Public participation is central to the practice, legitimacy, and dominant normative principles of spatial planning. It has a strong presence in the discourse of communicative governance, which suggests that participatory rights should be strengthened as part of a systematic institutional design. Interest in the concept of rights within planning has been gathering pace, but is still undeveloped. In terms of third-party rights, attention has been focused on citizens as rights claimants and their use of rights to promote self-interest, rather than the values that should be protected by such rights or the balance of rights between different stakeholders. This paper explores some of the theoretical issues related to third-party rights in planning, using the existing literature on planning disputes to contextualise current debate. It examines a case study of third-party appellants in the Republic of Ireland and identifies five distinct ‘discourses of objection’. These discourses highlight the complex factors that stimulate third-party rights-claims and illustrate how they can be related to issues such as citizenship, the public interest, and property rights. The paper concludes with a number of general observations on the nature of rights in planning and the implications this has for the broader paradigm of communicative governance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AddamsH, 2000, “Q-methodology”, in Social Discourse and Environmental Policy Eds AddamsHProopsJ (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos) pp 14–40
2.
AlexanderE R, 2002a, “Planning rights: Towards normative criteria for evaluating plans”International Planning Studies7191–212
3.
AlexanderE R, 2002b, “The public interest in planning: From legitimation to substantive planevaluation”Planning Theory1226–249
4.
AllenRJonesT, 1990Guests of the Nation: The People of Ireland Versus the Multinationals (Earthscan, London)
5.
ArmourA A, 1991, “The siting of locally unwanted land uses: Towards a cooperative approach”Progress in Planning351–74
6.
BarryJ, 2003, “Resistance is fertile: Cultivating the virtues of sustainability citizenship”, unpublished paper, Institute of Governance, Queen's University of Belfast, Belfast
7.
BarryJProopsJ, 2000Citizenship, Sustainability and Environmental Research (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos)
8.
BedfordTClarkJHarrisonC, 2002, “Limits to new public participation practices in local land use planning”Town Planning Review73311–331
9.
BentonT, 1993Natural Relations: Ecology, Animal Rights and Social Justice (Verso, London)
10.
BerkeP REricksonNCrawfordJDixonJ, 2002, “Planning and indigenous people: Human rights and environmental protection in New Zealand”Journal of Planning Education and Research22115–143
11.
BoyleAAndersonM (Eds), 1996Human Rights Approaches to Environmental Protection (Clarendon Press, Oxford)
12.
BrionD J, 1992, “An essay on LULU, NIMBY and the problem of distributive justice”Environmental Affairs15437–503
13.
BrownSDurningD WSeldenS, 1999, “Q-methodology”, in Handbook of Research Methods in Public Administration Eds MillerG JWhickerM L (Marcel Dekker, New York) pp 599–638
14.
BuergenthalT, 1997, “The normative and institutional evolution of international human rights”Human Rights Quarterly19703–723
15.
BullardJ (Ed.), 1993Confronting Environmental Racism: Voices from the Grassroots (South End Press, Boston, MA)
16.
BurgessJLimbMHarrisonC M, 1988, “Exploring environmental values through the medium of small groups: 1. Theory and practice”Environment and Planning A20309–326
17.
BurninghamK, 1998, “A noisy road or noisy resident? A demonstration of the utility of social constructionism for analysing environmental problems”Sociological Review46536–563
18.
BurninghamK, 2000, “Using the language of NIMBY: A topic for research, not an activity for researchers”Local Environment5(1) 55–67
19.
BurninghamKThrushD, 2001, “‘Rainforests are a long way from here’: The environmental concerns of disadvantaged groups”, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York
20.
CampbellHMarshallR, 2000, “Public involvement in planning: Looking beyond the one to the many”International Planning Studies5321–344
21.
CampbellHMarshallR, 2002, “Utilitarianism's bad breath? A re-evaluation of the public interest justification for planning”Planning Theory1163–187
22.
CorkindaleJ, 1999, “Land development in the United Kingdom: Private property rights and public policy objectives”Environment and Planning A312053–2070
23.
CornerT, 1998, “Planning, environment and the ECHR”Journal of Planning and Environmental Law April, 301–314
24.
CoxK R, 1981, “Capitalism and conflict around the communal living place”, in Urbanisation and Urban Planning in Capitalist Societies Eds DearM JScottA J (Methuen, New York) pp 431–455
25.
CoxK RMcCarthyJ J, 1982, “Neighbourhood activism as a politics of turf: A critical analysis”, in Conflict, Politics and the Urban Scene Eds CoxK RJohnstonR J (Longman, Harlow, Essex) pp 199–219
26.
CranstonM, 1973What are Human Rights? (Bodley Head, London)
27.
CrowS, 2001, “What price a room with a view? Public interest, private interests and the Human Rights Act”Journal of Planning and Environmental Law December, 1349–1359
28.
CullenP, 2002With a Little Help From My Friends: Planning Corruption in Ireland (Gill and Macmillan, Dublin)
29.
DarkeR, 1999, “Public speaking rights in local authority planning committees”Planning Practice and Research14(2) 171–183
30.
DaviesA R, 2001, “Hidden or hiding? Public perceptions of participation in the planning system”Town Planning Review72193–216
DearM, 1992, “Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome”Journal of the American Planning Association58288–300
33.
DETR, 2000, “Response to the CM 4891”, Department of Environment, Transport, and the Regions (The Stationery Office, London)
34.
DewarD, 2003, “Scots take progressive lead”Planning4 April, page 8
35.
DLTR, 2002, “Planning green paper—planning: Delivering a fundamental change”, Department of Local Government, Transport and the Regions (The Stationery Office, London)
36.
DryzekJ S, 1990Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy and Political Science (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
37.
DryzekJ SBerejikanJ, 1993, “Reconstructive democratic theory”American Political Science Review8(1) 48–60
38.
DworkinR, 1984, “Rights as trumps, in Theories of Rights Ed. WaldronJ (Oxford University Press, Oxford) pp 153–167
39.
EckersleyR, 1996, “Greening liberal democracy”, in Democracy and Green Political Thought Eds DohertyBDe GeusM (Routledge, London) pp 212–236
EllisG, 2001a, “The difference context makes: Planning and ethnic minorities in Northern Ireland”European Planning Studies9339–358
42.
EllisG, 2001b, “The implications of third party planning appeals for Northern Ireland”, School of Environment Planning, Queen's University, Belfast
43.
EllisG, 2002, “Third party rights of appeal in planning: Reflecting on the experience of the Republic of Ireland”Town Planning Review73437–466
44.
EllisH, 2000, “Planning and public empowerment: Third party rights in development control”Planning Theory and Practice2203–217
45.
EtzioniA, 1995The Spirit of Community: Rights, Responsibilities and the Communitarian Agenda (HarperCollins, London)
46.
FagenceM, 1977Citizen Participation in Planning (Pergamon, Oxford)
47.
FinlayJBirdS, 2002, “Alconbury a year on: Article 6 challengers face stiff uphill struggle after Court of Appeal Begum and Adlard adopts a schematic approach?”Journal of Planning and Environmental Law September, 1045–1050
48.
FlyvbjergB, 1998Rationality and Power (Chicago Univeristy Press, Chicago, IL)
FreedenM, 1991Rights (Open University Press, Milton Keynes, Bucks)
51.
FreudenbergWPastorS, 1992, “NIMBYs and LULUs: Stalking the syndromes”Journal of Social Science48(4) 39–61
52.
FriedmannJ, 1998, “Planning theory revisited”European Planning Studies6245–253
53.
GiddensA, 1998The Third Way—The Renewal of Social Democracy (Polity Press, Cambridge)
54.
GoodinR E, 1985Protecting the Vulnerable (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL)
55.
GrantM, 2000, “Human rights and due process in planning”Journal of Planning and Environmental Law December, 1215–1225
56.
Green Balance, Leigh Day & Co., PophamJPurdueM, 2002, “Third party rights of appeal in planning”, produced for Campaign to Protect Rural England, Civic Trust, Environmental Law Foundation, Friends of the Earth, ROOM (National Council for Housing and Planning), Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Town and Country Planning Association, World Wide Fund for Nature—UK; copy available from CPRE, 25 Buckingham Palace Road, London SW1 0PP
57.
HabermasJ, 1970, “Towards a theory of communicative competence, in Patterns of Communicative Behaviour Ed. DreitzelH P (Macmillan, New York) pp 114–150
HancockJ, 2003Environmental Human Rights (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants)
60.
HarrisonM L, 1987, “Property rights, philosophies and the justification of planning control, in Planning Control, Philosophies, Prospects and Practice Ed. HarrisonM L (Croom Helm, London) pp 32–58
61.
HartD, 2000, “The impact of the European Convention on Human Rights on planning and environmental law”Journal of Planning and Environmental Law February, 117–133
62.
HarveyD, 1978, “Labor, capital and class struggle around the built environment in advanced capitalist societies, in Urbanization and Conflict in Market Societies Ed. CoxK (Methuen, London) pp 9–37
63.
HarveyD, 2000Spaces of Hope (Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh)
64.
HastingsA, 1999, “Discourse and urban change: Introduction to the special issue”Urban Studies367–12
65.
HaywardT, 2000, “Constitutional environmental rights: A case for political analysis”Political Studies48558–572
66.
HealeyP, 1990, “Policy processes in planning”Policy and Politics1891–103
67.
HealeyP, 1997Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies (Macmillan, London)
68.
HealeyP, 2003, “Collaborative planning in perspective”Planning Theory2(2) 101–124
69.
HealeyPGilroyR, 1990, “Towards a people-sensitive planning?”Planning Practice and Research5(2) 21–29
70.
HerlingDPurdueM, 2000, “The divide between procedural and substantive unfairness”Journal of Planning and Environmental Law July, 666–677
71.
HillierJ, 2003, “Puppets of populism?”International Planning Studies8157–166
72.
HindsW, 1989, “Third party objections to planning applications: An expectation of fairness”Journal of Planning and Environmental Law November, 742–748
73.
HonoréA M, 1961, “Ownership, in Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence Ed. GuestA G (Oxford University Press, Oxford) pp 107–147
74.
HoweE, 1994Acting on Ethics in City Planning (CUPR Press, Brunswick, NJ)
75.
Human Rights Act, 1998Public General Acts—Elizabeth II chapter 42 (The Stationery Office, London)
76.
ImrieR, 1996, “Equity, social justice and planning for access and disabled people”International Planning Studies1(1) 17–34
77.
KempR, 1990, “Why not in my backyard? A radical interpretation of public opposition to the deep disposal of radioactive waste in the United Kingdom”Environment and Planning A221239–1258
78.
KrueckebergD A, 1995, “The difficult character of property: To whom do things belong?”Journal of the American Planning Association61301–309
79.
KymlicaWNormanW, 1994, “Return of the citizen: Recent work on citizenship theory”Ethics104(1) 352–381
80.
LaiL W C, 1997, “Property rights justifications for planning and a theory of zoning”Progress in Planning48161–246
81.
LakeR, 1993, “Rethinking NIMBY”Journal of the American Planning Association5987–93
82.
LeeT R, 1989, “Social attitudes and radioactive waste management”Radioactive Waste Management The 5th European Summer School, IBC Technical Services Ltd, London
83.
Lo PiccoloFThomasH, 2001, “Legal discourse, the individual and the claim for quality in British planning”Planning Theory and Practice2(2) 187–201
84.
LovelandI, 2001, “The compatibility of the land use planning system with article 6 of the ECHR”Journal of Planning and Environmental Law May, 535–548
85.
LowNGleesonB, 1999, “Geography, justice and the limits to rights”, in Journeys in a Moral Terrain Eds ProctorJ DSmithD M (Routledge, London) pp 30–43
86.
LowndesVPratchettLStokerG, 2001a, “Trends in public participation: Part 1—local government perspectives”Public Administration79205–222
87.
LowndesVPratchettLStokerG, 2001b, “Trends in public participation: Part 2—citizens' perspectives”Public Administration79445–455
88.
McAuslanJ P, 1980The Ideologies of Planning Law (Pergamon, Oxford)
89.
McAvoyG E, 1999Controlling Technocracy: Citizen Rationality and the NIMBY Syndrome (Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC)
90.
McCrackenRJonesG, 2003, “The Aarhus convention”Journal of Planning and Environmental Law July, 802–811
91.
McKeownBThomasD, 1988Q-methodology (Sage, London)
92.
MackieJ L, 1984, “Can there be a right-based moral theory?, in Theories of Rights Ed. WaldronJ (Oxford Univerity Press, Oxford) pp 168–181
93.
MauriciJ, 2002, “Human rights update: Part 1”The Planning Inspectorate Journal2512–16
94.
MauriciJ, 2003, “Human rights update: Part 2”The Planning Inspectorate Journal269–15
MillerD, 1995, “Citizenship and pluralism”Political Studies43432–450
97.
MonbiotG, 2000Captive State: The Corporate Takeover of Britain (Macmillan, London)
98.
Morello-FroschR A, 2002, “Discrimination and the political economy of environmental inequality”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy20477–496
99.
MorrellD, 1987, “Siting and the politics of equity, in Resolving Locational Conflict Ed. LakeR W (CUPR Press, New Brunswick, NJ) pp 117–136
100.
O'NeillO, 2000Bounds of Justice (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
101.
ParkerG, 1999, “Rights, symbolic violence, and the micropolitics of the rural: The case of the Parish Paths Partnership scheme”Environment and Planning A311207–1222
102.
ParkerGRavenscroftN, 2001, “Land, rights and the gift: The countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and the negotiations of citizenship”Sociologia Ruralis41381–398
103.
PatonH J, 1948The Moral Law (Hutchinson, London)
104.
PattieCSeydPWhiteleyP, 2003a, “Civic attitudes and engagment in modern Britain”Parliamentary Affairs56616–633
105.
PattieCSeydPWhiteleyP, 2003b, “Citizenship and civic engagment: Attitudes and behaviour in Britain”Political Studies51443–468
106.
PearceB J, 1981, “Property rights vs. development control: A preliminary evaluation of alternative planning instruments”Town Planning Review4541–60
107.
PearceB J, 1984, “Development control: A ‘neighbourhood protection service’?”The Planner May, 8–11
108.
PenceG, 1993, “Virtue theory, in A Companion to Ethics Ed. SingerP (Blackwell, Oxford) pp 249–258
109.
PenningtonM, 2000Planning and the Political Market (Althlone Press, London)
110.
PhelpsN CTewdwr-JonesM, 2000, “Scratching the surface of collaborative and associative governance: Identifying the diversity of social action in institutional capacity building”Environment and Planning A32111–130
111.
PløgerJ, 2001, “Public participation and the art of governance”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design28219–241
RCEP, 2002Twenty-third Report: Environmental Planning Cm 5459, Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (The Stationery Office, London)
114.
ReadeE, 1987British Town and Country Planning (Open University Press, Milton Keynes, Bucks)
115.
RichardsonT, 1996, “Foucaldian discourse: Power and truth in urban and regional policy making”European Planning Studies4279–292
116.
RichardsonT, 2002, “Freedom and control in planning using discourse in the pursuit of reflexive practice”Planning Theory and Practice3353–361
117.
RydinYPenningtonM, 2000, “Public participation and local environmental planning: The collective action problem and the potential of social capital”Local Environment5153–169
118.
SandersonI, 1999, “Participation and democratic renewal: From ‘instrumental’ to ‘communicative rationality’?”Policy and Politics27325–341
119.
SearingD DJohnston-ConoverPCreweI, 2003, “Citizenship in the age of liberalism”Parliamentary Affairs56634–651
120.
Select Committee, 2000, “Thirteenth report: The Planning Inspectorate and public enquiries, minutes of evidence”, Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, House of Commons, London
121.
ShestackJ J, 1998, “The philosophic foundations of human rights”Human Rights Quarterly20201–234
122.
StammerN, 1993, “Human rights and power”Political Studies4170–82
123.
StokerG, 1997, “Local political participation”, in New Perspectives on Local Governance: Reviewing the Research Evidence Eds DaviesHSkelcherCClarkeMTaylorMYoungKRaoNStokerG (Joseph Rowntree Trust, York) pp 157–196
124.
StoneC D, 1974Should Trees Have Standing? Towards Legal Rights for Natural Objects (William Kaufman, Los Altos, CA)
125.
TaylorN, 1994, “Environmental issues and the public interest, in Values and Planning Ed. ThomasH (Avebury, Aldershot, Hants) pp 87–115
126.
ThomasH, 1996, “Public participation and planning, in British Planning Policy in Transition: Planning in the Major Years Ed. Tewdwr-JonesM (UCL Press, London) pp 159–188
127.
WebsterC, 1998, “Public choice, pigouvian and coasian planning theory”Urban Studies3553–75
128.
WeissbrodtD, 1988, “Human rights: A historical perspective, in Human Rights Ed. DaviesP (Routledge, London) pp 1–20
129.
WestonB H, 1984, “Human rights”Human Rights Quarterly6257–283
130.
WinkleyR, 2002, “Coalition calls for third party rights”Planning11 January, page 1
131.
WolsinkM, 1994, “Entanglement of interests and motives: Assumptions behind the NIMBY-theory of facility siting”Urban Studies31851–866
132.
YiftachelOHuxleyM, 2000, “Debating dominance and relevance: Notes on the ‘communicative turn’ in planning theory”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research24907–913
133.
YoungI M, 1990Justice and the Politics of Difference (University Press, Princeton, NJ)
