It is evident through much literature that public participation is important within the planning profession as it can enhance decisions, utilise local knowledge and increase fairness in society. Furthermore, public participation within decision-making processes is essential for democracy to function.
This thesis aims to investigate whether resource consent hearings allow for public participation to be achieved in an inclusive, meaningful and democratic manner. This is done using a case study: Fonterra’s proposal to increase the size of its Studholme milk processing plant in Waimate. The research explores how hearings are provided for in relevant legislation and good practice guidance, how different values are expressed and considered, and whether the hearings process differs from the principles of public participation identified in the literature.
The findings indicate that there is a gap present between theory and practice surrounding public participation in resource consent hearings. Theory states that decision-making processes should include open discussion and debate, mutual respect, equal information sharing, social learning, mutual trust, a minimisation of power imbalances, and different ways of expressing knowledge should be encouraged. However, while examining the case study it was evident that many of these aspects of theoretical guidance did not often occur within hearings. The atmosphere of the case study did not foster mutual respect, power imbalances were present, and expert knowledge was largely favoured over local knowledge. Furthermore, neoliberal processes and policies appear to be limiting what the public can and cannot say with regards to significant planning issues. This illustrates how post-politics, the foreclosure of political contestation due to the favouring of neoliberal tendencies, is present within Aotearoa New Zealand’s planning arena.
