Efforts to widen and deepen participation, develop progressive aims and enhance the legitimacy of decisions in local governance have acted to provoke a renewed concern with the redesign of institutions to enable these aims (Healey, 2003; Cleaver, 1999; Cleaver et al, 2001). Ostrom's (1996; 2000) work on institutions derives from a research context exploring multi-stakeholder governance of natural resources, but also concludes that new ways of structuring governance arrangements more generally should provide citizens with a necessary and more effective role in modern democracies. There is clear influence from Hegelian philosophy latent in such arguments, where the highest of human needs is purported to be the need for participation (Sabine and Thorson, 1973). This speaks to participation in planning as being important for the fulfilment of citizenship beyond individual self-interest and to contribute to shaping the future.

As discussed in Chapter Two, despite theoretical bases that promote participation in planning practice, the profession has wrestled uneasily with the challenge of community engagement since at least the 1960s. There has been limited acceptance of participation efforts offered by public authorities and private developers; both sectors tend to relegate participation for different reasons and it typically remains either underresourced or marginalised. A cynic might ask why would the powerful wish it any other way? After all it is rather a leap of faith to think that fulfilling citizenship is enough of a motivating factor for those with their own agendas, instrumental orientations and limited resources, particularly when control of the planning process mitigates against political and economic risk.

In light of such behaviours the current operating environment of planning practice in England has been subject to a well-developed critique of the impacts of neoliberal planning forms and the agency of the development industry, as well as government (Sager, 2011; Davoudi and Madanipour, 2013). Concerns over a depoliticisation effect on planning have also been iterated (Ghose, 2005; Brenner et al, 2010; Hall, 2011; Allmendinger and Haughton, 2012), while others point to how this results in those with power and resources maintaining a critical degree of control in the system (Newman, 2014; Neilson and Rossiter, 2008). In short, the planning system, and present planning structures in England at least, appear to do little to rebalance access to knowledge and support towards those that need it most (despite claims otherwise).