For many years theorists considering institutional arrangements to govern multi-interest decision-making have urged that ‘systems are needed to cope effectively with problems of modern life and to give all citizens a more effective role in the governance of democratic societies’ (Ostrom, 2000: 3). While arguments about the need for advocacy and related activism (and for the Planning Aid role in principle) have not receded, the planning polity has struggled to enable the latter part of this call to action. One reason for this is that Planning Aid organisations in the UK have been without the wherewithal or conditions to provide a more pervasive system of support. This corresponds with the mainstay of the critique levelled by Allmendinger (2004; 2009). A more radical rethink of Planning Aid was intimated in that assessment, in order to enable forms of advocacy planning to become established. It has become clear over time that the role for Planning Aid as conceived by the early proponents of advocacy planning is one that cannot be easily reconciled with current neoliberal governmentalities, yet it is this very tension that highlights how important it is that alternatives and challenge (that is, forms of agonistic exchange) are present in the system and voiced in opposition (that is, forms of antagonistic exchange) where necessary. Neo-advocacy activity is needed to bolster (post)collaborative forms in order to hold the system to account and provide needed balance. This is particularly so given the effective lobbying and advocacy role that the private sector plays on behalf of the development industry, a function that has grown significantly since Friedmann (1987) highlighted it 30 years ago.

The experiences of those engaged in action groups, or other vehicles where advocacy and agonistic exchange have been involved, highlight that attempts to challenge and debate planning issues have been faced with numerous constraints and obstacles. It is also evident that, for some groups and neighbourhoods, there has been success in gaining access to decision-making and in influencing policy. These instances have been hard-fought and have typically required articulate and determined local actors to effect and sustain them. It is also recognised how challenging it can be to enable and maintain inclusive participation in such environments (Eversole, 2012; Botes and Van Rensburg, 2000). This assessment highlights issues with the design and operation of the planning system overall.