Chiang Mai Comprehensive Plan: Between Interpretation and Standardized Procedure

Abstract

The draft version of the Chiang Mai Comprehensive Plan, 4^th Revision, had been processed through the first public hearing in February 2022. It was among the first entries following the Urban Planning Act 2019. There were various challenging aspects relevant to the new planning standard activation, especially the newly introduced “Resource Plan” and “Water Plan”. These new plans need to be in concurrence with other conventional plans, namely “Land Use Plan”, “Open Space Plan”, “Transport Plan” and “Facility Plan”. The objectives of this article are: 1) to initiate a case study of the Chiang Mai Comprehensive Plan for discussion on the standardized procedure of the planner and interpretation from the stakeholder’s point of view and problem identification; 2) to analyse the concurrence/contrast of each plan with the significant content as imprinted on the newly introduced plans (also known as “Resource Plan” and “Water Plan”); and 3) to conclude the initial response from the planner regarding the challenging aspects on the making of Chiang Mai Comprehensive Plan. The content analysis of the drafted Chiang Mai Comprehensive Plan revealed that details on safety, health and welfare should be established precisely to serve its purpose. However, components such as public parks, sport venues and local crematoriums were deliberately missed out from the plans. Public transportation system, which is needed to guide the direction of future development, was also a significant missing piece and did not take into consideration land use and density allowance. Misinterpretation of housing trends, from both private and public sectors, as well as other land use categories, such as governmental and agricultural land uses, together with the inadequate “Resource Plan” and discoursed “Water Plan” has challenged the planners significantly. The concluding comments argue in favour of tipping the balance between personal gains and sacrifices for the common good, despite inevitable facts reflected in the plans, which were mutually connected and provisioned by the new Act. Accordingly, the planners reflected on the following challenges: 1) Even with a better standardized procedure, the stakeholders were still targeting on the winning or losing of their right to develop and only questioning on the details of “Land Use Plan” and “Transport Plan”, without much consideration on the city’s potential and limitation; 2) Most stakeholders either misunderstood or defend their right to agree with the draft version of plans during their first public hearing. As a result, their silence could rebound and result into many unwanted changes in response to those who officially voiced their objection; and 3) Regarding urban conservation, lacks of legal measurement initiated at the local government level could be considered as inaction and thus no leverage could be applied for stricter or advanced urban planning regulations to protect the historic quarters of the city.