Discretion and the erosion of community trust in planning: reflections on the post‐political

Abstract

In this study, performance‐based planning is implicated in the destabilisation of community trust in the planning system. Set in a contested inner city area of Brisbane, Australia, the research associates neoliberal planning objectives with the discretionary decision‐making specifically embedded in performance‐based planning. The neoliberalisation of planning is, we submit, symptomatic of a post‐ideological politics of consensus that actually erodes properly political moments and renders the political merely administrative. We explore these matters by reference to a particular case study involving a spatial planning project that resulted in height and density being extended to unprecedented levels, and competitive economic value and city branding being prioritised over the local value of the place. This discretionary action, limited formal participation opportunities, and existing low levels of community trust motivated local residents to mobilise against the plan and design alternatives. To understand the role of trust and participation in performance‐based planning, both in this case and more generally, a number of stakeholders were interviewed and surveyed to gather their views on participation, trust, and discretion in planning, and on the performance‐based planning system. A surprising research finding is that many stakeholders expressed trust in planning professionals but distrust in the planning system in which planners operate, and they did so on the understanding that the system gives unfettered priority to economic growth objectives.

Branding of Ternate City

“…In terms of economic value, the identified theme seems to add another perspective in city branding literature. In comparison, Kwok et al (2018) see the economic value and city branding as equal priorities in some cities. Goess et al (2016) and Tataroğlu et al (2015) argue that city branding increases added economic value.…”

NIMBYism as a barrier to housing and social mix in San Francisco

“…Local opponents of a development proposal may in fact articulate motives and concerns-for example, environmental protection-that "transcend their own narrow selfinterest" (Gibson, 2005:387). In neoliberal planning contexts, where public scrutiny is absent, planning decisions have been known to systematically favor developers (Kwok et al 2018). In authoritarian contexts, a lack of public participation has enabled governments to impose inappropriate planning decisions on communities that have no recourse (Pojani 2017).…”

“…However, YIMBY Action (2017) points out that DR "is a costly process whereby frivolous objections can slow down affordable housing for months or years." Academic research has found that discretion lowers public trust in the planning process and leads to discord (Kwok et al 2018). The YIMBY advocate quoted above states at a meeting:…”

Delivering medium-density infill development through promoting the benefits and limiting background infill

“…Moreover, existing residents worry that medium-density infill will introduce 'undesirable' people into traditional family orientated suburbs, in turn leading to increased social problems and falling property values (Burke 1991). Finally, many communities are increasingly distrustful of a neoliberal planning system that they see as a tool of property developers (Kwok, Johnson, and Pojani 2018).…”