Sunteți pe pagina 1din 7

*Corresponding author. Email: kari.ann-west@griffithuni.edu.

au











Is the planning culture under threat of being
abandoned and left in the history books? Or are
planners and planning practice simply adapting to
other disciplines to ensure that planning has a
future? (Hemmens, 1980). The following light-
hearted article discusses planning theory and its
link with practice. The article follows two young
planners entering the workforce and their ideals of
how theory has prepared them for the
professional world. One planner worked with the
Queensland Government in the Department of
Environment and Heritage Protection, the other
worked with the Northern Territory Department of
Lands, Planning and the Environment. The article
explores planning theory, traditional and modern
planning and the relationship between theory and
practice.
Planning theory
It is argued whether it is possible for planning to
have a single or effective theory (Hemmens, 1980).
Hemmens (1980) believes there is no single
conclusive theory of planning and discusses the
uncertainty surrounding the theory, as how can
there be one theory for a profession that is
influenced by so many different disciplines?
Hemmens (1980) also poses the questions, if there
was a single theory what would it be and how
would it relate to practice?
Traditionally, a planners role and purpose was
straightforward; ensure the physical surroundings
were practical and aesthetic (Sandercock & Berry,
1983) and to establish trading hubs and housing to
support population.
Although the traditional purpose of planning for
practical and aesthetically pleasing communities is
still demonstrated today, plannings purpose and
role has expanded and evolved over the centuries
and with it the culture of planning has changed to
no longer directly reflect the traditional view of
planning but something progressive, flexible and
remarkable with the inclusion of social,
environmental and economic values (Hillier, 1995).
As planning has evolved, so has the theory behind
it, leading to multiple theories, and with it multiple
arguments (Hillier, 1995). Sorensen & Auster
(1999) argue the gap between academics and
planning theory is the real problem. That is, what
planners should do and what planners actually
do.
Traditional planning
The origins of urban planning can be traced back
to various techniques of the Greek and Roman
land surveyors, as well as Medieval and
Renaissance eras with their grand projects of
architectural urbanisation (Salzano, 1999).
The development of town planning as a profession
is said to have originated in Britain due to growing
concern of some politicians and intellectuals
about the social and economic consequences of
Australian Planner, 2014
Vol. 51, No. 3, 1-8

Theory and practice in planning: a planners tale
Jack Priestley and Kari-Ann West*

School of Environment, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia.

How can we as graduating planners help close the gap between planning theory and practice when external
forces are influencing both theory and practice? With external forces such as government, economy, politics,
resource security, social, and environment degradation acting upon the Australian planning system, the room
for improvement is over shadowed by political dogma and necessity. From traditional planning to modern
planning, the planning culture and practicing professional has adapted to survive the perpetually changing
political web that the planning profession cannot escape. This article follows two young planners as they break
into the professional planning world, and how they feel planning theory adapting from university and planning
practice in the professional environment works, or could be improved. This article discusses the foundations of
theory and practice, and the influence of external forces in obstructing better integration of planning theory in
practice.

Key Words: urban planning; theory; practice; government; external forces

Australian Planner 2
the industrial revolution (Sandercock & Berry,
1983). Sandercock & Berry (1983) explain that the
development of town planning was the result of
some concerning qualities such as sanitation of
water, sewerage and drainage of the new
congested industrial districts.
While the most part of traditional town planning
revolved around the social and economic values
associated with addressing the important issues,
other planning advocates were more concerned
with the aesthetics and with the organisational
complexities of urban development (Sandercock &
Berry, 1983).
The concerns of the traditional planner, whether it
be primarily for social and economic wellbeing or
that of amenity, efficiency and beauty were the
founding ideals and theories modern planning is
built on today (Sandercock & Berry, 1983).
Traditional town planning was defined by
Haverfield (1913) as, the art of laying out towns
with due care for the health and comfort of
inhabitants, for industrial and commercial
efficiency, and for reasonable beauty of buildings
(Cherry, 1969).
In contrast to traditional planning, modern
planning has no singular task or purpose; it has
several (Hillier, 1995). As most of our towns and
cities have already been established, the modern
planners goal is to ensure these towns, cities,
regions and states continue to grow sustainably
and in a manner ensuring demand is met, and
strategies for the future are instituted to safeguard
not only the planning profession and culture, but
modern society as we know it (Hillier, 1995).
Modern planning
As modern planning continues to grow and adapt
to a changing world, it is feared that the theory
behind the practice is becoming outdated
(Sorensen & Auster, 1999). Sorensen & Auster
(1999) argue that the gap between theory and
practice is at an all-time high, and if planning is to
continue moving forward, so must the theory to
support it.
As planning moves away from traditional forms, it
opens up opportunity for expansion into other
professions and disciplines (Hillier, 1995). The
planner and planning profession is becoming
increasingly multidisciplinary, involving itself in
many different areas so that it cannot be
forgotten, nor rendered unnecessary. Some would
consider this a strategic move of the planning
culture; however concern has been expressed by
some of the planning community, warning that the
tradition and culture of planning could be lost
(Hemmens, 1980). As graduating planners, we find
this debatable, as we believe that in order ensure
a future for planning, the culture must adapt to
new disciplines and those principles.
With an increasing amount of pressures on
planning today to fix problems such as, rapid
population growth, housing demand, food, water
and productive land security, as well as electricity
demand, natural hazards and degradation of the
environment, practicing professionals have to
expand their knowledge and find innovative
techniques to address these problems and plan for
the future. Some techniques that have been the
result of this multidisciplinary, modern planning
culture are principles of urban greening, transit-
oriented development (TOD) and crime prevention
through environmental design (CPTED). Of the
previously mentioned techniques, traditional
planning theory provided the fundamental
knowledge to establish these principles and
therefore is acknowledged as relevant (Curtis &
Olaru, 2010).
A planners role is more complex than it was
traditionally. With political influence and
government systems, a planners role has
expanded to now include a range of positions a
practicing planner can land. With the introduction
of strategic planning, the planner is no long
confined to statutory planning. Statutory planning
leads to professions in development assessment
(DA), enforcement, environmental planning,
master planning, public participation, social
planning. Strategic planning presents the
opportunity for involvement in the development
of local government planning schemes and other
local planning instruments, regional plans, state
planning policies and legislation.
3 J. Priestley and K. West


Why teach planning theory?
Hemmens (1980) believes that the discussion of
planning theory appears to be stuck and in need of
renewal. As discussed previously in this article,
planning theory is complicated and continuously
changing, although Friedmann (1989) expresses
the importance of planning theory, as it provides
the modern planner with the history, context and
inspiration to understand and develop new and
innovative planning principles and theories.
Friedmann (1989) explains, planning theory can
awaken [a planner] to the complexities of their
chosen profession and provide them with a
framework useful for their own thinking about
planning.
The importance of planning theory and knowledge
to the practicing planner may not initially seem
relevant to those working within some positions.
Hillier (1995) discusses the response received from
a planning theory class when the question was
posed, which theories of planning [the students]
actions [in practice] demonstrated?. Hillier (1995)
recounts the response of pure amusement and the
comment, you dont need theory to write a
Ministerial. However, whether for personal
understanding or related to a project, at some
point the theory is called upon and the planner is
grateful for the education and knowledge of the
theory they once believed was redundant.
University education and the theories they teach is
of paramount importance as it provides new
planners with the fundamental knowledge of the
past, present and future planning trends and
theories as well as transferable skills a practicing
planner requires (Hillier, 1995). Planning
academics, who rely on theory, are the soldiers on
the front line breeding a new generation of
planners and inevitably shaping the future of the
planning culture. The knowledge and skills we
learnt at university is only a foundation on which
the individual must continue to grow and expand
according to their own professional interests and
career pursuits.
Embarking upon the new phase after university
and commencing work in the professional world is
daunting to the most confident of us. The first day,
month, and even year/(s) can feel as though you
are completely out of your depth and constantly
drowning in your overwhelming anxiety. However,
personally speaking, a silver lining and grounding
factor that always reassured and asserted the fact
that we were where we were meant to be was
holding the prior knowledge and understanding of
planning theory and the education received from
university. It was this knowledge of the theory
that made the transition that little bit smoother,
and anxiety that little bit less. From sitting at a
desk at university, to sitting at a desk in a
government office having the skills readily
available was encouraging and allowed us both to
contribute an optimal performance. Although our
university courses were not altogether
transferable, it reinforced for us that our university
education had been advantageous to our
professional application of skills. University has
taught us a way to think, but not everything that
we will need to know. As mentioned previously,
this skill and knowledge learnt from university is
our foundation to expand and to continue to grow
as planners. It asserted the fact that no
professional should stop learning or adapting in
order to stay current with their profession and
knowledge base.
Growing from theory to practice
What planning does in reality is different to what it
sets out to do in theory (Coiacetto, 2000).
Deficiencies in planning outcomes illustrate that
planning does not achieve its potential
(Coiacetto, 2000). Planning theories have evolved
in an attempt to address broadening problems
such as urban-sprawl, congestion and crime.
However, these are still common throughout
Australia. So, why do we continue to experience
such problems? The following section will look at
why this disconnect between theory and practice
exists. Firstly, we will have a brief discussion of the
structure and process of the government and
current planning system in Australia. From this, we
will look at the number of dimensions of planning
to outline a number of reasons why, after our
placement experience, we believe the gap exists
between theory and practice.
Government, law and influence on planning
There are numerous pieces of planning legislation
within Australias unique, three-tiered government
Australian Planner 4
(Gleeson, 2001). The Federal Governments
responsibility and role largely lies in infrastructure
planning (e.g. highways and hospitals), but its
policies on a broader level can influence the
planning initiatives of the other two tiers of
government (Gleeson, 2001). State and territory
governments are responsible for the majority of
planning controls over land use, transport and
urban services (Gleeson, 2001). They create
direction-setting frameworks and plans with goals,
objectives, and structural frameworks. States and
territories can create regional-scale plans, such as
the South East Queensland Regional Plan (SEQRP),
2009. Local government is responsible for
implementing the majority of planning functions,
although they are subservient to state and
territory rule (Gleeson, 2001). Local Government
Areas (LGA) are usually mandated to create local-
scale plans dictating specific development
requirements and strategies. Planning theory is
most relevant to these two lower levels of
government (state and local).
All three levels of government spend money on
planning and infrastructure projects. Acquisition of
funds is through tax and excise revenue. The
Federal Government collects the majority and
distributes funds to the states and territories. This
provides the Federal Government with the
greatest power in economic terms. States and
territories do raise their own revenue through
taxation of payroll, motor vehicles, gambling and
stamp duties (Gleeson, 2001). Local governments
have a limited ability to raise revenue, and do so
mainly through property taxes (Gleeson, 2001). In
some jurisdictions throughout Australia, local
government can collect infrastructure charges.
These charges are to pay for local infrastructure
projects constructed by the local government
(McNeill & Dollery, 1999). As always, there are
limited amounts of funds available, and not
enough to construct all projects needed. There is
often debate, and rarely consensus, about
whether this money is well allocated. For example,
the recent delivery of the federal budget proposes
$11.6 billion in roads, but it is hard to find
anything regarding investments in public
transport (ABC, 2014). The authors of this report
believe there is too little consultation with the
planning profession about these decisions.
Within the three tiers of government there exist
numerous departments, each responsible for a
particular role (e.g. Department of Environment,
protects the interests of the environment). These
government departments typically attempt to hold
on to the power that they wield. This occurs in the
interests of self-preservation and out of the fear of
becoming redundant or having budgets slashed.
For instance, as the control of local government is
by the state or territory to which it belongs, it does
not have any constitutional powers and can be
reformed as states and territories see fit. This
occurred in South East Queensland (SEQ) in 2008
with widespread council amalgamations
undertaken to reduce costs (Brisbane Times,
2010). This example illustrates why government
departments operate in the interests of self-
preservation, and why a lack of communication
and cooperation within government occurs. This
severely dampens efforts for a more effective
planning system in Australia (Albrechts, 2006) and
signifies the presence of deep structural issues
with applying theory to practice.
Practicing roles of a planner
Strategy and policy planners working within the
public sector create legislation under the guidance
of elected officials and other government
departments. They develop a vision that paints a
picture of what a place should look like in the
future (Albrechts, 2006) and develop goals,
objectives and strategies to move toward this
future state. In the true spirit of adversarial politics
(Hoch, 1994) it is common practice that after a
change in government, the newly elected will
develop a new plan within their jurisdiction. The
new plan reflects the interests and priorities of
that government, which is perfectly legitimate.
However, as a former premier of Western
Australia notes various kinds of pressure groups
achieve major changes to the plans (Albrechts,
2006). While also legitimate, this can
unfortunately produce results biased toward the
short-term monetary desires of the rich and
powerful to maintain the status quo (Birkeland,
1996). This represents that a key reason planning
theory does not make it into practice is because of
the interests that the plans address. Separately to
this, planning theory regularly omits economic
consequences of its prescribed actions. Wildavsky
5 J. Priestley and K. West


(1973) says planning must balance the needs of
the economy to those of the individual. So in
reality, it is politically impossible to implement any
plan which is not economically productive, or at
least, viable.
At the local level, statutory planners undertake
assessment of legislation and determine whether a
proposal complies. This pertains to individual
developments with residential, commercial or
industrial uses. At this point of the process, the
plans have already been created and the planner
has considerably limited legislative-wiggle room to
work. The planner can try to achieve the best
outcome but with this limited flexibility is instead
focused on an enforcement role. Planning theory is
essentially of little use to these planning
practitioners because its application is so difficult
at this level (Binder, 2012).
The disconnect of planning theory and
practice
Early planning pioneers such as Geddes and
Howard based their theory on planners as
supreme rulers with lots of control (Lane, 2005).
While planners have lost much of the authoritative
power they once held (Sandercock & Berry, 1983),
planning ministers and high-ranking officials still
possess it. For instance, in the Northern Territory,
the Minister for Lands, Planning and the
Environment holds the power to approve any
development project regardless of advice received
and there are no appeal rights to this decision. As
the minister does not need to be a planner, and
does not need to take planning advice. While the
Ministers intentions may not be malicious, this
does open the system up to the problem of
decisions being made without the support or basis
of planning theory.
Planners in the private sector typically those
working for developers are naturally concerned
with maximising profits for their employers. This
can be achieved by acting inside (perhaps
occasionally pushing) the confines of planning
legislation. By profession, these planners are
educated in the social and environmental
consequences of their plans, but these are not
their priorities (unless of course it is economically
wise to be). It is not their responsibility to ensure
successful planning outcomes, as this is meant to
be addressed through legislation. Therefore they
can hardly be blamed for not applying the theory
they know to the practice they do. It would be
nonsensical.
Corruption and ethics are the darker side of
planning practice. While corruption is obviously
illegal, the differentiating line between corruption
and unethical behaviour can be murky. Both create
bad planning outcomes, and Hemmens (1980)
goes so far as to say that planning is an ethical
activity. While corruption is punished, unethical
decisions are usually unprovable. Actions of
elected officials can be legitimised by casting
decisions in terms of being consistent with the
public interest and economic benefit (Coiacetto,
2000). Additionally, they can use planning
expertise and argument as rhetorical cover for
advancing their special interests above those of
others (Hoch, 1994). Inevitably, this leads to the
environment being incrementally traded off to
resolve social conflict and maintain the status quo
(Birkeland, 1996). Neither of the authors of this
article experienced this first hand in our
placements, however, stories from lecturers
throughout our degree have prepared us with such
expectations throughout our careers.
Public participation in planning
Planning theory suggests participation of the
governed in government is, in theory, the
cornerstone of democracy (Arnstein, 1969) and its
importance is often spruiked in our university
teachings. However, true public participation is
rare in planning practice and Australian regulatory
frameworks do not generally require high levels of
public participation. When viewed against
Arnsteins (1969) famous ladder of participation,
Australian planning practice is still very much on a
lower rung, between tokenism and
nonparticipation. The ability for the public to
become genuinely involved in determining the
future of their natural and built environment is
then severely limited. Consequently, there is an
inability for planners to even attempt to address
the desires and needs of all stakeholders under
this current system (Binder, 2012).
Australian Planner 6
Many planners are powerless to implement or
carry out the planning theory learnt at University
due to the structural systems of planning.
Numerous factors underpin the model of our
current planning system in Australia; politics,
power, corruption, ethics and a lack of public
participation. The ability for one to use initiative
enables innovative ideas and improves their
profession, although how can this occur if
systematic and regulated barriers stand in the
way?
Our journey
As graduating planners moving into the workforce,
we did not experience any shady corruption deals
or scenarios in our practicum placements, but we
did see examples where the best possible planning
theory was not applied to practice. As with most
planning legislation in Australia, they exhibit short-
term economic priority. This is not unreasonable,
as discussed above; it is a prerogative that plans
consider this. However, we feel the balance with
social and environmental consideration is lacking.
The authors of this article share the intention to
try our hardest to achieve sustainable, equitable
and prosperous planning outcomes throughout
our careers. However, the decisions we make in
our careers will be inevitably shaped by the
planning system we work in. We expect to
encounter many problems in applying the best
theory we hold to every planning decision that we
are involved, but we intend to use our ethical
compasses to determine where we go. A realistic
approach and a thorough understanding of the
issues in the system are essential to achieve the
best possible outcomes. Furthering our learning
not just on planning theory as discussed above -
but on what needs to change structurally may one
day privilege us to be in a position where we can
contribute this knowledge to rectify the problems
inherent in the system. However, as Wildavsky
(1973) warns, planners begin by attempting to
transform their environment and end up by being
absorbed by it.
Conclusion
This article has attempted to illustrate a number of
reasons why there is a gap between planning
theory and practice. We opened with a brief
discussion of the evolution of planning, from the
traditional to modern theory and practice.
Shedding our personal reflection of how this
influenced us directly in our placements, it
concreted the fact that planners have to adapt in
order to maintain current with a rapidly changing
society. This was followed by a brief discussion of
the different factors which influence the
application of theory and more broadly planning as
a profession. It was suggested that, politics is the
predominant shaper of the Australian planning
system; however, money, ethics, corruption and a
lack of public participation are also intricately
linked. We have attempted to provide an
evaluation of how our university education has
translated into practice, and where we see the
planning profession and inevitably our own
professions heading. We believe a step in the right
direction to help bridge the gap between planning
theory and practice would be better integration
and communication between the academics and
practitioners, although like every great idea, doubt
and hesitation lurks in the shadows wouldnt it
be great if we could simply turn on the light?
References
ABC 2014, Federal Budget 2014: infrastructure
experts react (online), Available:
<http://theconversation.com/federal-
budget-2014-infrastructure-experts-react-
26575>
Albrechts, L. 2006, Shifts in strategic spatial
planning? Some evidence from Europe and
Australia, Environment and Planning A, Vol.
38, pp. 1149-1170.
Arnstein, S. 1969, A Ladder Of Citizen Participation,
American Institute of Planners, Vol. 35, No.
4, pp. 216-224.
Binder, G. 2012, Theory(izing)/practice: The model
of recursive cultural adaptation, Planning
Theory, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 221-241.
Birkeland, J. 1996, Ethics-Based Planning,
Australian Planner, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 47-
49.
Bolan, R. 1980,The Practitioner as Theorist The
Phenomenology of the Professional
7 J. Priestley and K. West


Episode, Journal of the American Planning
Association, Vol. 46, No.3, pp. 261-274
Brisbane Times 2010, Its their second anniversary,
but are Queensland councils celebrating?
(online), Available:
<http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queen
sland/its-their-second-anniversary-but-are-
queensland-councils-celebrating-20100312-
q43t.html>
Cherry, G. 1969, Influences on the Development of
Town Planning in Britain, Journal of
Contemporary History, Vol. 4, No. 3,
Urbanism (Jul., 1969), pp. 43-58.
Coiacetto, E. 2000, Planning-in-practice and
planning-in-principle: Is planning facilitative
of the real estate development process?,
Australian Planner (online), Vol. 37, no. 3.
Curtis, C. & Olaru, D. 2010, The Relevance of
Traditional Town Planning Concepts for
Travel Minimization, Planning, Practice &
Research, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 49 75.
Forester, J. 1980, Critical Theory and Planning
Practice, Journal of the American Planning
Association, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 275-286.
Gleeson, B. 2001, Devolution and State Planning
Systems in Australia, International Planning
Studies, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 133-152.
Haverfield, F. 1913, Ancient Town Planning, Oxford
University Press.
Hemmens, G. 1980, New Directions in Planning
Theory Introduction, Journal of the
American Planning Association, Vol. 46,
No.3, pp. 259-260.
Hillier, J. 1995, The Unwritten Law of Planning
Theory: Common Sense, Journal of Planning
Education and Research, Vol. 14, pp. 292
296.
Hoch, C. 1994, What Planners Do: power, politics,
and persuasion, Ch. 3, The Rational
Protocol and Political Conflict, American
Planning Association, pp. 45-74.
Lane, M. 2005, Public Participation in Planning: an
intellectual history, Australian Geographer,
Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 283-299.
McNeill, J. & Dollery, B. 1999, A note on the use of
developer charges in Australian local
government, Urban Policy and Research
(online), vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 61-69.
Salzano, E. 1999, The future of town planning,
Computers, Environment and Urban
Systems, Vol. 23, pp. 187-192.
Sandercock, L. & Berry, M. 1983, Urban political
economy: the Australian case, Ch 2.
Educating planners, pp. 34-44.
Sorensen, T. & Auster, M. 1999, Theory and
Practice in Planning, Australian Planner,
Vol. 36, No.3, pp. 146-149.
Wildavsky, A. 1973, If Planning Is Everything,
Maybe Its Nothing, Policy Sciences, Vol. 4,
pp. 127-153.

S-ar putea să vă placă și