Tim Stonor

Planning to “plan” or planning to “process”?

Written by

Prof Tim Stonor

in

,

There’s an argument for more deterministic planning – taking the guesswork out of it. Planning should create plans not just processes. We have clearly defined processes but uncertain physical and spatial plans. Too much is left to individual actors.

More determinisitic planning, it is argued, will be to the benefit of investors, operators and end users: removing significant uncertainty in the planning process, allowing greater predictability about resource requirements, energy needs, waste production, transport patterns and, above all, human interaction.

Comments

One response to “Planning to “plan” or planning to “process”?”

  1. Patrick Willcocks Avatar
    Patrick Willcocks

    Tim, Tend to agree with you as long as the plans are backed up by a sense of reality about what can be achieved and include in particular specific public sector investment proposals that the planners are confident will be delivered. In places where the public sector is active in the physical regeneration such as Birmingham City Centre this approach probably is happening to a degree in any case.

    Reply

Leave a comment

More posts