Conflicted Planning

The Reading: Planning in the Face of Conflict by John Forester

Continuing with the current theme of social planning, this week’s reading form John Forester informs the ideas about the inevitability of conflict within professional planning. Forester was a pioneering theorist behind participatory planning and planning activism. It is no doubt that these ideas run into conflict as the planner assumes many different roles not specifically related to planning. However, Forester explains, as have Paul Davidoff and Sherry Arnstein, that for planners to exist outside the studio, their interactions with the public and developers will lead to discussions, activism and eventually conflict.

The reading primarily examines land-use conflicts. These range from issues surrounding zoning, which often determines the scale of developments, as well as subdivisions and special permits. Often the planner can get caught in the crossfire; working for the developer while attempting to represent the needs of the people. It seems like a big game of tug-o-war with the planner as the rope. Within these conflicts, Forester says it is common for the planner to assume to role of the mediator or negotiator. They must reach a mutual understanding between developers and residents which achieves the minimum objectives of all interested parties, including municipal governments. Sometimes there is not always an even compromise, and Forester makes the astute observation that a municipal government may approve a project whereby the economic benefits outweigh community concern. 

This is where language becomes important. While planners, developers and government representatives may speak the same professional language, it might all seem like jargon when discussed at a community consultation night. Again, Foresters links this with tension and conflict, as planners can estimate the problems developers or government might have with a project, but every resident might have a different issue which needs to be discussed individually. Tim and Jian made an interesting point in their presentation that the rules regarding consultations are often pretty loose and can differ from state to state. I looked on the ACTPLA website to find out their requirements, some of which are statutory (legally binding), while others seems to be done purely out of consideration. The following have statutory consultation requirements:

·         Some development applications

o   Residential developments higher than three storeys and more than 50 units

o   A building with a total floor space of more than 7000 square metres

o   A building or structure intended to be higher than 25 metres

o   Applications to change concessional leases into leases that are not concessional leases.

·         Environmental Impact Statements

·         Territory Plan variations including Structure and Concept Plans for future urban areas

·         Road openings and closings.

Richard then posed a question to the class regarding whether we had ever participated in any consultation events. I had intended to go to a meeting regarding the Light Rail debate last semester but I kept forgetting/never got around to going. However, as Richard stated, a lack of participation represents the failure of planners and the government to engage the community. While I would like to think I am engaged, it’s hard to say that’s actually true if I never participate in planning dialogue. Maybe I lack the motivation, or maybe it’s because I don’t think one opinion can have a large impact, but as I have mentioned in previous blogs, if I’m not voicing my opinion, who are government listening to? Who takes my place in community discussions and do they really represent me?