The Problem is the Solution: Testing Agonistic Theory's Potential to Recast Intractable Planning Disputes

Healthy community engagement must acknowledge conflict as a permanent and necessary part of collaborative planning. Using agonistic conflict in debating and deciding about site-specific projects and strategies offers new ways of reviewing and practising community engagement. Agonistic planning is conceived as a mechanism whereby interested parties might engage with planning decision-making that promotes on-going trust and buy-in for contested site-specific decisions and strategic directions. Disputes may produce opportunities for meaningful disagreement that may, if harnessed productively, avoid unproductive or even intractable disputes. Specifically, an agonistic approach offers an ability to modify and recast the initial ‘problems’ that urban projects are intended to address, and facilitates ‘better’ solutions sensitive to locally particular processes and contexts. The article tests key elements of agonistic theory using a high-profile planning dispute in Victoria, Australia. We show how an agonistic recasting of problems within legitimate planning processes is integral to meaningful engagement and progressive outcomes.