SHAPING A REGIONAL VISION: THE CASE OF NORTHERN IRELAND by Malachy McEldowney & Ken Sterret
From: Local Economy, 2001, Vol 16, No.1. (Published by Pearson Education)
A new model of participation therefore needed, firstly, to be `proactive' in reaching out and harnessing the energies and creativity of the widest range of people and interests. Planning, particularly strategic planning, was about shaping the future and should not be the exclusive domain of land developers, property owners and technocrats. Those groups representing women, the elderly, young people and ethnic minorities, who, although active in other sectors, were not normally represented in planning processes needed to see the relevance and potential of strategic plan-making.
Secondly, given the range of possible interests, there was a need to recognize the validity of different `discourses' - what are sometimes referred to as different `language games' (Healey, 1997). Environmentalists, business groups and place-based communities had diverse priorities and often employed different rationales. A new approach to participation would seek to promote and encourage dialogue among these different interests in a way that offered the developed of more informed mutual understandings, and generated a creativity from the cross-fertilisation of ideas. While allowing for the identification and nurturing of consensual views, such a dialogic process was also designed to highlight the areas of contention (Research Consortium, 1997). In this respect, it was acknowledged that planning was also about contested space, and its use and exchange value. Sometimes, the public interest is not determinable, simply because there are many publics. It was recognized therefore, that consultation should not be reduced to managing conflict in a way that contrived a false conviviality about key disputes.
In short, the process was designed to facilitate the optimal consensus about underpinning values and objectives, while simultaneously recognizing the sometimes-irreconcilable views of different `voices'. Focusing on values, principles and visioning the future also offered a way of lifting the discussion about the often locality-based and development-based interests of many groups. In other words the process deliberately attempted to move participation beyond the articulation of `wish lists'.
Notes
1The School of Environmental Planning, Queen's University Belfast and the Urban Institute of the University of Ulster.
2Community Technical Aid (CTA) and the Rural Community Network (RCN)
3Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, HMSO
References
DoE(NI) (1997) Shaping our Future - A Discussion Paper (DoE (NI), Belfast
Healey, P. (1992) Planning through Debate - the Communicative Turn in Planning Theory, Town Planning Review Vol. 63 No.2
Healey, P. (1996) The Communicative Turn in Spatial Planning Theory and its Implications for Spatial Strategy Formulation Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 23 pp. 217-234.
Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning - Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies MacMillan, London.
Forester, J. (1989) Planning in the Face of Power University of California Press, Berkeley, Ca.
Research Consortium (1997) Shaping our Future - Public Consultation Stationery
Office, Belfast. |
