Theoretical Background The purpose of this section is to illustrate a brief theoretical orientation. First, it will explain how a communicative planning approach is a relevant lens through which to view the case. Next, power relations between different stakeholders will be introduced and linked to communicative planning theory. After the radical change in the planning literature and the shift from the planner-led rationalistic approach towards the communicative approach, planning has evolved into mutual learning and knowledge creation. process between planners and citizens. Indeed, collaborative planning arose in response to the rational planning that dominated the second half of the 20th century. It evolved in combination with the concepts of postmodernism and poststructuralism that dominated other academic disciplines at the time. Collaborative planning theory, in fact, has been concerned with recognizing and giving voice to difference and discussing issues in the public sphere. Furthermore, this concept has many names, including “deliberative planning”, “inclusive argumentation”, “participatory democracy” and “discursive democracy”. Healy (1996) describes inclusive argumentation as “public reasoning that accepts the contributions of all members of a political community and recognizes the range of ways they know, evaluate, and make meaning.” Furthermore, Healy (ibidem) stated that inclusive argumentation, as an ideal planning process, is “a practice that supports conceptions of what is called participatory democracy”. Healy also concludes that collaborative planning is a way to reach consensus in a democratic context. society that respects differences and can live sustainably in its economic and social context...... middle of paper ......, P (1998) Deconstructing communicative rationality: a critique of Habermasian collaborative planning. Environment and Planning A 1998, volume 30, pages 1975-1989. Velasquez, J. (2005) Anchoring and dialogue – Tensions between planning and local democracy. Stockholm University English summary pp 209-222Watson, V. (2002) Do we learn from planning practice? The Practical Movement's Contribution to Planning Theory, Journal of Planning Education and Research 22: 178-187 Watson, V (2003) Conflicting Rationalities: Implications for Planning Theory and Ethics, Journal of Planning Theory & Practice, Vol. 4, no. 4, December 2003, page. 395–407. Wildavsky, A. (1973) If planning is everything, perhaps it is nothing. Political Science 4:127-153. Tett, A. and Jeanne M. Wolfe. (1991) Discourse Analysis and Urban Planning, Journal of Planning Education and Research 10(3):195-200