Who is Involved?

The idea of communicative planning has been touched upon in previous blog posts, and was further explored this week through discussion about various stakeholders in the planning process. As planning has progressed from a physical exercise in which plans were perscribed, involvement of stakeholders has become an essential part of the profession.

Examples of Stakeholders- residents, Government, business owners, users of public transport
Sources: Golden Acts 2012, Logopedia 2012, SMH 2008, Waikato Regional Council 2011 

Various levels of participation were identified, ranging from the provision of information (not truly a form of participation) right through to supporting independent stakeholder groups to enable them to take action. Each of the levels posess benefits and negatives, and are suited to different situations.

The idea of involving stakeholders as much as possible in the planning process is noble, however, challenges are often faced in reality. When talking to those in the profession, a common complaint I've come across is that public consultation events are organised but often have few attendants. This leads to feelings of wasted time by the organisers, and often results in complaints by stakeholders when planning action occurs as they state they haven't been consulted. This is an inefficient outcome, and frustrating for all parties involved.

It's likely that communities with higher levels of social capital are more inclined to have higher participation rates in planning decisions, as social capital is linked to sense of pride and interest in the community. This presents a catch 22 situation though, because often the proposed plans that are under consultation outline measures that will lead to increased social capital.

An interesting idea brought up in class was that of workshops organised and planned by students in Japan. Perhaps the introduction of such measures in Australia would be helpful. Residents may feel less intimidated by students, and more likely to attend consultation events. There is also the added bonus of creating links between universities and the local community.

What kind of Plans?

This week's class explored the hierarchy of plans related to the ACT, and they way in which they interact to provide our current planning framework.

As would be expected, the documents at the top of the hierarchy provide a general vision, and less specific detail. The subsequent plans provide further detail specific to certain areas, that must comply with and build upon the ideas outlined in these guiding documents. 

It can be seen that there are many different plans related to the area, each with a different style and purpose. Whilst having so many different plans serves a purpose, it must be ensured that they are all integrated without having repetitive information.

The presence of different layers of planning also has the potential to cause conflict. This is particularly apparent in Canberra, which has the added agency, The National Capital Authority responsible for areas considered of importance to the city as a Capital (Parliamentary zone, Lake Burley Griffin etc). This inevitably has the potential not only to cause overlap within planning documents, but conflict between the NCA and other planning bodies. Such fragmentation causes delays and inefficiency, so the integration and constant review of planning documents is essential to ensure effectiveness of the system. Bodies such as COAG are instrumental in undertaking such activities.

Welcome Back for 2012

After a break over the summer holidays, it's time to get back to blogging as part of the second Planning Theory and Process unit. Enjoy, and feel free to leave comments!