ABSTRACT
While the multifarious theories provide a helpful framework for the study of the planning process they can all too often provide no assistance in assessing the relationships between the different definitions of planning, different types of planning and the variety of action and operational situations planners (again defined differently) work within and for. While it is possible to accept the viewpoints of Davidoff and Reiner (1962), who suggest that the world is too diverse for a precise theory of how planning operates, it is useful to assess which theories bear some relation to the study area. Therefore, attempting to discuss statutory planning in Britain post-1990 from a theoretical perspective can yield problems, and this is how the subject is now discussed. Initially, however, this section adopts the approaches of Yiftachel (1989) and Poulton (1991a) who distinguish a planning theory between analytical, procedural and urban form frameworks. Yiftachel (1989) suggests that analytical theories are useful in explaining how different political priorities may inhibit the implementation of statutory plans by setting plans and policies within the context of land use planning as a form of state intervention. Procedural theories, on the other hand, are more concerned with the organisational, political and professional limitations
that may limit the ability of the state to achieve particular desired ends in the planning system, although they are rarely concerned with outcome itself. Urban form theories are generally concerned with the most desirable urban patterns and structures, but are often devoid of political (statutory) and organisational discussion. Poulton (1991a: 230), too, identifies three similar branches of theory but distinguishes positive theories from theories of planning’s aims:
1 Theories of aims, advocating what planning should try to achieve, why, how, and for whose benefit it should do this (‘analytical theory’).
