Town Planning Review

Participatory planning and major infrastructure: experiences in REI NSIP regulation

Town Planning Review (2019), 90, (2), 117–138.

Abstract

Planning for large-scale infrastructure is expected to enable public participation, including in decisions on major renewable-energy infrastructure (REI). This paper examines the UK’s Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) decision-making processes, which offer a particular arrangement of the representation and contributions of local people, with limited opportunities for dialogue. The study uses focus groups to provide insights into public experiences of involvement in REI NSIP regulation. Findings confirm that there is a need to go beyond statutory requirements to enable full and equitable access to decision making on large-scale developments, and shows the importance of considering how procedures operate for specific communities. They also indicate the importance of local understandings of power within the context of REI decision making, and ad hoc relational work of planners in ‘non-dialogic’ participatory contexts.

Access Token
£25.00
If you have private access to this content, please log in with your username and password here

References

AITKEN, M. (2009), ‘Wind power planning controversies and the construction of “expert” and “lay” knowledges’, Science as Culture, 18, 47–64. Google Scholar

ALESHIRE, R. A. (1970), ‘Costs, benefits and approaches’, Urban Affairs Quarterly, 5, 369–93. Google Scholar

ARNSTEIN, S. R. (1969), ‘A ladder of citizen participation’, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 216–24. Google Scholar

BAKER, M., COAFFEE, J. and SHERRIFF, G. (2007), ‘Achieving successful participation in the new UK spatial planning system’, Planning Practice & Research, 22, 79–93. Google Scholar

BAKER, M., HINCKS, S. and SHERRIFF, G. (2010), ‘Getting involved in plan making: participation and stakeholder involvement in local and regional spatial strategies in England’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 28, 574–94. Google Scholar

BARBOUR, R. and KITZINGER, J. (1998), Developing Focus Group Research: Politics Theory and Practice, London, Sage Publications. Google Scholar

BELL, D., GRAY, T. and HAGGETT, C. (2005), ‘The “social gap” in wind farm siting decisions: explanations and policy responses’, Environmental Politics, 14, 460–77. Google Scholar

BELL, D., GRAY, T., HAGGETT, C. and SWAFFIELD, J. (2013), ‘Re-visiting the “social gap”: public opinion and relations of power in the local politics of wind energy’, Environmental Politics, 22, 115–35. Google Scholar

BICKERSTAFF, K. and WALKER, G. (2005), ‘Shared visions, unholy alliances: power, governance and deliberative processes in local transport planning’, Urban Studies, 42, 2123–44. Google Scholar

BIDWELL, D. (2013), ‘The role of values in public beliefs and attitudes towards commercial wind energy’, Energy Policy, 58, 189–99. Google Scholar

BOOHER, D. E. and INNES, J. E. (2002), ‘Network power in collaborative planning’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21, 221–36. Google Scholar

BRENNAN, N., VAN RENSBURG, T. M. and MORRIS, C. (2017), ‘Public acceptance of large-scale wind energy generation for export from Ireland to the UK: evidence from Ireland’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 60, 1967–92. Google Scholar

BRODY, S. D., GODSCHALK, D. R. and BURBY, R. J. (2003), ‘Mandating citizen participation in plan making: six strategic planning choices’, Journal of the American Planning Association, 69, 245–64. Google Scholar

CORNWALL, A. (2008), ‘Unpacking “participation” models, meanings and practices’, Community Development Journal, 43, 269–83. Google Scholar

CURRY, N. (2012), ‘Community participation in spatial planning: exploring relationships between professional and lay stakeholders’, Local Government Studies, 38, 345–66. Google Scholar

DAVIDOFF, P. (1965), ‘Advocacy and pluralism in planning’, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31, 331–38. Google Scholar

DE GROOT, J., CAMPBELL, M., ASHLEY, M. and RODWELL, L. (2014), ‘Investigating the co-existence of fisheries and offshore renewable energy in the UK: identification of a mitigation agenda for fishing effort displacement’, Ocean and Coastal Management, 102, 7–18. Google Scholar

DEVINE-WRIGHT, P. (2011a), ‘Enhancing local distinctiveness fosters public acceptance of tidal energy: a UK case study’, Energy Policy, 39, 83–93. Google Scholar

DEVINE-WRIGHT, P. (2011b), ‘Place attachment and public acceptance of renewable energy: a tidal energy case study’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, 336–43. Google Scholar

DEVINE-WRIGHT, P. (2013), ‘Think global, act local? The relevance of place attachments and place identities in a climate changed world’, Global Environmental Change, 23, 61–69. Google Scholar

EDEN, S. (1996), ‘Public participation in environmental policy: considering scientific, counterscientific and non-scientific contribution’, Public Understanding of Science, 5, 183–204. Google Scholar

EDEN, S., DONALDSON, A. and WALKER, G. (2006), ‘Green groups and grey areas: scientific boundary-work, nongovernmental organisations, and environmental knowledge’, Environment and Planning A, 38, 1061–76. Google Scholar

ELLIS, G., COWELL, R. J. W., WARREN, C., STRACHAN, P., SZARKA, J., HADWIN, R., MINER, P., WOLSINK, M. and NADAÏ, A. (2009), ‘Wind power: is there a “planning problem”?’, Planning Theory & Practice, 10, 521–47. Google Scholar

FITZPATRICK, P. and SINCLAIR, A. J. (2003), ‘Learning through public involvement in environmental assessment hearings’, Journal of Environmental Management, 67, 161–74. Google Scholar

FLYVBJERG, B. (1998), Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar

FORESTER, J. (1999), The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes, Cambridge, MA, MIT Google Scholar

FOX-ROGERS, L. and MURPHY, E. (2016), ‘Self-perceptions of the role of the planner’, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 43, 74–92. Google Scholar

GALLENT, N. and ROBINSON, S. (2012), Neighbourhood Planning: Communities, Networks and Governance, Bristol, Policy Press. Google Scholar

HALL, N., ASHWORTH, P. and DEVINE-WRIGHT, P. (2013), ‘Societal acceptance of wind farms: analysis of four common themes across Australian case studies’, Energy Policy, 58, 200–8. Google Scholar

HEALEY, P. (1992), ‘Planning through debate: the communicative turn in planning theory’, Town Planning Review, 63, 143–62. Google Scholar

HEALEY, P. (1997), Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies, Basingstoke, Palgrave McMillan. Google Scholar

HEALEY, P. (2003), ‘Collaborative planning in perspective’, Planning Theory, 2, 101–23. Google Scholar

HOLDEN, M. (2008), ‘Social learning in planning: Seattle’s sustainable development codebooks’, Progress in Planning, 69, 1–40. Google Scholar

HUXLEY, M. and YIFTACHEL, O. (2000), ‘New paradigm or old myopia? Unsettling the communicative turn in planning theory’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19, 333–42. Google Scholar

INNES, J. E. (1995), ‘Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: communicative action and interactive practice’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14, 183–89. Google Scholar

INNES, J. E. and BOOHER, D. E. (2004), ‘Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century’, Planning Theory & Practice, 5, 419–36. Google Scholar

JOHNSON, W. C. (1984), ‘Citizen participation in local planning in the UK and USA: a comparative study’, Progress in Planning, 21, 149–221. Google Scholar

KRUGER, R. A. and CASEY, M. A. (2015), Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications. Google Scholar

LAURIAN, L. (2009), ‘Trust in planning: theoretical and practical considerations for participatory and deliberative planning’, Planning Theory & Practice, 10, 369–91. Google Scholar

LEE, M., ARMENI, C., DE CENDRA, J., CHAYTOR, S., LOCK, S. J., MASLIN, M., REDGWELL, C. and RYDIN, Y. (2013), ‘Public participation and climate change infrastructure’, Journal of Environmental Law, 25, 33–62. Google Scholar

LEGACY, C., CURTIS, C. and SCHEURER, J. (2017), ‘Planning transport infrastructure: examining the politics of transport planning in Melbourne, Sydney and Perth’, Urban Policy and Research, 35, 44–60. Google Scholar

LYHNE, I., NIELSEN, H. and AAEN, S. B. (2016), ‘What determines the substantive influence of public participation? An investigation of planners’ views on conditions for participatory practices in Denmark’, Planning Practice & Research, 31, 311–26. Google Scholar

McCLYMONT, K. (2011), ‘Revitalising the political: development control and agonism in planning practice’, Planning Theory, 10, 239–56. Google Scholar

MANDER, S. (2008), ‘The role of discourse coalitions in planning for renewable energy: a case study of wind-energy deployment’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26, 583–600. Google Scholar

MARSHALL, T. (2013), ‘The remodeling of decision making on major infrastructure in Britain’, Planning Practice & Research, 28, 122–40. Google Scholar

MORPHET, J. and CLIFFORD, B. (2017), Infrastructure Delivery: The DCO Process in Context (Main Report), London, NIPA. Google Scholar

MÜLLER, M. (2015), ‘The mega-event syndrome: why so much goes wrong in mega-event planning and what to do about it’, Journal of the American Planning Association, 81, 6–17. Google Scholar

NATARAJAN, L. (2017), ‘Socio-spatial learning: a case study of community knowledge in participatory spatial planning’, Progress in Planning, 111, 1–23. Google Scholar

NATARAJAN, L., RYDIN, Y., LOCK, S. J. and LEE, M. (2018), ‘Navigating the participatory processes of renewable energy infrastructure regulation: a “local participant perspective” on the NSIPs regime in England and Wales’, Energy Policy, 114, 201–10. Google Scholar

OWENS, S. (2000), ‘“Engaging the public”: information and deliberation in environmental policy’, Environment and Planning A, 32, 1141–48. Google Scholar

PETTS, J. (2007), ‘Learning about learning: lessons from public engagement and deliberation on urban river restoration’, Geographical Journal, 173, 300–11. Google Scholar

PURCELL, M. (2009), ‘Resisting neoliberalization: communicative planning or counter-hegemonic movements?’, Planning Theory, 8, 140–65. Google Scholar

RYDIN, Y., LEE, M. and LOCK, S. J. (2015), ‘Public engagement in decision-making on major wind energy projects’, Journal of Environmental Law, 27, 139–50. Google Scholar

RYDIN, Y., NATARAJAN, L., LEE, M. and LOCK, S. J. (2018a), ‘Black-boxing the evidence: planning regulation and major renewable energy infrastructure projects in England and Wales’, Planning Theory & Practice, 19, 218–34. Google Scholar

RYDIN, Y., NATARAJAN, L., LEE, M. and LOCK, S. J. (2018b), ‘Local voices on renewable energy projects: the performative role of the regulatory process for major offshore infrastructure in England and Wales’, Local Environment, 23, 565–81. Google Scholar

SCHULER, U., CHOOCHAROEN, C., ELSTNER, P., NEEF, A., STAHR, K., ZAREI, M. and HERRMANN, L. (2006), ‘Soil mapping for land-use planning in a karst area of N Thailand with due consideration of local knowledge’, Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 169, 444–52. Google Scholar

SIMON, H. A. (1978), ‘Rationality as process and as product of thought’, The American Economic Review, 68, 1–16. Google Scholar

SMITH, R. W. (1973), ‘A theoretical basis for participatory planning’, Policy Sciences, 4, 275–95. Google Scholar

SONGSORE, E., BUZZELLI, M. and BAXTER, J. (2017), ‘Understanding developer perspectives and experiences of wind energy development in Ontario’, Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 36, doi: 10.1177/2399654417721931. Google Scholar

STEWART, D. W., SHAMDASANI, P. N. and ROOK, D. W. (2002), Focus Groups: Theory and Practice, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications. Google Scholar

SWYNGEDOUW, E., MOULAERT, F. and RODRIGUEZ, A. (2002), ‘Neoliberal urbanization in Europe: large-scale urban development projects and the new urban policy’, Antipode, 34, 542–77. Google Scholar

TAIT, M. (2012), ‘Building trust in planning professionals: understanding the contested legitimacy of a planning decision’, Town Planning Review, 83, 597–618. Google Scholar

TALVITIE, A. (2011), ‘The problem of trust in planning’, Planning Theory, 11, 257–78. Google Scholar

TOKE, D. (2005), ‘Explaining wind power planning outcomes: some findings from a study in England and Wales’, Energy Policy, 33, 1527–39. Google Scholar

TSO (THE STATIONERY OFFICE), (2008), Planning Act 2008, London, TSO. Google Scholar

UPHAM, P. and SHACKLEY, S. (2006), ‘The case of a proposed 21.5 MWe biomass gasifier in Winkleigh, Devon: implications for governance of renewable energy planning’, Energy Policy, 34, 2161–72. Google Scholar

WALKER, G. and DEVINE-WRIGHT, P. (2008), ‘Community renewable energy: what should it mean?’, Energy Policy, 36, 497–500. Google Scholar

WALKER, G., SENECAH, S. L. and DANIELS, S. E. (2006), ‘From the forest to the river: citizens’ views of stakeholder engagement’, Human Ecology Review, 13, 193–202. Google Scholar

WARGENT, M. and PARKER, G. (2018), ‘Re-imagining neighbourhood governance: the future of neighbourhood planning in England’, Town Planning Review, 98, 379–402. Google Scholar

WENGER, E. (2010), ‘Communities of practice and social learning systems: the career of a concept’, in C. Blackmore (ed.), Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice, London, Springer-Verlag, 179–98. Google Scholar

WESSELINK, A., PAAVOLA, J., FRITSCH, O. and RENN, O. (2011), ‘Rationales for public participation in environmental policy and governance: practitioners’ perspectives’, Environment and Planning A, 43, 2688–704. Google Scholar

YLI-PELKONEN, V. and KOHL, J. (2005), ‘The role of local ecological knowledge in sustainable urban planning: perspectives from Finland’, Sustainability: Science, Practice & Policy, 1, 3–14. Google Scholar

If you have private access to this content, please log in with your username and password here