Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis.  Permission is given for 
a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and 
private study only.  The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without 
the permission of the Author. 
 



PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN NEW ZEALAND 
REGIONAL COUNCILS ,)~~ 

A thesis presented 
in partial fulfilment of the requirements 

for the degree of 
MASTER OF PHILOSOPHY IN RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

PLANNING 
at 

Massey University 
New Zealand 

EDGAR L. JAVISON 
1994 



ABSTRACT 

In 1989 and 1991, the New Zealand Parliament enacted legislation which reformed 

local government structure and planning processes. Inherent in these statutes are, 

among other things, the strengthening of regional councils and the prescription of 

opportunities for active public participation in the decision-making process. To 

explore the impact of these legislative mandates, it was felt that the philosophy and 

practice of public participation in New Zealand regional councils should be analyzed. 

This study, therefore, sets out to critically examine the philosophies of public 

participation held by decision-makers in regional councils; establish the relationships 

between these philosophies and the actual practice of public participation; and assess 

the effectiveness of participatory processes adopted. 

A two-fold approach was adopted towards meeting the study goal and objectives. 

Firstly, in-depth case studies of the participatory activities adopted by two Regional 

Councils were undertaken. Thus, the strategies adopted by the Taranaki Regional 

Council and the Hawke's Bay Regional Council to involve the public in its annual 

planning process, regional policy statement development, and consents processing 

were examined. Specifically, for consent processing, an actual consent application 

process handled by each Council was studied. These concerned the discharge permit 

application of Egmont Tanneries Ltd., in Taranaki, and the renewal of the resource 

consents of Richmond (Takapau) Ltd. in Hawke's Bay. 

Through examination of council documents, interviews with council officers, and a 

survey of submitters and consents applicants, the overall public participation strategy 

for each Council was determined. It was observed that the Taranaki Regional 

Council had an overall program for public involvement, which was geared towards 

building sound public support for the council. The Hawke's Bay Regional Council 

was found wanting in terms of not having a public participation programme. 

However, ad hoc public participation activities have focused towards gathering the 



iii 

views of the regional community in order to provide the Council with some guidance 

as to the direction that its policies should follow. 

Secondly, a national postal survey of decision-makers in regional councils and 

unitary authorities was conducted. The survey aimed to ascertain the attitudes and 

concepts that decision-makers hold about public participation; the kind of power 

afforded to public participants, and the objectives of programmes carried out by each 

Council; to identify the techniques employed and to see whether these are the 

techniques preferred; and to determine their perceptions on_what public participation 

has achieved. Decision-makers were asked to use a five-point Likert scale to rate 15 

statements on public participation, 19 techniques suggested by the then Ministry of 

Works and Development ( 1978b) for local bodies to utilise, and eight outcomes of 

public participation. 

A response rate of 76.53% was achieved from the national survey of 98 decision­

makers in 12 regional councils and four unitary authorities. Using at-test procedure, 

it was found· that decision-makers subscribe to the democratic ideal that citizens have 

the right to be consulted on policies and proposals affecting them. However, this test 

found that they are not ready to totally share their decision-making power with 

citizens as prescribed by the radical theory of democracy. The national survey 

results also showed that decision-makers favour public participation techniques that 

are statutorily prescribed, relatively easy to use, and less costly to run. Decision­

makers felt that the purpose of public participation was to realise the objectives of 

decision-making, support-building, conflict management and education. 

Using an F-test procedure, it was established that certain respondent characteristics 

affected the predisposition to public participation. Female decision-makers and 

elected members were more inclined to involve the public in the planning process. 

On the other hand, younger decision-makers and those from unitary authorities were 

less inclined to public participation. Further research to explore these differences in 

more detail is recommended. 



iv 

From both the case studies and the national survey, it was concluded that the 

Parliamentary mandate for public participation strongly supports its actual practice 

at the regional level. It was also concluded that there is a lack of consistency 

between expected results of participatory exercises and the actual outcomes. Thus, 

it is recommended that the purpose of public participation be clearly specified in 

order for regional councils, and their respective regional communities, to develop a 

public participation program. Finally, regular discussions among practitioners, 

academics, and the general public on different aspects of public participation can 

ensure a more complete absorption and acceptance of public involvement in the 

decision-making process. 



ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 

The conduct of this study would not have been an easy task if it were not for the 

·support and assistance of a number of organisations and individuals. I gratefully 

acknowledge and sincerely thank: 

o The Philippine Government, in general, and the Department of Budget and 

Management, in particular, for their confidence in nominating me for an 

Overseas Development Assistance scholarship; 

o The New Zealand Government, in general, and the Ministry of External 

Relations and Trade, in particular, through Rachel Gundesen and Kathryn 

Meadows, for providing the financial resources to cover this study; 

o Sue Veart, Suzanne Baird, and Bob Zuur of the Ministry for the Environment, 

for their invaluable input into the conduct of the case studies; 

o The Taranaki Regional Council, specifically John Hutchings, Fred McLay, and 

Murray Brass, and the Hawke's Bay Regional Council, particularly Robert van 

Voorthuysen, Eileen von Dadelszen, and Colin McLellan, for providing access 

to information required by the case studies; 

o Dr. Murray Patterson, for his supervision, guidance, and critical comments on 

the conduct of the study and the writing of this report; 

o Peter Horsley, for his ready advice and reference materials on the intricacies 

of planning and environmental law in New Zealand; 

o Karen Puklowski, Rhonda Moore, Rustie Ritchie, and Stu Davey, for helping 

out in preparing the graphics used in this report; 



vi 

o The respondents of the national survey of decision-makers and the surveys of 

participants to the processing of the consent applications of Egmont Tanneries 

Ltd. and Richmond (Takapau) Ltd., expecially Trevor Jane and Ian Brown, for 

fmding the time to respond to the survey; 

o Darryl Cox, for his encouragement and support throughout the course of this 

study; and 

o The countless individuals whose desire-it is for democracy to survive well and 

truly. 



vii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v 

TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vn 

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii 

LIST OF FIGURES xiv 

Chapter 1 
INTRODUCfiON 1 

1 
2 
3 
3 

Background ...................................... . 
Thesis Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Thesis Objectives .................................. . 
Thesis Outline and Methodological Approach .............. . 

OVERVIEW 

Chapter 2 
NEW ZEALAND PLANNING INSTITUTIONS 7 

Chapter 3 

Role of Central Government in Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 
Local Government in New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 

Regional Councils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 
Territorial Local Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 

The Planning Tribunal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND THE PLANNING PROCESS IN NEW 

Chapter 4 

ZEALAND ....................................... 15 
History and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 
Law Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 

Treaty of Waitangi Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 
Market/Property Rights/Ownership Argument . . . . . . . . . . . 18 
Citizens' Rights/Democratic Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 

The Policy-Making and Planning Process at the Regional Level . . 19 
The Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 
Public Participation Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 
Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 



viii 

Public Participation Defined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 
Public Participation: What It Seeks to Achieve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 

Administrative Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 
Substantive Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 

A Ladder of Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 
Dimensions of Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 

Public Participation: Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 
Public Participation: Target Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 

Barriers to Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 
Motivators to Participate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 
A Typology of Individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 

Models for Public Participation in Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 
Collaborative Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 
The Skeffington Committee Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 
The Perth Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 
Participatory Planning Model for Social Change . . . . . . . . . 51 
Other Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 

Public Participation: Its Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 
The Vindasius Evaluation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 
Evaluating Power Redistribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 
Evaluating From the Viewpoint of the Planning Authority . . 56 
Evaluating From the Citizen's Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 
The Homenuck Evaluation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 
Evaluating the Planner's Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 
Findings of Evaluation Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 

CASE STUDIES 

Chapter 5 
THE TARANAKI EXPERIENCE ........................... 63 

Chapter 6 

The Taranaki Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 
The Taranaki Regional Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 

Committee Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 
Internal Structure ............................... 75 

Decision-Making Activities ............................ 76 
Regional Policy Statement Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 
Annual Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 
Consent Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 

Participants' Evaluation of the Process . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 
Conclusion ................................... 95 

THE HAWKE'S BAY EXPERIENCE ........................ 97 
The Hawke's Bay Region ............................. 97 
The Hawke's Bay Regional Council ..................... 99 

Committee Structure ........... -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 
Internal Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 

Decision-Making Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 



Chapter 7 

ix 

Regional Policy Statement Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 
Annual Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 
Consents Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 

Participants' Evaluation of the Process . . . . . . . . . . . 124 
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 

THE TARANAKI AND THE HAWKE'S BAY EXPERIENCES 
COMPARED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 
The Participatory Programmes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 

The Taranaki Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 
The Hawke's Bay Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 

The Target of Participatory Strategies ............ -:-. . . . . . 136 
Co-option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 
Annual Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 
Regional Policy Statement Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 
Consents Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 

The Extent of Power Redistribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 
Co-option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 
The Taranaki Regional Council's PRIDE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 
Annual Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 
Consents Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 

NATIONAL SURVEY 

Chapter 8 
NATIONAL SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND RESPONDENTS 154 

Chapter 9 

Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 
Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 
Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 

The Survey Questionnaire Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 
Questionnaire Despatch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 

Population Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 
Despatch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 

Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 
The Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 
Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION CONCEPTS HELD BY REGIONAL 
COUNCIL DECISION-MAKERS ...................... 169 
Democratic Versus Market Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 
Citizen Control Versus Tokenism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 
Objectives of Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 
Differences in Public Participation Concepts Across Respondent 

Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 



Chapter 10 

X 

By Age Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 
By Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 
By Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 
By Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 
By Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 
By Type of Council ......... · . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 

Participatory Techniques Preferred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 
Differences in Preferred Techniques Across Respondent 

Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 
By Age Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 
By Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 
By Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 
By Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 
By Type of Council ........................ 203 

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PRACTICES BY REGIONAL 
COUNCILS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 
Techniques Employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 

Differences Across Respondent Characteristics in Techniques 
Employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 
By Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 
By Type of Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 

Techniques Used Versus Techniques Preferred ......... 220 
Techniques Used to the Same Extent as Stated 

Preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 
Techniques Used to A Lesser Extent Than Stated 

Preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 

Realisation of Public Participation Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 
Realisation of Public Participation Objectives by Respondent 

Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 
By Age Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 
By Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 
By Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 
By Type of Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 

Achievement of Objectives Versus Perceived Objectives . . 231 
Resources Devoted to Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 

SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSION 

Chapter 11 
EMERGENT PERSPECTIVE ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN NEW 

ZEALAND REGIONAL COUNCILS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 
Philosophy and Practice of Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 

Techniques Preferred and Used .................... 244 



xi 

Targets of Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 
Results of Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 
Regional Councils and Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 
Unitary Authorities and Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . 247 
The Public and Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 

Effectiveness and Outcomes of Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . 251 
Defining Effective Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 
Factors Affecting Predisposition to Effective Public 

Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 
Resources for Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 
Recommendations For Improving Public Participation . . . . 255 

Areas for Further Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 

Appendix A 
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION TECHNIQUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 

Appendix B 
MODELS OF THE PLANNING PROCESS AND PUBLIC 

PARTICIPATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 

Appendix C 
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE 

DISCHARGE PERMIT APPLICATION OF EGMONT 
TANNERIES, LTD. TO THE TARANAKI REGIONAL 
COUNCil__ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 

Appendix D 
QUESTIONNAIRES RELATIVE TO THE DISCHARGE PERMIT 

APPLICATION OF EGMONT TANNERIES, LTD. TO THE 
TARANAKI REGIONAL COUNCil__ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 

Appendix E 
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PERMIT 

APPLICATIONS OF RICHMOND (fAKAPAU), LTD. TO THE 
HAWKE'S BAY REGIONAL COUNCil__ ................ 290 

Appendix F 
QUESTIONNAIRES RELATIVE TO THE PERMIT APPLICATIONS 

OF RICHMOND (fAKAPAU), LTD. TO THE HAWKE'S BAY 
REGIONAL COUNCil__ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 

Appendix G 
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE NATIONAL SURVEY OF DECISION­

MAKERS IN REGIONAL COUNCILS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305 

BffiLIOGRAPHY -..................... ·.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 



xii 

List of Tables 

5-1. Committee Membership, Taranaki Regional Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 

5-2. Mean Perceptions on Tanneries Discharge Permit Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 

6-1. Committee Membership, Hawke's Bay Regional Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 

6-2. Submissions to the Richmond (fakapau) Consent Applications . . . . . . . . . . 119 

6-3. Mean Perceptions on Richmond Consents Application Processing . . . . . . . . 127 

7-1. Taranaki Regional Council Participatory Strategies & Objectives . . . . . . . . . 133 

7-2. Hawke's Bay Regional Council Participatory Strategies & Objectives . . . . . 136 

8-1. Viewpoints and Objectives Represented by Questionnaire Part I Statements 157 

8-2. Questionnaire Statements Matching Public Participation Objectives 
and Their Realisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 

8-3. Rating Scales Employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 

8-4. Number of Survey Questionnaires Returned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 

8-5. Positions Respondents Occupied, By Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 

9-1. Mean Responses, Democratic Rights Versus Market Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 

9-2. Mean Responses, Citizen Control Versus Tokenism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 

9-3. Mean Responses, Objectives of Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 

9-4. Concepts on Public Participation: Differences By Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 

9-5. Concepts on Public Participation: Differences By Type of Council . . . . . . . 193 

9-6. Preference For Participatory Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 

9-7. Frequency Distributions of Responses to Techniques Neither Preferred 
Nor Disliked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 

9-8. Techniques Preferred Differently by Genders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 

9-9. Techniques Preferred Differently by Type of Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 



xiii 

10-1. Participatory Techniques Employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 

10-2. Techniques Employed: Perceptions by Type of Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 

10-3. Paired Comparisons of Stated Preference and Perceived Use 
of 19 Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 

10-4. Realisation of Public Participation Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 

10-5. Achievements of Public Participation: Perceptions by Type of Council . . . . 231 

·~ 10-6. Expected and Perceived Results of Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 

10-7. Estimated Average Annual Budgets and Number of Planning Personnel . . . . 236 

10-8. Resources Devoted to Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 



xiv 

list of Figures 

2-1. Local Government Structure in New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 

2-2. Local Government Boundaries, North Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 

2-3. Local Government Boundaries, South Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 

3-1. Relationship Between Annual and District Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 

3-2. Formal Stages in Regional Policy Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 

3-3. Coastal Plan Preparation Process .... . ......................... . . 25 

3-4. Resource Consent Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 

4-1. Eight Rungs on a Ladder of Citizen Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 

4-2. Three Dimensions of Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 

4-3. An Evaluation Schema for Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 

4-4. Homenuck's Evaluation Framework .............................. 59 

5-1. The Taranaki Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 

5-2. Taranaki Employment By Major Industrial Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 

5-3. Taranaki Regional Council and Staff Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 

5-4. Ethnicity of the Taranaki Regional Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 

5-5. Taranaki Policy Development Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 

5-6. Input Integration to Taranaki Policy Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 

5-7. Annual Planning Procedure, Taranaki Regional Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 

6-1. The Hawke's Bay Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

6-2. Rural-Urban Distribution of Hawke's Bay Regional Population . . . . . . . . . . . 99 

6-3. Committee Structure, Hawke's Bay Regional Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 

6-4. Internal Structure, Hawke's Bay Regional Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 



XV 

6-5. Hawke's Bay Regional Policy Statement Development Process . . . . . . . . . . 107 

6-6. Annual Planning Process, Hawke's Bay Regional Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 

8. Respondents' Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 

9-1. Agreement to the Idea: "Citizen Groups Not to Influence Councillors' 
Decision-Taking" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 

9-2. Responses to the Statement "The Average Ratepayer Knows Best" 178 

9-3. Responses to the Statement "Have-Not Citizens To Be Included in 
Political Processes" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ·r-:-. . . : • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 179 

9-4. Responses to the Statement "Council To Help Form Community 
Organisations" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 

9-5. Responses to the Statement "Written Submissions Sufficient 
For Public Participation" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 

9-6. Responses by Age Group to the Statement "Ratepayers To Veto 
A Council's Decision" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 

9-7. Responses by Position: "Public Should Help Formulate Controversial 
Plans" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 

9-8. Responses by Position to the Statement "The Average Ratepayer 
Knows Best" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 

9-9. Responses by Position to the Statement "Public Discussion of 
All Meeting Items" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 

9-10. "Consider Residents' Ideas Before Decision-Taking": Responses 
by Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 

9-11. Preference by Age Group For Public Hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 

9-12. Preference by Age Group For Small Group Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 

9-13. Preference For Exhibitions: By Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 

9-14. Preference For Television & Film: By Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 

10-1. Use of Open Council Meeting: Perceptions by Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 

10-2. Use of Public Meeting: Perceptions by Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 

10-3. Use of Exhibition: Perceptions by Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 



xvi 

10-4. Use of Hotline: Perceptions by Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 

10-5. Use of Citizens' Advisory Group: Perceptions by Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 

10-6. Use of Advocacy Planning: Perceptions by Council 217 

10-7. Use of Television and Film: Perceptions by Council 218 

10-8. Realisation of Education Objective (Question 4-5): Responses 
by Age Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 

10-9. Responsiveness to Regional Interest (Question 4-7): Attainment by Council 229 

10-10. Adequacy of Participatory Resources: Perception by Age Group . . . . . . . . 240 



2 

Chapter 1 

INTRODUCTION 

Background 

The first comprehensive and integrated review of New Zealand laws governing the 

management of the country's natural and built resources resulted in the enactment of 

the Resource Management Act 1991 1
• The passage of the Act, which culminated 

the largest law reform of its kind in the country's history, demonstrates the 

Government's conunitment to reforming New Zealand's domestic laws on 

environmental matters2
• Where the previous planning statute, the Town and Country 

Planning Act 1977, focused on the direction and control of the use and management 

of resources, the Resource Management Act 1991 places emphasis on the control of 

any adverse effects activities might have on the environment. In this way, the New 

Zealand planning system has moved away from detailed regulation to minimal 

intervention in so far as the outcome of any developmental activity is concerned. 

Palmer (1989) considers the Resource Management Act, which became effective on 

1 October 1991, as providing greater efficiency in the planning and consent 

processes, entailing a much greater involvement by the public and by local authorities 

(Storey, 1992). Regional councils were given two years to formulate their respective 

policy statements and plans. At the same time, resource consents have been applied 

for and, in many instances, granted under the Act. 

On 7 July 1993, Parliament enacted the Resource Management Amendment Act 1993, which deals largely 
with technical amendments designed to smooth out ambiguities in the decision-making processes laid down 
by the original Act (Storey, 1992). 

The Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Schedules of the Resource Management Act 1991 show that 59 statutes and 
19 regulations/orders were repealed and that 54 statutes and two regulations were amended. 



2 

This resource management law reform exercise is part of a major reform exercise, 

begun in 1985, involving national environment administration reform (State-Owned 

Enterprises Act 1986, and Conservation Act 1987) and local government 

reorganisation (Local Government Amendment Acts 1988 and 1989). Particularly, 

in the nationwide reform of local government, local authorities were required to 

uphold the concept of public accountability through 

o the publicity of their plans and priorities for the current year; 

o the observance of a special consultative procedure3 in order to give the 

public a chance to comment on the published plan; and 

o the reporting of the local authorities' performance over the year, as measured 

against the approved plan. 

At the same time, a three-tier system of government at central, regional, and local 

levels was established. At the regional level, the creation of regional councils was 

rationalised and mandated nationwide, largely as a mechanism to provide leadership 

in establishing broader community policies and to serve as a link between central and 

local government levels. Through the 'reformed' local government structure and the 

'reformed' planning procedures, the public has been allowed active involvement in 

the decision-making process. However, are decision-makers in newly-established 

regional councils agreed on what public participation entails? Are regional councils 

undertaking participatory activities beyond those required by law? Or are they 

involving the public only to the extent that statutes ask them to? The focus of this 

thesis will be on these questions and similar matters. 

Thesis Goal 

The thesis aims to analyze the philosophy and practice of public participation in New 

The special consultative procedure will be discussed in Chapter 3. 



4 

3 

Zealand regional councils begun since the establishment of these councils in 1989. 

The concept of public participation means different things to different people 

(Rosener, 1978)4
• For the purpose of this thesis, public participation is defined as 

the active involvement of the public, comprised of individuals and groups outside the 

planning agency, in its decision-making processes. 

Thesis Objectives 

This study aims to achieve the following objectives: 

o to critically examine the philosophies of public participation held by decision­

makers in New Zealand Regional Councils; 

o to establish the relationships between these philosophies of public 

participation and the actual practice of public participation; and 

o to assess the effectiveness of public participation processes adopted by New 

Zealand Regional Councils. 

Thesis Outline and Methodological Approach 

The thesis has four parts. The first part seeks to provide a foundation for the 

material that will be subsequently discussed. Planning institutions in New Zealand 

are first described (Chapter 2), after which the development of public participation 

in New Zealand planning is traced (Chapter 3). Then, a review of the current 

literature on public participation in planning is made (Chapter 4). 

The second part deals with case studies of two regional councils in New Zealand. 

The Taranaki Regional Council was selected after the assistance of the Ministry for 

the Environment (Veart, pers. corn., 1993) was sought and obtained in identifying 

The problem of defining public participation is discussed in detail in Chapter 4. 



4 

North Island regional councils which have made substantial progress towards 

involving the public in planning processes. The Hawke's Bay Regional Council was 

chosen because of its close geographical proximity to Palmerston North, which 

assisted in the research process. This council is seen as reasonably typical of New 

Zealand regional councils. Further, it is the first regional council to publicly notify 

its regional policy statement. 

Data collection consisted of visits, each lasting from three to five days, to the offices 

of these two Regional Councils from July 1993 to January 1994. During these visits, 

council documents were gathered in an effort to determine the processes observed by 

each council in annual plan formulation and in regional policy statement 

development. For consents processing, it was decided that a case study of a notified 

consent application be undertaken to illustrate the extent of public involvement in the 

council's regulatory function. The Consents Managers were thus asked to nominate 

.. a particular consent application for this purpose. 

Apart from council documents, interviews with council officers helped to ascertain 

the overall participatory strategy the council subscribed to. Finally, a survey of both 

submitters and consents applicants was undertaken to solicit their assessment of the 

consents process of the council. 

The findings of the case studies are presented in Chapters 5 and 6. Evaluation of the 

participatory activities, as well as a comparison between the two Councils, is likewise 

attempted (Chapter 7). Focus is put on four aspects: the techniques employed in 

generating public input; the goals and objectives that appear to be actively pursued 

by these activities; the composition of the 'public' targeted by the council; and the 

extent to which public input is considered in the decision-making process. 

Part three of the thesis presents the findings of a national survey of key regional 

decision-makers. The design and construction of the survey questionnaire and the 

selection of the survey popul~tion are set out in Chapter 8. This is followed by the 

presentation and discussion of participatory concepts held by the survey respondents 



5 

(Chapter 9), and a description and analysis of participatory practices in New Zealand 

regional councils (Chapter 10). 

Finally, Chapter i 1 endeavours to integrate the findings from the theoretical literature 

review, the case studies and the national survey leading to a series of conclusions 

about the emerging philosophy and practice of public participation in New Zealand 

regional councils. 

A number of limitations to the methodological approach needs to be acknowledged. 

Firstly, the in-depth case studies focus only on two regional councils, not on the 

entire twelve regional councils. Therefore, there is an element of selectivity in the 

case study analyses which may lead to some bias in the results and the conclusions. 

Secondly, the postal survey of all twelve regional councils and four unitary 

authorities only focused on the perceptions of key decision-makers - council 

chairperson, planning and regulatory committee chairpersons, the general manager, 

and planning and regulatory officers - within the council. It did not ascertain the 

perceptions of the general public and other participants in the decision-making 

process. A more comprehensive survey of 'public participation in New Zealand 

regional councils' would need to encapsulate these perspectives. Nevertheless, the 

public perspective was surveyed in the case studies of the processing of two actual 

consents applications in the in-depth studies of two Regional Councils. 



OVERVIEW 



Chapter 2 

NEW ZEALAND PLANNING INSTITUTIONS 

The thesis makes references to different governmental bodies in New Zealand. To 

provide a proper perspective on the roles of these bodies vis-a-vis the planning 

process, it is necessary that a discussion of the planning institutions be made. 

Role of Central Government in Planning 

New Zealand has no written constitution. Instead, formal legal documents such as 

statutes and court decisions constitute its fundamental expression of national ethos, 

embodied in its legislature, Parliament, which is composed of the Governor-General 

and the elected House of Representatives, the country's only sovereign body. 

Asia Pacific Economic News ( 1991) identifies four important functions for 

Parliament: 

o It provides the Government, since the Cabinet, the decision-making body of 

the executive government, is formed out of the majority of an ·elected 

Parliament; 

o It authorises the spending of public money, as a law is required before the 

Government can spend taxpayers' money; 

o It supervises the Government, as the Ministers of the Crown, who ensure the 

daily operation of the Government, are also Members of Parliament, with 

responsibilities to their constituents and to the House of Representatives; and 

o It enacts laws, thereby giving legal form to decisions made by the majority 



8 

party that runs the Government. 

Thus, Central Government is seen to provide the legislative (or functional), financial, 

and administrative framework for government planning. With the deregulation and 

liberalisation of the economy since 1984, little planning is done at the central level. 

There are, however, 42 state service ministries, departments and offices, and a 

multitude of advisory bodies, statutory corporations, companies, councils, 

commissions, committees, tribunals, and other organisations loosely connected to 

·~ Government (Department of Statistics, 1993). These agencies are responsible for 

policy development and operational functions, which are limited to those few 

remaining areas where the Government still has presence (e.g., income support). 

Local Government in New Zealand 

In this way, matters of local importance are dealt with by local authorities, corporate 

bodies created by Parliament, thereby making them what Bush ( 1980Y terms as 

'creatures of statutes'. The purposes of local government are defined in the Local 

Government Act 197 4, as amended, 1 providing, at appropriate levels (Figure 2-1 ), 

a recognition of the existence of different communities of interest with varying 

identities and values in New Zealand; the definition and enforcement of appropriate 

rights within these communities; a scope for communities to make choices between 

different kinds of local public facilities and services; the operation of trading 

undertakings on a competitively neutral basis; the delivery of appropriate facilities 

and services on behalf of central government; the efficient and effective exercise of 

the functions, duties and powers of the components of local government; and the 

effective participation of local persons in local government. 

See s.37K, Local Government Act 1974, as inserted by s.5(1), Local Government Amendment Act (No.2) 
1989. 



Figure 2-1. Local Government Structure in New Zealand 

.---------il CENTRAL GOVERNMENT }t--------, 

REGIONAL COUNCIL 

Directly Elected 

! 
ASSUMES FUNCTIONS OF: 

Regional Planning & Civil Defence 

Maritime Planning 

lbe functions of Catchment & 
Regional Water Boards 

Existing functions of Regional Authorities 

Such other functions as the Council may 
see as appropriate (e.g. Transport) 

! 
RESPONSffill.JTIES 

Primary role in: 

Resource Management, Planning 
and other Regulatory Functions 

Establishment of Rural Services 
Committee 

-< ROLES ~ Separate & Distinct 
but Complementary 

TERRITORIAL AUTHORITY 

Directly Elected 

CITY 
COUNCIL 

L 

DISTRICT 
COUNCIL 

J 

COMMUNITY BOARDS 
20 000+ Population 

Criteria: 

Community of Interest 

Local Agreement 

Geographical Isolation 

SERVICE CENTRES 

RESPONSffill..ITIES 

Access for Citizens to 
Local Government System with 

minimum of Bureaucratic Uncertainty 

9 

Local authorities in New Zealand fall into two categories: Regional Councils and 

Territorial Local Authorities, both of which are directly elected (see Figures 2-2 

and 2-3 for local authority boundaries.) 

Regional Councils 

The twelve regional councils in New Zealand, eight of which are on the North Island 

and four on the South Island, are primarily responsible for the management of New 

Zealand's natural and physical :;esources. They set policies on such regional 

concerns as noxious plants and pest management, water allocation and quality, use 

of lakes and rivers, ~oil conservation, natural hazard mitigation, coastal management, 

hazardous waste management, and air pollution control. They are also responsible 
~ 



10 

for civil defence coordination, transport planning, harbour management, and maritime 

planning. 

Territorial Local Authorities 

Territorial local authorities, on the other hand, deal mainly with providing basic 

physical services such as water supply, roads, sewage disposal, and rubbish 

collection. They also provide added amenities like parks, recreational facilities, 

libraries, and community centres, with additional responsibility for essential 

regulatory duties such as public health inspection of premises, the grant of building 

permits, ftre control, noise control, fencing, dog control, and the supervision of liquor 

licenses. More importantly, they carry out land use planning, subdivision approval, 

and civil defence. 

Within territorial local authorities are 115 community boards, representing a ward or 

a combination of wards, exhibiting a distinct community of interest as identified by 

the authority, which serve as planning advocates for the community and as a means 

for the authority to consult with the community. Not intended to be another tier of 

local government, the community boards are either partly elected by the community 

and partly appointed by the authority from its members, or entirely elected. 

Under the reorganised local government structure, territorial authorities consist of 14 

city councils, 55 district councils, four unitary authorities, and the Chatham Islands 

County Council. The unitary authorities, although categorised as territorial 

authorities, perform the functions of a regional council and a territorial authority. 



Figure 2-2. Local Government Boundaries, North Island 

I Far North District 
2 Whangarei District 
3 Kaipara District 
4 Rodney District 
5 North Shore City 
6 Waitakere City 
7 Auckland City 
8 Manukau City 
9 .Papakura District 

I 0 Franklin District 
II Tharnes-Coromandel District 
12 Hauraki District 
13 W aikato District 
14 Hamilton City 
15 Matarnata-Piako District 
16 Tauranga District 
17 Western Bay of Plenty District 
18 Waipa District 
19 Otorohanga District 
20 South Waikato District 
21 Rotorua District 
22 Kawerau District 
23 Whakatane District 
24 Opotilci District 
25 Gisbome District 
26 Wairoa District 
27 Taupo District 
28 Waitomo District 
29 New Plymouth District 
30 Stratford District 
31 Ruapehu District 
32 South Taranaki District 
33 Wanganui District 
34 Rangitikei District 
35 Hastings District 
36 Napier City 
37 Central Hawke's Bay District 
38 Manawatu District 
39 Palmerston North City 
40 Horowhenua District 
41 Tararua District 

MANAWATU -WANGANUI 

42 Masterton District 
43 Kapiti Coast District 
44 Porirua City 
45 Upper Hutt City 
46 Wellington City 
47 Lower Hutt City 
48 South Wairarapa District 
49 Carterton District 

REGION 

• Unitary Authority 

I~ Kilometre• 

38 
HAWKES BAY 

WELLINGTON 
REGION 

REGION 

11 



Figure 2-3. Local Government Boundaries, South Island 

50 Tasman District 
51 Nelson City 
52 Marlborough District 
53 BuUer District 
54 Grey District 
55 Kaikoura District 
56 Hurunui District 
57 W aimakariri District 
58 Selwyn District 
59 Christchurch City 
60 Banks Peninsula District 
61 Ashburton District 
62 Westland District 
63 Mackenzie District 
64 Tirnaru District 
65 Waimate District 
66 W aitaki District 
67 Queenstown-Lakes District 
68 Central Otago District 
69 Dunedin City 
70 Clutha District 
71 Gore District 
72 Southland District 
73 InvercargiU District 

SOUTHLAND 73 

REGION~ 

• Unitary Authority 

ISO Kilometres 

12 



13 

The Planning Tribunal 

Appeals on, and disputes arising from, decisions made by local authorities are heard 

and resolved by the Planning Tribunal, a specialised District Court created to help 

regulate, monitor, and enforce planning legislation. The Tribunal exercises its civil 

jurisdiction by adding and substituting parties, summoning witnesses, administering 

oaths, ordering the discovery or production of documents, hearing evidence, 

conducting proceedings, and maintaining order. It consists of five planning judges, 

who are either District Court or Maori Land Court judges, and ten planning 

commissioners, who possess knowledge and experience in economic, commercial, 

and business affairs, local government, and community affairs; planning, resource 

management, and heritage protection; environmental science; architectural, 

engineering, surveying, minerals technology, and building construction; and matters 

relating to the Treaty of Waitangi3 and Maori concerns4
• One planning judge and 

one planning commissioner constitute a Planning Tribunal sitting, although one 

planning judge can sit alone on issues involving questions of law and one planning 

commissioner can sit alone when directed to by the Chief Planning Judge. The 

decisions of the Tribunal are final unless it is reheard by the Tribunal itself, because 

of new and important evidence, or because circumstances that might affect a decision 

change after a decision has been rendered, or an appeal to the High Court has been 

made on a point of law. 

S.278, Resource Management Act 1991. 

The Treaty of Waitangi, signed on 6 February 1840, by representatives of the Queen of England and 500 
Maori chiefs in New Zealand, granted all rights and privileges of British citizenship to the Maori, the 
original settlers of New Zealand. Under the Treaty, the chiefs ceded governorship (kawanatanga) over their 
respective territories to the Crown. In return, the Crown would guarantee them absolute authority (tino 
rangatiratanga) over their lands, villages, and all things of value (taonga) (Manatu Maori, 1991). 

S.253, Resource Management Act 1991. 

S.295, Resource Management Act 1991, and s.299, Resource Management Act 1991, as amended by s.137, 
Resource Management Amendment Act 1993. 



Chapter 3 

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND THE 

PLANNING PROCESS IN NEW ZEALAND 

History and Development 

The practice of public participation is not new in New Zealand. Opportunities for 

public involvement in the planning process were first legislated for in 1953 (Morris, 

1979) although Williams ( 1985) contends that these were limited in practice. 

However, the wave of public protests generated against such Government decisions 

as the Springbok rugby tours, New Zealand involvement in the Vietnam War, and 

the development of Lake Manapouri (Sears and Crothers, 1979; Wils, 1988), alerted 

planners to the dangers of not involving the public in plan formulation and led to 

tentative experimentation in the use of participatory programs (Town, 1979). The 

experiences of such city councils as Wellington, Upper Hutt, Dunedin, Palmerston 

North, and Christchurch (Ministry of Works and Development, 1978b) served then 

as outstanding examples of participatory methods that worked well in the New 

Zealand setting. Therefore, a climate was fostered where public involvement became 

more and more possible and acceptable for a greater range of people. 

Parliament acknowledged the situation by prescribing opportunities for public 

participation in the decision-making process in such statutes as the Town and 

Country Planning Act 1977 and the Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967 (Town, 

1979; Conway, 1979; Baumgart, 1979; Ministry of Works and Development, 1979). 

Robertson ( 1979) attempted to analyze these New Zealand legislation in relation to 

the ladder of citizen participation (Arnstein, 1969)1 and found that public 

See page 39 for a discussion of the ladder of citizen participation and page 176 for a discussion of the 
findings of Robertson (1979). 



15 

involvement in the preparation of the district planning scheme, as prescribed under 

the Town and Country Planning Act 1977, ranked highest in terms of the degree of 

delegation of power to the public. Opportunities for public involvement in regional 

planning, also mandated by the Town and Country Planning Act 1977, ranked lowest, 

while opportunities authorised by other statutes, lying in between, provided limited 

participation. Thus, although opportunities for public participation were legally 

sanctioned, these varied between statutes, and generally resulted in a low degree of 

power redistribution. 

The Local Government Business Group ( 1992) concludes that the extent of public 

participation varies widely between local authorities and between planning rounds. 

Some authorities confine themselves to the minimum methods required by legislation 

while others make use of supplemental techniques. As McRae ( 1988) notes, 

statutorily-prescribed formal participatory procedures tend to be inflexible and appear 

to daunt community interests, leading the public to resort to informal processes like 

writing letters to newspapers and joining radio talkback shows which, to be effective, 

require the attention of the planning authority. 

However, not all New Zealanders express their views on planning matters. Sears and 

Crothers ( 1979) conclude that participation seems to be associated with people who 

have stayed long enough, or intend to stay for a long period, in an area; occupy their 

own houses, preferably in higher-valued property areas, or are members of citizen 

organisations. In the latter case, individuals form or join citizen groups mainly as 

a consequence of changes affecting their area or from feeling powerless to influence 

council policies (Morris, 1979). 

The New Zealand public is more likely to want to participate in issues that might 

adversely affect them directly, and when they do get involved, are more likely to 

express their objection to, rather than their support of, an issue (Ministry for the 

Environment, 1988b). This validates the observation made by Pritchard (1979) that 

most people object 'hysterically' ~o small-scale planning applications, such as placing 

a small restaurant on an old commercial location at the comer of a residential street, 



16 

but shy away from involvement in large-scale issues, such as the subdivision of a 

remote rural farm for coastal development. This situation may be explained by the 

public's lack of appropriate technical background requisite for making informed 

judgments, especially where options demanding competing and conflicting 

considerations are presented. 

The media's role in disseminating information to the public is considered by Wakem 

( 1979) as critical towards ensuring greater communication between the planning 

authority and the citizens within its area of jurisdiction and generating informed 

debate within the community. If participants have access to all information, good 

relations with the media, previous experience in participatory exercises, professional 

assistance, and dedication to the issue under consideration, their participation will 

more likely be effective (Thorn, 1984 ). But, if the planning authority provides poor 

feedback to the participants, such experience tends to be negatively judged (James, 

1990). 

The then existing planning legislation imposed, on the general public, a difficulty in 

understanding and participating in resource management decisions. The Town and 

Country Planning Act and other resource use legislation required overlapping, and, 

in some cases, duplicating consents. The legal and adversarial mode was relied upon 

to resolve conflicts where negotiation could have been more effective and efficient. 

Different government departments sought their own legislation and procedures to deal 

with matters that could have fitted into the planning system. The National 

Development Act 1979, for instance, was enacted to prevent delays, presumably as 

a result of anticipated public opposition, in the implementation of major projects the 

Cabinet deemed to be of national importance. Boyle (1986) analyzed this statute and 

concludes that it was structured to separate public participation from key decision­

making stages, thereby excluding practical questions about goals and values from the 

planning agenda. These concerns could have been properly addressed were there 

public input into the _decision-making process. Instead, public participation was used 

to nominally legitimate the decisions already made, as in the case of 'Think Big' 



17 

projects, which comprised a national growth strategy developed to meet power 

demands but later found to have been inaccurately forecast (Fourth Estate 

Newspapers, Ltd., 1984). Strong opposition to the environmental implications of 

these projects led to the enactment of the National Development Act Repeal Act 

1986, but not after the decisions to construct a methanol plant and a synthetic petrol 

plant were taken under the process outlined by the National Development Act 1979. 

Law Reform 

Cognisant of this weakness of the law, the Government constituted a Task Group on 

Public Participation during the resource management law reform exercise to draft the 

objectives and principles for public participation in resource management. In 

considering such issues as the rights of groups and individuals to participate in 

decision-making, the cost-effectiveness of various approaches to public participation 

and the implications of the Treaty of W aitangi, to name only three, the Task Group 

was guided by the definition of public participation as 

"a process for making wise decisions on resources with respect to 
clearly expressed societal goals. This would involve better channels 
for communicating individual and collective values" (Ministry for the 
Environment, 1988a: 4). 

Indicative of the universal lack of consensus about the concept of public 

participation, the Task Group could not categorically identify the objectives and 

principles for public participation. Instead, it expressed three varying perspectives 

on public participation, based on the 

o Treaty of W aitangi interpretation of governance; 

o market/property rights/ownership argument; and 

o citizens' rights/democratic argument. 



18 

Treaty of Waitangi Perspective 

The Maori-Crown partnership commitment under the Treaty of Waitangi was seen 

to demand effective ways and means for the sharing of power over natural and 

physical resources, especially since Maori see themselves as part of the environment 

and thus seek to conserve it for present and future generations. This concern for the 

resources implies that the Maori will always consider they have a special interest in 

the management of the environment. Hence, proponents of this perspective argue 

that public participation in New Zealand planning processes should acknowledge and 

provide for this interest. 

Market/Property Rights/Ownership Argument 

Direct participation occurs in the market for property or use rights. Thus, ownership 

obtained in this way brings with it a right to decide how the resources owned will 

or will not be used. Property rights may either be private, where ownership has been 

achieved through the purchase of the resource, or common, where ownership has 

been conferred through the grant of a license. Conflict over how resources should 

be used are resolved informally, either by referring to common law on the allocation 

of rights, by negotiation and consultation, or by the sale and purchase of development 

or use rights. Hence, individual and corporate participation in government decision­

making is seen by the proponents of this school of thought to hinge upon their entry 

into the market for property or use rights. 

Citizens' Rights/Democratic Argument 

This perspective is founded on the concept of democracy and open government, 

where all people in the society are provided with the freedom and the necessary 

information so they can become involved in decisions that affect their environment. 

Its advocates contend that a democratically-elected government may, on the grounds 

of public interest, ·constrain individual and corporate property rights through 

regulations and other legislative mechanisms, even at the expense of market 



,.. 

4 

.. 

19 

processes. 

The Policy-Making and Planning Process at the Regional Level 

The functions of regional councils in New Zealand are governed by the Local 

Government Act 1974 as amended, which mandates annual planning and reporting, 

and the Resource Management Act 1991 as amended, which deals with the 

sustainable management of natural and physical resources2
• Under these statutes, the 

regional council prepares four planning documents, namely: 

o An annual report concerning plans, which outlines, in detail for the current 

year and in general terms for the next two years, the council's policies and 

objectives, activities, and performance targets, together with indicative costs, 

sources of funds, and rating policy3
; 

o Regional policy statements, which provide an overview of the region's 

resource management issues and the policies and methods to achieve an 

integrated management of the region's natural and physical resources4
; 

o A regional coastal plan, which concerns the allocation of coastal space and 

the control of the effects of the use of the region's coastal marine area5
, and 

addresses water quality, water surface activities, the taking of water, natural 

hazards and hazardous substances, the use of land and other natural and 

physical resources, an occupation of foreshore or seabed space owned by the 

Crown or the regional council, and the extraction of sand, shingles, shells, 

and other natural materials; and 

Planning at the district and city levels is also governed by these two statutes. However, discussion of the 
local planning process will be limited to the regional level, which is the concern of this study. 

S.223D, Local Government Act 1974, as repealed and substituted by s.16(1 ), Local Government Amendment 
Act 1991. · 

S.59, Resource Management Act 1991. 

S.64, Resource Management Act 1991, as amended by s.35, Resource Management Amendment Act 1993 . 



20 

o Regional plans that the council may decide to produce, on its own initiative 

or following a meritorious request from any member of the public, which 

address specific regional resource management issues or areas. 

The Planning Process 

A model presented by Tremaine ( 1991) shows the relationship between the annual 

plan and the district plan, which succinctly outlines the local planning process, Figure 

3-1. Although designed for territorial authorities, it contains the basic steps a 

regional council would observe. The process begins with the identification of local 

short-, medium-, and long-term issues and acceptable outcomes, leading to the 

formulation of the annual plan, a series of steps that constitutes what Fookes ( 1988) 

refers to as the policy-making decision process. Rule-making then follows, where 

alternative implementation techniques are identified and evaluated and the best 

practicable option is adopted in the regional plan, which may include rules that 

prohibit, regulate, or allow activities6
• Monitoring and review conclude the process, 

where trends and outcomes are assessed as a means of determining whether plan 

changes are necessary or not. 

S.68, Resource Management Act 1991, as amended by s.37, Resource Management Amendment Act 1993. 



21 

Figure 3-1. Relationship Between Annual and District Plans 

INPUTS OUTPUTS 

Identify local sociaUeconornic/cultural ( Public and Sector Group 

J 
environmental issues and range of 

l Consultation 
acceptable outcomes. 

Draft Corporate Plan and 
Research issues and identification of release of discussion ,.......... 
short, medium and long term issues documents on major/ 

contentious issues (1-3 years) 
~ ./ 

, 
Strategic Statement (3+ years) 

and release of discussion 
documents on longer term 

strategic issues 

' 
Address short/medium term issues as part / 

Annual Plan/ 
of the annual plan process and incorporate I Strategic Statement 
long term issues into strategic statement 

Develop District Plan Policy re: issues 
relating to the management or use, 

development and protection of natural 
and physical resources. 

Identify Alternative Implementation 
Techniques 

~ 
Evaluate Regulation 

Alternatives Service Delivery 
Education/Promotion 

( " Prepare District Proposed District Plan/ 

J Plan l Operative District Plan 

Establish and Implement ( " Monitoring and Review 
Monitor Reports/ 

J Process I Trends/Outcomes 

Copyright Palmerston North City Council 



7 

22 

The First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991, as amended by sections 

209-220 of the Resource Management Amendment Act 1993, sets out a standard 

process for the preparation of regional policy statements and plans other than the 

regional coastal plan, Figure 3-2, which involves consultations with the Minister for 

the Environment, other affected Crown Ministers, tangata whenua1
, local authorities, 

and any other persons a regional council may deem likely to be affected by a 

proposed policy statement. Public submissions are then solicited for a period of 40 

working days after the proposed policy statement is notified, after which further 

submissions on the submissions received are solicited for a period of 20 working 

days after public notification of the availability of a summary of decisions requested 

by the submitters to the proposed policy statement. The regional council is then 

required to hold a public hearing into the submissions, issuing a notice of the date, 

time, and place where such hearings will be conducted to every submitter who 

requested to be heard, at least ten working days bf>fore the hearing is to commence, 

and to then make decisions on the submissions. 

Any submitter has the right to lodge, within 15 working days of the notification of 

the council's decision on the proposed regional policy statement, an appeal to the 

Planning Tribunal on any provision contained in, or omitted from, the policy 

statement. The Tribunal, after a public hearing on the appeal, may confirm or direct 

the regional council to either modify, delete, or insert any provision referred to it. 

When the policy statement is accordingly amended, which need not involve any 

formality if such alteration is minor, it is finally considered, during which time the 

seal of the council is affixed to the policy statement and a public notice is made of 

the date such policy statement is to become operative at least five working days 

before such date. 

Literally, the people of the land. The Resource Management Act 1991, however, defines the term as the 
iwi, or tribe, that holds mana whenua, or the customary authority, over a particular area (s.2, Resource 
Management Act 1991). 



23 

Figure 3-2. Formal Stages in Regional Policy Development 

Drafting of proposed regional policy statement, in consultation with the 
Ministry for the Environment, affected Crown ministers, tangata 

whenua, and local authorities . 
t--

Public notification of proposed regional policy statement 

Submissions lodged within 40 working days 

Public notification of submissions received 

Further submissions accepted within 20 working days 

Council hearing, a notice for which has to be sent out at least I 0 
working days before 

Council decision notified and reasons documented 

If no appeals are to be lodged with the Planning Tribunal, regional 
policy statement is adopted; otherwise, the proposed regional policy 
statement is referred to the Planning Tribunal within 15 days of the 

notification of the Council's decision 

Planning Tribunal conducts hearing 

Planning Tribunal reports and makes a direction to the local authority 

Council adopts regional policy statement 



24 

The preparation of the regional coastal plan follows the same process, with three 

slight variations, Figure 3-3. First, in addition to those bodies to be consulted within 

the formulation of the proposed regional policy statement, the regional council is 

required to consult with the Minister of Conservation as to the contents of the coastal 

plan, the Minister of Transportation as to navigation and marine pollution matters, 

and the Minister of Fisheries on fisheries and aquaculture activities management. 

Second, instead of lodging an appeal to the Planning Tribunal, a submitter makes an 

inquiry, and the Tribunal, after holding a public hearing, reports its fmdings to the 

applicant, the regional council concerned, and the Minister of Conservation, which 

may include a direction to the council to modify, delete items from, or add to, the 

regional coastal plan. Third, after the council seal is affixed to the plan, it is then 

referred to the Minister of Conservation, who may either require the plan to be 

amended or approve it by signing. 

The involvement of the Minister of Conservation in this process is meant to ensure 

that any regional coastal plan is consistent with the New Zealand coastal policy 

statement, which contains policies about national priorities for the preservation of the 

character of the country's coastal environment, the protection of the characteristics 

of the coastal environment of special value to tangata whenua, and the circumstances 

in which the Minister of Conservation will decide resource consent applications 

relating to activities likely to have any adverse effects on the coastal marine area, 

among other things8
• 

S.58, Resource Management Act 1991. 



25 

Figure 3-3. Coastal Plan Preparation Process 

The proposed plan is prepared by the Regional Council in consultation 
with the Minister of Conservation, the Minister of Transport, and the 
Minister of Fisheries, in addition to the Minister for the Environment, 
other affected Crown ministers, tangata whenua, and local authorities 

Public notification and service on stated bodies 

Receipt of submissions, and presentation of summary of submissions 

Opportunity for further submissions 

Hearings, decisions, reference of decisions to Planning Tribunal for an 
inquiry 

Public hearing is held and findings are reported to appellant, local 
authority, and Minister of Conservation; report may include a direction 

to make changes to the plan 

Council changes plan in accordance with Tribunal's direction, and 
adopts the plan by special resolution 

Plan sent to Minister of Conservation for approval 

Minister may require amendments to the plan, giving reasons (the 
Minister may only require a change which is in conflict or inconsistent 

with a direction of the Tribunal if he/she made a submission on that 
matter to the Tribunal) 

The Minister approves the plan by signing it 



10 

26 

Public Participation Opportunities 

Local government public accountability is statutory, as every local authority is 

expected to conduct its business in a comprehensible manner, open to the public9
• 

In addition, the public can have access to documents and meetings under the Local 

Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. Thus, for every proposal, 

being an intention to act, or a draft plan or policy a regional council considers, a 

special consultative procedure is required10
• This involves placing a notice of the 

proposal before a meeting of the council; notifying the public in a local newspaper, 

specifying the period within which submissions may be made to the council; allowing 

people who may want to make submissions to be heard by the body hearing the 

submissions; ensuring that all meetings where the submissions are heard are open to 

the public, and making all written submissions available to the public. 

In the preparation of planning documents, public consultation is conducted in order 

to identify regional issues. In the case of resource management issues, preliminary 

consultations with the tangata whenua are required. Such consultations are intended 

either to inform, share with, seek the opinion of, or seek information from the Maori 

community of local descent. 

Another opportunity for public involvement lies in the provision that any person can 

request the regional council to change a regional plan or a regional coastal plan, or 

prepare a regional plan other than the coastal plan, which request the council may 

either 

o adopt, in whole or in part, as if it were a proposed plan made by the council 

itself, in which case the council has to publicly notify the change within four 

months of agreeing to adopt it; 

S.223C, Local Government Act 1974, as inserted by s.24(1), Local Government Amendment Act (No.2) 
1989. . 

S.716A, Local Government Act 1974, as inserted by s.39, Local Government Amendment Act (No.2) 1989. 

I 



. ' 

II 

12 

13 

27 

o treat as a resource consent application, m which case the procedures for 

consent processing is observed; or 

o reject, in whole or in part, on the grounds that the request is frivolous or 

vexatious, has been considered and given effect to, or rejected by, the council 

or the Planning Tribunal within the last two years, is not in accordance with 

sound resource management practice, would make the plan inconsistent with 

a policy statement or any other plan, and involves a plan that has been 

operative for less than two years 11
• 

Regional policy statements and plans are reviewed ten years after becoming 

operative12
• In this instance, and when policy statements are changed prior to 

this13
, the public is still involved, through consultations, submissions, and hearings . 

As regards its regulatory functions, a regional council is responsible for the grant of 

water permits, which involve the taking, use, damming, and diversion of water and 

geothermal energy; discharge permits, which involve the discharge of contaminants 

into or onto land, air or water, and of water into water; coastal permits, which 

involve the use of the region's coastal area; land use consents for soil conservation, 

natural hazards, and hazardous substances; and land use consents for certain uses of 

lake and river beds. 

Clauses 21-26, Part II, First Schedule, Resource Management Act 1991, as repealed and substituted by s.220, 
Resource Management Amendment Act 1993. 

S.79, Resource Management Act 1991. 

Only the Minister of the Crown, the regional council, or a territorial authority within the region can request 
for a change in a regional policy statement (sub-clause 21(3), Part II, First Schedule, Resource Management 
Act 1991, as repealed and substituted by s.220, Resource Management Amendment Act 1993). 



28 

Figure 3-4. Resource Consent Processing 

Resource consent application to relevant local authority 

Further information may be required at any reasonable time before the 
hearing 

Procedure may be deferred pending other applications (applicant may 
appeal deferral) 

Public notification within I 0 working days of receipt of 
application/further information; for non-notified applications, Council 

decision is made 

Submissions lodged by any person within 20 working days of public 
notification 

-------------L-------------
May be pre-hearing meeting 

-------------r------------

Hearing (may be joint or combined) conducted within 25 working days 
of close of submissions, with 10 working days notice of date of hearing 

Decision (within 15 working days of conclusion of hearing, or if no 
hearing, 20 working days after close of submissions) and notification of 
decision (within 15 working days of notice of decision being received) 

Appeal to Plannin~ Tribunal 



29 

The granting of these resource consents involves a process of public notification, 

submissions, pre-hearing meetings, and hearings, Figure 3-4, except when the 

activities for which applications for these consents are lodged pertain to controlled 

activities, where a written approval from every person who would be adversely 

affected has been obtained, or where the regional plan expressly states that such 

written approval need not be obtained; and discretionary and non-complying 

activities, whose adverse effects on the environment are deemed minor and where 

written approval from every person who would be adversely affected has been 

obtained. 

When a resource consent is in force, any person can apply to the Planning Tribunal 

for the issuance of an enforcement order, which restrains the undertaking of an 

unlawful activity, or directs that the environment affected by an activity be restored 

to its prior state, or instructs that a person adversely affected by an activity be 

recompensed. 

Many opportunities now exist in legislation for the New Zealand public to participate 

in regional planning activities. The Resource Management Act 1991 requires public 

inputs into the proposed national environmental standards, national or regional policy 

statements, regional or district plans, or a change to a policy statement or plan; an 

application for a resource consent; an application for a review of a resource consent; 

an application to change any condition on a resource consent; an application that has 

been called-in by the Minister for the Environment; a requirement for, or alteration 

to, a designation or heritage order; and an application for a water conservation order. 

In addition, the Local Government Act 1974 prescribes a special consultative 

procedure for local authorities to follow when considering any proposal. Finally, the 

Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 ensures that the 

public can acquire the necessary information, as well as observe a council 

deliberating on issues placed before it, for them to be fully aware of local authority 

business. Apparently, these are meant to send the message that democracy is at work 

in New Zealand, where the public has the freedom and the necessary information to 

take part in making decisions affecting them. 



Chapter 4 

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING 

Democracy 

Democracy has variously been epigrammatically defmed as "government of the 

people, by the people, for the people", "government by consent", "majority rule", 

"sovereignty of the people", "representative government", and "government in the 

public interest". Notwithstanding how democracy is defined, anyone who refers to 

it usually speaks, not of classical or direct democracy, where all citizens participate 

equally in governmental processes (Fagence, 1977), but of representative democracy, 

where leaders are chosen by citizens to exercise governmental functions for them 

(Pate man, 1970). Thought of in this way, democracy is said to operate on four 

principles (Fagence, 1977). The principle of popular sovereignty stipulates that 

leaders should be popularly chosen by the citizens for them to be able to govern 

effectively. Political equality gives everyone equal opportunity to compete for 

leadership in free elections called for that purpose. Popular consultation demands 

that societal decisions be made only after the views and opinions of citizens have 

been sought. Lastly, the principle of majority rule provides that a voting preference 

by the majority of the citizens decides who should lead, and in tum, determines 

decision-making (Burke, 1979). 

It is apparent then that democracy is a political method, which, according to 

Schumpeter (Pateman, 1970), is a kind of institutional arrangement for arriving at 

legislative and administrative decisions. People elect representatives who are 

expected to make decisions for them with respect to how the government is run 

(Johnson, 1984). Hence, the participation of the governed in their government is, in 

theory, the essence of democracy. 



31 

Public Participation Defined 

What is public participation?1 Why bas it become the planner's nostrum, the 

politician's catchword, and the media's fascination? If it is the cornerstone of 

democracy, why have leaders in democratic countries like France, Britain, and the 

United States of America emphasised the idea? De Gaulle used it as a last-ditch 

effort to save his administration from losing power in France. Britain constituted, 

in March 1968, a Committee on Public Participation in Planning, chaired by Arthur 

M. Skeffington, to deliberate on the best methods of securing the participation of the 

public at an early stage in development planning (Committee on Public Participation 

in Planning, 1969). The American Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 requires 

evidence of 'maximum feasible participation' of those concerned before granting 

federal funds .to community action projects (Pollak, 1984). 

Different people ascribe different definitions to public participation. These 

definitions are so varied that Pateman ( 1970) laments that the phrase bas lost any 

precise, meaningful content. Seaver ( 1968) observes that there has never been an 

adequate resolution, in policy or in practice, of what public participation is, can, or 

should be, or do. This has caused Wengert (1976) to call for the formulation of a 

theory of participation that could be related to the normative and empirical 

conceptions of democracy. 

A review of the literature reveals a multitude of definitions of public participation. 

Irland (1975), Thornley (1977) and Glass (1979) define it simply as citizens taking 

part in governmental decision or planning processes. White (1982) and Pollak (1984) 

describe it as citizens providing their perspectives on government. policy development 

or implementation. Hampton ( 1990), in depicting the nature of planning as a public 

service, refers to the implication of public participation - the involvement of citizens 

in a process already started by a statutory authority which controls the content and 

the process of such participation. 

Also citizen participation, citizen involvement, public involvement, and people power. 



32 

This implication is supported by other writers who tend to view public participation 

as an activity initiated by the government. The U.S. Housing and Home Finance 

Agency, whose Housing Act of 1954 first introduced the participatory requirement 

in planning (Glass, 1979), defines the phrase as "the active utilization of local 

leadership and organization which can profitably assist in the community's efforts."2 

Others talk of public participation alongside the concept of power, which Armstrong 

designates as "the ability to control external and internal environments and/or to 

counteract the consequences of imperfect control" (as cited_jn Rein, 1969: 233). 

Hence, public participation is viewed as a legitimizing activity, where the recipients 

of a particul2r public service are asked to endorse, support, and create the programs 

intended to benefit them. Cunningham (1972: 575) expresses it as "a process where 

the common amateurs of a community exercise power over decisions related to the 

general affairs of the community". Arnstein ( 1969) defines the phrase as a 

redistribution of power, from the have citizens to the have-not citizens, thereby 

deliberately including the latter in the political and economic processes of society. 

Kotler (Spiegel and Mittenthal, 1968) pictures it as citizens sharing authority and 

performing certain municipal functions within a territorial structure based on 

neighbourhood power and local self-rule. Cahn and Cahn (1968) go a little further 

by defining it as the full enfranchisement of citizens with respect to the totality of 

society's activities. 

A third group looks at public participation as a form of citizen activism, where the 

initiative to get involved arises from the citizens themselves. Verba and Nie (1972) 

define the phrase to encompass the activities of private citizens that are, more or less, 

directly aimed towards influencing the actions governmental personnel take. 

Although this definition restricts citizen activities to such acts as voting, campaigning 

for a particular candidate, and lobbying with government officials, Smith (as cited 

in James, 1990) echoes the same idea, specifying, however, that the actions taken by 

From an address by Robert C. Weaver, Administrator of the U.S. Housing and Home Finance Agency, to 
the 50"' Anniversary of the Family Service Association of America, New York City, 13 November 1961 
(Wilson, 1963: 243). 



33 

an interested individual or group to influence a government decision, plan, or policy 

should be beyond that of voting in elections. Expectedly, community organisations 

comprising the poor or neighbourhood residents are formed, and the interaction of 

these organisations with government agencies constitutes public participation 

(Strange, 1973). 

Finally, public participation is seen as a relationship between planners and citizens. 

Fagence (1977) refers to it as a decision-forming relationship, whereas Godschalk and 

Mills (1966: 86) prescribe a "genuine interchange between planners and citizens from 

all walks of life throughout the course of the planning process." The Committee on 

Public Participation in Planning understands it as an "act of sharing in the 

formulation of policies and proposals" (Committee on Public Participation in 

Planning, 1969: 1). As such, it is considered as a process of interaction between the 

local authority and the public involving information-giving and information-collection 

(Boaden et al., 1981). 

Four ideas about public participation are recurrent in these varied definitions. Firstly, 

. participation is thought of as an element of the planning process, where 

recommendations for programs and courses of action aimed towards attaining 

commonly-held goals and objectives of the community - like material wealth and 

safety - are prepared in advance, and in a systematic manner (Catanese, 1984) in 

order for a decision centre to consider and authorise these into a plan (Burke, 1979). 

Thus, the planner's ultimate client is the local community (Godschalk and Mills, 

1966), composed of individuals with diverse, and often conflicting, needs and 

interests. The best plan for the community, then, is one which embodies the values 

of the people the plan intends to serve (Boaden et al., 1981). This can only be 

achieved if the consumers of planning have access to the decision-making process, 

can receive information regarding proposals that may affect them, and can seek 

redress for any inconvenience that a plan may impose on them (Hampton, 1990). 

Secondly, public participation involves power and influence. Among the citizen's 

rights is the right to influence decision-making (Cahn and Cahn, 1968). With the 



34 

physical and managerial impossibility of having all citizens fully participate inevery 

aspect of decision-making, direct law-making was supplanted by representation, with 

people normally submitting to the decisions made by their elected representatives. 

However, technological and scientific developments have encouraged decisions based 

on economic and technical studies conducted by planners, such that many citizens 

felt excluded from the process, as the decisions were made for them rather than with 

them (Wengert, 1976). Considered disadvantaged were the poor and those from 

ethnic and racial groups (Strange, 1972). Thus, public participation serves to prevent 

the disadvantaged citizens from being overwhelmed by political apathy and 

disengagement (Peattie, 1968), to avert the danger of political instability that any 

protests they might make may pose (Burke, 1968), and to win their consent for 

controversial programs (Wilson, 1963). 

Thirdly, public participation demands effective communication between the 

government and the public. The concept of a public service orientation involves the 

willingness of a government agency to take the citizen's attitudes seriously, to 

encourage the expression of views, and to respond to these views constructively. 

This can be achieved through the establishment of a two-way flow of communication 

between the planning authority and the public (Godschalk and Mills, 1966; Boaden 

et al., 1981). What the public needs and feels about government services have to be 

collected in order for the planning authority to formulate its policies and proposals. 

Making information - be it fact, argument, or explanation - available to the public is 

essential for the generation of the best plan, as it allows informed discussion of the 

issues involved and facilitates an understanding of the benefits and costs associated 

with them. More importantly, a continuing dialogue between the planning agency 

and the citizens ensures effective plan implementation. 

Lastly, to be meaningful, participation must be desired by both the government and 

the public. Wengert (1971) asserts that the concern for ip.creasing public 

participation in planning decisions reflects a recommitment by the government to 

democratic ideals. Yet, broad public involvement in decision processes requires a 

great investment of manpower, time, and money (Rosenbaum, 1976). Thus, the 



35 

success of public participation activities depends on the planning authority's 

willingness to evolve an effective means of communication with the public (Batley, 

1972). Fagence (1977) argues that the key to effective public participation lies in a 

genuine desire of citizens for active involvement. Batley ( 1972) cites studies which 

show that residents usually participated in planning exercises when the stakes they 

hold in the community are affected. In addition, when an issue relevant to citizens 

and citizen groups is discussed, public involvement increases (Rein, 1969; 

Rosenbaum, 1976). Thus, for public participation to be meaningful, the citizen must 

be convinced that personal involvement can have an impact on planning, and the 

planning authority must also be convinced that it stands to gain from hearing a 

citizen's views. 

Public Participation: What It Seeks to Achieve 

The objectives of public participation are, like its definition, varied. It is, however, 

easy to distinguish two broad categories for the different objectives prescribed for 

public participation. These are administrative, where the citizen is used as "a 

reliable instrument for the achievement of administrative goals", and substantive, 

where the citizen is provided with an actual role in policy determination (Selznick, 

1966: 220). 

Administrative Objectives 

Foremost among the administrative objectives, which endeavour to involve the public 

in planning processes in order to increase the likelihood for the acceptance of an 

agency's plans or policies, is what Irland (1975) considers as the role of public 

participation in establishing the legitimacy of a decision process in the eyes of 

affected interests. 

Conflict naturally occurs because every planning decision leaves some citizens and 

citizen groups dissatisfied. To prevent such conflict from rendering the decision 

incapable of implementation, the planning agency must have the sanction both to 



36 

plan and to influence decisions (Burke, 1979). By involving the public in the 

planning process, the planning authority can engender and maintain, in the 

participants, the belief that it is the appropriate body to make a decision on societal 

matters, legitimately enables conflict to be effectively managed, resulting in the 

implementation of controversial plans (lrland, 1975). 

Conflict management is also an objective of public participation. If used in this way, 

involvement is meant to facilitate the sharing of points of view in order to increase 

an understanding of the issues and weaken the tendency to make dogmatic assertions. 

However, Wengert (1976) believes that increased participation in a non-homogeneous 

community only highlights the differences and thus increases conflict. But, where 

a condition for consensus already exists, public involvement serves to further its 

realisation. The resolution of conflict among citizen groups or between citizen 

groups and the government stresses the support building function of public 

participation. Personal contact with planners generates goodwill among the 

participants. This goodwill is expected to create a favourable climate for a planning 

authority's proposed policies and plans (Glass, 1979). 

Public participation is also considered as a tool for market research, where the 

citizen, as a consumer of public services, is given opportunities to counsel and guide 

the planning authority's generation of new or more effective services (Dennis, 1972). 

This strategy emphasises the idea that citizens are consumers and have to be 

satisfied. Hence, reliable feedback from these clients, in the form of advice and 

suggestions, is secured. Through this feedback, objective information on citizen 

attitudes, evaluations and needs are collected, which planners use as a partial 

database for planning (Glass, 1979). 

Two other objectives of public participation are related to each other. These are 

information exchange, the sharing of ideas and concerns by planners and citizens, and 

education, the dissemination of detailed information about a project or a proposal 

(Glass, 1979). Strange ( 1972) contends that, by · engaging in administrative and 

political activities, the poor and unskilled members of society learn how their · 



37 

government operates. Knowing this, general and specific skills are acquired, political 

and administrative abilities are developed, and individual capacities to solve their 

own problems are expanded. Citizens, by working together to solve community 

problems, learn not only how democracy works, but also learn to value and 

appreciate cooperation as a problem-solving method. As a result, local government 

is strengthened, community development is spurred, and a sense of community or 

community identification is created. 

Burke (1968) considers public participation as serving the objectives of therapy, 

where the improvement of individual participants, in terms of citizenship training and 

self-confidence building, is the primary focus, and behavioural change, where, by 

modifying the behaviour of members of a citizen group or a community or its 

influential representatives, change can be induced in the citizen group or in the 

community. 

Public participation can directly further the realisation of agency goals, as it is said 

to pursue a staff supplement role, where citizens are recruited to carry out agency 

tasks which the agency itself could not carry out because of lack of staff resources. 

In some instances, participation is used for cooptation, where new elements are 

absorbed into the leadership or policy-determining structure of an organisation in 

order to prevent anticipated threats to its stability and existence (Burke, 1968). 

Rosenbaum ( 1976) discusses public participation as a means of containing 

administrative discretion. Extensive public review of governmental activities inhibits 

the tendency of bureaucrats to succumb to such impediments as secretiveness, intense 

loyalty to agency interests and procedures, a cultivation of private economic interests, 

and a passion for professional achievement without due respect for public costs or 

broader social impacts, which limit an agency's responsiveness to community 

interests. The public, through participation, can aid bureaucrats in overcoming these 

insensitivities and biases. 



38 

Substantive Objectives 

Substantive objectives of public participation provide citizens with a voice in 

planning and decision-making, and thus facilitates the improvement of governmental 

plans, decisions, and service delivery. In this regard, public participation is seen as 

a means for the partaking of benefits, where disadvantaged citizen groups are 

encouraged to devise programs intended to benefit them (Dennis, 1972). 

When the citizen takes an active role in policy-making, as a voting member of a 

community service governing board, for instance, participation is said to pursue the 

goal of decision-making (Dennis, 1972). Glass (1979) talks of decision-making 

supplement, where citizen ideas are important before any planning decision can be 

taken. 

At the top of substantive objectives is community power, where an organised and 

committed mass of citizenry confronts and agitates an existing power centre to the 

point of conflict that negotiation between them is inevitable and, as a result, a new 

centre of power is created (Burke, 1968). Friedmann (1973) contends that power is 

crucial to public participation, as people need effective power to make their 

immediate environment more agreeable to their lives. 

Given these objectives, it seems apparent that public participation is largely 

influenced by factors within the planning authority. Boaden et al. ( 1981) identify 

these as organisational, attitudinal and resource factors. Organisational factors pertain 

to the pattern of inter-departmental relationships within the planning authority; 

attitudinal factors refer to the views that planners and elected members of the 

planning authority hold about the purpose of planning and the role that the public is 

expected to play in decision-making, while resource factors comprise the monetary 

costs, as well as the time and the staff devoted to harnessing wide public response 

to participatory exercises. These factors demand efficient coordination between and 

among departments within the planning authority, a consensus by planners and 

elected members on the part public participation plays in the planning process, and 



39 

the availability of resources to support public participation activities. 

A Ladder of Participation 

Noting that the success of governmental participatory programs depends to a large 

extent on citizens having real power, as against the empty ritual of participation 

contrived to substitute for genuine participation, Arnstein (1975) developed a ladder 

of citizen participation comprising of eight levels of participation, with each rung 

corresponding to the extent citizens' power determines a planning decision. 

As shown in Figure 4-1, the two bottom rungs (manipulation and therapy) represent 

levels of non-participation, said to be, usually, falsely advanced as substitutes for 

genuine participation as these do not elicit any form of citizen input into the planning 

process. The next three rungs (informing, consultation, and placation) show degrees 

of tokenism, where, although citizens are informed of planning proposals and are 

allowed to voice their views and opinions, there is no assurance that these views are 

heeded by the powerholders. The top three rungs (partnership, delegated power, and 

citizen control) describe increasing degrees of citizen power, where citizens can 

negotiate with traditional powerholders or obtain decision-making seats. 

Wengert ( 1971) views that this ladder implies an ultimate seizure of power by 

citizens, as it does not consider representation and due process inherent in the 

democratic mechanism. Rivers (1983) considers it simplistic, apparently referring to 

Arnstein's own admission that 

"In the real world of people and programs, there might be 150 rungs 
with less sharp and 'pure' distinctions among them .... [S]ome ... 
characteristics [of each] of the eight types might be applicable to other 
rungs" (Arnstein, 1969: 217-218). 

Nonetheless, the ladder of participation demonstrates that it is possible for a planning 

authority to engage in public partiCipation activities without actually allowing the 

public to have a