This research is about planning and governance relating to people in place and the challenges for local government in reconciling differing community interests in contests over land use. Victorian state government policy imperatives require local government to encourage community participation and cohesion and to promote urban consolidation by supporting medium density and affordable housing. Paradoxically, resident backlash to the urban consolidation agenda is increasing community division. The research explores these themes through a case study of the governance processes in a collaborative effort to develop Woodstock community housing in Balaclava, a gentrifying neighbourhood in inner-urban Melbourne, Australia. The development is typical of projects which ignite community opposition and challenge local government’s role in dealing with contested land uses. The analysis of the governance process was undertaken using qualitative research methods which included in depth interviews with project proponents and objectors and the analysis of secondary data including council and local media reports and policy documents. The collaborative planning theory of Patsy Healey provided an assessment framework for the Woodstock governance process focussing on the stakeholders, planning discourses and planning practices. / The research demonstrates the limitations of governance theories in addressing competing interests by providing insights into the nature and dynamics of community conflict and NIMBY reactions around planning issues. The research findings show that the regulatory governance processes adopted for the development of Woodstock were not conducive to reconciling conflicting interests. The fixed rules for engagement mandated by state legislation left no room for genuine dialogue and mutual learning. The processes assumed that objectors would respond in a rational way to issues about which they felt passionate such as irrational threats to their homes and neighbourhood. In conclusion other means of engaging with objectors and their issues are elaborated. It is also shown that deliberative and inclusive governance processes will not necessarily produce outcomes compatible with the principles of social justice.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:ADTP/269959 |
| Date | January 2008 |
| Creators | Press, Amanda |
| Source Sets | Australiasian Digital Theses Program |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Rights | Terms and Conditions: Copyright in works deposited in the University of Melbourne Eprints Repository (UMER) is retained by the copyright owner. The work may not be altered without permission from the copyright owner. Readers may only, download, print, and save electronic copies of whole works for their own personal non-commercial use. Any use that exceeds these limits requires permission from the copyright owner. Attribution is essential when quoting or paraphrasing from these works., Open Access |
Page generated in 0.0019 seconds