A clear challenge lies before us in attempting to induce, maintain and use participatory experiences in planning in such a way that people are widely engaged, listened to and responded to by government. Thinking about planning in particular, this includes ensuring that local populations are involved in the development of a range of different options about what changes might take place in their communities. In reality, we know that communities are often presented with a form of planning that, although it may not be packaged as such, is substantively a fait accompli. Participation, where it occurs, might too often amount to little more than an empty ritual. Planning practitioners have a responsibility for communities both present and future, and have a tricky balance to strike in discerning and acting in the ‘public interest’ and delivering sustainable development.

Local populations need to feel invested in, and informed of, the results or consequences of different trajectories of change – over which they may have varying degrees of control (and enthusiasm for), especially when measured against their own self-interest. There is indisputably a need for better public education about planning and a more robust way of ensuring that the product of such education (and much more) is meaningfully incorporated into planning processes. Formulations of such activity could be varied and operate at a range of scales and through different modes. As intimated by Oscar Wilde above, spaces of/for intervention may be created through political activism locally, and this may require a range of (ant)agonistic tactics involving new combinations of actors and resources. As such the ways in which participation in planning can be effected varies greatly.

It is in this vein that a growing number of voices have emerged, acknowledging that pressure from organised and informed groups, beyond teams of planning professionals, can help to reshape planning. These groups, if properly resourced and supported, have the potential to better inform and legitimise efforts to plan in the public interest. A long shadow stretches across past practice in this area. Robert Dahl argued in his seminal work on neo-pluralism that, ‘conflicting interests make political life necessary; but complementary interests make it possible’ (Dahl, 1982: 188).