Good citizenship and plan implementation

Good citizenship and plan implementation

Local planning instruments or schemes are reportedly complex and difficult for the general community to navigate, interpret and apply to development application proposals. This complexity of navigation, interpretation and application raises the question about the legitimacy of the deliberative democratic process and the conditions under which a “good citizen” might participate in notifiable development assessment scenarios where submissions from the general community are sought. The value of plan implementation through development assessment as a tool for agonistic engagement in a pluralist democracy is often overlooked in favour of consensus seeking plan-making and indeed relegated to a lesser valued, procedural, bureaucratic process. The academic literature supports the notion that development assessment is the planning process through which the community most actively and passionately interact with plans. It also suggests that communities are more likely to engage with site specific processes that impact directly upon them rather than abstract and remote planning policy processes. Using a case study approach this paper will use content and discourse analysis tools to ascertain the complexity of language used in an Australian planning scheme. The study will also map the processes and steps involved for a non-planner to navigate and apply the planning scheme to a development application in order to lodge a properly made submission. It is anticipated that the paper will determine the complexity of language and process contained within a planning scheme and if such language and processes may place the planner in a position of ‘expert’ to reinforce a power relationship between professional planners and the community in plan implementation.

No evidence of copyright restrictions preventing deposit of Accepted Version.