This article argues for a new way of valuing development control planning practices in a democratic society: as agonistic political engagement. Using Chantal Mouffe’s conception of the political, it counters claims that collaborative and consensus seeking approaches are of higher value than conflicts over site-specific development. In this, the idea of true consensus is an impossibility as some viewpoint has to be excluded from any agreement. Moreover, for democracy to exist, legitimate arenas for the expression of different opinions are needed, without resolution and agreement being the endpoint of discussion. Examples are drawn from discussion in a public inquiry on how meanings assigned to planning policy and the built environment can be part of this agonistic debate. They form the elements building up contradictory arguments about what is ‘appropriate’ or ‘good’ for a specific place. The mechanisms of development control provide a legitimate forum for these arguments to be articulated, without consensus or agreement as the ultimate goal.
BaetenG (2009) Regenerating the South Bank: reworking community and the emergence of post-political regeneration. In: ImrieRLeesLRacoM (eds) Regenerating London: Governance, Sustainability and Community in a Global City. London: Routledge.
2.
BoothP (1999) From regulation to discretion: the evolution of development control in the British planning system 1909–1947. Planning Perspectives14: 277–89.
3.
BoothP (2002) A desperately slow system? The origins and nature of the current discourse on development control. Planning Perspectives17: 309–32.
4.
BoothP (2003) Planning by Consent: The Origins and Nature of British Development Control. London: Routledge.
5.
BurninghamK (2000) Using the language of NIMBY: a topic for research, not an activity for researchers. Local Environment5(1): 55–67.
6.
CampbellH (2006) Just planning: the art of situated ethical judgement. Journal of Planning Education and Research26(1): 92–106.
CowellROwensS (2006) Governing space: planning reform and the politics of sustainability. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy24(3): 403–21.
12.
CullingworthBNadinV (2006) Town and Country Planning in the UK (14th edition). London: Routledge.
13.
EllisH (2000) Planning and public empowerment: third party rights in development control. Planning Theory and Practice1(2): 203–17.
14.
FainsteinS (2010) The Just City. New York: Cornell University Press.
15.
GiddensA (1998) The Third Way. Oxford: Polity Press.
16.
GersonKHorowitzR (2004) Observation and interviewing: options and choices in May (ed.). Qualitative Research in Action. London: Sage, 199–224.
17.
HealeyP (2003) Collaborative planning in perspective. Planning Theory2(2): 101–23.
18.
HillierJ (2002) Shadows of Power: An Allegory of Prudence in Land-Use Planning. London: Routledge.
19.
HillierJ (2003) ‘Agon’izing over consensus: why Habermasian ideals cannot be ‘real’. Planning Theory2(1): 37–59.
20.
HowarthD (2000) Discourse. Buckingham: Open University Press.
21.
InnesJ (2004) Consensus building: clarification for the critics. Planning Theory3(1): 5–20.
22.
InnesJBooherD (2004) Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory and Practice5(4): 419–36.
23.
LaclauEMouffeC (1983) [2001 edition] Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. London: Verso.
24.
McClymontKO’HareP (2008) ‘We’re not NIMBYs!’ Contrasting local protest groups with idealised conceptions of sustainable communities. Local Environment13(4): 321–35.
25.
McLoughlinJ (1969) Urban and Regional Planning: A Systems Approach. London: Faber.
PløgerJ (2004) Strife: urban planning and agonism. Planning Theory3(1): 71–92.
33.
PurcellM (2007) City-regions, neoliberal globalisation and democracy: a research agenda. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research31(1): 197–206.
SwyngedouwE (2009) The antinomies of the postpolitical city: in search of a democratic politics of environmental production. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research33(3).
39.
SwyngedouwE (2010a) Trouble with nature: ‘ecology as the new opium for the masses’. In: HealeyPHillierJ (eds) Conceptual Challenges for Planning Theory. Aldershot: Ashgate.
40.
SwyngedouwE (2010b) Apocalypse forever? Post-political populism and the spectre of climate change. Theory, Culture and Society27(2–3): 312–32.
41.
ThornleyA (1991) Urban Planning Under Thatcherism: The challenge of the Market. London: Routledge.
42.
TorfingJ (1999) New Theories of Discourse: Laclau, Mouffe and Zizek. Oxford: Blackwell.
43.
WolsinkM (2006) Invalid theory impedes our understanding: a critique on the persistence of the language of NIMBY. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers31(1): 85–91.
44.
ZizekS (1992) Enjoy your Symptom! Jacques Lacan in Hollywood and Out!London: Routledge.
45.
ZizekS (1999) The Ticklish Subject: the Absent Centre of Political Ontology. London: Verso.
46.
ZizekS (2006) The Universal Exception. London: Continuum.
47.
ZizekS (2007) Censorship Today: Violence, or Ecology as a New Opium for the Masses. Available at www.lacan.com/zizecology1.htm (accessed 19 October 2010).
