Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Liverpool University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Town Planning Review
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 03:10:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
TPR, 70 (2) 1999
TERRY MARSDEN
Modalities of planning
A reflection on the persuasive powers of
the development plan
This paper seeks to investigate the relationships between plans and th
contexts. An approach is developed which places the plan's technical
argumentation - its 'modalities' - into the social contexts which shape
interpretation and use. The Structure Plan review process in Buckingh
a county subject to long-standing development pressures and Green
constraints, is used as an example. The concern with constraint in th
Belt manifest in the plan and the efforts made by the development lob
undermine them are examined closely. A highly complex set of intera
relations is identified.
It is hard to imagine planning without development plans. Yet, while plans are
central to planning, the detailed analysis of these documents has remained a
curiously neglected area of planning studies. Even in the 'post-modern' era,
when we might expect plans would be ripe for 'deconstruction' (as perhaps
'fictional texts'), few analysts have seriously investigated their discursive powers.
While we can only speculate on the reasons for this relative neglect, we might ask
whether it stems from a perception, among planning academics, that plans are
not especially 'powerful'? Given the obvious importance of development plans,
such a question might seem quite misplaced. Yet, surprisingly there is some
evidence that such a view prevails even in the work of those who have given
plans serious analytical attention.
To take just one notable example, Healey (1993) has argued that in recent
Jonathan Murdoch is Reader, and Terry Marsden is Professor in the Department of City and
Regional Planning, University of Wales Cardiff, PO Box 906, Cardiff CF1 3YN; Simone Abram is
a lecturer in the Department of Geography, University of Swansea, Singleton Park, Swansea, SA2
8PP.
Paper submitted February 1998; revised paper received September 1998 and accepted October
1998.
191
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 03:10:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
192 JONATHAN MURDOCH, SIMONE ABRAM AND TERRY MARSDEN
times the status of plans has become, in certain respects, somewhat diminish
Healey argues that, traditionally, development plans were regarded as 'direct
statements' wherein planning authorities used 'scientific knowledge' to exerc
control over development. Now, however, these 'rational' plans have been
replaced by 'post-positivist', 'interactional' texts which emerge from the
relationships between planning authorities and developers, community interests
and the many other groups and actors concerned with the spatial organisation of
places. Thus plans 'perform different roles within different relationships' and
'plan preparers may construct plans which combine different messages to
different audiences' (Healey, 1993, 83). Because the plan is now seen to play an
interactive rather than directive role, it should no longer be assessed as an
authoritative document, reflecting planners' power to intervene effectively in
the world; it is rather an 'arena of struggle' with 'different interests competing
to determine its content' (Healey, 1993, 84; see also Kenny, 1992; Tett and
Wolfe, 1991). Planners, planning and plans are, therefore, seen as being in a
highly interactive relationship with their external environment; they can no
longer be assumed to carry the same degree of authority as under the
'modernist' phase of 'directive', 'scientific' and 'rational' planning procedures
and mentalities.
These concerns form the backdrop to the analysis of development plans
presented in this paper. Our purpose here is to further an understanding of the
relationship between plans and their external environments. We aim to explore
in some detail the extent to which plans can be seen as reflections of the 'outside'
world and the extent to which the constructions of the world enshrined in plans
'act' upon the social relations surrounding them. We are particularly interested
in showing how the narratives which run through the plan affect the networks of
actors involved in plan-making processes while also showing how such
narratives are simultaneously affected by the activities of these actors. In
short, we ask whether plans might still be considered in some circumstances to
be 'directive statements' or whether they are always now 'arenas of struggle'. In
order to investigate how far plans might still function as 'directive statements'
we consider their powers of persuasion and ask: how far can plans shape the
social contexts in which they operate?
The first section briefly considers the types of knowledge that generally go
into plans and assesses how this knowledge might be most usefully investigated.
The analysis concentrates on the construction of arguments within plans which
are assessed in terms of 'modalities'. That is, an attempt is made to show how the
arguments which compose the plan's central narrative are built up so that, in
some sense, they become irresistible. The starting point here is the view that a
narrative can only be sustained if the arguments and assumptions upon which it
is built can also be sustained. It is further argued that plans might usefully be
analysed as politico-technical 'hybrids': that is, seen as combining, in a rather
unique and special way, political and technical considerations. In practice, the
two domains may be impossible to sift out, yet for analytical purposes it is useful
to separate them for this allows a consideration of the extent to which plans draw
their strength from the complex arrangements of political and technical
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 03:10:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
MODALITIES OF PLANNING 193
1 In the study, which was conducted between May 1994 and May 1995, around 30 in depth
interviews were conducted with planning officers, local politicians, action groups, amenity
societies, developers and so on - all the chief protagonists in the Structure Plan Review process in
Buckinghamshire (1990-96). Quotations are used here from these interviews, which were all tape-
recorded. Further findings from the project can be found in Abram et al. (1996; 1998) and
Murdoch et al. (1999).
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 03:10:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
194 JONATHAN MURDOCH, SIMONE ABRAM AND TERRY MARSDEN
2 The issues in dispute between the Habermasian and Foucauldian analysts are less clear cut
than many of the protagonists often pretend. While there is no doubting the differences in the
philosophical legacies - about which much has been written - when it comes to the actual analysis
of planning and planning practice many of the fairly fundamental philosophical distinctions seem
to be rendered less problematic. For instance, it is clear that Forester and Healey are very much
concerned about the power relations which shape the planning process, more so than the
Foucauldians are sometimes willing to admit. The nub of the debate therefore seems to turn on
how a normative theory can be constructed out of a theory of power. While Habermas and his
followers undoubtedly underplay the differences power can make, Foucauldian scholars are
usually rather shy about engaging with normative theory.
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 03:10:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
MODALITIES OF PLANNING 195
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 03:10:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
196 JONATHAN MURDOCH, SIMONE ABRAM AND TERRY MARSDEN
3 Latour (1987) is concerned to show that science and other technical activities are the pursuit
of politics by 'other means'. These 'other means' are important because they allow technical actors
the resources to build powerful networks: the stronger the resources, the longer the networks, the
more powerful the actors become. The strength of the resources comes from the trials to which the
resources are subjected. Technical forms of knowledge are turned into facts as they are subjected
to critique and analysis: if they survive these 'trials and tribulations' then they allow the actors who
control the facts to become more powerful. This paper concurs with this approach and simply tries
to show that the same kind of analysis can be turned on 'facts' that are constructed and
consolidated in other domains such as conventional politics. Moreover, it is possible to analyse a
sector such as planning because it combines political and technical discourses in its own special
way. It too is politics by other means but a situation where the 'other means' are highly significant.
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 03:10:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
MODALITIES OF PLANNING 197
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 03:10:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
198 JONATHAN MURDOCH, SIMONE ABRAM AND TERRY MARSDEN
the review phase. For instance, in the first stage, planning officers, politic
members and other (invited) bodies are involved in drawing up the initial dr
of the planning document. This is then released for public consultation wh
'external' actors can submit their views in a written form to the planning
authority. In contrast to Adams, this paper identifies this latter phase as t
second stage in the review process, as a new arena, one which is quite open
comes into existence and permits new actors and representations to become
involved (see Table 1). After these representations have been considered the
plan then enters the third stage, the Examination in Public (EIP), where vario
actors - developers, residents, interest groups and so on - meet to discuss k
issues under the guidance of an appointed Inspector. Here representations a
made in both verbal and written forms. These are then collated and summarised
by the Inspector who makes recommendations based on government policy and
the arguments presented during the EIP. This stage can be identified as the
third arena, for again a new forum of participation is established, one which is
closed (participation is by invitation only) allowing verbal representations to be
made in the context of a debate between the main protagonists. The fourth phase
is, in essence, a return to the first: a closed group of planning professionals and
politicians determine the contents of the final version of the plan. These plan-
making stages are followed in the subsequent sections of this paper.
The case study area considered here is Buckinghamshire in south-east
England (see Fig. 1). This is a county which, because of its location in the north-
western part of the south-east region, has been under enormous growth pressure
for the last 20 years or so (Healey et al., 1982; Murdoch and Marsden, 1994). In
the north is the new city of Milton Keynes, a strategic growth centre, and in the
middle is the market town of Aylesbury. These have been two of the fastest
growing settlements in the UK over the past two decades. Traditionally strategic
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 03:10:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
MODALITIES OF PLANNING 199
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 03:10:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
200 JONATHAN MURDOCH, SIMONE ABRAM AND TERRY MARSDEN
planning in this pressurised area has acted to steer development into these tw
northern centres and the original version of the BSP, adopted initially in 1979
proposed a strategy which would 'restrain development in south Buckingham
shire' in order 'to protect the Green Belt and Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty (AONB) within south Buckinghamshire from new development that ha
no need to be located in the area' (Buckinghamshire County Council, 1986, par
16). The review process for the new BSP, which began in 1990, was the first
opportunity for any re-appraisal for this long-standing policy.
4 Of this total figure around 35 000 would be built up to 2001, on sites which could already be
identified in local plans plus conversions, changes of use and so on, leaving 27 600 to be built in
the 2001 to 2011 period.
5 Around 50 000 hectares of Buckinghamshire (27 per cent of its total area) is included in Green
Belt designation, all of it located in Wycombe, Chiltern and South Buckinghamshire (the Green
Belt line follows the boundary line between Aylesbury Vale and Wycombe and Chiltern (see Fig.
1). The original Buckinghamshire Green Belt was designated in the Greater London Plan of 1944
and was then reaffirmed in the County Development Plan of 1954. The policy has been continually
reinforced since that time.
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 03:10:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
MODALITIES OF PLANNING 201
6 At the time of our study Buckinghamshire County Council was dominated by Conservative
Party members. This group had dominated the Council since its establishment and had remained
in power for many years. By all accounts the Conservative group acted in concert on all major
planning issues and had established a tight relationship with senior planning officers. Together
they were able to reach a consensus on most issues, one which permitted a smooth continuity with
previous plan policies.
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 03:10:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
202 JONATHAN MURDOCH, SIMONE ABRAM AND TERRY MARSDEN
Given the significance of the BSP for the various district authorities, it was in
many respects surprising that the county and district planners managed, quit
quickly, to achieve a large amount of consensus around the plan's key modalitie
However, beneath the surface certain tensions were evident. In Milton Keynes
was widely believed that its housing allocation derived more from the city's
strategic role within the region as a whole rather than from the BSP. Amon
Milton Keynes's planners there was a certain amount of scepticism that the new
city played any significant role in Buckinghamshire at all. As one planning officer
put it during interview:
The idea that Milton Keynes fulfils a role for the rest of Buckinghamshire is
slightly misplaced. Certainly previous versions of the Structure Plan have
suggested that's the case but in practice it hasn't actually worked out tha
way. The primary function of Milton Keynes is to provide a regional growth
point for the south east as a whole and the majority of the people who have
moved to Milton Keynes have come essentially from Greater London. Very
few have actually moved to Milton Keynes from the rest of Buckingham-
shire. Hardly any from the three southern districts.
So, while the Borough Council was quite happy with the city's overall housin
allocation for the plan period, it was sceptical about the role ascribed to Milto
Keynes within the Baseline Strategy. That is, the Borough Council could not
subscribe to the view that the existence of Milton Keynes would help to take th
pressure off the southern districts. Nevertheless, their scepticism did not extend
to making any real attempt to undermine the key tenets of the plan.
There also seemed to be some tension between the southern districts and
those in the north over the distribution of housing. While the Baseline Strate
was welcomed by the southern districts of Chiltern and South Buckinghamshi
Aylesbury Vale District Council in the north had reservations about the
preservationist attitudes prevailing in the south of the county. The latter
authority was attempting to provide for substantial amounts of new develop-
ment, yet it perceived the southern authorities to be providing very little housing
at all. As a planner in Aylesbury Vale commented:
I think South Bucks or Chiltern are planning to build 18 houses a year. I
mean, that's not planning in my mind. And there's Milton Keynes and
ourselves and we're talking about thousands, tens of thousands and, you
know, somebody's talking about 18 a year!
Once again, however, this scepticism was muted, for Aylesbury Vale professed
themselves quite willing to play the strategic growth role allocated to them in the
strategy and, therefore, allowed the central modalities to go forward
unchallenged.
The positive modalities slowly being assembled in the plan were also bolstered
at this time by government policy on development plans, especially a new
version of PPG 12 published in early 1992, which emphasised the need to ensure
that development and growth are 'sustainable' (Department of the Environment,
1992a). Thus the policy of restraint in the south, and concentration on
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 03:10:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
MODALITIES OF PLANNING 203
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 03:10:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
204 JONATHAN MURDOCH, SIMONE ABRAM AND TERRY MARSDEN
there is no focal point for any anti-development sentiments. Moreover, the levels
and types of development already experienced over the last three decades in t
town may have resulted in a fatalism towards future development trends. It
mentioned by one planning officer that a fatalistic attitude is linked to th
entrenchment of the strategic policy in the county. In his view the policy h
become 'fixed in people's minds; this is how it's been done and always will
done'. This urban 'apathy' therefore allowed the modalities of urban
development and rural protectionism to become further entrenched in the plan.
Certain actors, however, did try to counter the protectionism so central to the
plan's policies. The main objections came, unsurprisingly, from the house
builders. Their opposition derived from a desire to open up more development
potential in the south of the county, notably by moving some of the allocations
given to Milton Keynes down to Wycombe (demand for new houses was
recognisably slack in Milton Keynes at the time of the review). For instance, in a
written representation to the county council one said: 'while accepting that a
positive policy of placing emphasis on growth is required to alleviate perceived
pressure in the south, the level of restraint is unacceptable and unrealistic'.
Another, slightly more forcefully, said much the same: '. . . restriction on
development south of the Chiltern ridge is harmful . . . and will not reflect the
needs of the individual'. We should stress, however, that the house builders were
simply concerned with opening up opportunities for development in the
constrained south of the county; they were not at all preoccupied with over
development in the urban areas of the north, particularly Aylesbury (as many
house builders believed Aylesbury could accommodate higher levels of
development than the BSP was then proposing).
At the consultation stage, however, the house builders were unsuccessful in
effecting any change in the plan's policies. In countering their objections, the
county council referred to a consensus between the county and district planning
authorities and pointed out that three of the districts (Aylesbury Vale, Chiltern
and Wycombe) were in agreement with their allocations, while South
Buckinghamshire felt their allocation could not be accommodated without
breaching Green Belt and AONB. Thus, the only change to the housing policy
that was made at this time was a decrease in the overall number of dwellings
(down from 62 600 to 61 700), due to a lower than expected number of
completions in Milton Keynes and new information on household formation
after 2001.
By the time the next version of the plan - the deposit draft - was published in
April 1994 the principles of sustainable development were very much in the
foreground, with the chosen strategy being one of 'concentration and
integration, rather than dispersal, with most new development located beyond
the Green Belt and the Chiltern Hills in North and Mid Buckinghamshire'
(Buckinghamshire County Council, 1994, 17). The plan claimed to distribute
new dwellings7 using criteria such as
7 Of the 61 700 new dwellings it was now possible to specify where 47 000 of these would be
provided. This left 14 700 to be accommodated.
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 03:10:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
MODALITIES OF PLANNING 205
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 03:10:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
206 JONATHAN MURDOCH, SIMONE ABRAM AND TERRY MARSDEN
narrative, that is, render the modalities negative, the house builders had, firstly,
to undermine the county council's housing projections so that they could argu
for an increase in the overall numbers; secondly, if they wished to alter the
allocation so as to shift a substantial number down into the south of the count
where housing demand was more buoyant, they had to ease the restrictions in
the south. In order to do this they needed to point to inconsistencies,
uncertainties and unwarranted assumptions in the arguments that underpinned
the Green Belt designations. In other words, they were required to open up
many of the 'black boxes' that had been closed as the plan's central narrative was
put in place.
The first 'black box' that the house builders attempted to open was the Green
Belt. They argued that Green Belt policy does not necessarily contribute to
sustainable development and they suggested that Green Belt control might need
to be re-examined in the light to future development needs. Some were critical
of the Green Belt boundaries around the settlements in the south. One especially
outspoken local house builder claimed 'it doesn't fulfil any purpose and there is
never any explanation why towns shouldn't merge, etc. Housing statistics mean
the Green Belt should be rolled back and the boundaries should be reviewed.'
Most, however, used more measured arguments. For instance, the House
Builders' Federation (HBF), which acts as representative for many of the largest
house-building firms at public inquiries, argued that the county council had
simply taken the Green Belt at face value thereby resulting
in a situation whereby the development needs of the south of the county will
not be met where they actually arise. People are expected to move or travel
elsewhere to find new homes or jobs . . . The Federation therefore considers
that the County Council's housing strategy is effectively a strategy of
restraint, rather than any real attempt to address the County's future
development needs in a more sustainable way. In these circumstances, the
proposed strategy is self-defeating. (House Builders' Federation, 1994)
The next 'box' to be opened was levels of growth. In particular, the HBF took
issue with the county council's policy of accepting existing commitments up to
2006 and then only providing for 'natural increase' after that date. This
approach, it was argued, took no account of regional growth, the weakness of the
west to east shift of development pressure (the so-called Thames Gateway),8 in-
migration pressures, and the potential for job growth. The HBF provided a set
of comparative figures and projections which gave alternative scenarios to those
8 The Thames Gateway refers to a policy initiative introduced by John Major's Conservative
government in the early 1990s which attempted to steer development into the eastern part of the
south-east region, notably East London, Essex and Kent. A special planning framework for the
area was established in 1995 in order to identify the East Thames Corridor as a major potential
focus for growth and development. Planners in the western counties of the region then began to
point to this initiative as possibly leading to a diminution of growth in their areas. The developers,
however, treated the policy with some scepticism as they could see market pressure to be still
strong in the west and weak in the east.
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 03:10:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
MODALITIES OF PLANNING 207
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 03:10:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
208 JONATHAN MURDOCH, SIMONE ABRAM AND TERRY MARSDEN
of houses to be provided during the plan period was raised to 66 500.9 The ho
builders, through their deployment of technical arguments, had thus won
minor victory.
The final phase of the review process ended where it had begun: in the coun
council offices with a small group of professionals and politicians making
judgements on the proper levels of development and their spatial allocation
Effectively the SPLPP Committee determined the final shape of the plan alo
with senior planning officers, although any modifications after the EIP were put
out to public consultation.10 In response to the panel report (Buckinghamshi
County Council, 1995) the county council expressed surprise that the east-we
shift had been treated so cautiously. The county council could see no groun
for assuming that there was any pressure for increased housing in Buckingha
shire as a result of lower than anticipated rates of development in the Tham
Gateway. Likewise the county council could see no reason to accept that level
in-migration during the second half of the plan period would be any greater than
they had allowed. Thus the council would not accept any increase on the
grounds. It would, however, accept that its vacancy rate was too low and raised it
to 3.5 per cent for the plan period. The county council suggested, therefore
increase in the overall provision to 64 000 dwellings.11
Conclusion
As has been illustrated here, a development plan sits at the centre of a c
web of relationships. It has therefore been possible to show how various
representations, legal texts, government statements, statistics and policie
bear upon the plan. Yet the plan is not the simple, neutral reflection of thes
all need to be woven into a coherent narrative in which a series of modalities
must be convincingly deployed. The plan thus has its own story, its own
momentum. In the case of the BSP, a narrative was established almost from the
beginning of the whole review process. In effect, this narrative had two main,
9 This also entailed a change in the housing figures for each of the urban centres. It was decided
to allocate a further 800 houses to Milton Keynes, a further 2000 to Aylesbury Vale (with
Aylesbury town taking the bulk of this), 1000 to Wy combe, and 500 each to Chilterns and South
Buckinghamshire.
10 Modifications adopted after the EIP report did include a notable shift of housing allocations
from Milton Keynes to Wy combe (a long-standing aim of the house builders). A change of
political leadership in Wycombe - from Conservative to Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition - led
to the borough council askine for an extra 300 houses in the town.
1 1 In its response to the EIP recommendations on housing, the county council argued that the
figure for Milton Keynes (increase of 800) remained the same, but the increase for Aylesbury was
halved (to 1000). On High Wycombe the county council argued that any increase in its housing
allocation would threaten the Green Belt and the Chilterns AONB. Thus it rejected any increase
in the town's allocation. Likewise in Chiltern and South Buckinghamshire the county council
argued that, given the reluctance by the panel (following the plan's lead) to examine Green Belt
boundaries, no increase in these districts could be justified. In sum, the bulk of the increase was set
to fall on Aylesbury (Buckinghamshire County Council, 1995).
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 03:10:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
MODALITIES OF PLANNING 209
12 It would be wrong to conclude from this analysis, however, that the politics simply clouded
an otherwise rational and technical process. Politics forces the technicalities to be opened up for
scrutiny; it is only because the plan is widely regarded as a politico-technical hybrid that an open
debate on all its provisions is thought necessary (most purely technical texts avoid such public
scrutiny). Therefore, while the debate was in many respects technical, it was also political - it is
just that the politics was focused on the technicalities.
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 03:10:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
210 JONATHAN MURDOCH, SIMONE ABRAM AND TERRY MARSDEN
order to be rendered 'factual' the review must be finely balanced for there is a
inherent tension between the legal requirement to open the 'boxes' for scrutin
and the need at some point to close them down again. The case study has show
that certain central modalities resisted any real assault on their status (notabl
the levels of housing growth and their distribution) perhaps because they wer
closed down rather early in the process and no actors succeeded in truly prisin
them open. Thus, while a coherent document was produced by the review, a
large amount of scepticism remained among many participants. Scepticism is n
doubt an enduring feature of the plan-making process but it serves as a warnin
that planners must always be looking for ways to boost the persuasive powers o
their development plans.
In conclusion, a more normative consideration is introduced, one which
qualifies, to a limited extent, the preceding argument. As both the Habermasian
and Foucauldian scholars have noted, the planning process is a kind of 'power
game' in which priorities are asserted, hierarchies are constructed, and
discourses are imposed. The case study presented here can clearly be analysed
in similar terms for there was undoubtedly a hierarchy of representation in the
BSP review which led to the imposition of certain powerful discourses. And it
became quite clear, as the review unfolded, that the modalities of the plan and
the structure of participation, to some extent, reflected one another. Thus, it was
apparent that the main protagonists - developers and perservationists - were
mirrored in the main modalities, namely the levels of growth and the urban
distribution of housing. While the above analysis has been keen to stress that the
modalities and the protagonists were in a complex interrelationship - shaping
one another - it is important to also note that other modalities and other
protagonists were noticeable by their absence (for example, as mentioned, the
people of Aylesbury themselves). The interaction between the plan and its social
context can, therefore, be a very partial one. And this points to another, perhaps
even more powerful effect of the interrelationship between plan and social
context: the plan, its provisions and the actors surrounding its construction can
engineer a social environment which affects many people in a rather exclusive
fashion. It is easy to understand therefore how they might simply neglect the
views of those who are likely to be most affected by the plan's provisions but who
are absent from both the review and the modalities. This partiality highlights
the need to ensure that the political and technical aspects of plan making extend
beyond the stable coalitions that so often surround the plans, to those who are
unwilling to become involved, in part, perhaps, because they can find no
reflection of their interests and concerns in the key modalities.13
13 We recognise that this conclusion is by no means novel - and the same insights can be
derived from the work of Hillier (1996) and Hillier and Van Looji (1997) among others - but it is
one that is invariably worth reaching.
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 03:10:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
MODALITIES OF PLANNING 211
REFERENCES
ABRAM, S., MURDOCH, J. and (1988), 'In search of the dark side of planning
MARSDEN, T. (1996), 'The social construc- theory' (paper delivered to the Planning
tion of 'middle England': the politics of Theory Conference), Oxford, April.
participation in forward planning', Journal ofFORESTER, J. (1989), Planning in the Face
Rural Studies 12, 353-64. of Power, Berkeley, University of California
ABRAM, S., MURDOCH, J. and Press.
MARSDEN, T. (1998), 'Planning by HEALEY, P. (1993), 'The communicative
numbers: migration and statistical governance'work of development plans', Environment and
in P. Boyle and K. Halfacree (eds), Migration Planning B: Planning and Design, 20, 83-104.
into Rural Areas, London, Wiley, 236-51. HEALEY, P. (1995), 'Discourse of integra-
ADAMS, D. (1994), Urban Planning and tion: the
making frameworks for democratic
Development Process* London, UCL Press. planning' in P. Healey, S. Cameron, S.
ALLEN, J. (1996), 'Our town: Foucault and Davoudi, S. Graham and A. Madani-Pour
knowledge-based politics in London' in S. (eds). Managing Cities: The New Urban
Mandlebaum, L. Mazza and R. Burchell Context, Winchester, Wiley, 251-72.
(eds), Explorations in Planning Theory, New HEALEY, P. (1998), 'Collaborative
Brunswick, University of New Jersey. planning in a stakeholder society', Town
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY Planning Review, 69, 1-21.
COUNCIL (1986), Buckinghamshire County HEALEY, P., DAVIS, J., WOOD, M. and
Structure Plan: Annual Monitoring Statement, ELSON, M. (1982), The Implementation of
Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire County Council. Development Plans: Report of an Exploratory
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY Study for the DOE, Oxford, Department of
COUNCIL (1993), Buckinghamshire County Town and Country Planning, Oxford Poly-
Structure Plan: Consultation Draft, Aylesbury,technic.
Buckinghamshire County Council. HILLIER, J. (1993), 'To boldly go where no
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY planners have ever . . .', Environment and
COUNCIL (1994), Buckinghamshire County Planning D: Society and Space, 11, 89-113.
Structure Plan: Deposit Draft, Aylesbury, HILLIER, J. (1996), 'Deconstructing the
Buckinghamshire County Council. discourses of planning' in S. Mandlebaum, L.
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY Mazza and R. Burchell (eds), Explorations in
COUNCIL (1995), Response to Planning Theory, New Brunswick, University
the Examina-
tion in Public Inspector's Report, of New Jersey, 289-98.
Aylesbury,
Buckinghamshire County Council. HILLIER, J. and VAN LOOJI, T. (1997),
DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRON- 'Who speaks for the poor?', International
MENT (1991), New DevelopmentPlanning Plans: Studies,
Con- 2, 7-26.
sultation Papers, London, Department HOUSE ofBUILDERS'
the FEDERATION
Environment. (1994), 'Submission to the Buckinghamsh
DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRON- County Council Structure Plan EIP', Cam-
MENT (1992a), Development Plansbridge, House Builders' Federation.
(Planning
Policy Guidance Note 12), London, Depart- HULL, A. and VIGAR, G. (1998), 'The
ment of the Environment. changing role of development plans in
DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRON- managing spatial change', Environment and
MENT (1992b), Housing (Planning Policy Planning C: Government and Policy, 16, 379-
Guidance Note 3), London, Department of 94.
the Environment. INNES, J. (1995), 'Planning theory's
FISCHER, F. and FORESTER, J. (eds) emerging paradigm: communicative action
(1993), The Argumentative Turn in Policy and interactive practice', Journal of Planning
Analysis and Planning, London, UCL Press. Education and Research, 14, 183-90.
FLYVBERG, B. (1988), Rationality and KENNY, J. (1992), 'Portland's comprehen-
Power: Democracy in Practice, Chicago, Uni- sive plan as text: the Fred Meyer case and the
versity of Chicago Press. politics of reading' in T. Barnes and J. Duncan
FLYVBERG, B. and RICHARDSON, T. (eds), Writing Worlds: Discourse, Text and
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 03:10:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
212 JONATHAN MURDOCH, SIMONE ABRAM AND TERRY MARSDEN
Metaphor in the Representation of Landscape, RYDIN, Y. and MYERSON, G. (1989),
London, Routledge, 176-92. 'Explaining and interpreting ideological effects:
LATOUR, B. (1987), Science in Action, a rhetorical approach to green belts', Environ-
Milton Keynes, Open University Press. ment and Planning D: Society and Space, 1,
MOORE-MILROY, B. (1989), 'Construct- 463-79.
ing and deconstructing plausibility', Environ- TETT, A. and WOLFE, A. (1991), 'Dis-
ment and Planning D: Society and Space, 7, course analysis and city plans', Journal of
313-26. Planning Education and Research, 10, 195-200.
MURDOCH, J. and ABRAMS, S. (1998), TEWDR-JONES, M. and ALLMENDIN-
GER, P. (1998), 'Deconstructing communica-
'Defining the limits of community governance',
Journal of Rural Studies, 14, 41-50. tive rationality: a critique of Habermasian
MURDOCH, J., ABRAM, S. and collaborative planning', Environment and
MARSDEN, T. (1999), 'Technical expertise Planning A, 30, forthcoming.
and public participation in planning for THROGMORTON, J. (1992), 'Planning as
housing: "playing the numbers game" ' in G. persuasive storytelling about the future: nego-
tiating an electric power rate settlement in
Stoker (ed.), Power and Participation: The New
Politics of Local Governance, London, Macmil-Illinois', Journal of Planning Education and
lan. Research, 12, 17-31.
MURDOCH, J. and MARSDEN, T. THROGMORTON, J. (1993), 'Planning as
(1994), Reconstituting Rurality: Class,a Commu-
rhetorical activity: survey research as a trope
nity and Power in the Development Process, in arguments about electric power planning in
London, UCL Press. Chicago', Journal of the American Planning
REPORT OF PANEL (1995), Buckingham- Association, 57, 334^46.
shire Structure Plan Examination in Public, THROGMORTON, J. (1996), '"Impeach-
Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire County Council.ing" research: planning as persuasive and
RICHARDSON, T. (1996), 'Foucauldian constitutive discourse' in S. Mandlebaum, L.
discourse: power and truth in urban and Mazza and R. Burchell (eds), Explorations in
regional policy making', European Planning Planning Theory, New Brunswick, University
Studies, 4, 279-92. of New Jersey, 345-64.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 19 Aug 2017 03:10:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms