Theoretical BackgroundThe purpose of this section is to illustrate a brief theoretical orientation. First, it will explain how a communicative planning approach provides a relevant lens through which to view the case. Then, the power relations between different stakeholders will be introduced and linked to the theory of communicative planning. After the sea change in planning literature and the shift from the rationalist approach led by planners to the communicative approach, planning has evolved towards 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 post-modernism and post-structuralism that dominated other academic disciplines at the time. Collaborative planning theory, in fact, has focused on recognizing and giving voice to difference and discussing issues in the public domain. Furthermore, this concept goes by many names, including “deliberative planning,” “inclusive argumentation,” “participatory democracy,” and “discursive democracy.” Healy (1996) describes inclusionary argumentation as “public reasoning that accepts the contributions of all members of a political community and recognizes the range of ways in which they know, value and make sense”. Furthermore, Healy (ibid) stated that inclusive argumentation, as an ideal planning process, is "a practice that underpins conceptions of what is called participatory democracy." Healy also concludes that collaborative planning is a way to achieve consensus in a democratic environment. a society which respects differences and which can live sustainably within its economic and social environment...... middle of article......, 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. p. 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 city plans, Journal of Planning Education and Research 10(3):195-200