly low cost. If we
were to start to build again everyone would say that we cannot afford any of
these things.
Quality need cost no more. It is a question of attitude.
Sustainable settlement grows from within.
History suggests that sustainability depends on a wide and equitable
distribution of power.
Concentrations of power bring concentrations of wealth. The surpluses
of a nation are absorbed by a small elite.
The distribution of power makes resources available to all, building
morale and commitment, which in turn bring increasing surpluses.
A sustainable university distributes power widely.
Devolution applies to every aspect of sustainable university life,
including the design of the campus. Every decision should ideally be made at
the lowest possible level. Vision is also sourced at the lowest level, with the
role of those in power recognising rather than initiating.
Participation in decision making and the building process builds a
strong community and a sense of identity.
Planners who come from outside can never achieve through power and
control what planners from within can achieve through sensitivity and
understanding.
A society where every difficulty is seen as someone else's problem cannot
survive. When everyone blames someone else the negative energy finally destroys
the community.
In a sustainable society each person is, for example, responsible for
their own waste. Flicking an incinerator switch or putting out a rubbish bin,
are quietly destructive actions.
A university is only sustainable when each person leaves every space
they use a little richer than they found it.
Imagine if every student at the
Imagine spaces with a living patina of history, where every new student
would be inspired by the energy of all those who have previously passed that
way.
"Cleaning up" can be a very dangerous process. We certainly
need to clean up the disorder which comes from activity, but we need to be
careful not to also destroy both the creativity and the patina of life itself.
Cleaning up is too often little more than one face of the culture of
violence, devaluing history. Destroying buildings to make way for new buildings
is little different from killing people to make way for new people.
A society in which people only value their own work, and see whatever
others have done as needing to be thrown out, cannot sustain itself.
In a sustainable university everyone values the work of everyone else,
and recognises the potential it has to enrich their own lives.
Sustainable settlement is culture-specific.
All cultures have rituals which contribute to the continuity and
sustainability of that culture,
In oral cultures people are chosen to receive the wisdom of past
generations and to pass it on to future generations. Only those who demonstrate
the skill and integrity needed for this important task are given the knowledge.
The risk of the knowledge being distorted in its telling is well understood.
Initiation ceremonies are not taken lightly.
Libraries are repositories of written records, where wisdom may be
accessed, but sustainability is only fostered when libraries come to life.
Libraries do not distinguish truth from fiction, and wisdom from
deceit.
Buildings give form to a culture, and then pass on that culture to
generations not involved in the original building.
The bach culture cannot be sustained if
baches are lost or destroyed.
Cities speak of the collective memory of the citizens. Sometimes,
sadly, a city says only too clearly that its citizens have lost their sense of
direction.
Universities are also culture-specific. A University is not only a
repository of wisdom, but also the critic and conscience of a society.
The vernacular built environment of each unique university is a
reflection of the distinctive culture
served by that university.
Globalisation has had a dramatic effect on Universities. Where there is
a loss of cultural confidence universities tend towards uniform cultural
mediocrity, and lose their sense of place.
The ridge and the bay are the two primary generators of urban design in
**********
We then convinced the University that it had already made a theoretical
commitment to the purchase of the Railway Station.
In December 1995 the
In seeking for a clear indication of the kind of campus built
environment the University intended to work towards we looked first to this
document.
The following extracts are a selection of those which we considered had
relevance to the built environment.
The
2001
Criticism of others is easy. Personal performance is much more
difficult.
It is the integrity of the University which above all else is the
conscience of society. Lectures on sustainability have little meaning if the
University itself does not have a commitment to sustainability.
Create a (built) environment throughout
the University in which teaching (should
we not say education?) of international quality, informed by research, and,
where appropriate by professional practice, is accepted as a primary academic
responsibility.
2001
Objective 1.1
While not supporting architectural determinism it is important to
recognise that the physical environment is a primary educator. The physical
environment begins to lecture long before any lecturer arrives, and continues
to lecture long after they have left.
Enhance the quality
of all teaching (should we not say
education?) and learning in the
University (through the built
environment).
2001
Objective 1.2
It is the quality of the environment which is important, rather than
the amount of space
Provide teaching (should
we not say education?) and learning
facilities of the highest quality.
2001 Strategy
1.2.8
Facilities are intended to facilitate. Quality is only achieved through
creative pro-active design.
Create a (built)
environment throughout the University in which research of international quality is accepted as a primary
academic responsibility.
2001
Objective 2.1
Research should have consequences. Architectural research carried out
within the University should become manifest in the University campus.
Knowing should make wisdom possible.
Be internationally recognised as leaders in the University's areas of strength in
research and creative work.
2001
Objective 2.2
The built environment is the primary creative work of the University.
It should indeed be worthy of international recognition.
Recognise the needs of overseas students and develop ways in which these are to be met.
2001 Strategy
3.4.6
Overseas students have particular built-environment needs.
In particular they have a need for accommodation on the campus.
Ensure a favourable
working environment for all staff.
2001 Strategy
5.1.3
Staff have particular built-environment needs.
In particular visiting staff need accommodation on the campus.
Develop and maintain buildings which meet international standards to support teaching,
learning and research of the highest quality.
2001 Strategy
6.2.1
Wishful thinking is no substitute for action. Policies do not of
themselves result in action. Policies without action are only excuses.
Work with national and civic authorities to develop transportation systems to meet the
needs of staff and students of the University.
2001 Strategy 6.2.3
The University is a major traffic generator, and there is potential for
the University to make a major contribution to alleviating the generated
effects of traffic.
Liaise with civic authorities to minimise the impact of traffic flows on the University precincts.
2001 Strategy 6.2.4
Everyone who drives blames everyone else for the congestion. The
University has no justification for complaining about traffic passing through
its precincts if the traffic generated by the University passes through other
people's precincts.
Present the University in its distinctive national and international environment and, in so doing, convey the unique aspects of Maori,
and of
2001 Strategy 0.1.3
Face to the east and welcome the morning light. Turn towards the warmth
of the northern sun. Catch the last flash of passion as the day ends. Turn
again and watch the moon rise. Architectural navigation may be mysterious but
it is not a mystery. The mana of the
Provide support
services for international students which meet internationally competitive
norms.
2001 Strategy
9.4.5
The first support everyone needs is a warm, loving, and hospitable
environment. Within that welcoming campus environment sustainability suggests
that all essential needs should be met. Accommodation, conviviality, sports
fields, and a sense of place.
*********
The result of this process is
the "Railway Campus". It provides accommodation for approximately 600
students. Parking had been identified as a major campus problem. The
"Railway Campus" reduced the demand by 600 spaces. The students also
discovered that the University was about to sell all its existing
accommodation, considering it not to be "core business". This
decision was reversed. When the students went off surfing for the summer they
left behind a challenge for any other University to match their achievements.
I would like to acknowledge
the assistance of the following students in realising the Railway Campus.
Yuen Mei
Chan, Ivan Chen, ChaoChun Cheng, Judy Cheung, Orion
Fulton, Agnes Gapi, Patrick Hanfling,
Kuang-Fu Huang, Chuan-Hsin Ko, Katherine Kwong, Winnie Law, Gail Lorier, Alastair Lovell, Carl Lucca,
Steven McKenzie, Daniel Newcombe, Michael Rompelberg, Ken Tuai, Andrew
Wilkinson, Lap Kei Yu, Nigel Hailstone, Ivy Heung, Andrew Hillgrove, Nia Isara, Alison Pye, and in particular Brad Heising
who kept hope alive when it seemed that we had attempted the impossible dream.
The Exercise Of Influence Within The Local Planning
System: Implications For Education
David Hedgcock
Background
As planning theory has moved
to legitimise a wider range of interests in the development process so the
planning decision environment is becoming increasingly contested and
contentious (McLoughlin, 1992). Planners attempting to articulate this
process are faced with fluid power relations that ebb and flow in relation to
context, location and precedent.
'...power relations provide a context and constraint on practice and on
the development of planning solutions.
This is a critical area for planning theory and practice as different
theories of planning, or ideas about the role of planning lead to different
actions and responses .....' (Abbott and Minnery,
2000 p6).
While planners may well be
learning a little more about power and its exercise through the discourses of
'communication' (Habermas) 'structure' (Harvey) and
'knowledge' (Foucalt) these competing positions do
little to locate or identify a consistent role for planners faced with the day
to day demands of practice. 'Frameworks
of power in the urban field are constantly shifting and reformulating like the
city itself....there are general tendencies and phenomena - the over riding power of capital,...the rise
of corporatism , the countervailing
trend towards localism; an almost post modern recovery of diversity ....; (and)
the politicisation of bureaucrats cloaked and mystified by professional
ideology. (McLoughlin,
1992 P. 155)
What impact is this evolving
theoretical and practical environment having on the planning workforce? Looked at in a positive light it could be
argued that it is producing a dynamic and diverse working environment. Planners are required to confront a diversity
of stakeholders, language and ideology while at the same time trying to
reconcile those elusive planning goals of sustainability, justice and
consensus. Such a decision environment could be considered intellectually and
practically challenging in a context of topical issues of interest and concern
to the wider community (Kitchen, 1991).
However from a more negative point of view we could identify a
frustrated, stressed and directionless profession that knows it will disappoint
more people than it pleases in the planning decisions that flow from its
professional advice; 'Uncertain about goals, unable to impress with the
trappings of bureaucracy, planners appear to come off second best in their
brushes with the rich and powerful' (Thomas, 1991 p.37).
Such observations beg a number
of research questions but of particular interest in this paper are:
1. How do planners see their position in the
terrain of changing power relations? Do
they see existing power relations as undermining or consolidating their role in
the planning process?
2. Assuming that planners see themselves as a
player in the 'power game', then how do they go about exerting their influence
in the planning and development system?
3. In exerting their influence what abilities do
they consider underpin this influence?
4. To what extent has their planning education
provided them with the necessary knowledge and skills to operate in an
influential manner?
Clearly a number of these
questions lie within a theoretical framework that is itself contested,
fragmented and wide open to interpretation.
It is not the purpose of this paper to investigate this ground in any a priori sense. Rather the paper will seek to identify and
analyse existing perceptions of planners and to reflect on the implications for
planning education.
The Local Planning System in
The Western Australian
planning system provides the context for this research and more particularly
the local planning system and local planners will be the focus of the
investigation. The local planning system
in
•
A history of slow development and assertion in response to the more dominant
state based and metropolitan
planning initiatives that pre occupied the early emergence of planning in
•
The evolution of planning controls from prescriptive standards (often applied
by non planning staff) towards more flexible, policy orientated approaches
operated and implemented by professional planners (Wright, 2001).
•
Exposure to community intervention and involvement following the legitimation
of such activity as a central tenet in local planning deliberation (see
Alexander and Hedgcock, 2001).
• The growng involvement and
interest of the local political system in planning debates and outcomes (Hillier, 2000).
• Growing state versus local conflict in the
determination of influence on planning decisions (Wright, 2001).
These characteristics provide
fertile ground in any attempt to analyse competing power positions. There are a number of distinct stakeholders
involved, their backgrounds are grounded in political philosophy and practice
and there is currently no clear consensus on the location of power in the local
planning process. Furthermore local
planners are participant observers of the process and are well positioned to
reflect on their participation and influence in planning outcomes.
Research Methodology
There are 144 local
authorities in
To obtain a suitable sample
of views to represent planners operating in the local planning system a range
of selection criteria were identified and applied to the research process:
1. That all local authorities with professional
planning staff would be included in the sample.
2. That where local authorities had a planning
staff equal to or greater than five, two respondents would be sought from the
local authority. (This was applied to ensure a suitable balance between
metropolitan and non metropolitan planning activity)
3. That the most senior,
exclusively planning, staff within an organisation would be targetted
for a response.
When applied, these criteria
produced a sample of 69 senior local planners operating in all parts of Western
Australia, involved in the full spectrum of planning work and facing all of the
challenges of fluid and contested power relations in the planning and
development process.
The Survey
The aim of the survey was to
identify the power relations local planners perceive as part of their working
environment with a particular emphasis on the power of planners and the manner
in which
this power is exercised. The issue of perception is vital to the scope
of this paper. The research is not
intended to be an attempt to objectively or quantitatively measure power or
power relations within the planning system but rather to uncover the perception
of power as interpreted by one stakeholder in the planning process; local
planners.
The survey sought to identify
local planners perception of:
• The relative power of the
key stakeholders in the local planning process
• The manner and medium by which
local planners exercise their influence
• The personal qualities or
abilities that are used in exercising influence
• The source of power used in
the course of exercising influence
The Results
Of the 69 questionnaires sent
out 43 were returned representing a response rate of 62%. 66% of respondents
were responsible for the management of planning responsibilities within their
local authority and the remaining 34% were senior officer level positions
reporting to a manager (usually a planning manager but in country local
authorities often the Council's CEO).
Initially the questionnaire
sought to understand the perception of planners of the relative power of key
stakeholders in the planning process; developers, local planners, the
community, councilors and the State Ministry for
Planning. Respondents were required to
rank their assessment of the level of influence of the stakeholders from 5
(most powerful player) to 1 (least powerful player). The results for each player were summed to
reveal a indicator of power relative to others (see figure 1).
Councilors and planners were considered the most influential players followed by developers and the community. The State Ministry was rated as the least influential stakeholder in the local planning process. The position of councilors is probably fairly predictable given their executive role in the local planning process. More surprisingly is the position of planners. It must be remembered that it was local planners forming the judgement on their own influence (unlike other stakeholders) and it could be cynically argued that this is no more than a rationalisation of self worth. However in any balanced assessment the result can not be so easily dismissed and if nothing else it provides a sound basis to further investigate the context behind this perceived influence.
The position of developers in
the ranking is significant but hardly 'overpowering'. Developers have long been seen as the central
drivers of development outcomes given their role in initiating,
financing and implementing development
proposals. However there is also no
doubt that as each year goes by the range of planning controls applied to
development becomes more extensive and more detailed. In
The influence of the
community fell slightly below councilors and planners
but it is worth noting that many commentators have noted a distinct uneveness in community influence on planning decisions (see
Parkin, 1982, McLoughlin, 1992,
Alexander and Hedgcock, 2001). The findings of this literature point to
urban based, gentrified communities as the power base of community influence
and it should be remembered that respondents in this questionnaire represent
the full spectrum of communities in Western Australia that make use of
professional planning advice.
The perception of the power
of the State Ministry for Planning is significantly lower than the other
players. Traditionally this agency has
been the source of planning power dominating the Western Australian planning
system well into the 1970s. However
there is no doubt that as professional planning expertise has flowed into local
government the almost monopoly like power of this agency has been significantly
reduced (
winning the planning battles
against agencies relying on technocratic decision making. This does not mean that the State has lost
influence in the broader planning system but rather it has reduced its
influence in the local planning system.
Given that planners believe
they exert considerable influence on planning outcomes the remaining questions
sought to identify the source, application and nature of that influence. The first step in this process was to
determine what they perceived to be the medium of their contribution to
planning outcomes vis a vis other players in the planning process.
A range of options were identified
which included traditional bureaucratic approaches such as; 'the application of
TPS controls' or 'the speedy processing of development applications' through
more professional imperatives like 'the preparation of plans /policies' or 'the
articulation of planning arguments'.
Also included were more communicative perspectives such as 'the
incorporation of
community views into
development outcomes' or the more generic; 'communication of planning
ideas'. Respondents were asked to
identify their top three responses and were then required to prioritise
these. The results are presented in
Figure 2.
There are four stand out
responses but these can be understood through two quite distinct
approaches. One the one hand are the
preparation of plans and policies coupled with the
application of town planning
scheme controls which together account for 38% of revealed choices. Such a technocratic approach (the
professional as expert) is well balanced by the other pair of dominant
responses; the incorporation of community views in development outcomes and the
communication of planning ideas which together account for a further 36% of
respondents choices. While these four
responses also dominate the priority responses, only two move to predominate
the distribution; the preparation of plans and policies and the incorporation
of community views into development outcomes.
There is a clear duality in
interpreting these results. On the one
hand are those responses that identify core planning mechanisms such as the
preparation and application of plans and policies. This is the professional milieu of the
planner circumscribed by its particular vocabulary, processes and traditions. It is an 'exclusive understanding' of the
local planning system where power is exercised through drafting complex control
mechanisms that are then interpreted as part of the process of development
control. It is a classic technocratic,
'professional as expert' approach to understanding the operation of the
planning system. By contrast the other
pair of responses; the incorporation of community views into development
outcomes and the communication of planning ideas is far more inclusive. It recognises that the power of the planner
is predicated on their ability to read the community view and more generally to
see the role of the planner as communicating ideas on planning issues to a
wider group of stakeholders.
The questionnaire then sought
to identify a further key to understanding the application of influence;
ability. That is the range of personal
abilities and resources that planners call upon in conducting the planning
task. In the contested environment of
agency decision making, what are the qualities that the planners bring to the
table and what does this say about their understanding and participation in
planning debate? Further it raises the
issue of the manner in which planners exert their influence whether this be by
professional assertion, delegated authority, political association or some other
mechanism of power sharing.
The question attempted to
reveal the vocabulary of influence; the resources that planners call upon
in asserting their power and
influence in the local planning process.
Is it their knowledge of process that determines their effectiveness or
rather is it their superior knowledge of planning issues and principles? Alternatively is it their knowledge of
community views and values that they take into deliberations on development or
is it something far more generic; their ability to communicate
effectively? Respondents were required
to initially identify their three most important responses and then to
prioritise them.
In the frequency of responses
four abilities stand out. First and foremost
is the issue of effective communication.
Well behind this response is a cluster of three; understanding of
planning and development issues, knowledge of planning processes and knowledge
of planning principles. When forced to
prioritise, two of the responses are elevated in significance; effective
communication and the understanding of planning and development issues while
the other two; knowledge of planning processes and principles drop away.
The low importance and
priority attached to planning principles and processes is significant in
relation to the changing role and character of the profession. These are clearly specific knowledge and
skill areas that one would expect planners to hold some exclusive domain over
compared with other stakeholders in the planning process. It is interesting also that the more generic
'understanding of planning and development issues' was prioritised above the
more core planning competencies. But of
most importance is the predominance of communication as the skill that is
perceived as the most empowering quality that planners can apply in the
planning agenda. This certainly
reinforces the notion of a 'communicative turn' in planning and reveals the
changing nature of the planning task. As
stakeholders in the process have increased, along with their legitimacy and as
the postmodern turn has undermined the status of
expert or professional opinion so it appears that it is not 'what you know' but
rather 'how you communicate it' that has become the medium for influence within
the local planning process.
A final question asked local
planners to reflect on the qualities that they felt underpinned their influence
in the planning system. This question
sought some direction as to whether the power they perceived they exercised was
due to such factors as:
• the statutory authority of the local planning system
• their professional knowledge and skill base
• their own personal qualities of persuasion, assertion
etc.
• their knowledge and understanding of local politics
or • their ability to analyse and synthesise complex and
contested arguments
These potential responses
deliberately posed a range of positions that might distinguish between various
avenues of influence. The range of
initial results and priority responses are shown in figure 4.
Three responses stand out;
personal qualities, the professional knowledge and skill base and the ability
to analyse contested arguments. All
these responses are fairly even (22% - 23%) and can be seen as being related
back to the planners individual abilities; abilities that may be innate,
formally taught, informally
absorbed or some combination of such positions.
This contrasts with the other two responses where influence is more the
outcome of political association or delegated authority as opposed to any
individual qualities. The importance of
the 'power within' is further reinforced in the priority ranking of the
responses which sees personal qualities come to dominate the distribution with
the ability to analyse contested arguments the only other response to figure
with any significance.
Educational Implications
The findings of the survey
raise a number of important implications of relevance to the education of
planners.
1. The need for generalised and broad course
content to encompass the vocabulary and arguments required to debate and
discuss planning and development issues occurring at a local government level.
2. Planning principles and processes (as the
exclusive domain of the planner) appear to be losing their influence in local
planning debates. Planning courses in
3. The development of generic
skills (communication, literacy, problem solving etc.) are widely seen as the
basis for exercising influence in the local planning system. While these have long been recognised and
articulated by employers (see Hedgcock, 1989; Stubbs
& Keeping, 2002) the opportunity to better integrate them into course
content should be addressed.
4. The generic skills and range of generalised
knowledge required by planners demand innovative approaches to course delivery
and content. The ability to integrate
diverse knowledge, apply this knowledge to particular cases and to skillfully present such material in a contested forum
should be an educational outcome of planning courses. How to teach (or inculcate) such knowledge
and skills is a challenge that needs to
be met.
5. Given the fragmentation of
power and the shifting terrain of power relations in local government student
planners need to be knowledgeable of this central context of their operating
environment. While planning theory
courses have the opportunity to 'background' such issues there is need to
relate such theory to operational practices and strategies for engagement in
the power debate.
6. Finally, the education process, in its
broadest sense, does provide opportunities to build personal qualities such as
self confidence, assertivness and sensitivity. Such qualities are clearly regarded as being
central to the effective performance of local planners and the formative
experience of tertiary education environment is potentially an excellent medium
to reinforce and consolidate these 'life skills'.
Conclusion
This paper has reported on
research into the local planning environment in
The most significant (and
surprising) finding was that local planners saw themselves as powerful and
influential players in the local planning process. In reflecting on the basis of the power of
their position they highlighted the significance of a generalised and broad
knowledge base and their ability to effectively communicate this material
within the context of local planning debates.
Such knowledge and abilities the respondents saw as being under pinned
by their own personal attributes; self confidence, assertivness
etc. In themselves such findings may be
seen as predictable but they do reinforce the growing view of planning as a
communicative, collaborative and argumentative activity that is rapidly moving
away from professing any particular or sectoral
knowledge and skill
base. This obviously has implications
for the way we train planners and circumscribe a number of educational
challenges that planning courses will be
required to address in the coming years.
References
Abbot J. and Minnery J. (2000) Linking Theory and Practice, Proceedings
of the First Royal Australian Planning Institute National Workshop on Planning
Theory, Brisbane.
Berry C. (1992) The Evolution
of Local Planning In Perth In Hedgock D. and Yiftachel O. (eds) Urban and
Regional Planning In Western Australia: Historical and Critical Perspectives,
Paradigm Press, Perth.
Clegg S. (1989) Frameworks of
Power, Sage,
Forrester J. (1989) Planning
in the face of Power,
Hamnett S. & Freestone R. (eds)
(1999) The Australian Metropolis; A Planning History, Allen and Unwin,
Hedgcock D. and Yiftachel O. (eds) (1992) Urban and Regional Planning In Western
Australia: Historical and Critical Perspectives, Paradigm Press,
Hedgcock D. (1989) Future Educational Demands: The Perceptions
of the Planning Profession in
Hillier J. (2000) Going Round
the Back? Complex Networks, Informal Action In Local Planning Processes
Environment and Planning A, 34: 33 - 54.
Kitchen T. (1991) A Client
Based View of the Planning service in Healey P. and Thomas M. (eds) Dilemmas In Planning Practice: Ethics, Legitimacy and
the validation of Knowledge, Avebury,
McLoughlin B. (1992) Shaping
Parkin A. (1982) Governing the Cities; The Australian
Experience in Perspective, Macmillan,
Stubbs M. & Keeping M.
(2002) Course Content and Employability Skills in Vocational Degrees:
Reflections for Town Planning Course Content, Planning Practice and Research
Vol 17, No. 2.
Thomas H. (1991) Professionalism,
Power and Planners in Healey P. and Thomas M. (eds)
Dilemmas In Planning Practice: Ethics, Legitimacy and the validation of
Knowledge, Avebury,
Wright B. (2001) Expectations
of a Better World. Planning Australian
Communities, RAPI,
‘Plan
to Plan’: Promoting the practice of
planning
Jenny Dixon and Elizabeth Aitken Rose
Planning issues appear in the public domain on a daily basis in most major and community newspapers. Yet in the public mind the connection between the planning profession and these issues is weak. For many the planning profession does not exist, and for those that are aware of it, the image is often negative. The lack of fit between planning issues and planners makes it difficult for educators to promote planning as a worthwhile career and an academic discipline.
Changing perspectives of what
a planning education, and so the role of the planner, have been provided by
authors such as Perloff (1957), Cherry (1974),
Rodriguez-Bachiller (1988), and Sandercock
(1998). What is significant here is not the content of an ideal planning
curriculum but the extent to which planning education is influenced by the
demands of practice and institutional contexts, at particular points of time.
Requirements of statutory mandates, legal formalism and changing views of the
role of the state all combine to create environments that continually reshape
planning and its practice. All this contributes to the difficulty of capturing
the essence of planning; and in turn it highlights the need for the profession,
both practitioners and educators, to more systematically plan the promotion of
planning.
This paper is presented in
three parts. First, we reflect on difficulties we have encountered in promoting
planning as a discipline and propose some possible explanations. Second, we
explore initiatives taken by the Department of Planning at the
Promoting our profile:
what is planning?
The breadth of planning and
its multi-disciplinary nature has meant that it has always been hard to define
planning, particularly beyond the traditional development control and
plan-making roles. More recently, the fuzziness around the edges has been
brought under increasing scrutiny by the advent of the neo-liberal agenda
implemented by western governments in the last decade or so. Planning tasks
have been reframed in line with managerial principles of efficiency,
transparency, and accountability. The institutional separation of policy and
implementation roles undermines the tradition of generalist planning. There is
concern that development control is seen as a negative and technically limiting
exercise and is resulting in deskilling of the profession (Hall, 1997; Poxon, 2001). Hall refers to the routinisation
of planning as a consequence of the plan-related system narrowing the planning
horizon: interesting and creative jobs are taken elsewhere. He also cites a
decline in the size and influence of senior planners within the now
restructured Department of Environment (1996, 136). Certainly some councils in
Along with these changes,
there has been a proliferation of environmentally oriented degrees offered in
universities with various labels, such as environmental studies, resource
management, and so forth. While this creates choice and flexibility for both
students and employers, it has, in turn, exacerbated issues of identity for
planners and challenged their professional expertise as others take up jobs
traditionally occupied by planners. Further, diversity across planning programmes can similarly engender increasingly diverse
perspectives about what planners do. Planning education offered to
Disciplinary boundaries can,
of course, always be contested. The view that ‘anyone can plan’ was strongly
present in the heyday of the neo-liberal regime as professional planning institutes
came under challenge as being exclusionary and narrow. In response, institutes
have reviewed, or are in the process of reviewing (perhaps even for another
round), membership and educational policies. An alternative strategy is to
forget about defining boundaries and be inclusive of everyone who considers
himself or herself a planner, no longer concerned with what qualifications are
acceptable or whether planning constitutes a profession. None-the-less, the
central issue of what lies at the heart of this thing called planning remains.
The resulting uncertainties
about the nature of planning and its contribution have been evident within the
profession, let alone outside. New Zealand Planning Institute (NZPI) membership
interviews conducted over recent years, especially with newer graduates, have
revealed the consequences of ideologically driven restructuring, particularly
within local government (
The Royal Town Planning
Institute, for example, in response to the challenges and uncertainties faced
by the profession, is undertaking a major review of all its activities,
including its education policy. It is perhaps of concern that the British
Government is taking a close interest in the outcomes of the Education
Commission as it reforms the British planning system in an attempt to
streamline and speed up processing of applications (see DTLR, 2001; Office of
the Deputy Prime Minister, 2002). The Government is implicitly critical of the
type of education and training that planners receive and is clearly
anticipating that the RTPI is going to significantly change its education
policies. This view conveniently assumes that planners are largely responsible
for administrative delays. It misrepresents the role of the planner and
underestimates the influence of an increasingly complex set of institutional
arrangements that contribute to the “messy world of planning practice” (Poxon, 2001, 573).
If there is uncertainty within
the profession and government about our roles, it is hardly surprising that
planning does not have a high positive public profile, particularly in these
days of public relations branding and 20 second sound-bytes. Moreover,
increasing diversification and specialization, while to be encouraged in
broadening career opportunities for planners, suggests even less clarity about
the roles of the planner in the immediate future. Of course, some might argue,
for example, that a renewed focus on cities and quality of life issues suggests
a return to the early concerns of planning. However, the pace of change is
likely to accelerate, marked by ever changing shifts in relationships across
stakeholder groups in the public and private sectors that will form and reform
alliances depending on the issues of the day (Dixon, 2001). A new form of
professionalism will be required whereby planners work alongside professionals
from other disciplines in a much more contested and less certain environment
(Evans and Rydin, 1997). A critical challenge will be to retain our
relevance as planners in an increasingly diverse and pluralistic institutional
context. This will demand renewed professional confidence on the part of
planners about the knowledge and skills that they can contribute to addressing
increasingly complex problems which require multi-disciplinary solutions.
Thus, “what is planning” is a
thorny issue and will not go away. Indeed it has been a long-standing one. Wildavsky identified this problem in 1973 when he discussed
the difficulties of describing what planners do. It underpins much professional
uncertainty and probably accounts for our low public profile. Indeed, it is
likely to become increasingly problematic as more multi-disciplinary
collaboration takes place and as professional institutes broaden their
membership base beyond the traditional areas of town and country planning and,
recently, resource management to embrace a generic view of planning. Whatever
one’s view of planning, the need to be clear about its nature and
distinctiveness becomes even more critical if we believe that planning is a
worthwhile endeavor.
At
a creative process used by communities to shape their
futures. It is concerned with improving the quality of people’s lives, the wise
management of resources, and the protection and enhancement of the environment.
Planning is about cities, regions, small towns and rural areas.
Planning links sectors such as housing,
transportation, health, education, shopping and work. It is about improving
public decision making to meet people’s diverse needs and it is about building
sustainable innovative communities in a robust physical environment.
Promoting
planning: Some Auckland
One particular difficulty that
we have encountered at the
We consider that the creative
and futurist dimension of planning can be used imaginatively to counter
negative, bureaucratic images of what planners do. Some examples of how we have
attempted to engage with potential students and promote our profile in the
broader community are as follows:
Promotional activities
Student profiles
Working with our public
relations firm, “good news” stories are written about the working lives of some
of our graduates. These are circulated as press releases, along with photos, to
daily and suburban newspapers. The purpose of these stories is to inform
potential students and their families about the diverse range of work current
students and planning graduates can undertake. Examples include:
- ‘Perfect mix of study and sport’ (The Dominion,
- ‘Giving youth a voice’ (
- ‘Refugee contacts give insight to planning
issues’ (
Career education
‘Plan Your Future’, a short
and snappy power point presentation has been prepared to take along to careers
evenings, school visits and talk with teachers and careers counsellors.
It was inspired by our student recruitment office who wanted help with how to
talk about planning to high school students.
Video presentation
Fortuitously, a Communications
Studies student approached us with an offer to make a short film ‘Plan to Plan’ to attract the interest of
senior school students in planning as a degree course and as a career. The video
focused on a sustainable development studio course and the positive affect this
has on
Student action in the community
The
- ‘Pupils paint the future’ (New Zealand Herald,
- ‘Wanted: an Otara magic
garden’ (Manukau Courier,
- ‘Students Create their Own Edible Schools’ (Soil and Health, January/February
2001).
The establishment of a faculty
worm farm, located on the roof of our building, resulted in
- ‘‘Heavenly’ worm farm has top view’ (Auckland City Harbour
News,
Media Commentaries
Impromptu comments
From time to time, the Department is invited to comment on topical
issues to the press (usually at
- ‘Grand plans
put suburb down by sea‘, New Zealand
Herald
Television and Radio Interviews and Debates
Staff are approached to appear
in television programmes investigating issues, such
as Assignment. A recent example of such a discussion is:
- Studio 12:
Housing Density in
They also participate in radio
documentaries, such as:
Newspaper commentaries
The New Zealand Herald
publishes opinion pieces in a column called Dialogue.
We have had successes with several pieces submitted by staff on topics such as
coastal management of the
- ‘Don’t judge Hauraki
Act by One Unfortunate Experience’, New
Zealand Herald
- ‘New Types of Cities Could Arise from Ashes of
- ‘The Bill Birch Report- A New Christmas Carol’,
- ‘
Curriculum Development
Working with teachers
We reported on this activity
in some detail at ANZAPS 2001 (Fookes,
Bursary day
This builds on the seminar for
teachers last year. We decided that, rather than running another session for
teachers, we needed to target students directly in some way to engage their
interest in planning and bring them onto campus. Thus, we are holding a
half-day session for 7th form (final year high school) geography students to
assist their preparation for the planning question in the bursary examination
paper, worth 50% of the mark. The session will focus on a mock question which
students will be guided through by various staff. We have engaged an
experienced geography teacher as our project manager and have received such an
overwhelming response from schools that we are holding two further sessions,
catering for up to 400 students and their teachers.
Networking with the Profession
Networking with our profession
is an important part of our business. And we do this through a range of
activities such as sitting as advisors on council committees, assisting with
the editing of Planning Quarterly, participating in CPD events, and so on.
Presentation of student work
An event held each year worthy
of specific mention is the annual presentation of student work to the
profession. It is a highlight on our annual calendar. Planners are invited in
for an early evening function that is organised by
the students. The evening serves a useful function for informing the profession
about the work students are undertaking in their senior years. It is becoming a
place where practitioners search out students for employment.
Links with alumni
We have begun to formalise contacts already in place between staff and students
by holding wine and cheese evenings that also serve as a form of class reunion.
All of these efforts in the
promotion of our discipline take considerable time and effort and divert us
from other academic tasks. Participation in university events such as ‘Courses
and Careers Day’ make additional demands. As a consequence, although untrained
in this area, we are developing public relations skills along with a range of
promotional material. It is, however, difficult to discern the effectiveness of
these activities in raising the profile of planning or in generating greater
school leaver interest.
Promoting
the practice of planning: A professional task for us all
Last year, we commented on the
difficulties facing
We argue that the profession
needs to take more responsibility in articulating what it does to the wider
community in order to attract and sustain high calibre
people to the profession. It is very much in the interests of the profession
itself to ensure that the quality of the profession is sufficiently robust and
self confident to manage the demands that lie ahead as planning tasks become
more complex and demanding. In turn, this should have flow on effects in
relation to status, salaries and career prospects. An example of new
opportunities for planners in
However, achieving a higher
profile requires planners to become much more proactive in commenting publicly
on issues and to take positions. We appreciate that it is often difficult to be
heard in the media unless there is something provocative to be said. While this
may be an uncomfortable role for some, it forms part of our “coming of age” as
a profession. In this respect, the NZPI’s position on
commenting only on national issues has to be re-examined. The rationale for
this position has been that to comment on local and regional issues may cut
across some member’s activities. It may also be bound up with views that
professionals should not criticise each other in
public fora. Whatever the historical reasons, it is
time for planners to act much more boldly, to take risks, challenge poorly
conceived proposals or policies, and become less driven by pragmatism. This
should assist in making more public the connection between planning issues and
the profession, and making the wider community more aware of what planners do.
It would also assist in dispelling negative images about planning.
Similarly, universities need
to strengthen their roles as critic and conscience of society informed by
research and practice, thereby enhancing its collective intellectual contribution
to the formation of a coherent image of the discipline. This means taking
advantage of opportunities, or creating them if they are not there, to get
views out to the wider public, beyond academic publications. In times of
pressed resources and the need to set research-driven priorities, this can seem
a burden. However, we also need to be seen to be relevant to the broader
community at large, in order to maintain and enhance our profile. While it can
seem an effort to take the time to write an opinion piece, we have been
heartened to receive calls from the general public, following publication of
our views in the local newspaper.
Finally, one issue for both
professionals and educators is a need to bring research, theory and practice
closer together. Currently, the profession is not largely research-oriented
while its theoretical bases often seem missing in action. In a similar vein,
educators need to reflect on the purpose of their roles as educators and
researchers and how they might enhance practice and the profile of planning.
Closer collaboration might then bring resolution of what is planning a step
closer. The profession faces many new challenges ahead in relation to the way
it operates and to the expertise it offers ((Evans and Rydin,
1997). This issue is similarly important in shaping the future of planning
education as identified in some key questions posed by Poxon
(2001). There is therefore considerable
danger in our sound byte culture that Wildavsky’s
1973 view ‘If Planning is Everything Maybe it’s Nothing’ will return to haunt
us.
We know defining planning is a
perennial problem but are inclined to gloss over the theoretical and pass onto
something else immediate or concrete. Our penchant for pragmatism is too
obvious. What we need to do is to apply pragmatic energy to the theoretical
issue of definition for therein lies the resolution of our identity as
practitioners, and in turn, how we present our profession to others. It is time
for us to take charge of our discipline and define what we do.
References
Aitken Rose, E. 2001. ‘Paper,
Scissors, Rock: Learning from the Schoolyard’. Paper presented to the 2001
Australian and New Zealand Planning Schools Conference,
Cherry, G. 1974. The Evolution of
Department of Transport, Local
Government and the Regions. 2001. Green
Paper for
Evans, B and Rydin, Y. 1997. ‘Planning, Professionalism and
Sustainability’, in A. Blowers and B. Evans (eds), Town Planning in the 21st Century, Routledge,
Faculty of Architecture,
Property, Planning and Fine Arts. 2002. Undergraduate Prospectus. FAPPFA,
Fookes, T,
Hall, P. 1997. ‘The View from
the London Centre’, in A. Blowers and B. Evans (eds),
Town Planning in the 21st Century, Routledge,
Perloff. H.S. 1957. Education for Planning: City, State and
Regional.
Poxon, J. 2001. ‘Shaping
the Planning Profession of the Future: the role of planning education’, Environment and Planning B, 28, pp.
563-580.
Prescott, J. 2002. Statement
to the House of Commons by the Deputy Prime Minister. Sustainable Communities-
Delivering through Planning.
Rodriguez-Bachiller,
A. 1988. Town Planning Education. An
international survey. Avebury,
Sandercock, L. 1998. Towards Cosmopolis:
planning for multicultural cities. John Wiley,
Wildavsky, A. 1973. ‘If Planning
is Everything Maybe it’s Nothing’, Policy
Sciences 4 (2) 127-15
Peter
Phibbs, Nicole Gurran and
Megan Mead
Bridging the
gap between the theory and practice of a discipline is a perennial challenge
for educators. This is particularly so
for professional fields like planning, where there is considerable pressure
from industry bodies to ensure that graduates are equipped with specific
technical knowledge and skills for the workplace. In this paper, initiatives to reconnect
planning theory and practice are discussed with reference to a recent survey of
employers and planning graduates, undertaken in October 2001. The main aim of the survey was to identify
strengths and weaknesses of the urban and regional planning program taught at
the
Introduction
In delivering a professional planning program such as planning, educators need to strike a balance between a number of conflicting demands. These demands include:
· The requirements of the professional association;
· The needs of the employers- the profession;
· The views of the educators/researchers and about the intellectual tools and skills required by students to succeed in their profession
· The views of students and ex-students about the nature of their education.
In the case of planning education combining these views can be a challenging task. In some cases the conflict between the practitioners view of planning education and the educators view can lead to reasonably sharp conflict between the two groups. Grant provides a reasonable summary of the different positions:
``... practitioners
misunderstand both the function of universities and the character of
their own profession if they
assume that new graduates should be equipped with all
the skills to be able to walk
straight in to day-to-day practice. It is the duty of
universities to educate their
students, not to produce fully-trained planners, and not
to provide free training for
the professions. It is their primary duty to enhance the
intellectual and reflective
capacity of their students, and to develop their analytical
and critical skills and to
develop their capacity for further development'' (1999,
page 7).
The comments in this paper are made in the context of a
curriculum review that is currently taking place at the
What do planners
need to know?
This issue has been taken up by a number of recent
surveys. Ozawa and Seltzer (1999) undertook a survey of recent graduates in the
Zehner (2002) undertook a survey in 1996 which asked practising planners in Australian about what skills/subjects they used in their jobs. The survey used a predetermined list of 33 skills/subjects and planners were asked to identify those that they used regularly. Table 1 summarises the results in terms of state government, local government or private agencies categories. The shaded portion of the table indicates skills/subjects that over half the respondents identified as skills/content they used regularly.
Whilst some of the results of the Zehner survey are probably dated (e.g. Netscape/Internet access) the results of the survey provide some indication of what issues planners are dealing with in their workplaces.
Poxon (2001) reports the results
of focus group research with recent graduates and senior planners in the
“The overriding message
actually to come from both of the graduate groups was that it was not necessarily the detailed
subject matter of planning courses that should be of concern in a planning
education, although they were evidently not suggesting that this was
irrelevant. They were, rather, placing an emphasis on the education which was
provided in a particular way of critical thinking and evaluation and they were
reflecting that this had been, and was likely to be, of most value to them in
their working lives “(p 571).
The survey work undertaken by us is much less comprehensive than the work of Zehner or Ozawa and Seltzer. However, our approach is different in that we attempt to ask our recent graduates and employers what particular issues in the workplace that our course did not prepare students for and to ask employers a similar question.
In the case of ex-students the key question is:
“With respect to your planning
career, what “qualities/skills” or “professional
competencies” that you think are
needed were not provided by your planning education at the
In the case of the employers the key questions is:
What skills do you think are
required by planners that are not provided by educational
institutions?”
Table 1 – What planners use in their jobs: A survey of NSW Planners
|
|
Private |
Local Gov |
. State Gov |
|
Planning law |
85 |
94 |
71 |
|
Development
controls/statutory plan |
82 |
90 |
66 |
|
Participation techniques/comm. liaison |
76 |
90 |
72 |
|
Administration
(general) |
84 |
80 |
80 |
|
Strategic planning |
74 |
75 |
77 |
|
Negotiation/conflict
resolution |
53 |
85 |
74 |
|
Communication techniques |
66 |
73 |
67 |
|
Environmental management |
68 |
68 |
59 |
|
Briefing/debriefing
consultants |
68 |
63 |
64 |
|
Heritage/conservation |
47 |
74 |
39 |
|
Environmental Impact
Assessment |
66 |
56 |
47 |
|
Staff
management/development |
55 |
53 |
61 |
|
Planning theory |
50 |
56 |
51 |
|
Neighbourhood/community/urban design |
52 |
59 |
37 |
|
Sustainable development |
43 |
51 |
62 |
|
Traffic/transport
planning |
50 |
53 |
52 |
|
Costing budgeting |
67 |
42 |
54 |
|
Architectural design |
45 |
58 |
26 |
|
Social planning |
43 |
41 |
44 |