THE PROBLEM OF ‘PLANNING’

The proposition is that this it shouldn’t be called ‘Planning’ because this profession has no overall plan, merely a set of malleable possibilities; we should call it ‘Development Management.’ We couldn’t be worse off without planners because there is no plan being implemented; there is no vision being achieved, just a random application of sundry ‘maybes/should-bes’ that get negotiated for each project. If we had a plan, we would know that the future of our city was in control.

As it is, we have a flexibly ambiguous set of rules and conditions that can be traded/modified/adapted by wheeling and dealing to get the conglomerate clutter that we see as cities today. We do not even have the broad ‘lateral thinking’ rules promoted by Edward de Bono that enforce preferred outcomes in the application of their essential, necessary logic: planning principles. We have very little to ensure that any outcome will give us a better place to live in; and none that can assure us that our future will be an improvement, even though we label everything and anything as ‘progress.’

We simply have random, chaotic management agreeing to proposals around a table with developers, giving outcomes that no one in power really cares about, with consequences that are never considered for corrective feedback. It is just a matter of ticking boxes and moving on, ‘forward,’ to the next agreement with the least possible trouble. In these situations, developers hold the power to manipulate and tease, as they threaten and cajole. Councils do not even have the instruments to fully check the statistics, figures, and commitments detailed in the submissions they approve, relying only on the applicants themselves for the facts in favour of the development. Officers frequently come under political pressure to agree to schemes in order to keep Councillors happy. Councillors are the third party that sits around the table, frequently acting as catalysts for the developer. The process is truly better described as ‘Development Management;’ we should stop pretending that it is ‘planning.’

For example, with one current application that the local Council agreed to negotiate on, the following comments were noted to be forwarded to a colleague:

With Council now negotiating conditions for more extraction, has anyone noted how the previous conditions on the first approval have never been enforced: how conditions for approvals are just ignored by Council when it comes to real outcomes? Council might be keen to resolve matters with ‘strict’ conditions to make things appear to be in control, but it shows little interest in enforcement. Frequently Council has no trained, committed staff, or any tools to allow for proper administration. Even when breaches occur on fairly straightforward conditions, Council just does not care and does nothing to ensure strict compliance.

One only has to look at the local problem of people jumping off the bridge into the creek: in spite of clear signage prohibiting this act, and the media coverage on this matter for years, the jumpers continue. Council shows no inclination to do anything about enforcement. Then there is the other strategy that gets used with development applications: the renegotiating of conditions that occurs some time later, in private, away from the public eye and any right to object.

Conditions are used by planners to just get rid of nagging issues. Sadly, one can only expect more of the same. It is truly laughable to think that Council cares for anything but doing away with the problem ASAP. Outcomes and their impacts are just irrelevant, something to be ignored when things get resolved and the next matter takes Council’s attention.

It is an insult to call this ‘planning.’ It is simply negotiating outcomes using development management. The frustration for Councils is that they have, in some cases, to inform the public and call for comments. The sooner Councils can get out of this obligation, so it seems, the better it will be for Council, because then Councils can do what they like away from the public eye, and address matters with spin.

. . .

One already knows what to expect as the response; what the reaction to this review/proposition/critique will be: there will be more insistent explanations forcefully put forward to rationalise everything as being totally reasonable and desirable, all in accordance with ‘the plan’/law, because this is the typical response of ‘planners’ to every situation they find themselves in. The response will be forceful, domineering, and irrefutable: go away. Planners occupy a position of power that they no longer deserve given their lack of interest in real outcomes. There is no desire to respond to any qualitative issue, just the will to manipulate the bland application of logic with the contorted reasoning of a legal expert spinning meanings: and they hold all of the aces when it comes to a disagreement. This needs to change, even if it means the end of this profession.

One cannot leave this matter without noting how it might best be remedied apart from doing away with the occupation. The root of the matter seems to be the plan. Rigorous plans must be produced to provide certain rules, principles, and conditions that are unequivocal, not open to negotiation or variation; that can give desirable, integrating, predetermined outcomes that are reviewed to improve matters; and that can be and will be legally defended. Having ambiguous, flexible plans full of quaint ‘motherhood’ statements not only makes it easy for developers to get what they want with ‘deals,’ but they also make it possible for judges to grant appeals that seek, e.g., eight storied buildings in zones that are supposed to be limited to three. The irony here is that Councils/planning officers frequently feel as though they have to negotiate in order to ensure some control over the outcome, instead of letting the appeal go to a judge who is no expert in planning matters, let alone planning subtleties, and who is likely to produce some ad hoc, unwanted outcome that can become an unwanted precedent.

Quality plans and a determination to enforce them are needed; but it is not only plans that have to attend to quality: planning itself needs to engage with qualitative matters as a primary concern rather than attend only to a list of 'facts' and trivial/trite issues and strict, mundane interpretations, and involve itself in real outcomes, and the feedback from these results so that matters can only ever be improved. Both care and commitment are needed.

29 APRIL 2023

Has the problem become so serious that we now have to consciously talk about designing for humans? - see:

https://www.archdaily.com/1000073/unstudio-unveils-the-design-of-a-human-centric-mixed-use-development-in-nanjing-china