Case Study: Cardiff Bay

Demonstrate how power relationships influence consensus-making

BENVGPLB Dr. HaeRan Shin

Pillars of Planning B Urban Politics

Word count:

This Student is registered with UCL Student Disability Services. Please refer to marking guidelines at www.ucl.ac.uk/disability/resources

1. Introduction
Power is omnipresent in society and uneven power relationships among stakeholders can often threaten the ability to achieve democracy and consensus in decision making (Kathleen et al, 1992; Foucault, 1980; Lukes, 1974; Dahl, 1957). Max Weber (1922, p.53) exemplifies this in his widely accepted definition of power which states, Power is the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance.

Forging consensus is increasingly at the forefront of planning because it seeks to address complex political issues with multiple stakeholders and to balance their adverse power hierarchies (Schieffer, 2007). It is a conflict management process which aims to resolve objections through participation and reciprocation, intending to give an equal voice to all stakeholders (Innes, 1994).

The regeneration of Cardiff Bay has been specifically chosen as a case study to demonstrate how power relationships can influence consensus-making. The pivotal element of the regeneration, and focus of this essay, was the construction of the Cardiff Bay Barrage, which was fraught with great tensions and conflicts (Hidding et al, 2000; Raco, 2000). The barrage was seen by politicians as the key to making Cardiff a major maritime city but environmentalist and other stakeholders voiced their opposition (Punter, 2007). Firstly this essay will give a case study background to Cardiffs regeneration and the policy context at the time. Secondly research techniques will be highlighted. Thirdly, the analysis will present the different stakeholders, their arguments, sources of power and relative power relationships. Fourthly, the discussion section will state the outcome of the decision making process and seek to unravel the process of negotiation and how power relationships influenced the decision outcomes. Finally a conclusion will be made that consensus was not achieved but positional bargaining due to the adversarial power relationships. Additionally suggests will be made towards the skills of negotiation and their relevance in planning practise.

2. Background
This section seeks to give a background to the case study of Cardiff Bay detailing its history, proposal and policy context of the time.

Case Study Cardiff was once dubbed the coal metropolis (Thomas and Imrie, 1989); however after the Second World War most of the coal industry had closed down and the city was left tainted with a legacy of derelict and unsightly docklands (as seen in figure 1 below) (Pacione, 1990; Cardiff Council, 2005). However, in the 1990s, an intensive scheme of regeneration sought to inject new life into the area. One of the key elements proposed by Cardiff Bay Development Corporation (CBDC) was to barrage the bay (RSPB, 2004). The aim of the Barrage was to revitalise the docklands and enable the derelict tidal mudflats to be replaced by an inland freshwater lake (as seen in figure 2 below). It was considered essential to establish Cardiff internationally as a superlative maritime city (CBDC, 1988, p. 2) and to regenerate the area that had suffered from economic and environmental deprivation (Thomas and Imrie, 1999).

Figure 1- Before Cardiff Bay Pre-Barrage Source: Cardiff Harbour Authority

3

Figure 2 After Mermaid Quay following impoundment Source: Cardiff Harbour Authority

Policy context

In urban planning there has been an increasing drive for consensus and one example of this was the creation of Urban Development Corporations in the 1980s (UDCs). The purpose of the UDCs was to regenerate particularly deprived and rundown areas of British inner cities (Post, 2011). UDCs aimed to engage in building local partnerships with interested stakeholders to aid the development of a collaborative economic strategy (CBDC, 2000).

Cardiff Bay Development Corporation (CBDC), one of 13 UDCs set up by government between 1987 and 2000, was created to stimulate the regeneration of Cardiff and creation of Cardiff Bay (Cardiff Council, 2005). The partnerships formed under CBDC and other UDCs might have been expected to moderate the influence of power relationships on planning decisions. However, the form and effectiveness of community participation in such partnerships has become an area of ambiguity (Colen and Cutten, 1994).

The powerful government-led nature of the UDC driven by the aspiration for Cardiff to become an internationally competitive maritime city might have compromised the effective participation of all stakeholders in the consensus building process. For example, Colen and Cutten (1994:239) have expressed that although community representatives are formally recognised in partnerships they often lack the power to operate on equal footing with other partners (Raco, 2000).

3. Research techniques
A diligent and systematic inquiry, of both primary and secondary sources, has aimed to understand the decision making process of the proposal of Cardiff Bay Barrage. An interview with a professional mediator has been undertaken as a primary source of information. Secondary sources have been used to validate this research including internet sources, council documents, planning journals, books and previous stakeholder interviews.

4. Analysis
This section will identify the multiple stakeholders, their arguments, sources of power and relative power relationships. Stakeholders

A stakeholder is an individual or group with a stake or interest in the outcome of a decision or action (Freeman et al, 1983). In Cardiff there were multiple stakeholders with varying abilities and powers to influence the decision making process. Figure 3 below maps out the power relationships between these stakeholders. Fundamentally power is only relative (French and Raven, 1956) and not measurable in absolute terms therefore Figure 3 is purely an estimate of the relative power relationships between stakeholders. The approach used to assess relative power relationships has been based on indicators such as distribution of material resources which reflect the possible power of stakeholders (Schieffer, 2007). Figure 3- Power map
Most influential or powerful National Government Council Property and Real Estate Developers Private Sector E.g. Alan Cox Executive of Allied Steel and Wire In favour of Barrage Local Businesses Local Residents e.g. Bute Town Experts and Academics Local Businesses

Environmentalists European Commission Friends of the Earth Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Environmental Agency

Opposed to Barrage

Local MP

Experts and Academics New residents

Current Industry

Youth Unemployed

Least influential or powerful 5

The Arguments

There are two central arguments which prevailed in the decision making process, which are detailed below.

1) Environmentalists objected to the development on the basis that impoundment would submerge the intertidal mudflats that were feeding grounds to populations of wintering and passage birds. In particular, they were concerned that it would destroy the Taff/Ely Estuary Special Site of Significant Interest and adversely affect the Severn Estuary.

Figure 4-Interview Raoul Bhambral, from Friends of the Earth has expressed concern for the loss of feeding grounds saying: Its very likely that the displaced birds will starve and die and this whole site of special scientific interest will be destroyed with full government backing. (Goldblatt, 2008)

2) National Government had fully supported the proposal for the Cardiff Bay barrage and argued that that regeneration could not be effectively achieved at the same level and quality without this key intervention. In their opinion, the predicted economic regeneration benefits outweighed the conservation arguments for protecting the mudflats (Imrie, Thomas and Marshall, 1995).

Figure 5-Interview Michael Boyce, from Cardiff Bay Development Corporation (CBDA) has justified the importance of the Barrage as part of a Cardiffs wider regeneration saying: We made a judgement that deprivation, poverty and unemployment were considerably more important than the feeding grounds of a fairly common bird. (Goldblatt, 2008)
6

Sources of power

Stakeholders can take advantage of multiple sources of power (Hunt and Nevin, 1974). Jane Gunn (2012) a professional mediator and conflict expert has been interviewed in order to define and discuss the possible sources of power of the two stakeholders, environmentalist and government, represented in table 1 and 2 below.

Table 1- Environmentalists

Source of Power Moral power

Explanation Humans have a moral duty and stewardship to preserve the environment

Legislative power

Docklands mudflats were protected under national conservation legislation as a Site of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSI) for the wetland birds they supported

People power

Pressure groups such as Friends of the Earth and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, waged a ten year campaign against the Barrage which went as far as the EU

Table 2- Government

Source of Power Moral power

Explanation Regeneration would address issues such as deprivation, poverty and unemployment to increase the quality of life of local residents

Political power Financial power

Barrage needed its own act of parliament Access to financial resources to implement its ideas as well as to fight campaigns of opposition

Power relationships

Figure 6- Illustrate the relative power of stakeholders

National Government

Environmentalist

The figure 4 illustrates that although the environmentalists did have considerable power, ultimately it was not as strong as the governments power. The simplest argument of how this power relationship played out is that even with the objection of the environmentalists, development still went ahead.

5. Discussion
This section states the final outcome and discusses how the decision making process and power relationships unravelled through negotiations.

Outcome

The construction of Cardiff Bay Barrage started in 1994 and was completed in 1999. However, this was following enormous struggle by the government to overcome the objections of the environmentalists. For example, there were five unsuccessful attempts to pass the Cardiff Bay Barrage bill through parliament between 1987 and 1991 (CBDC, 2000). The final bill was passed in 1993 and many concessions had to be agreed to the bill. There has been a core power struggle over the negotiations of
8

environmental compensation for example site designation based upon scientific criteria and measure of the value for habitat loss (Waterton, 2002). Ultimately over 9 million was allocated for the location of a new wetland nature reserve. The time and effort taken to agree these compensating measures indicates how powerful the environmentalists were in this decision making process (Cowell, 2000).

Consensus

Consensus building is based on a practice of participation between stakeholders with different and opposing views who work together interactively towards agreement over a sensible way forward (Innes, 2004). Using this definition, evidence suggests that an adequate process of consensus building was not achieved in Cardiff. Firstly, the positional nature of the negotiations to pass the Barrage Bill suggests that there was not an adequate process of participation between the stakeholders to address objections and concerns. Secondly, negotiations were adversarial not consensual because they were formed on the respective power bases of the stakeholders and not on equality of voice. In particular, the financial and political power of the government was consistently greater than the power of the environmentalists. For example, the politicians were accused of bringing the democratic process into disrepute (Best, 2005)

Positional bargaining

Positional bargaining is a negotiation strategy that involves holding on to a fixed idea, or position, of what a party wants and arguing for it and it alone, regardless of any underlying interests (Spangler, 2003). Instead of facilitating a consensus building process to address their respective interests and concerns, the government relied upon an adversarial process of negotiation based upon positional bargaining. The eventual compromise was agreed upon because of the relative power of the government and environmentalists, not as a result of a meeting of minds through consensus.

6. Conclusion
In conclusion this research has illustrated the complex and political nature of decision making that can be driven by adversarial power relationships. Power has proved to be an instrument of coercion. In Cardiff the uneven power relationships between the government and environmentalists has proved to disrupt a democratic decision making process and hampered the ability for consensus to occur. It has been identified that power is everywhere and there are multiple source so in order to balance this power relationships it is important to use affective planning process and decision making skills.

Mediation and negotiation skills are increasingly becoming more important within planning. However the right type of bargaining needs to be used, in this case study Cardiff bay fought a long and hard10 year battle to gain planning permission and the adequate compensation agreements. a strategy of positional bargaining was used and as a consequence the outcome was a compromise. Whereas if Integrative or Interest-Based Bargaining is used the planning process would be more efficient and more successful in its outcome. Integrative Bargaining is a negotiation strategy which seeks to produce a win-win outcome, based on developing mutually beneficial agreements. Integrative bargaining should be used in planning because it usually produces more satisfactory outcomes for the parties involved than does positional bargaining (Spangler, 2003).

10