Drawing upon interviews with procedural actants from Public Inquiry and Examination in Public fora, I draw upon relevant theoretical frameworks to evaluate modes of discourse in inquisitorial planning practice. In the investigation, which is based primarily upon an empirical study, I focus upon the role of evidence, the selection and handling of multiple knowledges, the behaviour of participants, and the methodology underpinning the process. It is established that such arenas can be effective mechanisms for testing complex evidence; and suggestions are made for improved practice, procedure, and future research. I conclude by raising serious ethical questions concerning participant behaviour, particularly on the part of advocates and especially chartered town planners.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlexanderE R, 2008, “The role of knowledge within planning theory”Planning Theory7207–210.
2.
AllmendingerPGunderM, 2005, “Applying Lacanian insights and a dash of Derridean deconstruction to planning's dark side”Planning Theory487–112.
3.
BlaikieN, 2000Designing Social Research (Polity Press, Cambridge).
4.
CottinghamJ, 1992The Cambridge Companion to Descartes (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
DEFRA, 2005Waste Policy and Landfill Directive 4th Report of session, Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (The Stationery Office, London).
7.
De RooGPorterG, 2007Fuzzy Planning: The Role of Actors in a Fuzzy Governance Environment (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants).
8.
FaludiA, 1973Planning Theory (Pergamon Press, Oxford).
9.
FlyvbergB, 2002, “Bringing power to planning research: One researcher's praxis story”Journal of Planning Education and Research21353–366.
10.
ForesterJ, 1989Planning in the Face of Power (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA).
11.
Fox v. Secretary of State and Dover DC [1993] JPL 448.
12.
GunderM, 2003, “Passionate planning for others' desire: An agonistic response to the dark side of planning”Progress in Planning60235–319.
13.
GunderMHillierJ, 2003, “Problematising responsibility in planning theory and practice: On seeing the middle of the string?”Progress in Planning6857–96.
14.
HaasP, 2004, “When does power listen to truth? A constructivist approach to the policy process”Journal of European Public Policy11569–592.
15.
HabermasJ, 1984The Theory of Communicative Action Volume 1, translated from German by McCarthyT (Beacon Press, Boston, MA).
16.
HealeyP, 1992, “Planing through debate: The communicative turn in planning theory”Town Planning Review6143–162.
17.
HillierJ, 2003, “Agonising over consensus: Why Habermasian ideals cannot be real”Planning Theory237–59.
18.
HillierJ, 2007Stretching Beyond the Horizon: A Multiplanar Theory of Spatial Planning and Governance (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants).
19.
HMSO, 1972The Planning (Northern Ireland) Order (The Stationery Office, Belfast).
20.
Human Rights Act, 1998The Human Rights Act (The Stationery Office, London).
21.
IrwinA, 1995Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development (Routledge, London).
22.
KalenkaSJenningsN R, 1999, “Socially responsible decision making by autonomous agents”, in Cognition, Agency and Rationality Eds KortaKSosaEArrazolaX (Kluwer, Amsterdam) pp 135–149.
23.
KerridgeILoweMHenryD, 1998, “Ethics and evidence-based medicine”British Medical Journal3161151–1153.
MouffeC, 1999, “Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism”Social Research66745–758.
26.
Nelsovil Ltd v. MHLG [1962] JPL 406.
27.
NeumanW, 2000Social Research Methods. Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches (Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA).
28.
NewmanP.ThornleyA, 1996Urban Planning in Europe (Routledge, London).
29.
PløgerJ, 2004, “Strife: Urban planning and agonism”Planning Theory371–92.
30.
RabinowP, 1984, “Polemics, politics, and problematizations”, in The Essential Works of Michel Foucault. Volume I: Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth (The New Press, New York) pp 111–119.
31.
RoyleN, 2003Jacques Derrida, Critical Thinker Series (Routledge, London).
32.
RTPI, 2001Code of Professional Conduct (Royal Town Planning Institute, London).
33.
RydinY, 2007, “Re-examining the role of knowledge within planning theory”Planning Theory652–68.
34.
RydinY, 2008, “Response to E R Alexander's comment on the role of knowledge within planning theory”Planning Theory7211–212.
35.
SandercockL, 1998aMaking the Invisible Visible: Insurgent Planning Histories (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA).
SwainCTaitM, 2007, “The crisis of trust in planning”Planning Theory and Practice8229–247.
38.
SylvesterJ, 2002, “A positive force for planning”Planning51476.
39.
Tewdwr-JonesMAllmendingerP, 1998, “Deconstructing communicative rationality: A critique of Habermasian collaborative planning”Environment and Planning A301975–1989.
40.
Thrasyvoulou v. SSE [1984] JPL732.
41.
WynneB, 1996, “May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert–lay knowledge divide”, in Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology Eds SzerszynskiBLashSWynneB (Sage, London) pp 44–83.
